Mini 392: Jungle Republic - Game over!

[LyingBrian]

/confirm

[LyingBrian]

vote: sprontalic

- Post #42 - what is your reasoning behind your vote for Cadre?

FOS: KingPin

- Post #23 - if you're suspicious of Shadowlurker, why not vote for him, especially this early in the game?

FOS: Cadre

- Post #39 - for saying random voting is stupid, it's a proven, useful tool for getting the game, and more specifically, discussion started...

IGMEOY: Lucresia

- Post #43 - sounds like she's

playing

the part of a townie w/o revealing any thoughts

IGMEOY: ShadowLurker

- Post #21, #27 - for trying to start 2 early bandwagons w/ no information or reasoning besides bandwagonning


the above are my basic thoughts about the game so far...

[LyingBrian]

@Cadre

what is your standard Method of Operation in developing this "gut feeling"? and while you claim to have only made 2 innacurate accusations, were all those accusations made at the same early stage of the game?... obviously ShadowLurker is suspicious, that's why i said i would be watching him, but i really think it's too early to make such a gung-ho claim when we are still in the tomfoolery stages of the game...

also noted is your disregard of my

FOS

... do you really think random voting is stupid, or were you just saying that to be argumentative?

[LyingBrian]

@Cadre

- Post #51
unfortunately, right now, we don't have any nightkill or any other type of information besides the setup of the game on which to form a lynch-wagon, random voting is used to get the game rolling and also used to see how different people react to bandwagons, etc. i understand you don't like this, and i respect your opinion, so i'll drop the subject as any further discussion should probably take place in the 'Mafia Discussion' forum

concerning your "gut feeling" that ShadowLurker is scum, i understand that you may have a feeling that this is so, but honestly, you have neither established an excellent track record (2/12 is slightly impressive, but only such), nor an excellent case against ShadowLurker (i think everybody would be foolish to follow your lead based on your "gut feeling")... if after a while ShadowLurker is still showing scumminess (voting patterns, posting habits, night information, etc.), then i'll listen to a case at that time, but right now i don't see a case...

- Post #52

Cadre is definitely scum for not random voting and only mentioning one person in his first post.

i second Nai's opinion that the above statement is clearly sarcastic, especially when a player suggests it might be so... i highly doubt ShadowLurker thinks either of those 2 points are good indicators of finding scum. i also think you're taking this a little too personally... this is a game after all, and you don't sound like you're having fun...


@ShadowLurker

- Post #53
this actually raised a flag when i read it... are you trying to diminish the ruckus Cadre is raising b/c he is right? right now i think you're suspicious, but probably just playing around... keep posting like this, and Cadre won't have a hard time convincing me... if you posted anything more than one-liners then we might have something to talk about...


while i don't like lurkers, it has only been 30 hours since the day started, so i don't think Rastapopolous & Chamber are suspicious at this point... i wish we could search all posts by user, but that's a different thread, and we can't, so...

[LyingBrian]

@ShadowLurker

- Post #57

I'm merely saying we shouldn't be looking to far into things as we have not really anything of substance other than reactions to a few posts of silliness I did to generate discussion. I also find people being wary of bandwagons suspicious. If someone doesn't try to start a bandwagon, then we will never move anywhere as someone being scummy isn't going to fall out of the sky. I took the initiative to move the game beyond the random vote stage by trying to form a bandwagon so we can actually have real arguments. Regarding your one liner statement, once again, it is page 3, some people have not even checked in yet, there is not much to respond to as I can't really argue against the principle and whether people believe it is a good idea to generate discussion in that particular manner but the point is that it has accomplished its goal and I am going to actually take the game a bit more seriously from now on.

fair enough...


@chamber

- Post # 63

Pretty sure hes scum.

that's a pretty easy statement to make w/o backing it up...


pretty sure Thestatusquo is on tilt, too

[LyingBrian]

- Post #69-73
SPAM! doing nothing to contribute to the game!

