For being my IC way back.
Mini 703 - A Roccisi Autumn - Over
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Can't I get a good night's sleep without you guys starting? Just couldn't wait for me.
Wombat seems earnest in his newbness. Rage, however, acted very aggressively opportunistic. I may venture as far as stating that his call for a roleclaim was a bigger fish than Wombat's call for massclaim.
unvote, vote: Rage
I can understand Ecto's gambit, but his post 16 seems slightly more like backtracking than revealing the gambit. I'd have expected him to wait for everyone to check in before finally revealing that he was only fishing for reactions, otherwise the gambit's efficiency isn't really big.
Puta, who the hell is Marcunt, and what have they done to you?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Massclaim may be considered a valid strategy for beginners. I've seen RL mafia played so, although it usually ends up being a game of "follow the cop". Considering his join date, it's more than reasonable to assume that Wombat doesn't know the MS meta.Rage wrote:
How?Korts wrote:Wombat seems earnest in his newbness.
You jumped on a blatant scumtell, which is by itself valid, but the problem I have is that you actually pushed for an immediate claim on Wombat's behalf. From a scum perspective, I can see a clear motivation for that (draw a power role claim or otherwise narrow down the pool of possible power roles). From a town one, not so much.Rage wrote:
Again, how?Korts wrote:Rage, however, acted very aggressively opportunistic.
Considering meta outside MS, it's justified.Rage wrote:1) You're giving Wombat wiggle room by handing him the Newbie Card
Let me put it this way. Your request of a claim was way bigger a rolefish than Wombat's proposal of massclaim.Rage wrote:2) Your venture is opinion, so there's nothing I can effectively rebuttal here
What? Let me ask you, do you think it is actually pro-town to be rolefishing?Rage wrote:Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day?
Hey now. Deflecting suspicion much? There is an obvious distinction--you called for a claim.Rage wrote:One more thing, MacavityLock. According to Tarballs, he has brought me to L-3 on page two. How is that much different?
Tarballs wrote:Oh, he only had 3? Well then, Vote: Rage. That's L-3, so were not in the danger zone just yet.
Definitely have a purpose for it. I think you are, after so much discussion, the most likely to be scum.Rage wrote:@Darkdude, MacavityLock, Tarballs, Korts, do you have a purpose for your votes? If so, what is it? If not, please say so.
BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.
Gotta go to class now, will read the rest later.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
I have the notion that your suspicion of me roots in my suspicion of you. I am not defending BoW, I am just trying to highlight that there is, I think, almost equal motivation as newbtown and newbscum to call for a massclaim early on, and you are ignoring that fact.Rage wrote:I want to hear from him to be certain of his intentions, instead of other players jetting in to say that he's just a newb and not to take his actions seriously, as though they want to defend him merely to put suspicion on me. Which is precisely what you are doing.
Why are you even speculating about his role? You mentioning him being a mason for the sake of proving that he could be an unconfirmed one is, well, pointless unless you have every intention of painting him as black as you can. Which isn't something I'd understand at this point in the game.Rage wrote:(and if he's a mason setting up someone for starting a case on him, there's the possibility of a scum Neighbour)
Granted. How long have you two been on MS? On the other hand, my point was that I am aware of such plays as BoW proposed, i.e. massclaim early Day 1 after night start, and his join date doesn't reinforce the assumption that he knows the mentality about such things on MS. I don't see how your and darkdude's outside meta was relevant to the quoted point.Rage wrote:I understand. I have a meta with darkdude outside of MS, too, but he's not a newb.
In theory, massclaim is worse. In context, though, considering my point about BoW's possible meta knowledge, and your fairly well-established presence on-site, your action was scummier, because you were trying to force a player to claim with virtually no discussion having happened up until that point.Rage wrote:Yup, I understood what your view on these events were, but now that you've said that, how is asking one player to claim scummier than asking investigative roles or for a mass claim?
I wonder when people will stop doing scummy things and afterwards claiming to have fished for reactions. It encourages scummy play overall, and leads to possible false starts in scumhunting. Basically, every town player who does this is just hurting the meta by giving scum all over the site a valid cop-out.Rage wrote:In this stage of the game, I think we have the best opportunity to see how much players' are opposed, or for, fishing for a roleclaim, and for whom. Right now I can see that darkdude, yourself (Korts) and Tarballs are opposed. I don't get a good read on who exactly is not opposed, but I'm sure that the people who haven't voted for me fill those spots up pretty nicely.
