Fixed.DeathNote wrote:/confirm.... that, apart from Wickedestjr,I am the best scum/town player ever!!!!
*waits for YamiJoey and magichands*
Says she thinks J-Fox and YamiJoey are scum, yet votes for herself and dayvigs another person. It's like she's trying to avoid scumhunting. Also she seems to know that there are two scum. How could she know this?Haylen wrote:Yep. J-Fox and YamiJoey. She hasn't been around long enough to know his name unless they have been talking pre-game. So bleh!Wickedestjr wrote:Has anybody figured out who's scum yet?
Haylen, awesome scumhunter ftw.
Why shouldn't I have? Are you backtracking now and saying they weren't real?Haylen wrote:You believed my claims...?
I don't like the RVS that much. The faster we can leave it the better. Don't you agree with me?Haylen wrote:And stop trying to end the RVS quickly. >.> I like the RVS.
If you are serious, thenJ-Fox wrote:Scum duh
So you aren't an SK? Do you think this post convinces me?SolemnJ wrote:Lol, I wish I was a serial killer; that would be so much fun.
Why did you feel the need to add the bolded portion of that post?malpascp wrote:Yes I think I will win,I mean, town will win lol
How would your playstyle change if you were playing as scum in comparison to your play as town?Furry wrote:Because I only replace into games (one played from start I think). Plus I have talked with a few people in the game, wanted to play with them, so yeah. I never want to play as scum though, its so frustrating to create and keep track of a line of thought.
The reasons I voted for Haylen weren't serious, but I voted her for a serious reason.Furry wrote:Is your vote serious?
What do you think we should do?CrueKnight wrote:Ok now what? :p
For a.), if you don't need to be first, then why did you say "I am the best scum/town player ever!!!!" ?DeathNote wrote:The reason I am fine with second is because,
a) I am town so I don't need to be 1st in anything because this is a group effort. (I am such a kiss ass)
b) I have low self esteem and feel I can never get first in anything... ever.
What would you do if everybody continued to joke around for about 6-7 pages or so? Would you still wait? What would you do if you didn't wait?Katniss wrote:These Mafia games are pretty fun. I don't think we are almost ready to start discussing seriously, that part makes people enjoy the beginning part of the game more, so I'd let folks get that joking part out of their system, and eventually serious discussion comes out of it.
Which do you think benefits the town more, not voting in the RVS, or voting in the RVS? (and don't say that the two are equal). Also, if everybody withheld their random votes, what do you think would happen?Katniss wrote:I usually withold my vote until the joking phase is over.
What was the point of the comment if it wasn't serious? It kind of looks like grasping at straws followed by backtracking.SolemnJ wrote:No, he would have RVSed someone else, someone w/ mre votes if he erally wanted to wagon.
Not serious at all.
This looks like an attempt to appear helpful, because I don't really see what purpose one would have for re-reading the thread at this stage of the game. Also, why did you need to tell us this?SolemnJ wrote:/s proceeds tos dos quicks res-reads
How do you know they were bandwagon votes?Katniss wrote:Right now, I'm looking at Torqez and Crueknight. They both voted for Furry. Both were bandwagon votes.
What is wrong with bandwagoning? Also, why don't you vote for them if it's the best thing you've got?Katniss wrote:Not that bandwagoning is automatically a scum sign, but he has hopped on to two so far, which isn't really "random." And it's all I got to work with right now.
As for Torqez, his vote on Furry, was both a Bandwagon and OMGUS Vote. Again, Bandwagon votes, aren't an automatic scum sign, but it's all I got to work from right now.
One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.CrueKnight wrote:Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.
How?Haylen wrote:No, I like the RVS, dont force people out of it, it will come naturally.
Can you show me a game where players got out of the RVS without trying to?Haylen wrote:Magic!Wickedesjr wrote: Questions that were never answered;
Haylen wrote: No, I like the RVS, dont force people out of it, it will come naturally.
How?
Neither. It wasn't really part of the RVS I don't think, because it was an attempt to push us out of the RVS. It also didn't end the RVS.Furry wrote:Did you consider your vote part of the RVS, or an end to the RVS?
1: That didn't seem like what you were trying to do when you responded. Also, your response didn't seem to have a serious intention behind it;J-Fox wrote:1: I didn't answer seriously because I wanted to see what you'd say if I said I was scum. 2: Your answer is a quite good one.
It looks like you were trying to make it obvious that you were joking, which would defeat the purpose of your reason for responding in that manner. So it looks to me like you are lying, and I'm liking my vote more.J-Fox wrote:Scum duh
Wait, did I say that out loud?? Sh-
I don't regret asking the questions I did. I think that as long as they are game-related, they will help contribute to the discussion, no matter how stupid they are. For example, you thought my questions were stupid so you make this complain which started a serious discussion between us which is good.Mr. Squirrel wrote:Wicked, what the hell is with all these questions? If you were asking anything useful, I wouldn't be complaining, but half of these are completely pointless or can be answered if you would just read the thread. For example:I don't think anyone believes her claim. IF they do, then they can't tell a joke when they read it.CrueKnight - Do you believe Haylen's claim?
I'm not going to explain until cruelty answers the question.Mr. Squirrel wrote:Are you accusing he and I of being scum based only on the RVS? I'm assuming this question is asked in the hopes that cruelty will answer in an extremely stupid way and give away his alignment, but srsly? I think even the worst scum player on earth, if asked this question, would know not answer it.cruelty - How many scumbuddies do you have apart from Mr. Squirrel?
Nope. I didn't really want you to respond.Mr. Squirrel wrote:Does it matter?Mr. Squirrel - Are you good at scumhunting? Should I keep my expectations high?
Obviously. I was hoping he would respond by explaining the difference in the way he plays as scum vs. town. I was hoping for a brief description of his metas.Mr. Squirrel wrote:*facepalm*How would your playstyle change if you were playing as scum in comparison to your play as town?
Ummmm...maybe in the fact that if you are scum you have completely different objectives than if you are town. Did you really need to ask this question?
I can understand why you would misunderstand that. I meant that the reasons I voted for Haylen were serious ones, but I voted for her for a seriousMr. Squirrel wrote:This makes absolutely no sense, but then again, neither does anything else you say.The reasons I voted for Haylen weren't serious, but I voted her for a serious reason.
When we are discussing seriously, I will not question every little thing that people say. All of my game related questions will be serious. Are you glad that I am attempting to get us out of the RVS, or do you think I just shouldn't have ever tried?Mr.Squirrel wrote:I really hope all of these questions are just a desperate attempt to end the RVS. If you are gonna be asking things like this all game, I'm just not gonna read your posts.
Sometimes.CK wrote:Wicked, are you wicked IRL???
No.CK wrote:Are you really what you look in your avatar?
Yes. Look at the blue arrow under my avatar.CK wrote:Are you a guy?
See my response to Mr. Squirrel.Katniss wrote:Wickedestjr: Just to reiterate, what Mr. Squirrel said. Really, what is with all these questions. Alot of them, are basically noise posts, that aren't very useful in rooting out scum, and have no real effect on the game. Maybe it's your attempt to appear as if you are helping out the town, by posting all these (albeit: filler) questions. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are merely trying to help end the RVS, and get some kind of read on everyone.
I'm going to answer the questions that are ueseful for the game, rather than the ones that ask (What would you do if: X happened?)
Let me rephrase that question. Do you think CK and Torqez were deliberately trying to help a bandwagon or were just randomly voting?Katniss wrote:What is it then if it isn't bandwagoning? Torqez and Crueknight both voted the same player, in quick succession without independent reasons. The only other possible explanation I can think of, is that the votes are attributed to a 'rookie mistake' as I've seen happen in a couple games before.
Katniss wrote:Nothing is necessarily 'wrong' with bandwagoning, but mafia do use that as a tactic to pile up votes on a person, for a quick lynch. On the other hand, as seen in this day 1 it appears to be a good thing, because it can start up more serious discussion.
Why? You are allowed to vote and unvote as much as you want. Wouldn't you get a better read by pressuring them with a vote before they answer?Katniss wrote:I'm also giving them a chance to defend themselves, so I can get an accurate read, before using my vote.
