Mafia 60: Face-to-Face - Game over!

[IH]

......I've certainly been watching this game!

AndrewS's explanation is pure BS. I was more willing to believe his first suggestion about the nolynch..... and then he changed it to "I just wanted to see some reactions". Dude, I'm so totally serial.

vote:Andrew

-3

[IH]

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:

Way to Wifom out the wazoo.

"If it's so suspicious, why would I do it?"

As I said only recently in an ongoing game about a nolynch.
= | I hate that idea.

[IH]

So I'm being vote for from Ether because I pointed out a logical fallacy, Andrew is being unvoted because the wagon on him built up to fast for it to be a town based wagon. Not only that, suggesting a bad play no lynch on day 1 is now a "null tell".

What the eff? Has this town become insane?

The wifom argument is fallacious, but I don't think use of it is necessarily scummy; I think that it's a fallacy that a lot pf players are easily prone to, and not indicative of scummyness. All it does is invalidate the argument. So, I don't think AndrewS is scum because he used it, but I do distrust him quite a lot (enough for a vote) for what he did do and I don't consider his defence good enough to merit an unvote.

I don't like this either. It looks like a scumbuddy trying to defend kind of noncomittaly.

Why did that wagon dissolve again?

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

You don't think that this town would be good enough to see some crap logic and jump on it?
Even though we're unsure of the setup, scum do get a free kill with next to no discussion if we just... no lynch.

Ether's post 102 sets my nerves off.

Why is there a sudden wagon on CES?

I demand more nightfall posts.

I feel Glork is just making a point with his nolynch thing.

[IH]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

He knows that now. He didn't know that when he proposed it. How does this make him more town? Same with the speed of the wagon. How does that make him more town?

[IH]

No, I know that Andrew. I wasn't saying you were inexperienced, but you still didn't know how that would be taken among these players, who are all relatively experienced. I know that you've been playing, not only from your 'Mafia Scum' title, but also from your join date. The first of July 2004.

My questions still stand.

[IH]

Thesp=Good posting.

CES=Mad wagoning skillz yo, as usual.

AndrewS=Scum.

That is all for now.

[IH]

Agreeance heading towards Thesp. = ) Would you specify who we should seriously reconsider?

[IH]

Ether. Why are you defending him so much. I know this is an invitational. Just because a nolynch didn't happen, and he CLAIMS that it was just to stir up conversation.....

I mean seriously. He then defended it with "I mean, if I was scum, and knew it was so scummy, why would I do it?"

Seriously. Then when it kind of dissolves for no reason, and I ask why, I'm voted upon because I'm "Opportunistic scum who isn't curious".

I seriously don't see how the speed of the bandwagon makes Andrew town... I repeat my logic for it.

This is invitational only.
You would assume that would mean better teams of scum and town.
You would also assume town would pick up on things more.
A scumtell appears.
Town jumps on it.
Town jumps off of it for it going to fast.

._. anyone see what I'm saying?

igmeoy:Thesp

... Even though you're strongly supporting an Andrew lynch, I don't like how you're kind of... turning it into something else.

I still maintain that with this being invitational only, Andrew didn't know how a nolynch suggestion would go. I mostly believe this because of the scummy defense which... doesn't look to good for him.

igmeoy:MGM

Dude. Seriously.

[IH]

I get the Ether/AndrewS lynch.

I think for Ether to be scummy though, Andrew would need to be scum. Especially with her trying to shoot down the wagon and not seeing the wifom on his defense. Seriously.

If it's so scummy why would he do it as scum? -_-'

[IH]

While I was puking my guts out last night from a virus I just had a major revelation.

unvote, vote:MGM, IGMEOY:AndrewS

I need to do a little reread to make sure, but pretty sure that MGM has been wishy washy, unhelpful, and "misread" the game a few times to many for my liking.

= | Lemme go through his posts first to make sure.

[IH]

I don't get you, Zindaras.
You agree it's WIFOM, yet you don't think it's lynch-worthy.
I've seen a lot of scum, who attempted something just because scum wouldn't do that so they could use that argument. (I even did it myself over in DragonPhoenix Mafia on the GL)

If you're not going to vote someone for WIFOM, then do you have a better idea? The only reason I'm not voting yet is because I don't like fast lynches. But I'm all ready to pile up.

Unvote:Cogito Ergo Sum

First, a little bit of a fallacy here. "You agree it's wifom, you you don't think it's lynch-worth". No middle ground.

Not only that, but what he criticizes Zindy for, he's not doing himself. He doesn't like fast lynches, but he's ready to pile up.

-_-

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

I still don't get it. I'm pretty sure it was apparent that Glork wasn't being serious. In later posts you still don't seem to accept it. I thought you did, after this post though.

MGM, read the game - he was parodying me....

Oops, I guess I was the one not paying attention. I thought his post 117 was in response to my post 116. I didn't notice he responded to an SV quote.

apparently not, as in your next post though

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

From some of his posts I see him trying to make Glork look scummy because he voted for a no lynch.

= / When no one else seemed to go along with it, it just kinda seemed to.... drop.

mm, I'm feeling pretty good with an Mgm lynch at the moment.

Also Mgm, I'm not sure WHAT the attack on the person link had to do with anything in one of your posts.

[IH]

To be fair that isn't exactly a dilemma as it says "I for one still think" instead of "There has to be/must be".

