Mini 863 - Space Station Mafia: GAME OVER - EVERYONE'S DEAD
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Vote: Sposh
Because, well, I don't think I can outsmart Dexter.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
What makes you so sure you can outsmart either one?hiphop wrote:charlatan wrote:Vote: Sposh
Because, well, I don't think I can outsmart Dexter.
Ha, well, I meant I was associating Sposh with Dexter. I'm rarely "so sure" about much of anything in this game.
I'm not really super pumped about sifting through anyone's personal dirty laundry, but people having history in games together can prove useful. Almaster, have you and Peabody played together often?milkshake wrote:Personally, I'm more interested in why an apparently innocent fellow such as Peabody annoys you.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
In that case, I'll strive to be clearer with attempts at cuteness that accompany my RVS votes in the future (probably).hiphop wrote:
I knew where you got the name from. The way that you phrased your (bs) reason, it sounded like you could outsmart Sposh. Hence the vote.charlatan wrote:Ha, well, I meant I was associating Sposh with Dexter. I'm rarely "so sure" about much of anything in this game.
On a more serious note, do you think Hoopla's confusing-but-excellent-random-voting-shake-the-boat technique (I'm hoping the name catches on) actually made her more likely to be scum, or did you see erratic play and decide it'd be a safe place to drop a vote?
More importantly:
Unvote.
Vote: Messiah
My problem with this is that CoCo didn't actuallyWhy did you single me out when CooLDoG and CoCo did the exact same thing? As for why I didn't add to or question CoCo's post; there's not really anything to add other than the fact that I agree. Why would I question a comment that I agree with?saymuch of anything with that post, nor did he vote. What you're "agreeing" with is the statement that "this stands out", which has almost zero content to it. I would expect to see some sort of question or accusation go along with this. It looks a bit like borrowing someone else's soft suspicion and running with it, getting called on it, and then backpedaling with 'oops, I mistook the definition of the word.'
For the record, I did not find the "apparently innocent" comment to be particularly suspicious.
Minor FoS: CooLDoGfor piling on, but I don't think early-game bandwagons are necessarily a bad thing.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
We're moving quickly now! Sorry if I wall up a bit, but I've got two pages to catch up on. I'll respond as I do.
I don't consider you to have really asked a question. You did in a technical sense but were basically echoing the question that was already on the table from when NAW asked about it.Messiah wrote: Yes, I agree that it stood out; and I did ask a question to go along with it.
Yeah, I was basically paraphrasing, but you shouldn't take me too seriously when I do that. Basically I don't buy that you misinterpreted that post, because all definitions aside it seemed clear in context that milkshake wasn't even talking about in-game alignment. Saying "peabody annoys me" has nothing to do with whether or not he's scum and everything to do with his personality and/or playstyle, so "apparently innocent" doesn't even make sense if milkshake were talking about him being town-aligned versus him basically not seeming like a jerk.Messiah wrote: I wasn't backpedaling, I legitimately misinterpreted what milkshake meant due to the word having more than one common meaning. Is the sentence you put in apostrophes suppose to be some kind of paraphrase?
------
Happy Birthday, NAW. By all means, play drunk. It works for Zorblag.
------
I don't think confusion helps the town, but I do think town are more open to seeing where strange play leads, whereas I would expect scum to vote based on it quickly. As for her dodging of questions, that's far more legit IMHO.hiphop wrote:
You said confusing right? Why would a town want confusion? I did not vote for her for either reason. I voted because she refuses in a silent kind of way, to not to answer my questions.charlatan wrote:On a more serious note, do you think Hoopla's confusing-but-excellent-random-voting-shake-the-boat technique (I'm hoping the name catches on) actually made her more likely to be scum, or did you see erratic play and decide it'd be a safe place to drop a vote?
I wouldn't agree that CooLDoG did the same thing at all. The placement of prior votes does make a difference. He made an effort to explain his vote and said he wanted to see a bandwagon form for pressure. While saying you want pressure means your vote is useless for pressure, I think that's more ineffective play than it is scummy.charlatan wrote: Why is everybody attacking Messiah, when CooLDoG did the exact same thing? He asked a question. Sposh started the bw on Messiah, because he did not ask a question, when he did. I hate it when people attack one person for a certain action, when other people do the exact same thing.
It was too early to tell if this bandwagon was a bad one. Right now I don't think it is.hiphop wrote:
Why the FOS than?charlatan wrote:Minor FoS: CooLDoGfor piling on, but I don't think early-game bandwagons are necessarily a bad thing.
-------
I actually tried to decode Hoopla's message and failed (I suck at that anyways.) If it's one letter per word that must be quite the long message. I'm hesitant to believe that someone started the game with information that definitively pointed to Messiah as scum so early in the game. For now I'm gonna roll with it because I like the Messiah bandwagon right now, but I will not at all support a lynch without us knowing what this is all about. And a lot more discussion before that, even.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I don't agree with it. I also think it's scummy. However, I don't think it's going to end in a lynch and so it's proving useful for information purposes. I won't contribute my own vote, but I don't think it's going to hurt us in the end.hiphop wrote:Wait. So you agree with the bw on milkshake. If that is the case why didn't you pile on?
No offense, but you should re-read the thread. Hoopla's "code" isn't the reason the bandwagon is there at all. It's a contributing factor, but Sposh and I both voted before Hoopla, for reasons stated in the thread. To reiterate, I thought Messiah's vote was easy and opportunistic.hiphop wrote: I find this paragraph scummy. You are hesitant to believe the reason the bw is there and yet you still want it to be around. Isn't this almost contradictory?unvote
vote charlatan
------
Speaking of which, where is Messiah?
p.s. Also NAW, Peabody, and CoCo. I miss you guys!
------
From my end, I placed my initial vote because I didn't like Messiah's vote. Whether Peabody is annoying or not is not the same question as whether or not he's scum, and the wording of milkshake's question about that was the basis for Messiah's vote. Also yours, though you expressed a desire to see a bandwagon form for information purposes, whereas Messiah backed off that vote in a hurry as soon as there was any pressure about it. Hoopla's apparent (ha ha) insider info has increased its strength.CooLDoG wrote:njot convinced on messiah at all! I want to know the case on him before I vote. I am now really not liking hoopala because she ( I decided to look) has still yet to answer to how she has information. Most games have a doc, I have yet to play a game without some type of doc, this is lob's first game so I don't think he would try some un-orthodx setup. So I would see no harm in leting hoopala tell us what info she has, not her role just what info she has.
While we're on the subject, however, I am not even convinced that Hoopla believes Messiah is scum.
Hoopla, in the event that you're not doing what I think you might be: is there room for error (or misinterpretation) with the information you have, or are you 100% certain?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Unvote.
L-2 is better than L-1 at the moment.
