@Mordy, I'm relatively new to the site but, although RVS is not ideal, it's really the best system that I've seen thus far.
Therefore,
Why feel the need to prevent thoughts of buddying between you and Mordy. I had given that prospect much wait until you went out of your way to mention it. Even if this isn't the case, I am rather opposed to identifying people as town, in the early days for a few reasons. For one, the scum can single-out people who seem most pro-town based on those statement. Also, it can cause the town to ignore them in their scumhunting, based on the fact that some people feel they are town.Gamma-Post71 wrote:Mordy-I have trouble seeing the motivations for a mafia to stick his neck out and say that something is absolutely not scummy and draw attention to himself.
AB-Post58 wrote:@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?
Now, your question does askAB-Post65 wrote:@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.
Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:EntirePost68 wrote:unvote
vote foilist
I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.Foilist-Post66 wrote: @Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.
So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.
I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive. Therefore, regarding Foilist, I am trying to understand his logic, and, if his claim is true, I wanted to know what he found scummy about Mordy.AB-160 wrote:Foilist never made this argument, so why are you making it for him?
You might also have a few other people to look into if this is really important to you.Mordy-166 wrote:I hope to God SpyreX is Town, because if he isn't, I'm scared to death.
Finally, regarding the Foilist BW, I don't get a strong scum feeling from him. To be honest, I don't think a scum would act in this way on the first day. This could of course be taken into WIFOM so I'm not claiming him town but I wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch on Foilist just yet. Others have acted scummy as well.Mordy-161 wrote:No, you do have to justify every vote you make. Every single vote, when you make it, how you make it, and how long you leave it on. That you think this is beyond reproach totally confuses me.
I'm not saying scum wouldn't make a mistake. I'm simply saying I don't think that's the type of mistake that scum would make. As for others having acted scummy, I've already had a previous post on it, and I'm sure there is plenty of other examples you can find in the 8 pages of posts. I didn't think I needed to justify my comment with a whole recap of the 8 pages.Spyrex177 wrote:You are saying you don't think scum would make a mistake and then be obstinate about it.
Is this the stance you are taking.
You say "others have acted scummy" without saying who/what/when/where/why.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that there are a few people who have voted without any explanations (and none to the extent you mentionned - i.e. "how long you leave it on"). One example of this is AB's post 68.Mordy178 wrote:Interesting, peanutman. Are you of the opinion that people's vote records are not important, and that people shouldn't have good reasons for voting?
I'm not just giving Foilist the benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions. If you were to pursue your line of thinking, I shouldn't be voting anyone at all, correct? That is not the intention of me giving the benefit of the doubt. I just won't get tunnelling someone because of one seemingly scummy action and blow it out of proportion.AB-180 wrote:@ Peanutman - why do you give the benefit of the doubt only to foilist? you had no problem voting for me on your second post.
While I agree with the general notion that to defend someone isn't, by itself, scummy, Gammagooey went above and beyond. For one, there is really no way for a townie to be sure of someone's else alignement. Therefore, he can't really be sure of AB as town. This early on, I would not post a massive defense of another player, even if they were town-leaning to me. You can address some of the arguments but to go argument-by-argument, in depth, that strikes me as scummy. Worst of all, it means that AB doesn't even have to respond, or can simply echo what GG said. That defense does not sit well with me.Foilist-239 wrote:Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.
No, I cannot claim anyone to be scum. I have suspicions and hunches, and voting is the townie's tool to be used in the search for scum, but at the end of the day, my vote is but an educated guess on D1. I use my vote as an indication to the rest of the town as to where my suspicions are currently leading me and to pressure those I suspect.GG-216 wrote:I was going to say that I didn't see a whole lot of case on peanut aside from him voting for archae and defending foil. Then I read some more and noticed Spyrex quoting this from him.
Peanut wrote:
I'm not just giving Foilist the benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions.
You're not claiming he's scum, and yet you're voting to lynch him.
