For needing an RVS disclaimer in their vote.
It's a moose crossing sign. I'm Canadian and hence affiliated with the moose.Excedrin wrote:explain your avatar.
@Excedrin: You both RV'd and made questions for all. Do you prefer a RVS or a RQS?
This kind of attitude is actually the worst for town at this point. How long are we in RVS before a case becomes legitimate?DiscoRoboto wrote:I don't think Mindgamer is anti-town at this point, I think he's just REALLY desperately trying to get out of the RVS.
It doesn't. I did both. Whatever works for that game, run with it.Excedrin wrote:I don't prefer either. Why does it have to be one or the other?PaltryExcuse wrote:@Excedrin: You both RV'd and made questions for all. Do you prefer a RVS or a RQS?
No response?farside22 wrote:Why did Excedrin vote for McGriddle for not voting when he didn't post in the game at that point?
Bandwagonning and provoking questions are good ways to get out valid reads on people's behaviour. (And things just snowball from there.)farside22 wrote:@Everyone: what is the best way to get out of RVS stage?
Mindgamer takes a stab at Disco, and I thought he was discrediting it with this:farside22 wrote:PaltryExcuse: I really don't understand the point you are trying to make against Disco.
'The way out' being out of RVS.DiscoRoboto wrote:Guess this is the way out right now though.
And again, re-iterating how the argument is just to get out of RVS and not valid.DiscoRoboto wrote:I don't think Mindgamer is anti-town at this point, I think he's just REALLY desperately trying to get out of the RVS.
The last (and only) game I played with hewitt was an open multiple scum team game: Big Brother Mafia. It was modded by farside22.kunkstar7 wrote:@PaltryExcuse: You asked hewitt earlier about multiple scumteams changing the way of play. Is there multiple scumteams? I have reread the first post multiple times and I still am not sure on this.
Okee dokes.Mindgamer wrote:@ PaltryExcuse
DiscoRoboto is always agressive like this, this behaviour is not allignment-specific.
This is the second time you've looked at town for approval. You're number two on my list right now.water_foul wrote:These three are currently screaming scum team to me... Does any one else get this read?
Light wrote:Right now my 2 suspects are:
water_foul - this is just my intuition playing in, but i think we need to check him/her out more.
pwnman - lurking
Is not posting for 5 days a sign of lurking or flaking?McGriddle wrote:Yes I agree with pwnman lurking. Based off of meta, pwnman is a very active player and very aggressive when he is town, and a little more laxed and lurky when he is scum.
Not what I meant when I asked that. I was basically saying I see it as flaking, and not lurking as scum can be prone to do.Light wrote:what?
u read wrong. IF the case is strong on exedrin, then i'll vote for him. It does not mean that i won't give my input. Is stating that i "think that exedrin is not scum" not input to you?
yes, and pwnman should be prodded aswell.PaltryExcuse wrote:Is not posting for 5 days a sign of lurking or flaking?
So you think he's scum based on the post?don_johnson wrote:i'm not exactly sure what's going on here. DR is acting like a jack ass. if he wants to be lynched, then i'll vote for him. tbh, i am considering replacing out of this game. i don't know what else to do here. DR seems to have some insight as to my role. he needs to explain himself at this point, but i am not sure if he should as revealing role information unprovoked on day 1 only helps scum. if he's not a mason, i am fine with lynching him. if he is a mason, then 218 is quite possibly the worst post i have ever seen on this site. in fact:
unvote, vote: discoroboto
the only way i can deal with this issue is head on.
If this was the case, why not just say what it is?DiscoRoboto wrote:How was I breadcrumbing a Mason? I could've just simply seen things in his posts or 1000 other things that are possible.
Agree, but for a different reason. Mindgamer, pwnman, Excedrin and Light have not weighed in on the situation at all. kunkstar just expressed confusion, and farside wanted to return with after a re-read.water_foul wrote:Yes only because I would like the day to run it's course, at this point I am pretty sure you are scum but instead of hammering you and cutting the day short I still think there is much to gain from a longer day.DiscoRoboto wrote:As in, you will vote me if it won't hammer?I will be voting DiscoRoboto after a votecount,
As I said before, I thought I saw don_johnson scumhunting. In review, I don't see anything previous to the claim as negative, except having to be prompted in order to give a reason for his vote.DiscoRoboto wrote:McGriddles buddying isDULYnoted
I agree. That was my point, and why I focused on the beforehand stuff. DJ was more helpful previous to this, and Disco voted with someone who I think he thought was scummy.Excedrin wrote:So it's anti-town, but is it actually scummy? I'm having a hard time finding any motivation for it.PaltryExcuse wrote:I only see mafia gaining out of this universally bad idea.
