War in Heaven II - Spirit of Vengeance (Over!)

[Albert B. Rampage]

q21, who do you find most suspicious?

[Nuwen]

I don't approve of an Xyl kill, just because I'm really interested in whatever he and DGB are up too. More personal intrigue than any type of pro-town read, but I doubt suspending his death will be detrimental.

I can get behind a vIQles hurtfest, but Coptor and DGBs omgtown and omgscum proclaims still irk the shit out of me.

Also, everyone who has said something to the effect of "I don't like unconfirmed suspicions, they're scummy" has unequally applied this standard:

hoopla is also scum...

people voting xyl should get over it because he's clearly town. abr is town too.

I really don't like people who make definitive statements like these - especially if there's no way that they could have any info.

If you have suspicions, then present your argument. If you don't think people are convinced, then present it again - expand and clarify. Just repeating declaritive statements does not further the game...

-> vIQleS jumped on Coptor's indictment, but found DGB's obvtown statements less harmful. Why is one unsubstantiated alignment suspicion more note-worthy than another?

I concur. Xyl is also quick to come to conclusions without any evidence.

Zwet behaves similarly here.

Vote/pledge/I choose you, pikachu: vIQleS

[Hoopla]

Mafia is a game of discussion. Its only a game of manipulation if you're scum.

How many times have you been successfully manipulative as scum? How many times have you been unsuccessfully manipulative as town?

You play your game, I play mine. Unless you can show how my actions are bad for the town in

this

game, you have nothing on me.

You're avoiding these questions. If you're going to showcase your previous games to illustrate how your play can help the town - you need to show the times where you've fucked the town over with bad play.

Also, can you link me to your most recent games as scum please.

[q21]

They are relevant to show you the extreme things that I have done.

And will be promptly ignored because the times you've been manipulative as scum are just a relevant.

Its very simple.

If I think a player is a liability because he can't do something, and then he does it, it proves to me that he is no longer a liability. What's so scummy about that q21?

Your post seemed much more about getting kinetic to do what you wanted and a much less about him proving himself not to be a liability.

[Albert B. Rampage]

These are my latest completed games:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

Won here, didn't do anything special.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... t=#1347649

Lost here, didn't do anything special.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... illuminati

Lost here, didn't do anything special.

Etc. etc.

[Seraphim]

Vote: vIQleS

I will follow with a kill on him. I'm not reading Xyl as scum and I think that there are plenty of people following Shinnen's example and not participating much. I think we need to lynch actual scummy people first and then worry about lurkers/non-participators.

[q21]

q21, who do you find most suspicious?

At the moment, Hoopla, hence my 'vote' being on her.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Who do you suspect most q21

[Albert B. Rampage]

Your post seemed much more about getting kinetic to do what you wanted and a much less about him proving himself not to be a liability.

Kinetic suspects someone.

I suspect that someone too.

I want him to commit to that suspicion.

Where is it that I'm making him do something against his will? He said he would conduct his decisions in a timely fashion. I want to see him put these words into actions.

Where do you see anything scummy??

q21, who do you find most suspicious?

At the moment, Hoopla, hence my 'vote' being on her.

Well you seem awfully unsure, because this is our convention:

I suggest to avoid the general lowering of health, we use a system where someone needs to gain the pledged support of at least one other player (committing to hurting them if you do) before doing any hurting. Something like this:

Call intent to hurt *Name*

Then someone else needs to post

I'm with you, *Name!*

I would also propose not healing anyone outside of the start-of-day mass heals, UNLESS they are hurt in contravention of the above.

If you want to add anyone to that list, you may promptly do so.

[Xylthixlm]

I think we need to lynch actual scummy people first and then worry about lurkers/non-participators.

Partially right, partially wrong. People who are talking more tend to look scummier, just because they have more opportunities to say something you disagree with. If you haven't learned to correct for that, you should go after the lurkers first. If you have, you should go after the scummy people, who will usually be the lurkers anyways.

[DrippingGoofball]

If you want to add anyone to that list, you may promptly do so.

Add Hoopla to the list, please. ViQles is such a no-brainer choice, there's not going to be enough discussion.

[q21]

Your post seemed much more about getting kinetic to do what you wanted and a much less about him proving himself not to be a liability.

Kinetic suspects someone.

I suspect that someone too.

I want him to commit to that suspicion.

Where is it that I'm making him do something against his will? He said he would conduct his decisions in a timely fashion. I want to see him put these words into actions.

Where do you see anything scummy??

