Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[Brandi]

Vote: Furry

Yiff in H... I mean THAT'S NOT HOW YOU SPELL FURY.

[Brandi]

Aww, it was only a joke. ;[ I'm not trying to fursecute you. Unless that is a serious vote, then I'd like to ask you your reasoning. =P

[Brandi]

Extreme, what do you mean by extreme? It's odd he'd put a 3rd vote on me with no reasoning... I'm wondering if I somehow offended him with my random vote. But something tells me he's not really a furry >>

[Brandi]

Hmm... aren't you an alt though? I would never really make fun of furry's... I kind of am one =P

Usually when people random vote they come up with silly-non serious reasoning to go along with them, or at least say "Random vote: Person" Not giving any reason at all could be taken as there actually being a reason behind it. Usually no one puts more than 2 random votes on a person at a time... Because it could look like you are trying to start a reasonless bandwagon....which is scummy.

[Brandi]

<b>unvote, vote: inHimshallibe</b>
I don't like his crappy reasoning for voting Furry. Seems a tad odd.

Fishy seems to be trying to hard but is probably town.
HP seems to be trying to guess all the scum before the game even really starts, null tell.
Gorrad is most likely town.
Everyone else seems neutral for now.

[Brandi]

unvote, vote: inHimshallibe

Sorry, I get the coding mixed up from using different sites. ;P

[Brandi]

Then again, trying too hard is probably a good thing.^ So maybe Fishy is the most pro-town person here right now.

[Brandi]

^Matur, it wasn't a defense of furry, it was I didn't like his reason. I don't really have much of an opinion of furry since I can't tell if a lot of his posts are just fluff or not. He says a lot, but I'm having trouble finding anything useful/helpful in the things that he says.

Anyway, eventually you will all learn that I am incredibly friendly in everything that I do >>

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

[Brandi]

Anyway I say Anyway a lot. Also, if there was 4 scum would that mean that they might not all be in one group? Maybe 2 groups of 2? Or is 4 in one just most likely?

[Brandi]

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

I do NOT like this.

Unvote, Vote: Brandi

whats wrong with what I said? Maybe I don't like the letter G in your name. I should vote you for that.

[Brandi]

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

I do NOT like this.

Unvote, Vote: Brandi

whats wrong with what I said? Maybe I don't like the letter G in your name. I should vote you for that.

You're basically saying, straight up, that while you won't push any case against hp now, you're reserving something to use against him later. A perfect example of which is a scum needing a way to jump onto a wagon later in the game and pulling something from page 2. If you think he's scummy, there's certainly nothing better page 2 on which to base a vote, so vote him! Otherwise, let it go.

Well I just don't think its a good idea to lynch someone over one little thing, if they do more scummy things later on, that might be grounds to lynch them. But it seems like that it wasn't even a slip since everyone is saying a 4 scum group is almost impossible. So its probably not worth bringing up again anyway unless we somehow find out that there are 4 scum.

[Brandi]

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Because, you act like there is something wrong with moving from a random vote to a more serious one, and implied that his vote wasn't even random when he said that it was. He didn't even give a reason for voting me originally, so there was nothing to "back down" from.

[Brandi]

On Brandi:

Labelling me “probably town” in post 23 doesn’t quite ring true- I don’t think my first two posts look exceptionally pro-town, and this is possible buddying. Post 36- “Not enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind”- this is a normal way for the scum to have an argument to come back to. Of course, it’s also true for everything in the game which isn’t lynchworthy. I’d like to know why she didn’t vote for hp at this point.

Well the 'probably town' thing was a gut feeling. Not really based on anything. Isn't buddying only something for scum + scum anyway? If it were a scummy thing to do... why would scum buddy town? I don't quite get that. Also I didn't vote HP cuz I wasn't sure on the whole 4 scum thing, and no one else seemed really sure either so at that point in my mind it could have been a slip and it couldn't have been, I didn't think he needed a bandwagon because what he said was pretty ambiguous and seemed like a not very good reason to base an entire lynch off of.

Also InHim I'm not sure but what are your reasons for pursuing a bandwagon on fishyyy?

[Brandi]

Slicey: Playing differently, as in making a slightly bigger effort to contribute? Everyone was complaining how I did nothing during that game, so I feel like I need to try harder. I also addressed the issue you FOS'd me for so I'm not going to address it again. ;P

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

[Brandi]

On Brandi:

Labelling me

“probably town” in post 23 doesn’t quite ring true-

I don’t think my first two posts look exceptionally pro-town, and this is possible buddying. Post 36- “Not enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind”- this is a normal way for the scum to have an argument to come back to. Of course, it’s also true for everything in the game which isn’t lynchworthy. I’d like to know why she didn’t vote for hp at this point.

Well the 'probably town' thing was a gut feeling. Not really based on anything. Isn't buddying only something for scum + scum anyway? If it were a scummy thing to do... why would scum buddy town? I don't quite get that. Also I didn't vote HP cuz I wasn't sure on the whole 4 scum thing, and no one else seemed really sure either so at that point in my mind it could have been a slip and it couldn't have been, I didn't think he needed a bandwagon because what he said was pretty ambiguous and seemed like a not very good reason to base an entire lynch off of.

Also InHim I'm not sure but what are your reasons for pursuing a bandwagon on fishyyy?

I addressed this.

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

I do NOT like this.

Unvote, Vote: Brandi

whats wrong with what I said? Maybe I don't like the letter G in your name. I should vote you for that.

You're basically saying, straight up, that while you won't push any case against hp now, you're reserving something to use against him later.

A perfect example of which is a scum needing a way to jump onto a wagon later in the game and pulling something from page 2. If you think he's scummy, there's certainly nothing better page 2 on which to base a vote, so vote him! Otherwise, let it go.

Well I just don't think its a good idea to lynch someone over one little thing, if they do more scummy things later on, that might be grounds to lynch them. But it seems like that it wasn't even a slip since everyone is saying a 4 scum group is almost impossible. So its probably not worth bringing up again anyway unless we somehow find out that there are 4 scum.

Addressed this.

YET ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE:

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

You make it sound like you want to lynch somebody already, only on Page 2. Of course it's not lynch worthy, and anybody that tries to push the issue is most likely scum. hp was just "mad" because my (and when I say my, I don't mean it as I was the leader) four man scumteam in Sushi killed hp, clinching the game for us. In short, I don't really like the wording of that sentence.

FoS: Brandi

Also, you seem to be playing very differently in this game than you did in Past Ages Mafia. Something to keep in mind.

Slicey: Playing differently, as in making a slightly bigger effort to contribute? Everyone was complaining how I did nothing during that game, so I feel like I need to try harder. I also addressed the issue you FOS'd me for so I'm not going to address it again. ;P

So I've addressed this TWICE, practically.

I suddenly really dislike the wagon I’m on. Slicey’s post is a strawman - I don’t see how InHim’s quote fits with the opinions Slicey ascribes to him.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

This is also not good. Obviously, wagoning just to wagon is one of the those policies with an exception when you are the object of the wagon. This seems like a rather weak attempt to sling a bit of mud in InHim’s direction.
I also dislike Brandi’s habit of calling people protown- this is unhelpful for the town, and potentially buddying or an attempt to look good later after they die. Like others, I also dislike the “bear this in mind” quote- while her explanation is valid, it just feels more like a scum stashing away an excuse to vote than a townie stating an obvious truth.

Repeating yourself. Argument of repitition much? Calling it a HABIT? A bit over dramatic don't you think? When in fact I only mentioned that two people were probably [note: probably, not 'obviously'] town based on EARLY -GUT- Feelings. Yet even though I OBVIOUSLY came out and responded to something multiple people were discussing, you felt the need to bring it up as if it had never been said. Trying to gradually push this into the minds of the other townies? Argument of REPETITION much?

And then, inHim, just happens to hop a long and back up fishy, kind of convenient for him, don't you think? Seems like he is just dying to get the wagon off of him.

