mafia 93iamausername wrote:rofl, can I get a list of all large games you have been in where the number of scum was not public knowledge from the beginning?
yes. you should not be voting for him.Xylthixlm wrote:Hath thee a read on Yos beyond agreement?roflcopter wrote:in addition i agree with what yos said, he is town.
this is a sad little deflection from the fact that you plopped your vote down and didn't make a single comment about the late stages of the wagon, content to leave it there and lurk until he was lynched. i was happy with how i read yesterday, and unless you know something i don't i still don't think all my theories were wrong. for instance, kmd-zufaul being scum together. and now i'm willing to bet on you for a third partner.serialclergyman wrote:rofl - My vote was on the BAB wagon and I was definitely for it. I'm not going to claim that I was impartial to it but voted him nonetheless. I was there, I wanted it to happen. Now - given almost all your theories were completely wrong, do you think you deserve some scrutiny, or were you happy with how you read yesterday?
Fine.roflcopter wrote:yes. you should not be voting for him.Xylthixlm wrote:Hath thee a read on Yos beyond agreement?roflcopter wrote:in addition i agree with what yos said, he is town.
The point is, here in this game, KMD's bhaviour can easily explained otherwise.elvis_knits wrote:Zu, were you in that game? Have you read it? Why are you dismissing my example out of hand? Wolf made a statement that he knew a person was town while he voted to lynch that same person. Fact is he was scum. How/why would a town person have done that?
Your persistance in voting e_k for the stuff from yesterday; also you are completely ignoring anything e_k said afterwards.KMD wrote:Zu, what point did Yos make against me that you agree with?
Serial Clergyman wrote:Runner up prize: zu faul - you finally get into the game by voting me, mentioning it's a pressure vote and saying nothing else about me. I feel more pressure on me to shave my ugly facial hair than I feel from that limpy vote.
I wish I could be as cool as you, SerialClergyman. Could you send me an autograph?The others were in those games. I believed them. I have no time to check your games. Especially with search down. Who do you think you are?SerialClergyman wrote:At least the others who had voted me had bothered to have a look and see the levels of posting discrepency. (note it's not just mafia 96, I've also been pretty active in Welcome to Foggylondontown, but I've also been very lurky in Webcomic Wars. It's a mix of how late the game has gone on and limited time. Thankfully I'm at night and in a quiet patch in the two most active games so here I am.)
It is easy. "Stalling" means waiting for a lynch just because deadline has not run out yet. What I do to scum hunt is jsut slowing down the wagon. Those are two strictly different things.aekiM wrote:How?zu_Faul wrote:Gogogo team misrepresentation.ekiM wrote:363 zu_faul says stalling the game is a bad idea. He also says his usual scum hunting tactic is to slow down the game. The fuck?
I've noticed I have this effect on people.zu_Faul wrote:There is somethin about Xyl which terribly bugs me, but I can't point a finger to it. Easily listening to rofl jsut now, for example, does not strike me as a pro-town move. But somehow I believe he is actually on our side. Like my head says "scum" and my gut feeling says "town".
You should have used a sock puppet.zu_Faul wrote:Serial Clergyman wrote:Runner up prize: zu faul - you finally get into the game by voting me, mentioning it's a pressure vote and saying nothing else about me. I feel more pressure on me to shave my ugly facial hair than I feel from that limpy vote.
Nope, nope. BaB wasn't somehow devoting himself to a huge effort to attack that line. He was getting attacked for why he mentioned it in the first place, and then he was defending and explaining his thoughts.ekiM wrote: I also don't know what your problem with what I said it. I thought Elvis was overblowing what she was saying. I agreed that it was reasonable to question the motivation for B&B devoting so much effort to attacking a line of thought that only harmed him if he was scum. And?
(wild speculation: Claus said earlier he had a timid scum meta from Mike, couldn't help but wonder if the mudsling style was a reaction to that.)ekiM wrote:Page 10
B&B 235, 237, 245 are just.... awful. Pretty sure he's scum. Worst thing: trying to discredit the Xyl+B&B not scum together line. What is the townie motivation?
Are you serious here?SerialClergyman wrote: c) BAB caught you out in a pretty big fib in his post at 453.
B&B claimed that was a lie, but that was bullshit. That was exactally the reason B&B gave when he voted me.Yosarian2 wrote:B&B voted me because I think you're not his scumbuddy
B&B voted me because I didn't think that Xyl could possibly be scum with B&B. That was EXACTALLY WHAT HE SAID HIS REASON WAS WHEN HE VOTED ME.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:According to Yos, there's no such thing as bussing. Either he's forgotten all his games of mafia, or he's scum.Yosarian2 wrote: , B&B is probably scum and, if he is, Xyl is 100% guarenteed to be town;
I'm pretty confident Yos is scum.
vote:yos
No, my response was that of a town who was pretty damn sure he had a scum pinned to the wall who was trying to lie his way out of trouble.I know you responded to it, but your response looked like overreactive scum.
