YOU STOLE MY POST!!!
433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
well, I just did a search on thorgot, he's posting in other games, so i find it a bit suspicious that he hasn't unvoted Southpaw or anything since his first random vote despite the early wagon that's formed. I guess that's worth aFoS: thorgot
may as wellunvotemy random vote seeing as we are "discussing" now (oooh serious)-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
By not unvoting, in effect you are saying that you support the wagon that formed after your random vote. Just because your vote was random when you put it on, doesn't mean that it stays that way; It should be viewed the same as the other contributors to the wagon. Pretending otherwise is sneaky.thorgot wrote:My vote was random. Why is it suspicious that I didn't unvote him?-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
The current situation reminds me a lot of what happened in McDonalds mafia (a recent mini theme i was in). In that game, StallingChamp proxied his vote to Glork for the weekend or something (he was going to be away) to create discussion, and a couple of people objected, and there was a big argument over the usefulness / scumminess / whatever of the proxy. As it happened, i made some bad posts, a wagon formed on me (i was town), but it switched onto a blundering scum.
What I'm trying to say is, I can see where both sides of the argument are coming from; just because there are differing opinions, doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are scum.
Myself, I'm a bit more suspicious of the people who have stayed out of discussion, the quasi lurkers (the most notable being dom:inc, Eletrair, gorckat).
btw, I disagree with the use of the "classic scumtells" argument, its like trying to add weight to your arguments without adding much substance. I'd rather Fonzy just say "blah blah blah blah; this is scummy behaviour imo" or something like that. But I am probably nitpicking.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
In this case, i think what Dodgy said was pretty incidental, and your response of "its a scumtell" seemed a bit hollow, like it was in place of a proper argument. Your other scumtell reference I'm not as concerned about (where you said that Dodgy's defensiveness over the wagon was a scumtell) because you already made arguments about it / explanations.Fonzy wrote:Dodgy wrote:
@ Dasquian, I'm guessing your voting me because you think I'm scum? Well just for the record, I'm not.
Claiming 'not-scum' is another common scumtell.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Hrmmm... I'm a little suspicious of superstring trying to get something going on Gorckat (not that I'm not a bit suspicious of the non-contributors, gorckat, thorgot in particular); it just seems to me like you're pushing it a bit hard. I agree with Fonzy (although i think he may be missing out rule number whatever it is, you know, the one about not mentioning... um... who was it again? i dont know, i think we weren't supposed to mention somebody in the thread. anyhow.). It would be nice to hear from gorckat though [/euphemism]. I'm buying Fonzy as town at the moment.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I guess I remembered this part, and sort of glazed over the bit where you talked about overreacting / accidently fused together the concepts of overreacting and defensiveness in my mind. Or it could have been because I thought he was being defensive. Anyhow. Sorry 'bout that.Fonzy wrote:(Though my 'outstanding defensiveness?' Pot, kettle...)-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I agree with this 100%. I don't like how the Fonz has gone after CES so rabidly.CES wrote:I'm not going to comment at my role at this time. I see no convincing reason to claim, so I'm not going to give the scum any role information.
This doesn't really make sense to me at all, particularly the last point. It sounds to me like someone who isn't paying much attention to the game.thorgot wrote:CES isn't very suspicious, but he did retract a doctor claim, and being "definitely town" is a death warrant.
The Fonz, for attacking Dodgy, isn't very suspicious to me, because he is drawing too much attention.
Gorckat isn't very suspicious to me, because he is so inactive.
Dasquian, I find you somewhat suspicious, because you are that perfect level between Gorckat and The Fonz, being active and helpful but not offending anybody.
I'm feeling a bit suspicious of superstring and fonzy. I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him. superstring seems overaggressive to me, its more of a gut feeling on my part, he seems a bit opportunistic to me. Eletrair and dom:inc both seem to be fence-sitting a bit (dom:inc hasn't commented for a while though).-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
@ superstring: Your votes on gorckat and Fonzy seemed opportunistic to me. there ya go.
@ gorckat: When I said that I bought Fonzy as town, it was before he started attacking CES. Fonzy's actions since then I don't agree with. I thought that should have been obvious from my post:
pete d wrote: I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him.minor FoS: gorckatfor misrepresentation. I say minor, because it seemed like a minor point from your post.
