Mini 792 - Tofu Mafia. Game over!

springlullaby · Post Post #11 (isolation #0) » Tue May 12, 2009 2:52 pm

/confirming

springlullaby · Post Post #42 (isolation #1) » Thu May 14, 2009 11:41 am

I think Ecto is townish with his contribution so far and Spyrex comes off as weaker in the exchange, I don't think Ecto qualify as 'trying too hard', what he has said so far makes sense and I find the level of aggression to be adequate.

Adel wrote:could all players please answer the following questions:

1. what games (with links) have you finished in the last 6 months?
2. what are your on-going games?
3. what is your personal definition of lurking?
4. of the players in this game, which players have you played with in the last six months?
5. what other names do you play mafia under here?
6. what other sites have you played at within the last six months?

I gotta say I don't really see the point to these questions mafia wise and I'd like an explanation for the choice of each of them please. I'd also like you to answer your own questionnaire. My request is only vaguely mafia motivated, I'm kind of just curious about your alts and turnabout is only fair play I guess. Now,

1. From the top of my head, Hack Poetry Mini Normal; Killing Verses Mini Theme; Town of Merrin Mini Normal; Freelancer Large Theme.
2. Chosen Mini Theme; Beards Mini Normal; And Then There were None Mini Theme; DHDSM.
3. People who don't post.
4. In the last six months? Ectomancer and poptajo(ongoing) I think.
5. Nyballosulgniirkps
6. No comment.

Atm, I think Porkens not keeping that third vote on is good bread.

Vote Porkens

springlullaby · Post Post #161 (isolation #2) » Mon May 18, 2009 2:09 am

Lol, I got prodded whereas I was rereading.

So I'm back, and rereading.

springlullaby · Post Post #164 (isolation #3) » Mon May 18, 2009 4:08 am

A quick question before posting my thoughts,

MOD:

were scum allowed to talk before the game?

springlullaby · Post Post #218 (isolation #4) » Tue May 19, 2009 2:59 am

Well more has sprouted.

Adel, why are you voting Spyrex?

Post coming later today.

springlullaby · Post Post #233 (isolation #5) » Wed May 20, 2009 2:45 am

I totally have not read the last page which have sprung into existence but if I keep postponing this I'll never be up to speed, so here.

@Porkens

Porkens wrote:1)Did someone say "trying to hard?" Or are you quoting yourself?

2)"keeping" or "sticking," this is starting to give me a twitch! And since you're the third person to say it, offering no new reason to vote me or addressing my explanation...

Unvote. Vote Springlullaby

1. Yes, I'm quoting Spyrex. Is that a motif of suspicion at all? Because I don't see the point. Had I been 'quoting myself', what would have been scummy?
2. I was unconvinced by your first explanaion and I agreed with what Ecto was saying, my vote was a testimony to that. This is a weak point, expecting people to offer new reasons each time they vote is unrealistic. (As a commentary on this, Spyrex did a better job of defending you in later exchanges with Ecto than yourself - I do not know how to place this info yet.)

So, your vote is pretty sloppy here, which I wouldn't have minded given the early stage of the game at the time, but your last comment by which you seem to justify your continued vote on me is weak also.

Porkens wrote:What a rediculous qeuestion in 164, spring "Hey mod, I should ask this via PM but I want everyone to know I asked it: did the scum get to talk pregame <CAUSE I DONT KNOW IM NOT SCUM>" blarg.

Is that a serious point of contention? If so, I'd like you to explain why you think town would not have asked this question puclicly because I see not.
If you are meant to ask why I asked that question, it's because it crossed my mind while reading some interractions; it is a relevant question because it give an idea as to scum prepardness and it is one which would have deserved a public answer.

I'm not going to push the joke thing further because the way it has been explained is plausible: you may have conceived it as a part of the joke, who knows. But your vote here is very weak, and the rest of your contribution has been lackluster so I'm awaiting your reply with anticipation.

@Elmo

elmo wrote:1)One thing I dislike about springlullaby's 42 is that she says "Spyrex comes off as weaker in the exchange". That seems to be implicitly polarising; Ecto is attacking Spyrex, so we should be supporting one against the other. The most common situation is that two people arguing are town, purely because most people are town, so I'd have expected her to consider that; scum have a motivation to play townies off against each other, which is what it looks more like.

2)Oddly, I also dislike her conclusion that Ecto is townish, there. It seems too easy. I'm not opposed to the conclusion, but I had a similar thought and then checked myself because it seems unlikely to be a big tell for Ecto; he says himself it's probably null. At least without indication to the contrary, I don't think there's a big enough deviation between alignments for that behaviour, and I wouldn't trust it much if at all, but it's a straightforward enough observation for scum to make to try and appear like they're doing stuff.

This seems to be a lot of commentary for originally a two line sentence, you are kind of squeezing every possible drop out of it.
1)I said 'weaker' I didn't say 'scummy' for a reason, which is that I was not convinced it was a town/scum thing but liked Ecto better so far.
2)What item in Ecto's play are you referring to? I don't even think we are on the same line here, my comment was a general comment about the vibe Ecto gave in his posts. I also said 'townish' which is a weak quantifier in my book.

Elmo, bizarrely your posts are not succinct at all, they are also vague in their intent. I'd like to ask who you think is scummiest at the moment.

Comments in no particular order:

- I think the conclusion to Adel's questionnaire thing is weak, but maybe I had unfair expectations. The Herodotus vote I don't like either, it is rather formulaic, and dropped a little too quickly. And the Spyrex vote is an interrogation. I kind of detect the first hints of 'refuge in complexity' in the mystery surrounding Adel's play and this warrant a

FOS

Though I will add here that there is one point I liked v much in Adel's play, and this is her question to Ecto. I think the level of suspicion displayed there is rather townish, but I kind of wouldn't put it past her to be so good that it is fake.

-This lead to: I have to say I found Ecto's personal experience post to be strange, I don't see what you are apologizing for, up to that point your play was perfectly normal looking to me. I've been thinking about the possibility of it being a scum gambit (because it would be a rather brilliant idea actually), and am coming to the tentative conclusion that it is probably not. Because it would require awe inspiring amount of cynicism.

- I've noticed this game has a fair amount of theory battle, and playstyle snobbing, and it would be better if it ceased. I think everyone here already has an individual opinions on how mafia should be played, and we could probably all put a good argument in for it. Playing in such a cast is an interesting prospect but it could also turn quickly into 'how much I despise your playstyle and here are the arguments why' ego fest. The bottom line on this is that we should all keep in mind that we are not going to make other change their opinions if we go into theory/playstyle.
And in the interest of future entente, I'll also list here what make me tick personally:
* People who have the presumption to tell others how they should play, and forget about discerning who is scum and who is town.
* The absence of neutrality of tone. I'm okay with curtness and mafia related aggression, not with disdain and lack of consideration.

I agree with the Artem vote.

quote wrote: Spring - is playing pretty much like she did in the other two games (where I knew her alignment to be town); and I still stand by my earlier point that the best way to get SL posting is to start pushing a case on her (and I don't really have the stamina or purpose to do it a third time).

This passage is entirely weird and I think artificial: the fact that the motive by which he is putting me at townish is because I have not contributed is mind boggling, I believe that the furthermost any honest townie can read into a meta back-ed absence is giving a nulltell.

The meta is also off. I contributed much more unprompted in both games we were in.

Then consider the second part of the post which is basically an encouragement for people to 'push a case' on me while having no part of it and having me at 'townish'.

I'm surprised this hasn't raised more red flags because it is quite the scummy.

I also think his defence face Spyrex's case is not good, it is overly exasperated at some point, and make emotional 'I'm intimidated' appeal at other. And his vote on Spyrex is also nebulous. I don't get it.

Unvote Vote Artem

springlullaby · Post Post #234 (isolation #6) » Wed May 20, 2009 2:49 am

Urgh, I didn't see Ecto's post before posting. Please forgive me my comment toward your play if it comes off as cold. Hope you get well soon.

springlullaby · Post Post #235 (isolation #7) » Wed May 20, 2009 3:31 am

Troll wrote:springlullaby seem to be stalling rather than contributing. Troll be sure that Troll will shock no one with a Vote: springlullaby. In addition to the lack of participation we have post 164 (asking the mod for information about scum's pre-game chatting chances) which strikes Troll as designed to maker her look like she no had that information more than anything else. There no be much to work with here and Troll dislikes what Troll sees. If springlullaby were to be lynched and come up scum then Artem and Ectomancer would be good paths to pursue based on what them have said about her. Porkens strikes Troll as an unlikely partner for her at this time.

According to you, I'm scum because...I have not posted during 5 days?
What do you think I would accomplish as scum by 'stalling'?
As for the 164 post, which is a repeat of Porkens' argument, see my previous post.

And if I'm scum Artem and Ectomancer would be my buddy because they defended me? And Porkens because he voted me?

These conclusions are remarkably straightforward and lacking of mind screw, which is not a very towny thing in mafia. Your vote is weak here, and the implications you make are even weaker.

-----------------------------------------

I don't even care anymore. This game is supposed to be fun. Instead, I'm irritated to no end. In every game where I try and post more than once a day to play the f-ing game, some douche starts pushing bunk against me. ( http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10182 and http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8600 , if you want other examples of activity = irritation). Score 1-0 for lurking.

I'm tired of this shit, so I'm just going to go back to watching, since it seems that the less I participate, the more fun I have.

This game is heading off into weird territory very fast.

1) Why are you pissed since you seem to think Spyrex is scum?
2) If you want to quit, then quit. Your position here is wholly bizarre, defending against other people case is a requirement in mafia.

I think this is emotional appeal, and I'm not giving you town credit for it.

springlullaby · Post Post #236 (isolation #8) » Wed May 20, 2009 3:32 am

EBWOP

*And Porkens would be town because he voted me?

springlullaby · Post Post #245 (isolation #9) » Wed May 20, 2009 5:19 pm

I'm upset by this as well and I agree with Zorblag's post fully. I too would like for Ectomancer to stay in this game if he feels up to it. Beyond the fact that it was him who had the great idea of putting this game together, I'll remark here that people being VLA is a common happening in any given game. So Ecto, please take care of yourself, and if you still wish to continue playing I think many of us would be glad for it as we genuinely appreciate your play - I know that I do.

springlullaby · Post Post #262 (isolation #10) » Thu May 21, 2009 10:26 pm

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Elmo, bizarrely your posts are not succinct at all, they are also vague in their intent. I'd like to ask who you think is scummiest at the moment.
Apart from 175 (which I explained), which of my posts seem vague or verbose to you? And "KILL HERODOTUS PLZ K THX" combined with voting Herod seems pretty unambiguous to me. (It's him. We need to kill Herodotus post-haste. With death.)

I did not actually conceived your "KILL HERODOTUS PLZ K THX" as serious. In fact I have read all your posts so far as stray commentaries without a strong vote. I will give you are reread with this info.

springlullaby · Post Post #263 (isolation #11) » Thu May 21, 2009 11:52 pm

springlullaby wrote:According to you, I'm scum because...I have not posted during 5 days?
What do you think I would accomplish as scum by 'stalling'?
As for the 164 post, which is a repeat of Porkens' argument, see my previous post.

And if I'm scum Artem and Ectomancer would be my buddy because they defended me? And Porkens because he voted me?
Well, Troll no be at all sure that springlullaby be scum and she has been posting so that no be it. It be the posting without contributing to the information pool. Stalling through the start of the game allows one to assess the mood of the game and then voice ones suspicions accordingly. It gives us less to compare to when we look at your actions. Your current vote on Artem be an example of how this could be beneficial for scum. It be a vote that Troll no objects to on it's own as Troll does find Artem suspicious (even for some of the reasons you give) but the fact that it comes when many others have already expressed unease with Artem's play be convenient. We no had any prior reads from you on Artem to compare it to.

This is a justification of your vote, and what you are justifying is a vote on someone who has not posted during 5 days, 3 of which were weekend absence. Your complaints about my vote on Artem having no precedence is especially weak and actually quite the unfair argument, were I town and truthful in my motives, there is nothing that I could do about it.