It was the "You have but to support me in killing this vIQleS player" condition your post set for your case on kinetic to be voided that makes it smell. Would his commitment to any other lynch have voided your case?

q21, who do you find most suspicious?

At the moment, Hoopla, hence my 'vote' being on her.

Well you seem awfully unsure, because this is our convention:

I suggest to avoid the general lowering of health, we use a system where someone needs to gain the pledged support of at least one other player (committing to hurting them if you do) before doing any hurting. Something like this:

Call intent to hurt *Name*

Then someone else needs to post

I'm with you, *Name!*

I would also propose not healing anyone outside of the start-of-day mass heals, UNLESS they are hurt in contravention of the above.

If you want to add anyone to that list, you may promptly do so.

I didn't realise we had officially taken up this as a convention. I don't see any particular benefit in it, but I don't see any harm either. Fonz's suggestion doesn't look like it was intended as a vehicle to form a list of the only people who can be hurt like you seem to be doing with it. It seems intended for each person who wants to hurt someone to get sanction rather than to blanket sanction the hurting of specific people.

Regardless, I'm not going to add her to your "list" yet because I don't think there is enough evidence to kill anyone at this point.

[Albert B. Rampage]

DGB, thoughts on Shinnen_no_Me?

[Xylthixlm]

Right now I would be happiest killing either Juls or WaltWishbone.

[Xylthixlm]

Actually

Call intent to hurt WaltWishbone

Die, lurkerscum.

[Seraphim]

@Xyl

Juls and WaltWishbone are lurking, correct?

I also think it's important to sort out the lurkers from the scummy lurkers. Generally, scum lurkers will either say less or pretend that they're saying something when they're not.

[Xylthixlm]

@Xyl

Juls and WaltWishbone are lurking, correct?

I also think it's important to sort out the lurkers from the scummy lurkers. Generally, scum lurkers will either say less or pretend that they're saying something when they're not.

WaltWishbone is a scummy lurker. Read his post.

Juls is OMGUSing rather than scumhunting.

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB, thoughts on Shinnen_no_Me?

He sounds like he hates the world. His face is red, steam shoots out of his ears, and he's popping veins in his forehead.

Juls should be on the list, too.

Why WaltWishbone? I didn't even know he existed. I should check it out.

[Nuwen]

WaltWishbone hasn't posted around the site since he said something yesterday, approximately 16 hours ago. His lurking is inactive and indicative of absence, not willful withholding of content.

[q21]

I also think it's important to sort out the lurkers from the scummy lurkers. Generally, scum lurkers will either say less or pretend that they're saying something when they're not.

This describes your own play fairly well.

[DrippingGoofball]

Checked out Wishbone. He's Shinnen's nemesis.

Over-the-top agreeable and submissive.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm entertaining the thought of a scumteam comprised of the following players:

Seraphim
Drench
DGB
Shinnen_no_Me

Unvote ViQles

[Xylthixlm]

For those too lazy to find WaltWishbone's only post:

So I am not sure I have a complete understanding of the way this game works, however I am comfortable making a few early observations. I do not feel confident enough yet to make a vote or hurt/heal anyone.

My initial thoughts from reading the first six pages are; Cybele, Hoopla, and Kinetics opening posts came across as very honest and containend an element of truth which would indicate they had no idea what kind of Rage, ect abilities scum may have. Although, I do understand a couple of points made against Kinetic, I would have a hard time voting for him at this point. I think ABR has put in lot of detail into his research and subsequent reasoning behind his post however I want to go back and reread the first 6 pages (as well as the previous game) before elaborating.

I am a bit torn between two different stratagies, I do however agree with going with a majority. I am not sure whether it would be best to hold onto my hurt/heal until the rest of the players have a chance to check in and and add their thoughts or if I should return the favor and heal vIQleS? (thanks by the way )

One thing I am not clear about in the rules is how time works in this set-up? In otherwords, do we have 24 hours from Mr. Flay's post to hurt/heal someone 1 time? Tomorrow by 7am? Also if we dont use a hurt/heal does it carry over to the next 24 hour period?

I am gonna reread everything now and try to get a better handle on how this set-up works, thanks for any advice.

Translation: "I want to look like I'm contributing, but am unwilling to actually take a position on anything. I'm just going to sit here and let the town reach a decision and then I can pretend I supported it all along."

[Seraphim]

At least I'm committing to a kill.

[DrippingGoofball]

...approximately 16 hours ago. His lurking is inactive and indicative of absence, not willful withholding of content.

I don't even care that he may be lurking, the content of his single post is pretty damning. He's positioned himself to play the role of a poor innocent little rabbit.