Mini 572 - Packrats (game over)
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
The last time you tried an early day one wagon on me, Zindaras, you were scum. I'm going to be scrutinizing you a lot more, this time. Just an EFF-WHY-EYE. I believe you (being paragon) are much more apt to be Glorked than I am in regards to surviving night one.Zindaras wrote:WOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLVEESSSS!
They're coming. To eat me.
*hides in a corner*
Vote: Skruffs. He has survived the Night. He is therefore obviously a werewolf.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
No.Zindaras wrote:When was the last time I started an early day one wagon on you? You mean California? For one, that was ages ago. For two, compare the follow-up post in this game to the follow-up posts in California. And note the differences.
Also, I'm not a Paragon. Half of these people probably don't even know me.
It was Dante's in Fresno.
You started a wagon on me, and when I had a few votes on, backed off and pseudo defended me.
Mizzy, Elmo, and eldarad:
All three of you are fossing and voting me because of my avatar?
If you are going to try and find a way to badly bandwagon on someone, you should really confer with your buddies and find *DIFFERENT* *REASONS* for it.
Zindaras:
Also, you obviously didn't recruit me, cultists can't recruit mafia, nyaah.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
If you knew what the game was called, why did you play the dunce when I first mentioned it?
Eldarad:
How did you see my "old avatar", that your preferred enough to vote me, in scum chat?eldarad wrote:Just checking in
vote Skruffs
because I preferred the old avatar better
Unvote, Vote : Zindaras
I'm not going to give you the chance to NK me again, And after the last three games in which you were scum, I think an early strike against you is more beneficial to town.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
I'm confused also by your "The game only identifies vanilla townies."... that strikes me as wrong, because Strappado was not a vanilla townie.
Secondarily, if the scum were allowed to kill n0, then the investigative roles were allowed to target as well.
I'd like to introduce some meta into the game regarding strappado, me, rotten snitch, zindaras, and others. I don't have to but it might be worth stimulating discussion with.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
I didn't say it did Zindaras; however, I did point out that you acted the exact same way at the beginning of California Trilogy, and you were scum in that game, and all you did in response was correct the title of the game and ignore it otherwise. That's a big tell, on you, for me.
I *was* NK'd in that game, and NK'd in the game with Ripley in it after we mislynched him at enggame, and you WOULD have NK'd me in Meadows of Sorrow if you had been alive to be able to do that.
I never inferred you had a policy of NKing me night 1 - when did you infer that?
And I didn't say that you were scum in this game BECAUSE you were scum in the last three games we played in together, I am inferring that you are acting NOW like the scum you WERE in those games.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Well, something I would like to point out is that in the death scene, there is hinting of strappado possibly being a werewolf - perhaps that's just how I interpreted it, though.
I am town, and if I am a werewolf, I am not aware of it;l similarly, and I am thinking of two other games here that is making me go this way; it's possible that we are all werewolves except the 'mafia' who perhaps are a group of outsiders. We don't know HOW strappado was killed (shot vs ate) so that doesn't help.
In Mith's California Trilogy, many of the power roles thought they were characters from a book but were actually famous residents from Fresno California. In Space Monkeys, the townies thought they were mafia, or something along those lines.
All I know about the game is that the theme is werewolves, there's nothing conclusive about there actually BEING werewolves, etc.
The meta was that when the game was still in signups, ether (the mod) asked me about the two n00bs, rotten snitch and strappado, who i know in real life. At least one player in this game right now was in the chatroom when i 'validated' rotten snitch and strappado (This was before roles were assigned and in public) as competent players who I know and who know each other - so one of them dying could be a red herring to get me to attack R.S. or vice versa. I'm not going to use it as such, but that's the 'meta' information I wa sreferring to.
Also I saw patrick and ether promise a scum role to zindaras, but that's beside the point. >.>-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Yes you must be wary of the subtle emote at the end of my sentences, tehy are SO manipulative.