AlmasterGM, care to elaborate on why you don't like CoCo or Peabody?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Sorry for walling again, guys. I've only got net access a few hours a day this week, so I have to try and really be here with one post every few pages, which sucks. Soon it'll all be over and I'll be concise and frequent.
This I do agree with. Everyone can get defensive. It's a nulltell. I consider anyone using it as part of a case on someone to be making an anti-town argument. I don't see that that's happened yet, though.AlmasterGM wrote:.
2/3 - I hate the "defensive" argument - it generally ends up indicting jumpy/newb townies way more than scum.
-------
I feel like I said this already, but obviously I have not communicated clearly. "Bad" and "good" here are more complicated than you're apparently willing to admit. I'm defining "good" as something that will be ultimately beneficial to the town. It's not good that players place scummy votes, but from my point of view if there is no danger of a scummy bandwagon going to a lynch (and that one didn't have the votes) then it helps us gain valuable information, and thus in the end helps the town. So I'm not afraid to watch it continue for a bit, within bounds. Does that make sense to you?hiphop wrote:So how can you say that bw was scummy if you also say that the bw wasn't a bad one.
------
I don't like this at all. It ignores another possibility completely -- that scum are already on the wagon andmilkshake wrote: He's right about one thing though. Hoopla shouldn't just leave us hanging! No one seems to have the guts to hammer, and scum aren't doing it (because they either don't want to lynch their scumbuddy, or don't want to get cought hammering town.)can'thammer. Three options here: 1) You're scum and you know that additional scum aren't on the wagon. 2) You're scum and therearescum on the wagon, but you don't want us to consider that. 3) You're a townie that had a momentary lapse in logic.
------
I have not yet said that I think you're a good lynch for today. In fact, right now I don't think we've reached a point where we can call anyone a good lynch. If I did think you were a good lynch right now, I wouldn't have unvoted you. I'm not in a hurry. However, you have never really changed my mind that your vote was opportunistic and based on something that has nothing to do with the game (whether or not Peabody is "annoying"). It seemed like an easy way to run with CoCo's ball and still get that cozy first-on-the-bandwagon spot. That was more than enough for a vote two pages in, as far as I'm concerned.Messiah wrote:I've been put at L-1 and asked to claim because of Hoopla's code. Your and Sposh's "case" certainly weren't the driving factor. Neither of you have given convincing reasons as to why I would be a good lynch, even to the point of some parts of your cases being completely untrue and/or nonsensical.
Now, I'm trying to look at the bandwagon from different angles, but you've mostly ignored the point I tried to make way back in the beginning. Mistaking the definition of a word is not a defense, because I'm not talking about that -- I'm talking about the fact that regardless of the definition of the word, they were not talking about in-game alignment but rather personality traits, and voting based on it was scummy and easy. Do you have an actual response to this, or will you just continue to say it's nonsense? (Hint: I consider an actual response pro-town and dismissive behavior anti-town.)
------
Hoopla: You ducked the end of my post 171.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
How's it interesting? Scum bussing each other Day 1 is perfectly plausible.Messiah wrote: CoCo wasn't the first one to mention it and I wasn't the first one on the wagon, either.[/quote[
Yes, you're totally correct. It completely slipped my mind that NAW mentioned itandvoted first. However, the reason I'm not concerned with NAW's post is that I considered it part of the RVS anyways.
Re: "nonsense", I'm referring to this quote:Messiah wrote: Don't put words in my mouth, at no point have I said this point was nonsense. But yes, looking at it now I understand that it wasn't really game-related; at the time it stood out to me more than anything else that had been said all game, especially after he avoided answering NAW's question about it.
Which parts are completely untrue and nonsensical, to clarify for me? Honestly, I don't even consider myself to be pushing a case on you at all, but you make reference to one, so can you also summarize for me what you think my (and Sposh's, if it helps you) case is? I voted you solely for the shady vote and am now considering the validity of Hoopla's claim in regards to re-applying my vote to you.Messiah wrote:Neither of you have given convincing reasons as to why I would be a good lynch, even to the point of some parts of your cases being completely untrue and/or nonsensical.
milkshake wrote: ...So you think me and hiphop have been hardcore bussing eachother? Thats, uh, interesting..- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Okay, getting some much stronger town reads on a few people, and a few better scum reads.
Yeah, that's basically it. However, with Hoopla's admission that she was lying, the jig is up. I wanted to see some pressure applied, too. I think you're probably a townie. If not, you're good at keeping your cool under the spotlight. Either way, I'm moving on from this, unless you'd like to revisit it at another time.Messiah wrote:
-Jumping on(Parroting?) CoCo(NAW?)charlatan wrote:Honestly, I don't even consider myself to be pushing a case on you at all, but you make reference to one, so can you also summarize for me what you think my (and Sposh's, if it helps you) case is?
-Scummy/easy vote on something that was likely not even game-related.
-Backpedaling
Correct me if I'm wrong.
------
The problem with this statement is that you didn't tear anything to pieces. All you've really done it taken seemingly random potshots at several different players in an unfocused, wild manner that doesn't seem to have any advantages from a town perspective. If I misunderstand your strategy, please educate me, but it does seem more likely that you're making shallow and frantic accusations all over the place to see what sticks. Your insistence that Messiah is not scum is particularly damning, regardless of her alignment. Here are the possibilities I see:hiphop wrote:I believe it was VPbaltar who told me that if a town has bad case on an individual, than it is the town's civil duty to tear the case to pieces.
1) You're both scum. You wanted to derail your scumbuddy's wagon.
2) You're scum, she's not. You wanted to derail it to buddy up OR didn't want to be on a wagon that you knew would end in a townie lynch.
3) You're not scum and you don't know her alignment. You truly do not find anything she's done this entire game remotely worth investigation or pressure, though you've attacked other players for atom-thin reasons throughout Day 1.
I find the first two possibilities more likely.
I did not point out these issues with your play when you were attacking me because I wanted to see how easily you'd drop your "case" on me if I neglected to imply that I think you're anything other than a townie. The fact that your mind is changed so easily tells me you're not thinking through your accusations.
------
I like Milkshake for a scumbuddy right now. Reading him/her in isolation, they basically have done nothing today but go with the flow and call for full disclosure from Hoopla. The rest of Milkshake's energy has been devoted to a strangely amicable debate with HipHop, which I'd encourage everyone to read in isolation. It appears to be an argument on the surface, but neither makes any indication of suspicion about the other or casts votes. It looks like distancing without the risk.
------
I'm inclined to believe that Hoopla is not gambiting scum at the moment, but I'll be watching closely in the upcoming days. Lying (even if you call it a gambit) is still lying, and this move would make sense from a scum perspective as well as town perspective.