- Post #74
well it seems we have a rift on whom can detect sarcasm when it is written out, and those who cannot... maybe those of us who can have a tendency to be more sarcastic in real life?

@KingPin

again you bring up suspicions about ShadowLurker and fail to vote for him?!? it has the feeling of you trying to distance yourself away from him by casting suspicion, but still not putting him in any danger by actually voting for him...

- Post #75
ShadowLurker deflecting suspicion

- Post #76

unvote: sprontalic

- Post #77
you can also do the following: [sarcastic] highly sarcastic text [/sarcastic]

- Post #78-80

vote: germy

- Post #81
would it be possible to use the username to display posts from the entire forum instead of just one thread?!? that way we could tell if players such as chamber are lurking or just not online... (yes, i know it's not a perfect tell, but it's better than nothing)

[LyingBrian]

@KellyChen

i'm here... been checking this thing everyday now... is that a good or bad sign?

@germy

i think this is the 1st time i've had somebody i'm voting for give ME a reason why i'm voting for them instead of vice versa... interesting...

i think a basic anti-majority minority strategy is to act like the majority... that's a given, but since it's an open game, and everyone knows what the roles are & how many, i doubt we'll see anybody claim "mason"...

as for an answer, nope, guess again...

@sprontalic

haha yea that's true. But hey, being sarcastic's fun

especially when people think you're serious

[LyingBrian]

@germy

you surmised a guess as to why i was voting for you instead of just asking me why i was voting for you...
instead of asking me

why are you voting for me LyingBrian?

you asked me

Are you voting for me because I am willing to discuss strategy?

what i am talking about is that i believe that's the first time someone has asked me if i'm voting for them for a specific reason instead of asking a general question of "Why are you voting for me?".

I asked a question whether something was your intention. A question which, by the way, you didn't answer.

i most certainly did... [sarcasm]don't you dare question my integrity like that[/sarcasm]
{just in case... i would hate to see another bandwagon based off a simple misunderstanding }
-Post #083

LyingBrian -
Are you voting for me because I am willing to discuss strategy?

-Post #094

as for an answer, nope, guess again...

[LyingBrian]

@germy

how would i untechnically answer your question? were you expecting a positive answer, or for me to expound on why i was voting for you, or something else?

i'll

unvote: germy

for now...

[sidenote]
it makes it difficult to play this game when only 2 people are playing... i'm not sure if everybody else is waiting for the 2 who haven't checked in to do so, or what, but it's been 24 hours since everybody checked back in, and besides germy & myself, only Lucresia has bothered to post again, and that was not helpful... meh, maybe it's the weekend (i can only hope)
[/sidenote]

FOS: everyone

[LyingBrian]

all you had to do was ask, although since i asked a multiple answer question, i'm not sure which part you answered

yes!

to...

the reason i voted you was to generate discussion & see how you would react to my voting for you w/o giving you a reason... since i didn't find your response scummy & my vote didn't spark conversation since the site went down, i unvoted you... i like to play a game of mafia where i keep a few cards up my sleeves, b/c i am suspicious of everybody, especially on D1 when we have no information besides player's votes & posts (or lack thereof)... speaking of which, i think it's time for a post count
[mrow]Name[col]# of Posts[col]% of Posts[col]Last Post # Nai [col]14 [col]16% [col]104 ShadowLurker [col]13 [col]15% [col]102 Thestatusquo [col]12 [col]13% [col]87 LyingBrian [col]9 [col]10% [col]106 germy [col]8 [col]9% [col]105 Cadre [col]7 [col]8% [col]103 chamber [col]7 [col]8% [col]88 Lucresia [col]7 [col]8% [col]96 sprontalic [col]5 [col]6% [col]101 friday-13th [col]3 [col]3% [col]92 KingPin [col]2 [col]2% [col]74

vote: KingPin

for lurking & to apply pressure(happy? )

HOS: Rastapopolous

for not posting yet...

and also,

mod

, can we get a vote count? with that last vote i think it should look something like this...
[mrow]Votee Name[col]# of Votes[col]Voters Names KingPin [col]3 [col]LyingBrian Nai ShadowLurker Shadow Lurker [col]3 [col]Cadre friday-13th Lucresia Cadre [col]2 [col]sprontalic Thestatusquo LyingBrian [col]1 [col]chamber NOT VOTING [col]3 [col]germy KingPin Rastapopolous

[LyingBrian]

well since it looks like everybody is still catching up, there's not really anything to say right now... still satisfied w/ my vote on KingPin as the ice storm excuse doesn't explain why he was lurking in the 1st part of D1...

