how long this poetry will truly go
scum cannot keep up such rhymes
they'll certainly trip over their own words in time
Your name is too strange for any ordinary townie
Content in sitting back and waiting for someone to slip up so you can pounce on a mistake. This is not townie behavior. More like scum not trying to get their hands dirty.springlullaby wrote:Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.
How is Budja the scapegoat at all? Turning this into a lurker hunt only gets us distracted from our current discussion which is very informational.fhqwhgads wrote:
I am however, willing to accept Budja's retraction. I just get this funny feeling that he's being the scapegoat here...
...speaking of which, if he IS the scapegoat, I find it interesting that Goatrevolt is pushing him the hardest. It by no means is a scumtell, but if Budja just made a mistake (and taking Spolium's word for it, not for the first time), your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum.
I think the ones we should be looking at, are the lurkers. If we are just townies fighting among ourselves, the ones winning is scum lurking and waiting for us to string up one of our own.
I feel like it's somewhat a estimation after only four pages, but I'd place goat at about a 4. His debate with Spolium was more over semantics and mafia in general. I agreed with his assessment of FHQ and springlullaby. I didn't mind him pushing Budja either because I believe it was the best course of action to bring the game to a serious level .So considering he's pointed out similar things to myself, and I know myself to be town, then I'd say I'm not too suspicious of him at the moment.Ice9 wrote: @Lynx The Antithesis: On a scale of one to ten, where one is surely town and ten is surely scum, please give me a number quantifying your level of suspicion of Goatrevolt.
It is helpful to the town just look at Red Coyote's analysis of the interations between you Goat and Spolium. It gave me a feeling of your alignment as well. But now the swift change of direction doesn't sit as well with me.Ice9 wrote: I say it isn't helpful because our dialog has hardly even gotten a response from anyone else in the game. Spolium has a clear case of the OMGUSes, even if I wasn't actually voting him, and I can tell that no amount of back and forth with him is going to get him out of either the mindset that I must be scum for so vehemently attacking his position, if he's town, or the strategic use of tunnel vision to avoid other incriminating uses of his vote, if he's scum.
I didn't take a positive stance because we know nothing for sure. I characterized your play as pro-town early enough. But sure enough something happened to change my mind about the call. It's only an estimation because in my eyes it's way too soon to settle on for sure town or scum.Ice9 wrote:Now on to your response to my question. Why is four pages not enough to have an opinion you can stand behind without calling it "an estimation"? Does a higher page number really make someone's posts more valuable for determining their alignment? I'd say Goat can stake a claim to a reasonably large proportion of the activity in this game, only four pages though it may be. You really seem to have tried hard not to take a divisive stance on this question. And your answer had to tie into you overtly reminding us of your own supposed alignment why, exactly?
The content it generated was perfectly fine. Just look what it has evolved into now. Budja didn't get much pf an opportunity to be pressured. Considering that a large part of his defense was overshadowed by the Spolium/Goat debate. He really got off pretty easily in the way of people critiquing his response. I do believe he made a bad play with his vote rather than a scummy move. Though The way he took advantage of the other events going on to evade any informative response was scummier than what he was initially called out on.Ice9 wrote:And lets just single out one thing which I find particularly interesting:So, he brought the game to a serious level by pushing Budja and thats all well and good. What do you think of the content that this generated? Do you think Budja responded well to the pressure? Do you think Budja's response makes him more likely to be scum?Lynx wrote:I didn't mind him pushing Budja either because I believe it was the best course of action to bring the game to a serious level
I felt your first post was kinda fence-sitting. You suggested that Budja might be a scapegoat and you found it curious that Goat was pushing him the hardest. It appeared like you were trying to avoid a strong response from Goat by saying that in no way did you find it scummy even though you were suggesting such a possibility(not trying to offend anyone). Though it didn't work because Goat's got his vote on you. As for the lurker part even if you weren't intending to shift the focus, it came off that way. The lurkers will be addressed via replacement in time. I find it suspicious only if the lurker continues to answer the prods, but still avoids adding anything meaningful. Then I would look into the case like Spring. I believe lurker hunts just aren't very productive.fhqwhgads wrote:Look, I wasn't generally trying to shift the focus in as much as it was starting to feel like everyone was hyper focussing on Budja. I was in no way trying to give him a free pass, I just found that some people were just floating by, not even contributing to the Budja argument and thought we should at least call them out to get their opinion.Lynx wrote:FHQ, why did you try to shift the current focus to pursuing the lurkers.