Also, THIS:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

I'm not sure whether you're being snarky town or scum here. The post is definitely noted.

So, blatantly refusing to address my point and deem my comment as snarky? Pursuing a wagon with NO BASIS whatsoever JUST to pursue it is SCUMMY. To lynch someone you have to have a CASE. So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

Both of you are looking VERY bad right now.

FOS: Fishy

(inHim is still scummier atm than Fishy, so my vote remains on him)

[Brandi]

And, here we have a classic scummy, OMGUS. Nice job making yourself appear even more scummy than you already are, inHim.

[Brandi]

Also, no one seems to like your vote, eh? So voting something just to fit in with everyone else? Not wanting to think for yourself? Also, saying you always do something in every game does not make it a smart or pro-town thing to do. You are either very very terrible scum, or a VI.

[Brandi]

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong. I'm sure that will get you far. Inhim is definitely acting more scummy than you, and really its just a theory. I can't be sure of anything right now, but that is what it looks like. He could just be trying to push a townie lynch, or he could have been trying to push a scum lynch. And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that. Anyway, I am scumhunting, though, I'm not sure about you.

VI= villiage idiot. Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical. Wagonning just to wagon, is scummy. His not caring, idiotic "lol" responses just prove that point even more.

[Brandi]

Then you're inferring wrong, it isn't that inHim has less of a right to defend himself, but that he supported bandwagoning on another player, claiming it to be a good thing, but when it was turned on him he became defensive and was opposed to it, making inHim a hypocrite.

This

may be

is

right.

Fixed.


And Slicey, mind elaborating?

[Brandi]

@inhim: I have in no way been playing "emotionally" just logically, unlike you.

The vote may come back to Brandi, it may not.

That's rather odd that you would bring such a pointless statement out into the open like that as if it were relevant. Sounds like you are planning on it.

Regardless, inhim seems to be acting VERY wishy-washy and changing things around to try and look more pro-town, now that more people are actually posting. I don't think I'll be moving my vote anytime soon.

[Brandi]

quote fail. Needz moar previews.

[Brandi]

[[[[OFF TOPIC: HAPPY BIRTHDAY FISHY! YOU CAN NOW LEGALLY DRINK. ;P]]]

*is waiting for slicey to post thoughts, like others*

I would like to hear more from

Maturin24

, he has only made 3 posts all game, all with a number of days apart, and his last post was 6 days ago. Perhaps he might need a prod soon.

[Brandi]

Also, it would be nice if Tzeentch posted a little more as well.

[Brandi]

InHim, voting lurkers is acceptable because it's not an attempt to

bandwagon

and there is an actual

reason

behind it. Do not even attempt to imply that your case is in anyway similar since, it isn't.

[Brandi]

I really wish this game was a bit more active. =/ I don' t like the feeling that everyone is semi-lurking. Not *everyone* But still, most people just aren't posting much. Hopefully things will pick up soon.

[Brandi]

BMQ

, I can assure you your connection with those that vote me, and my attacks are not connected. Nothing about my attacks are personal, I'm merely stating my observations. I may be a friendly player, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give you hugs and kisses if I think you're scum. Which, I think that inHim is, though not as sure on Fishy. Obviously, I'm not 100% on inHim EITHER, just my suspicions of him based on his actions outweigh that of any one else at this point and time. If anything, inHim is the one who is being incredibly flippant and making personal attacks. I have not done such. I can see how my saying that he might be a VI might be taken as such, but that doesn't mean I consider him to be an -idiot-, just that his play is either very scummy and/or incredibly anti-town, making the term very fitting.

[Brandi]

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd. Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

[Brandi]

^Also want to note that inHim was OMGUS'ing me, not Fishy.

[Brandi]

Also, I really need to learn to proof-read things and put all my thoughts in one post.

I meant to say in my first line in PS 127:

"I can assure you your connection with those that vote me, and my attacks are not

related

"

Meh.

I

[Brandi]

Where did that *I* come from. >>; -sigh- Ok before I say anything else stupid I'm going to go do something else =P

[Brandi]

@Fishythefish, I'm talking about votes, not attacks. It isn't because you voted me. Also, it wasn't because it was *me* It was because of the way you were going about things, it seemed "fishy" ;P

[Brandi]

And definitely wasn't OMGUS, when someone attacks someone for stupid reasons, its scummy. You were doing it for stupid reasons, so you got a FOS. Just like inHIM was voting you for stupid, scummy reasons.

[Brandi]

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

[Brandi]

"Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking."

Is a perfectly fine and acceptable TRUE STATEMENT. I suggested he should read more, because he had his information wrong. Seems like you don't like any sort of positive suggestions at ALL inhim. Seriously, you could at least -TRY- to make some sort of logical sense.

[Brandi]

Hi, I've been at a friends house the past few days, will be making an effort for a decent post soon.

[Brandi]

Making an INCREDIBLY LONG POST SOON. Look out for it =P

[Brandi]

Alright, I've done a re-read, and so I would like to address my case against inHim, as well as many other thigns, so that those who haven't been paying full attention, or those who are confused, can better understand my convictions as well as my line of reasoning for - everything. Also so I can post my thoughts on other players.

Page 1-

Random voting, Furry goes and places a 3rd vote on me with no explanation, which I questioned, because in general, if a person places a 3rd vote on a player during the random stage, they generally have a reason for it.

Fishy implied that my 'reaction' was 'extreme.' Because of the fact that 3 votes on a player during a random stage is pushing it, I believe it was perfectly understandable that I make a note to question it. At first I assumed that maybe he did it out of spite, because I was facetiously making a jest at the furry fandom with my random vote towards him. If I had offended him, that would imply bad town play, because his vote would have been out of emotion, but he went on to state that the vote was indeed random, and for him personally, 3 random votes doesn't seem scummy, or odd. So it was no longer an issue.

Gorrad votes Furry for the 3rd vote, Fishy votes Gorrad for voting for Furry, Furry unvotes and votes for Fishy for voting for Gorrad instead of me.

This line here:

- Yes, I view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy- Brandi for her reaction to random votes, which I believe scum react slightly worse to, and Gorrad for automatically voting for the third voter of a wagon, which could be a defense of Brandi.

This is an example of the POST HOC fallacy. Fishy notes that my reaction to a 'random vote' was 'bad.' When at the point of my reaction, It was quite CLEAR that I did NOT know that the vote was random.

Next up, HP makes his guess on '4' scum.

First serious post by inhim:

unvote
vote: Furry

I don't like the way you backed down from that vote, even if it was "random."

This is a terrible line of reasoning. The first thing that you notice is that he put "random" in quotations. This implies that Furry's vote was not random. However, Furry noted that his vote on me was in fact, random.

Second of all, inHim just did the VERY THING that he is voting Furry for. He took his

random

vote off of Brian, and put it on Furry. Just like Furry took his

random

vote off of me, and put it onto Fishy. Hypocrite much?

Third, there is nothing wrong with removing a random vote. Random votes are just to get the game going, very little to no information can be gathered from random votes, therefore it is only reasonable, for the sake of

PROGRESSING THE GAME

, that a random vote be either a) reinforced with serious evidence, or b) removed, and a serious vote be placed on another player for some actual reasoning.

Fourth of all, the fact that he wanted 3

random

votes to stay on a player implies that he was hoping for some sort of baseless QUICKLYNCH to happen. Which is INCREDIBLY SCUMMY.

Moving on.

I go on to post my initial gut feeling for the game. I note that I get a null tell from HP, even though that probably wasn't necessary beacuse everyone else other than Fishy, Gorrad, and inHim were neutral to me as well. inHim as I had previously stated was acting scummy, Gorrad just seemed to have a general towniness about him, and Fishy seemed like he was digging too hard for things that weren't there, but that sort of assertion I thought, was probably beacuse he really wanted to find scum. So I mentioned how I felt.