@Rastapopolous

where have you been? why are you only making your 1st post now?

FOS: ShadowLurker

making posts that spam the thread & contribute nothing is not helpful...

[LyingBrian]

- Post #116

not helpful =/= scum

actually not being helpful is equivalant to scum, at least in my book...

whether or not you act suspicious in every game is unnecessary to ask IMO... if you act suspicious (whether you act that way every game or not), then you should be prepared to be suspected... using the "i do this every game" defense is WIFOM, and so is asking

What

advantage does a scum have in doing this?

words in

italics

are corrections

- Post#117
KingPin says in 3 paragraphs what i basically said above... the only problem i have is

Now, enter the conundrum that you've employed 1) sneaky scum or 2) dumb townie.

i don't believe ShadowLurker is playing as either, i believe he's playing as he normally does, the problem is how he normally plays is suspicious

P.S. I know you don't need my blessing, but thank-you, KingPin, for finally putting your vote where your mouth is...

- Post#118
since i didn't play the game i can't speak for that instance, but if he played that game the same way he is playing this one, i can understand.

- Post#119

Why is that argument pulled? Because it is valid, you still have not pointed out ANY advantage scum would have for doing that meaning that what you have said, can't be a scumtell and can't be a case against me.

it is NOT a valid argument b/c it is WIFOM, see above

Oh shit, you caught me saying naughty words like fuck.

I still do not fucking see what you mean by "all other things" which I fucking asked you for already and you still have not provided. You just ignored that, and used that fucking generality one more fucking time.

i see absolutely no reason for profanity... yes you can argue free speech & whatever, but what i know is that most mods won't condone it... while KellyChen may or may not i don't know, but as a player in this game i for one would appreciate it if you abstained from such language in the future... find different words to make your point, it can actually make it stronger...

unvote: KingPin

vote: ShadowLurker

P.S. and don't bother

FOS

ing me again... if you really feel i'm suspicious then vote for me, or if you want to provide an actual reason besides retaliation why you are FOSing me, then feel free to do so...

[LyingBrian]

- Posts #122-123
@Thestatusquo

why?

- Post #124
@ShadowLurker

[sarcasm]it's good to see you're not acting like a nine-year old[/sarcasm]
you only addressed one point of my post, interesting... and still using profanity, though thankfully the mod edited it...

the reason i say you're argument is WIFOM is b/c you said, and again i quote

What

advantage does a scum have in doing this?

saying that there is no advantage for scum to act a certain way makes the implication that scum doesn't act that way, therefore you must be town... but then the argument could be made that you know that is a town trait, and as scum you purposefully employ it to make yourself look more townish... it is a circular argument that goes nowhere fast, and thus WIFOM... if you want to call it a circular argument instead, fine by me, but my point remains... the way you act (if you always act like that) can not be defined as scum or town... but it is suspicious, and my vote remains...

i used to have a "suspicious" play style which i employed every game as well, until the argument i've submitted over the past few posts was submitted to me by other players, and i saw the validity of their point, and changed my playing style... my case against you isn't whether or not your argument is WIFOM, but rather that you are playing suspiciously... if you want to debate that, be my guest, but don't try to diminish my argument by saying it's about something else... that is another point in the suspicious category...

[LyingBrian]

- Post #126
:goodposting:

- Post #127
what?!? yes, we are supposed to be voting...

- Post #128


- Post #129
:goodposting:

- Post #130

So don't try to post more crap logic.

