Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

mutantdevle · 2019-07-25 22:41:19

Processor wrote:

@mutantdevle: Before campaigning for heaven jawapa, you had mrjawapa on your "mixed feelings" list. What changed?

Over 100 hours.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-25 22:55:10

Processor wrote:

Just the time passing?

Not just that, no.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-26 00:10:11

ZeldaXD wrote:

!vote jawapa

Please talk me through why you voted, unvoted, then voted jawapa again?

mutantdevle · 2019-07-26 11:28:55

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Kira wrote:
I do not want Jawapa in heaven at the current moment personally, as he has been very helpful at the right times.
Who do you personally want to send to heaven? Explaining away your reason to vote is one thing, but it seems meaningless when you don't present us with an alternative.

Kira's whole post was how we should send Crybaby instead of jawapa...

mutantdevle · 2019-07-26 14:19:49

Huh, I thought he said somewhere explicitly that he'd prefer Crybaby. I guess I was wrong.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-26 19:08:29

I apologise for this wall of text.

I'm of the belief that Onjit is 100% mafia and there is very little that could change my mind.

Obviously, there's his recent hammer on getting jawapa into heaven and then now he's trying to vote Crybaby into hell (I suspect the reason is he is going all out because he knows how suspicious he looks).

But here are the other things I have on Onjit:

Recently he posted this:

Onjit wrote:

i wake up and you jokers have flipped again lmao
i guess I'll unvote for now and jump on whatever wagon you guys decide on then i guess

He's pretty much saying that he isn't going to form his own opinions and is instead just going to follow what everyone else does.

Now let's go back to his very first post:

Onjit wrote:

so if a townie goes to hell they just die?
and if a townie goes to heaven they vote on judgement day?

The fact that he's only questioning what happens to townies is a huge red flag. In my opinion it shows that he's not concerned about voting for scum. You could also say that as mafia he wouldn't need to ask about what happens to scum as, since that's part of his role, he's more likely to already know.

Reading his iso there are 2 things you'll notice about Onjit. First of all, he's been on the wrong side of almost every single vote. He tried to put Kirby into hell and then wasn't there to put Zoey there instead, he didn't put Kirby into heaven, he put trytu into hell like he tried to do previously, and now he's put Jawapa into heaven. He's also consistently tried to put Crybaby into heaven and now suddenly wants them in hell? It's perfectly natural that someone could end up on the wrong side out of circumstance or misplaced faith, but he's consistently making bad votes and that simply can't be a coincidence.

Secondly, I don't think he's made a single solid conclusion about anyone's alignments. Sure he's voted, but he's never labelled anyone as town or mafia. The most he's done is slightly criticised a reads list by proccessor but he never really spoke of any conclusions from that.

Other things about Onjit's posts I don't like:

Onjit wrote:

lets vote for a mafia today

Obvious statement is obvious.

Onjit wrote:

i also assume we can choose to not send anyone?

Even if he didn't understand the rules of the game this shows that he was thinking about how to prevent a 'lynch' during the phase designed for getting rid of mafia.

Onjit wrote:

2B55B5G TNG wrote:
Onjit wrote:
!unvote
!vote sxrrealism
Why did you vote him?
He has contributed nothing

> Onjit hadn't contributed anything of substance to the game when he said this.
> Onjit proceeds to contribute nothing for the rest of the game. Like seriously Onjit, in your own opinion, what have you contributed to this game?

Onjit wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/AKhAxxu.png

This image was completely pointless. He basically invented a points system to assign people colours to simulate forming reads. He doesn't make any conclusions based on this graph. This post was an attempt to just look like he's contributing without actually doing so.

Onjit wrote:

On one hand, I agree (we can afford to have a few mislynches) however, I feel like we can gain more information from lynching trytu than a lurker

Obvious statement is obvious. Furthermore, at no point does Onjit show any signs that he's learnt anything from lynching trytu. Given the hindsight of trytu being town, this just looks like someone trying to soften the blow of lynching town.

Onjit wrote:

mrjawapa wrote:
Trytu wrote:
honestly mostly i was trying to follow mutantdevle's posts
now when mutantdevle didn't said anything for 2 days i'm quite confused what to do
Did he just out himself?
i think he might have outed himself

Mrjawapa was clearly being manipulative here (with the knowledge that he is scum). Onjit then affirms it.

