strager wrote:

Knowing that, I hope you don't proove me wrong by playing the game in one day. Knowing that, I hope you don't proove me wrong about you prooving me wrong ...

"prove" is spelt with one 'o'

Echo wrote:

I scanned Pasonia and got a guilty result.

Even by disregarding everything that has happened and only looking at my scan results, we can figure out who I am. Since I got innocent on myself yesterday, I know I'm either sane or naive, and since my result flipped (ie. I've gotten both guilty and innocent results), it's obvious I must be sane or insane. Put two and two together and you get sane cop, which means my result is entirely reliable.

0_o got guilty on both me and himself, so he's either paranoid, which makes his scans useless, or insane, which means both of us are innocent (*smacks 0_o* for bad logic >.>). However, since we can't tell which one he is, it's best to not take his result into account.

Now Pas... *I* know he's the mafia, but there's no way for 0_o to know that. For now, vote Pasonia. I can probably dig up some evidence if you want it, this thread is full of CrapLogic™

He knows. I wonder if he can dig out the ACTUAL posts that say "Pasonia is mafia". In fact, I DARE him to.

Guess what, he won't ever get to the right words in trying to get me looking like a scum. Know why? Because, with strong words I say, I am of the opinion that he is trying to scummify me, and surprisingly, he only quoted a sleep depravation issue without going into details about how I *actually* look scummy. The Echo I know who plays civilian roles would NEVER say this sort of thing, and will always actively try to get the votes his way from attacking other people's posts, more so when he is actually scum.

I was observing the thread and watched SFG claim Echo was guilty which directly contradicted my claim. Also, if Echo were scum, and he knows that SFG is a real threat who could get the votes flying his way (I would have voted for Echo with certainty) he WILL get rid of SFG first. I really regretted not taking her words for it while not considering that strager never did reveal the cops' sanity.

Also notice that there was a weak attempt to make SFG look scummy on one of his first posts (the one about Miller, which, of course, I naturally fell for it), THEN withdrawing the comments and said those comments were to scumbait. In fact, those comments were not to scumbait, but to scumpaint someone else.

Therefore I rate Echo as being MUCH MORE dangerous than you are, 0_o. That's because of the way he feigned scumbait.

In light of these circumstances, vote Echo.

Echo wrote:

strager wrote:

Knowing that, I hope you don't proove me wrong by playing the game in one day. Knowing that, I hope you don't proove me wrong about you prooving me wrong ...

"prove" is spelt with one 'o'

Proove it.

Pasonia wrote:

He knows. I wonder if he can dig out the ACTUAL posts that say "Pasonia is mafia". In fact, I DARE him to.

Sure. I'll even add some colour to make it more colourful.

-----------

Pasonia wrote:

Also I believe the Miller claim is a false claim, though I'll leave you to emo about this one SFG.

More importantly, since I say Echo's innocent and you say Echo's guilty, then the only thing left is what happens to the Miller claim. Also, that would mean that I say with certainty, SFG, that you are GUILTY AS CHARGED

Therefore vote SFG.

Wait, so you thought I was lying, yet you believed I'm innocent? Why would you vote SFG over me if you believed I was lying?

I'd say you thought you could persuade town to take out SFG, then get rid of me at night, probably because you figured SFG would be an easier target to get lynched. However, after I came out with the fact that only you or adam could be mafia, since SFG and 0_o couldn't have posted what they did without *knowing* they were cop (ie. SFG and 0_o were pretty much conclusively proven innocent), you had to change tack and go with adam.

This also explains the night kill: if you'd taken me out, then SFG and 0_o would insta-vote you since they know each other are innocent. So you *had* to take out one of the two. You probably thought SFG was a more dangerous opponent than 0_o, and hence killed her. overall scummy behaviour: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

Vote count required.

Were you afraid of accidentally hammering, and thus thinking that that would cast suspicion on you? unnecessary caution: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

When Echo said your guilty vote was tied to your role and prefixed sanity, it sounded plausible. After all, you did speak with certainty that you're a Cop, though your verdict on him was nigh completely mistaken.

Even though this was posted after my long post, this is undeniably referring to something that happened earlier... or does it? It doesn't matter: I've said nothing of that sort in this whole game. misrepresenting other players: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

No vote, but I suspect Echo.

Even though 0_o was pretty much conclusively proven innocent on day 1. You only admit so but only after prompting from 0_o, and only then do you place the vote on me. again, unnecessary caution: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

Echo once spoke of my insane logic in Mafia-based games, so I'm not very terribly good at picking out who's right and who's wrong. I scanned SFG because I didn't know about Mafia-based logic

This is one variation of Mafia where Mafia-specific logic is not required. Deducing that SFG and 0_o are innocent does not require Mafia specific knowledge. Just looking at the investigation results is usually enough to narrow down the suspect to one or two people. using excuses to explain behaviour: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

The Echo I know who plays civilian roles would NEVER say this sort of thing, and will always actively try to get the votes his way from attacking other people's posts, more so when he is actually scum.

...

I really regretted not taking her [SFG's] words for it

Sounds like an appeal to emotion, rather than logic to me. using logical fallacies to try to win arguments: GUILTY

Pasonia wrote:

Echo I think everyone's just afraid of you.

I know you are. Had enough? Suicide is always an option. Die scum die >:D

Wait, so you thought I was lying, yet you believed I'm innocent? Why would you vote SFG over me if you believed I was lying?

I'd say you thought you could persuade town to take out SFG, then get rid of me at night, probably because you figured SFG would be an easier target to get lynched. However, after I came out with the fact that only you or adam could be mafia, since SFG and 0_o couldn't have posted what they did without *knowing* they were cop (ie. SFG and 0_o were pretty much conclusively proven innocent), you had to change tack and go with adam.