I WONDER WHAT TYPE OF PERSON WOULD WANT TO LYNCH A NON-SCUM.
Am I to therefore assuming that anyone who votes archae or defends foil is scummy? Do you have knowledge that I don't of archae and foil's alignment?GG-216 wrote:I was going to say that I didn't see a whole lot of case on peanutaside from him voting for archae and defending foil.
1) Yes, it is still on Bob. Just his last few posts give me reason to keep it there. For one, he once again votes without explaining, which to me seems quite scummy, given that he can justify his vote later. If Lexprod hadn't questionned him right away, he might have gotten reactions from other people before even explaining his own vote, thereby molding his answer to what the town would want to hear. In addition, I don't like the way he tries to dictate the whole pace of the game and direct us where to focus our attention, who should be the main lynch-candidates, etc. Whether it's de facto indicative of scum, I wouldn't know because I haven't played that many games, but I do notice that he dictates the pace of this game without explicitly sharing any of his own views very often. And I am quite uneasy with that because I get the feeling his has a hidden agenda, only shining light and where it's most advantageous to him.GG-267 wrote: @peanut- You gave a response to you not claiming that the person you were voting for was scum that I find still a little weird, but plausible.
Given recent events, is archaebob still 1)your vote to lynch, and 2)who do you think is the most likely scum?
Do you understand the concept of objectivity? Because none of us are in a position to state objectively on who's been scummier. I believe the all 13 pages can attest to that. Please don't make statements that are inherently untrue to support your claims.Bob-318 wrote:I also don't buy your vote on me, not because I think there is no reason to suspect me, but because you have decided to totally ignore the other players in this game who havebeen much scummierobjectively
Really? Because I haven't seen alot of defense from Archaebob to the different accusations or questions directed at him. I've seen a lot of questions from him and his ever-present lurker-voting, but not much in way of defense. I've seen him expect answers from many others, often immediately, but he seems to reserve himself the right to answer later, and only to certain parts. Mordy, could you help me find all the ones you claim Bob makes.Mordy-298 wrote:Here's a one-two punch for all you bloody archaebob voters: Archaebob answers attacks on him, AlmasterGM DOES NOT. Put that in your scum-pipe and smoke it.
Has this discovery changed your read on him at all? Although he can say that he focuses on lurkers and that he wishes to hide his cards, it's still an excuse (valid or not) for not answering to the town. So, does it affect your read on him?Mordy-324 wrote:I just reread him in iso. I thought I remembered a long defensive post, but I guess that was Gammagooey responding for him. He has promised to respond at some point, and make some esoteric claims at hidden/secret reasons for holding his cards close to his chest. That said, I've got a town read on him.
I'm not looking to discuss semantics. I just believe it's misleading to justify your choices and scum-suspect by saying they are objectively scummy. But we can agree to disagree.Bob-329 wrote:If you still disagree with my usage of the word "objective", don't bother rebutting again, as I've already made my meaning very clear, and I have no interest in debating semantics.
Few things.Bob-329 wrote:I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.
So yeah, I'm not really scared of your wagon peanut. I'm going to take my time, and do the best I can to guarantee that the town gets all the information it can get from today. You can stand in my way as much as you want, but good luck justifying your actions as pro-town.
Maybe I haven't made it clear enough. In D1, I'm never sure of someone's alignment. Having been burned for believing I'd found an obvscum early on, I'd rather improve my play to prevent that. Lynching D1 is almost always the optimal play (as opposed to no-lynch) and, therefore, I place my vote on someone suspicious even though I can't be sure. But I still stand by my votes as a record of my suspicions. I would never even try to distance myself from my vote because, in all honesty, when does that ever work outside of RVS?Gooey-352 wrote:And I may have to re-change my mind on Peanut.
Peanutman wrote:
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.
This is the second time I've called you out on something like this, so I'll say it again. Why do you keep feeling the need to distance yourself from your vote? You already said that you think that he's in your opinion the scummiest person around.