I'm not exactly supporting a lynch with no response from her. I'm just saying putting her at L-1 doesn't frighten me in the least cause if someone were to put the hammer down before she could get a chance to respond or be replaced, then I'd be looking at them the next day. I think lynching to prove a point isn't effective. Are you implying a jester like role? I think mods wouldn't use them because it's fairly easy to get lynched, its somewhat a game breaker, it can end the game very prematurely, and its not really fun for anybody. Thats just my view on those kind of roles but utilizing caution doesn't hurt.RedCoyote wrote:Are you advocating spring be lynched policy-wise?Lynx 169 wrote:Don, I don't know why you're worried about L-1. If anybody quick lynched spring, they'd be under strong scrutiny the next day. How do you think Spring should be dealt with if she keeps it up? Replacement?
The only thing that worries me is that we have no idea what roles are out there, and I'll suggest here and now that maybe spring has something to gain through her own lynching.
1.Saying you're suspicious of multiple people is fine. What I can pose to you now is who do you find the the most suspicious out of the three? Usually indicative of the vote you cast, but seeing as you didn't place your vote I'd like to know who you believe is the optimal lynch out of the three and why.springlullaby wrote:1. You are mistaken, my non vote is not indicative of timidity, it is simply indicative of non preference in the names I listed. If I had multiple votes, I would be voting all of them. I'm amending my read of Az here because I did indeed miss that he has asked for replacement, but consider that I'm committed to all three.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Spring finally you have stepped up to the plate adding something to this game, thank you. Few things though, you criticize a good amount of players for timid play, then you throw suspicions around a few people. After all that you never place your vote. You say people you're willing to lynch, but you don't take a stance yourself and commit to somebody. Seems to me like you're waiting for more support on one of your suspicons to actually lay your vote down. Timid much? Hypocritical much? Yes and yes.
Though it comes off as pro-town posting a huge analysis like you've done, you've evaded any read on interactions with other players. By using this stunt, you've avoided participating in the random stage and chyming in with your thoughts on other player's arguments. Which kinda makes you the most "milky" person playing right now. You're lurking move doesn't clear you of that.
Last side note, I don't see how I was hypocritical for jumping on your wagon when I have been consistently laying my thoughts down. How is it hypocritical when I wasn't lurking myself?
2. I'm not accusing you of being hypocrite for jumping on my wagon, my accusation stem from the fact that you did so, yet criticized others for doing the same.
Case in point post 78:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=75
In that post you manage to vote me for lurking and FOS gads for wanting lurkerhunt in the next paragraph.
3. As for my "evading interaction blabla", I think your complaint is pointless and rather after the fact. I made a choice in how I wanted to play this game, you make up your own mind on whether you think it's scummy or not.
Haha no definitely definitely my fault for the misunderstanding. This is how it should have gone. "Besides you FHQ. And I wasn't like Ice's play before he went inactive." Sorry about that.springlullaby wrote:Ok, let hit the slow recap because this may be ground for misunderstanding.
I take this sentence to signify:lynx wrote: Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.
" Beside from being suspicious of you (spring), FHQ and I (lynx) weren't liking Ice's play."
Is that correct?
QFT this was my thinking exactly and I wrote something similiar to it in the post that I lost. I think If Spring is scum with her play she thought she could eitherFHQ wrote:My point, and someone already made it, i forget who, is that she first tried to brashly not take part in the game. When that strategy started to fail, she obviously reread the thread and threw together that post, selling it to us as her 'notes she made during the game'.