This also explains the night kill: if you'd taken me out, then SFG and 0_o would insta-vote you since they know each other are innocent. So you *had* to take out one of the two. You probably thought SFG was a more dangerous opponent than 0_o, and hence killed her. overall scummy behaviour: GUILTY

Like I said, I don't play by logic. Heck, I don't even QUESTION 0_o no matter what he did. But let's just say you were the one to point an accusatory finger at me and INSIST I am the scum, while I was on the back foot and shooting back when you accused. Faced with your so-called facts and the dangers involved in getting everyone HOOKED onto what YOU argued about, YOU insisted that I must be mafia (if adam wasn't) whilst all these while I never actually go insist that you MUST be the mafia - because I got TRICKED by you. As my scan on you was an Innocent while mine against SFG was guilty, had she survived I would have believed you are the innocent and she the scum if 0_o was the one killed. Why would I actually say "SFG is guilty" when she is the one getting killed? Why did I not go out and say "hey I scanned 0_o and got a guilty let's vote him"? Insofar as this situation is, YOU have been the one ACCUSING others but YOURSELF.

Therefore, as I see it, you are scumpainting someone. Overall, that is also scummy behaviour, and you are ALSO as guilty as I am. Remember, you voted for me all the time, even though it was very clear to the rest (I believe that included the two deceased) that I was nowhere near scum-looking at all. I reiterate - it was only a matter of convenience that they were out of the way, so you could pick on my playstyle and exploit it(which I talked to you in depth about).

You already knew I was civilian (the scum knows who he is, and you know who you are - scum) so I must be the weaker of the players, so if you're scum and I'm the civvy you're in a far more advantageous position to manipulate the facts around, ALL OF WHICH WERE FALSE. You're building lies upon lies, and not

I remembered, you said that the "sanity of the players are not revealed", and that "there could be two rights and two wrongs". You also insist that 0_o stand on your side to vote against me, as a follow up. You have been the one orchestrating the whole scumpainting, while I was only defending my stand without doubting you (notice, that my posts on Day 1 acted on the assumption that the sanity is explicitly stated in everyone's roles. You claim miller, then change your mind when you realised that almost everyone but the scum bore the cop role (which must have scared the fuck shit out of you) and then excused yourself, saying you're acting on assumption, and changed directions on your arguments on two occasions for Day 1 alone (miller - tricked miller - 'someone else like Pas and adam must be scum')

Those posts I made risked WIFOM, and of course you took the chance to attack me based on that. Now let me ask you, why are you arguing so strongly on my WIFOM?

That's because, risking yet another WIFOM, only scum would actually bite on a contentious point and NOT let go like you are doing to me now. You already said this thread is full of craplogic yourself, so why are you arguing against those craplogic if you KNEW they were not worth your time?

Simply put, that's because YOU are the scum who wants to scumpaint someone else into being guilty, pointing an accusatory finger at the players you think you can manipulate. And you think you've won the battle already.

Were you afraid of accidentally hammering, and thus thinking that that would cast suspicion on you? unnecessary caution: GUILTY

Even though this was posted after my long post, this is undeniably referring to something that happened earlier... or does it? It doesn't matter: I've said nothing of that sort in this whole game. misrepresenting other players: GUILTY

Even though 0_o was pretty much conclusively proven innocent on day 1. You only admit so but only after prompting from 0_o, and only then do you place the vote on me. again, unnecessary caution: GUILTY

Vote count request, since when has this become scummy? Don't fuck around, erring on the side of caution never equated scummy (again, you're scumpainting me)

As for misrepresentation, I point you to numerous IRC incidents as well as WW3-R as the basis of my tendency for such errors. However, I refer to this:

SFG: one thing ive noticed is that the mafia like to make reasonable arguments and blithely lead the group away from them. the best way to ensure that this does NOT happen is to simply not listen to anyone who comes up guilty, and ESPECIALLY not those who come up guilty to more than one cop. since we have no way of telling if these people are scumhunting or scumdiverting i think its best if we ignore their arguments entirely

Also:

Still - either Pasonia or adam is mafia. Since we have two lynches total in this game, we've basically won. Any objections to just lynching them one after the other?

By declaring that "we've basically won" while the ball is still in anyone's court, and by saying repeatedly that 0_o is conclusively proven innocent, you bring to mind one point. Why do you declare a win so early, also why do you insist that 0_o MUST be innocent? Certainly, that is because if he IS civvy (as a scum, you'll know who are the civilians in this game since you're the only one guilty) you want him on your side, and to estrage me from him and to make him think that I am scum. That said, he has been very quiet on our debate and has not come to a conclusion yet. Only time will tell if you would suddenly switch your attack against 0_o.

Sounds like an appeal to emotion, rather than logic to me. using logical fallacies to try to win arguments: GUILTY

Why would I appeal to anyone's emotions if all I said were just for myself to fret over (whatever's in M4 is more appealing to emotion than anything else)? 0_o didn't need to read much into that, as those were just me saying stuff to myself.

I know you are. Had enough? Suicide is always an option. Die scum die >:D

You're just as guilty of appealing to emotion, RIGHT AFTER accusing me of appealing to emotion. Irony much?

Here's why I'm innocent:

1) I was the second one to claim Cop, before anyone (including the mafia) knew we were all cops.
2) Because if I were mafia I would have hammered one of you by now

I'll have to read through everything again..

Pasonia wrote:

Faced with your so-called facts and the dangers involved in getting everyone HOOKED onto what YOU argued about, YOU insisted that I must be mafia (if adam wasn't) whilst all these while I never actually go insist that you MUST be the mafia - because I got TRICKED by you.
...
Insofar as this situation is, YOU have been the one ACCUSING others but YOURSELF.

Back in Day 1 when everyone was still alive: SFG was first to claim cop, 0_o was second. Only someone who knew a second cop existed would claim cop right after that, and therefore 0_o is innocent. SFG couldn't have been mafia because if she was and you guys killed me, then when D2 starts you'll realise SFG lied and you'd lynch her for it.

