Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[Wickedestjr]

/confirm.

[Wickedestjr]

@ChannelDelibird - I agree, Salad Fingers is quite creepy, but I still love the Salad Fingers videos.

[Wickedestjr]

Vote: ChannelDelibird

for thinking the guy in my avatar is creepy.

[Wickedestjr]

It is not that hard to type with your elbows, so...

Vote: canadianbovine

for not realizing this.

[Wickedestjr]

@ChannelDelibird - Earlier you asked why I changed my random vote to another random vote. I did this because I disagreed with canadianbovine about the whole no hand typing ability, but I voted you for thinking the person in my avatar is creepy, as do I, so I felt that it was stupid to vote for somebody that agreed with me.

I don't think canadianbovine's revoting was very suspicious, but I do think that it was suspicious to say that he woke up without a plan, and was then trying to take credit for beginning this discussion, although it was really ChannelDelibird that started this.

I don't think that lobstermania not wanting to use his vote seems very scummy, but it is kind of pointless if you are suspicious of somebody.

My vote stands.

[Wickedestjr]

If he was scum wouldn't he find pleasure in adding pressure to innocent townies to get them lynched.

[Wickedestjr]

@ChannelDelibird - That is a good point, and that could very well be what he is doing, but I don't think that's what he was up to. I still think that canadianbovine's revotes and unvotes for the same person scummier, so my vote remains on him/her.

[Wickedestjr]

@nohandtyper - No matter what stage of the game we are in, every post that has something to do with the game, makes a difference to the game. What did you mean when you said you'd expand on this conversation that you don't think is making a difference?

[Wickedestjr]

I am finally caught up.

Unvote: CB

I am doing this, because there are three people who I find equally scummy, so I am just going to give fingers of suspiciouns to all of them.

FoS: Canadianbovine
FoS: Wolframnhart
FoS: ChannelDelibird

I also find wolf's suspicion of lobster to be quite suspicious. He finds him suspicious for being quiet, and then defends him which totally defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the first place. I found the suspicion to be kind of stupid due to it being lobster's normal playstyle, but I found it even more useless when he defended lobster. I agree with the defense, but not the suspicion. You can't vote for a person for not posting for a day. I haven't posted for a while and you don't find that suspicious. I think there may be people who have posted less than me, and you don't find them suspicious.

However, that's when CDB comes and votes him. It really seems to me that he is eager to get a bandwagon going. I also agree that he knew people were unvoting CB, so he would have to get a more suspicious person that was more bandwagon worthy.

But just because these two seem suspicious doesn't mean I'm no longer suspicious of CB. Now that only one person is voting him, he seems to be deflecting all the attention from him and pulling thin straws hoping to find one he can use.

So I am not going to vote for any of them at the moment. But give them fingers of suspicions.

So it appears that lobster is typically a quiet player.
@lobster - Who do you find the scummiest in this game right now? Who do you find the most pro-town?

@Conspicuous_other - What do you think about wolf's strange vote? Do you think that CDB seems eager? What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

[Wickedestjr]

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post.

FoS: Reckoner

How so?

Do you find something wrong about people withholding their reasoning?

You don't like wolf's play either, so does that make your posts scummy?

[Wickedestjr]

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

[Wickedestjr]

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

Okay, this I agree with.

I count 34 posts between the lobster's post and the "implied lurking post" and losing track of time in that mess doesn't surprise me any more than thinking 5 were needed for a lynch.

In the post in question wolfram acknowledges how fast the game is moving, so he's clearly aware that not much time has actually passed:

Love how fast this game is moving along

This makes me want to vote for wolf more.

Certain posts from wolframnhart have struck me as funny. Maybe it's the way he tries to insinuate lobster here without much backing of his own. In my experience, the You're not adding to discussion argument is more often a scum trying to put a halfway decent bit of logic behind what he's saying rather than actually defend himself. It's an easy out. Then there's the obvious lobster was lurking bit when he wasn't really lurking, and then wolfram quickly retraces his steps. Yes, he never said lobster was lurking, but he implied it and attempted to use it to cast suspicion.

By the way, this is all from an iso read, I don't like to case-read through the whole topic. And I didn't want to reveal my reasoning because I was hoping to draw it out a little longer and see who would jump the gun in pushing a case against me simply because I withheld my reasons for voting. Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point against someone before voting for them. Especially if they've already been covered multiple times (which, upon re-reading a few other posts against wolf, I discovered it had already been pointed out).

Oh, and

FoS Milked Eek

for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

So you are saying you withheld information knowing that it would make people vote for you?

Having looked back at suspicious posts:

FoS ChannelDeliBird

The whole thing about starting bandwagons was really looking bad to me, but your defense is solid enough I won't vote. I do have to be suspicious though.

FoS wolframnhart

I'm not so sure the whole lurker argument is that solid, especially after having gone through a similar situation with CB, but just why are you so interested in lobster's posts?

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.

I find it kind of strange that DRK gives FOS's to the same three people for the same reasons. Does anybody else find this strange?

I won't FoS you because you've "explained" your post and I won't vote you because that post was so much less intelligent than your others it almost had to be what you say it was.

Huh?!? So you're saying that Reckoner seems town because of an unintelligent post. That doesn't seem right.

unvote, vote:Wickedestjr

for trying to defend reckoner not giving a reason for his vote.

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game.

Vote: Conspicuous_other

First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information. Then CDB gave me a good reason and I agreed with him, and now reckoner is currently one of the most suspicious people of my list of suspicions. Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

So it appears that lobster is typically a quiet player.
@lobster - Who do you find the scummiest in this game right now? Who do you find the most pro-town?

I've just mentioned my views on xRECKONERx, but overall I'm concerned with CDB. Channel (while more experienced than some) seems to have taken the reigns of this game, pointing fingers and calling almost everyone out on something. While I appreciate the work he has put into the game, I fear it may lead people to follow his accusations blindly later on.
My opinion of the most town player in the game right now would probably be My Milked Eek. He is both an intelligent player and conservative with his votes. I think this is the direction we should all be moving in.

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment. I am still unsure about where CDB on my list of suspicions.

[Wickedestjr]

Sorry, I am a bit behind. I just read page 11.

I think that reckoner needs to post a good defense that will actually get us to unvote, because repeating himself over and over again is nott going to make those voting for him unvote.

The following quotes are from C_O on page eleven.

DeathRowKitty wrote:
Having looked back at suspicious posts:

FoS ChannelDeliBird

The whole thing about starting bandwagons was really looking bad to me, but your defense is solid enough I won't vote. I do have to be suspicious though.

FoS wolframnhart

I'm not so sure the whole lurker argument is that solid, especially after having gone through a similar situation with CB, but just why are you so interested in lobster's posts?

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.


I find it kind of strange that DRK gives FOS's to the same three people for the same reasons. Does anybody else find this strange?

I see three different reasons there.

I don't. I gave CDB an FoS because he started almost all, if not all, the bandwagons in this game. DRK says the exact same thing. DRK's opinion of wolf was pretty good actually and not the same as mine. I gave an FoS to CB for

deflecting attention

while DRK did the same thing for

diverting suspicion

. I see the two bolded as pretty much the same thing. Two of the reasons are the exact same and he also gives three FoSs all to the same people.

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game. Vote: Conspicuous_other First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information.

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

That's not defending him?

Not in my opinion. Mostly because I was curious why others found his play suspicious. Once I understood why people were suspicious of him, I was no longer as sympathetic towards reckoner.

Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

Gladly. Which one would that be?

What do you think about wolf's strange vote? Do you think that CDB seems eager? What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment.

Did you say this just based on my vote for you or are their other things involved?

Well before I voted you, you were not contributing at all. I would also like to point out that you began contributing once I voted you. Does anybody else find that wierd?

I'm very suspicious of Conspicuous_other, canadianbovine. I think I've fairly clearly mentioned why, but feel free for a clarification. I'm not sure if both are scum yet—their interactions don't scream scum pair, but it might be good distancing.

I agree with this. As somebody watching this game, it would look like they were playing two different games.

[Wickedestjr]

I just read page 12.

First off,

unvote

.

Hmm... Took you a while.

In retrospect, not much. At the time, I thought it had caused you to jump the gun. I

should

have held out a bit longer and seen who else jumped on the bandwagon, but I was too impulsive.

You were considering withholding information longer?

@DRK - You unvoted when xRx was at L-1. Why?

@xReckonerX - I think this might have already been asked, but I am not sure. Did you learn anything from your trap? Please share if you can.

As a measure of safety, an agreement was reached for all remaining Mafia members to hand over the guns that they carry on their person to be locked away in one of the buildings that have survived the explosion– after all, what good are guns to the Mafia when every single bullet in the weapon store had been cleared out? Better to try and deprive the enemies of the weapons they need.

Wait! Why did you quote this?

[Wickedestjr]

I forgot to say this. I believe xRx's claim just so you know.

[Wickedestjr]

I just read page 13.

Can we all lynch wolfram now? Thanks.

*sarcasm* Oh sure. Whatever ya say CDB.

Vote: wolf

*sarcasm*

*serious*

Unvote: wolf

Now let's not be too eager CDB.

Mafia Hitman would be an incredibly risky D1 claim for the scum.

It would, but he's out of options at this point. Everything he writes reeks of desperation.

Yeah, but vig isn't necessarily the best idea for a claim.

