OMGUS!
Sir T
Battle Mage wrote:Vote: Tornado
Blatant scum.
BM
Bah. You ruined the entire fun out of it :/. But, I was also partly trying to get someone put up a nonsensical case based on it, but I guess it doesn't matter now, and probably wouldn't have mattered all that much anyway.Shanba wrote:Vote: Sir Tornado
Gah, I realise you're probably mocking BM, but please. Stop. Doing. That.
Yep. You would realize that I ended up unvoting him and concluding that he is not scummy on page 4.CKD wrote: and you know he is a newbie right?
There really isn't any reason strong enough for me to actually vote for Seraphim. And, he still has to answer that question.Shanba wrote: Especially you, Sir T: what's up with the weak little FoS? Yos2 too.
...Battle Mage wrote: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)
BM
I am still on page 9 when I read this... respond to what? There isn't anything to respond to! OGML obviously found something in my posts which he didn't like, and voted me. Don't see what I can do about that.YoS wrote:On another note, I like OGML's vote for Sir T, and am interested to see how Sir T responds.
I agree.OGML wrote:i am supremely disturbed by yos' lurkerhunt "
This does answer it though.YoS wrote: I'm disturbed more people aren't paying attention to who is lurking and who isn't. I'm tried of always having to be the only guy who even bothers to figure out who's been lurking, and then inevitably being attacked for it, even though it's clearly in the best interests of the town.
Ah, the overconfidence...OGML wrote:I'm not protecting lurkers, I already found scum, and thats more important.
Now, this is really strange. You behave like you know 100% for sure I am scum and then you... jump on a up and coming bandwagon?OGML wrote:Unvote, Vote: Tubby
QFT, QFT.Militant wrote: Before hand you were very adamant and confident that you had found scum and you vote was where you wanted it on Sir Tornado but as soon as a bandwagon comes along you seem to totally forget about your previous convictions and jump on said bandwagon. Why the sudden change of heart?
I am liking Shanba more and more in this game. If I ignore the fact that he wants me lynched, he seems very consistent and town-ish.Shanba wrote: The tubbywagon is meh. I prefer a Sir t/Seraphim wagon.
I am shocked BM didn't say anything on Tubby wagon in his first vote since the wagon started.BM wrote:I'm slightly resentful that, after spending some time constructing a list of this nature, yos decided to do so aswell.
But, if you are so convinced I am scum, shouldn''t you be trying to convince people that I am a scum, and if asked why? So far, your reasons were of the type:OGML wrote:I didn't forget any previous convictions, but the sir t wagon doesn't, it seems, have any legs, and I like having my vote somewhere that it does some good.
There is a difference between a bad wagon and a stupid wagon. If you want to accuse someone of doing something, think what they would gain from doing it. From where I am looking at right now, Tubby couldn't gain anything from saying what he did apart from landing a bunch load of votes on him. There are a few more people in the game (cue to YoS's lurker list) who may well be doing pretty much doing the same thing as Tubby is, except they are not stupid enough to say it aloud.OGML wrote:Criticising me for joining the bandwagon you are on makes me think you might already know its a bad wagon.
I agree completely with this post.Militant wrote:
I am not criticising the wagon, I think it is good if it gets tubby talking and stops him lurking, but I was suspicious of you because you seemed so sure that Sir T was scum and then you just hop to another wagon. Would you care to elaborate on the phrase "have any legs"; I have never heard of it before. If I understand it correctly you thought Sir T's wagon was not going anyway and was not going to result in a lynch so you jump on another which could materialise into a lynch. This coupled with the speed at which you unvoted Sir T leads me to beleive you just want someone lynched rather than someone you actually beleive to be scum.
The bolded sentence. As you acknowledged, we are both on the same wagon. I have already said I support the wagon because I think tubby needs pressuring, you on the other hand say the bandwagon "has legs" which implies you think it is a good wagon and could result in a lynch. Yet in the bolded sentence you say I might already know it is a bad wagon. If you think it is a bad wagon then why did you join it? If I have misunderstood the phrase "has legs" then I suppose you can ignore this paragraph.
