Percy 24 wrote:Vote: flinter
She probably didn't even read her role PM!
WHAT A SCOOP!flinter 8 wrote:[fluffy post without confirming]
also, /confirm
Least. Convincing. Random. Vote. EVAR.
Percy 24 wrote:Vote: flinter
She probably didn't even read her role PM!
WHAT A SCOOP!flinter 8 wrote:[fluffy post without confirming]
Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Hey Vi, I remember a game where there was an early kerfuffle over you putting (L-X) after your votes; now I don't know the end result of all that but why no (L-X) count here?
hohum 17 wrote:Vote: xRECKONERx for reasons to be stated by DDD.
hohum 21 wrote:go go gadget wagon.
I smell a scoop coming on...hohum 32 wrote:QFT.
He's obviously looking for someone to lash out at.
Out of all the people on your wagon, why chose kyle?
WHAT A SCOOP!flinter 36 wrote:VI
With profound, 100% confidence unheard of before on this site... Probably.flinter 36 wrote:Do you think Hohum is scum for saying that?
Ah yes, you showed!Zachrulez 38 wrote:What interview exactly?
"Suspect Asked About Motivation, Claims Anti-Town Intent", end quote.Zachrulez 40 wrote:That's how I random vote, arbitrarily.Vi wrote:Ah yes, you showed!Zachrulez 38 wrote:What interview exactly?
Could you explain why you chose to vote THAT target with THAT reasoning, instead of any other?
Everyone else voted for personal reasons; yours seemed to have been chosen to be as arbitrary as possible and I know fully well that you've played with many of us before.
A bold statement coming from someone who's voting L. Lamora based on his avatar and hasn't bothered to do better.Zachrulez 44 wrote:However, I think we have differing ideas of what is acceptable in RVS, and you're grasping at straws if you think this is the best reason to vote someone at this point.
My... status?hohum 45 wrote:I've noted the fact that you would sooner play to maintain your status than to catch scum.Vi wrote:With profound, 100% confidence unheard of before on this site... Probably.flinter 36 wrote:Do you think Hohum is scum for saying that?
I would be voting hohum right now, but I think my interview with the prestigious winner of the Most Contrived Random Vote award is still worth keeping on schedule.
...and what are you basing that on? It should not behohum 50 wrote:Fine. I'll rephrase.
You would sooner play to do... what ever the fuck it is you're doing right now than to catch scum.
"Questioned Avoids Direct Answer; Blanket-Replies 'Deal With It'", end quote.ekiM 54 wrote:Vi, are you going to be posting `in character' all game?
ortolan 86 wrote:Vote: Reckoner
VP Baltar 100 wrote:ekiM ~ L-4 (Locke Lamora, ortolan, Vi)
WHAT A SCOOP!VP Baltar 1 wrote:Unvotes are required.
Much as I wouldn't mind a vote on hohum, right now I'm looking at someone else. Again, multiple suspects, one vote. Hold me accountable to the hohum suspicion when I'm done exploring.Sotty7 87 wrote:Not liking Vi's vote on ekiM. I'm not following the logic here, seems to be actively avoiding hohum.
Define please.L. Lamora 104 wrote:I thought it wasinterestingthat Vi noted Flutter is posting to type so far - it didn't seem to be a statement that indicated any specific thoughts about alignment but left room for defending Flutter later should the need arise.
flinter is obviously a calmposter. I've seen this from her in MD, and it's pretty obvious just from her overall posting tone. Which is why when I looked at flinter's scum - or Town - or something - game, I was surprised to see that she was acting more or less NOT like what I've seen ITT. Given that (apparently) she was trying to be Town in the linked game, and here she's acting much more cautiously (to the point of being almost entirely noncommittal), I had to balk. Plus I think she likes antagonizing me, so I'm more or less done liking her on a personal level.Locke Lamora 112 wrote:I see you've now somewhat revised your view of flinter based on a previous game, so where did the rationale for your previous flinter statement come from if not meta?
But is it scummy?Percy 114 wrote:Regarding post restrictions: I'm not convinced it's a post restriction. I think people who are jumping on Vi and demanding that she explain herself seem to be both (1) opportunistic and (2) paranoid.
"Subject Not Trying To Scumhunt Yet Perfectly Fine With That", end quote.kyle99 118 wrote:I just don't have any other leads.
I smell a scoop coming on...Percy 114 wrote:Regarding post restrictions:I'm not convinced it's a post restriction.I think people who are jumping on Vi and demanding that she explain herself seem to be both (1) opportunistic and (2) paranoid.