The bottom line on this is that no matter how you candy wrap it, your reason here amounts to lurkerhunt, and this to the disregard of 1)my being VLA during the weekend 2)the content I posted afterward.

springlullaby wrote:A quick question before posting my thoughts,
MOD:
were scum allowed to talk before the game?
Troll can certainly think of a couple reasons why this might be worth asking and if springlullaby would like to give particular interactions that she saw that be fine (if springlullaby would prefer not to Troll can accept that reluctance as well) but it would surprise Troll if there were no reactions at all that springlullaby could have given that would not compromise the information that might be gained by having the question answered. Putting off all contributions until this question be answered be troublesome. Further, Troll no cares for the the implication that you no know the answer to the question. It could easily be true but the way it be asked that strikes Troll as a large part of the motivation to make the post at all.

Well, what do you expect me to answer you. I posted that question because it crossed my mind after catching up, and did it independently of game analysis because it was a short question and took no time at all. I hadn't gotten around to write my thoughts down at that point yet, in fact I wouldn't have the time to do it before 1 day afterward. I'm sure my use of tenses is a mess here but I can't be bummed to figure it out.

Here again what you write is a justification of your vote describing a plausible scummy explanation of my action whereas disregarding the fact that it is not the likeliest. The fact that you took 1 serious big paragraph to write it is nothing positive in my book. The following: "Troll no cares for the the implication that you no know the answer to the question" is particularly inane and unfair, were I town, don't you think that I would indeed not know the answer to the question?

As for why Porkens likely be town if you be scum, it be more than just the vote him has cast on you. It be the way the two of you have approached eachother all game. Porken's first post did draw attention to you. Your first post draws attention to him. Porkens, more than most in the game has come back to you. If you both be scum this be much more than distancing would require. If you do flip scum Troll no will rule Porkens out as a partner but him will certainly be lower on the list because of what Troll has seen from both of you.

And what would you say Porkens be if I be town?

It is interesting to me that the reasons you uses to justify reading Porkens and I being from different alignment are arguments that I personally would find to be in favour of there being possible distancing. Early non-game related name dropping + barely justified and lasting vote.

For Artem and Ectomancer, it be more than just a defense of you. It be the idea that it be OK for you to lurk. Neither one be saying that you be town. Both be giving reasons not to make a read on you yet which be noteworthy. Again, should you turn up scum Troll no will simply assume that one or both of them must be your partner but them will be looking at more closely.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

Firstly this is technically false, Artem gave me a town read. Secondly, asking me to be accountable for Artem and Ectomancer's actions is both unfair and scummy.

Zorblag, I'm noting with interest here that you say you agree with some of the reasons indicting Artem's guilt, that you say "you could even vote him", and that you even suspect him of being 'my buddy', all this while voting for me. This strikes me as doubly strange because, beyond the fact that it is unusual, I judge there to be better and stronger reasons to be voting Artem than your vote on me which amounts to 5 days lurkerhunt and a second point which is quite inane.

So here is the question for you. How would you judge my scumminess in comparison to Artem's? Why?

Now now, you are not allowed to turn into saying that I'm blame shifting. I'm asking this because in the event of Artem flipping scum, which I think is going to happen more and more, I see your post here to be soft distancing from Artem by saying that you find him scummy while not voting for him, and at the same time setting a mislynch by implicating me as Artem's scumbuddy. And if Artem flips scum, I want your written words here on why you are not voting him despite saying that he is scummy, and why you are pushing me on what I see as a weaker case.

springlullaby · Post Post #264 (isolation #12) » Fri May 22, 2009 12:19 am

Porkens wrote:Spring: The reason I asked about "trying to hard" was I couldn't find any post in which anyone actually said that, yet you put it in quotes, as if someone had. It's not a trick question.

Alright, but you lumped it in with your reason to vote me, hence my asking you if it was a point of contention at all.

As for you following Ecto's vote; as you say you were following his reasons but they were
bad
reasons. The "sticking to" or "keeping" terms were being missused. Sure, you don't have to always have origional reasoing, but you shouldn't follow BAD reasoning.

I disagree with this. I stand by the fact that Ecto's reasons of suspecting you at that point in the game were fine. Your post came across as someone who's intent was to mock people being suspect of a third vote on a wagon - implying that a third vote on a wagon is nothing to be worried about, which I would agree with - the fact that you did not keep your vote there seem to be in contradiction with the intended meaning. But I can actually see the whole 'the vote was part of the joke' now. Personally I would have kept my vote there.

Troll brought up a good point;
why
did you ask the question? Pretend you had gotten a "yes" answer and tell us what that would have meant to you. Which interactions are you talking about?

I dislike the fact that you are using 'us' here, what 'us' are you talking about? Furthermore, are you serious that asking me 'why' did not cross your mind? It seems to me that it is the only valid question to ask in this whole affair. And to answer, I have wondered about a number of plays, including, Adel, Ectomancer, Vi/Adel, and Spyrex/Artem.

By '''stalling''' you could be hoping to avoid notice altogether, let alone suspicion. If you say
nothing
, no one can hold anythign you say against you.

Do you seriously believe the words coming out of your mouth?
Let's pretend that anyone can 'avoid notice altogether' I'll refer you to the following:
1. During 3 days, I was VLA.
2. I made 3 post saying that I would post presently in the span of 2 days upon my return. I can objectively say that I could have not posted during that span of time without any of you noticing/or finding it overly scummy: so what interest had I to post what I posted if my intention was to go unnoticed?

springlullaby · Post Post #265 (isolation #13) » Fri May 22, 2009 12:39 am

Vi wrote:
s-lullaby 233 wrote:So, your vote is pretty sloppy here, which I wouldn't have minded given the early stage of the game at the time, but your last comment by which you seem to justify your continued vote on me is weak also.
Voting for people whose content is mostly "rereading, will catch up" is weak? This is news.

1.Nowhere do I find in Porkens's original vote concern over my not posting.
2.My content is mostly 'rereading, will catch up' true, but you are dismissing the fact that I have not lurked for any duration of time, and that the posts in question where made in the span of two days. This is making me roll my eyes because I posted these "catching up" posts only because I felt vaguely guilty about not warning people of my VLA, and only because this is a nomination game. Under normal circumstances I would not even have bothered, scum or town.

s-lullaby 233 wrote:Is that a serious point of contention? If so, I'd like you to explain why you think town would not have asked this question puclicly because I see not.
ftr, I've tried something similar as scum. It didn't go over well. Thus I don't think Porkens is necessarily on the wrong track, and I agree with Troll's comments on it in 238.

In case it's not obvious I disagree with your assessment of Porkens.

You were no doubt rookie scum then, because the manipulation is as unrefined as can be. In any case the argument is weak (see my previous posts) and I judge it to be no fit as sufficient for a continuation vote in the present state of the game whereas load has happened.

s-lullaby 233 wrote:What do you think I would accomplish as scum by 'stalling'?
Skipping Early Day One^TM sounds good to me. That's when precedents are set and first impressions formed, and in my experience skipping all that is quite liberating. Plus you're very likely not going to be subject of the first "serious wagon".

Nice recitation of standard theory. What are your arguments in favour of my not just being VLA, and too busy to write my catch up post the two days afterwards?

springlullaby · Post Post #266 (isolation #14) » Fri May 22, 2009 1:04 am

Artem wrote:
SL wrote: The meta is also off. I contributed much more unprompted in both games we were in.
I don't think the meta was off when I made that post. Yes, now that you've avoided posting content for pages, the meta is off, but who's to say you didn't do it on purpose so that you can make this argument?

I was kinda waiting you around the corner on this one, and you sort of exceed expectations.
1. Your meta was off at the time of your post for the simple reason that my absence which you read as town was caused by VLA, as was mentioned in thread before your post. I think this should have nullified any read in the mind of a honest townie since no purpose can be read into my absence under these circumstances. Agree/disagree?
2. So, you think 'I threw off' my meta for the purpose of...framing you? Are you serious? Lol. I think that's quite the scummy counter here.

SL wrote: I also think his defence face Spyrex's case is not good, it is overly exasperated at some point, and make emotional 'I'm intimidated' appeal at other.

The only place I've said "I'm intimidated with the cast" was when I was explaining to Vi why my posts are concise and unsure. Can you please quote where I used "I'm intimidated" appeal in my defense against SpyreX?[/quote]

Well, this is actually true. What struck me was the dissonance between you making such a post alluding at being intimidated with overtone of shyness, of 'relative newbie card', and your later defence face Spyrex in which you did not read intimidated at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Right now I like my Artem vote.
Zorblag is looking scummy because his case on me is a lot of words, weak reasoning, and warped arguments. The strangeness about his relation to Artem's in the post supposedly addressing my guiltiness may be relevant later.

I need to reread everyone else.

springlullaby · Post Post #267 (isolation #15) » Fri May 22, 2009 1:50 am

SpyreX wrote:
Is the opposite true? Should we be looking at folks who were kind and receptive as more possibly scum than me or those who made no comment?

No. Results that are "normal" are, really, null. Its the fact you were outside a normal response in such a way that wouldn't fit scum modus operandi that made me make my statement.

Btw, I disagree with this evaluation of Porkens' comment on Ectomancer.

If Ectomancer is town, the chances of his absence being a gambit are null. If Ectomancer is scum, there exists a possibility of it being a gambit. To this follow:
1. If Porkens is town -> Porkens doesn't know Ectomancer's alignment -> Porkens is willing to risk being a jerk in the event of Ectomancer being truthful, this willingness means that he is being a jerk
2. If Porkens is scum and knows Ectomancer's alignment to be town -> Porkens is purposefully being a jerk
3. If Porkens is scum and knows Ectomancer to be scum -> Porkens is being scum

My conclusion about this is that, judging on this specific event alone, Porkens has 66,66% of being a jerk, and 33,33% of being scum knowing that Ectomancer is gambitting. Given that I believe the chance of Ectomancer gambitting about this to be null independently of alignment, the result can be corrected to Porkens being 100% a jerk. No kidding.

springlullaby · Post Post #277 (isolation #16) » Fri May 22, 2009 1:57 pm

Adel wrote:I'm not going to vote for Artem unless someone presents a solid case. Pseudo-random day 1 witch hunt seems to be the current cause of his wagon.

This is not acceptable. There has been a lot being said about Artem, with people voting for him for a myriad of reasons.

Do delineate clearly which reason you find to be 'pseudo-random' and why.

springlullaby · Post Post #278 (isolation #17) » Fri May 22, 2009 2:09 pm

SpyreX wrote: @Spring:

If Porkens is a "jerk" does that make him town or scum? My statement says that being a "jerk" of that nature IS a towntell considering. I can't decide if you're saying he's null or what from your statement.

I think the principal quality required from Porkens to make his comment is to be a jerk regardless of alignment, so yes it means that I think it is null.

I also wonder why you think it is a towntell because I think that in face of uncertainty and baring being a jerk town is actually a lot more likely to be at least tactful over the matter.

______________________

Artem, assessment of everyone in the game please. I can't place your Porkens vote.

________________

Porkens, do reply to my post addressing you.

springlullaby · Post Post #280 (isolation #18) » Fri May 22, 2009 4:35 pm

Adel, what is the purpose of your last post? You have quoted me. Yes, then what?

What do you fail to understand in my asking you to clarify the reasons why you think the argument made against Artem are 'pseudo-random'?

If you throw the 'bullshit flag', that is ok, but I'm going to ask you why again.

Plus, I did not say that your objection was not acceptable. Ofc, you are welcome to your opinion ^_^ But if you are going to make the statement that you find a wagon which may lead to a lynch to be objectionable, I want to know why. Do you need me to elaborate the reasons for that?

Now explain why my comment 'lends support' to your thinking that the wagon against him is a 'witch hunt' because I fail to reconnect the dots.

springlullaby · Post Post #281 (isolation #19) » Fri May 22, 2009 4:40 pm

Clarification, that emoticon was sarcastic. Saying this because it comes across as suggesting friendliness of tone, not my intent.

springlullaby · Post Post #296 (isolation #20) » Sun May 24, 2009 5:31 am

Adel wrote:
Elmo wrote: Spring, why does Adel's mere lack of support get more attention than me shouting that Artem is town?
*ahem* did you miss that she was trying to get me to argue
why
I thought the wagon was pseudo-random bullshit? She doesn't seem to want to actually argue why she supports the wagon.