This makes me think why no one saw this before this... I would ask the same to Shanba too, but I know he doesn't explain his votes even if you ask him to, so I am not about to expend any energy in doing so.Ectomancer wrote: Let's see, there was an uncommented Vote.
Next we have "Can we talk more about how Sir Tornado is scum and needs a bigger bandwagon?"
Tries to prod Yos into joining the bandwagon, also with no actual comment on SirT
Somewhere in there he said he had found scum.
I had my end semesters from 17th to 26th... but I should be back now. finished them about a couple of hours ago... but there were a few thoughts from me in the previous as well as this post (and possibly on the next one depending what happened those pages)YoS wrote:Speaking of which, I still do want to hear from Sir T, and see what he thinks about the wagon on him (even if that wagon's gone away now).
I hate you.Puta Puta wrote:OH HAI THAR.
Sorry. The Fonz isn't about to jump the shark and put jesters in his game :pBM wrote:jester?
Hello VollkanThe Fonz wrote:Vollkan replaces Panda Stomper 85.
INatirasha wrote: At least try.
unvote, vote: BM
What I said to Natirasha.Der Hammer wrote:yawn,,,,Vote:BM
I agree with this in principle. I just don't think BM going V/LA is the solution though.Shanba wrote:I respectfully disagree.
In my experience, it's much more difficult to contribute to a game which is dominated by one player or one argument. You know those situations where two players are going at it hammer and tongs, posting ever longer lists of refutations and accusations at each other? Those make it very difficult for other players, as there's a tendency to sit back and watch the show.
Similarly, BM's posting dominating the thread makes it hard for other players to rise to the forefront. I believe his discussions about Hoopla, for example, have reduced the amount of information we would have received should Hoople have had to present the information his/herself.
Furthermore, it hurts the game going forwards, too - the larger the weight of information, the harder it is for players to catch up, to replace in or to reread the thread. And besides, when there's all this extraneous information about one player, other stuff about other players may get lost in the mass of BM's posts.
I wouldn't have done it had he typed my user name in completion instead of just the bland "Tornado".Shanba wrote:In the early days of his playing career, BM was famous for quoting upside down: that is, putting the text above the quote. Sir T was doing this, (presumably to mock or otherwise take the mickey out of BM), and I noted that it was incredibly annoying.
I did explain it, I think. I voted Hoopla because I found his no lynch vote scummy, but as the game progressed, I came to the conclusion that it was not scummy. I believe I stated this somewhere.Vollkan wrote:92: I take issue with the way ST casually states that he no longer suspects Hoopla and doesn't think GC is scummy - no explanations are given for either of these.
The wagon continues... well, you know what I feel about it by now.Putta Putta wrote:Tubby is a lurker, like me...there can only be one lurker (me!) so he's got to go. Vote:Tubby
And again...Putta Putta wrote:Tubby, the tribe has spoken, it's time for you to go.
Is "All will be revealed soon" your mantra with which you hope to start your own religion some day?Tubby wrote:no but i assure you yos all will be revealed soon
You clearly haven't seen me post 9 times in a row then, have you?Shanba wrote:Irony?
3 actually. The third one is don't do scummy things.Xylthixlm wrote: Townies have two duties in this game: to help find scum, and to talk so that other townies can tell whether you are scum. You're not doing either. You're the mafia equivalent of the little league player who sits out in left field admiring the flowers and doesn't even try to catch the ball. It's obnoxious and makes the game less fun for me.
Hi. There is a nice facility on this forum called "sentbox". Did you know of it?Puta Puta wrote:I'm a cop. I don't remember (if any) who I investigated O_O
either I didn't sent in a name for investigation or I did but something happened, cuz I never got a report, lol
Xylthixlm, the key to this is, what happens if he/she/it is a scum masquerading as a cop? We still have him/her on the rack. You can't hope to go a long way in a large game by claiming cop on D1. If Puta Puta is scum, it doesn't matter when we get rid of her, it just matters whether we do; but in case she is a cop, we don't want to lynch her right now. It's not as if we are in a LyLo or something right now.Xylthixlm wrote:I'm really, really trying hard to convince myself to unvote Puta Puta in case he/she/it is a real cop.
