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

[xRECKONERx]

I did read the fucking game. Guess I just missed it, seemed more of a one-offish comment. It's a moot point, now, but now that we have time to kill:

@lobster: respond to my case, pl0x

@CoCo: why the hell did you bring up lobster's scumtells then never explain them for yourself?

[ChannelDelibird]

Oh,

now

we have time to kill, but when you posted your lobster case we had to stop messing around and get on with lynching?

Lobster: please allow CoCo to answer for himself before responding to Reckoner's case. Please. For the sake of all that is holy.

[xRECKONERx]

Yes. We did. But now it seems you and I are the only people online, hence my "we have time to kill" bit.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm on too. I've been checking this thread periodically throughout the day. I just feel that right now there's not much for me to contribute. I don't want to say anything about lobster until CoCo does and every time CoCo posts, we have to tell him to try again.

@CoCo
All you need to give us is one

decent

post and I'll unvote. Is that really so hard?

[CoCo]

Stay with me here, its complicated, but I'll do my best to explain everything...

First of all, I didn't say much about Lobster (or NHT) because I had my hands full trying to build a case against Wicked, which in turn would help me ensnare DRK. This post should explain everything.

My (relevant) play so far:

It began here with the whole "L-2 pressure question": http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1720253
Looking back, it does a fair share of foreshadowing things to come.

DRK's response is the very next post, in which he says, "It would be nice to put someone at L-1." My scum detector went off.

Hmmmm... http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 79#1720279

Here, DRK gets his answer to my question from another player: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 99#1720899

Being as I was absent for a day or two, DRK decides to list my posts up until that point: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 57#1723657
His post following it is rather interesting as well.

I was still behind in the thread at that point, but no, I wasn't happy with the explanation given in post 173: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 25#1724125
Also, the post immediately following it.

As an aside, I'd like to point this out: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 44#1738644
Where were you going after me first, DRK? In fact, in the post you listed all of mine, you said I didn't appear scummy!

Moving on...
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 13#1724513

Care to point out where? The reason I recalled your posts being scummy was because:

1) There weren't too many of them.
2) They usually were just general statements with no reasoning or analysis.

But DRK... you said I wasn't scummy. Another contradiction! You proved my reason for voting with your response!

After a few days away, I returned and went back to my case against DRK: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 72#1729672

DRK's response: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 72#1729872
I'd like to point out that it was this response that made me feel weird about Qax.

Here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 78#1729878
And here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 10#1731810
My second sentence should be using the word "made." I just noticed that now though. Because I'm the cop, you can see why I was asking, I hope.

I'll admit to completely fucking up when responding to Reckoner here, but at that time I honestly was getting used to this forum's software (and I still am, but I'm getting better). http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 44#1732144
For the next few posts there was some confusion. I'd known Reckoner had claimed vig, but being as I hadn't caught up in the thread, I was referring to posts made previously. Mixing up "makes" and "made" must have caused it, but Wicked picked up on what I'd meant. Its really neither here nor there, just something I noticed upon the reread.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 31#1732731
This is where Reckoner points out Wicked's contradiction. And I formulated a plan.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 75#1733375
I didn't have to unvote, but I did.

26 hours go by, and no response from Wicked. I upgrade to a vote: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 74#1734974
There is A LOT going on in this post. See if you can catch it all in light of the post I'm currently writing. One thing though, do you really think I'd drop my case against DRK that easily?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 92#1735292
In this post, I asked a few questions. My plan in motion, I was worried people might catch on and view it as scummy. Granted, my playstyle is structured to appear that way much of the time... but I couldn't afford to be lynched while the vig was outed.
About NHT, there was some talk of him amongst other players and I was paying attention to it. I'd also noticed him and Lobster being on the two bandwagons along with DRK. I didn't like what I saw, but I'm a single minded person and had another target.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 39#1735539 (412-416)
Okay, here I was throwing the curve ball. I saw Lobster (and NHT) in both bandwagons, but at the time, I was busy trying to go through Qax's posts, continue my case against Wicked, and keep an eye on DRK. You should now be beginning to see why its taken me so long to truly explain my actions. Hopefully, you will when I'm finished.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 24#1737224 (433-435)
I've completely removed myself from DRK.
Also, notice how DRK says he labeled me as scummy before I voted him? I should hope this post shows that is NOT the case. During this time, I was also building my case against Wicked, because I think his play has been scummy.

