herod wrote:Do you think the scum would anticipate even a small chance that Looker would have received doc protection?
why not? to wifom a bit: if you were scum, would you roleblock the village idiot? seriously, what possible advantage is it to scum to roleblock a claimed cop whose sanity is in question?
zero wrote:If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?
you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?
Top of page 33 vote count:
Porkens 1 (Archaist)
Not voting: Jazzmyn, Sotty7, Plonky, Herodotus, Zer0ph34r, don_johnson, Porkens
With 7 still packing it takes 4 to lynch.
Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.
2. Then implies he's a doc.
3. asking for clarification on 1 and 2 is
rolefishing
?!
vote: Don
actually, herod didn't ask for clarification. herod asked a rather direct question. what about zero's question implies that he is doc? zero's question is in direct response to my statements. what is scummy about me questioning herod's question? the bolded part above is exactly my point in responding to herod. the only thing answering herod's question does is possibly give scum a better target than myself for tonight.
porkens: you seem to be looking for excuses to vote for me. i was willing to move on to sotty7 and was planning on posting a case, but your lack of contribution on day 3 is stunning.
I've been re-reading the game to try to figure out who is scummiest, and Porkens is standing out for me.
Going back to his predecessor, Plonky, who started in on dejhka by voting for dej because dej was not enamoured of early bandwagoning, which seems like a pretty poor reason to start in on someone.
Then there was his insistence that killa7 was not a townie and not scum, with such assurance that only scum could actually have. Repeatedly, he referred to killa7 as non-scum at a time that only the scum could know that with certainty.
When he was called on that, he disappeared from the game.
Porkens replaced him and says that he didn't even read Plonky's posts. Well, that seems rather odd to me. I mean, sure, it's not as though a replacement is expected to or able to answer for everything that a predecessor does, but to not even read his posts seems off to me. It's not as though there were very many, and since you're reading the thread anyway, it strikes me as bizarre to read everyone else's posts and not your predecessor's. In retrospect, I think that Porkens did read them and just wanted to quickly distance himself from his predecessor in hopes that we will let Plonky's scummy posts go.
Then he quickly posts a list of 4 top suspects (Tovarish, Zero, acfan, and dej), votes for Tovarish, and adds that he would hammer killa7 if he were put at L-1 again. He ultimately did so, as he said he would, but again in retrospect, this looks like the ultimate in distancing himself from his predecessor's scummy posts, and in particular, his predecessor's unexplained knowledge that killa7 was a townie.
Then, I see Porkens trying to paint Herod as scum merely for being alive after Night 1, this too strikes me as odd in retrospect. Analyzing it a little further, it seems like Porkens trying to send the message that if he was scum, he would have offed Herod, with the inference being that, therefore, Porkens is not scum.
Then there is this comment: “The dead cop could be random luck by the mafia, but I think more likely that q21 got pegged by a smart maf.” While this is relatively minor, I just wanted to mention that whenever I have seen a player refer to the mafia as smart, especially when discussing night kills, that player has nearly always turned out to be mafia themselves.
Then there was Porkens' post 55 “this is such a scummy post” directed to Sotty shortly after Sotty replaced in, without saying what was supposedly scummy about it. It didn't seem scummy to me, so I asked Porkens what was scummy about it, and in his post 60, he gave some very weak justification that still doesn't make it look scummy to me.
Then there was his "sweet" reaction to the death of our doctor. Again, this is minor, but odd enough to add to the list of things that look odd, in my view. He later explained it as meaning that he doesn’t have to scratch his head over Looker, but still, it’s a pretty bizarre reaction to the death of the doc.
As Archaist pointed out, Porkens did not acknowledge, let alone dispute, Zero’s claim to have received a guilty on him during the night. Then in 77, he engages in unnecessary sarcasm in his response to Archaist in a manner that makes it look to me like he’s trying too hard to justify those last two points.
Then he gets all in a tizzy and votes don based on his own misunderstanding of the various cop roles.
Then in 82, he votes don again, based on what seems to be another misunderstanding.