So far it's not working.
I can't help but agree to this BM, but I don't see lynching Puta Puta as a proper play. I mean, you may get lucky and find that she is scum, but you may get unlucky and find out that she is indeed a cop. But, we won't lose anything by saving her lynch for later if she is scum, but we will lose quite a lot by lynching her right now if she is a cop.BM wrote:Cop in both your games? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
I see at least one other game where he/she/it threatened to self hammer but got hammered before he/she/it could do it, and was revealed as an insomniac cop. (check his/her/it's posting history)Xylthixlm wrote: I choose to act as though no one would be in category 3, as it is a violation of forum rules, and therefore lynching someone who self-votes is always the correct action.
We don't live in a utopia. (besides, he/she/it didn't actually self hammer, just threatened to)Xylthixlm wrote: I choose to assume that everyone is following the forum rules, and use that to guide my play. I don't think it's an unreasonable policy.
Selfhammering as cop is a reason to be banned from future games, not a reason to be coddled.
That's a horrible play regardless of alignment (even for a jester).tubby216 wrote: i mean its a pretty good play if your scum because its too early in the game for a counter claim cause the real copp wouldn't want to out himself this early especially with no investigation results,,,,
It wasn't a "total bull" reason. Scum are more likely to see traps where none exist because they are more likely to be more suspicious and paranoid than townies about traps.OhGodMyLife wrote: This is what originally drew my attention and vote. His reason for the FoS is total bull, and the fact that he FoSes when he hasn't got a vote out is something I find really scummy, in that noncomittal, don't want to leave a paper trail sort of way.
This is patently untrue. Only the last line of my post 157 was based on the falsehood (which I corrected in my next post). The rest is still valid.OhGodMyLife wrote: Defends his move onto the Hoopla wagon in 157 based on a total falsehood, then corrects himslf in 158 regarding the facts but seemingly doesn't think this should change his defense in the slightest. Also, note this line from 157:
I think I established later that I was too busy at that time?OhGodMyLife wrote: Its so convenient for scum when someone doesn't answer a query of theirs, they get to just sit around doing nothing all day long except repeating that they're waiting for something.
You obviously don't know I make comments like this frequently in mafia games. Also, I'll keep this in mind whenever you say you think someone is town later on.OhGodMyLife wrote: Unabashed buddying up to CKD.
How on earth can you view that as an attack? I of course had no idea whether BM posts more smileys as townie or scum, I just remember he used to do a lot of that some time ago. I was trying to see if he would consciously put more smileys in his posts after that -- which he didn't.OhGodMyLife wrote:This is an incredibly ridiculous reason to attack BM.
Perhaps you want to see my last 3-4 games?OhGodMyLife wrote:Wow what an awesome excuse for scummy play, you're "trying to be ambiguous" so you don't get nightkilled. I call shenanigans.
See above about the "attack".OhGodMyLife wrote: Wait wait wait, didn't you just make a sidelong attack on BM yourself for not using enough smileys? I don't think there can be anything more utter crap than that, yet here you go attacking people who attack BM. Thats really strange.
Again, see (a bit more) above.OhGodMyLife wrote:You explained it based on a false premise, then you quickly corrected yourself in regards to the premise but did not correct your explanation.
So... are you saying it did not happen like that on page 15 and 16? How would you describe events on page 15/16 in a single post then?OhGodMyLife wrote:It should be clear by now that Sir T and tubby216 are scum together.
Ok, but you fail to mention that I unvoted Seraphim on that very page. So, enlighten me, why would I trying to develop a false and weak reasoning to vote Seraphim for 15 pages, vote him (so that I could have enough "left him questions" posts later on to point to) and then vote someone else on the same page? No one actually questioned that vote between me voting him and unvoting him either, so how does that fit into your theory?OhGodMyLife wrote:Finally, finally votes for Seraphim, I guess he felt that he had left enough "waiting for your answer" posts to point back to later if this vote was ever questioned.
Not badly enough to get myself lynched...Xylthixlm wrote: Therefore, not playing obviously townie lowers the town's chances of lynching scum, and therefore lowers the town's chances of winning. What do you call that? I call it bad play.
