Johnny Sooshi
Just a sleepy guy
So provide an alternative
I can't. Not liking option A=/=Having an option B.
Vote: DekuNut
But not being able to provide an alternative means I may as well make my vote count.
So provide an alternative
So, in this we have:Really original opening. Bravo! In order not to be rude, I'll just assume that it only took you 2 nights to prepare this entree.
Interesting set-up. But also a set-up that could potentially tell you a lot about people's roles. As a true scholar I'll have to get my notebook (or just my laptop, but do we have laptops in wizard101. actually, if we don't posting might also pose a problem... but never mind that, I'm creative).
I wonder if the mafia has been randomly distributed over the schools, or spread out as much as possible (max. 1 mafia member per school). I hope it's not the second one, that might make it just a bit too easy to establish townies. I also wonder, though, if every school of magic has an equal number of wizards (I mean if that isn't the case, it will still be hard to claim a school of magic if which it is known that it no longer contains a mafia member, because without a limit anyone can unverifiably claim)
Also, I'm still mad at anyone who did me wrong in Anonymous mafia. Dammit p9, how easy for you to hide behind that vote tally. I would've cast a spell at you right here right now...
Vote: Johnny Sooshi. You were second on my list anyway
kinda like Kill bill (but than reversed...). RegalBryant is third on my list, and ALIT 4th being that player who says bullying is wrong but doesn't really undertake anything to stop it from happening.
Just quoting it cuz he said it. There's less in this than his opening post.That is kind
Basic reading of Gummy based on her actions. Something that's apparently a joke, but multiple people didn't realize that was a joke, so that was something else that contributed to my suspicion of him. Still seems kinda weird for that to be a joke IMO - the only thing I picked up as trying to be funny was the crying smiley.and you feel uber super duper good about Koki, no?
...
anyway. Gumball's "I want to get lynched" behaviour doesn't seem incredibly scummy to me, if only solely for the reason that if you're scum and trying to survive (I mean at least to not screw your scum mates), asking to be lynched is the single most stupid action you can make.
I'm not joining an RVS wagon if I think the chances of randomly hitting scum there are nearly zero. I prefer a different target. Although, I'm gonna be honest, anyone who begs to be lynched on day 1 pretty much deserves to be lynched.. sorry gummy, but I won't shed a tear this game if you do end up dying : '/
Throwing a vote at an inactive. Not something I look down on Day One.I actually agree.
I'm fine with lynching one of the 3 non-posters. All three are fine players, so I'll just randomly vote for Jamie.
Vote: Jamie
Pretty much the reasoning I figured. Kinda noncomittal, but it works I feel. There's not a lot in that to commit to.no. I never said she's town. I thought this move made it unlikely that she's scum. Similair, but different. I don't see it as a town move, I just see it as a move that would be a strange combination with being scum-aligned, so by deduction I think it is less likely that she's scum. I'm neither saying that it is so incredibly unlikely that I trust her for the rest of the game, but I think the chances of her flipping scum are lower than the chances if we would pick someone at random. In that case I'd rather choose a different target.
I didn't read into that as a joke either, as previously mentioned. We don't blame you for trying to make a joke, only for saying something that people took seriously and saying it was a joke. This is a WIFOM to some extent - do you decide that it was always meant to be a joke (like most people did) or that he's using the joke argument to cover it up (like Eduarda and I did)?You also make this whoooole thing about her joke and how I don't understand it (while being completely unaware that I'm joking myself, that aside) of which I don't see a connection with my alignment.
I stated my opinion on her above. Afterwards I just boldly said something sarcastic. Which is hardly more than flavour (like defending someone and acting on that, but adding afterwards that you do still hate him/her (I don't hate you Gymmu, I love you). Which would have nothing to do with the argument you bring forward). So don't read so much into that, jeez. It's freaking page 3, plus I've been making a sport out of being direct and making sarcastic oneliners at mafia the last couple of years.
The beginning of his distaste for me in this game. I defended myself, I could again. He makes some decent points, and the only argument I have apparently nobody considers to be worth it so :coolhecks:The same goes for you. Besides, your little explanation, quick vote and because the argument itself alreasy is very weak, it seems like you're just jumping on this wagon for the sake of simplicity. Not a town-tell.
