Open 111- Immunity Mafia: Mod abandon

[Wall-E]

mrifnoc/

[Wall-E]

Vote: don_johnson

is the mafia.


29

[Wall-E]

WARNING: REAL VOTE INCOMING
WOOT WOOT DOGS AND SIRENS

Unvote: vote: zwets

for RVS overreaction.

(random voting stage)

28

[Wall-E]

Unvote; Vote: Wall-E

For overreaction to my non-overreaction.

Eve isn't going to like you anymore, Wall-E.

OMGUS disguised as hypocrisy... that's a new one on me.

[Wall-E]

Allow me to be less cryptic.




Hypocrisy is: Voting for someone and using the reasoning that they used as the reasoning for your own vote. I voted for you for overreacting. You voted for me for overreacting. Hypocrisy is a mild scum-tell.

It doesn't matter whether you actually overreacted. It's my interpretation. Your voting me for my opinion is like punishing someone for playing the game, or what we like to call being anti-town.

Please try to remember that this is just my opinion, and I'm only one person, and finally: Be careful with your votes. They have weight, and tossing them around thoughtlessly will only hurt our scum-hunt.

[Wall-E]

Mod: Would it be possible for the setup to be put in the first post?

[Wall-E]

What is TPAM?

[Wall-E]

Yes, I have some questions.

What is a Ninja?
What is the kill flavor of the Yakuza?
What is a Hitman?
What is a Tracker?
What is a Watcher?
Do both scum-teams have a night kill, and if so, is their kill flavor differentiated from that of the Ninja and Hitman (if they even have kills)?

[Wall-E]

Yes, I have some questions.

You really should have read most of these when you signed up...

What is a Ninja?

A Ninja is a Mafioso that cannot be seen by Watchers or Trackers when they perform the NK.

What is the kill flavor of the Yakuza?

Not telling.

What is a Hitman?

A Hitman is a Mafioso whose kills are not stopped by Doc protects and is immune to Roleblockers.

What is a Tracker?

A Tracker sees everyone that his target affects with a Night ability, but not what he does.

What is a Watcher?

A Watcher sees everyone that uses a Night ability on their target, but not what they did.

Do both scum-teams have a night kill, and if so, is their kill flavor differentiated from that of the Ninja and Hitman (if they even have kills)?

They will have different kill flavors, but it will be up to you to decide which Mafia performed which kill.

I signed up by saying /in for next. Some of these players didn't even sign up. Just sayin'.

[Wall-E]

Mod: So, to be clear, there is a potential for four NKs per night, right? One for the yakuza team, one for the ninja, one for the hitman and one for the mafia?

[Wall-E]

on the plus side, higher chance of scum killing each-other off!

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: OrangePenguin

Third on a bandwagon.

[Wall-E]

The dejka bandwagon is utter crap.

Everyone pump your brakes. It's been less than a week since this game started. We have time to discuss some of the other things going on in this thread.

1) Brock. Brock is an idiot. Here is why:

1a) He states suspicion without giving reasons:

Any comments on any players you do or don't find scummy, Brock?

None that im willing to point out so early in the game.

so you do find certain players scummy?

why not call them out?

echo, echo, echo, echo

echo, echo, echo

,

echo,echo,echo

I dont like showing my hand early in the game, but what the hey:

You, And Wall-e, more wall-e than you. Not Animorpherv (or something ><) But Orange penguin.

Wall-e and orange stand out more on my scumdar, though.

that's quite the hand.

mind explaining what you find scummy about said players?

Im saying this right now: You seem least scummy, most likely to be joking around. But Wall-e looked scummy to me when he jumped right on. Ani seemed to be doing it for the hell of it, but orange, seemed less like an innocent vote, if you know what i mean. =P Zwets bandwagon is very interesting right now.

Stating your reasons after-the-fact gives scum-Brock the opportunity to think about how he wants to frame Town-Wall-E. It also allows him to silently 'poll' the audience, watch for things others have said and integrate them into his suspicion list. That said, I can see how town-Brock would have done all this, and so I'm only going to

FoS

him for now.

1b) He openly discusses his trap-setting strategies, like he's bragging:

Let's see here...


Brocktree: I don't see how a trap set in an open game would be very effective, assuming that the Mafia have some intelligence. Minor suspicion.

Ive done it before. I rarely reveals scum, but most of the time i do it, it reveals a townie.

And when someone lynches that townie, provided theyre a townie, i will look over who voted for them, and how theyve been acting. Its called vote analysis, and this is how i do it.

Scum set traps. Town who do it are just distracting us with pointless strategy discussion.

2) zwetschenwasser is fast becoming my #1 suspect:

2a) He tries to pass everything he's done in the game thus-far off as a joke:

Let's see here...

My Wall-E vote was a crazy OMGUS vote intended to bring up some discussion, which it did, by showing that: 1)Dejkha is coming up with reasons to not vote me that I find questionable, and 2)KMD realized that she was starting to get too enthusiastic about getting people on my wagon, and backed off. I repeated my silly post, Mr. Troll, because no one was giving me credit for my escape plan .

So, in summary:

Zorblag: Town, for taking a logical standpoint and making reasonable questions about me and other players.
Empking's Alt: Unknown
Brocktree: I don't see how a trap set in an open game would be very effective, assuming that the Mafia have some intelligence. Minor suspicion.
don_johnson: Unknown
Wall-E: Minor suspicion for taking a post I intended to be a joke and trying to make it look scummy.
White Castle: Unknown
Light-Kun: Minor scumminess for voting dejkha even though you admitted that the case you presented at the early part of your post was not that good.
Dejkha: Slight Town, but could go both ways, as although he initially looked scummy he responded quite well to questions.
KMD: Slight Town, but could go both ways, as he did actively pressure Dejkha, but a little bit too much, in my opinion.