Right now, I am a bit suspicious of NHT. Come to think of it. I am starting to get a town read of CDB right now because even though he has started all the bandwagons, most/all of them have been good ones. It is NHT that casually takes part in all these bandwagons. As a matter of fact I am going to

Vote: NHT

.

I'd like Wickedest to explain why he has his vote on C_o right now.

This vote was mostly because I wanted C_o to start talking more. It is also becuase I find it a little bit scummy how he hasn't contributed much. Now I have better options for placing my vote.

Mafia Hitman, according to mikeburnfire's flash site, is a mafia guy whose kills cannot be stopped by doc protection or a roleblock.

That strengthens my case for his claim being false then, if it is a well-known term.

Mafia Hitman isn't actually a very commonly used role. (At least that's what I think.) What is the mafia version of a vig in your opinoion?


@xRx - Do you plan on killing anybody tonight?

[Wickedestjr]

@Wickedestjr:

Why did you feel the need to random vote CDB, then go off and also joke/random vote CB? Was one random vote not enough?

This was because the reason for my first random vote was really stupid. And the RVS is fun.

Furthermore, if your CB vote was random/joking, then why did you see it fit to defend it? A defense for a random vote should just be that it's a random vote: it seems to me like you're overreaching.

What are you talking about? Okay, I voted CB for the whole typing with no hands issue. Then CB revoted, which I didn't find suspicious, and then said he should take credit for starting the discussion, when he clearly stated he woke up without a plan. Just because a person is scum that doesn't mean every single thing they say is scummy. I was pointing out what I found suspicious of him, and I also added the fact that I didn't think the revoting was suspicious, because either there had been people who were voting him for that reason, or I had a feeling that people would be voting him for that reason.

Also direct contradiction:
CB's revote is scummy
versus
CB's revote isn't suspicious

I never said that I thought the revote was scummy.

Let me throw your own question back at you... did you NOT find my reasonless vote on Wolf suspicious?

Not at first. Somebody, I think CDB, had to convince me.

Okay, this I agree with.

Did that really not cross your mind?

No it didn't, which is why I became more suspicious of you when it was pointed out.

This makes me want to vote for wolf more.

Straws: you grasp at them. Someone saying that they like the fast-paced-ness of a game or something is hardly reason for a vote. Speaking of which... why exactly DID you want to vote for wolf?

Wolf seemed to be tunneling on lobster.

So you are saying you withheld information knowing that it would make people vote for you?

Once again, when everyone else was all over my ass about the situation, you stayed neutral and just tossed me an occasional question. Why did you try to distance yourself from me?

I was giving myself a better understanding of the situation, because I found it a bit confusing.

And yet you're not even FoSing me or voting me after you've had ample time to see just how scummy my actions were... yet you say:

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game.

Vote: Conspicuous_other

First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information.

Then CDB gave me a good reason and I agreed with him, and now reckoner is currently one of the most suspicious people of my list of suspicions.

Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

...once again, then why am I not getting an FoS or a vote from you at that point?

Like you said earlier. We could all give you FoSs and it wouldn't make a difference. FoSs are used to point out who you are suspicious of. I think I made it pretty clear in that post that I was suspicious of you.

I am not done commenting on this page, so there is still more to come.

[Wickedestjr]

What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

I'm sorry, could you clarify what your case is on him exactly? I'm having trouble identifying it looking through your posts.

Now that the bandwagon on him has died, he seems to be deflecting attention away from him.

I don't. I gave CDB an FoS because he started almost all, if not all, the bandwagons in this game. DRK says the exact same thing. DRK's opinion of wolf was pretty good actually and not the same as mine. I gave an FoS to CB for deflecting attention while DRK did the same thing for diverting suspicion. I see the two bolded as pretty much the same thing. Two of the reasons are the exact same and he also gives three FoSs all to the same people.

This was a mistake on my part, I thought that you said kitty had FOS'ed 3 people for the same reason, I missed the part that connected it to your

vote

. Sorry.

Was the bolded supposed to say "post"? If not, then I don't quite understand this post.

I think that reckoner needs to post a good defense that will actually get us to unvote, because repeating himself over and over again is nott going to make those voting for him unvote.

Unless you're willing to risk losing a town vig because we didn't believe Reckoner's claim, I don't see why you wouldn't unvote him. If Reckoner is lying about his claim, we'll find out soon enough.

The post of mine that you quoted was before I saw xRx's vig claim.

[Wickedestjr]

I didn't say I was a cop, did I?
Pay attention, please.

You pay attention. They are talking about earlier when they didn't know you were a vig, and they thought you were a cop.

Right now, I am a bit suspicious of NHT. Come to think of it. I am starting to get a town read of CDB right now because even though he has started all the bandwagons, most/all of them have been good ones. It is NHT that casually takes part in all these bandwagons. As a matter of fact I am going to

Vote: NHT

.

Could you back that up with a bit of evidence please? I don't recall NHT being particularly involved with all the bandwagons, in fact he's called me out a few times on that sort of thing. If you've noticed a voting pattern, please elaborate.

Has wolfram commented on Reckoner yet? I might have missed it.

Okay, looking back at his posts. He has actually been playing more pro-townish than many other players. Sorry about that. I should have never voted him.

Unvote: NHT

I was looking for the evidence I thought I had, but couldn't find.


@CDB - I didn't want xRx to say who he was killing, but if he was killing somebody, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, I'm not angry that you voted me, but when you vote me saying I was bandwaggoning, please note that I had reasons for all of my votes. Bandwaggoning is more jumping on other peoples' reasons.

Yeah this is the main reason why I unvoted you. When I was looking for the evidence that I thought I had, I found evidence that made you appear like pro-town.

[Wickedestjr]

I still think that canadianbovine's revotes and unvotes for the same person scummier, so my vote remains on him/her.

I never said that I thought the revote was scummy.

And how is that not claiming that CB's revote/unvote is scummy, which you just said you didn't do?

Oh good point. I think when I said that I meant to say that I found him trying to take credit for starting the discussion to be scummy.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked - what made you vote NHT in the first place? How did you get it into your mind that NHT had been on "all the bandwagons" when as you've later found there is no supporting evidence at all?

I think I may have been mistaking NHT with another player or few players in this game.

Also, it

is

scummy for you to ask whether the vig is killing or not. He can claim any kills in the morning. Meanwhile, knowledge of whether he is killing or not can help a potential scum roleblocker to decide whether he needs to target Reckoner at night or can afford to try and target someone he thinks might be a cop or doctor.

Okay thanks for explaining that. However, I still have a feeling the mafia will be using their powers on Reckoner.

[Wickedestjr]

For what it's worth, I redid the expected values. These numbers were generated under the assumption that lynch and vig kills are random and that no party targets Reckoner (and that Reckoner is actually town vig). Values given are expected values following the Day 2 lynch.

Expected Values

Reckoner Kills

Townies Remaining=5.9857... (7111/1188)
Scum Remaining=2.1254... (2525/1188)

Reckoner Doesn't Kill

Townies Remaining=6.5758... (217/33)
Scum Remaining=2.4242... (80/33)

Wait, so the expected number of people remaining tomorrow is 10 if
reckoner doesn't kill? That doesn't make sense, because after we lynch somebody there will be eleven people left, so this means that
one person will die tonight. One person will have died from the mafia, but who would have killed the other
two people?The number of townies remaining contradicts the number of scum remaining if reckoner doesn't kill. I'm not saying the information is incorrect though.

The expected number of townies after N1 would be about 6.5, so that would mean there would be about 3.5 scum left. The expected number of scum after N1 would be about 2.5, so that would mean there would be about 7.5 townies left. The average number of townies for these two cases is 7 townies, and the average number of scum for these two cases is 3 scum. So I think the expected result tomorrow would be;

7 town - 3 scum

But then we would have to lynch scum at D2 or mafia would win. So reckoner not killing would put us in a pretty dangerous position.

Looking at the possibility if he does kill;

The number of expected town left would be 6, and the number of expected scum left would be 2. For their to be 6 town left there would have to be 4 scum left, and for their to be 2 scum left, there would have to be 8 town left. The average number of town and the average number of scum for these two cases would yield;

7 town - 3 scum


Ah!!! So it actually doesn't matter if reckoner makes a kill according to

my

calculations.

[Wickedestjr]

As for Wicked, I'm going to upgrade to a vote.

Vote: Wicked

I just don't like contradictions. I feel that I was wrong in the case of DeathRowKitty. Perhaps not too far off the mark, but the scummyness I saw in DRK pales in comparison to Wicked's.

Why exactly are you voting me?

[Wickedestjr]

Life? I'm a nerd, so you'll have to explain that to me

Question for no one in particular: Let's say wolfram doesn't come back and gets replaced. Do we immediately go after his replacement or wait for his replacement to post a bit?

In my opinion we should watch wolf's replacement very closely if he does get replaced.

[Wickedestjr]

I assure you, my only wish is to see scum gone. My main suspects at this point are Wicked, DRK, and NHT.

How are we your three biggest suspects? Please give explanations for me, DRK, and NHT.

[Wickedestjr]

CoCo's suspicions are starting to bother me. He suspected me after I (at the time) mis-labeled him as scummy. He suspected NHT after he went after CoCo. He called lobster scummy after lobster voted for him. The only person he's suspicous of who didn't in some way attack him is wicked and if we look back at his post about wicked.

This is a really good point.