Okay, I've answered. Now you answer, how is that not justification for attacking those who voted you solely for that BS reason?Rage wrote:
I think I will have something to say about this quote when Korts answers my "you think this is scummier than this" question above. For now, though, it seems like you're setting yourself up for a good attack on one of the player's voting for me if I flip Town, but I don't think anything for certain just yet.Korts wrote:BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
I fully understand. I was just making a point that it's been noted.MacavityLock wrote:
You think I don't realize that? I'll own up to it. I just ask that you think about both what a scum would do in that situation and what a townie would do.Korts wrote:BACKTRACK ALERT
MAN YOUR STATIONS
THIS IS NOT A DRILL
Basically, I'll accept the scumminess point about my question to Wombat. But not about the backtrack.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
What benefit do you suppose he'd have by breadcrumbing to be scum, of all things?ThAdmiral wrote:Furthermore, on the topic of claims, I am going to have to presume that puta has hinted at his/her claim with the lady macbeth stuff and the violent post about killing ecto's cat, and that he/she/it is somehow involved with the serial killer/mafia.
Puta Puta, you obviouslycanpost other than in Shakespeare quotes, as evidenced by multiple of your posts, therefore I'm ruling out post restriction. Thus, PRs not coming into play, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT NOT HINTING AT YOUR ROLE? Unless you're scum, of course.
On a related note, Puta, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT ACTUALLY HELPING?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
A point in favor of Puta's honesty: I did meta him and I found a game (which you are also in, Ecto) and he does have one post with a Shakespeare quote, chronologically after he's supposedly noticed his mistake. However, not all of his consequent posts there are made in the form of a quote.
BTW I really don't like how Ecto has just jumped wagon and put Puta at L-1, at least not for those reasons. I don't see how Puta being anti-town is a definite scumtell.
unvotescumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Running the risk of referencing ongoing games, case in point: Puta's post no. 1 in isolation (Nov. 14th) in that other game. That would coincide with him realizing that he mistook the two games. However, his further posts and the lack of mod retaliation show that it's not a PR there, either. So my point wasn't that, in particular, I was just doing the others a favour and did a meta check on Puta.
Myactualpoint is, which you casually ignore, is that your L-1 vote was on very shaky justification. Faking a PR isn't scummy, it's anti-town. Those two are not the same and anti-town shouldn't be a premise for a lynch. See Puta's most recent posts and you will notice that he has actually contributed with game relevant posts, listing suspicions and giving his reasons. Youacknowledgedthis. I don't understand this sudden outburst by you.
I will not policy lynch you for advocating a policy lynch (although the irony itself would be worth it ). What does make your lynch one that I'd like is that you're pushing a policy lynch that has been invalidated by Puta Puta's most recent posts, actual contribution on his part.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
So? That wasn't the point. The policy lynch you're advocating is invalid even by policy lynch standards.Ecto wrote:Im pushing the policy lynch because Im pushing the policy lynch.
Not really. I just found the timing very odd, especially considering that you had pointed out Puta's contributions to another player posts before.Ecto wrote:Do you opportunistically pair people much?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
unvote, vote: Puta Puta
You are deliberately playing anti-town, and are, regardless of alignment, going straight against your win condition. That is also against Site Rules. In this particular case, I'm willing to consider a policy lynch in lieu of a modkill.
mod:will you consider modkilling Puta Puta for breaking site rules?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
It is clear that he doesn't have a PR in this game, nor is it likely he has one in the other one he's alluded to, therefore he's deliberately going against his win condition by acting anti-town, which is against the site rules. I'd rather not go with a replacement for the reasons stated by gorckat.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Rather than the massclaim proposition, which may be dismissed by insufficient knowledge of the game and/or the MS meta, I'd like to bring attention to the second sentence. It seems to me like a mutation of "oh no we lost an <inserpowerrolehere> last night" type of posting and was posted mainly because Wombatscum subconsciously was wondering why no kill happened.Brain of Wombat wrote:Good evening, boys and girls, how are we all today? Glad to see we all survived the night.