Slight mischaracterisation.

[IH]

= | I hate this idea of random lynching. It's next to a nolynch, and I don't like how people are wagoning, because they can't all be scum.

I refuse to be a part of it at this moment.

[IH]

...Glork, why couldn't your dice have said MGscuM? = |

SV is scummy, but I still don't like Glork's diceyness.

Glrok's early vote might've been random, but that doesn't make the bandwagon random. Fritzler called it long before. FoS: IH for mischaracterising the wagon.

You didn't hop on until Glork's dice. That means Glork's dice was a deciding factor in your jumping on, or did your internal hop clock go off?

[IH]

I feel highly dissatisfied with Nightfall this game. I feel him

lurklurklurk

ing

nightfall, why are you voting Ether? Who do you think is scum? Can we have some input from you before the deadline, other than some minor humor about the dice?

[IH]

....

unvote, vote:SV

= | I'd rather lynch Mgm by the way.

-2. Claim.

[IH]

Is this another game where I'm being wagoned for no reason/being recquired for a vig kill?

= )

unvote, vote:MGM

Patrick, I'm pretty sure that the MAIN reason that there was an sv wagon was for the dice.

I'm pretty sure

I

was on the wagon to give sufficient time for another one to form and give us a lynch before deadline. Would you still like me to go through her posts, and put together a case? If not, I'll go back to working on MGM.

= ) If I was a vig it'd be a tossup between Andrew/MGM/maybe Glork if those two weren't an option.

[IH]

1.A deadline is coming up Patrick. Not only that, I didn't start the wagon. You asked what was the reason for it, I said a dice roll, which was pretty much a straight wagon that led to a spectrumvoid claim.

2.Is there an actual case for why I'm being vigged other than Patrick doesn't like the vibe I give out? Or Ether is going for an IH lynch for no reason again? = )

[IH]

MBL, did you look at the post directly afterwards?

= |

[IH]

Dear Patrick:

unvote, vote CES

I've never ever seen scum suggest no lynch, especially a non-newbie scum. Also, it's pretty obvious that no one here will support it, since this is an invitational. Like Patrick, I think the people using this as a reason to attack are scum.

I found this faulty, because there has been cases where scum suggest no lynch and such.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

*nods*

Then again,

When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

= Emo scum-tell.

Apologies, I've been sick.

unvote

Sigh.

I don't like the logic of saying that the AndrewS wagon was scummy. I maintain that it was there for a valid reason. Then, she says she see's an "Emo scumtell" but no vote at all, even though she unvotes.

I need to admit that with so many people around, I'm getting a little confused.

I'm not taking specific post notes now at page 9, but the person who's bothering me most right now is IH, with that clear reach. I've read through again, and I'm still swinging here and there over Andrews VS Mgm issue.

Still no vote, seems noncomittal.

Until her 21st post, she had about as much content as Nightfall in this game.
Don't like the Andrew defense.

[IH]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

A mysterious suggestion. I'm sure the game will get under way just as every other game does.

Patrick answered with this. Not quite sure what he meant by it...

Very well. Unvote

I suppose that I just thought that since we'd been playing a while and still were randomly voting that we weren't getting anywhere. If the town thinks that we can lynch mafia today, though, I'm all for it.

Yeah. You know. The second page.

:Goodposting obv:
AndrewS is leet right? I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum. I doubt he would seriously expect to convince us all to go no lynch, especially when we don't even have an even number.

This does not mean that he did. It was a serious suggestion, or I believed so by the wording, as previously stated.

I'm not a newbie. I was just getting frustrated with the fact that it had been 2 full days and we were no closer to finding anything out than normal. Yes, I understand that random votes are a normal part of the game, but I also understand that it occurs until someone slips up and says something stupid. In an invitational, I assumed that nobody would be so stupid to do such. Apparently I was wrong.

I repeat. It was unprompted, and had only been two days in onto the second page.

I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum.

Interesting. The last time I made that suggestion about someone who had experience and was suggesting No Lynch, I was wrong. My vote's been justified.

= )

vote: AndrewS I don't really care about a no-lynch vote; it's too blatant for me to care particularly. That it seems you weren't expecting FoSes for it concerns me a bit more. Er, I'm confused about that post I just quoted.

(On a fluffy note, let's see what I can spark.

Damn I'm face-to-face!)

Wasn't Ether pushing for my lynch because I also went after AndrewS?

Alright, alright...Guess I'll explain. I voted no lynch and said that in order to get peoples' reactions. Many times, by doing or saying something unexpected, you can learn a lot from simple reactions...And while I haven't gotten anything concrete from it, I do believe that I have sort of a feel for who to watch for. Not enough for a vote, mind you, just sort of a feeling for it.

I hate this reason. As I've stated before (and will again) I always suspect anyone who does something "just to get reactions". This is a ticket out of any thing they've done, and I personally believe it is scummy.

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

The benefits for Andrew.
1.Town takes him up on it. no lynch.
2.Town doesn't take him up on it. Some find him scummy, others call them scummy, he's credited for "starting discussion"

Even worse is if he is scum, he'd have had a chance to converse with his buddies. If they came to what at least SOME of the town would do (vote Andrew), is it not implausible that they could have already come up with a way to throw suspicion on someone else?

Vote: CES for being way too talkative.

