You are one of the easiest to spell (I don't want to copy/paste), you voted for me (so I guess it's a bit omgus) and I just plain don't like papayas.
There, three (completly arbitrary) reasons.
That's pretty funny, because on my last post I was actually gonna say "If your name was A Banana I would not be voting for you," but decided against it in the last second. Now I wish I had said that.A Papaya wrote:GuessNabakovNabakov wrote:Is it a (singular) Papaya or a(rnold) Papaya?
@Stewie: Actually, on another website, my name was A Banana, and when I became a visible member, as a joke the admin changed it to A Papaya. It's never changed back.
It seems scummy because it's redundant to say that. Imagine if everyone claimed. Everyone would claim to be on the town's side.Off the Mark wrote:Or maybe it's simply the truth. This is part of my playstyle, I say daring things that get people to respond and then I see how they react to them. I've got lots of useful info already. It's better than pages and pages of random voting.
While I agree with the general sentiment of the post, the bolded bit is seems out of place.Yeah, but the wording is awfully...meh. It might be the truth,and it probably is, but if it wasn't a noobtell I don't know why'd you go and say it.It's almost as bad as saying, "You can trust me, I'm not mafia."
The Highland Sage: I don't agree with your last comment, since I don't think that voting inactive players is a logical fallacy, but before refuting that, I have a question: what makes you think that mafia are more likely to use this fallacy than town? It does not follow that because it's a fallacy, it's also scummy.Nekka-Lucifer wrote: I'm not saying that he must be mafia because he voted me..... It's just that he was scum last game and he seems to be 'trying' to make it seem like he is townie... but now, because it's just going in a big loop (WIFOM), and it was Off the Mark that suggested it, and he is looking for info (meaning he doesnt know who is mafia) I have come to the conclusion that he is a townie....
Unvote
Vote: Stewiejust because he was away at some point .... I don't know the story, oh well.... That may lead to the impression as that he is mafia because..... 'longest post ever done' *sigh* he doesn't need to work anything out... I don't really know to be honest.... and I can't believe we are on the 3rd page still with 'no votes' (see my previous post on pg2)
No, it's not conclusive. It doesn't have to end in a lynch, but it's a good place to start since there's nothing better. What do you suggest we do?A Papaya wrote:is that really conclusive evidence? I don't just want to lynch someone based off the argument "He's the best we've got".Stewie wrote:Unvote: a papaya; vote: Nekka-Lucifer
Mainly because:
1. I don't understand why he took his vote off "Off the Mark."
2. I don't understand why he's voting me now ("longest post ever done"? "he doesn't need to work anything out"?)
3. He hasn't explained why he cares so much about people who are not voting. His explanation was "Just asking." We know that, butwhyare you asking?
4. Already voted three different people.
5. I don't think there's any better reasons to vote for anyone else right now, and I think it's time for the game to start moving somewhere.
Can you be more specific? His post was composed of three reasons. Which part is reasoning which makes him seem more like scum than nekka, and what's the "rest of the post" which you agree with?A Papaya wrote:Meh. Using that reasoning, you seem more like scum then him. However' I agree with the rest of the post.Off the Mark wrote:After reading things over a few more times, I am going to put my vote back where it was.
vote: Nekka-Lucifer
Three reasons:
1. "No offense if yer a townie" - trying too hard to fit in - no one else felt "bad" about their random votes.
2. Pushing everyone to vote - what's the hurry? Short days favor the mafia.
3. This reason is going to sound odd, coming from me, but he accepted me as townie a little too quickly, don't you think? I was surprised when I first read his post that he had suddenly dropped all suspicion of me. I know he said that he accepted that I was probing for info, but the way things played out, it seems like he must have had inside information. I don't think I said anything worthy of townie confirmation.FoS: Nekka-Lucifer, but I want to give him a chance to defend himself before I confirm a vote.
The fact that Nabokov said something doesn't make it true. Lurker bandwagons are not "bad." I find them to be beneficial, particularly early in the game.The Highland Sage wrote: Now, does this set of anyone else's scumdar? Especially after Nabokov has already reiterated how bad it is to vote absentees. My vote is already on Lowell, so
FoS Lowellfor attacking me with a completely bottomless argument.
Not to mention that you kinda needed to make that post to change your vote. It was a helpful post in the sense that you revoted.~N9V~ wrote:Sorry Aims... but there isn't much I can add to vote hopping charges.