I sense a contradiction. You want to get out of the RVS badly, yet you don't vote for somebody when they are worthy of an FoS, when none of the other options for a vote you have shown any interest in. Why?SolemnJ wrote:2. The line between the two is how valid I feel the suspicion.
What was this in response to? Also, I asked more than just one question to you. Please answer them all.SolemnJ wrote:@Wickedestjr:
The point was to note it and see what the town thought of it. My overall TONE in that post was not serious.
I tell you what I'm going to do b/c I'm methodical like that. If you could metagame me, you'd see that that's just what I do. I'll post my thoughts when I have valid suspicions.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:I disagree. Asking stupid questions just spams up the thread and distracts us from any real evidence that other players might have or any scummy actions of theirs.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Plus, it just makes you look stupid and detracts from any credibility I give your posts in the future.
Okay. I can see why you didn't respond to the question, but I don't see how anything bad would have happened if you had answered it.Mr. Squirrel wrote:I refuse. Whether or not I am good at scumhunting will be seen by my actions in game. Besides, that is a loaded question. If I say yes, you will forever hound my posts and if I ever slack in my scunhunting you say that I am scum who is not trying to help the town. On the other hand, if I answer that I'm not a good scumhunter, you will just say that I'm scum trying to set your expectations low so that you don't suspect me later on.wicked wrote:Nope. I didn't really want you to respond.Mr. Squirrel wrote:Does it matter?Mr. Squirrel - Are you good at scumhunting? Should I keep my expectations high?
Please answer the question.
Just for that,vote wicked
Me asking those questions resulted in you criticizing them. This followed with me and you arguing about it, followed by you giving me a serious vote. Now we have gotten serious. So I believe it was because of my questions. Also, I recently finished a game where I asked a question that you'd probably call "bad" that started the discussion. I can link you to it if you want.Mr. Squirrel wrote:I'm glad we are leaving the RVS, but I don't think your questions are at all the proper way to do it.wicked wrote:When we are discussing seriously, I will not question every little thing that people say. All of my game related questions will be serious. Are you glad that I am attempting to get us out of the RVS, or do you think I just shouldn't have ever tried?Mr.Squirrel wrote:I really hope all of these questions are just a desperate attempt to end the RVS. If you are gonna be asking things like this all game, I'm just not gonna read your posts.
My only intention with those questions was to start discussion. The main reason they start discussion is because people react to them in a strange way. Sometimes it works best if the questions are ones that make players feel threatened or pressured. This way the reactions are more telling. Also, keep in mind I didn't have anything to work with at the time I asked those questions. So, could you give examples of questions that would be more beneficial that I could have asked at the time?Katniss wrote:Wickedest, some of your questions right now, on people who haven't done anything suspicious, seem like a distraction, to keep from actual scumhunting. This in itself seems suspicious. I can see the build-up you are using to discredit and make people like myself seem scummy, in my case the fact that I FoS people instead of voting on someone.
Scott wrote:SolemnJ at this point. The SK comment rubbed me the wrong way in his first post.
-Says the questions have been distracting the town from scummy things that other players have been doing, even though I have been paying attention to everyone and I even directed one question to each player in the game.Furry wrote:A bullet point case from each would be nice, as once quote wars expand they tend to slowly drift away from the epicenter of the arguement (especially if good scum is on the defensive) and onto less important things.
I'm not voting you, but can you respond to this;SolemnJ wrote:Is there any other reason you guys got a vote on me?
I wrote:This looks like an attempt to appear helpful, because I don't really see what purpose one would have for re-reading the thread at this stage of the game. Also, why did you need to tell us this?SolemnJ wrote:/s proceeds tos dos quicks res-reads
FoS: KatnissKatniss wrote:Hm.I am still leaning a little bit on wickedestjr, but he has responded very reasonably in defending his actions.To answer his question, I probably couldn't think of a question right off the bat, so no.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Personally, my vote on him is based almost entirely on the question he asked of me: "Are you good at scumhunting". While his questioning in general is rather annoying, it is not necessarily scummy. Then again, I've never played a game where someone asked a sh*tload of questions that anyone with a 3rd grade reading level could easily answer, so I really don't have any previous circumstance to compare his behavior to.
This is another unnecessary over-exaggeration. Please explain how your answer would cause irreparable harm to your reputation. Because if I actuallly attacked you for your answer, it would makeMr. Squirrel wrote:It was at this point that I realized that there was no way to gracefully answer this question without causing irreparable harm to my reputation for the remainder of this game.
Katniss wrote:*sigh*FoS: KatnissKatniss wrote:Hm.I am still leaning a little bit on wickedestjr, but he has responded very reasonably in defending his actions.To answer his question, I probably couldn't think of a question right off the bat, so no.
What are your reasons for finding me suspcious still then? Earlier you said it was because you didn't like the questions I was asking, yet, now you say you couldn't think of any better questions for me to have asked.
Yes,earlierI said I didnt like your questions, but that changedlater. It waslaterthat you gave good responses as to why you had made those questions, and I ended up thinking they were very reasonable, so looking back on it I figured that I may have been wrong about youearlierand as a result, I unvoted you, and thought of you as less suspicious. That 'little bit' part of my post was basically just my gut left over suspicions of you. As I said, it was only a 'little bit', so I wasn't feeling very strong in my suspicion against you.
Now I answer your question, and you twist it around to make me look scummy. To explain myself, I couldn't think of a question right off the bat, as in right now, because it's difficult to think of a question, when you aren't "in the moment" at the time, you had asked yours, then.
===
I guess, I'll do a quick lookback at your questions...
I'm reading now, and I see that some of your questions earlier were "what would you do ifXhappened?" About my playstyle, skill, and how I would handle the RVS stage and everyone joking. I viewed these questions as, more of a distraction, that didn't really have much use in helping find mafia.
I then, as I've posted earlier, only answered questions, questioning my theory on certain people who might be scum. Nowthosewere somewhat better questions that could help decide if those people were or were not mafia.
Then you explained, later, that you were really just using these questions to get reads on everyone you were asking the questions to. Which, again, was a very resonable answer. I believed you.
===
I intended to stop asking so many questions once we were out of the RVS, and I doubt that the game would go on with me and another player arguing over something hardly relevant to the game. Also, even though I wasn't intending to twist people's answers, what would be wrong with that?Katniss wrote:Now I'm starting to see things a bit differently again. Your question of "What questions I would ask" was another question that doesn't help contribute in searching for mafia, which I ended up, answering anyway, just for the sake of it, which I answered honestly as I could. I thought, it would be the end of that, but apparently not. Instead I get FoS'd for it. In retrospect, it looks that it may have been a set-up, designed to twist any answer I would have given to make me look scummy. Or if not, (I'm basing this off of patterns I'm seeing in your interactions with me and other people) more questions would be asked, about the answers, leading on a never-ending back and forth question/answer debate, leading to nowhere, or until someone makes a mistake of saying something, that you could use against them.
Trying to get reads on people with a few decent questions is one thing, but sending a never ending barrage of questions to people (It's kind of difficult for someone, not to focus their attention on you when you keep doing this), some even if answered don't contribute much to the game, is another thing. It makes it look like you aren't really trying to get reads on people, but are really trying to bait people with nonstop questions, until someone bites, and they finally respond to one of the questions in a way, that can be used to make those look like mafia.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Baiting? Come on. My vote on you before was very flimsy and I feel that I would have had no problem changing it, but the way you reacted to it leads me to believe that you may in fact be scum. However, you did say please so I feel it would be rude to not answer.wicked wrote:Also please respond to post 128,unless you know I'm right.
Mr. S wrote:You know what? I wouldn't have asked any questions at the time. Know why? Because they don't get you out of the RVS. Accusations do. Just throwing out questions (especially ones as shallow as yours) leads to one sentence answers that are easily buried within the pile of random votes and are forgotten for the rest of the game.
A few suspicious things is enough to comment on, because first of all, those few things were all the things I noticed, and also, how many scummy things are going to occur in the RVS?Mr. S wrote:And I don't believe a majority of your gameplay has been pointing out scummy things.You might have commented on a few,but mainly you have been focusing on these questions that you say are helpful to the game. However these questions help scum just as much as they help town. Asking questions like "who do you think is scummier out of X & Y" are pointless unless the alignment of those two people are currently in question. At the current time, all it does is give scum an early indication of what people's impressions are in the game.
