mini 958: Just Another Mafia Problem - GAME OVER!

[Elias_the_thief]

/confirminate me cap'n

[Elias_the_thief]

well we've got eleven of twelve now. can we lynch lurkerscum rover yet? and his partner hasdgfasasa?

(ps its great to be back =D)

[Elias_the_thief]

nice distancing guys. IGMEOY.

[Elias_the_thief]

vote: shattered viewpoint

like hascows vote, this vote is not random. on that note, whyd you vote rover, hasgfasdsdgsa?

[Elias_the_thief]

vote: shattered viewpoint

like hascows vote, this vote is not random. on that note, whyd you vote rover, hasgfasdsdgsa?

I don't like him voting no lynch on D1, even in RVS. Why Shattered Viewpoint?

Makes sense. I voted shattered because he voted for the mod, which doesn't really accomplish anything. Then he unvoted without voting anyone else, which continues to accomplish, well, nothing.

I agree with Buttonmen. Can we just play mafia, guys?

[Elias_the_thief]

1. What previous experience do you have with Mafia games?
2. How would you describe your playstyle?
3. What would you consider your best Mafia game and your worst?
4. Do you prefer Random Question Stage or Random Voting Stage and why?
5. If we've gather no more information toDay and you were the deciding vote, who would you vote based off of what we have?
6. What time zone are you and when do you post?
7. Do you get nervous before posting?

1. Played in RL and all over this site
2. angry.
3. dont remember. im better as scum
4. theres no such thing as a random question stage 'round these parts
5. probably shattered viewpoint, but confidanon has been doing a good job of lurking in plain sight recently.
6. Im EST. I post whenever.
7. No.

Hasdfas, I can understand your objection to running the game like a routine, but is there any reason you can't answer the questions? I mean, it starts people talking, no matter what you call it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

hey shotty, what is 86 in response to? I know you're trying to mock someone, based on the "amirite", I just can't figure out who.

for has: mini 515 =D best game evaaaa

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

I completely agree with this.

its cool you agree and all, but how exactly is this post any more useful to the game then the theory conversation I was just discouraging?

[Elias_the_thief]

So, Elias and Cow, what is the delineation you make between rover's and Shattered's initial votes that you vote for one and not the other? Both are useless and form no connection with another player.

I had to choose one. Shattered viewpoint is just the one that stuck out to me. In retrospect, no lynch is more anti-town, but I don't think one is significantly scummier than the other, especially on day 1.

[Elias_the_thief]

Oh, and for purpose of clarification hasdgfas, you say in response to SSBF's questions look where my vote is and why. But your vote is on shotty, and the post in which you vote is for the most part a vague point that you left the site because of arguing in games. So...are you voting for shotty because he was part of that argument, and fos'ing shattered for the same reason? and if so, why did shotty deserve the vote and shattered deserve the fos?

[Elias_the_thief]

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

It's more helpful than your nothing!

I've already lynched four mafiosos while you were debating.

Seriously though, as far as someone can do something on page 4 day 1, I've been doing something. And even if I were doing nothing, your theoretical argument is worse than nothing. At least "nothing" doesn't make a whole lot of noise that can be lurked through.

[Elias_the_thief]

If you're so concerned about lurking, then start calling people out; there's no reason to stop a discussion (which is better than nothing inherently) just because you're worried someone will lurk through it.

I'm not super concerned about lurking. My point is that all you accomplish is making a lot of noise and drawing attention away from the game thread. I'm not trying to stop it solely because people will lurk through it, but also because there are things more relevant to THIS game to discuss.

@Elias_the_thief: Anything is better then nothing, scummy or not. Now lurking does not equal scum, but at least a scummy post gathers information.

This shows a complete lack of understanding for what I was saying. Further, this is WRONG. A bunch of space taken up by theory discussion is counterproductive, because it draws away from whats happening in OUR game, and encourages/enables lurkers. Worse than nothing.

Was there any particular reason I stuck out to you? How did you choose? random.org? Coin flip? Gut?

In retrospect, if rover is more anti-town than I am, why is your vote still on me?

No, it was basically gut. It was better than a random vote, but really the choice between you and rover was based on nothing solid. Also, I never said rover was more anti-town, I said no lynch is more anti-town than voting mod. At this point I don't feel strongly that either of you are scum, I just don't see the point in unvoting until I have somewhere better to put my vote.