------
In conclusion:
Vote: HipHop- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Oh, and another point about Milkshake I forgot before:
I think they're probably sticking to the Messiah vote after all this time in hopes that the Little Bandwagon That Could still runs up a townie lynch, but tossing hiphop into the mix for a little bit of added distance.milkshake wrote:I think Messiah and hiphop are scum buddies *shrug*.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
My bad, sorry Messiah. I saw the female in the avatar and missed the icon. I'm pretty bad with keeping genders straight because, like Lady GaGa, I am both male and female simultaneously.
(Not really.)- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I'm referring to you saying he was "not even mildly suspicious". Even if we agree not to split hairs over syntax, the rest of my argument stands.hiphop wrote:
Must I spell it out for you. Not once did I ever say Messiah is not scum, nor I did I say he was town. That is just ruining my name. Not just in this game, but in the world, when somebody makes an accusation that isn't true, even if it is proven to be false, everybody still has the doubt that it is. Do not put words in my mouth. I did say that the case against him was based on lies. Don't make accusations that are untrue.charlatan wrote: Your insistence that Messiah is not scum is particularly damning.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
What I said about your buddy behavior with Messiah has nothing to do with play style. It's true that you could be a frustrated townie who's out of the loop, but scum seems more likely.hiphop wrote:
There is no rest. You attack my style, which I dare you to look at any of my games, besides the first one (I didn't own a computer then), and you will find it is the same, so I don't know how I am scum now.charlatan wrote:I'm referring to you saying he was "not even mildly suspicious". Even if we agree not to split hairs over syntax, the rest of my argument stands.
Also, if this is how you play regardless of alignment, you should consider a different tactic.
You can say it about anyone, but it won't make equal amounts of sense. And you and milkshake makes plenty of sense to me right now.hiphop wrote:And you say well soandso and I can be scum, which basically can be said about everybody.
That one's totally off in left field. If you believed that everyone else is also "not even mildly" suspicious, you wouldn't have called the actions of anyone else scummy (you have) and you wouldn't have cast any votes (you have). I would be incorrect in saying this only in the event that you did not mean it a single time when you pointed out allegedly scummy behavior in others this game. Is that the case?hiphop wrote: "not even mildly suspicious"- which basically says he is as suspicious as anybody else.
How are they clearly more deserving? Fill me in on how you read them, please.NewAgeWarrior wrote:To me, hiphop has said and done some scummy things, but I can't support a lynch on him yet because i feel that both AGM and Empking are clearly more deserving of a lynch today.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
NAW: Your AGM analysis is persuasive. I'll have to re-read him in isolation. (Shouldn't take long.)
If you're unfamiliar with Empking, though, I suggest you read up on his meta a little. He's always "minimalist", as it were.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
No, it doesn't help us at all. I don't think it's pro-town behavior, but my point is that he does it as scum or town, unfortunately, so I'd be hesitant to vote based on that alone (and am pointing it out because I think everyone should consider it).NewAgeWarrior wrote: @charlatan
It's fine if he is a minimalist, but not giving clear reasons doesn't help us out. If he has info/speculations, I don't see how keeping it to himself help us out at all.
You should vote where you feel your vote is best served. Offering to switch your vote to the bandwagon I'm on does nothing to make me less suspicious of you. I get the feeling you're trying hard to fly under the radar (down to not really responding to my accusation with anything except the assertion that people are mean these days).milkshake wrote:By the way, if you don't buy my Messiah/hiphop thing (best I got at the moment), I'll be happy to switch to the other half of that. (And vote hiphop)
-------
At this point in time, I'd support a lynch of hiphop, AGM, or milkshake, though milkshake less so than the other two. Re-reading AGM doesn't help him much, and I always get a scumdar ping from players who expend lots of energy going after lurkers early in the game. I don't think it can safely be considered a scumtell to lurk at this time, but I do think it's an easy place for scum to try and run up wagons.
I'm going to stick with my hiphop vote at the moment, but I'm on the fence between hiphop and AGM now.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Responding to questions and accusations is pro-town, but posting content only when under fire is not.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Hm, can you explain to me how, in your opinion, Messiah-scum equals hiphop-scum, but and why the opposite is not true? If you feel you've already explained it clearly before, please humor me and summarize it once more.milkshake wrote:Well my vote isn't serving at all if it's all lonely! But if we lynch messiah, and he flips scum, it's almost like we know hiphop is scum for free (in my opinion.)
The reverse is not true... hence my messiah vote.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
EBWOP: There was an extra "but" in that post that does not belong there. Oops.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Then you both think of it the same way. It's the same spectrum, guilty to innocent, and even if you see things as "shades of innocent" then you necessarily see some as less innocent (therefore more guilty) than others. You've not only not countered AGM, but you've essentially contradicted your statement from before.hiphop wrote: @AlmasterGm- I think about it differently. Shades of innocent.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Before, you said that "guilty" is an absolute term, a black/white sort of thing. Like if someone's guilty, they're guilty, no shades of it. However, what we're talking about ishiphop wrote:
How?charlatan wrote:Then you both think of it the same way. It's the same spectrum, guilty to innocent, and even if you see things as "shades of innocent" then you necessarily see some as less innocent (therefore more guilty) than others. You've not only not countered AGM, but you've essentially contradicted your statement from before.perceivedguiltiness, and so if you believe that someone can be less innocent or more innocent than someone else, then that also means they can be more/less guilty (it's the same thing).- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Also milkshake, are you miscounting again? He's at L-2. You can't hammer right now.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Well, for what it's worth I'd expect that scum would be awfully hesitant to hop on the end of a bandwagon that's going to lynch a scumbuddy on Day 1 if there's any chance it might derail. It's got to be quite the blow to morality. Though, on the flipside, it might be that they are already on board and that's why the bandwagon has grown so quickly. I'm feeling good with where my vote's at right now, though.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
L-1 is not actually a big scary thing unless you make it one. Someone quickhammering before a claim would be extremely suspicious.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
No. That's not a good suggestion at all. Run the possibilities through your heard and tell me you don't see why that's a bad idea. What if there's a doc? How does that help us catch scum? I don't think you thought the question through, which bothers me a little.Sposh wrote:Whoooo yeah we got that scum! *dances*
The no kill is incredibly odd. Either we've got a town RB or a town Doc, I think. Question: would it be advisable for them to claim with their night action so we can automatically get rid of another scum?
------
Okay, on to general observations. I would expect that scum wouldn't want to vote as a block on Day 1, and I'd also think that they would not want to lose hiphop if there was a chance of avoiding it. So, everyone who avoided the hiphop wagon without strong reasons for doing so's scum-stock will go up in my book though, granted, not much. I'm going to have to re-read Day 1 with fresh eyes now, though.