Okay, then to what extent would my questions detract from any credibility you gave my posts? Please elaborate on that.Mr. S wrote:Nope. Not at all.I wrote: Plus, it just makes you look stupid and detracts from any credibility I give your posts in the future.
I think you are over-exaggerating this.
I did. It was a terrible post.Mr. S wrote:See my post before this.wicked wrote:Okay. I can see why you didn't respond to the question, but I don't see how anything bad would have happened if you had answered it.
We wouldn't have gotten out of the RVS as quick if I hadn't helped to get us out of the RVS.So I find it scummy how you try to give me zero credit. Also, you didn't respond to the bolded portion.Mr. S wrote:Actually, by calling you out on your questions, I believe I did more to end the RVS than you did. All you did to 'help' was look scummy.Wicked wrote:Me asking those questions resulted in you criticizing them. This followed with me and you arguing about it, followed by you giving me a serious vote. Now we have gotten serious. So I believe it was because of my questions. Also, I recently finished a game where I asked a question that you'd probably call "bad" that started the discussion. I can link you to it if you want.
Also, I find it funny how you complain about how bad my questions are and how they don't help to get us out of the RVS, yet you aren't even helping to get us out of the RVS.
Just because I'm supposedly super scummy, that doesn't mean nobody else hasn't done anything scummy. So this is not a good excuse.Mr. S wrote:Right now, no one else in game is giving off the same scum read that you are. For now, I will focus my efforts on you.Also, I find it funny how you complained about my questions possibly distracting people from scummy things that other people do, yet have focused your whole attention on me, so you obviously aren't concerned about what other people are doing.
Mr. S wrote:OMGUSwicked wrote:For those two things I'm going to Unvote Vote: Mr. Squirrel.
But my question for you wasn't intended to "frame" you. Even if I had, it is not like anybody would be stupid enough to agree with me. You could simply bring up your defense. Also I like how you use the word "frame", because the worst thing I could do is badly accuse you, which is not framing.Mr. S wrote:If you saw someone with lots of lumber, nails, shingles, tiles, etc. wouldn't you say that they were preparing to build a house? Why then can't I make the assumption that when you have made all the preparations to frame other players that you are indeed intending to do so? Personally, I'd rather catch you before you frame another player rather than after you do so.wicked wrote:-Makes a case that consists of what I could do, instead of what I have done.
DeathNote wrote:Here... don't like wall posts.
1: I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate?VistaSoldier wrote:Vote:wicked
1: He seems to be talking really suss and 2: defending himself.
1: For what reasons?cruelty wrote:[1: I find you questionable WJ, I'd vote you but I'm uneasy about pushing a wagon this early. So you just get FoSed.] Also your enormous posts with heaps of empty space are very irritating to scroll through for very little content. 2: More conciseness please.
Thanks for the useless comment.cruelty wrote:Squirrel your post 146 is strange. Not going to read into it, but noted for future reference.
cruelty wrote:vote: Haylen. Bunch of useless posts, no content whatsoever.
1. We don't know your stance on anything yet.Haylen wrote:Umm...the game has barely started.
What are your thoughts on me, Mr. Squirrel, and SolemnJ?Haylen wrote:Well, there's not really much to post about when the game starts is there?
Thanks.malpascp wrote:Just checkin in
A discussion that completely ended when you stopped responding to my questions.Haylen wrote:Lies.
I had a discussion with Wicked about the RVS, which counts as game relevent, and then I did a bit of ridiculous scumhunting too. I'm also right in the middle of a discussion with you about my ''non-participation''. Stop trying to go for an easy lynch >=(
Wow. LOL.CrueKnight wrote:I'm just voting for pressure. I do not have any intentions to lynch you.
Why did you tell SolemnJ that it was a pressure vote and that you didn't want him lynched?CrueKnight wrote:What? Why the hell are we voting for anyways?Wow. LOL. HoS: CrueKnight This is funny.
It's really just a squeeze until you get what you want out of the person.
I don't see what's so funny about that. You don't lynch people this early on. Amirite>?
I've never been scum, but I assume I'd still read the thread as thoroughly as town. The FoS was because I wasn't too impressed with your catch-up post. Don't use your vacation as an excuse for your lack of content. There is nothing stopping you from making a good post. Not even a vacation.cruelty wrote:Wickedestjr wrote:cruelty wrote:vote: Haylen. Bunch of useless posts, no content whatsoever.
In that case, we should be suspicious of you too. Shouldn't we?
FoS: cruelty(for post 156)
You could be, if I hadn't been V/LA for a few days as stated very early in the thread. Skim reading is scummy.
1: Yes it does. The point of a pressure vote is to pressure people. If you are town, then you need to make it seem like you really think that person is scum so they actually feel pressured. If you admit that it is just a pressure vote and you don't want them lynched, then the scum aren't going to feel as pressured. Don't you agree? How can you pressure a person by saying you are voting them just for pressure?CrueKnight wrote:1: I think telling him he is being pressured won't do any harm or dilute the effects.
2: I still think he should explain why he misquoted.
I know, but he shouldn't say its a pressure vote.Furry wrote:Need to get caught up, but this is a fail of a HoS. Pressure votes work wonders. People play differently under pressure
Then why did you call my HoS bad?Furry wrote:Starting a wagon somewhat vaugely is a great way to catch a player off guard, saying its for pressure kind of defeats the purpose though.
Then why are you voting Haylen for her limited content?cruelty wrote:Hahaha.
There's very little being said right now that I feel compelled to comment on. Most of the thread seems to be taken up by your wall posts which are ironically light on content and heavy on the enter key.
Where? By saying "I've never been scum before,..." ? This is my ninth game on mafiascum. I am dead in all eight of my other games. In all eight of those games I was town alligned. You can look. This game I am also town. So I have never been scum. No soft claim. Do you even know what a soft claim is?cruelty wrote:Also, interesting softclaim in the quote above.
1: So that was the only reason? Because in Post 173, you say it wasCrueKnight wrote:1: If you looked at the context, all I wanted was for him to explain the situation.
2: As for why I told him is because he asked. :p But still, it won't stop him from explaining. Well, maybe I shouldn't have told that to him.
But it wasn't my goal anyways to sneak up and ambush him.
And then you claimed it was a pressure vote in response to this. Also, even though SolemnJ didn't ask for reasons for you voting him, whenever a person does, don't say "it was a pressure vote." You explain why you have that suspicion.SolemnJ wrote:Your reason for voting me is bull, I repeat. /maintains vote.
Which post seemed he thought you were going to lynch him? What made you draw that conclusion from that post?CrueKnight wrote:He said my reason was bull, avoiding my demand to explain why he misquoted... or falsely claimed something.
I repeated, I wanted him to explain. After seeing his previous response, it sounded if he thought I was going to lynch him or something. At least that's how I looked at it since he said his vote on me remains.
You can say your reasons for voting. You just shouldn't tell us your motivation for voting (such as pressure, to lynch, etc.)CrueKnight wrote:I thought it was harmless, and friendly to tell him the reason for my vote.
Then why did you say it was just a pressure vote?CrueKnight wrote:But my ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE out of this whole thing was to get him to explain some stuff and not just call it a bullshit argument.
I will if you promise to preview your posts. Deal?CrueKnight wrote:please excuse my dear bbcode mess up.
Can you elaborate on that? Where did he get angry? What made you think it was anger? Also, is anger a scumtell?malpascp wrote:unvote Vote: CrueKnight
You really got angry about having 2 votes on you
You aren't helping any more than she is. You have one attempt at a good post. Your attack is hypocritical. Also, is it a scumtell to not post any content? How much experience with mafia do you have?cruelty wrote:Haylen doesn't have limited content. Haylen hasWickedestjr wrote:Then why are you voting Haylen for her limited content?cruelty wrote:Hahaha.
There's very little being said right now that I feel compelled to comment on. Most of the thread seems to be taken up by your wall posts which are ironically light on content and heavy on the enter key.nocontent. This is worth a vote.
I smell a bad case.VistaSoldier wrote:My vote for him was simple because of this. People were suspecting him for his strange posting etc. And he comes up with a post, which I believe has too much "solid" defending himself. And even though that's not too bad, with all those "bull"s in there, he's obviously under some stress to defend himself. I smell mafia.