Vote: CoCo

[Wickedestjr]

In the interest of getting something started:

Vote: Wickedestjr

This is the second time you've stopped posting on this game while still posting on other games, both while someone was questioning you.

I still think that canadianbovine's revotes and unvotes for the same person scummier, so my vote remains on him/her.

I never said that I thought the revote was scummy.

And how is that not claiming that CB's revote/unvote is scummy, which you just said you didn't do?

Anything you'd like to say about this?

The reason why I have talked in my other games and not this one, was because I was catching up in one of them. I know this is 100% my fault, but if you feel it is a reason to vote me, then go ahead, but I am not the kind of player that lurks, I don't see any point in lurking, because you are going to have to post sooner or later, and it also defeats the purpose of playing the game. Before today, I had only read the first fifteen pages of this game, so this was a day for me to catch up.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, I don't buy your explanation concerning your contradiction. Instead, your post seems to have an air of 'meh' to it. You addressed the response but not the issue. Read the posts you made and come up with something better.

Bet you respond to this post instead.

Everyone, read Wicked's poor response to his obvious contradiction.
Busted!
Wicked ignored his own crap and instead backpedals. I 'think what I meant to say was...' (paraphrase). Cripes! You 'think?'

One should ALWAYS know what they say.

Well, I'm sorry but that is the truth. I don't remember what I intended in that post. I said "I think" because I wasn't positive about it, but I am 90% sure of it.

[Wickedestjr]

@NHT - I am not voting CoCo because he is voting me. I am voting him because first he says "I'm very pro-town" and then when DRK pointed out that CoCo was suspicious of most of the people that were voting him, that's what really convinced me. I am not sure if I want him lynched, but I do want some answers from him.

[Wickedestjr]

CoCo, please give concrete evidence as to why your suspect qax, wicked, and lobster. Telling us to go back and find it for ourselves is not being supportive by any means. like I said before CITE INFORMATION. And dont call Wicked out on his bad responses when yours are just as bad.

Missed this post. As I've said before, its a forum issue and I'm new to the site. If I had a way to flat out link posts I would not ask people to dig up the posts I refer to. I can only quote one at a time. I'm sure as I get used to the forums here, I will become a better player when it comes to software. For now, those of you familiar with these boards would do well to look into the allegations I bring.

Please trust me for now when I say I am pro-town. All I can do at this point is observe.

You could post reasons why you are suspicious of all the people you are suspicious of, and give the post numbers as the evidence.

@NHT - I am not voting CoCo because he is voting me. I am voting him because first he says "I'm very pro-town" and then when DRK pointed out that CoCo was suspicious of most of the people that were voting him, that's what really convinced me. I am not sure if I want him lynched, but I do want some answers from him.

So, are you pro-town?
Because a lot of info will be gathered with your response...

Yes I am pro-town.

However, I don't like the fact you put a vote on me when we have an obvious target that not only contradicted them self but still hasn't given a sufficient reason as to why the term 'think' was used.

What is wrong with the reason I have already given?

As for you, I feel that you're waiting until the majority decides to lynch, in which case you'll vote and say, "Lol, I knew they were scum all along." Am I correct? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean I need to post about it.

What makes you think this? Can you please point out some post numbers that bring you to this conclusion.

[Wickedestjr]

My last few posts were the result of not having enough sleep.

Oh of course.

[Wickedestjr]

Just posting to say that I am still here.

I think we should get the replacements to see what they think of the players they replaced and their behavior.

CoCo is currently at L-2 in case you were wondering.

[Wickedestjr]

/confirming replacement

I need to finish re-read, but these stood out:

I will say this:

I will only kill at night if I'm positive on someone's scumminess.

Bad idea.

As far as I'm concerned, all this mathematical discussion is distracting us from lynching scum. Leave the vig to do what he feels is best.

Wrong/bad advice given Reckoner's stated attitude.

I also suck at math. Oh well.

I see no need to discuss who Reckoner should or shouldn't be targeting. You know, because a vigilante is someone who "takes the law" into their own hands. And that's all you'll hear from me on that subject.

This is not a roleplaying game. Flavor justifications for gameplay decisions are dumb. Also, it wasn't the last he said on the subject.


To all, discussing whether the vig should kill (answer: yes) =/= discussing who the vig should kill. The risk of suboptimal play by vig < risk of giving a hypothetical mafia rb additional information that doesn't change his optimal play.

Hi qwints nice to meet you. Who do you find the scummiest in the game right now? Why don't you think that the vig should kill the scummiest looking player if they make a kill?

[Wickedestjr]

I will say this:

I will only kill at night if I'm positive on someone's scumminess.

Bad idea.

What did you mean by this?

[Wickedestjr]

I mean that he should kill every chance he gets. Waiting to be positive (unless you're a 1-shot) is suboptimal play for a vig.

He's a five shot I think. Which will most likely be enough, but otherwise, why would you want the vig to take the risk of killing town? Do you think that he should kill if he isn't positive of who's scum or not?

[Wickedestjr]

Notice the bold. Three people who were on both wagons to lead up to the two claims. NHT, DRK, and lobster.

Good observation. Until now, I wasn't really suspicious of any of those three.

I don't remember nht joining the lobster bandwagon, but I think lobster joined the nht wagon at the very beginning of the game.

we need to figure out who is driving these wagons to L-1 for the claims.

You asked CoCo to claim.

You weren't confident with the wagon on Coco, but you were about to hammer him, AND you were a part of the wagon before.

i'm getting sick of your contradictions Reckoner

.

What other contradictions has reckoner made?

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Do the following now, or die:

1) Explain in detail your post noting lobstermania's "many scumtells", expanding on exactly what scumtells you are referring to and why you had not mentioned them before.

2) Address the case lobster made against you that you originally asked him to elaborate on, and then said nothing but "ok" to.

3) Claim.

I'm pretty sure I missed some things in between 2 and 3, but this will do for a start. If you're unable or unwilling to do all of the above then you will be lynched.

The appeal to emotion in the quoted post ("you

can't

make me claim! bad things will happen! very bad things!")

The evidence is all over this page. Now shut up and hunt some scum.
And I don't know if it was you or someone else that still claims I'm withholding information from the town, but that's a load of crap at this point as well.

Thanks CoCo. I'm not unvoting because he isn't answering any questions asked of him. I've claimed cop in a game that I was scum before. I also don't like how CoCo didn't include much flavor in his role.


Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

[Wickedestjr]

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

Okay, I can generally see what you mean if you're looking at it from an 'agreeing' Pov, but I wouldnt call it buddying by far. CDB is an experienced player. He generally does have good points that I would say most people agree with. So IMO, ryan responding 'agreed' or anything of that nature is NOT buddying. And let's not forget the fact that he agreed with many of us as well. This really was, to me, just ryan catching up and stating his opinions on the topics presented.

Wicked, I used to just think you were a confused noob trying to make your way through the game, but that's becoming less and less apparent. I'm

FoS

ing you

wicked

Okay, first of all, it was an FoS. It wasn't the best evidence, but I found it a bit strange and I felt it would be something good to point out. Second of all, I wanted to see what his reaction would be. Third of all... (see my next post)

Sorry. I was on a relative's account accidentally when I posted this.

[Wickedestjr]

@Post 563 -

The first quote is ryan agreeing with CDB.

Right before the fourth quote, ryan says "CDB agrees with me". This looks to me like he is trying to make himself agreeing with CDB appear more subtle.

The eighth quote looks to me like he might be trying to please CDB and lobster. This is a stretch though.

Quotes 14 and 15 he says he is in agreement.

I find it pointless when he simply says he agrees with something without giving reasons.

[Wickedestjr]

I'm not commenting on lobster until CoCo does.

How come?

[Wickedestjr]

Is it because you don't want him copying others' opinions?

[Wickedestjr]

The last two days have basically been CDB and I becoming frustrated with one another and DRK hoping he

(CDB)

votes for me to get a lynch.

Fix'd.

What post gave you this idea?

And also, did you say you noticed lobster, NHT, and DRK on the bandwagon before Reckoner did?

[Wickedestjr]

Paragraph 1: Is that serious?!?! So you admit to concocting an argument on someone to use as a reason for voting, when in fact that argument isn't there?

Yes. I made a mistake and I apologized and unvoted for it. What's wrong with that?

xRx's 375 has a huge point, and one that isn't ever really addressed by Wicked until a couple pages later, and insufficiently:

Wicked, I'm not angry that you voted me, but when you vote me saying I was bandwaggoning, please note that I had reasons for all of my votes. Bandwaggoning is more jumping on other peoples' reasons.

Yeah this is the main reason why I unvoted you. When I was looking for the evidence that I thought I had, I found evidence that made you appear like pro-town.

Good Lord.

What huge point did xRx notice? The quote of mine that you quoted afterwards had nothing to do with xRx. It was a response to NHT. Please explain this once more.

Suffice to say, my response to this is going to be fairly short: It's called catching up. When you replace in, people will eventually ask you, "So what did you think about so-and-so?" or, "What did you think about the case made by X?" Thus,, in essence, I am telling you how I feel when doing my read, aka answering these questions before they are presented. Just because I agree with someone it's buddying? Wow, just wow.

Well, most of your points have been in agreement with the majority of the town. Are there any things that you disagree with that most of the town agrees about?