Like MGM's first post.

scum.

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

The best he had at this point was a weak metagaming point.

scumscum

Which CES counters effectively.

I play differently in real life games. I didn't rack up my post count by only being active when I'm scum.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

I'm going to break down this post, little by little.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented?

AndrewS Has effectively "Cleared" himself., as he tries to do here. Since no scum have ever done it, and he did it, he must not be scum!

Can you see the logical fallacy here?

As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

Even though voting for a nolynch is usually considered scummy, he does it to see who's lynch happy. Therefore, anyone who voted him for what most would consider a scummy move is scum because they're lynch happy.

= |

I believe CES is the most town at this point, especially with his arguments.

The exchange between him and Andrew in posts 93-96 are filled with CES goodness.

FOS: CES You don't care about my intention? That seems rather interesting to me. If I were to use this as a godfather, that would be an incredibly silly move. As for the reactions that I've gotten, it has sparked discussion and led me to suspect Adele. I was hoping for more, but I can only work on what I am given after making the move.

Some fun Wifomy logic! "If I were to do this as a godfather, that would be silly, so I must not be one! But Adele is still scum"

unvote; vote: IH. Watching Adele and Mgm; I'm not really focused on IH in particular.

I don't know if I'd believe Andrew if I came in to see his reaction before anyone else posted. I do know that I really dislike the responses to him. I thought the original vote was a null tell. Where's the WIFOM? Just what are you people arguing?

Voidie, you've acknowledged this without really touching it: posts 53 and 57. Thoughts?

She thought it was originally a null tell, but earlier she voted him for it? Please correct me if I'm wrong but

FoS:Ether

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

Patrick I never understood why you thought Andrew was more town because of the way the wagon built up.

Posts 109-111 suddenly nails CES with three votes after he says "But he mentioned no lynch, and it'll be fun!"

I especially don't like SV's post 111.

I think the ppl who just shouted Wifom are suspect. Like Ether, there are several ppl I could vote.

Did you not understand the Wifom Logical fallacy that was pointed out? Why did you think they were suspect for voting based on a nolynch/WIFOM fallacy tell?

In my experience, scum tend to suggest "no lynch" more than town do, perhaps because it eliminates an early voting record (sometimes it's hard to go after a non-scum in a game where you're scum), or for who knows what reason. Regardless of justification, it tends to be somethings scum do more frequently (yes, town does it too, but not as often, I believe).

:GoodPosting:

Think what you will....It's your decision. As for Thesp's question, no, I couldn't tell as easily who was willing to jump quickly. Random voting patterns are impossible to discern information from. This was simply my attempt to bring out information on day 1 rather than lynching randomly. If I'm lynched for it, then so be it.

I really don't like all of these things from Andrew Jumping out at me. His Nolynch suggestion, his bad defense full of logical fallacy, the appeals to emotion...... = (

Hmm, I could've sworn I unvoted you. I think I'm messing up my games.

Unvote: CES
Vote: Glork

There's only one situation in which no lynch on day 1 is a viable choice. Now isn't one of them and Glork is experienced enough to know it.

Not paying attention count-1

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

I seriously think there's some kind of fallacy in here. It's just like.... you don't see any case on Andrew, because of the way his wagon built up and he couldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch, so it's just as good as if he didn't....

Andrew knows the ppl he is playing with, and he is semi experienced. I doubt he thought he could push a no lynch agenda through. As for the wagon, I made it clear that I thought there was oppotunistic scum on it. It felt more like going for an easy lynch than bussing a scumbuddy.

CES says he only had 400 something posts. Going with a long Hiatus from who knows how long, and I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never played with him before the last month or so...

Also, if you'll notice, Patrick apparently doesn't think that any town were on the Andrew wagon. His two options are Opportunistic scum and Bussing. What about Town hopping on?

Thesp's post 151 is good.

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make? While it may not be that convincing if I am not a given, I am simply trying to explain my thought processes.

So you say. This cannot be proven to us though.

Post 160 is also good by Thesp.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

Not paying attention count-2.

I am able to post once or twice per game per real life day.

So far this game has been running for 3 days (not including today).
I have only not posted in the last two days because I have been trying to take in everything that has been said.

I will FOS: AndrewS though.
I would say more, I had actually planned to, but then I read Thesp's latest comment and just like MGM thought "Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself". So yeah, as odd as it sounds, and as hard as it feals to say.... I currently agree with Thesp.....

If you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and wash my mouth out with some soap...

I don't see a post per day or so. = |

If anyone has any questions that I can answer, I would be more than willing to. Otherwise, I have posted my story, everything that I know to post. When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

More appeals to emotion.

Certainly. CES, Adele and Thesp.

I'm going to sum up Andrew's reasoning.

CES for being CES-y and joking around for saying "lets lynch"
Adele for his fallable argument of anyone voting him for doing a scummy thing is probably scum because they're lynch happy.
Thesp for all that omgus-ee goodness.

The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what? (I don't mind Thesp's statistics argument, incidentally, and it even rings a bell, but I don't feel it's good enough for a lynch.)

So... you don't think that Andrew was scummy because town wouldn't go for a nolynch?