Which reasoning do you agree with?Katniss wrote:I decided, toVote: Crueknight, due to several cases brought against him, and my earlier suspicions/case against
I am still not nearly confident as I would like and I really hope I'm doing the right thing here.
Why did you feel the need to add the bolded portion of that post?malpascp wrote:Yes I think I will win,I mean, town will win lol
Which do you think benefits the town more, not voting in the RVS, or voting in the RVS? (and don't say that the two are equal). Also, if everybody withheld their random votes, what do you think would happen?Katniss wrote:I usually withold my vote until the joking phase is over.
This looks like an attempt to appear helpful, because I don't really see what purpose one would have for re-reading the thread at this stage of the game. Also, why did you need to tell us this?SolemnJ wrote:/s proceeds tos dos quicks res-reads
One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.CrueKnight wrote:Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.
1: That didn't seem like what you were trying to do when you responded. Also, your response didn't seem to have a serious intention behind it;J-Fox wrote:1: I didn't answer seriously because I wanted to see what you'd say if I said I was scum. 2: Your answer is a quite good one.
It looks like you were trying to make it obvious that you were joking, which would defeat the purpose of your reason for responding in that manner. So it looks to me like you are lying, and I'm liking my vote more.J-Fox wrote:Scum duh
Wait, did I say that out loud?? Sh-
I sense a contradiction. You want to get out of the RVS badly, yet you don't vote for somebody when they are worthy of an FoS, when none of the other options for a vote you have shown any interest in. Why?SolemnJ wrote:2. The line between the two is how valid I feel the suspicion.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Personally, my vote on him is based almost entirely on the question he asked of me: "Are you good at scumhunting". While his questioning in general is rather annoying, it is not necessarily scummy. Then again, I've never played a game where someone asked a sh*tload of questions that anyone with a 3rd grade reading level could easily answer, so I really don't have any previous circumstance to compare his behavior to.
This is another unnecessary over-exaggeration. Please explain how your answer would cause irreparable harm to your reputation. Because if I actuallly attacked you for your answer, it would makeMr. Squirrel wrote:It was at this point that I realized that there was no way to gracefully answer this question without causing irreparable harm to my reputation for the remainder of this game.
Mr. Squirrel wrote:Baiting? Come on. My vote on you before was very flimsy and I feel that I would have had no problem changing it, but the way you reacted to it leads me to believe that you may in fact be scum. However, you did say please so I feel it would be rude to not answer.wicked wrote:Also please respond to post 128,unless you know I'm right.
Mr. S wrote:You know what? I wouldn't have asked any questions at the time. Know why? Because they don't get you out of the RVS. Accusations do. Just throwing out questions (especially ones as shallow as yours) leads to one sentence answers that are easily buried within the pile of random votes and are forgotten for the rest of the game.
A few suspicious things is enough to comment on, because first of all, those few things were all the things I noticed, and also, how many scummy things are going to occur in the RVS?Mr. S wrote:And I don't believe a majority of your gameplay has been pointing out scummy things.You might have commented on a few,but mainly you have been focusing on these questions that you say are helpful to the game. However these questions help scum just as much as they help town. Asking questions like "who do you think is scummier out of X & Y" are pointless unless the alignment of those two people are currently in question. At the current time, all it does is give scum an early indication of what people's impressions are in the game.
Okay, then to what extent would my questions detract from any credibility you gave my posts? Please elaborate on that.Mr. S wrote:Nope. Not at all.I wrote: Plus, it just makes you look stupid and detracts from any credibility I give your posts in the future.
I think you are over-exaggerating this.
I did. It was a terrible post.Mr. S wrote:See my post before this.wicked wrote:Okay. I can see why you didn't respond to the question, but I don't see how anything bad would have happened if you had answered it.
We wouldn't have gotten out of the RVS as quick if I hadn't helped to get us out of the RVS.So I find it scummy how you try to give me zero credit. Also, you didn't respond to the bolded portion.Mr. S wrote:Actually, by calling you out on your questions, I believe I did more to end the RVS than you did. All you did to 'help' was look scummy.Wicked wrote:Me asking those questions resulted in you criticizing them. This followed with me and you arguing about it, followed by you giving me a serious vote. Now we have gotten serious. So I believe it was because of my questions. Also, I recently finished a game where I asked a question that you'd probably call "bad" that started the discussion. I can link you to it if you want.
Also, I find it funny how you complain about how bad my questions are and how they don't help to get us out of the RVS, yet you aren't even helping to get us out of the RVS.
Just because I'm supposedly super scummy, that doesn't mean nobody else hasn't done anything scummy. So this is not a good excuse.Mr. S wrote:Right now, no one else in game is giving off the same scum read that you are. For now, I will focus my efforts on you.Also, I find it funny how you complained about my questions possibly distracting people from scummy things that other people do, yet have focused your whole attention on me, so you obviously aren't concerned about what other people are doing.
Mr. S wrote:OMGUSwicked wrote:For those two things I'm going to Unvote Vote: Mr. Squirrel.
But my question for you wasn't intended to "frame" you. Even if I had, it is not like anybody would be stupid enough to agree with me. You could simply bring up your defense. Also I like how you use the word "frame", because the worst thing I could do is badly accuse you, which is not framing.Mr. S wrote:If you saw someone with lots of lumber, nails, shingles, tiles, etc. wouldn't you say that they were preparing to build a house? Why then can't I make the assumption that when you have made all the preparations to frame other players that you are indeed intending to do so? Personally, I'd rather catch you before you frame another player rather than after you do so.wicked wrote:-Makes a case that consists of what I could do, instead of what I have done.
1: I don't really understand this. Can you elaborate?VistaSoldier wrote:Vote:wicked
1: He seems to be talking really suss and 2: defending himself.
For what reasons?cruelty wrote:I find you questionable WJ, I'd vote you but I'm uneasy about pushing a wagon this early. So you just get FoSed.
1. We don't know your stance on anything yet.Haylen wrote:Umm...the game has barely started.
What are your thoughts on me, Mr. Squirrel, and SolemnJ?Haylen wrote:Well, there's not really much to post about when the game starts is there?
Where did he misquote?CrueKnight wrote:I still think he should explain why he misquoted.
Then why did you call my HoS bad?Furry wrote:Starting a wagon somewhat vaugely is a great way to catch a player off guard, saying its for pressure kind of defeats the purpose though.
Where? By saying "I've never been scum before,..." ? This is my ninth game on mafiascum. I am dead in all eight of my other games. In all eight of those games I was town alligned. You can look. This game I am also town. So I have never been scum. No soft claim. Do you even know what a soft claim is?cruelty wrote:Also, interesting softclaim in the quote above.
I'm sorry. I don't really understand this explanation.Furry wrote:Because it was someone making a pressure vote that drew it out... you agree with me that pressure votes are good, so why apply pressure to someone using one (even if they failed to correctly). Right now I fail to get a good analogy going (for some reason im trying to apply it to a knife fight... and cant stop doing so) but, it makes no sense to me.Wickedestjr wrote:I know, but he shouldn't say its a pressure vote.Furry wrote:Need to get caught up, but this is a fail of a HoS. Pressure votes work wonders. People play differently under pressure
Then why did you call my HoS bad?Furry wrote:Starting a wagon somewhat vaugely is a great way to catch a player off guard, saying its for pressure kind of defeats the purpose though.
Why?Furry wrote:Also CK wagon is weaker then... a butter knife at a knife fight? Yeah that will do.
There is something wrong with this, but I can't figure out what it is.Katniss wrote:Ok. I'll bite and answer these questions,hopefully to prove I am not mafia.
First of all, I gave a list of reasons in Post 149. Please read it and tell me what you think.Katniss wrote:You voted on him for these two reasons:
"Also, I find it funny how you complain about how bad my questions are and how they don't help to get us out of the RVS, yet you aren't even helping to get us out of the RVS.
Also, I find it funny how you complained about my questions possibly distracting people from scummy things that other people do, yet have focused your whole attention on me, so you obviously aren't concerned about what other people are doing. "
I pretty much disagreed with you on that. I had a similar mindset on you back then, with the spitfire questions you were giving. Note, just because I am agreeing with someone doesn't mean I am aligned with them. I am not aligned with Squirrel, other than if he is also a townie. I hope this isn't leading to a mafia connection between the two of us.
