What logic is that you are implying?armlx wrote:I actually dismissed that as him not knowing the logic behind N0 vigging.
Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Because I don't want to right now. I'll think about answering it when I'm good and ready.roflcopter wrote:greasy spot, forbiddanlight: why ignore the question i asked? please answer it.
You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?
Well when someone starts the day that way how do you usually respond? What response do you think is appropriate in that situation?roflcopter wrote:@iamausername, you may think its a stupid trap, but it worked. when someone says "player x is obvtown" at the start of day one, and someone else says "why?" the only answer they're looking for or thinking is "because i'm a town power role duh."-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
That's exactly what I mean. I haven't seen anything scummy yet and you and rofl pushing his lynch haven't shown anything that gives cause for his lynch at this time.iamausername wrote:
What do you mean by "there is no case against Strife"? Do you mean that you don't think he's done anything scummy, or just that no one has pointed out what scummy things he's done?Greasy Spot wrote:You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
I want to propose a different theory and get feedback from you guys except roflcopter, Iron Man, Armix, and Lowell (for now).
We know that there are definitely 4 scums in this game. Do you think it is possible that the scum got together N0 and devised a fake Mason claim? Iron Man doesn't seem too upset that rofl outed him. Lowell asks for the claim and with little pushing rofl claims and outs Iron Man. I think it's too convenient to not be scummy.
HOS: roflcopter and Iron Man
FOS: Armix and Lowell-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
How am I acting weird? Because I suggested a theory. I don't see you suggesting any kind of theory.Enlight_Bystand wrote:Still not clear where to put my vote at the moment. forbiddan and greasy are acting weird, lowell seems more scummy in the background of the thread then he is in isolation, but nobody stands out from the pack.
At least I'm not spitting out craplogic and trying to pass it off as truth like Armix is doing.
Masons are nothing more than glorified townies that can talk at night. Their vote is no more powerful than anyone else's. Now that the masons are outed (if they truly are masons) the odds are better for the town to lynch scum. So yes it does technically benefit the town to have them come out. We won't spend our time trying to lynch them. And it provides some cover for the other townies.armlx wrote:
It does. Anything that gives the mafia more information in who to target at night is going to hurt the town, especially if the "pay off" for the town is getting 2 confirmed innocents who won't likely last long.You can't tell me masons outing themselves really hurts the town.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
What authority in this game do you have to demand me to answer a question. Unless your too busy to read the thread and note that both Korts and myself have current arguments against Armix, you wouldn't be asking this stupidly obvious question.iamausername wrote:Unvote, Vote: Greasy Spot, by the way, which I should have done when I first noted that he failed to answer my question.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
I was actually going to answer your question after the second time you asked it. That was until I got to the post where you voted for me because I didn't answer your question. It doesn't set well with me when people try to enforce their ways on me. If I wanted to comment on the scumminess of strife and/or armix I would. I don't need you to ask me silly questions about which one I find scummier. If you care to elaborate on your feelings for people and request others share as well then very well, but don't demand an answer and then vote someone because they don't give you an answer. That is stupid.iamausername wrote:Um, my authority as a scumhunter. If you're town, why would you have a reason to not answer my question?
At the time I made that statement (which was in the beginning of the game) I didn't find either one of them scummy enough to vote. The people who were pushing their lynches were scummier. You bring it up now knowing full well that much more scum hunting has been going on, so that statement is not even relevant now.iamausername wrote:So, why say:
when you obviouslyGreasy Spot wrote:You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?haddecided who you thought was scummier?-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
OK, since you want to act like an ass I'll answer like an ass. How about that? Let's see what was the question again? Oh yeah, Do I find Armix or Strife scummier? Let's see, this question was posted in post 17 and since no scum hunting since then is relevant (as you say above), ... hmm ... Which one do I choose? ... Maybe I can roll dice to pick one, is that OK? C'mon dude POST 17!!!! these 2 aren't stupid enough to screw up that quick. At post 17 my answer is, neither, for lack of sufficient evidence.iamausername wrote:
Voting doesn't come into it. The question was simply asking which you found scummier.Greasy Spot wrote:
At the time I made that statement (which was in the beginning of the game) I didn't find either one of them scummy enough to vote.iamausername wrote:So, why say:
when you obviouslyGreasy Spot wrote:You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?haddecided who you thought was scummier?
Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?Greasy Spot wrote:You bring it up now knowing full well that much more scum hunting has been going on, so that statement is not even relevant now.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Since you are making an honest attempt to understand these transactions I will indulge you a little. When the question was asked in post 17 there was hardly any content so I didn't have an opinion at the time. People make questions about a player(s) all the time and many people never answer them so I wasn't too worried about the question at the time. this game is a fast moving game. A lot of posts are added each day and I think another request for responses was made before it was picked up by username. With his insistance that I answer the question I stated there wasn't a case and he twists my words around to make me look bad either way I answered. So I didn't answer him. Later on he questions me again and before I have a chance to post my response he votes me for not answering his question. When I do confront him about this he again twists my words to mean something different that what I said so I won't respond to him now.forbiddanlight wrote:
I think he's protown too. That was a personal comment on his questioning style. I don't like it but it does seem to get results because he uses it responsibly. But, since you want examples.Given your overall play, and how you are actively scum hunting, I lean town.
