Blatant scum.
BM
Sir Tornado wrote:Vote Battle Mage
OMGUS!
Sir T
Battle Mage wrote:Vote: Tornado
Blatant scum.
BM
GeorgeCarlin wrote:Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.Hoopla wrote:vote: no lynch
obvscum
In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,
Vote: Hoopla
I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
No Lynch is bad, but not really much worse than a lynch based on no reasoning atall.Sobeahero wrote:Bandwagons are fun! (That and I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.)
Vote: Hoopla
Seraphim wrote:Vote: Hooplafor not liking it when people talk to each other about important game issues.
It's the random stage. What do you expect?? The nature of it, is that all starting votes tend to be 'jokey'...GeorgeCarlin wrote: By voting no lynch, what you did was make a vote that won't be able to really provide much information to the town, due to how obviously jokey it was.
Lol. Didnt you just say that it "wouldnt provide much information to the town due to how obviously jokey it is"?GeorgeCarlin wrote: Although it's not neccesarily vital information for the town, random voting could help later on down the road.
Which i guess makes you guilty of UNDER-mining, right?GeorgeCarlin wrote:Your vote, in fact, consisted of nothing more than half-baked OMGUS based on quote-mining.
So you feel that later in the game, it will be of greater use to analyse random votes, which btw, are...random? You'd rather have that than something controversial that can reveal some weaseley opportunistic scumbag?GeorgeCarlin wrote: Another important part of my post is the use of the phrase "by itself". Although your vote may start discussion due to others commenting on how scummy the vote is, and create reactions, by itself it does not give the town any information to analyze so that they can learn more about your alignment. And that is something that I feel, especially this early in the game, is extremely important.
Lol, i think you're trying too hard. Why are you complaining about somebody backing you up? Most of the information from the random voting stage comes from bandwagons. The last sentence doesnt even make grammatical sense...GeorgeCarlin wrote:Out of curiousity, what do you personally believe will come out of this wagon? Why did you choose to hop onto an avenue already being persued, rather than examine the reactions of other players by casting your vote in their directly?Sobeahero wrote:Bandwagons are fun! (That and I agree with the whole 'no lynch is bad' sentamant.)
Vote: Hoopla
:'(Shanba wrote:Of course it's acceptable!Battle Mage wrote:I think he's getting pissy because im not calling him by his actual username.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
Ooi, do you think it is acceptable to 'mock' me?
BM
You could have called it a 'random vote'. But you didnt. You tried to validate it as a reasoned 1. I'm pointing out that your reasoning makes no sense.Seraphim wrote:...I'm getting FoSed already?Battle Mage wrote:Seraphim wrote:Vote: Hooplafor not liking it when people talk to each other about important game issues.FoS: Seraphim
I think you just missed the point entirely. Opportunism much?
BM
I finid it odd that you're calling me out for being "oppurtunistic" for jumping/starting a bandwagon for a possible in-game reason, when stuff like that happens all the time in the random phrase for absolutely no reason at all.
Take your vote off my buddy Hoopla now, and i'll retract my FoS and apologise for being too quick to judge you.Seraphim wrote: Sure, my logic may be faulty, but why call me out for it now, during the part of the game that tends to just be silliness?
Lol, im not entirely sure if it was a trap or not. The fact you retracted your vote doesnt make you look any less scummy to me, but:Seraphim wrote:...is this a trap?
Unvotebecause I actually don't think Hoopla was scummy?
>_>
<_<
This feels like a trap.
This is clearly incorrect. If he didnt want to start a discussion, why would he vote No-Lynch? Unless you really think he was expecting people to go along with it?? 0.oSobeahero wrote:First off, he disproved nothing. The point was that vote couln't be used later for any reason, and that it seemed hoopla didn't want to start a discussion, as it would draw attention to him.Battle Mage wrote:GeorgeCarlin wrote:Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.Hoopla wrote:vote: no lynch
obvscum
In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,
Vote: HooplaUnvote, Vote: GeorgeCarlin
Well done buddy. You just disproved your own argument. If voting No-Lynch didnt provoke discussion, YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. If voting no-lynch didnt illicit reactions, YOU WOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR HOOPLA.