Page 2

HP makes a point that 'trying too hard' can also be a scumtell. I didn't reply to him, but I made a mental note of it.
Veerus votes HP for calling out 4 scum in a 12 player game.
Fishy jumps on, agreeing with that reason.
HP questions Veerus.
Fishy says that it is serious.
HP says that 4 is the maximum.
Furry says that isn't a valid reason to bring up 4 possible scum.
Maturin questions inHim, says he doesn't like Furry and my 'banter' [There was no banter, Furry didn't really respond to ME] and he doesn't like how I voted inHim because it was a defense of furry. [Odd that he thought it was a defense, which it obviously wasn't]
Gorrad posts again, spouting some sense on the 4-person-scum group idea.

At that point I note that I don't believe that what HP had to say was enough for any sort of lynch. I've never been in a mini before, I really wasn't aware of the likeliness of 4 scum, therefore I wasn't really sure -at that point- of whether or not there was 4 in this game.
Fishy agrees with Gorrad, that 4 scum is unlikely. However he doesn't unvote HP at that point.
Brian votes Fishy for pushing his vote against HP.
Gorrad votes me.
Fishy notes that he thinks 4 scum is possible, and therefore he has a good reason to have a vote on HP.
I question Gorrad's vote.
Furry goes on to say that 4 scum really doesn't make any sense.
Gorrad explains his reason for voting me. [Because I said that we shouldn't forget about HP's 'slip']
Next post, from inHim:

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

This right here, proving point #4 of my beef with his previous post. He is ADMITTING that his only real reason for voting for Furry was the fact he took a

BANDWAGON

off of ME. A BANDWAGON THAT WAS BASED PURELY ON

RANDOM VOTES.

Fishy seems more likely to be lynched because there is some actual reasoning behind the votes other players have put on him, therefore he is more supportive of it, because it means we might

MOVE INTO NIGHT QUICKER.

Next, Fishy debates with Furry about the likeliness of a 4 person scum group.

Page 3-

Brian interjects, convincing Fishy that there isn't a 4 person scum group, and that the wagon on HP has no merit.
Fishy says he accepted the idea of a 4 person scum team, but realizes how silly that was, and unvotes.

Veerus posts, making a good point:

But the person that interests me is inHimshallibe. We're in the middle of our first non-random discussion and he interjects just to switch from one bandwagon to another without contributing anything to the ongoing argument. That stinks of scum trying to seem active without posting any content.

unvote; vote: inHimshallibe

I respond to Gorrad's issue with me, letting him know that like Fishy, I had accepted the idea of a 4 person scum team, but at the same time I didn't see that as a good reason to vote HP, and shouldn't really be forced as a point unless he does scummy things later on, as well as there being some sort of proof that there are 4 scum.
Gorrad says that if I try to use that against him and there is no proof, that he'd lynch me. Which is reasonable.

Moving onto inHim's next post:

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Because, you act like there is something wrong with moving from a random vote to a more serious one, and implied that his vote wasn't even random when he said that it was. He didn't even give a reason for voting me originally, so there was nothing to "back down" from.

I see what you're saying. What I was saying was that Furry seemed to be extra-verbose in relating, "Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all. Scum overexplain a lot of the time, and it was an initial type of gut read.

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Now, lets take this apart, shall we?

What I was saying was that Furry seemed to be extra-verbose in relating, "Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all. Scum overexplain a lot of the time, and it was an initial type of gut read.

There is nothing, NOTHING in any of his previous posts that imply that that is what he was saying. Nothing at all. He changed his reason. First it was because he didn't like him 'backing down' from his vote, and now its because he was 'too verbose?' But let's look at Furrys post anyway:

Brandi's reaction to Furry's vote seems extreme, but 4 votes seem a step too far for this, so I'm going with the person who attacks her attacker.

Why is a fourth vote bad? If you really think someone is going to get lynched page one you have another thing coming. Also I take it you view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy at this point? Why would you not be voting Brandi if you view her as scummy? Also why is a third vote bad for that matter even?

Also that vote was quite obviously not serious, those votes are more backed up by reasoning, quotes, cases, you know... scumhunting.

unvote
vote Fishy

Explain your last vote and why you voted Gorrad over Brandi

A side note though, its difficult to really offend me, and believe me I will let you know if you do.

SEE: BOLD AND ITALICS. That is the ONLY point in which he responded to his vote towards me. Now let's compare what inhim said to the bold and italics:

Also that vote was quite obviously not serious, those votes are more backed up by reasoning, quotes, cases, you know... scumhunting.

"Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all.

It is quite evident, that Furry was saying the equivalent of "Oh, that was random" Not those EXACT WORDS, but the same point, in one sentence.

Next:

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

inHim is saying that, basically, he doesn't want to vote with reasons, because that gives too much INFO to go back on, too much to USE FOR CASES to bring up later on. He doesn't want to have to give any legitimate reasons to vote anyone, or lynch them, because it's too much "EFFORT." GOD FORBID SOMEONE GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST FEW PAGES AND BRING UP HIS REASONS FOR VOTING PEOPLE LATER ON IN THE GAME. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP THINGS PROGRESS AT ALL. ;P

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Translation: There no longer seems to be any legitimate reason to be voting for Fishy, too bad there are still people voting for him! Hurry! Lynch him so we can move into night!

Next-

Furry responds to inHim, asks Fishy what he thinks of me.
Fishy says he doesn't like my labeling of him as 'probably town,' goes on to question inHim, and then vote him.


inhim responds, saying basically what he said in his previous post. But adds this:

Wagons get things done. Much more so than non-productive voting.

Seriously? This makes little to no sense. Wagons get things done, votes don't? Votes make wagons, votes are productive for this reason. However, wagoning for the sake of wagoning, without any sort of set REASONS for said wagon is less productive than everyone voting someone different for different reasons.

DDD posts, unvoting, and saying he doesn't like that inHim has counted his random vote in the beginning of the game as support for the serious wagon for Fishy.

Fishy continues to question inhim.

I post again, reiterating to Fishy my reasons for saying he was probably town. And I guess what inHim had said previously didn't register, because I asked him what his

REASONS

were for voting for Fishy.

Gorrad responds to a question of mine.
Maturin reiterates what I already asked inhim.
Veerus makes a small point against inHim, Gorrad is confused, Veerus clarifies:

he's deflecting without really defending his actions and tries to fuel bandwagons without any logic.. ie. playing scummy while hiding behind the "it's too early in the game" excuse...

inhim posts again, pretty much confirming that "Hey, I know that I'm being scummy! I NEVER DENIED THAT I WAS SCUMMY, but at least I'm being honest about it! So you can't have a case against me."

Honestly, it was because he had the largest wagon at the time. There you go, although I think I've already said that.

Please tell me how I've deflected anything. I've not tried to hide anything that I've done. The post of mine you quoted was pretty blatant in my intent to wagon Fishy.

Once again, I've yet to excuse myself of anything, especially not using this "too early" argument. >.>

and then...

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned, but I've never gotten this many questions from trying to wagon. It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

Translation: IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T PLAY MAFIA, WE PLAYED "LYNCH RANDOM PEOPLE UNTIL THE GAME IS OVER" Seriously, not only is this a flawed 'method of play' for the town, but I don't even see how those with SCUM ROLES would be happy with playing the game if the town didn't even TRY.

Next, inhim votes DDD, for making valid points against him. ;P

Fishy then discusses with inhim about bandwagons.
Gorrad posts:

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

PAGE 4-

HP votes inhim.
inhim responds to Gorrad's last post, and actually makes a good point:

Once again, throwing something out there while not putting your vote where your mouth is.

At that point I didn't think about it, but re-reading it does preplex me as to why Gorrad did not vote for inhim at that point. He obviously thought he was being scummy.