Innocent start, very understandable, given what Greasy said.So do you think there is a case against armlx?
Slight leading because he assumes that's what Greasy meant. To be honest, this is still within the realm of reason given what Greasy posted.
when you obviously had decided who you thought was scummier?
This gets iffy. I see Greasy's point here, not username's, and it's a clear leading question that kinda forces Greasy to respond (if he answered the question) in a way that implicated him slightly. I'm probably reading into this point too much though.Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?
Rhetorical question for armix when he didn't even say that. I think that's kinda a strawman? I dunno my fallacies well.Are you suggesting that my delay in voting is scummy? What do you think I stood to gain, as scum, by doing so?
Kinda the same strain as the armix question. You begin to see how he's leading Greasy on? (however, because Greasy goes with it rather than protesting and explaining what I think his stance was (I could be wrong), he comes out scummier, which is why while I don't like username's methods, the results are valid)
So what happened between post 17 and post 31 to change your answer to "You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?"?
This is the big shot. Its forces the assumption the change was in that post frame whereas no one said that (but Greasy confirmed this view by not refuting it, which adds a lot of validity to username). It's presenting Greasy with a view he never directly said he had, but worked himself into with username's help. It's forcing a view not explicitly stated, and barely implied. And the way Greasy responded made Greasy look scummy, but it might have been like that no matter how he answered. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I hope I've illustrated my point there now.
OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?
Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?
vote: iamausername-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
At the time there were some attacks towards armix and none towards strife and that is why I said there was no case against strife, not because the case building against armix was good. How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.iamausername wrote:And, by the by, I certainly won't argue that I asked some leading questions, but I disagree that my final pair of questions was presenting Greasy with a view that he never directly said he had. I could have just asked those questions immediately, without all the preamble, but I thought that Greasy Spot might slip up and implicate himself further if I approached from another angle. I don't think he did, but I still find the initial post extremely suspicious.
If he'd just said "How can we possibly decide right now?", that would be fine, if he'd just said "There is no case against Strife", that would be fine, but the combination of the two creates a clear inconsistency. Either he thought armlx was scummier than Strife, in which case I'd like to know why he didn't just say so, or he didn't, in which case I'd like to know why he specified that there was no case against Strife. One of those is clearly a view that he had, unless you think he actually thought Strife was scummier than armlx, in which case his initial post makes even less sense.
vote: iamausername-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
The question didn't ask if I had a case against either one of them. It asked me which one I thought was scummier which translates into, "Based on the cases already shown in this game, which of these two players do you find scummier?". Why do you insist on twisting my words into something I haven't said or implied.iamausername wrote:
Maybe you could read their posts and make a case yourself? But I guess scumhunting's a lot easier when all you have to do is look for the first Vote: Greasy Spot and never stop OMGUSing.Greasy Spot wrote:How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Here, I'll answer this for you. He knows his argument against me won't hold water. He twisted what I said around and interpreted it into things I didn't say. When I didn't respond to some things he then twisted my no responses to mean whatever he wanted it to mean.The Fonz wrote:A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.
vote: iamausername-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Yes the scum have a higher chance of hitting PRs but also the Town has a better chance of hitting scum because they won't be focused on the "claimed Masons", so it goes both ways.muerrto wrote:Um..Greasy, how does outing the Masons provide cover for the other roles? With the masons(glorified townies that can talk at night, by your own words) outed, the scum have that much higher chance of hitting a power role. Why would the scum kill the masons?
I like the idea of taking out the masons first so we don't potentially lynch a Doc or Cop, or worse yet them claim on Day 1 for fear of being lynched.
@muerrto: How can you read any of the exchanges between me and iamausername and say my vote wasn't warranted based on his behavior.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
And this is an even worse reason to vote someone.The Fonz wrote:
The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.Greasy Spot wrote:Well I can't let all the other claimers haveallthe fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.
I willKorts wrote:Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.vote: armix. This is standard armix scum play.
The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?
vote: Greasy Spot-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Korts wrote:I'm here. Still waiting on GS to answer.
I never said armix was scummier. What I said was at the time there wasn't even a case against strife so how could I possibly choose.iamausername wrote:OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?
Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?
PS, thanks for the OMGUS, I shall treasure it always.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
The Fonz wrote:Please note that Greasy is still posting in other games, so presumably replaced out due to being under suspicion, rather than because he didn't have time.
I haven't come unglued because I haven't been attacked by anyone other then iamausername.Lowell wrote:Assuming ^^^^ is true,
unvote, vote GS. I've seen him come unglued as caught scum before.
I told the Mod in the beginning I didn't realize this was a 20 person game. I wouldn't have signed up for it. I don't do well in large games because I can't my head around all the different people. It is hard enough on the smaller games. That is why I have requested replacement.
Final Post.-
-
Greasy Spot Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 858
- Joined: January 3, 2008
- Location: On the floor
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.
-