Have we started again?
*smack* Wagh!
I believe him, since that was what I was going to guess. In post 19 he claims that SpyreX stole his line (And now for something completely different...), and a rough overlook indicates that the character's first appearance in the series was just after the llama sketch in that episode.Mirth wrote:Iron Man: The announcer is not unique to that sketch. I don't think I buy your claim. Why did you feel the need to make us guess it?
Why claim at all, fake or otherwise? Your argument seems to be that it doesn't make sense if you are mafia, but it doesn't make sense if you are town either. You don't seem to be addressing questions posed to you and have taken a defeatist attitude; if you actually are town then you are doing us a disservice.DarlaBlueEyes wrote:Why would i fake claim on day one with 2 votes on me?
In the beginning, I was more whimsical than I am now. I wanted to find a way to throw in a favorite Python quote of mine, and I was also excited about testing my trivia prowess regarding Iron Man. If I remember correctly, others were curious too before we realized the implications. It was all a long time ago, in the early stages.Lord Gurgi wrote:Azimuth wrote:I can't help but think that people who reveal their roles too eagerly should be attacked, first with bombs and rockets to destroy their homes, and then when they run helpless into the street, mow them down with machine guns. And then, of course, release the vultures.
I know these views aren't popular, but I have never thought of popularity.These posts worry me, especially considering that there is only one post between them, in which time he changed his position quite dramatically.Azimuth wrote:In that case, do you prefer a guitar, castanets, a bowtie, or a motorbike? Or none of the above? More I dare not say, lest you do something awful to the player who guesses the exact role.
You do have a point here; I even wondered whether someone might think it was suspicious when I included it. However, such notions are largely circumstantial. One might as easily be "suspicious" of LG's post 948, in which he expresses joy about lynching mafia when he thought IM was admitting to it. Sometimes we express feelings because it's how we feel, not because we're trying to look a certain way.Lord Gurgi wrote:Complaining about a bad night is traditionally a scum tell.Azimuth wrote:1. We lost the cop? Ouch. And there's probably a cult? Double ouch.
I don't quite agree with this characterization; how is asking questions not hunting? It's true that most topics weren't started by me, mainly because nothing happened to me overnight -- unlike, apparently, many others -- and I was mostly trying to catch up with the posts of those others and make sense of them. There are only so many topics that can be brought up, after all; I'm not going to invent some new crazy topic just to satisfy someone else's idea of hunting.Lord Gurgi wrote:I notice that he has never done any scum hunting of his own, only followed what the town has been saying and asking an occasional question. This makes me lean to the scum side.
Is that based on actual experience, or just a particular preference of yours? I definitely have not seen that to be the case, especially on days where a townie is lynched. For my part, both days we were waiting for IM to say something; on Day 1 killa seven quickhammered before it even happened, and on Day 2 someone else (farside?) put the hammer soon after IM's reply, before I had a chance to return and read it. I'm not going to place some random vote late in the day just to appease someone else's idea of appearing town.Lord Gurgi wrote:As a side note, I find that someone who is not voting for someone by the end of the day to be quite scummy.
I think it was fairly clear that LG and I were talking about "not voting=mafia" as a general notion, pertaining to more than just this one game. Why farside22 should pretend that I was only referring to this game is beyond me; it seems a little too deliberate of a misinterpretation on her part. Plus, if she thinks I missed LG's point (I don't think I did) she should please explain what she thought it was.farside22 wrote:Post 16 quote:. I laughed at this as only one townie was lynched thus far, but he stayed away from the scum wagon as well. I felt he missed LG point on purpose.I definitely have not seen that to be the case, especially on days where a townie is lynched
You are now the third person who has taken that post way too seriously. I've explained this before: it was (I believe) my second post in the game, in the first few days of the game, and most of it was a verbatim Python quote. While it's true I was puzzled by some of the early role revelations, the notion that the post could be viewed as some sort of serious, hard-cutting analysis is baffling to me. I certainly wasn't "yelling," anyway.PokerFace wrote:@Azimuth,you said these earlier
Azimuth wrote:I can't help but think that people who reveal their roles too eagerly should be attacked, first with bombs and rockets to destroy their homes, and then when they run helpless into the street, mow them down with machine guns. And then, of course, release the vultures.
