Mini 598 - Justice Justice - Abandoned

[VanDamien]

Ooooooooklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plains.

Oh, and I

Vote:ZombieSlayer54

[VanDamien]

What's your reason, buster?

Maybe it was to see which scum would ask me to provide a random reason during random voting?

Unvote
Vote: Korts

[VanDamien]

Nice OMGUS.

Vote: VanDamien

Gosh, way to be a hypocrite, eh?

Nonsensical and hypocritical you are, get it all right.

Assuming you are saying my vote was OMGUS, which, waitaminit, typically means doing what you're doing (voting me for voting you) except that, no, you hadn't ever voted for me. Hmmmm.

Oh look, this isn't even the first time you've voted in such a way. Even if you did try to attach humorous reasoning to the first. (BTW, babies

are

bad, but they grow into decent people, most of the time. So even joking logic fails.)

[VanDamien]

I know I didn't vote you, but I was the one to question you for lack of reason. Techically it's an Oh-My-God-U-Suck-For-Asking-Random-Vote-Reasons vote. Giving joking reasons sparks joking discussion, which in turn sparks pseudo-serious discussion, which in turn sparks serious discussion. Lack of a joking reason sparks no discussion of the like.

Wrong.

Unless you want to seriously discuss these:

For gits and shiggles.

because I don't know how to glot anyway.

One letter away from G-Man. I can not take the risk.

I think that a confession and it works for me

for being first to post. L-5 should have you nervous alright

it's an anagram for Stork, stork brings babies, babies are bad.

Which are all the "reasons" provided up until the point of the first deadline being imposed. Yep, good stuff there. [sarcasm]I should write up a 5000 word post about how kabenon's spoonerism is a scum-tell[/sarcasm]

On the other hand, my failure to deliver one of these gems, and your immediacy to jump on that, has, in fact, begun to spark real conversation. Which, with only about a week for this day, needs to happen quickly. We do not have time for joking>pseudo-serious>serious in this game. It amuses me that as we progress here into serious discussion, you can state that lack of a joking reason in random voting cannot lead into serious discussion.

[VanDamien]

Unvote

So you're saying you wanted to set a trap for scum? I often feel traps are used by scum to confuse town, something you managed to do quite well over here.

Unvote. Vote Skruffs.

At the same time, most traps fail, and I've seen this same suspicion brought up before. The question I'd ask myself is whether I believe Skruffs-scum would be willing to take that risk and be aware of the risk, and compare that to whether I think a Skruffs-town would try to pull it off. Keeping in mind the whole time this games unique situation, specifically the days that will last noticeably shorter than most games on this site.

And it's just that last part that has me leaning towards believing that it was what Skruffs claims it was, without being wholly convinced. At other sites I've played, where days last 72ish hours, and posts come fast and furious throughout, I'd be leaning the other way.

vote chaotic_diablo

Okay, done.

vote VanDamien

Thank you sir, may I have another?

I gave nothing for you to respond to, because you didn't have to respond.

Even if you were uninterested in his response. No,

particularly

is you were at that point so completely convinced in his scumitude, then you should be more interested in pushing his lynch than "Me too"-ing what had already been said about that post.

Total over reaction I feel to your mistake, not trap.

Which overreaction? Yours, with the vote?

I feel you are backtracking for a big boo boo you made but moaning in the tread about the set-up (which mod I feel is great!). If you had a problem or question about mafia rules ask the mod in a PM. My vote wasn't opertunistic, it was because you were moaning about the fairness to the mafia.

In my opinion and experience, scum tend to be much more careful about these sort of things. Is Skruffs trying to lead us down a WIFOM road for just that reason? Possible, as he briefly touched that note, once, but that's just not the vibe I'm getting.

Plus you have confused everyone to make them believe it was a trap.

It's this continued opportunism that's going to lead me to

vote: angelmouse

. Two people have mentioned some confusion over this. One, zombieslayer, who immediately voted him for it. Two, kabenon, who does the sensible thing and asks for clarification. Kabenon hasn't wieghed in if the clarification was acceptable to him or not, but at the minimum, Skruffs has shown the willingness to try and explain himself when asked. I'm interested in the way you picked up on zombieslayer's use of intentional in reference to the confusion.

[VanDamien]

Mod: You have me voting for two people, and I believe chaotic_diablo is voting for me

[VanDamien]

oh by the way if you fail to reach a lynch everyone will die

In case anyone missed that.

J-man: assuming we lynch someone other than the four people you mention in that post - would you vig one of them tonight, which one, and why?