This is a strange inconsistency. Didn't you see this the first time?Vi 107 wrote:This is not a post restriction
FoS is scummy on policy; you of all people should know why since you were in the game where I was sigged for saying so.Percy 122 wrote:As for kyle, his (1) weak agreement with xRx's vote, (2) weak attack of xRx's bandwagon and (3) no other substantive contributions is noted. FoS: kyle99.
As hohum pointed out, this never happened.Percy 114 wrote:anddemandingthat sheexplain herself
This is out of place. Not so much for flinter, but definitely for you - you're not this nice.Percy 34 wrote:Thank you! I should also say hi to all the people I've played with before, because you are Good People (But Maybe Scum).
He's answering your theory questions, but that's about it...flinter 124 wrote:Ekim is actually trying to answer and ask questions.
Why no offense?kyle99 121 wrote:No offense,but that's some pretty weak reasoning.
This isn't the kind of answer I wanted...flinter 156 wrote:I have played on another forum before, with a small group of players.
flinter 156 wrote:In case you don't, could you please unvote, because your name is so long that I thought I was lynched when I saw that votecount
The cheese was endearing on Page 2. You can stop now.flinter 163 wrote:This doesn't have to be malicious.
Not really; what would give you that impression?ekiM 157 wrote:Is the Percy-hate all predicated on his talk about post restrictions?
This isn't the right question.Percy 155 wrote:@xRECKONERx: You have mentioned twice that you have a meta-town-read on Vi, but you've retracted that now. What made you think that her play was town-Vi?
So... you don't have anything to say about the game and aren't caught up at all, but had this pressing need to warn everyone that I'm not easy to read (in spite of like nobody really calling me Town). Plus you're hanging around GD.xRx 170 wrote:Yeah, I'll try to catch up and get some content here soon. I'm posting this in all my games: this is an incredibly stressful/busy week for me. Two mid-terms, a six minute short film project to edit, a ten minute oral Spanish presentation, and a ten page script are all due within the next five days.
Mafia has to take a backseat for a bit.
Only in every game. We've only played together once, and I... actually, I don't remember if I vote-hopped so much in that game in particular.ortolan 182 wrote:Do you normally move your vote around so much on day one by the way? I can't recall you having done it to such a great extent in the past.
Right now you aren't voting anyone (or rather, you're voting for jack, Jack~). That's notJack 263 wrote:What?You moved your vote someplace where it's neither helpful nor credible?
Read more carefully.
Let's go the other way then. Why not vote?Jack 265 wrote:It's looking like I'll vote xRecks, but the fact that I'm not voting anyone is irrelevant. That "by not voting your not helping" line has always been bs.
kyle99 #2 wrote:Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:20 pm
My opinion on xReck is fairly town. I've never played with him as scum
kyle99 was in the above-quoted game, although he was replaced due to activity delinquency (he said he was in the hospital but didn't bother telling anyone - this was before he joined this game, so I'm presuming that incident was over when he joined this game). While kyle didn't post in the endgame, at the time he was replaced he had just voted xRx on suspicion of being scum, and I would be fairly surprised if he didn't keep up with the game even after he had replaced out.KittyMo, Mafia in Mo Town wrote:Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:59 pm[notice: under nine hours before the above quote]
xRECKONERx, Mafia Goon, Survived and fulfilled his win condition Day 4
don't ask him questions about his scumbuddy like that; he'll talk about how he isn't into this game againJack 286 wrote:So what do you think about what Vi said about kyle?xRECKONERx wrote:Actually, more tidbits about that game:
The only non-RVS vote I received that entire game was from kyle99.
How does SpyreX do it?xRx #2 wrote:Re: kyle99 - he wants to lynch me despite the fact thatI've lead wagons on him as scummore times than I have as town.
I would like to see your response to Vi's 284 and 287.ortolan 288 wrote:I just isoed kyle, the only scummy thing I noticed is
Which is kind of a weird thing to say. I would like to see kyle's response to Vi's 284 though.kyle ISO 6 (to ekiM) wrote:You make some decent points on me,
When was this?xRECKONERx 29 wrote:@ekiM: I'm not straight edge. Not by a long shot. lrn2GDkyle99 wrote:vote: xReck
Always up for voting him
Re: kyle99 - he wants to lynch me despite the fact thatI've lead wagons on him as scum more timesthan I have as town.