I know these views aren't popular, but I have never thought of popularity.Why the change in heart on those with restrictions? I got no problem with anything else from you I'm just wondering what particular game elements led to a change in yelling at those who wanted to say things too accepting it.Azimuth wrote:I have to believe that at least some of those who have revealed themselves did so because they thought they would be able to catch mafia, and maybe some of them think they have done so, but I don't quite see it for now -- possibly because I still don't have all the information that they do. I don't want to fish for more information, though; at least a few folks around here should keep their ways mysterious.
I guess that’s part of my point: for the most part I think I’ve done that. Certainly I didn’t just “summarise and agree with what's already been said.” I would highlight the points that stood out to me and give my opinion on them. I’m just wary of this meme that I am somehow not contributing, or even that I am “lurking,” which could not be further from the truth. Posting every two or three days isn’t considered lurking in most games; just because a handful of people have inflated their post count almost beyond measure doesn’t mean that the rest of us are hiding.imaginality wrote:That answer is a bit evasive. You don't have to 'invent some crazy new topic', you can further the scumhunt by offering insights, arguments and suggestions (and yes, questions) on the main issues, rather than simply summarise and agree with what's already been said.Azimuth wrote:I don't quite agree with this characterization; how is asking questions not hunting? It's true that most topics weren't started by me, mainly because nothing happened to me overnight -- unlike, apparently, many others -- and I was mostly trying to catch up with the posts of those others and make sense of them. There are only so many topics that can be brought up, after all; I'm not going to invent some new crazy topic just to satisfy someone else's idea of hunting.Lord Gurgi wrote:I notice that he has never done any scum hunting of his own, only followed what the town has been saying and asking an occasional question. This makes me lean to the scum side.
I don’t know; I still think it was as good a reason as any, although because of it I’ve now soured on the notion of making lynches based on roles (as I mentioned at the end of my post 1006). Beyond that, it’s pretty easy to criticize one’s reasons for suspecting a revealed town player now that we all have the benefit of hindsight.imaginality wrote:I also didn't much like your posts during Day 2 where you said:andThe only possible thing that I can think of is that Iron Man's ability (giving someone else's night choice a random target, if I have that correctly) seems quite chaotic, and not one that could be used effectively in any pro-town capacity. But does that mean he's mafia?because I think it is pretty clear that in a Monty Python theme game, there are going to be at least a few roles capable of creating chaos and confusion, and there's no reason to assume that such a role would be given to a scum player rather than a townie. So you giving that as your main reason for (almost) voting Iron Man doesn't sit well with me.Just chiming in to say that I was quite close to placing a vote on Iron Man too, mainly because his ability doesn't seem to be pro-town (but also for the other reasons -- lurking, possible contradiction, etc.)
Well, if I were claiming to be town based on my not voting Iron Man, I suppose you’d have a point, but I’m not. If you actually looked at that part of the game, you would see that at least four players (farside22, PokerFace, SpyreX, and I) were talking about voting Iron Man. Only one of us could actually hammer; does that mean the other three have to be suspicious?imaginality wrote:And then there's the not voting thing that Lord Gurgi mentioned, which on Day 2 does look bad: by saying you're suspicious of Iron Man but not going to the extent of putting a vote on him, you conveniently look good whether he turns up scum ("See, I said he was suspicious") or town ("See, I didn't vote him").
Although her suspicion of me is not highest on the list of reasons that I am suspicious of her, the fact must be pointed out that strappado did not mention my name until post 987, after at least two players had already voiced suspicions. Even then, she had only said she wanted to hear more from me; I didn't make her official list of suspects until four players had asked me questions (unless the enlightening post 993 was meant to be an announcement of suspicion). I maintain that she jumped on a suspect bandwagon, especially if I am truly the only person she really suspects besides chenhsi.strappado wrote:As far as you, Azimuth, prior to putting you on my scum list, I did make it known that I was getting suspicious of you, so it did not "come out of nowhere" and if you'd note it, my list came before everyone elses, so you can swallow that argument.