-----
I am not totally unopposed to this, but by my watch it's a little too early to go on a lurker hunt. We're more likely to hit town than scum, and if we have the lynch to spend now, we'll probably have it to spend up the road, too. Since we nailed scum on Day 1, I feel confident we can do better for ourselves than a flip of the coin with two lurkers at the moment.Hoopla wrote:My current preference is a policy lynch on Empking or CoCo. I think we can afford it.
------
Any time a scum lynch is inevitable and they can get away with it, it's in their best interest to hammer quickly to limit discussion and maybe gain townie cred, in my opinion.NewAgeWarrior wrote:I need to re-read and rethink my list, because AGM hammered quickly. This doesn't clear him, but I just don't think how him doing this would have helped scum.
SK? Please explain, because I don't see where you'd get that at all.Also the thought of a SK is little in my mind, and the thought of a doc is high.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Oh, sorry, I think I misinterpreted the comment. I took it to mean you were thinking about it a little, as in you had a bit of a suspicion there was one. Thanks for clarifying.NewAgeWarrior wrote:@charlatan
I'm saying that there is pretty much no chance of their being a serial killer in this game. We probably would have a kill if there was.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Indeed. That's why we definitely don't want anyone claiming right now, though I am inclined to think it's unlikely that scum no-killed last night after losing a person.
And here's the thing. I'm not sure I should even point this out, but did anyone else notice hiphop's lack of an actual role? This is what we got upon the reveal:
This suggests to me that they're all the same role, which almost certainly means they're all goons (in other words, no scum roleblocker.) Not that we should ignore the possibility of one, but it's surely worth noting.lobstermania wrote:
hiphop (lynched Day One)-MAFIA- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
This is completely asinine.AlmasterGM wrote:I'd totally be down with a CoCo vote. He needs to either die or post and then die, like, NOW.
You've been gunning for CoCo and Peabody since Day 1, and in both cases it seems to be for personal reasons relating to other games. I have seen little to no evidence to indicate that you have even given any consideration to their alignment. You seem to actually believe that you have made cases against them, based on this quote:
But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)I don't see how you can criticize me not liking Peabody and CoCo given that I've made legitimate arguments against them and they are both scummy.
On Day 1 I was content to mostly ignore this stuff because I was hoping you'd get over it, but so far you haven't.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Sure. I'll do a rundown of your mentions of both of them up until the point you claimed you had made a case against them.AlmasterGM wrote:
Please do explain.charlatan wrote:But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)
Post 3: Self-proclaimed non-random vote on Peabody because he "annoys you."
Post 4: An affirmation that you are voting him for personal reasons.
Post 5: Saying you'd kill Peabody with DK powers for mispelling your name if you could.
Post 6: Saying you "don't like" Peabody and CoCo. Because we hadn't figured that out.
Post 8: Jumping on the Messiah bandwagon and prematurely asking for a claim, though reiterating once again that you don't like them.
Up until that point, your attacks on them were 100% personal in nature. You'd established from the get-go that you want them dead.
Post 9 is bigger. The whole of your CoCo case in this post is that he's lurking and that he did something in a previous game that "annoyed you." If you want to lynch him because he's lurking, okay, that has its merits and is not a problem. Pretending that there's more to your case than that, however, is nonsense.
Your Peabody case is essentially that you did not like that he thought hiphop's erratic, jumpy, and defensive behavior was scummy (which, by the way, several us did, and we were right). The other main point was his unexplained CooLDoG vote (which was definitely anti-town), but hediddeliver the promised explanation when he caught up, in my mind making that a moot point.
From minute 1 you were gunning at these guys, though you took a break to jump on the Messiah bandwagon when it started picking up steam (with no explanation except that you believed Hoopla) and again on the tail end of the hiphop bandwagon after a lengthy theory debate.
Keep in mind, I think a lurker lynch is a viable option for us. Pushing a lurker lynch is not scummy. Pushing a lurker lynch and pretending it's something else, however, is.
In case you're wondering why I'm bothering to spend so many words on this, I think your voting history is suspect given the day's flip. Messiah became a very convenient vote when Hoopla gambited, and you followed the leader without even bothering to give any reasons of your own. When hiphop started to come under fire, you gave a vague "liking hiphop less and less by the post" (perhaps laying the groundwork for a later accusation without actually explaining anything?) then eventually argued with him about theory for a bit before hammering. A hammer does not impress me. It was obvious where the bandwagon was headed, and for someone who will vote based on so little and claim it's a solid case, I found it odd that you would scuffle with hiphop so much (easily the most active period of Day 1 for you) without casting a vote until the last possible minute.
Vote: AlmasterGM- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
We wouldn't necessarily be down one scum at all! For instance, if there was a doctor AND a roleblocker, the roleblocker might block a townie but we'd still have no night kill. The scum could also choose to no kill in order to try and draw out a claim (and possible frame a townie, too). There are a bunch of different situations in which we could have no kill without a claim pointing to scum.Sposh wrote:I don't see why my idea was so bad! I mean, sure, we'd have a townie roleblocker or doctor out in the open, but we'd also be down one more scum. Surely that's worth something, right?
I think it's extremely suspicious that you are pushing for it, really. If you were scum that purposely chose a no-kill, this would be exactly what you want.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Empking, you reckon I could get you to give us a little info on where your suspicions lie? I get Messiah for the hiphop connection. Who else do you have your eye on?
Just give us more to work with than a sentence here or there.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
The whole of my response to your response can be summed up with a response to one question:
You've pretended that you actually considered the game and made a case on them, but there's everything to suggest you haven't. For instance, you've explicitly stated that CoCo is scum. You're really, seriously, 100% sure a person is scum because they pissed you off in another game and are lurking? Does this happen to you every game? Next game, will you vote for me this one?Once again, when I have ever pretended my votes were more than they were? I've made it very clear up front what my intentions are.
The problem is, all you're doing is dragging some childish, petty grudge from previous games into this one. You're not scumhunting. You're trying to settle a score.
Now, the hilarity of this is thatyour attacks on CoCo and Peabody have almost nothing to do with why I think you're scummy. I think it's early for a lurker lynch, but who knows, hitting scum there is possible. I think your behavior towards them is anti-town and obnoxious, but not necessarily a scumtell. The bigger issue for me is your voting record, which you did not have much of an answer to. To recap, you jumped on the very convenient Messiah wagon despite being oh-so-sure that CoCo was scum and then, the big one, you refused to vote hiphop until the last possible second despite the fact that, in every other case so far, it has taken virtually (or literally) nothing to for you to vote someone.
