|
Post by Maverick on Jul 28, 2004 14:36:33 GMT -5
Yaw
I understand your reasoning for turning an FOS at me and I thank you for sharing that. But I want to clarify the reasoning for my second post (the one in which you believe I am trying to justify an unvote of Superhappyjen).
Voting for a lynch in this town is a means of getting information. But, voting also has permanent results. While I want to use my vote as a means of getting information about the mafia, I also want to be fairly confident that the person I am voting for is indeed a mafia member or the serial killer. If I recklessly vote for someone and they later turn out to be innocent, I am partially responsible for an innocent person's death. I do not want to kill anyone innocent, which is why I regard my vote as very important.
As I stated already, I have very non-random reasons for my vote for Jen. But please don't mistake my cautious voting for scummy behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 28, 2004 15:07:09 GMT -5
Superhappyjen
No, you aren't. When I began training for my previous profession, I learned to dismiss fear very effectively.
Superhappyjen
Again, I am not worried. But, in response to your second part, I know who I am. You, though, have been acting very suspiciously.
Superhappyjen
There is a difference between being irrational on your own and acting irrationally with something as delicate as a vote for a lynch. If you are irrational about your beliefs on the board, for example, no one actually gets hurt. But throwing votes around left and right without good reason is liable to kill an innocent person.
Superhappyjen
I hope you know that the townspeople of Anonyma do not regard this as some kind of game. If you don't know how to look for mafia, you have even more of a reason to proceed with caution (and not throw your votes around).
Superhappyjen
Well, with the way things have been going in this town, you have to expect that people will get on your case if you act suspiciously.
Superhappyjen
As Narninian correctly pointed out, though the mafia members haven't yet talked in private, they each know the other person's identity. With this knowledge alone, they have an advantage over the townspeople.
Superhappyjen
If you are indeed the serial killer, I wouldn't expect it to make sense to you. Serial killers often go to great lengths to justify their delusions.
Superhappyjen, calling my line of reasoning "crap logic" won't cut it. You have to give the townspeople a reason to call my reasoning into question. But that has been the problem with you so far in this thread. You have been unable to come up with any convincing reasoning other than "he voted for me." You even admit to the reactionary nature of your votes:
Superhappyjen
But, here's the catch. You say that bandwagoning against an innocent is scummy behavior. While this is true, you are using fallacious reasoning by pointing the FOS at ck and I. Your fallacy? You expect everyone to simply assume that you are innocent and are quite dismissive to the possibility that you are being investigated.
My vote remains.
|
|
MMCL
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 8
|
Post by MMCL on Jul 28, 2004 15:54:33 GMT -5
Oooh lots happening now...I'm quite tempted to vote for Jen - but I want to hear a defense from her in relation to Mav's last post.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 28, 2004 16:11:26 GMT -5
There is a difference between being irrational on your own and acting irrationally with something as delicate as a vote for a lynch. If you are irrational about your beliefs on the board, for example, no one actually gets hurt. But throwing votes around left and right without good reason is liable to kill an innocent person. As someone else pointed out (forget who) 2 votes is hardly enough for anyone to be in danger of lynching. And I would never random vote anyone who already had votes against them. I did for ck, because I genuinely suspect him. I should clarify. The only was I know of weeding out mafia scum was to vote for people to see what they'd say. Now that the conversation's going, I don't have to do that anymore. Agreed. So why are you acting so suspiciously? if you say so I wouldn't know I feel like I've already responded to your allogations adnosium. If anyone doesn't understand my defense after reading my previous posts I'll answer any question you want. But all I feel I have left to say is "crap logic!" done and done. I don't expect everyone to assume I'm innocent. However since I know I'm innocent my reasoning for voting for pointing the FOS at ck and you is sound. If you can find flaw in my reasoning beyond the fact that I have assumed I am innocent, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 28, 2004 16:13:59 GMT -5
Oooh lots happening now...I'm quite tempted to vote for Jen - but I want to hear a defense from her in relation to Mav's last post. Well, now you have it. What do you say?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 28, 2004 16:51:16 GMT -5
Bandwagoning in and of itself is not scummy behaviour, nor does the recipient of the bandwagoning's alignment necessarily indicate scumminess among the bandwagoners. I haven't a clue where you got that idea, Maverick. How do you expect us to lynch scum if we don't bandwagon?