I addressed this above. I am agreeing with their statement, and their logic. Why give the reasons if they give them, and I agree? It's better to know my position on a stance as a replacement than for me not to say anything.

Are you saying you want me to give "reasons" why I agree? I looked back at most of the quotes I agreed with, and the "reasons" are there, in THEIR posts. I am agreeing with their posts because of their logic. What is so hard to understand about that.

So would you not find it scummy if somebody gave a vote to somebody without saying why other than "see his reasons" ?

I also don't like Wicked's attack on me, as I find it weak and baseless, and his contradicting himself hasn't left my sight. I also beleive he attempted to make a case on NHT, then retracted it saying there wasn't anything. Completely scummy.

It may be weak and baseless in some people's opinions, but I felt that it was something I should point out.

@ryan - What did you think about wolf's play? What do you think about lobster? (If you haven't answered this already, please direct me to where you answered this.)

Unvote: CoCo

His explanation explained a lot. IGMEO him though.


For the purpose of me giving my own opinion on lobster, I thought it would be helpful to present a PBPA of him.


[mrow] Post # [col] Summary of the Post [col] My Comments 1 [col] Confirmation post. [col] Okay. 2 [col] Randomly votes me for touching all of his rusty spoons. [col] I shouldn't have been touching his rusty spoons, he had the right to randomly vote me. 3 [col] Lobster tells DRK that he is not going to answer a question that DRK asked him. [col] Okay 4 [col]Gives and FoS to CB for the revote, because he felt that CB was trying to satisfy the town. [col] Just an FoS? At the time, he was the only player that had actually done anything scummy, yet you felt you had to keep the random vote on me? I'm actually starting to get the impression that lobster and CB may be possible scum buddies. CB only had two votes at the time of this post. 5 [col] He admits that one of CB's posts irritates him, but still doesn't vote for him. He does unvote me though. [col] He unvotes his random vote, which was a good idea because the RVS was over. However, he doesn't vote for CB who only had three votes at the time of this post. 6 [col] ebwop: ChannelDelibird [col] I didn't really understand this post. 7 [col] Lobster admits that CB was worthy of a vote but it was a slow logical progression. [col] Okay, so we know for sure that lobster understands that CB is worthy of a vote. But he wanted to make it a slow logical progression. 8 [col] Lobster says that his FoS was because he was giving CB one last chance to change his mind. Then votes CB after thinking it through. [col] So lobster says that he wanted CB to defend himself once more, but apparently CB wasn't able to convince him, because lobster ended up voting CB. 9 [col] Lobster answers a few questions from people. [col] I did not see anything scummy in this post. 10 [col] Lobster points out that CB said he ended the RVS when he revoted, when his revote was actually a random one. [col] This is a good point. 11 [col] Lobster suggests that we spend some time discussing what applying pressure. [col] Nothing especially scummy, although there are probably better ways to use the discussion. 12 [col] Lobster votes reckoner and asks why his vote is still on wolf, if his plan is ruined. [col] This was the first post of his after reckoner put his plan into play. Yet lobster did not hesitate to vote for him. This kind of contradicts the amount of time it took for him to vote CB and why. 13 [col] He adds to the discussion of reckoner possibly being a cop by saying that he would have already fished himself out if he was a cop. [col] Okay. 14 [col] Lobster apologizes for not reading back in the thread far enough. [col] Okay 15 [col] Lobster accuses reckoner of getting mad at people for what he wanted them to do. [col] He provides a good point in this post. 16 [col] Lobster unvotes reckoner because he believes the claim. [col] Okay 17 [col] Lobster gives an FoS (FoS!!!) to NHT. [col] This is kind of pointless because he isn't even voting anybody. NHT is also one of the people that was on the three bandwagons I think. So lobster and NHT could be scumbuddies to. 18 [col] Lobster says that he thinks Reckoner should nk somebody. [col] Okay 19 [col] Lobster votes CoCo. [col] Lobster did not hesitate with this vote like he did with the vote for CB. 20 [col] Lobster replies to something that CoCo says. [col] Okay 21 [col] Lobster continues replying to CoCo. [col] Okay 22 [col] He informs the mod of his future inactivity. [col] Okay 23 [col] Lobster asks CoCo if he's town playing as scum. [col] Okay


Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

Vote: lobster

[Wickedestjr]

The last two days have basically been CDB and I becoming frustrated with one another and DRK hoping he

(CDB)

votes for me to get a lynch.

Fix'd.

What post gave you this idea?

CDB was justifiably becoming frustrated with my inadequate answers. DRK stayed there the entire time parroting him. It is my belief that had CDB voted me, DRK would have hammered without hesitation.

What has made you frustrated with CDB?

[Wickedestjr]

@Mod: I don't think the deadline is needed at the moment, but probably will be if we decide against lynching lobster/Wicked, at which point we'll have a better idea of when the deadline should be.

What have I done, that has made you want to lynch me?

[Wickedestjr]

By you guys (not all of you, I believe it was wicked who was enforcing it after Reckoner stated it) saying that I'm scummy along with DRK and lobster for being on the bandwagons.

I don't think DRK is scum.

Plus, I thought this was interesting, and to completely point fingers, check Wicked's other game. He is guilt of the exact same thing. Jumping on the bandwagons that lead to lynching. And he does it for less reason than CoCo gave when he was being suspected a few days ago. Just up and voted. So wicked, if you're going to accuse us and call out contradictions, remember that you've done the same.

Just because I made a contradiction myself, by accident, that doesn't mean I have to ignore all other contradictions that occur. Did you want me to ignore it? Oh and just warning you, that is an ongoing game so you shouldn't be talking about it.

@Mod - I am fine with the deadline, but I would also be fine if others wanted to change it.

[Wickedestjr]

I have seen RVS bandwagons and it's interesting that CB and lobster both put the second random vote on someone, considering the possible link, especially since CB later tried so hard to defend his random voting.

Having said that, I think the lobster withholding his vote on CB thing is grasping at straws and this post made me more suspicious of CB than lobster.

Do you think NHT could be linked with the two of them?

Do you find it scummy that lobster did not hesitate to vote for reckoner or coco, but he did hesitate to vote for CB?

I don't think that my post made CB more suspicious of lobster or visa-versa, I just think that it showed a link. Who would you rather lynch out of the two?

[Wickedestjr]

Question to NHT: How suspicious of lobster are you?

Question to everybody: Other than my contradiction earlier, what exactly have I done that has seemed scummy, because I've notieced at least a few of you are suspicious of me.

[Wickedestjr]

At the risk of sounding like I'm lobster's scumbuddy, I don't think he's that scummy.

What?!?

[Wickedestjr]

Not particularly. His CB FoS, un-random vote, vote CB sequence made perfect sense to me. When CDB brought up reasons not to withhold a vote D1, lobster started using his vote more liberally. It did seem like he succumbed too easily to pressure to vote CB, but he said it was because he agreed with CDB and he's been following it the rest of the game.

Good point. I forgot about that. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to consider lynching CB instead as well, but I still want to hear lobster's defense first.

[Wickedestjr]

Question to NHT: How suspicious of lobster are you?

I'm not. He's on my possible scum list because he's been quiet, but that's all that I can hold against him at the moment. Without more evidence, I cannot place him, and I'm not lynching him for less active play than the rest of us.

Now from you Wicked, I want three solid reasons why you think he's the best lynching candidate. You're so forceful that he should be gone. Why? Just bullet your top three please.

1: He hesitated to vote for CB, yet didn't hesitate to vote for anybody else.

2: He has linked himself to other players in the game, so his lynch would tell us more about other players.

3: He hasn't contributed much. (I would not usually want to lynch somebody for this reason alone, but you wanted my top three, and I guess that's in there.)

[Wickedestjr]

Also, I am considering changing my vote to CB once I have heard lobster's defense.

What do you think of CB?

[Wickedestjr]

One more thing (sorry). Lobster's contribution has been more helpful then that of CB, and CB has acted scummier, so I am most likely going to change my vote when I hear lobster's defense, unless he says something strange.

[Wickedestjr]

First of all, thank you for your response about lobster. I understand your first two points (first is fact, second I cant really support),

Why do you feel that you can't support the second point?

but I disagree with your third bullet. On the other hand I understand how others would feel that's scummy.

I don't think it is that scummy either, because I understand it is a part of his meta.

I'll address my opinions on this in detail if you wish, but I think they're self explanatory.

The only one I would like a little bit more elaborating on is your opinion of the second point.

After being accused then and finally recovering, CB has sort of died out.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

I was just looking back, and I saw that he seems to pop in every once and a while to give a "meh" post. You know, the "I'm here so dont replace me" post. They never say anything.

This is something I will look into once lobster has defended himself.

The last point that CB made was against xRx trying to accuse him of more scummy behavior. However, we had already gone over the points and I feel safe in saying that I trust xRx's claim. I may be wrong, but that's a point to address in D2 after we have some info on our lynch, the night kill, and his possible night actions.

I have a feeling that xRx's claim will corner him eventually if he is lying. For now I am willing to believe it as well.

I'm starting to get the feeling that he's playing under the radar, and just judging by the beginning of the game, I know that he would otherwise be a more vocal player had we not voted him.

Soon I most probably will look at his scum meta and town meta and see which is most similar to his play in this game.

This leads to the question: Is he hiding something? Maybe he doesnt want to be accused again.

When exactly did he stop talking as much?