His reasons were just wrong. I demonstrated that his reasons were wrong, and his response was to change his mind and claim he was voting for me for completely different reasons. So, yes, I'm still pretty damn sure that the real reason he was voting me was just because I was voting him; it was an OMGUS vote. This is especially clear when you note that he had absolutely no suspicion on me until I started attacking him.So you put it out there that his attack on you is OMGUS, which is a relatively poor suggestion. He has actually given you plenty of reasons - none of which were based on your vote for him.
There was no "valid suspicion". When the reasons he gave for voting me were proved false, rather then re-considering his vote, he simply changed his argument by repeated other people's "I think Yos's meta is off" crap.So he replies at 453, quoting where he had given further reasons for his vote:
and then saysBNB wrote:I'm voting you because your meta is off, your posts have a sort of unaffected tone that I've encountered when reading your scum games as opposed to the active scumhunter fearsome Yos I've seen.
Also, I think your attack of me is basically opportunistic and if there wasn't a wagon on me you wouldn't be voting me.Then, you replied thusly:If you just quoted my post, which stated my reasons for voting you, and then say that I'm voting you "because I think you're not his scumbuddy," I have no choice but to believe you are purposely lying and not simply missing my posts.
So this doesn't look like someone who is genuinely trying to work out who's scum. Whether BAB used those reasons when he first voted you or not, there's still a genuine question there that you've completely ignored.Yoss wrote:So, yes, you were originally voting me because I said that Xyl is town if you're scum.
Afterwords, once I had demonstrated that your wrong and that there was nothing scummy about that, you completely changed your reason; you changed it into basically a bad imitation of Claus' case against me. Basically, it looks like you really want to vote me because I'm voting you, and you'll come up with whatever reason you can to do so, and change your reason when the first one is disproven. What's worse, you seem to refuse to even admit that's what you're doing.
The fact that you're trying to claim "I'm lying" about your reason, when IT WAS THE REASON YOU GAVE WHEN YOU VOTED ME JUST YESTERDAY, has completely convinced me you're cornered scum. You've now gotten to the point where you're actually lying about your own posts in a desperate attempt to make your attackers look bad.
No one can ever actually "answer" answer vauge comments about their "meta" or their "tone". If he had been specific with his meta or tone accusations, (..."I think Yos only does X when he's scum"), I'm sure I could have proven him wrong quite easily, but vauge comments like that are useless.You can make the point that he's added to his original reasons, but you still have to answer them.
I am always going to be aggressive and confident when nailing someone I'm convinced is scum to the ground; that's just the right way to act.Your last post is overly aggressive and overly sure. You don't acknowledge that your summary of his reasons for voting you didn't include the reaosns he added later even though you were definitely aware of them.
Yeah, that's usually how a scum acts when he knows he can't defend the scummy actions that have gotten him all the way to lynch -1 or lynch -2. He lashes out, lies, cheats, tries to discredit his attackers, and just generally thrashes around a lot. And yes, that was what B&B's actions there looked like to me.And the language isn't right either. This might be more of a gut thing, but you're too derisive. A cornered scum with a desperate attempt to make his attackers look bad? Really?
His argument was that a scum, bandwagoned close to a lynch on day 1 and told to claim, wouldn't claim vanilla, and that just clearly seems completely false to me.In addition, I also have a gut townread on kmd and also don't like your characterisation of yesterday's posts. His argument wasn't that scum never claim vanilla, it was primarily a gut read that scum in BAB's position wouldn't claim vanilla.
Scum generally don't want lynch a scummy looking vanilla townie that claimed day 1 with no other claims, especally if they're worried about power roles. They want to keep going and get more claims.It was a gutsy point that he knew he'd take flak for but made it anyway. I'm not sure how that plays to a scummy agenda, especially given BAB was in fact a townie.
That's not really correct.In short - I think you were arguing about the theory of whether or not 'someone' who claims vanilla d1 should be lynched, but KMD was saying he thought BAB was town and the vanilla claim in that particular situation was part of the reason why. There's a subtle but significant difference between the points.
KMD wrote: but I don't see scum fakeclaiming vanilla near a lynch on Day 1
His argument was all about what he thought "scum" would or wouldn't do in that situation; it was all about what "someone" in that situation would do, in the abstract sense, and that was how I responded to it. I don't think he ever claimed he had a town gut read on bridges.KMD wrote: Anyway. Until someone gives me a reason why scum would have motivation to claim vanilla here, knowing that vanillas are almost always lynched when they claim at L-1/L-2, and knowing that they won't be countered (or shouldn't be at least), I won't vote Bridge.