Are you saying that lurker wagons are bad, or that you saying something makes it true? I know you are wrong about the former, and also the latter by extension, but I was wondering.Excuse me, but I beg to differ.
Wine In Front Of Me. It refers to a movie where the good guy puts a glass of wine in front of the villain, and one in front of himself, and tells the villain that one of the glasses has poison in it. The villain proceeds to try to think it through the following way: "Obviously, the one in front of me is poisoned. Unless of course, you predicted me thinking this and switched the glasses so that the one in front of me is not poisoned, therefore I should drink this one. Of course, you could have foreseen that I would have figured this out and switched the glasses so that once again, the one in front of me is poisoned..."Nekka-Lucifer wrote:What's WIFOM?Aimee wrote:Nekka, you use too much WIFOM. Stop, please.
I don't respond to baseball analogies.Off the Mark wrote: I find it a little odd that Stewie, HS, and Nabakov all posted without much of a response to my N-L & Hjallti scum duo theory.
When he said that, I was going to make a "blood stains with your DNA on the murder weapon" joke, but I realized that there's no dead body yet so that wouldn't have been so funny.Off the Mark wrote:This is another reason I am suspicious of Nekka - he asked for "HARD PROOF" of Hjallti's scumminess. It's day 1! There's no such thing as "HARD PROOF".
A claim as in saying what your role is. I know you are new, so I'll tell you this: it is in your best interest at the moment to tell us what your role isNekka-Lucifer wrote:A claim of what?
The '(amusment for A Papaya)' bit is because he says that ohh... nvm
Off the Mark wrote:Clearly he felt that "no offense if yer a townie" line was enough to justify his early vote. Then as things proceeded, he decided his initial suspicion was justified. It's not a hard concept to understand. I do think it's interesting that you keep pestering him, Nabakov.
If N-L turns out to be innocent, then we may have something to look into with CTD... but there are others will have to be accountable for their actions. (myself included)
What exactly makes you think he's more likely to experiment with a scum or SK role? Is there a reason why you find his "new" playing style particularly scummy?Off the Mark wrote:You know what? I agree 100% with Nabakov. We need to hear from CTD. I have read other games of his and I know he is a smart guy who usually does solid analysis. So what the heck is he doing here? Is this some sort of playstyle experiment? If so, it seems to me more likely to experiment with a scum or SK role. We need his input so we have something to evaluate.
vote: CrashTextDummie
When I told Nabakov (?) not to defend NL, it was because Nabakov was making assumptions as to what a post NL made actually meant. If NL was scum, he could have said "oh, yeah, that's what I meant." However, I am not speculating about the meaning for CTD's posts. I'm just saying that voting for someone just because they are playing differently is crappy logic; unless you can actually explain why it's more likely for someone to experiment as scum than as town.Off the Mark wrote:Let's let him defend himself, shall we?Stewie wrote: What exactly makes you think he's more likely to experiment with a scum or SK role? Is there a reason why you find his "new" playing style particularly scummy?
That's a good question. He is giving explanations now, but he gave none at the time.Aimee wrote:Just want to say that I agree completely with CTD's analysis so far. In fact, I don't see him as a big suspect anymore - although some things are still unexplained.
My main question now - why did you vote for A Papaya and FoS Bobbyplumb (something that is still unexplained) but give no reasoning?
Ok, I take aggressiveness to be anti-town (looks as if you are using strong language to make your point seem stronger than it really is) so I'll~N9V~ wrote:A) It wasn't a gut feeling. I thought he was scum.
B) How the fuck is getting emotional and what I'm thinking a paradox?
And C) As I've said earlier, your right, let's not take away any information from this lynch and continue lynching random people.
Unvote, Vote N-Nfor being a complete idiot.
Why didn't you consider, you know, not killing?~N9V~ wrote:It was between OTM and Lowell, because they bothed seemed scummy to me. But i've played a game with Lowell, and i know how he acts when hes town. And he definetly didn;t act liek he was town.
Right now, I can't really say that apart from N9V I'm convinced anyone else is scum, but I'm getting scummy vibes from Off the Mark Pickemgenius (however not his replacee) and bobbyplump.CrashTextDummie wrote:2. Stewie
Interest to hunt scum seems pretty low. Most of his posts are comments on token bits of analysis/theory, or questions for players to clarify certain statements. The only real commitment he made so far was to his vote on N-L.