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this is an invitational. We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or sleep with). Off the top of my head, I don't remember even newbie games on 'Scum where an unoptimal no-lynch agenda actually got through. It in no way made Andrew more town; just, I didn't find it scummy. (Now, his own behavior after the vote...well, if his wagon didn't go ridiculous, I'd probably still be on it.)

I know we know what we're doing.... but you cannot convince me that it was not serious. Since it's an invitational, it makes me even more convinced. There's no newbies to suggest it. How would experienced players take it coming from

another experienced player

? Andrew didn't know that.

Many of the people who placed votes on him did so for bullshit reasons. IH, can you explain how a vote for no-lynch equates to an actual no-lynch? Seems pretty harmless to me. Where specifically was the WIFOM you were talking about?

...."Can you explain how a vote for a nolynch equates to an actual nolynch? Seems Harmless"
"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

not paying attention count-3

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

Though he was on both of them I believe.....

I'm not really feeling the CES wagon.
Unvote, Vote: IH
He just seems to be cruising along too easily on this AndrewS thing, and I don't like his reasons. I don't see much curiosity from him. Also, the sucking up to Thesp... I've seen that before.

MGM wrote:
I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

This caught my interest. Are you saying that Andrew bandwagoners have made themselves into easy targets for oppotunistic scum? Are you going to look at IH's play with a straight face and tell me that he isn't oppotunistic scum? >_>

I was sucking up to Thesp... for agreeing with his reasoning? Bullshit. There's not much curiosity to be had when I see something scummy my friend. Sorry that I'm "opportunistic scum" for voting for/going after someone who is scummy to me.

I'm not going to say anything about IH's play before checking his posts.

As for the quote. I don't say the bandwagoners made themeselves into eassy targets. That would imply the wrong causal relationship. I'm saying they're not opportunistic for bandwagoning, but that the people attacking them for their bandwagoning are the opportunistic scum.

What did you think of my play by the way? You kind of ignored Patrick's question.

I think you are missing the whole point of the argument, as this is entirely mis-stated. The question is not, "Could this affect the lynch for the day?", it's "Why is he voting No Lynch?" His motivations are not necessarily equivalent with the expected outcome.

Truth. Truth.

TRUTH

Thesp: You have a problem in your logic: You assume that my intentions follow my vote, and that I intended for the town to go no lynch. I did not. I did want to see reactions. As such, we have more information now than we would have normally for a day 1 lynch. It won't be entirely random. That was my goal, really. But, no, I never truly intended the town to go no lynch.

mmmm. You assume we know that you're not lying scum worming their way out.

Glork doing the same when he knew it was a stupid move is scummier.

Not paying attention count-4

Thesp, I could say the same about you. If I was scum, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to convince town to go no lynch, what would I profit from suggesting it? If you accept the fact that I did not expect the town to go no lynch, you must logically assume that I had another reason for voting it. What do you suppose that reason was? Saying it is because I am mafia makes no sense, because if I do not expect the town to go no lynch, and it does not, it merely makes me a target. Saying it was to attract attention to myself then clear myself is absolutely ludicrous. There is no defensible way that you can say that you thought that I didn't believe the town would go no lynch yet am still mafia.

Err, actually there is, and the argument's been out on the table. Which means we still do not

know

of your true intention until you are confirmed innocent, which won't happen until we're down to one scum and a cop claims, or you're dead.

igmeoy:Thesp... Even though you're strongly supporting an Andrew lynch, I don't like how you're kind of... turning it into something else.

I still maintain that with this being invitational only, Andrew didn't know how a nolynch suggestion would go. I mostly believe this because of the scummy defense which... doesn't look to good for him.

This was stupid on my part. I most definitely Misread Thesp's posts at the time.

Mod whenever you get back can you prod MBL for us please?
I agree with what Thesp said about Nightfalls last post. I could see a link between the two of them because Nightfall attacks him on several points then only FoSes him, then votes Ether. Misrepresents her too. Looking at Ether's last post I didn't get the vibe of "AndrewS can do no wrong".

err..... how couldn't you?

Not really, IH. Scum will staunchly defend townies at time to make themselves look good. In fact, if Ether turns up scum, at this point, I'd be more inclined to believe that AndrewS is pro-town.

Eh, I'm still not convinced on this.
I'm kind of neutral on MBL's post 206.
[quote="MGM"[I am reading the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not fallible. Just like anyone else I'm prone to forgetting and overlooking stuff. If you can't agree to that, I could say you're not reading the thread too. I had to repeat a question in post 191 because you failed the answer it earlier. Either you didn't read it, or you purposely choose not to answer a question directed at you. Neither is a particular townish reaction.

We disagree about each other's actions. That doesn't mean that the posts of either of us is less intelligent than the other. We're in an invitational, so we can assume we're both good enough players. What you said is a logical fallacy according to the MafiaWiki http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... the_Person

Not paying attention count-5
Eh, I'm pretty neutral on Patrick's post 210, but he doesn't seem to be seeing a lot of things that seem to jump out.
Even though I don't agree with post 224 from Zind, I think it's townish.
I like Nightfalls post 248.
Post 253, Ether still "doesn't see" the wifom logic.
The dice wagon starts on 260. It goes Glork, MBL, Adele, Zindy in consecutive posts.
10 posts later CES hops on.

FOS:MBL, Adele

I would FoS Zindy, but he gave valid reasons that satisfied me.