It is not WIFOM, do you have Down syndrome?

do you always try to prove your innocence by belittling other player's game play? interesting that you are only focusing on me, and that you didn't respond at all to post # 126...

It makes the implication that it is not a legit scumtell, not that I am town.

No scum in their right mind would do it, so it is NOT A SCUMTELL either way.

statements like these are why i consider this a WIFOM argument... if you make a statement like scum would not do so-and-so, then it can be argued that they WOULD do so-and-so, if only to say that scum would not do so-and-so...

So basically, you're about to lynch me because I used swear words.

no, i would like to lynch you b/c you're acting suspiciously, and doing absolutely nothing to make your case any stronger, in fact, you're just adding fuel to the fire...

- Post #131
more newbie player, methinks

- Post #132
:agreed:

- Post #133
@ShadowLurker

Although the pro's and con's are true, I still have seen scum do this so that they can say the exact thing you are saying, that a scum would never do this. lol So, in other words it's all a big loop of possible scumminess.

aka: WIFOM

- Post #134
well i think we're getting somewhere... the FACT that you are acting suspicious does not make you town or scum, per se, but the ACTION of acting suspicious makes us think you are scum (regardless of whether or not you do this every game)

making statements like

No scum in their right mind would do it

is not a true statement, b/c scum acting the way you are, could use that same quote to "prove" their "innocence"...

[LyingBrian]

Vote: Thestatusquo

why did you hammer w/o giving ShadowLurker a chance to defend himself again, or at least to claim?

which brings up an interesting thought... why would ShadowLurker claim President/Seer

after

the lynch, when he was really just a Republican/Townie? any ideas, anyone?

[LyingBrian]

- Posts #151-153
@Lucresia

i thought the idea of an open setup was that everybody knew all the roles before the game started... i rechecked and didn't see anything about a doctor or a protecting/hiding ability for the President/Seer... maybe i'm misunderstanding the definition of open setup?

- Post #154
@Thestatusquo

love the defense... only adds to your scumminess & does not help whatsoever...

confirm vote: Thestatusquo

- Post #155
@Nai

i'm curious how i could've been the "driving" force behind his lynch when i'm only 1 vote out of 7 needed... yes i built the case against ShadowLurker, but germy & Thestatusquo hammered him & Cadre didn't unvote him... unfortunately, by the time i got home from work that night, ShadowLurker was already lynched, or i would have unvoted him to give him a chance to claim at least...

- Post #156
@sprontalic

back to the WIFOM debate, i understand what ShadowLurker & yourself were saying about the need for equal probability & i can understand your point, but it doesn't mean i agree... if a player always acts suspiciously, do you not ever lynch him, b/c he might be town?!? THAT is ridiculous... i found ShadowLurker suspicious for reasons already covered, and so voted him...

- Post #157-158
@Zindaras

well in those 2 short posts you've managed to become more helpful than your counterpart... what i don't like about your post is

I'm not entirely sure I like the way LyingBrian has been playing either.

seems to me like you're riding everyone else's coat tails w/ this statement... interesting how you didn't give any reasons of your own why you don't like my play...

[LyingBrian]

- Post #160
@Thestatusquo

but I simpy hammered shadowlurker because he must be quicklynched at all times.

do you want to explain this?!? this statement in itself is enough reason for a vote...

I might be scum, yes, but voting off of something like that makes no sense for two reasons:

1) I've already explained how I would do it both town and scum, but if you don't buy that
2) It is much less likely a scum would do that then town, because scum wants to avoid that kind of pressure.

this is basically the same reasoning that ShadowLurker used! i'll submit again, that if you commit a suspicious action, regardless of whether or not you commit the same action as confirmed town or scum, then you should be voted... call it WIFOM, call it circular logic, call it whatever you want, but it does not make any sense to me why i should let a player who is acting suspiciously continue to do so...

Come on now, I'm an experienced player; do you really think I'd have 'opportunistic voting' as one of my scum tells?

it may not be a 'tell', but it doesn't mean you're NOT scum...