In the vein of "somewhere better to put my vote", I'd like to see confidanon show up and respond to some of the points raised against him, and I'd like to see rover show up at all.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vote: SAMP!

Happy now?

Not until five more players vote for you!

So, let me get this straight...you won't be happy til you lynch viewpoint, because he failed to respond to something? And that something is a point you stole from me? Are you aware that the only reason I voted him for that was that it was slightly better than a random vote? I'm by no means suggesting we lynch shattered viewpoint based on the information we have...

[Elias_the_thief]

[deleted per request]

1) I would imagine the prod he was given by the mod.
2) Learn to alt, noob.

[Elias_the_thief]

K my vote is staying right where it is. The reasoning behind this is SSK talks about something JDodge does he sees as scummy and then button jumps onto SSK for 'focusing on a vote' instead of the game.

While I REALLY don't like Button's refusal to answer your question, why exactly is this a scumtell? Doesn't this basically necessitate JDodge and Button being scumpartners? And if so, why haven't you expressed any suspicion about JDodge?

Also, to be fair, the scumtell that SSK sees is, in fact, JDodge's vote. Therefore, SSK was "focusing on a vote", technically.

It's not that he failed to respond, it's the "how dare you tell me how to play" attitude he took when I asked him for a response, that makes him scummy. And I didn't steal that point from you, I quoted it with attribution.

What I meant by steal wasn't literally that you stole the argument. I meant that you didn't come up with original reasoning for your vote. Which made your conviction about SV's guilt strange, seeing as the author of said reasoning didnt support that lynch. However, that point is kind of moot I guess because you have new reasoning now. Very well. How does the "how dare you tell me how to play" attitude make him scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

K my vote is staying right where it is. The reasoning behind this is SSK talks about something JDodge does he sees as scummy and then button jumps onto SSK for 'focusing on a vote' instead of the game.

While I REALLY don't like Button's refusal to answer your question, why exactly is this a scumtell? Doesn't this basically necessitate JDodge and Button being scumpartners? And if so, why haven't you expressed any suspicion about JDodge?

Also, to be fair, the scumtell that SSK sees is, in fact, JDodge's vote. Therefore, SSK was "focusing on a vote", technically.

It's not that he failed to respond, it's the "how dare you tell me how to play" attitude he took when I asked him for a response, that makes him scummy. And I didn't steal that point from you, I quoted it with attribution.

What I meant by steal wasn't literally that you stole the argument. I meant that you didn't come up with original reasoning for your vote. Which made your conviction about SV's guilt strange, seeing as the author of said reasoning didnt support that lynch. However, that point is kind of moot I guess because you have new reasoning now. Very well. How does the "how dare you tell me how to play" attitude make him scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

Oh my bad. I didn't notice that. Fair enough.

[Elias_the_thief]

@Elias_the_thief:

I didn't refuse to answer a question? I refused to apoligise for voting MSSK, if he thinks that it's scummy and defending JDodge I'm okay with it.

@Shotty: Your question has been noted and subsequently ignored for making no sense.

orly?

Moar votes please.

While I REALLY don't like Button's refusal to answer your question, why exactly is this a scumtell? Doesn't this basically necessitate JDodge and Button being scumpartners? And if so, why haven't you expressed any suspicion about JDodge?

Also, to be fair, the scumtell that SSK sees is, in fact, JDodge's vote. Therefore, SSK was "focusing on a vote", technically.

Moar answering this please. Less pushing wagon without further argumentation.

[Elias_the_thief]

@Elias_the_thief:

I didn't refuse to answer a question? I refused to apoligise for voting MSSK, if he thinks that it's scummy and defending JDodge I'm okay with it.

@Shotty: Your question has been noted and subsequently ignored for making no sense.

orly?

That would be correct, I responded to his question by saying it makes no sense and moving on.

His question makes perfect sense. Theres absolutely no reason you can't answer it, or at least explain how it doesn't make sense. What you're doing is refusing to answer a question.

[Elias_the_thief]

@Elias:

He's demanding I explain why I'm defending JDodge, Your homework should you chose to accept it is to ISO me and explain to me wtf he's talking about. If his question does indeed make perfect sense this should not be difficult.