Simply put I don't believe it was a pro-town course of action to deliberately lurk throughout the earlier part of the game. If you're town all it serves to do is muddy the read on you and confuse the rest of the town(at least for me). I've realized that my main point against you is largely grounded in WIFOM and isn't the greatest way to pinpoint suspicion. Mafia in general is widely speculative and I just felt your strategy could've been pursued as scum just as easily. I have no way of knowing if you planned to lurk all day or if you jumped in the game soley because of the amounting pressure. Save for your lack of a strong stance upon your true entrance into the game, nothing else has stuck out to me since you became active. I've decided to put the lurking part in the back of my mind and not work off a case surrounding it. Instead I'll examine you more after the lurking fact.springlullaby wrote:
a) This is fairly weak. It seems evident to me that it is impossible to impugn on me the intention of "flying under the radar", given that the first post I addressed about my lurking was to say that I was indeed "lurking lurking". Do you seriously think that with a statement like that that it was my intent to fly under the radar?
b) Or it is also possible that I made this play consciously as town and never planned to lurk all day.
Here I think your accusation, which is speculative in nature and is treading into conspiracy territory, is very feeble because you describe advantages to a play like mine for scum that doesn't exist in reality, and ignore the townie reason which far supersede possible scum motive for my play. I do think discussion generated here is good for a morose town. It is no custard discussion, and my play demands strong positions. And when/if I am cardflipped, it will be relevant to look at.
I've already conceded that my argument isn't worth pursuing earlier in this post. Your defense is equally as WIFOMY. So I'm just gonna leave the lurking business behind for now. Umm I'm pretty sure I've only used QFT on like one post. So using "high frequency" is a pretty large reach there.Spring wrote:Lynx The Antithesis: Crappy argument against me. Need to clarify position on Budja. Upgrade to high danger. High frequency of QFT'ing. Upgraded to high danger.
Not sure if I want to lay my vote down just yet especially with him at L-2. His latest post is fine and all giving his suspects, but he still has done little in the the way to address the points presented against him.Lynx wrote:Budja has done the same thing. He just recently removed his "random vote." And speaking of random vote, I do find it very peculiar that he deemed his vote "random." I really lost suspicion for his initial vote earlier in this game. However, his defense of said vote has really made up for that. First he said it was to escape the RVS. Then, he classifies it as bad play since he declared that the vote was pretty much useless when he applied it. A little after that he said he was trying to spark discussion and scum tells. And now, he just deems it another random vote. Don't think that we've forgotten that vote Budja because we haven't. I just don't know whether to place it as poor play or a genuine backpeddaling. You have moved back up on my scumlist nonetheless
Or maybe he's scum buddying up to a townie... might want to keep that in mind if you're town.RedCoyote wrote:RedCoyote: I do not know what to make of the extensive defence of me exactly, but I'm not complaining. I don't think he has been particularly scummy. Low danger.
Understandable considering that they really hadn't contributed much up to this point.RC wrote:While I think it is anti-town not to engage, I think it's significantly worse to be in a position of you, Azhrei, or Budja and say spring should be our Public Enemy #1 when all of y'alls contributions have been rather on the light side. Budja in particular has struck the complete wrong chord with me.
Now this is where the defense is really coming through. You're basically calling out anyone going after Spring at this point. Like don said you basically "lumped" all of us together even though we were suspicious of Spring for different reasons. Don was going after spring for her analysis post due to a belief of intentional misrepresentations and ambiguities. I was on Spring for her intended Lurking and lack of vote in her huge post calling everyone else out for their milky play. Goat's problem was with Spring was similar to my own, but he wasn't even voting her. Why shouldn't we press the biggest lead and most questionable of the play? When you attack anyone after Spring I think it most definitely can be deemed a defense.RC wrote:And I'll even go further than that and say that don, Goat, and Lynx have all slightly pinged back scummy to me for pushing this issue needlessly. I think spring is an easy out, and I would not be surprised if more than one scum is voting her right now...