But wait, doesn't that depend on my alignment? I mean, if I am scum, wouldn't me playing badly be advantageous to the town? Do you KNOW I am town?Xylthixlm wrote: An unrelated point for my future reference: I really don't like the idea of someone playing deliberately ambiguous; it's bad for the town. "I'm playing badly because I don't want to be night killed" (or whatever SirT said) doesn't sit very well with me.
How is it a good play if you are scum? Didn't your scenario end up with the player getting lynched?Xylthixlm wrote:If you're scum, it's good play. If you're town, it's bad play.
lolXylthixlm wrote:In my experience, scum often go to the gallows convinced that the case against them is bullshit and they would have done the exact same thing as town.
No, No, NO. That would be the worst play EVER.iamusername wrote:As far as Claus goes, we're all agreeing to completely ignore Gimbo's fuckery and give him a clean slate, right? I'm pretty sure that is the way to go.
IMO, you should treat a miller claim as a player who is unreadable. You don't rush to lynch him because the player is unreadable, but you don't allow the player to live until the end of the game, where you want to have as few unknown quantities as possible. Claimed miller is, thus a very good target for vig if the vig is taking a shot based on his hunch.Vollkan wrote:The quandary is that some people (see Xyl's posts for a better explanation) have a view that miller claims are innately scummy and should be auto-lynchable offences . Others (eg. me) think that miller claims should be treated with doubt and so on, but not an autolynch.
The problem with that reaction to a Miller claim is, that Miller is a unusual claim for mafia to make in this situation. It's a big gambit, in that it may not work. If he wanted one that worked, he would have claimed doctor, something that would make absolutely sure that he survived today (or outed the real doctor). The BW against Der Hammer wasn't too big for him to have to claim (unless he got a massive panic attack), and he could have easily absorbed that pressure successfully. That's the problem with his claim being false.Seraphim wrote:I like my vote where it is. Der Hammer's lack of actual content until he was attacked leads me to believe he is active-lurking. His miller claim smells. I'd be a lot less willing to lynch him if his miller claim had come closer to the beginning of the game rather than when he was attacked. Instead, it only comes when he is attacked. Therefore, I like my vote.
Er... mafia would want to NK a a person who claims a miller... why exactly?Der Hammer wrote:Don't like this directing of the vig. Seems like Mafia trying to get a vig to do their dirty work.
Did you read the preceding paragraph?Xyl wrote:This is a ridiculous argument for not lynching someone. Fos: Sir Tornado
And, wondering how well this sits with your accusation of me trying to set up his lynch. Also, wondering whether you still think I and Tubby are scum buddies (if so, why would you want to "straighten him out"?)OGML wrote:As for Sera, I'll join the suggesting vig strategies party and say he'd be a pretty optimal vig choice. Recently, he's done a lot of wagoning lurkers and nothing.
You mean something along the lines of:Xyl wrote:Either he is scummy and should be lynched, or he isn't scummy and therefore not "in the bag". Pick one.
?iamausername wrote:Guys, I think we've got a decision to make, right here, right now. Either we lynch Ectomancer immediately, or we trust him completely forever. THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS.
No. I meant that the danger in not lynching him today is very minimal. And, I have already told why there is a good chance he may not be scum in post 829.Xyl wrote:So, if I understand your position correctly, he is scummy enough that we will lynch him eventually but not scummy enough to lynch today. Is that correct?
I'd prefer the vig option. Even if you forget that he has claimed, he still is a good N1 vig target (although there would be a few others in the same bracket as him, like Killa Seven, Natirasha, Sensfan, etc) unless the vig has spotted someone genuinely scummy and wants to bump them off.Xyl wrote:Let's change the question. If, through some amazing miracle, DH stayed exactly as scummy as he is now for the rest of the game, at what point would you be willing to lynch him?
You haven't explain why you voted me in the first place though. You accuse me of being scum and asking the vig to do mafia's dirty work for them, but why would mafia want to NK a claimed miller? This was the sole basis of your vote, which, you have now hastily withdrawn under another pretext without answering why.Der Hammer wrote:Unvote, in light of a replacement being found.