Your attack a vote on JDodge. I'm not sure why you're having difficulty understanding how that can be perceived as defending JDodge. Theyre not exactly the same, but to not see where he's coming from is pretty ridiculous. I mean, your choice to narrow in on that and attack wasn't any less odd than MSSK's choice to narrow in on that vote. The phrase "going out on a limb" is actually perfect.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

I completely agree with this.

its cool you agree and all, but how exactly is this post any more useful to the game then the theory conversation I was just discouraging?

It's cool that you discourages a useless comment and all but how in the world will that one comment effect anything in the game at all? You seem to be wanting to get a slow build-up of unofficial scumhunting cred.

Well, if the comment was successful, it would derail the theory discussion, which is harmful to scumhunting. And no. I'm not trying to get a "slow build-up of scumhunting". I'm trying to get people contributing and talking about relevant things. confidanon's post contributed nothing, as he was just agreeing with me. So I called him on it, hoping to get more out of him.

Hey guys, I would just like to take a moment to point out how useless this theory conversation is. Regardless of whether or not the RVS exists, proving it one way or another certainly doesn't find scum, its simply divides the players into "right" and "wrong". So what say we move on? Those of you who feel the RVS exists probably also feel that we're out of it at this point anyhow.

It's more helpful than your nothing!

I've already lynched four mafiosos while you were debating.

Seriously though, as far as someone can do something on page 4 day 1, I've been doing something. And even if I were doing nothing, your theoretical argument is worse than nothing. At least "nothing" doesn't make a whole lot of noise that can be lurked through.

Another useless post that won't effect the game whatsoever by Elias!' Elias also commits hypocrisy here. JDodge has been asking questions and attempting to find scum in nearly every post. You however have not.

FOS

That didn't effect the game at all? Says the guy who literally just been posting for the past couple pages? Ok. First of all, it was a response to an attack on my contribution to the game. Its called

discussion

. I attack the value of theory discussion, JDodge attacks my contribution, I defend myself, and so on.

Also, JDodge has been attempting to find scum in nearly every post? You mean the guy you're voting for sidetracking discussion, buddying up, and derailing lynches? Generally people I feel are trying to find scum in every post are not people I try to get lynched, but maybe thats just me

[Elias_the_thief]

ebwodp: says the guy who literally just *HASNT* been posting

Overall, not too impressed with your analysis. Thats a very weak case for buddying (smilies? really?), Shottys request for "moar votes" was obviously just a humorous way of saying that buttons posts were making him more suspicious, and you think shattered is scummy for not conforming and saying FOS. It seems like your entire analysis is trying too hard, which is ironically what one of your own top tells is.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'll give everyone a cookie if the mass quote striping and bullshit arguments stop.

@SSBF:

Putting extra effort into making your posts a tad harder to read seems like a questionable use of time.

In closing we need moar MSSK votes.

You gave me a homework assignment, remember? I finished it. It'd be super duper special awesome if you responded to it. I might even give you a cookie. And I'm with you on the "bullshit arguments" point. I'm also a tad confused by "quote striping".

Having an ego is one giant nulltell as far as I'm concerned. I can be an arrogant asshole when I want to be, but this really doesn't have anything to do with alignment; just what mood I happen to be in. I mean, without a decent meta, there's just no way to really call this a tell one way or another. This whole argument is basically deteriorating into a screaming match and an insultfest. Though it really didn't start out as much better than that. Can we cut it out, or at least cool it down before it gets too personal? There's no reason this argument needs to be so heated.

[Elias_the_thief]

I realize I haven’t posted too much of worth the past couple days. I hope this makes up for it. This is pretty much how I feel about the behavior of each and every player thus far in the game. But first, here’s a post count, to give my analysis some sort of context. When I say “high activity” or “low activity”, it simply refers to the post count. When I say high or low content, it refers to the percentage of a players posts that I feel are relevant and at least somewhat helpful to finding scum. I realize this is completely subjective, but well, thats mafia.

Post Count

: As of Post 201
Shotty to the Body: 25
Super Awesome...: 23
Elias_the_Thief....: 23
Hasdgfas..............: 19
ShatteredViewpo..: 19
Confidanon...........: 16
The Buttonmen.....: 16
SuperSmashBros..: 15
Rover9000............: 13
JDodge..................: 11
MafiaSSK...............: 8
Socrates.................: 6

Ok so there’s that. By the time we’re at page nine, I’d expect 15 or more posts from everyone playing. Anyone under 10 is just disgraceful. I’d appreciate it if Socrates and JDodge got back in this game. If I recall correctly, JDodge promised a post today. I would love for that to show up sometime soon. Anyhoozle, on to the analysis. I’ll start with the scummiest and work my way down to the neutrals (really, there’s no one that I can confidently say strikes me as town at this point).

