charter (2) - melikefood, Nameless
Porkens (1) - charter
Nameless (1) - Kmd4390
Not Voting (3) - ZazieR, Rishi, camn
Every player has posted today, I'm not prodding anyone.
Because given how awful Stormer's play was it could equally be calledcharter wrote:How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?
No matter how many times you tell me to stop asking questions.. its not going to happen. Just save your breath. Considering how badly this day has been and how although logically I believe your claim for now my heart screams lynch them I am damn well making sure other avenues later don't come up. You say there is two - I want to make sure its only two and if another magically appears later then the whole lot of you die.There is no third mason, and there is no cult. If Rishi was a mason with us, then yes, this would be serious fishing. It still is, it's just been proven wrong. Either way, you are fishing and need to stop.
You're assuming 4 more would be silly enough to do it. Hell, no one would love to lynch either of you more than I would - but I know its not a good idea. Strange times, strange bedfellows all that - for today I am your great defender and it should be obvious that a lynch for either of you flat out doesn't make sense. As for getting the idea out that you and charter are both scum - yea, that should be one that is floating around everyone's heads until you're confirmed. The claim doesn't change that at all.If they can push the case to the point where people agree, then yes, they can get one lynched and one NK'd and be able to say "look at how many other people thought they were scum." Also, Porkens was pushing the idea early, before anyone else came in and said they believed the claim. He was trying to get the idea out early that charter and I are both scum.
Then dont make statements that require me to push on them. I'm gonna keep on keepin' on.I know what you were getting at with calling mason investigative. The point I was trying to make before the claim still stands though. You were pushing what you saw as softclaims and ended up forcing masons to claim. Now don't force another PR to claim too.
"I'm not even sure what you're asking, but I am going to use this great shield of 'fishing' to not even bother with it." This is not helpful.No. I won't help you fish. I don't actually know anything about what you asked. I just don't want to be a part of your fishing, so I'm not going to answer that question.
You know, I'm reminded of a fairly recent SA game. Guess which one?There are specifics to your fishing that I don't want to get into. I'll ignore anything else on this one.
This is some more helpful posting. Yessir.Porkens already summed it up. I'm convinced you and him are scum. Nothing is going to change my mind, so all arguing with you and him is going to be town vs scum and won't go anywhere.
I started to reread then hit the wall of scummy that is you two "masons" and cried a little. Porkens had, even including his initial welcome post, 13 whole posts including the hammer. So, yea.ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS. Find all posts by Porkens, start with oldest first. Go from the first one to the hammer. Tell me how many times HE EVEN MENTIONS stormer before he hammers him. If you're lazy (like me) I'll save you the trouble. ONE TIME, in his replacing in post. How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?
<3Also, OH MY GOD, we too have actually read this game and are aware of the circumstances leading up to the hammer. Charter, please stop yelling. You're not as entertaining as when SpyreX does it.
I do agree that suspicion can be brought up by lurking but do you think that this is an accurate scum tell? You aim at the less active and only defend against attacks without making a real case. Make an effort please. Also, i would love to know why you never suspected KMD and why you believe KMD and Charter's claim. The sense that there's a connection here still hasn't disappeared.camn wrote: Off the cuff, I sense a Stef-Zazie-Rishi lurkerscumteam. If you were scum in the middle of a town this INSANE, wouldn't you just sit back and let it boil over?
I can. I would have done the same if i were convinced i was doing the right thing. This does not clear him and, as i said, i still don't like his hammer but it's not a good enough clue to tell us if he is scum or not imho.Charter wrote: How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?
QFTnameless wrote: Because given how awful Stormer's play was it could equally be called majority quickhammering.
maybe but it doesn't explain the bad posting on your behalf.charter wrote: Stef, I'd argue that my defending kmd is explained away as well.
Let's assume the following scenarios:SpyreX wrote: Strange times, strange bedfellows all that - for today I am your great defender and it should be obvious that a lynch for either of you flat out doesn't make sense.