He left a trap, and you fell right into it.
BM
Lol, i dont really see your point here. So you're saying that, if he isnt scum, those people attacking GC are probably scum? Lol, seems a fair enough assumption-its the assumption i made about Hoopla and GC.Sobeahero wrote: Secondly, I always have issues trusting the guy who jumps on the first dude who tries to make a point about something. Also the fact people seemed to start voting Hoopla, which shows he might be able to convince people who to vote for. Seems like someone a Mafia would want to get rid of, under the assumption he himself isn't Mafia.
Rofl. I think you're floundering mate. If you wanna vote me, stop tying yourself up in knots, and do it! But you're gonna need a better reason than "he's picking on GC".Sobeahero wrote: I would say vote for you, cause if you are Mafia I doubt Carlin is, at least not in the same factin you are, again assuming there are more then 1. Don't get me wrong though, if you are town it doesn't show if he is one way or another. I don't see him as suspicious, so even if you get lynched and flip town, I wouldn't encourage anyone to vote Carlin yet, not until he does something incriminating.
I'll give you some words of defense though.
Ftr, this is incorrect. I've done it before and outted scumbags. the best example is ongoing, but if you want, i can hook out a completed one?Yosarian2 wrote:IGMEOY:Hoopla
Because I hate the "I'm going to do something scummy so I can jump on the first person who calls me on it to "encourage conversatin"" gambit. I've seen town people do it too often lately to really consider it a scumtell anymore, so I'm notgoing to vote you for it, but it never accomplishes anything and just makes day 1 muddy.
The reason was not legitimate. If you think it was, i suggest you read the first 2 pages again. You're better than this.Yosarian2 wrote:Also,FOS:Seraphimfor falling into BM's trap.
Seriously, he voted for a legitimate reason, and then backtracked just to stop from getting FOS'd by BM?
?Der Hammer wrote:Explain yourselfNatirasha wrote:Vote: Natirasha
Also, see sig.
But as you just admitted yourself, the reason was not legitimate, because Hoopla did not make any discernible attempt to kill conversation about his move. He merely responded in the way any townie would when confronted with scummy play.Yosarian2 wrote:Looked like he was voting Hoopla because of Hoopla's vote on George Carlin; specifically, because he thought Hoopla was trying to stop George Carlin from talking about the no-lynch thing. Is that why Hoopla was voting? Eh, probably not, although he didn't give any details. But that's irrelevent; Seraphim made a non-random vote for an actual reason, then backed down after a tiny amount of pressure, basically just one FOS from you.Battle Mage wrote:The reason was not legitimate. If you think it was, i suggest you read the first 2 pages again. You're better than this.Yosarian2 wrote:Also,FOS:Seraphimfor falling into BM's trap.
Seriously, he voted for a legitimate reason, and then backtracked just to stop from getting FOS'd by BM?
FoS: Yos
BM
Perhaps. It just seems like a rather silly question, and the tone in which it was asked indicates that Nat should have something to 'answer for'...militant wrote:I think what Der Hammer meant was "what motivated you to vote yourself?" although I could be mistaken.Battle Mage wrote:?Der Hammer wrote:Explain yourselfNatirasha wrote:Vote: Natirasha
Also, see sig.
BM
I somewhat agree with you that this is largely WIFOM, but the way i see it is this:Yosarian2 wrote:Eh, I don't think any ofit is indicitive of alignment. I've seen the pattern many times, and I don't think scum are any more or less likely to vote no-lynch, or to vote someone for voting no lynch, or to vote someone for voting someone for voting no-lynch. Any step of that, some town people will do it and think they're doing the right thing.Hoopla wrote:So, at this stage you believe it's very possible everyone involved in this debate is pro-town, under the premise mafia wouldn't bother getting involved?Yosarian2 wrote:No; if you are pro-town, then your ploy fails if it just leads to pro-town people fighting with each other all day. Which, in my experence, is usually what happens.Hoopla wrote: If the 'ploy' fails, then it's just one wasted post.
