Mini 727 - Mafia in Standardville - Game Over
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
charter wrote:Fos Artem. I think you could actually be scum. Bringing a RVS wagon to three votes is scummy? That's some imagination. I'd vote for you but Panzer has already been caught.
I'm not the one voting for Xdaamno. What makes you think I'm calling 3 votes/L-4 scummy?Xdaamno wrote: If you're going to claim a correlation between putting players at L-4 in the random voting stage and chance of being scum, I'll need to hear some justification.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Again, I don't think that putting somebody at three votes is scummy, but it does make an easy target (as much as it can be within the first few posts) for scum to pounce on.charter wrote: You said that putting someone at three votes makes them an easy target. You then voted for the person (Artifax) that put someone at three votes. You were implying there was something scummy about what Artifax did (by accusing her of voting for an easy target, something scum would do but not town) and then voted her using that justification. I'd have passed it off as nothing, but you clarified, implying that your vote was not a joke. Putting someone at three votes is not scummy. Doing what you did was.
My vote was semi-serious in the sense that it had some reason behind it above just a simple joke. Me clarifying the vote reason does not make it any more serious. Clarification followed from all the confusion (where everybody thought that I found 3-vote bandwagon to be scummy).
All that said, I don't actually find Artifex scummy.Unvote
Somebody (Panzer to be precise) thinks that L-2 is a little scummy, so what does charter do? Disagrees and puts BSG at L-2. Does that make him (charter) scummy? Only if you don't like the wine in front of you.Artifex wrote: I agree that's a pretty obvious ploy when Panzerjager flat out spelled it out like that, but did you actually have to go and do it? Let me put it to you another way: what do you hope to gain by your vote?
Why would town want to balance on the fine edge of WIFOM?FoS: charter-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
You answered the bolded part yourself.BSG wrote:Unvote Vote Artem
From the looks of it, your RVS vote was the only with a serious side attached to it. The only other player who could have a serious reason attached to it, would have been Xdaamno, but I'm not sure about that yet. So I don't see why you would unvote and not vote another player.
You also accused Artifex for going after an easy target as she voted Xdaamno, who had put me at L-4. However, you FoSed the player who put me at L-2. Aren't you doing the same as of which you accused Artifex?
And I don't see the WIFOM. I can see two reasons why Charter put me at L-2. But I'll let Charter respond to this first.
Just like Dfan, I'm wondering why you didn't vote.
Because if I voted, I would be doing exactly what I voted Artifex for, making me a hypocrite.
charter deserves a FoS, because of the WIFOM. There is, however, a reason for a townie to do what he did. So, yes, let's have charter respond to it first.
See abovedan wrote: arte, why fos, why not vote?
See above. (Also, if there is no reason not vote, then why aren't you voting charter yourself?)lynx wrote: I'm not a huge fan of the Artem L-2 vote from charter, but I do find it interesting that Artem didn't vote. There's no reason not to vote. I think Artem is being careful not to draw the same attention he received from his first vote.
Vote:Artem-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
That is correct.Artifex wrote:
Isnt the WIFOM in question that Panzer said it was scummy to put someone at L-2, then Charter immediately did it as a response to what Panzer said...no scum would open themselves up to scrutiny like that. Or would they, knowing we'd all think that? Or *switching wine, switching wine*BSG wrote: And I don't see the WIFOM.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
So, basically, I'm still a hypocrite?BSG wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't like this? When I read this, it gives me the impression that he wanted to vote Charter, but didn't do so as it would make him a hypocrite. Isn't he admitting here that he finds Charter scummy, while saying that what Charter did isn't scummy just a few posts ago?Artem wrote:Because if I voted, I would be doing exactly what I voted Artifex for, making me a hypocrite.
There's just no pleasing you BSG.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
What Idofind interesting is that you're so concerned with whether I voted or FoSed somebody, while completely disregarding my given reasons. You said that you don't see the WIFOM. It was pointed out to you. Yet you seem adamant about your opinion of charter putting you at L-2.
I can FoS charter. I can also vote for him. It doesn't make much difference right now as there is no bandwagon on him. I'm not pouncing on an easy target. I'm giving him a slap on the wrist, because townies (assuming he is one) shouldn't play with WIFOM as it distracts and confuses the town.
The fact that you're pouncing on me, while disregarding my arguments against charter tells me that you're really not so worried about the bandwagon on yourself. Why would that be? (One scenario may be that charter (or somebody else on your wagon for that matter) is/are (one of) your buddy(-ies), so you know that they may unvote you at any point to prevent a lynch of you.)pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Another reason to FoS and not vote is if you feel that FoS is enough.Master Ruck wrote:
But, isn't the point of a FoS that you only use it when you already have a vote down? As far as I knew, it served only to show that you think that person is scummy but not as scummy as the person you're voting for. If you have no vote on someone, but you find someone suspicious, vote for them!Artem wrote:I can FoS charter. I can also vote for him. It doesn't make much difference right now as there is no bandwagon on him. I'm not pouncing on an easy target. I'm giving him a slap on the wrist, because townies (assuming he is one) shouldn't play with WIFOM as it distracts and confuses the town.
I feel that, at least until charter explains himself, an FoS is enough.
Both statements are correct.lynx wrote: So do you think it's scummy only because of the WIFOM? Do you think that charter is not an opportunistic scum pouncing on an easy target then?