The Buttonmen

Medium activity level, low content level.

Buttonmen’s first act of scumminess was evading a simple question from Shotty. He calls it nonsensical and ignores it on this basis. When I call him on “ignoring a question” he denies it and says he was “refusing to apologize”. After I call BS, he changes the story back to “oh, the question made no sense”. He challenges me to explain how he could answer the question. I gladly oblige him. The question asks why he goes out on a limb to defend JDodge. Although Button never expressly said anything along the lines of “Hey! Stop attacking JDodge!”, he DID attack a vote on JDodge. Any old person should at least be able to see where Shotty is coming from, and dismissing his question as nonsensical is well, a cop-out. Despite asking twice for Button to respond to my explanation for Shotty’s question, Button still refuses to answer.

Instead he focuses on “quote-striping” and then attempts to drive home a lurker lynch. I find this scummy because we still have plenty of time left in the day. If lynching lurkers is your thing, well thats a matter of theory. However, going for the lurker lynch right away is just plain anti-town. There’s plenty of scum to find still. If a better lynch doesn’t come up, the lurker lynch will still be right where you left it. Hell, the player might even have come around and started playing. I feel like this behavior is indicative of eagerness to get to night. I have a scum read. My top suspect.

MafiaSSK

:
Low activity level, low content level.

MSSK’s only lengthy and content filled post was, in my honest opinion, a complete joke. He suggests that JDodge is buddying up by using smilies, and uses another players return of a smilie as confirmation of that buddying. Uh...its called being friendly. Refer to my post 164-165 for more on why this analysis was really bad. I mean, he accuses me of paling in comparison to JDodge’s contribution, yet has JDodge as his top suspect for a myriad of reasons that are completely uncompatible with a high level of contribution. The fact that all of these points are stretches is especially interesting, given that MSSK considers trying too hard to look like you’re hunting for scum one of his top scumtells.

I feel that MSSK has been behaving pretty scummily, but there really isn’t much content to tell. The admitting to active lurking point isn’t very strong in my opinion. I’m not even sure what “active lurking” means, though I imagine its somewhat similar to Lurking in Plain Sight. If this is the case, the fact that he admitted to it definitely doesn't make him the only one doing it, or the worst culprit at it. I definitely get a scummy vibe, but I don't think MSSK should be top priority right now.

Rover9000

:
Low activity level, low content level.

Rover seems to be trying very hard to not try very hard. He has been skimming by with very minimal participation and scumhunting. When he does make a post, its usually a good page or two behind relevant discussion, and it usually mimics previously expressed opinions on key points. It seems like this is a real good strategy for coasting through day one and into the night stage. I get a scummy vibe from Mr. Rover, for sure.

Confidanon

:
Medium activity level, low content.

Very few of his posts contain anything useful. Like Rover, many of them mimic points that have already been raised, or simply agree with points made. Very little actual scumhunting going on. I would say that he is slightly less scummy than Rover, simply because he does less mimicking. But I find him pretty scummy.

Shotty to the Body

:
High Activity, medium to low content.

Almost completely and totally tunneled on Buttonmen. He’s scummy and all, but there are other fish in the sea, so to speak. More than one mafia per game. Beyond the attacks on Button, not too much in the terms of scum hunting. His accusation that SSBF is too focused on SAMP is both ironic and hypocritical. I have a neutral-scummy read.

Super Smash Bros Fan

:
Medium activity level, medium content level.

So far, not too many examples of strong scum hunting, though the effort appears to be there, to a certain extent. However, when your top suspects list of grievances includes an OMGUS vote, there’s a problem. Especially an OMGUS vote against you. That just turns the whole case into “No, YOU suck!” I have a neutral-scummy read on SSBF.

JDodge

:
Medium to low activity level, low content.

Really, not much to go on besides the theory discussion. I’m pretty sure that JDodge knows that theory discussion gets us no closer to finding scum, so I find his insistence to the contrary and stubborn refusal to drop the theory pretty suspicious. I have a neutral scummy read for Mr. JD.

Super Awesome Mega Pimp

:
High activity, medium content.