There's a few irrelevant posts after this... forum problems and the fact I hate making walls of text giving out my game plan. So much for that. :p

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 10#1737410 (450-452)
I begin to go after DRK again...

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 09#1737709
455: I give some basic thoughts about Qax.
456: DRK responds to me.
457: I nail DRK. I should hope you all see why I said what I said in the post.
460: NHT backs DRK up. I see another of their bandwagons forming.
461: Speaks for itself.
464: So does this.
465: Hey everyone, look who it is!
467: I'm explaining it all now, NHT...
470-471: I begin explaining things as requested.
474: I still thought Wicked was scummy at this point. I also wanted to keep my vote on him because I was watching what Lobster, NHT, and DRK would do. I said I no longer thought NHT was scummy because at that point I had four scum suspects and didn't want people to think I was a complete idiot. Lastly, I said I'd have something about Qax, but all that amounted to was he seemed to be a cautious townie and I was done investigating his posts. In fact, I'd hardly had a chance to really analyze them with all the votes and questions tossed at me.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1740398
In which I respond to many things I felt I needed to.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 69#1741169
"Lol, I knew they were scum all along."

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 80#1741480
...My subtle hints unnoticed, my back is pressed against the wall...

Reckoner seems to get it: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 59#1741659

Wait what? http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 47#1742947

Having no other choice, I claim: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 86#1743586

Oh good, Reckoner does fucking get it: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 09#1743709

Here, I show that I had been up to something as well: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 42#1744742

The last two days have basically been CDB and I becoming frustrated with one another and DRK hoping he votes for me to get a lynch.

In summation,

Vote: DRK

.

[CoCo]

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.

[stuntkeyboardist]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 69#1741169
"Lol, I knew they were scum all along."

I didnt get what you meant by this the first time around, nor do I get it the second. Please respond (because you didnt before).

[CoCo]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 02#1738002

[stuntkeyboardist]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 02#1738002

Very good CoCo, you've found the first instance of it that didnt make sense. Not how about an explanation?

[stuntkeyboardist]

EBWOP:

NOW** how about an explanation?

[xRECKONERx]

I... completely endorse CoCo's post.

CoCo: what is your read on lobster?

[DeathRowKitty]

It began here with the whole "L-2 pressure question": http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1720253
Looking back, it does a fair share of foreshadowing things to come.

DRK's response is the very next post, in which he says, "It would be nice to put someone at L-1." My scum detector went off.

I'm pretty sure that was settled. You were playing like a noob and I was explaining my take on theory.

Here, DRK gets his answer to my question from another player: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 99#1720899

You were discussing the CB case. I quoted a post from CB I thought was bad. How is that getting an answer to your question from another player?

As an aside, I'd like to point this out: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 44#1738644
Where were you going after me first, DRK? In fact, in the post you listed all of mine, you said I didn't appear scummy!

In my post before that, I did say you were scummy. I took it back in my next post, only to say your posts were noobish. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

Care to point out where? The reason

I recalled

your posts being scummy was because:

1) There weren't too many of them.
2) They usually were just general statements with no reasoning or analysis.

But DRK... you said I wasn't scummy. Another contradiction! You proved my reason for voting with your response!

Nope. No contradiction. I did think you were scummy reflecting back on your posts. It was only after re-reading them I realized you just sounded like a noob.

Here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 78#1729878
And here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 10#1731810
My second sentence should be using the word "made." I just noticed that now though. Because I'm the cop, you can see why I was asking, I hope.

I explained that in the first link. I wasn't sure. I thought it wasn't a bad possibility and considering that Reckoner's posts were getting progressively better (at that moment) I felt it would be better to hold off on a lynch.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 31#1732731
This is where Reckoner points out Wicked's contradiction. And I formulated a plan.

Don't hint. Just spell it out. What was your plan at that point and how did you intend to execute it? (I'm not asking about how it turned out; I'm asking about how you planned for it to turn out.)

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: 604



Stay with me here, its complicated, but I'll do my best to explain everything...

First of all, I didn't say much about Lobster (or NHT) because I had my hands full trying to build a case against Wicked, which in turn would help me ensnare DRK. This post should explain everything.

My (relevant) play so far:

It began here with the whole "L-2 pressure question": http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1720253
Looking back, it does a fair share of foreshadowing things to come.

DRK's response is the very next post, in which he says, "It would be nice to put someone at L-1." My scum detector went off.