I'm sure that if I voted charter instead of FoSed him, we would having essentially the same conversation, but with me trying to show that my vote is not hypocritical because it's for different reasons. There's just no pleasing the penguin, so I think I'll stand my ground with the FoS.BSG wrote: You're not pouncing an easy target? But you wanted to as post 39 gives that impression. You only FoSed him, because you didn't want to come across as a hypocrite, as said in post 39. If you FoSed Charter for the WIFOM, then why no vote as it wouldn't make you a hypocrite. You're now making up excuses why you aren't voting Charter.
Agreed.BSG wrote: If town lynch a player with many random votes, then there's something strange going on with the wagon. If I'm lynched with most of these votes, it will only give information.
My imagination runs wild sometimes.BSG wrote: And it's interesting that you name Charter as my buddy, while all the other players are put into the category of buddy. Are you implying something?
Care to explain?Lowell wrote: I like artifex or artem more as scum more than BSG right now. Lynx looks town.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
From the scum's point of view, an easy target is a townie that is easy to attack because they've done scummier things than others.Panzerjager wrote: @Artem I believe, why is it bad to go after easy targets? And what classifies an easy target? If I claimed scum would I be an easy target and would you vote me?
From the townie's point of view, it's a little difficult to tell who constitutes an easy target. The best we can do is watch for the reasons player A jumps all over player B. For example, during the random voting stage, Artifex voted for Xdaamno because he put a third vote on BSG. At the time, putting a third vote on somebody was the most unusual (scummiest?) thing, so I called Artifex out for jumping on an easy target.
If you claimed scum, I would FoS you for WIFOM to begin with.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
(a) I would argue that I had just as much "banter" with BSG as I did with Artifex. Mafia is not srs bsns to me.
(b) If I voted for my buddy to distance myself from them, why would I unvote them when they were not in any danger, especially since I didn't vote for anybody else?pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
I'm not entirely sure what else you want me to say. I've provided my view of the "easy target" argument in #68. The rest of your post simply comments on my skill level and provides an advice. I've noted it.Panzerjager wrote:
Artem, I wanted you to answer that.Panzerjager wrote: So voting someone you find scummier then everyone else is scummy and attacking an easy target? Riiiiiiight. Also, if you FoS someone who is claimed scum, you clearly are a poor player. Assuming their are no Jester-esque roles, you lynch the claimed scum, period.
Dan wrote: Artem, (b) is Wifom?
Sure, it's WIFOM if you think that I (as scum) would do something pointless, just for the whole sake of later claiming that it was pointless for scum to do that. I would still like to hear from Lowell why he thinks his reason (b) has good motivation for scum.BSG wrote:
Don't like this. Isn't this WIFOM?Artem wrote: (b) If I voted for my buddy to distance myself from them, why would I unvote them when they were not in any danger, especially since I didn't vote for anybody else?
If you think what I said is WIFOM, then you should also look at this:
@Charter: I still see what you've done as WIFOM. Lynx sums it up the best:charter wrote: What advantage would I gain as scum doing that I wouldn't gain as town? Why did I do it?
Placing somebody at L-2 to look for reactions is scumhunting. Doing what somebody called scummylynx wrote: However, the part most of us find scummy is the fact that charter placed the L-2 directly after Panzer stated it was scummy to do so.right after they did sois WIFOM.
The assumption is made for the sake of the argument. If that assumption is not made, the argument makes no sense.charter wrote: Why are you assuming I am town on page 2?
It's hard to distinguish between scum and town when somebody jumps on an easy target, unless, of course, you know the alignment. However, I used it as an argument to vote Artifexdan wrote: ATM, I find artem the most scummy. You never satisfactorily answered what is wrong with pouncing on easy targets. Sure there are opportunistic scum, but there are also people who, for good reasons, seem scum.as my first post in the game during the RVS stage.
I would not seriously consider lynching somebody because I thought they went after an easy target.
Can you break these up and provide the appropriate quotes, please? I'm having a hard time seeing how you've derived all of that from my three paragraphs.dan wrote: So 1) you dodge the issue of acknowledging you wanted to vote for charter but didn't because it would come across as scummy 2) You create a scum team of BSG and charter for really bad reasons. 3) BSG, scum? only if you like omgus
I will alsoVote: Lowellbecause he generally fails to provide reasons behind his words/actions (see his first two posts). He references forgetfullness as a way to avoid providing reasons. When others call him out on him, he draws up a buddying/distancing scenario (how do you forget that in the first place? it feels like he drew up the case when others asked him to provide reasons, rather than the case itself being the reasons) and goes back to lurking.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Regarding my vote on Lowell:
Those of you that think I'm voting Lowell for less reasons that I've provided for other players, can you please make the appropriate quotes that show that I've given more reason to vote for other players than I have for Lowell?
Those big posts were largely defense, not offense. Unless you're referring to other posts, in which case, quote please.master ruck wrote: ...his big post targetting charter, dan, and pretty much every other user then he makes one small paragraph on Lowell and votes him for thatpepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
I would still like you to show me one of my posts where I presented more (serious) reasons to vote for somebody else. Comparing my paragraph on Lowell to "all those big posts" is just a blurby reason to vote me without providing any kind of evidence.Master Ruck wrote:Nope, still referring to that post. It just seems to me that your vote was OMGUS with the way Lowell was calling you (and artifex) a scumbuddy and you try to hide that under reasons super condensed into three lines.