Honestly, I don’t think SAMP is a village idiot, nor do I think he is overly scummy. He’s doing some scumhunting, and he has the ability to back down after discussing points with one of his top suspects, which I generally count as protown. Then again, there’s a such thing as the intentionally weak argument tell, which could apply here. Really, I could go either way. For now, I call him neutral-scummy.

Hasdgfas

:
High activity, medium content.

Seems to actively be looking for scum, though he seems somewhat tunneled on SAMP for the beginning of the game. This is odd because he doesn’t list SAMP as his top suspect. He attacks confidanon for lack of contribution, which I can’t really argue, but this attack leads me to wonder why he doesn’t attack any of the other players who are posting but not adding much. I have a neutral vibe, but I feel that something is off here. I will be reviewing my past game with him (in which he was scum) to give me a better idea later in the game. For now, he remains neutral.

Shattered Viewpoint

:
High activity level, medium content.

Started out strong, but seems to be doing less and less hunting as the day goes on. His vote for MSSK makes sense given the anti-lurker notion he’s expressed all game. But as I said earlier in this post, a lurker lynch this early on is a major waste. I have a neutral read on SV but it’d probably start leaning town if he backed off of SSK long enough to hunt around a little more before settling on that lynch. And I don’t think “pressure wagon” is valid here, to preempt that argument. MSSK is V/LA so we’re really not accomplishing much voting him.

Socrates

:
Extremely low activity, no content.

Post goddammit! Post! When he actually was posting, in the very beginning of the game, he wasn’t very helpful. I have a neutral read on Socrates simply because there’s nothing to analize really.

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

And there you have it. Hope you liked it. If you want further explanation for anything I said, please ask. I encourage you all to tear to shreds the sections I wrote on you. Make me believe that we have someone remotely protown in this game.

That all being said,

unvote, vote: TheButtonmen

[Elias_the_thief]

by "the other players who aren't adding much", could you explain who you mean, please? It's quite possible that my frustration at seeing confid's lack of content has made me overlook others who have been worse. It's also possible I feel differently about amount of content than you.

Mainly Rover. And JDodge, who hasn't made good on his promise of a post on Monday.

In other news, I'd take a swipe at one or two of elias points but I don't really see the need. I find it ironic he calls me for tunneling buttonmen and then votes buttonmen, but meh. Whether it' 'tunneling' or not I like to hunt my scum one at a time and then work from there.

Yes I do have some idea of who I might vote besides button, like SSBF. SV pointed out a contradiction I liked somewhere in the past few pages, but I'm pursuing my best lead at the moment.

That second part there was what I was looking for. Its not ironic at all that I vote you for tunneling Button, because the tell there is

tunneling

. Not voting Button. Tunneling is scummy because its a good way to look like you're hunting scum while remaining noncommittal about the majority of the game. I was hoping to see more detail on who else you found scummy or protown, and a brief reason why. Even doing that little bit gets more information out there, without really sidetracking you significantly from your top suspect.

[Elias_the_thief]

By your requirements, what will I have to do to be deemed useful?

Has, I want you to answer this (not asking to be a smartass, but I want to improve my play, and learn from your answer.)

Also, good analysis Elias.

I find it kind of odd that you compliment an analysis that implicates you as scummy and essentially useless.

FOS.

[Elias_the_thief]

I find it kind of odd that you compliment an analysis that implicates you as scummy and essentially useless. FOS.

A part does not make a whole.

Obviously I would disagree that I am scummy (although I was useless for the first few pages of the game.) The rest of the analysis, however, is a good post.

Well I'm still confused. If that analysis was good, why are you still not voting? You'd think a "good" analysis would be able to convince you to vote someone.

[Elias_the_thief]

@Elias The Theif: What do you mean by an neutral-scummy read? Is it that you find me slightly scummy? Please do explain.

And I do have a question here.

There are most likely three scums in the game. As of right now, who do you think they are?

I'll post something more useful after school.

Sorry for the double post, missed this. Slightly scummy is correct. If there are three scum, I would say at least one of them is within the first three I listed in my large post. I'm not certain which. Otherwise its hard to say at this point. There are a lot of players who haven't posted enough for me to have any idea

[Elias_the_thief]

You bring up good points on several players.

I only have one vote.

I don't know where I want it as of right now.

Specifically, which players do you think I have strong points about? Who would you

consider

voting at this point? You seem to be avoiding naming anyone specific that you find scummy, and being noncommittal is very anti-town, if not just plain scummy.