We probably can't know for sure, but if we get a lead it might open a more tangible line of investigation.elvis_knits wrote:Is there any way of knowing if Spyrex died because he was targetted or because he targetted a scum, drawing their kill? Is there any use speculating, or is it something we can't know?
In that case, if I were you I would not try to kill anyone else, if it doesn't fit the win condition. I would even be suspicious of anyone who tried to get you to kill someone as a "vig"; you have no real reason to trust most of us, I imagine.elvis_knits wrote:I have the option of killing every night. It is not required.
The cult isLord Gurgi wrote:Why are you so hung up on the cult Azimuth?
And how convenient that you can't list them because of your restriction, beyond hanging on to the weak arguments you made oh so long ago. You certainly seem "hung up" on me; I'm beginning to suspect why.Lord Gurgi wrote:Azimuth is dropping so many scum tells. It is ridiculous.
Yes, there is much mystery regarding your role. As for "why" you claimed, you've sort of admitted that it was because you wanted to be kept alive, yes? And the reveal also implies that you would rather we keep farside22 alive as well, true? That makes two people suddenly "unlynchable" if we are to trust everything you say. Let's just say I've seen people claim for lesser reasons.elvis_knits wrote:I'm not sure I am attractive to a cult recruiter now since the town might decide that I shouldn't even submit a kill. If that happens, I am not helpful to a cult. And if I kill when I'm not supposed to, I will probably be lynched, so that's not what a cult wants either. I'd also argue that if I was already culted, I would not have claimed like this.
I also don't know if I am recruitable or not. I know from elemental mafia that not all roles are always recruitable. Though in this game, all roles may be recruitable. I don't know.
In my second paragraph above I explain why EK killing anyone outside the cult could be bad for the town. It's more like "don't trustimaginality wrote:I don't see the problem with elvis_knits acting as a vig for the town (if we trust her to do so). Especially if we have a cult, the added chances of killing cult leader maybe outweigh the risks of killing a townie. At the very least it's worth considering rather than dismissing too quickly. Your post reads kinda like a pre-emptive "don't trust them if they tell you to vig me"...
Well, I had a "problem" in that I knew it was wrongly placed, but there's nothing wrong with having an initial case on someone. I did think you had seemed to go through my posts and highlight things that "might" be a mafia tell, which can be done with virtually everyone in every game. It's not a bad place to start an initial investigation, but it's not very substantial otherwise. Sticking to it blindly while ignoring responses and adding little else to the picture is what made me suspicious of you.Lord Gurgi wrote:Further: You had no problem at all with my suspicion of you...
For the VERY LAST time, that was a joke post during early/whimsy stage with an obvious MP quote. This point would be comparable to me saying, "OMG Lord Gurgi voted for Rogue Shenanigans early on, but never voted for his replacement killa seven ever since then. He's so inconsistent he must be mafia." I've explained this whole situation several times, and I don't think you're stupid, so I can only conclude that you are pushing a false meme for sinister purposes.Lord Gurgi wrote:Here you directly ignore the fact that I am showing that you first make the implicit suggestion that role fishers should be killed, and then proceed to fish.Azimuth wrote:Since Lord Gurgi used his rare opportunity of verbosity to talk about me, it is only fair to address his suspicions.In the beginning, I was more whimsical than I am now. I wanted to find a way to throw in a favorite Python quote of mine, and I was also excited about testing my trivia prowess regarding Iron Man. If I remember correctly, others were curious too before we realized the implications. It was all a long time ago, in the early stages.Lord Gurgi wrote:Azimuth wrote:I can't help but think that people who reveal their roles too eagerly should be attacked, first with bombs and rockets to destroy their homes, and then when they run helpless into the street, mow them down with machine guns. And then, of course, release the vultures.
I know these views aren't popular, but I have never thought of popularity.These posts worry me, especially considering that there is only one post between them, in which time he changed his position quite dramatically.Azimuth wrote:In that case, do you prefer a guitar, castanets, a bowtie, or a motorbike? Or none of the above? More I dare not say, lest you do something awful to the player who guesses the exact role.