Onjit wrote:

Just a heads up that we're at L-1, so be aware of that if you're going to vote for him

Given that he voted jawapa into heaven with complete disregard to L-1 status this previous statement looks like something he's just saying to look towny.

Onjit wrote:

now i guess we just hope that jawapa hasn't been chunk jonesin' us this whole time

Did this need saying? I'm sure with every vote we all are cautious of being wrong yet no one else feels the need to say it. He also mentioned the possibility of trytu being town before sending him to hell. Onjit sure does seem to be good at correctly guessing what alignment players are going to flip despite voting for them in the relatively negative way.

And finally, a summary of his links to jawapa:
- Obviously, voted jawapa into heaven.
- Both jawapa and Onjit were fairly critical of processor. A specific point of criticism here is that Onjit wooted a post by jawapa that criticised processor of not contributing much - something Onjit is also guilty of.
- Onjit has wooted a fair few of jawapa's posts which is evidence that he was agreeing with/backing up jawapa's points.
- Jawapa put Onjit in his null list. A common thing for mafia to do when they don't want to have to give an opinion on their teammate.

So, in conclusion:

!vote Onjit

Slabdrill

mutantdevle · 2019-07-26 21:00:51

ZeldaXD wrote:

if Onjit is indeed mafia, then Kira would be 100% confirmed to be mafia because of how much they have been backing eachother.

What have they backed each other on?

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 00:03:33

Processor, judging by your comments I assume the only reason you think I'm suspicious is that I was wrong about jawapa? Might I remind you that you were also on that wagon.

Do you honestly think that getting 1 thing wrong trumps all of my other actions in the game that you considered town?

Processor wrote:

NorwegianboyEE wrote:
Mutant has provided fifty paragraphs of anecdotal evidence, while you just randomly vote for someone and put people as sus without giving us any real justification whatsoever.
That went so well last time we trusted Mutant, right?

So you think me getting 1 thing wrong invalidates all my other opinions? What about the 1 thing I got right? (Zoey). Surely, they cancel out to make my opinions just as valid as anyone else's and not lesser?

I also don't like your phrasing of putting me 'back' in your sus list, because you've stated before that you never suspected me and your original vote on me was a joke. At what point in the game did you previously suspect me?

I don't mean to OMGUS here but your logic fallacy regarding my mistake and your attempts to discredit the 2 towniest players in the game is making me think twice about placing you in my town list. Honestly, the only reason you're really there is that I'd find it hard to see you aligned with both Onjit and Jawapa. But hey, jawapa just fooled me with a bus maybe he was bussing you too?

Another problem I'm having with you right now processor is that you've not really justified any of your reads. I'm especially curious why you think Crybaby and Zelda are mafiaish? In your iso you've only ever justified your town reads, never your scum ones.

Whilst Zelda certainly isn't the towniest player here I could provide another paragraph explaining why I think she deserves at least a little town credit if you'd like.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 00:10:09

Processor wrote:

Argument 1: The only people who are pushing for a lynch are suspects on my list themselves.

This means nothing unless we agree with you.

Processor wrote:

Argument 2: Would Jawapa really write this, if Onjit was mafia?

Could you explain why he definitely wouldn't? The whole situation is WIFOM. It could be a bluff, it could be a double bluff, it could just be because they are friendly outside of mafia. This isn't the first post where jawapa has been explicitly friendly with Onjit.

Processor wrote:

Argument 3: Why would scum Onjit do this? Jawapa could have easily just "!vote Jawapa"ed himself...

Valid argument.

Processor wrote:

Argument 4: Onjit is such a cheap and easy pick for a mislynch.

Why? I don't recall him ever being seriously suggested until today.

Processor wrote:

Argument 5: He even was on Jawapa's bad list next to Trytu.

Jawapa bussed Zoey. Could he not have been bussing Onjit too? Furthermore, despite labelling Onjit as bad, jawapa never pushed Onjit and was instead quite friendly with him.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 00:27:15

Processor wrote:

mutantdevle wrote:
Jawapa bussed Zoey. Could he not have been bussing Onjit too?
mutantdevle wrote:
Could you explain why he definitely wouldn't?
No I cannot.
But since this game has no power roles, we will not get anywhere with your way of thinking.
Therefore your argument is invalid.
You are interpreting my arguments as definitive proof whereas I'm just describing most likely scenario.