I don't like how dom:inc suddenly appeared when I said he was getting suspicious, and immediately joined in the FOS'ers on Fonzy. Now it could be a coincidence i guess, but I still find it suspicious.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
@ dom:inc : 1. Me saying you were fence-sitting implied that I found that a bit suspicious 2. yeah, I guess I didn't really pay much attention to the order of FoS's, there just seemed to be a general vibe against Fonzy, and super had already voted him. And you would have had to have had the reply tab open for about an hour. It just seemed to me like you were absent through most of the discussion, then popped in and agreed with the majority of the town.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
why not.vote: kilmenator. she seems to be lurking a bit; i don't like her last two posts, seems a bit contradictory saying that we shouldn't focus on CES, but that she finds CES scummy. It's like she was trying to both make CES out to be scummy but distance herself at the same time. I also don't like how she suggests that potential doc's should leave hints.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I don't get why dom:inc is so hung up on me using the word "town". Everyone is the town. When you mod games, you use the word "town" to describe the collective group of players. I don't see how this detracts from the argument I made. When I said "majority of the town", I would have thought it was obvious that I meant "general consensus" or something similar.
@Inhim: mind explaining "scummy mediating"? It seems like a sketchy term to use.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I'm still here, sorry for not posting much (check sig). I don't really feel like I have much to add at the moment. I don't have enough time to go through a detailed analysis of recent posts; I'm still happy with my vote on kilm. I will be able to post more in a fortnight exactly. Until then I'll try to keep track of the game.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Um, no, what I meant was that you were keeping yourself distanced from the situation, not from him. If I thought CES was scum, I'd say so.kilmenator wrote:If this is the case against me, you basically just called CES scum, because I am distancing from him... and you think I am scum... that doesnt make much sense at all...
So why aren't you voting for CES.kilmenator wrote:CES- DOdgy was scummy, and then the claim was retracted, and now he is just flying under the radar for the most part, most of his posts have been pretty useless and have added nothing. Also, the LAL applies here for me, because retracting a claim, pretty much means the first player lied, therefore making that person a liar.
I find kilm suspicious because of the general lack of making arguments against other players, lurking, and I found her posts on CES scummy.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I'm not convinced by this reasoning.Off the mark wrote:Dude, I unvoted you because I decided your "I am not claiming because it would be bad for the town" strategy convinced me you probably were town after all, (mainly because I've never seen scum try that) so I didn't want you at lynch -1.
This reasoning seems weak also. Suspecting someone for being smug, or for how they say something? I would think thatOff the mark wrote:Now I am finding myself suspicious of you again, mainly because of language like this:
You just sound so damn smug about it. I just made an impulsive decision. We can let MBL go and see if he survives the night and maybe deal with him tomorrow.
I'm open to him not being partnered with kilm, of course (although that would be a nice twofer).whatthey say would be more important, rather than how they say it.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I'm weighing up whether I prefer an Inhim lynch or somebody else. Inhim seems to be contributing logically and being helpful. There are some things that are suspicious, like the refusal to claim and the witholding of the rankings (I'll have to review Sweenytodd's actions also). I don't really see a problem with saying someone is suspicious / scummy but that this could wait for tomorrow or there is another player you'd rather vote for; several other players have said as much. I guess I'm not opposed to his lynch, it would give us decent information to work with day 2, and there has been those couple of suspicious things that I mentioned.
I would prefer somebody I find more suspicious, such as kilm or OtM, or perhaps superstring, but there could be difficulties in garnering support. I may as wellvote: Off the Mark. Worst case scenario, the Inhim wagon sticks.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
If this is so, how can you attribute alignment to his actions when it is difficult to attribute significance to his play? I'm not just pulling out a quote to make this argument, this is pretty much how I'm seeing the situation at the moment. For me, Dodgy's behaviour is hard to judge, because there's a sense of irrationality hanging over it. CES's behaviour seems easier to judge; to me, the withdrawal of the claim made sense, and his lack of contribution was suspicious (but then, he could have had RL problems, someone said he pulled out of another game?).MrBuddyLee wrote:Dodgy sent a threatening letter to someone claiming to be the forum administrator and saying he'd gut their cat or something. I think it's pretty clear he was on some bad acid or hopped up on Twinkies. Do you really want to attribute significance to his play?