- Post #161
@Zindaras

While I like the way you generally respond to a lot, I disagree very much with your WIFOM argument. The way SL was lynched seems quite odd to me, and I'm getting the impression that that argument was the main one.

that's the nice thing about opinions, i don't need you to agree w/ mine, for me to be right ... i may have a slight misunderstanding of 'WIFOM', but my points are still valid... i don't think you should throw them out, b/c my classification may be incorrect... if you think that the WIFOM was the reason for my vote, then you may need to do a re-read... i was voting for ShadowLurker b/c he was suspicious... the way he reacted to the WIFOM, only made him seem more suspicious, thus i never felt a need to remove my vote...

- Posts #162-167
mostly blah, almost like we're playing SpeedMafia

- Posts #168-170
interesting... accusations & justifications w/o any backup... in general, i dislike the play style you're demonstrating Thestatusquo... i get the feeling you're not putting your cards on the table, like you're operating a big scam, and that feels scummy... and how the heck do you get a scum vibe from 3 posts?!? the 1st one was a confirmation post, the next was after the site was down letting us know she was still here, and the 3rd was just i don't know, but i did notice Rastapopolous is a 'Townsperson' as far as # of posts, and she may not have the best grasp of the English language or typing skills, but i have no clue how that makes her scum...

i see absolutely no reason to move my vote...

[LyingBrian]

- Post # 172

You obviously know nothing of Jathan and my dynamic. How is "this alone" a reason to vote?

you're right, i don't... the reason i said it alone is reason for a vote, is b/c it sounds like you're trying to use some meta-game tactic to explain your hammer vote, yet you still haven't explained yourself...

1)Way to ignore the first point I make, which is the most important one. Extend it, at the point where I do this as both scum and town, there is no reason to vote for me off of it. I'll expect to see you moving your vote soon.

2)Your conception of wifom is very very wrong. Wifom refers specifically the circular logic.

1) i'm not sure what you're talking about as far as ignoring your 1st point... in the part you quoted, i answered 1 & 2 with the same statement...
2)fine, i'll admit i might be wrong about the definition of WIFOM (i've already done this), but at least 2 other people agree w/ my point (just b/c you do something suspicious & say you do it as both town & scum, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a vote)
3)

So you're going to stop voting off of the basis of fact, and vote on the premise that I might be scum? That is very very very stupid. Towns job is to find and go after scum tells. If you admit that what I did is not a tell, then you're saying you're basically just going after me randomly. Well, you could go after anyone randomly. Theres a specific stage of the game for this; it's called random voting. We're not there anymore. This point you just made is tantamount to saying "Yeah, you're not scummy, but I'mma vote for you anyway.

this is a total misrepresentation of my point...
let me give an example... why don't you give me the complete list of "scum tells"... i'll start using all of them in every game i play... eventually they'll become my 'style of play' and therfore illegitimate reasons to vote me anymore... how exactly is anybody supposed to catch me?
the "i do this every game" is a meta-game technique that eventually is harmful to the town... let me explain... let's say that you employ the hammer vote routine every game, every lynch... people find you suspicious and vote for you, you use the defense "i do this every game"... let's say you're town in this hypothetical game, and you get lynched... next game you do the same thing, people find you suspicious, and you say "i do this every game, in fact, last game i was town & it got me lynched"... in the 2nd hypothetical game, you are scum... you are able to convince the town that you are innocent based on your last performance... this is harmful to the town since they never lynch you... it also sends the message of "you can get away w/ suspicious activity, as long as you do it every game"... this is poor play

Having a playstyle you don't like does not make me scum.

never said it did, though there's a slight implication that's what you thought when you hammered ShadowLurker...

- Post #173
what i am saying by that statement is that that argument is flawed, and that argument alone is not going to convince me to move my vote... see above for the whole town/scum meta-game tactic...