Thanks, but i really hope this is not IT. 0.oYosarian2 wrote:Umm...yeah, he did...Battle Mage wrote:Large post but a few issues Ecto:
1. You claim that content has been ignored. Yet, you do not deign to state what this content is. If you choose to do so, it might give your comments some credibility, and heaven forbid, give me the chance to respond!
Ectomancer wrote: What his point is as I read it, is that Hoopla made a move that revealed no alignment information.
That point is correct.
This is why some people say 'reading is win'. I won't pretend to understand your stance on it. It isn't of any relevance anyway.Ectomancer wrote:Just as I was about to berate you for not reading the game properly, to my chagrin I found that you had made your retracted fos aconditionalstatement. That would make it impossible for you to retract your fos before the vote was removed. What I saw was the bolded section.
Lol, nice try buddy. Sadly, that's just not how it works. You make a point, you back it up. If you dont back the point up to a good enough degree that it can be ASSESSED, then it is of no value.Ecto wrote: Now, as turnabout is fair play, you now get to go back and read GC's statements thoroughly for the answer to #1. You can even find the answer to #1 in my posts as I addressed that issue there. Both questions were already answered. If you can't find the answers, ask them again later after you've put in the effort.
Lol, how can a question be based on a false premise? Especially one which was 80% humorous speculation.Ecto wrote: As for #3, attacking people for false arguments is quite a bit different than defending their target. Trying to distract from the argument being made by presenting a different one? Go back and get the answer for #1, and see why your question #3 is based upon a false premise.
He cast a vote, which led to a bandwagon, on a healthy combination of inherently flawed reasoning, and utter bs. What is perhaps more unnerving is the fact that, i dont think he considered it to be a random vote-he seemed like he genuinely believed what he was saying...Yosarian2 wrote:I still need you to explan how George Carlin's play there was scummy, btw.Battle Mage wrote:
But as you just admitted yourself, the reason was not legitimate, because Hoopla did not make any discernible attempt to kill conversation about his move. He merely responded in the way any townie would when confronted with scummy play.
BM
Is this your first game on site? Over here, Voting No Lynch at any time where it is not an optimal play is something that people LOVE to jump on.Sobeahero wrote:Voting No lynch doesn't seem all that controversial to me, as its easy to see why one wouldn't want to take the chance of lynching town. I'd assume he voted no Lynch and hoped people would pass right over his post and not pay it much mind. AFter all, he did vote, which makes it look like he's doing something.Battle Mage wrote:This is clearly incorrect. If he didnt want to start a discussion, why would he vote No-Lynch? Unless you really think he was expecting people to go along with it?? 0.oSobeahero wrote:First off, he disproved nothing. The point was that vote couln't be used later for any reason, and that it seemed hoopla didn't want to start a discussion, as it would draw attention to him.Battle Mage wrote:GeorgeCarlin wrote:Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.Hoopla wrote:vote: no lynch
obvscum
In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,
Vote: HooplaUnvote, Vote: GeorgeCarlin
Well done buddy. You just disproved your own argument. If voting No-Lynch didnt provoke discussion, YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. If voting no-lynch didnt illicit reactions, YOU WOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR HOOPLA.
He left a trap, and you fell right into it.
BM
If he didnt want to draw attention to himself, why would he vote No-Lynch? He did the most controversial thing, which, in my experience, means he is very unlikely to be scum. However, those attacking him are pinging my scumdar quite significantly.
Lol, i dont really see your point here. So you're saying that, if he isnt scum, those people attacking GC are probably scum? Lol, seems a fair enough assumption-its the assumption i made about Hoopla and GC.Sobeahero wrote: Secondly, I always have issues trusting the guy who jumps on the first dude who tries to make a point about something. Also the fact people seemed to start voting Hoopla, which shows he might be able to convince people who to vote for. Seems like someone a Mafia would want to get rid of, under the assumption he himself isn't Mafia.
