Last but not least, don't be offended if I get intense with my "bullshit" yells... I feel like a PI in mafia and I tend to act like I'm about to unmask a conspiracy
Ecto says he will try to be active lurker. He then asks for experience from everyone.
XScorpion claims to be kicking off bandwaggons
Nice Ecto vs badger thing... this game looks interesting
I like both ecto and badger so far.
I don't like parts very much. It might be fresh player playstyle but those questions seem irrelevant.
Weird post. Is he defending ecto? Ecto did not claim lurker... he was just starting the game.XScorpion wrote:What I don't get though is why a scum would claim to be a lurker then decide not to...
Link? Was he scum?Ecto wrote: but my record is placing a serious vote on the 2nd post of the entire game.
This I don't like. Looks like a lawyer trying to set at trap for an enemy witness.BadgeR wrote: Undercut... So you weren't intending to actually lurk when you made that post, despite specifically saying so?
meh... I'm dissapointed. That is not a serious vote. Did you seriously think he was scum for it?Ecto wrote: I'll try to find it, but in his first post, a player voted the only other player he knew in the game and stated that was his reason. I immediately voted him for trying to remove the one player who might know his scumtells. (I guess technically that counts as RVS kicking off the game? Mafialosophy question there haha)
61: why was it a serious vote to you? define serious.
65 Egomancer Ok dude. You just got annoying. I foresee that you will never in your life admit being wrong about something
CSL votes badger after saying he would go on VLA... for lurking... mmmmm
This is just ridiculous. I've done this many times when I wanted to clear my thoughts. Sometimes it's better to let things set in your head before commenting about them.ecto wrote:In this case, he came, he read, he left, hence, he lurked.
There it goes again...EgoMancer wrote:I was right.
This is bullshit. This is the kind of anti-town attitude that loses games. Either you follow up on those lame accusations or you shut up.Ecto wrote: Here's a hint, don't be quite so obvious when you are defending a scumbuddy or sucking up to town.
oh... So Ecto was replaced... interesting... might be good, might be bad... we'll see.
Ok... wtf?Josh Lyman wrote: Wow. Even discounting that I really can't hold Ecto's behavior against Starbuck, I am curious to see Starbuck's reaction to this: Starbuck, if CSL is not your scumbuddy, who is?
Ok guys... from Josh's Lyman's post I can only say 1 thing... He sucks or he sucks as scum... but I'm not scum so he just sucks...
Then he votes Parts for being anti-town? huh?
He basically asked the same question to every guy... "who do you think is scum"?
Ok... winner for scum candidate #1... Lame post... mild scum.CSL wrote:@ Lyman: Here it is.
Badger: For Not enough scumhunting and/or lack thereof, and bad misrepping, which is why my vote is currently on him.
Parts: Ignoring information that could help us, and lack of scumhunting.FoS: Parts
XScorpion, for using the word "buddy." Could that mean "Scumbuddy?" Only time will tell.
maybe he is using Scumlogic? Scumlogic involves seeing scummy things in others that don't apply to you for farfetched reasons.Starbuck wrote:It needs to be stated that people are going away over the holidays? Come on dude, seriously, think logically.CSL wrote:He did not state he was away. I did.
What a bunch of crap...Parts wrote:It’s mainly because of these quotes. This reads like buddying to me because I honestly don’t think I contributed enough to deserve statements like this about my play. He is also implying that appearing neutral and non-committal is a positive thing.
Weird statement is weird. Saying you're not looking to lynch someone means that you're willing to leach the other people? This early?Parts wrote: Third scummiest is CSL for non contribution but I’m not really looking at lynching him yet.
Already pulling off scumteams? How is that smart? Or are you just trying to manipulate people?ElectricBadger wrote:I'm liking the Starbuck/Parts team right now, mostly.XScorpion wrote:And you believe he is town because...?
Hey... It would make for an awesome gambyt... specially with this kind of open game where the only PR threat to scum is a hidden macho cop...kunkstar7 wrote:How would you engineer a buddying attempt, before the game even began? It feels like you are just trying to find something to move suspicion off you.Parts wrote:It has crossed my mind that Ecto/Starbuck and ElectricBadger could be scumbuddies who engineered this whole thing in pregame talk to combine a buddying action by Ecto with a distancing act between Ecto and ElectricBadger.
You are distancing yourself from both of these players in this post. Logically, Starbuck seems a more likely partner as you are distancing yet not pointing them out completely, trying to still keep most suspicion on another player besides your partner.
How is the bolded not clear to you that you need to ask such a question?Parts wrote:don_johnson wrote: 4. No talking outside the game thread unless your role pm specifically states that you may.If it does, you may communicate until the thread opens.
XScorpion wrote:butThere's 2 options. You're pretending not to know (wich would make you scum) or you're really unobservant.don_johnson wrote:During the day you need to try and blend in, butat night you may talkoutside the game thread.
So...before the thread opened it was night 0?
SCUMPOINTS for you my lady... There was no need for a claim with so many players absent and noncommital. If someone dared to hammer he should be lynched inmediatly. But it's fascinating how you pushed for a claim in a game where it ABSOLUTELY BENEFITS SCUM...Starbuck wrote:Badger, you are at L-1.
Claim time.
TELL ME ONE SINGLE SCENARIO WHERE IT WOULDNT.
Badger wins town points because he never seems afraid of the lynch.