At no point did you ever say that your arguments were 'the most likely case'. But even 'the most likely case' is just opinion. It's not objectively more likely that someone would be framing rather than bussing. My 'way of thinking' was my counters to your arguments. Our arguments regarding WIFOM are just as valid as each other - my point being that both are not valid.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 12:27:17

Processor wrote:

mutantdevle wrote:
I also don't like your phrasing of putting me 'back' in your sus list, because you've stated before that you never suspected me and your original vote on me was a joke. At what point in the game did you previously suspect me?
Mutant sus. https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 93#p756493
Mutant mafiaish: https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 98#p756498
Mutant sus again. https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 11#p756511

You've got to be trolling me right? These are literally just the posts you made before your reads list...

Between these 3 posts and your sus list you didn't town read me. Once I was in your sus list I never left it. So if that's the only explanation for your words then I've not really been put 'back' in anything and you've just used misleading wording.

Processor wrote:

Something worth noting: Crybaby and mutant have become super nervous now that I have put them on my sus list.

Framing our actions as 'nervous' is incredibly manipulative. What part of what we've said has come across as 'nervous'? Nervousness isn't really something that can come across through text - unless someone who is usually good at spelling/grammar starts making lots of mistakes. You've only used that word because nervousness is associated with guilt. I don't for a second believe that your take on our responses is that we're 'nervous'. What you really mean is that we've responded to your claims against us. Were you honestly expecting us to just ignore them?

Something worth noting: processor has become super nervous now that I started pushing Onjit to be sent to hell.

Processor wrote:

mutantdevle wrote:
At no point did you ever say that your arguments were 'the most likely case'. But even 'the most likely case' is just opinion.
Oh what did you expect? That those were definitive statements?
Someone explained the concept very well...
Dude... that's the whole damn point of the game... why are you playing mafia if you don't want to analyse people's posts to determine their motives? [...] You're not usually meant to be able to make definitive conclusions. Mafia is a game of guesswork and opinions, of hiding and finding motives.
(Source)

The very fact that I made this post and fully understand that concept is exactly why you shouldn't be interpreting my criticisms the way you are. Of course I'm going to see your statements as definitive because you are not willing to entertain the alternatives. You seem to have it in your head that it's illogical to believe anything other than what is 'most likely'. If you only ever believe what is 'most likely' then the mafia is very easily going to be able to pull one over on you. But the main problem with what you've been saying is that what you consider to be most likely is just your opinion. Opinion does not dictate probability. If something is more likely than something else, then I'm sorry but you fundamentally should be able to prove that. Probability is not opinion.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 12:27:37

Processor wrote:

Argument 1: Pretending Crybaby does not want to go to Heaven https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 97#p756297
Crybaby volunteered for it before changing his mind

At no point in that post do I say that Crybaby does not want to go to heaven. I simply say that the decision should be down to him. At numerous points in the game it has been very clear that Crybaby has been mixed on the idea of going to heaven. It's very clear that he wants to stay in purgatory to help as much as possible but is willing to go to heaven because he also knows he'd be useful there as well. "I mean, if you want me to go then I guess I'll go" is the perfect example of exactly that. I don't understand why you think it's unreasonable that I'd offer him the choice.

As a little note from this: Crybaby and I have had every chance to get into heaven. If I had asked to go to heaven after Zoey's lynch I'd be there right now. All Crybaby had to do to get into heaven is confirm that he was willing to go after my post giving him the choice. So why do you think we are mafia? Do you really think it would make sense if we were both mafia who both had an opportunity to go to heaven but both denied it?

Can I also just ask, what part of pretending that crybaby does not want to go to heaven would make me mafia?

Processor wrote:

Argument 2: Mutant pushed for a Jawapa town vote, out of the blue, without explaining why. https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 97#p756297
When called out for it, he defends jawapa with the help of whataboutism: https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 31#p756331
When I criticize his analogy, he ignores it
He refuses to explain why twice, even when I explicitly asked twice https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 47#p756347
-> He did not have an explanation ready
--> He could not explain his motivations
---> external motivation factors might be at play here

You're right that I didn't explain why when I offered up jawapa as a candidate. I personally felt that the reasons were somewhat obvious. Given how supported the idea was, I had no reason to doubt they were.

"When called out for it, he defends jawapa with the help of whataboutism:"
This is a dishonest way of presenting what happened. You didn't call me out on anything. You made the statement that the quick votes on jawapa made him suspicious. Why are you misrepresenting what happened?

