Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)
-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
/confirmShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Is that really enough to warrant a post, though? Anyways, if you want to keep up with the thread, you can choose to watch the topic (it's at the bottom of the page) and then you can access all your watched threads from one screen. I honestly forget to use it half the time but if it would help you it's a good idea.
And honestly this post has no relevance to the thread but I guess anyone who doesn't already know this now does.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I'm only counting 10 confirms, actually...ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Vote: DeathRowKittyfor messing up the confirmation countShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Unvote, vote: Lastsurvivor
OMGUS ftw! Plus, Wish You Were Here and Animals are better than Dark Side of the Moon <_<ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
There really is no way to start a game without RVS, honestly. At the start of Day 1, there's nothing to go on but metas and those don't really make anyone scum. The point of RVS is to draw out the small scumtells that lead to the initial suspicions and get the game headed in the right direction.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Um, so I see everyone's been having site problems then :/
Just going through to see who hasn't posted since the game actually started...
So far, the only two seem to be Evilgorrilaz and werdna0418
Anyways, in an attempt to get discussion started (and likely failing miserably at it):
Some questions for everyone:
1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why? (I realize a few people have already given their opinion but for the sake of this questionnaire if you wouldn't mind restating it please.)
2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum? I understand that there's very little to go on and assume this will be mostly gut reads.
-Note: my personal answers coming in my next post right after this one.
And then individual questions: (trying to make these as relevant to each person's posts in the thread)
@ SeerPenguin: Can anything be taken from confirmation order?
@ Thor665: Have you seen any small scumtells thus far based on RVS?
@ Lastsurvivor: Is there anything wrong with people disliking RVS?
@ chamber: Do you have meta reads on people in this game based on other games?
@ Seven: What weight does a FoS carry compared to a vote for you?
@ DeathRowKitty: What makes simul-confirms scummy?
@ HomerSimpson: Why so frantic to get out of RVS?
@ Cuetlachtli: What possible links between players have you seen thus far?
@ Idiotking: Is OMGUS a major scumtell?
@ werdna0418: What would scum stand to lose by lurking?
@ Evilgorillaz: What would town stand to gain by lurking?
(yeah, that's right, you get questions about lurking since you haven't posted yet <_<)ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why?
-To be honest, I'm neutral on RVS. It's not a bad thing - without RVS it would be pretty hard to get a game going, but it's not really a good thing either - it's mostly pointless voting and wastes a day or two of the game. I guess it does lead to finding those first few scumtells that help the town get a foothold in the game, so I'm leaning more on the positive side.
Plus, voting randomly is kinda fun
2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum?
-I don't think I could decide between the two, but I don't Idiotking's tone and Homer seems a little jumpy to me. Not getting good gut feelings from either.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
EBWOP:
"but I don'tlikeIdiotking's tone"
I somehow missed a word when typing out that sentence :/ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
The way you're justifying it makes me think your "Random Vote" wasn't really a random vote at all. If you have a real reason for your random vote then it loses its randomness.DeathRowKitty wrote:
Ya know, it might be good to read things like this before making entire useless posts like that.I wrote:Theoretically, they were obv-scum talking during the confirmation stage who decided they'd talked enough and were ready to confirm. In actuality, it was just a good reason for a random vote.
So tell me, for what reason exactly did you have "no doubt thatactually serious?"
Now, let's say for sake of argument that I was actually serious. Would it be scummy or would it be a fail in logic/mafia theory on my part?
Anyways, I personally would've never thought to pay attention to confirmation orders, because it really doesn't mean anything. People live in different time zones around the world. What if someone went to sleep right when the thread was posted, wasn't able to get on for another 12+ hours, and then ends up being the last to confirm? Does that make them scum? Absolutely not.
And anyways, if you're targeting people because of confirmation order, then why are you targeting SeerPenguin and Cuetlachtli instead of chamber and Seven? Your initial reason behind your RVS vote was that they were 10th and 11th, which would make your argument slightly more convincing, but you miscounted confirms which puts a giant hole in your logic - only half the original reason is now valid instead of the whole reason.
I don't really know what to make of this, though. It seems like you intended to skip the RVS altogether, though I don't see that as any sort of tell. It also seems like you're reaching and trying to find whatever you can use to make a case against someone, and the reasoning is weak at best. I understand that it was still technically RVS but the way you made your vote makes me uneasy.
And I seem to be rambling. Bah. I don't really think any of this is enough to warrant a vote yet but at the very least IGMEOY DeathRowKitty.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I realize that this is part of his argument but the way I read it, DRK called it scummy because they simul-confirmed and their simul-confirm officially started the game. But when his error was pointed out, he still followed the same stance with slight modifications to his numbers. If they had been 10th and 11th then I honestly wouldn't be calling him out on it but the miscount of confirms not affecting his opinion is just odd to me.Seven wrote:@Parama:DRK's reasoning for the SP/Cue confirm is they confirmed both at 8:11 (at the same time), not because they confirmed last.
Like I said, I still don't think it warrants a vote, it's more of an odd and slightly scummy thing to do than an incredibly scummy thing, really.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
The way I'm seeing things, DRK is stretching his RVS reasonings and SeerPenguin is overreacting to his vote. It's a silly argument but I'd say we're out of RVS at this point thanks to it. I kinda see where SeerPenguin is coming from, though... DRK's vote is a contradiction in itself, really.Lastsurvivor wrote:DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.
Like I said in my post,DeathRowKitty wrote:
Weird. I must have missed the part where I said I had a real reason. Mind pointing it out for me? Also, if I'm scummy for this, why not a vote? From your logic, it looks a lot better than your current vote.Parama wrote: The way you're justifying it makes me think your "Random Vote" wasn't really a random vote at all. If you have a real reason for your random vote then it loses its randomness.
Basically, it's a slightly scummy move but it's really too early in the game to tell us much. I'm going to be watching your responses intently for any future scummy actions that may come up, however. Hence the IGMEOY.Parama wrote:I don't really think any of this is enough to warrant a vote yet but at the very least IGMEOY DeathRowKitty.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
OH GOD NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
unvote, Vote: Flareonage
Policy lynch all the way.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Flareonage's meta in a nutshell based on the only other game I am playing with him:
All votes are bandwagons
Does not read the thread
Refusal to not act scummy
And then I also went and looked at his posting in other games. Not any better.
I'm not sure if he's scum or not but I sure as hell don't want him ruining this game for the town.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Man, this is the problem. Now we're focused on Flareonage's fail and not on scumhunting :/
CURSE YOUShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Kk thanks.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
What's wrong with scum-group speculation? If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.SeerPenguin wrote:Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?
Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?
And Cuet's vote here is pretty weird... if he's assuming you're scum then he should be advocating your lynch with Seven being a potential candidate for lynch the next day depending on what you would flip. So Cuet's vote being on Seven bothers me... logically, it doesn't follow from his post.
I spy a misrep. SP was going to hold Flare's playing style against him, not on suspicion of scum, but just because of how anti-town it was. And it wasn't the one specific reason, more the multiple reasons I pointed out based on a previous game with Flare in it.DeathRowKitty wrote:
Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.SP wrote:Sure, but I'm still going to hold what Parama pointed out against you.
Not seeing this, I'm just seeing a policy lynch mindset from him as well.DeathRowKitty wrote:SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.
And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.SeerPenguin wrote:Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy, however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.
And then Seven's 125 is another thing... the scum would be able to answer for their buddies on most questions I'd think.
127-128 Seven is being too defensive. Townies wouldn't care as much if they got lynched - there's a lot more of them and you don't have to be alive to win as town. These are not townie responses to suspicions.
No comment.SeerPenguin wrote:Also, I agree completely with Seven's 127.
I'm not going to hold anything against him for not liking the RVS but his reactions to other's suspicions and his eagerness to defend are both pretty scummy moves IMO.SeerPenguin wrote:As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.
More coming in next post, sorry for lack of content recently :/ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
All right, I need to break this specific post down.
And yet a lack of scumhunting, I'd assume?Seven wrote:More responding...
DRK provided pretty good reasons for you being scum. His posts don't come off as bandwagoning. Your particular statement here comes off as deflecting.Seven wrote:DRK:
first off, bandwagon much?
Do you understand why this is scummy? Answering for another player makes it seem like you're trying to cover that other player's actions and defend them. Plus, scum could easily answer for each other because they have the same goal and likely the same target.Seven wrote:Yes, I answered for SP. I don't know when he'll be on next, Cue asked a question so I assume he needs the information to continue discussion. If I have the answer, why should I wait for SP to put it up? I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.
Oh geez. If you want what you're doing wrong, see this post as well as my previous post.Seven wrote:I'm really not getting what it is that I'm doing wrong. So far you've mostly accused me of arguing things that I don't agree with... We're supposed to be debating, here. That's how we're going to seek out scum. If you disagree with the things I'm saying, that's one thing... but if you disagree with me for saying them? Hmm...
Hmm, yes, Cuet's posts are a little... odd... but you're really only making yourself look bad at this point.Seven wrote:I don't need to make him look bad, mate. He's doing that all on his own. I think my arguments against him are pretty solid. Maybe you should address those instead of pointing out that I'm trying to keep up discussion here.
...Sorry did that make you look bad?
Yeah, wagons are helpful, nobody can claim that we're in RVS anymore. However, the way you're reacting to it is scummy. BTW, that's really not the main reason people are voting you anymore. It may have started like that, but... :/Seven wrote:
I did read this but didn't realize that was one of the reasons for voting for me. Understand now.I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.
Eek, don't like this at all...Seven wrote:I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be... but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point, and I don't think whether or not I participate in RVS should matter... I'm expressing thoughts on players and presenting arguments, that's really what's important IMO.
1. It's not really a moral high ground as much as an attempt to lie low.
2. Self defense and trying to make yourself look more townie is a scum thing to do, really. Townies will look townie because they are townie and don't have to try to look townie.
3. Noobclaiming is a terrible terrible thing to do. Regardless of alignment you should never do this, it's just so... pointless.
Meh... this just turned out to be too focused on specific players didn't it. At this point a Seven lynch would be a pretty good idea. Regardless, I'm going to hold off on my vote until we get a claim.FoS: Seven, SeerPenguinfor now, seems like a pretty likely scumteam to me.
So, Seven, I would like to hear a claim.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Okay, first off, Homer - what kind of case do you have against Idiotking that makes him look scummy to you? Aggressive play CAN be scummy but not always - I have had a first-hand experience with this misconception which lead to me focusing more on a fellow townie than anyone else.
Okay, let's look at some particular posts.Cuetlachtli wrote:Parama explain how my posts are odd please.
Your reason for Seven being scum assumed that SeerPenguin was scum as well, providing nothing leading to this assumption.Cuetlachtli wrote: Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons.
That said...vote: Seven
You misrep'd SP's opening comment to my questions (which I did not see as a personal attack btw, don't see how you would) which just bothers me.Cuetlachtli wrote:
This reaction and you subsequently saying that Seven isn't being very scummy without presenting an argument why Seven isn't being very scummy strengthens my argument that both you and Seven are scum buddies.SeerPenguin wrote:Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?
Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?
Also, earlier you took a jab at Parama for helping facilitate a town discussion. IMO, town discussion is always good even if the discussion is started by scum. A game with lurkers and no content is bad for the town, while a game with discussion and content is good for the town.
Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.
So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.
Also, your comment about arguing... it can lead to discussion, but if the argument uses terrible logic both ways and is based on an RVS vote, I would have to agree that it's pointless and is distracting from scumhunting. Basically, arguing is a double-edged sword in this way - it can help catch scum, but if two townies are arguing it can also distract attention away from scum. And DRK vs SP was more of a distraction than anything.
Next, defending others isn't always a scummy thing to do (though a majority of the time it is), but you seem to imply it always is. Not trying to role speculate here, but what if one has a role that's leading him to defend the other for a pro-town reason? It's not out of the question. Or maybe it's a gut reads on each other that are leading to defense? Or a newbie reacting to being defended as town by defending the one who is defending him? ...okay WIFOM alert moving on...
And this here comes off as an attempt to defend DRK by defending his suspicions. Like I said, this isn't inherently scummy by itself, but now you're contradicting yourself. Which IS scummy.Cuetlachtli wrote:
SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.Seven wrote:
*quotes*Cuetlachtli wrote:
Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?SeerPenguin wrote:Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.
Honestly, something feels off about Cuetlachtli now that I examine his posts even more. I don't like his posting at all.Vote: Cuetlachtlipartly for his posts and partly for the terrible gut read I'm getting on him.