Looking back on it, I am thinking your vote was a pressure vote, to try and accurate read on him.
But do you agree? Do you think that it was a good idea for him to say it was for pressure? Also, do you agree that it makes him look scummy? (you can just answer Yes or No to those questions)Katniss wrote:Well, it was mostly due to people saying his reasonings of voting for someone saying simply "It was a pressure vote" was a pretty bad reasoning in defending himself.
1: What? Then why was your main reason for voting him something that came from my case?Katniss wrote:[1: I know, I know, it's not a very good case, but it added to my earlier suspicions on him.] Darn now I feel even more uncomfortable with my votes. I feel like unvoting now, but that leads to your next statement.
Also IGMEO Katniss. His wishi-washiness is a bit too much for my liking. Also, there is something else I noticed, but I'm waiting for his next post.
2: People made it clear to me that I can vote and unvote someone at any time, especially since votes apply more pressure than a FoS, so that's what I am doing. Apparantley using FoS wasn't a good thing, when I used it earlier.
Why do you care if you look wishywashy? Why do you care about looking suspicious? Also, how do FoSes prevent you from looking wishywashy?Katniss wrote:I like to use the FoS, because I didn't want to appear as if I was being too wishy washy. That way if my mind changes on a player, then I don't look suspicious by voting or unvoting too much. My mind changes often in this game, like when I feel I am not too sure on someone, or if a person's posts were good enough to change my mind for the better, or fishy enough to change my mind for the worse. This is what happened for me, for you.
I don't know what this is in response to, but sometimes players use more emoticons as scum, because they think lightening the mood might distract from the suspicious things they do. You shouldn't care about it if you are town....Katniss wrote:Also I heard something about smilies. You can't use smilies now, because they make you suspicious? What the heck? you can't do alot in this game with the FoS shunning and now the "hiding behind smilies" I really like smilies, and a bit of joking around, because it helps lighten the mood, and making me a bit happier, that it's only a game, instead of getting me annoyed with things being said. Now you take that away from me too. That sucks.
I agree with this comment.Scott Brosius wrote:I dislike this comment. Answer them to stimulate discussion and scumhunt. Also rarely is anything ever "proven" in this game, so attempting to do that answering questions makes no sense.Katniss wrote:Ok. I'll bite and answer these questions, hopefully to prove I am not mafia.
Why didn't you reply to me.VistaSoldier wrote:I'm simply trying to state why I wanted to vote CrueKnight and did not come round to replying to you.
1: What changed your mind about it?VistaSoldier wrote:1: Although yes, my vote on you was pretty bad. 2: I'm really easily pursuaded, so yeah, after 2 people voted you, I instantly got suspicious and didn't need much of a nudge.
Where have I brought this up?cruelty wrote:Wicked can you explain why you keep bringing up how experienced you are at mafia? There's no good reason except to imply superiority/establish a leadership role.
How much time will you be spending there? Also, why did you sign up for another game if you can't spend enough time on them all?Haylen wrote:Ok. Let's put it this way. I'll give you a riddle. You're in a game on page ten that is nowhere near deadline. You're in another game, you're at L-1 as is another guy, everybody is voting and you have less that 24 hours to convince somebody to change their vote from yourself to the other guy. Where do you concentrate your efforts for those 24 hours?Cruelty wrote: Haylen, you still haven't contributed. A half-assed answer and some bullshit about spoiler tags is not contribution. My vote stands.
Fair enough. Can you please answer the other question I asked you? You have avoided it long enough.SolemnJ wrote:@wicked: votes dont end the RVS; thinking does.
This looks like an attempt to appear helpful, because I don't really see what purpose one would have for re-reading the thread at this stage of the game. Also, why did you need to tell us this?SolemnJ wrote:/s proceeds tos dos quicks res-reads
Haylen wrote:I was fucking defending myself. That's the whole point of the damn game.
vote cruelty
Strawmanning and misrep.
So... When should we expect some content? Also, she has said that she has read the thread, so why hasn't she posted any content? Also, I find it hard to believe that she can't make any time for this game. Why did she even join so many games? VistaSoldier still remains a big suspect of mine, but I would like Haylen to come out and do something and explain the inconsistincies.Haylen wrote:PS Haylen doesnt do OMGUS.
Who cares? You made posts on November 13th that had no content, but were after you lynched somebody in the game where you were in danger. Or at least that is what the time shows when I look at it. That must have either been Friday or Saturday for you depending on what time zone you are in. If it had been Friday, then you could have posted more content. Also, please respond to the quotes below;Haylen wrote:Umm...you do realise that A LOT of players dont post during the weekend? And that I haven't posted in ANY of my games over the past 2 days, including the one I'm modding? hmm...gotta do a few votecounts there.
Wickedestjr wrote:So... When should we expect some content? Also, she has said that she has read the thread, so why hasn't she posted any content? Also, I find it hard to believe that she can't make any time for this game.Also, opinions would be nice because you have given none.
SolemnJ wrote:In fact, you are able to defend yourself pretty well, but when it comes to scumhunting or just contributing...your posts have less of this and more of spam.
Haylen wrote:My first thoughts are that Wicked and Cruelty seem to be finding every little thing they can to cast suspicion on me.
This is a huge misrep. Also, it looks like OMGUS. Why the heck would I have read the whole game? I would only need to see the last post to know when the night began. You don't even know if I read that game or not, and I didn't.Haylen wrote:Yes, you found that game...did you read it? Did you notice how easy it is to get me lynched? I think that the fact you would know I'm an easy target from that and you're going after me suggests a scumtell.
Sorry.Haylen wrote:I needed a break this weekend so I could go and visit my cousin. She's 3 months old, with a hole in her heart. She means the world to me, I've been distraught since I found out, and seeing her on friday was overwhelmingly distressing.
That was not my whole case. Please respond to the below:CrueKnight wrote:Which was:CrueKnight - My earlier case.
-I defended myself
-I told someone that I am pressuring them
How does this make sense?
Which post seemed he thought you were going to lynch him? What made you draw that conclusion from that post?CrueKnight wrote:He said my reason was bull, avoiding my demand to explain why he misquoted... or falsely claimed something.
I repeated, I wanted him to explain. After seeing his previous response, it sounded if he thought I was going to lynch him or something. At least that's how I looked at it since he said his vote on me remains.
Then why did you say it was just a pressure vote?CrueKnight wrote:But my ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE out of this whole thing was to get him to explain some stuff and not just call it a bullshit argument.
One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.CrueKnight wrote:Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.
Where did he misquote?CrueKnight wrote:I still think he should explain why he misquoted.
Rhinox wrote:I don't like this comment by wiked. It basically translates too, "I feel like this comment can later be used to help mislynch Katniss, so I want there to be something wrong with it, but I can't think of anything good right now so I'll be extremely vague about it and keep it as an option for later on".wiked wrote:There is something wrong with this, but I can't figure out what it is.katniss wrote:Ok. I'll bite and answer these questions,hopefully to prove I am not mafia.
I wasn't exactly sure how to explain my problem with it. Thanks for reminding about it though, because I had completely forgotten about it. Don't you see a problem with Katniss having a motivation to not look like mafia?Rhinox wrote:Wiked, what I'm wondering is, why make this comment and not pursue what makes you feel there is something wrong with it?
First of all, it was very early in the game, so I didn't see any better alternatives at the time. The person I had previously been voting wasn'tRhinox wrote:Similarly, I don't think your issues with squirrel were ever resolved either, and somehow he fell from being voted by you to "unsure, but have minor suspicions" and I don't recall anything squirell said that would justify the relative drop in squirrels (well, I guess that is me now) suspicion level. Care to clarify?
Interesting. So Rhinox comes and makes a case against me for;Rhinox wrote:vote: wiked
Whatever. I really don't know how to defend myself here. All I can say is that it is wrong.Rhinox wrote:Its not really my place to speculate and WIFOM reasons why scum do what they do, but since you asked, possibly to show that you had a problem with the comment when it was made, and not having to go back to it later saying "I had a problem with this comment before but I didn't say anything until now".If I wanted to use it later, why would I have said anything about it at all?
