Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[Jal]

VOTE: StrangerCoug

For not confirming.

[Jal]

@Rob

,

Im throwing out spam votes and seeing how people react.

reaction fishing? Idk If id call it that. As I have no idea how u guys play in game.

Rob, you've already completed a game on the site. What do you mean by, "as I have no idea how u guys play in game?" Would you agree with the notion that what you were doing was "reaction fishing" or "fishing for a reaction?"

Also, I'm disappointed by your lack of throwing spam votes around.

@Lurker

Ok... So there was a joke with my username...

Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

So any opinions on the people you've played with before and their current play?

How did you expect Roberto to seriously answer this with Jake having said nothing and NS not doing much by then at this point?

[Jal]

@Jal, I actually thought Jake had something since I remembered his name, but I wasn't asking for a detailed just a simple he sounds normal, a bit more relaxed, etc. Just a small lean thing to continue.

Next, dislike the Lurker wagon. Curious when the last time someone only read a few posts in this short of a game has happened since he stopped reading after 4 posts doesn't seem likely. Nor is it really new for someone to treat early discussion as weak. So mog/jal want to explain it more then that?

Of course you would remember Jake's name since Robert named him as one person he had played before. And ah yes, that RVS voting from Nobody Special, I'm sure there was a lot to glean from those gems.

Lurker has made three votes, one of which was an RVS vote, another which looked like it wasn't totally serious, and one where he came back during a serious discussion and totally brushed off the thread. He didn't treat it as weak, he brushed everything off like it was RVS which is blatantly untrue. It's not really "new" for scum to sit back and actively not participate.

Do you have a town read on our dear friend Lurker?

[Jal]

Lurker, fix dem tags.

[Jal]

Serious posting started towards the end of page one. There was more to comment on then just someone mentioning his name and brushing everything. else

Robert, answer my question about reaction fishing. I have no idea what you're even talking about regarding trying to stay active in the conversation or how it applies to anything I said.

What the hell does your opinion on wanting Lurker lynched have anything to do with my post also? Do you realize my reply to you ended with "@Lurker?"

[Jal]

The more people negatively react to

three

votes on Lurker, one of which is a RVS vote, the more I'm liking this wagon.

[Jal]

A leap?

[Jal]

The question was for you to explain the leap.

Also, we're totally not nolynching. Robert, you just came from a game where you replaced in where town

lynched

scum D1. There is no reason based on playing on this site that I can see you not wanting to lynch today.

So you're saying to more resistance, the more likely that the person is scum and scum-buddies defend each other?

Not necessarily. Scummy scum also love to just defend the shit out of random people thinking they're pro town.

Either way, mama likes seeing reactions, especially when I wasn't even expecting any. Also, it's proving you are actually paying attention to the thread and can actually speak and say things.

Jul It doesn't take 5 votes on a person to call reasoning bad.

It isn't bad no matter how much you want to try and throw the same argument around while ignoring reality.

[Jal]

You realize that logic can just be reflected. If you argue it the same way it doesn't become better when I said it was bad before.
As for the no lynching thing while it's a wrong idea I've argued the same idea a ton off site where people generally play cautiously/don't see how a mislynch isn't worse.
Lastly have you ever played a game where you say someone is scum and everyone who disagrees with you is scum? I doubt it so want to clarify how me defending him is different from a townie thinking your accusations are wrong.

You don't even have a valid argument. You are just making assumptions and arguing it like it actually means something. So you've seen someone do X before. So what? What does it mean? Is it a town tell? A null tell? What is it?

You never even answered my question: Is Lurker a town read?

I know how people offsite think. I have seen them argue it before. This isn't Robert's first game here, though. I really haven't divined any sort of alignment just from that though.

Lastly, I

just

made a post to Lurker clearing up that negative reactions to a wagon doesn't necessarily mean scum. You obviously had to read that post just to respond to my point towards you. Don't pretend to be ignorant. I haven't even called you a scum read and already you're getting all up in your pants about the possibility that I may think so.

Still feelin' like Xis is scum for post 31?

@Xis

: I think Mehdi has the most negative reaction. I'll get back to you on my read on him though. Need the Chinese food guy to answer my leap question.

Robert's responses to me and my vote on Lurker seem kinda townish. He just seems confused by what's even going on there.

[Jal]

@Jal. If u really want to bring that game up. They were serously lucky to have that luck. 2 The town LOST the game still with lynching of scum day 1. So it dosent really help your case. Im talking about my exp on Ika Mafia.

Town losing down the line after lynching scum D1 I can assure you is not due to that lynch. Doesn't help your argument either.

@Baby Spice

Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
So
{Agent Ireland, Jal, Mogadishu Jones, Xisiqomelir} At least one scum in there.

Oh dear lord please show me where you get these stats and how the first wagon actually means there is scum. Also, one of those votes is RVS and not actually a "real" vote against Lurker at this time.

Also, what if the wagon actually

is

on scum? Do the stats stay the same then?

Curious: Lurker a town/null/scum read?

Jal's post and vote just scream scum.
Unvote
Vote Jal

If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.

[Jal]

I'm going to clarify by what I meant by negative reactions. I more-so meant how divided the reactions are. I didn't expect it to start some sort of big conversation on it, and I'm very much intrigued there is.

You're pushing something as a scum tell without explaining how it occurs more commonly from scum.

I'm pushing someone for doing shit all, and yeah, some scum love to sit back and do shit all. You have to pressure people to learn what they are and him suddenly coming in and posting content (and only related to himself still) isn't helping to achieve town status either. You're trying to argue that sometimes some people like to do some things regardless of alignment. That isn't really an argument against my push.

Want to contradict more? Since my post on that came right after you said scum love to defend people a lot (and I'm the main defender so who else would that refer to).

Main Defender = scum, how?

Really curious as to

where I said that

.

I was just saying that in general. Been there and done that as scum before and I've seen plenty of my scum partners do the same. Do I think there is a possibility that is what you're doing? Sure. As I said later though, I'm not so sure.

Vote still on although now with him sheeping you when he was trying to pressure someone but good luck for him doing that when you just unvote him.

Why was it still on before then? Why him for sheeping me versus that Chinese food guy (I admit, I am too lazy to scroll back to see his name and I don't care enough)? Why not me? He was barely posting and you're telling me you still had enough reason to keep your vote on him the entire time for the Mhork dealio?

Pedit: You basically answered some of the last questions.

[Jal]

Jal, as the post itself should indicate, by going back through the completed mini game queue.
If the wagon is on scum, then history shows about 50% of the time it has scum on it.

Just the first wagon mind you. I never checked the others that occurred day 1.

I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.

My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.

That's great, I see that. How is it mispresenting Lurker? How is saying...

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

"bull shit misrepresentation" and please don't tell me you took the "read four posts" thing as being literal other than the meaning being he has deliberately chosen not to engage in meaningful conversation. How does this scream scum?

[Jal]

As for the argument it's more of newer players thinking early discussion is relatively unimportant isn't new. What lurker did isn't very different from Robert's idea that no lynching is better day 1. Both show the idea that current discussion doesn't help much and while it's bad idea it is not a scummy idea.

You say some scum like to defend a lot. I'm the only defending him a lot. And I'm supposed to naturally understand it was meant in general vs at me?

I can easily see what Robert is doing being associated with a newer player. I've seen it all the time and it's almost an expected discussion topic for most Newbie games. I wouldn't quite pin what Lurker did as thinking earlier/(then current) discussion as weak and and not helping much. It was more so like he was blowing everything off and just signing into the thread.

I'll give you the defending bit as I can see how you can interpret that.

[Jal]

I see that and I disagree with your interpretation. I also don't find that trait shown in newer players in general. My position remains the same and I want to see more from Lurker.

By-the-bye Nobody_Special, I see you posting elsewhere. you scummy scum you.

[Jal]

Are you saying you find Sugar scummy or what?

[Jal]

Wagons get results, Mehdi. That is how you git dem scums. Actually Mog's turn against you looks pretty scummy.

Six pages in and this medhi guy seriously is about to wet himself to lynch someone, its tripping me out.