You're saying it's acceptable, yet you were suspicious that one of the scum may be on her wagon? You seemed so certain that her move wouldn't be beneficial for scum. Then why would you be fine with her lynch. I think you just said this in an effort to shed the defending attacks thrown at you. Before you said you'd only move your vote to her in case of a deadline.RC wrote:Moreover, I've said that lynching spring is acceptable today. Granted, I think that would be a bad move on the town's part, because I certainly don't think she's the most scummy player here, but spring has no one but herself to blame for ignoring the game as she hasn't given anyone an acceptable excuse of her behavior other than "deal with it".
It seems like you've slipped alot this game. Poor play or are you just riding these frequent "slip ups"? Post 304 seems a little opportunistic to me as well. Yes, you've expressed some suspicion to Coyote, but I feel you hopped on for the very small, speculative suggestion of possible scum buddying to Spring. I proposed this earlier. Did it not catch your eye then? Seems to me like you were looking for any reason to jump off the completely stalled Don wagon onto the RC wagon.Budja wrote:@Lynx, sorry for not clarifying this earlier. I didn't notice your question.
Calling my earlier vote random was silly. The vote was fairly useless virtually as soon as I had placed it, by my own fault.
I was mixing random with casual/generally unimportant as random votes generally are.
In short, I muddled my words up.
You may have put up somewhat of a defense. I just believe that most of it rely's on everybody believing that you've made poor decisions as a player rather than actually explaining your actions. If you didn't believe strongly in the don case, you shouldn't have layed your vote down. You should never just vote simply to appease the town. You just look like you're trying to escape the pressure on you. The possibility that FHQ presented seemed like way too minor a reason to switch your vote.Budja wrote:I fully believe my defence was legitimate.The worst thing I did was fail to show suspicions IMO and I have being attempting to become more active lately to combat this failure.
I have a bad habit of misplacing words, of using the wrong word when I mean another. I have done this a couple of times to my disadvantage but I can hardly defend myself beyond correcting my mistake. Not much else I can do.
I never really strongly believed in the don case. I simply believed in it more than any other case at that time. I was been hassled to place my vote so I placed it in the best position at the time.
RC's became more scummy, I changed my vote.
The quote from Goat was not meant to confuse or prove anything in particular. It was a comment that loosely reminded me of this case. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted it but it did influence me a bit and I thought it best to show one of the reason I was changing my vote.
Please note that fhq's post is what convinced me the most. The quote was just a minor thing in comparison.
Um well, at this stage do you want a claim?
I said I'm completely fine with a hammerdon_johnson wrote:Fos: lynxsee above.
If he was so obvscum you should have had your vote on him earlier. This post comes off pretty scummy to me.Jebus wrote:I'm very prepared to hammer, I just wasn't voting budja before because we still had a week or so of deadline to go after someone who wasn't already obvscum.
Based upon Budja's which I believed was pretty timid, I honestly didn't think he'd fake claim. I figured he'd just claim vanilla. What is even scummy about this? Because I said it's ballsy? It was based upon a read of Budja's prior play today.springlullaby wrote:This is total BS, what's exactly is ballsy in fakeclaiming doc? When you are scum and about to be hanged, it's pretty much no brainer.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Jesus alot has happened. I actually believed the claim until Spring's counterclaim because with Budja's seemingly poor play I honestly didn't think he'd be ballsy enough to fake claim. I figured if he was scum he'd take the the easy way out and claim vanilla.
I wasn't very clear. The post I was referring to was here:Spolium wrote:Actually, the meta defence was mine. You can read the thread I was talking about HERE - pages 12-14 in particular cover a push on a Budja lynch.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Don- His meta excuse for not seeing Budja as scum could be valid, I just don't have anyway of knowing that.