I think it's an exaggeration to say I crafted an original defense out of thin air.Peanut creates a totally original defense for foilist out of thin air, and hands it to him. I can tell he thought really hard about it. Worried by the hole that foilist seems determined to dig himself, peanutman jumps in with some leading questions in an attempt to show his partner the light. I want everybody to pay careful attention to this, as this might be the biggest solid slip of the game so far. In the face of a very scummy looking foilist, peanutman's response is not to question him with guarded suspicion, but to proactively make up a defense that had not at all been hinted at by foilist or anyone else in the thread. I consider this the scummiest move by anyone in the game right now.
To me, his behaviour regarding his reaction to the vote, if you think about it, is something no normal scum-player would do. It's so ridiculous for a scum to put himself in that situation. With my question to him, I am simply stating that if he knows he wrongfully voted for Mordy and his vote is still there, does he find Mordy scummy? To say it's crafted out of thin air, you're really embellishing this one. His vote is on Mordy, I'm assuming he finds Mordy scum : out of thin air. Let's be honest, if we were both scum, it would be advantageous for me to bus or distance myself from this, not get closer. In fact, these examples of irrational behaviour are things that scum love to jump all over because it's easy to accuse.Peanut170 wrote:If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?
Aren't your cases assuming that your arguments prove that your suspect is scum? This doesn't make any sense. Also, your defense on Foilist' case, as stated by a few people, revolves entirely around him being scum. More like an ad hominem defense.Bob wrote:The major thing I want to draw attention to in this case is the thought process he is using to form his ideas against me. The key word here is "assumption". Every point he makes in this case is something that he assumes to be true about me, as a result of some element of my posts.
The very limited amount of evidence is clearly subjective on your part. Just because you throw out many arguments doesn't mean they don't hold true to others. And, as I said, foilist action's seem more VI than scum. I'm not saying he's therefore obv-town but I wouldn't lynch him just on that. Scum are inherently sneaky, messing up who you're voting for and no addressing immediately is not sneaky at all. In my previous game, there was someone who played ultra-scummy the whole game and turned out to be town. The whole town was sure of him because of his reactions to the accusations on him, etc. For that reason, extremely bad play doesn't cry Scum to me. In fact, extremely bad play entices scum to call those people out on it and lynch them instead.Bob wrote:What strikes me as very off is the extent to which he is willing to assume the worst about me from a very limited amount of evidence. And this is scummy to me because it contrasts extremely sharply with his attitude towards foilist.
One thing I would still like you to address is your pattern of voting or FOSing someone without any explanation at all (i.e. your post is simply the vote).Bob wrote: (Note: if anybody still needs me to defend against the points in this case, let me know. At the moment, I feel like I've adequately addressed them already in my response to AGM.)
Mordy161 wrote:No, you do have to justify every vote you make. Every single vote, when you make it, how you make it, and how long you leave it on.
I give the benefit of the doubt at first for a mistake here and there, but too many things just don't add up in my mind. If it was just one thing, I would take note of it and keep looking around, but I can't let all these things go unjustified.Bob wrote:Yeah ok. Fine. My playstyle at the point was to ask a lot of questions without revealing too much. And you consider this a scum-tell? As in...scummier than AGM or foilist? Seriously? I mean, hey, where's my benefit of the doubt?! Why aren't you giving me some secret code to help me defend myself, like you did for foilist?
I might have to agree with you on that slip.Bob wrote:Oh that's right. I'm not aligned with you. My bad.
But that's just it. You keep your reasons to yourself at first, waiting for some reactions from others before explaining your vote. You are "craftily" playing this game. How is ambiguity in voting ever a good thing? At best, it's anti-town because a quick-read through these pages days later makes identifying your reasons for voting much harder.Bob wrote:Now, I vote for someone who has done all the things that foilist has done. Granted, I keep my reasons for this vote a little ambiguous at first, but they became pretty clear not too much later. My vote is completely justified, whether or not I took the time to explain it completely, and I keep a steady dialogue with my target, asking pointed questions, and showing the town what my issue is.