Yeah, putting those first or second votes on people. He really wants a lynch. So, do you think Mehdi be da scums?

[Jal]

Lurker is paying attention to the thread a lot more than he actually gives on. See his sudden replies after my vote on him and to me). He just doesn't care to actually post worth a shit.

Doesn't matter.

Mog, answer the question.

[Jal]

Well, most people didn't actually give a reasoning. I think I'm actually the only one. Mehdi, I hope you're town. I like your alternate thinking to my own.

Mhorky-pie, why am I town by the way?

[Jal]

I mean, I know it's not for meta reasons.

[Jal]

Lesser scum read and I want him to answer my question.

[Jal]

Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

You're a numbskull or you're scum hoping you got on something special.

Take your pick.

Waiting on those official numbers.

[Jal]

Baby Spice, you are the one who is trying to analyse a wagon and put a vote down based on some statistics which is as far as I am concerned, made up. I'm calling your bluff. Burden is on you. You had to write the data down somewhere to configure this, and I want to see it.

[Jal]

I keep trying to ctrl-c out of the old paper note book I use for these types of things, but it doesn't seem to work.
I jump and change a lot between computers and mobile devices, and not even my own computer since my laptop died. Paper notes for me.

I will accept pictures.

Also, more has happened outside this thread than Lurker's wagon. Thoughts on Mhork, please.

al "I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore."

Thinks that me leaving a vote on someone thinking that it is still RVS is negative.

Explained vote. (I call it legit because it is actually explained, and she tried. Not that it is sufficient reason to lynch me.)

I assure you, I did not vote you because you left your vote on someone.

Lurker, give me some thoughts on people beyond the reasoning for your wagon.

ts page five what do you think I am, a prophet? Does everyone on this site plan to catch the scum immedietly?

This doesn't relate to what you were saying. Also, answer question.

[Jal]

You see I was helping build an early wagon and Mogadishu was implying that there was some bad thing attached to early day wagons...

Helping? I wouldn't call what you did as helping. It looked like you thought you were voting scum. Xis' vote looked more like helping.

[Jal]

*How* Lurker claimed was pretty townie. It also looks like he looked at his pm and to read his role before posting. The only thing that caught my eye about it was that he has 2 cards. I have a different amount. Do we all not start off with the same amount of properties?

I don't know if this actually matters much, but until then

UNVOTE:

Sold.

L-1 VOTE: Lurker

What Mhork said really had nothing to do with proving Lurker is scum to be "sold" on the idea. Mhork was just being a snarky pants to Medhi as he clarified himself. No evidence or anything else that even relates to Lurker except how he liked my case.

At no point before this time (or at the time of this vote even) had StrangerCoug mention Lurker in a scummy light. This looks like a BS vote to just get onto a wagon.

VOTE: StrangerCoug

Baby Spice is my second scum read. Baby Spice uses unverified statistics to stand behind in order to vote for someone (me). But if she felt my vote for Lurker was "bullshit misrepresentation" why wouldn't she just vote me on that? Instead, she is just hiding behind the statistics to push her vote along. She is taking responsibility out of her hands. Someone flips town who was on that wagon? She can a) blame it on using stats and possibly b)move onto someone else on the wagon.

Also, the lack of actually backing anything their saying or answering questions.

If either Baby Spice or Mhork flip scum, the other would be more likely to flip scum.

Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets people say that scum look for. Just saying.

No. No he doesn't.

[Jal]

It's a link between the two, regardless if it were Mhork who said it or not.

[Jal]

Also, how do find it more easy to see Mhork's flip condemning Baby Spice and not the other way around?

[Jal]

Forget the last question. My mind went on a rollercoaster there and decided not to shut down completely.

[Jal]

Was rereading, question to

Agent_Ireland

: Do all your cards say "for now" on them?

The property card I don't know how I feel about because I feel like their power can be given or taken at any time due to the "for now" statement in mine.

[Jal]

SC why didn't you unvote lurker before? He claimed before your last two posts.

My interpretation of the claim is that the watcher comes from one of the cards, which, as far as I know, everybody has. If it were not tied to the cards, I don't think he would have claimed "vanilla with a one-shot ability"; I think he would have dropped the "vanilla" qualifier. The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

When he first claimed, he just said Vanilla Townie. He wouldn't drop the Vanilla qualifier if his role says "Vanilla Townie" and one of his cards has a power.

[Jal]

I am pretty confident in my StrangerCoug vote.

[Jal]

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm

None of this was said when StrangerCoug voted for Lurker. StrangerCoug quoted Mhorkie Pie's post which had nothing relevant to do with Lurker and said "sold" followed by a vote like that post was the driving factor to do so.

Also, a lot of that stuff didn't happen

[Jal]

Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you

days

just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

[Jal]

This is simply a rephrasing of what you just quoted. My opinion of his claim is that it is card-based and he would not drop the vanilla qualifier if he had it no matter what card he had. What you're saying is that he got the power from his card and wouldn't be dropping the vanilla qualifier if "vanilla" is in his role PM and he got his one-shot ability from a card. These are mutually inclusive, and I don't see what your problem is.

I am having trouble understanding what exactly about the wording of his claim that you believe doesn't warrant an unvote.

Very well then, you dissect Lord Mhork's post.

Well, firstly we're talking about the reasons you voted for Lurker, and we can start off with Mhork not voting for our dear Boberto.

[Jal]

I'll get to this later tonight. Sorry guys, been a bit busy.

[Jal]

Okay, I've been busy, and I just finished a stupid final LYLO which took all my free time.

Here's the deal with Lurker: What is the scum motivation to not give all information at first, and then spill the beans a few minutes later when asked about having another card? I'm not seeing scum do something like that in such a quick back-and-forth manner. Maybe if he was being coached in the moment, but why not just spill all the beans in the first place then?

Will get back to this in a bit.

[Jal]

Watcher doesn't mean town. We need lay off of that. Unfortunately, watcher is a horrible role to direct. Scum can simply visit someone else. Unlike tracker who must be very specific and can catch caught scum hoping they wouldn't choose that partner, a watcher is a prime target to roleblock and redirect. There's probably little chance to verify. Plus, he's claiming one shot, which would practically waste his role anyway.

So don't count on being able to

reliably

verify his role or something tonight, if that's what you're hoping to achieve by not voting Lurker.

I have no idea how exactly bastard this game is, so roles may well indeed be very randomized regardless of alignment. I like to think that the game has started off pretty balanced though. There may be roles that can *steal* people's cards, or switch them. There is definitely some mechanic where cards switch hands, I bet. That is where the bastardness probably lies and why the game is labeled as swingy.

[Jal]

@Lurker

, why didn't you claim your card with the watcher role right away? Why only the railroad?

[Jal]

@Mehdi

:

Since it sounds similar to the role pm I got and would just recommend you look at yours and compare it to how he claimed.

How does his claim sound similar tot he role pm you got?

[Jal]

@Baby Spice

Well, actually, as I said, you would still need to go check on what I posted, so the fact that you wouldn't seems strange. Simply, if you don't take what I said at face value, you wont take me providing anything to support it at face value. That you still haven't bothered to check, that you must be relying on someone else's checking without actually saying so speaks badly for you.

Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually, I checked what the most recent games were and looked them up in the notes I had made. half a minute more like. But none of that changes the basic point. Had I provided the lot you would still need to check it for yourself or take all of it on face value.

When you bring statistics into the game, you bring proof. Proof which would take 5 minutes of your time, which you refused repeatedly to bring to the table. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof back onto me and make me scummy for it, but it doesn't work that way. If you had you notes right there and it took

less than

five minutes, there is no rational reason for you to decline putting everything down either at the time you posted your statistics or when I first asked for it.

You keep saying strange. Strange doesn't denote anything. It's like you're too afraid to upfront say scummy. Fact is, demanding you to bring proof to your claim isn't "strange." It's rational, and I'm not the only one who was waiting for you to provide it and wondering why it was so difficult for you to do so.

I'm not trying to hide behind stats. You're trying to make it look like that's all I'm using, whereas what I did was decide to use a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

Here's the problem with this:

I was the second vote on Lurker, which effectively started the wagon rolling. You had to read my "bull shit misrepresentation" post

first

before two more people hopped on. If you felt my post and vote were scummy and bullshit, you didn't need a statistic.