I have never claimed Superhappyjen was a SK, and I don't know where that idea came from either. The majority of the time I used the catchall "scum" to refer to what I think now is her alignment. I'm leaning towards mafia, because I do think she's got a partner. That, and as I already admitted, my SK-radar is less developed than my mafia-radar.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jul 28, 2004 17:50:42 GMT -5
Well, I would have to say that the case against Jen is building quite rapidly. That being said, I'm not yet prepared to add anymore weight to the wagon ...
Jen, I do think that some of your "random" votes were more than just fishing expeditions. I am inclined to agree with Maverick and Yaw. However, I am one of those people who (sometimes unfortunately, as it almost got me lynched once) errs on the side of caution. You are new to town. You may not understand the dynamics of our town's polictics and well, I guess you could call it a fear of all things scummy.
I admit that when I first read your comment about hoping the SK wouldn't target you, I didn't think much of it. However, I think that Maverick's assessment of an attempt to deflect suspicion may be correct. The other thing that has happened due to that utterance (if you are innocent of the charges of being the SK) is that you have attracted attention to yourself. This means that the SK may also have taken note of you (again, assuming you are not the SK). Why would someone welcome that sort of attention, unless they felt that they were immune to any consequences?
I guess that my best option at this juncture is to FOS Jen. As I said, I'm not yet prepared to throw my weight behind this wagon, though I imagine that I will be before long.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 28, 2004 18:21:03 GMT -5
Yaw
I haven't gotten a clue where you got the idea that I think bandwagoning automatically indicates scumminess. Perhaps you could further explain why you think I've made that assumption?
Yaw
As I said earlier, I am only leaning toward the idea that Superhappyjen is the SK. The possibility that she is a mafia member rather then scum does exist. At this point, I can say that Jen's behavior is suspicious, which leads me to believe that she is some kind of scum. Which of the two she is (mafia or the SK), I am not quite as sure.
My belief that Jen is the SK rather than a mafia member lies in the knowledge that SKs behavior are often times unpredictable in terms of their reasoning. Serial killers usually are irrational in their decisions and their killing spree is a very emotional experience for them. They react quickly and usually don't think before they act, causing them to have to justify their actions after the fact. We have seen Superhappyjen do this with her voting. She clearly did not think before she made her votes but now is attempting to pull together some sort of last ditch justification for them.
Since they are often unstable, they usually react in some kind of hostile or more agressive manner. They will lash out at people who point out their abnormal behavior, as Jen has done in her voting pattern and in putting an FOS on people who have voted for her.
Yaw, I would be interested in hearing why you are leaning toward Jen as mafia rather then the SK. I'll grant you that your mafia-radar may be more developed, but do you have any other reasons to suspect that she is a mafia member? I'm particularly interested in hearing what leads you to believe she has a partner and who that might be.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 28, 2004 19:08:31 GMT -5
Maverick
From this:
Maverick
I read that as, "Don't be bandwagoning, since you don't know what you're doing." Also here:
Maverick
Maverick
The hell? You can read the SK role on the first page of this thread. Pieisgood did not specify that the SK had to act like a nutbar. I don't have a clue where you came up with this idea.