You didn't criticise my analogy. You responded to my question. Please point out to me where in that post you make a criticism of what I say? You're again twisting the truth. Furthermore, I didn't ignore your analogy. I quite clearly responded to the question you asked me in that post. The rest of your post didn't need commenting on. It was a valid point and I had the answer I wanted from you. Why would I question it? It's obviously not something you took issue with at the time. And you're one to talk for ignoring things. I still have several points that you've yet to address. Sure, I understand that it's naturally going to take you a while to respond to everything that I and others have asked of you, but the fact that your replying to some things I've said and not others that were in the same post would suggest to me that you are cherrypicking what you want to respond to.

I never refused to explain anything. I answered your questions albeit in a very vague way. I purposely did that you aggravate you in an attempt to see how you'd react. Instead of trying to question me further or even ask why I was being so vague you instead vote for jawapa??? As though somehow by not giving you any information that convinced you to vote him too.

I did have an explanation ready and I could explain my motivations - you just never got to that part. Jawapa played a very townie game. He's not made any really scummy posts, he was helpful and giving reads, and he even criticised Zoey well before I did. Even you did not scum read him based on his own actions - when you were suspicious of him it was because of other people's actions. You can't honestly sit here and say it was unreasonable to town read jawapa because you and many other people did.

Processor wrote:

Argument 3: Mutant's analysis on Onjit is ****.
mutantdevle wrote:
And finally, a summary of his links to jawapa:
- Obviously, voted jawapa into heaven.
- Jawapa could have voted himself into heaven as well. Scum can always community with eachother. Mafia won nothing by not having mrjawapa hammer. Mafia only increased the risk of Onjit being lynched next day.
mutantdevle wrote:
- Both jawapa and Onjit were fairly critical of processor. A specific point of criticism here is that Onjit wooted a post by jawapa that criticised processor of not contributing much - something Onjit is also guilty of.
- Does not rule out different factions. Even you have criticized me for not contributing much, your statement is hypocritical here.
mutantdevle wrote:
- Onjit has wooted a fair few of jawapa's posts which is evidence that he was agreeing with/backing up jawapa's points.
- Jawapa was considered town by many of us, including you. It's hypocritical to assume wooting means anything in this case.
mutantdevle wrote:
- Jawapa put Onjit in his null list. A common thing for mafia to do when they don't want to have to give an opinion on their teammate.
- Jawapa put Onjit in his "Mafia-lean" list, your statement is plain wrong! https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 52#p755752

First of all, you've only made arguments against my links between Onjit and Jawapa. What about the rest of the case I made on him?

Your first point here is very valid. I've said that before. However, there were 2 whole minutes between Crybaby's L-1 vote and Onjit's hammer. Jawapa posted 4 minutes later so he only saw Crybaby's vote 6 minutes after it happened. His previous post was just over half an hour before that. Obviously, that shows that he was regularly looking at the thread waiting for the L-1 vote to be placed. Given the timing of everything it's entirely plausible that Jawapa hadn't had the chance to see he was on L-1 by the time Onjit voted. As for the communication aspect, I shared a PT with Onjit in the previous mafia game. He's not so good at checking the PT regularly. He'd always check the thread before the PT. So if Jawapa had vocalised there that he intended to self-hammer, Onjit would not have seen it. Of course, we can't prove any of this. Which is why I accept your theory as something that is plausible and valid. If this was the only thing that Onjit was being contested on then I would 100% think he is town. But considering all the other evidence against Onjit, I think it's more likely that jawapa just didn't have the opportunity to hammer himself.

Your second point treats my own as if it was an isolated thing. If you were to take any single 1 of my points and look at it without considering all my other points then of course it's going to be a weak case. But this point is in combination with all my other points. It's adding fuel to a fire that represents my case against Onjit. If his only crime in this game was 1 shared opinion with Jawapa then I'd never have made the case. And it's not hypocritical. I made my own post criticising you. Onjit instead just expressed agreement with jawapa. He never expressed the same agreement with me. That's the connection I'm making. But if you want to provide evidence that I'm mafia by saying I had a shared mentality with jawapa then you're more than welcome to. But so far all your case against me has been is a point that you haven't explained why it makes me mafia, the obvious point to make that I'm partly responsible for getting jawapa into heaven, and finally that you disagree with me about Onjit. For that final one I'm not sure why you think disagreeing is evidence of mafia motivation unless you think I've been manipulative in my case about Onjit? In which case you certainly haven't expressed that.