Now rather than voting for people based on silly criteria like the length of their username , lets take a second and be rational about this. As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?
I hate the first day, nobody knows who anybody is and I don't want us to accidentally bandwagon into a mis-lynch. But since we started at night, lets wait and see if an investigator comes forward with some information.
Let's just exercise caution for the time being.
Ecto's first post is in open agreement with Wombat's proposition. This doesn't look in particularly anti-town, though, since it's obvious fishing for reactions. In fact I give Ecto very slight town points for not jumping on Wombat straight away but rather baiting others to join the massclaim wagon.Ectomancer wrote:Sure.
vote MassClaim
This post doesn't look exactly right. Rage votes randomly, and then cites aRage wrote:<randomreason>
OMGUS Vote: MacavityLock
Also, this:
Coupled with:Brain of Wombat wrote:Good evening, boys and girls, how are we all today? Glad to see we all survived the night.
= ScumBrain of Wombat wrote:As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?
At least, that's what I think of it.
FoS: Brain of Wombatnon-randomreason and a pretty fair point against another player. I'm not sure why Rage didn't vote Wombat right there.
Damn what a scummy post. First, clear buddying up to Rage, and then ruining Ecto's bait. Almost like saying "hey scumbuddies, don't fall forMacavityLock wrote:Yeah, Puta, you're going to have to explain those two posts. Like every word of them except maybe for "Vote."
Unvote Rage. One of the best first posts I've seen. A+++. Would buy again.Vote: Wombat
Ecto: Do you really want a massclaim, or are you looking for reactions? Because my reaction is NO!thattrap".
Okay, the second paragraph disproves my assumption that Wombat had previously played in an environment that promotes massclaims after night starts. Wombat gets slightly scummier upon the reread. Even so, the newbieness is something that can't be ignored, especially seeing as Wombat trips up in another newbie trap, the no lynching.Brain of Wombat wrote:Woah! Let's all calm down a second. That's exactly the kind of bandwagoning I was talking about.
What exacly was my crime there, Rage? I've never seen a game starton a night phase before and I was afraid the scum might pick off a townie before we even got started. I was glad to see that didn't happen, that's all.
I also thought, unlikely as it is, that an investigator could have discovered something useful last night that we could go on. However, given the numbers, darkdude makes a fair point and I can see why an investigator wouldn't want to risk their neck by claiming.
I'm just saying that, lacking any information, we should hold off on lynching anyone today, there's too much chance of us helping out the scum by lynching an innocent townie.
Rage's reactions are otherwise not an indicator in particular of alignment, but this demand is still off. After shooting down the massclaim proposal so hard, the borderline hypocrisy cannot be ignored in this.Rage wrote:I want a role claim.
People who attacked Rage for the "out of context" comment even though the intended use was of a different meaning:
darkdude (first one to raise the point)
MacavityLock (why am I not surprised? opportunistic wagon hopping. plus his reasoning's way off, it's clear he was skimming and only read darkdude's accusation)
ThAdmiral gets slight town points for this quote:
ThAdmiral wrote:I think people are focusing too much on rage's assertion that he took BoW's words "out of context", which is admittedly a bad choice of phrase, but isn't necessarily what he did. A better description of what he did would be "focusing on this particular sentence from his post" or something.
Why is it that MacavityLock didn't raise this point until I did?MacavityLock wrote:Rage, you brought Wombat to L-4 on the first page. I don't have too much of a problem with that. But asking for a role-claim, given that usually they're asked for at L-1 (or maybe L-2), given that Wombat is new to MS, and given that a page 1 bandwagon usually still includes random votes, adds up to you role-fishing.
Given that Rage was attacking Wombat for rolefishing basically, this question seems like Rage is setting a double standard.Rage wrote:Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day?