Maverick
It's mostly based on her interactions with you, actually, that has me thinking you're both working together. There's an extra thing thrown in there, but I'd rather hold off on mentioning it at the moment -- both because I want to reread the thread soon to see that I really saw what I think I saw, and because I'm really hoping she does it again.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jul 28, 2004 19:23:01 GMT -5
The hell? You can read the SK role on the first page of this thread. Pieisgood did not specify that the SK had to act like a nutbar. I don't have a clue where you came up with this idea. I think Maverick is referring to case studies of SKs, though I don't entirely agree that they act irrationally. Ted Bundy and John Gacy were both able to integrate themselves into society to the point where they were the last people one would suspect of the atrocities they committed. Gacy, for example, was a respected business man with political clout when he was finally stopped. Bundy appeared to be a dream. He was good looking and intelligent, what many women would want in a man. Another example is a Canadian by the name of Paul Bernardo. Again, he appeared to be a fairy tale in flesh. He had a beautiful wife (his accomplice), good job and was good looking as well. He also integrated himself into the community. He was a serial rapist before he escalated to the crime of murdering three young women (teens, actually). Bundy went to the grave with the knowledge of where some of his victims were buried. He was calculating and used this knowledge to delay his execution a couple of times. The Southside Rapist (St Paul, Minneapolis) evaded detection for over 14 years and had raped an estimated 100 times before he was brought to justice. This can only be accomplished by being calculating and cautious.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jul 28, 2004 19:53:18 GMT -5
Regardless, case studies of actual serial killers aren't going to be applicable to how someone given a serial killer role will act on a message board game. It's pretty much a logical dead-end.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Jul 28, 2004 21:42:32 GMT -5
Sorry ive been away i was having board problems again but it fixed itself I've read over the posting and I'm pointing the FOS at Mav and ck. It may seem like I am only retaliating against people voting against me, but isn't creating a bandwagon against an innocent scummy behaviour? Yaw's vote on me genuinely seems to be random, ck's and Mav's does not. ck was the first to vote for me for "a reason" claiming my random voting was scummy behaviour. At the time Narn had two random votes, so a vote there might have been two suspicious. The three other people with votes on them were me, Benaih/Mav, and Yaw(I was voting Yaw at the time). I believe Mav is ck's partner so he wouldn't vote for him. The two choices to vote for were Yaw and I. My random voting here made me an easy target because the mafia wouldn't have voted for Yaw and risked that I would change my vote again and it would be more difficult to lynch. Also, they knew they could easily rouse suspicions against me. When someone chided ck that he was being scummy, he replied that he was just pointing something out, or some such. But ck hadn't "just pointed something out" he'd voted. Later, when Mav joined the board to replace Benaih, he began with a long winded bit of crap logic about why he thought I was the sk. Obviously, he was following ck's lead. I can only vote for one of you guys, and ck already has a vote on him so: VOTE:ckYOur random voting was scummy behavior. You seem to be trying to make the town go against each other. AS far as i can tell you keep switching vote from vote. YOu have voted for pretty much everyone in the game. YOu seem to be trying to put pressure on everyone but yourself. YOur logic is crap. IM really no good at trying to figure stuff out and stuff. I guess ill dig more through the thread tommorow and come up with some stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 29, 2004 7:11:06 GMT -5
Yaw, I'm going to address your claim that I have assumed bandwagoning to automatically indicate scumminess.
Yaw
Your portrayal of my words is quite extreme, which lends to your misinterpetation. In the first paragraph you quoted, I was only responding to Superhappyjen's claim that being irrational does not make her a criminal. In the second, I told that she has every reason to proceed with caution in voting -- not to stop voting or avoid bandwagoning altogether.
You also cited the following words of mine:
Maverick
In this quote, I did not say that bandwagoning itself was scummy; only that bandwagoning an innocent person is scummy. How could bandwagoning an innocent person not be scummy? It reveals the coordination of the mafia in fooling the townspeople to fight amongst themselves.
Yaw
The rules in the first post are meant to tell others how the roles will operate. This doesn't mean that once the roles are given out, that each person won't adopt a personality that fits in with those rules. Sure, the SK doesn't have to act like a nutbar. But, the SK operates alone, which gives me every reason to believe that the SK is more likely to be the nutbar than the mafia.
AuntieSocial, I'm referring not as much to case studies of specific serial killers as I am to a general profile that I expect the SK to fit into within the context of this game.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jul 29, 2004 7:20:56 GMT -5
Superhappyjen
Jen, why did you choose ck over me? I know you can only vote for one person, but there must be a reason why you choose him over me. Care to explain?
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Jul 29, 2004 11:56:25 GMT -5
As someone else pointed out (forget who) 2 votes is hardly enough for anyone to be in danger of lynching. And I would never random vote anyone who already had votes against them. I did for ck, because I genuinely suspect him. You relize that contridicts the randominess, that is why poeple ussually only use one beacue after that point it isn't that random any more. Leaving a vote on someone for a few hours is it really gonna give you much of a reaction to use to weed scum out, that is why you are acting scummy or so it seems, imo.
|
|