Your meta defense is a separate incident (From a brief skim of that game it looked to me like Budja was much more vocal. I may read the game closer a little later).Here Don's reason for not voting Budja based upon a meta read.don_johnson wrote:i didn't see the tells outside of the poetry phase. alot of what people were calling "slips" seemed like honest mistakes. i am in another game with budja and he is playing similar. the only thing that drew my attention was his voting pattern. in hindsight he seemed to be hopping the popular cases these last few pages. damn tunnel vision. i actually thought that one of you two might be doc. if budja hadn't claimed scum here i would have asked for more discussion on the counterclaim. c'est la vie! good start.
Frankly, It's more of a gut call based upon my reread which I tend to use more as the we proceed further into the game.Don wrote:lynx: i don't see where RC's interactions with budja were very genuine. can you provide some examples?
I completely agree you shouldn't just rehash arguments and pull anything out of your ass just to seem like adding somewthing to the case. The simple fact that he was scum just doesn't automatically make you town though. I see the highest chance of bussing coming from you. You could've at least stated which aspects of the cases on Budja you agreed with. If my claim wasn't the most scummy component of your vote, then what was? It's pretty stupid to ask you about this. It's just the way you used the word "least" makes me believe that you felt there was worst elements of your vote.Deuxieme Octopus wrote:Any reasons I posted for voting Budja would have been redundant. Of course there's a good amount of WIFOM in what I'm going to say but, if I was scum would I drop a heavy vote like that without giving at least a paragraph or two of bullshit to prop it up? I could have at least taken the time to quote a few of the others on the bandwagon and then reiterated them. But I did not. The case against Budja was so self-apparent, and I really shouldn't even have to defend it since, hey guess what he was scum. I think if anything, what you claimed was scummy in my vote was the least scummy aspect of it.Lynx wrote:DO- Out of all the people on the wagon of Budja, i feel like DO is the most likely to have bussed Budja. He layed down the L-1 vote with little to coment on besides the fact that Budja was pretty obviously scummy. I think, At this point, it was pretty apparent that Budja was gonna be the lynch candidate of the day after my vote. So DO had no trouble dropping the deadweight that Budja had become. His proposal today to lynch the uncountered doctor is pretty scummy. I think it could have just been a poor townie proposal as well though.
What?millar wrote:But who in fact is guility of being wrong? hmmmm
I think the fact that I asked you who you'd vote for clouded my thoughts about that matter and I just associated your vote with the deadline. I agree that it's wrong on my part to characterizer your vote in such a manner. I do still maintain that once you voted Budja you appeared to lose focus of him. It may have been your problems with RC that shifted your attention though.Spolium wrote:
Defending Budja in any way was a pretty stupid move on my part - I'll admit that - but it's somewhat disingenuous of you to describe my vote as "the only one laid largely due to the impending deadline" without considering that you asked me who my prime candidate was "in the face of a deadline". I answered your question, but I didn't place the vote itself for deadline related reasons at all - I placed it because I had waited long enough for Budja to pick up his game and thought his flip would yield more information than most others.
don_johnson wrote:the majority of my post offered much more reasoning for my not voting budja than simply "meta". you imply that i did not vote budja based on meta. this is incorrect. not sure which game you are reading, but his early play seemed similar. i.e. budja seemed to not be much of a leader in either game. this, however, was only one part of my decision.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
I wasn't very clear. The post I was referring to was here:
Your meta defense is a separate incident (From a brief skim of that game it looked to me like Budja was much more vocal. I may read the game closer a little later).don_johnson wrote:i didn't see the tells outside of the poetry phase. alot of what people were calling "slips" seemed like honest mistakes.i am in another game with budja and he is playing similar. the only thing that drew my attention was his voting pattern.in hindsight he seemed to be hopping the popular cases these last few pages. damn tunnel vision. i actually thought that one of you two might be doc. if budja hadn't claimed scum here i would have asked for more discussion on the counterclaim.c'est la vie! good start.Here Don's reason for not voting Budja based upon a meta read.