Your explanation, farside, does not explain this response.DiscoRoboto wrote:it would mean i'd have to claim my role. do you guys still want to do through with this?
No explanation needed. Just read.Light wrote:alright then paltryexcuse, i will get more involved. tbh the other mafia game i've been participating in seems much more interesting, which is why i've diverted a lot of my attention to it rather than split it 50-50.
I do not think Exedrin is scum, however i may be swayed to vote for him if evidence is presented.
Right now my 2 suspects are:
water_foul - this is just my intuition playing in, but i think we need to check him/her out more.
pwnman - lurking
Overall: It's anti-town, and scummy to me. There is nothing good to be gleaned from this.Light wrote:But not being open is also a shit thing.
My ease of being swayed? i said i could be swayed to vote for exedrin if enough evidence was presented. It wouldn't be "regardless of it's true merits" because im voting based on evidence presented.
So what would you have me do to prove my innocence then? be less ambiguous? Narhh, i play the way i play.You cannot change my core playstyle, i will always be open. always, regardless of faction.The defense of 'you don't know me'.
I also stated at page 7-8 that i would start paying more attention.Did you not conclude that i have yet to fully analyze the pages and posts before it?The promise of a future analysis.
If you believe me to be the scum, then vote me out. i have absolutely nothing to lose. However the town would have then suffered from a mislynch.Appeal to emotion.
This. pwnman probably needs replacement. This game is virtually inactive (minus disco, farside, and don), and the extension for only the weekend in which the site itself is less busy (due to people being busier) needs to be longer.don_johnson wrote:mod: deadline extension, please.
Not at all. How does this give me 'easy town points'? If anything, it's an earlier example of concern for the deadline.Mindgamer wrote:You're so calm about the deadline. No panic, no request for an extension. Just a relaxed 'you have til the 5th of March'. Smells like scum.Why does this suck? Light was and is not a lynch candidate for today so he would be able to give his answer on Day 2. Unless he is NK'ed in which case you also know enough. It seems like you're just trying to score easy town points.PaltryExcuse
I want at least an answer before the end of the day, but if Light can't get on in time... my vote is on a guy who can't defend in time which sucks.
My case on you from yesterday carries to today. The fact that any participation from you requires someone to ask you direct questions or pressure is a sign you're hiding. I don't know why town would need to hide. So, flying under the radar is scummy. This is part of the case yesterday I built.Light wrote:Why do you insist that i am the scum paultry? Flying under the radar doesn't necessarily mean that i am scum.
This is just an OMGUS FoS. In no way am I aiming solely at the 'weaker & inactive bunch', and your earlier suspicion of pwnman's lurking (which was really flaking) is clearly a sign of YOU attacking an inactive player.Light wrote:FoS: PaultryExcuse
I think he really needs to get looked at. It would be good play for a scum to aim the "weaker & inactive bunch", possibly to get a mislynch. The more "mislynches", they get the better.
This is in direct contradiction of you being suspicious of lurkers day 1.Light wrote:@excedrin: I don't think that the scum are coasting their way through the game. If anything, i would think they'd try as much as possible to get into the discussion.
I'm gonna need more than this. The only person you named you then gave a possible reason to note be suspicious of him.Excedrin wrote:DiscoRoboto and coasters/flakes/lurkers. Though I'm starting to think DiscoRoboto is just severely VI. Kinda need replacements to be able to continue.
@Disco: Your suspicions so far are reasonless. Why DJ? Why Excedrin? Why water_fowl?DiscoRoboto wrote:cba to defend right now. i've breadcrumbed the other mason like over9000 times already i think. im ok with exce or waterforl or dj.
I agree with you on the Farside/DJ discussion. Faeside claiming mason convinced me, and my meta on DJ (as scum) says he isn't here.kunkstar7 wrote:Ok, we should have taken care of this whole Disco thing yesterday.
The whole Farside/Dj discussion I just see two townies going after each other.
I can't believe that a townie would play so anti-town.Vote: Disco
@Paltry: Seems like your tunneling on Light here. Although I do agree that Light has defended himself horrible and is probably scum, I don't think I've seen much from you besides continually pushing the Light case.