@Elmo. The difference between you and Adel is that you have presented argument on why you think Artem is a bad wagon. I think these arguments are a plausible townie stance, thought I don't agree with them. Especially the townie/townie fight. I think people are giving too much credit to that emotional display because 1)'exasperated townie' is actually an easy role to slip in as scum 2)it does not make sense for town to be pissed off at someone they think is scum the way Artem has been.

@Adel. Is there an accusation somewhere in there? To comment on what you are saying, I have already argued why I support the wagon, it is you who are refusing to argue why you do not support it.

Plus, I totally don't get the motivation behind what you are doing here. You say Artem's wagon is bad but you offer neither criticism nor analysis, or even a new direction to take. So yeah, what are you doing exactly?
______________________________________

Artem about spring wrote: Good posts and attempts at scum-hunting, but several things seem off.
1-Still hasn't replied to the question: assume the mod answered yes, what are the connections that you're seeing between players? The further the answer is delayed, the more inclined I am to think that there was no such notice and the question was for show;
2-"Lol, scummy" reaction to one of my points. The cynics in some players are wondering if Ecto is pulling a gambit. Why is it so much more ridiculous of me to wonder if you purposely avoided to post to make my meta read on you off? Is it not a valid thing to wonder, especially since you've never warned us about your V/LA?

1- Factually false, see reply to Porkens.
2- The reason your suggestion is 'lol scummy' is as follow: you are proposing that I, as scum, threw off my meta in the interest of framing you - this is stretching and amounts to conspiracy theory. Tell me, were I scum, what interest do I have not to play to my town meta which garnered a town read from you?

-------------------

I like the present state of affairs and my vote remains. I'm however looking forward to Porkens and zorblag's contribution.

springlullaby · Post Post #358 (isolation #21) » Thu May 28, 2009 1:12 am

Will be posting in this one tonight.

springlullaby · Post Post #407 (isolation #22) » Sat May 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Summary draft, will elaborate later. My read for the day, the scum reads are unlikely to change baring minimum scale 3 armageddon.

Scum (ok to lynch)

Artem - I think the derailing of this wagon is a mistake and artem is firmly scum.
Ectomancer - My call on this one is going to be very subjective on certain points but my conviction is pretty strong.

Scummy (people I'm feeling wishy washy about and potential lynches, or not)

Zorblag - This one is more nebulous and I kinda fear I'm being OMGUSY so I'll make one reply/question post.
Porkens - Weak play and lazy votes, I'm not sure I buy the towntells consisting pretty much exclusively of bravado.
Adel - Scummy with promises of amend, I don't mind being patient a little longer for the delivery, but not too long.
Herodotus - Opaque play, nothing stray too much in scum territory, nothing stray in town. Been weaker lately.
populartajo - General sloppy impression and hard to judge.
town.

Also, am curious to see where this wagon on Adel is going to lead.

springlullaby · Post Post #559 (isolation #23) » Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:20 pm

Hmm. This is interesting. I'm not going to doubt that town claim since it would be a pointless move from you, so as a question to a confirmed town, Herodotus, why do you think Artem is town because I really think he is scum.

springlullaby · Post Post #569 (isolation #24) » Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:28 am

Adel, could you explain your last spreadsheet please. I thought it was votes correlation but it apparently is not.

springlullaby · Post Post #576 (isolation #25) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:37 am

So we have one dead roleblcoker and one vig claim. Hmm. Setting the matter aside for now.

I'm puzzled as to why Pop died.

Anyway, Vi needs more pressure.

Vote Vi

Case in the writing

springlullaby · Post Post #621 (isolation #26) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Actually I will make this simple.

Vi, you have called for an Adel lynch very early in D1 (note here that I think the exchange between Adel/you at the beginning of the game was bizarrely moody - I think it may have been ego-crumbing) - and you seemingly had a true bone of contention with her for a long time judging by the span of time you left that vote on. Yet when Ectomancer and Porkens started the only true Adel wagon of the day, you did not comment on it one single time. I think this is pretty scummy and unlikely behavior as town. So why are you voting Adel now?

springlullaby · Post Post #623 (isolation #27) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:55 pm

Ectomancer wrote:<grabs some popcorn>

Why?

springlullaby · Post Post #626 (isolation #28) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 pm

Troll wrote:springlullaby's vote does interest Troll. In light of Post 407 (which be the latest set of reads springlullaby seems to have given) Troll wonders why it is that Vi be the one that springlullaby would like to see pressured at this time?

That's an okay question but I would think that the answer is pretty self evident. I was wrong about Artem, I'm revising a lot of my views.

Your vote is meaningless to me. I'd like you to clarify your suspicions/and or what you expect to accomplish by it.

springlullaby · Post Post #627 (isolation #29) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:04 pm

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:ego-crumbing
What?

Vi came off as very moody very early on. When I'm scum I like to hint at being angry, at having an ego, to establish my character as a townie made of blood and flesh. I think it may have been the case there.

springlullaby · Post Post #628 (isolation #30) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:07 pm

Zorblag wrote:springlullaby, when did you first notice this about Vi?

Noticing what?
The Vi/Adel thing, very early on.
The Adel vote, about 1 hour ago in my reread.

springlullaby · Post Post #630 (isolation #31) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:30 pm

springlullaby · Post Post #632 (isolation #32) » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:42 pm

I picked Vi in particular out of a mysterious process which was half elimination, half gut upon seeing the morning corpses. There are also some irregularities that I have noticed yesterday which have factored in, but I'm going to engage Vi in a conversation first.

springlullaby · Post Post #664 (isolation #33) » Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:41 am

@Vi. If I understand correctly, you found that Adel's meta matches as town and scum alike, and that she 'delivers' eventually, yes? (I haven't verified this so I'm taking your words for it for now;)

If so, isn't it more natural to conclude that Adel's failure to deliver is a nulltell?

I don't find your 'stalling' scenario to be very convincing. If Adel is scum, I think it is a lot more likely that she's genuinely been caught off guard by the hammer yesterday, and this because it can't be that hard to pull something out of her arse with those spreadsheets of hers, especially D1 while town isn't likely to held her rancor if she is wrong.

And yes, I have other issues.

Vi wrote: I've thought about moving my vote, but since s-lully likely wouldn't care if I voted her and Adel seems content to pull strings, I don't think it's necessary.

This tidbit is pretty strange. Why didn't you vote me? Because 'I wouldn't care'? Seems to me if you want to pressure people, them 'caring' or not shouldn't factor in. I think the Adel bit looks terribly like coaching too.

Generally speaking, I think your play stands out compared to others. You have pretty much commented on everything D1, but the effective pressure you have exercised on people is actually pretty low.

------------

@Adel, if you think Vi and Troll are scum together, why did you choose to vote Troll over Vi?

springlullaby · Post Post #669 (isolation #34) » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:49 am

Vi wrote:@s-lullaby: "Matched". And the delivery came sooner than this.

This is beside the point. You are using meta in a fallacious way, if you found out that Adel's meta indicates that she 'delivers' both as scum and town, then you using her lack of delivery in the context of her meta as a motive of suspicion is invalid.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:This tidbit is pretty strange. Why didn't you vote me? Because 'I wouldn't care'? Seems to me if you want to pressure people, them 'caring' or not shouldn't factor in.

I don't understand the logic behind the last sentence. I'm not interested in going through the motions; I'm interested in results. If I don't think you're going to respond to a vote that I'm placing for pressure, there's no point in placing it.[/quote]

This looks like a lame rhetorical excuse. I don't think it is likely for town to renounce pressuring people of perspective scumminess on the ground that 'they probably won't respond'.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:I think the Adel bit looks terribly like coaching too.
I don't follow.

I'm sorry, what don't you follow?
Are you that naive, now, really.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:You have pretty much commented on everything D1, but the effective pressure you have exercised on people is actually pretty low.

As opposed to your own play?[/quote]

Yes, as opposed to mine.

springlullaby · Post Post #670 (isolation #35) » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:52 am

EBWOP submit instead of preview.

Vi wrote:@s-lullaby: "Matched". And the delivery came sooner than this.

This is beside the point. You are using meta in a fallacious way, if you found out that Adel's meta indicates that she 'delivers' both as scum and town, then you using her lack of delivery in the context of her meta as a motive of suspicion is invalid.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:This tidbit is pretty strange. Why didn't you vote me? Because 'I wouldn't care'? Seems to me if you want to pressure people, them 'caring' or not shouldn't factor in.
I don't understand the logic behind the last sentence. I'm not interested in going through the motions; I'm interested in results. If I don't think you're going to respond to a vote that I'm placing for pressure, there's no point in placing it.

This looks like a lame rhetorical excuse. I don't think it is likely for town to renounce pressuring people of perspective scumminess on the ground that 'they probably won't respond'.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:I think the Adel bit looks terribly like coaching too.
I don't follow.

I'm sorry, what don't you follow?
Are you that naive, now, really.

s-lullaby 664 wrote:You have pretty much commented on everything D1, but the effective pressure you have exercised on people is actually pretty low.

As opposed to your own play?[/quote]

Yes, as opposed to mine. Amongst others.

--------------------------

@Adel. Then would you be agreeable to vote Vi?

springlullaby · Post Post #673 (isolation #36) » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:38 am

Vi wrote:
s-lullaby 670 wrote:This is beside the point. You are using meta in a fallacious way, if you found out that Adel's meta indicates that she 'delivers' both as scum and town, then you using her lack of delivery in the context of her meta as a motive of suspicion is invalid.
I didn't know I had to give a full and complete meta read the first time. My apologies. Or something.

I don't follow. You have justified your vote on Adel today on the ground that she hadn't 'delivered' as a proof of scuminess. Yet your meta was that she did 'deliver' as both town and scum.

s-lullaby 670 wrote:This looks like a lame rhetorical excuse. I don't think it is likely for town to renounce pressuring people of perspective scumminess on the ground that 'they probably won't respond'.
Well, let me ask this. Would you have responded any differently had I voted you?

I did respond to other votes on me, did I not?

s-lullaby 670 wrote:I'm sorry, what don't you follow?
Are you that naive, now, really.
I don't understand what you're referring to by "coaching". I've only seen the term used maybe twice and the quote you gave doesn't seem to match up. No comment about naivete

I mean coaching defined as trying to influence a buddy's play.
i.e. You commenting on Adel 'pulling strings' followed by 'I don't think it's necessary'.

The comment in itself kinda don't fit in your scenario of yourself trying to determine Adel's alignment between the lines. Giving hints as to how you think she should act kinda defeat the purpose of observation, no?

s-lullaby 670 wrote:Yes, as opposed to mine. Amongst others.
Amongst others, maybe. Yours? Unless it was against people who were accusing you of anything, no. Hence the surprise when you said you would pursue a "dialogue" with me from myself and others.

The point to the above being? I did pressure Artem a fair bit. And I did not make heaps upon heaps of comments on seemingly everything and nothing in particular. In fact you are pretty much the only one who did that.

springlullaby · Post Post #730 (isolation #37) » Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:13 am

Vi wrote:
s-lullaby 673 wrote:I don't follow. You have justified your vote on Adel today on the ground that she hadn't 'delivered' as a proof of scuminess. Yet your meta was that she did 'deliver' as both town and scum.
At risk of sounding patronizing, it was also in a timely manner. In the other game I saw Adel offer a questionnaire, the results were compiled and fully explained D1, and while a big show was made about how it was
so much work
to compile the answers, it was pretty easy to put together. (And pretty impressive, admittedly.)

Why are you avoiding the point again? Whether in a timely manner or not, if it happened while Adel was town and scum alike, you meta is invalid as an argument here.

s-lullaby 673 wrote:I did respond to other votes on me, did I not?
Ah... yes, you did. I was mistaken. (Those responses were the defensive flare-ups mentioned earlier.)