Okay.Rhinox wrote:I don't. I figured it was obvious that I was considering the 'you as hypo scum' scenario. Or is this going to be one of those games where every post has to have a disclaimer to avoid being sidetracked by technicalities?How do you know that a Katniss lynch would be a mislynch?
I read the post from Katniss before I saw Scott's comment.Rhinox wrote:Actually, scott provided reasons for why he didn't like the comment, and went on to vote Katniss, so no, I do not have a problem with scotts comments. This all happened in post 225. Your post didn't occur until after scotts post in post 242. Since you posted after scott, and you are now saying that what scott said is basically what you were feeling, why did you say in post 242 that you could not figure out why you didn't like katniss' post? There is a big glaring inconsistency here.I was having trouble explaining why the comment from Katniss bothered me. Scott ended up saying something similar to what I was thinking. Speaking of which, why don't you have any problems with Scott's comment regarding it?
If I was waiting to see what others thought before casting my vote, then why wouldn't I have voted Katniss also? Also, if I was afraid to start accusations, then why would I have been the first the make the points I made against CrueKnight, and why would I have been the first one to vote for VistaSoldier?Rhinox wrote:IMO, this really looks like you were gently feeling out the prospect of a Katniss lynch by your comment in 242. When discussion moved on and nothing really came of it, you didn't feel any need to follow up.
Scott was the only one that voted Katniss I believe. There was no bandwagon. And anyway, there is more than one point on Katniss anyway. So there would still be good reasons for lynch Katniss. Also, I think it is scummy that he is worried about appearing like mafia to us. So that point I couldn't explain is a good one anyway.Rhinox wrote:Not for that comment alone, no. But scott presented a case that had other points besides that comment, and had a bandwagon formed, it seems like you were in good position to use that comment for jumping on the wagon.Also, do you actually think I would have gotten away with getting Katniss lynched for that comment?
When I first responded to the comment I had meant to say I couldn't really explain what I had problems with. I wasn't too careful with the wording because both meant that I disliked the comment, but couldn't say why.Rhinox wrote:Your exact words were that you "couldn't figure out what was wrong" with katniss' comment, not that you couldn't explain it. I point that out because I see you changed the wording and I believe there is a clear distinction between the two... 1 is saying you think there is something wrong, you just don't know what, and the other is saying you know there is something wrong, you just can't put it into words. Regardless, see above for why it doesn't make sense, whether you didn't know or couldn't explain, based on the fact that scott posted his comments before you and you say scott basically said what you were feeling.I wasn't exactly sure how to explain my problem with it. Thanks for reminding about it though, because I had completely forgotten about it. Don't you see a problem with Katniss having a motivation to not look like mafia?
Regarding Katniss' comment itself, I like how you word "Don't you see a problem..." like there is a problem there I would be foolish not to see. There is no problem. Mafia have a motivation to not look like mafia. Town have a motivation to not look like mafia. It is not helpful to anyones win condition (except for a jester) to look like mafia.
Rhinox wrote:That being said, its not very tactful to announce that you're only doing something to try to prove your not mafia. But then again, what motivation does a mafia player have to announce that they're only doing something to not look like mafia? So its a null tell.
Then why have you completely ignored Scott?Rhinox wrote:I'm much more interested in those that think the comment is scummy.
The case on me was bad. That, combined with Squirrel's bad case made me move you up into a higher category.Rhinox wrote:There we go with that "expain" word thrown in there again... Its moot though because you already said scotts post was pretty much what you were feeling, so in reality you did both know and could explain what you felt was wrong with katniss' post.
Also, why does me voting you make me more lynchable, other than the typical OMGUS reaction? A crappy case is a crappy case, but I haven't yet seen any good reasons to show me I'm off the mark here just yet.
And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for my first course of action in the game to be following up on squirrel's suspicions... I have the added knowledge of knowing squirrel's allignment and that his comments were genuine.
Post 267 is the case I agreed with.Furry wrote:@wicked - What case of SJs? As far as I can tell its all misunderstanding/misrep over views on pressure votes.
Then either defend yourself again, or show me where you defended against those attacks.CrueKnight wrote:Note that these points I have also covered.
What do you mean the argument isn't this or the argument isn't that? I'm not going to forget about something because other people have, unless I see a good reason to. Also, what do you mean you don't know what SolemnJ did to make you suspicious?CrueKnight wrote:The argument isn't on SolemnJ anymore. It isn't about me accusing him. It's about the results. I don't want to go back and point out the details but by this time, I have forgotten what SolemnJ said that got me suspicious.
Who? What posts?CrueKnight wrote:As for me being in the spotlight, there were 2 if not 3 guys Fingering at me while we were in the Joker Mode.
So your old attack of Furry was different from your current case?SolemnJ wrote:I expected my old Furry attack to fail.
Also, Rhinox, I disagree with what you said about my new attack on furry; if he turns out to be town, I'll get myself an avatar.
Rhinox's point about me regarding my response to Katniss's comment was also unprovable. Also, don't people normally read posts in order? How should I have defended myself if what I am saying is actually the truth?Scott wrote:Well this is impossible to prove and a lame excuse.
We could continue arguing over this forever, but I don't feel like it. It is pretty obvious to me that the argument about this point is mostly because we have different opinions. So, I don't see why this accusation is valid.Rhinox wrote:The Katniss comment is still a null tell. Townies have a collective goal of catching scum, and one way to help the town do that is to not sidetrack the town into thinking your scum when you have the inside knowledge of knowing you're not. If Katniss showed a consistent record of only defending and trying not to look scummy, that would be one thing, but one comment saying he wants to "hopefully prove he's not scum" is not "devoting his time trying to look pro-town". Katniss has appeared to be scumhunting in this game, as far as I can tell.
Rhinox wrote:Arguing that the case on you is bad is not much of an argument, but I'll play along. Suppose you're right and the case on you is the worst possible case... is town or scum more likely to make a bad case?
Yes. There is no point spending the whole game making bad cases. Especially this late in the game.Rhinox wrote:Would you rather players sit back and not present cases at all until there is a good case?
Yes. I believe I have made good cases this game. Such as my cases against VistaSoldier and CrueKnight.Rhinox wrote:Can there ever be a good case that way?
Why does that comment make you more happy with your vote?Furry wrote:lol... yeah im happy with my voteSolemnJ wrote:I guess it was more convenient to attack Haylen.
Making a pressure vote doesn't mean you want the player lynched. I have casted votes before just to pressure the player. You are trying to act like you can never just do one or the other. I think you are only saying that, because of post 267.Furry wrote:And that not an inconsistancy, which I addressed already too
Thanks.Faraday wrote:Feels different to when I played with him before, he was town, I was scum in that game, but yeh he seems to have improved.
No comment.Faraday wrote:Wicked has twice now pointed out that he's never been scum. Noted.
That was a joke.Faraday wrote:Post 273. Wicked you're willing to vote yourself? WTF??
Such as?Haylen wrote:I consider myself and easy lynch because my playstyle has flaws that I am still working on.
I disagree. I think I have posted content, given my thoughts, and given my suspects.foilist13 wrote:He seems to be overloading the thread with wall posts that no one wants to read, but which have exceedingly little content. That to me is a form of lurking. He is posting lots, but saying almost nothing, so that people pay little attention to him. Its pretty WIFOMy, but its the best I've got.
See my response to foilist.Sir Chris wrote:Maybe I am just seeing things, as I am not very aware of different playstyles and how people address situations differently here but I have this phrase I use called "deep thinking" which I always view as a town tell: It is the line of reasoning and logic that seems too genuine and thought over to be scum. Now, of course, scum can fake this if they are good enough, but the absence of such thoughts over many, many posts is worrisome. Much of Wicked's supposed content has been very thin or simply a redirecting question back at someone else. This is very scummy, and easily worth my vote.
Sir Chris wrote:Well, yes, I hope you would disagree with the facts. If you didn't disagree then you would not be playing to win. You'd be saying "I am scum, please lynch me." You are not really providing content, you are providing posts that respond to the accusations, but don't answer them. Note my paragraph that I talked about you, all you had to say to that entire paragraph was 'See response above" and all that said was "I disagree." So you responded to two different people in a way that could be summed up with "I disagree." Now sure, you said a little bit more than that, but it was all fluff beyond that.