On Day 4, I would hope that we would have more than "circumstance" to go on, especially with all that's happened. And I wasn't "deflecting"; I didn't think you were mafia and I still don't. I was pointing out the very obvious notion that non-mafia people often do things that can be read as mafia tells. Our actions, while obviously not identical (as though that mattered), both fell into the "react with pro-town emotion" category. I imagine others have done similar things in this game, if we had the motive to look for them, but I personally don't.Lord Gurgi wrote:Nice attempt at deflection, really. Believing that we had lynched scum is hardly comparative to lamenting the night. and of course they are circumstantial, that's all we have. Circumstance and a smattering of logic.Azimuth wrote:You do have a point here; I even wondered whether someone might think it was suspicious when I included it. However, such notions are largely circumstantial. One might as easily be "suspicious" of LG's post 948, in which he expresses joy about lynching mafia when he thought IM was admitting to it. Sometimes we express feelings because it's how we feel, not because we're trying to look a certain way.Lord Gurgi wrote:Complaining about a bad night is traditionally a scum tell.Azimuth wrote:1. We lost the cop? Ouch. And there's probably a cult? Double ouch.
I get that you don't approve of my early hunting style in this game. This is probably what you were referring to when you said that my response was "I disagree" rather than a refutation. Now that the low signal/noise ratio of the early days has increased, I think I've been able to make better contributions to the game -- though I still have less to talk about, since twelve things haven't happened to me every night (unlike others, apparently). If you still think my contributions are unhelpful, that's fine, but I wonder why the recent minimal play of others (K7, Mr. Ninja) doesn't seem to bother you as much.Lord Gurgi wrote:You never stated any unique suspicions of anyone, until perhaps your latest post, and no I don't believe that you need to start discussion to scum hunt. You ask benign questions, that are in no way interrogation, or useful for that matter, clarification from the mod and asking people how theyAzimuth wrote:I don't quite agree with this characterization; how is asking questions not hunting? It's true that most topics weren't started by me, mainly because nothing happened to me overnight -- unlike, apparently, many others -- and I was mostly trying to catch up with the posts of those others and make sense of them. There are only so many topics that can be brought up, after all; I'm not going to invent some new crazy topic just to satisfy someone else's idea of hunting.Lord Gurgi wrote:I notice that he has never done any scum hunting of his own, only followed what the town has been saying and asking an occasional question. This makes me lean to the scum side.feelis what it amounts to.
First of all, there wasn't "plenty of time" to vote DBE, since a vote during the last several days would have either hammered her or put her at L-1. We were trying to do other things that game day, and I was severely unavailable most of that week (look it up if you don't believe me, starting with post 470). We weren't even close to deadline, and I didn't want to help along a DBE quickhammer until I had time to return and sort some other things out; as it was K7 was able to quickhammer her anyway, so my inclinations were justified.Lord Gurgi wrote:Experience. It works reliably, especially since we lynched a scum day one, your argument is flawed. There was plenty of time to vote the counter claimed scum with the badly faked post restriction.Azimuth wrote:Is that based on actual experience, or just a particular preference of yours? I definitely have not seen that to be the case, especially on days where a townie is lynched. For my part, both days we were waiting for IM to say something; on Day 1 killa seven quickhammered before it even happened, and on Day 2 someone else (farside?) put the hammer soon after IM's reply, before I had a chance to return and read it. I'm not going to place some random vote late in the day just to appease someone else's idea of appearing town.Lord Gurgi wrote:As a side note, I find that someone who is not voting for someone by the end of the day to be quite scummy.
I refuse to believe it too, especially since it isn't true. Not counting my initial JordanA24 vote, I voted for Luigi Day 1 (though I removed it in anticipation of the SpyreX/DBE dilemma), and I voted for K7 Day 3. This is yet another thing you have said about me that is false; my response is not just "I disagree," it's "this is not accurate." Hence,Lord Gurgi wrote:There is always someone you are suspicious of,always. I refuse to believe that two days in a row you could find no one suspicious enough to warrant a vote. Unless you are trying to lie low.