Of course I'm accusing others but myself, I know I'm innocent o.O

And that leaves either you or adam for mafia. Adam's dead, which leaves you.

Pasonia wrote:

Therefore, as I see it, you are scumpainting someone. Overall, that is also scummy behaviour, and you are ALSO as guilty as I am. Remember, you voted for me all the time, even though it was very clear to the rest (I believe that included the two deceased) that I was nowhere near scum-looking at all.
...
You already said this thread is full of craplogic yourself, so why are you arguing against those craplogic if you KNEW they were not worth your time?

You're the one who told ("dared") me to point out specific reasons other than the facts above as to why you're mafia, and I did just that. Now you're saying it's scummy to say why you're acting scummy. Are you trying to straw man me?

Pasonia wrote:

so if you're scum and I'm the civvy you're in a far more advantageous position to manipulate the facts around, ALL OF WHICH WERE FALSE. You're building lies upon lies, and not

Says who? At least I have quotes and reasoning to back up my view. You're just saying I'm lying with no evidence whatsoever.

Pasonia wrote:

You also insist that 0_o stand on your side to vote against me, as a follow up.

Of course I'm insisting that. I know 0_o is innocent, I know I'm innocent. Who else can I lynch?

Pasonia wrote:

(notice, that my posts on Day 1 acted on the assumption that the sanity is explicitly stated in everyone's roles).

And you continued to act based on this assumption (post #161422) even after SFG told you that you don't know your sanity (post #161197). Skipping posts? Ignoring posts?

Pasonia wrote:

You claim miller, then change your mind when you realised that almost everyone but the scum bore the cop role (which must have scared the fuck shit out of you) and then excused yourself, saying you're acting on assumption, and changed directions on your arguments on two occasions for Day 1 alone (miller - tricked miller - 'someone else like Pas and adam must be scum')

From the looks of it, everyone believed that role claim. There was no reason or need for me to change the story whether I was townie, actually miller, or scum.

Pasonia wrote:

Those posts I made risked WIFOM, and of course you took the chance to attack me based on that. Now let me ask you, why are you arguing so strongly on my WIFOM?

I did not attack you based on any quotes that could be interpreted as WIFOM, nor did I use any WIFOM in my arguments. I don't think you understand what WIFOM means.

Pasonia wrote:

SFG wrote:

one thing ive noticed is that the mafia like to make reasonable arguments and blithely lead the group away from them. the best way to ensure that this does NOT happen is to simply not listen to anyone who comes up guilty, and ESPECIALLY not those who come up guilty to more than one cop. since we have no way of telling if these people are scumhunting or scumdiverting i think its best if we ignore their arguments entirely

SFG's logic here is incorrect. Given that the game most likely has a paranoid (always guilty), naive (always innocent), sane (correct results) and insane (opposite results) cops, any person is equally likely to come up innocent or guilty due to an investigation. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should be discriminated against due to investigation results.

In addition, "making reasonable arguments" is not a valid reason to discriminate someone with. I mean, what the heck? Oh look, SFG's making a reasonable argument right here, let's not listen to her. Not to mention, since you investigated SFG and she came up guilty, doesn't quoting her mean you're ignoring what you're quoting?

Pasonia wrote:

Echo wrote:

Still - either Pasonia or adam is mafia. Since we have two lynches total in this game, we've basically won. Any objections to just lynching them one after the other?

By declaring that "we've basically won" while the ball is still in anyone's court, and by saying repeatedly that 0_o is conclusively proven innocent, you bring to mind one point. Why do you declare a win so early, also why do you insist that 0_o MUST be innocent?

I think I've explained this clearly enough in my first point.

Pasonia wrote:

Why would I appeal to anyone's emotions if all I said were just for myself to fret over (whatever's in M4 is more appealing to emotion than anything else)? 0_o didn't need to read much into that, as those were just me saying stuff to myself.

I know you are. Had enough? Suicide is always an option. Die scum die >:D

You're just as guilty of appealing to emotion, RIGHT AFTER accusing me of appealing to emotion. Irony much?

Saying "I regret not listening to someone" is appealing to other people's sense of pity in an attempt to get them to side with you. Telling you to kill yourself is not (and would be pretty strange as) an attempt to persuade someone other than yourself (and this is in reference to your own will to carry on the argument) to vote you.

I absolutely loathe you for making me argue so much.

I will begin with an argument of my own before proceeding to refute all your points.

---

There was no doubt in my mind that there must be cops of varying sanity, in fact, all four townies must be cops in this setup. Let's see, we have naive, we have sane, insane, and then paranoid.

Based on existing arguments:
SFG claimed Echo was Guilty, with, obviously, an untold scan that she couldn't say before she got killed.
adam claimed Echo was Innocent.
I claimed Echo was Innocent, then SFG was Guilty.
You claimed you were Innocent, and then I was Guilty.
0_o claimed both Echo and himself were Guilty

Now, we split it wide open.

I claimed Echo was Innocent and SFG was Guilty. Based on this, I can be doubly sure that my role alignment is that of an Insane cop who gets things flipped one-eighty in terms of logic (as is my initial style of play - Insanity).
0_o doesn't automatically excuse himself, but with a Guilty claim on both roles, that can only mean 0_o is a Paranoid cop who thinks everyone is guilty - even himself.
adam claimed Echo was innocent, but was the last person to argue about it. If I am not mistaken, that can only mean adam is most likely a Naive cop who believes in a fairy land where everyone is Innocent. Unfortunately, being the last to respond somehow also placed the most suspicion on him and he died.

Which leaves you and SFG to think about.
Now look at you: You said you scanned yourself and got an Innocent, and then found me Guilty, but at the same time, SFG found you Guilty as well. If we excuse both 0_o and adam (naive and paranoid cops don't help) that leaves only the Sane, the Insane, and the Ugly-- I mean, the scum.