I don't see where fakeclaiming mason would be a good move for scum.Nameless wrote:Yes, I think you are scum. Amongst the dramatics I reminded everyone how scummy you/Charter have been and how your claim doesn't change this. Meritshouldbe given to the possibility that you and Charter are scum who planned the claim in the case of outing. That is all of importance.
Well, I think it would be a dumb move. Let's take a look at it.Nameless wrote: Do you believe the theory itself that scum could plan a mason claim elaborate?
No, I'd probably try to satisfy everyone. You know, say I believe the masons, but don't suspect the people who don't. Play both sides. I probably would voice suspicion on players who won't defend much or be prone to OMGUS. Maybe some lurkers. I don't think I'd be voting either. I wouldn't want connections to scumbuddies. Is someone in this game doing that?camn wrote: If you were scum in the middle of a town this INSANE, wouldn't you just sit back and let it boil over?
Do you even know what fishing is? It's when scum try to out power roles by asking questions that shouldn't be answered and then calling them out for avoiding questions until they finally get a claim. I willStef wrote:@Kmd: Knowing you have a PR, why haven't you been fishing more? All you did this game is go after camn. ( with the brief "going after" porkens and the gambint on me )
If your claim is true you should have done more to help the town. Instead you got caught up in little details and posted 6 pages out of the topic's 26 with alot of huey, bringing way too much attention onto yourself and camn and thus taking the pressure of the rest of the players.
Maybe someone should have jumped on that at the beginning of Day 2. Not sure why though, nobody would believe it.charter wrote: ALSO, OH MY GOD, HOW HAS NO ONE NOTICED THIS. Find all posts by Porkens, start with oldest first. Go from the first one to the hammer. Tell me how many times HE EVEN MENTIONS stormer before he hammers him. If you're lazy (like me) I'll save you the trouble. ONE TIME, in his replacing in post. How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?
WIFOM.Rishi wrote: First of all, I just think it's too big a gambit for the scum to give up two people.
No, this case was more like three individual guys walked up to SpyreX and started winking, thrusting their pelvises and commenting on the weather while unnaturally emphasizing words like 'hot', 'steamy' and 'socialRishi wrote:I don't buy the argument that the people who "softclaimed" brought it upon themselves. You're like the guy who says, "Why are you winking at me? Is there something wrong with your eye. HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY IS WINKING!" Then, you try to argue, "Well, you started it by winking."
Yes, there are only two, and we will not say there are more later.SpyreX wrote: I want to make sure its only two and if another magically appears later then the whole lot of you die.
There were some votes on charter already. He would have only had to convince 1 or 2 people to get a lynch.SpyreX wrote:
You're assuming 4 more would be silly enough to do it.
No, I know exactly what you were asking. Since you won't leave it alone, in the context of where the question was asked, answering with my speculation would possibly point to a PR, and I've learned in games I have played, PR speculation is bad because it can out PRs and get them NK'd. That is why I wouldn't answer it.SpyreX wrote: "I'm not even sure what you're asking, but I am going to use this great shield of 'fishing' to not even bother with it." This is not helpful.
Wait, why?SpyreX wrote:
Secondary: MLF
If scum:
- I have every reason in the universe to get Charter lynched. That is sweet, sweet candy.
I'm not sure that you can take full credit for it, but even if Spy doesn't, I DO remember you going after my mason buddy who I know is town. Yep, good times...camn wrote: Remember how I started that Charter Wagon?
If you lynch charter, I will be NK'd. We won't have the confirmed innocent. We are just down two innocents.Stef wrote:
a. Charter turns majority. Minority kills another majority player and we end up in a possible lylo where we know that KMD is obvinnocent and our list of suspects narrows down considerably and bringing some new leads for us.
This right here. This is why it would be a terrible play for scum. Unless they played it perfectly, it's almost an auto-loss.Rishi wrote:Okay. I think I'm caught up. I think there was a couple questions directed towards me before the mason claim, which aren't as relevant now. So I said I believed the claim, and I still do. First of all, I just thinkit's too big a gambit for the scum to give up two people. If one of them turns up scum in some way, then the other one gets auto-lynched.Typical Mini Normal setup is three scum, if there's only one scumgroup. (Only one NK last night, so we have to assume one scumgroup for now.)