I remember Patrick and Ether saying they had promised scum roles to SEVERAL people before roles were actually sent out. I do not think if they were actually legitimately promising roles, they would have said so out loud, but SINCE the topic of the chat at that time WAS about Ether's game, the theme of which would only be noted as that of "werewolves", I think that it is VERY likely that someone may have overheard it, thought nothing of it, and then remembered during Night 0 when they said "Hmm...' and used it as a reason, for the sole point of creating a situation.
I'm not actually trying to make a situation of it myself, I am merely putting this information out there so that it can be acknowledged and discarded.
Rotten Snitch, I'm curious: The implications of what I was saying was that YOU were being set up the bomb, however, you took that pretty defensively.
Almost as if...
AS IF...
you had a guilty conciounse... >.> <.<-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Hmmm.
Unvote (if necessary) Vote Andycaca
Something about the way he was talking about distancing strikes me as someone who wants to keep attention on BOTH of us without really caring who...
his comment on how RS was voting himself and yet bitching at -2 actually makes me think RS might be town; he can continue to rile people up and if he DOES get close to being lynched (ie -1) he can unvote himself and draw it out a little longer, or turn it around, while putting more attention on those who might seem opportunistic. Andycaca went to the trouble of looking at WHO was on Rotten Snitch's wagon and then calling him out for being on it, deridedly. I think Andycaca wants a clean lynch on Rotten Snitch and he's balking until he feels more comfortable he can get it.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Zindaras, why bitch about worthless info if it's not really worthless, and if you aren't adding any yourself?
You are playing like a superstar, just giving anecdotal analysis without putting yourself 'out there' at all, and even discouraging other players from doing so. Attempt to look ::wise:: without putting yourself in a position to be analyzed. IE flying under the radar. IE what you did in two other games as scum, that I have been in, and after starting the game the exact same way as you did in a Third game, that you were scum in, in which you started by voting me for a bad reason then dropped it to look town later on.
So, regardless of the fact that you have been scum recently, my actual basis for suspicion on you is on your play in this game. If you tend to start bad bandwagons as town in other games, give me an example or two. But if you want me to just say "Oh it's zindaras, yay, so happy to see you" then you can forget it, I've been burned and I'm not giving you any benefits until I have a good reason to; a reason, through your actions this game, that you are not giving me.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
okay, but if you actually looked at my post you would see:Mizzy wrote:FoS: Skruffsfor not leaving past grudges behind back in the games they belong in, drawing focus away from the two scum candidates, and being tunnel-visioned. Zindaras' role/alignment in other games has absolutely no baring on his role/alignment in this one. Get past it.
Mizzy just took Zindaras's "Skruffs says I'm scum because I'm always scum" quote and ran with it, and ignored everything else I said. I think that's called strawmanning, right?Skruffs wrote: So,regardless of the fact that you have been scum recently, my actual basis for suspicion on you is on your play in this game. If you tend to start bad bandwagons as town in other games, give me an example or two. But if you want me to just say "Oh it's zindaras, yay, so happy to see you" then you can forget it, I've been burned and I'm not giving you any benefits until I have a good reason to; a reason, through your actions this game, that you are not giving me.
And if you want me to drop the meta, why didn't you scold Zindaras for:
"Sir T obviously fails to acknowledge my personality, don't know if it's scum stubbornness or simply town paranoia."
This is why I said he is playing like a superstar: He's tried to use his *undescribed* personality as a reason to change people's opinions at least twice so far this game; and I don't like that. And I really don't like how you are being two faced about this, MIzzy.
Before I say anything, I want to suggest
"Elmo is giving me "cruise"-vibes. He's basically cruising through the game without really saying anything. " <- was this backed up?Zindaras wrote:
You can make assertions, but you have to back them up.and even discouraging other players from doing so.
"Why put worthless info in the thread? " <- worthless by your dictation.
'it seems like Y is overanalyzing"
"though Capricious is doing some silly speculation, in my opinion"
"Andycyca's 123 is odd, as pointed out before. Easy talk about distancing." "Skruffs's 130 is flat-out worthless."
"Rotten Snitch's 135 is actually an example of pure WIFOM. Don't see those often. "
None of these comments actually adress anything being said, or encourage discusion at all. The ones that aren't actually denigratory are reviews so vague that there is nothing that can be pulled out of them.