Dont get me wrong, Lowell's lack of decent posting does make him look scummish, but it could also be as simple as him being stupid.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
But here you're arguing that I haven't provided enough reasons to vote for Lowell, as compared to the other players:
I am, therefore, asking you to show me why that's not enough reasons, via comparison to my other posts.Master Ruck wrote: ...due to his big post targetting charter, dan, and pretty much every other user then he makes one small paragraph on Lowell and votes him for that. If he was gonna do a big post like that, I would expect some more reasons or at least more explanation as to why he would make a vote as OMGUS as that.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Yet, I am asking Lowell to explain why his argument point has good motivation for scum. WIFOM was not his original point of attack. Buddying/distancing was and I'm asking him to explain why it makes sense for scum to play as I did.Danchaofan wrote:
It's wifom because it's a distancing maneuver (scummy) yet your argument is it's so pointless that mafia would never do it.Artem wrote:Sure, it's WIFOM if you think that I (as scum) would do something pointless, just for the whole sake of later claiming that it was pointless for scum to do that. I would still like to hear from Lowell why he thinks his reason (b) has good motivation for scum.
While I "dodged" the point here, I've addressed it in my post that followed. (See my post #8)Dan wrote:dan wrote:So 1) you dodge the issue of acknowledging you wanted to vote for charter but didn't because it would come across as scummyArtem wrote:
So, basically, I'm still a hypocrite?BSG wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't like this? When I read this, it gives me the impression that he wanted to vote Charter, but didn't do so as it would make him a hypocrite. Isn't he admitting here that he finds Charter scummy, while saying that what Charter did isn't scummy just a few posts ago?Artem wrote:Because if I voted, I would be doing exactly what I voted Artifex for, making me a hypocrite.
There's just no pleasing you BSG.
Artem wrote: I'm sure that if I voted charter instead of FoSed him, we would having essentially the same conversation, but with me trying to show that my vote is not hypocritical because it's for different reasons. There's just no pleasing the penguin, so I think I'll stand my ground with the FoS.
This I've also addressed in my post #8:Dan wrote:Artem wrote:What Idofind interesting is that you're so concerned with whether I voted or FoSed somebody, while completely disregarding my given reasons. You said that you don't see the WIFOM. It was pointed out to you. Yet you seem adamant about your opinion of charter putting you at L-2.dan wrote:2) You create a scum team of BSG and charter for really bad reasons.Artem wrote:The fact that you're pouncing on me, while disregarding my arguments against charter tells me that you're really not so worried about the bandwagon on yourself. Why would that be? (One scenario may be that charter (or somebody else on your wagon for that matter) is/are (one of) your buddy(-ies), so you know that they may unvote you at any point to prevent a lynch of you.)
same quote as above.dan wrote: 3) BSG, scum? only if you like omgus
Notice how I didn't FoS/vote any players that I conjured up a scenario about. It was purely hypothetical situation that I didn't pursue seriously in the slightest.Artem wrote:
My imagination runs wild sometimes.BSG wrote: And it's interesting that you name Charter as my buddy, while all the other players are put into the category of buddy. Are you implying something?
You're basing your arguments against me on my post #7, while the points have already been addressed in my post #8. Why?-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Oh, and one more thing I forgot to point out.
When most of the town has me on top of their lists, I think that OMGUS argument is a little irrelevant, since it could be used regardless of who I vote for. Must really be grasping at straws for reasons there.Master Ruck wrote: Still, for now I will Vote: Artem due to his big post targetting charter, dan, and pretty much every other user then he makes one small paragraph on Lowell and votes him for that. If he was gonna do a big post like that, I would expect some more reasons or at least more explanation as to why he would makea vote as OMGUS as that.
Let's face it. I'm the scummiest player because I am the most active/vocal. The sad truth of a forum-based mafia game is that the player that provides the most content will always be picked apart the most. The down side is that it the "active=scummy" phenomenon only encourages lurking scum.
In reality, hardly anybody of the players voting me can really clearly state good reasons for doing so. There are some that are voting me because my playstyle disagrees with theirs (Yes, I thought charter deserved a slap on the wrist, not a vote. Sure, part of it was also not wanting to look scummy, but that makes me a cautious townie, not scum). Then there are some that are voting me because I'm on top of their list, even though they've never actually clearly stated the reasons behind their votes (panzer, charter come to mind).
Then, towards the end we started getting all sorts of BS reasons. We got Xdaamno who simply agrees that I'm a good lynch without making any original contribution. We got Danchaofan who is using old content that I've already addressed as reasons. We got Master Ruck who doesn't like my reasons against Lowell and hops on for a ride as well. And finally, we have Lowell, who has a small case of amnesia and then suddenly remembers his buddying/distancing case.
So, what I would like everybody who is voting me to do is clearly and concisely state their reasons for doing so. "Because you're on top of my scumlist" or "Because you're the best lynch for today" do not count. Please also state which points, if any, against me I haven't addressed yet.
There's a fare to be on my funwagon and scum don't get to ride for free.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
The last time you stated them was in post 81, which I addressed in 112.Panzerjager wrote:Also, I have stated reason, several times. You never addressed them.
You other reasons are:
-I'm not voting Charter (already addressed)
-Charter is my scumbuddy who's trying to pull attention away from me (which is nonsense as charter is just as much interested in me as you are)
-I'm voting Lowell for baseless reasons;
I don't think my reasons for voting are all that baseless. You don't find the little case of amnesia strange?-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
So, what were you pressuring me to do? Roleclaim?Xdaamno wrote: I absolutely disagree; pressure votes are useful at any stage - and of course pressure votes are useless after being pointed out, I left it until a whole few pages had passed until I showed my hand. I agree that basing votes purely off vibes is very impractical.