This is a weak retrospective justification of the initial vote on Rage (for the "out of context" thing. Rather than admitting he misunderstood Rage, darkdude makes up a reason that basically amounts to "I didn't really think you were doing what I voted you for, but I was interested to see where it would go". If he honestly was just trying to gauge whether Rage was misusing the term, that doesn't justify a vote at all.darkdude wrote:Now that aside, as ThAdmiral explained, taking things out of context is not a very productive thing to do since the meaning is deliberately changed. If you truly are using a quote out of context then any critique on it would be meaningless as the quote did not suggest what you are criticizing in the first place. And I agree with ThAdmiral on one more point; I do not think your were really taking Wombat out of context, but rather focusing specifically. However, what interested me was your own labeling of this action as "taking out of context". Thus I felt it necessary to question you. I expected you to immediately correct yourself, but since you do not deny you are taking it out of context, I can only conclude:
1. You are misusing the term "out of context", or;
2. You actually meant to take it out of context but did not in fact do this
weeeEEEOOOOooo--NO CONTENT ALERT--MAN YOUR STATIONS--THIS IS NOT A DRILLchuckrock wrote:UNVOTE
While there have been a couple of mistakes, I don't feel strongly enough about anyone to cast a vote right now.
I will say that a role-fishing expedition is bad stuff, especially so early.
I wonder how I missed this. The few things this post says are nothing more than sitting on the fence.
I don't see the point in this vote, either. Since tubby hadn't even posted at that point, this wasn't even adarkdude wrote:Unvote: Rage
Vote: tubby216
[...]
AFAIK tubby and gorckat are the only ones not to have posted yet.
Chuckrock has made two posts. Puta has made two posts. Neither had much to contribute.lurkerhunt, rather an inactive-hunt. Which is an even more flawed premise than lurkerhunting. Coupled with the previous vote and retroactive justification, darkdude is getting scummier.
(note: Wow. That was only up to the end of page 2, and there's so much material so far. I wonder why this game's stalling, of all things.)
And then there's the first Shakespeare-quote.
The argument between Rage and me doesn't devulge much.
This point earns a slight town point for Rage, especially considering I answered the "out of context" arguments ca. a page later.Rage wrote:
I think I will have something to say about this quote when Korts answers my "you think this is scummier than this" question above. For now, though, it seems like you're setting yourself up for a good attack on one of the player's voting for me if I flip Town, but I don't think anything for certain just yet.Korts wrote:BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.
I don't see much point in calling Wombat out for that. This isn't particularly scummy, but bad play still.darkdude wrote:
Remember this, don't claim until asked to. That includes dropping hints like you just did. All it does is give scum more information to work with. Town, on the other hand, rarely benefits from it.I've watched a couple of games, but this is my first time playing and I didn't properly think through my first post. I'll hopefully get better as this thing goes along.
I don't want to condemn Rage for his reaction, he could have the towns best interests at heart. You were talking about me being scum, or a mason, or a scum neighbour (?) or whatever. Quite simply, I have no interaction or connection with any other players. I'm just an average townie, that's it.
Seems like everyone but tubby has posted at least once. Wombat, who is your top suspect at the moment?
Calling both of them town immediately in his first read of things smells like buddying up.tubby216 wrote:ok first off the rage vs brian debactle,
i believe both are town atm rage was hunting and called brian on some questionable play, brian was trying to be helpful but stumbled of some newbitis ( don't worry happenes to me all the time) will re-read agian to catch up more to follow perhaps tomorow
Okay, so you had to bring the "soft claim" up again. Why? What does it prove in terms of scumminess?Tarballs wrote: also don't like the "just an average townie" soft claim by BoW. He's certainly becoming more suspicious, but it's not quite enough for me to change my vote yet.
As of now in the reread, Macavity is leading my scumlist by far, with Tarballs a not-very-close second. I'll continue later, but I have other things to do.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Role on the front page:
Note bolded. So if Macavity was a vig kill, it was a vig from the start or the player he gave a gun to N0.Gun Inventor Role PM wrote:You are a Gun Inventor. Each night you can give another player a gun (One-Shot Vigilante) to be used on anysubsequentnight.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
darkdude, I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one who raised points against Macavity. Ecto and ThAdmiral spring to mind.
That said, I'm not setting up any kind of claim for myself. (Of course I would say that.) I think your theory makes sense from an objective point of view though.
Unfortunately, there's two problems with this. One, now that you suggested breadcrumbing, it won't work most likely, due to multiple factors (scum breadcrumbing, scum searching for other breadcrumbs etc.). Two, we don't know when the player with the investigation result dies, because their revealed role wouldn't devulge that information. Thus it would be a pretty safe claim for scum to claim the investigation results. I'd treat such a breadcrumb/result with extreme scepticism.darkdude wrote:Also, a couple of other things:
No use. He was amnesiac cop. Which reminds me...Rage wrote: I'm also going to do a reread of all of Puta's posts to see if he left any hints/clues as to who he investigated and it's result.