Unvote; Vote: Kyle99
Mayor Mafia, you mean the one where you were killed N2 and kyle99 was lynched D3? Meaning he saw you as scum in that game and most certainly knew you were scume, contradicting kyle #2.xRECKONERx wrote:I think it was Mayor Mafia and one other one that I can't seem to remember right now. It's on my wiki page.
Fixed to what that word was absolutely supposed to be.~Vi 305 wrote:Mayor Mafia, you mean the one where you were killed N2 and kyle99 was lynched D3? Meaning he saw you as scum in that game and most certainly knew you werescumé, contradicting kyle #2.
At the time I said that, there were a lot of two-person and one-person bandwagons and everyone was split up doing their own thing, and I felt nothing was getting done. However, I thought I had come across a legitimate lie from kyle99, plus the wagon was directly tied to xRx (who had the largest bandwagon at the time), plus ekiM's support. In other words, it was a new bandwagon that had potential.Percy 308 wrote:I think it's strange that Vi admonished the town thusly:...yet votes for someone without any votes on them two days later, four days before deadline. Also, the admonishment comes just after I first posted my case on hohum, and I thought it smelt a little like a chainsaw behind "Pro-Town Advice". I've already noted the interaction between hohum and Vi, and this isn't making me feel any better.Vi 212 wrote:"Town Fragmented And Useless; Petition Signed For Fewer, Larger Bandwagons", end quote.FoS: Vi
"Deadline Approacheth; Fatalism Reigns In the Face Of Impending Doom", end quote.Sotty7 322 wrote:I'm not the type of player to gather a bandwagon to my cause by pressuring others unless I am utterly convinced I have scum or the deadline is coming, just my style.
Even when she's Town I feel like I'm getting played by Sotty.Zach 321 wrote:On the other side of the coin, the number of times you have played me as scum... well, the number's a lot higher than 0.
...which doesn't contradict anything I said.ortolan 361 wrote:Easy wagons would be DDD or possibly XreckonerX, whose wagon I have moved off.Vi wrote:ortolan has been playing what seems to be a very passive game so far, and he's found easy reasons to be on easy wagons all the way down
This almost made me laugh out loud.ortolan 361 wrote:You do know you have a very very bad habit of trying to get me lynched when you're scum, a tell which has been accurate in 2/2 games (100% of the time). Why is this tell not valid in this game? On day one no less? So close to deadline having not commented on me all day? You must be trying hard to make me drop a scumread on you.
Playing OMGUS against me is the easy thing to do; the reasoning is easy to BS. That's not to say I don't think there's a good chance of hitting scum there, especially in comparison to lynching a VI (which is the mother of all easy lynches).ortolan 361 wrote:Tearing my case apart on Jack/flinter and hohum is the easy thing to do, the reasoning isn't ostensibly that good. That's not to say I don't think there's a good chance of hitting scum there, especially in comparison to lynching a lurker (which is the mother of all easy lynches).
ortolan: I'm not sure how many unique players you voted but I countedortolan 363 wrote:Vi: I'm not sure how many unique players you voted but I counted seven vote movements total on day one. This leaves an effectively meaningless paper trail for your votes on subsequent days and I kind of have a hard time buying the idea that you always move your vote so erratically.
For suspecting you. That's so low it's legitimately funny.ortolan 369 wrote:If it wasn't clear Vi is another potential wagon I would show interest in but I assumed no-one else would vote him.
You got all of mine, plus Locke Lamora for the same reason you said (although I don't think it would happen).ekiM 365 wrote:It would be good if everyone would make it clear what wagons they will support.
says the person who doesn't say anything about ekiM doingLL 368 wrote:I particularly don't like his recent vote on ortolan which is in clear contrast to his call for bigger wagons and I feel it's too close to deadline for a major change of direction.
That was then; this is nowLL 368 wrote:I'm also dubious of him saying he's having a hard time getting reads; it doesn't seem to fit with the tone of his posts.
lol, who's your altortolan 371 wrote:and also in Phate's game...Deathnote, when you were scum.