More later, but for now:

Unvote; Vote Light-Kun

Now, I've done stupid things before. When I did them, I sometimes would try to laugh them off as a joke. That's why I'm only giving zwet an

FoS

rather than putting my vote BACK on him. zwet: If you don't start taking this game seriously you are going to earn my vote. Two joke-votes and a silly dismissal of your own actions in what some consider the most important phase of the game is very upsetting to my scumdar.

Which brings me to a side-point:

Mod: My vote is on OrangePenguin, not zwet.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-e: If you think only scum set traps, you are daft. Traps are half the game, in my opinion, and half the discussion, the other half being possible slip-ups, and mistakes.


You wanna know why i think you guys scummy? Zwets bandwagon. I said you were all suspicious. I said only two of you looked scummy: You, and Orange.

Youre vote seemed a bit convienient to be innocent random voting, as did Oranges. I didnt like your reasons you gave, either. You gave me scum vibes.

Really? You think this:

My vote was an intentionally scummy ploy intended to incite discussion, and it did, revealing several things. I then backed out of the original thing by saying, "Whelp, it was a trap. LOL."

...is acceptable?

What if I replied with: "Well I KNEW it was a trap, so I laid one of my OWN, by doing something even SCUMMIER! Ha HA!"

Scum lay traps. Just my opinion.

Confirm vote: Zwet

[Wall-E]

What about the original reasons that I gave for voting zwet did you dislike, Brock?

[Wall-E]

That's right. It is a poor excuse to vote. That's why it's not an excuse. It's a vote with stated reason: Overreaction. You want my first serious vote of the game on page two to be an in-depth scumnalysis of a player? You're stretching and trying to form a bandwagon on me with no ground to stand on.

[Wall-E]

That's right. It is a poor excuse to vote. That's why it's not an excuse. It's a vote with stated reason: Overreaction. You want my first serious vote of the game on page two to be an in-depth scumnalysis of a player? You're stretching and trying to form a bandwagon on me with no ground to stand on.

No, i am not. Don johson asked who i found suspicious. I told him. Where did this bandwagon idea come from? Even

I

know thats not enough proof to bandwagon.

You seem quick to get defensive, though.

What's wrong with being defensive?

[Wall-E]

Like I said, I dont think pressure votes would work at L-7 and he hasn't said much else after I posted my response to his initial suspicious post.

You don't think a vote is pressure?

That's what you just said. You said that there are votes that are not pressure.

Up until I read this little bit I was 100% behind everything you've been saying.

[Wall-E]

@Don:

on the surface, it may look like a harmless statement. however, given the fact that preceding this zwet had voted whitecastle, it takes on a different meaning altogether.

I don't understand the "different meaning" you have made out of "I don't like hamburgers". All I can see is a hamburger joke for a random vote on a name (White Castle) that's associated with hamburgers.

apparently you did not read the rest of the post you have quoted. why did zwet feel the need to "expand" on his joke vote? he had already voted. there had been no response. no inquiry as to why. he simply chose to add "i don't like hamburgers" after the fact.

FOS: jahudo

for feigning misunderstanding when my post was clearly explained.

...do you really want to cheapen the value of your future FoSes by FoSing someone for not understanding your point? I know I won't take them as seriously in the future...

[Wall-E]

my OMGUS for you and my RV on WC was certainly a joke. You are the one who overreacted, not me.

I'm really stupid and it's hard for me to differentiate between a joke vote and a real one when no real indication is given.

Maybe for us stupid people you could make your jokes very obvious or refrain from making jokes that look serious?

In the meantime, because I am so stupid, I'm going to vote for you even though you're a townie.

Unvote: Vote: zwetschenwasser

to make it official.

[Wall-E]

We should hear more from these people:

White Castle – 1 fluff post – last post Jan 30
Orangepenguin – 1 random? vote – last post Jan 30
Magua – 1 random vote, 2 fluff posts – last post Jan 29
Kieraen – 1 fluff post – last post Jan 30

Good post Jahudo.

[Wall-E]

Empking, you have flooded this thread with your noob baiting and self-aggrandizing non-content. You suck horribly.

For the record, guys, he's right. Town shouldn't play, "Who's most town."

That said, that was the most excruciating and selfish way to make a point imaginable, Empking. You are a turd.

Empking: Who are your top three scum suspects and why?

[Wall-E]

Ad hom doesn't help the town.

No, but it makes me feel better, donkey nose.

[Wall-E]

Ad hom doesn't help the town.

No, but it makes me feel better, donkey nose.

I notice you didn't mention your reasons. I'll expect them to be all the more incriminating when you do reveal them.

[Wall-E]

Bej and Ani, I explained when I voted them or the post after.

Am I wrong or did you say your reason for voting me because you thinking I lied about how many posts you made without backing it up? If so, I was right about your post count and everyone else gets what I mean about it.

Your problem is that you're being to literal and that is making you even more suspicious (to me at least). And, while I understand where you're coming from, refusal to give your opinion on people isn't helping. You wouldn't be the first one to give your opinion on others this game. And the people that have, have done it voluntarily.

I don't think there is any such thing as being too literal. In my opinion, as someone with asperger's, people who play this game are never literal enough.

You've dragged as much information as mafiascum etiquette demands out of Empking. Everyone is aware that he's being unhelpful (seemingly). What more do you want?

I agree with you that he's jumping your shit over something that seems negligible, but to be honest, most of the time scum goes a whole game without making much bigger a mistake than the one you did. He's totally justified in saying what he said, and you are totally justified in defending yourself, but neither of you has the right to drag this thread into the abyss to make a small point that basically boils down to:

Empking: Your facts are wrong.

Dejkha: I think you know what I meant.