I love all these stoaways fleeing my bandwagon, now that I've claimed and asked everybody to state their reasons. Their reason for fleeing: "Artem has defended himself sufficiently". Really?
Take panzer, for example:
panzer wrote: @Artem, You're not the most active or vocal and most of the game you actually seemed pretty lost. Also, I have stated reason, several times.You never addressed them.
My only post between these two was:panzer wrote:Artem has defended sufficientlyfor now, but I still think Charter and him could be buddies.
So, what was it in my post that turned panzer 180 around? Because in my mind the conversation went something like this:Artem wrote: The last time you stated them was in post 81, which I addressed in 112.
You other reasons are:
-I'm not voting Charter (already addressed)
-Charter is my scumbuddy who's trying to pull attention away from me (which is nonsense as charter is just as much interested in me as you are)
-I'm voting Lowell for baseless reasons;
I don't think my reasons for voting are all that baseless. You don't find the little case of amnesia strange?
Panzer: "Artem never addressed my reasons for voting him."
Artem: "Yes, I have."
Panzer: "Artem has defended himself sufficiently. I shall unvote."
I think it will be very educational later in the game to go back to my wagon and see how many of these free-riders were on it for the sole purpose of role-fishing. Now, that I've claimed, they seem to be moving on to somebody more interesting than a vanilla townie.
And if this is how we're going to play this game, why don't we just mass-claim now?-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Would you like to share with us what your probe found on planet Artem? After all, you need to justify the future funding of the project "probe".Xddam wrote: Well, I didn't have anything in mind. If we knew what was on Mars, we wouldn't need to send probes there.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
1) Can you point out the pressure on me to do something. As far as I recall, nobody was stating that I wasn't doing enough scum-hunting.Lowell wrote: artem has looked scummy throughout. The case on me in 112 is lazy and made just as pressure on him to do something is mounting. When called on that he spends a lot of time (137, 148) explaining himself. 148 in particular really looks like a case made in hindsight. He slapped a vote down when he was in trouble, then went back after the fact to justify it. His claim of vanilla town does nothing to make me think he shouldn't be the lynch.
2) Post 112:
Post 148:Artem wrote: I will also Vote: Lowell because he generally fails to provide reasons behind his words/actions (see his first two posts). He references forgetfullness as a way to avoid providing reasons. When others call him out on him, he draws up a buddying/distancing scenario (how do you forget that in the first place? it feels like he drew up the case when others asked him to provide reasons, rather than the case itself being the reasons) and goes back to lurking.
Can you show what I made up in post 148 in hindsight, that I didn't have in post 112?Artem wrote: And finally, we have Lowell, who has a small case of amnesia and then suddenly remembers his buddying/distancing case.
(Note that the rest of 148 has nothing to do with my vote on you)
3) I might as well address this here as well:
Lowell's original point is not valid, because it lacks scum motivation. If I say that you're voting xdaamno because he's your partner and you're bussing him, I need to state why it would make sense for scum to do that. Otherwise, my attack lacks the reason to back it up. Sure, if you dismiss my (hypothetical) attack as "scum has no reason to bus their partner here", I could call you out for WIFOM but really, it's my fault for not stating why it would make sense to bus.Danchaofan wrote:
His original attack is not wifom, it's your response that is wifom. His point is still valid, your response (because of wifom) is invalid.Artem wrote:
Yet, I am asking Lowell to explain why his argument point has good motivation for scum. WIFOM was not his original point of attack. Buddying/distancing was and I'm asking him to explain why it makes sense for scum to play as I did.Danchaofan wrote:
It's wifom because it's a distancing maneuver (scummy) yet your argument is it's so pointless that mafia would never do it.Artem wrote:Sure, it's WIFOM if you think that I (as scum) would do something pointless, just for the whole sake of later claiming that it was pointless for scum to do that. I would still like to hear from Lowell why he thinks his reason (b) has good motivation for scum.
For reference, here's Lowell's reason (b) for voting me:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowell wrote: (b) the odd vote/unvote by artem on artifex. It's like he voted for artifex to set up a lecture about the nature of votes, then unvoted, only to FOS someone he said he was actually suspicious of. It looks like he was throwing a token "distancing" vote to a scumbuddy early, then just flimsily moving somewhere else. There's so much buddying here that I think at least one of them is scum.
Regarding Xdaamno:
I think that if Xdaamno was scum (and, thus, knew my alignment), he would not have placed the flimsy hammer, because (knowing my alignment) he would have realized that once I card-flipped he would take just as much heat (if not more) on day 2.
I realize that my argument has a hint of WIFOM in it, which is why I'm not going to ask this argument to be taken as serious defense. I am simply explaining how I feel about Xdaamno at the moment and why I'm not voting for him (@charter's question in 228).
I still think that there's a group of scum hopping from one convenient bandwagon to another in hopes of learning more about town roles (another reason why I feel Xdaamno is town). Just waiting for the claim demands now.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
But who was making you pick anybody? You said I was a good lynch "right now", implying that you were ready to lynch me right that second.Xdaamno wrote:
"Good lynch" was ambigious, apologies for that. I did not mean I 'wanted an Artem lynch', but rather 'I would lynch Artem if I had to pick someone'.Artem wrote:Xdaamno wrote:The original attack on Artem was obvious BS, but I'm surprised Artem needed me to point that out for him.