It

doesn't make sense

for you to look at the

wagon first

and THEN look at who is scum on it.

And that is why you're still a scummy scum.

It's strange that you decided that of "72% of mini games will have at least one scum on the first wagon to get to four votes judging by the vote count posts" and "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets", one was acceptable at face value and one wasn't. If you didn't believe me on one surely you would not believe me on the other. But it appears that that's what happened.

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't. I'll let you figure it which is which and how they're different.

[Jal]

The fact that it comes from a card and that everybody has cards to my knowledge. It's basically a scaled-down 100 Boxes with the boxes already open to start.

Okay, but you said the way Lurker worded it was strange and that's why you aren't unvoting Lurker.

[Jal]

So you don't believe that some cards give powers?

How do you explain several people talking about cards saying they don't do anything for now? Based just on that, I think one can make the assumption cards can have powers or do something. Also, I don't see the point in claiming vanilla townie and then giving yourself a power like that/

[Jal]

Also, I don't see the point in claiming vanilla townie and then giving yourself a power like that/

Even if you think he's scum, it most probably means he's taking a cue from the cards he or his partners already have.

[Jal]

Why not just claim the two cards right away but not the power then?

[Jal]

Howdy.

Please don't leave, Jake.

[Jal]

Jake, you're one of the best players nooo.

[Jal]

Well, I enjoy you being in the game. I think it's the avatar.

[Jal]

Thankfully not.

Are you? Nobody Special sure was a lurkin'.

[Jal]

Baby Spice, your lack of response to my post is encouraging.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you even on the same page? Read #460 one more time, then I'll get back to you.

Nothing regarding any of your interactions with Lurker nor explanations make sense.

Your vote doesn't make sense.

Your explanation for not unvoting doesn't make sense. I can't even understand why you aren't unvoting given any variation of your explanations.

This does not make sense:

It is true that the way Lurker worded his claim is not giving me reason to unvote him, but that I found it strange is not why I'm not unvoting him; it's the fact that he claims it is card-based. The talk about "powers come from cards" is getting tiring.

[Jal]

Are you actually trying to say you've been responding to what I've said and been asking you the entire game?

Saturday Dec 15 2012:

I'd like to see these stats compiled.

How many replies it takes Baby to respond with said statistics:

*

Post 1: post 145. Dec 16

*

Post 2: post 148. Dec 16

*

Post 3: post 151. Dec 16

*

Post 4: post 197 Dec 16

*

Post 5: post 199. Dec 16

*

Post 6: post 223. Dec 17

*

Post 7: post 252. Dec 17

*

Post 8: post 349. Dec 17

*

Post 9: post 363. Dec 18

*

Post 10: post 381. Dec 18

You took ten posts and approximately 2 1/2 days to answer my question which you admit took:

Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually,

.. to compile while also using your handy dandy note book which you claimed you just couldn't use or show use or show us at the time.

Oh, but

I

am the one ignoring things? Oh, okay.

[Jal]

Hey scum Baby, I made a big ass post addressing you in the last page

<==== That way.

How long will it take you to actually address it?

[Jal]

I am already on a wagon of someone I believe is scum. What is the point of jumping over?

[Jal]

A bigger suspicion? How do you get that Baby Spice is a bigger suspicion?

[Jal]

I am also attacking SC. I am not ignoring one for the other. Only difference is, Baby Spice grates my nerves.

[Jal]

Right now why I think you're not making sense of my post is because you understand my refusal to unvote Lurker incorrectly. Let's set the record straight: My vote is a basic sheep of Lord Mhork's defense/counterattack (he's established it's a bit of both) of Lurker in #227, which basically accuses him of not reading the game. Why I didn't unvote Lurker is because cards can end up with absolutely anyone regardless of alignment as far as I know. I never said anything to the effect of disbelieving that cards give powers, which is why I questioned your understanding of my Lurker read in #478.

Let's head back to this post then:

The claim itself is not in question as far as I'm concerned, but the way it's worded, I don't think it warrants an unvote.

Which leads to:

It is true that the way Lurker worded his claim is not giving me reason to unvote him, but that I found it strange is not why I'm not unvoting him; it's the fact that he claims it is card-based. The talk about "powers come from cards" is getting tiring.

Post 2 seems to say you're not unvoting him because of the way it's worded. Post 3 you are saying although you found it strange, it's not why you are not unvoting him, which leads back to his claim which does depend on the cards.

Regardless of everything, how about the way it was worded makes you pause?

[Jal]

I'm just trying to get everything straight here.

[Jal]

English is my second language.

Canadian, my first.

[Jal]

@Baby Spice

:

Ok, specific to #458

1. Wow, statistics huh. Lie. One statistic. Addressed pretty much as soon as you asked. Either you believe me or you don't If you don't then no amount of anything by me will convince you until you go and look for yourself. Which is exactly what I told you to do. There is no burden on me when you would not have believed me anyway.

2. Strange comment from you. Isn't it strange that you keep harping on about a minor point rather than the actual scumminess that I voted you for. Weird in fact. (I use that word a lot too, strange that) I find it gets good reactions from people. Typically the scummy ones worry about it and the townies don't. Strange that.

3. Wow, you like harping on about why me using a statistic to decide to look at a wagon, and given the nature of that statistic it also decided the when, to show that you're not scum or that your vote was not scummy.

4. Strange (there's that word again) that you decide that my reason for looking at a particular wagon doesn't make sense. What is a sensible reason for looking at any one player or at any one group of players?

5:

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't.

Note that statement is a plain flat out lie and ignores me stating, more than once I believe, that I voted Jal for her scummy action.

You know I noticed something strange (Wow that word keeps popping up, weird that)
Jal can't understand why I chose to look at that particular wagon (that statistic thing) and blames something other than her scummy action for my vote (That would be that statistic thing again). Despite me saying many times why I looked where I looked and voted whom I voted.)

1.

I've already proven it took you ten posts and 2 1/2 days to prove your statistics. It was not addressed immediately. I don't need to "believe" you. I've already proven, with

facts

, that you didn't.

See post 484 for more detail. I know you've read it.

I have also not argued since you posted games that I don't believe you, yet you are trying to fabricate that I am.

2.

What exactly do you find townies worry about relative to scum, Baby? I looked through several your past games. You don't bring up statistics, at least not in the 10+ games I looked at. If you aren't bringing up statistics, then how can you gauge the reaction to someone asking for proof and being adamant to you proving it to be a scum reaction?

Or am I confused and you're talking about your use of the word strange?

I looked at that too. You barely use the word strange in games. We're talking 0-2 mentions a game, and more to the tune of "strange choice" regarding a night action. Of the few times you used strange several times? You're scum. You were cult in Stars Aligned III, which seems to be the equivalent to mafia for that game and your were a traitor cop in Secret Society Mafia.

Either way, you don't employ the former tactic, and of the rare occasion you more consistently employ the second you're scum.

3 & 4.

I will repeat myself.

I was the second vote on Lurker, which effectively started the wagon rolling. You had to read my "bull shit misrepresentation" post first before two more people hopped on. If you felt my post and vote were scummy and bullshit, you didn't need a statistic.

It doesn't make sense for you to look at the wagon first and THEN look at who is scum on it.

Next, I want you to show case how "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets" is a statistic. Also, how it actually related to the topic at hand (how it's acceptable at face value).

VOTE:
VOTE: Baby Spice

[Jal]

How many people here originally thought the cards were handed out relatively equally in the manner Medhi described, with 11 people having 2 cards and 2 people having 3?

@StrangeCoug

:

The fact that the claim makes it clear it's a card ability. I believe his card claim, and the more I think about Mehdi2277's post, the more I think it's a good point, but I fail to see why something alignment-independent is reason to say "Hold everything, we're not lynching Lurker."

I don't think claiming a power itself is worth taking a vote off someone.

Would you say a good portion of what's holding you back is the amount of people who got off his wagon and don't want to lynch him anymore?