Empking: Vote: Dej.

Dejkha: Vote: Emp.

I say, let everyone vote as they see fit based on this conversation and let's move on.

Personally, I'm still angry with Empking for adding three pages of arguing that could have been easily avoided while simultaneously making the valid point that town-speculation is anti-town.

In fact, I see it as scum being overly ballsy.

Unvote: Vote: Empking's Alt

[Wall-E]

KMD: Do you really not think the difference between events and people are large?

What the hell is this existential bullcrap? Relevance?

[Wall-E]

zwet if you are town you are screwing us out of a scum lynch today

[Wall-E]

So it's the strength of the case on Emp compared to the weak case on Zwet?

Yeah, pretty much.

The case on Empking's Alt is weak at best.

Unvote: Vote: zwet

[Wall-E]

Because if he is town, he's going to hang today and we will have mislynched.

[Wall-E]

Dej, Empking is at L-7, and the case on him isn't strong enough for a lynch.

Are you ok with your vote? If so, what is the difference between your current vote on Emp and your earlier non-vote on Zwet?

The only difference is that you were the first vote here, where you would have been 4th on Zwet. I don't think that being 4th on a wagon is a scumtell, but I'm curious what the difference is here.

The difference, to me, is that while at first I tried to start a discussion with Zwet with something minor, Emp continually refused to add a useful post and was arguing with me about the number of posts I said he made, which is ridiculous on its own, and eventually voted for me because of it.
.

Quotes please.

...

Are you

trying

to be annoying?

[Wall-E]

I'm being for real when I say this: Your nit-picking is unhelpfully banal. Fix that.

I strongly doubt Empking would appreciate you dragging his name through the mud like this.

[Wall-E]

Guys, Empking is, for whatever reason, making the thread about him.

Let's humor him, shall we?

unvote: vote: empking's alt

You're so dead-set on disproving even the tiniest little thing and ignoring scumhunting... you're either up to something or dragging this game into the gutter. Either way, I now want you dead.

Merry Christmas.

[Wall-E]

Anything to say, Empking?

An apology would go a long way toward getting my vote off you.

In fact, it would go all the way.

[Wall-E]

No, I'd be willing to accept that he's learned from his mistakes and will straighten up and play right. It takes a lot to admit you've been consistently playing poorly from post 1.

[Wall-E]

As I've already stated, if Empking simply acknowledges that he's being a pain I'll likely unvote him and reattach to zwet. I can totally see Empking's side of the issue, but there is a point at which we, as a town, have to punish people for being all loud defense and zero offense.

Good post, Zorblag.

[Wall-E]

Block: Stop with the ad hom, it doesn't hel;p the town.

Dej: In all seriousness, are you retarded or otherwise mentally ill?

...

[Wall-E]

Your apology was insincere, and now you've become an unjustifiable hypocrite.

See, I too am a hypocrite, but when I do something outrageously hypocritical I always have good reasons.

You, on the other hand, have no way of finding out the information you requested through ad hominem that I can see, and you continue to make a mockery of this game.

Either your partners are helping bus you or you're a very Silly Townie.

[Wall-E]

Scum vibes, Caboose? It called my attention that Wall-E didn't want to pressure Emp at all. All he wanted was an apology, and poof! no more vote.

Really? Where is my vote now? Did he apologize sincerely, in your opinion? Was he wrong, like I asserted? If he is scum, how has his play helped his team? If he's town, how has his play helped the town?

[Wall-E]

I'm not going to vote for dejkha today because 1) He's contributing useful content, scum-tainted though it may be, and 2) I don't think the case on him is nearly strong enough.

[Wall-E]

oh JESUS brocktree

[Wall-E]

I'm not going to vote for dejkha today because 1) He's contributing useful content, scum-tainted though it may be, and 2) I don't think the case on him is nearly strong enough.

Please explain to the class how "scum-tained content" translates to "useful content" or even how that sort of content is useful to anyone other than the mafia. Bonus points if you can actually convince anyone why he shouldn't be lynched based on a posting history in this thread of "scum-tained content."

FoS: Wall-E

You're assuming that I'm assuming he's scum. I'm not. That's your kettle.

[Wall-E]

hohum is visibly self-destructing

[Wall-E]

Now he's getting angry! Everybody point and laugh!

[Wall-E]

I always characterize those who use ad hom as being angry. It's usually a fair assessement (except in my case, but I'm abnormal).

[Wall-E]

You need to look up the word Ad-hominem in the dictionary.

consists of replying to an

argument or factual claim

by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the

argument or claim

, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against

the claim

What

CLAIMS

have you made all page long? Seriously. You can't bitch about someone calling you out on your busy-posts by playing the Ad-hominem card -- especially if you're going to continue to flood the thread with jackassy, one line and no content posts.

hohum is visibly self-destructing

Are you our

color commentator

or something? Two of your last three posts have been completely void of useful/analytical content.

Claim in red. Ad hominem in blue. Check and mate, loser.

I'm suddenly very interested in you, hohum. You are clearly unafraid to make a spectacle of yourself, and I'm wondering if it's intentional?

You've been a helpful contributor up to now, but this page is full of you trying to call my posts useless. Are they useless hohum? If the answer is yes, does anyone agree with hohum that my posts on this page are useless? If so, is it typical of me in the game so far to be thus?

[Wall-E]

You're just not paying attention. I along with several others (there's no less than SIX people on his wagon right now) have all laid out our justification for our votes.

So you agree he's right? That the FoS is the only thing on me right now? Your singular use of "justification" implies such. Like I said, hardly a good enough reason by itself to lynch me.

And if I do get lynched, I'd recommend keeping an eye of Hohum. Kier was spot on in his observations.