After a re-read,it's a good lynch right now.
So, it was a good lynch but you didn't want it? How does that work?Xdaamno wrote: Also, I thought I had already made it clearI did not want an Artem lynch. My vote was (primarily) a pressure vote.
...and if it was a pressure vote, seeing that you're at L-1, I would like you to address the following:
Xdaamno wrote:
I lost interest. I'll go look back at the reactions sometime.Artem wrote:
Would you like to share with us what your probe found on planet Artem? After all, you need to justify the future funding of the project "probe".Xddam wrote: Well, I didn't have anything in mind. If we knew what was on Mars, we wouldn't need to send probes there.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Yes, I noted that, but you're sitting at L-1, so we may never hear your analysis.Xdaamno wrote: CBA. I place my own happiness above winning. I believe several people have 'forgotten' similar promises.
In case it's not clear, I'm calling bull on the "it was just a pressure vote" argument.
You haven't given motivation, you haven't explained the sudden release of pressure, and you haven't analyzed the results (like you promised you would).pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Yes, I would actually.charter wrote:Would anyone else run up Panzer before deadline with me? I believe he has a way higher chance of being scum.Unvote; Vote: Panzer
Here's his latest explanation for why he suddenly lost interest in me:
However, between post 174, where Panzer was far from letting me go:Panzer wrote: @Artem, My biggest reason for voting was because you and charter seemed like buddies. You had previously defended yourself on a lot of my points when you addressed Danchao's post, so I looked at charter's actions and thought, I best just put these in storage and move on.
and post 185, where all of a sudden, I defended myself sufficiently:Panzer wrote: Also, I have stated reason, several times. You never addressed them.
...charter made no posts, and my only post can be summed up as "Yes, I have addressed those points." The only post about me between 174 and 185 that is of interest is 179 by Dan. Dan basically states that he is less suspicious of me now. Panzer simply echos the sentiment in 185. This is suspicious because it feel like Panzer is/was piggy-backing Dan in his attack against me.Panzer wrote: EBWOP:Artem has defended sufficiently for now, but I still think Charter and him could be buddies.
Another interesting point is that ever since I called out role-fishers, nobody (particularly neither Panzer nor Charter) has asked Xd to claim. (Except Master Ruck, who simply did so before he read my post). So, this could mean one of two things. Either Panzer/Charter are cautiously avoiding an action that I preemptively called out (which begs the question why), or they already know Xd's role (which makes Xd a scumbuddy). Obviously, Panzer and Charter may have different reasons for why they are not pushing for a claim, but I'm happy with pursuing Panzer right now.
As a side note, Panzer has been lurking lately, likely waiting for the Xd thing to blow over.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Panzer, if you think that lurking is the only reason I'm voting, I'd suggest you read my last post. Lurking is nothing but a one sentence blurb at the end of that post.Panzer wrote: Artem, if the only reason your voting for me is because I've been lurking you are sadly mistaken. I've been V/LA. I was visiting my girlfriend all weekend. Well, weekend plus a couple of days, Friday until Tuesday. I only posted Monday night to pickup prods I knew were coming.
I would also like to remind folks that Panzer casually dismissed my earlier arguments against Lowell. If Panzer flips scum, I think Lowell has a good chance of being a scum-buddy.Charter wrote: How can you have no opinion on Panzer?pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Do you actually read the thread before you chime in with "I like others' arguments" accusations? It's charter, who's asking for everybody's opinion, not I. Also, if you think that I'm pulling attention away from Xda, then I suggest you read my 304.Lowell wrote: I like 352 and 366. I still see connections between artem and xda, particularly the way artem is trying to see panzer as an alternative "wagon" when really it was just pulled out of the blue by one player. The way artem is asking everyone their opnion on panzer is odd... it's deflection.
-----------------
Xda should still post his pbp analysis... or his Panzer case. Currently, he's doing nothing but using "No U" arguments instead of providing the content he promised.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
@Panzer: One thing I want you to address specifically is the claim chase. You were pushy about getting me to claim but you don't even hint on claiming with Xd, even though Xd has repeatedly hit L-1. Why the difference? Do you already know Xd's role or are you avoiding asking for a claim because I preemptively called it? If the latter, why?
@Charter: Same question.
Also,
This is scummy. You're simply brushing off Panzer's defense without ever addressing anything in it.charter wrote: Happy with a Panzer lynch. An Xdaamo lynch is an acceptable last resort.FoS: Charter
@Xd:
You've repeatedly hit L-1 and with the current state of the game, you will be deadline lynched. If you were town, you would be concentrated on getting information into the hands of town while you still can. The fact that you haven't been too concerned with it makes you either a lazy townie or a scum. Good riddance in either case, imo. The argument about your post having to be the last one of the day doesn't hold any water. As somebody already mentioned, all eyes are currently on you and whatever you post about other players will not simply be brushed off when (and if) you cardflip town.Xd wrote: I will when I feel like it.
And if you need more motivation to get cranking:
Unvote; Vote: Xdaamno; FoS: Panzer
Thisis how you pressure vote.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
@Xd:Xdaamno wrote:
This is not the time for pressure voting, as we are approaching a deadline. This is my last post until Artem unvotes.Artem wrote:You've repeatedly hit L-1 and with the current state of the game, you will be deadline lynched. If you were town, you would be concentrated on getting information into the hands of town while you still can. The fact that you haven't been too concerned with it makes you either a lazy townie or a scum. Good riddance in either case, imo. The argument about your post having to be the last one of the day doesn't hold any water. As somebody already mentioned, all eyes are currently on you and whatever you post about other players will not simply be brushed off when (and if) you cardflip town.