Brian makes a post, but it reeks of him not paying attention to anything going on:

There is merit to bandwagonning for the sake of bandwagonning, especially this early. A bandwagon creates pressure on a player which forces reactions from that player. It creates a situation that people in the town must respond to and have an opinion about. It's good for the game.

Yes, it is true, voting for players to put

PRESSURE

on them is good. But that is NOT what inhim had been doing. He wanted to bandwagon ANYONE at all whether they were SCUMMY OR NOT, just WHOEVER HAD THE MOST VOTES. He just wanted to lynch someone, anyone, with as little information as possible. That is NOT good for the game at all.

Next, Tzeentch posts, a very wordy post, noting that HP's last post was misleading, and putting some thoughts on inHim, while making a solid point towards bandwagonning in regards to Brian's previous post.
Another post from HP.
Then Slicey posts. Being very much a fence-sitter. I haven't really been to happy with Slicey all game, he says he'll give us content, and then he doesn't. All he has done is make pointless posts, or echo the thoughts of others. He hasn't given any original thoughts, and this worries me. His post consists of him voting for inhim, while saying what everyone else has said, and then goes onto to make some points against me, which I had already previously addressed.
HP posts, PS: 82, and I'm not really sure what he meant by that.
Slicey posts again, saying he doesn't want to lynch inhim this early.

Inhim retaliates to Slicey's previous post. Making this point here:

And I did have a reason to vote Fishy when I joined the bandwagon - I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous. I also admit I was being obnoxious about continung the bandwagon, but I'm not apologizing for that part. It is what it is.

Does anyone else not see that he keeps going back and forth from "I don't have a reason" to "Well this might be a reason." And all of his reasons come AFTER people PRESSURE him into giving him one, and they are things that he never even remotely IMPLIED in any of his PREVIOUS POSTS?

I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous.

BS. NOWHERE, Not ONCE at the point in which the 4 person scum group was being debated did inhim even post his THOUGHTS on the matter. Post subject: 48, all inHim did was vote for him and said he liked his bandwagon better. That doesn't look like him "AGREEING" to ANYTHING. Then in PS 56, he says that Fishy cooled down, and that all he cared about was getting a lynch regardless.

Next, another post from slicey.
Tz posts again, and votes for slicy for a 'strawman':

You reworded it as this:

You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This is not what inHim said. Maybe it is what he meant, I don't know, but it's definitely not what he said and it's also phrased far more simplistically, which makes it look scummier than it was.

Vote: Slicey

- I find strawmen to be one of the most notable scumtells.

Now first of all, Slicey wasn't STATING anything, he was asking a QUESTION. "Thats not what he said, its what he meant!" Also is a very odd reason to vote someone. But again, inHIM did say that, blatantly, MULTIPLE TIMES.

Next, I post, then Furry posts saying he will reread at some point.
Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Fishy does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

What I am seeing here is an

Argument from Fallacy

If a person argues that because one reason for coming to a conclusion is false, the conclusion must be false, they may be trying to use this logical fallacy. If that reason was indeed the only evidence against them, this is not wrong; however using one mistaken assumption by one player to discount the arguments of other players, or other arguments, can be misleading.

Just because Slicey's reasoning for coming to his 'conclusion' was not valid, does not mean that the CONCLUSION ITSELF is not True.

Fishy then votes me, completely misunderstanding what I was trying to say, and actually blatantly strawmanning me, when he was using a strawman as a basis for his not liking slicey.
Inhim posts a response, call's me snarky. [He has a habit of disregarding anything someone says against him that makes LOGICAL SENSE as someone having a bad attitude.]

I make a post, pointing out the things I've already addressed multiple times. I also am more agressive in my attacks against inhim, and make a side theory of inhim/fishy. Now I'll admit the idea based on what was going on wasn't too likely, however that doesn't mean that Fishy hasn't done some very scummy things, and the idea of an inhim/fishy scum group isn't completely scummy. However, there just isn't as much evidence against Fishy as there is against inhim.

Next, inhim posts again:

veerus:

It's Day 1, meh.

I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Maybe I should have made this abundantly clearer, but Day 1 is really the only time I bandwagon "just because." I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

To lynch someone you have to have a CASE.

lol

A bit over dramatic don't you think?

lol

And of course I don't like the wagon on me... That's pretty much the case for anyone, right? (loljester)

No one seems to like my DDD vote.

unvote
vote: Brandi

First of all- inhims first point is an OBVIOUS relativist Fallacy.

The Relativist Fallacy is an argument in which a player states that they are justified in rejecting an opinion because they believe that this doesn't apply to them. For example:

* Player A: Vote: Player B
* Player B: Why are you voting me when all I've done is removed a random vote! That's not a scumtell!
* Player A: Maybe not for you, but it is for me.

He is saying "Maybe that is scummy to you, but it isn't to me!"

And then he blatantly contradicts himself with this line:

I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

a complete opposite of:

That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

Before he said that he didn't care about gathering information, he said that it was too much trouble/effort. Now, he's saying the point is to gather information. Which, if I hadn't said it enough already: Bandwagonning, with no reason behind it, and killing off a possible townie, just because you want a QUICK LYNCH gives little to no information to be brought out.

Second of all, If you notice, every time I make a valid point he just says "lol."

Not only is that flippant, it shows he has nothing to argue with, or any way to back up what he has said. He thinks that if he treats my points like they are 'funny' then he wont have them brought up again. Guess he was wrong.

Third, inhim unvotes DDD because no one seems to be in support of his wagon. He then votes for me, completely contradicting his statement in PS 72:

Seeing as my preferred type of Day 1 is not going to happen, I'm going to have to abandon the "reckless" bandwagonry.

Done with your reckless bandwagonry? Not only that, but it was a blatant OMGUS. Just like his vote for DDD earlier. DDD and I BOTH made valid points against him. He even was giving VEERUS crap about the VALID, LOGICAL POINTS that he made against him.

Fishy posts, questioning me and my theory, and states that he still thinks I'm scummy.

I respond, and explain what a VI is.
Fishy says a lot of things that doesn't make much sense. On the next page, DDD does a good job clarifying.

PAGE 5-

DDD clarifies,
HP makes a point, reiterating what I have already said to inhim in much simpler terms.
Fishy responds to DDD.
HP makes another valid point.
Slicey, makes... a post. Though not much of one. All he says is that he was wrong, but doesn't give any reasons as to why he came to that conclusion. I really really dislike the vibe I get from PS: 104.
Then, I clarify that DDD's clarification is in fact, CORRECT.
Veerus asks for some clarification from Slicey as well.

Inhim posts again, saying he is going to give us some WIFOM, gives it to us. And then says this:

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game, and other players might agree with me this time."

Asking 'are you sure'? What?! "Oh well if you're not so sure, here, let me make something up to put further DOUBT in your mind so that I can get you off of my case" The only reasoning you gave was "NO ONE LIKES MY PREVIOUS VOTE" and that was it. THAT WAS IT. the only thing extra that could be IMPLIED from that was OMGUS. This is inhim, once again CHANGING AROUND HIS REASONS.

Next, inhim unvotes me. Looks like the pressure was getting to him.

Veerus posts, noting the obvious backpedaling from inhim.
inhim responds saying that random/reasonless bandwagons were not his ONLY REASONS for bandwagonning ever. A moot point at best, as it does not make anything he has done all game any less scummy.

Furry posts, noting that he agrees with inhim for his original vote against DDD. Then votes for slicey.... And says this:

First you vote inH for his playstyle of the wagoning thing. So he wagons to get information. Wow. Must be scum there man. If you can go back through all his past games and find significant correlation between him doing this as scum, I will listen.