You and Wall-E both seem to have a poor grasp on the english language. Justification is a word that can be used interchangeably in singular or plural form. While there is technically a definition for the word "justifications" in the dictionary, almost nobody uses that form of the word.

Tell me which of these sentences sounds more correct to you in the context of multiple people having multiple votes:

We have justification for our votes.

We have justifications for our votes.

Next, where have I misused the english language?

I know it's not game relevant to point out the clerical errors of others, but you have hypocritically inferred that it somehow *is* while simultaneously denying that it is.

I'm sure that pointing out the fact that telling others to replace out if they are going to resort to ad hominem (no hyphen) and then resorting to it yourself is hypocrisy would be equally game irrelevant, but here I am doing just that! Weird, right?

Your hipocrisy is compounding, hohum, and you continue to self-destruct.

[Wall-E]

overly redundant

I lol'd.

[Wall-E]

You claimed NOTHING. You made that comment about me self-destructing because I FoSed you:

I'm not going to vote for dejkha today because 1) He's contributing useful content, scum-tainted though it may be, and 2) I don't think the case on him is nearly strong enough.

Please explain to the class how "scum-tained content" translates to "useful content" or even how that sort of content is useful to anyone other than the mafia. Bonus points if you can actually convince anyone why he shouldn't be lynched based on a posting history in this thread of "scum-tained content."

FoS: Wall-E

Check and mate, loser.

I'm suddenly very interested in you, hohum. You are clearly unafraid to make a spectacle of yourself, and I'm wondering if it's intentional?

You've been a helpful contributor up to now.

This argument between us seemed to start when I FoSed you. Now all of a sudden I'm not a helpful contributor because you are the target of my scrutiny?

Sort of OMGUSy, don't you think?

Absolutely not. If you'd suddenly switched from scum-huntingly flawless play to badgering anyone else who'd previously been providing stellar content (did you see what I did there?) for fluff posting I'd have been just as curious.

[Wall-E]

I'm not going to vote for dejkha today because 1) He's contributing useful content, scum-tainted though it may be, and 2) I don't think the case on him is nearly strong enough.

Please explain to the class how "scum-tained content" translates to "useful content" or even how that sort of content is useful to anyone other than the mafia. Bonus points if you can actually convince anyone why he shouldn't be lynched based on a posting history in this thread of "scum-tained content."

FoS: Wall-E

You're assuming that I'm assuming he's scum. I'm not. That's your kettle.

Also, you conveniently left this exchange out of the above quote, and I don't know what you were trying to imply by putting something else I've said after it, but it was likely just as insipid as the other things you've been saying lately. Regardless, can you explain further?

[Wall-E]

Empking's only sin in this game is refusing to play ball. Which, if he's scum, means we can't catch him as easily. Just my opinion.

[Wall-E]

If we had gotten Dej to believe he had hammered, we would have gotten a truthful claim. Oh well, that's what happens with gambits.

That's... unsportsmanlike, in my opinion.

I like this wagon. Dejhka has been the most mentioned player today thus far, his flip will reveal much for us to glean during the night.

Let me know when the town wants to hammer, and I'll volunteer to do the honors.

[Wall-E]

Hammer. Now.

Should I? I'm active online right now... fairly bored. ...It's up to you guys!

[Wall-E]

That looked like a hop-off, Kieraen.

[Wall-E]

Oh, you need a hammer? Glad to be of assistance:

Unvote:Vote: Dejkha

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: Kierian

for commenting on the night kill fruitlessly.

[Wall-E]

Nah I also meant the lynch. I need to read through the game as I havent noticed anything about WHITE CASTLE, or why anyone would kill him, but then thats WIFOM. When I am scum, I randomly kill for no tells.

And the whole DEJKHA lynch is going to be a difficult one to get reads from. He made himself seem so scummy to many people (not so much myself til the end) that Im not sure where to begin.

Translation:

My scumbuddies and I disagreed on who we should kill. I wanted to kill randomly, but they outvoted me.

It will be hard for you guys to get any info off Dej's interactions with/concerning me, so I advocate we investigate him closer.

[Wall-E]

Appeal to emotion.

[Wall-E]

I know those are words, and I know they should form a complete thought, but I feel like I'm reading utter nonsense when I read your last post.

Look.

Logical fallacies are irrefutable.

You addressed the issue of your NK commentary by saying, "I was excited." I would have accepted that, but you had to tack on an appeal to emotion. It tells me you're either A) unconfident in your assertion or B) something else. If it's something else, you're town.

Another logical error you've made is when you said, "To be honest, Im not fully in the mood for a game but all my games are on day breaks (or slow) so just couldnt wait to comment and say something."

You are not in the mood for a game but you want to comment fruitlessly?

[Wall-E]

Appeal to emotion.

You sure are riding Kieraen pretty hard coming out of D2. Are you trying to set up another mislynch?

sure why not hohum

[Wall-E]

That was much more believable.

[Wall-E]

So you were not in the mood for a game but you still wanted to comment? Why?

[Wall-E]

I was suspicious of hohum yesterday as well.

[Wall-E]

I think the same reason as me....boredom and wants to the game moving again.
The alternative Wall E is extremely scummy looking? HMM?

He defends you as soon as I hop on your case (who said anything about rushing your lynch? I hope it takes ten pages of me explaining why you're scum; all the sweeter when I'm proven right) and now you're defending him. Both defenses were unprovoked.

If either of you is town, please stop making things worse.

[Wall-E]

hohum-Shoots off suspicions early. Posts a list of lynches he'd like to see. Dej, Zwet, Emp in that order. Votes Zwet originally. Changes to Dej in the next post. Keeps pushing Dej up to the lynch.

Looks like genuine suspicion

, which again doesn't necessarily mean town. The only thing I find interesting here is the list that shows Dej first, the vote for Zwet, and the immediate switch to Dej.