Oh, also, you only post more than a sentence when someone's on your case. If nobody accused you of anything, you'd probably lurk along with the rest of them.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I'm fine with that. However, I'd like to see an actual case be made on one of those people as opposed to "policy lynch!" Go for it. I believe you've got it in you.Hoopla wrote: Bussing seems to be the scumtell of the month. Why do people not look at those NOT on the wagon after a scum lynch?
-----
Mostly when you say things like:AlmasterGM wrote: When have I ever pretended anything? I've been 100% clear about my biases.
My point is that you had not made legitimate arguments and you had not shown them to be scummy. If you want us to go along with you, prove your points instead of repeating ad nauseum that you don't like them.I don't see how you can criticize me not liking Peabody and CoCo given that I've made legitimate arguments against them and they are both scummy.
We're now on page 15, so you're welcome to start.Yeah, because there was SO MUCH scumhunting going on in the first four pages.
No, hammering scum is a nulltell. A scumtell would be voting for weak, weak reasons repeatedly, then holding off on the one vote that matters until the very last possible second. It just looks like scum was backed into a corner and decided you'd cut your losses.The only thing left you can harp on is my hiphop vote, which basically means you're saying "hammering scum is a scumtell." This makes no sense whatsoever.
I guess you're just trying to keep up your streak of not explaining anything? What don't you like about the post, aside from the fact that he points to you in it?AlmasterGM wrote: I don't like this post at all.Unvote: Vote: Sposh.
------
Sposh: Were you going to vote?
You didn't have my eye Day 1, but reading you in isolation Day 2 is rather damning. Your first post was celebrating the lynch flip and then saying we've either got a town RB or a doc (conveniently ignoring the possibility of scum no-lynching to draw out a claim or setting up a fakeclaim, or of someone being a commuter or something, however unlikely that may be), and then fishing for a power role claim after that.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Who's the scummiest?Empking wrote:Messiah; He's certainly scummy but not the scummiest.
------
I've explained this. It would be a gutsy move on the part of scum, but they could no-kill and then potentially set up a mislynch or let one occur naturally. There are also lots of ways we could've dodged the night kill without a doc or roleblocker or scum choosing a no-kill, though they are all less likely. The most likely explanation IS that we have a doc or roleblocker that chose well, but it would be a bad idea to out them now, especially as it's only Day 2 and they very well may mess up scum again. It's scummy to insist that we out our power roles.Sposh wrote: I don't know what a commuter is I just didn't see why the mafia would have not shot anyone if they could have especially when they lost someone day one!
------
I'm liking Hoopla's take on Empking. Coupled with the lurking, it's a pretty strong case for a lynch.
------
I also support Messiah's case on AlmasterGM in addition to my own. He's my top lynch candidate at the moment, but I'd also go for Empking or Sposh at this time. New blood replacing CoCo and/or NAW might change my take on this, but right now I'm feeling pretty strongly that all three are good chances to hit scum.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
How do the quotes provided refute it?Empking wrote:Char: Messiah, barely.
Char; Hoopla's case is clearly a lie since it was refuted even by the quotes he himself provided. Why do you think its a good case?
The case makes perfect sense to me. Messiah was, as I've stated before, a perfectly safe place to rest a vote based on very little. I'm not convinced of the Messiah/hiphop bussing theory, as I suspect hiphop could've buddied up with any townie that had the spotlight on them.
How did you further the wagon?Empking wrote: Saying "Never furthered the wagon" when he knows for a fact I did even though I wasn't on the wagon at the time of the lynch.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
This is getting more interesting. I'm pretty much where I was last time I checked in. Thoughts on recent developments:
The idea that Hoopla derailed the hiphop wagon doesn't really hold water, since Hoopla's gambit was instrumental in pushing him over the line from "kinda sketchy" to "very sketchy", and his response to the gambit was, at least for me, the final nail in the coffin. I suspect I'm not alone in this. He was tossing accusations left and right for thin reasons (except for the Messiah semi-protection), but the fakeclaim outed him pretty thoroughly. As scum, he could be 100% sure that Hoopla was pulling something if Messiah is town and know he'd be proven right sooner or later, which would be reason to jump at Hoopla with a vote before learning more (which he did). This scenario makes the most sense to me, and also contributes to my thinking that Messiah is probably town. Empking's assertion that he contributed to the bandwagon by mostly avoiding it and that Hoopla derailed it by fueling it is not a good thing.
So, I'd be willing to vote Empking over most people, but Almaster is not to be ignored. He's at L-2 now and, rather than defending himself anymore, has "conceded" the two cases against him and dropped off the radar. This makes me think that the he believes the new Empking/Hoopla argument (which is overshadowing him now) will draw attention away and he can skate on. Townies should never ignore or "concede" points raised against them; if nothing else it denies us the discussion, which we always need. I'm not satisfied that my vote has run its course yet.CooLDoG wrote:hmmmm..... AMG is at l-2 never notted that, maybe we should take some action on him,- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I think I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking just about the encrypted quote. I'm referring to when she voted erratically a few times in a row (including for a player who isn't in the game) and he jumped on the opportunity to stick a vote there immediately (without even explaining why he thought her voting was worthy of a vote). After this she said she had information incriminating Messiah, and hiphop stuck to his guns vs. Hoopla for several posts before voting elsewhere.milkshake wrote: I looked back and I can't find him jumping on Hoopla with a vote about the Messiah situation, so I'm not sure what you're thinking here. Overall you are working toward the same thing that Messiah was just saying earlier...
This can be interpreted as him sticking up for a scum buddy or buddying up to town by not going with the Messiah wagon, but with the post-flip knowledge of his alignment both of these options really only make sense in the context of him knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that Hoopla was making something up.
To distill it all to a single point: Hoopla's Day 1 play magnified hiphop's scummy behavior by a large amount and does not at all seem to me to have been an attempt to derail that bandwagon.
------
To clarify, I am not voting him for one-liners. I am not sure who is.Peabody wrote:Almaster and Empking I wouldn't mind being lynched. The thing about Almaster is he is playing just like his meta. He was town in the game I played with him, and he still did one-liners. Everyone tended to see him as scummy. As for Empking, I am not liking the way he is pushing his cases.
------
Note this fun part of the anti-Sposh case where Almaster indicts himself:
The "something" is voting without explanation, which Almaster confirms he's been doing all game. I consider this a scumtell, if I haven't mentioned it by now.AlmasterGM wrote: 8) Votes for me based on something that I've been doing for the entire game because it suddenly affects him.
------
That said, Almaster's case on Sposh is interesting. He's basically correct about a lot of things, and Sposh's Day 2 play has been questionable. Even the fact that Sposh has just corrected Almaster's quoting repeatedly is a little suspicious in my opinion, since Almaster posted a correction already and this would suggest that Sposh isn't reading the game (at least not closely.)