Hmmmm... http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 79#1720279

Here, DRK gets his answer to my question from another player: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 99#1720899

Being as I was absent for a day or two, DRK decides to list my posts up until that point: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 57#1723657
His post following it is rather interesting as well.

I was still behind in the thread at that point, but no, I wasn't happy with the explanation given in post 173: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 25#1724125
Also, the post immediately following it.

As an aside, I'd like to point this out: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 44#1738644
Where were you going after me first, DRK? In fact, in the post you listed all of mine, you said I didn't appear scummy!

Moving on...
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 13#1724513
Quote:
Care to point out where? The reason I recalled your posts being scummy was because:

1) There weren't too many of them.
2) They usually were just general statements with no reasoning or analysis.


But DRK... you said I wasn't scummy. Another contradiction! You proved my reason for voting with your response!

After a few days away, I returned and went back to my case against DRK: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 72#1729672

DRK's response: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 72#1729872
I'd like to point out that it was this response that made me feel weird about Qax.

Here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 78#1729878
And here: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 10#1731810
My second sentence should be using the word "made." I just noticed that now though. Because I'm the cop, you can see why I was asking, I hope.

I'll admit to completely fucking up when responding to Reckoner here, but at that time I honestly was getting used to this forum's software (and I still am, but I'm getting better). http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 44#1732144
For the next few posts there was some confusion. I'd known Reckoner had claimed vig, but being as I hadn't caught up in the thread, I was referring to posts made previously. Mixing up "makes" and "made" must have caused it, but Wicked picked up on what I'd meant. Its really neither here nor there, just something I noticed upon the reread.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 31#1732731
This is where Reckoner points out Wicked's contradiction. And I formulated a plan.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 75#1733375
I didn't have to unvote, but I did.

26 hours go by, and no response from Wicked. I upgrade to a vote: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 74#1734974
There is A LOT going on in this post. See if you can catch it all in light of the post I'm currently writing. One thing though, do you really think I'd drop my case against DRK that easily?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 92#1735292
In this post, I asked a few questions. My plan in motion, I was worried people might catch on and view it as scummy. Granted, my playstyle is structured to appear that way much of the time... but I couldn't afford to be lynched while the vig was outed.
About NHT, there was some talk of him amongst other players and I was paying attention to it. I'd also noticed him and Lobster being on the two bandwagons along with DRK. I didn't like what I saw, but I'm a single minded person and had another target.

If that was your reason for suspecting us, what did you hope to gain by not revealing it? Possibly more importantly, what did you hope to gain by intentionally appearing scummy as cop? Sound to me like you wanted to be outed.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 39#1735539 (412-416)
Okay, here I was throwing the curve ball. I saw Lobster (and NHT) in both bandwagons, but at the time, I was busy trying to go through Qax's posts, continue my case against Wicked, and keep an eye on DRK. You should now be beginning to see why its taken me so long to truly explain my actions. Hopefully, you will when I'm finished.

Why continue "your" case against Wicked? I thought that was just a smokescreen.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 24#1737224 (433-435)
I've completely removed myself from DRK.
Also, notice how DRK says he labeled me as scummy before I voted him? I should hope this post shows that is NOT the case. During this time, I was also building my case against Wicked, because I think his play has been scummy.

Well my post has shown that that IS the case. Now Wicked was actually a target? If you thought he was scummy, why would you just use the case against him as part of a plan?

457: I nail DRK. I should hope you all see why I said what I said in the post.

You conveniently forgot Post 458, where I explained why your post was wrong.

460: NHT backs DRK up. I see another of their bandwagons forming.

That was NHT calling you out on scummy behavior and agreeing with me, not NHT trying to back me up.

461: Speaks for itself.
464: So does this.

They really need someone to speak for them because I don't see much content there.

470-471: I begin explaining things as requested.

Post 470 makes an argument about me to which I only saw disagreement in response. Post 471 fails. Lobster's post was sarcasm criticizing one of your posts.

In fact, I'd hardly had a chance to really analyze them with all the votes and questions tossed at me.

You weren't actually answering our questions. You should have had time to analyze them.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1740398
In which I respond to many things I felt I needed to.

Your best post IMO. You answered some things and made a few claims that I disagreed with. Post 508 might be nice to point out here.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 69#1741169
"Lol, I knew they were scum all along."

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 80#1741480
...My subtle hints unnoticed, my back is pressed against the wall...

Subtle hints are very useful in mafia...