Another thing that I noticed was that he has not yet addressed the recent accusations against him. He just pops in and disappears for the rest of the day.

That's true.

So, given the choice between CB and lobster, I would choose CB easily.

I'm probably going to switch my vote after I hear lobster's defense.

However, this is not saying that lobster is innocent, just that I'm not suspecting him at the moment (which I addressed I'd like to hear MUCH more from each player.above).

I too would like to hear more from ryan, quints, c_o, CB, CoCo, lobster, and MME.

Can I get a top three on why you suspect CB please?

1: He kind of disappeared once the suspicions was on other players.

2: Earlier when he said he started the discussion and ended the RVS, when he had woke up without a plan.

3: He is linked to lobster.

[Wickedestjr]

so i understand that i'm a lynch candidate because i post very little now?

You posted more before we were all suspicious of you. Why?

other people have been quiet, why am i being chosen?

Because the amount they post has stayed the same. You have posted less. And it just happened to be sometime after we let you off the hook.

Because of the actions of another? thats lobster, not me.

No, your actions have added on to the suspicious things about you. You don't need Lobster to help you appear scummy.

It has been very hard to keep up with this game, we've gone through almost 30 pages and we've outed two power roles and still havent ended this day. It has gotten...tedious.

Can you please point us to where you have informed us about you being behind in the game?

we mentioned that certain people are on the same bandwagons. thats a good find for who found that [sorry can't remember right now]

Does anybody think this seems like CB trying to divert discussion away from him? Convince me you aren't CB!

DRK's post above where he defends lobster to make me seem like a better candidate is

not very

suspicious.

I fixed it for you CB. What post of DRK's are you talking about?

Personally, i want some lobster or kitty for dinner.

First of all that is cannibalism. Second of all, we'll probably be lynching
you before DRK or lobster.

[Wickedestjr]

The PBPA of CB

[mrow]Post # [col] Day of Post [col] Summary of Post [col] My Comments 1 [col] June 11th [col] Confirmation [col] Okay 2 [col] June 11th [col] Comments on his avatar and other's avatars. [col] Whatever 3 [col] June 12th [col] Randomly votes NHT. [col] Okay 4 [col] June 12th [col] Continues the random dicussion of NHT and how hard it would be to type with no hands. [col] Whatever 5 [col] June 13th [col] Comments on my random vote. [col] Okay 6 [col] June 13th [col] Comments on xRx's random vote. [col] Okay, good. We got a player that's really interested in this game and is open to full contribution. I can tell because the first three days of the game, he has made at least two posts. 7 [col] June 13th [col] Informs us about his research on moose. [col] Um.... 8 [col] June 13th [col] Unvotes NHT to keep him out of L-2. [col] What made you think he was at L-2 any way? I looked at c_o's post, and the votecount in it showed that NHT only had two votes which is L-5. 9 [col] June 13th [col] Says we need to decide what we will call the mafia and town. [col] Okay 10 [col] June 13th [col] Questions CDB's logic. [col] Whatever 11 [col] June 13th [col] Revotes NHT. [col] Okay 12 [col] June 13th [col] Explains why he revoted. [col] Wow, he's been really active today. 13 [col] June 13th [col] Explains what the purpose of his random vote was. [col] Whatever 14 [col] June 13th [col] Explains why he thinks the RVS is important. [col] Okay 15 [col] June 13th [col] Says why he thinks his vote on NHT remains as a good tool. [col] Whatever 16 & 17 [col] June 13th [col] He says in both posts that he woke up without a plan at all. [col] Okay, he doesn't have a plan. 18 [col] June 13th [col]Replies to c_o [col] Whatever 19 [col] June 13th [col] Declares that the RVS is over, and it is all his doing. [col] Oh, but didn't you say that you woke up without a plan? 20 [col] June 13th [col] Accusing NHT of voting CB for CB's vote on NHT. [col] That's pretty stupid. It looks to me like scum grasping at straws. 21 [col] June 13th [col] Says that he thought 5 was the majority. [col] Okay 22 [col] June 13th [col] He points out that he woke up without a plan to answer somebody's question. [col] Okay, so you even admit that you woke up without a plan shortly after saying the discussion started because of you. 23 [col] June 13th [col] Says it was a plan of his. [col] That is a bit of a contradiction there. 24 [col] June 14th [col] CB accuses lobster. [col] Looks like he's trying to divert the discussion away from him to another player. 25 [col] June 14th [col] Replies to MME. [col] Whatever 26 [col] June 14th [col] Points out a mistake that he made. [col] Okay

Sorry I could not finish it. I will finish it tomorrow, but I don't have any more time. So far CB has tried to make himself seem pro-town by saying he started the discussion, which he didn't. He also tries to divert discussion away from him which seems scummy.
Sorry I couldn't finish.

To be continued...

[Wickedestjr]

I am perfectly happy lynching either DRK or Lobster.

What makes you want to lynch DRK?

NHT and Wicked are the pivot in which the game is held. One of them is scum, but I have no idea which.

What makes you think that one of us has to be scum?

[Wickedestjr]

I can fully agree with reckoner in his 330 when he brings up wicked's contradictions

Did you see my defense to this? If so, what did you think?

and his distancing of reckoner.

What has given you the impression that I'm distancing myself from Reckoner?

lol, especially after the lurker comment above it. It could be coincidence, but it looks to me like it'd be too much of a coincidence that he posts 1 hour after being called out on lurking.

I don't lurk, regardless of my allignment, but if you don't believe me, then consider the fact that people had been waiting for me to post from 9:16 p.m. - 11:07 a.m. Fourteen hours. Is fourteen hours a big coincidence?

"@xRx - Do you plan on killing anybody tonight?"

~ wicked (364).
Fishing. Period.

Okay I admit, that was fishing, but I did not realize it at the time. I think I later asked CDB what the problem with that question was.

"Now that the bandwagon on him has died, he seems to be deflecting attention away from him."

~ wicked (#368).

Do you have a comment about this? Why did you bring it up?

nht, drk, wicked: what did you hope to achieve with the little math/stats posting? Let me be very suggestive: to appear protown by using theory discussion?

Well, personally, I saw nht and drk talking about statistics, and I thought the information I generated would be of good use to them. No, it was not a scheme to appear pro-town, I was trying to help.

At this point I'm going to have to out my suspicions in the general wicked-coco direction. More towards coco than wicked if needed to make a choice.

So you find me suspicious for the contradiction, distancing myself from reckoner, and the thing about me fishing? Anything else I missed?

[Wickedestjr]

i didnt direct your attention. we're still talking about me.

That just means it didn't work. We are talking about you because you tried doing this.

I havent posted a lot because i was V/LA and since then the game is kind of wishy washy in content. we're almost at page 30.

When did your vacation begin and end?

You posted more

before

we were all suspicious of you. Why?

because i can't let myself go undefended and be lynched off, can I?

I'm not talking about when you were defending yourself. I am talking about before we were even suspicious of you, and after we were voting you.

Can you please point us to where you have informed us about you being behind in the game?

I can't point you to physically saying I was behind the game. However, I was V/LA for a whole week. that was about 5-6 pages of catching up. and i miss most of the coco hunting there.

And as i was trying to say before. It's kind of hard to come back to this game because it feels like it has been moving slowly, thats what i meant with "were still on day 1, and almost at 30 pages"

If you don't even have proof of you saying that you were behind, then how were we supposed to believe you? 5-6 pages of catching up is not that much. Especially for a person like you that was able to post as much as they did on June 13th.

now go. run aloft. and discover my town meta.

Oh, that could be a problem.

Does anybody think this seems like CB trying to divert discussion away from him? Convince me you aren't CB!

Hi. It's me, MOOSE. or CB or whatever. That was my attempt to show you I was following the game a little bit. Get my opinion out, whatever it matters to you people.

Why didn't you point out your suspicions of DRK until we suspected you then?

What post of DRK's are you talking about?

post number 654, i guess it wasnt as close to my post as i thought.

Okay, here's DRK's post, now what did you find scummy about it;

Not particularly. His CB FoS, un-random vote, vote CB sequence made perfect sense to me. When CDB brought up reasons not to withhold a vote D1, lobster started using his vote more liberally. It did seem like he succumbed too easily to pressure to vote CB, but he said it was because he agreed with CDB and he's been following it the rest of the game.

Second of all, we'll probably be lynching
you before DRK or lobster.

now in my response to that

1: He hesitated to vote for CB, yet didn't hesitate to vote for anybody else.

2: He has linked himself to other players in the game, so his lynch would tell us more about other players.

3: He hasn't contributed much.

(I would not usually want to lynch somebody for this reason alone, but you wanted my top three, and I guess that's in there.)

1: He kind of disappeared once the suspicions was on other players.

2: Earlier when he said he started the discussion and ended the RVS, when he had woke up without a plan.

3: He is linked to lobster.

Take note of your bolding third lobster reason, and now look at your first reason for me. you're saying the same thing with different words. you wouldnt want to lynch ME for just that either, or else that would show a favoritism towards lobster.

And your 3rd reason for me is null, for why would you lynch me for being connected to ONE person, when that same person has been connected to MANY others [2nd lobster reason]. And you said it yourself, "his lynch would tell us about others". Why would you lynch someone who is connected to only one person?

So in summary [in case you're

tl;dr

]

1: He kind of disappeared once the suspicions was on other players.