Never said it couldn't be, I said it was designed NOT to be. Look town without drawing attention to yourself. HOW is that not a scum tell?Zindaras wrote:
Oh. So how can my post not be analyzed?Attempt to look ::wise:: without putting yourself in a position to be analyzed. IE flying under the radar.
I've posted this before (where you completely ignored it), but the behaviour in California was completely different from this game. I started off in both games with a joke vote on you. In California, I expanded upon it, actually forcing a wagon and flinging out whatever crap-argument there was.[/quote]and after starting the game the exact same way as you did in a Third game, that you were scum in, in which you started by voting me for a bad reason then dropped it to look town later on.
And then you dropped it, when the wagon got tight, and started defending the very person you helped build a case on.
Yes, but, you dropped it right after I pointed it out, didn't you? If it was a joking random vote, why did you immediately retract it when I drew similarities between this game and another in which you were scum?Compared to this game, where I immediately dropped it the next post and went on to other things, there's really no basis for comparison.
And you didn't drop it, because a few posts later, you popped up with:
SO you didn't QUITE drop it because you later on did a jokey-attempt at trying to draw attention back to us anyways. ANd I hate things like that because they look innocuous until you are dead and scum and people start analyzing your posts to find ties to people. You're not paragon but you DO know how to play; you've been in over a hundred games, so why would you intentionally lay out breadcrumbs like that?Zindaras wrote:I converted Skruffs.
*waits for Cult accusations*
Oh. Well. If you say so, it must be true - right Mizzy?And then add to that the fact that there is no reason to consider it odd behaviour to begin with.
Did you say that she was scum when you did? Did you make a joke about it? How long did it last?We have actually only played three games from the start together (so only three random voting phases). In the third game (Newbie 293), I started by voting voidybuns.
Starting a wagon does not mean getting a wagon off the ground. ANd you ignored about 75% of those paragraphs; which I think should be relevant to you since you seem to eb trying to get people to think of you specially since you have some sort of 'great personality'.Zindaras wrote:
Starting bad bandwagons? Now, this amuses me, here. Where the hell did I start a 'wagon on you here? You mean Mizzy's vote, which was definitely influenced by mine?So, regardless of the fact that you have been scum recently, my actual basis for suspicion on you is on your play in this game.If you tend to start bad bandwagons as town in other games, give me an example or two.But if you want me to just say "Oh it's zindaras, yay, so happy to see you" then you can forget it, I've been burned and I'm not giving you any benefits until I have a good reason to; a reason, through your actions this game, that you are not giving me.
I know you will cry "You're changing the facts", but the facts change significantly if you look at games where we ACTUALLY PLAYED each other (which are the games that affect my opinion of your game play) versus just games that we both were in at one point or another. The basis of my previous experience with you is in fact based on:Zindaras wrote: All you have been saying so far about me this game have been spurious reasons for finding me scummy, laced with lies. For example:
"Factually scum every time but one."Skruffs wrote:Not really. Me and Zindaras have a history, a history in which he wwas factually scum every time but one. So I am trained to be suspicious of him now. I'm still posting out side of that suspicion, but as the number of players dwindle, the more likely i will be to push for his lynch.
Let's check some of the facts here.
Skruffs's games where he was in with me (taken from his current Wiki, which I assume is updated better than mine):
Newbie 293: Skruffs=Scum, Zindaras=Town.
Open 20: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Scum. <-counted this one
Open 35: Big Love[: Skruffs=Scum, Zindaras=Scum. <- you replaced out of this one almost as soon as I replaced in, we didn't play together so I didn't count it.
Famous Cats Mafia: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Town. <- I had forgotten this one, but I shouldn't have, this is the game you tried to get me lynched despite having multiple investigations clearing me.
Mostly Mute Mafia: Haiku Edition: Skruffs=Scum, Zindaras=Town. <- You were not in this game while I was in it, I didn't count it.
Mafia 68: Ork Mafia: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Town. <- you were not in this game while I was in it, I didnt count it.
Two-Headed Mafia 2: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Town. <-we were the exact same role, there was no way we could fight each other, I didnt count it.