A sane cop would be of the right frame of mind.
An insane cop would be of the exact 180 degrees of a right frame of mind.
Lastly, the scum would scumpaint.

If SFG found you guilty, and you found yourself innocent, and I also found you innocent, then based on what I said earlier, it should be that both me and SFG found you guilty... except, I was so sure SFG was lying at that point of time that I voted her, without realising just how crazy this whole game was.

How about I propose the possibility that all along you tried to show that you were the Sane cop, and that you must be right? Then again, considering that SFG bears the possibility of being a Sane cop, you killed her in order to make her STFU.

0_o's scum-breaking post right after your miller post did not actually prove to you that he was civilian, rather, it proved to you that between SFG and 0_o one of them has to be sane, so one of them has to go. Moreover, it would do you no good if both survived because if I wound up dead, then:

SFG scans me and finds me Innocent when I died = SFG innocent, 0_o unknown, Echo unknown
0_o finds another person Guilty for whatever reason = SFG innocent, 0_o likely innocent, leaving YOU as the likeliest scum.

Then let's consider this: Why was 0_o not killed? Let's all take up an assumption for him being dead.
Assuming me and SFG targetted the same person, no matter who, and whether he was dead or alive didn't matter.

SFG scans <anybody> and finds him/her to be Innocent: SFG innocent, me unknown, Echo unknown.
I scan <same anybody> and finds him/her to be Guilty: SFG innocent (Sane), me innocent (Insane), still leaving you as the scum because your scans would either be scumpainting or would just expose yourself, especially if I wounded up scanning myself and found myself Guilty when you say the same.
I scanned a different anybody (not you) and finds him/her to be Guilty: SFG innocent, me likely innocent, still leaving you as the likeliest scum.

Of course I'm accusing others but myself, I know I'm innocent o.O

And that leaves either you or adam for mafia. Adam's dead, which leaves you.

A scum would also say he's innocent, and scumpaint someone with intensity. I can't say that enough.

You're the one who told ("dared") me to point out specific reasons other than the facts above as to why you're mafia, and I did just that. Now you're saying it's scummy to say why you're acting scummy. Are you trying to straw man me?

1. Don't quote mafiascum.net wiki because I don't read up, and I am not experienced at the game enough to use those terms on a regular basis. However, your tendency to quote outside definitions to make a point does show that you're enough of a wily fox to misrepresent the civilians, as is what SFG said; the wolf playing the shepherd, if you must.

Says who? At least I have quotes and reasoning to back up my view. You're just saying I'm lying with no evidence whatsoever.

See above for your beloved quotes and reasoning. You're doing the same by saying I am the liar, without enough concrete proof either. You only quoted my late reply as the strongest proof that I must be a late scum, but why did you vote adam then if you thought so strongly of ME as scum from the get go? That's because he was the last to reply, and, consequently, not being a scum he was the easiest to scumpaint by you. Afaik, you have misguided people into voting adam and me, and then saying "we must have won if those two are scum" but the facts is that, voting adam led SFG to her death, and now voting me would lead to either your death or 0_o's.

If there's a smart bet on this it's that you're the scum and killing both me and adam would invariably be a scum victory.

Also, isn't it possible that a scum acts early and upfront in order to create the illusion that the scum is the civilian? Certainly I would like to propose that you're doing just that, since the first post you made was a i-am-a-miller post, not even a i-am-a-cop. Why would you subject to baiting the scum when you are not even sure of the game setup? You wanted to test the responses of the people, and pick out the people easiest to scumpaint.

Why not I help you change your statement since we're at this? You can accuse me of appealing to emotion if you want to.

Echo - as we would imagine in the head of a scum wrote:

Once we lynch Pas or adam we - I mean, the scum - would be the victor.

Half of that is true. adam's dead now. That doesn't mean you're clear, Echo.

Once again I quote the "die scum die" comment as an uncharacteristic, self-proclaimed victory coming from a scum - YOU, Echo. And once again I would reinforce the point that no matter what it was, appealing to emotion RIGHT AFTER accusing someone of appealing to emotion is also fuel for suspicion.

Of course I'm insisting that. I know 0_o is innocent, I know I'm innocent. Who else can I lynch?

Likely I was thinking of this as well.

And you continued to act based on this assumption (post #161422) even after SFG told you that you don't know your sanity (post #161197). Skipping posts? Ignoring posts?

Yes, I continued to act on that assumption because I didn't know better. I am an inexperienced player at mafia - stop fucking around and attack my inexperience as an excuse.

From the looks of it, everyone believed that role claim. There was no reason or need for me to change the story whether I was townie, actually miller, or scum.

Then explain why I found SFG guilty when she's dead? Note, if she were really the guilty one, YOU would be dead by now since you'll be the likelier to bear the role of the Sane cop IF you were dead (remember what I said? I found you Innocent, so which means if you were killed I'd be the naive cop and 0_o the paranoid cop). Also, I quote my own inexperience again.

I did not attack you based on any quotes that could be interpreted as WIFOM, nor did I use any WIFOM in my arguments. I don't think you understand what WIFOM means.

You say I behave scummy because of this this this and that that that. If that is not WIFOM, I don't know what is. Don't bother correcting me or attempting to.

SFG's logic here is incorrect. Given that the game most likely has a paranoid (always guilty), naive (always innocent), sane (correct results) and insane (opposite results) cops, any person is equally likely to come up innocent or guilty due to an investigation. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should be discriminated against due to investigation results.

In addition, "making reasonable arguments" is not a valid reason to discriminate someone with. I mean, what the heck? Oh look, SFG's making a reasonable argument right here, let's not listen to her. Not to mention, since you investigated SFG and she came up guilty, doesn't quoting her mean you're ignoring what you're quoting?