And if you need more motivation to get cranking:
Unvote; Vote: Xdaamno; FoS: Panzer
Thisis how you pressure vote.
Die scum die?Xdaamno wrote:I absolutely disagree;pressure votes are useful at any stage- and of course pressure votes are useless after being pointed out, I left it until a whole few pages had passed until I showed my hand. I agree that basing votes purely off vibes is very impractical.
(I disagree on the "useless after pointed out" part by the way)
@Panzer & charter: Thanks for responding. I'm stilling thinking about what you've both said.
@Artifex:
Yes, more or less. Both Panzer and charter pushed hard for a claim for me but not Xd.Artifex wrote: Artem- I think he's genuinely scumhunting here. I do disagree with what seems to be his main issue with Panzer- this rolefishing business. If I'm understanding you correctly, youre are saying you preemptively called out role fishing in order to gauge peoples reactions to it. You find Panzer's reaction scummy cause he pushed hard when you were at L-1 but didnt when Xda hit the same count...right?
You just posted the inconsistency in the quote above. It's an inconsistent treatment of two players who both hit L-1. Yes, the difference is that in Xd's case we had my "we have rolefishers" looming over them. My "prediction" that we will have claim demands served several purposes, one of which was to see if anybody would take a cup of WIFOM. But like I said, I'm still thinking about Panzer & charter's responses to why they didn't ask for a claim. The only difference between the two right now is that Panzer wants Xd to claim, while charter hasn't stated such desires. Not quite sure what to make of it.Artifex wrote: My problem with this is that I dont get the 'preemptive' part. When you posted that, I thought you were dead on- we were a long ways away from deadline and had yet another player at L-1...if there had been calls for another role claim I'd have been very wary at that point. So, if your main point is inconistency in another's play, I dont see an inconsistency.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
A townie should not place their personal survival above the town's victory condition (which is to eliminate all threats).Xd wrote: I intended to take a chance to convince Artem to unvote. I am trying to play the game optimally up until the point where it starts to not become fun. That is something which I will absolutely never sacrifice.
Also, are you seriously trying to say that because townies can still win if they die, there is no reason to stay alive?
In your situation, the optimal play for a townie is to provide all the information you can before you are lynched. The optimal play for a scum is to deny the town any information and to try and get as many players voting for a "competitor's" wagon instead.
This. I think that we should go ahead with the Xd's lynch. At best, we will lynch a scum (or an SK, or any one of those other 3-rd party roles). At worst we will lose a townie who has not contributed much in terms of scumhunting.Charter wrote:Xdaamo is still a good lynch because it gives lots of info, but I really don't see him flipping scum.
Charter is behaving very strangely. Take this for example:
Unless you know everybody's alignment, Panzer can also "theoretically be town", because from a townie's point of view nothing is 100% certain.Charter wrote: Xdaamo can theoretically be town, while I can't see Panzer being town at all.
If Xd flips scum, I can see Charter as a potential buddy, who is going to ride the waves of WIFOM on day 2 with arguments similar to post 357.
So, roles like masons and lovers aside:charter, part of post 357 wrote: If anything, you should be suspicious of me for clearly trying to get someone else besides Xdaamo lynched right before deadline. You continue to view his actions as scummy, but it doesn't make sense that you're not getting worked up over my recent actions. If you actually think Xdaamo is scum, then you surely must think I am as well because I'm clearly trying to lynch someone besides him today.
In post 400, Lowell attempts to start a bandwagon on me in a fashion, similar to charter's wagon on panzer. If Lowell, charter and Xd were all scum, they would not be splitting the effort between me and panzer. So, that means two thing:
-Lowell and Xd are not likely to be scums together; (Lowell would try to save his buddy by hopping over to Panzer's wagon)
-Lowell and charter are not likely to be scums together; (splitting the effort argument)
Now, panzer...
-Xd and panzer likely have opposite alignment; (duh!)
-Lowell and panzer likely share the same alignment; (they largely ignore each other but there's a handful of posts where they brush off other players' arguments against their "buddy")
-charter and panzer likely have opposite alignment; (all the bickering, unless of course they are distancing and charter is bussing panzer)
afatchic requesting an extension is interesting, but I would love to see him post some content before I draw any conclusions.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
I think that if you were both town, we would have seen a lynch a long time ago, because scum would likely pile in on one of you. Of course, we don't know how many scum there are, so it's hard to know how likely they are to influence one wagon over another, but I also have my own wagon to compare yours to. (I would argue that I rose to enough votes to get lynched faster than you and for less scumminess.)Xdaamno wrote:
Oh, can you explain? What makes it unlikely we're both town?Artem wrote:-Xd and panzer likely have opposite alignment; (duh!)
I'm also a little biased at this point, because I really think you are one of the scums. I also think that your cardflip will be very educational.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
I have an example of an overly-certain townie, that got himself lynched because of his 100%-sure statements. (Unfortunately, it's a game in-progress, so I can't reference it yet.)Xd wrote: Town players are very rarely certain in practice...
The very first game I played on MS, I was quite certain about certain players' alignment also. (http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8164) If you read day 2, you will see that it also got me in trouble.
Based on this rather limited experience, I'd say that 100%-suredness is treated as a scumtell more often than it should be.
Can you provide an example where a scum showed that attitude? (More out of personal curiosity than anything.)