I said that i wouldnt vote for lobster for just lurking, so I shouldnt hold canadian to that either

2: Earlier when he said he started the discussion and ended the RVS, when he had woke up without a plan.

3:

He is linked to lobster.

Lobster is linked to many people, and I am going to lynch one of the people he's connected too instead of lynching lobster

.

Point three for lobster is way different from point 1 for you. In point three for lobster, he didn't post a lot. Point one for you was not because you weren't posting much, it is because you were posting a lot, and then once we were moving on to other suspicions, you posted less.

Are you really going to want to lynch me for just one reason, and that reason being what I said in one post?

No, of course I wouldn't want to lynch you for one reason alone. Which is why I have three.

Talk about the straw grabbin

You are the one grabbing at straws. You are trying to point out suspicions of other players, to deflect the attention away from you. You have done it once already so far in the PBPA of you.


Oh and one more thing;

1: He kind of disappeared once the suspicions was on other players.

I said that i wouldnt vote for lobster for just lurking, so I shouldnt hold canadian to that either

2: Earlier when he said he started the discussion and ended the RVS, when he had woke up without a plan.

3:

He is linked to lobster.

Lobster is linked to many people, and I am going to lynch one of the people he's connected too instead of lynching lobster

.

This is complete crap.

[Wickedestjr]

Mod I accidentally double posted. Can you please delete one of my previous two posts. Thank you.

[Wickedestjr]

was that a long enough post for you?

Nope not really, it only made me more suspicious of you to tell you the truth.

[Wickedestjr]

Also, I will go on record and say CB does not appear on my scumdar in the least. Why are people trying to make cases against him? Seems like a deflection to me, especially considering he's been the only one of the three bandwagons that didn't result in a claim, IIRC.

What have I done that is scummy? I'm not deflecting attention. I haven't even had a large bandwagon to deflect attention away from. It would be scummy if I didn't have a good case against CB, but I feel that I do.

@Wicked, you really aren't doing yourself any favors in regards to getting off my scum list with your blatant attacks. In simple terms, what do you think about Lobster, DRK, and NHT?

I don't care if I'm on people's scum lists. Sure, I want to know why, and I'll defend myself, but only because my lynch will not help the town any and it will help scum.

My reads on Lobster, DRK, and NHT.

Lobster - Scum
DRK - Town
NHT - Neutral

I have NHT as neutral, because there are some others that I'm thinking might be linked with lobster and CB. I would rather not say yet though, because I'm gathering more evidence.

[Wickedestjr]

You stated straight out that one of two players had to be scum. I'm sure I'm not alone in the opinion that your statement can't go unchallenged, but just in case, anyone else who sees this, please weigh in on this.

I agree with you DRK.


@CoCo - Why are you suspicious of NHT?

[Wickedestjr]

How is your situation any different?

it honestly isn't besides the fact many are considering lynching me, rather then the smallness of wolf's bandwagon.

That doesn't tell us anything. You were voting wolf because his activity rose when we started voting him. You did the same. What does the size of the bandwagon have to do with it?

[Wickedestjr]

@Wicked
Thanks for the PBPA. CB is a big endeavor.

@anyone
How do you make nifty charts like that?

Thanks, I'll finish it once I'm all caught up.

If you quote my post containing the PBPA, you'll soon understand how to make a table of your own.

[Wickedestjr]

His next move is to vote CoCo, after not saying word one about CoCo up until this post. Oh, and his justification is that it is a "WIFOMy mess". Really, lobster? You have to do better than that. I guess this is his attempt to further explain his bandwagony vote, but I'm not buying it. He seems too "padded"... too "nice"... too "I don't want to stick out with my case against CoCo".

CoCo had blatantly dug is own metaphorical hole. I was the second vote on him, which was more for pressure to get some (GASP) information out of him (also, do you remember how long it actually took us to get it out? L-1!). On the topic of CoCo votes, I'm curious why you're not skeptical of yourself: you voted for him right after me, however you gave no reasoning in the post with your vote. That seems more oportunistic than mine. And your unvote, and then prolamation that you will revote with the hammer...??

CB did not have many votes, and you didn't feel the need to pressure him?


[quote="Lobster]

Given the above, I'm going to Vote: Lobster. Let's see where this goes.

Let's see where this goes, indeed. Why even add that if you're confident in my guilt? You are pushing for a lynch to end the day and move into the night. You could care less about who gets lynched. Shame on you.[/quote]

This is a terrible point. The last two quotes of you have given me the impression that you want to deflect attention toward xRx.

For the purpose of me giving my own opinion on lobster, I thought it would be helpful to present a PBPA of him. Seriously? Go read it on page 25Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.


Vote: lobster

What I find interesting with your table's analysis is that you seem to agree with me on almost all of my posts. I do like your idea of lynching someone to gain info on others, but of course I perfer it to be someone else.

1: Agreeing with many of your points, does not mean I shouldn't encourage your lynch. It just means that either you have good points, or you are doing a good job of blending in as scum.

2: I would rather lynch CB than you.

I have seen RVS bandwagons and it's interesting that CB and lobster both put the second random vote on someone, considering the possible link, especially since CB later tried so hard to defend his random voting.
@CB or lobster
If there's anything to say about your random votes or anything you feel you can respond to in this, please do. To be honest though, I can't blame you if you have nothing to say about this.

I think we have already agreeed that CB had a very weird RVS.....both times. Even though my random vote was the second vote on wickedestjr, it was based solely on his avatar. I challange anyone who finds my random vote scummy to watch Salad Fingers and then not want to vote Wickedestjr for that avatar, lol.

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, I am happy with lobster's defense apart from a few pieces.

So I will

Unvote: Lobster

and

Vote: CB

.

@xRx - What do you think of CB?

@CB - Can you give me your top five suspicions starting with the most suspicious?

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

What exactly have I done that was scummy?

Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment).

I admit, I am not so sure about NHT, but I do think CB and lobster are linked.

It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

When have I been "up for the chop". Hasn't the largest bandwagon on me been like three votes? I still don't understand why people are suspicious of me. If somebody could give me a list of reasons, that'd be great.

[Wickedestjr]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

I would have never noticed CB's scumminess unless I had investigated lobster. And it turns out, that we might have never noticed it unless I had brought up that PBPA.

[Wickedestjr]

Okay, I would finish the PBPA, but there is a lot of useless information to include so instead I'll do another chart that will be more revealing.

[mrow] Day [col] How many posts he made that day. [col] Before/During/After we were suspicious of him June 11th [col] 2 posts [col] Before June 12th [col] 2 posts [col] Before June 13th [col] 19 posts [col] Before/During June 14th [col] 4 posts [col] During June 15th [col] 8 posts [col] During June 16th [col] 3 posts [col] During June 17th [col] 4 posts [col] After June 18th [col] 2 posts [col] After June 19th [col] 1 post [col] After June 20th [col] 2 posts [col] After June 21st - June 26th [col] 0 posts [col] After June 27th [col] 1 post [col] After June 28th [col] 3 posts [col] After June 29th [col] 0 posts [col] After June 30th [col] 5 posts [col] After July 1st [col] 1 post [col] After July 2nd [col] 2 posts [col] After July 3rd [col] 2 posts [col] During July 4th [col] 5 posts [col] During

Notice how the number rose once we started suspecting him.

[Wickedestjr]

Scummy. Has been caught in contradictions before and his lobster case seemed both convenient and flawed. I'll be digging deeper into Wicked in the coming couple of days, but I could see myself lynching Wicked today.

Contradiction

s

? I thought I only made one contradiction. What were the flaws in my lobster case?

[Wickedestjr]

Overall, while I don't necessarily agree with your cases on, well, everyone except Wicked, I can finally understand why you've made the posts that I found scummy, and that is enough to stop me from wanting to lynch a claimed cop.

unvote: CoCo

What exactly have I done that was scummy?

On top of everything I've mentioned in this post and my last couple, your contradiction when you said you'd never said CB's unvote/revote was scummy sticks in my mind. Can't think why you would have said it as town.

I don't know why I said that I found the revoting scummier, because I don't now and I don't ever remember thinking it in the first place.

Wicked, until you can give reasons why his

reasons

for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy.

None of my top three reasons for suspecting lobster included him being on all the bandwagons. I don't really find it that scummy at all. It just means some players are in agreement.

So you don't find it scummy, yet you include it in your case against lobster? Another one of your contradictions. The fact that some players apparently agree on it doesn't make it valid. Town players can have bad reasoning, but only scum players need to use other people's bad reasoning.

Can you please show me where I found him being on the bandwagons scummy, because I don't recall saying so.

Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment).

I admit, I am not so sure about NHT, but I do think CB and lobster are linked.

Which is based on your theory about lobster's FoS/vote policy, which has been explained rationally.

I wasn't convinced.

It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

When have I been "up for the chop". Hasn't the largest bandwagon on me been like three votes? I still don't understand why people are suspicious of me. If somebody could give me a list of reasons, that'd be great.

Way to misrepresent my post. The phrase "fringe candidate" is kind of my point here. You've frequently had one, two, three votes for a while, from different people. I never said you'd been run up to L-2 or anything like that. My point is that you've clearly been at the back of people's minds for a while, you

must

be aware of that, and the fact that your lobster case was largely made of fail strongly suggests to me that it only existed because Reckoner's (also made of fail) lobster case did, and you thought that it was better than risking people finally building on those one, two, three votes, which scum would worry about after a bandwagon stalls.