[VanDamien]

FROWN

Funny, exactly the same opinion I had of you voicing suspicions of four different people, and not bothering to vote of push for the lunch of any of them. Three days left, remember?

@ Van damien- I will not answer that question, who says I am even going to NK, huh?
No one - read the whole question. But we all have a NK here, pretending not to isn't going to help anything.

@ VanDamien - you asked J-man a question regarding night actions. Why just him?

That seems like a question that could only benefit the scum.

To get everyone, or even several people to plan who/when/if they are going to vig would help the scum, yes. One person, who may or may not do what they say they are going to do; well, if that's what it takes to get someone to take a stand, then so be it.

[VanDamien]

The way people act in one game does NOT, I repeat, does NOT affect, in any WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, how they act in another game. AT ALL.

But it can, in fact, give insight into how they behave.

People can

try to

act COMPLETELY different as scum in one game as they do in another. They can do their hardest to make sure any "subconscious scumtells" or whatever are completely eliminated from their play,

sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.

. Hell, they might even drop towntells for the players who use metas

which, when deliberately and overly done, can be an indication of its own

.

O hai, I fixed that for you.

[VanDamien]

angelmouse should claim.

Unless you're being sarcastic, huhwhat?

[VanDamien]

Vote: killa seven

Welcome to crazy game.

So, who can I safely hide with Nebraska Night 1?

[VanDamien]

Hmm, funny game. Weekly deadlines are a bit too short for my tastes and favor the mafia a lot, but we'll just have to make the best with what we got. I guess Oklahoma doesn't really provide much information, so this pretty much is a random vote.

Vote kabenon007

because he hasn't posted in Nebraska yet.

Except, you know, 6 hours before this post.

[VanDamien]

EBWOP: And ~1.5 hours before that.

[VanDamien]

Well fine.

unvote
Vote: WeyounsLastClone

[VanDamien]

Well, I don't really know what to say if a random vote causes a bandwagon of 3 votes on you.

It was a random vote, I was looking through the list of players, and thought I caught a name that didn't post yet. Obviously, it was kind of stupid, because the one I mentioned posted directly before me.

Not kind of stupid. Really stupid. Seriously, I had to check and recheck the timestamps to make sure I was seeing them correctly. The thing is, the idea behind your original vote isn't necessarily a bad one, since as fast as these days are, and without furious posting pace, tracking sown the lurkers could be a valid tactic right now. That you didn't take the time to make sure you were getting it right is lazy or overeager.

so that leaves VanDamien as most suspicious to me (also because the only thing he says is 'well... vote xxx'.

So unvote. Vote VanDamien.

After giving you a 36 hour window to explain yourself in, I felt the pressure was needed. I thought the reason was obvious since I pointed out the mistake in the first place.

Without wanting to get in WIFOM territory, I don't think bad reading is a scumtell.

In some ways, I agree.

Because even if he is not scum, at least we have a townie who does not care to read the thread out of the way.

I think ZS reason for the vote is actually quite decent

You agree that mislynching someone because they aren't paying attention is a good idea? Maybe - maybe I'd agree with you if this was day one or maybe two of a large normal, and by removing an unhelpful distraction it would make the scumhunting the rest of the game more productive. But what good would it do here? You wouldn't be out of the way, you're still around for the rest of Oklahoma, and all of the other 9 justice series and the endgqame game. ZombieSlayer's reason for voting you is horrible.

So the question becomes, for me, is that reasoning, or your agreeing with it, scummier?

I do think that of the people voting for me there'd be a scum.

And this, the blinders you put on, only trying to find scum in the three people voting for you makes me happy with where my vote is at for now.

It makes no sense to not change your opinion if the situation is abnormal.

Does it then follow that it makes sense to change your opinion if the situation is normal?

[VanDamien]

So, how about voting, instead of just saying we need votes, hmmm?

[VanDamien]

You are dead in this game, now, aren't you?

Jyust to make sure, players alive in one game but not another, only talks in the first game, right?

I thought the deadline was today but later in the day. Grr.

We are at 9 players. If the same thing happens this time around as last time, we'll be at 6 tomorrow, which is a lost game. The mafia would have the same number of players as the town, and even if the town lynched correctly, it would be 2-1 in mafia's favor day three. So let's lynch correctly.

Fos: Kortz

though.

There is something here that makes me

Vote:Skruffs

[VanDamien]

Oh there was reasoning.

We are at 9 players. If the same thing happens this time around as last time, we'll be at 6 tomorrow, which is a lost game. The mafia would have the same number of players as the town, and even if the town lynched correctly, it would be 2-1 in mafia's favor day three. So let's lynch correctly.