MBL: Realistically, who do you think should be lynched today?-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Dasquain wrote:Can someone explain deadline rules to me please, or point me towards where they are?
ie, whoever has the most votes at deadline is lynched; a normal majority (ie 7 votes) is not required.4.) If a deadline passes without a player or No Lynch receiving a majority of the votes, the day will end with the person with the highest votes being lynched. If two players are tied are tied for the highest number, then the player who reached that number first will be lynched,-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
My suspicions, in relative order from least suspicious to most:
kilmenator - Essentially confirmed as town due to lack of counterclaims and unlikelihood of 3 anti-town killing parties.
Dasquian - Hasn't really done anything that's stood out to me as suspicious. The most townish looking player from my perspective.
Nanookthewolf - Eletrair's post 15 was a bit strange, and Eletrair did lurk for a bit, but apparently had RL issues. Was "pretty sure" that MBL was scum, also put inhim at -1.
Pie_is_good - Pressed for a claim from MBL citing "much, much information" which could be gained. Kept vote on MBL up to deadline, despite expressing that he wasn't keen on the inhim wagon, and that he found Off the Mark suspicious.
superstring91 - Seemed somewhat opportunistic to me midway through day 1, kept a vote on MBL despite admitting it had no basis, promising to return to move it / add some comments, but didn't.
This post also struck me as strange.superstring91 wrote:i understand your worries here, but i don't think scum would claim vanilla. they would claim a power role. discrediting the real power role, and playing the rest of the game in their position.
gorckat - Seemed to go along with the crowd, wagon hopped a fair bit and lurked early on day 1, however gave better arguments for his votes later on day 1. Stood out to me that he said that he was suspicious of thorgot, then he was less so of OtM, then he was suspicious of OtM, and now he's got OtM on his town list.
off the mark - His early vote on Dasquain day 2 seemed rash. Some of his day 2 speculation doesn't make any sense. Seems to be pushing for a Nanook lynch. Weak arguments for his suspicions:
Off the Mark wrote:Of the vanilla claimers, I am also suspicious of Nanook and Pete D.Mainly because I was suspicious of them on Day1and they were late to join the "let's all massclaim" discussion. Not a strong argument, I know, but there it is.
btw, in case you didn't notice my sig, I was away 6-11 July, and when I came back there was little to comment on at the time apart from claiming.Off the Mark (late day 1) wrote:
Agreed 100%. But I don't think gorckat and Fonz are both scum. My suspicion list right now looks something like this:
inHim
MBL
gorckat (if gorck is scum, I think Fonz and Dasq are probably ok)
Pete D
Fonz
Dasquian (if Fonz is scum, I think it very likely Dasq is too)
IH (not sure what to think of him, I need to see more)
Nanook (been getting pro-town vibes from him lately, so he is almost off the list)
IN summary:
Suspicious: OtM
A bit suspicious: gorckat, superstring
Maybes: pie, Nanook
Leaning Town: Dasq
Assumed Town: kilmenator-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
If he was scum, I guess that would be likely, but I don't see how this means you believe him. I don't really follow your logic here.OtM wrote:If you were scum, it seems you would assume Dodgy was telling the truth about his claim and not look elsewhere for a doc, so this leads me to believe you are telling the truth.
Nanook's statement doesn't really change my opinion of him. It seems credible, however I do agree with gorckat's post 664.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Firstly, I think that superstring should reply to OtM's analysis before we add specific comments. I want to see his reaction / arguments.
Secondly, the analysis has swayed me a little in OtM's favour; I still need to reread through specifically gorckat and OtM and consider my previous suspicions, but on my scale it has put him back down on the same tier as gorckat and superstring for the moment.
I'm not sure I agree with this. If he had done this, it would have been easy to check back over what he left out, and this may have worked against him. That said, I have experienced a completely BS analysis from a scum against me in another game, and OtM's analysis doesn't strike me as BS at all.pie wrote:As scum, I'd think you would have disincluded all the "NCN" posts and the protown vibe posts - you could have easily done so and been significantly more presuasive.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
It may also be useful to examine the kilm wagon (just before the inhim wagon):
I put a vote on, stayed there for a while
gorckat votes inhim to make him explain "scummy mediating"
Gorckat votes kilm
gorckat votes thorgot
OtM votes kilm
inhim votes kilm
dasq votes inhim
superstring comes in, doesn't add much, votes kilm
gorckat votes kilm (-2)
> inhim wagon builds up.