For your third point I'd like to again say that by itself that my point is not strong by any means. But that in combination with many of my other points against him is more reason to believe I'm right about him. You're throwing the word hypocrite around a lot here when that's really not appropriate for what I'm criticising Onjit for. Especially since he was the only one that's felt the need to woot jawapa's posts. I've also never expressed much if any agreement with the things that jawapa said. I wasn't town reading him because I agreed with what he said I was town reading him because he seemed like he was contributing and trying to solve the game.

Finally, you're right. I made a mistake. But the reason I thought Onjit was in jawapa's null list is that jawapa starts his reason for putting Onjit there as "Hasn't done anything for me to say one way or the other." which is what you'd typically say about null reads.

Your case against me doesn't feel very strong. I guess that's why you've expressed in previous posts that you're still a bit unsure of me and why you didn't vote for me at the end of the case. Your third point is not a case against me but rather a defence of Onjit. As for your first, I'm not sure how that would make me mafia even if you were right about it. Your only decent point is your second one. If you truly believe that I did that from being scum rather than being tricked by jawapa then there's not a lot I can say to convince you otherwise. But I do ask you to look at whether you actually have any other reason to suspect other than that 1 event, why you think this 1 scummy action trumps all my townie ones, how you think I'd fit in with the other people you're suspicious of, and why you think that scum!onjit wouldn't be so obvious about voting a teammate into heaven but how scum!mutantdevle would be even more obvious in starting the wagon in the first place?

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 12:29:22

Onjit wrote:

b) I am well aware of what I post and how it looks

So what you are saying is that you've been purposely scummy this entire time?

If so then I expect at least 2 of the following from you:
- An explanation of the motivations behind why
- A hidden message in one of your ****
- Genuine reads and analysis of the players in the game

Norwee, Slabdrill, Minimania

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 12:47:29

Processor wrote:

If Jawapa wanted to set traps in his read list, he would put Town in his Mafia-tell list.

Why? Treating scum's actions as though they are as straightforward as this is a good way to lose a game. Mafia members will put any of their teammates anywhere as long as it's consistent with how they treat them in the game. If they are going to criticise them they'll put them in the mafia list. If they are going to praise and defend them they'll put them in their town list. If they are undecided on how to treat them they'll put them in the null list. Of course, their placement may change based on the events of the game. They would also do this with all town members so you can't tell who is aligned with who just from a list. The only real consistent trend is that players who haven't been mafia much before will tend to null read their buddies because they don't know how to act towards them.

Crybaby wrote:

Processor wrote:
"Enlighten me on what [jawapa] has accomplished [by letting scum onjit vote on him]?"
either
a) Making Onjit seem suspicious so more people will vote on him, or
b) Making the Town want to think that he wanted to make Onjit seem suspicious to help clear Onjit's name in the case that he is Mafia

You're both forgetting the possibility that Onjit just got there before jawapa could. Mafia teams tend not to be as well organised as you'd like to think. Especially not on this forum.

Crybaby wrote:

I have my own questions for Mutant after I'm done talking to you

I'm ready to answer them whenever you're ready to ask them.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

It just feels like he’s stalling at this point.

If he is time-wasting then that's likely going to result in his own lynch. But as things stand, the prospect that he was intentionally being scummy makes me revoke this statement:

mutantdevle wrote:

I'm of the belief that Onjit is 100% mafia and there is very little that could change my mind.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 14:13:09

Processor wrote:

You asked why I used the word "back" the second time I said you were sus. I gave you an honest and logical explanation.
I'm not sure what you're archiving here by criticising one of the words I used.

Your explanation isn't logical though because it doesn't fit the description of putting me 'back' in your suspicion list. Your word choice matters because using different words is a standard part of persuasion. You come across as dishonest when you use words that don't apply to the situation you are describing.

Processor wrote:

nervousness
What I mean by that is... (applies to Mutantdevle and Crybaby)
a) you're super defensive
b) you're self centered, you only talk about defending yourself
c) you start criticizing little things like individual words, our of context
c) you ignore other suspects

Being defensive is not a bad thing. Do you honestly expect people to not react when you just call them scum? I'm not by any means 'super' defensive. I'm responding to your every point of criticism towards me. If I was being super defensive I'd be finding criticism where there is none <-- That's something worth being suspicious of.

I'm not self-centred. I've defended myself, I've defended crybaby, I've defended Zelda, and I've criticised Onjit. Whilst doing all of that I've also been trying to gauge a read on you.