Seven, you don't need to and in fact SHOULDN'T be responding to every post about you. It makes you look like you're scrambling for any chance to defend yourself and then saying as much as possible in an attempt to look more townie. And tbh I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. Just a lot of pointless fluff intermixed with defensive points. If you want to convince us you're not scum, you're going to have to help the town find the scum. And your posts are nearly devoid of scumhunting.
Dana, being anti-RVS is not scummy. RVS, honestly, is pointless for the most part. Trying to find a direction for conversation to take off is its only purpose; the rest of it is mostly pointless votes with BS reasons. But some find it fun, while others do not. I personally have a blast in the RVS because there's no real stress at that point. And I already explained my stance on aggressive posting.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
EBWOP:
faillack ofunvote
Vote: CuetlachtliShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Dunno really, his early actions are pretty weird/scummy, and I don't see his reasoning for voting me at all, though I can't fault him for it. I really don't know who to vote for at this point, really :/ Not getting town vibes from anyone.Seven wrote:Parama:
What are your current thoughts on DRK? You've expressed suspicions (or had problems with his logic, if you'd rather I put it that way) almost from the start. Eager to know where you stand.
Trying to cover for scumlinks you might have dropped?Seven wrote:ISO 16:
I have a huge problem with lynch-chains. Seems very suspicious to me.If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.
It hasn't changed my read on you much, it's the easiest claim to make for mafia I guess. Meh, I'm still rather suspicious of you but Cuetlachtli is just making my scumdar twitch a lot, even more than you :/Seven wrote:You also said in ISO 17 your vote was pending my claim. You then voted for Cue in your next post. I want to know if my claim had any influence on your vote, and if not why did you switch from me to Cue? I know you posted your reasons for voting him but I'm unsure why they are better than those you had for voting me.
DRK, tbh, I don't understand your vote at all. Whatever. Not going to fault you for it, since I honestly don't know what you're thinking, and I don't know your alignment, etc. etc. If you see something I don't, please feel free to clear it up <_<ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
This honestly comes off as scum defending other scum. I would not be able to say that Seven is the least suspicious person in this game - far from it - an I don't see what you're seeing in him.danakillsu wrote:Having read the thread many times, I have difficulty coming up with a strong contender for the scummiest player. I'll have to wait for further developments to vote. However, I can say for sure that Seven is a bad candidate. Seven has said the absolute least suspicious things of all of us including myself.
Panzer - just wondering, you list me among your scum suspicions without even mentioning me in your post. What's your reasoning for labeling me as scummish?ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Okay, I've been forgetting to post here for a while, sorry
Things I want to comment on since page 12:
If he's ignoring you in his posts, it could be trying to avoid mentioning you because you two are buddies together. But that's speculation that I don't even find relevant at this point. I don't understand how the points you bring up make him seem town to you, either.danakillsu wrote:Seven:
Was the brunt of suspicion for a while, but has recently posted a lot of content. He has mostly ignored me in this content, and seems to me to be trying to stay away from me as much as possible. This might be because he thinks I'm somewhat scummy.
Read:
Town
This sounds biased to me. You find me town-ish for agreeing with your suspicions... btw, I don't remember having a bad gut read on Idiotking .-. He's been aggressive but fairly town-ish throughout the game. I'm not going to be one to criticize aggressive play, I have been told that my play can get rather aggressive as well.danakillsu wrote:Parama:
Got a bad gut read early on Idiotking, drove away Flareonage, and has generally played the role of a quiet questioner. He has had fewer posts lately than at the start of the game.
Read:
Towards Town
You're basically saying that me and Seven HAVE to be scum and providing no other options for lynching? Really, at this point you seem to be more focused on building a case that you yourself admitted wasn't very strong than scumhunting.DeathRowKitty wrote:
Or we could lynch Parama and see if he flips scum (cough cough). If we can't come to a concensus on someone to lynch, we can always resort to Seven as a back up, but I would prefer not to lynch him today.Thor wrote:Let us presume for the sake of this argument the following;
Seven is not scum.
We lynch someone other then Seven who flips vanilla town.
I could say the same about Thor as I did about DRK. Seems focused on tunneling SeerPenguin more than trying to scumhunt.Thor665 wrote:I don't see a Parama lynch as likely from me, I'd vote for Seven first and I'd vote for Seer Penguin before Parama as well. I think both have been more scummy then Parama. If you want to dump this Parama wagon and convince me on my vanilla hangup regarding Seven we can both hop on the Seer Penguin wagon - it has a minibar.
However, as to not be called a hypocrite, I will admit that my recent posts and lack of such don't contain much scumhunting either :/ But I'm getting to that and I'm back from my loss of interest in this game so I'll try to find us some scum to lynch.
...
next few DRK post after that are all about "Parama is scummy, but I'm not providing reasons to go with my accusations anymore". Call it OMGUS if you will but my scumdar is beeping at me now so I'm going toFoS: DeathRowKitty.
Hmm, I really didn't notice this series of posts before but SP does seem to be awful indecisive about whether he thinks Seven is scum or not. Which isn't necessarily a scummy thing on its own, but it could be SP deciding whether or not to bus his partner; on the other hand it could be a townie unsure whether Seven is scum or not and is looking for other people's thoughts before making any action.evilsnail wrote:SeerPenguin, ISO 17 wrote:Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy, however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.SeerPenguin, ISO 19 wrote:As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.
This is a fishy flip. SeerPenguin, why did you advocate a Seven claim when you didn't think him scummy and later, in ISO 24, say "I don't agree with the seven wagon"?SeerPenguin, ISO 21 wrote:I advocate a seven claim.
And I just set up a WIFOM. Damn. I should probably just stop this post right here. But I won't, since I have 3 more pages to cover.
Eugh, I agree with Thor here. Evilsnail's vote contradicts his logic... though I will admit that he brought up valid points against each. If I were unsure about which to lynch but had to lynch one, I'd go for Seven seeing as there's more information to be got out of his lynch than SP's lynch (though either lynch would still get us a lot of information).Thor665 wrote:evilsnail wrote:The bottom line is that scum will not NK Seven, so, if we want him gone, we need to lynch him at some point. He's a good policy lynch, from that perspective.
So you agree that scum will not night kill Seven?evilsnail wrote:I definitely didn't mean to imply that we need to lynch Seven at some point and that it doesn't matter when. If we're going to lynch Seven as a matter of policy, we should lynch him asap. Otherwise, you just risk keeping him around for too long.
You agree that if Seven is to die it has to be by lynch?
You agree that if we are to lynch Seven then it needs to be done asap?
...and you vote SeerPenguin.
What that translates to me as from your stated position is that Seven is not scum and you have no concern of him being scum. What am I missing?
If dana is definitely scum and you're not sure whether DRK is or not, why did you vote DRK instead? Just like with evilsnail, your vote doesn't follow your logic here. ...I guess, you could be trying to eliminate the person who appears to have more influence on the town... but that's also a potential scum move. I guess DRK has somewhat contradicted his arguments from before his case on me so I can see what you're seeing in him as well. But from your post dana just seems like the more logical choice for your vote.Panzerjager wrote:Danakills seems to be flailing and since he saw Seven use Player By Player Analysis to get him out of a major hole, has tried to do the same with way less pressure on him. He has pretty much telegraphed his move of using player by player to be considered no longer scummy.This guy is definitely scum.
DeathRowKitty, seems to be directing traffic here. "Oh nonono guys, seven and Penguin arn't scum, it's parama lets get parama. Ignore the fact that I've been pushing the other two then entire game and got a lynch out of one of them" I wouldn't put it past DRK to be Distancing with SeerPenguin.
DRK seems to be the guy in charge so I'm gonnaUnvote, Vote: DeathRowKitty
Well this is all hypothetical but I guess it makes sense. The problem is that you never stated in this paragraph that you yourself find him scummy, which means you only want his lynch based on what others think and for the information his lynch would provide. If you yourself don't think Seven is scum then why would you want others to lynch him?Cuetlachtli wrote:Seven is the best lynch. He has claimed vanilla (or at least hasn't contested ppl calling him a vanilla). Generally, ppl consider him scummy. And finally, he has possible connections with 2-3 other players. Because of his possible connections with ppl and his vanilla claim, a Seven lynch could provide us with a lot of information without outing any Power Roles. If Seven does flip scum, then SP, Parama, and Dana are all likely scum partners. If Seven flips town, Thor and myself should get looked at closely for pushing so hard for a Seven lynch. Basically its a win-win for the town because there has been so much discussion about Seven's alignment. I am pretty sure that everyone has taken a position on what side they think Seven is on. Therefore, a Seven lynch should provide us with some clues on who is scum or not since we can judge who was being sincere in their comments about Seven on Day 1.
Seven avoided a lynch by posting player-by-player analysis; in an attempt to avoid a lynch yourself you tried to mimic his course of action - that's the point being brought up against you here.danakillsu wrote:So you disagree with someone who has actually played with me before who is saying that I've given at least a null tell. And also, last I checked, Seven didn't make up the Player by Player Analysis, so he copied off of someone else just as much as I copied off of him. Finally, how could I be scum if Seven isn't? I've said he's town and that he shouldn't be lynched. If I was scum, I would want Seven lynched as much as the next person (assuming Seven is town).
Also, don't like the WIFOM at all.
The problem is that you yourself never mentioned Seven to be scummy in the post where you said you would like him lynched and urged everybody else to lynch him. And here you're ignoring the argument that Idiotking brought forth and instead restating what you said earlier while adding the statement that you find Seven scummy, the only thing you forgot in the original post where you advocated his lynch.Cuetlachtli wrote:
This post completely ignores the arguments that I have been making all game. Seven has acted scummy and he does have ties with a couple other players in the game. Lynching him will give us a lot of useful information and will be beneficial to our scum hunt tomorrow.Idiotking wrote:
None of these are the reasons we should be lynching him. If we're going to lynch him it should be because he did something scummy. Public opinion is never a good reason to kill someone.Cuetlachtli wrote:Seven is the best lynch. He has claimed vanilla (or at least hasn't contested ppl calling him a vanilla). Generally, ppl consider him scummy. And finally, he has possible connections with 2-3 other players.
Anyways, I'm cutting this post off here, mostly because it's the end of a page as well as the fact that I have homework that I need to be getting back to. I can safely say that my vote has not changed since I last posted. I don't care what anyone else says, I think Cuetlachtli is scum. Other FoSes include: Dana, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager
Another note that I feel important: Seven hasn't been posting much since his wagon fell apart. Lurking is usually a nulltell but lurking after being under the eye of suspicion for so long is rather scummy to me. So FoS on him too.
tl;dr:
My vote stays on Cuetl.FoS: danakillsu, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager, Seven
Man, everyone is acting really suspicious in this game x_x Myself included, of course. DRK's case may be weak but I will admit that the points he did bring up are true to an extent.
Wow, longest tl;dr ever. I need to stop posting.
Fun Fact: I was prodded as I was typing up this post.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Late EBWOP: broken tag on my Panzer quote, can a mod fix that for me?Sure! -DF
And yeah, I'm finding a lot of people rather suspicious right now. Once I post my thoughts on pages 14-15 I'll see how my FoSes correspond with earlier ones and try to narrow the list down to 2. I'm behind in this game and I really need to catch up quick x_xShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I would like to request repla-
*Idiotking shoots Parama*
(no, I don't want replacement, this is a joke)ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Kk and here's the rest of the catch-up work I need to be doing.