1: I apologize, I misunderstood your post. I thought you said I was a big candidate for a lynch.

2: I was a part of the CoCo bandwagon. Then he claimed cop, and I didn't want to lynch a cop, so I took away my vote. Then xRx pointed out his suspicion of lobster. So, I started looking at Lobster's posts (shouldn't I?). I found him to be scummy, and I found CB and NHT to be linked to Lobster. (NHT not so much.) Then it was brought to my attention by others that a CB lynch would be better. I planned to unvote once I was satisfied with Lobster's defense. Meanwhile, CB was only making me more and more suspicious of him. I even started noticing more scummy things that he was doing (some of which were brought to my attention by DRK). So once lobster gave his defense, which I was satisfied with, so I voted CB instead. If it looks like I was trying to start another bandwagon, then why would I vote CB? If I were scum, and you think I was jumping on bandwagons. Why would I waste time trying to get another one going, while I hadn't even given the first a chance. I'm not saying this makes me pro-town, but I don't think it makes me scummy either.

[Wickedestjr]

So I'm not mad keen on Wicked's slide from his big PBPA in which he argues with some degree of confidence that lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB. Strengthens my feeling that his lobstervote was more to do with it not being him than it was about lobster. I'm not saying the CB vote isn't justified, it's the getting there that worries me.

Regarding CB himself - the activity frequency is pretty interesting, particularly as he has a history of calling people out on the same thing (see wolfram). His trying to link Wicked's 3rd reason on lobster to the 1st reason on himself is bad, but suggests VI as much as it does scum.

I would have never noticed CB's scumminess unless I had investigated lobster. And it turns out, that we might have never noticed it unless I had brought up that PBPA.

Way to not actually respond to my real point, which is that your lobstervote, and indeed case, was a bad one made in self-serving circumstances.

Well, I felt the case helped, not so much the vote, only because CB was a much better lynch candidate. If you didn't like the case, then too bad, there isn't really any way that I can change your opinion for that matter. Honestly CDB, it looks to me like you are grasping at thin straws trying to accuse me of every strange thing that wasn't meant to be strange. For example, when I do not respond to a point the way you like, you accuse me as if I did it on purpose. How would I even benefit from ignoring points or answering them the wrong way anyway? I would have to respond to them anyway.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked's PBPA of lobster - meh. Doesn't pick out all of the important things - lobster's suggestion that we discuss definitions of pressure was IMO the scummiest thing he's done - and relies on some weird logic - Wicked, until you can give reasons why his reasons for being on the three wagons were faulty, you can't say that his being on them is scummy. I would quite like to hear lobster's explanation of his somewhat fluid FoS/vote policy. Wicked is far too hasty to paint lobster's scumbuddies as CB and NHT, though, especially considering that his entire case seems to be built around the scumbuddies theory (always bad if you don't know at least one alignment). It also seems like Wicked, who's been a fringe candidate for a lynch for a while, is trying to get a piece of the lobster action to make sure he's not up for the chop.

This was the part you wanted me to read right? Again, I don't ever remember saying that him being on the bandwagons was scummy. I might have at first, but I didn't use it in my case. I admit, I was a bit quick to assume that NHT was Lobster's scumbuddy but, I think Lobster and CB have a link.

[Wickedestjr]

CB - Probably town. Making a case against him based on RVS and post count is stupid. Find me something he's done that really looks scummy and I might change my opinion. However, CB is not a player I feel safe in aligning myself with in terms of scumhunting on the off chance I'm proven wrong.

So you don't think it is wierd that CB started posting more when we were suspecting him? He has shown us that he has the potential to post frequently, and it is obvious that he chooses not to do so, thus, he is lurking.

[Wickedestjr]

I'm not making scumlists on D1.

However, something just caught my eye:
Wicked says lobster's responses satisfied him so he unvotes after nobody bites on the lobster case. I still think lobster is scum. CDB calls my case... what was it... oh yeah, "utter bullshit" (go jump off a bridge, by the way). Anyway, what was really scummy was how lobster was under fire from Wicked for so long, then he just randomly has a change of heart and says "his defense satisfied me". I still think lobster is scum, but I think Wicked has played much, much scummier.

Vote: Wicked

See: my previous case on Wicked for more support. I'll provide a further case if requested, but I think anyone should be able to see why.

When I said that lobster's defense satisfied me, I meant that it had satisfied me for the time being, and that he had satisfied me enough more than CB had. So, I voted CB.

[Wickedestjr]

Considering I probably won't live past day 1, all I can do now is be as honest as possible and call people I view as scum on their lies and contradictions.

Shouldn't you be doing this anyway?

[Wickedestjr]

"@xRx - Do you plan on killing anybody tonight?" ~ wicked (364).
Fishing. Period.


Okay I admit, that was fishing, but I did not realize it at the time. I think I later asked CDB what the problem with that question was.

.

how do you not realize you are not role fishing??

I did not realize that knowing whether a vig is going to kill somebody or not would be considered fishing. I forgot about their being a roleblocker.

CB wrote:
I havent posted a lot because i was V/LA and since then the game is kind of wishy washy in content. we're almost at page 30.


When did your vacation begin and end?

considering the fact that:

1) its in my signature

2) i said i was going and asked if i should get a replacement

also guys im going to be V/LA from the 21st - 26th. I apologize for the inconvenience, and am wondering if i should replace? Unsure if ill have access to a computer.

3) in your second "pbpa" where you arent even analyzing my posts, you noted that from the 21st-26th, i didnt post at all.

I thought everyone knew.

Also if you're going to pull the PBPA i'd rather you actually analyzed my posts, not just demean me for how far apart they were.

I'm sorry I didn't notice your sig. I am pretty sure I have analyzed some.

Point three for lobster is way different from point 1 for you. In point three for lobster, he didn't post a lot. Point one for you was not because you weren't posting much, it is because you were posting a lot, and then once we were moving on to other suspicions, you posted less.

Lobsters activity level has also fluctuated.

Maybe, but your change in activity has been much more dramatic.

I hurts me to know that my hard work i did to try to show you why your reasons are wrong were written off as "crap"

Sorry, I was getting really frustrated the day I said that.

surely you can do better analysis.

It may have not been the best evidence in some people's opinions, but I have provided more than you.

You gave better reasons to voting lobster then to voting me, the way i saw it.

Well, I don't see it that way.

Nope not really, it only made me more suspicious of you to tell you the truth.

tell me the truth? what? you've been lying this whole game?

unless you mean me telling the truth? I've been honest and have nothing to hide.

No, I have not been lying. Every single thing I've said has either been the truth or a mistake.

apart from a few pieces? can you tell us those pieces. please i would love to know. I dont like how you put this whole case up about lobster to suddenly change your mind and vote for me.

If I hadn't put up the case against lobster, then I would have never been suspicious of you. Then I decided to switch my vote over to you because you had done more suspicious things and you would be more likely scum. I haven't changed my mind about lobster. I intended on keeping my vote on lobster if he had said something really strange, and he didn't, which is another reason why I said I was satisfied.

top 5

suspicions? I'm assuming you mean people? cause suspicions can be like "i'm suspicious that cb started posting me"

lobster, wicked, and kitty. no particular order. i'm almost sure that at least one of you is scum.

lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB

where did NHT come in?

Did you see my lobster case?

Okay, I would finish the PBPA, but there is a lot of useless information to include so instead I'll do another chart that will be more revealing.

Okay really? that hurts. your going to negate everything i've posted?

I did not mean that your posts were useless, but notice that in your PBPA a bunch of the posts resulted in "okay" or "whatever". Most of the following posts would have resulted in the same, because I would not comment on them. And the only thing I wanted to show in the restof the PBPA would be how your activity dropped. Which is why I didn't continue the PBPA.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, these are from your big PBPA of lobster and case thereon.

NHT is also one of the people that was on the three bandwagons I think. So lobster and NHT could be scumbuddies to.

Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

Vote: lobster

If you thought the argument wasn't a valid one, why do you present it as part of your lobster case?

Shortly after presenting the case I started becoming less suspicious of NHT. I was more sure about Lobster and CB being buddies then I was all three of them being buddies. I was then considering a CB lynch. It seemed better because CB had already been acting suspiciously. I think the argument about CB and Lobster was a valid one, but I included NHT because I thought he was linked to Lobster and I didn't want to ignore it.

I have a question for you, how suspicious of NHT are you?

[Wickedestjr]

Still, Wicked's vote feels a lot like an OMGUS.

It was not that. I did not like c_o's reason for his vote either. I also wanted to get him to start talking.

Wicked's post about Reckoner wasn't in question form and gave no indication of wanting a response so I don't like the excuse that he was "just wondering what was wrong with withholding information."

I don't know what you mean when you say this.

Reckoner's post said he withheld information knowing it would make people vote for him, so this question was essentially useless.

I was just making sure.

He spends the rest of his post discussing other people, with Reckoner more of a sidenote.

I was more focused on others. I was suspicious of reckoner but I wasn't sure if I wanted to lynch him.

His other targets included wolfram, me, C_o, and CDB.

So???

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, Post 338

That was Wicked's first post on this game since post 246, (the one I mentioned in my last post), which he made over three days earlier. At the time of his post, he was 2 or 3 pages behind, as he stated in his first sentence. Also note that the page he claimed to be up to was the page on which he made his last post, so he couldn't have read much new posting.