Guess I'll

Vote hohum

Do you have a reason to vote me other than the fact that Dej shot right up there on my scumdar?

(strawman)

Can you honestly sit there and tell me you've never in your history on MS changed your vote because someone was acting so OBVIOUSLY scummy?

(appeal to authority)

Or are you simply voting me because I was one of the first people on his wagon?

(mischaracterization)

Can you honestly sit there and say that his behavior wasn't scummy?

(ad hom implication)

The 11 other people on his wagon can't all possibly be scum, were they just being led around by me?

(blinding with science) Even though I received SHARP criticism for

STAYING

on his wagon, I must have been the one leading the town around, right? (this might be your only valid point, but it's buried in a lot of whining and more blinding with science)

[Wall-E]

hohum: Why did you defend Kieraen?

[Wall-E]

That's a silly assertion. Nobody should be throwing LYNCHES around, sure, but

votes?!

Come on, buster, this is Mafia!

[Wall-E]

So why did you defend Kieraen? It may be a mystery for a while yet.

I'm going to add to my case against you that you defended Kieraen, ostensibly because you, "Don't think votes should be thrown around directly after a mislynch." Would that be a fair statement?

[Wall-E]

vote: Wall-E

Right away, he attacks hohum, just based on "fruitless night kill discussion", and then keeps on pushing. It's not something that would convince me 100%, and I think Wall-E is pretty quick to jump on him, following up his vote in the previous day.

I also don't like Wall-E's persistent eagerness to hammer yesterday, despite the scummy-ness of dedjka. He could've just voted if he thought ded was scum, but nope, he HAD to be the hammer.I just found that odd, with dedjak flipping town and everything.

You are voting for me, essentially, for playing Mafia. Your assertion is that I shouldn't be voting? Shouldn't be building cases? What am I doing that I shouldn't be doing?

I love hammering. If you didn't want Dej hammered you should have convinced people to step off his wagon. It's not my fault you didn't like the cardflip.

Can you explain how my case on Kieraen is poor? Can you explain how my hammering of Dej was scummy? If not, your vote is embarassing.

Brock, if you think someone is scum, vote them. Who cares if it looks scummy? The idea is to lynch scum and if you think someone is scum, but let them live because you don't have enough reason, you are playing to survive, not playing to win.

@Kmd:In the most optimal situation, im playing for both. But getting myself lynched on the 1st/2nd day isnt really productive for the town without my contributing much and giving the mafia a kill (or two)

What do you mean by, "Giving the mafia a kill (or two)"?

[Wall-E]

Bad cases aren't scumtells.

Yes they are.

I disagree.

[Wall-E]

vote: Wall-E

Right away, he attacks hohum, just based on "fruitless night kill discussion", and then keeps on pushing. It's not something that would convince me 100%, and I think Wall-E is pretty quick to jump on him, following up his vote in the previous day.

I also don't like Wall-E's persistent eagerness to hammer yesterday, despite the scummy-ness of dedjka. He could've just voted if he thought ded was scum, but nope, he HAD to be the hammer.I just found that odd, with dedjak flipping town and everything.

You are voting for me, essentially, for playing Mafia. Your assertion is that I shouldn't be voting? Shouldn't be building cases? What am I doing that I shouldn't be doing?

I love hammering. If you didn't want Dej hammered you should have convinced people to step off his wagon. It's not my fault you didn't like the cardflip.

Can you explain how my case on Kieraen is poor? Can you explain how my hammering of Dej was scummy? If not, your vote is embarassing.

Nice strawman, Wall-E.
OP wasn't calling you down for hammering, he was calling you down because you were waiting around to be the hammer vote. If you thought dej was scummy, why didn't you just switch your vote to him earlier; why did you have to be the vote that ended the day?

Ah, I misunderstood. Well in that case, OP is wrong. I didn't think Dej was even scum when I hammered. I was like 75% positive he was town.

[Wall-E]

I was hoping the town was right about him.

[Wall-E]

So you were seriously that eager to hammer a person who was 75% scum?

Yes, how embarrassing my vote is..

1) Answer the questions directed at you please.

2) Read my posts more carefully in the future.

3) My scale for people works like this: Everyone starts out as 15% scummy by default. It's just math: The average ratio of town v scum.

Anyone who goes over 15% is in vote country.

If I was 75% sure he was TOWN (read: not scum) that means I was 25% sure he was SCUM (read: not town).

Obviously this is just a guideline I've developed and there are countless reasons for me NOT to follow it, but in this case I went with my usual procedures.

So now that I've treated you with 1000% more respect than you've shown me by fully addressing both the spirit and letter of your posts, please respond in-kind to mine.

[Wall-E]

Woah, woah, don. The scum groups are fighting each-other, and killing each-other off is MORE appealing than killing townies.

Your logic is deeply flawed.

Unvote: Vote: don

[Wall-E]

Brocktree: Three questions.

1) What percentage of mistakes in these games would you say are scum slipping?

2) Is that percentage higher than the percentage chance that any one player is likely to flip scum?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes you should be VOTING for don, not forgiving him.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, so any player who makes a mistake should be voted?

The problem with absolute statements is that you can't trick me into making them.

[Wall-E]

Woah, woah, don. The scum groups are fighting each-other, and killing each-other off is MORE appealing than killing townies.

Your logic is deeply flawed.

also, this punches holes in the case on Kieraen. and is why i didn't come out voting them in the first place.

Howso?

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, so any player who makes a mistake should be voted?

The problem with absolute statements is that you can't trick me into making them.

So under the logic you presented, what makes this situation different from any other situation where a player makes a mistake?

I was merely testing zwet's logic.

Brocktree: Three questions.