It seems like we should have someone here with his Night 0 result, unless it was Macavity. Needless to say, if it is scum, the person should come out immediately. But what is optimal move if result is town? I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched", but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it... so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
If I was the vig and wanted to breadcrumb, I wouldn't deny it. If I was the vig and didn't intend to say so, I'd have just messed with my own claim by basically forcing myself to immediately claim either vig or non-vig. My point was, if I was scum setting up a fakeclaim, I wouldn't admit to it, obviously.ThAdmiral wrote:Do you mean you would say this regardless of whether you were actually planning to set up a claim or not? (if you were the vig that is)
If you think BoW is a VI, what do you think is the possibility that he'd raise the idea of a cop claim after he'd been shot down for the same the previous day? There's a learning curve yes. But I'd assume even newbtown to have some sense as to raising a point he'd been attacked for fiercely once.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
This comment doesn't sit well with me. I'll come back to give it some thought tomorrow.darkdude wrote:Still, I do not see why it would be a vig kill. No one died on Night 0, so that would make two nights without scum night kill? I don't see it...
Misrep alert, man your stations, not a drill etc. plausible=/=most likelydarkdude wrote:The presence of vigs do not suggest that it was a vig kill. We also know that we have scum in the game. Why would it be more likely the scum failed to kill and the vig did?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
I don't see how it's harmful in any way to discuss our possibilities.darkdude wrote:I don't get it. It seemed pretty clear to me that you guys were implying it was likely a vig kill since you're so eager to discuss it. What is the use of discussion if a vig kill is only plausible but not likely? Perhaps in this case I have made an incorrect assumption, but I do not think that it is unreasonable. Are you saying that you hoped to discuss whether or not it was a vig kill knowing that it was unlikely to be one?
Then how come I don't see you pushing another line of discussion? You seem eager to explain how discussing a vigkill is unproductive, but you don't offer any alternative. How is that consistent with the thoughts you are trying to get through?darkdude wrote:Stifling the conversation...well I do not think the discussion is productive, and seemed like a distraction.
Stop right there. Just because you have a differentiating opinion, you say that we should stop assuming anything else than you are?darkdude wrote:First of all, because I think it is unlikely to be a vig kill, we should assume it is scum NK unless there is greater evidence for the vig theory.
And we have never imlied that we want hard evidence. Your point with this comment?darkdude wrote:Second, it does not seem like there would be any hard evidence. Like I have said on the first day, if there is something to be revealed I am sure it would be self evident for that player.
The majority of discussions that implicate players and lead to town forming an opinion to their alignments are inconclusive. There (almost) never is hard evidence through discussion only. Also, scum may indeed peek at the intentions of players, but they also would need to take a stance that they can be held to later on.darkdude wrote:I am against what I see as a discussion that would be inconclusive and only serve as distraction, while providing room for scum to peak at the intentions of the players.
Chuckrock, why did you feel the need to unvote when BoW didn't even have a chance to reply between your vote and unvote? Also, where did you get the notion that it was L-1?
Rage, show me where I voted BoW, or retract that statement.
ROLEFISHING ALERTRage wrote:Define "valuable townie", please. Feel free to ask why, I won't find you suspicious for something as silly as that.
MAN YOUR STATIONS
THIS IS NOT A DRILLscumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Alright, fair enough. So there was another line of discussion that you tried to start. Tell me, how is discussion about what the person with an investigation result from Puta should do any more constructive than a discussion about the likely cause of death for Macavity?darkdude wrote:Funny. Do you not recall Ecto falsely accusing me of asking for breadcrumbs? That was me trying to discuss what a player should do if they have the investigation result from our amnesiac cop. Please read my posts again.
I am saying that you stating that the Macavity kill wasn't a vig and giving supportive evidence won't necessarily cause everyone to believe you, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see how disagreement on that would be such a big problem that you'd feel the need to push it so hard as to state "we should assume it is scum NK unless there is greater evidence for the vig theory."darkdude wrote:Obviously if I believe I am correct I will try to talk others into believing it too. What are you implying?