I actually agree with Thor's logic here, if we're already setting up a Seven lynch for the future then holding it off another day doesn't help - could result in a short Day 2 with nothing gained because of a quick policy lynch. It would only help the scum even if Seven is scum, just because of the little amount of discussion that would go into it on Day 2. Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting his post, which is possible.DeathRowKitty wrote:I'm really not liking how Thor seems so eager to get Seven lynched. There were the comments earlier about how we shouldn't lynch anyone else because Seven claimed townie (which isn't far from the truth, but he seemed to be too adamant about it). Since then, he's made the following post:
There's something about that quote that I don't like and I'm not sure exactly what. I think it has something to do with him slipping in how we should just lynch Seven today based on his interpretation of someone else's post. Well, whatever it is, I don't like this post.Thor wrote:But this here is what displeases me with the situation. You're now setting up a lynch of someone else (though I will admit no displeasure in seeing it be SeerPenguin) but you're already laying the groundwork for the eventual policy lynch of Seven for Day 2+ It doesn't seem to help our situation going into Day 2 with people who think Seven is a good policy lynch. If he's a policy lynch on Day 2 then let's bloody well lynch him now so we can focus on better scumhunting then and not give Scum a potential townie lynch in addition to having knowledge of Seven as a policy lynch for Day 2+
I'm with DRK here, even if he had power role, claiming vanilla so close to lynch won't help. More often than not, town is fine with lynching vanilla claims, and if he had a power role, he should have outed it. And the second point DRK brings up here... I really like it. Pointing something like that out pretty much ruins the purpose of hiding it in the first place - if Seven is a PR and he claimed vanilla, why would you go out of your way to attack his claim? It would only increase his chanced of getting NKed.DeathRowKitty wrote:
First of all, a PR shouldn't do that because claiming vanilla is likely to get you lynched if you're in claim territory. Second of all, if you really believe this to be the case, why the hell would you point it out???Pan wrote:Lynching Seven right now is terrible and honestly, lynching him tomorrow would be similarly terrible. Thor(and everyone else) has been ignoring is that Seven could be lying to protect his PR. Everyone knows that if you claim a PR you're gonna get blasted, so there is a good incentive for PRs to claim vanilla D1 as well.
Actually, considering that Panzer had been holding out on voting you in favor of a DRK lynch, plus having motive before the vote, it's not really THAT surprising.danakillsu wrote:
Wow. I've never seen this kind of brutality before. A little rushed, are we?I'm definently ready to lynch danakillsu. I don't even want a claim
Again, Thor's logic for wanting a Seven lynch makes sense, though the motive may be off. Summarizing it for him: "Seven will probably get lynched either today or tomorrow, but if he gets lynched quickly tomorrow the town will lose a day they could have spent hunting for other scum, so it would be better to lynch him today." That's what I'm getting from it.DeathRowKitty wrote:
I said it's not far from the truth, not that it's "reasonably" the truth. My point is that you've been taking the stance that we should lynch Seven no matter what, which comes off to me as you either trying to mislynch a town-Seven or defend someone else who might come under pressure (or both).Thor wrote: So I "seemed" too adamant when pushing a concept you agree was reasonably the truth? And, for the record, I'll note how I was inviting people to please disabuse me of the notion that made me want to lynch Seven.
And then what disturbs me is that Thor switched his vote to SeerPenguin. Which is troubling me a bit seeing how hard Thor has been pushing on the Seven wagon.
Posts like these are why I aggressive play isn't a scumtell. Just thought I'd point that out. Not trying to defend any player in particular here. But this is aggressive play and a great point as well. Hopefully DRK responded to this, will be looking for it.Idiotking wrote:Just a quick question here:
If you knew it was unfair, then why did you mention itat all? I think Thor's right, you're trying to make it sound as if Thor's suspicious without telling us why.
Instead of responding to Thor's 337, I want to bring up a point - Dana only gave impressions on about half the players, and then asked if the town wanted him to continue. Makes me feel that he was unsure about going further because he might have to do reads of his buddies, and wasn't sure of what kind of read he should be getting to appease the town the most. Just what I'm taking from it, not necessarily true of course.
BEEP. You changed your FoS to a vote immediately after Idiotking called you out for not voting. Which comes off as me as simply trying to appeal to other players as to avoid a lynch yourself. Which is in itself very scummy.danakillsu wrote:Good question. The answer is that I found myself in a position of having to sort of OMGUS vote. But that's the way it has to be. I also wanted the answer to my question to everyone.vote: PanzerFoS: Danakillsu
Regardless of his intentions, SP's overdefensiveness of Seven comes off as scum trying to defend scum. Not saying that it make you scum, and I don't like when people use bias from people who were replaced as the basis for a case on the people who replaced them, but if you honestly disagree with SP's actions then feel free to point out what you disagree with. If you don't see why people were suspicious of him then I have to assume you're either ignoring it and don't know how to make up for it or you don't exactly realize why it's scummy.Radical Hijinx wrote:
Looking over his ISO his only serious vote was on DRK and he was never as heavily into the seven lynch. Good intentions if not always good articulation would be my overall analysisThor665 wrote: @Radical Hijinx - welcome to the thread. Could you kindly go back over Seer Penguin's posts and let us know which ones you agree with, and which you don't? He had a few pushes and I'd like to see where you stand on them and his actions.
If you didn't want to post it and were worried that people would call you out for it, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. If you feel something you say is going to incriminate you, regardless of your original intention, then you should get rid of it. It only causes unnecessary arguing and a distraction from scumhunting when you knowingly do something scummy.DeathRowKitty wrote:
I saw it and decided I should tell someone.IK wrote: If you knew it was unfair, then why did you mention it at all?
"But it's unfair to use it without saying what it is!"
"Oh, too late, I already typed it."
"But it's unfair!"
"So?"
"..."
"Whatever, I'll just put a disclaimer with it."
Not sure that makes any sense, but that was roughly my thought process for that (and yes, I have conversations with myself in my head ).
Ugh, again your posting is bothering me. The problem I have is that you're willingly accepting all of SP's arguments and beliefs as your own without questioning them. It's like you're trying to be the same person - and when the original person did do plenty of things that cast suspicion on him I don't see why you would continue where he left off if where he left off feels like the wrong place to be for you personally. You're looking more and more like scum every time you post.Radical Hijinx wrote:Seven is probably 'nilla townie, DRK seems to be the most scummy. Not to say I would not comprimise on a Dana lynch if thats where the majority was going at deadline and we needed to avoid no lynch.
Scum can't avoid dropping scumtells for one, solely because scumtells are something scum intentionally have to do, whereas town may end up doing scummy things inadvertently that aren't necessarily scumtells. And that last line I bolded just comes off as... cockiness more than anything. And it's really really bothering me.DeathRowKitty wrote:Okay, here's my philosophy on mafia: scum don't always act scummy. Sometimes, scum is just scum and there doesn't need to be any sort of rhyme or reason.For example, when I'm scum, you're not likely to pick up many legitimate tells against me, if at all.FoS: DeathRowKitty
The fact that your logic in the post where you gave your reasons why Seven would be a good lynch excluded the fact that you yourself find Seven scummy, and then you had to make up for this in a later post.Cuetlachtli wrote:What problems do you guys have with my logic on a Seven lynch?
I don't feel it would be a bad lynch.Cuetlachtli wrote:How would a Seven lynch be bad for the town?
I don't think you'd want to support a lynch on yourself, so I'm not going to give you reasons why.Cuetlachtli wrote:If there is a better lynch than Seven, convince me why I should support that lynch.
I'm willing to admit that I misread your post quoted earlier. When I looked over it, especially with that last line, it came off as wanting a SP lynch more than anything, though looking at your other posts and looking closer at that post it looks like you'd be up for either a Seven/SP lynch.Thor665 wrote:
Considering DRK suggested I was pushing too hard on trying to get Seven lynched I shall rest secure that at least one of you is wrong and will note in my defense that in the very post you noted this in you also later quoted me while I was scumhunting on evilsnail and managed to find his logical fallacy.Parama wrote:I could say the same about Thor as I did about DRK. Seems focused on tunneling SeerPenguin more than trying to scumhunt.
I pooh pooh upon your thought that I am not scumhunting.
And of course both have been replaced and I'm too lazy to remember the replacement's name right now.
I'm leaving off here because I'm going to be gone for the next few hours. Probably going to finish up my read later.
tl;dr:FoS: danakillsu, DeathRowKitty, Radical Hijinx
Combining this with my last big post, I am now suspicious of half the people in this game it seems. Narrowing down comes later kk.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I think dana is at L-2 now. I don't want to put him at L-1 without a claim though.
@Thor: I stated earlier that I somewhat misread your post earlier. Kinda caused some confusion and that's why accused you of not scumhunting. And I was wrongShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Mod: I believe danakillsu is due for a prod. Last post was 1/28/10 at 3 PM CST.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Wow, this is scary. I was just about toIdiotking wrote:As of this moment I'm up for either a dana or DRK lynch.unvote, FoS: danakillsu and DeathRowKittyand then you post this right as I finish rereading the last few pages.
Anyways, dana because:
1. Points I brought up previously
2. VT claim
3. Refusing to give defense
DRK because:
1. Points I brought up previously
2. DeathSauce vote based off one post by him and multiple posts by his predecessors
3. Brings up lots of suspicions but rarely acts upon them
I find both of them scummy separately but I don't think both are scum.
I'll probably be on tomorrow so I can place my vote then, maybe do a quick reread...ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I spend ~5 hours in front of this computer daily.
When I say probably I mean definitely
When I say definitely I mean maybe
When I say maybe I mean probably not
^Parama logic^
So that means I won't end up doing a reread but will place a vote. Probably.
Anyways I'm going to have gone through another day cycle and will be sleeping tomorrow night before the deadline ends.
So don't worry about itShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
How is Idiotking lurking?danakillsu wrote:You are lurking the same way anyone else does. You have repeatedly posted short sentences (like that last one) and have tried to stay away from saying anything controversial. Also, you tend to spend your posts responding to what others say about you rather than coming up with your own ideas.
I mean, really, this just isn't true at all. IK doesn't make the longest posts but his posts always bring up key points (and they're usually correct). There may be lurkers in this game but IK isn't one of them.
@ Cuet: I don't have time to put my arguments since I first mentioned a case against you. I'll try to get it put together during the night phase and will post it ASAP once Day 2 starts, assuming I'm alive to post it.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
From recent posts, Panzer's vote looks like a bus. Which it isn't, since I will admit that he added plenty of points to the dana case.
Dana's logic continues to fail and it just looks like flailing to me.
DRK's vote isn't on dana, but I'm not going to call him out for that because he did intend to vote dana but dana was at L-1 before he was going to... and of course quickhammers usually aren't a good idea.
Anyways, I don't think dana is going to try to defend himself anymore, and I don't think any defense he could put together would be able to convince me otherwise of him being scum.
A few things to address:
2. It's not giving the replacer time to prove themselves to the town; I understand that it's not necessarily a bad idea but it can lead to bias which can lead to MLs... I just don't like it okayDeathRowKitty wrote:2. What's wrong with voting off "multiple posts by his predecessors"?
3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you name a couple of instances of this?
3. Your vote was on me for the longest time even when you were calling out dana and SP for being scummy. I understand you might have had some reason to keep your vote on me though :/
Not liking Panzer after recent posts. I guess I won't really be able to tell until we know what dana flips - I really don't think Panzer is bussing dana.
Cuet, I will make sure to put together my case overnight and post it in the morning. I really don't have time to do it today, sorry.
Anyways, I'll be back in a short while to hammer dana if it hasn't already happened by then. If you have anything you want me to address before then please feel free to do so.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
My top three suspicions are the two FoSes I repeated in both of my long posts as well as Cuet (btw, if you want the basis of my vote you can look back to when I first voted <_<). The two I FoSed in both my catch-up posts are Dana and DRK.Thor665 wrote:Parama - if you come back in to hammer prior to my 10pm EST hammertime plan could you please also include a note as to who you find most suspicious after dana? With your many fingers I'm curious which is itching most dramatically.
Anyways, if everyone's okay with it, I'm going to go ahead andvote: danakillsu.
Good night everybody, hope to see you all tomorrow morning.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I'm not saying that's my current case, I'm saying that's where my case started.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
There is no contradiction. Your case on Seven was built on the assumption that SP was scum and therefore Seven was scum with him. I'm not assuming anybody is scum, but saying that a SP-Seven scumteam is plausible based on their interactions with each other.Cuetlachtli wrote:
So you aren't denying the contradiction?Parama wrote:I'm not saying that's my current case, I'm saying that's where my case started.
So there is no contradiction. So I don't think I can deny a contradiction that doesn't exist.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I already said I would make my case tonight. I was just giving the basis of my case because Cuet said that I had my vote on him without a case to back it up.DeathRowKitty wrote:FoS Parama
You were onsite for a while. Then, Cuet comes in and asks you to explain something. You link him to one of your posts and then decide to hammer as if to shut him up. Seriously???
And I wasn't onsite for very long before my hammer .-. I was off playing Guitar Hero for about an hour and then I cam back here to see if anybody had left me questions they wanted me to answer.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
EBWOP: I would be compelled to call you FoS an OMGUS to my FoS on you, except I think that's bad logic and stretching. But I'm adding this because I feel it's something I should be mentioning.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
No. I said I don't think your FoS is an OMGUS. To call it such would be a stretch and a misrep. I'm saying that I could have used that argument but I decided it was illogical. I posted it because I felt it relevant.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Gonna look like a real derp posting this now
Here's the case I made, just got on to post it - power was out for a while
...>_>Parama wrote: Case starts here...