@Medhi

: Do you think I'm just not understanding StrangeCoug properly? Do you understand his reasoning when he originally states it? Also, do you think any of his reasoning is scummy, especially now that he has explained more?

[Jal]

Correction to #2: "What exactly do you find scum worry about relative to town, Baby?

[Jal]

Here's the deal with Lurker: People were unsure with how the cards were distributed. Given no one has really argued against Medhi's explanation of how most people should have two cards, and two three, Medhi is probably correct. It obviously wasn't completely obvious to everyone how the cards were distributed. If Lurker is scum who has a power card he didn't want to reveal, he could have decided not to claim that card at all

if he is telling the truth.

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

Because the whole thing with Baby just looks like a battle of what people think of a statistic that is blatantly obvious. The whole thing about answering the question is all a patience thing and how long someone is willing to wait for an answer.

I may have missed something, but this is what the Baby argument looked like to me, and it wasn't enough to vote that way.

This was the argument until it started becoming this exaggerated lying mess.

Baby Spice is doing one of two things:

a)

Scum Baby Spice has scum tunneled into oblivion and is finding it difficult to actually straight out call me or my actions out as scummy as they know I am town. Due to this, Baby Spice has resorted to exaggeration or complete fabrication of my actions, her actions, as well as motivations.

b)

Town Baby Spice isn't good at making arguments and so tries to *puff up* their posts in an attempt to bolster their argument, and they're stubborn.

I am going for A as of her last post. Also, she has failed to really address my arguments.

[Jal]

I really don't think you know how to argue or comprehend certain things properly, and I don't care to argue with you anymore. Stop tunneling and play the game beyond whatever narrow scope you're looking through right now.

VOTE: StrangeCoug

I'm also not getting a town Mhork read. I don't think my case on Lurker was all that great - I was mainly pressuring him. A lot of people didn't even seem to understand my vote or my "case" so I don't see how it could be one great of a case for him to be convinced to vote for Lurker. His last post to Xis he didn't really respond to all that much either.

[Jal]

Baby Spice, what is your read on our dear Agent Ireland as of late?

[Jal]

My vote was originally on SC because he voted for Lurker based on a response Mhork made, which didn't actually argue a case for Lurker being scum. SC also never mentioned Lurker is a scummy light prior to his vote. My original post is here.

What problems do you find with SC's posts?

[Jal]

I'll get to this later. A bit busy.

Jake lost his vote when landing on community chest.

[Jal]

@Mhork

:

Issue I have with that lurker logic is that you're trying to rationalize as to why he hid information when the fact remains that he did in fact try to hide information. I don't care that he backed up and fessed up the rest of his role; why didn't he do so in the first place?

Town and scum do stupid things. You find someone's alignment by figuring out the motivation for why they do the things they did, and if it fits the scenario. If scum Lurker wanted to hide information and is being honest about not knowing how the cards were probably dealt equally, why then as scum, would he even out his card at all a few minutes later anyway?

Why would your case have to be all that great to be worth sheeping?

Answer:

First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?

You liked the point I made so much it helped influence your vote.

[Jal]

Jal how did SC's vote on spice affect your read on him?

Not much.

Baby, who is this other account of yours?

Agent Ireland, are you busy too or do you have anything to contribute?\

I'm starting to feel Baby Spice really isn't scum, especially by her recent votes.

[Jal]

I am tired as shit. I kinda like the Brawl guy. I didn't like how Medhi framed the Lurker situation.

Brawler duder, what is your interpretation of baby's motivation to get off my lynch and start a new bandwagon?

Uber, wave that wand and do magic.

[Jal]

Adding "the sheep" to the end of his name doesn't criticize the Lurker wagon, it criticizes Xis and paints him as either Scum or weak-willed/derptown.

Think this is what I am referring to.

[Jal]

And wasn't that from a. a while ago when you were playing and tbg wasn't and b. already explained.

Uh, so what?

[Jal]

I don't post every little thing I think, and I've been holding the idea that you're town.

[Jal]

Also, still thinking Baby's switch is town. Given the double vote on me and Uber, why leave?

Haven't looked at the other person's meta though. Maybe their alt says strange as scum like they're in Assassin's Creed too.

[Jal]

I am tired. I see numbers, and I don't want to look up.

[Jal]

So explain how spice calling your vote bs after wagon analyzing isn't different then not saying it immediately to your don't say every little thing I think?

The wagon on you really hasn't gone anywhere so that's why leave.

First off, she tried to make it like she looked at the wagon and looked at the posts to see who was scummy on them. Yeah, not analogous. To even get to the vote count and see the wagon, she would have to read my post first which he apparently thought was bullshit, so my logic is - why not roll off of that? Didn't need to bring statistics into it.

Brawl person: And start a wagon on Medhi? At that point, I don't think the wagon looked that likely.

[Jal]

She had three votes on her. Not really, "caught." And I don't think voting for MEHDI out of all things to be the next rational choice.

[Jal]

Grumpy Jal is here to stay.

[Jal]

I'll get back to Baby after I look at their alt and when I am less tired.

[Jal]

Brawl is just being a jack ass. He knows the case.

[Jal]

Baby, maybe I missed it somewhere, but if you think SC is scummy, why not vote SC?

[Jal]

legitimately don't/didn't, and I really don't appreciate you speaking for me.

@Jake: I read through the thread super late at night, so I didn't really grasp it then. I haven't gone back because I figured I'd just ask for a quick summary when it came up again, rather than have to re-read several pages.

Oh ho ho really now? Baby Spice already asked me for the case a two pages prior to your big case on her. So, I again, specifically outlined it for her and directed her back to my original post. You are telling me you went through the thread, made a case on Baby Spice that has to do with our interactions with each other which included me restating the case SPECIFICALLY FOR HER, and yet you just really couldn't get a grasp on iwhat case there was on SC? Oh, but you got the grasp that her interactions with me were scummy and certain things she said on _that same page_ were scummy?

I don't care if you don't appreciate any shit. You were either being super sarcastic by asking for a case already stated and for something several people have argued for, or you are a horrible replacement who didn't read shit all and is talking out of their ass/scum who is tunneling a town player. Whatever the case, you and your faux internet sensitivities can fuck off.

[Jal]

20

WHOLE

pages?! Oh deary deary gosh!!!!!111111 Even if he just remembered the people he suspected most, he would should remember the questoning/see it in ISOs of her. Fact is, the SC case has been stated by me, you, and Baby has some some vague shit on it. Jake's questioning doesn't count. I have stated the case again. If he is so tired that he can't remember any of these shit posts, if he doesn't, refer back to horrible replacement/scum bit..

Lurker, if you have time to do that analysis over information crap, then you have time to actually interact with people here as they actually say things or give more lengthy responses.

Going over walls and through Annachie's ISO today.

[Jal]

Hey Medhi. Any reason you tried to pull me off the SC wagon to go onto Baby Spice (no one on it) which you thought was stronger - before doing it yourself?

[Jal]

So, I looked at Annachie. Not only has Baby spice not used statistics prior, Baby spice also barely used strange in all the games on that account. It still holds that Baby has used strange mainly as scum on that account unless there is another one you want to point to. Annachie is also an older account with most games being several years ago, which wouldn't make it a "recent thing" Baby.

So basically, this is all bunk:

Why yes, it is a recent thing. It grew out of a specific game. And as I repeatedly said, it was a tool to give me a place to look, not a place to vote. You seem hung up on that big time.

Scum worry about being caught. Scum worry about not knowing or understanding why they got caught. If you don't know why or understand why it's kind of hard to talk your way out of it.
This is the whole basis behind reaction fishing.
To put it in simple terms.
My vote worried you. You don't understand the reason for it. Therefor you argue a non-point to death to try and talk your way out of it.

Why I wanted to look at a specific wagon at a specific size is a complete null point. You're harping on about it is a scum reaction. You're misrepresentation of the facts surrounding it is a scum reaction.

Or am I confused and you're talking about your use of the word strange?

I looked at that too. You barely use the word strange in games. We're talking 0-2 mentions a game, and more to the tune of "strange choice" regarding a night action. Of the few times you used strange several times? You're scum. You were cult in Stars Aligned III, which seems to be the equivalent to mafia for that game and your were a traitor cop in Secret Society Mafia.