The pros of discussing this are the pros of any line of discussion: they give something to talk about for every player, and if every player is contributing, then discussing this gives scum the chance to slip up. For instance, by stubbornly arguing that Macavity was a scumkill (in the knowledge that it was/wasn't) and refusing to admit that there were multiple people suspicious of Macavity.darkdude wrote:Fair enough. I don't know if that outweighs the risks but why would you not explain the pros of this discussion first before saying that my actions are anti-town?
Also, what did Wombat claim other than "valuable townie"? That isn't a full roleclaim necessarily, and I don't want him to, either, at this point. Rage was trying to delve deeper into BoW's role, and I do not approve.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
This is a fallacy, although I can't put a finger on what specific kind. You have meta that darkdude did, on at least one occasion, try to draw a claim of a role that was actually his, and thus, you say, he is doing this in this instance, too? Tell me you just got confused.Rage wrote:Now here's some meta for you. In another game, when there was an obvious vig kill (I was modding and gave it away) and darkdude was the Vigilante, he asked for the Vigilante to come forward. He was setting himself up for a counter-claim. However, as likely as it may be that he is the player with the investigation result, I doubt it because he said the above statement: "if it is scum, the person should come out immediately". So my point here is, either darkdude is scum and withholding the result, or he's town and doesn't think it's a good idea to reveal the result so soon after Puta has died. I think the latter is more likely.
I'm pretty sure that's not what darkdude said. He said that if theRage wrote:If the Investigation Result was given to Scum or Town and Darkdude is Town:
1) Nobody will claim the information today because Darkdude said that scum would claim it immediately, and nobody has argued this.resultis scum, it should be claimed.
The first half of the question has no benefit to town and only serves to gauge Ecto's support of the theory of darkdude having a result.Rage wrote:@Ectomancer, what do you think the chances of Darkdude having the Investigation Result, and if you think he does, what do you think of his alignment based on his play so far?
Rage wrote:
This doesn't mean he's scum.Ecto wrote:We get to our request for breadcrumb, phrased with hope for town's approval.
Self-contradicting much?Rage wrote:
I do think that the action of asking for someone (no matter who it is) to breadcrumb in the game thread is scummy.Ecto wrote:A Pshaw argument. As scum you get a guy to breadcrumb that he has information so you can kill him for it! In your request for the breadcrumb, you specifically asked that the player give the breadcrumb and then wait until we have lower player numbers to reveal it!
Asking for feedback, slight scumminess.Rage wrote:@Ectomancer, do I have a pretty accurate read of what's going on?
I agree with Ecto here on darkdude. darkdude has shown scum motivation in his inquiries, and Rage jumped to his defense with a dissection of the "likeliest" possibilities, and going into a contradiction in his expressed stance on a particular point. In the event of darkdude turning scum, Rage deserves considerable pressure.
unvote, vote: darkdude
Also, fun fact for those who didn't know, and I also just found out reading Site Ideas, Puta was the most recent incarnation of our Gimbo. So that explains it somewhat, at least.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
It was an assumption derived from the wagon's speed relative to the game. Plus I thought there were more votes than three on Wombat.Rage wrote:1) Why did Korts suspect that scum was already on the wagon? What's he basing this on?
Now that you've pointed his revote of Wombat out again, I'm reconsidering his motives. Especially because his stated reasons were that, paraphrasing, "it was the only good response to the accusation".scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Gimbo is a player who was banned for ruining multiple games, I think. Claiming scum complete with scumpartner out of frustration, the lot. He was notable for posting every alternate minute, usually partly or fully off-topic. Also had a manic style. And when he was banned, he tried to come back multiple times with several alts. Unfortunately, he had a very recognizable playstyle. You missed out on all this?ThAdmiral wrote:
I don't know who gimbo is...Adel wrote:a quick question: who thought that Puta Puta might be Gimbo before he was lynched?
Can somebody tell me who gimbo is?
Also, I shamefully admit that I didn't even suspect Puta of being Gimbo.
I'll try and summarize the darkdude case sometime tomorrow.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
I have no idea. I was behind in my reading at that time, so that's a reason for why I didn't continue the Tarballs discussion at that time, I don't know about others.Adel wrote: Tarballs is mentioned far more times on page 6 than on any other page. He picks up one vote, and then people stop talking about him. Why is that?