Like I said, your word choice matters. Especially since many of the words you've used have come across as manipulative ways of painting a situation. I'm not pointing that out to you out of nervousness, I'm doing it to give you the chance to reflect on your word choice.

I'm not ignoring other suspects. If you mean I'm ignoring the possibility that Zelda is mafia, well you haven't given me any reasons to think they are yet. On the other hand, I know what I've seen in their posts that makes me think they are town. I'm also waiting for Onjit to respond to me and I'm currently trying to figure out whether I genuinely believe you are mafia. It's not practical to start questioning all of my suspects at once. Further to that, my case against other suspects that I'm yet to mention does rely on me figuring out both you and Onjit first.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 14:23:26

Crybaby

Kira

NorwegianboyEE

ZeldaXD

2B55B5GTNG

TaskManager

Slabdrill

Caleb101

Processor

Onjit

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 14:27:39

I just re-read some stuff from TaskManager's iso and I think he should be placed above 2B55 in that list, possibly even higher than Zelda tbh.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 15:15:10

Processor wrote:

After the last mislynch, I put you on sus list, then on mafiaish list, then on sus again.
I understand you were confused but you still have to make a case on why it's misleading... (misleading does not equal confusing)

Well, I've only just understood the difference with this post. I revoke my statement.

Processor wrote:

Any reason you've put me down there next to Onjit, besides me "protecting" them?

I want your alignment figured out after Onjit's (not necessarily through having either of y'all leave purgatory). I feel like that if you didn't scum read me first I'd be properly scum reading you right now but I'm currently trying to figure out whether I'm reading your actions as scummy through confirmation bias, just because we're clashing, or because my feelings on you are genuine.

Processor wrote:

And some motivation to silence me and actively push against my pressure on ZeldaXD.

Silence you? No. I'm not pushing for you to be sent to hell nor have I ever told you or done anything to make you stop posting. I don't know where you're getting that from. But yes, I'm going to push against your pressure on Zelda because I think that you're wrong. You've yet to provide any reasons why Zelda is scummy. And I have enough reason to think that Zelda is town to provide a whole wall of text on it.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 15:48:42

Processor wrote:

However, Jawapa was online at the time this all happened. So he chose to not vote on himself.

I've been online the entire time we've been posting back and forth. I started writing this reply a full 7 minutes after you posted this comment. Why? Because I'm doing something else whilst I wait for you to reply. 2 minutes between the L-1 vote and the hammer is easily enough time for jawapa to miss his opportunity to self hammer. I don't believe for a second that jawapa was set here refreshing the page every 30 seconds. Whilst waiting for the L-1 he would have been doing something.

Processor wrote:

Onjit not voting for Jawapa would make Onjit seem rather town. Why did mafia not do this?
The alternative you're suggesting is an unnecessary risky move, super complicated, and therefore unlikely.

Personally, I'd still have made a case against Onjit even without that hammer vote. But yes, he is more suspicious to others because of that vote. However, I think you're overestimating how risky the hammer vote would have looked pre-flip. Why would Onjit take the **** for putting a mafia member into heaven? After all, it was me who first suggested jawapa. The only reason he is in this mess is because his hammer vote prompted people to vocalise that they's have a passive scum read of Onjit the entire game. Prior to that, no one had really vocalised anything against Onjit. It's entirely plausible that as scum he'd feel comfortable making the hammer vote.

Processor wrote:

I find ZeldaXD suspicious because he instantly fell in this "trap" set by mrjawapa,

Is this your only reason you find them suspicious? lol.

Processor wrote:

I find mutantdevle suspicious because he instantly fell in this "trap" set by mrjawapa. In his analysis, he did not once mention the other alternative.

The alternative that jawapa is framing Onjit? I didn't mention that because it has nothing to do with 90% of my case on Onjit. All most all of the issues I have with him came before he voted. His vote is just more evidence.

Processor wrote:

Too many people are too focused on lynching Onjit. I do not like this, I do not get a good feeling of this.
The same way I did not get a good feeling when mrjawapa gained so many posts so fast.

The case with Onjit is nothing like with Jawapa. The votes are nowhere near as quick and we're waiting for Onjit to have his say. We're using this time to explore the idea that Onjit is a candidate for hell because we have not truly explored him before. The reason you don't like it from what I've seen is simply because people aren't listening to you. Why? Because your cases are not compelling. You've given us no reason to trust you or your read on Zelda other than just "mutant was wrong so listen to me now!".