More of the "Argument from Fallacy" that I mentioned earlier, coupled with the Relativist Fallacy. Saying "its his style" doesn't excuse him from his actions. Then, hes forcing another fallacy, saying that he needs to go back through all of his games where he is scum and point out the ones in which his "playstyle" helped the scum. This is an

APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

First of all, if you are accepting that this is his PLAYSTYLE, then that would mean he plays that way while he is both SCUM and TOWN. Also, if you want to bring the burden of PROOF into this, go back and read through his games YOURSELF. Don't ask someone else to do it. Furthermore, why on EARTH would you USE THAT AS EVIDENCE when you haven't personally looked into it? Not to mention asking a person to read all of another persons game for the sake of the GAME AT HAND is ridiculously ASININE.

Next, HP posts, responding to inhim, asking if he doesn't think DDD is scummy anymore.

I post, noting that I have not been playing emotionally. Aggressively? Yes. But not emotionally. Inhim tends to make a lot of BS statements, without ever giving ANYTHING to back it up.

I also note how wishy-washy he is being.
Fishy asks Slicey his opinions.
I make note of lurkers.
HP agrees, votes Maturin to try and get him to post.
Tz makes a post after I mention he's lurking. Asks why HP voted Maturin. [Wish that worked for everyone else.]
HP says its good to pressure lurkers. [I agree!]
Inhim posts again, being flippant as usual.
Blahblahblah more talking about people who need to post more.

PAGE 6-

Brian posts, being lighthearted with inhim. Null tell for now.
Then he accuses me of OMGUS, which shows that he hasn't been reading, once again.
Gorrad makes an inactivity post.
I note that my attacks are in no way

PERSONAL.

And that I haven't voted everyone that has attacked me. I've been pretty clearly on one person's wagon.
I make a bunch of posts.

DDD addresses addresses Furry's point against him where Furry had supported inhim.

Fishy posts, claiming that he thinks my attacks were OMGUS fueled, when in reality they weren't. I can kind of see how he could get that if he wasn't paying attention though. I also wasn't really clear in my responses either.

The thing is - earlier on the game I posted my initial gut feelings. Those usually change throughout the game. It was meant to be taken with a grain of salt, not "THESE PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY TOWN WE SHOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEM" or anything like that. It had just as LITTLE MEANING as when HP tried to "guess all 4 scum" in his post on page 1. Also, I had thought that 4 scum was possible, just like FISHY thought that 4 scum was possible, and that's why I made my comment about HP. But I retracted it after it was made CLEAR that 4 scum wasn't going to happen. I had tried to explain this to multiple people and I got the feeling that it was being ignored, and honestly I don't see how it could ever be seen as a tell to make an early 'guess' as to who might be town, when you don't hold to those feelings the whole game. Maybe if I had said that they were 100% town and there was no reason to make any cases against them, and ATTACKED people because they were ATTACKED, that might be scummy. But giving a gut feeling? No I don't think so.

Also, there are multiple things that Fishy has said/done that seemed very scummy to me that aren't just tacked onto his early beef with me. I'll make note of that later, it it isn't completely obvious from all this that I have already gone through.

Next post - Slicey

He 'attempts' to clarify, and fails. It seems he is referring to what Furry attacked him about. It looks like he is just trying to take any heat off of him possible, he doesn't like being aggressive or backing up his points. This isn't really as much of a scum tell as it is bad play and anti-town. Then all of a sudden his read on inhim goes down to neutral - which is very odd to say the least. Then he claims that he's keeping his vote on me, and talks about how sick he is.

Hp posts, asking inhim to clarify something.
I post, failing to really explain something to Fishy. [which I just did now a few paragraphs up]

Furry responds to DDD, continuing their debate.
DDD responds again.
Gorrad makes a V/LA post.
HP asks for prod on Maturin.
Another post from Furry responding to DDD.


inhim posts again, making little to no sense. PS#143 is really, just a bunch of fluffy BS.

Fishy reiterates that there needs to be more from Slicey and Maturin.

I point out that inhim is spewing BS.

Then he posts again with more BS:

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

I didn't mean that latching on to me was scummy; I was just using it as a frame of reference. Also, I believe the way in which you just attacked my post is a subtle strawman.

Yes, because when I say you are spewing BS, that is TOATALLY me taking apart your argument and presenting a weaker argument. No. All I said is that you weren't giving ANY EVIDENCE for your claims.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.'

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd.

Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

Emphasis mine.

OH YES. THAT'S RIGHT. HOW DARE I TELL ANOTHER PLAYER WHO HASN'T BEEN POSTING TO STOP LURKING. OH MY GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF PLAYERS STOP LURKING?! THAT COULD REALLY RUIN IT FOR THE SCUM! AND DEAR LORD, TELLING THEM TO READ MORE SO THAT THEY CAN

UNDERSTAND

WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT AN INSULT! HOW DARE I BE SUPPORTIVE OF TOWNIE BEHAVIOR! THIS IS JUST UNCALLED FOR. [If you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.]

Finally, posts 127-131 seem incredibly scummy to me because of my personal belief that scum are more worried about attaining "posting perfection" than town.[/quote]

Another Relativist fallacy. "It is my PERSONAL belief"
Personal beliefs do not make up what is and what isn't scummy. I'd rather someone make points against others based on FACTS, not "PERSONAL BELIEFS."

Next.

HP posts saying that Fishy is wrong to accuse him of lurking and posting little content.

Veerus responds to inhim's note of himself clarifying something for Gorrad. Pretty much concluding that inhim is doing just what he has accused me of, "mud slinging."
HP notes that he doesn't respond to arguments made against him.

PAGE 7-

I make a note to inhim that he was wrong about saying I was mudslining, which I have already reiterated in this post.

Fishy responds to HP.
DDD posts another response to Furry.
HP posts his confusion as to why I have 4 votes.
Gorrad says that inhim and I both give him bad vibes. He says he doesn't think its a two townie argument, and I agree! I think its 1 scum, 1 townie. Inhim = scum. Brandi = Townie. :B

Furry makes a "I'll post tomorrow" post.
inhim notes that THERE IS PROBABLY 1 SCUM ON MY WAGON. I agree with this also. ;P

HP makes a bump, which was requested from inhim.

Fishy is flabbergasted at the fact that inhim would imply there was scum on my wagon, and then promptly votes for him.
Veerus responds to Fishy's flabbergastedness.

inhim responds to HP.
Tz makes a post saying he will re-read.
inhim responds to fishy. Starting with "Oh come off it" [a little aggressive don't you think? Not a tell, but still. ;P]

Fishy responds to inHim's reasoning.
inhim makes another response to Fishy.
HP posts saying he'd like Veerus to post more. [me too.]
Furry posts asking for a wagon on Slicey.
Furry posts again responding to DDD again.
I say that I've been away and that I'll post soon. This post was made at at 9:37 pm.
Veerus posts asking for DDD's thoughts.
I SAY THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A BIG POST.
80% of the way through typing this, I post again saying I'm going to make a big post, at 1:08 am.
[[OFF TOPIC: I feel really bad that it has taken me over 4 hours straight to make this post. I must be a slow typer or something!]]

ANYWAY SINCE THIS IS COMING TO AN END, I WILL POST MY THOUGHTS ON EVERYONE UP TO THIS POINT.

1) BrianMcQueso -

He's fairly wordy but also fairly lurky. He also doesn't seem to be trying very hard when he does post. I think if he re-read, and actually understood the points people were making more often, this game would progress a lot nicer. He has totally misunderstood everything about inhim, as well as the points I have been trying to make throughout the game. For the time being I do not really see him as scummy, just lazy town.

2)Furry-

Very verbose as well, but definitely not a lurker. He uses a lot of fallacies in his arguments, and seems to attack people for the wrong reasons but with good intentions. He seems to push the idea of "playstyle" a little to fervently. I actually find this relating to art. As an artist, I see that some are very much against criticism when they receive it, and respond often with "its just my style." This is all good and well, but there is a LIMIT to how much something can be called STYLE and how much something can be seen as a definite area in which someone needs to improve. If I'm trying to draw a cat and I give it a long neck, and make its left paw twice as big as its right, and then make its eyes too close together and put it in a position that is not physically possible - that is a bad drawing, you can't cry "Art style." Just as well as you can't use obviously scummy tactics throughout a game and try and back it up with saying that is just how you play. I'm still pretty neutral towards Furry, and I feel like I need to go back and read his dialogue with DDD a bit more to get a better read of him.