The only other reason I see in this that you saw his mistakes were honest slip ups. So I considered that your meta was a large reason for your lack of vote. The rest of the post seems all like reasons why you should've have seen Budja as scum such as the voting pattern and jumping on popular cases.
i don't understand this. do you mean that you prefer gut to facts as the game progresses?lynx wrote: I don't recall Don ever really commenting on the vote
don didn't.
I think the fact that you didn't even acknowledge it is telling?
plausible, but unlikely. i wasn't on his wagon and i was in no danger of lynch at the time. how would the vote have "distanced" us? personally i interpreted the vote as a frustrated townie's attempt to scumhunt. though i felt spring's interpretations of my posts were misrep, i by no means claim to have been beyond suspicion and seeing as how budja's vote carried no wieght i felt no need to respond as i was concerned in finding actual scum. day 1 is never easy. i still don't read budja as scum.lynx wrote:When I questioned Budja about his switch to RC, he replied that he never really found Don scummy and that he only layed down the vote because the pressure on his lack of any real stance.I think Budja just used the vote to distance from Don plain and simple.
I think that he went after you was a distance attempt. Like I said it was a weak effort by Budja. But now knowing that he's scum, not town, the "frustrated townie" doesn't hold up. Any vote by scum on scum is a distance attempt. By expressing suspicion on you it makes you look less likely to partners. There were no votes on you and I don't believe that he would lead the charge against a townie. He saw an easy attack in his partner, and seeing you not respond to the vote only makes more inclined to see you as a pair. Just because you think the vote carries no weight I still don't think you should simply ignore it. I agree that day 1 isn't easy. Since we nailed scum, I think using him is the most informative way to start day 2.
Frankly, It's more of a gut call based upon my reread which I tend to use more as the we proceed further into the game.Don wrote:lynx: i don't see where RC's interactions with budja were very genuine. can you provide some examples?
Not at all. But there are little 100% facts to go on besides investigations and other informative based power roles. Mafia is speculative in nature and I think many cases are made on feelings in general.
i disagree. scum are desperate, as soon as the heat turned up on RCscum i don't see why he wouldn't be willing to bus his partner straight to the gallows. in fact, this seems to be a perfect example of a text book bus.lynx wrote:Now I reread purely RC and I've realized that his vote has been on since the RVS. He continually questioned Budja's though throughout the earlier party of the game. Now It's a pretty strong bus to keep your vote on your partner all of Day 1. Towards the end of the day RC got somewhat wrapped up in the Spring defense/opinion and most of his posts addressed that alone towards the end, but he was being attacked by many players. So he had plenty to respond to keep him busy. I do find it a little strange that he went a little quiet about Budja after page 10 or so. However I find his continued expression of suspicion enough to not see a strong connection between the two.I find it a little difficult to buy that he'd ride his partner that much.
Yeah, but RC was on Budja all day. He didn't just turn up the pressure on Budja once it started heading his way. It's not impossible by any means I just believe otherwise. If you see a strong connection, then how come your votes on DO, and not RC. You said you placed it on DO for no other place to put it. It seems like you see something with Red.
don_johnson wrote:you are wrong on my reasoning for my vote on DO, it is more than just "a place to put it". you are mischaracterizing my statements by excluding parts that are relevant. my suspicions on RC are documented in thread.
you have confirmed now that your vote on me is "gut" and that it is "speculative in nature" and not based on facts.
I got you here and concede that your thoughts from yesterday wouldn't change. It still doesn't change the suspicion to me of you ignoring the vote which sticks out to me.i don't get you here. because i now know that he's scum, my thoughts from yesterday are now supposed to change? it seemed like a "frustrated townie attempting to scumhunt" type vote. if it was a weak effort by Budja, did you notice any strong efforts?