Correction, I draw the conclusion you are a likely candidate for scum not as a result of this vote but as a result of all the oddities and actions you have made this day. Don't pin my vote on just one of your actions.Bob wrote:You further "draw the conclusion" that I'm a likely candidate for scum as a result of this vote.
Listen, many people were targeting Foilist. So, I could either take part in the accusation-hurling, thereby blending in with the others (easy for scum to hide) or I could take these exchanges as fodder for my reads and pursue others who haven't been properly examined. You tell me which is more beneficial to town, adding myself to the heap or bringing new things to light.Bob wrote:The special treatment he is giving to foilist is pretty blatant. His vote is still on me, even though foilist hasn't responded with an explanation of his vote on Mordy. In fact, his vote STILL on me. Foilist NEVER answers peanutman with a response that would corroborate his theory. Naturally, this doesn't bother peanutman at all, and he never proactively mentions foilist again.
I don't want to advocate a D1 lynch of foilist. But of you, at this point, I would support it (hence my vote). My vote is still on you, even at L-3, because I feel you deserve it. And I'm desperately trying to avoid the town just looking at a select few. For one, with all your cries of watching out for lurkers, Spyrex has certainly slipped through the cracks. He is totally slipping by right now, posting accusations here and there but generally following along with you, Mordy and GG without having to do much of the leg work.Bob wrote:And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how desperately peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.
Off the top of my head, I know I've raised suspicions on Mordy and Spyrex a few times (including this very post). If you read me in iso, you'll see I haven't exclusively targeted you and, to a lesser extent, Gooey.Bob wrote:And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how desperately peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.
Gooey, I hope you aren't just directing this at me. Sure, I've made some statements that don't follow your ideal of what should be said. But many others have done much more (such as Pokemon discussions, Mordy being scared of Spyrex because he's such an awesome player). I am definitely not the main person you should addressing this to.Gooey376 wrote: The town should be figuring out who the scum is, focusing attention on the scum, lynching them, and defending the townspeople who are being attacked by the mafia.
Those last two statements do none of those things. They are completely unneccesary, and I'm still waiting on an explanation of how they help his argument or the town as a whole.
Wow, this is in no way helpful to the town. I can understand people being too busy to re-read at times or build a case. But to say you won't because the thread is "muddled", that's beyond me. Whether town or scum, I wouldn't want you around if you're just going to be swayed by the town one way or another without doing any of the leg work.AGM-413 wrote:This game is too complicated. I might go back and re-read, but this thread is more muddled than the original text of Beowulf, so I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not.
And this is part of why I unvoted. For people who seem to clutter the thread with noise more than anything else. Spyrex, I feel you have contributed very little to the town, mostly agreeing with the MordyS/Gammagooey/Bob team. However, of them all, you haven't really brought many new things to this game. And know you just want to hammer for the sake of hammering. You thought he was scum, you didn't blink an eye with his claim (valid or not is irrelevant at this point), you won't blink before hammering. For someone Mordy said we should be afraid of, you haven't put up much of note. I say less blood, more brains from you.Spyrex598 wrote:If GM gets votes I will hammer the space hell zombies out of him.
I want blood. Real bad
No no. You shouldn't do that. For one, pairing people up, especially D1, makes things unnecessarily convoluted. On top of that, I fail to see how Spyrex and MordyS's play have been alike. Care to show me or, better yet, change your read on Spyrex?Sanjay576 wrote:SpyreX: I was just planning on judging him and MordyS as one composite unit if that's okay. Hopefully town.
Bob-iso100 wrote:Believe me, I've noticed Spyrex, he's not slipping anywhere.