He's pretty quick to vote while we're in a position where votes should be based on articulated and rational reasons, rather than on a knee-jerk reaction.
I recognize that some of these things are not necessarily classic "tells" etc., but cumulatively, there are an awful lot of things about Plonky/Porkens' play that make him highly suspicious to me.
Zer0ph34r wrote:If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?
Zero -- do you mean you're really a doctor?
don_johnson wrote:^^^ rolefish?
don_johnson wrote:you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?
^^^ rolefish?
Seriously? When I ask, it's rolefishing, and when you ask, it's something else?
The only difference I see between my question and yours is that you reminded Zero of his earlier claim. I asked my question largely to check his consistency after he asked an odd question.
If you and he are scumbuddies, your rephrasing may have been a matter of prompting him to be consistent. I would say it was also an attempt to dirty me, but the fact that you asked the same question was just too visible for that attack to go anywhere.
don_johnson wrote:why not? to wifom a bit: if you were scum, would you roleblock the
village idiot
only player who has claimed a power role, and it wasn't doctor?
Yes. Not every time, but in general. If I intended to hunt for a doc while leaving that power role alive, very likely. That's the normal scum play in the analogous situation in F11, for instance.
In fact, even your original question stinks. Whatever you think of a player's intelligence has no bearing on his role, his sanity, or the results he posts in the thread. If Zero was unblocked, the whole town gets to see a result; if Zero was blocked, the town does not get to see a result. I don't see the scum assuming he would investigate a dead player again.
@Zero: In case you're still wondering, Don said that you can't be a town doctor presumably because you claimed to be a cop, and to have a result. A town-sided doctor doing that would be throwing away his team's chances.
Post # 805 will get some analysis later, as the explanation Zero gives is obviously impossible. Also note that Zero suggested assuming he was paranoid before he even had any results... then he gets a guilty. I'm still more inclined to believe his claim than not, but I'm less confident about it than I was yesterday.
my question to zero was different than yours and also came after yours. you cannot compare them side by side and get an accurate analysis. i.e. you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be. there was also a question mark after the word "rolefish", meaning please explain your comment.
i utterly disagree on your scumroleblock scenario. zero has presented little in the way of credibility. his investigation results are useless, and you would be lying if you say otherwise. as soon as he claimed and his sanity was questioned, we all knew his results would be useless and the fact that he claimed cop in a game with a dead cop makes him a viable mislynch if he is telling the truth. who said scum was assuming he'd investigate a dead player again?
Herodotus, why is my post in #805 impossible? And I said we should assume I am paranoid, and never said I was, because I don't know and neither does anyone else.
And isn't it obvious that my investigations are useless at this point, but I feel quite comfortable with the results I got on Porkens.
"I'm still a bit amazed by Zer0's play." -Xylthixlm
________________________________________
http://www.tengaged.com/user/Ryan/thanks
Zer0ph34r wrote:
And isn't it obvious that my investigations are useless at this point, but I feel quite comfortable with the results I got on Porkens.
Because it is a 50/50 chance that you are scum, but this result makes me quite comfortable with voting to lynch you, but I am not 100% sure. I am about 75% sure that you're scum.
"I'm still a bit amazed by Zer0's play." -Xylthixlm
________________________________________
http://www.tengaged.com/user/Ryan/thanks
Archaist wrote:Jazzmyn; if you find Porkens suspicious, why aren't you voting for him? You seem reluctant to place a vote, as you haven't done so in a while.
You're right, I am reluctant, due to a combination of it being possible LyLo, being a holiday weekend, and fear of being wrong.
But I see that Porkens is here today, so it seems that the holiday isn't a factor, and I see that he hasn't bothered to address or respond to the cases made against him, which strengthens my belief in his scumminess even more. Plus, I don't get a scum vibe from either you or don_johnson, so it's time to put my vote where my suspicion is.
Porkens is at L-1. I would consider hammering, but I just feel too uncomfortable about Don right now.
i.e. you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be.
What did you mean by that, by the way? To me, it just looked like a different way of wording the same question, though possibly with an inflection that suggests the roles he claims are chosen by him (i.e. fakeclaimed.) Since the distinction seems to mean something to you, tell us what it is.
please explain your comment.