1) What percentage of mistakes in these games would you say are scum slipping?

2) Is that percentage higher than the percentage chance that any one player is likely to flip scum?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes you should be VOTING for don, not forgiving him.

that may be jumping the gun a bit

Howso?

Ouch, a difficult night. No ideas yet need to reread game, but from memory I don't see too many reads from those

kills

.

i would have voted K based on this statement because it seems precognizant. i.e. it seems like something K just pasted in from his night time notes(which most townies don't have). the word "kills" implies multiple night killings which is what we expected, so this post seems like it was made by K without him even having read blakadder's post. however, there being multiple scumgroups, even if he were scum, K had no reason to believe he would live through the night, so for him to have prepared a statement such as this seems illogical(i.e. in order to know that he was still alive, he would have had to read blak's post.). this would not be the case with one scumgroup. though, the "wow that sucks" vibe from this post is a textbook mafia wiki scumtell, i am not sure if this is just a blunder or not.

The scum groups are fighting each-other, and killing each-other off is MORE appealing than killing townies.

Wall-E: how do you know what is more appealing to scum?

There is nothing inherently scummy about thinking about the game from the viewpoint of the scum. If you want to catch a thief, send a smarter thief. I'm aware of the scumslip tell, but I did not slip - I was deliberately putting myself into the scum's shoes.

Don't you?

Honestly, you're right. I have no idea how the real scum are thinking. But if I were them I would try to hunt scum first and save up the town-points to send me into the endgame.

[Wall-E]

No talking about other games, zwet.

[Wall-E]

Brocktree: Three questions.

1) What percentage of mistakes in these games would you say are scum slipping?

2) Is that percentage higher than the percentage chance that any one player is likely to flip scum?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes you should be VOTING for don, not forgiving him.

that may be jumping the gun a bit

Howso?

Because you are making probability based statements into absolutes.

In my opinion, the proper response is not forgiveness, but it would be extreme to vote for the person who made a tiny mistake. I gave don scumpoints for the event. Brock's forgiveness was out of line, imo.

Anyone voting for zwet is trying to lynch a mime.

[Wall-E]

Anybody voting for Empking's Alt or casting suspicion on Empking's Alt needs to realize that he has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING overtly scummy (with the small exception of asking one player to stop using ad hom and then IN THE SAME POST he asked someone else if they were retarded... hypocrisy is not a scumtell in this case) and I would very much like to see someone - ANYONE - who has cast suspicion on Empking's Alt explain how and why he is scummy in-depth.

[Wall-E]

I go, "Who's the most anti-town" every day. I don't know what you're saying here, Empking.

Sigh.

Why are people voting for zwet the mime?

Empking: Asking someone, "TOTALLY FOR SRS DUDE" if they are retarded is counter-productive.

Unvote: Vote: Empking's Alt

I find myself agreeing with HoScum. Empking needs to die.

[Wall-E]

er, just got my games crossed up, my bad

the vote stays though

hohum's point is valid

[Wall-E]

his guilt or innocence does not affect your own, emp

[Wall-E]

It's not technically OMGUS until he votes for you, imo.

[Wall-E]

his guilt or innocence does not affect your own, emp

So, he didn't do any. Good we agree. So, you're joining a bandwagon with poor reasons. That's a scum tell of your's.

Did you see my stated reason? Quotes please.

[Wall-E]

HoScum is 100% right.

[Wall-E]

HoScum's point was that you are not contributing. You may be right in everything you say, but all you've done is defend defend defend. No scum-hunting from you at all. You're so passive it's bogging the thread down and it's not a good idea for the town to leave such behavior unpunished.

[Wall-E]

I don't understand why people try so hard to work the word "scum" into someone's nick. If it's for dramatic effect, it just makes you look desperate to pin a case on someone.

oh i see what you did there

[Wall-E]

Why aren't you punishing Kieran?

What makes you think I won't?

Why aren't you punishing yourself?

Now you are being silly.

[Wall-E]

Why didn't you answer the question?

Why didn't you answer the question?

Also, I was using the present tense not the future tense. Also, why was the second question silly?

You didn't ask one. Questions end in a question-mark.

See how unhelpful I'm being? That's what I'm voting for you for. Being unhelpful to anyone but yourself.

[Wall-E]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS EVERYONE

Empking and zwet haven't been taken seriously in a game of mafia since... I'm going to tenatively say EVER. What do you all think you're going to do, fix them?

Jesus, stop using their bad behavior as an excuse to stop playing the game.

Unvote: Vote Empking's Alt

Scum: Please kill zwet tonight. We'll call today a wash and pick up the game tomorrow.

That is all.

[Wall-E]

YOU SEE? HE SAYS "I'M THROWING GARBAGE INTO THE POOL BECAUSE THERE'S GARBAGE IN THE POOL!" ZWET HAS NO IDEA WHATSOEVER HOW LOGIC WORKS. DO NOT RESPOND FURTHER TO HIS POSTS.

[Wall-E]

Zorblag has lost his damn mind.

Unvote: Vote: Zorblag

for the most blatant rolefish ever.

[Wall-E]

Kieraen: And yet, under all the surface logic, that's exactly what he's doing.

[Wall-E]

*

facepalm

*

[Wall-E]

Vanilla: I have only my smarts and a voice.

I cannot believe the town is pushing this.

[Wall-E]

what i meant was that i cannot believe the town is pushing this

i hope that clears things up

[Wall-E]

let wall-e defend himself, please. if he is scum then we don't need to group claim. what he said wasn't all that clear. way to give him an out.

unvote, vote zorblag

for general douchebagginess.

Is this a serious vote?

[Wall-E]

let wall-e defend himself, please. if he is scum then we don't need to group claim. what he said wasn't all that clear. way to give him an out.

unvote, vote zorblag

for general douchebagginess.

