Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
VitaminR wrote:Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?
when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.
Unvote: TSAGod
Vote: Thok-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
Allow me to use pretty percentages even assuming that there is no overlap between him being scum and the people voting him being scumAdele wrote:Coron, either VitaminR is suspicious or he's not (I say he is, obviously).
If he is, then the people on his bandwagon are doing the right thing and are suspicious.
If he's not, then the people on the bandwagon are suspicious but you should back off VitaminR.
How can you logically cast doubt on both? Like Thok says, you're trying to have it both ways but, more to the point, I think there's a true dilemma here between the two.
We have nine alive.. let's say 3 of them are scum (making the avg % chance for a person to be scum 33 1/3 %
say(only in theory) I think there's a 52% chance vitR is scum
then, the people accusing him could have as much as a 48%
This is still much much greater than the average of 33 1/3% and could be the second highest.
But of course remember, that the people voting him AREN'T nessisarily town if he is. Even if they are doing the "right thing" voting him, they can still be scum trying to distance themselves some and be seen on the lynch of a scum to try to make them seem protown, and their little content votes still make me suspicious either way.
This isn't even mentioning the possibility of multiple scum groups.
So yes, yes I can have it both ways.-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
lost causeVitaminR wrote:Coron, I am going to attempt to make you see logic one more time. Sorry.
bolding mine, note in recent posts I come back to that point in the "terminology" you talk about later.VitaminR wrote:First it's:
Slightly vague, but it makes sense in principle.Coron wrote:He's been rather jumpy with votes with not much in terms of reasons all the time. Not to mentionthe way he's posting rubs me wrong.
Let me add that your numerous votes day 1 did exist, most of them with at least some rationale I admit, but that doesn't keep it from being being jumpy also note the ALL THE TIME in my initial "find you scummy" postVitaminR wrote:Let's see the evidence against me:
One vote? So in the progression from claim to evidence the scope is already narrowed significantly. Where first it is a posting pattern, it is now one vote. Quoted without the questions I asked first, I might add.Coron wrote:VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.
Unvote: TSAGod
Vote: Thok
Yeah I admit I messed up on this one. I've stated that somewhere already I think though. Point stands though, even if something is "decided apon" by "the town" that doesn't mean you get to blindly follow it, which is what you were trying to use as evidence that I shouldn't be suspicious of you. Also note I wasn't trying to quote pie but rather some other person, can't seem to recall who at this point though.VitaminR wrote:Interpretation of evidence:
Aside from the fact that you show no knowledge of what actually happened by completely misquoting pie, there is not much to this. 1) I assume was in response to my argument that it was a majority decision and is therefore pretty much irrelevant. 2) remains as the "salient" point. Presented in a nice ad hominem fashion, but there is a point here. My vote was "sheep-like."Coron wrote:1) those people could be scum
2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!
ok, maybe I missed something here, but as far as I can tell pie's "information" was just a little, "he's acting too worried about cult"
I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).VitaminR wrote:More interpretation when questioned:
Another misquote of Pie and the situation, it's 12 posts and 3 days later and you still aren't properly aware of the context of your evidence. But that doesn't matter, it's "sheep-like" again. This time based on the fact that I didn't make him claim it.Coron wrote:You followed someone who claimed to have "inconclusive evidence from their role", without even making them claim it.
Very sheeplike.Pie specifically indicated his information would be useless if he claimed it.
you misinterpret my central point my central point is inside of the quote at the top in bold. That's usually my central point about all of the time... also one that's very hard to argue for or against, this is but a very very minor branch of my arguement. Which was I admit proven somewhat wrong. Bolded is where I got the thought processes thing fromVitaminR wrote:When pushed on this:VitaminR wrote:Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first. He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like.I considered what I knew and decided to trust him. Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.
I refute the reason behind yourCoron wrote:How do I know if you think if you don't post anything about it in the thread?central point, the fact that I didn't make Pie claim before following, and you move on to outlining thought processes? Where does that come in?
You were sayingVitaminR wrote:The next bit:
Moving on to general strategy? What about the specific case we're talking about here?Coron wrote:Then how do you catch scum for sheeping(which is very easy and good for them).
That's stupid.
and I was saying, "NO YOU'RE FULL OF BS"VitaminR wrote: Generally though, I think you can assume people think before posting.
his actions so far being the same as scum's seems like he has circumstantial evidence but not proof to me I'm confused on your point, not to mention the whole "catching him in a false claim" thing means he certainly still has some doubt as to whether he's scum.VitaminR wrote:Butyou seem aware of this and bring it back to:
Now Pie had "circumstantial" evidence! The third misquote! It's now 21 posts and 3 days later and the context still eludes you.Coron wrote:VitaminR wrote:Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?
when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.
Unvote: TSAGod
Vote: Thok
to not look too scummy ofc. when you got the least confidence-inspiring answer ever you still followed.VitaminR wrote: Anyway, your point here is that I did ask questions first, but because I did not explicitly acknowledge the response I was merely following it. Why did you think I asked the questions? Because I was going to follow anyway?
see first quote.VitaminR wrote: The next comment:
Now it's terminology? First it was a posting pattern, then it was one vote, now it's the terminology in that one vote? Evidence abounds!Coron wrote:Is it difficult to comprehend thatthe terminologyyou used as your "logic" was very scummy?
questions are not reasons, and my bad, it's 7 words not 5.VitaminR wrote: To sum it all up we get this masterful recap:
5 words is incorrect. I asked 2 questions before it. Essentially this boils down to terminology again.Coron wrote:you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.
for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.VitaminR wrote: Limited info? The easiest thing possible? Show me! Show me how Pie would have ever got away with saying that without claiming relevant information.
You oversimlify again. This is an example not my case.VitaminR wrote: Okay, so what do we have? Terminology? This essentially equals one line.
You haven't given any proper arguments as to why context or reasoning was scummy.
See above.VitaminR wrote: That means this is your case:VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
You've non-randomly voted for 7 players this game, 1 ended up nuetral 1 ended up protown.
As I said before, throughout reading your posts things have rubbed me the wrong way, last time I tried to list those things(this was a long time ago) it was like a huge thing where I quoted every post by the person and pointed out 1-4 things per posts and then got lynched.
It's more of a death by a million papercuts than one big slash that cuts you in two.-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
I find that scummy.VitaminR wrote:
I've admitted the vote was mostly superfluous. Just pressure to get things moving.Coron wrote:I admit the second part you have a point but yes, he did basically say he had circumstantial or inconclusive evidence, it's not a direct quote, but a quote of ideas. You could easily have asked for a claim without voting(omg! I never thought of that one!).
[/quote] actually, it's not that hard to keep up for three days as I see it, especially if day after day you have people claim before you do. But even excluding that, first night: get someone to claim before you second night: you "track" one of your scumbuddies "confirming" you as tracker(especially good if you have investigation immune GF). supsequent nights you can have the other person claim first or for that matter you could, at a point where it's lynch or lose incriminate someone.VitaminR wrote:
Really? How easy do you think fake tracker claims are to keep up?Coron wrote: for instance, once thok claimed he could have easily claimed tracker and gotten away without any trouble at all.
I thought Pie was going to claim Tracker. As I've said before, Roleblocker doesn't bring conclusive evidence at this point. His response to my questions fit a Tracker. That's how I read "his actions so far are consistent with scum."
Sure, there are easier claims to keep up(like townie or doc) but neither of those have the power of the tracker.
anyway we're getting bogged down in details.-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
-
-
Coron Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Shameless Plug
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: November 19, 2004
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.