So, all a scum has to do is get off of a bad wagon before it gets to a lynch, the way KMD did, and you'll just assume he must be town, huh?How do you feel kmd's play was scummy yesterday given the known status of BAB + the others that died?
And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?Yosarian2 wrote:I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?
(shrug) Because I'm voting KMD. Can't lynch two scum in one day.Xylthixlm wrote:And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?Yosarian2 wrote:I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?
Well, do you agree with the parts that were factually untrue, the parts that were vauge and misleading, or the parts that appear to be a chainsaw defense of KMD?Xyl wrote: The parts that are about Yos2.
Why Kmd rather than SerialClergyman?Yosarian2 wrote:(shrug) Because I'm voting KMD. Can't lynch two scum in one day.Xylthixlm wrote:And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?Yosarian2 wrote:I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?
All of them, but mostly the vague and misleading ones.Yosarian2 wrote:Well, do you agree with the parts that were factually untrue, the parts that were vauge and misleading, or the parts that appear to be a chainsaw defense of KMD?Xyl wrote: The parts that are about Yos2.
(shrug) SerialClergyman is about #2 on my list of suspects; his lurking, his behavior yesterday, and his attack on me all seem bad. I'm rather unwilling to unvote KMD at this moment, though, and I actually think that lynching KMD is likely to give information about SerialClergyman and some of the other people who have come out and attacked me in direct response to my KMD vote.Xylthixlm wrote:Why Kmd rather than SerialClergyman?Yosarian2 wrote:(shrug) Because I'm voting KMD. Can't lynch two scum in one day.Xylthixlm wrote:And you're not voting SerialClergyman, why?Yosarian2 wrote:I can't believe you're just repeating such obviously untrue statements. You think you can just hide behind a dead townie and that'll let you get away with that?
Lol.All of them, but mostly the vague and misleading ones.Yosarian2 wrote:Well, do you agree with the parts that were factually untrue, the parts that were vauge and misleading, or the parts that appear to be a chainsaw defense of KMD?Xyl wrote: The parts that are about Yos2.
4) Any reason why you felt that BAB would OMGUS you specifically out of the entire rest of the wagon?kmd in 304 wrote:And I didn't say they can't. I just don't see Bridge doing it. He'd be more likely to claim a power role as scum instead of laying down and taking a lynch. That's unless he's being bussed hard, and is ok with being lynched, but I still think he'd fight it and try to get a mislynch for today.
Unless you've got some knowledge about Yos2 that I don't have, looks like you're doing exactly the same thing.rofl wrote:serial is chainsawing for kmd hard, and at this point attacking yos is a scumtell.
I didn't mention what I thought about you until Xyl specifically asked me why I wasn't voting you. That hardly means I didn't think you were scummy, it just means I was pursuing other issues.SerialClergyman wrote:Little time, but some things of note:
1) Since you find OMGUS such a worrying sign, it's worth mentioning I've skyrocketed to 2nd on your scumlist directly after posting a case against you, when previous to that I don't think you mentioned me once.
Again, that's just 100% false. Name one single point that B&B ever made that I didn't respond to. There are none.2) BAB originally used the point about Xyl to vote you. Then raised a number of other points, that you noticed because you quoted them after. Then you failed to mention those points completely and mischaracterised BAB's position as only being about the initial reason.
Oh, so mischaracterisation of someone's position is scummy, huh? Then why are you trying so hard to do just that right now?...your mischaracterisation of his position
I didn't include that, because it's completely irrelevant to the point that I was making, which was just that he was talking about scum in general. And you know that.. But your quotes make it clear you are pushing a case rather than trying to find out the truth. (hence why you didn't include the 'I'm probably going to take flak for this' in his unvote, which I saw as particularly townie)
Yeah, I still think he's talking about scum in general there; he used bridges name, but I don't think any of that has anything to do with bridges personally, it's all just talking about the position he was in.An example, when asked if he thought scum couldn't claim vanilla -kmd in 304 wrote:And I didn't say they can't. I just don't see Bridge doing it. He'd be more likely to claim a power role as scum instead of laying down and taking a lynch. That's unless he's being bussed hard, and is ok with being lynched, but I still think he'd fight it and try to get a mislynch for today.
Did you see B&B's scum list? Everyone he listed as scummy were people attacking him, and everyone he listed as townie were people defending him, and the list otherwise made no sense at all. Basically every suspicion B&B had at that point was pure OMGUS, not just his attack on me.4) Any reason why you felt that BAB would OMGUS you specifically out of the entire rest of the wagon?
So, what, you're rolefishing now?5) I particularly like this from rofl:
Unless you've got some knowledge about Yos2 that I don't have, looks like you're doing exactly the same thing.rofl wrote:serial is chainsawing for kmd hard, and at this point attacking yos is a scumtell.