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what Mgm at least attacked as WIFOM, and he was the first. I in no way believe that an attempt to get people arguing prevents the instigator from being scum--but a serious push for a no-lynch is as unlikely as Andrew said it was, and this is what was attacked.

Speaking of which, Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy. Hey, Thesp--what was your alternate theory?

....So... one person's reason invalidates the whole argument?
Posts 291 and 292 make me laugh = ).
Don't like MBLs 314

SV: Placing the last vote would be bad for me regardless: If the lynched was scum, it would look like bussing. If the lynched was town, it would be me trying to get rid of townies. I just want to make sure that we do lynch someone before the deadline.

Which is awesome when several people do that. In fact, it makes it hard for someone to get to the point of hammertization when people hold back their votes. I'm adding this to the "list of crap spewed forth from the mouth of AndrewS this game" tally.

LAWL

Glork, in post 344, you say you think that SV's paraphrases are a bit propogandic and falsely incriminating. What do you think of it now with a vig claim out?

Perhaps even literally.

My ideal vigging scenario (I know you're all on tenterhooks ) would be if SV took town input, picked out about 3 solid targets (and told us who, possibly) and random.org'd between them. Randomisation is a valid methodology in Game Theory precisely because of WIFOM issues (although the textbooks don't call it that), and I'm always uncomfortable playing stone-paper-scissors if I don't even know who the opponent is.

I'll try to pick a better target for my vote today - if not, I'll try to present a valid reason for failing. I may well be unable to post over the weekend, so please excuse that, but I'll certainly be back Monday. I'm not lurking.

When I look at this post all I can think is.... "protecting scum buddy by randomising with townies"

Um, Adele, I don't see how picking 3 targets rather than 1 would in any way be a boon to the town. It's not like she's a cop, her target is hardly influence the scum's nightkill. Picking 3 targets would only make the pool of possible investigations smaller.

QFT

I still find this worrying. On a dice roll you go along and ask someone to claim. It seems strange that you'd be 'putting together' a case only after she's virtually confirmed. I would have thought you need a case before you vote.

Not with a deadline. If you want to, you can do a meta on me, as this is one thing I almost ALWAYS do at a deadline announcement is to vote for the highest wagon.

unvote, vote:AndrewS

for all those logical fallacies that was never settled and such.

FoS:Ether

Igmeoy:Mgm

[IH]

IH Reread. = P Have fun.

Alright...Looking at it like this - it's been several days now and we're not out of the random vote stage. I know that with this strong of a group of players, nobody is going to make an idiodic mistake and make a scum tell this early. Ergo, our lynch will practically be random. This gives us a 1 in 5 chance of killing mafia. 4 in 5 of lynching town. Not the greatest odds. Perhaps we should Unvote, vote: No Lynch for now, and look at the game fresh in the morning, unless anyone has any more constructive ideas.

Unprompted. Uses the same logic as newbies do (We have a greater chance of hitting town today than scum since it'll be random) I still think that he was serious when he said this by the wording of this.

A mysterious suggestion. I'm sure the game will get under way just as every other game does.

Patrick answered with this. Not quite sure what he meant by it...

Very well. Unvote

I suppose that I just thought that since we'd been playing a while and still were randomly voting that we weren't getting anywhere. If the town thinks that we can lynch mafia today, though, I'm all for it.

Yeah. You know. The second page.

:Goodposting obv:
AndrewS is leet right? I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum. I doubt he would seriously expect to convince us all to go no lynch, especially when we don't even have an even number.

This does not mean that he did. It was a serious suggestion, or I believed so by the wording, as previously stated.

I'm not a newbie. I was just getting frustrated with the fact that it had been 2 full days and we were no closer to finding anything out than normal. Yes, I understand that random votes are a normal part of the game, but I also understand that it occurs until someone slips up and says something stupid. In an invitational, I assumed that nobody would be so stupid to do such. Apparently I was wrong.

I repeat. It was unprompted, and had only been two days in onto the second page.

I don't think his suggestion makes it more likely he's scum.

Interesting. The last time I made that suggestion about someone who had experience and was suggesting No Lynch, I was wrong. My vote's been justified.

= )

vote: AndrewS I don't really care about a no-lynch vote; it's too blatant for me to care particularly. That it seems you weren't expecting FoSes for it concerns me a bit more. Er, I'm confused about that post I just quoted.

(On a fluffy note, let's see what I can spark.

Damn I'm face-to-face!)

Wasn't Ether pushing for my lynch because I also went after AndrewS?

Alright, alright...Guess I'll explain. I voted no lynch and said that in order to get peoples' reactions. Many times, by doing or saying something unexpected, you can learn a lot from simple reactions...And while I haven't gotten anything concrete from it, I do believe that I have sort of a feel for who to watch for. Not enough for a vote, mind you, just sort of a feeling for it.

I hate this reason. As I've stated before (and will again) I always suspect anyone who does something "just to get reactions". This is a ticket out of any thing they've done, and I personally believe it is scummy.

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

The benefits for Andrew.
1.Town takes him up on it. no lynch.
2.Town doesn't take him up on it. Some find him scummy, others call them scummy, he's credited for "starting discussion"

Even worse is if he is scum, he'd have had a chance to converse with his buddies. If they came to what at least SOME of the town would do (vote Andrew), is it not implausible that they could have already come up with a way to throw suspicion on someone else?