Processor wrote:

Last heaven phase Mutant convinced me that my gut feeling was wrong, but it wasn't...

What did I say to convince you?

This was our interaction:

▼Hidden text

I gave you essentially no new information whatsoever. So quite clearly you didn't need much convincing. The reason you gave for voting had nothing to do with anything I had said.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 17:03:42

Processor wrote:

so your "analysis" was biased and you intentionally left out anything that contradicted your pre-occupied opinion

If by 'analysis' you mean of Onjit's vote, then yes. The rest of the case did not have any bias - in fact, I barely mentioned his recent vote in my case. The vote doesn't make me reconsider everything that is stacked against him. Because of how scummy he has been throughout the game I'm obviously going to see the scenario where he voted as being scummy as more likely. The rest of the things he's done makes it more likely. Like sure, you can say that jawapa manipulated the situation to frame whoever placed the hammer vote - but Onjit certainly wasn't being framed when he made all his other scummy posts that you've neglected to talk about.

Processor wrote:

mutantdevle wrote:
What did I say to convince you?
https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 31#p756331

You literally made this post telling me why you didn't believe that. Are you telling me that you later changed your mind? Because that's not the impression I got when you talked about the post recently.

Processor wrote:

ZeldaXD has been very helpful in heaven phase and very not helpful in hell phase.
ZeldaXD is using the heaven phase to build up a reputation for himself.
However, there is this asymmetry between how helpful he is in heaven vs hell.
[...]
Just like town wants to play it safe in heaven phase and take risks in hell phase, the opposite applies to mafia.
They'll want to play it safe in hell phase and take risks in heaven phase.
Zelda is playing it safe in hell phase by not participating... hmm...

Why does being helpful in one phase and not helpful in another make them mafia? What makes you rule out that they're just better at finding townies than they are mafia? How do you know their intention is to just build up a reputation for themself and why would they do that?

I sort of understand your explanation. But no, that's just not how it works. Mafia want to look like town so they'll naturally aim to do what the town would do. Besides, nobody in this game is playing it as binary as "I'll take risks in this phase and be safe in this other one". You'd just have to look at how the game has gone so far to see that. Zoey was a safe bet for the first hell phase. Kirby was then also a safe bet for the heaven. Then trytu was another safe bet for the hell phase whilst Jawapa was a risky heaven one.

Also, I disagree that Zelda is only helping in the heaven phase. They didn't really contribute anything in the first or current hell phase, but they were present for the 2nd one (as well as both previous heaven phases). That's not a trend of helping in heaven and not in hell, that's a trend of starting off not very active, becoming a little more active for most of the game, and then only recently becoming more inactive.

Processor wrote:

On a similar note: has he explained why he thinks Kira is scum?

Yes. This makes me think that you didn't check if your statement about Zelda being active in heaven but not hell was true.

Processor wrote:

I didn't say it was the exact situation. I said I get a similar feeling based on Zelda's, Crybaby's and Mutantdevle's reads on Onjit
Why are you misinterpreting everything you can?
Stop nitpicking.

My point is that you can't just demand people listen to just because you have a similar feeling. The situation is not the same so the outcome isn't magically going to be the same.

And I'm not nitpicking. When your arguments are illogical I'm going to point that out.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 17:10:41

To be honest, all I need from Onjit to make me trust him is to prove to me that he has been analysing people and actively tried to figure out their alignments whilst also showing me in some way that he's competently game solving. His explanation that he's been purposely scummy the whole time actually makes sense and counters almost all of my points against him. A lot of what he's said from reading his iso does indeed seem like it comes from someone intentionally being scummy. Furthermore, from sharing a PT with Onjit in the previous game and scheming with him in a towny way, I know he's capable of doing this as town. The problem is that it also means he's capable of doing it as mafia. Like, perhaps this is a strategy scum!Onjit has to fool us into thinking he's actually town. The only way he can prove one over the other is by showing me a genuine formation of reads and need to game solve. That means simple single sentences about why someone is town isn't going to cut it. I expect proper somewhat detailed analysis of what he thinks of everyone and why he feels that way.

