Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[Greasy Spot]

I actually dismissed that as him not knowing the logic behind N0 vigging.

What logic is that you are implying?

[Greasy Spot]

greasy spot, forbiddanlight: why ignore the question i asked? please answer it.

Because I don't want to right now. I'll think about answering it when I'm good and ready.

You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?

@iamausername, you may think its a stupid trap, but it worked. when someone says "player x is obvtown" at the start of day one, and someone else says "why?" the only answer they're looking for or thinking is "because i'm a town power role duh."

Well when someone starts the day that way how do you usually respond? What response do you think is appropriate in that situation?

[Greasy Spot]

You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?

What do you mean by "there is no case against Strife"? Do you mean that you don't think he's done anything scummy, or just that no one has pointed out what scummy things he's done?

That's exactly what I mean. I haven't seen anything scummy yet and you and rofl pushing his lynch haven't shown anything that gives cause for his lynch at this time.

[Greasy Spot]

I want to propose a different theory and get feedback from you guys except roflcopter, Iron Man, Armix, and Lowell (for now).

We know that there are definitely 4 scums in this game. Do you think it is possible that the scum got together N0 and devised a fake Mason claim? Iron Man doesn't seem too upset that rofl outed him. Lowell asks for the claim and with little pushing rofl claims and outs Iron Man. I think it's too convenient to not be scummy.

HOS: roflcopter and Iron Man
FOS: Armix and Lowell

[Greasy Spot]

Still not clear where to put my vote at the moment. forbiddan and greasy are acting weird, lowell seems more scummy in the background of the thread then he is in isolation, but nobody stands out from the pack.

How am I acting weird? Because I suggested a theory. I don't see you suggesting any kind of theory.

At least I'm not spitting out craplogic and trying to pass it off as truth like Armix is doing.

You can't tell me masons outing themselves really hurts the town.

It does. Anything that gives the mafia more information in who to target at night is going to hurt the town, especially if the "pay off" for the town is getting 2 confirmed innocents who won't likely last long.

Masons are nothing more than glorified townies that can talk at night. Their vote is no more powerful than anyone else's. Now that the masons are outed (if they truly are masons) the odds are better for the town to lynch scum. So yes it does technically benefit the town to have them come out. We won't spend our time trying to lynch them. And it provides some cover for the other townies.

[Greasy Spot]

Unvote, Vote: Greasy Spot

, by the way, which I should have done when I first noted that he failed to answer my question.

What authority in this game do you have to demand me to answer a question. Unless your too busy to read the thread and note that both Korts and myself have current arguments against Armix, you wouldn't be asking this stupidly obvious question.

[Greasy Spot]

Um, my authority as a scumhunter. If you're town, why would you have a reason to not answer my question?

I was actually going to answer your question after the second time you asked it. That was until I got to the post where you voted for me because I didn't answer your question. It doesn't set well with me when people try to enforce their ways on me. If I wanted to comment on the scumminess of strife and/or armix I would. I don't need you to ask me silly questions about which one I find scummier. If you care to elaborate on your feelings for people and request others share as well then very well, but don't demand an answer and then vote someone because they don't give you an answer. That is stupid.

So, why say:

You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?

when you obviously

had

decided who you thought was scummier?

At the time I made that statement (which was in the beginning of the game) I didn't find either one of them scummy enough to vote. The people who were pushing their lynches were scummier. You bring it up now knowing full well that much more scum hunting has been going on, so that statement is not even relevant now.

[Greasy Spot]

So, why say:

You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?

when you obviously

had

decided who you thought was scummier?

At the time I made that statement (which was in the beginning of the game) I didn't find either one of them scummy enough to vote.

Voting doesn't come into it. The question was simply asking which you found scummier.

You bring it up now knowing full well that much more scum hunting has been going on, so that statement is not even relevant now.

Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?