BULLSHIT... WORST BULLSHIT I'VE EVER SEEN... AtE is what scum calls when they don't have an idea what the fuck to say because they've been caught on a contradiction.CSL wrote:I smell AtE...
You seem more scummy than anyone else....
ok... 125 posts and too many people are talking about scumteams... wtf?
Why is everyone so defensive? specially Ecto and his replacement...
BULL SHIT... This is one lame attempt to escape a screw up. XD Is that other game ongoing? There's nothing else you want to contribute with?CSL wrote:Crap. The AtE was for another game. Excuse that.
Yep, other than what other people pointed out.
Oh God... this makes me think that he might just be stupid regardless of alignment... But he is still a great lynch because people like this will lose us the game.CSL wrote:So, who are we interrogating?
141 CSL: No one can be so bad... this post is NULL... doesn't tell anything nor it doesn't commit to anything. Still scum.
this shows that he has no clue why he is voting Badger.CSL wrote:Next, I shall do Badger, because that's who I voted for. Expect an ISOread by the end of the day. Real-time, not Game day.
Still nothing.CSL wrote:Badger, feast your eyes on post 143. I said I would do an ISO of you by tonight.
mmmmm... Still a horrendous player.CSL wrote:I forget why.
Unvotefor now.
I should do all ISO's first, before I vote.
I've have the same feeling but need to analyze ecto's meta before I can say anything conclusive. I liked his argumentations at first.kun wrote: Honestly what I feel out of this is everything revolves around ElectricBadger and Starbuck. It seems to me that Starbuck is trying to cover for some early scummy mistakes that Ecto was making, and well she's doing it pretty well.
Post 152
1) No one should be hammering suddenly. There was no need to claim. That wasn't a serious bandwaggon.Starbucks wrote: Why is calling for his claim when he is one vote away from being lynched too early?
Why would I call for his claim after he was hammered?
I want legitimate answers to both of these questions.
2) stupid question deserves no response.
3) You want legitimate answers? This looks like you want to scold him as if he was giving you ilegitimate questions and lying... This pre-emptive attack is scummy.
and lastly...
Give me ONE good reason for asking for a claim (in the context in wich you asked it) if you're a town player... You have none.
You could've unvoted if that was what worried you... But you wanted to force a claim out of him.Starbuck wrote:But he was at L-1, anyone could have hammered him and we wouldn't have his claim.
So how was my calling for his claim WHEN HE WAS AT L-1 calling for it too early? How was he not under pressure? He was at L-1. He was one vote away from being lynched.
I've seen scum do this in another open game (where i was scum too). open 127, check out hascow.
Ok... CSL is not doing anything with his "ISOs"...
It's a common scumtatic to look busy to make pbpa analysis and just summarize what people did instead of giving your opinions about it. It may be informational but it doesn't show what the poster thinks. It's not scumhunting.
Good post by kunst
smart of you to recognize that. Specially if you're scum. Wich I'm beginning to suspect more and more.Starbuck wrote:@kunkstar7 - That was an excellent answer in Post 158. I need to go back and re-read EB.
163: sigh, if you don't know who he is talking about it may be because he is responding to someone! If you just ISO people without knowing what is happening you won't understand anything.
People like you? Those kind of people are usually super anti-town or scum and must be lynched.CSL wrote: Oh, and EB, claiming when you are at L-1 needs to be done ASAP, because some people who will be willing to hammer will say something about you, then hammer you.
Yeah man... it's not so hard... He is either scum or the worst player ever.XScorpion wrote: So let me get this straight... you're voting Parts using evidence from your ISO of Badger, without having done an ISO of Parts yet? Yeah ok.
Starbuck wrote: So how in an Open game knowing that we have 2 Mafia Goons, do you get 3 obvscum voting for EB?
Glad you noticed. I was about to scream.Starbuck wrote:EDBWOP: Never mind, I completely read that wrong.
Ok... you're scum trying to look consistent.Starbuck wrote:So Parts is now at L-1, time to claim bud.
see? This is what town would do! Not what starbuck did.ElectricBadger wrote:
First off,Unvote Partssince he's at L-1; If we're gonna bother getting a replacement I'd like to hear from them before they're lynched.
I understand your concern. But if you think CSL is either scum or a bad player you shouldn't worry so much about lynching him because it will remove him from the game. This kind of player could be a liability to town. If you're sure of someone else, go ahead and vote them... but don't clear CSL just because he looks like an easy lynch. Sometimes scum are that bad.Badger wrote:CSL: I'm still really not sure what to make of him. Sticky widgets for me: He's potentially an easy lynch due to his general lack of scumhunting and hypocrisy. But that would be more of a policy lynch: I don't think he's on the radar for being scum so much as for bad play. It could be easily scum-driven. I think a lynch here won't get us much info: no clear scumbuddy or in depth debate to work from tomorrow.
ElectricBadger -> town read
kunkstar7 -> neutral read but I like his little contributions.
XScorpion -> mild town read.
Parts -> Almost nothing to go on with. He may be just new.
(ectomancer) Starbuck -> The whole business of the claim just reeks scum and the way in wich he keeps reacting. He seems to be a good player but he is still scum. I'll do an ecto meta ASAP to see if it changes my mind about something.
CSL -> scum read. He doesn't make sense and seems like newb scum. He is trying to look busy with those "descriptive" Iso's.
I'm up for voting CSL or Starbuck but I think that I may vote CSL in the end because he is more anti-town (in case he was town, he would be a liability).
it clearly separates voters from votees.
oh... and