Rofl. I think you're floundering mate. If you wanna vote me, stop tying yourself up in knots, and do it! But you're gonna need a better reason than "he's picking on GC".Sobeahero wrote: I would say vote for you, cause if you are Mafia I doubt Carlin is, at least not in the same factin you are, again assuming there are more then 1. Don't get me wrong though, if you are town it doesn't show if he is one way or another. I don't see him as suspicious, so even if you get lynched and flip town, I wouldn't encourage anyone to vote Carlin yet, not until he does something incriminating.
I'll give you some words of defense though.
BM
That is on the assumption he is town, which isnt one id be looking at currently. It also makes the claim that scum are more likely to start a case rather than tag along to one, something which i also disagree with in general.Sobeahero wrote: And thats a good summary, if GC isn't scum, one of the ones voting for him probably is. Though most likely it would be the one who lead teh assault against him, since anyone the town is willing to listen to could prove to be bad for the Mafia if he rallys them behind that person. Basically Scum already have a reason to want him dead. :p
Joy. So you want to lynch me in order to 'prove' that GC isnt scum, excluding the obvious possibility of bussing, and acknowledge that if i am town, not only do we waste a day completely, but we have night to contend with, and you ignore the possibility that i am a power role. Joy.Sobeahero wrote: And my reason is more then he's picking on GC, my reason is GC would be a good target for scum to eliminate if he's town. So basically I'm deciding if he's more likely to be town, or if you are. I'm much more inclined to lynch you though, since that will at least show GC isn't aligned with you. Though sadly if you flip town we effectively learn nothing.
*sigh*Sobeahero wrote: Though between the two of you, I think I'll vote you. :p
unvote
voteBattle mage
QFAT. If you're scum, i think i might actually cry.Hoopla wrote:He says a no lynch vote is useless if nobody reacts to it (which you also reference later in your post). This does disarm his argument, as he does respond, and so do several other players. A random vote is also useless if nobody reacts to it.Ectomancer wrote: I disagree with the strawman argument that GC disproved his own case. He did not say that a no-lynch vote wouldnotgenerate discussion, in fact, he said itwould.
What his point is as I read it, is that Hoopla made a move that revealed no alignment information.
That point is correct.
The bolded point you can use on any of the first page random votes. If you disagree, link me to a game where a random vote does reveal alignment information.
If the 'ploy' fails, then it's just one wasted post. I've never seen a game where a no lynch vote has been ignored - please show me one. My retaliation further validated the purpose for my no lynch vote.Ectomancer wrote: 1: Hoopla - for using what apparently has become a rather common method of starting a game, and then voting for the player that began chasing after it,. Additional suspicion for creating the false statement that GC was contradicting himself.when the ploy fails entirely if everyone ignores it
I made a request, which was not unreasonable, and involved me making a concession aswell. If Seraphim has an issue with my tone, he can raise it with me.Ectomancer wrote:Hello Kettle? This is Pot. You are black. (to prod your failing memory, remember ordering someone to remove their vote?)Battle Mage wrote: Also- Please watch the attitude. You might be a good mafia player, but that doesnt mean you can boss people around and expect them to bite. Maybe if this was Kingmaker, and you were confirmed innocent. I dont think either of these is true here.
BM
If you're referring to what Yos2 quoted, i've already responded to that.Ecto wrote: As for making a point, and then backing it up, I made the point, I backed it up, YOU just simply failed to read it, then had the balls to make this response, even after it was pointed out to you before this post, and both before and after mine, that I alreadyhadanswered the question.
It's not a defence. I havent got anything to defend AGAINST. You put forward the scenario that i was lynched as town merely to gain information-neglecting to mention that i might not be Vanilla.Sobeahero wrote: I never ignored the possibility you are a power role. I'm just not ignoring the possibility that you are Mafia either. You voted GC. Ever though maybe HE might be a power role? That seems like a very weak defense. :p
Him flipping town will give additional info, just like me flipping town will. You then look at who put pressure on them. If he comes up town, we would think "would scum have attacked or defended him?" and attack accordingly. Same with me pretty much.Sobeahero wrote: And I only acknowledge that if you are town and lynched, we waste a lynch on a town and learn nothing. But guess what? Same thing happens if GC is town. If he's lynched town, we learn nothing. Unless you can give me a reason why him flipping town yields any additional information, you're voting at the same risks I am. :p
seems a little unlikely here, given we have 2 month deadlines, and MS players are timid of lynching at the best of times.Sobeahero wrote: next, Scum aren't inherently going to lay dormant or be active, I just tend to notice in a few games Scum like to take out those with an opinion early on in the game.