Quoting her here means I believe she's innocent. Consequently, then I believe I am an Insane cop who got his rights and wrongs mixed up. Since 0_o got two guilty verdicts, that only reinforces the point that he is innocent, and if my Innocent refers to a Guilty verdict then you're it.

Pasonia wrote:

Why would I appeal to anyone's emotions if all I said were just for myself to fret over (whatever's in M4 is more appealing to emotion than anything else)? 0_o didn't need to read much into that, as those were just me saying stuff to myself.

Echo wrote:

I know you are. Had enough? Suicide is always an option. Die scum die >:D

You're just as guilty of appealing to emotion, RIGHT AFTER accusing me of appealing to emotion. Irony much?

Echo wrote:

Saying "I regret not listening to someone" is appealing to other people's sense of pity in an attempt to get them to side with you. Telling you to kill yourself is not (and would be pretty strange as) an attempt to persuade someone other than yourself (and this is in reference to your own will to carry on the argument) to vote you.

Then how about die scum die? Wasn't that an appeal to emotion? Or should I say, do you DARE to say that that was in NO WAY an appeal to emotion? I insist on this because I was sure you'd have thought "with this, I would force Pasonia to back out and 0_o would subsequently vote him".

I bet that with my proclamation of inexperience in an IRC conversation some time before, you would certainly have thought I'll back down, but I won't back out this time like I did in M4.

Because I am Innocent, you are Guilty, and nothing can change this FACT. Your arguments are easily refutable (though tedious to refute) and as it stands, the more you say now the more you lie about.

Before I read through all that, you should realise that "die scum die" is a cliche you use when you identify someone as mafia.

Pasonia wrote:

[long explanation of your deduction method]

I don't know why you thought so much.

If there are 4 different cops and 1 mafia, then obviously we're going to get 2 of one investigation result (in this case, guilty) and 3 of the other (in this case, innocent). This already narrows the suspects down to 3 players. In this case, SFG and 0_o are pretty much conclusively innocent.

Adam's dead now, so obviously either you are or I'm scum. I know I'm not, and obviously you're going to say you're not. It's pretty much down to 0_o. Why the need for an essay?

Pasonia wrote:

A scum would also say he's innocent, and scumpaint someone with intensity. I can't say that enough.

And isn't that exactly what you're doing?

Pasonia wrote:

Echo wrote:

You're the one who told ("dared") me to point out specific reasons other than the facts above as to why you're mafia, and I did just that. Now you're saying it's scummy to say why you're acting scummy. Are you trying to straw man me?

1. Don't quote mafiascum.net wiki because I don't read up, and I am not experienced at the game enough to use those terms on a regular basis. However, your tendency to quote outside definitions to make a point does show that you're enough of a wily fox to misrepresent the civilians, as is what SFG said; the wolf playing the shepherd, if you must.

In plain simple English:

1. First, you tell ("dare") me to find posts that say "Pasonia is mafia".
2. I do that, and explain my thoughts on each post that I quote.
3. You accuse me of "scumpainting" because I'm quoting posts of you and pointing out why they make you scummy.

I don't think I need to explain the logical fallacy here?

Pasonia wrote:

You're doing the same by saying I am the liar, without enough concrete proof either. You only quoted my late reply as the strongest proof that I must be a late scum, but why did you vote adam then if you thought so strongly of ME as scum from the get go?

On day 1, I said specifically that neither you nor adam were overly scummy than the other. So I picked the seemingly more scummy one at the time. Once day 2 started, since I know 0_o is innocent, the scum had to be you. I only looked up posts because you "dared" me to.

Pasonia wrote:

Why would you subject to baiting the scum when you are not even sure of the game setup? You wanted to test the responses of the people, and pick out the people easiest to scumpaint.

I explained this in my first long post already. I had my suspicions beforehand due to the game size and my role pm, suspicions which were confirmed when SFG posted first claiming cop, and thus I set up my trap.

Pasonia wrote:

Why not I help you change your statement since we're at this? You can accuse me of appealing to emotion if you want to.

Echo wrote:

Once we lynch Pas or adam we - I mean, the scum - would be the victor.

Umm, you're not appealing to emotion. Also note that these are standard, non-mafia-specific logical fallacies, so don't just say "oh i don't know how mafia works"

Pasonia wrote:

Echo wrote:

And you continued to act based on this assumption (post #161422) even after SFG told you that you don't know your sanity (post #161197). Skipping posts? Ignoring posts?

Yes, I continued to act on that assumption because I didn't know better. I am an inexperienced player at mafia - stop fucking around and attack my inexperience as an excuse.

This has nothing to do with inexperience. You "didn't know better"? You didn't even ask any questions about SFG's comment about the cop sanity thing. You simply carried on as if you had never read it, which sounds more like you're skipping/ignoring posts. This in itself doesn't mean anything, but it's a bad habit to pick up.

Pasonia wrote:

Then explain why I found SFG guilty when she's dead?

Because you're scum and you didn't get an investigation pm, so you made one up. You could say the same about me, so this point doesn't give any evidence for or against either of us.

Pasonia wrote:

Echo wrote:

I did not attack you based on any quotes that could be interpreted as WIFOM, nor did I use any WIFOM in my arguments. I don't think you understand what WIFOM means.

You say I behave scummy because of this this this and that that that. If that is not WIFOM, I don't know what is. Don't bother correcting me or attempting to.

You don't want me to explain it because then your argument will lose weight?

Pasonia wrote:

Then how about die scum die? Wasn't that an appeal to emotion? Or should I say, do you DARE to say that that was in NO WAY an appeal to emotion? I insist on this because I was sure you'd have thought "with this, I would force Pasonia to back out and 0_o would subsequently vote him".

Like I said in my temporary post above: "die scum die" is a cliche.

I shall counter first before the strike.

---

I don't know why you thought so much.