You need to look at other games under another name. Wait, didn't I suggest that already?

Either way, you don't employ the former tactic, and of the rare occasion you more consistently employ the second you're scum.

At least you're finally doing some work to support your statements. But you have more work to do.
I'll give you a hint though. It does seem to happen more when I'm snarky.

But hey, I may be wrong. Where are these games, Baby?

[Jal]

Also, I totally have been playing that drawception game, and played one with Brawl in fact. Better drawer than I am.

[Jal]

Mostly because he is usually useless in every game I've been with him in until the last day or so. Not intentionally "misrepresenting" when it looked like you were being a sarcastic ass. Also, no one was going to fight. What would they fight about regarding that argument? Whatever whatever. This is useless.

This is the game http://drawception.com/viewgame/Xf5pAtApPY/77107532/ I'm Meeperton panel 8. Love the monocle.

[Jal]

*what would they fight about regarding my comment

[Jal]

Whoa whoa whao. STOP THE THREAD. Did anyone else actually read what Lurker wrote in his big posts?

#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.

PLEASE DO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, LURKER FRIEND

[Jal]

Thought you couldn't vote.

[Jal]

Your "faux-sensitivities" happened before all of that. So how would I be starting an argument beforehand?

Added relevant quote.

By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me, and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t

[Jal]

What else do you expect to happen by telling someone whom you think is sensitive to fuck off?

No.

Let's look at your post again:

By the by, the reason for my 'faux internet sensitivities' is because this is mafia. You misrepped me by speaking for me, and additionally, Scum benefit much more from inciting an argument. Once two people start fighting, it stops having to do with t

You were upset by me speaking on your behalf. I called this "faux sensitivity" and I called you out later for your comments afterward. My replies to you after calling you a jackass aren't relevant to your post. Given your comment here, you can only be referring to me calling you a jackass about the SC case. So, explain to me how calling you a jack ass would create an argument.

[Jal]

Xis, I was starting to lean town until I looked up Annarchie's post history which doesn't contain what Baby Spice said it would, such as their use of "strange" and statistics. I'm waiting for that reply.

[Jal]

Let me note: Jake apparently did read what Lurker wrote (see his correction) but apparently didn't catch the scum slip.

VOTE: Lurker

[Jal]

UNVOTE:

Actually, I just realize we have 8 days. We can scum search knowing there is a confirmed scum who really just wants to end discussion.

[Jal]

THIS IS THE FUN PART. Will come back to this thread later.

[Jal]

We don't need the full 8 days, no. We certainly can use some of this time to be productive and scum search a bit as long as we're not being stupid. Now that we have confirmed scum, why not?

[Jal]

He obviously wants the day to end early too. Fact is, it's more beneficial for scum right now to end the day and end the flow of conversation. Also, I might just die tonight for pointing out his scum slip.

[Jal]

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.

This isn't planning lynches. It's deducing who is scum before going into night. I can just easily argue that this will help investigative roles do their job. As I've said before, I doubt the set up on D1 as created to be uneven. It's the mechanics regarding the cards and how they're powered up and exchanged along with some of the randomness that makes the game swingy.

We're not coming up with "plans." We're talking about who is probably a scum partner. What? You think we'll pick some people who are town as being scum and prevent them from being killed or something? Because, it's very likely they wouldn't have been killed anyway due to the fact we think they're scummy anyhow.

I'll propose the same to you: If we don't use up all of D1, that would be a waste. Why wait for more townies to be killed? Are you hoping for Baby Spice to be night killed for some fantastical reason to eliminate a scum read?

Your reasoning, my dear, is shit, and it goes against what you said for D2.

Please tell me how we are going to give more info for scum to aim. They know who is scum and who is town unless there is a SK. They know who is a threat already. They know who has pointed them out as scum already.

It's very obvious Lurker wants to end the day early for his own motivations. You can't tell me this would be beneficial for scum when scum want to end the fucking day.

[Jal]

Medhi definitely has to check back in. Baby Spice too. Maybe Uber will say crap.

[Jal]

Singling out people as top suspicions just means Scum know who to tailor/watch/bus/protect/commute/etc. better, since. As of right now, they don't really have the best targets. Baby's pretty up there, then there's a smattering of stuff behind her, since we haven't really come to any consensus. As far as Town roles, Cop and Vidge just need to be on anyone scummy or AntiTown to be effective, Tracker is less effective if Scum know who's trackerbait, and Watcher and Doc just need to be on anyone Town, etc. It's a lot harder to effectively use PRs as Scum.

They may know who is Scum and who is Town, but they don't know how that differs from what we think, unless we tell them.

I don't think Lurker wants to end the phase because it's an advantage to Scum, I think he just personally wants this over.

Scum already know this. They do have the best targets because they already know who is scum and who is town and who suspects them. They know how we differ because we have already expressed our feelings on everyone already. Putting up reasons for who we think is scum NOW doesn't help scum detect who is what power role. We help a cop or vig by helping narrow down who exactly is town or more likely scum. They can choose to take it or leave what people say. We're not going to come to a consensus anyhow, but we will discuss who is probably linked/not linked with Lurker.

I have personally, as scum, ended the day early with an early hammer to end conversation. I have also suggested my confirmed partner to do so in a game as well. I have had other partners just end the day early on their own behalf. Ending the day early when we just got new information only helps scum. We have players that haven't even reacted to his confirmed scum status. That means less to work with. It's easy just to have someone hammered and just not discuss it the next day or take it like it was obvious.

This dicussion is pointless and anti-town and is the exact thing I meant by "being stupid." I won't discuss this further with you. If you want Lurker lynched right now, then you are going to have to wait for Medhi to actually post in this thread instead of in his other threads, Baby Spice to come back, or Uber to check back in and maybe read some posts. Until then, I'm going to go through the thread. Not like someone is around to hammer anyhow.

[Jal]

So knowing that Lurker is probably scum does not change your opinion whatsoever on anything? You've been thinking Lurker is town all this time and arguing against me about him being scum, and none of your reads change as a result?

[Jal]

He made that post before the self-vote and probably hasn't reads the rest of the thread yet.

I can't wait until you catch up, Uber.

[Jal]

I'll help you out here UberDuber:

My 1-shot ability Is watcher.

#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.

Whoa whoa whao. STOP THE THREAD. Did anyone else actually read what Lurker wrote in his big posts?

#307 I say the eletric company is 1-shot Tracker.

PLEASE DO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME, LURKER FRIEND

Truant: "[...] scum can play really well and only make one mistake. That's all that is necessary as not every post will be scummy. All you need is one solid slip and you can find scum.

VOTE: LURKER

[Jal]

If he is telling the truth about not reading the thread, then that's probably why: he doesn't realize what the inconsistencies are.

Has anyone replaced Robert yet? Lurker's first change of vote on him doesn't look like the two would be connected.

With Uber's lack of reading and and Medhi's lack of anything, this all seems useless bleh.

VOTE: Lurker

Someone will still have to hammer at some point anyway.

[Jal]

I don't think that even makes English sense.

[Jal]

Got a chance card where I advanced to the nearest railroad. Oh yes I did.

[Jal]

UNVOTE:

[Jal]

There yoiu go. Be back later.

[Jal]

We are giving Uber time. Why the hell not?

Uber, no one needs to unvote given Lurker is at L-2, so shut the hell up abut it.

People need to stop replying to Lurker as he's just WIFOMing. He has wifomed about his partners hard busing him, his partners probably not being around, and about Uber being his partner. Just stop feeding the troll. Uber seriously does this every game I am in. This is what I was talking about. Let him do his crap. And seriously, in every game he starts off railing against someone without actually reading the stupid thread. If he's town, he is usually good with eliminating who is probably obvious townie who we're just oblivious of.

My only problem I have with him is that his vote for me seemed like a very obvious counter-vote to Lurker's lynch. If he really hadn't been paying attention to the thread, why suddenly vote for me unless he had been to some extent? Even if he only read the last page, I was arguing that we use up the rest of the time in the extended day - something which he desires. It doesn't make sense to vote for me just on that if we share a similar point of view. Even then, if he had been actually reading what was written on that page he would have seen the situation with Lurker and would have read his further scum claim.