And here's the rest.
221
1.- The first paragraph here isn't answering my accusation - I accused you of calling Seven a scumbuddy of SP whilst assuming SP was also mafia. And then your vote was on Seven - if your assumption was that SP was scum, then your vote should have been on him and not Seven.
Second paragraph - saying why Seven's actions make him a potential scumbuddy. I do not disagree with these. But these are still assuming SP is scum, hence the problem.
3.- The one thing to note here is that you have lynches set up in advance based on whether one of the two flips scum or not. A scum could potentially set up something like this and then bus their partner after making this argument to try to get an easy mislynch the next day.
And then after building a large case on me that I don't feel like breaking down because I will admit a lot of those points are true (my fault <_<), but then you don't vote me, and two pages later are back to saying Seven is the best lynch (again, by your assumption of hypo-scum SP then SP would be the best lynch for you, not that Seven is a bad lynch, but that from the way you've been arguing for a Seven lynch, a SP lynch would make more sense.)
303... makes sense to me though. I guess the Seven lynch would give us a lot of information... but would a SP lynch give us any less? The same connections could be drawn from either lynch considering you've buddied the two up so nicely that they might as well be one person. And of course like I mentioned before this is the post where you never once mention the fact that you find Seven scummy, whilst saying that everyone else does and really trying to push his lynch.
323 ^ that. Of course, the reverse could be said, but blah blah blah repeating myself.
378 -WE KNOW.Seriously, what purpose does this post serve?
379 - Comes off as trying to cover your tracks - you messed up in 303 by leaving out personal suspicions and this is an attempt to fix it.
Though to be honest I will admit that you have been pushing pretty hard on a Seven lynch with reasonable suspicions all game <_<
So tl;dr - all game you've been setting up a Seven/SP chain lynch - there is no way this isn't scummy.
yeah thanks a lot mafia you can go kill yourselves now for making me waste my time on this
Also I should never trust my gut again, it's usually wrong x_xShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
@ Thor:
^this is why^Cuetlachtli wrote:Well if I get NKed, I hope the town makes you post your case on me.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Sorry for the lack of posting here;; been busy.
Will get something tomorrow for sure, along with a vote of who I find scummiest after I reread the last few pages.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
And yet again I went into lazy mode and fell behind in this game and yet again I am now in need of catching up.
So here goes.
Which means you're basically dead either way. If a PR gets close to lynch, they need to claim their power role. Town can focus on someone else instead of having the day end with a mislynch of a powerful role and possibly lynch scum. If the power role got lynched, it would give the scum the chance to take out another one overnight, and that would hurt the town a lot more than the loss of one power role. Besides, there's always the possibility that a doctor is alive to protect the power role... it's a WIFOM move to claim power role because scum don't know if there's a doc or not, so they're not sure if they can safely shoot the claimed role overnight - if they don't and there's no doc, or if they do and there is a doc on the PR, then the town may end up not losing any power roles. But this feels like a major digression.Seven wrote:DRK:
But if you claim PR it's pointless, because you will definitely get NKed if you don't get lynched.First of all, a PR shouldn't do that because claiming vanilla is likely to get you lynched if you're in claim territory.
tl;dr: Power Roles should claim if they are close to being lynched.
I hate that argument. The "Too Town to Be Town" argument fails in all aspects - if you consistently find someone to be pro-town, more likely than not, they ARE.Seven wrote: I'm a bit doubtful of your case on Thor but looking forward to your thoughts if you can find anything, because he's the only player who's consistently been on my town list the whole game... which maybe should be a blip on my scumdar.
It could've been reaction testing, could've been based on a misread. I've changed my reads on players from scummy to townie after rereads due to misreads before, I'm willing to bet DRK did the same.[/quote]Seven wrote:DRK:[@Thor]
Seems to me like: "I thought I could find scummy stuff on Thor but didn't really, tried to bait and see if someone else would come up with something for me but it didn't work so I'll just go back to SP because it's easier."Anyway, I re-read the game and I'm no longer finding you so scummy. Go figure.
I'm also finding SP scummier again. Go figure.
Yeah I'm going to have to excuse you considering you were gone for a while, and considering that DKU flipped town this argument I brought up is invalid because it was a possible link between Seven and DKU being scumbuddies if and only if (and from this point on, "iff") DKU was scum.Seven wrote:Par:
The main reason I was "avoiding" (I don't like that word, but ok) DKU was because I did think he was suspicious but while I was around I didn't feel like he was doing anything I could really pin him with.If he's ignoring you in his posts, it could be trying to avoid mentioning you because you two are buddies together. But that's speculation that I don't even find relevant at this point. I don't understand how the points you bring up make him seem town to you, either.
Of course not. I find Panzer more suspicious, I don't find Cuet suspicious at all (go figure), and my read on DRK has been shaken a little... a little more townie than before.Seven wrote:
Seriously? Going into D2 is this still the case?My vote stays on Cuetl. FoS: danakillsu, evilsnail, DeathRowKitty, Panzerjager, Seven
yet another one of my points invalidated by IRL.Seven wrote:Cue:
I forget to address this at the beginning of my post, but yeah I was in the hospital all week so obviously couldn't get online.Also, as Parama mentioned, Seven has been inactive since he gave his town reads. Either he is inactive or he is active lurking.
Really bothering me. That's all you have to say on this matter? IK here says he leadthe lynch on dana (who flipped town... which makes him even more townie in my eyes, because no scum would want to announce himself to be held responsible for a townie lynch <_<)Seven wrote:IK:
*nod*Um... if memory serves I was the first person to call dana out on 1. his horrible case against me, 2. his wishy-washy behavior, and 3. his general misuse of logic. You have provided absolutely nothing original at all, and your attitude reeks of either scum or stupid townie trying to take credit for a lynch you had minimal part in.
Nah, I already pointed out why this argument is invalid. If you want to look in me, fine. I don't see you doing it, though.Seven wrote:Cue
Probably the most sensible thing Cue brought up all game IMO. I think we should look into Par.So basically you think my case on Seven and SP is scummy? If that is the case, then why did you, in other parts in your ISO, FoS Seven and SP for being possible scum buddies? Aren't you contradicting yourself by adopting elements of my case on 7 and SP, yet at the same time, finding me scummy for the same case?
It's hard to be definite when you're not up-to-date with the thread, because things change quickly. I wasn't sure if my points would still be valid at the end of my earlier reread because I had missed so much, and I'm sure similar things will happen during this reread/catch-up. If he was up-to-date at time of posting yet still refused to make decisions, I could see where you're coming from, but in context this argument makes no sense.DeathSauce wrote:Yeah.Vote: Seven.
The wall of text above is so wishy-washy it is overflowing with scumminess.
"Anyway I think I'm probably just misunderstanding the situation..."
"I'm a bit doubtful .."
"I think this might be misrep.."
"I'm getting a bad feel of this post for some reason..."
Not wanting to take a strong stand, but still casting a wide net of suspicion, that's scummy.
Care to go over why you're voting him today, then? Has your read changed since your initial vote for DiamondCrash on D1?DeathRowKitty wrote:
I guess. I'll try to be less lazy day 2 than I was most of day 1.7 wrote: I was interested in your original case on Par and thought you had some valid arguments. Maybe you could go through his ISO again?
Vote: DeathSauce
Reinstating my vote from day 1.
Great. "Seven is scum, here's my reason: Seven is scum." So we're begging the question now.DeathSauce wrote:
My thoughts are mainly that you are scum, that you survived Day 1 is a miracle.Seven wrote:.. And I'm still waiting for you to post more, have hardly anything from you at all. What are your thoughts on D1 now that dana and Cue are out?
DRK, your reasons for voting me on Day 1 were bogus, so reinstating your vote remains bogus.FoS: DeathSauce.
He may be his predecessor's role, but if his predecessor played terribly, the replacement shouldn't be held responsible for the other player's play if the replacement himself is a much better player. This is regardless of alignment. It carries some weight, but you shouldn't be making a case on somebody based solely on their predecessor's posts while ignoring the replacement's posts altogether - that can be considered misrep to a degree, though more of picking out the scummy things and not mentioning anything pro-town a player says.Lastsurvivor wrote: 405: What deathsauce needs to realize here is that he is his predecessor's role. The questions he then asks DRK seemed to be attempting to deflect suspicion off of himself.
Townies can also be less sure of their reads and not want to say anything too definite that could possibly be incorrect. If Player A insists that Player B IS DEFINITELY SCUM and then Player B flips town, Player A looks scummier for it, regardless of whether they were scum trying to push a mislynch or a townie who felt they had a strong enough case on Player B to pin them as scum.DeathSauce wrote:Lasty, it isn't just failing to take a strong stand, it is the ambiguity. Scum know things the rest of us don't, but they don't want to advertize that by seeming too sure of those things. Therefore scum tend to throw a lot of maybes, and seems-tos, and other unnecessary modifiers in front of their statements.
In other words, your argument is very WIFOM-y.[/quote]
Great. That point is invalidated. Can we move on from what could've been but wasn't to what could be? AKA get yer brain outta Day 1 this is Day 2 now and DKU was town.DeathSauce wrote:Considering dana came up town, there is admittedly less data than I had hoped. Dana's strong defense of Seven was what I was referring to. If dana had been scum, Seven would be scummier.
...though I do mention a lot of people saying that a lot of information could've come out of a DKU lynch, and I was willing to agree... but when I look back on it, the information that we would've gotten would only come if DKU flipped scum... scum would probably love a lynch like that, because they already knew DKU's alignment and if the only information would've come from a scum flip, which had no chance of happening from the view of the scum, then the town would gain very little from the lynch. Ugh. I feel bad about being on that wagon now.
I've already addressed why I don't agree with point A and I wholeheartedly agree with point B.Idiotking wrote:I agree with Deathsauce in that Seven's wallpost is extremely wishy-washy. I also don't like how Seven essentially said of Thor that "welp, he looks townie to me and has all game, maybe that should be a scumtell?" That is not a logical conclusion to reachat all. If you have every indication that X is true, why would you then conclude that Y (the opposite) is true?
It'd be nice if you had provided some examples of his reactionary play.Idiotking wrote:Vote DRK
I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.
I do not agree with this. IK's play is very aggressive, which is almost at the opposite end of reactionary. Reactionary play is passive, waiting to say something until someone else that's easy to respond to and turn into some scummy, which is scummy play. IK, however, has been posing lots of questions and demanding answers, which is trying to pull forth reactions from other players.Seven wrote:
You've been pretty reactionary yourself by my definition...IK wrote:Reactionary play annoys me.
Really, every point I've seen Seven bring up against IK is invalid, and seeing as I seem to agree with a lot of IK's points, it looks like Seven could be scum trying to misrep a player who is dangerous to the scum.FoS: Seven
First sentence here seems to be trying to deflect.DeathRowKitty wrote:IK wrote: Also,
Vote DRK
I'm still not liking DRK from yesterday, and I'm not liking him today, either. Reactionary play annoys me.
I think you have it backwards. DeathSauce is the one being all OMGUSy, not me. Anyhow, explain how my play has been reactionary.IK wrote:Also, your definition of reactionary is wrong. OMGUS is reactionary. Blasting dynamite through someone's paper-thin case against me isn't, if you're referring to dana. Other than that, I don't see how my actions could be considered reactionary, since I've been on the offensive for most of the game.
Second sentence here I also want an answer too... though I know IK gives one soon (this is rereading, not just reading, FYI. I've just been forgetting to post :/)
It's really bothering me that you're not providing examples of either of the points you're accusing DRK of. And you didn't mention wishy-washy-ness when you voted for him, but if it happened in the past, you should've brought it up then.Idiotking wrote:If you do little else besides defend against someone else's accusations, that's reactionary. You've done other stuff too, but by and large, most of your actions have been defensive, arguing against people who brought stuff up against you.
Add into that yesterday's wishy-washy-ness, and you're still deserving of a vote.
Your re-vote today didn't provide much reasoning, and you weren't voting him at the end of D1... could you link/quote your initial case? TBH both of you have fairly weak cases on each other as far as I can tell.DeathRowKitty wrote:DeathSauceisOMGUSing. I made a case against him. He called me scummy for it with horrible reasons. I voted him again today and he cited his previously stated reasons to show why my vote was bad and I was scummy. This is OMGUS.