This is probably a ditch effort to deflect attention elsewhere when he's close to a lynch, and the claim does nothing for me, but since I also find Sposh scummy I'm in a bit of a predicament in that I don't think now is a logical time for Almaster to try and run a bus over a scumbuddy. I guess I'm bogging myself down in WIFOM in that case, as my gut says he wouldn't do this but that instinct would be helpful if theywerebuddies. I'll have to watch Sposh more closely in addition to rereading.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Nobody's suggesting your a bad person. I'm sure you're a very nice person.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Your responses were, indeed, not good. For instance:Sposh wrote:
Care to back this up with facts?AlmasterGM wrote:More votes on Sposh, please. His responses to my case are awful.
This implies that we shouldn't be examining connections between players because one person's actions/attitude towards are "not the fault" of the other, which is silly. Of course we're going to look at who confirmed scum protected, attacked, or ignored.Sposh wrote:
I cannot help what hiphop does. How is that my fault??AlmasterGM wrote: 1) hiphop said a lot of things and talked to and about a lot of people. There is one person, however, he avoided talking to and about - Sposh. He only responds Sposh twice, and both posts about extremely trivial matters, almost as if the conversation was forced.
Your responses to most of his other points along the lines of "hiphop said that, not me" (irrelevant, since Almaster corrected the quotes) or "I'm just asking questions", which is not a defense. If you ask scummy questions, you're scummy.
Another player is also responding poorly to the vote against him:
CooLDoG, what about his posts are you not considering an answer? From where I'm sitting, he seems to have answered your questions, and you seem to just be repeating them again and again, albeit talking like an action hero more and more with each post.CooLDoG wrote:ebwop: last line should read: So for the LAST time why are you voting me, and as a command or I WILL vote post your case in your VERY NEXT post.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
He already roleclaimed. He claimed vanilla townie.CooLDoG wrote:So I could vote for you for be "just scummy" char? And one point is never good for me. The reason why I don't vote him already is because with me on board agm is at l-2, thus I don't want to let him get of scot free. I would really like a role claim without giving the scum a chance to hammer by going to l-1.
Empking is not voting you for "being scummy". He's said the following things about you:
1) Not scumhunting
2) Ignoring questions
3) Not reading the thread
4) Potential scumbuddies with Hoopla
5) Hypocritical vote (saying Empking didn't vote two days when you hadn't voted in three)
6) Refusing to respond to the case and instead writing it off as OMGUS
How do you figure that's not a case? Did you just not read it? And how did you miss that Almaster claimed? Are you even paying attention at all?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Once again CooLDoG somehow forgets we already saw Almaster claim.
Hoopla's insistence that CooLDoG not push for an Almaster claim means we can add her to the list of people probably not paying attention to the game.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Welcome, Howard. Glad to see you jumping right in!
This bothers me, since his claim was mentioned in about five other posts. It's ironic that you'd push for a lurker lynch on a person who is significantly more involved than you today.Hoopla wrote:Eh, sorry. I have been reading, but I have been more focused on my other game to be honest. I missed his claim.
I, for one, got inactive over the weekend because I was doing shots with rockstars and hitting on girls dressed as witches. I believe it was an appropriate use of time. But you're right, actually.AlmasterGM wrote:This game is stagnating - we have votes all over the place, and nobody seems to be interested in budging. Those who are not feeling fully confident about their current votes should make better use of them.
I do think Sposh is looking worse by the post, but I'm conflicted. I can see a lot of these things as genuine newbie play rather than scum mistakes. The insults contribute to this on a gut level; I feel that newbie players that know their innocence but can't defend it well yet tend to get more frustrated when they're accused. It's just conjecture, but I think newbie scum are less apt to take it personally since they know that they are what they're being accused of.
When the majority of the players in the game are likely to be vanilla, how is it legitimate in and of itself? Is there a particular reason you don't believe it, or is it policy?milkshake wrote:
Well, OK but actually that's a perfectly legitimate reason.We are not lynching Al just because he claimed Vanilla.
In answer to your "????" as I said right away today, it's the hiphop link (also I can see her play coming from scum- I'm not saying she's a bad player, just could very well be mafia.)[/quote]And why should we be banding mes? just a ???? Will be gone this after noon.
The case isn't there, as evidenced by your rather singular interest in the matter. In my opinion, the most damning aspect of Messiah's play today has been that there's so little of it, as if he's afraid to open his mouth now while he knows he's not being scrutinized as heavily.
However, I also think the Messiah case is very thin and find it suspicious to stick a vote there for so long. It makes one look like they're doing something when they're not.
-------
I'm looking forward to reading Peabody's case, and will probably re-evaluate my vote in the next 24 hours or so. For the record, I consider promising substantial posts that never come to be a scumtell.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Why so worried about "looking bad"? This sentence indicates that you placed a vote you didn't mean to simply avoid suspicion, which is definitely suspicious.CooLDoG wrote:@empking, you got the rolefish part right, and because I didn't like my vote on someother player at the time, and just unvoteing looks bad.
WIFOM.236, is wring because if I didn't want my "buddy" lynched then I woulld have gine with the other and voted hoopla.
I'm feeling good with the resolution of the AGM bandwagon for now. I certainly meant the accusations I leveled against him, but something about his responses has pushed him closer to my good graces again. When accepting the likelihood of a lynch, he got his opinions out there and left some parting words for the town to digest the next day, which is certainly pro-town. I'm still going to watch him, but for now I'm going tounvote.
Vote: CooLDoG.
Sposh doesn't look good either, but like I said, I still thin there's room for townie there. This is mostly for CooLDoG's interactions with Empking, his failure to read the thread, and for placing votes in an attempt to "look good" as opposed to actual scumhunting.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I don't really like this. We're making progress.milkshake wrote:I certainly wouldn't peg him as likely town, but I don't think CD is very scummy. Remember that even if he annoys you, that doesn't make him scum.
I vote for a deadlineif that's how we should do it
This seems like asking for an excuse to abandon your Messiah tunnel vision later without having to commit, instead blaming it on the deadline.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
"Tunnel vision" is not a meaningless buzzword when you have pretty much spent the vast majority of today repeating "Messiah's the best lynch because of Hiphop not attacking him" ad nauseum without actually attempting to further your case (or comment on others, really) at all.milkshake wrote:
...What, charlatan, you don't want a deadline? Deadlines are ubiquitously used to make the game go forward. Forget being pro-town, a deadline is pro-game.I don't really like this. We're making progress.
This seems like asking for an excuse to abandon your Messiah tunnel vision later without having to commit, instead blaming it on the deadline.
As for "abandoning my Messiah tunnel vision without having to commit." First, I think you have a case of the buzzwords. Second, Messiah is the best lynch. CD, maybe Sposh, and quite possibly you are others that are OK but much more random.