If there are 4 different cops and 1 mafia, then obviously we're going to get 2 of one investigation result (in this case, guilty) and 3 of the other (in this case, innocent). This already narrows the suspects down to 3 players. In this case, SFG and 0_o are pretty much conclusively innocent.

Adam's dead now, so obviously either you are or I'm scum. I know I'm not, and obviously you're going to say you're not. It's pretty much down to 0_o. Why the need for an essay?

Why NO need for the essay? That's because I want to make it crystal clear how it is not possible I am not scum. By stating this, are you denying that what I am saying is not a possibility? That is very suspicious coming from you; thus far I only counter your view point but never specifically pointed out that you're wrong in conducting your defence. You, in contrast, are doing your best to point out that I CANNOT conduct my own defense because I am scum to you.

And that is scummy behavior - blocking the innocent from defending themselves, and rejecting everything they say outright. Can you please tell me why I cannot defend myself with that essay?

Echo wrote:

And isn't that (scumpainting) exactly what you're doing?

Ditto to you, see above.

Echo wrote:

In plain simple English:

1. First, you tell ("dare") me to find posts that say "Pasonia is mafia".
2. I do that, and explain my thoughts on each post that I quote.
3. You accuse me of "scumpainting" because I'm quoting posts of you and pointing out why they make you scummy.

I don't think I need to explain the logical fallacy here?

Did I? In fact, I didn't. I didn't accuse you of scumpainting just because you're quoting my posts. I am pointing out that quoting my posts while deliberately twisting their meaning from the original intention is scummy behaviour. Please get that right.
Scum.

Echo wrote:

On day 1, I said specifically that neither you nor adam were overly scummy than the other. So I picked the seemingly more scummy one at the time.

Scumpainter much?

Echo wrote:

Once day 2 started, since I know 0_o is innocent, the scum had to be you. I only looked up posts because you "dared" me to.

You're clasping at straws here. Once 0_o stated that he got two guilty posts, it was obvious that he was innocent. But your fatal mistake was to assume that 0_o WILL stand on your side of the reasoning, which is coercion, which is...

Wolf playing the shepherd.

Which in itself is a move that goes back to: scumpainting.

Echo wrote:

I explained this in my first long post already. I had my suspicions beforehand due to the game size and my role pm, suspicions which were confirmed when SFG posted first claiming cop, and thus I set up my trap.

Oh is that totally right? We'll come back to this point later, or if you're unwilling, just proceed to the bottom of this post.

Echo wrote:

Umm, you're not appealing to emotion. Also note that these are standard, non-mafia-specific logical fallacies, so don't just say "oh i don't know how mafia works"

So why do you even bother to refute if this point is totally moot? You're being unnecessarily cautious yourself.

Echo wrote:

This has nothing to do with inexperience. You "didn't know better"? You didn't even ask any questions about SFG's comment about the cop sanity thing. You simply carried on as if you had never read it, which sounds more like you're skipping/ignoring posts. This in itself doesn't mean anything, but it's a bad habit to pick up.

Why are you reading so much into this then ending it so lightly with "this in itself doesn't mean anything"? Once again, you're being unnecessarily cautious yourself.

Echo wrote:

Because you're scum and you didn't get an investigation pm, so you made one up. You could say the same about me, so this point doesn't give any evidence for or against either of us.

Read bottom of post.

Echo wrote:

You don't want me to explain it (WIFOM) because then your argument will lose weight?

Third time unnecessary caution. What does my NOT understanding WIFOM (inclusive of the term's incorrect usage) mean? Nothing. It doesn't explicitly tell others if I am a townie or a scum.

Echo wrote:

Like I said in my temporary post above: "die scum die" is a cliche.

I believe saying something like that so suddenly and out of the blue suggested a very weak Freudian slip of sorts. It either means you're getting real cocky and confident, or the more likely is that you think you've totally won the argument back then.

Counter completed, now it's time to raise a point of suspicion.

---

Bottom of Post

Okay, so we've come to this point where I would raise a question.
This post by SFG was the first point of attack from SFG on you, Echo. It then led to the following post by you.

You believe that SFG is a sane cop.

Notice that even AFTER SFG made her post, I attacked her.
This post proves that I did not believe in SFG. Why would I attack her? Simple; because I genuinely believe she made up all the insanity thing, ergo, if anything, she's the guiltiest to me since her post ran counter to mind.

It also highlights the fact that while taking her post into consideration I still did NOT believe her.

But more importantly, you did. Your miller post was made FOUR minutes after hers. FOUR! What does THAT say?
That proves that you're really desperate to mix into the crowd and not get caught being a scum, while trying to accuse people.

Ultimately, though, what you said on Day 2 undid your hard work on Day 1 trying so hard to go after me and adam.

See that? You overturned your own logic by claiming Sane Cop, but yet you wholeheartedly believed that SFG was a sane cop, Day 1. Contradictory, and panicky, and lastly, careless.

Whereas I got a guilty result on SFG, and she wounded up dead. This result is consistent with that of an Insane Cop, not a Paranoid Cop; a Paranoid Cop deems everyone guilty while an Insane Cop totally mixes up what is Guilty and what isn't. Like I said, I wholeheartedly believed that you were Innocent until I found SFG dead. Why would I need to make it up? It comes naturally.

But yours, Echo, your blatant contradiction is conclusive proof that you are the scum.

Doubling up on the posting; if there's a rule infraction I will combine this post.

0_o, see now, succinctly placed to you are the facts of this matter.

1. Based on the investigation results I have obtained, I am an Insane cop. Of course, this would be verified if I had scanned myself and got a guilty verdict, but scanning SFG who was dead most certainly reinforces my point just as well. Point being, if she's dead then she's also a nonscum.