- Post #176

I see no other reason in Post 120, the post where you actually vote him.

the problem is how he normally plays is suspicious

i also thought ShadowLurker was suspicious in the early parts of the game...

- Post #180

If Shadowlurker was scum, you'd practically be cleared in my eyes.

i'll remember that next time when i'm scum... i'll throw a scum partner under the bus so i can clear myself
feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but what i read is that you're saying i'm scummy b/c i was emphatic about his lynch... well i do that every game
ShadowLurker was suspicious (scummy) in my opinion... after i voted him, he only became more & more scummy which is why i continued to go after him... so if that's why you think i'm scummy, fine by me... i still argue my point is correct (Thestatusquo), though in ShadowLurker's case i had the right person in the wrong game...

- Post #187

He was town, wasn't he? That kinda makes him right. ShadowLurker was right.

no, it makes him town, unfortunately... like i said before, i used to employ the same meta-game strategy, until someone else pointed out the fallacy of that strategy... see above

germy and LyingBrian, I want from you nice little lists with opinions on every player in the game.

i like to receive rather than give... why me & germy, and why should i? i don't like players making demands... probably nothing of it, it just grates against my rebellious personality

[LyingBrian]

- Post #190
@Zindaras

That is no reason to vote him.

Which is worthy of a lynch?

playing suspiciously is absolutely a reason to vote anybody, and my vote wasn't intended to lynch ShadowLurker is was meant to pressure him... he was lynched by Thestatusquo...

Have you ever seen Fritzler or Coron play? Even I've done it.

doesn't make it good play... and doesn't mean i shouldn't vote for them or you...

You were the one who was driving the SL bus, and germy put him at Lynch-1. I've already asked it of the eventual hammerer.

Mafia's a game you play together, where you work for a mutual goal. I miss that here.

maybe i missed them, but i haven't seen germy or Thestatusquo's lists... the second quote sounds like a manipulation to get me to do what you want... sorry, but i'll pass...

- Post #192
@Nai

do you mind explaining why? you said yourself in post #185 that you agree w/ my point, so i'm not sure why you think i'm scummy...

@Zindaras

i guess Nai is my scum partner since he agrees w/ my point, right?

[LyingBrian]

- Post #194
@Zindaras

That's not what you said in Post 120. Pressure votes are usually done in the format I put mine. Also, pressure votes are usually taken off before the guy's lynched.

sorry i don't format my pressure votes the same way you do, and i couldn't remove my vote b/c by the time i got home from work, ShadowLurker was already lynched... check my post times...

will be voting you if you don't tell us who you think is suspicious and who you think is town, in a nice list. There's absolutely no reason not to if you're town, so it's a very suspicious play.

fine by me... if you think not giving in to 1 player's demands is a scum tell, go right ahead... i must've missed your list, though...

Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I don't think Nai's your scumbuddy, right now.

sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, i was going off Post #190

2)fine, i'll admit i might be wrong about the definition of WIFOM (i've already done this), but at least 2 other people agree w/ my point (just b/c you do something suspicious & say you do it as both town & scum, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a vote)

Yeah. At least 2 other people are also scum.

- Post #195, 197, 199
:goodposting: i agree w/ KingPin & germy's points... that was the reason i was voting ShadowLurker, and the reason i'll be voting Thestatusquo most probably until he is lynched...

- Post #202
@Zindaras

find his behaviour Day 1 scummy, and his insistence that SL deserved to be lynched even scummier. And I very, very much dislike the way he's been responding to my posts. He apparently doesn't want to give his opinions on other players because he's rebellious, which is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

i'm NOT insisting that ShadowLurker deserved to be lynched... i AM insisting that my vote was correct & justifiable, just like my vote on Thestatusquo... you say a couple reasons you're voting for me is b/c you don't like the way i'm replying to your posts, and i won't make your list... can't do anything about my responses... that's a silly reason to state for voting someone... as far as the list is concerned, how do i know that you are not scum, trying to get an even bigger advantage? you could very easily use my list to make me look scummier, or use it to attack someone else i find scummy... honestly, i think the whole demand of "make me a list" is scummy...