SSBF: Please don't talk about ongoing games. Just saying that you are devoting more time to that game would be sufficient.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, please explain to me how my posts have been attempting to coast through the game, or backtracking to previous discussion.

Each post I made attempted to cover my thoughts on the entire game. At the END of my summaries I always commented on a few current issues.

They are attempting to coast through the game because you don't make any solid declarations about other players being scummy, nor do you make many original points. Please give me examples of where you addressed "current issues". Better yet, prove that "always" that you threw in there. Because I'm real tempted to call bullshit.

===================================
I don't have time to go over the big post from SSBF right now. Hopefully I'll get to that tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

In my post 136, I commentet on post 107, a post that was still being discussed at the time.

In my post 148 I discussed 142-147. Can't get much more current than that.

My post 167 discussed post 155.

Post 178 discussed then-ongoing actions.

Furthermore, in post 178, I stated that Super Awesome Mega Pimp! "is unbelievably scummy".

...

I'll give you a chance to take back your arguments against me lest you risk making a fool of yourself. However if you wish, you can feel free to continue to "call bullshit" against me and make yourself appear scummier and scummier.

I cut out the middle section because it was just you being a dick about how you think you're right. But um, how does the fact that you addressed recent posts possibly suggest that you dealt with current issues? Most of those things you address were not at all the main topics of discussion at the time. I admit that I was wrong about you opnly addressing old posts, but you didn't really disprove the main point of my argument, which is that you're afraid to commit. Also, you called SAMP scummy. Thats ONE player, that you attacked ONCE. My choice of the word "any" was a poor one. But you still haven't really done much to show how you feel about other players in the game. Your OMGUS vote is a start, but how exactly am I scum for making an argument against you? I didn't even vote you based off said argument.

[Elias_the_thief]

I cut out the middle section because it was just you being a dick about how you think you're right.

But um, how does the fact that you addressed recent posts possibly suggest that you dealt with current issues?

Most of those things you address were not at all the main topics of discussion at the time.

I admit that I was wrong about you opnly addressing old posts,

but you didn't really disprove the main point of my argument,

which is that you're afraid to commit.

Also, you called SAMP scummy. Thats ONE player, that you attacked ONCE.

My choice of the word "any" was a poor one

. But you still haven't really done much to show how you feel about other players in the game.

Your OMGUS vote is a start,

but how exactly am I scum for making an argument against you?

I didn't even vote you based off said argument.

I bolded everything in that post that contained anything at all to do with you backtracking your argument, changing your argument, or blatantly making things up.

More than half of that post is bolded, which is enormously scummy.

interesting opinion. let me show you how its wrong.

-How does the fact that I addressed recent posts suggest that I dealt with current issues? Maybe times have changed, but to me "recent" and "current" seem like pretty much the same thing. Just because nobody else had strong opinions on the subjects I posted about (which was not typically the case) does not in any way mean that my addressing them becomes invalid.

Uhm sorry to burst your bubble, but recent and current is not at all the point I was making. My point is that

posts

are different then

issues

. You were mentioned a few recent posts, but not important recent posts. You were avoiding most of the main action of the game

-Yes, you were wrong. And now you're backtracking so your argument seems less flawed.

You attacked my semantics, and then said that my change of one word to another is a backtrack. I never said current and recent were different. its completely inconsequential to the argument.

-Never in that entire argument did you say anything that would imply that your argument was that I was afraid to commit. Your argument was that I was actively lurking, which isn't even close to being the same thing.

Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but active lurking is posting without addressing anything that matters. Aka not committing. Talking about things THAT DONT MATTER.

-My vote was not OMGUS, stop making it seem like it was. OMGUS would be if I voted for you specifically because you voted for me. That is not the case. I voted for you because your case was flawed, sprinkled with blatant lies, and all-around scummy. Voting you for making a scummy case is not OMGUS. It just so happened that your scummy case was made against me.

You still have failed to show my case is flawed. You've argued semantics but my points still stand. Furthermore, when you first posted against me, your case was basically "YOURE WRONG". Now that you've provided a more substantial (albeit wrong) argument, I would call it a better vote, but at the time it was most definitely OMGUS.

-Lastly, if you didn't vote for me based on that argument, then don't vote for me IMMEDIATELY following the argument that you supposedly meant nothing by. Another case of backtracking, another lie.