Are you denying that you and she have been chummy? Well, you mention it yourself in post 961, as Day 3 was dawning (emphasis mine):Lord Gurgi wrote:Quotes please.Azimuth wrote:I hesitate to lay these next cards on the table, but here goes: since I agree that at least trying to lynch the cult recruiter is "the thing to do" for today, with lynching any cult member as an acceptable alternative for me, I would focus on farside22 and Lord Gurgi, who have been acting overly chummy since at least Day 2.
farside22 had never mentioned my name at all in the game until a few posts later, in 969:Lord Gurgi wrote:Farside22
Seems very pro-town to me,quotes me a lot saying QFT, which makes me think that maybe I am getting my points across. Her hammer of Iron Man was well reasoned, and I think that she is more town following that.
Read: A1
The rest has been my own observation over the past few game days, and I've not seen much to refute it. Let's just say that I'm not at all surprised that she was the first to join you on my bandwagon (post 1443). So, I ask again: are you denying it?farside22 wrote:It's scary that I agree with LG on some of his choices. Mine was just a gut check moment especially with the internet and Azimuth with their post. I will go back and highlight a few things that caught my interest with these 2.
It seemed too opportunistic to me. You suddenly want to lynch him because of one sentence in one post among many that he's made -- I assume you're talking about his second paragraph, post 1418 -- and your logic seems to be "only theLord Gurgi wrote:The man has unilaterally declared that it is impossible for him to be a recruiter because of what he did yesterday. That is more than enough for me to want to lynch him.Azimuth wrote:With LG going after people for talking about the cult, making superficial attacks while hiding behind a restriction, and even accusing Muerrto of being the recruiter out of the blue, I get the notion that any of several lynches would be okay for him, which is consistent with that of a cult member.
Undecided. He certainly hasn't played strangely the way JordanA24 did, and other recent revelations have possibly challenged my initial views of JordanA24 and his motives. I may have to do a re-read of the whole situation some other day if we are both still alive, but he is currently not among my strongest suspects for either mafia or cult. Still watching him, though.Lord Gurgi wrote:Have any comments on this also?Azimuth wrote:For now I will say that recently I have been most suspicious of JordanA24; I will be interested to see how imaginality plays that role and whether it negates or confirms my suspicions.
The Muerrto case above is an example of superficial aggression in my eyes. Also, considering that you just spent a free post without addressing it, or answering my questions regarding your strange post 1408, or expounding your superficially aggressive post 1411, or talking about almostLord Gurgi wrote:Please show me where I am being superficially aggressive, I think that if you tried my post restriction you would be ripping your hair out from not being able to say everything you want like I am. I am not in any way hiding behind my post restriction.Azimuth wrote:With farside22 as the other possibility, EK's claim presents problems. I guess it depends on whether we care whether EK wins, and also whether we really trust her motives behind not wanting farside to be lynched. Still, LG's superficial aggressiveness make him more likely than farside to be a recruiter (though it could be someone else).
Low quantity is not low quality. I suppose if I had spent Day 1 making lots of double- and triple-posts about practically nothing, lowering the signal/noise ratio but beefing up my post numbers, you would think I was the bee's knees? What do you hope to gain by presenting this fallacy?Lord Gurgi wrote:I have 103 posts to your 33.
I've never said your vote counts for less. When has the validity of your vote ever been an issue? I've been questioning the validity of theLord Gurgi wrote:I am truly quite frustrated that you are ignoring my suspicion as refuted. If this post sounds angry that's because it is. I have a vote too Azimuth, just because I can't make posts as large as you all the time doesn't mean that it counts for less.
Firstly, "OMGUS" is in the eye of the beholder. Anti-town players often use the OMGUS accusation against anyone who sees through their illogical arguments and therefore becomes suspicious of them. Secondly, in this particular game my suspicion of LG is hardly farfetched. When one person presents a weak argument, pushes it even after it's refuted, and at least two people just chime in with "I agree" with no additional argument of their own, cultlike behavior is a logical enough conclusion to draw, with a cult un-recruiter dead.PokerFace wrote:Yes continue to OMGUS. That's always a good idea.