So, Archaebob, is your scummy read of Spyrex just an act so that it seems that you're looking into everyone or do you actually have suspcious things to raise about him? Because, having scanned you in iso, I haven't seen any accusations thrown his way (even though you have thrown alot this game). All your questions directed at him are politely asking what you think of one situation or another. You stated previously that even though you didn't explicitly tell us who you suspected, we could tell from your questionning tactics. However, forgive me at being surprised to see Spyrex in your top 4 when you never have yet to point a suspicious glance his way.Bob-iso125 wrote: Oh, and just so that I didn't lie to you:
foilist13
peanutman
cruelty
Spyrex
I'm surprised that you're shocked that I unvoted following a PR claim. The town was burned last game I was in for not doing that, and I don't feel, even at worst-case scenario (i.e. GM is lying scum), that unvoting is a horrible idea. He will most likely not last until end game but there is no need to use our lynch on him today because we already have something strong to go on and can decide to lynch him another day.MordyS567 wrote:Shocker. Peanutman unvotes when he's got a convenient excuse to abandon the bus.
As I explained with my vote, GM's statement that he wouldn't scumhunt and just wait to be swayed by everyone else was poor play regardless of alignment and so I called him on it and, with my vote, wanted to pressure him to react and get involved again. To some extent, the plan worked because we got a claim out of him. I do not wish to rehash the different cases set against him that do, though I agree that some elements are quite scummy.Sanjay568 wrote:peanutman, what do you think is scummy about AlmasterGM?
For one, I said that was how I acted "in the early stages of mafia games". With about 15 different cases and 25 pages of posts, I would say we are past the early stages. That being said, I don't feel I have acted completely contrary to my earlier post. I give the benefit of the doubt to players in the first few posts because there is so little to go on from and I do not wish to catch myself tunnelling a single player on a most likely insignificant phrase he/she stated on page 2, for example. So I give the benefit of the doubt to the first plays, though I do make note of them. And I don't feel I am particular aggressive with any one player (i.e. I have not asked for anyone's blood) and have tried to highlight those players who are leading the town discussions and riding what seems to some to be an obv-town or most-likely-town reading.Sanjay570 wrote:peanutman, early in the game you said this:
peanutman wrote:
I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive.
Why did you abandon this strategy? This hasn't described your scumhunting at all since you said it.
I did note his comment, as well as the others (i.e. Sanjay declaring Gammagooey pro-town, post 576). But, as I alluded to earlier in this post, the main tone I get from all his posts is noise, with parroting added to the mix.Bob574 wrote:You both have expressed a strong dislike for players posting information about who seems townish in the game, for the reason that it makes it easier for scum to pick out their NK. Yet neither one of you commented at all when Spyrex declared that he thought I was confirmed town.
Why is the above declaration okay, when other attempts to indicate who seems townish have been met with heated resistance from you?
This is in reference to lurkers but I believe still applies. You don't want others to get by without explaining themselves so they can't redefine their position later, but you keep opening that door for yourself (even if it's for an hour) where you can match the people's immediate reactions to your "vague" votes. Is that not inherently scummy as per your previous post?Bob648 wrote:This is to make it impossible for them to change their opinions at the last second to match what everybody else happens to be saying
Aren't you guiding AGM as well with this statement? You are giving him an unprompted defense that I see is similar to my question to Foilist earlier (what is, in effect, the pillar of your Foilist/Peanut pairing). I'm not saying it's necessarily scummy, but it's hypocritical to accuse me of doing what you do yourself.Bob-iso155 wrote:From what I can tell, he has addressed all the major contentions to the best of his ability. I don't see what else he could say in his defense that would make any difference, really, and I think he feels the same way. But if you genuinely believe that we're letting him get away with something, I do want to see it.
If you ask me to vote for either Foilist or AGM now, then I am not voting for who I think is scummy, but voting to please others.
But for my to place my vote now on one of those two would be unfaithful to where I stand at this point with my suspicions and could be misused later on to say I was part of a wagon.