The last two days have basically been CDB and I becoming frustrated with one another and DRK hoping he votes for me to get a lynch.

I'm pretty sure CDB already has his vote on you.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 92#1735292
In this post, I asked a few questions. My plan in motion, I was worried people might catch on and view it as scummy. Granted, my playstyle is structured to appear that way much of the time... but I couldn't afford to be lynched while the vig was outed.
About NHT, there was some talk of him amongst other players and I was paying attention to it. I'd also noticed him and Lobster being on the two bandwagons along with DRK. I didn't like what I saw, but I'm a single minded person and had another target.

The long quote should actually be that.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not sure what to make of CoCo's plan, but it's a much better explanation than what he's been giving us. Especially given his cop claim,

unvote

.

[canadianbovine]

unvote

i honestly don't care who we lynch anymore, seems like we've fished out the power roles. i just want this day to end.

[xRECKONERx]

Then join me in lynching lobster. Because now, nobody has any reason NOT to comment on my lobster views.

[DeathRowKitty]

My best comment for now is that I didn't pick up basically any of that from playing the game. If half of it looks good, I'd say you've got a very solid case, but I function very badly this late, so I'll look at it tomorrow. Having quickly looked through it when you first posted it, I did disagree with one part of your case. I haven't posted that yet because I don't want to say anything lobster might be able to use in his defense. I'll say more tomorrow after I've read it more thoroughly.

[xRECKONERx]

So, wait:

You're not responding now because it's late, or you're not responding now because you want to hear what lobster has to say first? You gave two contradicting reasons for not responding in one post.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not re-reading your post because it's too late. I'm not commenting on what I've read because I'm waiting for lobster.

[xRECKONERx]

But you're on to respond to my post 10 minutes later?

*rolls eyes*

[CoCo]

In my post before that, I did say you were scummy. I took it back in my next post, only to say your posts were noobish. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

You mean this, DRK:

I also have suspicions about xRECKONERx and CoCo, xRECKONERx for obvious reasons and CoCo for reasons I'll spell out when I have more time, but for now, I have to go.

I have a lot of people I want to FoS/vote for now, but since clearly not all of them can be scum, I'll save that for after I look through everything a little better later.

Gosh DRK, reading that, it seems you could make a case against a lot of people that voted for you after that post.

[ryan2754]

On with the rest of my read:

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

FoS CoCo

for not having any suspicions on anyone or any opinions whatsoever. With this much content, it's entirely absurd to not have an opinion on anyone at this point. Oh, right. Except for DRK, and that suspicion just seems like a OMGUS waiting to happen.

Agreed. At this point in the game , and in this game in particular, it would be asanine to only be suspicious of one player.

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.

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?
Paragraph 2: Still not a good idea. Let that player with that role play their own game.

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.

Definitely don't like Coco's stream of posting around Page 19. Avoiding questions, avoiding giving a case. An interesting note to point out is NHT's giving Coco MULTIPLE chances. Repeatedly keeps him at FOS, without a vote, but looming the possibility of a vote over his head. Fencesitting, essentially.

We ask them to comment on their predecessors' play imediately, but we shouldn't run them up to a lynch until we've heard what they have to say. We definitely can't ignore their predecessors' behaviour.

I totally agree that one cannot ignore the predecessors' behavior. However, what wolf has said or done in this game, I, as his repalcement cannot answer questions for him.

Guys, I do apologize for being gone yesterday (I had graduation/party). But I will

vote: CoCo

. I gave you more chances than I give anybody, and as it has been pointed out, you still say nothing in your posts. I even said I would upgrade the FoS had you not responded reasonably. Either give actual reasons or be gone. I believe you are at L-1.

Also, hi quints! I hope you are able to/have caught up. Welcome to the game!

Oh, there it is!
"Welp, the wagon is still going, I might as well join in."

I also suspect Lobster, but I'm on the fence about it, although he did begin the CB bandwagon early in the game.

So, before, you say he had a crap ton of scum tells, and now saying you're on the fence, and no data? Geez.

My playstyle has always seemed scummy. Eventually, in other places I play, its lead to me being a very hard to read player. This is my first game on this site, so I suppose that's why I'm under the gun right now. Some of the things I've said have been sarcastic, but the truth is, I've NEVER faced this much Day 1 pressure.

No you are not under the gun because you're new on this site. It's because you were

purposely playing scummy

, in your own words.