Meadows of Sorrow Mafia: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Scum. <-
California: Dantes in Fresno: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Scum. <- the most recent game played and so the bulk of my opinion of your playstyle is based on it.
Kingmaker II: Skruffs=Town, Zindaras=Town. <-the last game I trusted you in.
Skruffs's Scum Ratio: 1/6 (17%)
Zindaras's Scum Ratio:3/6(50%)
I had forgotten about Kingmaker, because I replaced in close to twilight and died that night.
So, what do we find? Skruffs is pushing the "Zindie is always scum" angle so he can't be held accountable when I turn up town, yet his "facts" are, in fact, lies.[/quote]
You are pushing the "Skruffs is trying to say I'm always scum" angle publicly and ignoring the questions I am asking one - on - one. You're not talking to me, you're talking to everyone else; which suggests that you are not responding to my posts as a way to reassure me but rather as a way to lower other player's opinions of my ability to catch scum.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Additionally: It being Day 1, I am purging my system of all the meta-game material and such so that it is out there, and like i said earlier, can be addressed and dismissed. I am pretty sure that everyone would prefer to play stupidly day one rather than day five, and if my beginning assessments are considered in error, than I will continue that. Considering I know Rotten Snitch in real life, I thought it *was* meritted to bring up any information about the game that happened before hand; Zindaras was in the chat room when I Was talking about it with Ether and it's amusing that he is immediately suggesting that I not speculate on who killed her when (of course) that speculation would lead back to him if it was pursued. Of course it also leads back to me and Rotten Snitch, too.
Because I brought that up, I also brought up the meta-analysis on Zindaras. Regardless of that, he *IS* acting fishy, and metas aside I *am not happy* With the way he's playing, it's REALLY getting to me. Mizy has shown up as his buddybuddy, so I am going to investigate her, next. I also have a nother meta I just researched which tells me Zindaras is probably town, but I digress. This is why I am going to investigate mizzy. Her last post struck me as a defensive scum buddy.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Mizzy:
You are saying that I am using Smoke and Mirrors to pull attention from two other players; which begs the question: Why are you so deadset in having one of only two people lynched today and so against explorations into other venues? Do you have a vested interest in other players NOT being investigated/criticized?-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
What are you saying here? That I'm not an adult? That Zindaras isn't trying to coerce Sir T to meta him? That Zindaras *is* using a meta to clear himself, and that's okay, but it's not okay for me to bring meta in as part of my reasons for suspicions of him? You realize I am analysing Zindaras'sMizzy wrote:
Because I don't scold adults. I just call the shots as I see them. Honestly, I have been complaining about the meta crap in general, but (and I realize this is a bit hypocritical, trust me) personality is important to games to me, too.Skruffs wrote:And if you want me to drop the meta, why didn't you scold Zindaras for:
"Sir T obviously fails to acknowledge my personality, don't know if it's scum stubbornness or simply town paranoia."personalityas town or as scum, as the basis for the perceived meta, right?
Also: The "Give me a well thought out case" means nothing to me and is usually a scum tell: you are putting the basis of whether something is a good case solely to be judged by your own discretion, and you are saying in the above post that your discretion is based on a player-by-player basis.
If I said "Give me enough money and I will give you a kiss", I've eestablished two things:
1) the amount of money needed for a kiss is a variable; otherwise I would have said "Give me a nickel", etc. Inasmuch, I can make the amount of money required for that kiss as much as I want it to be, or even not have an amount at all and just allow you to think I have an amount.
2) I'm a hooker, and am only willing to partake in the kissings IF I am financially obligated to.
Since Kissing (or in this case, scumhunting) is the entire point of TOWN'S existance in this game, an unwillingness to scumhunt automatically, indeed, needing to be coerced or bribed by another into scum hunting (or at least agreeing with said scumhunting) does NOT strike me as pro-town.
Please do not take this to indicate I'm calling you a hooker, it's just a metaphor. Similarly, I am not breadcrumbing being a roleblocker.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
You are voting me because my suspicions and theories are ... not connected to this game?
What are they connected to?