FOS: Zindaras

- Post #207
:goodposting: i agree w/ germy here, but that should be painfully obvious by now...

- Post #208
@Nai
i have a very big problem w/ the "This is how i always play, so it's not scummy" line as well... i thought that was pretty clear by now, since i voted for ShadowLurker, and didn't remove my vote when he tried to use that defense, and also since i have voted for Thestatusquo, and haven't removed my vote even though he's using that defense... you should be voting for Thestatusquo ... i still don't understand why i deserve to be voted over anybody else on ShadowLurker's bandwagon... i voted for ShadowLurker b/c his playstyle was suspicious & to pressure him into claiming... i only made 2 posts after my vote on him, and those posts were to defend my position on his "i always play like this/WIFOM" argument... you said yourself that everyone else piled on, and THAT i find scummier than my "driving the bandwagon", but then again, i'm biased

- Post #210
it is outbursts like these that make you seem even more scummy in my eyes, Thestatusquo... i see absolutely no reason to degrade other players & use profanity... this makes you look scummy b/c it's like you have no defense left, so you're resorting to degrading other player's playstyle & using profanity, somehow thinking that this will make us believe you are town... i understand where you're coming from, b/c i've been on your side before, but i accepted the possibility that i could be wrong, thought about the argument from an un-biased position, and changed my mind about that playstyle... i doubt we'll see that this game, b/c if you did change your stance now, it would make you seem weak, but i would definitely encourage you to think about this "i do it all the time" meta-game playstyle...

- Post #211, 214

Why, in this particular game, did you feel the need to "hammer" SL?

There is no reason specific to this game that I did it. Jathan must always be quicklynched because thats how things are.

this reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me... it's like voting for a player b/c you don't like their playstyle, this is craplogic, and definitely not a TOWN tell...

- Post #215
following that reasoning, i can't be scum either, b/c i'm drawing attention to myself by "driving" ShadowLurker's lynchwagon, and b/c i'm being so obstinate and outspoken about this point... :sighofrelief:


i'll respond to the rest of the posts probably later tonight... have dinner plans w/ a friend right now, but before i go, let me...

FOS: friday-13th

only has 7 posts throughout the game, and none of them very long, hasn't contributed much of anything...

FOS: Lucresia

has slightly more w/ 16 posts, but hasn't posted in a few days

[LyingBrian]

well i'll address the rest of the posts as promised, but since i'm at lynch-1, i have no choice but to reveal myself as the President/Seer... last night i investigated Cadre/Yosarian2, and i was told he was not a Communist/Werewolf which means he's either a Republican/Townie or Islamist/Mafia...

[LyingBrian]

- Post #222
@Yosarian2

the reason i VOTED for sprontalic was b/c he voted for Cadre w/o giving a reason... also it was the semi-random voting phase of the game, so was it a weak reason to vote for him... absolutely, that's why i moved my vote to a more suspicious player later in the Day... i will agree it was silly of me to provide sprontalic w/ a reason to be voting Cadre, instead of waiting for him to respond, but i have a tendency to just post my thoughts, b/c i really don't have anything to hide...

- Post #226
@Thestatusquo

do you use the same tactics in national debate contests as you have used here, profanity & degrading other players?

- Post #239
@Thestatusquo

why, specifically, are you voting for me here? also, i get the fact that you always quick-lynch ShadowLurker as both town/scum, the question i have is why? why have you decided that ShadowLurker must always be quick-lynched... it doesn't make your play any less scummy, but it would be nice if you explained this relationship you have w/ ShadowLurker a little more in-depth...

- Post #241
@Zindaras

Where in this thread did you state it was a Pressure Vote?

i didn't, unfortunately...

Post #158 only contained half the players... and using Thestatusquo's argument i always keep my suspicions to myself as town and scum, so that's not a scumtell i disagree w/ your "only scum don't want their opinions known" statement, but if the other 4 players on my bandwagon insist i make a list to keep myself from being lynched, i'll do so, i'm not an idiot... i just don't like giving into the demands of 1 player, it gives good players like PookyTheMagicalBear too much material to manipulate the majority's opinion of me...