Actually, it just all doesn't make sense except Uber is a dick. At the end of the game, this will be my new quote.

[Jal]

Which would mean he just glanced at the vote count and voted for me to be a counter wagon. Or he just looked at the front page, heh. Which reminds me of an old Uber quote which is about 1/2 relevant:

I have seen mods that put the current vote count in the OP, but that's annoying and tacky to me because it means players don't have to read the game. Especially scum players. They can just check the OP to find out whether or not they're being wagoned, and if not, they can go somewhere else. Either that, or they can sit there and wait for when's a good time to hammer.

[Jal]

It still doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't bother to apparently read back 1 page and a half to see what the hell people are talking about once things DID get pointed out. Or even the same page.

[Jal]

This goes back to my original explanation: Uber is probably being a dick.

Too bad our double voter is probably not coming back, eh?

[Jal]

The glaring hole is that Lurker's teammates could be lurkers or generally not here. I think it's best to town hunt in this case.

Lurker's first serious vote being on Robert makes believe they aren't scum together. No reason to do that on page one and draw attention to yourselves.

Mhork's vote for Lurker kinda makes me think he is townie. I have been in two games with Mhork (one with another alt of mine) where I admit I was shit all at detecting him as scum, but in both cases he really wasn't a buser unless he really had to be. This is a situation where I don't think he had to bus Lurker, and Medhi would have been someone who could have probably backed him up.

Lurker's post to Uber with the summary of the game actually makes me think Uber is town. Why give some misinformation in your summerization of the game play to a fellow scum buddy?

[Jal]

Not the tracker bit. Mhork was right, he said stuff that didn't make sense in what actually happened. The reason I kept reading on initially because that was not my version of remembering events.

[Jal]

Your argument for scum-Jal comes down to, "I was in Jal's first two scum games and she was scum there and I helped lynch her. Therefore, she is scum here." Then you find things which you think are scummy to help prove an assumption you've already began without reading. There is no argument there it's fucking bias assuming you're town, assuming you're just not blatant scum this game.

Why in the world, after seeing you in several games and playing with you in several games would I get all bitchy at you playing the same stupid ass way in this game again? Oh wait a minute, YOU ACTUALLY DID THE EXACT SAME THING I TOLD BRAWL YOU WOULD DO? Congratulations, you came up for an argument for why I'm not stupid. Also, I never complained about activity from other people either.

As scum, there is no scum motivation for me to serious vote scum partner Lurker off the bat and hard bus. There is also no reason for me to point out the discrepancy in his claim, while several people had already posted, one obviously having read his post, and didn't find it themselves just to draw attention away from two active bandwagons. No.

This still comes down to one thing: Lurker is scum. You can't take away his self-vote, his several admittance of not wanting to give the town info and of him not being part of town, and his vote for me after your vote which doesn't make sense with what he has been saying and doing the entire game. There was no reason for him to vote me other than that I was now a counter-wagon to help him live.

He's going to be lynched today. There is no changing the wagon because you think you gots something special on something you've already made up in your head. And when he does get lynched, he'll clear: Me, Robert, Mhork, and maybe you (it's in contention).

[Jal]

This bias is more hilarious than the buckshot game I just played, where the fake cop said they selected 3 people, one of which died over night. His results said one of them was scum (but the "mechanics" wouldn't tell him which). Although I wasn't part of the two people and another watcher role proved I was a PR, some numbskull still wanted to lynch me instead of supposedly one of the two that had to be scum.

Uber, his declaring afterwards that he doesn't want to share information with town isn't a "scum slip." He already admitted to scum a page prior with his quote. It was him speaking intentionally from the point of being scum. No matter how you'd like to diminish what I did, *I am* the person who pointed out an inconsistency among others who posted afterwards who didn't.

And yeah, I guess that is the hammer.

[Jal]

Okay. Both players look like they could have been killed for being scum by some Vig or SK. Going to say Baby Spice was killed by someone thinking she was scum and UberNinja was the defacto scum kill.

I'm thinking Uber was killed by someone who probably has played with him before. Once he gets his head out of his ass he actually can catch scum.

[Jal]

Okay. I went through his games and found nothing about anyone here being previously with him. People could have easily read his games though - otherwise, I don't know why he was killed. He did point out a few other people though as being scummy with reads different than me: Jake, Mhork, Medhi (at first, not later) and hinted as possible BrawlGuy scumminess.

[Jal]

I thought that mod didn't specify which, but I just looked at the OP and you're right. Don't see Baby Spice as being a scum kill though unless scum Medhi was really scurred of Baby Spice given the level of suspicion on Baby. What reasoning can you think of scum killing off Baby?

I was given chance and community chest cards so that is non-tell.

I was on the Lurker wagon. Twice. I got off because Medhi asked Cheery to give some room so Lurker couldn't self-vote, and I unvoted first. I don't know how not being on the wagon means anything given what occurred prior and my argument to have the day last longer for more information.

Jake, where do you know Uber from?

[Jal]

Jake, a few questions:

Who did you confuse UN with?

oh you know what I confused UN with someone else, nevermind. I'm good

Why did you vote the SC wagon over the Lurker one?

[Jal]

Over Lurker?

[Jal]

I have two problem with you, Jake. You voted for SC over Lurker at a crucial point and you obviously read/skimmed through his wall post and apparently didn't see the tracker bit on a short line.

Cheery, any reaction to the wagon on you except to be huffy puffy at Medhi?

[Jal]

I thought Jake had voted heh. I don't think anyone was questioning your Xis read.

Why do you think TBG may be scum?

Medhi, what are your thoughts on Xis?

[Jal]

Jake, at the time why did you vote SC over Lurker? What made SC scum to you?

[Jal]

He voted for Lurker after your vote. Anyway, it was a crucial time since your vote would have been L-1.

I don't know what to think of Cheery or SC. What I find strange about SC staying on Lurker was partially because he thought the cards worked a bit differently or something. Not very clear, but I'm wondering why scum would mention a difference in cards like that. That's kinda why I have a town read on Medhi. Kinda. Medhi says their cards worked differently, but Lurker's stated cards seem more like my own.

[Jal]

I thought I would throw this out here for discussion: I got a new card today. An actual card, not some community chest dealio. Cards can't be exchanged between players so I'm wondering what happened here.

[Jal]

When I went into N1, I was thinking Agent Ireland was scum.

One thing that makes me think Jake is not scum is if he DID he a mistake, why bring up the past at all?

TBG I had townie feelings for the same reasons as Baby - mentioning the community chest cards.

[Jal]

I forgot to add - Uber was right about one thing, it looked like Lurker was mad for being bused and having his reign end early, which immediately make me go to either TBG or Agent Ireland. But I guess Mhork did do that long ass post he quoted later to vote himself. Didn't care for the Jake attempt to vote here, but that would have not added to the lynch.

Jake, what's your thoughts on Mhork?

Also, the information Lurker added saying there was a glaring hole in my talk about making use of our team doesn't really fit with "scum don't have night talk" in what I was actually saying. Considering he was wifoming me earlier heh. Although it made me think that maybe he had little interaction with his partners during the day.

P-edit: at the time I did think it was a possible bus myself.

[Jal]

*our time.

The first part is to address why I went into N1 thinking Agent Ireland may be scum.

[Jal]

This was his worst post referring to partners: post 746

Also, I looked up NumberQs last log in times. Not since January 4th and before the Lurker lynch. They wouldn't have been around whatsoever for the night.

[Jal]

My theory relies on scum who may have actually helped vote him and he was upset that his coming to an end so quickly. Pray tell, how does me wanting to use up the day make him more angry, hypothetically as a partner, in helping end his reign?

He could have been WIFOMing either way in the end bleh.

[Jal]

Jake, by the fact you think Baby Spice was the scum kill and Uber the SK kill, how is your obvious suspicion of me making sense? I thought Uber was probably town due to Lurker's wall.

Also, I still don't think there is a serial killer.

[Jal]

The assumption itself that he was mad at his partner for voting for him versus helping clear his name. So no, I really don't exactly qualify for that.

