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

[CoCo]

@NHT: Thanks for the advice. I'll do so in the future.

@DRK: Let it be known I'm a defensive player. You play your way, I play mine. 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. I must admit a decent amount of chuckling when you accuse me of an OMGUS vote.

[DeathRowKitty]

I don't feel Wicked is the best target at the moment. His contradictions seem more to be him mixing up his words than tripping over them. His NHT mix-up reminds me of my first accusation of you being scummy, which a re-read told me was incorrect. It's not like I don't feel he had some explaining to do, but I'm fine with the explanation he gave us.

You on the other hand didn't bother explaining yourself at all. My reasons for voting you were in my opinion more than sufficient reasons to suspect you and your new defense seems to be that I can't vote for you because you think Wicked seems scummier.

My vote for you wasn't an OMGUS vote. That would imply I had no reason for it besides you voting me, which is clearly not the case. You accused (to the best of my knowledge) EVERYONE who's targetted you and most of them for little or no reason (and you still won't tell us why). I'm not sure what there is to chuckle about, let alone a decent amount of chuckling.

[CoCo]

But, DRK, Reckoner brought in simple terms Wicked's contradiction. At this point, I'm not convinced of his explanation. Clearly, he said he never did something, but did. I do't think someone that can't remember the things they say is much help in catching the scum.

Now, you are implying I am the best target for a lynch? Where have I contradicted myself?

[xRECKONERx]

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 can link to posts. In the top-left corner of each post, there is a little page icon. Click it and it'll isolate the post. Then you can just copy/paste the URL.

[xRECKONERx]

Hey, CoCo...

You've been saying for awhile now that you're "busy with qax" and his posts. Mind sharing with us what you discovered?

[CoCo]

Hey, CoCo...

You've been saying for awhile now that you're "busy with qax" and his posts. Mind sharing with us what you discovered?

Not 'awhile'. I made mention of it once one or two RL days ago. I'm going to need at least another 36 hours to form a complete thesis. Suffice to say, at this point I feel Qax42 is leaning on the town side of neutral. I also feel he is being cautious to avoid a lynch. And its that confusing thought process that requires I take a bit longer to think about it.

[DeathRowKitty]

Now, you are implying I am the best target for a lynch? Where have I contradicted myself?

Contradictions aren't the only reason someone can seem scummy. There's nothing wrong with going after someone for contradicting him/herself, especially Day 1, but we have to be reasonable about this. No one is perfect. Quite often, looking back at a post I've made, I realize there's something I've typed incorrectly. Most of the time I don't bother to correct it because it's minor and I don't think anyone would really care. I can see how Wicked could have mistyped something.

I'll type more when I get a chance later.

[CoCo]

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?

Contradictions aren't the only reason someone can seem scummy. There's nothing wrong with going after someone for contradicting him/herself, especially Day 1, but we have to be reasonable about this. No one is perfect. Quite often, looking back at a post I've made, I realize there's something I've typed incorrectly. Most of the time I don't bother to correct it because it's minor and I don't think anyone would really care. I can see how Wicked could have mistyped something.

Well, considering you're an expert at contradictions, I'll just let everyone else gather some info...

[DeathRowKitty]

This illustrates my point about being unreasonable very nicely.

It's not like I don't feel he had some explaining to do, but I'm fine with the explanation he gave us.

I did feel Wicked needed to explain that. And he did. I'm done with that. If you've been following the game at all, you may even be aware that my vote was mainly to get Wicked to post. I don't even see the contradiction in my posts you seem to be implying. Please spell it out for me.

While you're doing that, if you'd care to actually respond to any of our accusations, it would be greatly appreciated.

[DeathRowKitty]

Not 'awhile'. I made mention of it once one or two RL days ago. I'm going to need at least another 36 hours to form a complete thesis. Suffice to say, at this point I feel Qax42 is leaning on the town side of neutral. I also feel he is being cautious to avoid a lynch. And its that confusing thought process that requires I take a bit longer to think about it.