Hell no. One's gut is one of the biggest weapons a player has.

i might agree one's intuition is the biggest weapon they have, but it's very hard to convince other players that that is a good reason to vote for another player... look at Cadre on D1

- Post #243
so it sounds to me from this post, that Thestatusquo & i are on equal levels of scumminess in your eyes, but you're voting for me b/c i have the most votes... yet one of the reasons you say you're voting for me is b/c i "drove" ShadowLurker's bandwagon yesterday... what are you doing today, if not "driving" MY bandwagon?.. and BTW, definitely NOT distancing myself from Thestatusquo... he is still the scummiest player, and i doubt i'll be convinced otherwise...

- Post #244
if ShadowLurker had responded to my argument the way you have, then i may have agreed w/ him and unvoted... but his response to my argument/accusation made him even more scummier... IMO a player resorts to profanity when they are desperate & grasping at straws...unfortunately, i didn't have a whole lot of time to debate his logic vs. mine b/c, as i have pointed out earlier, i only had 2 posts after my vote for ShadowLurker before germy put him at lynch-1, and Thestatusquo hammered him...

- Post #245

I think Zindaras' posts have been good so far.

do you always let other people think for you...

Pretty sure that's the same argument you used on SL, which was invalid also.

just b/c i used the same argument against ShadowLurker, and he turned up town, does NOT make it an invalid argument... unfortunately, some player will always ACT scummy, despite their role...

- Post #256

Quite the reveal (and surprise).

not too much of a surprise if you have played w/ me before... i am always agressive & out-spoken, and have gotten lynched for it many a time... obviously i need to work on my arguing skills, but that's what i like about this forum...

- Post #257
@Thestatusquo

I say that hammering in that situation does not make me scummy

you have not given any argument that would support hammering of ShadowLurker as a positive move for the town... you've only used a meta-gaming reason... from a mathmatical perspective a single player is more likely to have pro-town roles than anti-town roles over the course of X number of games... if you always hammer ShadowLurker, you are hurting the town, b/c chances are, he's going to be pro-town, as in this case... i make the case that hammering in any situation is scummy...

- Post #258, 260
great reasoning to use as scum to try to get your only advantage lynched... don't worry, i'll investigate you tonight, Nai, so we can semi-clear you or not...

[LyingBrian]

@Nai

do you really think i'm silly enough to state who i'm going to investigate?... remember, this is an open-setup, so we know all the roles... there are no role-blockers, and the only killing role are the Communists/Werewolves, and i doubt you'll be killing yourself...

as far as the semi-clear part, you would only be semi-cleared (in the town's eyes, just like Cadre/Yosarian2) b/c i only would know that you are NOT Communist/Werewolf, but you could still be an anti-town role (Islamist/Mafia)...

thanks for trying to get me quick-lynched, though... only scum would want to quick-lynch me w/o discussing the ramifications first...

[LyingBrian]

i really don't have time to compose anything substantial before i go to work... if i haven't posted again by tomorrow, then i can understand hammering me, but i'll be posting tonight after i get off work... i am most definitely the real President/Seer, although i'm not sure what Nai's gambit is...

[LyingBrian]

well thanks for giving me so much time, Lucresia...

i had to go to work right after that post, and i worked late, so i'm just now up, but whatever...

my mission today has been accomplished, and i actually had Nai pegged as the cop early on D2, so he would've probably died tonight anyway...

good luck, partner, sorry i couldn't stick around longer

[/dies]

[LyingBrian]

good setup, KellyChen, i just wished i would've stayed alive longer... i really don't see how i could've played D2 any differently w/ a cop investigation on me, but meh, i give off scum vibes even when i'm town...

good job, sprontalic, lasting to endgame, sorry i had to abandon you so quickly...

good job, Islamists, & congratulations...