Vote: CES for being way too talkative.

Like MGM's first post.

scum.

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

The best he had at this point was a weak metagaming point.

scumscum

Which CES counters effectively.

I play differently in real life games. I didn't rack up my post count by only being active when I'm scum.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

I'm going to break down this post, little by little.

Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented?

AndrewS Has effectively "Cleared" himself., as he tries to do here. Since no scum have ever done it, and he did it, he must not be scum!

Can you see the logical fallacy here?

As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:
Unvote, Vote: Adele

Even though voting for a nolynch is usually considered scummy, he does it to see who's lynch happy. Therefore, anyone who voted him for what most would consider a scummy move is scum because they're lynch happy.

= |

I believe CES is the most town at this point, especially with his arguments.

The exchange between him and Andrew in posts 93-96 are filled with CES goodness.

FOS: CES You don't care about my intention? That seems rather interesting to me. If I were to use this as a godfather, that would be an incredibly silly move. As for the reactions that I've gotten, it has sparked discussion and led me to suspect Adele. I was hoping for more, but I can only work on what I am given after making the move.

Some fun Wifomy logic! "If I were to do this as a godfather, that would be silly, so I must not be one! But Adele is still scum"

unvote; vote: IH. Watching Adele and Mgm; I'm not really focused on IH in particular.

I don't know if I'd believe Andrew if I came in to see his reaction before anyone else posted. I do know that I really dislike the responses to him. I thought the original vote was a null tell. Where's the WIFOM? Just what are you people arguing?

Voidie, you've acknowledged this without really touching it: posts 53 and 57. Thoughts?

She thought it was originally a null tell, but earlier she voted him for it? Please correct me if I'm wrong but

FoS:Ether

The way the wagon built up, I'd be more inclined towards thinking Andrew is town. I'm still unsure as to what sort of benefit Andrew would be gaining by suggesting no lynch if he were scum. Can one of his attackers explain this to me please.

Patrick I never understood why you thought Andrew was more town because of the way the wagon built up.

Posts 109-111 suddenly nails CES with three votes after he says "But he mentioned no lynch, and it'll be fun!"

I especially don't like SV's post 111.

I think the ppl who just shouted Wifom are suspect. Like Ether, there are several ppl I could vote.

Did you not understand the Wifom Logical fallacy that was pointed out? Why did you think they were suspect for voting based on a nolynch/WIFOM fallacy tell?

In my experience, scum tend to suggest "no lynch" more than town do, perhaps because it eliminates an early voting record (sometimes it's hard to go after a non-scum in a game where you're scum), or for who knows what reason. Regardless of justification, it tends to be somethings scum do more frequently (yes, town does it too, but not as often, I believe).

:GoodPosting:

Think what you will....It's your decision. As for Thesp's question, no, I couldn't tell as easily who was willing to jump quickly. Random voting patterns are impossible to discern information from. This was simply my attempt to bring out information on day 1 rather than lynching randomly. If I'm lynched for it, then so be it.

I really don't like all of these things from Andrew Jumping out at me. His Nolynch suggestion, his bad defense full of logical fallacy, the appeals to emotion...... = (

Hmm, I could've sworn I unvoted you. I think I'm messing up my games.

Unvote: CES
Vote: Glork

There's only one situation in which no lynch on day 1 is a viable choice. Now isn't one of them and Glork is experienced enough to know it.

Not paying attention count-1

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I said that obviously Andrew wouldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch because it's a bad idea.

I seriously think there's some kind of fallacy in here. It's just like.... you don't see any case on Andrew, because of the way his wagon built up and he couldn't be able to persuade the town to no lynch, so it's just as good as if he didn't....

Andrew knows the ppl he is playing with, and he is semi experienced. I doubt he thought he could push a no lynch agenda through. As for the wagon, I made it clear that I thought there was oppotunistic scum on it. It felt more like going for an easy lynch than bussing a scumbuddy.

CES says he only had 400 something posts. Going with a long Hiatus from who knows how long, and I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I've never played with him before the last month or so...

Also, if you'll notice, Patrick apparently doesn't think that any town were on the Andrew wagon. His two options are Opportunistic scum and Bussing. What about Town hopping on?

Thesp's post 151 is good.

Thesp - considering that I know that I am town beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that not a logical suggestion for me to make? While it may not be that convincing if I am not a given, I am simply trying to explain my thought processes.

So you say. This cannot be proven to us though.

Post 160 is also good by Thesp.

Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself, but just in case someone wants to hear it.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Granted, you might get a few scum on your bandwagon, but not because they're opportunists, it will be because you called the wagon on yourself and it's logical to punish scummy actions or take action against anti-town play. Scum want to mix in, so if the town wagons you, they'll join (regardless of whether you're their buddy or a townie). It's not rocket science.

Not paying attention count-2.

I am able to post once or twice per game per real life day.

So far this game has been running for 3 days (not including today).
I have only not posted in the last two days because I have been trying to take in everything that has been said.

I will FOS: AndrewS though.
I would say more, I had actually planned to, but then I read Thesp's latest comment and just like MGM thought "Thesp, you've pretty much worded my feelings better than I could myself". So yeah, as odd as it sounds, and as hard as it feals to say.... I currently agree with Thesp.....

If you'll excuse me, I've now got to go and wash my mouth out with some soap...