Well, if he was changing his roleclaim, he needed to do that explicitly. Also, if he was, that would be pretty scummy. See where I wrote in post 807 "you claimed to be a cop, and to have a result. A town-sided doctor doing that would be throwing away his team's chances." If he changed his claim, I would pretty much assume he was scum. But I didn't really think he would. More than all of that, I was trying to get Zero to figure out the answer to his own question, which was "because you claimed something else."
To answer about the explanation in post 805 being impossible (and I'm
not
saying it's a lie,) Zero could not have just accidentally used the word "doc;" he was referring to something Don had said, and Don used the word "doc."
ahh. there you are. post 818 was ninja'd. in any case:
herod wrote:What did you mean by that, by the way? To me, it just looked like a different way of wording the same question, though possibly with an inflection that suggests the roles he claims are chosen by him (i.e. fakeclaimed.) Since the distinction seems to mean something to you, tell us what it is.
interesting, but that was not the only difference in our statements that i pointed out. timing is key as well. i am not sure what to make of zero at this point as i have been under the impression that he's just a bit ignorant, but his last two posts have been more than odd.
i don't care what role zero posseses. he claimed cop, that's fine. if he wants to say he's doc, i'm okay with that. i don't need to know which he is. why do you? that is the difference between our questions. the other difference is that yours came first and with no other content. what i do know is that zero targeted porkens last night and offered up the truth when asked. so for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.
the fact that porkens has been sitting for three or four days now since archaist dropped the first vote is part of what tells me that porkens is the most probable scum in this scenario right now.
sotty7 wrote:Err, we have? I have only voted one person since replacing in (Ac) so I have “similar voting patterns” with everyone on the Ac wagon. Plus, since when does one vote equate a pattern?
Also Don, why do you assume Zero is a paranoid cop? I don't quite get that leap there.
you replaced a character on the first day's wagon. you have a vote history whether you like it or not. i assume paranoid due to speculation on game balance. why else would we have two cops? i do see the possibility of scumrb zero, but why would scumzero be honest in his investigation/rb target?
Actually this is what you said:
don_johnson Post 791 wrote:
because your vote is on him.
both he and sotty7
have exhibited similar voting patterns.
also
, the players they have replaced carried similar suspicions.
You talk about me and the player I replaced in for as two different and distinct thoughts. You said that I have a similar voting pattern to Porkens. Then say that we also replaced two players who had similar suspicions. These are two different thought processes.
Your point about me having a voting record before replacing in is true, but that is
not
how you tried to represent me here.
As for assuming Zero is paranoid you should be careful about that. You seem to discount any other possibility completely out of hand and you know what they say about assuming. You do have a point about scumZero however. As of right now, I don't think he is scum.
don_johnson Post 796 wrote:
sotty7 wrote:Blocking the doc is also only useful if you know who the doc is. I don't remember Looker dropping any doc tells.
so? mafia knows who mafia is, therefore possible doc targets are reduced. it would be dangerously presumptuous for a scum team to discount the existence of a doc. again, what does looker have to do with any of what i am saying?
also, if you have reread tovarish, you will find the breadcrumbs. obviously, it is easier in hindsight to pick them out, but i believe tov left us clues.
post 3 and 20 in isolation. eerily similar sentances are in these posts with capitalized DR before a sentence break. maybe unintentional, but it is hard to ignore considering he's flipped doc.
My point is Looker was scummy. Several players including myself found him suspicious, I was even willing to lynch him over Ac yesterday. It's reasonable to think that people missed these crumbs and he would have been a leading lynch candidate for today.
I found Tov pretty scummy too and those crumbs you point out are terribly weak. He posts a TL:DR (too long didn't read) I highly doubt that was a doc crumb.
Porkens Post 801 wrote:
don_johnson wrote:^^^ rolefish?
Are you kidding?!
1. Zer0 already claimed cop.
2. Then implies he's a doc.
3. asking for clarification on 1 and 2 is
rolefishing
?!
vote: Don
Not only that, but Don ALSO asks Zero to clarify in the same post he accuses Hero for rolefishing!
don_johnson Post 800 wrote:
zero wrote:If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?
you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?