OK, since you want to act like an ass I'll answer like an ass. How about that? Let's see what was the question again? Oh yeah, Do I find Armix or Strife scummier? Let's see, this question was posted in post 17 and since no scum hunting since then is relevant (as you say above), ... hmm ... Which one do I choose? ... Maybe I can roll dice to pick one, is that OK? C'mon dude POST 17!!!! these 2 aren't stupid enough to screw up that quick. At post 17 my answer is, neither, for lack of sufficient evidence.

[Greasy Spot]

Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?

[Greasy Spot]

I'm not the one who apparently changed my answer after 25 posts.

Idiot, do you think people can never change there minds about something. Your clueless if you think that.

vote: iamausername

for being too stupid to be a townie.

[Greasy Spot]

Given your overall play, and how you are actively scum hunting, I lean town.

I think he's protown too. That was a personal comment on his questioning style. I don't like it but it does seem to get results because he uses it responsibly. But, since you want examples.

So do you think there is a case against armlx?

Innocent start, very understandable, given what Greasy said.

when you obviously had decided who you thought was scummier?

Slight leading because he assumes that's what Greasy meant. To be honest, this is still within the realm of reason given what Greasy posted.

Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?

This gets iffy. I see Greasy's point here, not username's, and it's a clear leading question that kinda forces Greasy to respond (if he answered the question) in a way that implicated him slightly. I'm probably reading into this point too much though.

Are you suggesting that my delay in voting is scummy? What do you think I stood to gain, as scum, by doing so?

Rhetorical question for armix when he didn't even say that. I think that's kinda a strawman? I dunno my fallacies well.

So what happened between post 17 and post 31 to change your answer to "You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?"?

Kinda the same strain as the armix question. You begin to see how he's leading Greasy on? (however, because Greasy goes with it rather than protesting and explaining what I think his stance was (I could be wrong), he comes out scummier, which is why while I don't like username's methods, the results are valid)

OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?

Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?

This is the big shot. Its forces the assumption the change was in that post frame whereas no one said that (but Greasy confirmed this view by not refuting it, which adds a lot of validity to username). It's presenting Greasy with a view he never directly said he had, but worked himself into with username's help. It's forcing a view not explicitly stated, and barely implied. And the way Greasy responded made Greasy look scummy, but it might have been like that no matter how he answered. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I hope I've illustrated my point there now.

Since you are making an honest attempt to understand these transactions I will indulge you a little. When the question was asked in post 17 there was hardly any content so I didn't have an opinion at the time. People make questions about a player(s) all the time and many people never answer them so I wasn't too worried about the question at the time. this game is a fast moving game. A lot of posts are added each day and I think another request for responses was made before it was picked up by username. With his insistance that I answer the question I stated there wasn't a case and he twists my words around to make me look bad either way I answered. So I didn't answer him. Later on he questions me again and before I have a chance to post my response he votes me for not answering his question. When I do confront him about this he again twists my words to mean something different that what I said so I won't respond to him now.

vote: iamausername

[Greasy Spot]

Just so you know, you already did vote him.

Yes I know I am voting him and will continue to vote him till either he or myself is gone.

vote: iamausername

[Greasy Spot]

And, by the by, I certainly won't argue that I asked some leading questions, but I disagree that my final pair of questions was presenting Greasy with a view that he never directly said he had. I could have just asked those questions immediately, without all the preamble, but I thought that Greasy Spot might slip up and implicate himself further if I approached from another angle. I don't think he did, but I still find the initial post extremely suspicious.

If he'd just said "How can we possibly decide right now?", that would be fine, if he'd just said "There is no case against Strife", that would be fine, but the combination of the two creates a clear inconsistency. Either he thought armlx was scummier than Strife, in which case I'd like to know why he didn't just say so, or he didn't, in which case I'd like to know why he specified that there was no case against Strife. One of those is clearly a view that he had, unless you think he actually thought Strife was scummier than armlx, in which case his initial post makes even less sense.