Your overconfidence is definitely noted though. "How could I possibly be the scummiest when there are two main candidates to be lynched right now?" Bandwagons and number of votes doesn't necessarily mean scummiest. MordyS said/implied that those who weren't voting were most likely scum. I would think that it makes more sense to say that the scum are on the wagons, blending in with the rest of the town.On that note, if you really want my vote, I will place it back on someone with whom I still don't feel is genuine (i.e. has his own agenda) and his play thus far, which seems the scummiest to me. Therefore, Vote : Archaebob
If it was simply up to me, I would vote for neither of you.peanut744 wrote:I don't want to do this now but I'd rather not hear the same thing from everyone of you so,
unvote, vote : foilist13
Once again, it's because I know we can always catch AGM later if he's lying.
Given the way you had been playing the game until this point, I'm suspicious of you not continuing your m.o. and relentlessly questioning the BW-hoppers? It's odd that your suspicions followed by your silence ever since happened when the BW successfully turned on to the Godfather.Bob791 wrote:This makes very little sense. Can people please explain why foilist/AGM is suddenly not a good lynch anymore? I'm very suspicious of all these sudden wagon hops.
How about you just tell the town why I am worthy of an unjustified vote immediately when D2 starts. The longer you stall, the more likely it is that you don't have much of a reason and that you are just trying to provoke reactions.Yes, thanks for asking.
You have any guesses?
I don't understand how you can qualify your recent moves as pressure as you simply voted for me with no stated reasons (assuming it was obvious to everyone why I was scummiest). Are you implying that asking for explanations on votes/suspicions is scummy, yet repeatedly refusing to provide them is pro-town play?Sanjay860 wrote:peanutman just reacted kind of scummishly to the pressure that was just put on him, so it kind of pains me to do this, but Unvote
He has, as he said, been more active day 2 but I am uneasy with the way he adamantly defended his tight-lip-ness during D1 (several posts devoted to it). I realize many players called him on it but to just keep repeating the same thing isn't productive, especially when it's already been addressed.cruelty-iso11 wrote:I'm actually not necessarily deliberately playing my cards close to the chest, I'm having a hard time figuring out who I actually think is scum. If you looked at my meta you'll see I tend to flounder around day one and zero in day two. That said, I resent being asked for constant opinions because they will come.
I would say it is scummy to generally agree with what most people say, essentially parroting others. Granted, some people are more active and so they might beat you to a comment/accusation/idea more often than not, but re-reading you, I didn't find that much original content. You have been better as well compared to D1, where your earlier posts were essentially writing in your own words what was already said.cruelty-iso20 wrote:- His post 20. The way he words his town read on peanut. He doesn't agree with the general feeling and is therefore town? This is actually WIFOM. Applies to me as well (I'm scummy because I generally agree with what most people say?)
Is what you wrote better than just going dark at end-day? It's like the difference between lurking and active lurking, they both serve the same purpose of not saying anything at all, though one's in the shadows, the other is in daylight.cruelty-36iso wrote:"cruelty wrote:
Huh, guess I wasn't around for the end of the day "
More along the lines of not wanting to go dark at the crucial end of the day.
cruelty-iso38 wrote:Who do I want lynched? You. Who do I think is the best lynch? I'll answer that later today.
Way to tell us you'll answer later, and then tell us "I don't know yet". Couldn't he have just said he didn't know earlier? Or just not say anything at all?cruelty-iso41 wrote:As for who the best lynch for today is... I don't know yet. I think that I could fairly happily lynch either AGM or foilist still, but I think that bob has some questions to answer. I'll place my vote once he does so.
Bob could just as easily be playing this up so that see him as town. I know it's WIFOM but I think that both scenarios are equally likely.Mordy895 wrote:I think he's fairly newbie, and probably thought what you (and/or Cruelty) thought: He's going to be an easy lynch to push because of his vocal skepticism of the Muffin lynch. That's how I read it.