Only is Hoopla is scum. Pretty fundamental that! Scum dont mind keeping influential townies around who arent a direct threat to them.Sobeahero wrote: And on the Case of GC, its hard to tell how many people voted Hoopla because of him. But he both had an opinion, and people started voting hoopla after him, so its entirely possible Mafia would want him dead.
Lol, i sense a logical flaw here.Sobeahero wrote: And I pick you over GC for this simple reason, you've been rather redundant with yoru reasonings why me voting for you is silly.
-We get no info if you flip town? We get no info if GC flips town either. We are both taking the same risk if we are both town, so its a silly argument.
-Saying you disagree with the sentamant that Scum would start instead of follow? They can do both, so thats not much of a point. :p
- The whole 'I could be a power role' line? Same goes for GC.
1. There was nothing to defend until after you voted me, hence your reasoning is nonsensical.Sobeahero wrote: In short, I vote for you for redundant and pointless defenses. :p
This is true. But it doesnt make it a null tell.Yosarian2 wrote:Ok...but, by the same token, town are also likely to want to "promote good practices". So I tend to consider it a null-tell, all around.Battle Mage wrote: As such, scum are less likely to do something that is often seen as scummy, and will put them under scrutiny early on (such as vote No Lynch) and are more likely to do something seen as protown, that might stand in their favour later on (such as promoting good practices, like NOT No-lynching day 1).
*facepalm*BM wrote: You are probably right that. if Hooper knew it would attract him negitive attention, it would probably be a small town tell (unless he also knew we would see it as one..lol). I still hate the reflexive vote he made on GC, though, especally sinceGC's reasons were logical, at least in a first-iteneration kind of way. It's not especally strong, but I don't expect strong arguments that early.
Yes it does.Ectomancer wrote: His response and others to the no lynchstill does not invalidate the statement that a no lynch is useless if nobody reacts to it.Reactions to it are not addressed at all by that argument. Whether random votes are also useless does not invalidate his statement either. Straw Man here.
Again, does not invalidate his statement. If you want to say that your move is as valid as any other page 1 move, then sayEctomancer wrote:The bolded point you can use on any of the first page random votes. If you disagree, link me to a game where a random vote does reveal alignment information.
Given that information, do you think it is wise to interrogate Nat?farside22 wrote:I think he is asking about the self vote that Nat does every game and every game someone ask him why he self voted.Battle Mage wrote:?Der Hammer wrote:Explain yourselfNatirasha wrote:Vote: Natirasha
Also, see sig.
BM
Lol, we seem to have this discussion every game. We voted on it, and the majority concluded that they'd rather have lots of small broken up posts, than 1 or 2 massive, frightening ones. If you arent looking for a long game, this probably wasn't the one for you.Sir Tornado wrote:unvote
FoS Seraphim
Why on earth would a townie, with no guilty feelings feel there is a trap somewhere?
BTW, I have changed my view on Hoopla. I don't think his early actions were scummy anymore. I don't think GC is scummy at this point either.
BM, stop multi posting please. It increases the page count too much and starts depressing me when I turn up at this thread after a gap of couple of days.
I can name at least 2 in this game.farside22 wrote:I don't really see many town people try and look scummy right out the gate to find scum.
Newbie scum would deliberately try and look scummy? Really?farside22 wrote:I could see a newbie scum doing it that doesn't know any better. (IE looking scummy because they are scum). I could see someone who doesn't mind pressure that has enough experience trying the gambit. I don't believe Hoopla fits either category.Sir Tornado wrote:Can you envisage a situation where this can be a scum gamble? If so, what is it?farside22 wrote:Honestly with him it's a null tell. There are better things to talk about it seems. Such as Hoopla's no lynch vote. Is it a scum gamble or town gamble trying to lure out scum.