Here's where this started - you brought up OMGUS as reactionary whilst accusing DRK of being reactionary, thus you accused him of OMGUS. DRK is attempting to argue down your attack on him - this is defensiveness, not reactionary play. Your argument is that DRK is OMGUSing, and DRK has accused DeathSauce of the same thing. Therefore it is a relevant point. Therefore this post comes off as you trying to deny that you accused DRK of OMGUSing rather than admitting you made a mistake. And honestly, this is really making my scumdar ping.Idiotking wrote:Whether or not DeathSauce is OMGUSing has no relevanceat allto whether or not you're being reactionary. Even if he's OMGUSing like an idiotic scummy mcnoobface, it doesn't make sense for you to say you're not being reactionarybecauseDeathSauce is being reactionary. The second phrase does not make up for the first phrase, and indeed has nothing to do with it at all.FoS: Idiotking. I know I've said stuff about you being townie before but I never said reads don't change.
Discussion of who's OMGUSing who is relevant. Trying to deny this when you were the one who brought up OMGUS in the first place is scummy.Idiotking wrote:Insisting upon mentioning it when it's not relevant is being reactionary. I'm not discussing DeathSauce. I'm discussing your reactions.
This insistence is why you're being reactionary.
But it's the only example you gave, therefore implying that you were accusing DRK of OMGUS.Idiotking wrote:
Note, I didn't describe OMGUS as the ONLY thing that is reactionary. It's just the best example.DeathRowKitty wrote:I'm reacting to your ridiculous posts. That's the only way I'm being reactionary.
Allow me to describe the sequence of events:
1. You said I was being reactionary and defined OMGUS as reactionary.
OMGUS was the topic at hand. Your argument was based on DRK's and DS's arguments against each other. Stop backtracking.Idiotking wrote:
When it wasn't the topic at hand. I didn't ask what DeathSauce was doing. His reactions aren't relevant. Yours are. Even if I completely accept what you're saying, at best all you're saying is that both you and DeathSauce are being reactionary,2. I pointed out that DeathSauce OMGUSed.which means you are still being reactionary. If I want to deal with DeathSauce, I will do so after I reread his actions. I'm dealing with you now, and you've donenothingin this entire exchange that has made me doubt my belief that you're being reactionary.Idiotking wrote:
Tried showing why your actions aren't reactionary.I don't get it. What should I have done in your expert opinion?
Misrep more. He brought up DeathSauce because interactions between the two were what brought up this discussion of whether DRk was reactionary or not. Stop denying the relevance of DeathSauce in all this.Idiotking wrote: All you did basically was say that DeathSauce is OMGUSing. I didn't ask about DeathSauce, I asked about you. Because you are arguing with DeathSauce and because I didn't ask you about Deathsauce and yet you still bring him up, I conclude that you are being reactionary.
On another note, I want to see DeathSauce respond to all of this.
On a third note, I have not seen the specific posts Idiotking finds to be reactionary except the posts in this argument, which are arguing over that very matter thus not the source of the argument itself.
You brought up OMGUS and implied that DRK was doing such. DRK brought in DeathSauce as a response to argue down this point. You have dismissed this as irrelevant.Idiotking wrote: This is the case with you and DeathSauce, and your efforts to bring DeathSauce's OMGUS-ness into every conversation is a symptom of your reactionary behavior.
This is the source of my...
Vote: Idiotking
Catching up on the next 2 pages or so will come later, maybe later tonight or maybe tomorrow depending on when I have more time. I like finishing pages though so this is where I'm cutting off.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
*clap clap clap clap clap*ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I would agree, because obviously, calling me out when nobody else was is reactionary, right?DeathRowKitty wrote:
So you're accusing me of not acting unless acted upon? Are you typing that with a straight face? Sure I've been a little wild with my vote this game, but I've been anything but reactionary with it.IK wrote: I take the statement "reactionary" as both meaning not acting unless acted upon as well as reacting negatively to suspicion
Is there anyone who reacts positively to suspicion?Idiotking wrote:No. You commented only on "not acting unless acted upon", leaving "as well as reacting negatively to suspicion". You quoted it without addressing it.
I... guess this makes sense. Ignoring posts directed towards yourself is pretty scummy, though it's more of a lack of willingness to play I guess.Thor665 wrote:
Fair enough, I suppose, though it begs the question why you asked.DeathRowKitty wrote:I didn't miss the next post. I just didn't think there was anything to respond to in it.
Vote: DeathRowKitty
Well, Idiotking is building upon his case with the argument, and DRK has to defend himself else risk a lynch. I'll admit that they're basically going around in circles after the first few posts though. But... arguing is rarely a hurtful thing for the town, because it gets big reactions out of players. If the argument is completely worthless then it's hurtful but both players are attempting to bring up valid points against each other.Lastsurvivor wrote:@DKR + IK: How does you two arguing about the definition of "reactionary" help push the town forward at all? It's just useless mud slinging.
Also this. Since one sided arguments are biased, of course. And well, not arguments at all. More of just cases with no defense. And um...DeathRowKitty wrote:Well, if I didn't argue it, the town would be left with only his side, which iswrongnot the whole story.
ABORT PARAGRAPH
*runs away screaming*
STOP BEING LAZY, ME.Parama wrote:Sorry for the lack of posting here;; been busy.
Will get something tomorrow for sure, along with a vote of who I find scummiest after I reread the last few pages.
Considering DeathSauce hadn't posted recently in the thread at the time you asked this, I find the timing of this odd. Seems like you're just trying to change the subject to something that doesn't involve you.DeathRowKitty wrote: @IK and Thor and anyone else
What do you think of DeathSauce? Have you iso'd him? It doesn't take long
To be honest I think this describes DeathSauce's play perfectly. He hasn't posted much, and most of his posts have been attacking DRK.DeathRowKitty wrote:I think he's scum. His predecessor's posts were scummy. He's come in, made worthless, inaccurate defenses of my accusations, and OMGUS'ed me for it. What more is there to say? He hasn't posted much.
I agree with this. Seven is one of the scummier players thus far but DeathSauce hasn't actually provided any reason for his vote (and will likely continue this pattern as far as I can tell)Seven wrote:
Yes, it is a miracle. You still need reasons to vote me. "Sev is scummy because he just IS" doesn't count as a reason. And I'm still waiting for you to answer LS.My thoughts are mainly that you are scum, that you survived Day 1 is a miracle.
There is no way that DRK vs IK was a distraction attempt.Seven wrote:A lot of bickering between DRK and IK... Reminds of DRK/SP fight D1. Could be an attempt at distraction.
I agree with IK's 529, though I don't actually have much to say about it...
Why is DeathSauce scummy to you, and why is he less scummy than DRK?Thor665 wrote:
DiamondCrash was (is?) on my radar. The new DeathSauce version of him has somewhat followed suit. I consider him less scummy then you but overall certainly scummy.@IK and Thor and anyone else
What do you think of DeathSauce? Have you iso'd him? It doesn't take long
@ evilsnail 535: All your points against DRK are based on day 1 actions. I'd like to see what you think about DRK on Day 2.DeathRowKitty wrote:How was I pushing for a Seven lynch in that first post?I voted Parama because I wanted to lynch Parama. I was hardly transparent about wanting to lynch Parama, though, yes, I was cryptic. Why is that scummy? I'll pull any ploy to try to get reactions out of people, not matter how stupid.
Which is something I still don't understand...DeathRowKitty wrote:It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles.We should lynch Seven.
Unvote, vote Parama
DRK does seem to be pushing really hard on DeathSauce in general, though. Not that it's a bad thing, but it could be another reaction test.
True that you never voted in response, but the points on DRK's case against DiamondCrash are all valid. I honestly don't fully agree with him in that your predecessor's actions are all valid against you - sometimes the predecessor is a terrible player and I don't think that if a better player replaces in that the weight of the predecessor's actions should be fully thrust upon the replacement.DeathSauce wrote:There is not a scrap of OMGUS from me in this game. Not. one. bit. I pointed DRK as scummy for voting me because of my Diamond's actions without DRK ever having said anything about Diamond while he was still active. Not OMGUS, and calling it such is misrepresenting my case.
This is response is really confusing me.evilsnail wrote:
I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.DRK wrote:
Wow. Nice try. (No, not really.)evil wrote: He was pretty inconsistent about dana, as Idiotking has pointed out. First, dana was a policy lynch, because his play constituted a null tell, then he was suddenly suspicious. He made overtures to a dana vote a couple of times, claiming it was the best lynch, but at the same time said dana wasn't really scummy. Basically, this read like he was trying to have it both ways, get dana lynched and not be seen pushing for the lynch hard.
I don't think we can rule out the possibility of evilsnail's theory though. Though it seems a bit of a stretch. But his response to DRK's response here... I don't get it. It's really bothering me.
I take full responsibility for this fail of epic proportions. Guess the vote was a little spur of the moment based on what I had been responding to for the last 10 minutes... and I did really only look at it from one side (but if I had looked at it from the other side as well I think I may have contradicted myself.)Parama wrote: Really bothering me. That's all you have to say on this matter? IK here says he leadthe lynch on dana (who flipped town... which makes him even more townie in my eyes, because no scum would want to announce himself to be held responsible for a townie lynch <_<)
*one wall-o-text later...*
Vote: Idiotking
I just need to avoid commenting on arguments between two other players unless there's something of note I really want to point out. Otherwise I end up having to take a side which leads to bias which leads to fail-logic. Yes sorry one point shouldn't invalidate the pro-town read I had on IK before it. It's still bugging me how insistent he was on this one point though. But whatever.
Anyways, I fail. I should quit mafia forever probably.
unvoteIdiotking wrote:
As mentioned in my posts, it's a cumulative effort from his play as of late. No, there isn't any single post or series of posts that I could quote that would prove that he is being reactionary. Instead, it is the whole development of the thing over time. I.E. you'd have to read ALL of his posts since the second half of D1 or so (in context), and that's far too much to quote.Parama wrote: It'd be nice if you had provided some examples of his reactionary play.
Fair enough.
I get the logic and all, but my argument is that by only providing that one specific example itIdiotking wrote:
This is false. I said OMGUS was reactionary, not reactionary was OMGUS.Here's where this started - you brought up OMGUS as reactionary whilst accusing DRK of being reactionary, thus you accused him of OMGUS.
If x is an element in set Y, then x is Y (according to grammar, where Y is a predicate nominative). It is not required for x to be the ONLY element in Y.
I get how my wording may have been confusing, but the logic is sound.couldhave come off that reactionary is OMGUS and DRK may have taken it as such.
Well by definition a defense is a reaction I guess... but any person would want to defend themselves when being called out, defense isn't exclusive to reactionary playstyles.Idiotking wrote:
Defensiveness isn't reactionary? I think it's very MUCH reactionary.DRK is attempting to argue down your attack on him - this is defensiveness, not reactionary play.
BRB bashing my skull in with a 2x4.Idiotking wrote:You'd better have another reason to vote for me, because your entire case against me is based off of one 8 or so post conversation. If that's all you've got against me, I'm going to bash your skull in with a 2x4.
Yes it was a little rushed of a vote. And I fail. Yep.FoS: Parama.
Considering that IK has also called you out for the same thing this is pretty hypocritical.Seven wrote: QFT:IK wrote:Stop lurking.
And I'm willing to argue that I'm not lurking. I know I don't post that frequently but during weekdays I get a lot of homework, plus I'm lazy in general. Although that's not really an excuse. I guess... sometimes I feel like playing mafia, other times I don't. Which is also a bad reason.
I still don't feel like I've been lurking, but now I can't come up with anything to defend that stance, argh.
Considering that we haven't heard anything from the slot since the end of Day 1 (well, Shiverer has replaced at this point but I'll get to that later), I don't understand the point of this question.Thor665 wrote:@Seven - at the beginning of Day 2 you indicated SP/RH/whoever was your current remaining top suspect but wanted to work through your re-reads to see if that still held true - does it, or is someone else now your top suspect?
Shiverer 565-567... jumpy voting, plus voting based on barely reading any of the thread...
Please, read more before you vote - at least catch up and post some thoughts. Your slot was already scummy enough.
I think you should ask more people what they think of DeathSauce!DeathRowKitty wrote:
Thought I'd responded to everything. Must have missed it. Can you quote it or link me to it?Thor wrote: I did call him out for the one thing he's said over the past 3-4 days I had issue with - he hasn't responded yet.
@Shiverer
Hi Shiverer! What do you think of DeathSauce?