[Jal]

Okay, I'm saying based on my own assumption which we are both talking about here, that is not what I am talking about and is not the post I am referring to.

Blah blah blah

[Jal]

I asked because you said you don't suspect them and I don't have a read anything on Xis. I would actually like it if you could expand on it.

Did anyone actually lose cards last night? I was at first wondering if you used a card you would just lose it, but the mod implied that would only be the case if it is a one shot.

I don't really understand your last sentence. Do you actually think numberQ is scum?

[Jal]

What are your thoughts on NumberQ not logging in for awhile?

[Jal]

It makes me think down, but I'll get back to you on this.

[Jal]

I don't think the fact he is not around is a scum tell so much what the implications of that mean.

The person you replaced did, TBG.

[Jal]

He was talking about how he landed on community chest and such.

[Jal]

I'll say this about cards though: The one I got wasn't exactly a regular gaming card.

[Jal]

Jake, this is the main reason I think the Robert slot is town:

Vote Jal

for reasons i can't think of right now.

Unvote

Vote: Robert2424

For forgetting to think about thinking.

Not-thinking = Anti-town.

Why would Lurker serious vote (and I do think even he thought it was serious according to his wall) his scum buddy like that?

[Jal]

That early? I think Robert's post is crap that you pointed out, but I can see it from a new person if they really think I am scum - and see that I may be attacking a poor townie.

I'll come back to thsi thread later and make a vote. My mind just feels elsewhere irl and on site.

[Jal]

First, I received my card at the beginning of the day and it is not Lurker's other card.

Secondly, Safety are you claiming a tracker card? If cards do go back into the fold, did Lurker lie about watcher to make it seem more town or is Safety confused? I really don't think Safety is scum now.

Mehdi, what do you mean by this:

You may want to ask the mod whether a jail safe card and a night power are equivalent. I doubt it.

[Jal]

Right, that needs to be asked.

[Jal]

Sounds exactly the same as I got with waterworks on UberNinja, so I disagree.

Got with waterworks on UberNinja?

Mhork, you know, we were just in a game together where determining who did what kill was actually an important feature on D2 as Sword both A) suspected you as scum and called out 2/3s of the scum team whereas the vig who killed Triton.. well, triton had nada. So why are you putting suspecion onto me for determining what the night kills mean? That is scummy fucking shit right there.

Waiting out to see how the effects of either being role blocked would be. but one sec

[Jal]

Hi all, I'm still reading through all the posts from day 1 and I'm about a third of the way through but it's slow going so I may appear inactive for a couple of days as I get through it, I'm a pretty slow forum-reader especially when trying to analyse.

I'm perfectly capable of spelling the word 'you' too, if you were wondering.

Why did you decide to track Medhi?

[Jal]

Cheery - wait, did Uber go anywhere last night?

[Jal]

Medhi, do you have any other cards you used?

[Jal]

Unless you're cards work differently mine didn't give me a power for each separate card just one power together.

Please explain this.

[Jal]

Who received a card in the morning? To make things clear, I started off yesterday with more than two cards, not one.

By the sounds of it, SafetyDance is probably not scum and wasn't blocked. The only thing we should be arguing is whether Medhi was blocked - but I assume by the way Medhi is arguing that perhaps he wasn't. I don't know what to think about this as being anything else except if there is scum with a redirector card.

This is what I find strange: StrangeCougar's reaction to Lurker. Lurker claimed what his cards were and one was similar to the one Cheery is claiming now. Why would StrangeCougar find Lurker's claim strange when he had a similar card indicating that yes, those deeds have power? It's not like Lurker claimed TRACKER which is what Cheery says he has, so it wasn't a CC type of vote - so I'm having trouble finding the town motivation in finding Lurker's claim "off."

I actually would like it if the vig would claim. We apparently have a pair of trackers on the loose and we had people claim other assorted powers. A vig, in many games, is a negative utility role. I don't see the big huff de duff with claiming vig, especially if it comes from someone who has already claimed something.

Also, I really hate the type of posts Monkey wrote above, and *some* of it seems preread, as in, he had an opinion on some of the people and events beforehand. And I don't see how when reading through Monkey has to reevaluate his reads after the bold scum claim - there was the whole scum confession, scum slip, self vote, multiple claims to contend with. Seriously.

[Jal]

I'd say it's not 'scummy fucking shit.' Often there's no point in trying to figure out what kills mean 'cause it's a mess of WIFOM. Also I wasn't even putting suspicion on you. It was a legitimate question. Your paranoid defense against it is noted, though.

I'm just going to copy and paste what I said in another thread about "notes:"

"By the way, I don't think anyone gives a crap about what you "note." That goes for anyone who makes "notes." I don't get it. Is is supposed to be a threat? It's always used by people being ran up and are too butt hurt when they're wrong. Am I supposed to be afraid of some person being ran up as scum noting something I did? Uh, okay, let me just vote you and.. whoops, you got lynched! 'Whew, CLOSE ONE THERE."

Revise that to be, "anyone putting suspicion onto another" instead of being ran-up. And you know, the only time I ever claimed WIFOM on looking at night kills? Scum.

Point being, we just came from a game which was a great example of how evaluating the night kill and looking at you to lynch was the right choice by deducing that scum killed x and a vig/sk killed a scummy town, so I am not seeing the immediate town thinking on your end, champ.

So how about you contribute more and prove me wrong?

[Jal]

Monkey, question - do you think this is a role madness game like Medhi does?

[Jal]

I find it odd that Uber visited no one.

[Jal]

Monkey, we're trying to figure out where Baby and Uber's cards went - if the cards of the dead even do get reshuffled. There should be at least 4 cards out and I think we're missing a claim or two. Do you know if you got a card in the morning or at night?

[Jal]

Monkey, what is your definition of role madness?

[Jal]

A vig can be a negative utility role. As scum, I would rather kill a tracker than a vig. If there is a roleblocker, which is the best explanation of town-you not being seen tracked, then they would be best off blocking them, no?

But I have my personal reasons which I don't want to showcase.

Medhi, what are your thoughts on Uber going nowhere last night?

[Jal]

A roleblocker will just roleblock whomever yesterday. I'm talking about tomorrow night regardless so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about there and I don't know how a tracker is refers to you as of last night. How else do you explain, from a town-you perspective, how a tracker is failing to see your action last night?

Scum can help direct the vig in this situation, so no, I don't really want to engage in something which scum can manipulate.

[Jal]

I have reason to believe Uber may have visited someone last night.

[Jal]

well, that was pretty blunt of me.

[Jal]

and I'm not exactly sure. I'm finding it difficult to believe there are two trackers though, and I don't see scum Safety risking his life to take down Medhi with one member already done - which should especially not make sense in case there is some mysterious serial killer about as some people hypothesize

[Jal]

Let's have fun.

At the beginning of this day I received a vig card.

[Jal]

which, if we do believe that the cards are coming from people, it could indicate someone from last night could have had the card.

[Jal]

My card is color-coded and not part of the regular set/deeds. There may indeed be another vig with a different colored card.

I think it's strange too for Uber to have killed Spice too. I don't know.

I'm wondering if kills don't exactly mean cards get redistributed

[Jal]

Oh wait, hah, I was reading the card wrong. It's a deed.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLAY THE CANADIAN FORM OF MONOPOLY MOST.

[Jal]

It's a property normally on the Monopoly board.

It may be for lynches, but kills are a different matter and a few more people should be claiming they've gotten cards this morning.

[Jal]

Guys, it's just me messing up thinking it was something else on the board itself. It's a deed on the board. I have no idea why I thought I got a special colored card not related to deeds.

This is (of course) not my card, but I thought I had something like "Property Tax - Brown."

Apparently, a lot has been said while writing this.

[Jal]

Was it just Cheery who visited?

[Jal]

I don't doubt he visited, honestly. Even if he's scum, why like on that suddenly? Scum or town I can imagine someone visiting for one reason or another.

[Jal]

*lie

[Jal]

Although, I think his cards somehow relate to my cards which makes me wonder why he would visit me with those cards.