2. Echo has argued that he is the sane cop and that I must be the guilty person, but the above post, I believe, sufficiently proved that he has committed himself to a very glaring Freudian slip by agreeing that SFG is Sane Cop while also claiming the very same role on Day 2.

3. Echo has a lot to gain from killing you or SFG during Night, because you two were the ones who got a Guilty result on Echo. It was equally advantageous for Echo to kill off the two cops who got Innocent on him because he can remove either the Insane or the naive from the equation. If I were the one who's lynched, and SFG was the one who died, then the game would most certainly be Echo's because you'll end up with a naive and a paranoid cop (directly conflicting results). The problem being that since he's left with a Paranoid cop (obviously innocent) he can only argue against me, and try to scumpaint me, which was why he ended up not realising that he has committed a Freudian slip until I pointed it out.

4. Now that it's certain that you're a townie, I hereby make a strong case for you to vote against Echo. That glaring error on Sane Cop is enough to indict him.

Pasonia wrote:

Doubling up on the posting; if there's a rule infraction I will combine this post.

Grumble grumble.

Sorry I haven't posted much, I've been busy lately and I just felt like all I can do in this game is read your arguments

But I think I've made my decision.

Most of Pasonia's arguments against Echo simply seem to be grasping at straws. He says the strongest argument against Echo is the fact that he said SFG is a sane cop. However, this is when he was claiming miller, so to back up his story of course he would have to say that. Furthermore the very fact that he brought up sanities in the first place means he was already thinking about them before this whole cop mess was revealed, which makes me believe that he in fact did know about the multiple cops when he said that.
Also, since everyone seemed to believe Echo in his miller claim, I don't believe he would have any reason to change his claim if he was mafia (WIFOM, but w/e)
I can't find any obvious flaws in Echo's arguments, whereas it looks to me like Pasonia's main defence is that he didn't know what was going on. Which would make sense if you were a mafia who doesn't know what's happening.
So taking all of this into account, I have decided

vote Pasonia

*crosses fingers*

Pasonia and Echo continued to throw senseless arguments at each other. Meanwhile, 0_o banged his head in paranoia on Echo's front door.

Inspiration struck.

0_o dizzily dragged himself over to Pasonia and Echo in the otherwise lonely town square. "Hey ... guys ..." said the seemly drugged 0_o with an odd expression in his eyes. (It seemed as if one eye was largely inflated.) The other two fugitives looked 0_o way. "Why uh ... Why ... Let's kill Pas-oooo-niii-aaaaa ..."

"K ...!" Echo says, attempting to hide his immense happiness.

"AHA!!1~~" 0_o exclaims. "I knew it! You are the Mafia!"

"Uh ... No, Pasonia is." 0_o thinks to himself for a minute. Finally he comes to a conclusion. "Oh. Right."

"Okay, so let's..." Echo turns to where Pasonia was standing and discovers two Pasonias! One Pasonia is on the floor, a pool of blood growing from the unseen wound. The other is walking away from Echo and 0_o.

"Hey wait...!" Echo exlaims, as the alive Pasonia walks into a rift of some sort and disappears into the unknown. The rift closes.

Pasonia is dead.

0_o, in his dizziness, says without noticing this, "Woah, I'm tired ... Let's uh ... call it a day."

Echo and 0_o exit to their abodes, both unphased by Pasonia's death.

Night 2 Begins

Send in Night actions by --- wait.

... Nothing seems to happen ...

Night 2 Ends

Day 3 Beings

With sixteen alive, it's nine to lynch.

Echo hops into the highly suspicious-looking van and the van zooms off.

Suicide finally takes its toll. 0_o is dead. You should have taken your meds!

The security cameras, all equiped with night vision, remain untouched, until now.

Thus ends the chronicles of Crazy Mafia 1.

Surprise survey

Woo!

1. Did you enjoy playing Crazy Mafia 1?
2. Did you enjoy spectating Crazy Mafia 1?
3. Is there anything you would like to see changed to Crazy Mafia?
4. How were my lame story bits?
5. Would you like participate in Crazy Mafia 2?
6. How would you rate my modding abilities?
7. What questions, if any, should I add to this survey?

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

If Pasonia was scum, he would have claimed I was guilty on D1 since he wasn't aware of how the cop thing worked. This is pretty much conclusive evidence that Pasonia was town.

-----

Yes, I stuffed up D1, and I was extremely surprised I got away with it.

Pasonia wrote:

when you realised that almost everyone but the scum bore the cop role (which must have scared the fuck shit out of you)

pretty much sums up how I felt

The reason for changing to cop was definitely WIFOM.

To be honest, some of Pasonia's points truly are illogical. But most aren't, you just aren't that good at getting your points across.

Good game everyone. No hard feelings, I hope.

-----

1. yeah, I enjoyed it
2. -
3. if you didn't use one of each type of sanity, then please do so
4. lame
5. sure
6. not bad?
7. none

Tell us who had what role please

i think 0_o is a bit biased

Echo wrote:

If Pasonia was scum, he would have claimed I was guilty on D1 since he wasn't aware of the cop setup. This is pretty much conclusive evidence that Pasonia was town.

WIFOM.

Echo wrote:

To be honest, some of Pasonia's points truly are illogical. But most aren't, you just aren't that good at getting your points across.

Yup. Pas needs to work on communication. Not your fault, Pas... you just gotta work at it.

I'm wondering why you cops didn't do a no lynch on day 1, also nice hammer there Echo.

strager: not WIFOM

You can tell Pasonia really didn't know how the sanity thing worked. In that case, if he was scum there was no reason for him to claim I was innocent since there were already 2 guilty claims on me. He would either not make a claim, or play along and claim I was guilty. But his post claiming I was innocent means he was definitely what he claimed to be.

This is based on how he could act based on a misconception of the game setup, which isn't wifom.

bagelbob: SFG suggested no lynch, so of course I had to hammer straight away

crap

SFG: what do you mean by I'm "biased"?