My updated relative suspicions:
gorckat, superstring
OtM
pie, Nanook
Dasq
kilm-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Basically I thought the kilm wagon was the first significant bandwagon after the discussion about Dodgy / CES, and should tack on to the start of OtM's analysis. As for you being more suspicious than before, it's more OtM had dropped down a little on my suspicions list, whilst my previous concerns re you and superstring still stand.gorckat wrote:pete: What exactly are you showing with your kilm wagon listing? You show my votes moving at the beginning, which I've explained previously. Did anyone else move their votes during the kilm wagon?
If I'm more suspicious to you than I was previously, can you tell me why?
Now, pie and OtM voting gorckat, I know the game's a bit stagnant at the moment, but I find this suspicious. OtM has pushed his suspicions of a number of players (Nanook, superstring, gorckat, and earlier Dasq) today, especially superstring of late, but has put a second vote on gorckat. With superstring not responding, I don't understand why he's decided to go after gorckat.FoS: Off the Mark. Pie, a couple of little things, not switching to OtM late day 1 and dropping his suspicions of OtM too quickly (imo) after the PBP. But, pie's vote on gorckat is consistant with his previous statements.
Nanook's also staying out of discussion a bit recently, perhaps trying to duck under the radar?-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Perhaps "are posting" could be restated as "has posted" in superstring's case; However, even if he has been posting sporadically, he would still have received his prod.OtM wrote:FOS: Pete D for misleading us with this info.
OtM wrote:And if Pete D is scum, I find it likely that gorckat is too. Notice how after my gorckat vote, Pete calls it into question and FOS's me, but after my superstring vote, Pete goes out and finds some corroborating evidence (which turns out to be sketchy) and then votes for superstring along with me.2x FOS: OtM. Blatant misrepresentation. I rightly called you out for your contradiction in voting gorckat. Your superstring vote had nothing to do with mine. I had previous concerns, and seeing that superstring would have picked up his prod but still hasn't posted convinced me to put a vote on. I will keep it on at least until he posts.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
pie wrote: First off, HUGE FRIGGIN FOS: OTM and PETED for lurkerlynching. What the hell, people? We're pretty much at LYLO here. Why would you ever, ever vote for a lurker, unless you want to hit an easy target?
QFT. OtM and I had already voiced our suspicions of superstring.OtM wrote:My vote was based on his D1 behavior, it was not a vote because he was lurking on Day2, but the lurking has not helped my opinion of him.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
[quote=Off the Mark]I didn't expect that you would. My hypothesis is that you and Gorck are scum together. Your pattern of how you've responded to my votes fits that theory too perfectly. [/quote]
By that I guess you mean when I legitimately pointed out your contradiction in voting gorckat earlier on (which you yourself acknowledged afterwards), then expressing concern when you switched to gorckat just now after you had seemingly built a case against ss/ssf and put him at -1. imo my sentiment has been completely warranted. If it had been any other player than gorckat, would you be criticising me now? Do you think that I would have reacted differently?
Would you mind elaborating on what you are referring to with the argument of a voting pattern / pattern in responding to your votes.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
1 and 3 are misrepresentative. I didn't FoS you because of the player, I foSed you because of your actions. Same with 3. Like I said, if it had been anyone other than gorckat involved, I would still have said exactly the same thing. Question: Do you think that the sentiment of my concerns was wrong?OtM wrote:I vote gorckat, you FOS me.
I vote superstring, you vote superstring, gorckat votes superstring.
I vote gorckat, you say you don't like it.