If I do conclude that Onjit is town then I intend to vote for Processor.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 18:06:17

Processor wrote:

mutantdevle wrote:
If I do conclude that Onjit is town then I intend to vote for Processor.
All I've been doing is to convince you that Onjit is not worth lynching and if I succeed, you're going to vote for me?
smh

Very little of what you've said about him has made me think twice about scum reading him. It's not your actions that make me think I could see him as town but rather his.

Processor wrote:

I think it's odd how there's little from some members.
Looking at you:
Caleb101, 2B55B5G TNG, Kira

I personally think Kira has been decently active. I also think Slabdrill belongs in that list as his recent posts don't make up for his absence or the absence of his slot in general.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 18:54:23

Who do you think his teammates are?

mutantdevle · 2019-07-27 21:08:05

Crybaby wrote:

@Devlin: Why didn't you at any point vote for Jawapa?

I found it interesting that by just merely suggesting jawapa as a possibility several people immediately voted for him. That made me realise that by not being on a wagon it forces more players to commit to the act of voting which is obviously some nice information to help with association tells and general game solving. I also didn't want the phase ending too soon as I think that since there's no pause between phases people seem to have lost track of how ending phases earlier reduces our time to discuss things.

That said, I don't think not being on the wagon achieved much. Unless you're to believe that if I was on the wagon Onjit would never have had the opportunity to hammer that is.

mutantdevle · 2019-07-28 14:30:40

Processor wrote:

Now that you say it... Why was Jawapa so eager to send Crybaby to heaven?

I mean, my natural assumption would be that by sending townie players to heaven that's how mafia get rid of us. Remember, they don't have a night kill so sending people to heaven is really their only way of getting rid of threats. That said, I must admit that I am trying to remind myself of why we all even consider Crybaby town in the first place. They had that initial unvote that was quite townie and they've also not wanted to go to heaven, but everything from there has just been neutral as far as I remember. Nothing too townie and nothing scummy. If I had to write out why I think each player is town without looking back at anything then I could probably produce more substance for people like Kira and Zelda than I do Crybaby tbh. I don't know if I've been giving crybaby a free pass the whole time because I've just passed him off as town and from there not really looked in depth at any of his posts. I've been autopilot defending him so I probably need to look at his iso in a minute to make sure he's actually genuine.

Crybaby wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/2ZMjKuW.png

Did anyone else here also notice the invisible text? I find it unlikely that I'd be the only one.

Processor wrote:

You admit that Onjit is in a lot of trouble now, simply because he hammered on that vote.
A scum Onjit would know how much trouble he would be in if he hammers a vote on a mafia member.

I don't believe he necessarily would. Remember, no one was really actively suspicious of him before that. He was going under the radar fairly well. He couldn't have predicted he'd face this much backlash today over the vote especially since a large portion of why he is considered scummy has nothing to do with his vote. In response to this post by Onjit I was going to make a post saying I intended to vote for him in this phase but ultimately I decided against it as I didn't want to distract from the conversation that was going on at the time. I wonder if, had I made such a post, would Onjit have hammered? I don't think he would've.

Processor wrote:

Side node - This weird manouver:

In what way is that weird? I was simply expressing that I was reconsidering. At the time I made my case I had so much evidence that I was extremely sure that Onjit was mafia. But then Onjit offered up an explanation that potentially refuted every single one of my points. Why wouldn't that make me revoke my previous opinion?

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2019-07-25 22:41:19

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#27 2019-07-25 22:55:10

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#28 2019-07-26 00:10:11

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#29 2019-07-26 11:28:55

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#30 2019-07-26 14:19:49

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#31 2019-07-26 19:08:29

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

!vote Onjit

#32 2019-07-26 21:00:51

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#33 2019-07-27 00:03:33

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#34 2019-07-27 00:10:09

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#35 2019-07-27 00:27:15

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#36 2019-07-27 12:27:17

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#37 2019-07-27 12:27:37

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#38 2019-07-27 12:29:22

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#39 2019-07-27 12:47:29

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#40 2019-07-27 14:13:09

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#41 2019-07-27 14:23:26

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#42 2019-07-27 14:27:39

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#43 2019-07-27 15:15:10

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#44 2019-07-27 15:48:42

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

!vote jawapa

#45 2019-07-27 17:03:42

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#46 2019-07-27 17:10:41

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#47 2019-07-27 18:06:17

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#48 2019-07-27 18:54:23

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#49 2019-07-27 21:08:05

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

#50 2019-07-28 14:30:40

Re: Mafia 27: PurgatorEE [GAME OVER!]

Board footer