You make some assumptions here, that show you most likely have inside, scummy information. Foremost of these, is that going into a third night with 3 town:2 scum, that both of those scum would have their one-shots left in order to enter day at 2 scum: 1 town.

Secondly, even in that position, it's not necessarily a scum win: everyone could die, assuming enough town vigs are left, and our choices hit those last two scum after a successful lynch.

And why on Earth do you think angelmouse killed anyone, after being lynched?

[VanDamien]

So, It's a scumtell to actually read the rules of the game we're playing, in your mind. You're f-ing brilliant.

but

unvote

because your idiocy seems genuine.

[VanDamien]

Skruffs' 202 fits with his earlier posting that appeared non-sensical, and also explains the post I was voting him for, when the game is looked at through that (incorrect) logic.

Really, I'm getting sick of people not paying attention to the set-up, especially since they should have known from the time they signed up that this was going to be a weird one - but as mentioned before, that alone isn't a reason to lynch, necessarily, since they'll still be around for a ton more Justices.

[VanDamien]

You shouldn't have said that, Korts. Scum now know that you are 'not a threat' to them, and will most likely not go after you until the end.

Maybe, but unless someone else claims the ZS kill, this means I'm pseudo-confirmed, no? Therefore my claiming helps narrow down the suspicions.

Or, it means you're scum, killed ZS knowing he was town using what appeared to be a slip as an excuse to do it, then further use that as supposed confirmation for yourself.

[VanDamien]

I'm not voting you.

Mod: I unvoted up there somewhere

The quandry I'm facing now is figuring out who is most likely scum with Korts, because while I think Korts would be a decent place for a vote right now, I also believe that he used his kill on ZS, and I'd rather get on of the other two scum that still have a NK left.

[VanDamien]

So, here's my quandry.

Looking back at Glotnot's posting, this game yesterday, I'm seeing a Glotnot-kabenon link, but kabenon is inactive.

Vote:kabenon

for now.

[VanDamien]

I would like to see Weyoun's rationalization of his vote on kabenon, considering he said the vote was because kabenon hadn't posted, although the post directly above this claim was from kabenon......

This, a very little.

The conclusion I come to is that kabenon is probably "dumping his vote" because WLC voted for him for a ridiculous reason and still hasn't come back to defend himself when the reason made no sense. I, personally, see this as completely reasonable.

Further, the contexts of abnormally and normally are totally different. What would make this instance abnormal? 'Normally' kabenon would see it as a scum tell, so he voted for WLC.

This, much more.

However, at the current time, I'm suspicious because of the incident that WLC voted saying kabenon hadn't posted immediately after kabenon's post, but I doubt that either is scum.

This, especially the last bit.

[VanDamien]

Is anyone else still playing?

[VanDamien]

Vote:Korts

Nothing has changed since yesterday for me, and while I would rather hit scum with a kill left, which Korts is most likely not, lynching any scum is still a good idea.

[VanDamien]

Apparently reading the rules for yourself IS an informed minority in this game.

The set-up is

OPEN

, people.

[VanDamien]

This game is texas justice:
Each member of the town is also a vig.

You are (Town/Mafia), you wish to kill all (Mafia/Town) you have (No/X and Y as) teamates. Good luck use your vig well, if you have one.

[VanDamien]

I think it better that yours, Kort.

explain.

Yeah, really.

Even if I do think Korts is scum in Oklahoma, I can't fault his effort to contribute so far.

[VanDamien]

I think I may support Skruffs idea, as it's probably similar to something I've been trying to work out in my head half-heartedly anyway, with only 1 scum left.

And I killed kabenon. Told you there was a connection.

[VanDamien]

Wait, what? Scum can hide too? How does that come out of every town can hide once? Especially since they don't have to worry about hiding with scum, and therefore it will in every case be successful for them.

However, the fact that the ruling has even come up, and the fact the mod brought it up, probably means at least one scum has used their hide ability already. Obviously not Glotnot, since he died night one. So, either kabenon night 1, or whoever the third scum is. I'd lean towards thinking it was kabenon N1, since he was semi-close to lynch yesterday, and if he had a hide left, would have presumably used it last night.

[VanDamien]

I'm not opposed to information coming out in this way.

Vote: VanDamien

Those two there who quickly jumped on this need looking at.

FWIW, and so no one can try misleading about where they might have tried to kill, I have not hidden yet.

[VanDamien]

I dunno, the idea is great, the execution, not so much. On all sides.

If we're dead, we're dead.