FOS: Dekunut
Saying that he kinda chose Jamie for the "good player" argument. While I think this is a decent thing to do, it's still a reason that the mafia can use to their advantage, which is why I have distaste for it. I always point back to Green Lantern mafia for this.Out of Vergo, Regal and Jamie, I would almost never choose Vergo if it's not necessary. I like his playstyle and I think he's one of the best players around. I also think that Jamie is a great player, but I don't think Regal is a bad player either. From what I recall he played pretty good in Anonymous mafia, so in my opinion all three of these players fall under the good player category. Out of Regal and Jamie, I picked Jamie pretty much randomly. Perhaps I chose him because I assume most people will automatically go for Regal, whereas I think he's a bit underestimated, hence I chose the opposite.
I accept this argument. Still though, didn't you say that was an "I hate you" joke? Here you're bringing it on in a more serious light.I pretty clearly said I didn't want to lynch her. Only on a personal note I added that I wouldn't mourn anyone's death if they've been begging all the time to get lynched. In that case you kinda deserve it : / but still, in my analysis of the situation I don't think she is the best target. So I don't vote.
This is actually good reasoning in my opinion. May be worth rereading Avengers to check out her townplay in that (though she posted a ton in that game, so that'd be fun to read).but... wait.
aren't you kind of doing the same? You accuse me of not actively voting for Gummy but still trying to support people who vote for her. Right in that same post you first defend her and then suddenly say "But if it comes down to it, and it needs more numbers, like I said, I'll join".
Wow! Are we mayhaps... scumbuds?
Something else about you Eduarda, in games when you are town I tend to have had the feeling that you were very considerate of who you voted, not to make mistakes. In games where you have been mafia you've quite frequently used shady arguments and were less careful. Here you use quite a weak argument to push for a lynch, I don't recall that to be town-Eduardish.
I accept this as well. He has a legitimate reasoning for not posting, so it's not like he's purposefully avoiding the limelight.no, if someone is not at home lynching that person for not posting a lot is rather pointless.
Unvote
Yes.You vote for me because you think "there could be some reasoning there".
This is the post that began my interest in Eduarda. He has an excellent point here, regarding Eduarda at least.Guys, I got lynched day 1 (as a townie) in anonymous mafia just now because I FOS'd someone (who in the end was mafia) while still having my RVS vote on someone else. I'm not gonna get myself lynched again for such a silly reason. You have your vote on me because someone else accused me of promoting a Gumball lynch while not voting for her myself, based on a tiny joke on page 3, while Eduarda even did exactly the same in the very post she accused me in. The first time that you speak about your reasoning yourself you speak in cryptic sentences about something however slight that may be there. Then what is that "some reasoning", how does that compare to the behaviour of other players, heck how does that compare with Eduarda's own statement in that same post herself?
It could be thatSomeone brought up the first real structured argument against another player and that was convenient for you.
But aren't all those reasons true?Convenient to say the argument is well-structured, better than RVS and hence a good reason to vote. If the player flips town you can just say "it was still better than no lynch because now we have information" and get away with it.
YesYou jump very quickly on a vote, without analysing the situation yourself.
... yeah, some of the stuff I have against him here is OMGUS, I admit it. I still feel there's tunneling going on though - he's pushing for my lynch over a small thing, and even after other people show doubt later on, he remains resolute in wanting to speedlynch me.When counter-arguments flow in you first ignore it, and later try to justify your choice by saying "I feel like there could be some reasoning here", without addressing the actual debate about the validity of the argument.
No it's not. That's not irony at all. In fact, that's more like rain on your wedding day. Or a free ride when you've already paid.It's somewhat ironic that you think the chance of me being scum is slightly higher than average, while I'm thinking exactly the same about you.
Vote: Dekunut
Oh, this is going to be so unbiased (actually it's pretty decently unbiased)But because neither Dekunut or Eduarda provided a proper analysis of the situation, let me analyse it myself.
Once again, this argument is leaning heavily on self-meta reading. I don't make meta arguments, like, ever. Because I find that comparing people to other games doesn't always work, and even so I have a hard time trying to come up with a good explanation of a person's playstyle. Hell, it took me two years to describe my own.Alright, so this is the post that drew suspicion:
The argument was that first Koko decides not to vote for Gumball, but does add on the end a sentence in which he supports her death. This way, Kokirion might try to play it safe. He may try to support the Gumball wagon without burning his fingers by actually being on it (a psychological trick to kill off Gumball with clean hands).