Sotty, get over here and tell me how many times I've avoided taking credit for a wagon I've been on.ortolan 372 wrote:It also makes sense with your really dodgily timed vote on me so close to deadline, so you can avoid taking responsibility for membership of a viable wagon.
hohum's vote really is locked onto xRx7
Hohum - ekiM, Jack, ortolan, Percy, Vi, xRx, Zach(3rd choice)
5
xRECKONERx - DDD,hohum,Percy, Sotty, Locke
4
Jack(flinter) - Jahudo, ortolan, Sotty, zach
Locke Lamora - Jahudo, ekiM, Vi, Sotty
3
Debonair Danny DiPietro - ekiM, Jahudo, zach
Ortolan - ekiM, Jack, Vi, Sotty
Sotty7 - Locke(?), Vi, xRx
Vi - Jack(?), Locke, ortolan
I don't remember if he's done it before. I was commenting on the irony of him saying his vote was locked before going on V/LA.Jahudo 406 wrote:@Vi: Did you elaborate on the "locked on" thing? Is that something hohum has done before? (I can't remember if it was in bebop or another game I should know about)
You're basically wrong, and this argument is stupid.Jack 410 wrote:-Your vote is doing jack, VI~Vi wrote:Your vote wasn't on anyone. Mine's on scum. tyvmJack 408 wrote:And you were lecturing me about my vote being somewhere that wasn't "helpful".
You're nothelpinganyone and it's lending nocredenceto your dedication.-
So let me get this straight.ortolan 420 wrote:can someone explain to me why it's so hard to get Vi lynched when he's obv-scum? Do you think maybe he's capable of faking his "protown" play considering he never gets lynched and I'm apparently the only one who can consistently read him (although he usually calls the mod in to try to get me out of the game when that's the case anyway)
ortolanLocke Lamora 417 wrote:I can't say I'm particularly enthusiastic about any of these wagons. I'm going to read back and decide where best to place my vote as the Reck wagon is clearly not happening.
hohum reported in wounded here, and I'm not going to hold that against him. I was simply pointing out irony.Jahudo 424 wrote:I don't think that happened. When did hohum go on V/LA, and when did he say his vote was locked on? All I can find is you asking if his vote was "locked on", and he said yes.Vi wrote:I don't remember if he's done it before. I was commenting on the irony of him saying his vote was locked before going on V/LA.Jahudo 406 wrote:@Vi: Did you elaborate on the "locked on" thing? Is that something hohum has done before? (I can't remember if it was in bebop or another game I should know about)
I agree that I'm bothered by how he called his vote final well before the deadlinewhile still listing two other suspects. That IMO is the strongest point against him.
is a misrep ofVi wrote:In fact I would rather be voting flinter, Percy, and xRx at the same time"
hohum wrote:I've only got one vote. If I could vote all 3 of them I would.
I believe scum are more likely to fake final confidence.Jahudo 427 wrote:This is just a disagreement on a tell I guess. I think scum would want to keep their options open longer, but town feeling really confident in a wagon are owning up to it more.
Just briefly, why?Jahudo 427 wrote:Vi is bumping up my suspect list quick.
There's this thing called "changing your mind" that people occasionally try. Saying your vote is final means that you have zero plans to do so, which is something seldom seen and more often done by scum.Jahudo 430 wrote:Vi, it looked like your paraphrasing implied that hohum was equally suspicious of flinter, percy and recks. Yes, "at the same time" could mean "if I had multiple votes", but you're still arguing that hohum could possibly move his suspicions of flinter and percy up after his vote became final. But his other posts explain why he wasn't going to do that.
I'm not sure how flinter could become more suspicious to hohum, since he had already replaced out before hohum made his vote final.
And I'm not sure how Percy could become more suspicious to hohum, since hohum said he would specifically deal with Percy the next day before hohum made his vote final.
'Must be some pretty impressive suspicion if I wound up bumped to third place...Jahudo 430 wrote:I'm suspicious of you for misrepresenting hohum. That's all for now.
But unless it happens liek soon, I'm not going to know whether he will extend the deadline or not before I leave.Zachrulez 432 wrote:You guys should read post 423 again.
VP Baltar 423 wrote:Let's not bring past drama into this thread. I'm going to discuss it with ortolan andifhe wants to replace out still, I will be extending the deadline to Friday.
I will update everyone soon.
I'd love to have DDD lecture you on this.Jahudo 441 wrote:You've seen that more often done by scum? I'm not sure I've ever seen it actually, but I like empirical data. Lacking that, I just feel like its a bad play for scum to make.Vi wrote:Saying your vote is final means that you have zero plans to do so, which is something seldom seen and more often done by scum.
If scum make a final vote on a town wagon that gets to a lynch, the next day that scum is open to every suspicion going along with his decision. Like, "this guy was also your suspect and look what he did near deadline! Die scum die!"
If scum makes a final vote on a town wagon when a competing wagon is on scum that gets to a lynched, the next day town will wonder why someone was no way going on the scum wagon. Scum will be under suspicion.