What do you mean "trying to parrot your past town play as your first time as scum" ? Also, what is wrong with saying this is the way I normally play if it is the truth?Sir Chris wrote:Also I have to question "Also, I would like to say that this is the way I normally play in terms of content and size of posts." It seems to be baiting me to go and check it out, which makes me believe, by phrasing, that you are trying to parrot your past town play as your first time as scum, if you sig of 7 games played is still accurate.
How am I supposed to defend against an accusation that is solely because I am apparently not posting content?Sir Chris wrote:That post seemed very scummy to me, it addressed none of my concerned, and posted no meaningful content.
Why?Sir Chris wrote:Also his vote on Crue seems poorly timed and out of place.
How am I supposed to defend against this?Sir Chris wrote:I just can't see anything Wicked has posted as pro town and a lot of anti-town/scummy playstyle that doesn't add up to me.
He's number 4 and I'm guessing there's at least 4 scum. Also, I doubt I would be able to convince everybody to change this close to deadline and none of my top three suspects seem to be big bandwagon candidates.cruelty wrote:Why are you voting for someone who isn't even in your top three?
This is misrepresenting SolemnJ. You are starting to look scummier. Also, the SolemnJ case isn't good.Furry wrote:Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.
He fits my mold of scum/badtown.
-Spamming (which almost everyone was doing)
-Defending himself "dumbly" (what exactly is 'dumbly' and why is it a tell?)
-Random/selfvote (why is this a tell?)
SJ is already saying that he could easily be newb town though, still keeping the groundwork for a jump if its needed.
What was her allignment that game?foilist13 wrote:Lurking is a problem for me, and Haylen did it in the last game we played together too, so this is the wagon I'm getting on.
I will explain once SolemnJ responds to Furry's post.CrueKnight wrote:Let me ask you, why? Why is this misrepresenting SolemnJ? What do you think of SolemnJ? And why are you defending him so?Wickedestjr wrote:This is misrepresenting SolemnJ. You are starting to look scummier. Also, the SolemnJ case isn't good.Furry wrote:Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.
He fits my mold of scum/badtown.
-Spamming (which almost everyone was doing)
-Defending himself "dumbly" (what exactly is 'dumbly' and why is it a tell?)
-Random/selfvote (why is this a tell?)
SJ is already saying that he could easily be newb town though, still keeping the groundwork for a jump if its needed.
His points were very valid tbh.
1: I gave reasons. I don't recall you saying anything about them. Why don't you pay attention?CrueKnight wrote:1: If you have valid points against him, reveal it and we may all agree upon it.Wickedestjr wrote:If I continue to vote for foilist, what good will that do?CrueKnight wrote:Why do you pick wagons?
2: Now you are acting pretty scummy.
What kind of townie doesn't even check my meta? There is no reason not to. You just keep making up stupid excuses not to.Sir Chris wrote:It is of course possible this is just how wicked plays, and if so, that can't be helped.
Sir Chris wrote:But SK in a game of 15 presents seem odd balancing issues I have found in the past. Talking about my own balancing, I'd never have a game of 15 with an SK, when 16 fits it so much better.
You don't seem to be trying to divert the bandwagon to somebody you do suspect.Furry wrote:CK I would put a decent wager on being town (I would target him as a hider for example). The case on him mostly seems to be on weak reasoning, when I went through I had a hard time figuring anything out on it. Out of the four people voting him I have a slight town read on one (SB), the rest I wouldnt shed a tear if they got vigged. It just has quite a few of the markings of a wagon on town that is being pushed enough to be an alternative if a big wagon falls apart.
Haylen I dont see my vote going to outside of a deadline lynch, mostly due to a case *mostly* based on lurking. Im not a big lynch lurkers fan untill there is evidence (role or connection) that they are scum. When there are people who are legitimately scummy, they are a really poor lynch choice. If they are town, it has good chances of resulting in another mislynch.
The orange and purple lines were misrepresentations.Furry wrote:???Wickedestjr wrote:This is misrepresenting SolemnJ. You are starting to look scummier. Also, the SolemnJ case isn't good.Furry wrote:Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.
He fits my mold of scum/badtown.
-Spamming (which almost everyone was doing)
-Defending himself "dumbly" (what exactly is 'dumbly' and why is it a tell?)
-Random/selfvote (why is this a tell?)
SJ is already saying that he could easily be newb town though, still keeping the groundwork for a jump if its needed.
So which of my colorful lines is wrong then?
Back to SJ case in a little
1: There is nothing wrong with it, but I don't think it is unneccessary.Furry wrote:1: When is it acceptable to try and pressure vote someone that you have a town read on?
2: When is it acceptable to ever have a vote on a player you have a town read on?
Alright then. Consider the following possibility. DeathNote is still in the game and is hardly posting in the thread. For this reason, I have a neutral read on him. I vote him to pressure him and make him come and defend himself. When he does this, I look at his reaction to the vote to try and determine his allignment. Even though I voted him, and even though I didn't have a town read on him, and even though I didn't want him lynched, it was still a pressure vote. This is an example of how pressure votes aren't always towards players you want lynched. So, you did in fact contradict yourself.Furry wrote:Pressure voting a player is always fine, but you should always be willing to have that player lynched. A vote to lynch is a little more serious about that then pressure, but you should never say "damn I didnt want them lynched, I though they were town" if somehow a 10x multipost occurs lynching a player.
I mean frick, how hard is it for people to grasp this concept. Dont vote town, vote scum, pressure slight scum. Tah-dah!
Furry wrote:I was trying to get something on SJ started near the end of the dayWickedestjr wrote:You don't seem to be trying to divert the bandwagon to somebody you do suspect.Furry wrote:CK I would put a decent wager on being town (I would target him as a hider for example). The case on him mostly seems to be on weak reasoning, when I went through I had a hard time figuring anything out on it. Out of the four people voting him I have a slight town read on one (SB), the rest I wouldnt shed a tear if they got vigged. It just has quite a few of the markings of a wagon on town that is being pushed enough to be an alternative if a big wagon falls apart.
Haylen I dont see my vote going to outside of a deadline lynch, mostly due to a case *mostly* based on lurking. Im not a big lynch lurkers fan untill there is evidence (role or connection) that they are scum. When there are people who are legitimately scummy, they are a really poor lynch choice. If they are town, it has good chances of resulting in another mislynch.
Please explain why the points against CrueKnight are bad. Don't just say they are bad. That doesn't do anything.
Also, you are underestimating the case against Haylen. It is not just lurking.
Give me a clean outline of a CK wagon and I will explain why each point
is bad, that way im not missing things.
It was enough of lurking based things for me to not like it at all.
1: So itFurry wrote:1: Purple I can see you argue, 2: but orange I dont see as a misrep in the least bit.The orange and purple lines were misrepresentations.Furry wrote:???Wickedestjr wrote:This is misrepresenting SolemnJ. You are starting to look scummier. Also, the SolemnJ case isn't good.Furry wrote:Crueknight has only spammed
and defended himself. And was kinda dumb about it, too.
His voting pattern consists of his random vote, and then his self vote.
He fits my mold of scum/badtown.
-Spamming (which almost everyone was doing)
-Defending himself "dumbly" (what exactly is 'dumbly' and why is it a tell?)
-Random/selfvote (why is this a tell?)
SJ is already saying that he could easily be newb town though, still keeping the groundwork for a jump if its needed.
So which of my colorful lines is wrong then?
Back to SJ case in a little
1: What's wrong with coming up with another scenario? You said voting for somebody means you want them lynched. You also said pressure votes can be very helpful (or something like that). It doesn't matter that I brought up another scenario. It just shows that there are scenarios where pressure votes don't mean votes for a lynch. Also, who cares if you wouldn't have voted for him? It is just a scenario I came up with. You are doing a poor job of defending yourself.Furry wrote:[1: Ummm... if you are coming up with a scenario like that doesnt mean I have contridicted myself. First off, I wouldnt ever of voted DN for that scenario, using others to get reads on him is better. ] [2: Second, when I am voting someone for pressure, I am always at least somewhat ok with their lynch. I could be pressuing a secondary suspect, or a slight read, but whoever I am voting I would always be ok lynching.]