Xd wrote: I'm not sure that I will be lynched today, so I won't self-hammer.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
There's a confusion about timezones, methinks. The boards are on EST, while the deadline is on PST. Hence the 8 minutes reference in Lowell's post, which was made at 10:53am EST.M R wrote: Uhh, why so urgent Lowell? Deadline is 3 hours away so even if no one hammers him, he'll still be lynched unless everyone decides to simultaneously jump off his wagon. On that matter, Xda, is there a reason besides your own survival that you want another extension?pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Ditto. As far I know I'm not 100% confirmed.
Not obvious to me.charter wrote:Xdaamo, you're trying to say that we are scumbuddies together. For numerous reasons this isn't true (for example, I'm not scum)
It will be obvious why I said that tomorrow.Xdaamno wrote:Oh, and this is the scummiest sentence said in my entire mafia career:
charter wrote:Assuming Xdaamo isn't scum, like I said, I'd bet money Artem is town.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
So, given the fact that Xd flipped town, charter claimed hider and based on the arguments above, I'm inclined to think:Artem wrote: So, roles like masons and lovers aside:
In post 400, Lowell attempts to start a bandwagon on me in a fashion, similar to charter's wagon on panzer. If Lowell, charter and Xd were all scum, they would not be splitting the effort between me and panzer. So, that means two thing:
-Lowell and Xd are not likely to be scums together; (Lowell would try to save his buddy by hopping over to Panzer's wagon)
-Lowell and charter are not likely to be scums together; (splitting the effort argument)
Now, panzer...
-Xd and panzer likely have opposite alignment; (duh!)
-Lowell and panzer likely share the same alignment; (they largely ignore each other but there's a handful of posts where they brush off other players' arguments against their "buddy")
-charter and panzer likely have opposite alignment; (all the bickering, unless of course they are distancing and charter is bussing panzer)
afatchic requesting an extension is interesting, but I would love to see him post some content before I draw any conclusions.
-Charter is likely town;
-Lowell is likely scum;
-Panzer is likely scum;
I don't have a good read on Dan at the moment, and I'm much more inclined to think that Lowell is scum, given my previous arguments against him, and the general lurking/lack of contribution.Vote: Lowell
(@Charter: minor point but I am a male. Artifex is female.)-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
The logic is probabilistic, hence the word "likely" interspersed everywhere. I'm writing down the things I see in the game and derive conclusions that seem likely to me.
The problem is that you're effectively telling scum who they should kill next by naming a confirmed townie each day. That also means that I am not likely to see Day 3.charter wrote: I claimed now because everyone was asking me to explain my breadcrumbs from the end of yesterday. Plus, as long as I hid behind townies (and they aren't killed) I can't be killed at night, so me and the scum get to play outguess. The reason why I'm not waiting is I fully plan on continuing using my ability so there's a good chance I die sooner, rather than later.
On a side note, what happens when the hider hides behind the paranoid gun owner? Dead hider, I presume? (Question for the mod)-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
No entirely correct, because scum will want to minimize the number of confirmed townies that reach the end game.Lynx wrote: Artem I don't know if you wouldn't make it to day 3. If your claim is correct and you're just a vanilla townie then I see no reason for scum to go after you. If Charter's claim is also true I see no reason that the scum wouldn't go after another townie because they could hit a powerole plus Charter if they guess correctly. So Charter can basically clear townies and still remain invulnerable to night kill.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Can you be a little more specific? One of my biggest things against you is that you've been using blanket statements / generalizations. For example, what does "based on their interactions" mean? What was scummy about my interactions with Xda? Is it still scummy now that he's cardflipped? Why or why not?Lowell wrote: @lynx- I pushed for an artem wagon because I thought it was better than the Xda wagon, based on their interactions. I backed off at the end when charter came out with his "bet my life artem is town" bit. I assumed this meant he had some information he didn't want to reveal at the time.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
@Lowell:
Here's the sequence of posts that I have a problem with from Day 1:
(Artem, Artifex, MR and Panzer all ask for reasons in the next few posts.)Lowell, post 52 wrote: I like artifex or artem more as scum more than BSG right now. Lynx looks town.
(Server move.)
Lowell, post 66 wrote: @panzer, I dont' really remember why I said that right now. My brain stopped working when the site crashed, TBH.
No doubt there's a great reason, though. I'll figure it out.Lynx, post 70 wrote: Also, Lowell, I believe it's a cop out to say you forgot everything since the site crashed. You could easily reread the pages and recall your earlier thoughts. I think you just don't want to back up your vague statements with some actually evidence.Artifex, post 72 wrote: Lowell- A vote for me without explanation, then a post with some opinions on four player's scum factor without explanation. I actually like the having opinions part, because as I've reread the game I've noticed we have some players who are hesitant to do that. But it doesnt help to know what you think if there's no explanation why. I'll buy needing time to reread for now, but I'd still like you to offer those four lines of reasoning when you come back.
(Finally....)Dan, post 76 wrote: I await Lowell's memory
Basically, post 77 looks made up because other players have consistently applied pressure. If #77 was actually the reasons for post 52 in the first place, then how can you forget such reasons? Read #66: "No doubt there's a great reason, though. I'll figure it out."?? That basically translates to: "Let me re-read and make up the reasons".Lowell, post 77 wrote: Okay here's how the first 2 pages look to me.
9-11- the banter between artem and artifex makes me uneasy
30- charter's post is strange, he chides panzer, then votes with him
33- artem gives a speech about "how many votes is scummy" then unvotes artifex [what was the point?], then only FOSs charter [??]