What are you getting at, exactly? I am working with the information I have: This game is not giving me enough so I am pulling in outside information to be discussed and used or ignored, and everything I am saying *is* based on the game, but like Mizzy and Zindaras, you are ignoring the parts that actually have to deal with this game, and focussing on the Deliciously Easy Scapegoat of Using Metas.
This coming from the person who suggested that the mafia might be newbies who didn't know who the stronger players were,followed by your own suggestion that they would know strong players would be protected and so targeted a player unlikely to be targeted.
Is this a situation where you are acussing someone of doing the samae thing you did, aka a newbie mistake? Cuz I thought you only did that as scum.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Two different people who AREN'T andycaca are talking about the chalk and chalkboard being broken, but these people are NOT the governors/tally takers, I would assume that it's a flavor post about the deadline, and nothing more. A vote count would help explain this, though.hasdgfas wrote:
Please re-read and note that two different people are attempting to move Andy's vote to 'Unvote' but don't. What other conclusion would you come to? It was my first thought after seeing that the flavor says that they couldn't move it.Skruffs wrote:How did you form that conclusion?
He's unvoted previously, when he unvoted and then voted Rotten Snitch.
So if it turns out that his vote IS immovable, you have a lot of explaining to do for knowing that for no reason.
Wow I'm in both flavor scenes.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
It's absolutely NOT circular logic, Mizzy, and I think you are throwing that word around because you've seen other people do it.
We only get a lynch by voting people.
We have to remain active to prevent losing the ability to lynch today.
Thus if someone is voting, they are helping to reach a lynch.
If someone is posting, wether they are voting or not, they are helping OTHERS to reach a lynch as well.
So being active and voting people is helping to reach a lynch, there is NO REASON not to have a lynch, so people who are NOT being active and NOT voting ARE TRYING TO REACH A NO LYNCH.
This is logic, and it's NOT circular. If you want to debate how no - lynching is good for the town, the stage is all yours, mizzy.
(Incidentally, Mizzy's scumbuddy zindaras is not voting).-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Just considering things here:
If there is a scum group of some sort, and only one (as compared to an individual or multiple smaller partners) then there are probably 3 of those scum.That meansa that out of 11 players, if scum decides to not post after deadline, 6 out of 8 of the town players HAVE to post EVRY 24 HOUR cycle to contin discussion.
Considering we only have TWO WEEKS per day cycle, the current deadline cycle HEAVILY FAVORS no lynching if as many as 3 protown players are even SLIGHTLY inactive at any point during the game after the first two weeks of the game are up. Defending inactiveness therefore helps scum more.
Unvote, Vote Myzzy-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
There are only two players who both haven't posted and aren't voting, not three. Sorry, you lose. I also did not say that scum could ONLY be not-voting and not-contributing, merely that scum WOULD do that if they could. Hopefully, having called that out, town AND scum will both be forced to post more in the fear that if they don't they will get in trouble. All of this seems to go past you, though, even though you claim to not like non-postings and non-voters either.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
You didn't prove anything; You used circular reasoning to try and say I was circular reasoning.
"Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”"
You posited this as your 'circular reasoning model":
If you want to say that it's circular reasoning, fine, but anyone could take ANY scum tell as a course of circular reasoning, which makes scum hunting (in your eyes) completely useless anyways! more on that below this roast:1 scum like no-lynches and
2 participation keeps no-lynch from happening...
3 so, all non-participants must be scum becase
4 Goto line 1
What I said was that people who avoid posting in the next 12 hours and are not voting, ARE SCUM. You have agreed, if not that forcing a no-lynch is scummy, that you at least don't 'like' inactivity. You yourself are posting AND voting. You then tried to use some sort of inverse of what I said to try and clear yourself, which is blatantly ridiculous; you seem to have a vested interest in making sure Zindaras is protected, and you are using increasingly drastic measures to stifle attempts to incriminate him. Unless you are a cop with an innocent on him, are masons with him, or are SCUM with him, or are scum trying to incriminate him, you have no reason to go that far to protect him, and even then, only the fourth option winds up helping *you* to any degree.
