Open 225 - Mafia Down Under - Game Over!

[EGL]

Vote: David Parker

[EGL]

Sc00t's played a couple games before on another site but not many.

Kind of looks to me like Sc00t is following Wacka... Anybody else get that feeling?

Sc00t, care to explain?

[EGL]

Oh wow yeah. L-2 is two votes. That can't be good.

Wacka, what do you prefer in lieu of random voting then?

[EGL]

ROFL Sc00t. Reread the Watchmen Mafia game we just played.

And, tbf, I wasn't "jumping all over you." I was asking a question about your behavior.

[EGL]

1. Coke or Pepsi? Pepsi
2. Do you prefer scum or town? Town
3. Lynch all active lurkers? No.
4. Lynch all liars? Yes. For evidence, see Mafia 82: International.

[EGL]

Anyway, not liking the post where David put Wacka at L-1, so what started as a random vote will stay until David has explained why he did this.

In other news, it's probably time for a role claim already. Get to it, Wacka.

[EGL]

While I agree with the points you made, Wacka, (especially about David Parker's post where he put you at L-1) that wasn't a role claim and it looks as if you've diverted attention to the next best target.

EXPLAIN!

[EGL]

Actually I don't even care so much about the lack of a role claim, more about diverting attention to the next best target.

[EGL]

unvote, vote EGL

role claim page 2, no thanks.

David's RQS attempt was poor (gotta be more creative with the questions) but not scummy.

I'm not the one who put him at L-1. When you're at L-1, it's usually time for a role claim, so don't blame me.

@Karma, I'm not a big fan of OMGUS and even though I myself found Parker's action scummy, it felt like Wacka was trying to divert attention away from himself instead of providing a defense.

[EGL]

Although tbh I'm wondering why people were voting for Wacka for the same thing Sc00t did, but nobody voted or FoSed Sc00t.

[EGL]

How? Most of his post was about David.

Although, tbh, I'm not sure how he got at L-1 already anyway. But like I say, it was mostly aimed at someone else. That's what I'm not big on. Even if the person at the other end did make a scummy play.

[EGL]

Yes.

[EGL]

But I'd prefer some pressure on David right now as I feel he's scummi

er

.

Wacka's defense was to attack David for his scummy play, which is scummy. That's really all I find to be scummy about Wacka, but it's enough for me to say he's scummy. He latched on right after I made my point and said my vote on David stood, so I feel he's doing two things:

1) OMGUS;

2) Diverting to the next best target.

Although SOME people will argue that it's not OMGUS if you have a legitimate case.

I'm also concerned with the people who got him to that point, though. Especially considering nobody questioned Sc00t who followed suit with Wacka. If you thought not participating in RVS was a bad idea, why didn't you question Sc00t, who followed it?

Why are you blaming me for Wacka arriving to L-1 so early when it was David who put him there?

[EGL]

Do you have a meta with him?

Also, I disagree and believe L-1 automatically equals role claim. That's the time to do it. It's too late after a hammer and if you're at L-1 the hammer could come at any time.

I'd be a lot more careful about putting people at L-1 so early into the game. That's why I said my vote on David would stick, because it's too early for L-1 without a major slip and he hadn't indicated his reasoning for his vote. But I also don't think that attacking someone else is an adequate defense for yourself. Hence, I find Wacka to be scummy after the post he made.

[EGL]

Could you answer the two questions I posted?

[EGL]

viewtopic.php?t=6266

viewtopic.php?t=8908

viewtopic.php?t=9192

viewtopic.php?t=10481


Some light reading so you can see where I'm coming from. As far as I'm concerned, L-1 equals role claim time. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

One vote away is one vote away, no matter how small the game, and all it takes is one bad post from someone who is at L-1 and there comes the hammer. And it's nice that you think someone will automatically get lynched the next day for lynching on page 3, but that's not a given. And you should know that.

It sounds like you have policies that are different than mine, but what makes yours better?

[EGL]

It was to support my L-1=role claim.

BTW, you've made a better point now. But like I said, my suspicion of David was because of the nature of his post where he put Wacka at L-1. No reasoning, just, "You say early bandwagons are good? Let's see what happens when I do this." Know what I mean?

But yeah, I don't think you should put someone at L-1 without intent to lynch.

[EGL]

3 votes. Not 2. And the point is you're one vote away from a lynch.

In larger games, claims tend to come at L-3 or L-4 even, depending on the size.

And I still say putting someone at L-1 indicates an intent to lynch. It was either you or Budja who offered an "unless" about your shared views for role claiming at L-1, which was an intent to lynch.

Anyway, I'm at L-2. I'd appreciate two more votes against me today to lynch me off. I don't appreciate people treating me like I'm stupid for a difference in viewpoints.

[EGL]

L-1 = role claim.

I'm a townie. No power role, so no big loss, right?

So now we just need the hammer vote.

[EGL]

What's the rule on self-hammering around here again? I can't get banned for it, can I?

[EGL]

i hate it when the line between stupidity and scummidity is blurry

^ Don't appreciate being called stupid so,

Vote: EGL