What I find interesting is the fact that while he made (what I consider to be) the original case against N-L, and confirmedoncethat N-L is his preferred play, he never actively pushed for the lynch. I get a sense of apathy from his posts during this time, which indicates to me that he may have been laying low after having gotten the ball rolling, leaving the grunt work to others.
This changed somewhat once N-L came close to being lynched:Stewie wrote:A claim as in saying what your role is. I know you are new, so I'll tell you this: it is in your best interest at the moment to tell us what your role is in your own words. Do not quote the mod PM.Stewie wrote:How about you try to defend yourself?Curiously, the feeling I'm getting from these posts is that he's talking to a townie, and knows it. At the very least, they don't sound like words coming from a man who's ready to lynch the person he's talking to.Stewie wrote:You never really tried...
As for D2, I don't see any real scum-hunting efforts from him at all until he joined the ~N9V~ action.
Here's a couple of questions for you, Stewie:
Apart from ~N9V~, who do you think is scum? Who do you think is town? You've been a shadow so far (which is somewhat of a contrast to Mini 380, the last game we played together).
If someone is acting scummy, the first thing I think is that they are scum. I voted for him because I thought he was scum (or at least that he could be scum) and he said nothing to change my mind. What you call me trying to nudge the bandwagon in the right direction was actually me trying to get NL to defend himself. I never expressed doubt because I never really thought he wasOff the Mark wrote:Also, I said I was suspicious of Stewie a while back, but I never laid out my case against him - it is somewhat similar to CTD's:
Although I was the most vocal about Nekka's scumminess, I wavered a lot about whether or not he was actually scum or just acting scummy. Stewie never wavered. Whenever the bandwagon started to go off the rails, Stewie was there to subtly nudge it in the right direction. Now this could be possible for a misguided townie to do, as well, but since he never expressed doubt about N-L, (as far as I remember, anyway) it makes me think he knew the truth already.
Posts where Stewie exhibits this behavior:
snip
I realize that these posts do not mean that Stewie is definitely scum. It is simply my evidence that Stewie subtly kept Nekka's bandwagon headed towards a lynch on Day1 and did not express any doubt in his scumminess.
No, it's a terrible idea, unless you actually don't think N9V is the SK. You even said it yourself, later in the same paragraph, it's a risky move. Better play it safe and lynch someone we are pretty sure is scum rather than leave them aside for later to go after something that's not that certain.This is a pretty good idea. We could leave him alive and see if/who he kills. That would give us more info for sure. If we lynch wrong though, and he kills town, and mafia kills town - yikes, we are not going to recover from that. So it would be quite risky.
I knew you'd say something like that, that's why I said that even you seem to think it's a risky move. If, of course, we get another player which we are reasonably sure is scum, then we can leave n9v for tomorrow, but right now n9v is the right choice. Since CTD already posted what he wanted to post, I will reOff the Mark wrote:I meant "good idea" as in "something good to think about" - not sure if the risks outweigh the benefits yet. Since YOU seem to think it is a terrible idea though, it makes me think we should do it.
From a scum perspective, ofcourseit's a terrible idea. This doesn't necessarily mean it is the best move for the town though. We need others to weigh in.
Here's my clear perspective:Hjallti wrote:Indeed, that is why I unvoted. It is a strange situation at this point apparently. It would be nice if some of the more experienced players would put think is a clear perspective.
Is my C9-scenario as likely as I think it is?
Is that scenario desirable over a (5T-1M-1SK) sort of thing we might achieve by lynching mafia (risking 4-2-1 anyway)?
Why would mafia try to kill you if they can lynch you? Keeping you alive just gives you an extra night, in which you may or may not kill a mafia. From a mafia perspective, it doesn't really matter whether the town lynches you or not as long as we don't lynch one of them, because there's roughly an equal chance of you killing a town than killing a mafia. From a town perspective, you gotta go as soon as possible so you stop killing.~N9V~ wrote:O.K Stew, lets take your reason into perspection. Lets say iaman SK. wouldn't you want me around for this night? Because The mafia would hit me, and I would get one morre chance at getting a mafia member. Either way, wether I'm a vig o an SK, today is not the day I should be lynched. Other than that, it's up to the doctochoose wether to protect me or not.
You were lurking. I figured you had a powerrole and were purposely lurking to not give any tells.Aimee wrote:Um, why was I picked? I wouldn't call this one of my crowning achievements, although I was the doc. Was I dangerous?Stewie wrote:I think I did it again night three.bobbyplump wrote: Stewie mentioned killing Aimee on Night 2, and me and NN thought Hijalti instead.