No. Read the whole goddamn thread. READ IT. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD NOT SKIM IT.Shiverer wrote:1. I did a lot of skimming, so expect me to miss things. I apologize in advance.
Clarification: Panzer's recent posts take out of context would have made it look like a potential bus, but looking back at his early case against dana one would find this not to be the case.Shiverer wrote:4. Parama, post 439: "From recent posts, Panzer's vote looks like a bus. Which, since I will admit that he added plenty of points to the dana case." Scummy wording or sloppy wording?it isn't
You can start then. What makes you think Lastsurvivor could potentially be scum (this being the most likely reason for your request.) This is what Seven was doing - calling someone out and then waiting for others to build the case for you.Shiverer wrote:5. I want to see a Lastsurvivor analysis from everyone, and pardon the rudeness but I want it yesterday.
Um, why the vote? You didn't mention DeathSauce in your post at all.Shiverer wrote:unvote
vote: DeathSauce
I just really hate this slot's play in general.FoS: Shiverer.
On an unrelated note I think I played a game with you on EpicMafia a few hours ago.
On a semi-related note, I think I'm caught up. Any questions you guys want to ask me? I'd be happy to address them.
tbh I'm not in a scumhunting mood today but I made myself finish this because I hate being behind in games.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
You don't skim because you miss important details AND minor ones. Read through every post in the thread or you'll find yourself not understanding arguments because you missed something earlier on due to skimming.Shiverer wrote:
Don't play self-righteous. There are plenty of players here who don't read entire threads upon replacing in, and they do just fine. I read straight through the thread; I happened skim over some posts along the way. People do that all the time, even mid-game (i.e., not replacing in). Trying to castigate me for it won't get you anywhere and it's completely irrelevant to the game at hand, unless I make a mistake in my interpretation or recollection of past events, in which case someone corrects my error and . . . problem solved.Parama wrote:No. Read the whole goddamn thread. READ IT. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD NOT SKIM IT.
I'm lazy but I'm reading through the whole thread regardless.Shiverer wrote:On another note, the sort of demand your making smacks of hypocrisy and impulse given your acknowledgment of your own laziness/lurking.
Hmm... fair enough. What I was saying there was that I did not believe dana and Panzer to be scum together. Either of them could have been scum, or neither, but I did not believe them both to be scum. Because Panzer's case on dana was far beyond bussing.Shiverer wrote:
I know what you meant. I was referring to the certainty of "it isn't," which you shouldn't have. It was more of a curiosity then a major point against you, because I know people don't always word things the way I think they should, myself included.Parama wrote:Clarification: Panzer's recent posts take out of context would have made it look like a potential bus, but looking back at his early case against dana one would find this not to be the case.
Jumpy voting was the wrong word... more like jumpy posting. You posted your vote on Seven, a short while later posted again asking Seven a question, and then posting a third time seeing that the question had already been answered. Though I guess that could be overeagerness as well.Shiverer wrote:
Jumpy voting? Overstatement much? Not even an overstatement. A fabrication. I've voted twice. Both were designed to gain information. The first was issued after I'd read five or ten percent of the thread. I reserve the right to change my vote after going from five or ten percent to a hundred percent, thanks very much.Parama wrote:Shiverer 565-567... jumpy voting, plus voting based on barely reading any of the thread...
I'm asking why you voted for DeathSauce without providing any reason. That means I:Shiverer wrote:
I didn't mention a lot of players in my post at all. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on them. I find this comment particularly amusing because the only people I really cast suspicion in that very short catchup post on were Lastsurvivor and, to a lesser extent, you. The correct reaction, in my infallible opinion, is to demand information from me, not to point out that I didn't provide any information about the person I voted forParama wrote:Um, why the vote? You didn't mention DeathSauce in your post at all.while not providing information for anyone else. Your special interest in my unexplained DS vote rather than my lack of explanation aboutanything elseis noted.
1. want you to justify your vote
2. give the reason behind your vote
You can't do one properly without doing the other, and in your response you attempted the first while ignoring the second and instead tried to turn my accusation against me. Scummy.
You're asking for input without giving any information on him yourself. It's asking others to build a case for you. If you see something that makes Lastsurvivor scummy, then tell the town so we can agree/disagree with your point. It's motivation to look deeper into the player if you indeed have found rather incriminating evidence against them that makes them worthy of being looked into further. Instead, you come off as wanting to sit back and let others do the work for you. I believe Seven was already called out for this exact same thing regarding building a case on DRK. If you had read the thread you would have seen this.Shiverer wrote:Parama and Thor665, I don't understand what's so unfair (cue children bawling their eyes out) about me asking for people's input on Lastsurvivor, since there's been, if I'm correct, next to nothing evaluative spoken about him all game. If you (and/or others) are going to continue to resist responding to that very simple request, then I'd love to know exactly how my insistence that you reveal your opinions before I reveal mine would put the town at such a disadvantage were I scum.
Will do.Shiverer wrote: Also, Parama, please list what you find scummy about me in particular, in case I missed anything or you left anything out. I'm not exactly shaken by what I saw in that last post.
First off, SeerPenguin and Radical Hijinx were both scummy during their stay in the pizzeria.
Second, you seem like you want the town members to build cases and do the work for you allowing you to duck out of the discussion. Basically, it's asking permission to lurk while also trying to get other players lynched without giving reasons yourself.
Third, both your votes have had no reason behind them, and you refused to give reasoning for the DeathSauce vote when I asked for it.
Anyways, I am not going to look into Lastsurvivor until you give me a reason why I should be looking into him. If you have a good reason why we should be suspicious of him, I would like to hear it before I go off to look for other potentially scummy actions.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Meh... I'm not even going to continue this argument, it's your fault if you mess up later on because of it.Shiverer wrote:Anyway, you seem not to be registering that the thread is over twenty pages in length and that I replaced in last night. I read it as fast as I could. I've yet to do a reread or iso. read, because I don't feel a pressing need, but it's not as though I'm never going to review all that material, so stop acting like your head will asplode if I don't instantly get my ass in gear.
I is a tard.Shiverer wrote:
How do you mix up voting and posting? I doubt that posting was the intended subject of your original description.Jumpy voting was the wrong word... more like jumpy posting.
Also when I first posted that I was intending this meaning:
You looked really jumpy in wanting to place a vote because of your posts.
No, this is here because THIS IS WHY YOU READ THE THREAD.Shiverer wrote:
You're attacking me because I missed a piece of information someone had written in the threadYou posted your vote on Seven, a short while later posted again asking Seven a question, and then posting a third time seeing that the question had already been answered.before I'd fully read through the thread. Are you seeing the same fault in this accusation that I am?
I dunno. Wanna WIFOM with me?Shiverer wrote:
Which is it, then?Though I guess that could be overeagerness as well.
You're still avoiding my question.Shiverer wrote:
I didn't attempt to justify my vote. I did refuse to answer your question while pointing out your specific interest in my DS vote but not in my opinions about any other players, Seven included.I'm asking why you voted for DeathSauce without providing any reason. That means I:
1. want you to justify your vote
2. give the reason behind your vote
You can't do one properly without doing the other, and in your response you attempted the first while ignoring the second and instead tried to turn my accusation against me. Scummy.
In your next post, I want to see the reasons why you're voting for DeathSauce.
Misrep, fluff, etc.Shiverer wrote:It's funny that you term my criticism of your reaction "turn[ing] my accusation against me." You're treating my point as a devious counterattack, and that's a pretty baseless interpretation. If I smell something funny about an argument, I'm going to pursue it, and the fact that your argument was targeting me doesn't mean I'm scum for pursuing what smells funny. Scum hunting isn't a one-way street. We obviously share a mutual suspicion for each other; you can't attack me and expect me not to fire back when I've already got you in my crosshairs.
It's not a counterattack, I never said it was. The problem is, you are refusing to answer the questions me and Thor are asking you and instead trying to jump around them when we ask them. And after being called out for this you are still doing such.
That's not what I said - if other people start bringing in points about Lastsurvivor and building cases, you'll attempt to fall under the radar and not do anything - you're letting others do the work for you.Shiverer wrote:
I just read the game. I don't feel the need to pile up a case right now, and I don't think I'm entirely prepared to. As far as ducking out of the conversation goes . . . yes, that's definitely what I'm aiming for by arguing tooth and nail with you and Thor.Second, you seem like you want the town members to build cases and do the work for you allowing you to duck out of the discussion.
If you had a chosen Lastsurvivor and given evidence, then I would not be accusing you. But it seems like you just chose a random person to see if you could get suspicion on to them. And as you have yet to give reasons for a Lastsurvivor suspicion, it means you want to distance yourself from the wagon because you, the scum, know he will flip town in the end. And you can claim you had no part in it because you didn't bring up any evidence against him yourself (though the bandwagoners should be looked at more closely than the accusers I'd think.)Shiverer wrote:
Good, I was hoping for this response.Basically, it's asking permission to lurk while also trying to get other players lynched without giving reasons yourself.
1. If I just want to wagon and lurk, why do I choose a difficult, out-of-the-way, completely unsuspected target?
You're drawing attention but that wasn't your original intention when you asked the question. Don't you dare claim it was. And even though people are focused on you, you still refuse to answer questions.Shiverer wrote:2. If I'm scum, do you really think I expect people to just build cases on their own without questioning my interest? You and Thor already did. Your attack hinges on the assumption that I'm idiotic enough to think I can coast to the deadline on another person's case, and get away with it. That's silly and impractical, and for someone who's apparently to duck out of the spotlight I'm drawing a lot of attention to myself by doing it.
And this here says that you were expecting a Lastsurvivor wagon to come fairly easily. When it didn't, you're now trying to defend your position by using excuses like this - "Oh well if nobody agrees with me then nobody was suspicious of him in the first place, moving on, nothing to see here." Hey, y'know what that looks like? Covering your tracks!Shiverer wrote:3. Even then, in order for you to be confident that my goal is to "get other players lynched without [my own] reasons," then you must either know there's some preexisting "Lynch Lastsurvivor" sentiment. In order for me to coast on other people's cases, they must be willing to build those cases, and if they're willing to build those cases then they're either (a) already suspicious of LS or (b) suddenly seeing him as an easy target. In other words, my apparent wagon-and-lurk strategy only works if someone provides an LS-scum case that I can wagon on in the first place. And it doesn't look to me like anyone's suspicious of LS, so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that.
If we're stubborn, then what are you for not responding to the questions posed you you at all? When called out for refusing to answer question, you have continued to do such. So... you're stubborn, AND hypocritical if you think me and Thor are stubborn.Shiverer wrote:
I don't think it's no different (which was partly why I answered, the other reason being I didn't feel like continuing to resist answering for no ultimately real reason), and yay for double negatives. I don't know. I just find the stubbornness you and Parama are demonstrating unnecessary, given the situation.Thor665 wrote:Why? Probably because I'm not voting for Lastsurvivor and you did vote for Seven. I don't see why the belief that one should explain when one votes for somebody is odd. Why do you think it's no different?
No, you wanted to build a case on him. You asked others to provide reasons why Lastsurvivor could be scum. Do not try to cover up your actions with excuses like this.Shiverer wrote:I don't know, maybe something like, "Here's why I think he's town," or "Here's why I have a null read on him." You know, a sentence or two of underlying reasons (gut or logical). I don't expect you to announce a scum read on him, but I was hoping to learn why no one seems to be remotely suspicious of him.
The problem is that you haven't provided reasons for either your Seven vote or your DeathSauce vote, while I have asked for these reasons several times.Shiverer wrote:
There should three or four scum in this setup. There's nothing wrong with adjusting my slant on the game by unvoting one suspect and voting for another, especially since, for the umpteenth time, the first vote came before my read-through and the second vote came after. I'm not going to cling to one vote for the sake of my pride; I'll move it around as I see fit (and I tend to do it a lot, so rock out). I'm not sure why that's such a problem for you.and that apparently simply by Seven suspecting people other then the SP/RH slot it makes him not worthy of a vote
Your thoughts on Shiverer please. You really CAN'T be ignoring this guy, can you?DeathSauce wrote:God you people are blind in this game. DRK and Seven are scum. Let's kill them.