3) veerus-

I haven't seen anything scummy from him. I think he acts in ways that are very logical, He isn't really lurking per-se, but it would be nice to get a lot more input from him more often, as I see him as very helpful to the town. Right now I get a decent townie feel from him.

4) Gorrad-

He doesn't give too much input, and what he has given hasn't been much of a town. Early on he voted for me... then unvoted for me. He was helpful and logical in the debate about a 4 person scum group. And that is about it. I get a neutral read on him, though I am hoping he will post more as well.

5) Debonair Danny DiPietro-

The most I have seen from him input wise, is his debate with Furry, which I have yet to read too much into. At this point I don't really know what to think of him. Neutral as well.

6) Fishythefish-

Fishy seems to like to pick at peoples words, and strawman them. He has taken a lot of things that I and others have said out of context and changed them around. I think that maybe he has just been inferring wrong, and that perhaps his strawmen are not fully intentional. However, there are also the points in which he has been just echo-ing the words of others. Early on in the case of HP- he echo'd Verrus's point. Later on he echo'd inhims 'points.' He also echo'd Furrys *incorrect* point about Slicey making a strawman against inhim earlier on. Overall, I get a scummy feel. However I also get that 'unsure townie' vibe as well. I do not think he would be a good lynch for this day.

7) Maturin24-

I doubt he will be with us much longer, he'll probably be replaced by day 2. However It is still seems like a good idea to give my thoughts on him. 3 posts all game, 1 being a random vote post. The other two being directed towards inhim. I can't get a real read on him, and while I do think that asking questions is a good way to get information, it's a null tell at best. His vote is still on slicey from the random stage, which kind of bothers me as it makes the slicey wagon look bigger than it already is. Not his fault though. Hopefully his successor will be more active.

8) Slicey-

Slicey. He could be labeled as a fence sitter at best. He random voted me, then voted inhim [his vote was NEVER counted because of the fact he did not UNVOTE to vote for inhim], and left suspicion on me. Like Fishy, he has been echoing the points of others. He acts really confused most of the time, and never really gives any original thoughts. He likes to hide in the shadows an go unnoticed, and I see him as a very weak townie, that is incredibly anti-town, because he never attempts to be productive and he backs down way to easily.

9) Tzeentch-

Null tell from him except for the part where he incorrectly labels one of slicey's posts as a strawman. He is very wordy when he posts, though he acts very unsure about the things he says. I'd need to hear more from him to get a better read on him.

10) inHimshallibe-

Scum.

Scummy scummy scummy scum. Throughout the game he has pursued baseless wagons in support of quick lynches, Took apart the posts and actions of others and made many blatant strawmen, as well as blatantly LYING about many different things. He has had the habit of saying something, then changing his mind and saying something completely different. He has OMGUS'd EVERYONE who has made valid arguments against them, and fails to properly to respond them. His use of "lol" against my sound arguments towards his horrible play which I mentioned earlier is an example of this. Though he also has failed to properly respond to many others, not just myself. He has used so many logical fallacies its a wonder he hasn't been lynched yet. Fallacies include: strawmen, red herrings, relativist fallacy, AtP, WIFOM, and OMGUS. Possibly other things, but this just what I can name off the top of my head that I have noticed that he has used. His posts are also riddled with hypocritical bullshit. In fact, he spews more shit than 2girls1cup, and I feel that he should be the one who is lynched today.

11) hp [leaves]

Pretty good vibes from him, on a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being neutral, 1 being scum and 10 being town, I'd give him a 7. He seems to be very supportive of voting people for logical reasons, and for getting lurkers to be active. His posts are short, but informative. I think his presence is helpful for the town.

Now to do one more thing:

Who I think is

TOWNIE:

veerus [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 6]
hp [leaves] [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 7]


Who I think is

SCUMMY:

Fishythefish [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 4]
inHimshallibe [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 2]


Who I have a

NEUTRAL

read on:
Everyone else, they get a 5.

Have fun reading, everyone.

[Brandi]

I noticed an error here:

Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Fishy does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

I meant to say:

Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit,

Slicey

does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

[Brandi]

I'm not expecting much from you, all you'll do is strawman/spout more of your typical scummy BS. You've done enough, nothing you say can convince me that you aren't scum.

[Brandi]

Ok so there is a lot of typos. But I'm sure that you are all smart enough to recognize if I put the wrong name between quote="soandso" and whatever. If you are confused, go back and reread the original posts yourself, or ask me, but do the former first, and the latter only if you can't find it. >>

[Brandi]

@Fishy, I would have rather you let inhim respond to all my attacks against him instead you do it all for him. Now when he responds who knows if he'll use something you said. Perhaps some of the things I said in regards to you were a bit unfair, I'll have to go back through again. It is entirely possible that while making that entire post I actually confused a few things you did with someone else. If I go back and find out I did do this, you can slap me with a fish. =P

[Brandi]

@Slicey: Read. My. Post. Thankyou. Quit trying to come on and only say things to defend YOURSELF. You are not the only one here and there are more issues than just what has to do with YOURSELF. THANK YOU. =P

[Brandi]

@Furry, did you read my entire post? IT went on for more than just the random stage. Now his vote on me is mostly OMGUS, that doesn't make him look any better.


Waiting for your response inHim.

[Brandi]

Furry, I get an ignorant townie read on slicey. Inhim has done far more scummy things, CONSTANTLY, throughout the game. I wont deny the fact that slicey could be scum, but he is NOT a good lynch today. He is NOT the only fence sitting lurker, so your vote on him holds little weight. Inhim is a much bigger hindrance to the town, as nothing he has done has been remotely helpful. Sure Slicey hasn't been helpful either, but his not helpfulness is still NOT AS BAD as the fact that everything inhim is constantly DETRIMENTAL to the town. That's fine if you don't want to vote for inhim, though you are clearly tunnel visioning at this point. You might retort and say that my being on inhim's wagon is just as tunnel visioning as well, but NO ONE has posted a more convincing CASE on any other player. If someone could present a better case on another player and prove that they deserve to be lynched more so than anyone else today, then I'll support it. However, I'm in much doubt that that could be even remotely possible at this time.

[Brandi]

Im going to be away until Tuesday =P

[Brandi]

I'm at a friends house right now but, I decided to check in briefly on their computer. I have noticed that Brain is still failing to read properly. I don't attack "anyone who looks at me funny." I attack whoever is scummy. I've been clearly very supportive of one wagon, for the sheer fact that no one is even HALF as scummy as inHim.

However.

Not once have I claimed to be 100% sure of inHim being scum.
But I'd more so believe him to be a JESTER than a townie.
I've done the best I can do for the town, and I think the scum knows that I'm not willing to back down easily. It's still day 1. If inHim is lynched and turns up scum, I think we should look into the people who blatantly ignored his wagon, or was against it despite the surmountable amount of evidence stacked against him.

More followup when I get back home and have some more time.

[Brandi]

Also- that comment about my slight use of caps is very CLASSY, inhim. Yet another occurrence of you and your mudslinging. I'm still waiting for you to make some sort of rebuttal that isn't a blatant lie. Times running out though. I'm sure if I could find 5 hours to sit and post my thoughts in one big post, you could take a little bit of time to put some REAL effort into responding. Tick-Tock.

[Brandi]

I'm at a friends house right now but, I decided to check in briefly on their computer. I have noticed that Brain is still failing to read properly. I don't attack "anyone who looks at me funny." I attack whoever is scummy. I've been clearly very supportive of one wagon, for the sheer fact that no one is even HALF as scummy as inHim.