Good to see you mate. Looking at this line-up, we're going to need all the help we can get!curiouskarmadog wrote:Woah, Page 1 quickly begins the bandwagon train…nothing like a newbie to rock the boat.
Yay, haven’t played with an active BM in awhile.
Page 2, lost among the fluff between BM and Seraphim. IF Bm does anything, he does get conversation started.
Page 3-4 arguing over game theory. Jesus Christ..stop with the post pyramids.
Caught up…
Hoopla, no lynches are bad (at this point)…this is a newbie tell, nothing more.
Vote Sir Tornado,
I understand newbies attacking newbies for newbie tell, but you should know better…and even though you are not currently voting Hoopla, you jumped on that because…?
Why did you feel like Hoopla was scummy and deserving of your vote?
"too scummy to be scum" isnt really used on MS, as only a small minority of us will even consider it an argument. But for it to work, you generally need a strong meta. Not really applicable in this case.Ectomancer wrote:Ask Battle Mage if he knows a player that has done scummy things as scum on purpose because town falls into a "too scummy to be scum" mindset.farside22 wrote:I could see a newbie scum doing it that doesn't know any better. (IE looking scummy because they are scum). I could see someone who doesn't mind pressure that has enough experience trying the gambit. I don't believe Hoopla fits either category.Sir Tornado wrote:Can you envisage a situation where this can be a scum gamble? If so, what is it?farside22 wrote:Honestly with him it's a null tell. There are better things to talk about it seems. Such as Hoopla's no lynch vote. Is it a scum gamble or town gamble trying to lure out scum.
I agree with most of this. And no, i dont have any expectations of you atm. You're nothing to me.Shanba wrote:Guys, why are we not lynching seraphim?
Especially you, Sir T: what's up with the weak little FoS? Yos2 too.
But nothing actually changed about the situation he was addressing: he only unvoted when BM called him on it. I don't see how you would have been more suspicious of him forI dont agree with Yos2's fos on Seraphim, or Shanba's vote on him. The way I read it, he voted Hoopla for first trying to generate discussion, then slamming down a vote on the first player to disagree with the move. At this point, when votes are used more as statements, or for pressure, than to actually lynch someone, I would have been more suspicious if he didn't unvote.notbowing to BM's pressure. I don't see what this has to do with statements and the purpose of votes at all. But perhaps I'm missing something?
Am I expected to read all your posts, BM?
Farside: I can offer a counter example. Ironically, it wasn't a gambit, as such, but the concept is the same: [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=300]
The two people who attacked me over my insignificant little lie were both mafia.
what?? :Sfarside22 wrote:Newbies do look scummy because they are scum.Battle Mage wrote:Newbie scum would deliberately try and look scummy? Really?farside22 wrote:I could see a newbie scum doing it that doesn't know any better. (IE looking scummy because they are scum). I could see someone who doesn't mind pressure that has enough experience trying the gambit. I don't believe Hoopla fits either category.Sir Tornado wrote:Can you envisage a situation where this can be a scum gamble? If so, what is it?farside22 wrote:Honestly with him it's a null tell. There are better things to talk about it seems. Such as Hoopla's no lynch vote. Is it a scum gamble or town gamble trying to lure out scum.
So, you dont think Hoopla is scum?
BM
I'm confused as to where you drew this conclusion from. Quotes?Yosarian2 wrote:While I agreed that it might be a small pro-town tell, I'm confused as to why BM seems to be trying so hard to convince us that Hoopla is a 100% confirmed innocent...
I can name 2 players in this game who have deliberately acted scummy as town in order to invoke opportunism, at some point in their mafia careers. I'll give you a hint- one of them is me.Ectomancer wrote:Sooo...what's up with these 2 posts BM?
First quote you say you can name 2 town members that are trying to look scummy right out of the gate.