[3: This really does not have anything to do with alignments in this game though, just difference of opinions.]
So your reasons for suspecting me are basically because I supported the Haylen lynch and also suspected a person you believe to be town? Also, what about SolemnJ?Furry wrote:You staying on the CK wagon while seeming content with the Haylen wagon going to a mislynch. It seems like you were avoiding the mislynch while staying on a different wagon I consider a mislynch. Cruel... just bothers me a bit on a gut level, nothing too much on that. I would rather play house with people who I dont think are top picks though.Wickedestjr wrote:Why me? Why cruelty? Why not SolemnJ?Furry wrote:@wicked - If Haylen flips town, you might have to take her place in the fuzzy handcuffs... or maybe cruel... Ill have time to ponder im sure
Goodposting.Rhinox wrote:I should be able to post something substantial later today once I get back to PA. One thing that makes me curious is why is furry so strongly defending ck as if he knows he's town... this was going on yesterday as well. I can understand saying that there isn't enough evidence to support ck being scum, but I certainly wouldn't call him town enough to avidly defend against his lynch. This sorta reeks of hypo-scum furry wanting to get town cred for trying to prevent a townie mislynch.
vote: furry
I didn't make any posts between the time that she claimed and the time she got lynched. I didn't have time to. I recall making a post one night, and then logging on the next night to find that Haylen had been lynched. Before then, there were two bandwagons formed. The bandwagon on CK and the one on Haylen. I joined the bandwagon on CK, however, I had expressed earlier suspicion of Haylen, so I thought that I had made my feelings clear. Even though I would have been okay with the Haylen lynch, I still preferred the CK lynch.cruelty wrote:You voted for CK.. fine. After that you never even mentioned the Haylen wagon. I find this highly contradictory to your playstyle throughout the game - you've been quoting and replying to basically everything, so how come you had nothing to say about a wagon building on someone who wasn't in yourtop 4 suspects?
I gave reasons for my suspicions of my top 3. They were completely ignored. Is that my fault? Also, we were close to deadline, and I didn't want to waste time trying to persuade players to jump on one of my top three bandwagons, because, I doubted my capability of being able to do so in such short time, and if I wasted time doing that, we would have even less time to switch to another bandwagon if somebody claimed a PR.cruelty wrote:Not only that, but you're content with voting for your 4th placed suspect purely because it's a bandwagon. I really, really don't like this.
I don't know that I was correct on all of my main suspects. I think I am right on at least 1 or 2 of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few people I thought were town ended up flipping scum. In fact there are a few players I am going to be watching closely today that weren't in my top 3. Also, think about it. Would you rather I be the only person voting Furry a few days before deadline with only a few other players showing interest? How would that help?cruelty wrote:This sort of apathy towards who gets lynched reeks of scum for me. I think I would be a lot less suspicious of you had you at least attacked the Haylen wagon - obviously you must have thought it a mislynch if she wasn't in your top 4 suspects - or actively pushed an alternate case, but you did neither. Explain.
Sir Chris wrote:Also I like how I get a roll of the eyes about SK even though I am probably correct, good job wicked!
I'll explain this one also, when SolemnJ comments.Furry wrote:Purple can be interpreted different ways (voting pattern/general uselessness) so if you see it different there can be debate.
I can't defend against this. Having different suspects doesn't mean I'm scum. You suspect SolemnJ who I think is town. So that means I should be suspecting you too for that? Also, apart from SolemnJ, I don't even think you have mentioned your other suspects.Furry wrote:Yes, you supported the mislynch while not being on the wagon. At the same time you were sitting on a wagon of another person who I think is a mislynch. Because of the second wagon you were not a part of the mislynch wagon.
I didn't ask you anything, but you seemed to ignore these:foilist13 wrote:I'm sorry, I don't remember you asking me something. Yes?Wicked wrote:foilist, are you ignoring me?
I wrote:I disagree. I think I have posted content, given my thoughts, and given my suspects.He seems to be overloading the thread with wall posts that no one wants to read, but which have exceedingly little content. That to me is a form of lurking. He is posting lots, but saying almost nothing, so that people pay little attention to him. Its pretty WIFOMy, but its the best I've got.
Also, you didn't seem to have a problem with this;I wrote:Lurking is a problem for me, and Haylen did it in the last game we played together too, so this is the wagon I'm getting on.
What was her allignment that game?
foilist seems to be copying VistaSoldier's scummy behavior
How was I apathetic?cruelty wrote:So basically you were apathetic. Ok.
Didn't I give reasons for my vote for CrueKnight? What was wrong with those reasons?cruelty wrote:I really don't care too much where your vote is as long as you have decent justification for it.
When did I say I didn't like the Haylen lynch? There was a moment whencruelty wrote:And are you serious? I am saying, if you didn't like the Haylen lynch (which you obviously didn't, given that you were supporting another wagon)...
I'm tired of repeating this over and over again. We were really close to deadline. I had a feeling that if I attempted to divert the bandwagon to my preference, that I would only be wasting time, which is very detrimental a few days before deadline.cruelty wrote:...then you should have actively pushed for a lynch that you did support, or at least seriously voiced concerns.
First of all, we have like 15/16 days. That is not "all the time in the world". Also, even if we did have "all the time in the world", that doesn't mean you waste a day just for the heck of it.Sir Chris wrote:Oh and I don't vote you because the day is lasting for weeks and I have all the time in the world to vote for you. I don't see it as a pressing concern either way.
How?Sir Chris wrote:However I am going to vote for you because your demeanor has shifted drastically today from yesterday,
Where? Quote it.Sir Chris wrote:and by golly, you did ask me to.
How am I supposed to defend against this?Sir Chris wrote:You seem to be a bit edgy and a bit back and forth in your tone and I find it not so subtle that I, one of the people who didn't like you yesterday is now gifted with the merit of a suspicious nod my way.
1: What's wrong with coming up with another scenario? You said voting for somebody means you want them lynched. You also said pressure votes can be very helpful (or something like that). It doesn't matter that I brought up another scenario. It just shows that there are scenarios where pressure votes don't mean votes for a lynch. Also, who cares if you wouldn't have voted for him? It is just a scenario I came up with. You are doing a poor job of defending yourself.
cruelty wrote:Wickedestjr wrote:cruelty, could your suspicion of malpascp be summarized as not contributing much?cruelty wrote:vote: mal
Basically anonymous yesterday, a few vote changes and most notably hopped onto the Haylen wagon very late and without any real explanation. You got some questions to answer.
Could your questions be summarised as inane and redundant?
cruelty wrote:You were on a wagon you knew wouldn't result in a lynch, you were off a wagon that hyposcumWicked knew would result in a mislynch.
cruelty wrote:Being on the CK wagon effectively buddies you a little with the others who were on there, thereby increasing your town cred and puts you in a position to criticise the people who voted for Haylen.
This is misrepping me. I explained why I jumped on the bandwagon. We were just a few days away from the deadline, and the CrueKnight bandwagon was the one I preferred. What I find funny is that had I jumped on the Haylen bandwagon, you most likely would have had no problems with it, as I believe there were several other players that did, and you didn't attack any of them.cruelty wrote:Your case on CK in this scenario is really irrelevant, just useless squawking to disguise your actual motivation.
cruelty wrote:I mean, I can't see any motivation for town to be on a wagon that was obviously going to lose, purely because it was a wagon. Towns concern is, as someone (probably you, that'd be ironic) pointed out, catching scum.
What made you draw the conclusion that I'm trying to appear innocent?cruelty wrote:Looking innocent is nice and all, but is by far secondary to the overall goal of lynching scum. Therefore I seriously question your presence on CK's wagon.
First of all, I admit I didn't push much for the CK lynch but that was for three reasons:cruelty wrote:you never once tried to push CK as a better lynch. Despite posting twice more before deadline. Doesn't add up.
Her reaction "didn't impress you at all." That doesn't actually seem like a strong stance to me, and this whole post looks like one designed to fly under the radar.cruelty wrote:Don't buy the claim. I also note the complete lack of content despite it being asked for and promised numerous times. Coupled with the woe is me whining, I like this lynch.
Mal, elaborate please.
Furry often the point of a pressure vote is to get a read - I personally never had a town read on Haylen, and her reaction hasn't impressed me at all.