As for 2, thats pretty selective. I mean, you revoted string afterwoods, does that make you scum with me and dasq? Or how about Nanook, superstring and pie, they all voted for MBL, they must be scumbuddies too right?-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
(emphasis added). Feels like you're trying to blame me for changing your vote. As for you having had recent suspicions, you had moved gorckat up to Neutral iirc, but still had superstring and Nanook as suspicious, they were'nt posting.OtM wrote:Actually, yeah, I do. I had had recent suspicions of gorckat too, so it wasn't inconceivable that I'd vote for him, for the sake of starting a bandwagon. I explained that when I voted him.But you had a problem with it. You even helped change my mind.But now when I see the whole pattern, I don't trust you anymore.OtM wrote:I never felt that good with my vote on gorckat, but I felt we needed a bandwagon to get more reactions. When I read Pete D's post, I thought, "yeah... why am I voting gorck right now?"
Why not {ssf / pie / PJ}. I could see that.OtM wrote:The only way the ssf bandwagon moved along as a result of being correct is if Pie and kilm are the other 2 scum, and I can't accept that. I also can't accept a quick bus when scum has a chance to win today with a mislynch + a good night for them. There is still a good chance that ssf is the SK.
I'm a bit tired of arguing with you as well. Funny thing is, despite your arguments, I'm not really seeing you as scum at the moment, based on my opinion that ssf is scum, your analysis on string and your votes on him / ssf are points in your favour.OtM wrote:Plus I'm tired of arguing with scum.
Your theory SHOULD be over-questioned, because we are in a critical situation. I agree with the latter part of this post, regarding your previous actions towards string.OtM wrote:You seem to be over-questioning my theory and throwing suspicion in my direction and - most tellingly - trying to accuse me of being scumbuddies with superstring without really thinking about what that means regarding my previous actions.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Did you not see my LA post? I don't see how I've been contributing less than pie, PJ, ssf or kilm, plus nothing much has been changing. I'm still happy voting ssf, I think I've made myself clear on my suspicions, what would you like me to post? As for would I vote gorckat, I'm not sure, I have found him suspicious, but I can't see both gorckat and ssf being scum together, and I'm more convinced that ssf / string is the scum. So no, my vote stays on ssf.dasq wrote:pete d is being quiet, or at least giving me that impression. Would like to hear more.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
Nothing is really happening. OtM, Dasq and gorckat are arguing, but its likely none of them will move their votes. kilmenator, wherever you are, you need to post or make up your mind to vote. No lynch isn't going to fly.
You seemed to be the one who "pile(d) on" a -1 vote on ssf without much consideration, given how readily you changed your vote.OtM wrote:People were happy enough to pile on SSF's bandwagon. The only reason he wasn't lynched is because I unvoted him. Now I think those people were scum.
QFTDasq wrote:Anyway, old ground. This day is not going to be ended by myself, OTM or gorckat, nor anyone else who has stated a firm opinion. It's hard to resist continuing the back-and-forth (as indeed I have failed to do here), but the people who will define this day are the ones who haven't come down on either side of the line or have been AWOL.
That means they need to post, not us.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
OtM wrote:Question for Dasquian and Pete D:
What makes you so sure that Gorckat is not scum? You have gone to great lengths to defend him. (especially Dasq)
Please point out where I have defended gorckat at all.pete d wrote:As for would I vote gorckat, I'm not sure, I have found him suspicious, but I can't see both gorckat and ssf being scum together, and I'm more convinced that ssf / string is the scum. So no, my vote stays on ssf.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
I've already been over all of this.OtM wrote:Pete - that goes back to the voting pattern more than anything you've explicitly said. You didn't like my gorckat votes both times, but you voted along with me for superstring quite happily. I don't think you've come out and defended him, but looking at your voting, perhaps you should. Saying one thing and doing another is scummy.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
mafia killed IH and dasq, kilm presumably killed MBL, so dasq killed fonz and I
It wasn't really like that at the start of day 2, I was just waiting to see which way things went. I realised the situation a few days before OtM drew the connection iirc. All the power roles taken out on night 1 was pretty sweet.OtM wrote:Anyway, if pete d intentionally setup the connection between himself and gorckat back on day 2... dang, that was smooth.-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
-
-
pete d Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 489
- Joined: September 24, 2006
- Location: 123 Fake Street
thestatusquo wrote:I also made one mistake this game which I will post when I post all the night choices around 9 tonight.
o_Odasq wrote:I had a one-shot night protection too, but someone forgot to apply it
So dasq... who would you have taken out n3? pie, PJ or OtM? (presuming gorckat would have still gotten lynched...)
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.