I don't see a post per day or so. = |

If anyone has any questions that I can answer, I would be more than willing to. Otherwise, I have posted my story, everything that I know to post. When I'm lynched and turn up town, you all might want to do some serious reconsideration of a few people.

More appeals to emotion.

Certainly. CES, Adele and Thesp.

I'm going to sum up Andrew's reasoning.

CES for being CES-y and joking around for saying "lets lynch"
Adele for his fallable argument of anyone voting him for doing a scummy thing is probably scum because they're lynch happy.
Thesp for all that omgus-ee goodness.

The initial attack on AndrewS was that a no-lynch would hurt the town. It's been pointed out that a no-lynch wouldn't actually happen. So, yeah. The reason that scum would be more likely than town to vote no-lynch seems gone. Now what? (I don't mind Thesp's statistics argument, incidentally, and it even rings a bell, but I don't feel it's good enough for a lynch.)

So... you don't think that Andrew was scummy because town wouldn't go for a nolynch?

Um, IH? Despite it containing Ether, this is an invitational. We know what we're doing (or in my case, we know who to bribe and/or blackmail and/or sleep with). Off the top of my head, I don't remember even newbie games on 'Scum where an unoptimal no-lynch agenda actually got through. It in no way made Andrew more town; just, I didn't find it scummy. (Now, his own behavior after the vote...well, if his wagon didn't go ridiculous, I'd probably still be on it.)

I know we know what we're doing.... but you cannot convince me that it was not serious. Since it's an invitational, it makes me even more convinced. There's no newbies to suggest it. How would experienced players take it coming from

another experienced player

? Andrew didn't know that.

Many of the people who placed votes on him did so for bullshit reasons. IH, can you explain how a vote for no-lynch equates to an actual no-lynch? Seems pretty harmless to me. Where specifically was the WIFOM you were talking about?

...."Can you explain how a vote for a nolynch equates to an actual nolynch? Seems Harmless"
"Can you expain how a vote for a confirmed innocent lynch eqautes to an actual confirmed innocent lynch? Seems harmless"

That's exactly how I see your argument.

AndrewS and Glork made a bad suggestion. Whether they meant it is irrelevant. Suggesting it is scummy, following through on it by making the vote is scummier.

Alright, let's take an informal poll?


Who here thinks I was *actually* serious about my No-Lynch suggestion?

I do. Because you actually voted no lynch when we were discussing how bad a no lynch would be for the town following Andrew's bandwagon. If you're pro-town, surely you have a better place to put your vote than on a no lynch you know won't happen. It is a waste of voting power.

not paying attention count-3

I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

Though he was on both of them I believe.....

I'm not really feeling the CES wagon.
Unvote, Vote: IH
He just seems to be cruising along too easily on this AndrewS thing, and I don't like his reasons. I don't see much curiosity from him. Also, the sucking up to Thesp... I've seen that before.

MGM wrote:
I actually see the attack of both Andrew's and Glork's bandwagoners as more opportunistic than the actual bandwagoning. We have to start somewhere and voting someone suggesting a no lynch on day 1 is pretty standard.

This caught my interest. Are you saying that Andrew bandwagoners have made themselves into easy targets for oppotunistic scum? Are you going to look at IH's play with a straight face and tell me that he isn't oppotunistic scum? >_>

I was sucking up to Thesp... for agreeing with his reasoning? Bullshit. There's not much curiosity to be had when I see something scummy my friend. Sorry that I'm "opportunistic scum" for voting for/going after someone who is scummy to me.

I'm not going to say anything about IH's play before checking his posts.

As for the quote. I don't say the bandwagoners made themeselves into eassy targets. That would imply the wrong causal relationship. I'm saying they're not opportunistic for bandwagoning, but that the people attacking them for their bandwagoning are the opportunistic scum.

What did you think of my play by the way? You kind of ignored Patrick's question.

I think you are missing the whole point of the argument, as this is entirely mis-stated. The question is not, "Could this affect the lynch for the day?", it's "Why is he voting No Lynch?" His motivations are not necessarily equivalent with the expected outcome.

Truth. Truth.

TRUTH

Thesp: You have a problem in your logic: You assume that my intentions follow my vote, and that I intended for the town to go no lynch. I did not. I did want to see reactions. As such, we have more information now than we would have normally for a day 1 lynch. It won't be entirely random. That was my goal, really. But, no, I never truly intended the town to go no lynch.

mmmm. You assume we know that you're not lying scum worming their way out.

Glork doing the same when he knew it was a stupid move is scummier.

Not paying attention count-4

Thesp, I could say the same about you. If I was scum, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to convince town to go no lynch, what would I profit from suggesting it? If you accept the fact that I did not expect the town to go no lynch, you must logically assume that I had another reason for voting it. What do you suppose that reason was? Saying it is because I am mafia makes no sense, because if I do not expect the town to go no lynch, and it does not, it merely makes me a target. Saying it was to attract attention to myself then clear myself is absolutely ludicrous. There is no defensible way that you can say that you thought that I didn't believe the town would go no lynch yet am still mafia.

Err, actually there is, and the argument's been out on the table. Which means we still do not

know

of your true intention until you are confirmed innocent, which won't happen until we're down to one scum and a cop claims, or you're dead.

igmeoy:Thesp... Even though you're strongly supporting an Andrew lynch, I don't like how you're kind of... turning it into something else.