A deadline is fine but irrelevant. The game is moving forward. We are placing votes and have not dead-ended discussion. I'm asserting a hypothetical situation in which you stick to your lonely Messiah vote until a deadline and then jump on a convenient wagon with a "welp, since we're at the deadline, I'll get on X bandwagon".- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
It does make sense. I'm not saying your case is wrong. I'm saying it hasn't been made, as evidenced by the fact that nobody else is voting there. The kicker is that you seem mostly content with that, occasionally piping up with an 'I still want to lynch Messiah' kind of post but not trying to pressure Messiah or get others to understand what you seem so sure of.milkshake wrote:
I suggest you read my multiple explanations of why I want to do a Messiah lynch. "Tunnel Vision""Tunnel vision" is not a meaningless buzzword when you have pretty much spent the vast majority of today repeating "Messiah's the best lynch because of Hiphop not attacking him" ad nauseum without actually attempting to further your case (or comment on others, really) at all.isactually a bad buzzword when it is used to say: "Because you are sticking to your argument I am going to say it is wrong," which doesn't make any sense.
I'm just trying to understand how, in your point of view, sticking your vote without participating in other cases is a pro-town mode of action. I'm trying to reconcile your play yesterday with your play today. (For example, 53 content-filled posts yesterday, not at all the same level of involvement today.)
In your opinion, how have you helped the town today? Maybe an example of scumhunting?
And one more question: If Hoopla had attempted to run up that bandwagon on another random player, do you think Hiphop would have behaved differently? (Spoiler: I think it had nothing to do with Messiah at all.)
That's more interesting. Can you give some examples of votes in this game that have been made on the basis of "hating" someone?I greatly prefer my reasons for wanting to do a Messiah lynch over "He's a bad player I hate him let's lynch him," which is unfortunately what I see people doing constantly not just in this game but everywhere on this site.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
A case is meaningless if you're the only one that buys into it. That's my entire point. "Read what I wrote before" (which you have now said multiple times) does nothing to increase the likelihood of a Messiah bandwagon. Do you honestly believe I haven't read those posts, or are you just being condescending? It's one or the other.milkshake wrote:
I'm afraid I'll simply have to direct your attension to the multiple times that I have explained why Messiah is extremely likely scum. It's a pretty simple "case" but, really, that's a virtue.I'm saying it hasn't been made
You're doing nothing to sway anyone, which isnotwhat I expect to see from a townie who actually truly believes that they know who to lynch.
I don't "like" or "dislike" anything in particular. I am pointing out a perceived discrepancy.Sorry you don't like my play today, but I believe that your opinion there is much more rooted in your disagreement with my Messiah case than anything else at all.
Sometimes it's nice to not have to over explain things, but if that's your preference:Examples of silly accusations of WIFOM, rolefishing, etc. include many posts by CooLDoG... but let's just say that I would be happy if I never saw people using words and phrases like WIFOM, Tunnel Vision, rolefishing, blah blah blah, again. Not that I have problems with the underlying concepts in most cases, but people would gain so much from actually typing out the reason why what someone is doing means that they are part of the informed minority trying to get the town killed!
Yourtunnel visionapparent desire to focus only on Messiah is detrimental to the town in that there are more players than you and Messiah in the game, and holding a vote somewhere where a lynch is unlikely to happen is, at best, throwing away your vote. It is almost non-participatory to largely ignore other cases in the game. Furthermore, it is a fine scum tactic to manufacture a strong but unpopular conviction that one player is scum in order to avoid the suspicion of participating in townie bandwagons while giving the appearance of doing otherwise.
But really, all this because I think it's a bit sketchy to call for a deadline instead of giving real comments on the larger bandwagons is telling in and of itself.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I never said voting for a deadline is scummy. That would be absurd. I think it's slightly suspicious to chime in with a post about having deadlines instead of, say, saying something that will actually affect what's happening in the game.milkshake wrote:I really don't understand your conviction that voting for a deadline as the mod said we could is scummy. Honestly, even just from the perspective of us being part of the same game, that's low and unhelpful.
Regardless, I mostly wanted to get you to comment even just a little more on other wagons. The entire problem with your Messiah theory (and the reason I have not spent much energy discussing it) is this:
You say "extremely unlikely", I say "extremely likely." Staying off of the easy bandwagon that was based largely on what he would have known was a lie from Hoopla was an easy, easy way to get townie points.3. hiphop scum, messiah town: hiphop knew that messiah was town, and yet decided to defend her just in case the wagon went all the way to a lynch, even though jumping on was low risk because of the Hoopla thing and because many other people were. Extremely unlikely.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Not really. I'm trying to look at it from hiphop's point of view, not what you would do if you were in that situation.milkshake wrote: Right, that would be the other side of the issue. But in order for that to start to make sense, he would have had to think that the wagon was going all the way to a lynch, which I at least saw pretty clearly it wasn't.
If he knew Hoopla was lying, he would've known that she'd almost certainly have to come clean that day whether it was going to lynch or not, and hiphop made a habit of arguing for over-cautious voting -- things like saying an errant bandwagon could lead to a scum victory, talking about a lack of concrete evidence on Day 1 -- a lot of which he knew he was going to be proven at least partially right about when the wagon derailed. What's more, it helps setup Hoopla as a potential lynch, makes a buddy of Messiah, and he gets the townie cred for staying off the wagon. It doesn't have to go to a lynch to be a questionable wagon as long as it comes out that the wagon was built on a lie, which it was always going to.
That's pretty simplistic. What if the wagon had gone to lynch without Hoopla revealing her gambit? What if she were as sure as you are that Messiah was scum and decided to roll the dice? What if, what if?Also, even if it did go all the way to a lynch, hopping on a bandwagon, townie or not, that's based on claimed role information isn't scummy at all even if it lynches a town player, since you get free scum from the person with the claimed role information (Hoopla) and a 1-for-1 townie/scum trade is great.
Just because something is safe and/or easy for scum to do doesn't necessarily make it a good play for them. Also, I don't think that was a safe wagon to vote on at all, since it was almost certainly going to turn out to be BS from the start.
hiphop voted or FoS'd every single non-lurker player in the game except for two, if I recall: Messiah and yourself. Just sayin'.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I think he thought the same thing more than one of us did, which is that she didn't have any information at all and that, in time, it would become public knowledge, and that he could use that to his advantage. For most of us, whether Hoopla was lying or not was an educated guess. For hiphop, it would've been obvious.milkshake wrote:Hm, so you're arguing that hiphop knew that Messiah was gambitting, instead thinking she had true role information on scum, or had false role information on town. I guess I'm starting to see how him thinking any of those three could be the case, although it is weird how they all are supposed to explain the same behavior.
