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

[DeathRowKitty]

Or should I just quote every one of my posts so you can see how it all fits together?

Please do. And while you're at it, respond to CDB.

[DeathRowKitty]

@havingfitz
I'm guessing you're Wicked? Is this allowed on mafiascum? (by "this", I'm referring to any part of the situation that might not be)

[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.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, that answers my questions.

[CoCo]

Or should I just quote every one of my posts so you can see how it all fits together?

Please do. And while you're at it, respond to CDB.

FGSFDS

[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.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Plus, IIRC, in the one game I did read of his (the one with lobster), he jumped around a bit with his vote (IIRC, he was actually cop in that game), so if nothing else, he seems to be following his meta.

Just to be clear on this, I was doctor. Not that it changes anything, but I like to have things very clear when it comes to anything on me. It helps with explanations later.

[ChannelDelibird]

The quoted post from lobster contains the following:

• A request to explain what you really meant when you suggested that "info gathering" was a scumtell.

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

Think about that. Real hard. Compare it to recent evidence.

Three people have been on every bandwagon. I've been pointing fingers at them for awhile now. Instead of thinking about it, you'd rather keep me in the hotseat? What gives?

Bandwagoning is only scummy if it's done without good reason. Are you saying that Reckoner didn't deserve votes for what he did, and if so, what are you smoking?

[*]An accusation that instead of posting content you were "defending your crazy statements" and "talking about your "feelings" without referencing anything".[/list]

So what? All of that has given us three good candidates. They are not crazy statements when they produce results. How is it three people being on three bandwagons not a scumtell to you? Its how I play. I've said this time and time again, yet you continue to stick your nose in the air and expect me to keep explaining myself. Fuck off.

Three people being on three bandwagons is not a scumtell to me unless they joined for bad or no reasoning. Unless you, or anyone else for that matter, can bring up the relevant posts from those people where they joined the wagons and explained their reasons for doing so, and then explain how those reasons were insufficient at the time of their posting, then I see no reason to why they are more likely to have joined those wagons as scum than as town.

I am still waiting for an explanation of the 'many scumtells' that you suddenly claimed, in post 142, that lobster was giving off, and an elaboration of why you had never mentioned them before. Don't say you did mention them before, because if you study your posts in isolation you will see quite clearly that

that was the first post in which you even mentioned lobstermania

.

[stuntkeyboardist]

In reference to CDB's post above me:

And CoCo, if you believe that you've explained it and CDB has missed it, I will second the fact that you have never answered these questions. I have been waiting for these answers since you've stated them, yet have seen no evidence as to why you feel this way. Let's start with your accusations. Answer these and give EVIDENCE.

1) Why do you suspect lobstermania?

2) Why do you suspect DRK?

3) Why do you suspect me?

There. Three questions very clearly stated. Now you cannot say you never saw them.

[xRECKONERx]

I find it very suspicious how quickly lobster FoS's CB, then when put under any pressure from it, immediately reels back and unvotes from a FoS? It just doesn't add up. Either A, he thought he had VOTED CB and accidentally unvoted, or B, he was actually unvoting his random vote... and I don't see why one would unvote a random vote unless you had somewhere else to place your vote. He eventually votes for CB, but only after regurgitating discussion points as his case.

In fact, lobster seems to lay out his own plan as to why he took the hard route. Set things up with an FoS to see if the CB case caught fire, then under the least bit of pressure, upgrade it to a vote. Oh, and let's not forget at the end of this post when he triumphantly declares: "My vote on CB remains." Good for you.

Oh... and how would this be remotely useful? It wouldn't. It would simply distract from scumhunting.

Let's not forget how he dives head-first into the wagon on me, justifying it by saying "there's no way it was a fake vote; why are you still voting wolf?" Note that his previous post stated that he was a bit concerned with me, but was overall MORE concerned with CDB. So why the SUDDEN switch of opinion?

This exchange between qax and lobster is odd.

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".

Given the above, I'm going to

Vote: Lobster

. Let's see where this goes.

[xRECKONERx]

How's that for relevant posts? Lobster has not only been on those bandwagons, but has generally hopped on without drawing much attention to himself and, in my opinion, has tried to fly too far under the radar the entire game.