Oh, it might not be a chainsaw defense. It might just be that you realized you were going to get lynched if you kept lurking and didn't fake a suspicion on someone, so you looked around and decided I was an easy target. I'm not really sure what your motive is, but I doubt it's pro-town scumhunting at this point.Besides, a chainsaw defence is supposed to be a subtle way of defending someone without being linked to them - relatively unusual that I would do that while specifically mentioning my town read of kmd.
Kay, so are we talking about semirandom stage or something else?kmd wrote:Mostly the reaction to my initial vote.
you should cuz charter is prob town.PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:lets lynch charter, but not tell him why.
vote charter
Yos votes kmd. The problem here is why did you wait until day 2 to vote for someone with the same information that was available day 1?elvis wrote:Dammit Yos, you are drawing me back in! I was trying to forget this!
I tend to agree with you here. Also wtf vanilla town?Yos wrote:The thing is, there is absolutly no reason a pro-town person should ever leave a wagon in response to a vanillia claim, especally on day 1. So, yeah, I think it's a scum tell; it's a move scum have reason to do, and vanilla town don't.
Tbh, I dont remember a solid opinion from you in the elvis-kmd thing. It just feels like you were saving your opinion for today or at least you are reinforcing it. Could you point me where you were saying exactly that?Yos wrote:In other words, just like I said yesterday, by not stepping in and responding to Elvis' initial post on page 4, and instad hearing KMD's defense and all that, I was able to figure out that KMD is probably scum and Elvis is probably town. Which is what I've been saying all along. How the hell could you call that a "contradiction" of what I was saying yesterday? That is EXACTALLY what I was saying yesterday, especally later in the day.
Kmd, what games are you using as meta information?Kmd4390 wrote:I don't OMGUS as scum. I tell people they are town for pursuing a case they believe. And my reason for suspecting you is more the gut feeling that you aren't playing to your meta.
So what is the point/motivation of this question, serial?serial wrote:serial is chainsawing for kmd hard, and at this point attacking yos is a scumtell.
Unless you've got some knowledge about Yos2 that I don't have, looks like you're doing exactly the same thing.
Well, would have been good of you to at least include it or make a reference to it in your posts earlier. It mentions Bridge's name twice and specifically talks about his scenario.Yeah, I still think he's talking about scum in general there; he used bridges name, but I don't think any of that has anything to do with bridges personally, it's all just talking about the position he was in.
Besides - it also specifically notes that it's not that scum CAN'T fake vanilla, but that he felt bridges WASN'T. That cannot be interpreted as a general case - that's him saying the general is possible but in this specific case he feels that bridges isn't.KMD wrote:And I didn't say they can't. I just don't see Bridge doing it.
. Because being 2nd on your scumlist doesn't mean your suspicion is on me? That sort of stuff always screams of Perry Mason theatrics to me. My suspicion is confirmation bias, rofl running with the theory of kmd being scum sees a chainsaw, without realising that when you take away his theory his point is clearly a carbon copy replica of the behaviour he is attacking.So what is the point/motivation of this question, serial?
Your attack against me was scummy. It's scummy as hell to be in favor of a bandwagon on day 1, then on day 2 to attack me for that same bandwagon. And your constant misrepresentation were scummy as well.SerialClergyman wrote:And in case it wasn't clear the first time around, I made my case against you after a re-read now that I have some time to commit to the game. From what I followed on D1 I was happy with the BAB lynch. Now I'm looking back in retrospect with a detailed re-read and I noticed the exchange in question. That's my reason for not talking about your scummy behaviour prior to my bringing it up. What's your reason for not talking about mine until I made a post against you?
This was the situtation. I'm voting B&B. B&B's response was:2) So your reason for not mentioning the new points is that it was a tl:dr summary.
Why didn't you ever just say that? Even when BAB accused you of misrepping him, I seem to remember you railed on about him being a liar and someone desperately omgusing you. Why not just say 'Well, that was just a summary, I didn't include every reason you've ever had for suspecting me.'?
Your initial claim was that "Yos fibbed about B&B's reason for voting him". That was just false, so I disproved that by pointing out B&B's reason for voting me.I'm not trying to mischaracterise your position, it just keeps changing.'I didn't include it because it was just a 3-line post'is different to'That wasn't your reason, look at your post voting me'.
Eh, it looked to me like you're trying to figure out if rofl has role based information proving I'm innocent or not. There's no way a town person should be trying to uncover that today.5) Nope, not rolefishing, stating the obvious.
Of course I was already suspicious of you. A FOS is generally something I use to point out a specific, scummy act that I want to draw attention to.I also found your FoS cute.