I'm not getting this reason still. You thought that one of the two of them was the doctor before or after their claims? My thing against you was why you weren't on the wagon in the first place not after their claims.(well inserted Zoolander reference boosts my respect for you at least)you should go to "THE DEREK ZOOLANDER SCHOOL FOR KIDS WHO DON'T READ GOOD". you missed this one:
sorry, but i'm not down with lynching players i think might be doc.dj wrote:i actually thought that one of you two might be doc.
But I have no way of knowing that you thought that before their claims considering you stated this read after both of their claims. I don't think it's fair of you to pose that question when I have absolutely no basis to believe you didn't vote them because you thought they were power roles. What in Spring's play made you think she was the doc before the claim? The same goes for Budja.don_johnson wrote:the thought occurred to me before the claim. first with spring, then with budja. why would i vote a player who i think may have a town pr?lynx wrote:I'm not getting this reason still. You thought that one of the two of them was the doctor before or after their claims? My thing against you was why you weren't on the wagon in the first place not after their claims.(well inserted Zoolander reference boosts my respect for you at least)
It was for my own clarification. You brought up the fact that I missed this reason. I wasn't sure if you meant that you weren't down with lynching power roles after their claim or before. The reason I ask you is that the way you explain it may change what I believe. Just look at when I messed up your view that you thought Budja was a frustrated townie on Day 1. If I hadn't asked you i would still be under this false impression. You cleared it up. Hence why I ask the questions.don_johnson wrote:
you are the one asking about this line of reasoning, not me. would you rather i lie? if its a no win situation you have placed me in, it is much more polite to just let me know, than to ask me a series of questions whose answers you have already made up your mind not to believe.
don_johnson wrote:first results were that RC was home alone all night. i asked about what i would see if RC had an investigative immune role, and was told that my results have nothing to do with alignment, and that my ability only reveals if someone targets my target(as you said). what i am stuck wondering is this:
if RC is mafia, is there any reason he would be home alone? there not being an nk last night adds to my confusion. wouldn't scum read as "out" anyway? i thought both scum and mason roles had to leave there houses to speak at night, which leads me to townRC.
Yeah consider it retractedhohum wrote:It isn't kosher to talk about ongoing games. Sorry.Lynx The Antithesis wrote:Oh and Hohum what the hell happened between you and Empking? You're going at him pretty hard in Rebels. Just curious.
FHQ wrote:...speaking of which, if he IS the scapegoat, I find it interesting that Goatrevolt is pushing him the hardest. It by no means is a scumtell, but if Budja just made a mistake (and taking Spolium's word for it, not for the first time), your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum.
Point 2: Seeing another connection to Budja. It's apparent that FHQ is attempting to change the focus from Budja to the lurkers. I feel like the lurker hunts are always the easiest way to avoid actual scum hunting. The only ones I feel town should ever go after is the active lurkers. Ones who constantly only provide fluff posts.FHQ wrote:I think the ones we should be looking at, are the lurkers. If we are just townies fighting among ourselves, the ones winning is scum lurking and waiting for us to string up one of our own.
Point 4: I call FHQ out on the lack of vote, he finally votes Spring. Appeasement anyone? I don't buy the whole waiting for vote count excuse really or his justification of no vote for earlier in the game.FHQ wrote:Lynx wrote:
Budja and FHQ who are your top candidates for a lynch. Who are you most willing to lynch and what is holding you back from laying your vote on that person?
Speaking for myself, at the time of my previous post, the vote count wasn't up yet, and I felt cautious to vote until I know what the standings are.
Thing is, my suspicions earlier in this game was mostly 'fishing' to see responses, rather than having something solid. That being said, I rather like my feeling on spring at the moment, so I feel confident to vote: springlullaby.
Point 6: Complains that the game is stagnating. Why don't you do something about this problem? You're not helping by adding little. You're waiting for other people to stir things up. Again I see no vote for Red though you still express suspicion of him.FHQ wrote:Ugh, this game is stagnating.
atm I'm torn between DO for his absurd 'policy vote' suggestion and RC.