Too bad. I'm going to continue with giant posts whenever I see fit, so suck it up and read them or replace out.DeathSauce wrote:Also, I don't read giant posts. Please stop that.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
EBWOP:
Well I understand his analysis is biased but I see most of the points that DRK brings up here in your play. I guess the "worthless, inaccurate" is a little too strong of word choice, other than that I agree with DRK's analysis.DeathSauce wrote:
False. Both DRK's analysis of my play and your agreement. The only reason I have "attacked" DRK is to point out how horrible his case on me is.Parama wrote:
To be honest I think this describes DeathSauce's play perfectly. He hasn't posted much, and most of his posts have been attacking DRK.DeathRowKitty wrote:I think he's scum. His predecessor's posts were scummy. He's come in, made worthless, inaccurate defenses of my accusations, and OMGUS'ed me for it. What more is there to say? He hasn't posted much.
And I don't think DRK's case is bad, though he seems rather eager to get you lynched.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I do not care for AtE. I do not feel you are doing such. I just think you don't understand my argument.Shiverer wrote:I fully expect his reaction to this post to be, "Look, now scum is appealing to my emotions to get me off his back!" But I'm not going to clog the thread slap-fighting with him when he just blithely stretches his argument to generate ridiculous, outlandish hypotheses to back up his reasoning.
This is not true at all. The plain and simple facts - you asked for other people's opinions on Lastsurvivor without giving your own first, without giving a reason for people to look into him. Basically, you want others to find the evidence for you. Or at least this is what your actions suggest. I do not know for sure that this is what you were thinking, but it's what your posting implied to me.Shiverer wrote:He's not using logic; instead, he's telling a 100% speculative fairy tale about what went on in my mind as I made my first few posts, modifying it along the way whenever I show how absurd it is.
Yes, I will admit to being biased. You are not SeerPenguin or Radical Hijinx, but your slot has nonetheless been scummy regardless of your actions. You replaced someone I felt could potentially be scum - your slot already had bias on it before you even replaced it. Even if you aren't the previous two players you have the same role and thus the same bias should apply.Shiverer wrote:He's deliberately applying a Shiv-scum slant (confirmation bias, *cry*) as opposed to a Shiv-town slant, or—and this is totally a foreign concept in Mafia games—a Shiv-neutral-and-being-the-inquisitive-player-I-am-I'm-going-to-actually-try-to-get-a-legitimate-town-or-scum-read-on-him-based-on-what-he-says slant. I can't win.
Random question that just came to mind:
Is there anything in your predecessors' posts that you do not agree with at all? I want to look at your own slot to see why people have found it scummy previously and why they apply bias to you based on SP's and RH's play.
Analysis implies looking for both towntells and scumtells in players' posting, and rarely if ever do people ask others to give as many towntells as possible. So it wasn't directly asking to build a case but more to find the scumtells and suspicious actions that could be used in a case against Lastsurvivor.Shiverer wrote:
I didn't ask others for a case. A pair of eyes and the reading comprehension of a nine-year-old will make this much obvious. And I quote:Parama wrote:No, you wanted to build a case on him. You asked others to provide reasons why Lastsurvivor could be scum. Do not try to cover up your actions with excuses like this.
Please explain how analysis and scum case are synonymous—oh, wait, there goes the basis for your entire theory. Oopsy!Shiverer wrote:5. I want to see a Lastsurvivor analysis from everyone, and pardon the rudeness but I want it yesterday.
Please do not put words in my mouth, especially if I have never thought anything along those lines.Shiverer wrote:But wait, your answer will be, "You obviously expected a great number of us to give scum reads on him, Shiv!" I will then point out that there has been virtuallyzerosuspicion cast on LS all game. Hell, virtually zero analysis of any sort, scum read or town read. To which Parama replies, "Gasp! Really, Shiv? I hadn't noticed. I wonder if that's why you wanted people's reads. No, no, that wouldn't make any sense. I much prefer the theory that you used your magic powers to detect that a great number of us were secretly suspicious of him, but were too terrified of his ungodly powers to speak up in the thread." Ad nauseam.
The case was requested the previous day - I know I shouldn't have put it off until night and it was a bad move to wait. The comment Cuet left made me think the town would request my case anyways at the start of Day 2, so I posted it to save them the trouble.Jack wrote: I will say that parama's post at the start of day 2 (ISO 38) is super scummy. The only purpose is to make him look good, and the surrounding comments sound fakey as you can get.
Thor already answered this but I feel the need to answer this as well:Shiverer wrote:
Oh, really? Why is that?Thor665 wrote:I don't do town analysis of players for public consumption
Players who are generally seen as pro-town by other members of the town are prime targets for scum NKs - if the scum know who the town doesn't suspect, they kill them off so as to leave the more suspicious townies alive later in the game. Giving town reads on players is giving ideas to the scum - it's not a scummy move considering that it implies that the scum only gain information if the player giving the town reads is a townie themselves - but it's anti-town in that having players considered to be pro-town by everyone results in getting those players killed.
I was rereading the thread overnight and I used that time to build my case. I already had the case ready by the time the day started - I just wasn't around to post it.Jack wrote:Very first post after day begins and parama has the case and posts it? He even says the power was out. Case posted 8 hours after day starts.
I will agree that he is one of the members in this game not posting as often as they should be (evilsnail also needs to post more, and I'm going to accuse myself of not posting enough as well). But I don't agree with the Lynch all Lurkers mentality some players have, plus calling it "lurking" would be a stretch (not to imply that you called it lurking).Shiverer wrote:Here's what I have so far. My suspicion of LS is more about his minimal involvement than about anything he's actually said, and frankly he hasn't done anything glaringly scummy, but some things still nag. Don't expect this case to contain super slip-ups, because there aren't any. Holistically, though, this looks very much like ho-hum scum play that lacks in pro-town content.
It was an argument based on RVS logic and reactions - the reaction part wasn't bad but the RVS logic made for a bad argument. I also was against the argument and remember posting something similar to this. If that makes me scummy to you then fine.Shiverer wrote:
This was a decent early opportunity for scum hunting, and LS passed it up. Asking why they are "bickering about something so pointless" instead of looking into the matter, and then never looking into the matter later on . . . I might understand if LS were a complete newbie, but where is the scum-hunting townie mentality here?LS (iso. 7) wrote:DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.
I'm more concerned about the comment about bussing myself... something's off about it. Calling it a bus implies that Lastsurvivor felt both were scum, but if he's basing his suspicions only off this argument then that's a baseless accusation.Shiverer wrote:
There it is. He does follow up on the previous post I quoted, but again, this is ridiculously gentle for someone who's supposed to be fishing out scum from the trash heap.LS (iso. 8) wrote:I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?
Lastsurvivor - do you still think a DRK/Shiverer scumteam is possible? If so, what do you see in their interactions that makes you feel the team is possible? If not, what has changed your read since the start of the game? (this is a rather broad question if I would say so myself but it's comparing an early post to a recent discussion so a lot has indeed happened.)
First point here... I have played with several people who hold their vote until they feel someone isShiverer wrote:
"Odd." Okay. Who was LS voting for, by the way? Oh, that's right, he was still random-voting Idiotking. This reeks of lack of investment in scum hunting. Worse is how LSLS (iso. 12) wrote:@Seer: I see what you're saying now. When I was talking about my unsureness, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was actually unsure. The overreaction is still odd though.nevergoes back to DRK/SP. Did he just forget? Townies tend not to just drop suspicions like that, even if their questions are answered (and clearly LS's issues weren't fully resolved, as he still had that "odd" feeling).definitelyscum. Also note that Lastsurvivor may have though Idiotking was scum due to his posts and his reason for holding his vote was not RVS logic. I'll have to look back at his posts around then to see if this could be the case.
I will admit that dropping suspicion completely is scummy in a way... it makes him appear like his only suspicion is the popular target and he doesn't want to look at people who have dropped out of the publ-
So at this point I'm going to assume your argument is LS is taking a position of neutrality on everything and not trying to scumhunt...Shiverer wrote:
Except that doesn't do much to change his airs of non-investment. "Your bad argument is scummy to me"—the wording of this is scummy as hell. No vote, no real pressure, no nothing, just gently (and that's the key word) prodding the popular target. Active-lurking.LS (iso. 12) wrote:Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?
Your bad argument is scummy to me.
Combine that with your argument that he's following the popular target... I can sorta see where you're coming from here, though I'm not sure if that makes him lazy or scummy. Though I don't think Lastsurvivor is that lazy...
I'd be more willing to point out how his passiveness contradicts his defense of Idiotking - dana was calling IK out for being aggressive (which was a crappy reason) so LS attempted to appease both sides by defending the accused in a passive manner whilst posting with a passiveness that the accuser would not call out. It's trying to appeal to everyone, which is something a townie has no motivation to do - they have to take sides by deciding which side is more likely scum. They cannot appeal to everyone if the town wants to lynch scum, because that would involve appealing to the scum.Shiverer wrote:
And again. What is up with "strange"? It's like LS thinks he's stepping on thin ice with everything he says, which is typical of timid/unseasoned scum lacking in self-confidence.LS (iso. 15) wrote:And, I'll say this again. I find your weak case scummy, and the fact that you still find it justifiable is even more strange.
This is what I said about taking sides - the two he's FoSing here are the ones going against each other - it was unlikely that the two were scum together, but FoSing both means he sees them both as potential scum - this is appealing to both sides without taking one again.Shiverer wrote:
So he's clinging to his shallow danakillsu suspicion, which again is easy pickings given the popular sentiment about dana. And his second ("slight"—more cautious, gentle wording) suspect is Panzer . . . which came out of nowhere and just baffles me in general. I don't know what to think about that.LS, iso. 24 wrote:Dana's still my top suspicion atm. I definitely think the player by player analysis is weird. Seems like the thought process was "Hmm, Seven did this and they backed off on him. Maybe I can do it, too."
On my slight suspicion list would be Panzer, just because of that contradiction of logic pointed out by someone, and the fact that I'm not too crazy about who he replaced. I generally don't like my read on DRK, since he just seems to reflect some points that are brought up against him under the rug with a joke (along with other things that have been brought up).
I don't agree with this conclusion based on your analysis - the point I brought up about passiveness and not taking sides is one major scumtell more than little scumtells, though your argument is not necessarily invalid. Thanks for taking the time to present your suspicions, though.Shiverer wrote:As I said at the top, there's nothing concrete that's absolutely incriminating about LS's play, and that's partly my point. He's done a very good job of softly generating suspicions and staying out of the line of fire—producing minimal useful content for the town. Many of his posts give me horrible nervous scum vibes, and he has some curious interactions and connections with other players.
Little problem that I have - this was a case, not analysis. Though it lacked the usual FoS/vote that ends most cases, you only looked at the scummy things here and not mentioned anything you find townie about his play. Though this could be the result of being called out for asking for who others think are town.
I don't get it. Care to explain what cryptic message you're trying to convey? I'd love to know.Jack wrote:Parama mentioned that he smoked trichonoply cigars back on page 5, and I spotted some of it's distinctly colored ash in the murder write up.
@ Seven's last comment in 612 - Why do you find me suspicious after not mentioning me once in your post? Please tell me why you are randomly throwing FoSes around without giving reasons.
I have now responded to your case, and will read him further tomorrow. Right now though it's past midnight and I really need sleep.Shiverer wrote:@All
I still want my damn Lastsurvivor analyses. I caved and gave you mine. And now I regret it because you are continuing to ignore my one request.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
EBWOP: HOLY LOTS OF POSTS THAT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS TYPING THIS LAST POST UP. I will read them tomorrow morning. Like I said, I need sleep.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I'm sorry. I'm trying to respond to everything that is addressing me or I everything I feel worth commenting on. And a lot of the time it makes my posts rather long.Jack wrote:The walls of text are pointless.
I'm not going to force you to believe me. You can choose to believe whatever you want. I can't fault you for being wrong, though.Jack wrote:The giant back and forth quoting stuff does nothing. Like parama's response to my accusation: "no I did it for this townie reason". Ok, I don't believe you. Mafia lie in this game.
Your posts inbetween the last post I read before posting and my big post do not address this question, actually. You only mentioned why you're not going to build a case on me even though you find me scummy.Seven wrote:@Par:
I did address this, just want to make sure you got your answer.@ Seven's last comment in 612 - Why do you find me suspicious after not mentioning me once in your post? Please tell me why you are randomly throwing FoSes around without giving reasons.
I repeat, why are you randomly throwing out FoSes without giving reasons for them?
I'm not so sure on my read of Shiverer but Radical Hijinx came off as scummier than SP to me. He replaced out fairly quickly though so there was little time for him to make an impression, though.evilsnail wrote:I like both of our new replacements' posts so far. Both Shiverer and Radical Hijinx gave me a pro-town impression on the whole, so I'm willing to see past my suspicion of SeerPenguin for now.