Is this a serious vote?

do you think its a serious vote?

Answer the question.

[Wall-E]

SHUT UP ZORBLAG

jesus man have you never played this game or what?!




he

didn't

answer the question

he pointedly tried to deflect the question

unvote: vote: don_johnson

[Wall-E]

Investigative group

I think Wall-E and the reaction to that statement is null. The vote Zorb is interesting, yet uncalled for since a good deal of town went with it.

Luckily for me, you don't get to decide what is called-for.

[Wall-E]

Don: Your answer seemed insincere to me.

[Wall-E]

I found it odd that Wall-E seems to be opposed of the claim, but claims anyways after only two people claim..I don't know. It wasn't as if everyone was behind it at that point. Just two.

yes, i noticed this, and i also noticed that what wall-e posted sounded like him saying he knew that "town" was pushing for this group claim and that he couldn't believe it. zorblag, instead of letting wall-e answer my accusation, stepped in and defended him and then pushed for more of the claim. don't you think its worth stopping the claim process to investigate a "scummy" post?

so yes. my vote is serious.

(upon a re-read, this is not what i thought i saw when i first read this post. i retract my statement. i'm just mad that the town made me claim)

douchebagginess : doosh-bah-gee-nes
1. being a douchebag.
2. an adjective describing general scummy behavior.
3. not seeing the benefit of investigating questionable posts in lieu of what amounts to a group claim which is going to out all of towns power roles.

i claimed because i'm vanilla and the group claim doesn't sound like an absolutely horrible idea, but zorb's persistence in pushing for the claim to occur before any votes or discussion takes place seems like he won't be content until he knows what everyone is.

proceed.

But everything after that (parenthetical) bit seems off. Your reason for voting zorblag is... what again? Douchebaggyness? If you disagree with the plan, why are you going along with it?

[Wall-E]

usually when i vote for someone, i give my reason

i don't give a reason why it's not scummy to vote

do you see what i mean?

[Wall-E]

your face is ridiculous

[Wall-E]

So, tallying up the group claims, we have:

Vanilla (12): don_johnson, Empking's Alt, hohum, Jahudo, Kieraen, Kmd4390, orangepenguin, Wall-E, ThAdmiral, Caboose, Magua,

dejkha

Investigation (2): Zorblag, Light-kun

Protection (3): zwetschenwasser, killa nine,

White Castle

Unclaimed (3): animorpherv1, Brocktree, magisterrain

So of the 11 living players claiming town, at least two are scum. Given the original 4/20 setup, this isn't an improvement in narrowing things down. Interestingly enough, just about everyone who's had a lot of suspicion thrown at them has claimed vanilla, with the exception of zwet.

And on the other hand, the scum's pool of targets is now five. This was a crap idea and I hate you all.

[Wall-E]

unvote, vote: wall-e

not omgus.

usually when i vote for someone, i give my reason

i don't give a reason why it's not scummy to vote

do you see what i mean?

[Wall-E]

So, tallying up the group claims, we have:

Vanilla (12): don_johnson, Empking's Alt, hohum, Jahudo, Kieraen, Kmd4390, orangepenguin, Wall-E, ThAdmiral, Caboose, Magua,

dejkha

Investigation (2): Zorblag, Light-kun

Protection (3): zwetschenwasser, killa nine,

White Castle

Unclaimed (3): animorpherv1, Brocktree, magisterrain

So of the 11 living players claiming town, at least two are scum. Given the original 4/20 setup, this isn't an improvement in narrowing things down. Interestingly enough, just about everyone who's had a lot of suspicion thrown at them has claimed vanilla, with the exception of zwet.

And on the other hand, the scum's pool of targets is now five. This was a crap idea and I hate you all.

Says the person who forced the town to follow the plan.

quote please

[Wall-E]

unvote, vote: wall-e

not omgus.

usually when i vote for someone, i give my reason

i don't give a reason why it's not scummy to vote

do you see what i mean?

no. i don't. you conveniently lopped off the portion of my post which contained a very clear reasoning behind the vote on you. here is the actual quote:

unvote, vote: wall-e not omgus.

for lying by saying and/implying that i didn't answer a question which i clearly did

.

to imply that i did not give a reason for the vote, but instead gave a reason why my vote was not scummy is a blatant misrep of my post.

i was making it clear that i had an actual reason for voting you and that my vote was not omgus. if you notice, even though i gave that clear reason and stated that the vote was not omgus, several players tried to interpret it as so, so i don't think it is at all unreasonable of me to clarify something like that when i cast a vote.

revote: Wall-E

Where did I say you didn't answer a question? Can you quote me?

[Wall-E]

SHUT UP ZORBLAG

jesus man have you never played this game or what?!




he

didn't

answer the question

he pointedly tried to deflect the question

unvote: vote: don_johnson

here. when you voted me. you lied, and then voted me.

The question was, why did you vote? You answered that question in a subsequent post, but I maintain that at the time of your vote you gave no reason. The problem with you doing that is it give you a chance to say any one of a million things and stay lower on the radar as a result. I'm going to coin the phrase, "Lynch-fishing." You trolled the water with a vote, then made it more serious with a backup reason after-the-fact. Then, when you DID finally give a reason for your vote, you also deflected by trying to play up my calldown of your actions into something they weren't.

Any response to that?

[Wall-E]

I think we have enough to go on for now and we shouldn't wait for replacements that might take a while to replace in and catch-up.

what exactly are you suggesting? how is an incomplete group claim which outs towns power roles "enough to go on"? sure, someone in the vanilla area is definitely lying, but by moving forward without completing the claim you are giving the three players who didn't claim a free pass. this statement is scummy in that you seem to be implying that we go ahead and lynch someone. vote, pressure, sure. but to ignore the late claimers and not wait for replacements to catch up only benefits scum. my vote is out there, yes, but we should not be lynching someone until the claim is finished.