Because it was Ecto who seemed to be deflecting, and not Tarballs.Adel wrote:Korts: why did you focus on and vote for Ecto instead of Tarball at this point?
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that this big post you speak of was a catching-up post and I adjusted my reads to that. Meanwhile, in the present, Puta was more than worthy of a lynch for his unhelpfulness; I just hadn't gotten to that point in reading up that it should've been worth mentioning.Adel wrote:about 2.5 hours after tubby placed Puta Puta at lynch -1 with post 210, Korts made the very next post:
the full post is very long, and Korts doesn't mention Puta even once. Note that Korts vote was actually on Puta Puta at this time.Korts wrote:
Okay, so you had to bring the "soft claim" up again. Why? What does it prove in terms of scumminess?Tarballs wrote:also don't like the "just an average townie" soft claim by BoW. He's certainly becoming more suspicious, but it's not quite enough for me to change my vote yet.
As of now in the reread, Macavity is leading my scumlist by far, with Tarballs a not-very-close second. I'll continue later, but I have other things to do.
@ Korts: why were you willing to leave Puta Puta at lynch -1 when Macavity was the scummiest on your list, and Tarballs (who actually had a vote on him) was a distant second?
I don't have the time to go back and find the specific posts, but I expressed solid suspicion on Macavity, and I remember Ecto doing so, too. At the time I posted the "considerable pressure" post, I also believed that ThAdmiral had fingered him as a suspect, too (apparently not, though). Three people is considerable pressure, no?Adel wrote:Which posts show that MacavityLock was under "considerable pressure" during day 1?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Right, I have no idea how to help this game along at this moment.
Adel, I will have the time to go back for those posts the weekend earliest.
Adel:
Who doyouthink has been vote hopping more: Korts or Darkdude?
Why do you or don't you count that as a scum tell against either of them?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Adel:
This post of Ecto's
Defending? It's called educating. You showed a lack of understanding regarding pressure votes being used to change the behavior of a player. Case, point, and example laid out for you right here in this game.Ectomancer wrote:MacavityLock wrote:Ecto, I'm not saying everyone on that wagon is suspect. Just a couple people. Given that you're not on any wagon, I'm also wondering why you're defending people without letting them answer on their own.
As for Tarballs, there is now a pattern of joining big wagons at opportune times. I don't know if that's deliberate, or it just happened that way. He hasn't posted enough for me to make a full judgment. The only time his one big/useful post mentioned Puta was about him being scummy for the "killing a cat" comment, which I took to be at best a joke on Tarballs' part. It feels like EasyWagoning at the moment.
In any case, assume you could interpret my post as defending someone, what relevance would my lack of a presence on a wagon have to do with that defense?
Now a couple questions of you. If you are so sold on Tarball, why is your vote still on Rage, who is one of the recipients of Tarball's votes that you are using to make your case? Is that a sloppy bus? If not, isn't your case on Tarball dependent upon Rage being town?
Also of interest...why would you give Puta a clean slate? What comment would have inspired you to make that statement?
Summary: I see you mudslinging with seemingly contradictory premises. Your vote is sticking to Rage while you probe reactions to your statements about 2 other players.
Then, on the flip side, you give a "clean slate" to a player at L-2, whose alignment just might get revealed today.
Isn't that amusing?[/quote]
Expresses suspicion to me. I couldn't find similar posts from other players though, so it seems I was mistaken in the "considerable pressure" statement when it comes to multiple players pressuring.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
The game is in urgent need of something. A lynch, preferably. Every other case presented is far weaker than the one on you. Any case that could've been presented had more than enough time to be phrased. We need to stop milling around and do something.darkdude wrote:I have no good suspects at the moment, but Korts stands out slightly as I think he's much more insistent with my lynch now than when he first voted for me, and his posts did not indicate a reason for being more confident that I am scum.
Ecto, what do you mean that the game is lost if I'm town?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
@Adel: I'm not aware that TSQ uses alts to avoid being accused of lurking contrary to his meta. I thought he played with alts mainly because he was tired of being "well-established". See SCAM, his activity in Gangland Mafia seems more than satisfactory to me. I don't know of any other TSQ alts, though, so you may have information that I don't.
Anyway, I see your point better now. Thanks for clarifying; although I still don't follow why you think tubby is an alt. Can you/do you want to elaborate?