Post #246 was on page ten. I was pointing out things that were on page eleven. I clearly stated it. I read one page before post 338. What were you getting at?

Why did he then feel the urge to post that? Reckoner had already claimed and given flavor, neither of which Wicked had seen. The unvoting had already begun, something Wicked also had not seen. If Wicked was behind 3 days worth of new developments, why did he post that Reckoner's defense was no good, especially when he never gave Reckoner so much as an FoS (Reckoner noted the lack of a vote/FoS in post 330).

I was behind. I posted that, because I had not seen everything that had happened after what I had read. Before reckoner claimed, he kept basically repeating the same thing over in over again, and I thought it was pointless. If somebody isn't convinced when you tell them something, then repeating yourself isn't going to convince them any more than it did before. And if you noticed that I was behind then why are you posting this? I don't give FoS's to people that often. I have only given three, and they were all in the same post. Most of the time, I simply point out my suspicions.

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment.

Did you say this just based on my vote for you or are their other things involved?

Well before I voted you, you were not contributing at all.

Ironic that Wicked should use this as an argument, given that he hadn't even looked at this game in 3 days (he had still been posting on his other games). Between this post and the last one, I get the feeling it was largely based on C_o's vote.

At least I am contributing in my posts. Just because I go three days without posting doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

Overall, it seems like Wicked was doing his best to seem like he was interested in the Reckoner situation, while actually distancing himself from it.

I admit, there were things that I was interested more in. If you want to think that I was distancing myself from reckoner than go ahead.

He made those two posts (246 and 338) on the fringes of the Reckoner situation and disappeared in between.

Yeah that's why I disappeared./sarcasm

I hate lurkers. I don't see any point in winning if you are just going to watch other people play your game. I am telling you that I post the same amount regardless of my role, but if you don't want to believe me than that is your fault.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, Post 347

Wicked's next post. Wicked's finally seen Reckoner's claim and believes it. Of course, logically, this is Wicked's first post dedicated mainly to Reckoner...

My posts don't have any similar structure to them. Some of my posts may be dedicated to one person, some posts may be dedicated to a post, and some posts may be dedicated to a whole page. I don't think it matters how I structure my posts.

In retrospect, not much. At the time, I thought it had caused you to jump the gun. I should have held out a bit longer and seen who else jumped on the bandwagon, but I was too impulsive.

You were considering withholding information longer?

This is the second question Wicked's asked that basically requested a reiteration of what he quoted (the first is quoted in one of my recent posts).

Sometimes I misunderstand people's posts. And sometimes when I do, people complain and think I am purposely twisting people's words. Like CDB for example. I also ask people to clarify something so I can get a better opinion about something.

In Wicked's next post (Post 364), Wicked asks if Reckoner plans on making a kill. Then we get the infamous CB unvote/revote contradiction, after which he disappeared for a few more days.

Why would I disappear when suspicion is thrown upon me? It doesn't seem right. I have explained why I contradicted myself, and nobody has pointed out any flaws in it. I can't be active at all the right times. Sorry.


I have to go to sleep. I am still about a page behind. Will catch up soon.

[Wickedestjr]

Yes. I made a mistake and I apologized and unvoted for it. What's wrong with that?

This doesn't make it any less scummy.

So you're saying only scum make mistakes?

What huge point did xRx notice? The quote of mine that you quoted afterwards had nothing to do with xRx. It was a response to NHT. Please explain this once more.

When you contradicted yourself. He makes a post with two quotes, both from you, both very contradictory. The post speaks for itself.

Again, nobody has told me what the flaws were in my defense for this contradiction. How the heck am I supposed to defend myself if people just state that my points are wrong without giving reasons. It's stupid.

Well, most of your points have been in agreement with the majority of the town. Are there any things that you disagree with that most of the town agrees about?

Isn't it pretty obvious? If you agree with one side of the argument, you tend to disagree with the other. Thus, if NHT and CDB are in argument, and I agree with CDB, I disagree with NHT. Not that hard.

Okay, which of these bandwagons do you think you would have been on, had you played the whole game;

CB bandwagon
reckoner bandwagon


If you were another player would you have been on the wolf wagon?

Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

I know a decent number of people do this, but making scumbuddies and scumpairings on D1, in my opinion, is a strictly anti-town thing to do. Not only is it D1, but scum have the opportunity to buss, defend, attack whomever they want, and have inside knowledge on who is scum and who is town. I also see it to be a form of tunnelling, because many people get hooked on those scumbuddies, and if Lobster turns up as town then that person is biased towards the other two players because of the flip of another, which should never happen D1.

I was considering the fact that some players might be bussing, but it didn't look to me like any of them were.


Personally, DRK, I don't know who I feel may be lying about their claims. Both have made adequate responses. Both used flavour from their role PMs. Initially it was gut that one of them was lying, but the more I think about it the more I feel as though both are telling the truth. It's an interesting predicament we are in with two PR claims so far. Suffice to say, although I feel neither of them are worthy of a vote at this stage, doesn't mean I don't find them off the hook, so to speak.

NHT - Mentioning insane cop? In a mini? And you are using it as a possible reason to still be voting CoCo? REALLY? What of Coco's didn't makes sense? Your post where you vote Coco is WAY too vague to be construed as anything of a logical argument. Why do you find Qax scummy again?
What are you trying to prove from Wicked's meta thing? That he is playing to his meta? What was his role in the other games?

[quote="Wickedestjr] Oh and just warning you, that is an ongoing game so you shouldn't be talking about it.

Well that answers my question, and makes NHT even more scummier. Using an ongoing game, where you don't know someone's alignment, and saying he is posting similar to that game DOES us absolutely no good and it null-information, not to mention it's an ongoing game.[/quote]

I don't have any finished games on this site, but when I do, I'll tell you, or I'll say so in my sig, so that you guys can use it for reference

You said you had evidence of NHT being scummy, then dropped it, essentially proving you were concocting an argument.

I thought I had evidence of NHT being scum. When I started looking for my evidence, I realized NHT hadn't been on many bandwagons, so I unvoted.

Your petty attack on my accordance with other people's posts, and saying it's a scumtell.

So just because something seems scummy to me, I should ignore it?

Your attempt in 624 to strawman my responses and make them seem petty and that I simply think "See his reasons" is relevant in all cases.

What is strawman?

Your rolefishing.

I was not sure how much information we could know about xRx's decision.

Your insistence that apologizing for bad play and/or acknowledging it post factum makes it less scummy.

When did I say this?

You use something as a case against lobster, then say that it isn't scummy.

What gave you this idea? I didn't say that lobster wasn't scummy any more, but CB was scummier.

You agree with someone in their PBPA, but vote them.

Just because I'm in agreement with a player about something doesn't mean they're not scum. In that case, there aren't any scum in this game. We don't keep people alive because they make lots of good points. It doesn't make a difference how many good points they make. What matters is how scummy they act regardless.

I find the cases on CB to be extremely weak (because he was absent? RVS bs? Really?)CB's most recent response (743) gives a very pro-town vibe - no hostility, just straight response.

Well, I didn't.

You OMGUS vote C_O for not being around, when you were gone for three days.

What the heck? C_o is hardly ever around and doesn't post much when he is. I was gone for three days, and apart from those three days, my posts have contained much more content than C_o's. It was not an OMGUS vote.

You say XrX's defense is no good, but never even FOS him.

[/quote]

I have explained why.

[Wickedestjr]

Oh wow, I have been lynched. Sorry for posting even though I'm dead. Thanks for modding this PyschoSniper.

[Wickedestjr]

Thanks for an awesome game Psycho!!! I wish I hadn't been lynched day 1 because there were a lot of cool roles in this game, and I enjoyed reading the rest of the game.

I would have never guessed that DRK and MME were scum. To be honest, by the time I was lynched, DRK and MME were the two people I was the least suspicious of. Had the town not had such an advantage, I think they would have won.

[Wickedestjr]

My apologies to Wicked for my sudden turn on him at the end of Day 1

It's okay, this isn't the first time it's happened, but regardless, you did what you had to try to win, and you played a very good game.

Looking back, I think scum could have won, if they killed xRx night 2 and roleblocked CoCo. Not sure if that would have worked. Oh well.

I hope to play with you guys again too.

[Wickedestjr]

@MME - Good point. I had not considered that.

I think, considering that the town had such an advantage, that the scum should've known everything about their role. That would have helped balance the set up, but it was still a great game.

[Wickedestjr]

xRx - How did you ensnare MME in your trap? What exactly was your trap?

[Wickedestjr]

you both do, kitty.

sorry for my poor play guys. I think my play is improving..i'm still learning as well. This game got me hooked back on mafia.

I apologize for being kind of harsh towards you day 1 CB. I really thought you were scum.

Speaking of which, wow, I'm a fool;

Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

[Wickedestjr]

yay-- my first win!

My first win too. But this is the only game of mine on this site that has actually finished.

[Wickedestjr]

Great job day 2 and day 3 NHT, you played very strategically.

(Sorry for the triple post.)

[Wickedestjr]

Looking back at the game, I can't believe I didn't once stop to consider DRK being scum.

[Wickedestjr]

After xRx claimed, I was never suspicious of him for the rest of the game to be honest.

Anybody else think that some of these games would make good books/movies? This one would have been great partially due to the amount of flavor.

Well, if they made a movie reflecting this game, I would definitely watch it.