I amRishi wrote: Nameless is also fairly vehement about not believing the claim, and no one is jumping on him.
More good posting. The thing that is interesting about it though, is that he is so blatantly obvious about fishing and is still doing it after I have said he is fishing. I don't understand why he is still doing it. I feel like he is going to out a strong PR because of it, and everyone is going to just ignore it, or even lynch the PR.Rishi wrote:
As for SpyreX, you are rolefishing. I don't buy the argument that the people who "softclaimed" brought it upon themselves. You're like the guy who says, "Why are you winking at me? Is there something wrong with your eye. HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY IS WINKING!" Then, you try to argue, "Well, you started it by winking." No, SpyreX, you are the one who started it because you won't let go. You backed Kmd into a corner and said, "Hey. Please explain your actions." You knew full well that the only way to explain his actions was to fully claim. Don't even try to say that Kmd and charter started it. If there was no pressure and people just ignored it, they wouldn't have had to claim at all. If you think that the only logical explanation to someone's questions is a claim, then don't beat around the bush. Go ahead and say, "Hey, you. Please claim. Thanks." What you're doing now is rolefishing while disguising it as something else. Which is even worse than actual rolefishing.
The word WIFOM doesn't discount an argument. It would be a stupid play to make.Nameless wrote:WIFOM.Rishi wrote: First of all, I just think it's too big a gambit for the scum to give up two people.
What? How can you "would have done the same" and "still don't like his hammer"? Besides not making any sense, I note your defending Porkens when there should be ABSOLUTELY no reason to. He certainly hasn't done anything pro town this game.Stef wrote:@charter:I can. I would have done the same if i were convinced i was doing the right thing. This does not clear him and, as i said, i still don't like his hammer but it's not a good enough clue to tell us if he is scum or not imho.Charter wrote: How can you call his hammer anything but scum quickhammering?
You assume one of us isn't NK'ed, which I honestly can't see any possible way that doesnt happen.stef wrote:1. We decide to believe for now that KMD and Charter are really masons.
We decide to lynch some1 else.
a.If that person turns out town we get a -2 majority and end up in a lylo ( if i'm not mistaken ? ) After that night we still got no idea if KMD and Charter are actually town or scum playing us.
How would us lynching mafia today clear us in any way?stef wrote:b.If that person turns out mafia we get a -1 minority -1 majority and we're kinda better off knowing that there's one less goon while on the other hand we still don't know what's up with KMD and Charter since they can play their card easily and have an apparently clear and innocent reason to push the wagon against scum while possibly bussing to boost their credibility and reinforce their claim. This is a dangerous scenario witch i would very much preffere to avoid because it would be anti-majority imho.
You won't have a confirmed innocent tomorrow. It's not going to happen.stef wrote:2. We decide to believe that KMD/Charter are a good lynch option and we decide to lynch let's say Charter ( it can be KMD.. chose kmd randomly )
a. Charter turns majority. Minority kills another majority player and we end up in a possible lylo where we know that KMD is obvinnocent and our list of suspects narrows down considerably and bringing some new leads for us.
No. Wrong.stef wrote:BottomlineThe way i see it.. the best way is to lynch either Charter or KMD. This way we get the mystery out of the way and we get more clarification because the current confusion and speculating if their claims are true or not ( thing we cannot prove ) is hurting the majority.
Your best case scenario is wrong, and your worst case scenario is wrong.stef wrote:Worst case scenario.. we end up in a lylo knowing we got one person we can trust to be majority and we don't loose any real PR since they can't do more than claim their roles. Best case scenario one of them turns scum giving is -2 scum in the game.
IF NO ONE QUICKHAMMERS, YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LYNCHING A POWER ROLE. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS? Just make sure porkens is already voting for them.stef wrote:On the otherhand the worst case scenario when we're not lynching one of them is: We could lynch a PR we can use or a townie and we lose one more witch can be a useful PR or townie with the NK and we end up in D3 without getting any confirmation about Charter/KMD's roles and we could find ourselves in a lylo scenario.