[ChannelDelibird]

Hooray! Let's all play the "Undermine Five Pages Of Scumhunting By Feeding Answers To CoCo" game!

Grrrrrr!

[xRECKONERx]

Or, you know, I

actually found lobster scummy

.

Since I kinda was the first person to point out lobster's placement on all three wagons and such. To me, CoCo just seems like a frustrated town PR... she claimed, and yet people are still wasting time homing in on her, so I can see where her frustration comes from. That being said, of course she could've fake claimed, but her claim sounds reasonably believable to me.

There's a quick fix for the CoCo situation: if there's a real cop, investigate her, and see what turns up. Otherwise, there's no point in lynching a claimed town power role. ESPECIALLY not on Day 1.

[ChannelDelibird]

Or, you know, I

actually found lobster scummy

.

Since I kinda was the first person to point out lobster's placement on all three wagons and such. To me, CoCo just seems like a frustrated town PR... she claimed, and yet people are still wasting time homing in on her, so I can see where her frustration comes from. That being said, of course she could've fake claimed, but her claim sounds reasonably believable to me.

There's a quick fix for the CoCo situation: if there's a real cop, investigate her, and see what turns up. Otherwise, there's no point in lynching a claimed town power role. ESPECIALLY not on Day 1.

I'm not saying you don't find lobster scummy, I'm saying that going into massive detail on it when I've spent five pages trying to get CoCo to explain in detail what exactly he's found scummy about lobster and when is clearly going to give CoCo an easy way out of the question! Sure, he still has to say *why* he didn't mention lobster until he claimed that he'd been dropping loads of scumtells, but he now has a free answer to what those scumtells were.

It's blatantly undermining my interrogation of a player, claimed cop or no.

[xRECKONERx]

*gender correction in my post

What're your thoughts on my case against lobster, CDB?

[ChannelDelibird]

I'm not commenting on lobster until CoCo does.

[Wickedestjr]

I'm not commenting on lobster until CoCo does.

How come?

[ChannelDelibird]

Did you even read this page?

[Wickedestjr]

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

[ChannelDelibird]

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

First prize!

[My Milked Eek]

I know, but TOMORROW, got some proclamations to do.
If I haven't posted by Saturday my time, I'll buy everyone in the game some beers/soda pops.

There's a quick fix for the CoCo situation: if there's a real cop, investigate her, and see what turns up. Otherwise, there's no point in lynching a claimed town power role. ESPECIALLY not on Day 1.

Why waste a night's worth of investigation if someone is the real cop? Sure, it clears up some confusion in the unlikely event that there are two cops, but as said: highly unlikely or with sanity issues, which would lead to even more confusion. In conclusion: setup speculation at this point is no good.

There are some points to lynching claimed pr's, especially if they're scummy and their behaviour is highly inconsistent with the "norm" of the claimed pr.

Also, reckoner, I agree with cdb, you could've at least waited to make a lobstercase until after coco posted a (decent) reply. If both you and coco hadn't claimed pr's I would've hinted at some diversion of attention in this post.

[xRECKONERx]

More like: Day 1 has been going on for almost three weeks now, and I think we have

more

than enough information to make an informed lynch. I'm sick of stalling out, and lobster's who I'm going with.

[ChannelDelibird]

But you couldn't wait

one day

longer? Seriously, you could not have missed how much of a big deal I think CoCo's lobster views are.

[xRECKONERx]

I didn't really see him go after lobster. What post are you referring to?

He quoted the post from lobster that most caught my eye as well and asked you to read between the lines. He pretty much just said that we have three good candidates that deserve investigation.

[ChannelDelibird]

I didn't really see him go after lobster. What post are you referring to?

He quoted the post from lobster that most caught my eye as well and asked you to read between the lines. He pretty much just said that we have three good candidates that deserve investigation.

O_O

Post 412. Page 17. The first time he ever mentions lobster, but says he's noticed him commit "many scum tells". Which he fails to elaborate on. For goodness' sakes, read the fucking game! It's only what I've been asking him about for five pages straight! Admittedly, if he'd been more to the point about explaining himself you wouldn't have to remember, but come on.