Let me decrypt you answer here:

Yes I was wrong, but I will append another sentence to turn this into a criticism of my questioner somehow.

s-lully 673 wrote:I mean coaching defined as trying to influence a buddy's play.
i.e. You commenting on Adel 'pulling strings' followed by 'I don't think it's necessary'.

The comment in itself kinda don't fit in your scenario of yourself trying to determine Adel's alignment between the lines. Giving hints as to how you think she should act kinda defeat the purpose of observation, no?
I'm not sure if you're hinting that I was trying to pass along a secret message or just misreading, but "I don't think it's necessary" was referring to my decision on whether I should move my vote.

Alright, I can accept this answer, it's simple enough.

s-lully 673 wrote:The point to the above being? I did pressure Artem a fair bit.
Mostly out of defense from Artem's accusation, and for a total of... two and a half posts, IIRC.
I did pressure Herodotus quite a bit (for what it's worth), and also Adel quite a bit (for what it's worth)... and you regarding your absence and immediate defensiveness, though you never responded (#24).

Nice selective quoting. So let me repeat it here, you made heaps upon heaps of comment on everything and anything in particular. What do you think of that? I'll answer myself now, I think it doesn't fit your town meta that I'm aware of.

And here again with the turning the table technique of reply, scummy if you ask me.

What did I never respond to?

springlullaby · Post Post #731 (isolation #38) » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:04 am

On spyrex:
- The mafia gambit suggestion is pretty out there imo, if Spyrex was maf claiming vig, then I'd expect SK/vig to have counterclaimed by now
- Could be a brilliant SK gambit who knows, but I would leave the matter in mafia's hands.
- Personally I think the whole thing pretty unlikely.

@Spyrex: do you plan on posting ever again? What is it with people being so susceptible.

On Adel:
I'm stunned by the last couple of pages more than anything else. The little analysis I have is that pushing scum role on claimed vig (in such a disproportionate way no less) is a maf thing, but Adel is doing such a good of 'townie caught in the headlight and starting to lose sense of proportions' impression, it makes me hesitates.

So yeah, here is a question for you Adel. Are you trying to make a statement of some sort with you play? Would by any chance the problematic motivating your moves in this game be something along the line of "reputation, a demonstration of its influence on people's judgment in mafia game"?

@Ectomancer: My suggestion was meant to toy with an Vi/Adel idea.

springlullaby · Post Post #732 (isolation #39) » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:06 am

Elmo wrote: Both Spring and Zorblag seem to have dropped off the radar with this Adel/Porkens business.
> >

Please do stop "snipping from the sidelines". It is ineffective and makes you look scummy if you are town.

springlullaby · Post Post #733 (isolation #40) » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:10 am

I've decided, I'm gonna vote Adel in 72 hours if nothing brilliant has come from her by that time which would convince me that I have been too stupid to see the rhyme to what she has been doing.

springlullaby · Post Post #835 (isolation #41) » Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:40 pm

@Adel.

1) I do not get the way you are acting as if you are unjustly attacked. When I make un-obvious play as town, I expect resistance and don't act naive if it comes. The answer to your question "what do I expect of you" is simple: justify the town motive behind your play, because I do not see it.
2) I do not like the last 2 pages, from either you or Spyrex, I see those page as pointless bickering.
3) I do not like the fact that you have posted your spreadsheet and the questionnaire answers for about the 3rd time, and consider it very plausible that it is malicious spamming.
4) I do not like the following:

Adel wrote:
springlullaby wrote: @Spyrex: do you plan on posting ever again? What is it with people being so susceptible.
do you think that appeal to emotion was legitimate? Storming off like that doesn't meet my expectation for townie behavior.

My answer is no, I do not think any attempt at appeal to emotion is legitimate, especially in this game because I think everybody here good enough to do it at scum. However, I remember clearly that you have dismissed my using this argument toward Artem as "pseudo-random", so I'm not liking your change here.
5)Generally speaking, the only reason I'm personally wary of calling you scum is because your play makes as little sense as scum as it does as town and am second guessing because I would expect better from you, scum or town. This is no longer satisfactory as I see you as plausibly daring enough to make that play as scum and setting yourself up as an easy target.

Now, below is the compilation of all the vote you have cast till now. I'd like you to justify each of them, clearly, and without mystery.

Day 1:
Vote Spyrex
Vote Herodotus
Vote Pop.
Vote spyrex
Vote Porkens
Vote Herod

Day 2
Vote Zorblag
Vote spyrex
Vote Vi

__________________

@Spyrex.

Why are you setting this as Adel town/Spyrex scum or Spyrextown/adelscum scenario?

If Adel flips town, why should it be conviction of your guilt?
If you flip town, why should it make Adel scum?

__________________

@Elmo, and DGB. I'm reserving comment on your play here.

springlullaby · Post Post #841 (isolation #42) » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:34 am

Vi wrote:
s-lullaby 730 wrote:Why are you avoiding the point again? Whether in a timely manner or not, if it happened while Adel was town and scum alike, you meta is invalid as an argument here.
Then let's take the meta out and say that Adel hasn't demonstrated that what he's put forth in response to D1 events has been much more than quackery.

Doesn't work like that does it? I'm holding this against you, especially since you've been trying to weasel out of this one in your last 2 replies.

Again, you are correct. The criticism is there because it reminded me of what you hadn't responded to before regarding your overdefense of your lurking:

Overdefense is a word which make me roll my eyes. If you try to push a case on me, especially a crappy one, please expect to have your head bitten off.

Vi #24 wrote:
s-lullaby 265 wrote:Nice recitation of standard theory.
I didn't think of it as standard theory before, but nonetheless. Are you above standard theory?

1) I remember you using the (TM) sign, so why would you deny that it is standard theory is beyond me.
2) Yes, I'm above standard theory, because I'm aware of it.

Vi #24 wrote:
s-lullaby 265 wrote:What are your arguments in favour of my not just being VLA, and too busy to write my catch up post the two days afterwards?
Who's to say this isn't true? After your vigorous denial of wrongdoing to the point where you seem to be suggesting that you CAN'T feasibly be considered scummy for what you did, that doesn't seem like an issue any more.

I don't even know what the point is exactly here. Do you reproach me the fact that I have demonstrated that Porkens and Zorblag's case sucked?

Btw, contrarily as depicted in your misrepresentative account, the reason for which Porkens and Zorblag's cases sucked was not because I could not be 'feasibly scummy' for the reasons invoked, but because the reasons invoked were used in disproportionate way, whilst ignoring simpler and more likely townie explanation.

Here the misconception is entirely yours, I can quote myself saying exactly that.

As far as I can tell you never answered these; your lashing out against everyone who called you scummy early on and claiming immunity for scummy behavior is still unresolved.

See above.

I have no idea what kind of meta you claim to have on me, considering we've never played together. My focus D1 was on peoples' fluidity of opinions, hence the commenting on everything.

I've read Grimmafia in which you were less conversational and more focused.

s-lully 835 wrote:1) I do not get the way you are acting as if you are unjustly attacked. When I make un-obvious play as town, I expect resistance and don't act naive if it comes. The answer to your question "what do I expect of you" is simple: justify the town motive behind your play, because I do not see it.
In light of this, I'd like some answers to my previous questions. (@s-lully)

I don't see the connection.

springlullaby · Post Post #848 (isolation #43) » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:18 pm

Spyrex answer question plox.

springlullaby · Post Post #849 (isolation #44) » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:32 pm

Btw, Adel, if you try to stall my 72 hours vote deadline under the pretense of 'reaction' or whatever, don't bother. I will vote you if you I think your explanations makes you scum. I also will vote you if you do not answer. Because you are due some readability.

springlullaby · Post Post #861 (isolation #45) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:02 am

Adel wrote:as I see it, right now there is the voting block of
1. (Vi, Porkens, SpyreX) who will only vote Adel
2. (spring, Ecto) who mmight vote Adel
3. (Troll, DGB, Adel, Elmo) who will not vote Adel

I think that the group of (Adel, Ecto, Elmo, DGB, Troll) should be able to agree that there is at least 1 scum within (Porkens, spring, Vi).

The reasoning behind this escapes me, but I guess it must be because I am stupid. I will simply remark that 1/3 odds is

brilliant

. So much better than 3/9 odds that town must be in at the moment with 3 prospective scum.

Re: gambit on Spyrex
What kind of vinegar fly scum were you expecting to catch exactly Adel?

I don't buy this crap.

____________________________________

24 hours to convince me.

springlullaby · Post Post #872 (isolation #46) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:48 am

Elmo wrote:Ditto Springlullaby. Also, why have you dropped the Vi thing you were pushing?

Ditto what? Why have I dropped what?

Also, where is the case against me?

springlullaby · Post Post #876 (isolation #47) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:30 am

Elmo wrote:Spring,
Elmo wrote:please go into excruciating detail as to why Adel is a such a great lynch
as well.
Please start paying attention and you may find out why I'm threatening to vote Adel.

Actually, you haven't dropped Vi; I missed that you talked about Vi again in 841 but pound for pound you seem more inclined to push Adel over Vi, and I'm curious why. You were making a case and voting Vi as of post 730; an hour later, you said you'd vote for Adel in 24h... I'm also curious why the quick switch.

Because Adel went overboarb at that point in time. Is there a reason you are asking for Porkens and I to justify our vote, but not Vi?

springlullaby · Post Post #885 (isolation #48) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:22 pm

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Please start paying attention and you may find out why I'm threatening to vote Adel.

Do you have some kind of post restriction related to being snarky whenever possible? It's not a question of paying attention - I'd like more detail than you've given, so I requested more. I don't see why there's any call to get prickly about it.

1) Pokettle. I'm less than moved by you calling on my being snarky because you have been bordeline patronizing to me since the beginning of the game. For my part, I do not regret this dynamic and am fully prepared to snob you till the end of the game, especially in light of your whine here.

2) Detail on what? You have not given any acknowledgment of having criticism about what I have said so far. Asking for 'detail' is as empty a request as it get.

springlullaby · Post Post #886 (isolation #49) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:23 pm

EBWOP

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Please start paying attention and you may find out why I'm threatening to vote Adel.
Do you have some kind of post restriction related to being snarky whenever possible? It's not a question of paying attention - I'd like more detail than you've given, so I requested more. I don't see why there's any call to get prickly about it.

1) Pokettle. I'm less than moved by you calling on my being snarky because you have been bordeline patronizing to me since the beginning of the game. For my part, I do not regret this dynamic and am fully prepared to snob you till the end of the game, especially in light of your whine here.

2) Detail on what? You have not given any acknowledgment of having criticism about what I have said so far. Asking for 'detail' is as empty a request as it get.

springlullaby · Post Post #890 (isolation #50) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 pm

Elmo wrote:You are obviously aware townies do gambits like that.
You have ignored or written off the possibility of Adel doing a gambit here. I want to know why.
You have also not stated any reasoning about why you suspect Adel. I want to know why.

It should not be this difficult to say "Adel is scum because ___".

Was that directed at me? If it is, I'm calling inattention again.

springlullaby · Post Post #895 (isolation #51) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:23 pm

Elmo wrote:Spring: As far as I'm concerned, I have no idea how I've been patronising; I don't intend that, and I apologise if I've somehow come across that way. If you'd give some example, I'd try to avoid it in the future?

How candid.

Elmo wrote:Zorblag: Also, I loosely agree with Vi about your day 1 play. It seemed almost robotic to me.

My problem is that I don't like Spring's play, but I don't think I'd like her play if she were town. Now taking bets on whether Spring's case will be posted in under/over 48 hours. My pessimistic cash goes on "over".

My evaluation of your play concerning me is that you have been passive aggressive and wishy washy in toying with calling me scummy indirectly at several occasions while avoiding direct confrontation, interlaced with vague disdainful remarks at other times. I was prepared to see how long you where going to keep that up (as well as see what DGB would make of her 'lynch spring' suggestion which was not backed with a vote) and it is interesting to me that even now you have to piggytail (or whatever the expression) on a vague hypothesis from Adel to start addressing me directly - I think that your whole behavior there is not very protown, but it may be indicative of a townie insecure about their convictions.