35- BSG hits it RIGHT ON THE NOSE
38-40- more uncomfortable banter from artem and artifex
What I don't like is (a) the banter between artem and artifex, which seems to keep happening, and (b) the odd vote/unvote by artem on artifex. It's like he voted for artifex to set up a lecture about the nature of votes, then unvoted, only to FOS someone he said he was actually suspicious of. It looks like he was throwing a token "distancing" vote to a scumbuddy early, then just flimsily moving somewhere else. There's so much buddying here that I think at least one of them is scum.
Generally, I just think they're lazy as well. BSG was the random choice for a few votes at the beginning. Then, somehow, it became something one had to explain when they weren't voting for BSG. I think they're happy letting the initial pressure dictate what happens, which itself is very scummy.
BSG has handled the pressure well, I think. Post 35 is exactly on the money and he seems to be payign attention genearlly. Lynx I just think is town because he's active and not trying to kiss ass.
One more. Despite charter's strange post 30, I think he's town as well. I like the fact that he's willing to take BSG up to L-2 just to see what happens. That strikes me as gutsy, and townish.
Then my other post, which Lowell never addressed:
Another strange thing is that Lowell says charter is town in 77 and charter is reluctant to go after Lowell. While I believe charter's claim, these two facts make me wary.Artem wrote:
Can you be a little more specific? One of my biggest things against you is that you've been using blanket statements / generalizations. For example, what does "based on their interactions" mean? What was scummy about my interactions with Xda? Is it still scummy now that he's cardflipped? Why or why not?Lowell wrote: @lynx- I pushed for an artem wagon because I thought it was better than the Xda wagon, based on their interactions. I backed off at the end when charter came out with his "bet my life artem is town" bit. I assumed this meant he had some information he didn't want to reveal at the time.
If you filter the posts by Lowell, you'll see that he gave virtually no contribution. He consistently lurks and makes blanket statements. I want him lynched.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Yes, I'm actually reading lynx as town and I don't understand the wagon on him. Most of the arguments against him either have to do with him sitting on the fence, or they are too convoluted for me to want to follow them.
The fence-sitting comes off as an undecided townie rather than an opportunistic scum. At least to me.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Also, what do you think are the chances of scum having some talking on Night 0 and deciding to claim obscure (yet, investigation-immunity guaranteeing) roles throughout the game?
I admit, it's some wild speculation, but I have to throw it out on the table, since I am not likely to see the next day.charter wrote: Also, I just reread my role PM,ALLnight actions targetting me fail if I hide behind a townie.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Unless, charter simply kills who he confirms the following night. The down side is, yes, there will be one (and exactly one if played correctly) confirmed townie each day. But look on the up side, with every confirmed townie charter-scum would be instilling even more confidence into his claim, thereby having an easy, soft ride to the end-game.Darox wrote: Speaking of these investigation immune claims Artem is talking about. It doesn't make much sense for charter. His ability clears townies. He's actively hurting the scum team every time he successfully hides behind a new person and confirms their innocence.
It's confusing, because Artem as town should know that charter as scum would be hurting his team by confirming Artem.
(This is all hypothetical talk, since I happen to believe his claim, at least for now.)
His dismissal of Lowell makes me wary. To date, three people have dismissed Lowell as a lurker but not a threat (Panzer on Day 1, charter and Lynx on Day 2). charter and Lynx had no problems using lurking a scummy point against other players, however. (charter against Panzer and Lynx against Darox)Artifex wrote: @ Artem- back in 497, you said you thought charter was likely town. Has your opinion of that changed any? Because I'm reading doubt in several of your posts later:
I don't like the double standards. I also don't like that Lowell is basically given a free ride card. He lurks, provides no content, and appears disinterested in the game (could easily be a fake dis-interest). If he's scum, he's having it really well right now.
As a side note, Panzer told Lowell to "post or be lynched" in post 94, which makes it unlikely that they are scum together and actually buys Panzer some townie points.pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
Sure, your current vote on him doesn't hinge on lurking, but here's you using lurking as a scummy point during Day 1:charter wrote: Artem, I said panzer lurking isn't helping him, that's not why I'm suspicious of him. I'm suspicious of him for his crackpot theories day one that don't make sense, and how he has now flipped on them completely (and how he flipped a bunch yesterday).
charter wrote:
Welcome to the thing I find most suspicious about him now. Ever since his vote on Xdaamo, he's said nothing about Xdaamo. He's just sitting tight on the wagon. Now it's almost deadline and he's still lurking (though he did say he was away) but it doesn't excuse him clinging to his Artem+charter scumbuddies but voting Xdaamo terrible logic. He gets called out on it and all of a sudden just drops it.Artem wrote:As a side note, Panzer has been lurking lately, likely waiting for the Xd thing to blow over.-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
You're not paying close attention to the game, but enough to know about the Lynx case? Townies have more motivation to pay very close attention to the game because they are trying to find scum. The way you're playing is paying enough attention to know who's getting bandwagoned, but not enough to do any scumhunting yourself.Lowell wrote: If there is something to the lynx case, however, I think artem is doing a great job of derailment.
Also, I'm doing a good job derailing?? Because other players are so keen on leaving Lynx wagon and going after you?? What makes you think we can't look at both you and Lynx at the same time?pepoel who spel bad and don't know grammer is jerks-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008
-
-
Artem Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: April 15, 2008