In his next post he says the following:
So perhaps Koko's strategy is the following: he is betting on 2 horses. Either killing Gumball or killing Jamie. By betting on 2 horses the chance may lessen that another alternative could arrive last-minute, and so reduces the danger that a mafia member might die. Whereas both Gumball and Jamie are excellent players to get rid of on day 1. By not actually voting for Gumball he avoids being blamed for her death later on if she gets lynched, and Jamie is inactive, and through the façade of a policy lynch he can get away with that too relatively easily. Very much a Koko way to manipulate stuff. I can't agree more, so all the way up to this point I get your point.
But now let's be a bit more critical.
First of all, how does Koko usually try to manipulate stuff when he is mafia? Well, I'll take my answer out of a QT (paraphrased) from Lineages, in which he was mafia together with Toxic and Storm. They had a small discussion about it there, and Koko more or less said the following: As a mafia member what you should never do is attempting to control the game. You cannot fully control every asset of the game and it is not necessary. Instead, you need to steer the events in the game. Plant an idea in someone's head and make him/her pursue it, and you may very well openly try to influence something, but drop it as soon as it could damage you. The only things you need to achieve as mafia is to simply stay alive and to avoid drawing suspicion. Whoever dies is irrelevant as long as you can achieve the first 2 objectives.
Koko's style is indeed to sneakily manipulate events from the background. However, he really only cares about survival and not looking suspicious. So there is my first critical note, why would he stick his head out to get Jamie or Gumball killed this early? Is it necessary to his survival? Probably not, Koko would probably let it go, pray to any god in the world to get one of them killed, but would not intervene.
Anyway, let's look at his posts in more detail.
Basically he does 3 things:
1) defend Gumball
2) sarcastically say he wouldn't mourn her death if she does die
3) support lynching an inactive and voting for Jamie
Koko, as scum, tends to try to be as cost-efficient as possible. With the minimum amount of action the maximum amount of change.
His first move, to defend Gumball, is in that light already peculiar. If he is scum and indeed tries to get her killed without voting for her, why would he defend her? That's actually not very logical, because by giving an opinion about the Gumball wagon will obviously attract a response from others. He will have to defend his opinion right away, and what for? If he tries not to be seen as suspicious and tries to survive day 1, creating such a debate is a very sloppy move. It also has another negative effect on his "scum-cause". Namely, he might accidentally save Gumball. If you make a move to defend a person, it may lower the chance that that person dies, so if Koko wants her dead, why would he add part 1 to his posts? If Koko would want to kill her he could've more easily left part 1 out. He would only sarcastically say that he wouldn't mourn her death (without voting for her) and then supporting lynching an inactive player. That's probably more like Koko's scum-style.
Let's now take a look at part 3, where he votes for Jamie. Although that too may seem as a Kokish scum move, it probably isn't. Because why Jamie? He had the choice out of Jamie, Vergo and Regal. Out of these 3, Jamie is probably the most difficult target. Jamie tends to fights back fiercely. If Koko would be the first to vote for Jamie he might get into a big sparring contest with Jamie, and how will that keep him both safe from getting lynched and away from suspicion? Vergo at the other hand, while also being a fantastic player, has sometimes shown during the last few games to not become more active before the end of the day. With Vergo the chances are bigger that he'll stay inactive and so that Koko won't have to face him in a debate. And Regal is an even more easy target. Regal is not the type of player to fiercely fight back, but responds in a more mildly manner. Most people also probably favoured Regal out of the 3 (as seen by many of the reactions after Koko's choice for Jamie), so no one would've thought he was more scummy if he chose for Regal. For Koko, who would've wanted the least amount of damage, Regal was probably his favorite target if he were scum.
So, having analysed his posts in more detail, we found 2 major sloppy mistakes scum-Koko may have made. Defending Gumball and voting for Jamie instead of Regal. It's kind of unkokish for scum-Koko to make so many sloppy mistakes so early on, hmmm. And, given the fact that Koko is actually writing this post and completely aware of this all, why wouldn't he have been aware of it yesterday and just not made these mistakes? If he knows it, why would he do it, if he's scum...
Hmmm, maybe if I analyse it further it actually looks like it's unlikely to have been a scum move. The chances may actually be slightly bigger for now that he's not scum.
But let's finally discuss the scenario where he did do it according to the Koko-books. Koko left out his part where he defended Gumball and targetted Regal instead of Jamie.
Now, as much as this is the ideal version, does it still make him likely to be scum?
It reminds me of a south park episode I saw on tv yesterday. The boys were playing detectives and tried to solve crimes. At one point they were asked to solve the dissappearance of a pie. Of course, the dog ate the pie, but the boys came up with the megalomanic conclusion that the old lady's husband tried to murder her, was filled with rage, and then at some point ate the pie in the process. The thing is, if that man really was that filled with anger and wanted murder her etc. etc., it was kind of a fair analysis of the situation. But what made you think he had such murderous intent? What made it more likely that he wanted to kill her than the normal explanation that the dog just ate it?