In any case, my reply to you on the topic of snarkiness is that I can accept your apology, and will even agree to back into neutral territory on the promise of future mutual laying off; but I'm holding your playing candid as well as the point I delineated above against you.

I don't understand your reasoning for suspecting Adel. I'd like you to spell it out for me. You've basically said (that I can find) that you'd vote her if she didn't explain herself; I don't see why "I don't understand what you're doing" is a good reason to vote someone. If I've missed something you've said, please point it out to me.

1. Yes you have missed several points Adel failed to address in my 835.
2. The explanation behind why not understanding Adel's play is a motive of suspicion is simple: if I cannot understand the town motive behind someone's play, it is suspicious because it may hide scum motive. Failure to explain while asked is doubly suspicious because it may hide an inability to explain the town motive. Now I'd like to know what problem you have with that.

[/img]

springlullaby · Post Post #923 (isolation #52) » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:23 pm

Zorblag wrote:Troll also likes what Elmo has been doing recently. The answers that Porkens and springlullaby have been giving do little to change Troll's opinions thus far and perhaps Troll thinks that Elmo be slightly too gracious to springlullaby in their exchange but Troll no can deny that Troll might say similar things in Elmo's position./quote]

Troll, I remember you saying that I was disdainful to you at some point in this game. I'd like you to go back and point out where you picked that vibe now. The reason I'm asking is because I consider the paragraph above to be, as another put it, deep fellatio.

Also, you have basically parked your vote on me since D1. I'd like to know what happens in your scumworld if I'm not scum.

___________________________

Elmo wrote:I think the point about being indirect is fair. It would be more pro-town to directly say you're townish/scummy, but I'm really not sure where I stand on you. I actually feel better about you for all this, but I don't feel like I have any kind of read, yet. "Insecure about my convictions" is basically correct. In terms of patronising: please say! Call me on it, I didn't know you had a problem with me; I thought it was purely because I was pressing you a bit... scum will sometimes do that to discourage people from interacting with them. I guess I've been bad with that in the past, and my slight paranoia didn't help.
It interests me to know how much of the above is to be appeasing to be appeasing sake. Also paranoia about what? My being scum? Btw, I don't remember you in Ythill's game, so which one was your alt?

As to Adel: unless I'm mistaken, I agree she hasn't responded to the reasons in 835, but they seem to vary a lot in how clear they are to me. Like, #1 is about her reaction to being attacked, and that seems very straightforwardly written to me. #2 is "I do not like the last 2 pages, from either you or Spyrex, I see those page as pointless bickering." and I'm at a loss as to this reason to suspect her. And #1 doesn't investigate the likelihood of her doing it as town, or what she'd have to gain as scum. To be clear, it's not a question of right/wrong, it's more that I have difficulty getting a sense of your thinking from that.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Re: #1 What do you mean 'investigate the likehood of her doing it as town'? It seems to me that my intention there is pretty clear: I don't see the town reflex behind what she has been doing and voiced it, she can reply if she so wish.
Re: #2. I've done pointless bickering, especially over details which are bound to interest no one such as these, as scum. The dynamic behind doing that as scum is that appearing to be always right prime over objective utility. Sometime it happens when town is convinced they are talking to scum, but then it doesn't fit the 'haha, gambit'.

As to 2, it relies on understanding why townies act the way they do. Deductively, if ever a townie acts in a way you don't understand, you'll think they're scummy for it; and there is a lot of miscommunication in mafia, I think, so it seems quite risky to me. I don't have a problem with it per se, though I wouldn't do it myself; but I didn't know that was your view, so some things make more sense now.
I'd like to know what is your view on Adel because you are in the bizarre position of not really willing to pronounce yourself either way, but very willing to attack people who do take a stance.

Small Q: What do you think of Porkens' failure to explain his suspicion of Adel?

I think that it means very little as I think it wouldn't be uncharacteristic of Porkens, town or scum. I also happen to sympathize with 889.

Also, I think your 'excruciating details' business was disingenuous and somewhat clichÃ© to begin with. I would expect you to know that the ability or willingness to verbalize reasons for suspicion does not reflect on alignment most of the time.

--------------------------------------------

Unvote, Vote Adel

I'm going to post one post summarizing my view. And it will be my last post of the day, come hell of high water.

springlullaby · Post Post #936 (isolation #53) » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:47 pm

Elmo wrote: As to #1, you not seeing a town motivation doesn't tell me which potential motivations you've looked at or why you discarded those explanations. You're basically asserting (if I can say that) the lack of possible reasons whilst not writing anything in-thread about plausible reasons TownAdel would do that and why they don't work.

I don't see the point here. I'd like you to be more precise. What are you reproaching me exactly? Please quote my original statement, then make your criticisms in a concise way.

I want clarity because, if I could try and decipher your meaning, I have the suspicion that your argument here is purely rhetoric and devoid of sense, so you will have to work for it.

In #2, similarly: bickering is quite popular with townies, if I understand your meaning of bickering. I don't understand why you think she wouldn't do that as town.

I explained why I don't think town would do that already in my last reply.

I mean, say I posted the words "argle bargle fargle". Now there's no reason why a pro-town person would do that. I would be very surprised if you understood why TownElmo would do that. So considering you didn't understand why I'd do that as town, would you suspect me for it? Serious, non-patronising question.

This is the beginning of a strawman but I will play along. The answer is, if I were to start suspecting that your 'argle bargle' were not benign, I would suspect you for it.

springlullaby wrote:Also, I think your 'excruciating details' business was disingenuous and somewhat clichÃ© to begin with. I would expect you to know that the ability or willingness to verbalize reasons for suspicion does not reflect on alignment most of the time.
I did not say it reflected on alignment. Why disingenuous? (And why would you expect that from me?)

Because, as I have already said, asking for 'detail' without context is as empty a request as it get - it is disingenuous because it presuppose that not being able to give 'details' (again an empty word) is scummy.

Also this I believe is backpedalling alert, you certainly did suggest that it should reflect alignment. Are you trying to back out of this one?

I would expect that from you because I'm under the impression that you, being part of the glorified players in these parts, would know that.

And I can't pair your stance on Porkens with
springlullaby wrote:...if I cannot understand the town motive behind someone's play, it is suspicious because it may hide scum motive.
Failure to explain while asked is doubly suspicious
because it may hide an inability to explain the town motive.
this. Why is suspicion exempt from the latter quote?

Because I'm not suspicious of Porkens for the reasons/or lack thereof he offers to find Adel scummy. Why? Please refer to my previous reply: I don't think it would be uncharacteristic either way.

On a strictly logical level, your argument here is disconnected because I've never claimed to find 'finding Adel scummy' to be un-understandable in the first place.

I could've imagined you saying "I don't understand why X would be suspicious of Y as town, so I suspect X". Expressing suspicion doesn't seem distinct from other behaviour, like making a given argument.

What are you talking about? I don't follow. Again, if you have a reproach, you will have to make it clear.

I'm replying to you there because I'm quite interested in the way you seem to try so hard to pin down some sort of contradiction on me but in a contrived way, plus the wishy washy thing you've got on Porkens. Your lack of frank moves today is slowly creeping up my scum scale. What do you think of Porkens exactly?

springlullaby · Post Post #981 (isolation #54) » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:06 am

Adel:

I'm not buying it and am prepared to lynch. Town roleblocker+1 shot vig + doc, even one shot in a normal setup=like hell.

Ectomancer:

Scummy independantly of Adel's alignment:
- namedropping me needlessy and reading a lot into my possible motive = buddying ->fits meta (see grimmafia).
- filler posts during Adel wagon = laying low.
- scum due to vote on Porkens whom I see as easy target.

Zorblag:

Zleuh. Your case on me sucked. You had no new points beside vaguely ad hom comments. Your style is dense and contrived and indecipherable.

Scum up if Adel flips town due to never taking hard stance on Adel. Scum due to avoiding hard stance on big wagon since beginning.

Lord Gurgi:

Re 'flanking': No, I'm not answering points that are not clear as I'm not going to chase shadow tails of sense.

Vi:

Prolly scum if Adel flips scum due to weird bickering earlier on, not commenting on the Adel wagon yesterday, and voting Adel today.

Porkens:

Weak play, alignment is however exactly crapshot. I'm gambling town due to his 'this town is damned anyway'.

Elmo:

If you have a point, make it. In meantimes, I'm not interested in you 'trying to figure out my thinking'.

DrippingGoofball

: same as Porkens. I'm going to gamble town due Korts quitting. However, finding Adel to be town because he said 'retarded' is lame: it relies on "flippancy=town" meta, and I expect adel to be ballsy enough to exploit it (see Beard Mafia in which I make that play as scum, see the same degree of bad faith I display there, see the town being too cowardly to vote me because I had a big mouth)

-> I'm up to lynch Adel, Ectomancer and Vi.

_______________________________

This town sucks, but not because of what Adel said. It sucks because everyone is too busy to do ego preservation, snobbing others, and pre-emptively pushing blame on everyone else in the eventuality of a town loss to take real stances. Well, 1)it's a game 2)that demoralizing pressure originate in Adel's play.

I'm VLA starting 18 june.

springlullaby · Post Post #982 (isolation #55) » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:08 am

Precision, I'll require replacement starting 18 June.

springlullaby · Post Post #983 (isolation #56) » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:17 am

Precision,

I'll require replacement starting 18 June.

Bold >:u

springlullaby · Post Post #984 (isolation #57) » Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:18 am

Actually, I'm amending my lynch list: add the Troll to the fray.

springlullaby · Post Post #1101 (isolation #58) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:45 am

Ectomancer wrote:Don't worry about it Spring. I found what you were probably talking about. The news isn't good for you. I'm sure you didn't mean to recall this to my attention, but you certainly did.

Ectomancer wrote:c) I believe that it was actually Springlullaby in a MD discussion (or echoing/agreeing with me) when we discussed players who are allowed to live simply by being prolific. (See your b for reference for your own style)
You simply have a different method of avoiding the Day 1 lynch, which are your charts and your graphs (which you actually usually have to your credit)
You were name dropped here for meta purposes. You certainly know that you were involved in the MD discussion concerning activity and life expectancy. Note that this entire paragraph
is me pressuring Adel to spill his guts
and attempting to drag others into pressuring him as well when game state gave us all the leeway we needed (ie 3 townies weren't dead)

I remember one MD discussion in which we interacted directly, but I do not see how my contribution to it is germane to the (nebulous) point you made there. Belows are the links to the stance I expressed in that discussion:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 09#1565909
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 05#1567605
Please point out how citing my name was relevant to your point.

Where were you? Why the vehemence today if the reason wasn't good enough when I brought this up??

I was there with a FOS on Adel, but given that it was D1 I was willing to give Adel a chance.

Ectomancer wrote:
springlullaby wrote: Adel - Scummy with promises of amend, I don't mind being patient a little longer for the delivery, but not too long.
This is exactly the type of drivel I've been referring to!
Oh, there you are....giving Adel an excuse! WTF??

Nice misrep. The quote you brought up was part of my suspicion list, how you could interpret it as giving Adel is beyond me: I clearly indicates that I find Adel scummy, but am willing to wait a bit longer to press the point since Adel promised amend or 'delivery'.

Ectomancer wrote:
Adel wrote:
Adel wrote:
Ectomancer wrote:
People usually let her ride until Day 2 for her promised Holy Grail of Analytical scum
, and to be quite honest, I've rarely found that they help me find scum, and I dont see where Adel's play has improved either. Adel deserves the hardcore pressure cooker.
the portion in bold is nagging me... a) I usually replace into games, b) when I do play in day 1 I am usually confrontational and aggressive, c) I fail to see how this could be a genuine opinion that Ecto generated honestly.
Ecto just went off on a tangent. Bold is what I was talking about.

Name 1 example from your experience where people let me ride until day 2?
Quit nitpicking the damn point. SpringLullably just gave us exactly what I've been talking about. To be fair about the subject, I do the same thing. I find that by being an aggressor (but not a stupid one) early makes me live longer. You just found your own method for doing it and
I'm certain that people in this game know exactly what I mean
, especially if they were commenting in the MD thread (which I conveniently have not located).
Here's your name again, invoked because you excused Adel's behavior. Now you are balls out for Adel, and giving Porkens the free pass? Your actions don't mesh Spring.