@ Panzer: You've been replaced. Sorry.
Not much else except that I agree with DeathSauce's 637.
Though I would like it if he read my posts.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
It was in response to evilsnail mentioning Radical Hijinx as townie. RH certainly left a scummy impression to me, not denying that. But I don't see why evilsnail got a townie read. My guess is that the short time he was in for didn't give evilsnail enough time to get an impression of him. My read on you is neutral at this point if you wanted to know.Shiverer wrote:
This makes me uneasy. You're using the short duration of Radical Hijinx's stay to soften your stated suspicion of him. I understand where you're coming from, but it still doesn't make sense because heParama wrote:He replaced out fairly quickly though so there was little time for him to make an impression, though.didleave an impression: You explicitly FOSed him and you listed his play of him as a reason to suspect me (i.e., my slot), twice. Why does the fact that his participation was momentary cut him slack? That seems to me like a pretty silly reason, and in my experience silly reasons often turn out to be excuses for scum to opportunistically shift gears.
If you saw my 5-FoS posts you'd understand why "mildly scummy" can be pretty far down the list.Shiverer wrote:evilsnail wrote:his play hasn't really put up him at the top of my scumlist or townlist so far, but reading him in ISO I get a mildly scummy vibeevilsnail wrote:Lastsurvivor is pretty far down on my suspect list
"Mildly scummy vibe" but "pretty far down my suspect list"? Your list must be pretty long.
Actually, who are your suspects? DRK and . . . ?
Honestly I'm not getting good vibes from any player in this game, though a few are worse than others. More on that later.
It's more trying not to take a side than appealing to both, but since each wanted you to FoS the other that's the real "appeal" (though likely negated by having FoSes on both but yeah...)Lastsurvivor wrote:@Response to iso 24: When I have a 'slight' suspicion, it means that that person is acting scummy, but I'm not totally sure if they're scum. Also, how can I be appeasing to both sides if I'm FoSing the both of them? I can see where you're getting it with Dana and IK (since I'm actually defending IK, and I do speak passively a bit), but not sure where you're getting it here.
I don't have a strong scum read on you tbh, and the only things I really have I've already said.
It's fine that you're voting someone who nobody else seems to care about right now but I'd like your opinions on more current events before we discuss DeathSauce.DeathRowKitty wrote:<tunnel>The only two players DeathSauce has given opinions on outside of his first post are me and Seven. Heck, he didn't give real opinions of anyone else in his first post either, despite voting dana.</tunnel>
More votes on him,please? See, I even said the magic word. And italicized it!
As for the other stuff I should be responding to/giving opinions of LS, I'll do that when I stop lurking. Which is probably Tuesday.
Nice catch there.Shiverer wrote:evilsnail wrote:My scumlist is something like this:
DRK
DeathSauce / DiamondCrash
Radical Penguin Shiverer
I did my best Las Vegas lights imitation. Forgetting your reads this far into the game = scum.Three posts ago, evilsnail wrote:I like both of our newreplacements' posts so far.Both Shiverer and Radical Hijinx gave me a pro-townimpression on the whole, so I'mwilling to see past my suspicionof SeerPenguin for now.FoS: evilsnail
It's not necessarily a scumtell but I hate when people contradict themselves. That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.
Why did you even mention it in the first place then?Seven wrote:
It's not a random FoS, it's a slight tell that I don't care to investigate at this point in the game. Depending on who we lynch today and what happens tomorrow it might warrant looking into. I only mentioned it so that if I do end up using it, there will be some record of me having noticed something and it won't seem to come out of nowhere.Par wrote:Your posts inbetween the last post I read before posting and my big post do not address this question, actually. You only mentioned why you're not going to build a case on me even though you find me scummy.
I repeat, why are you randomly throwing out FoSes without giving reasons for them?
Hmm...Thor665 wrote:@Parama
We're a little less then a week out of deadline and neither of you are currently voting. I would like to hear who your current top suspect is and why.
I have no clue. I have plenty of minor suspicions but nothing worth voting over. Evilsnail/Seven/DeathSauce would probably be my 3 scum just by separate reasons (evilsnail for the contradictions and wishy-washyness, Seven for leaving himself open to any lynch, and DeathSauce for rarely saying anything relevant (two most recent post are information with no analysis) but I don't feel DeathSauce and Seven could be scum together unless they have mastered the art of bussing.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Yeah I realize that. I narrowed it down later, those were just the FoSes I got from reading through the few pages I had to catch up on. A few of those probably qualified as "mildly scummy" but not much more anyways.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
I don't agree with this statement.Lastsurvivor wrote:At the moment, Jack isn't bringing any redemption to the chamber slot. Iso's and stuff tomorrow, probably.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Whoa, deadline's Friday? Only 2 weeks?
*did not know this*
I'll try to get a vote placed later tonight.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
IMO wording fail on my part. The "not necessarily a scumtell" was forgetting reads, while contradicting oneself IS a scumtell.Idiotking wrote:
So is it a scumtell or isn't it? You're contradicting yourself, here. You say it's not necessarily a scumtell, but it's a scumtell you look for a lot. The hypocrisy here is awe-inspiring.Parama wrote:FoS: evilsnail
It's not necessarily a scumtell....
That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.
How about I rephrase the sentence:
Better?What I should have wrote wrote:Forgetting reads is not necessarily a scumtell but what I do hate is when people contradict themselves. That's the scumtell I look for a lot - contradictions.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Gut read is fine. Basing votes on gut when there's 30 pages of discussion to build cases upon is lazy.
I'm pretty sure I know who I'm going to vote for, and a case on them should be coming later today.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Hmm... Is this the case then?
Hmm... quick summary of your case
1. Gut
2. The way my posts are written
3. Me posting the Cuetlachtli case that was requested
4. The possibility that I'm lying
5. More gut
...sure, you can keep your vote on me if you really want to. I don't mind. However, I wouldn't call scattered posts with brief mentionings of your reasons a case. Care to summarize it yourself? I want to know why you think I'm scum.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
First off, this quote makes me lol:
Because Shiv used it to respond to IK 10 times, and it's got a massive grammar failure that I would have fixed in the quoting of myself. SoShiverer wrote:I read straight through the thread; I happened skim over some posts along the way.LOL: Shiverer
Scum don't care much about earlier events in the thread - they're interested in who's currently most likely to be lynched and the more recent posts mean a lot more than older posts. So not reading through the thread and only caring about recent events is either laziness or just plain scummy.Shiverer wrote:No, but it excuses them from beingscummybecause of it. Not reading the whole thread when you replace into a game is not a scum tell.
Actually, it's just one point in his case against you. If you want to we can turn it into a big fuss - though honestly I don't think it's a scumtell. In a recent (ongoing) game I attacked a player like this as scum (not for that reason alone) and he flipped town (as did I).Shiverer wrote:
Yes, I tend to slide into that tone. I realize it's a big flaw of mine, but usually I just can't resist the temptation. The funny thing here is that I know for a fact that you've witnessed this sort of play in the past, more than once, and have not made a big fuss over it as you are now. Note that in those games you were town. Also note that in those games you didn't lurk nearly as much as you did now, and you scum-hunted a fair amount at least. Huh. Lame.Idiotking wrote:I get a very "woe betide any who dares to call me out on anything!" vibe from Shiverer. I could maybe understand this if there wasn't so much that he could be readily called out for.
Whoops, you forgot to mention that IK basically described your play perfectly here.Shiverer wrote:
And this is the tipping point from annoyingly sophistic and scummy to super annoyingly sophistic and super awesome sauce scummy. First, a person replacing in and saying that he hasn't read much of the thread is not at all, IN ANY WAY, indicative that he will not read the thread as it progresses AFTER HIS ARRIVAL. That is the single most idiotic stretch of a case thus far in this game. Laughable, really, coming from someone who puts logic/reason on a pedestal every chance he gets.Idiotking wrote:"Woah, hey, let's totally forget that I've made every indication that I won't be reading this thread in its entirety, even going so far as appeal to the authority of unnamed, lazy replacement scum-hunters whose scum-hunting ability is apparently unrelated to reading the thread! Yeah, I was so gonna read the thread later on, so get off my back, man. Oh yeah, and forget that I voted for someone after only reading a couple of pages."
I can't resist.Shiverer wrote:
Cute.Idiotking wrote:FOS ShivererFoS: Shivererfor failing at logic and misrepping anything others say against you.
The fact is, you still waited a hell of a long time before posting your case. If you have a case, post it ASAP, THEN ask others' opinions on the player. Events that happened in the past are still valid as evidence, FYI. I mean, that's the whole point of building a case, really - finding scummy actions a player has done in the past and using them as evidence for your case.Shiverer wrote:
Bullshit. Delicious, delicious bullshit. With your experience, you should know better than to try to revive the uproar about that tacticIdiotking wrote:"Stay cool, man! What you gettin' all up in my face for? I'll just do what I do, cat."
And it's stupid that it took Shiverer so bloody long to post his case against LS while demanding everyone else's opinion of him.afterI went ahead and posted my case. There is next to nothing to be gained from that tactic if I'm scum, and it doesn't hurt the town one fucking bit.
Scenario fun!Shiverer wrote:
Wow. You have got to be kidding me. I'm correcting a basic misrepresentation of tunneling as a scum tell when in most cases it is a null tell.Idiotking wrote:If you're not tunneling, then why do you care?
Player S (scum) is tunneling on Player T (townie). Player T is tunneling on Player V (Vanilla). Player T is so focused on Player V that he barely even responds to Player S's case against him. Player S ignores everyone else in the town to try to make a Player T lynch happen. Eventually, Player S gets Player T lynched. It was LyLo. Town lost.
Moral of the story:
Scum can tunnel on townies to try to push a lynch while distracting others from hunting for other scum.
Townies tunneling on other townies is anti-town and makes the game easy for scum - they'll tend to agree with the case in order to push the lynch.
Seriously, tunneling is one of the most anti-town behaviors you can do. It's good for scum and bad for town.
See above.Shiverer wrote:
Epic, epic fail. You truly are at a loss as to how you can fake scum hunting this game, aren't you? Tunneling is fucking gloriously pro-town if the target is scum. It is not inherently anti-town. And anti-town is CERTAINLY not scummy. Damn, IK. I know I don't need to spoon-feed you basic Mafia theory. The key to surviving as scum is to look pro-town; the key to looking pro-town is to avoid doing things that are commonly perceived as anti-town. How the fuck do you think scum win games, by committing every anti-town action in the book? You think anti-town is a scum tell? Let me answer for you: No, you don't.Idiotking wrote:Tunneling is anti-town. Anti-town helps scum by hurting the town. Anything that helps scum is scummy.
Whose alt are you? Answer in your next post or else.Shiverer wrote:All of this is just disgustingly wrong in every way. Learn to be scum without resorting to play that is completely inferior to your play as town. YOU. AREN'T. THIS. BAD. So stop acting like it with these arguments.
So yeah. Shiv. That was terrible to read and terrible to respond to.
Cases are not reasons you give for why you're voting someone. Cases are reasons why other players should vote for the person you're building a case on. People don't share the same gut reads. Saying that gut is the only reason why someone should be lynched will not help get that person lynched.Jack wrote:In this game all anyone has on anyone is gut at the moment. Was evilsnail contradicting himself because he's a townie who used the wrong words, or because he's scum who forgot what he said earlier? He'll say he's town, your gut says whether you think he's lying or not.
There's a time and place for cases. Connecting someone to known scum. That takes going through their posts. Analyzing someone place on a wagon. Sometimes you catch scum that way, sometimes you catch them because you can feel that they're scum.
All of the "cases" I've seen so far have been a mish mash of tortured explanation for gut feelings, scum tell semantics, and bland pbpa.
And 751 is just stupid. I can't comment on that - I'd rather spend my time playing mafia.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Requoting this for emphasis because if nothing else I want you to answer this.Parama wrote:
Whose alt are you? Answer in your next post or else.Shiverer wrote:All of this is just disgustingly wrong in every way. Learn to be scum without resorting to play that is completely inferior to your play as town. YOU. AREN'T. THIS. BAD. So stop acting like it with these arguments.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Kk, different question: Do you have an alt? If yes, tell the name. If no, don't bother.Shiverer wrote:
Ahahahaha. What difference does it make to you? You may have to live with it.Parama wrote:Requoting this for emphasis because if nothing else I want you to answer this.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Shive has resorted to ad hom. Great. I don't even care for a response anymore.Vote: Shiverer.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009