Shit. Vig AND Cop out on D1? Not. Good.

We need a mass unvoting, and we need to figure out who is driving these wagons to L-1 for the claims. I was never confident on the CoCo wagon. Also, quick look shows:

xRx, you say you were "never confident" in the CoCo wagon, but were completely OK with hammering?
That makes perfect sense...not. Bigtime contradiction. Not only that, you tell others NOT to hammer...WTH?
However, you might have something with regards to the three common elements. After Day 1 or 2 I usually do a post/vote analysis, seeing WHEN people joined each wagons etc. When did each of those three join the two wagons (aka, what number was their vote with regards to getting a majority - L-1, L-2, etc.)?

unvote

Oops, didn't notice my predecessor had a vote out.

I really don't like Reckoner's post bemoaning the two claims: first, as has already been noted, he was ready to hammer. Second, stating the obvious in the way he did "Vig and cop out on D1, not good" feels scummy.

I also think it's strange we hit two strong power roles on our first two role claims. I don't think it's likely that both are true.

I agree with everything here.

Post 563 looks like ryan buddying with CDB.

FoS: ryan

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.

At this point (page 23) I do not see any reason for Coco to be alleviated of what he has done so far in this game. He has claimed cop, sure, but as scum that is usually a safe claim, because most of the time the real cop will not counter. Also, his playstyle/tactics are not in accord with the role of cop. MME pretty much says the same thing later, but in fewer words. My apologies for being long-winded.

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.

Just because they are on both wagons doesn't make it a scum tell. In all honesty, I have seen over MANY games, not just here, that it is a null tell. What I HAVE seen is that scumminess in bandwagons is generally on WHEN they join, and what the general flow of the bandwagon is (aka, do they join a few posts after it gets going? Right after someone else does?) Either way, it must be analyzed in context to find scum. They are not scummy JUST BECAUSE they happen to be on both bandwagons. A little on my game theory, but I digress.

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.

Defending other people like this is scummy. Let him defend himself.

Thank you, and I agree. Defending oneself is what makes mafia so appealing, to me anyway.

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.

Actually, to me, in my read, if your read on meta is correct, it seems against his meta. He, on multiple occasions, tried to let Coco off the hook, and laid multiple FOS's on him before actually voting him. He didn't seem to jump around at all, but only fencesit until the very last second.

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

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.

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

Grrrrrr!

Yeah, I really would have liked to hear CoCo's case first. "Reason?" asks Wicked. Because now he has outs and can use parts of xRx's argument to boost his own saying, "Well, he just said what I was going to say." :rollseyes: MME pretty much says the same thing later, but in fewer words.

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.

Stalling out? I have not seen this game stall out. We tried two INFORMED lynches already, and claims discontinued the lynch. So now, you want to make an "informed" lynch on someone who has yet to defend himself? How is that "informed?"



At this point in the game, I find the two who have claimed as suspicious (xRx, CoCo)...still, to some degree.

XrX for earlier play and then his interaction with hammering/voting CoCo, and now his "informed lynch".

CoCo for his counter-cop playstyle and general scumminess, contradictions, unwillingness to respond through half the game. And also, his thinking that people being on multiple wagons on D1 (without any results/flips yet) is in and of itself scummy. Granted, his wall o' text describing his "gameplan" does cut him some slack regarding my suspicions of him. It's late, I'm tired, so I will have to re-read his wall of text, but I will say that, on my initial read, his wall of text is extremely adequate, and although I don't know whether I believe the cop claim or not (I find it highly unlikely both are telling the truth), I am willing to move forward/not vote him.

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.

Also dislike NHT's fencesitting with his vote on CoCo.

It looks as though CoCo has analyzed the bandwagons, and the three involved. I didn't quite follow it that well, CoCo, could you make a summary describing both bandwagons and when those individuals joined and the circumstances. I kind of had trouble following it in your wall of text. That, and I'm spent...again. This game has been rough on me as a replacement, moreso than others. Hopefully I have become sufficient as a replacement.

In essence, when I get around to it, when its not this late, I will do the following:
1.) Thoroughly read over xRx's case on Lobster, and Lobster's response when it comes.
2.) Thoroughly read over CoCo's case on DRK, and DRK's response that has already come.
3.) Analyze the scenario and order of the three jumping into the bandwagons, and the reasons for such votes.

[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?

[xRECKONERx]

He did say he noticed it before I did, but just didn't point it out.

[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