It takes you 2.5-3.5 RL days to form an opinion of someone? You say you think he's "leaning on the town side of neutral." Is there some reason for that? If you need to think another 36 hours on it, you could at least give us some sort of reasoning or copy/paste a couple of his posts to give us some background on what you're thinking. In 36 hours time, we could have a whole plethora of opinions! "I'm thinking about it" doesn't tell us much.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Not 'awhile'. I made mention of it once one or two RL days ago. I'm going to need at least another 36 hours to form a complete thesis. Suffice to say, at this point I feel Qax42 is leaning on the town side of neutral. I also feel he is being cautious to avoid a lynch. And its that confusing thought process that requires I take a bit longer to think about it.

It takes you 2.5-3.5 RL days to form an opinion of someone? You say you think he's "leaning on the town side of neutral." Is there some reason for that? If you need to think another 36 hours on it, you could at least give us some sort of reasoning or copy/paste a couple of his posts to give us some background on what you're thinking. In 36 hours time, we could have a whole plethora of opinions! "I'm thinking about it" doesn't tell us much.

QFT. Im not liking your playing style. It moved from, "just go re-read all of the posts," to "I dont know how to quote," to "I havent formed an opinion yet." It seems like you have nothing and are trying to avoid us noticing that.

SERIOUSLY

FoS CoCo

[CoCo]

NHT, I'm sorry if I'm not used to this type of forum. You want to call me scum for it, fine. But realize how illogical that is when it comes to the big picture.

DRK, I'm still formulating an opinion. You accuse me of not paying attention to the game but won't let me take some time to sort things out? I really get the feeling that you're just happy to lynch anybody. Very anti-town, bud.

NHT, my playing style is certainly better than grasping at straws. DRK seems too settle on lynching anyone. How can you say that is better play?

[DeathRowKitty]

NHT isn't calling you scum for not being used to this type of forum. Read his posts and you'll see that.

You can take all the time you want to form an opinion, but if you're going to make statements about someone, at least have backup. You had no problem saying qax looked scummy. When pressured to tell us why, you had no problem saying he's not scummy. Neither time did you give us any reason. You still refuse to give us any reason.

I'm not just happy to lynch anybody. I'm happy to lynch someone I feel is scummy. I'll give you a little hint. Someone suspecting you does not make him/her scummy.

So when do we get to hear your reasons?

[stuntkeyboardist]

NHT, my playing style is certainly better than grasping at straws. DRK seems too settle on lynching anyone. How can you say that is better play?

I never said this. Go back and re-read, you'll see. I'm just sick of never getting any information out of you when you say you've got it. If you dont want people to suspect you, tell us the info that you've gathered. But if you're mad that I put an FoS on you, then you have problems my friend. I've asked you MULTIPLE times to respond by citing information. Doesnt matter how, but if you're going to accuse someone of being scummy, tell us why. I'm going to

unvote

for now. Dont think that I wont have my vote on someone for long.

Again, please explain why you think that Me, DRK, and all of the other people you have accused are scummy. I would love to know this. As far as I can see, you withholding information is far scummier than them actually trying to play the game.

[CoCo]

NHT, showing is better than telling. Its not as though I'm inconsistent. DRK for example has been pushing for a quick lynch while trying to appear innocuous. Before you accuse me of not paying attention, perhaps you should heed your own advice.

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.

In closing, it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on.

[lobstermania]

t seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on.

....because information gathering is clearly a scum-tell!

[xRECKONERx]

Unvote, Vote CoCo

[stuntkeyboardist]

NHT, showing is better than telling. Its not as though I'm inconsistent. DRK for example has been pushing for a quick lynch while trying to appear innocuous. Before you accuse me of not paying attention, perhaps you should heed your own advice.

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.

In closing, it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on.

First off, showing is better than telling? Ok, then show me.

I dont see how DRK has been pushing for a quick lynch. He has every right to vote you for avoiding answering our questions. I honestly feel that I should be voting you too. I'll give you one more chance though. Why do you feel that all of us are scum/scummy? BTW, I have been paying attention. You obviously havent because you dont know that we've been asking you for like 10 pages to respond to why you think people are scummy.

I dont understand why you even say your second paragraph. Why do I strike you as that kind of person and what do you mean, "that doesnt mean I need to post about it?"

I think lobster hit the nail on the head with this third subject.

Last chance. Answer the questions because I am right at the edge of voting you, and I am far from afraid to do so.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK for example has been pushing for a quick lynch while trying to appear innocuous.

I sure post a lot for someone who wants to appear inocuous.

I now count 15 posts since you started being questioned/accused and I still don't see any answers. Should we wait 36 hours for you to formulate a thesis on why you've done what you have?