Also: And I looked through your posts. You started off the game by following Zindaras on to me. Then you hopped onto Rotten Snitch, the first bandwagon. Until post 6, you do absolutely no scum hunting at all, you talk about fuzzy kittens in more posts than you talk about the game, and you use fuzzy kittens as our reason for voting me in the first place (presumably, seems kind of forced reasoning to me).
At post 6 you start trying to get people to stop scumhunting by saying 'it's only page three' - and by saying nobody can think anyone is scum yet. That was in regards to Sir Tornado saying Zindaras was scumfor buddying up to you.
Zindaras corrects you with correct townie thinking, (which you don't acknowledge), but in your next post you both backtrack and push your case, by saying that random voting is great, even though you said previously that it couldn't have led to anything substantial, which suggests to me you think it's greatbecauseyou don't think it can lead to good scum hunting? You then go on to say that NOBODY could know anyone is scum or not yet, which is directly rebutting Sir Tornado's case against Zindaras without actually addressing the information specifically; not only are you rebuffing it, you don't seem at all interested in the information that leads Sir T to that conclusion - so the idea of Zindaras buddying up to you (as I read your post) is not a concern to you at ALL. The only way, again, that you can know he's not scum is if he's in your scum group, or not in your scum group, or if you are masons, etc. You deride Sir T's case as pure meta, but in retrospect you haven't looked at Zindaras at all.
In your next post you inform the rest of the game that you expect to see, instead of random finger pointing (which you said in a previous post that you love) case and logic, again, in regards to Sir Tornado's case against Zindaras. You repeat that Sir T's case is pure meta; again, but until this point the only scum hunting you have done is dismissing other player's scum hunting while bemoaning the 'loss' of the self-proclaimed frivolous random stage. Or in short:
You don't want to leave random stage, and if the town leaves it, you expect them to jump immediately into sound cases, and you don't want to do it yourself.
This is Primo-scumtalk; as someone who is scum you have the luxury of dismissing 'bad cases' because you *know* whether it is based in fact or not; because of that you have a great opportunity to look pro-town without actually sticking your neck out, I did the exact same thing in a newbie game once which is why I'm picking up on it.
No, I think that itself is pretty good reason: You have deflected several lines of inquiry against Zindaras by multiple players, you do NOT seem to be all that interested in scum hunting yourself AND you have a 'standard' you expect from other players which alows you to ignore wagons/suspicions that aren't 'logical' enough, when the only people who DO have logical, fact based argumetns ARE power roles AND scum. I think you are scum.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Are you *REALLY* insinuating that because scum like to get townies lynched, I must be scum, because I am trying to avoid a no lynch?Y wrote:Skruffs, last time I was scum, I really wanted to get a townie lynched. I believe most scum groups like townies getting lynched whenever they can.
What you're doing, actually, is to encourage a lynch, saying that whoever doesn't is scum, while the actual interest of scum is to get people lynched.
Nice one.
What are you basing this numbers on, when we don't really know anything yet?Skruffs wrote:If there is a scum group of some sort, and only one (as compared to an individual or multiple smaller partners) then there are probably 3 of those scum.That meansa that out of 11 players, if scum decides to not post after deadline, 6 out of 8 of the town players HAVE to post EVRY 24 HOUR cycle to contin discussion.
You seem to have forgotten that (and this is assuming that based on one kill there are no vigs) the only way town can kill scum is by LYNCHING.
It is inherently more important for town to lynch (And possibly be wrong) than it is for scum to mislynch.
While I am not saying scum will not jump at an opurtunity to get a townie mislynched, the longer scum lets deadline drag on, the more likely it is that town can figure out enough to get one of them lynched, so post deadline, they are going to shut up and not vote.
Big Fos : Y
Is there anyone I haven't attacked yet?
Zindaras, Rotten, Andycaca, Mizzy, Y....-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
We have to have a majority of players post every 24 hours to make a deadline, and we have to do it every 24 horus, and we only get 14 days for each day before this has to happen. Basically we have two weeks to quick lynch everyone *every day* or else scum can lurk-kill their way to victory. I think this voting system would be more effective if hte days were a little longer, but that's personal.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
So wait, mizzy:
You go out of your way to deflect or criticize lines of talk that involve zindaras not being town, and then to the exact opposite in regards to me and rotten snitch?