Honestly, I just felt like I would rather lose by lynching Pasonia than by lynching Echo. Echo was amazing at defending himself, and I just felt like if I had voted for Echo and we lost I would feel like an idiot.

Now however I just feel owned. Which I can put up with

Echo wrote:

strager: not WIFOM

You can tell Pasonia really didn't know how the sanity thing worked. In that case, if he was scum there was no reason for him to claim I was innocent since there were already 2 guilty claims on me. He would either not make a claim, or play along and claim I was guilty. But his post claiming I was innocent means he was definitely what he claimed to be.

If Pasonia claimed Cop and you Guilty, that'd be three guilties on one person. Two Innocents would pop up, so that means one of SFG, 0_o, and Pasonia is the Mafia.

SFG, being the first claim, is much less likely to be the Mafia. If she were the Mafia, her claim could be used to make people think she is looking for the Mafia by making herself vulernable and showing a Guilty result. However, if she didn't die the next day, and her claim wasn't confirmed by other Cops, she'd be an easy target. SFG's not that stupid. (Some holes in this here argument I am guessing, but I'm too lazy to cover them.)

It's pretty much happened with you. You could have squeezed in your claim between Pasonia's and adam's, though, instead of saying "adam will claim Cop and Innocent on me" then later using his claim and result as a reason for him being a Mafia.

Take my survey guise.

That's not true. Anyone other than SFG and 0_o could have been scum.

That's why if Pasonia was mafia he wouldn't have claimed I was innocent. Since he did just that, he's proven townie. If Pasonia was mafia, he would have posted a guilty investigation which basically means he *must* be scum, or he would have waited until later before posting or posted without a claim.

Did you enjoy playing Crazy Mafia 1?
Yes, though I didn't really enjoy having to decide the outcome of the game

Is there anything you would like to see changed to Crazy Mafia?
Make it crazier. MUCH crazier. But still balanced
^_^

How were my lame story bits?
So why am I drugged, again?

Would you like participate in Crazy Mafia 2?
We'll see

How would you rate my modding abilities?
No negative comments here

What questions, if any, should I add to this survey?
idk

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

0_o wrote:

How were my lame story bits?
So why am I drugged, again?

You were crazy, thus needed drugs to keep your sanity. Because you didn't have your drugs (as you just left the asylum without any real preparation or thought) you resumed your suicidal tendancies.

With regards to Echo lying about the miller stuff, I thought his explaination made sense: he knew everyone else would claim cop after SFG, so he was trying to get the mafia to think the game was semi-normal, and not let them know about all of the cop roles. If the next person who posted didn't say anything about SFG's claim (like I did), then they would likely be the mafia.

In retrospect I probably should have seen it coming, but it's a lot easier to point out mistakes when you already know who's who

Congrats Echo ^_^ sorry Pas

We lost.

And it's solely your fault 0_o

I gave you a good case and pointed out the most glaring of contradictions only to have you vote me, fucker, based on a stupid bias.

Not going to work the survey out because I'm pissed at having to write three hours' total worth of wall of texts just to LOSE the fucking game to someone's biasedness. I don't take such losses kindly thank you very much.

Pasonia wrote:

We lost.

And it's solely your fault 0_o

I gave you a good case and pointed out the most glaring of contradictions only to have you vote me, fucker.

Not going to work the survey out because I'm pissed at having to write three hours' total worth of wall of texts just to LOSE the fucking game.

Uh.

If you join Mafia just to win, there's something wrong there. Please don't rage about a Mafia game. This is how drama starts, you know.

Please don't attack 0_o personally for believing Echo more than you. It was his decision to make, not yours. There was nothing wrong with his decision.

Hey chill out, it's a game... believe it or not I wanted to win too.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

Pasonia wrote:

0_o wrote:

Hey chill out, it's a game... believe it or not I wanted to win too.

Uh, yea, emotions ruled in the final vote you gave kthxbai.

Emotions rule everything, really.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

Pasonia seems to think that people should believe he is a townie simply because he's telling them so. If you roll scum next game, are you saying you won't tell us you're townie?

strager: If Pasonia was scum in this game, given the circumstances at the beginning of this game, he would have either posted without a claim or claimed that he investigated me as guilty. Saying that he investigated me innocent on the first day, again given the circumstances at the beginning of this game, was conclusive proof of his innocence.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.

Echo wrote:

Pasonia seems to think that people should believe he is a townie simply because he's telling them so. If you roll scum next game, are you saying you won't tell us you're townie?

Err, not right. In fact, I've argued on this far more than I did for M4. That's why I am pissed that for all that's worth you won because a certain somebody was biased against me. Had I known 0_o believed you all the way I'd have emulated what you did in WWG3-R and say "I'm not going to even try and defend that", and had 0_o still be undecided you'll be hard-pressed to answer my question.

Which usually leads to: More freudian slips, stronger case for me, you lose.
Unfortunately 0_o just went in with a stupid gut feeling and lost.

Get this: Echo is capable of playing the mafia. Don't automatically assume just because he posts with strong views that he must be mafia/townie. Remember what SFG said about blithely leading people into a false sense of security? Yep, 0_o, that right about happened with you.

I may not be adept at Mafia, but if you want a pick-the-facts-out flame war, I can do that. All I simply did was tweak that ability for Mafia. It's a shame whatever I said didn't convince biased people, but that's unavoidable given the key word that is bias. *shrug*

Notice, Echo, that I successfully (and mostly correctly) argued that you claimed a role you believed SFG to hold. Freudian slip. There's nothing about "believe I'm a townie when I say so" in the last four to five posts before I died at the hands of a biased player, but there's a lot of "Echo can't be a townie because this is what is going on" I said, which (for some very odd but no longer surprising reason) ended up convincing a biased player that I was clasping at straws.

This map has been deleted on the request of its creator. It is no longer available.