[/quote]

That quote made makes absolutely no sense to begin with, what did I 'just gave you exactly'? How is relevant to your point? I did not pick on this at the time because your posts made little sense during that time frame.

Now, please restate again how I am excusing Adel's behavior in there.

springlullaby · Post Post #1104 (isolation #59) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:19 am

Go ahead and quote the examples of namedropping (you?) needlessly. I believe I read alot into everyone's possible motives so if you can point out where I'm doing that to you and not others that would be nice.

See rebuttal in my last post. Plus:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 12#1679712

In the post I link, you offer a very weird reading in possible town motive from me. This fits your scum meta:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 70#1450470
See, I did not know how to place your willingness to offer possible town motive for my play then,

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1463492#1463492 wrote:and gambled that you were town for it

: I was wrong, you were scum. I now think that what you were trying to do here in giving me town interpretation is a mix of 'confirmed town' bias (in which scum know people innocence) and a subtle form of buddying.

You never did do anything similar in the town meta I know of you.

Filler posts? I've put quite a lot of effort with what I've got going on in RL. (You're welcome to meta Ecto just bought a house and took a 2 month haitus because of it, not to mention my other issues)

Post length doesn't account for quality of content.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 43#1711943
This kind of theory opinion when town has hot topic at hand fits scum wanting to lay low and unremarked during a hard fight.

Why do you not point out the same thing about Porkens re: OT to DGB and his general avoidance of answering for, like, anything at all? Did you not understand what the "water off a ducks back" defense meant and that you are happy to actively defend him, allowing him to do it?

1) I can understand a vote on Adel.
2) His not offering answers preoccupy me less than Adel who had big pressure to answer since D1 and perpetually let it slid off his back.
3) You can clearly determine that an argument sucks when it can be returned to the sender in kind: why are you reproaching Porkens his 'water off duck back' behavior and do not do the same for Adel?

How is Porkens an 'easier' target than Adel? Until Adel jumped on, Porkens has been a case that I've tried time and again to bring into the discussion, but it has been ignored repeatedly. From my end, it has been far from an "easy target".

1) Porkens is an easier target because he's got less reputation and general good sentiment to make a 'i'll mystery my way to end game' play feasible.
2) I think you've kept your Porkens vote quite low profile so I disagree on you trying to make it appears as if you've been slaving over to make a Porkens case.

Why do you feel it ok to press Adel to 'explain himself", but you don't feel the need to press Porkens, at all? I absolutely want you to answer all for the Porkens questions seeing as this attack on me is the closest thing to defense of Porkens that I've seen.

See above + I decided to gamble that Porkens was town. If you interpret it as a defense, so be it.

Why do so many of you hold such strong opinions one way or another re: Adel? I don't know how many times I've read you people saying "Adel is town" or "Adel is scum" or "I'm never going to vote Adel", or "I'm voting Adel and that's my last post for the day" (you came back by the way)
That makes no sense to me at all. Clearly some of you are making statements that are not backed by facts, or are backed by facts that the town does not know. I seriously doubt that all of you that have expressed such strong opinions have a valid reason to do so. The only thing I
do
know where those people are concerned is that I know the alignment of one of them, and he was town,
but not an investigative role and not a mason

That tells me that at least some people are talking out of their asses or have scum motivations. You see where that has me looking though don't you? At
you
people, not Adel. Problem is, "you people" does not give me Player X and I think we probably don't have the luxury of an informational lynch even if we had a clear idea of who to go after dependent upon Adel's alignment.

.

Are you breadcrumbing cop there, if so counterclaim now.

I'm not going to trust you with something like this because you breadcrumbed cop by asking cop not to counterclaim in grimmafia as scum also.

In point of fact, I'm still waiting on that one post summarizing your view on Adel and I sure as hell hope that this little bit of gaming the mod isn't it.

I already did make a post summarizing my view of Adel and I never promised another.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 52#1709052

While you're busy defending Porkens as an easy target, maybe you could give his view on Adel for him as well seeing as his actual arguments don't exist? (neither today nor yesterday) and you don't seem to care if he ever explains himself? Maybe you could explain
yourself
where that is concerned, because my recollection says that your vote is on Adel for not explaining...

Your recollection is wrong. See above.

I take this post as scum rambling. Plus your pushing for a cop gambit on Porkens is lame. The only way I am going to believe it is anything else than scum trying to sew confusion is by a counterclaim. Because, as I said, I'm not trusting you with your crumbing as you did it as scum in grimmafia.

springlullaby · Post Post #1106 (isolation #60) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:24 am

Adel wrote:
Elmo wrote:
Adel wrote:also, I adore how you have lying as a cop as part of your meta.
Stuff like this. This isn't testing anything. Why are you doing it?
if he is town I'm pissed off at the accidental hammer, not paying attention to the game, and the sub-optimal timing of his claim.
if he is scum, I'm pissed off that he has a meta for idiotic moves as town (like lying as a cop) that basically makes him unlynchable.
My playstyle depends upon a basic level of competence, which just isn't something that the bad at mafia crew seem to have.

That kind of pointless statement is either:
a) Unsportmanship: you are part of this town as well as the rest of us, if this town lose and you are town, that kind of scape goating does not reflect well on your personality.
b) Town-crumbing by acting big while saying nothing.

springlullaby · Post Post #1107 (isolation #61) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:25 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:@ SL

Who are you quoting? I want to lynch you for not doing proper quote tags.
Code: Select all
[quote="that person that wrote the quote"]

All quote within 1104 were from Ectomancer.

springlullaby · Post Post #1108 (isolation #62) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:29 am

EBWOP please dismiss my 1104, it is quote fail.

Ectomancer wrote:Go ahead and quote the examples of namedropping (you?) needlessly. I believe I read alot into everyone's possible motives so if you can point out where I'm doing that to you and not others that would be nice.

See rebuttal in my last post. Plus:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 12#1679712

In the post I link, you offer a very weird reading in possible town motive from me. This fits your scum meta:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 70#1450470
See, I did not know how to place your willingness to offer possible town motive for my play then, and gambled that you were town for it: I was wrong, you were scum. I now think that what you were trying to do here in giving me town interpretation is a mix of 'confirmed town' bias (in which scum know people innocence) and a subtle form of buddying.

You never did do anything similar in the town meta I know of you.

Ecto wrote:Filler posts? I've put quite a lot of effort with what I've got going on in RL. (You're welcome to meta Ecto just bought a house and took a 2 month haitus because of it, not to mention my other issues)

Post length doesn't account for quality of content.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 43#1711943
This kind of theory opinion when town has hot topic at hand fits scum wanting to lay low and unremarked during a hard fight.

Ecto wrote: Why do you not point out the same thing about Porkens re: OT to DGB and his general avoidance of answering for, like, anything at all? Did you not understand what the "water off a ducks back" defense meant and that you are happy to actively defend him, allowing him to do it?

1) I can understand a vote on Adel.
2) His not offering answers preoccupy me less than Adel who had big pressure to answer since D1 and perpetually let it slid off his back.
3) You can clearly determine that an argument sucks when it can be returned to the sender in kind: why are you reproaching Porkens his 'water off duck back' behavior and do not do the same for Adel?

Ecto wrote: How is Porkens an 'easier' target than Adel? Until Adel jumped on, Porkens has been a case that I've tried time and again to bring into the discussion, but it has been ignored repeatedly. From my end, it has been far from an "easy target".

1) Porkens is an easier target because he's got less reputation and general good sentiment to make a 'i'll mystery my way to end game' play feasible.
2) I think you've kept your Porkens vote quite low profile so I disagree on you trying to make it appears as if you've been slaving over to make a Porkens case.

Why do you feel it ok to press Adel to 'explain himself", but you don't feel the need to press Porkens, at all? I absolutely want you to answer all for the Porkens questions seeing as this attack on me is the closest thing to defense of Porkens that I've seen.

See above + I decided to gamble that Porkens was town. If you interpret it as a defense, so be it.

Ecto wrote: Why do so many of you hold such strong opinions one way or another re: Adel? I don't know how many times I've read you people saying "Adel is town" or "Adel is scum" or "I'm never going to vote Adel", or "I'm voting Adel and that's my last post for the day" (you came back by the way)
That makes no sense to me at all. Clearly some of you are making statements that are not backed by facts, or are backed by facts that the town does not know. I seriously doubt that all of you that have expressed such strong opinions have a valid reason to do so. The only thing I
do
know where those people are concerned is that I know the alignment of one of them, and he was town,
but not an investigative role and not a mason

That tells me that at least some people are talking out of their asses or have scum motivations. You see where that has me looking though don't you? At
you
people, not Adel. Problem is, "you people" does not give me Player X and I think we probably don't have the luxury of an informational lynch even if we had a clear idea of who to go after dependent upon Adel's alignment.

.

Are you breadcrumbing cop there, if so counterclaim now.

I'm not going to trust you with something like this because you breadcrumbed cop by asking cop not to counterclaim in grimmafia as scum also.

Ecto wrote:In point of fact, I'm still waiting on that one post summarizing your view on Adel and I sure as hell hope that this little bit of gaming the mod isn't it.

I already did make a post summarizing my view of Adel and I never promised another.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 52#1709052

While you're busy defending Porkens as an easy target, maybe you could give his view on Adel for him as well seeing as his actual arguments don't exist? (neither today nor yesterday) and you don't seem to care if he ever explains himself? Maybe you could explain
yourself
where that is concerned, because my recollection says that your vote is on Adel for not explaining...

Your recollection is wrong. See above.

I take this post as scum rambling. Plus your pushing for a cop gambit on Porkens is lame. The only way I am going to believe it is anything else than scum trying to sew confusion is by a counterclaim. Because, as I said, I'm not trusting you with your crumbing as you did it as scum in grimmafia.

springlullaby · Post Post #1109 (isolation #63) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:37 am

@Vi:

what do you agree with in my 981?

@Lord Gurgi

: Please find one insult in what I've written so far. I know insults, I havent done them yet in this game. Plus, I did not suspect Adel for the sole reason that he did not explain himself, this misconception has arisen from origins exterior to what I have said so far.

@Elmo

: You have been poking around for a while now. It's time for you to make a stance. In any case the fact that you strolled through this entire day so far without taking a real stance is noted.

_____________________

My mind has not change much, although DGB is looking scummier for going for the "Porkens cop gambit" hypothesis.

I'd like you guys pushing for that to explain that hypothesis is more likely than Porkens being what he claims.

springlullaby · Post Post #1111 (isolation #64) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:38 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Plus your pushing for a cop gambit on Porkens is lame. The only way I am going to believe it is anything else than scum trying to sew confusion is by a counterclaim. Because, as I said, I'm not trusting you with your crumbing as you did it as scum in grimmafia.
I'm sorry, but the possibility of a scum gambit cannot be dismissed on account of every single detail surrounding Porkens' claim. It is very unsettling in too many ways to count, like the who, the why, the when, the where and the how.

Empty words.

What 'single details', what the 'who', what the 'why', what the 'how'?

springlullaby · Post Post #1115 (isolation #65) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:59 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:My mind has not change much, although DGB is looking scummier for going for the "Porkens cop gambit" hypothesis.
Sometimes one has to risk looking scummy for pointing out what is right.

springlullaby wrote:I'd like you guys pushing for that to explain that hypothesis is more likely than Porkens being what he claims.
BIG MISREP.

I said nothing quantitative about the likelihood of Porkens telling the truth, and Porkens being gambitting scum.
Where is the misrep? If you think that Porkens is gambitting scum, then it logically follows that you think it is less likely for Porkens to be saying the truth. This is the only effective reasoning that is germane in a mafia debate. So what are you arguing about?

He could have breadcrumbed that he had a result on you for us to use after his death. Especially with the only claimed doctor having a one-shot protect. He could have investigated other players later, had he not claimed and marked himself for the kill. IF he's town. IF he's town, this is EPIC FAIL noob play.
I think he did breadcrumd that he had an innocent on me in his post in which he quotes me and says that I'm town.