Then why not unvote?

[Wall-E]

Don: Why am I your choice for vanilla lynches today?

[Wall-E]

SHUT UP ZORBLAG

jesus man have you never played this game or what?!




he

didn't

answer the question

he pointedly tried to deflect the question

unvote: vote: don_johnson

here. when you voted me. you lied, and then voted me.

The question was, why did you vote? You answered that question in a subsequent post, but I maintain that at the time of your vote you gave no reason. The problem with you doing that is it give you a chance to say any one of a million things and stay lower on the radar as a result. I'm going to coin the phrase, "Lynch-fishing." You trolled the water with a vote, then made it more serious with a backup reason after-the-fact. Then, when you DID finally give a reason for your vote, you also deflected by trying to play up my calldown of your actions into something they weren't.

Any response to that?

Still no response to this?

this was in the post with my original vote on Zorblag:

let wall-e defend himself, please. if he is scum then we don't need to group claim. what he said wasn't all that clear. way to give him an out.

this implies the reasoning behind my vote. if you don't understand it, then ask for clarification. this was not during the RVS, so that would, by placement in the game, make it a serious vote.

further, to ask me if something is a "serious vote" is more "lynch-fishing" than me casting a vote with little reasoning. if you disagree with a vote, say why, but asking if its serious gives you the oppurtunity to decide(if you are scum) whether or not it will be a valid bandwagon to jump.

when asked for reasoning, i responded and answered. to say that i didn't is a lie. Wall-E lied. a more proper accusation would have been, "why did you initially deflect the question?", but that's not what wall-e asked or implied. he stated that i didn't answer the question, which i did. he lied.

Wall-E lied. LAL. get it?

I see what you're trying to pull here.

A LIE is when I say something that I know isn't true.

Here's what happened.

You: "Person is scum."

Me: "Are you serious?" (interpretation: why do you say that?)

You: "JOKE JOKE DEFLECT DEFLECT yes im srs"

Me: "What?"

You: "OMG I ALREADY TOLD YOU YES I AM SERIOUS!!"

[Wall-E]

immediately followed by this OMGUS thing you're doing with the scenario...

I hope I'm voting for you already. If I'm not, I'll wait until the groupclaim(tm) is over.

[Wall-E]

wall-e: you're most recent reaction does look quite volatile and you seem to be stretching the facts of what happened just a little bit with your "reenactment".

QFT the renactment is embellished. also, the question was not "why did you vote?" the question was "is that a serious vote?" ironic how you are calling my vote on you omgus while getting ready to vote me for voting you.

What other piece of information did you think I was looking for when I said, "Is that a serious vote?" Did you think it was rhetoric? It was, but the intent to garner further information was, I felt, plain enough.

If you call my side of what happened embellished you need to read the whole exchange again. What I wrote is my exact impression of what happened.

Volatile? You have never seen me volatile.

[Wall-E]

Volatile? You have never seen me volatile.

"You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!"[/hulk]

ThAdmiral, LAL is not that amazing, IMO. It depends on the situation, I guess.

No, not amazing, but it's certainly one of the better guidelines of mafia. It certainly works better than most other tells in any case, like lurking/buddying/commenting on the night kill etc. Even fishing i think is less of a solid tell.

But do you believe I lied, according to the textbook definition of a lie?

I realize this has become an important game-issue, and so I'm addressing it summarily.

[Wall-E]

LAL is actually not that reliable to me. I lie as a pro-town power role as much as I do as scum.

Besides, I don't think Wall-E "lied." don is taking what Wall-E said about him not answering the question to the most literal extreme. See the below quote.

That's not a lie.

You didn't answer to the extent he wanted.

And I've found LAL fails 99% of the games I've been in, but that's probably just personal experience.

you are quoting zwet. if you read the actual thread you will notice that wall-e actually is claiming i didn't answer a question he never asked. there seems to be a long line of crappy wall-e defense going on here. but whatever.

I disagree that I lied. To me, the more important issue was that you deflected and then built a case against me.

[Wall-E]

You seem ultra defensive and like you're trying to out-noise me, don, and I'm not joining that screamer's match. I've fully addressed this issue in my posts. If anyone has a new question for me, please ask, but otherwise I'm going to let the town draw their own conclusions from what lies (get it) in the last few pages.

[Wall-E]

Don: I say I'm backing off and you back down and try to shift the attention of the thread to someone else? Someone, I might add, who is notoriously easy to bandwagon (zwet you noob). Is that accurate? Why was the case against me strong enough to make a page-long spectacle over but not strong enough to withstand a bit of apathy?

[Wall-E]

Wall-E and Don backed off so easily that I am suspecting the possibility that if one is scum, they both are.

Backed down from what now?

[Wall-E]

hey guys remember this game

[Wall-E]

How did you know of that practice, zwet?

[Wall-E]

unvote: vote: hohum

bus your partner, do si do

[Wall-E]

Why vote after the hammer, don?

you obviously haven't been paying attention.

This makes no sense to me. Why did you vote after the hammer?

[Wall-E]

ok, zwet's obviously not going to change his behavior to appease us, and we aren't going to lynch him for being annoying, so let's all ignore him or be nice, agreed?

it's actually rather endearing how he responds to criticism with even MORE annoying behavior - zwet, stop being a turkey and help us finish this game!

hohum's butt is hurt over being lynched and he's not going to tell us that he's the scum - hohum, stop being a poor sport and help us finish this game!

[Wall-E]

shut up zwet

[Wall-E]

Aww, and I was all over hohum this game!

Well, I'm counting this one a victory in my book.

Good game all!