You don't have to believe what I said but I think my previous posts, side by side, will explain why I didn't vote for Muffin.MordyS-900 wrote:Great. You still haven't explained why you didn't vote for Muffin. Don't worry. I'll wait.
me-iso29 wrote:I would be open to exploring a Muffin/Sociopath lynch. If PapaZito, you and I all vote for Sociopath, the three wagons are tied at 3 votes each.
I will reread Muffin in iso to determine who's the better "realistic" lynch IMO.(realistic = would garner enough town support (i.e. min. 4 votes) to be lynched).
iso30 wrote: @PhaerieM, will re-read your case on Muffin this evening. However, do you plan on voting before the deadline? There might be support for your suspicion of Muffin given Sociopath's week-long lurking/reading, and your vote would no longer necessarily be for a "third party candidate".
And then AGM hammered, before getting any kind of response from Sociopath. To break it down, I wanted to read Muffin in iso, because I felt there was a possibility to stray away from the AGM/Foilist tunnel-lynch, and I therefore unvoted. When I did get my read, Socio was at L-1 and I wanted to give him a chance to speak/claim before hammering. AGM hammered. Hence, my vote was not on the BW.iso32 wrote:I would definitely hammer at this point but will wait for Socio to respond first. My read-through of Muffin didn't change my mind.
Could you explain why?PhaerieM-903 wrote:MordyS's posts just got a lot scummier
I felt you were completely ignoring Archae's complete inactivity since the BW-switch and called you up on it, wanting some reaction. However, instead of addressing why you felt it wasn't important, you went on to build a scenario as to why he hadn't posted, effectively giving him a way out if his absence was directed related to in-game events that unfolded. Big difference in my eyes.MordyS-980 wrote:So essentially he asked me to explain why I didn't think archaebob was scum, and when I did, he accused me of playing for him. So, peanutman, another question you can answer when you deign to answer why you didn't vote for Muffin yesterday: Why would you ask me to explain someone's behavior and then accuse me of playing for him after I answer your question? Was it entrapment? Did you forget you asked the question? Are you just willing to say anything to discredit the case against you?
I don't think it's particularly scummy to not have made any direct comments towards another player in a 12-player game D1. You can get reads on different players through their interactions with others. I would venture that Scum are more interested in covering everyone to avoiding claims of distancing. Whereas a townie should not be concerned of apparent distancing with other players because he is not in that mindset. He's not trying to appear town, he's just a townie looking for scum. So the fact that I had not addressed in thread certain players does not bother me because I'm not concerned about apparent distancing. If things are said about someone, I will not, in thread, repeat those things in different words or ask similar questions to others already posted just to appear like I've noticed that person as well.Archae1001 wrote: AlmasterGM wrote:
AB wrote:
Heads I win tail you lose. This is unfalsifiable, and ignores, as cruelty rightly pointed out, that he has not talked about many players in this thread. It also ignores the fact that peanutman has said just as little about AGM and foilist, except when directly pressured.
Bolded part is scummy on cruelty's part.
It's also scummy on your part, peanutman's part, and foilist's part. Why the special treatment?
Wow, you don't even acknowledge the fact that you said that PZ had made no case against Cruelty other than his list of cases. In fact, let's look at that quote :Bob1004 wrote:@ Papa Zito -
I just want to make sure I fully understand your position. I'm not trying to be lazy, or strawman you, so please correct me if I am wrong.
These are the reasons that I can see for your cruelty suspicions:
- you agree with Muffin's case on cruelty
- Cruelty's general unwillingness to divulge information
- Cruelty's voting position on primarily the main bandwagons all game
- his bandwagon vote onto me
- Cruelty wasn't on the socio-path wagon.
Is that everything?
Were you hoping no one would notice that lie? Because you made it quite clear that you read "Pops" in iso, but you omitted his actual case, a fairly long post with cruelty's name all over it.Bob996 wrote:Papa Zito wrote:
Suggest you go back and read then, since several people have posted why they want cruelty dead.