Isn't it a coincidence that everyone who has attacked you looks scummy to you?

Not everyone who has attacked me looks scummy. I noted you were more anti-town than scummy, and I noted that BRIAN doesnt READ. =P But you're saying things that just aren't true.

[Brandi]

heh, haven't read everything page 10 yet. Well guess we have a lynch. =P Hope to see more from you tomorrow Tzeentch.

[Brandi]

Actually, the inhim wagon was incredibly strong, and was definitely the best lead we had. If anything, he was incredibly anti-town and was playing terribly, and only led the town further away from scum. While I did support his lynch believing that he was scum, I'd say the town is better off without him regardless. His role, given his terrible play and terrible mindset, would have also proven to be very detrimental. He probably would have ended up role blocking the likes of a doctor. Slicey was definitely more obviously town, and I definitely suspect it to be the work of a vig. I'm sure this game is filled with power roles, and I would suggest that said power roles think a bit more with their head from now on, as they were obviously way off the mark in this instance. DDD, I am a bit more surprised with. I was actually a bit skeptical of him before the end of the day, and had planned to look into him more this day, because he gave me a bad feeling.

[Brandi]

"I'm sure this game is filled with power roles, and I would suggest that said power roles think a bit more with their head from now"

Actually, nevermind that second statement, that's a bit ignorant of me to say. Despite me believing slicey to have been more townie than scum, I think he was still a decent vig choice, he did do some pretty scummy things that I suppose I was just failing to acknowledge in the past. Just hopefully, we'll be *lucky* and hit a SCUMMY player that is actually SCUM.

[Brandi]

On the other hand, I am interested by hp's ultimatum. Discouraging discussion is not a good thing - and you effectively pressured those who didn't find inHim as scummy as yourself to not post in his defence. Even as a "final thought for the day" sort of thing.

Re-reading is now required, back later.

No-lynch hurts town. I posted that on the final day, where we would have to lynch inHim or have a no lynch. Which would you prefer?

I would of prefered a no lynch all the way.

vote: Furry

Scumdar goes:

DING DING DING DING DING!

[Brandi]

Gorrad, what are your thoughts on N1?

[Brandi]

It's just nice to have input on such matters. Speculations as to why someone was NKed, or reactions to the deaths of others. Some may be surprised, some may have expected something to happen. Personally, I honestly don't know why scum would target DDD, he didn't particularly give off the feel of a power role- and he wasn't particularly a strong voice for the town. It almost seems as if it were a completely random choice. Anyway, If all you feel is "meh" then that is an adequate response as well.

[Brandi]

Meh. To strengthen Gorrad's scumtell a bit more (it doesn't work though), my reread wasn't all that helpful. The inHim wagon was pretty strong. As I pointed out in my response to Brandi's enormous wall, I don't like quite a few of Brandi's points on him- but I think this points more to tunnelling/confirmation bias than anything else. Of all the people on the wagon, Gorrad looks worst in terms of the way he moved his vote.

Good post, Brandi!

Inhim, make a bloody good response or I'm going to vote for you.

This post is simply paving the way for a vote on inHim. I can't believe Gorrad- or anyone else- thought Brandi's wall of text was totally sound. This is just an excuse for Gorrad to join the inHim wagon later without proper justification.

vote: Gorrad

Fishy- Just because inhim ended up being town does NOT mean that that incredibly long post I made was based on TUNNELVISIONING. [I also made a point earlier Day 1 that if anyone could present a BETTER case on someone else, I'd follow it instead. But obviously that didn't happen and couldn't because no one WAS as scummy as inhim.] I had a VALID case on him. You [anyone in general] act like scum, you get LYNCHED, it doesn't mean that the people making the cases on you are WRONG for doing so. Just because someone is a townie- doesn't get them the right to think "Oh because I KNOW I'm town- I can do whatever the hell I want and feel justified, even if it goes against EVERYTHING a townie is supposed to stand for!"

It doesn't work that way. Inhim was definitely an outstandingly scummy player who DESERVED to be lynched.

Also Gorrad - it's a little late for "random votes" ;P

[Brandi]

Definitely not role fishing in the least. Scum and town react differently to deaths. I'm more so looking for pro-town vs. anti-town reactions, I'm not even sure how its possible to even remotely GUESS a power role from someone's reaction to a NK. Nice red herring though.

[Brandi]

I disagree entirely. What you're implying doesn't make any sense at all. Just because you don't have a HAND in the night actions, doesn't mean you can't have opinions on them. Opinions and ideas help progress discussion, and discussion is always good for the town. Just beacuse you're giving your opinion doesn't mean you have to say "Oh BY THE WAY MY ROLE IS ________" It's completely irrelevant.

[Brandi]

But the point isn't to talk about night "ACTIONS" - the point is to talk about feelings/opinions on WHO died, if you had previously felt they were scummy, are surprised as to what they flipped, etc.

[Brandi]

If I think someone is town though, I am going to defend them to the end. Admittedly I thought slicey would flip scum which is another reason I prefered no lynch, but I would rather have a no lynch then a lynch on

my strongest town read

.

Where did you state this? You're getting scummier and scummier if you fail to respond.

First of all hun, no

threats

. That has a pretty nice potential of getting a backlash from me thats

not going to be pleasant

.

Irrelevant to point out maybe, but man what Irony!

[Brandi]

I wouldn't take the threats of a single player to heart regardless. Even if I agree with most of his ideas thus far in the game, I don't believe any one person can dictate the town.

[Brandi]

Brandi's fishing for night action reactions reminds me strongly of one of Tar's standard scum tells. And his tells are right on the money way too often for me to ignore one here.

vote: Brandi

Stop strawmanning me. I never asked for NIGHT ACTION reactions, I was asking for OPINIONS on the DEATHS. Not HOW they died, not WHY they died, but opinions on the players THEMSELVES.

Everyone up until GORRAD had posted, had casually given their thoughts, he was the ONLY ONE who said NOTHING on the matter, and so I asked him what he thought. That isn't FISHING, not in the least.

Kthx.

[Brandi]

merely stated his opinion.

And yet this is exactly what I've been asking for. Someone to "merely state their opinions" as I have done, as I have asked. Nothing MORE, nothing less. So stop putting words in my mouth, thank you

[Brandi]

@Brian: Maybe not too productive, it's just to start discussion, and perhaps a way to you know, SCUMHUNT?

@Veerus: Oh, and I'm not splitting hairs, it's just annoying to me when people are blindly ignorant and don't know HOW TO READ. I am a WOMAN after all, I tend to get irritated easily. That is just how I PLAY. Deal with it. Also, I never went on any such "triade" as you speak, you're making up shit again. I asked a simple question, and oddly I got voted for it. If you couldn't tell from my large ass case on INHIM, I used a lot of CAPSLOCK to help enforce my POINTS. (Oh, like I'm doing right now?)

Brian, you're also an idiot if you think my alignment has anything to do with inhims. He was scummy, he deserved to be lynched, end of story. I pushed a lynch against the scummiest player, and I am PROUD OF THAT, because I did what a good member of the town should do, work hard to build a case against a person who acts like scum.

It's fine though, I can still scumhunt effectively with people voting for me. It only helps to further give information to the town.

So yah, good luck with your baseless idiotic case, let me know how that works out for you. As for myself, I'm voting the guy who is in support of a No Lynch, you know, actually scum hunting.

PS: LURKERS NEED TO START POSTING NAO, KTHX. There are still a lot of people I have yet to get ANY sort of read on, and I'd hate to think there is scum that is just not contributing at all - doing nothing- and getting away with it.

[Brandi]

Tangentially, Brandi's use of capital letters is starting to get to me. Never mind that they are a rather ugly of way of providing emphasis, by using them so often you take away their effect of isolating, and it ends up just feeling like being shouted out. Not a tell of any kind, but I'd find your posts much easier to read if you used caps much more sparingly.