I don't really like the implicit suggestion that tubby is now definitely today's lynch, especially in such a "sneaky" way as in a quote tag, however. Like you're trying to plant the thought in others' subconscious.
Would you elaborate on this, please?Adel wrote:4. only voting for a townie on day 1
Also, since everyone who's active and had your previous questions directed at them answered, please answer them yourself, now. I'll quote for your ease:
Adel wrote:Who do you think has been vote hopping more: Korts or Darkdude?
Why do you or don't you count that as a scum tell against either of them?scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Hmm. You have a point. The first game post of his includes a strong accusation of using the newbie card, although I'm not really sure that's such a difficult-to-notice tell. But I've seen him posting pictures of himself in the Put a Face with a Name Thread, and I'm not really convinced any alt would do that in any account other than their main one.Adel wrote:read his posts from when he first joined mafiascum.net. I think of it as a "newbie check". His first posts really strike me as a person with a solid understanding of mafia pretending not to know the jargon. One of his first posts where he asked what it meant to be a lurker really raised a flag in my mind to make me think he is an alt.
Thus the quotation marks around "sneaky". I was trying to express that I usually read only the body of a quote properly and check the head only if I don't know who it is quoting. To express myself better, I meant that your push of the notion that tubby is to be lynched was put in a place where it is more likely to be skimmed over. Hmm. On second thought, though, this point isn't really worth anything in itself.Adel wrote: Bold letters are hardly subliminal, or sneaky.
I admire what you're trying to achieve here, for which you will be NK-ed (WIFOM TRAP!), and I'm not really suspicious of you; but refusing to address questions because of your imminent NK isn't really going to prove that you're actually going to be NK-ed. I realize you put a lot more effort into this game already than some of us others, but does that really give you a right to refuse answering?Adel wrote:No. I am not happy with the answers I've gotten yet.
Also, I'm working my ass off and providing tons of information. That I am willing to lynch darkdude today, but I am not willing to lynch you today, should be enough. Am I really a priority suspect for you right now? I will probably get my alignment revealed soon enough by nk (WIFOM TRAP!) that trying to get me to answer questions is a waste of my time.
Also, you could've just said "I'm not satisfied with others' answers yet."
You may not have said that previously, but you just now contradicted your self. Emphases mine.darkdude wrote:Don't think he is scum? I don't recall saying that.There's just nothing to suggest him being more likely to be scum than other players.Right now I'm most suspicious of Korts, but even that is mostly gut feeling and guess.
To me Ecto seems like a very tunnel vision stricken. Scum would probably pursue one of the lurkers IMHO.town
You really should claim, darkdude.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
@Adel:
In another game I'm following (Xyl's Relative Chaos), tubby recently posted this (I made sure I'm not breaking the rules of either TDC or Xyl)
This gives me a pretty fair notion that he isn't an alt. It pretty much justifies the prior knowledge of the newbie card; although I don't know how he didn't know what a lurker is, in that case.tubby wrote:IRC?? is that like through a chat thing ,, no but i do play here,,http://mafialives.darkbb.com/forum.htmscumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Fair enough. I just thought it was a relevant point.Adel wrote:@ Korts: You've almost convinced me that he isn't an alt. You've certainly raised reasonable doubts. I think my case against him is robust enough to still apply even if he isn't an alt.
But darkdude is still a far better lynch; the points against him have been discussed far more extensively and thus his alignment will shed more information, in addition to the fact that lynches started ca. 1 week before the deadline reveal far less information simply due to the fact that they aren't discussed as thoroughly, especially not with the posting frequency this game has.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
Whoa Ecto. Slow down. Drawing the conclusion that since your own personal play is so and so thus everyone's play is so and so is a huge fallacy. In general, low activity is a slight scumtell. Only after that comes any personal meta. Either you're protecting an inactive or unresponsive player (tubby, any of the incarnations of penguin and Sweeneytodd, and maybe ThAdmiral to a lesser extent), or you yourself are trying to keep postingsomething, anything. The remaining 5 or so percent is you being town and not knowing what you're saying.scumchat never die-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD
-
-
Korts Luddite
- Luddite
- Luddite
- Posts: 5752
- Joined: January 1, 2008
- Location: HUN BUD