I still maintain that with this being invitational only, Andrew didn't know how a nolynch suggestion would go. I mostly believe this because of the scummy defense which... doesn't look to good for him.

This was stupid on my part. I most definitely Misread Thesp's posts at the time.

Mod whenever you get back can you prod MBL for us please?
I agree with what Thesp said about Nightfalls last post. I could see a link between the two of them because Nightfall attacks him on several points then only FoSes him, then votes Ether. Misrepresents her too. Looking at Ether's last post I didn't get the vibe of "AndrewS can do no wrong".

err..... how couldn't you?

Not really, IH. Scum will staunchly defend townies at time to make themselves look good. In fact, if Ether turns up scum, at this point, I'd be more inclined to believe that AndrewS is pro-town.

Eh, I'm still not convinced on this.
I'm kind of neutral on MBL's post 206.

I am reading the game, but that doesn't mean I'm not fallible. Just like anyone else I'm prone to forgetting and overlooking stuff. If you can't agree to that, I could say you're not reading the thread too. I had to repeat a question in post 191 because you failed the answer it earlier. Either you didn't read it, or you purposely choose not to answer a question directed at you. Neither is a particular townish reaction.

We disagree about each other's actions. That doesn't mean that the posts of either of us is less intelligent than the other. We're in an invitational, so we can assume we're both good enough players. What you said is a logical fallacy according to the MafiaWiki http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... the_Person

Not paying attention count-5
Eh, I'm pretty neutral on Patrick's post 210, but he doesn't seem to be seeing a lot of things that seem to jump out.
Even though I don't agree with post 224 from Zind, I think it's townish.
I like Nightfalls post 248.
Post 253, Ether still "doesn't see" the wifom logic.
The dice wagon starts on 260. It goes Glork, MBL, Adele, Zindy in consecutive posts.
10 posts later CES hops on.

FOS:MBL, Adele

I would FoS Zindy, but he gave valid reasons that satisfied me.

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what Mgm at least attacked as WIFOM, and he was the first. I in no way believe that an attempt to get people arguing prevents the instigator from being scum--but a serious push for a no-lynch is as unlikely as Andrew said it was, and this is what was attacked.

Speaking of which, Mgm's posts give off a vibe of overwhelming stupid and I don't actually find them scummy. Hey, Thesp--what was your alternate theory?

....So... one person's reason invalidates the whole argument?
Posts 291 and 292 make me laugh = ).
Don't like MBLs 314

SV: Placing the last vote would be bad for me regardless: If the lynched was scum, it would look like bussing. If the lynched was town, it would be me trying to get rid of townies. I just want to make sure that we do lynch someone before the deadline.

Which is awesome when several people do that. In fact, it makes it hard for someone to get to the point of hammertization when people hold back their votes. I'm adding this to the "list of crap spewed forth from the mouth of AndrewS this game" tally.

LAWL

Glork, in post 344, you say you think that SV's paraphrases are a bit propogandic and falsely incriminating. What do you think of it now with a vig claim out?

Perhaps even literally.

My ideal vigging scenario (I know you're all on tenterhooks ) would be if SV took town input, picked out about 3 solid targets (and told us who, possibly) and random.org'd between them. Randomisation is a valid methodology in Game Theory precisely because of WIFOM issues (although the textbooks don't call it that), and I'm always uncomfortable playing stone-paper-scissors if I don't even know who the opponent is.

I'll try to pick a better target for my vote today - if not, I'll try to present a valid reason for failing. I may well be unable to post over the weekend, so please excuse that, but I'll certainly be back Monday. I'm not lurking.

When I look at this post all I can think is.... "protecting scum buddy by randomising with townies"

Um, Adele, I don't see how picking 3 targets rather than 1 would in any way be a boon to the town. It's not like she's a cop, her target is hardly influence the scum's nightkill. Picking 3 targets would only make the pool of possible investigations smaller.

QFT

I still find this worrying. On a dice roll you go along and ask someone to claim. It seems strange that you'd be 'putting together' a case only after she's virtually confirmed. I would have thought you need a case before you vote.

Not with a deadline. If you want to, you can do a meta on me, as this is one thing I almost ALWAYS do at a deadline announcement is to vote for the highest wagon.

unvote, vote:AndrewS

for all those logical fallacies that was never settled and such.

FoS:Ether

Igmeoy:Mgm

[IH]

Mod:

I had to correct the quotes if you couldn't see, would you please delete post 404? 405 is corrected.

[IH]

Also, I'd like to comment on Glork. He hardly appeared in my PBP of all.... because there's been almost nothing from him.

Order of noncontributing

(I believe)
CDB
Frtiz
SV
Glork
Nightfall

= |

[IH]

Not paying attention count-6.

= ) She meant that he's not really posting too much content (Though after rereading I have seen some) Just a summary of posts. In other words, he looks like he's giving information, but is just doing the filter (Display posts from all users) does the same exact thing.

[IH]

Bah, go town.

MOD EDIT:

[08] Once your death scene has been posted, you’re dead. Stop typing. Not even a “Bah!” post, please. Save it for after the game is over.

[IH]

yay = )

But now I can't use the "At least you're not MGM" anymore = |

Also, I told you there was still hope = P

Four smiley faces in four lines = O