You have made it abundantly clear (to me) that you have a vested interest in protecting zindaras, over other players. Why?-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
note:
mizzy may have indicated thoughts that Capri is town inher last sentence of her last post. Voting himself infers a lack of caring about himself, not necessarily town. It would only be a lack fo caring to town if he himself is town.
Secondarily, an Unvote is less helpful to the town than keeping his vote on himself at least by voting himself he's helping SOME sort of lynch. An unvote followed by a vote on someone else would be more helpful, of course. An unvote would only be helpful, to town, if Capricious is town voting himself, right?-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Mizzy and (zind) are scum, but would prefer to lynch mito help case on zind
Yos is 'fine' and pretending to be town while ignoriing looking at serious things?
(Case against zind was inflamed by others, etc)
Capri is in need of being lynched, don't like players that are playing russian roulette with deadline-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
My justification is that if someone isn't lynched, we don't get information.
Capricious was at three, the person I was voting was at three. I changed to Capricious to put him at 4.
That is my justification: I am trying to get a day one lynch when we have to fight every 24 hours to be able to do that and some people are blithely stalling or trying to entail a nolynch.
I *may* have just said this in my last post, not sure.
Yos: If something looks bad, I should be questioned on it. You are a smart man, you can figure things out. I understand you just replaced in but something about your "Well shucks howdy folks" strikes me as an act. I don't really like it.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Man you are on late!
I am anxious to CORRECTLY END day One, NOT get to night 2. Night 2 is inevitable, and we are playing with a loaded gun by drawing day 1 out. We either get a STRONG wagon on someone other than Capricious, FAST, (because scum would rather not post and let day go to night with a no-lynch then let themselves be quicklynched) OR we lynch Capricious and have SOME info OR we do nothing and let the big ? wait until tomorrow.
Which is most favorable in your eyes?-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Y:
I see absolutely NO posts where you criticized for attacking me. Since you decided to pick a person that several other players have already shown resentment towards, I imagine that you picked a player that you could 'bandwagon'-attack, knowing that your sentiments would be easily shared - and carried, by others. Thus, you attacked someone that would lead to NO risk of yourself being attacked. I do not see WHERE you were attacked, but please quote posts where you were voted against and/or attacked for being suspicious of me. Obviously, I do not count in this, because I am the one who called you out in it.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Can we lynch Mizzy?
I am voting Capri ONLY to ensure a day one lynch, which is town's ONLY WEAPON that we can be sure of at this juncture. I have been saying since the FIRST DAY that we entered deadline that we needed to hammer fast, because otherwise scum will just lay low and wait for the atrophy to sink in until we miss a deadline and lose.
Mizzy is SCUM. D: SCUM I TELL YOU LYNCH THE BETCH!!! If not today than tomorrow.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
Hey, Zindy?
In what instance is a no-lynch better than the lynch of someone who is voting for themself, on a day one?
Mizzy and zindy: in what instances do two players express, in all ways other than verbal acknowledgment, confidence in each other's alignment? I can think of three but maybe you can extrapolate..-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel
So there *are* werewolves? Because other than in flavor text, I haven't seen any indication that we actually are up against wolves.
"Zindaras whistles, and she looks up. Her prodstick brushes Elmo's body, which falls over. There is a ghastly expression on his face, or at least, most of it." Strappado's death doesn't even REFER To how she died.
So other than the flavoring, which we h ave no reason to believe means ANYTHING, there's nothing that concretely suggests that there are werewolves, wolves, lupines erectus, or anything like that in our midst. Unless you just slipped, because you are one?
And if someone was treating me as a townie, and buddying up to me as hard core as the two of you are to each other, I Would be suspicious, unless I was masons, and even then I would be suspicious about why my partner was tying himself to me so strongly.
You are not playing in the townie manner to which I am accustomed, Zindaras.-
-
Skruffs Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Pantsman
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: July 25, 2005
- Location: Tower of Babel