Fos: Don
don_johnson Post 802 wrote:porkens: you seem to be looking for excuses to vote for me. i was willing to move on to sotty7 and was planning on posting a case, but your lack of contribution on day 3 is stunning.
vote: porkens
OMGUS? Do you even find Porkens scummy? If so why excatly?
don_johnson Post 808 wrote:my question to zero was different than yours and also came after yours. you cannot compare them side by side and get an accurate analysis. i.e. you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be. there was also a question mark after the word "rolefish", meaning please explain your comment.
This is clearly semantics...
Herodotus Post 817 wrote:Porkens is at L-1. I would consider hammering, but I just feel too uncomfortable about Don right now.
Very much this. (Even though I think Don's unvote puts him at lynch -2 now)
Don why did you claim when you did? Did you leave any crumbs? Can you explain your two night choices in detail please?
don_johnson wrote:what makes you uncomfortable with me?
I think I've already said enough. Let me summarize here. This is not meant as an argument that you're scum, just a list of the many times I've pointed out things you've done that made me uncomfortable with assuming you're town. TBH, I'm probably going to let it all slide, as there's a good chance you're right about Porkens. Your unvote from him looks a little peculiar, btw, but I think I understand and agree with your reason.
Day 3:
The assumption that Zero is paranoid.
(for reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 33#1605433)
Your post 800, which suggests I'm rolefishing, while you feel fine asking a similar question (and you really need to explain this supposed distinction, and the significange of it, between our questions. I'll grant you the timing, but you are clearly implying there is something else of importance.)
Don, in post 597 wrote:
also, i have never been "blocked", what kind of pm does one get in that situation?
don_johnson wrote:night one, i watched herod and i believe i was blocked. recieved a message stating i was unable to perform my action. sent mod a pm to clarify and recieved exact same message a second time.
sotty7 wrote:You talk about me and the player I replaced in for as two different and distinct thoughts. You said that I have a similar voting pattern to Porkens. Then say that we also replaced two players who had similar suspicions. These are two different thought processes.
no they ar e not. you do have a similar voting pattern to porkens, and the player you replaced carries similar suspicions. adding their vote patterns to yours gives us a complete picture. you are arguing semantics, which is interesting because later in the post you accuse me of similar tactic.
scum didn't block looker, they killed him. i am assuming they thought someone else doc and tried to block them. herod offered explanation of why looker may have been targeted for kill.
i explained the rolefishing comment. to repeat for both you and herod:
dj wrote:i don't care what role zero posseses. he claimed cop, that's fine. if he wants to say he's doc, i'm okay with that. i don't need to know which he is.
why do you?
that is the difference between our questions. the other difference is that yours came first and with no other content. what i do know is that zero targeted porkens last night and offered up the truth when asked. so for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.
the bolded question is still unanswered.
sotty wrote:Don why did you claim when you did? Did you leave any crumbs? Can you explain your two night choices in detail please?
i claimed because i thought i had things figured out. no crumbs. i wouldn't even know where to begin to crumb such a role. had i only been granted a one shot vig i most likely would have used it the first night, but i thought that i had other abilities for a reason and chose to use them first, perhaps to hone the vig shot if i did get the chance. i watched herod because he seemed rather pro town and i thought he would be a good target for a nightkill. by watching i catch a scum. i tracked zero for obvious reasons. had he lied i would be voting him.
i have explained why i think porkens scummy. you classifying my vote oin porkens as omgus is lazy. do you have any other input for today?
herod: reread my comments. i didn't know whether or not i was blocked due to the ambiguous message i recieved from the mod. also, i did not want to reveal myself that early. my desire to find a roleblocker should be pretty obvious. it gives me more options to track. hindsight is 20/20, judging my actions yesterday based on today's info will only get you so far. look at what is happening today. i am only hoping that porkens flips rb and the fact he hasn't been voted off the island is making me hopeful.
immunity fishing is bullshit. i had my reasons and i feel they were well explained.