If scum makes a final vote on a wagon that doesn't go to a lynch, and town is lynched somewhere else they're open to the suspicion that they're vote was being wasted on a wagon that wouldn't go anywhere. They effectively disowned the lynch wagon.
If scum makes a final vote on a scum wagon, well that's just pretty pro-town actually
May I see that game?Locke Lamora 447 wrote:Vi: because that's exactly what I thought about Reckoner.When I played with town-Reck,he never expressed a desire to give up despite being wagoned to claiming on D1. His 'lynch me' post was a clear departure from that and I immediately thought exactly what ortolan did.
:balrog:Jahudo 451 wrote:Huzzah!
I'm good at what I do.Jahudo 451 wrote:(what do you call it, authority or popularity that never gets you lynched?)
...end quote.Debonair Danny DiPietro 456 wrote:"Individual seeks to punish opposition with speech from overbearing bore"Vi wrote:I'd love to have DDD lecture you on this.
...which is one neat graphic more than your average post?xRx 461 wrote:Percy 428: "I'm too tired and drunk to make a post with content... but I'll be damned if I'm not too tired and drunk to make a neat graphic to go with my post"
Juuuuuuuuust checking, but did you read that me vs. Jahudo discussion earlier?ekiM 467 wrote:hohum later finalized his vote for xRx, on no extra evidence, so he thinks what xRx is bad enough to be auto-worth a lynch, final vote, no questions asked.
Jack 463 wrote:Kyle replaced out of this game and another game (where a cop had a guilty on him) with the same message, but he's still involved in games on the site.
I actually said that ortolan was going after easy wagons, not VIs. Offhand I don't have a problem with that particular post; however, I suspect that if ekiM is scum, kyle is not (based on that post). ekiM was joining Jack's vote for kyle; aside from orto jumping late on the Jack/flinter wagons (twice) they haven't voted for each other so far. ekiM/Jack/orto sounds fairly plausible ta me; the only Town read it contradicts is the one I had on flinter (not Jack) and I don't have any particular scum reads outside that beyond Locke Lamora (which isn't strong enough to hold on to at this point) and kyle (who as I said I want to reserve judgment on).LL 485 wrote:Vi: you suggested that ortolan going after the VIs was scummy; on the same grounds, what do you make of ekiM's early post where he listed kyle, Reck and myself in his scummy category?
Jahudo 500 wrote:I'm confused. How do I get a wagon placement of 12 or 15?
Anyone you want to defend with that?Jahudo 505 wrote:Ah, so jumping on a wagon late + not being on many wagons = possibly suspicious?
And starting wagons + being on alot of wagons = possibly pro-active pro-town?
I can see the theory behind it but there's variables to consider. vote hopping may be opportunistic in some situations. random vote stage votes don't carry as much weight as votes right now.
So he requested replacement and threw an AtE in on the way out. Aside from the silliness of the order mattering, I'm reasonably sure the emphasis was more on the emo than the actual quitting. I can only be reasonably sure because I'm arguing for hohum, which isn't a position I particularly like being in but etc..ekiM 510 wrote:This is just false. BC gave no warning before replacing out. For the second time: have you read the linked content hohum provided?Vi wrote:I (still) believe all of ekiM's points are utter horseradish contrived to push a hohum lynch, to give a particular example because of what LL said in 485. BloodCovenent DID give warning+AtE before replacing out in the linked game; flinter did not.
From your perspective where "ignoring flinter" was directly related to her replacement, it would be aekiM 510 wrote:I'd also like to know why you said: "The point about ignoring flinter is kind of not based in reality, because from where I'm sitting flinter replaced out just after hohum quasi-flamed her. You call that ignorance?". Do you agree that that was a non sequitur?
The former, for reference.ekiM 510 wrote:Are you saying I'm using a case that I know is terrible, or that I'm so blinded by being scum that I can't see that it's terrible? Neither makes much sense.Vi wrote:The case is so bad and so positioned that it's blatantly scummy on the level of play that I know ekiM plays at (he was on the invitation list for the F&E game I just got out of IIRC).
A vig would have plenty of business in this game.DDD 507 wrote:I seriously hope someone kills[xRx]tonight; scum, third-party, town-aligned, whoever, just someone make him dead.
It's not effort really.Debonair Danny DiPietro 513 wrote:I understand 498, I just know Vi is willing to put in that much effort as scum as well as town and from the one game where she pulled out those numbers there was no significant trend to be found in them. So while it's interesting I'm not sure it's useful at all.