Second quote, you tell CKD that you'll need him this game due to the lineup, and its been awhile since you've played town.
Could you explain what you mean? It sounds like you are saying that you know 2 or 3 town members right off the bat.
Battle Mage wrote:I can name at least 2 in this game.farside22 wrote:I don't really see many town people try and look scummy right out the gate to find scum.
BMBattle Mage wrote:Good to see you mate. Looking at this line-up, we're going to need all the help we can get!curiouskarmadog wrote:Woah, Page 1 quickly begins the bandwagon train…nothing like a newbie to rock the boat.
Yay, haven’t played with an active BM in awhile.
Page 2, lost among the fluff between BM and Seraphim. IF Bm does anything, he does get conversation started.
Page 3-4 arguing over game theory. Jesus Christ..stop with the post pyramids.
Caught up…
Hoopla, no lynches are bad (at this point)…this is a newbie tell, nothing more.
Vote Sir Tornado,
I understand newbies attacking newbies for newbie tell, but you should know better…and even though you are not currently voting Hoopla, you jumped on that because…?
Why did you feel like Hoopla was scummy and deserving of your vote?
And yeh, its been a while since we've played together as TOWN.
BM
That's fair enough i guess. I guess thats the same reason i reacted so strongly to GC at the start-he was very keen, very early on.Sobeahero wrote:Don't want to go back teh page to quote, but this is directed at BM. :p
I did give a reason to vote for you. It looked suspicious to me for you to jump on the first guy who formed an opinion. Thats why I picked you over him. :p
That might be because i was talking about Yos and ECTOMANCER. Not Shanba. 0.oOhGodMyLife wrote:BM, that comment about Shanba and Yos "buddying up" and not meeting expectations is a real stretch. I really don't see anything that you could be construing as buddying up.
From where i'm sat, you've kind of rolled into 1 player. It's got to the stage where i cant tell you apart without checking the username every 5 minutes...Yosarian2 wrote::eyebrow:Battle Mage wrote: My comment to CKD was referring to the way in which you and Yosarian are pretty indistinguishable atm. It's very disconcerting when 2 of the most respected players in the game aren't meeting those expectations, and instead, seem to want to buddy up as much as possible.
How am I "not meeting expectations"? Just because I don't agree with you on everything?
And how are we "buddying up"? Just because we do agree on some things?
If this is how i normally play, why would you not like it?Hoopla wrote:BM, your posts are mighty hard to sift through sometimes. I know this is supposedly how you usually play, but maybe try expressing key thoughts rather than everything in your head? At the moment I don't know what you're attempting to do, but I don't like it.
I love to back the underdog. Blame Camn.Hoopla wrote: The main point I'm upset with you is generating buddying claims on people who merely share a similar opinion, while also appearing to link yourself to others at the same time. I didn't like Post 35 jumping to my aid and ordering off a FoS,
If i recall, it was a half-joke, half-greeting.Hoopla wrote:and Post 112 I read as you implying you're both pro-town, although it could also be read as you were both previously scum in other games and you're throwing in your own alignment hoping CKD is. Either way I'm keeping an eye on you.
So it was bs? Right.Ectomancer wrote:I've decided to pass over it. It's not the obvious from either a scum or town perspective. I thought you were saying something that you couldnt say directly from the way you phrased things and thought you might give a different response when given an opening.Battle Mage wrote:But, i'll humour you. Under what circumstances do you think i would "say i know 2 or 3 members of the town right off the bat"?
BM
So it was bs? Right. I just think it'd be helpful if you were more honest about this kind of shizzle.Ectomancer wrote:That's an assumption, something you are very good at. As I said, I've decided to pass it over for reasons that if I gave, wouldn't be passing it over. Dig it?Battle Mage wrote:So it was bs? Right.Ectomancer wrote:I've decided to pass over it. It's not the obvious from either a scum or town perspective. I thought you were saying something that you couldnt say directly from the way you phrased things and thought you might give a different response when given an opening.Battle Mage wrote:But, i'll humour you. Under what circumstances do you think i would "say i know 2 or 3 members of the town right off the bat"?