[PsychoSniper]

Vote Count:

CoCo – 4 (DeathRowKitty, lobstermania, Wickedestjr, xRECKONERx)
qax42 – 1 (canadianbovine,)
xRECKONERx – 1 (My Milked Eek)
Wolframnhart – 1 (ChannelDelibird)
canadianbovine – 1 (qax42)
Wickedestjr – 1 (CoCo)


Not voting:

wolframnhart, Conspicuous_other, nohandtyper

[CoCo]

First off, showing is better than telling? Ok, then show me.

I dont see how DRK has been pushing for a quick lynch. He has every right to vote you for avoiding answering our questions. I honestly feel that I should be voting you too. I'll give you one more chance though. Why do you feel that all of us are scum/scummy? BTW, I have been paying attention. You obviously havent because you dont know that we've been asking you for like 10 pages to respond to why you think people are scummy.

I dont understand why you even say your second paragraph. Why do I strike you as that kind of person and what do you mean, "that doesnt mean I need to post about it?"

I think lobster hit the nail on the head with this third subject.

Last chance. Answer the questions because I am right at the edge of voting you, and I am far from afraid to do so.

My last few posts were the result of not having enough sleep. Looking back refreshed, I can see how the second paragraph is hard to understand.

Why I think DRK is scummy:
Whenever I read one of DRK's posts, I feel a sense of urgency radiating from them. As though the player is trying to lynch someone as soon as they can in order to bring on the night. It seems as though DRK is more than willing to lynch anyone. Because I feel this way, I'm led to the following conclusions; 1. The player has a night action and, being new to Mafia, is excited about it. 2. Or, the player is scum. Scum often enjoy bandwagons and quick lynches. So long as the player being lynched isn't a fellow scum (and even in some situations, they could be), its viewed as acceptable.
Basically, I view DRK as scum because he pursues any seemingly obtainable lynch.

I'll be back in a couple of hours with my reasons for NHT and Wicked.

@Lobstermania: Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless vote post.

[CoCo]

@Lobstermania: Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless vote post.

This should read:
Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless post after your vote. If information gathering is a scum tell, wouldn't that make everyone scum?

[canadianbovine]

just got back.

CoCo until this last week you were in practical lurking status. you've posted about 20-25 posts this week?

I hope you learned how to quote.

"very" pro town? oxymoronic.

Fos: Coco

also qax:

you leave and throw a vote on me? what is this shenanigan [told myself i must us shenanigans today].

Please tell me what questions you have for me.

[lobstermania]

@Lobstermania: Without simply rewording the allegations others have leveled against me, please explain why you jumped in with such a contentless post after your vote. If information gathering is a scum tell, wouldn't that make everyone scum?

My post that "information gathering is a scumtell!" wasn't content-less at all but a jab at your accusation:

it seems to me that those who push to draw as much info from as many people as you and DRK have (before the end of day 1) are the ones to keep an eye on

I interpreted that to be "info gathering is a scumtell." You accused nohands and DRK of being scum for trying to squeeze content and info out of people (like you). It seems to me the town would benefit from having content from as many players as possible instead of the reverse. Perhaps you can explain what you *really* meant.

Well, considering you're an expert at contradictions, I'll just let everyone else gather some info...

I hope this was sarcasm, because lately you haven't really been gathering info yourself. But don't quote me on this. I didn't bother to go back and research it.
Oh wait, yes I did. You spent half the time defending your crazy statements, and the other half postponing content and talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything. There was one post a few pages ago where you tried to make a case against Wicked, but that was after you placed a vote on him.

Does this help shed a light on my confusion/frustration with you?

[CoCo]

Yes, Lobster. That sheds plenty of light.

@CB: Quoting isn't too difficult, its multi-quoting. I'll solve the problem by either opening multiple pages or referencing post numbers.

Moving on...

My case against Wicked hinges upon the fact he said he didn't do something, but was quoted showing he did. He then said he thought he meant something to which I replied I hoped people would know what they were talking about when they post.

NHT seemed scummy because he's been very active and comes across appearing as if he knows something the rest of us don't. Looking back, I'm thinking he may in fact be analyzing things much more adequately than I assumed. I no longer think he is scummy.

As for Qax, I'll explain my thoughts tomorrow.

Anything I missed? Other questions?