I did read, Pops. Please, show me where you posted why you want cruelty dead.
The only explanation I see anywhere in your iso is this:
(list of PZ's cases)
In this respect, you are quite right. In respect to your defense of Cruelty, I highly doubt with only two mafia left D2 that they would both be actively involved in defending each other. So I'm quite certain that Cruelty and Archaebob aren't both scum. However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.Bob1029 wrote:I don't think this game is as simple as some people are trying to make it seem.
Foilist, as you are debating whether Mordy or Archae is the better lynch, you use this type of argument? Really? I know it's only one of your points but you're blindly (without checking) using one of the candidate's argument, admittedly, as evidence against the other. Really didn't give Mordy much of a chance on that point.foilist13 wrote:I don't have time right now to go back and check the validity of Archaebob's statement about you never seriously mentioning Sanjay, but until I do I will take it to be true.
Before your vote, Bob was at 3, Cruelty was at 3, Mordy was at 1. After your statement, Mordy's wagon was tied with cruelty's (because of your flip) behind Archae's 3-vote wagon. What bothers me about it all is that you have presented a false situation. You spoke as if the choice was either Mordy or Bob. However, there was but one vote on Mordy (Bob's OMGUS). Are you supporting whatever Bob says because he doesn't think you're scum anymore? In that same idea, why do you seem to be Bob's sidekick as of late?foilist-1156 wrote:It now seems as though this is realistically between MordyS and Archaebob, and I am inclined to choose MordyS.
Archaebob wrote:you bastards you.
I don't care that i'm lynched, I hereby put a curse on any member of this town that doesn't immediately vote MordyS and Sanjay tomorrow. Look over my posts again, everything you need is right there. And this just now...so beyond stupid.
you can consider this my bah post.
So much for this then.Archaebob wrote:bullshit, Sanjay. Bull shit. And that was pretty low.
Also, if Bob flips town, this seems like hard buddying.Archaebob wrote:2) I'm not emotionally invested in this game, and I don't actually have an uber-ego.
Let it be known that I am the farthest person in the universe from being personally offended by anything in a game like this. My not posting in a game will never be related to me being pissed off, or something idiotic like that.
Also, I'm not really a big ego. Really. I'm not. Or at least, my ego is not related to social factors. I might be arrogant enough to think that I'm right about who the mafia are, and that you all would do well to listen to me, but I'm not arrogant enough to "not be having fun anymore" if you guys decide to tell me I should get real. Seriously, this paragraph that I quoted made me laugh, it's such an unflattering depiction of me.
Cruelty-1376 wrote:I don't think it was particularly intelligent but I'm willing to let Mordy play himself into a hole (or to make himself a hero). I would have liked to have seen your big post (which is why I didn't vote this morning) but I had literally no power here - I'm not on the wagon so I couldn't unvote to stop his hammer.
lol... Off-topic but I like how these two statements follow each other.MordyS wrote:He's a poor player, andhe could use to learn a little humility in his play. Maybe he'll take the chance to cool off and think about it.And btw: I was right. At least one scum player wasn't on the wagon.I really should just take a bow.
What did you mean by this?PhaerieM-1432 wrote:MordyS, seriously? No mention of your archaebob debacle?
This final quote does have me thinking. I'll talk it out, hopefully it'll make sense.Gooey wrote:As for his scumbuddy, cruelty would still make a lot of sense to me but given peanut's sheer balls to fake a guilty right now he has a LOT of confidence in his scumbuddy to win the game for him. It seems a bit of a stretch to think that cruelty would get an easy win from this with my comments on him and peanut yesterday.
Quite weak of you Cruelty. Please explain to me why you can't commit to one-side at this point. If you're Gooey's scum-buddy, this kind of reaction is definitely not helping you.Gonna go read GG in iso and see what's what, I'm more inclined to believe peanut at this point but I'm not going to commit to a side before I've done the research.