You claim if you have a guilty. You claim if you're in jeopardy of a lynch. You claim if you have a productive innocent in jeopardy of being lynched, more so in late game than early game.

You do not claim when none of the above conditions are satisfied.
1) I see this as trying to move a policy lynch, and not assuming responsibility for your stance if Porkens flips town by blaming him for bad play.

2) Despite what you general theory stance here, you are dismissing the explanation he has offered for his move. For the record, I think his stated motivations are likely and understand his willing to give a new direction to the town.

So let's go out on a limb and put numbers on my suspicion of Porkens. At this point, I'd say he's 85% scum. I think he lost his nerve and his sense of timing.

I disagree with what you are saying, and think your are reaching.
Lost his nerves about what? Sense of timing? Empty words again.

springlullaby · Post Post #1118 (isolation #66) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:48 am

The caps doesn't make your arguments less theatrically scummy.

Ectomancer wrote:
You found the MD discussion. Why in the hell are you acting like what I said was "nebulous" then? That discussion was MORE than relevant to what was going on, and your name was dropped as my lazy way of having the gist of the topic backed without me having to dig through to find it. Seriously, you REALLY believe that MD topic had NOTHING to do with what was happening in game when I brought it up? You STILL dont see the reasoning?

No, I don't see it. Please point out your reasoning since it's so obvious.

You are baffled as to how you were giving Adel an excuse to keep stalling? How about by saying you were willing to keep waiting? wtf?

No, it wasn't an excuse. Adel promised she would 'deliver', at that point in time a FOS was adequate amount of suspicion.

Let's see, the other thing you brought up was that you were burned by me as mafia once, so...you're tunneled on what you think is a meta. Well, we can't argue with meta now can we Thing is, people
were
talking about you alot and yet you weren't really stirring things up. How was that ball managing to roll on its own? (Something I need to go back and look at again :reminder:)

Do you have a point in there because I don't see it.

The 3rd thing I see (and this really hitches) is that you are now full bore acting as though Porkens is confirmed and continuing to actively defend him. Because he said you were innocent? Please! Where did your town objectivity go Spring? I know you aren't inexperienced enough to think that another player saying you are innocent in no way confirms that player. Why do you act as though he is? HE investigated YOU (allegedly), so why is it that YOU were defending HIM both prior to and after his claim?

I've contemplated Porkens as scum gambitting, but it makes no sense for him to want to clear me for town points: I have no significant weigh in the town balance, I'm a good target for an easy lynch. So yeah, very unlikely. You trying to convince me otherwise is scummy.

As for the my defending him 'prior' to his claim: lame argument, I read him as town, I don't have to explain the fact that I read him as town and he turned out to be very likely town.

I've been trying to keep this clean with you Ectomancer, so please do stop the theatrics.

springlullaby · Post Post #1121 (isolation #67) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:13 am

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:I don't have to explain the fact that I read him as town
Huh? Why not, relative to e.g. Adel?

This was badly worded: I have nothing to explain in the fact that Porkens turned out to be likely town due to his claim after my reading him as town as the sequence of events there are beyond my control.

springlullaby · Post Post #1123 (isolation #68) » Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:23 am

@Elmo

Spring wrote:As for the my defending him 'prior' to his claim: lame argument, I read him as town, I don't have to explain the fact that I read him as town and he turned out to be very likely town.

This was my original statement, do you acknowledge selective quoting?

springlullaby · Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:35 pm

Ectomancer wrote:
springlullaby wrote:
Ecto wrote: Why do so many of you hold such strong opinions one way or another re: Adel? I don't know how many times I've read you people saying "Adel is town" or "Adel is scum" or "I'm never going to vote Adel", or "I'm voting Adel and that's my last post for the day" (you came back by the way)
That makes no sense to me at all. Clearly some of you are making statements that are not backed by facts, or are backed by facts that the town does not know. I seriously doubt that all of you that have expressed such strong opinions have a valid reason to do so. The only thing I
do
know where those people are concerned is that I know the alignment of one of them, and he was town,
but not an investigative role and not a mason

That tells me that at least some people are talking out of their asses or have scum motivations. You see where that has me looking though don't you? At
you
people, not Adel. Problem is, "you people" does not give me Player X and I think we probably don't have the luxury of an informational lynch even if we had a clear idea of who to go after dependent upon Adel's alignment.

.

Are you breadcrumbing cop there, if so counterclaim now.

I'm not going to trust you with something like this because you breadcrumbed cop by asking cop not to counterclaim in grimmafia as scum also.
Are you rolefishing here? Because if you are, I have not yet seen you respond to Troll's request for a Mass Claim. I'd like you to respond to Troll's question directly, like now.

I you want to accuse me of rolefishing when I ask you clearly to counterclaim, then so be it. Just be assured that giving your response there, I will not buy any cop counterclaim from you in the future.

Why is this important? Because of the massive stretch you had to take this statement to come out with some kind of breadcrumb. Am I breadcrumbing? I think breadcrumbs are stupid. They don't prove anything except maybe that you thought ahead. That's the best you get for the good part, and the
bad
part is that scum is just as likely, if not more to be looking for and find them (and for some whacked out reason this game people think that picking up on a breadcrumb on an unproven claim is townie? What?)

Do you have a point?

Now, let's go back to your stretch:

I seriously doubt that all of you that have expressed such strong opinions have a valid reason to do so. The only thing I
do
know where those people are concerned is that I know the alignment of one of them, and he was town,
but not an investigative role and not a mason
This. Plainly stating that none of you that have made such absolute opinions on Adel have given a valid reason for it, and the only person I know for a fact was town and stated that "Adel is town" was in fact
not
an investigative role or a mason and so was talking out of his ass. That still leaves a butt load of you making such absolute statements about Adel. Now one of you has claimed Cop, but
he
didn't claim to have investigated Adel either, yet made the "Adel is obvscum" statement.

Where are these assertions coming from?

Can you explain where you get a breadcrumb out of that?

1) Any 'assertions' I made come from my read of this game.
2) Nice playing naive. I consider that you stating that you knew 'one innocent' then opposing counterclaim on cop can be read as a cop breadcrumd. If you say it is not, ok. I'm happy to have cut that venue from you.

I see that you have not deigned answers other points.

_____________________________________________

I'd like to see and Adel flip before I'm gone. I'm agreeable with an Ecto lynch as well.

springlullaby · Post Post #1280 (isolation #70) » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:47 pm

You repeatedly criticizing events that can't be changed now is either:

1) Pointless un-spormantship: if you don't like this game, replace out. Just be sure that if you replace out as scum, it makes you one hell of a sore loser.

2) Purposeful attempts at demoralizing the town.

Either way it's pointless.

@Elmo, vote.
@Lord Gurgi, vote.

springlullaby · Post Post #1282 (isolation #71) » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:49 pm

Clarification, my last post was in reference to Adel's latest piece of pointless whining.

Adel wrote:
Porkens wrote:oh, oh, I just membered. Adel; do you remember the whole "herod breadcrumbed doc and Adel understood"
bit? Did you actually understand his breadcrumbing at the time, as he claimed?
yes.

and it pisses me off that a player astute enough to post
Herodotus wrote:
Porkens wrote:I'm just gunna look stupid this game, I guess.

I see neither a breadcrumb nor Adel picking up on one.
An improper capital "D" -- probably the first spelling error I've made on the site outside of maybe marathon games
"Don't worry, you might not die" -- because you might be protected

So, I don't really know with 100% certainty that Adel was really responding to these as I thought he was, nor that his motivations weren't scum-based. It just seemed that way.
Also, I hope Adel doesn't mind my pointing this out; it works against his ostensible plan to look suspicious enough to avoid the NK. But if I didn't say something, it might have been for nothing.
got killed by an "accidental" hammer.

This game is getting close to burning me out.

springlullaby · Post Post #1297 (isolation #72) » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:17 pm

For fuck sake. Bloody kill it with fire already.

Adel town:
Elmo, Ecto, Zorb = scum for bloody avoiding the wagon like suck.

Adel scum:
Vi, Ecto = scum --> bussing may vary depending on importance of Adel's scum role.

springlullaby · Post Post #1304 (isolation #73) » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:31 pm

Adel wrote:
springlullaby wrote:For fuck sake. Bloody kill it with fire already.

Adel town:
Elmo,
Ecto
, Zorb = scum for bloody avoiding the wagon like suck.

Adel scum:
Vi,
Ecto
= scum --> bussing may vary depending on importance of Adel's scum role.
yet spring is not voting for Ecto.

I said I was ok to lynch Ecto, but I rather see you flip.

Do you have a point?

Btw, this is the last time I address anything from you that is not addressed at me directly.

Actually, I'm amending my list, if Adel flip town the scum are Elmo, Zorb, DGB.
Elmo+Zorb= avoiding Adel wagon like suck
DGB= avoiding the Adel wagon like suck + Elmo setting Ecto as a possible scumbuddy by defending him + obscure and monologue case by Zorb on DGB is distancing.

springlullaby · Post Post #1317 (isolation #74) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:32 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Actually, I'm amending my list, if Adel flip town the scum are Elmo, Zorb, DGB.
Elmo+Zorb= avoiding Adel wagon like suck
DGB= avoiding the Adel wagon like suck + Elmo setting Ecto as a possible scumbuddy by defending him + obscure and monologue case by Zorb on DGB is distancing.
That's interesting.

Assuming that I'm town, who is scum?

Relevance of your question? My read is not dependent on your alignment.

springlullaby · Post Post #1318 (isolation #75) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am

Ectomancer wrote:
springlullaby wrote:
Adel wrote:
springlullaby wrote:For fuck sake. Bloody kill it with fire already.

Adel town:
Elmo,
Ecto
, Zorb = scum for bloody avoiding the wagon like suck.

Adel scum:
Vi,
Ecto
= scum --> bussing may vary depending on importance of Adel's scum role.
yet spring is not voting for Ecto.
I said I was ok to lynch Ecto, but I rather see you flip.
No, you said Ecto is scum regardless. Why are you not voting me if I'm scum? Not enough support (or even a case that I've seen) to lynch Ecto, so you figure Adel is going to be the easiest, take out an Ecto supporter tonight, and that makes me an easier lynch tomorrow?

vote SpringLullaby
(again)

No I said that your were probably scum in both situations. I still think Adel is more likely to be scum.

springlullaby · Post Post #1319 (isolation #76) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:36 am

Zorblag wrote:@springlullaby: Troll just wants to confirm that you know that if Adel be town you now be proposing a scum team which consists of the only three people (other than Adel) who no have voted for Adel today. The entire scum team there would then have held off on lynching a one shot doctor who still has a shot left for as long as the day has gone on when there were plenty of opportunities to change an opinion and be a part of the wagon without it looking particularly out of place. You apparently be ruling out being fairly sure about Adel being town or not thinking that the case on Adel was sufficient as possible town motivations and be saying that the only ones who would have been right not to vote up till now be the scum team while all those who did vote for the mislynch be misguided townies. If that be what you think be the case it be up to you Troll supposes.

Yes, that would the signification of 'avoiding the wagon like suck'.

springlullaby · Post Post #1320 (isolation #77) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:38 am

I'm still up to lynch Adel, Ecto or Vi.

Vi is taking a turn for the worse, progressively creeping down the radar.

springlullaby · Post Post #1323 (isolation #78) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:57 am

Lord Gurgi wrote:So Spring, if the entire scumteam stayed off the wagon, it is safe to say we are not in lylo, or mylo for that matter and that we have at least one free lynch. Correct?

The only possibility for this to be lylo or mylo would be 2 scum kill or a 4 scum. I don't even know why you are thinking along this line or are you saying that your kill is an sk kill?

springlullaby · Post Post #1324 (isolation #79) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:03 am

DrippingGoofball wrote: (1) two power roles claim one-shot powers. Porkens' is not limited. This is, I reckon, a small point, rife with WIFOM on account of the other claims being unconfirmed.
(2) Normally, a cop breadcrumbs his innocents. Porkens failed.
(3) Especially with a claimed ONE-shot doc, a cop breadcrumbs his innocents. however, they are probably counting on being in Lylo tomorrow.
(4) The claimed innocent was not in jeopardy of being lynched.
(5) Porkens was not in jeopardy of being lynched.
(6) Porkens may be declaring a innocent on his godfather.