BM
BM
How the heck would that be a BAD thing? (assuming i'm town).farside22 wrote:BM your meta is showing stop it.
How many games are you in in the New York Forum?Puta Puta wrote:zomg i totally forgot about this thread O_o.
Actually CKD, im less certain about Sens here. On the one hand he isnt really making reasoned votes, but he is certainly casting the net wide, something that is, in my mind, a strong town tell. Of course, he could easily be scum, trying to be seen like this, but if this was the case, why would he tunnel-vision so quickly?curiouskarmadog wrote:SensFan wrote:Vote: Hooplafor his No Lynch vote, and defense of it.
Read through page 1.unvote, vote Sensfan,
same question that went to SIr Tornado..but doubled for you because you are doing it after only reading page one. This looks like someone who is trying to look like they are participating but not really doing anything.
also explain to me why voting after reading only page or 1 or page 3, when the rest of the group is on page 7 is pro-town.
So you didnt join immediately because those on the wagon already were getting heat?Sir Tornado wrote:CKD, while I was third person on that wagon, I think I gave a bit of hint that I did not like that no lynch in my second post in the game before any one else had voted him, and I would have voted him at that point had I not been trying to rile BM (and, yes BM, you guessed the correct reason). Furthermore, the wagon wasn't exactly hot. GC, having voted Hoopla was getting some flak for doing so.
(still waiting for your answer Seraphim)
Bearing in mind he's made 3 vote switches after reading as many pages, i think that classes as casting the net wide. And yes, i think they are protown, because generally scum will try and go after 1 or 2 people really hard, for consistency points, and won't want to alienate themselves by declaring further targets.curiouskarmadog wrote:BM, you feel wide nets are town?...I always thought wide nets were scummy..leaves people open to manuver their vote without too much crap from anyone....I dont really feel like Sens is casting a wide net though. two votes is hardly a wide net in a 22 person game
I disagree with the premise here. I'd say lurking in plain sight is generally picked up on more than hardcore lurking.Sobeahero wrote:You were more active without actually contributing anything though. Seemed like a way to make people think you were active without actually giving town anything to gauge you on. In addition people who post less would look more suspicious then the guy who keeps posting.Der Hammer wrote:Not sure this is really a relevant post to be honest? There were people who were less active than me which you seemingly ignored, yet you plucked me from the crowd. I will try and make my thoughts more known soon on the main events of the day.Sobeahero wrote:Well, for now I"m satisfied with my little squables with BM. Time to turn my focus onto another man.
And that man is.......Der Hammer
DUN DUN DUNN!!!!
He has yet to comment on any major event, nor has he really said ANYTHING relevant, except point out what FoS was to me.
As with the original reason for going after Hoopla, there really isn't a lot we can gauge from Der Hammers actions so far today. Therefore I'd like to see some more thoughts of the Hammer of Der posted in the near future. I'll try and sift through to find the other people who are mostly inactive and haven't posted much relevent soon, but I"m to tired to dig through all this again right now. :p
And as I told Farside, there were others like you, you just happened to be at the top of my head. Possibly because I think Hammer of Der sounds cool. :p
Wait, what are you agreeing with me about exactly?Shanba wrote:I like your style.OhGodMyLife wrote:Unvote, Vote: Sir Tornado
Unvote Vote: Sir Tornado
I completely agree with BM.
This is true. I have commented on this since. But the NL vote did not hide his alignment.SensFan wrote:Still don't like BM claiming that Hoopla's vote didn't hide his alignment at all. Hoopla seems to be avoiding saying anything, letting the bigger dogs fight over the debate he supposedly purposefully started, which is something I really don't like.
BS.SensFan wrote:I voted for a NL vote because that is the single scummiest thing someone can do in their first post.
Please explain how a random vote is any more telling than a NL vote.SensFan wrote:Absolutely anything else will show alignment. NL will not.Battle Mage wrote:BS.SensFan wrote:I voted for a NL vote because that is the single scummiest thing someone can do in their first post.
BM