Ok, I'm a little confused, so tell me if you can help me out with this one...when the FUCK did I vote you? In that case I vote Buttonmen. I haven't changed my vote since.

All this withdrawal of your previous argument coupled with your wishy-washy behavior looks ultra-suspicious.

Now I will gloat over the fact that you call me wishy washy and yet you are in fact the one who got the facts wrong. And I will also gloat over how you argued my wording and not the points I actually made. Ho Hum, who's the scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

Back from VLA, requesting summary.

You know, a summary is inherently biased. Does it not bother you at all that our scumhunting will be based entirely on one person's view of the game? I'm requesting players who will actually play the game

[Elias_the_thief]

*your scumhunting

[Elias_the_thief]

@rover9000:

Could you lay out how Elias case agianst you is BS and filled with "blatent lies"?

As long as we're poking holes in my cases, why don't you address the one I make against you? I mean, you're the one who I actually voted in that post, not rover, so it seems like youd be much more interested in rebutting my points. But oddly youre just...not.

[Elias_the_thief]

Why would I be rebutting your points?

You voted me because you feel I'm trying to rush night, your welcome to think that. I'm not going to drop everything whenever I get a vote me and attack the person voting me.

I'm not asking you to attack me, I'm asking you to defend yourself. If you hadn't noticed, there are a good number of votes on you currently. You hold the single highest number of votes right now. If you are protown, its in your best interest to lower that number. Firstly, because you wouldn't want to be lynched, and secondly because it encourages discussion which is always ALWAYS good. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the post (which is becoming a pattern with you) is pretty damn scummy. In fact, thats the main point from my original post that you just neglected to mention.

[Elias_the_thief]

rover9000: fifteen minutes can save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance!

What exact does this post even mean? Furthermore, does your response to buttonmen of "he already has" imply that you actually buy his rebuttal? Because his entire response was based around a vote for him that I, in fact, never placed.

[Elias_the_thief]

Why would I be rebutting your points?

You voted me because you feel I'm trying to rush night, your welcome to think that. I'm not going to drop everything whenever I get a vote me and attack the person voting me.

I'm not asking you to attack me, I'm asking you to defend yourself. If you hadn't noticed, there are a good number of votes on you currently. You hold the single highest number of votes right now. If you are protown, its in your best interest to lower that number. Firstly, because you wouldn't want to be lynched, and secondly because it encourages discussion which is always ALWAYS good. The fact that you don't even acknowledge the post (which is becoming a pattern with you) is pretty damn scummy. In fact, thats the main point from my original post that you just neglected to mention.

Button is still just ignoring points against him and making useless posts. Nothing to add. He's still the scum.

Also, Rover, what do you have to say about your "case"? Waiting for a response to my last post.

[Elias_the_thief]

I cut out the middle section because it was just you being a dick about how you think you're right.

But um, how does the fact that you addressed recent posts possibly suggest that you dealt with current issues?

Most of those things you address were not at all the main topics of discussion at the time.

I admit that I was wrong about you opnly addressing old posts,

but you didn't really disprove the main point of my argument,

which is that you're afraid to commit.

Also, you called SAMP scummy. Thats ONE player, that you attacked ONCE.

My choice of the word "any" was a poor one

. But you still haven't really done much to show how you feel about other players in the game.

Your OMGUS vote is a start,

but how exactly am I scum for making an argument against you?

I didn't even vote you based off said argument.

I bolded everything in that post that contained anything at all to do with you backtracking your argument, changing your argument, or blatantly making things up.

More than half of that post is bolded, which is enormously scummy.

interesting opinion. let me show you how its wrong.

-How does the fact that I addressed recent posts suggest that I dealt with current issues? Maybe times have changed, but to me "recent" and "current" seem like pretty much the same thing. Just because nobody else had strong opinions on the subjects I posted about (which was not typically the case) does not in any way mean that my addressing them becomes invalid.

Uhm sorry to burst your bubble, but recent and current is not at all the point I was making. My point is that

posts

are different then

issues

. You were mentioned a few recent posts, but not important recent posts. You were avoiding most of the main action of the game

-Yes, you were wrong. And now you're backtracking so your argument seems less flawed.

You attacked my semantics, and then said that my change of one word to another is a backtrack. I never said current and recent were different. its completely inconsequential to the argument.

-Never in that entire argument did you say anything that would imply that your argument was that I was afraid to commit. Your argument was that I was actively lurking, which isn't even close to being the same thing.

Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but active lurking is posting without addressing anything that matters. Aka not committing. Talking about things THAT DONT MATTER.

-My vote was not OMGUS, stop making it seem like it was. OMGUS would be if I voted for you specifically because you voted for me. That is not the case. I voted for you because your case was flawed, sprinkled with blatant lies, and all-around scummy. Voting you for making a scummy case is not OMGUS. It just so happened that your scummy case was made against me.

You still have failed to show my case is flawed. You've argued semantics but my points still stand. Furthermore, when you first posted against me, your case was basically "YOURE WRONG". Now that you've provided a more substantial (albeit wrong) argument, I would call it a better vote, but at the time it was most definitely OMGUS.

-Lastly, if you didn't vote for me based on that argument, then don't vote for me IMMEDIATELY following the argument that you supposedly meant nothing by. Another case of backtracking, another lie.

Ok, I'm a little confused, so tell me if you can help me out with this one...when the FUCK did I vote you? In that case I vote Buttonmen. I haven't changed my vote since.

All this withdrawal of your previous argument coupled with your wishy-washy behavior looks ultra-suspicious.

Now I will gloat over the fact that you call me wishy washy and yet you are in fact the one who got the facts wrong. And I will also gloat over how you argued my wording and not the points I actually made. Ho Hum, who's the scum?

This one.

[Elias_the_thief]

Sorry I haven't been posting too much guys. I've been busy. But I mean, Rover and Buttonmen are both ignoring points I brought against them, so I'm not sure whether its worth posting my thoughts at all. I am still content to be voting Buttonmen

[Elias_the_thief]

Sorry I haven't been posting too much guys. I've been busy. But I mean, Rover and Buttonmen are both ignoring points I brought against them, so I'm not sure whether its worth posting my thoughts at all. I am still content to be voting Buttonmen

[Elias_the_thief]

Button: I'm here. I'm not saying anything because you refuse to respond to points against you. There's nothing I can do but vote you. I agree that its claim time, but I doubt you will honestly, because anti town behavior is kinda your thing.

[Elias_the_thief]

Look at my posts in isolation. Look for the big post I made about halfway through the day which outlined my thoughts. That post contains my initial case against Button, and since then he has refused to answer for his actions. Thats basically the case

[Elias_the_thief]

If you're so concerned about lurking, then start calling people out; there's no reason to stop a discussion (which is better than nothing inherently) just because you're worried someone will lurk through it.

I'm not super concerned about lurking. My point is that all you accomplish is making a lot of noise and drawing attention away from the game thread. I'm not trying to stop it solely because people will lurk through it, but also because there are things more relevant to THIS game to discuss.

I would say that this is highly relevant to this game solely because the topic came up within this game.

Ok. Relevant to game, yes. Relevant to scumhunting? No. And thats what I'm driving at here. There are better ways to find scum then arguing over theory because theory opinions are not based on alignment.

@Elias_the_thief: Anything is better then nothing, scummy or not. Now lurking does not equal scum, but at least a scummy post gathers information.

This shows a complete lack of understanding for what I was saying. Further, this is WRONG. A bunch of space taken up by theory discussion is counterproductive, because it draws away from whats happening in OUR game, and encourages/enables lurkers. Worse than nothing.

And yet, it's still better than empty space. Guess which one you're generating!

I'll keep that tone in mind when I look at the 10 page gap between your posts. Ho hum.

Was there any particular reason I stuck out to you? How did you choose? random.org? Coin flip? Gut?

In retrospect, if rover is more anti-town than I am, why is your vote still on me?

No, it was basically gut. It was better than a random vote, but really the choice between you and rover was based on nothing solid. Also, I never said rover was more anti-town, I said no lynch is more anti-town than voting mod. At this point I don't feel strongly that either of you are scum, I just don't see the point in unvoting until I have somewhere better to put my vote.

In the vein of "somewhere better to put my vote", I'd like to see confidanon show up and respond to some of the points raised against him, and I'd like to see rover show up at all.

Justify your "gut".

Which gut? My choice between the two was arbitrary. It was too early in the day to have solid reads.

Elias seems to be sort of floating about.

?

Do you plan to keep reading? Or are you done scumhunting by page 8? I mean you're dismissing a case on TBM, which is based to a decent degree on the stuff past page 8.

[Elias_the_thief]

Darn.
Go go town!