No, nothing clears Messiah. Messiah is by no means the most pro-town player in this game. But how anyone can be so sure about Messiah (who is barely even present in the game) is scum is beyond me, as is why that person would not pursue other avenues of investigation as well in light of the fact that there is no Messiah bandwagon at this time.And even if he did, that certainly doesn't clear Messiah! You're not saying it does, are you? It just brings her back to the neutral territory (and the possibility of him not know slides her slightly toward scummy territory again.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
I am not interested in doing that at this time, though it could change. I do still think he's scummy, but as I said before, I am less confident there than with others.HowardRoark wrote:@charlatan: In 436 you found Sposh a bit scummy. How would you feel about moving to vote him?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Sorry for my absence, guys, I've allowed myself to disconnect from this game a bit in the last few days.
I don't really get the looker/Empking exchange over bandwagon math right now. I'm going to re-read it to see where the disagreement lies, but a lot of people are juggling votes between the main bandwagons right now. I don't like looker's unexplained unvote and switch to Sposh, but looker hasn't been here long enough to really make much of an impression on me either way yet.
I agree that we need to make some compromises, and we do have multiple okay options. I'm not ready to vote Sposh yet, for my part. I do think he's been scummy at several points, but I still think he's just as likely newbie town. CooLDoG is not getting a free pass from me, but since I consider them both about equally scummy at this point, I'm ready to vote for the one that wasn't on hiphop's bandwagon.Hoopla wrote:We should be lynching someone NOT on hiphop's lynch, and Empking is by far and away the most obvious connection. I'm just going to keep repeating myself until people show up. This isn't fun. Are you all having fun?
I'llUnvote,Vote: Empking- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Oh, and Empking: you didn't claim at L-1 before. A big reason for this vote is that I'd like to see that claim.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Unvote.
In light of this development, I'm still happy with my prior CooLDoG vote, which is compounded by his recent disappearance (Sposh is guilty of this too.)
Vote: CooLDoG.
I'm going to re-read and think about looker's posts thus far, but I don't know if there's enough there for me to feel great about a lynch yet, especially due to replacing a semi-lurker whose early game play I felt was pretty pro-town. And while not being on the hiphop bandwagon counts for something, it is not the huge tell to me that it is to some of us.- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Sorry for getting back to the game late, everyone. My birthday was this weekend, so I was a bit distracted.
I'm probably going to double post, firstly dealing with Looker and then addressing other concerns in the second post (not sure how long I have before I need to run off for the evening, and I don't want to get any more behind.)
From my point of view, that does nothing to increase the likelihood of Empking being scum. In your opinion, what does hyposcum Empking gain by eliminating both of yesterday's vote magnets?Looker wrote: On top of that, the three main suspects yesterday were CoolDog, Sposh, and Empking, and now the other two are dead. Maybe Almaster's Mafia, I don't know.
Day 1, agreed, does not help him. Day 2, several of us (myself included) voted CooLDoG. Is there a particular reason you think his vote on CooLDoG was questionable? What makes him more likely to be scummy for it than simply wrong? Your Day 3 point is useless; we don't know your alignment.Looker wrote:D1 doesn't vote; D2 lynches CoolDog; D3, tries to lynch me - come on, now, Empking's obvscum. I seriously believe there's a safeclaim going on somewhere.
My main issue is that even if you're a vanilla townie and got your role PM after it was de-flavored, it should have been fairly obvious from the reactions to Empking's claim that his pre-de-flavoring flavor (wtf) was legit. I obviously cannot disprove safeclaims being a possibility, but my instinct is to think that this is not the kind of game we would be likely to see them in.
Please do.Peabody wrote:Two quick observations: (I can go into detail if you would like)
What quote?1) NAW's blatent avoidance of the hiphop wagon. I noted this quote earlier in the game.
I don't know yet. It's a possibility, but I am leaning towards no, or at the very least "not yet". For one, she just became a very easy lynch target, and my experience has been that the easy lynch is too often the wrong lynch (even in this game.)Hoopla wrote:Charlatan: Can I get your opinions on Looker? Does she need to die?
@Howard: Are you saying that when you got your role you received the original flavor as well?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
Almaster: Your last post was completely confusing to me. I cannot follow what your numbered statements are supposed to be responses to. I eagerly await sober clarification, but in the meantime, I am curious about your vote:
AlmasterGM wrote: 1) Lurking - No. See Peabody for an example of actual lurking.
Is this vote based on lurking, or is there more to it? There are better reasons to vote Peabody today than lurking, especially since nobody is lurking too badly in this game anymore.4) Didn't mention NAW lurking - and you didn't mention Peabody's lurking. So what?
I agree with HowardRoark's 681. I'm happy to revisit this avenue of investigation as well, in part as a result of yesterday's flavor situation. I find it very odd, for instance, that you would hammer based on a plain vanilla townie claim when you claimed in exactly the same fashion (minus the "ice cream" part.) You said it "did not occur to you" to include your previous flavor when you claimed, but were happy to "verify it" (in a way, kind of artificially claiming it after the fact) for Looker. If you had said you thought it game-breaking or kind of uncool to include your old flavor, I could have gotten behind that. Because, in all honesty, I found it to be both of those things (nothing personal, Empking) -- but you didn't. I find it unlikely that you would just forget something that could very easily confirm you to other vanilla townies.
Vote: AlmasterGM
--
@Hoopla: Why ask me specifically, as opposed to anyone else?
--
@milkshake: Why no vote? And can you explain your Peabody case?
--
@Looker: I forgot one other thing. You were bringing up safeclaims at the end of yesterday, too, but at the time seemed to find milkshake more likely to be scum than Empking, at least as evidenced by your vote. (Alternately, you may have found milkshake more viable since the Empking wagon had just been deflated.) Was it only CooLDoG's flip that caused you to reverse your stance?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo
A Looker claim would probably help clarify. She is probably the right choice, but I don't like that she jumped to L-1 in a page, even despite the extremely dubious stance towards Empking and Milkshake. Her reply in 706 only makes it worse -- for the most part she ignored the points I raised, and then there's this:
So if she's still working from the assumption that Milkshake is scum, she should absolutely be voting Milkshake rather than taking a 50/50 on Empking or Almaster, the two possible partners in her hypothetical situation. Barring real fireworks in the next little bit, I too will be fine hammering her. But we've seen wackiness in this game in terms of role PMs, and we have no reason to rush.I knew one of them was Milk's partner, I just didn't know which.
@Almaster: in the meantime, no response to the points I've raised?- [color=navy] charlatan[/color]
[color=maroon]every sermon is not the gospel[/color]
[color=navy]more or less done here; will maybe consider invites or replacing into your game if you're in a bind on a case-by-case basis. (low probability.)[/color]-
-
charlatan Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 621
- Joined: February 24, 2009
- Location: tokyo