Really?Charter wrote: Stef's last post is filled with such horrible logic it is painful to read.
i would have done the sameCharter wrote: What? How can you "would have done the same" and "still don't like his hammer"? Besides not making any sense, I note your defending Porkens
Why would the minority HAVE to NK one of you two? How are you a threat to the minority more than the rest of us? You have no special ability except the fact that you can talk at night. That's it! I don't think it's a sure thing the minority would kill one of you two if the other was lynched. Why are you so sure? Why is it impossible?Charter wrote: You assume one of us isn't NK'ed, which I honestly can't see any possible way that doesnt happen.
Lynching mafioso today wouldn't. Lynching one of you guys would since if one of you turns mafioso than the other is mafioso as well and your claim is true.Charter wrote: How would us lynching mafia today clear us in any way?
Ehm.. care to elaborate? Why is that exactly?Charter wrote: You won't have a confirmed innocent tomorrow. It's not going to happen.
ok! Maybe bring reasons ? Cause till then my arguments and my scenarios are pretty much valid.Charter wrote: No. Wrong...Your best case scenario is wrong, and your worst case scenario is wrong.
If one of us is lynched, the other is confirmed town because we are confirmed to each other and townies have no reason to lie. The scum will NK us if we are confirmed because keeping us around narrows lynch options. The odds of finding scum with confirmed innocents are much better than the scum would like.Stef wrote: Why would the minority HAVE to NK one of you two? How are you a threat to the minority more than the rest of us? You have no special ability except the fact that you can talk at night. That's it! I don't think it's a sure thing the minority would kill one of you two if the other was lynched. Why are you so sure? Why is it impossible?
I'm not sure of the claim either.. does that make me scum and up for your vote since you voted nameless mostly because of the same thing? Do you really think it's scumtell?I am voting Nameless mostly because of his reaction to the claim
I think there's a chance you are both scum and that's enough. I'm not going to blindly accept the fact that you're majority just because you claimed to be and maybe cleverly left a breadcrum trail to back your claim up. It would be very smart if you are actually scum and it would also be foolish of us to just believe you.If you really think we are both scum, then no, your case isn't null.
If you want to sacrafice a mason in order to prove another, then yes, your case is null
No. Not believing the claim isn't a scumtell. Trying to push a lynch as strongly as Nameless is on claimed masons is a scumtell. Trying to convince the town that the claim can't possibly be true, realizing the lynch isn't going to happen, and backing off like Porkens did is a scumtell. Logically considering both possibilities and asking for responses, like you are doing, is not a scumtell.Stef wrote:
I'm not sure of the claim either.. does that make me scum and up for your vote since you voted nameless mostly because of the same thing? Do you really think it's scumtell?
It would be dumb for scum to do that. I agree though that it would be dumb to just assume we are town. Lynching one of us today will not benefit the town at all. I don't know what more to say.Stef wrote: I think there's a chance you are both scum and that's enough. I'm not going to blindly accept the fact that you're majority just because you claimed to be and maybe cleverly left a breadcrum trail to back your claim up. It would be very smart if you are actually scum and it would also be foolish of us to just believe you.
It is a very good thing for everybody involved that this is not a game of meat world mafia or somebody would have to physically restrain me at this point. First of all, WIFOM (it's a fundamentally flawed and misleading argument, so we can safely ignore that). Second of all, it clearly IS a great play for the scum as YOU'RE getting away with it after acting incredibly scummy. Third of all, trust me, if I were scum it would so incredibly easy to extend this general mess a little longer and force Camn as the default lynch in the same way Stormer was yesterday, not NK you, then compile an epic massive case against you or Charter tomorrow. And probably claim cop for the hell of it (Kmd? Guilty! Charter? Guilty! MLF ... Let's throw him in jail anyway.)Kmd4390 wrote:This right here. This is why it would be a terrible play for scum. Unless they played it perfectly, it's almost an auto-loss.