Yet you fail to take into consideration Porkens' explanation, and you fail to explain why Porkens would make that move now as scum.

springlullaby · Post Post #1325 (isolation #80) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:11 am

What I don't understand is why so much bloody indecision. That kind of play is parasitic.

springlullaby · Post Post #1327 (isolation #81) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:38 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Yet you fail to take into consideration Porkens' explanation, and you fail to explain why Porkens would make that move now as scum.
I find his explanation difficult to swallow.

With this move, he gets everyone off your case, and everyone off his case. The vig was one-shot. As scum, he'd be home free for the win. That would be an excellent scum move.

Home free for the win what?
If Porkens doesn't die or provide accurate reports, don't you think it would arose suspicions?

springlullaby · Post Post #1330 (isolation #82) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:01 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:If Porkens doesn't die
One would assume that Adel would protect him, and the scum would hit another player.

Alright, now explain why Porkens scum would vie for a doc lynch in these conditions.

springlullaby wrote:or provide accurate reports, don't you think it would arose suspicions?

If you're a GF, his "report" will appear accurate. If you're not, by the time we find out, it will be too late for the town.[/quote]

Fallacy,
1)How late is too late?
2)You make it appears as if my possibly being a GF is the likeliest possibility, it is not.

springlullaby · Post Post #1331 (isolation #83) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:06 am

Lord Gurgi wrote:See, if we have an extra lynch, which we do if you're right about the scum, and two scum kill is silly and 4 scum still has the same problem as before (why didn't they hammer if it would have won them the game) so, we can lynch you to prove Porken's claim with no significant consequences.

1) This assumes that testing Porken's claim is a priority, it is not. There wasn't a counterclaim to show.
2) Lynching me doesn't actually prove shit as Porkens could still be scum gambitting and providing a random innocent, and you be sure that scum is gonna be all over that possibility.

springlullaby · Post Post #1335 (isolation #84) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:10 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Alright, now explain why Porkens scum would vie for a doc lynch in these conditions.
It's strange - under any condition. I'd expect the scum to want to be rid of a claimed doc anyway.
"Strange" doesn't cut it.

springlullaby wrote:1)How late is too late?
If we mislynch today... it will be too late to take care of you tomorrow. AMIRITE?
Tomorrow is prolly lylo, so what are you arguing about?

springlullaby wrote:2)You make it appears as if my possibly being a GF is the likeliest possibility, it is not.
It is if Porkens is scum.

Yet you have failed to argue why Porkens is scum.

springlullaby · Post Post #1336 (isolation #85) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:11 am

EBWOP

fixed tag

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Alright, now explain why Porkens scum would vie for a doc lynch in these conditions.
It's strange - under any condition. I'd expect the scum to want to be rid of a claimed doc anyway.

"Strange" doesn't cut it.

springlullaby wrote:1)How late is too late?
If we mislynch today... it will be too late to take care of you tomorrow. AMIRITE?

Tomorrow is prolly lylo, so what are you arguing about?

springlullaby wrote:2)You make it appears as if my possibly being a GF is the likeliest possibility, it is not.
It is if Porkens is scum.

Yet you have failed to argue why Porkens is scum.

springlullaby · Post Post #1342 (isolation #86) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:25 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Yet you have failed to argue why Porkens is scum.
I did.

Check http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 69#1721269

Scroll to the bottom of the post, especially.

No. Read this page, I criticized your arguments and you have not come up with a likely rebutal to my criticism.

The summary of your agument:
DGB:"Porkens is scum"
Me: "Why"
DGB: "Because [far fetched scenario]"
Me: "That scenario is far fetched."
DGB: "Maybe but I don't care."
Me: "That doesn't cut it."
DGB: "AMIRITE"

springlullaby · Post Post #1343 (isolation #87) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:27 am

Lord Gurgi wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote:So he's a gambiting scum
and
you don't want to test the claim?
This was at spring.

Man are you being thick on purpose?
I'm saying that I don't think he is gambitting scum, but even if he was, testing his claim by lynching me wouldn't test shit.

springlullaby · Post Post #1345 (isolation #88) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:34 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:The summary of your agument:
DGB:"Porkens is scum"
Me: "Why"
DGB: "Because [far fetched scenario]"
Me: "That scenario is far fetched."
DGB: "Maybe but I don't care."
Me: "That doesn't cut it."
DGB: "AMIRITE"
It's not far fetched AT ALL.

Why is it far fetched?

springlullaby wrote:
DrippingGoofball wrote: With this move, he gets everyone off your case, and everyone off his case. The vig was one-shot. As scum, he'd be home free for the win. That would be an excellent scum move.
Home free for the win what?
If Porkens doesn't die or provide accurate reports, don't you think it would arose suspicions?

springlullaby · Post Post #1347 (isolation #89) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:44 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Home free for the win what?
If Porkens doesn't die or provide accurate reports, don't you think it would arose suspicions?
(1) It's likely that he won't die tonight.
(2) If you're town, or if you're the GF, his report will have the appearance of accuracy.

So.

Why do you think it's far fetched?

1) This assumption rest on Adel being town. If Adel is town, why should Porkens-scum want to lynch claimed doc instead of sliding tranquilly into the night then NK Adel instead of going to the trouble? As claimed cop it would provide to Porkenscum the advantage of one more day guaranteed survival without scrutiny.

2) Ok, so why do you want to lynch me to test his claim again?

springlullaby · Post Post #1348 (isolation #90) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:47 am

DrippingGoofball wrote: Why do you think it's far fetched?

Because there is actually zero gain to Porkens move as scum, which makes the move unlikely. Because there wasn't a cop counterclaim. And because the explanation provide by Porkens as town is likely, and you simply shrugging it off to push an the more unlikely scenario makes it far fetched.

springlullaby · Post Post #1350 (isolation #91) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:02 am

DrippingGoofball wrote:
springlullaby wrote:Because there is actually zero gain to Porkens move as scum, which makes the move unlikely. Because there wasn't a cop counterclaim. And because the explanation provide by Porkens as town is likely, and you simply shrugging it off to push an the more unlikely scenario makes it far fetched.
What?

If we believe him, which would be expected, then he'd continue to live until the town loss would be inevitable, and you would continue to live until the town loss would be inevitable.

There's plenty to be gained.

No you are avoiding the issue again. How do you think Porkens would justify his continued existence if he survive this day? Do you not expect reports from him if he continue to exist?

The outcome of a Porkescum gambit you describe here are unrealistic.

The only thing that does bother me is the lack of a counterclaim. But then you're sounding pretty godfatherrific.

So now I am a godfather. Ok, please state what makes me 'godfatherric' and please state what you would expect as being not 'godfatherrific'.

springlullaby · Post Post #1352 (isolation #92) » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:18 am

Lord Gurgi wrote:Testing Porkens' claim is a priority because this is the only chance we have to test it.
So would you argue that anytime cop claims, it should be tested? Or that you are doubting Porken's claim in particular? If so, why?

Lynching you has the added bonus of getting someone lynched that is not helpful and is probably scum.
Alright, please state how I am not being helpful.
Then please state how you are being helpful in comparison.
Then state how I am scum.

Then I'll tell you that you have been bloody useless and are cruising on Spyrex' confirmedness. See I can play at this too.

A counterclaim is really unnecessary for us to doubt the claim. If DGB claims Pumpkin that shoots lasers out of its ass, I doubt anyone will counter.

What is the analogy here, that you doubt there is a cop? Or that you think that if Porkens is scum, true cop shouldn't have claimed?

springlullaby · Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:48 am

Lord Gurgi wrote:Spring you're flaming and refusing to clarify on multiple points, that is the definition of not helpful. I'm not going to bother making a case against you because you don't care what I say, won't read it anyway, and are going to pick on semantics and treat it as defeated as you have with all cases against you before.

Misrepresentation, I have responded to all 'case against me'. But if you are not making a case, and wasting my time on pointless babble, then I'll tell you that what you are saying doesn't interest me. Please point out when I have treated points by picking on semantics.

When it is possible, cop claims should be tested. Why don't you just be honest and admit the only problem you have with the plan is that you are the one we need to lynch. If it was lynching me or anyone else you'd be first onto the bandwagon.

Ok, now you are definitively trying to pick a fight. Anyway, your statements have no backing, I have argued why lynching me, or any claimed innocent, to test a cop claim is pointless. I do not believe I would think differently if the circumstances were different, and I have never, in this game or any game I have participated in that lynching a claimed innocent is a practical idea. Simply because the idea is idiotic.

I'm unsure why you're acting like OMGUS is going to improve my opinion of you.

Firstly, I'm not OMGUS'ing you, I telling you that I think your play so far sucks, even thought I think you are pretty much confirmed. Secondly, what do you mean by your 'opinion'? If you mean it personally, please go away. If you mean your suspicion of my being scum, see first sentence of your paragraph.

So yeah, do you have a point in this post or is it another instance of pokettle.

springlullaby · Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:06 am

Elmo wrote:
springlullaby wrote:What I don't understand is why so much bloody indecision. That kind of play is parasitic.
I don't understand this at all.

Within a game there are exactly two items that are positively constructive from a town standpoint: making cases/stating suspicions and voting; the rest is literature. No pronouncing oneself either way like you have been doing is akin to standing still.

Concerning your behavior I am undecided on whether it is scum motivated neutrality or if it is because you are so afraid of being wrong as town that you don't prounounce yourself.

springlullaby · Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:04 pm

I told so etc...

springlullaby · Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:16 pm

BTW
Vi was scum because of her earlier ego crumbing with Adel and the fact that she wasn't on the Adel wagon.

My case on Ecto was point on + something that I did not mention (because no on would have taken me seriously) and which put Ecto on my scum list d1 is that if you go back to day 1 you will see that Ectomancer answered Adel's questionnaire without suspicion (which is not damning since Artem did the same) but what was really scummy is that Ecto's following post was one of questions directed at Adel: what happened there I think is that Ectomancer realized that his 'unsuspicion' was potentially scummy and scrambled a post in haste to cover up.

Troll wasn't scum because his play was too dumb and unmanipulative.

Anyway gg scum.

springlullaby · Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:26 pm

Some more bragging.

springlullaby wrote: This town sucks, but not because of what Adel said. It sucks because everyone is too busy to do ego preservation, snobbing others, and pre-emptively pushing blame on everyone else in the eventuality of a town loss to take real stances. Well, 1)it's a game 2)that demoralizing pressure originate in Adel's play.

That was what mostly ruined town's chance, not the claimings.

When a townie do something he/she shouldn't have done, you've got to bear it and do with it. Else it is obtuse-ness.

springlullaby · Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:48 pm

Actually, no. I tend to break posts apart for ease of read. It's a habit you can find in my meta easily. Just look for games where I make 2-3 posts back to back to back. I do it commonly.

I don't believe one word of it.

[/quote]But whatever makes you feel good.

You didn't stick around long enough for me to manipulate you, so we'll never know what would have happened if you had stayed in reach of my sweaty paws

[/quote]

And your sweaty paws wouldn't have grasped anything after your case on Porkens and accusing me of protecting him 'before his claim'.

Now you can say if your hospitalization was a bluff, I had doubts after my PM to you. I think it might be half truth half lie.

springlullaby · Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:49 pm

In the sense that you might have exaggerated things a bit.

springlullaby · Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Vi wrote:
springlullaby 1921 wrote:ego crumbing with Adel
I still don't understand this concept, at least not with these terms.

That's cool so I can catch you at it again

springlullaby · Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:04 pm

BridgesAndBaloons wrote:SL, i thought you were
obviously
pro-town in my reads of the game, but I thought that if I said that, people would have thought I was scummy since I was replacing you and therefore would be flaunting my own towniness.

I can't help thinking that town might have won if you stayed in . . . although I seem to recall you posting that troll was scum, something that reaffirmed my beliefs. Was I mistaken?

I think I said that Troll would be scum if Adel flipped town.