RC, I just don't buy your 'opinion vs defense' argument (or is that just my opinion?). Personally I think you would have looked much better if you just conceded on being on the defense for spring. This justification of your defense that isn't one is just doesn't work for me.
QFT. I felt a similar vibe as well with this post by Don. It just doesn't seem characteristic of Don's earlier votes and comes off a little opportunistic.RC wrote:don 525 wrote:
you say this as if SL needs your advice. seems like you are seizing a chance to come off as pro town here.
I think the little spat between them is null, but post 524 sounded opportunistic to me.
Nothing major for me, certainly not enough for a vote just yet, but it seems awkward nonetheless.
.FHQ wrote:Firstly, I'm not going to apologize for my 'protection' of Budja. I believed he was town being scapegoated and believed he was town up until he's slip. If being wrong makes me scummy, then vote away
I don't see a strong possibility of two doctors. Has anybody even seen a game with two doctors?springlullaby wrote:No it is not, I am doc. I'm simply gauging you and the possibility of there being 2 doc and 1 watcher.Jebus wrote:A whim, actually. This, and the fact that I'd screwed up as a townie pretty badly, I thought :/Spring wrote:You say that you are doc and thought me town because you protected me. What in meantime made you change your mind?
Also, your tone is telling me that you're publicly showing you're not the doctor. Is this accurate?
I don't see this as a likely scenario. You're suggesting that the scum doc countered the scum role blocker? Or that the scum doc countered the real doc on day 2? The first situation seems unlikely because then both scum power roles would be outed and under severe scrutiny. The second is also unlikely because I highly doubt that the scum would trade their mafia doc for the real doc after losing a member day 1. Both just seem so improbable to me. I just don't see any strong possiblity of a scum doc being one of our claimed docs.sekinj wrote:However, I think they could also easily both be docs, one town doc, one scum doc, and the mod used the same/very similar rhyme for their PMs
RC wrote:Goat 639 wrote:
sekinj, Rhinox, and fhq would be my top 3 choices for a lynch at this point. I'll review each and decide this weekend sometime.
I concur with these choices.
I definitely think it'd be best for them to leave their decisions in the dark as well. This way the scum will have to deliberate whether they should go for the power roles or leave them be to avoid having their kill blocked or their actions watched. This will keep the scum guessing rather than the town outline their plans for the night. Though it is harder then for us to gain info, but it's worth it I feel.RC wrote:I'd even go so far as to argue that more important than the lynch (especially if we decide to leave the claimed roles alive) is how the town decides on where the powers should be used.
Half of me thinks it's wise to concoct some sort of grand scheme for the night actions, half of me thinks it would best be left to the player's discretion. I feel like, no matter how we configure it, the scum will be in on our plans and will know how to take advantage of the situation.
So, and I know spring won't have and problem with this (lol), it might be best that spring, Jebus, and don stay quiet and all ultimately make their own decisions about who to use their powers on. This way the scum can't interfere and wind up sacrificing one of their own to knock out two power roles (which would defeat the purpose of leaving them all alive today anyhow).
I read the game with the vig Darkdude, mason Xdaamno, etc. In a way it does lessen any second thoughts I have from that plan he proposed(I wasn't too suspicious of that in the first place). It seemed typical of his playstyle. Alot of his ideas were bizzare in that game as well and he turned out to be the cop. The thing I found suspicious was his L-1 vote more due to the little reason he provided and the fact that Budja was most likely becoming dead weight at that point. I see a good bus possibility there.Rhinox wrote:By the way, Spolium and anyone else, has your opinion of DO's play in this game changed any as a result of reading his comments in the 2 games I posted?
sekinj wrote:
So, to me, it really does seem like we actually have 2 docs. BUt what would the mafia have to have to counter such a powerful town? at least a godfather I'm thinking...