In the case that Koko is scum and really wanted to bet on 2 horses and tried to manipulate people into killing Gumball or Regal, the only thing we have still established so far is that we cannot exclude that he didn't do it with evil intentions (and in reality we did, because we found 2 major flaws in this reasoning already). But what excludes the fact that he didn't just do that as a townie? Lots of people made jokes about Gumball's situation, it was page 4 afterall and Koko very often makes such comments. If he'd be town he probably still would've made that comment. Maybe he just didn't add the Gumball-defense part because he was tired and didn't want to take it serious, and maybe he took Regal as a target purely by chance. Many people would've chosen Regal as a townie, so why wouldn't he? So even in the most ideal situation we just concluded that we cannot exclude he was scum, but neither could we exclude he was town. So in that case it would be a random chance at most. and with these unkokish flaws we found, I'd say he's a pretty bad day 1 lynch.
That is how you underbuild why someone is or is not scummy. Not by cryptically saying "there may be something", or taking a joke so far out of its context that you come to a bizar conclusion
*Insert lame frankfurter joke here*I'm going to Frankfurt for the coming days, I probably won't be able to post in the meanwhile
I know that feeling. I hate quoting on mobile.I was out of town for the last few days. Yesterday I did read the thread, but because quoting etc. was hard I decided to wait.
And this is where my current distrust of him comes from. The whole speedlynch thing. I described it earlier, and assume most people find this as OMGUS as Gummy does. I'm not sure how I can defend it without saying that it's not, which would be taken with a grain of salt. So oh well.Anyway, obviously I'm gonna vote for Deku again. I made my decision yesterday and nothing has changed, except for the fact that we didn't get a majority. I'm in for a speed lynch.
Vote: Dekunut
This is actually a good argument about Pen. I'll be talkign about him myself later. I will say though that I find it unlikely overall that those two are scumbuds.I'm also getting increasingly suspicious of Pendio, and also Sadia a little.
Unaware that the day ended so quickly. Yesterday he also explicitly said that he may not always suppport the lynch threshold if he wouldn't agree with it. Which is very logical, but I found the reason he stated this so publicly pretty odd. It felt as if he already knew he was gonna obstruct a number of lynches this game, and was giving himself an alibi already, which would be a good move for a mafiosi. And now, all of a sudden, he votes for Dekunut with an apology for his non-action yesterday. I cannot really fathom why he changed his mind, and if his position was really that weak yesterday, why did he then take such a radical step like obstructing the entire lynch? He also doesn't mention any new reason for voting Dekunut. It makes me wonder if this was rather a change of strategy instead of opinion.
If I were dead already, would you vote for either of them, and if so which would it be?And in the post I quoted from Sadia, she makes somewhat similar remarks, but less strongly. Despite these accusations, the 2 of you don't yet stand out to me as "probably scum". Perhaps, I cannot exclude the possibility, but I just want to say that I do not trust the 2 of you as much as other people trust you.
I mean not really, it's a day one read so idk what you expectKinda noncomittal
So..... you're blaming him for....... people misunderstanding his joke...?We don't blame you for trying to make a joke, only for saying something that people took seriously and saying it was a joke.
You're really just nitpicking at this point........I'd also like to point out he explains it as an "I hate you" joke when he really didn't say that, and instead pretty much said "if you die, it's your fault". Still makes me a little wary.
bolded 4 truth(like defending someone and acting on that, but adding afterwards that you do still hate him/her (I don't hate you Gymmu, I love you). Which would have nothing to do with the argument you bring forward).
I don't get this, is this still "oh don't kill the experienced players!!!! protect them!!!!!!" or is it "don't judge based off experience!!!!!!!!!" or "only mafia wants to kill experienced players!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Saying that he kinda chose Jamie for the "good player" argument. While I think this is a decent thing to do, it's still a reason that the mafia can use to their advantage, which is why I have distaste for it.
>has made one singular post in which 2 sentences involve lynchingI still feel there's tunneling going on though - he's pushing for my lynch over a small thing, and even after other people show doubt later on, he remains resolute in wanting to speedlynch me.