[Jal]

Thing is, as scum he could have easily visited two people. I can visit multiple people. Heck, right now I have a killing role and some other crap which I can conduct all my shitniz on the side with. He could technically not be lying.

[Jal]

if I were the SK I probably would have left Uber alive so he could hunt down the scummies for me as I sat back on my town cred, rejoiced, and killed town at night and seriously scum hunted during the day. But if cards of the same deck are similar of power and Uber or Baby didn't kill last night, then we probably have two vigs at the very least. By the way, I just realized that the card doesn't specify the type of killing action, but I still don't see why scum would kill Baby Spice.

I feel like I should be voting Medhi for Safety not seeing him go anywhere last night but everything keeps else keeps telling me no bleh.

At least one person has claimed to not have any powers at any sort of time. Hmm.

I'm feeling bleh about this game right now.

[Jal]

Read this thread about night kill analysis and come back here, champ: https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=23794. The only game I didn't do it and suggested people not to do it was in 90s Cartoon Large Theme game where I was scum (and funnily enough, I wanted to look pro-town by getting people to shut-up).

The night kills are weird as people thought they both may have been scum towards the end of the day and people wanted to vote for them. The kills aren't terribly obvious - why

wouldn't

you want to look at them anyway? Scum don't usually make random ass kills most of the time - especially when they're one man down.

When I made my first post of the day, it was actually before I got my card. About a minute before to be exact. I would have still have said the same thing about the vig stuff, I think because a Baby Spice scum kill is weird. Also, not really being sure if cards recirculated I think. It really does point to Medhi if so, but now I'm really not sure about the kill flavor of my card anymore I thought it mentioned it. What peaked by interest about Uber maybe being the vig was Cheery saying Uber didn't go anywhere which I thought was weird and refer back to the weird Baby Spice scum kill bit.

My power is from a singular card, which could very well mean there may be another person with a vig card who shot instead if it holds true about powers being the same if not similar from the same deck.

This all doesnt matter anyway. I'm not the Sk and I'm not going to be lynched today. I'll be back later after commuting home from class.

[Jal]

Cheery - why did you use your useless power card on me?

[Jal]

Xis, re-explain what you mean.

[Jal]

Agent Ireland claimed VT yesterday, whether he knows it or not

[Jal]

Holidays, busy busy, all that good stuff. Catching up now, will post more when done. Until then, I've read this post and will answer it.

Was rereading, question to

Agent_Ireland

: Do all your cards say "for now" on them?

The property card I don't know how I feel about because I feel like their power can be given or taken at any time due to the "for now" statement in mine.

Yes, I have two cards and both said for now.

[Jal]

Which is why I asked him if he thought it was role madness, although with the card he says he received last night, he could have a power now.

[Jal]

Actually, that card came after he said probably to role madness.

[Jal]

If Cheery is going to be lynched, it wont be because some people don't like one of his cards.

What vig flavor do you want?

I'm probably going to vig Monkey person, Xis or Mhork, depending on the day. Mhork has been rubbing me wrong the entire day

P-edit: Everyone is probably listed as a "vanilla" goon or town. Lurker still had a power card. My only point being, someone did claim to have useless cards with no power.

[Jal]

I'm trying to paint a picture of Mhork's avatar dead, but it has just turned out to looking like he's super-saiyan Goku instead of wearing the crown.

[Jal]

That is the worst reasoning I have ever seen to ever lynch someone. Herp Derp, get the card back into the fold. Seriously? Herp derp scum end up getting card anyway during the night. Herpy derpy doo~ Hey, let's play a game, someone watch me tonight and see who visits me and if I get blocked or killed. Oh boy. I created a plan that doesn't plan on lynching town for utterly stupid anti-town reasoning.

P-edit: It's Park Place. I thought it said Free parking at first heh.

[Jal]

There is no reason for me, as scum or serial killer, to bring up the fact I have a vig card.

If I'm scum A) There is no reason to make-up a BS killing card claim suddenly when I haven't been tracked to a kill, or significant suspecion on me or whatever. I'd also be setting myself up to be CC killed during the night.
If I am SK B) I have no idea why I would tell scum who I am so they can try to night kill their competition.

If you think I am scum or the serial killer, then vote me. Otherwise, it just looks like you're putting suspicion onto me and encouraging others to vote for me without adding weight to the argument itself. It's scummy as shit. Last time I'll address this.

[Jal]

I think people forget there are a lot of deeds which haven't been shown yet, so we don't know what powers they have. I don't think anyone has claimed red, yellow, or dark green yet. There may be a lot of powers in those which can help scum do whatever things.

[Jal]

@Mod: If I use a 1 shot power and I am roleblocked, will my card go away?

[Jal]

Because I am unsure, you know, like I already explained.

Jake, this is what I don't get. You try to paint me as scummy for looking at the night kills, yet you look at the night kills yourself and try to attribute the Uber kill to me based on his death and what he said prior. That does not logically work out. How did you go from Cheery being scum, to Safety being the one lying between Cheery and him and between Safety and Medhi, to now thinking Medhi is scum?

[Jal]

Whatever.

VOTE: Medhi

[Jal]

That is either L-1 or L-2.

[Jal]

Medhi, how does Cheery's card power justify taking your vote off of him?

[Jal]

Medhi, what does this say to you:

Jal and I have claimed to have cards at the start of the day, presumably from the people that died during the night (since neither were ones Lurker had claimed to have) I would say there are another two people that gained cards at the start of the day as well (based on the probable 2 cards to everyone except two which have 3 distribution, but then the fact that Jal who claimed to not have 2 cards yesterday gained one makes me wonder about it)

[Jal]

No no no.

What do you think his summary is saying?

[Jal]

Because, from my point of view, it looks like he originally thought I had one card, not three. What would he hope to gain by investigating me otherwise?

[Jal]

I don't think you get it.

I'm not asking why he would actually investigate me. Not doubting his claim. I'm pointing out how what he said previously indicates he thought I had less than one card prior (1 card only), and if his power told him I have two, why hasn't he been suspicious?

[Jal]

I'm asking your opinion if you felt the same. That is all.

[Jal]

VOTE: MonkeyMan

I want you to tell me how his defense was unraveling earlier.

[Jal]

Jake, you're using the same method I am: deducing what makes the most sense. You're doing it by deciding, on no additional information available to you, that Uber isn't the scum kill.

Baby Spice was under lots of suspicion yesterday, so no, it doesn't make any great more sense for the scum to get rid of great mislynch material than Uber. Listing me as maybe the next best kill after Spice? No, doesn't make sense. Based on just from a townie perspective and assuming they're not scum, TBG would have made more sense as a scum kill alternative than Spice. Spice did have their suspicions, though, and that would be the only thing to go on.

Why did you claim it, anyway?

I've already explained.

Secondly, I'm most definitely allowed to say "I don't like X" without being sure enough to vote on it. Getting defensive and threatening towards that

does not

help.

Say it all you want. Doesn't take away how you look scummy as shit for doing it. Threatening? You really are a dramatic one.

So, TBG, what is your opinion on Medhi?

[Jal]

I don't like that vote either from you bleh.

Medhi, do you think all of scum's powers come from cards?

[Jal]

I just got a pm from the mod saying I got a third card during the night he forgot about.

Your slot got the card during the night. If this is so, your slot may have killed someone during the night.

Please confirm.

[Jal]

TBG my reasoning is essentially in here:

When I made my first post of the day, it was actually before I got my card. About a minute before to be exact. I would have still have said the same thing about the vig stuff, I think because a Baby Spice scum kill is weird. Also, not really being sure if cards recirculated I think. It really does point to Medhi if so, but now I'm really not sure about the kill flavor of my card anymore I thought it mentioned it. What peaked by interest about Uber maybe being the vig was Cheery saying Uber didn't go anywhere which I thought was weird and refer back to the weird Baby Spice scum kill bit.

I thought it was a possibility Cheery was lying so I brought up how I got vig during the night.

[Jal]

I'm not aware of killing anyone.

Have you asked the mod whether Agent Ireland did?

That is a good question by Jake.

[Jal]

I made a mistake there - I got mine during the day. Monkey was the one who said his slot got it at night.