At the time there were some attacks towards armix and none towards strife and that is why I said there was no case against strife, not because the case building against armix was good. How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

vote: iamausername

[Greasy Spot]

How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

Maybe you could read their posts and make a case yourself? But I guess scumhunting's a lot easier when all you have to do is look for the first Vote: Greasy Spot and never stop OMGUSing.

The question didn't ask if I had a case against either one of them. It asked me which one I thought was scummier which translates into, "Based on the cases already shown in this game, which of these two players do you find scummier?". Why do you insist on twisting my words into something I haven't said or implied.

[Greasy Spot]

Heh. You forgot to vote iamausername again at the end of that post, GS.

I put it in my sig but it hasn't shown up yet.

[Greasy Spot]

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

Here, I'll answer this for you. He knows his argument against me won't hold water. He twisted what I said around and interpreted it into things I didn't say. When I didn't respond to some things he then twisted my no responses to mean whatever he wanted it to mean.

vote: iamausername

[Greasy Spot]

Well I can't let all the other claimers have

all

the fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.

Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.

I will

vote: armix

. This is standard armix scum play.

[Greasy Spot]

Vig armix!

[Greasy Spot]

I think this game has the potential to the longest game post wise.

[Greasy Spot]

Um..Greasy, how does outing the Masons provide cover for the other roles? With the masons(glorified townies that can talk at night, by your own words) outed, the scum have that much higher chance of hitting a power role. Why would the scum kill the masons?

Yes the scum have a higher chance of hitting PRs but also the Town has a better chance of hitting scum because they won't be focused on the "claimed Masons", so it goes both ways.


I like the idea of taking out the masons first so we don't potentially lynch a Doc or Cop, or worse yet them claim on Day 1 for fear of being lynched.

@muerrto: How can you read any of the exchanges between me and iamausername and say my vote wasn't warranted based on his behavior.

[Greasy Spot]

Well I can't let all the other claimers have

all

the fun. I am the Mafia Godfather. I will always show up innocent.

Actually, if some people would be willing to vote armlx, that'd be all kinds of great.

I will

vote: armix

. This is standard armix scum play.

The top part is clearly a joke. Period. Wagonning him on it makes no sense.

The actually interesting part of this post, which few people seem to have picked up on, is the second half. Given the amount of energy he's put into calling IAAUN scum so far, why is he unvoting him and going after someone else, with only one line's worth of explanation?

vote: Greasy Spot

And this is an even worse reason to vote someone.

[Greasy Spot]

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

Which question was that?

[Greasy Spot]

Dude,
I'm not gonna reiterate the whole situation. Any post where he quoted me he misrepresented what I said or implied a different meaning to something I said or didn't say.

The case has been drug around enough, I'm not gonna rebuild it if your too lazy to review for yourself.

[Greasy Spot]

I'm here. Still waiting on GS to answer.

OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?

Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?

PS, thanks for the OMGUS, I shall treasure it always.

I never said armix was scummier. What I said was at the time there wasn't even a case against strife so how could I possibly choose.

[Greasy Spot]

Because there were some stuff building on armix at the time but absolutely nothing on strife. At the time I didn't think either was acting scummy.

[Greasy Spot]

What do you mean by 'stuff building on armlx'?

Go read it yourself. It was on the first 17 posts.

[Greasy Spot]

People were making accusations = stuff. Pointing fingers. but nothing serious.

[Greasy Spot]

Please note that Greasy is still posting in other games, so presumably replaced out due to being under suspicion, rather than because he didn't have time.

Assuming ^^^^ is true,

unvote, vote GS

. I've seen him come unglued as caught scum before.

I haven't come unglued because I haven't been attacked by anyone other then iamausername.

I told the Mod in the beginning I didn't realize this was a 20 person game. I wouldn't have signed up for it. I don't do well in large games because I can't my head around all the different people. It is hard enough on the smaller games. That is why I have requested replacement.

Final Post.

[Greasy Spot]

Will be out of town on the 25th and 26th. Posting in all games.