Fishy - it's a habit sometimes, I might actually try to tone it down a bit from now on. It's just difficult sometimes, but I guess I am getting a little emotional because I feel that some people are just being really really ignorant, and I hate it when I don't know how to effectively explain what I mean to someone without them putting more words in my mouth...all the time anyway. I suppose I just need to work harder to being more neutral. I'm still trying to stop using "=P :B ^_^ >_> :3" etc in games as well, then again I don't think that bugs people as much.

[Brandi]

PS: I might be "pushing it" with my slight insults, so I'm sorry If I'm out of line with that.

Also another thing:

Furry's was a simple conclusion based on the events that happened. He said it of his own volition.

Exactly what I did, exactly what I asked for.

about how it sucks that Slicey was killed

I never said it sucked that Slicey was killed. At this point, I can definitely see WHY he was killed, and I think who ever killed him was looking in the right direction. At first I thought that perhaps he wasn't the best choice- and now I can kind of see that yes, indeed, he was pretty scummy, and probably would have ended up being lynched today if he wasn't NK'd.

why, oh why, was DDD targeted?

Over dramatic- I think, no. I just thought it was odd because I was more so expecting MYSELF to be night killed, because I have definitely been a more prominent/hardworking/noticeable pro-town player. But then again, perhaps I was just the obvious choice, so they picked someone else at random. I also thought it was odd because in the back of my head I felt that DDD was a bit scummy himself, if only for a gut feeling, so I wasn't expecting that.

Perhaps I went a bit in depth on my opinion, I didn't ask for Gorrad to go in depth, and I said if all he thought was - he didn't know what to think - well that'd be fine too. It wasn't too important, it's just good to make sure no one is avoiding topics for discussion.

There are many ways in which asking for opinions on the people who were killed can help the town, and I suppose even vice versa. But to immediately assume that I am only doing it to "role fish" or whatever, is very ignorant.

That's like instantly assuming that the only reason someone votes for someone is because they are trying to get a quicklynch on a townie. "Only scum make votes!" Yah- no.

[Brandi]

I just thought it was odd because I was more so expecting MYSELF to be night killed, because I have definitely been a more prominent/hardworking/noticeable pro-town player. But then again, perhaps I was just the obvious choice, so they picked someone else at random.

These seems hugely false. You were very vehemently in favour of lynching inHim. inHim townie. Rightly or wrongly, a backlash in this sort of situation is common- plus, you had one of the more serious wagons yesterday. I find it unbelievable you would see yourself as a likely kill.

You honestly don't think I was night kill worthy? Well - ok. I think it's evident that because I attacked an incredibly scummy player - scum might be scared I actually might catch onto one of them! (I'm definitely trying)

[Brandi]

So you were outguessing the mod? Never seen a town RB I take it? As I have said before, give me a scum role, I will give you a setup for it. Dont WIFOM the setup though.

Here you are saying not to outguess the mod.

If we had a claim of JD - Vig, now that doesnt make sense, and is a claim you lynch.

Here you are outguessing the mod.

Either it's not okay, or it is, make up your mind.

[Brandi]

Brandi, you're at L-2. Claim please.

L-2 is no reason to worry, and there isn't any reason for me to claim. So, no.

[Brandi]

You know, that is PLENTY of days in which people could actually be posting and actually building REAL cases and such like that? The guy who replaced into this game today has yet to make a SINGLE post. But if you're so eager to know my oh so amazing role-

I'm Ted Buckland, a boring townie. =P

Hooray.

[Brandi]

Just that I'm useless, and I should try not to kill myself.

[Brandi]

wait... um... Why did I just do that? Ugh I'm an idiot. The rules say not to quote your PMs or to Paraphrase w/o asking the mod first -_-
I'm stupid.

[Brandi]

Note- the mod assured me that my paraphrase was ok. Guess I got a little too paranoid.

Also... is

Lindisfarne

going to need to be replaced, too?

[Brandi]

I think Tzee just voted to get a claim (and perhaps fair enough, given the proximity of the deadline and the amount of lurking)- at any rate, there are no other reasons given.

Absolutely correct. I've not been able to do a decent enough analysis to have a strong feeling one way or the other - there are valid points against Brandi, but some of the people on the wagon haven't really contributed. Personally, I simply think that obstinance - such as refusing to claim at L-2 when there's a deadline in less than a week - is not useful, so if I can prompt action, I will.

Unvote

I will give a decent analysis at home, when I have a good chance to read through properly.

Like I said, a lot can happen in less than a week. It wasn't really necessary. I get a bad feeling from being asked to claim so early.

[Brandi]

L-2 is no reason to ask for a claim. I get the feeling you were hoping for a power role or something.

[Brandi]

Stop lurking People.

[Brandi]

Stop lurking People.

Stop throwing away your vote. At least give opinions on BMQ.

What on earth makes you think I'm "throwing away" my vote? Just because I'm not using it doesn't mean I wont change it. It's pretty obvious I'm not hot on your wagon right now despite my vote sitting on you. I will agree that BMQ has been pretty scummy, I'm not sure if he is the scummiest currently though.

Also Veerus, quit trying to AVOID answering other peoples questions by saying a bunch of meaningless crap. ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. Kthx.

[Brandi]

I'm hoping for a BMQ lynch. He has not contributed much, but what content is there is bad. He fits very well the profile of scum trying to go under the radar while joining any townie wagon going.

The deadline is tomorrow. At deadline, a no lynch occurs. This is a really bad thing.

I wish I could elaborate more on these thoughts, but I've been very busy.

So for now:

unvote, vote: BMQ

[Brandi]

To be honest, Veerus is the most likely scum player here right now. More than BMQ's lurky non-contributing scumminess. It is pretty obvious from the fact that Gorrad was asking him to back up what he was saying about me earlier about "excessive rolefishing" yadda yadda.

If you notice, he ignored that, and talked about other crap. He didn't back it up because he couldn't.

I'm pretty sure Gorrad was just pretending to be on my wagon to see who would follow him. Too bad he isn't posting right now.

I'm more likely to believe Tzee on something than BMQ, but if he says they are town together then:

unvote

I'll vote for the person who I think is most obvious scum:

vote: Veerus

Perhaps after I'm lynched, you can look into Veerus more tomorrow? Kthx.

[Brandi]

=/ why isn't anyone posting? -_- We really do NOT need a no-lynch.

[Brandi]

k, GL town.

[Brandi]

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

[Brandi]

I still think furry is wrong, and that inHim was the scummiest player in the game, and I have no idea why he thinks that he shouldn't have been lynched.

I also have no idea why no one ever thought to question the mason claim. No claims such as that should ever go unquestioned.

I hate how I was lynched out of pure convenience. That was pretty terrible. We almost could have gotten veerus even earlier on if it weren't for how things were going. If it weren't for certain implimented rules, the town definitely would have had a better chance of wining.

Regardless, good job scum. I can't say you had it particularly difficult, other than the whole "lovers" thing making it easy for you to go down if one of you were killed. Brian was definitely very scummy, Tz not so much.

MafiaSSK could have done a better job, I kind of blame him for being lynched.

I think HP was my favorite player.

[Brandi]

I wouldn't have believed Brian if he had been the one to claim masons, especially if he claimed it with someone else. You did a good job acting pro-town. Brian was very lurky and seemed tunnel visioned and his attacks against me didn't make too much sense.

[Brandi]

Brandi, you were lynched because you were the scummiest player in the game by far. >_>

Um, thats completely wrong, if you read the game you'd know that I was lynched because it was preferable to no-lynch. They didnt WANT to lynch me. I wasn't scummy at all. Learn to read. Kthx.

Also, fair enough Furry.

[Brandi]

If its to get reactions, maybe. But when all you do is form baseless bandwagons and then have an intent to have a baseless lynch? To lynch someone even if you think they are town just because it's easy? Because that is what inHim did.