Does that mean that no one else can?I don't make meta arguments
whOver that last sentence, didn't you yourself say earlier that you also meant it as "it's her own fault if she gets lynched"? Make up your mind if it's a joke or not, because that doesn't sound like a joke.
whatI accept this argument. Still though, didn't you say that was an "I hate you" joke? Here you're bringing it on in a more serious light.
^ Dis(i would rather throw this at the top rather than have it potentially be lost at the bottom)
That's it, Timeless...?
Moving on, I'm going to make my next post the Eduarda reasoning. Be back soon.
I'm not going into much detail here because I feel like Gumball already said everything about it there was to say, but people have really blown this out of proportions. And although it may seem now that many people didn't realise it was a joke of some sort, this is only because 1 or 2 people keep bringing it up. To be truthful, I don't recall more than 2 people to have misunderstood it in the first place. That still leaves 15 others that did get that it was sarcastic.Basic reading of Gummy based on her actions. Something that's apparently a joke, but multiple people didn't realize that was a joke, so that was something else that contributed to my suspicion of him. Still seems kinda weird for that to be a joke IMO - the only thing I picked up as trying to be funny was the crying smiley.
Hmm, I wouldn't put that under the "good player" category. I had a choice out of 3 players. I said I considered all to be good players. I added that I like Vergo a lot as a player and so am inclined not to choose for him. But that's not ignoring evidence surrounding him because I think he is "too experienced", the fact is that there was no evidence. I was picking someone at random for the reason that they didn't post much. And when all 3 players are in the exact same situation, you just pick someone based on gut feeling.Saying that he kinda chose Jamie for the "good player" argument. While I think this is a decent thing to do, it's still a reason that the mafia can use to their advantage, which is why I have distaste for it. I always point back to Green Lantern mafia for this.
As a whole though, using that argument is pretty null, but if either Koki, Vergo, or Regal flip scum, this may be a post to come back to.
But the reason I brought up this discussion about "my meta" is because the entire argument against me was based on "my meta". Eduarda found me suspicious because of a pretty normal post, but she saw in there some possible plot from my part, thinking that such a plot is my style. And imo she wasn't completely off track, that tends to be my style a bit. But if she brings forward an argument based on my meta, I find it natural that that should indeed be discussed. And although it wasn't thát far-fetched, what I wanted to point out is that if you looked into it deeper, it actually didn't make that much sense.Once again, this argument is leaning heavily on self-meta reading. I don't make meta arguments, like, ever. Because I find that comparing people to other games doesn't always work, and even so I have a hard time trying to come up with a good explanation of a person's playstyle. Hell, it took me two years to describe my own.
Anyways, that's why I never bothered to fight this argument (think I said it before).
This.From my experience, when someone is easy to lynch on day 1 they are probably town.
This is the most important part about a lynch rule like this one. We have to work together. I like this lynch rule in certain ways because it forces the players to work together instead of every player being hesitant like they still are now. Day 1 is (hopefully) a lesson to this game's players in that you can't chicken out. (hopefully it's also a lesson about learning to read the rules =^) )With this lynch threshold we need to agree on a target afterall.
I'm also getting increasingly suspicious of Pendio, and also Sadia a little.
Unaware that the day ended so quickly. Yesterday he also explicitly said that he may not always suppport the lynch threshold if he wouldn't agree with it. Which is very logical, but I found the reason he stated this so publicly pretty odd. It felt as if he already knew he was gonna obstruct a number of lynches this game, and was giving himself an alibi already, which would be a good move for a mafiosi. And now, all of a sudden, he votes for Dekunut with an apology for his non-action yesterday. I cannot really fathom why he changed his mind, and if his position was really that weak yesterday, why did he then take such a radical step like obstructing the entire lynch? He also doesn't mention any new reason for voting Dekunut. It makes me wonder if this was rather a change of strategy instead of opinion.
On another note, I find myself in agreement with Sadia's observation of the DekuNut vote train in that Shroom and Pendio's votes appear suspect; however, I would replace Pendio with Timeless's recent move.
Pendio's vote is the sketchy one, especially seeing as he said earlier he absolutely wouldn't join a lynch he disagreed with. Now he did say that he didn't trust Deku anymore/less than anyone else, but he only voted for him when he was questioned over not voting for him. Trying to save your ass are you?
What was the need to wait until the very end of the day? Why couldn't you vote when you had the chance and the means to?I thought the day would last longer than it did, which was why I did not feel the need to vote.
Why specifically Timeless and not anyone else who's barely posted?Timeless (due to posts lacking in content)
how tho..,,.@DekuNut I think your suspicion on Kirion that you have explained makes sense.