Deadline wrote:
I agree. I think it's the most logical thing for town to do. We can say "scum will do this and not do that" but not all scum play the same. Nothing is 100%. You can look back and see how people respond. That is why posting is so important.Tehstefan wrote:Yet nachomamma, I believe that asking questions is one of the few things you can do as a townie to expose scum, as they allow you to get someone's stance on something, then watch to see if they change it quickly or without reason. Sure, it is possible for scum to ask really good questions and handicap the town, but its just as likely the town to do the same. I consider myself beter to ask questions, as if people ask suspicious questions, that aren't very good to answer, perhaps we can realize they may be hiding something.
In any case, Nachomamma, do you have any reads to share?
So far, I haven't seen many signifigant tells, but I'm leaning slightly towards town for both Nachomamma, and Sable. Scum wouldn't want to get in an argument so soon, it draws too much attention, at least in my view. Feel free to enlighten me to anything I may miss.
You said that you believed TBB was suspicious because he "keeps making arguments". To me, that means that you believe someone who keeps making arguments is more likely to be scum then someone who doesn't, and therefore that scum are more likely to make arguments then town. Am I mistaken in this reasoning? Why did you believe that someone who keeps making arguments is more likely to be scum?StarOfTheShow wrote:I'm not sure why scum would make more arguments. Remember this is my first game.... Ever.
Given the information I currently have available, I would support your lynch. No lynch is not an option, because the lynch is the town's only weapon to kill scum. And you are at this point in time the most likely to be mafia. It is likely though that this will change as more info becomes available throughout this day, though.Sposh wrote:Michel, do you think you'd support my lynch today, or are you just voting me to get a reaction?
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It is true that you cannot determine anyone's alignment by what happens in the RVS, but it is also true that you can make strong inferrances. For example, you can say "I believe A is scum because B, a confirmed scum, ignored him during the entire RVS while saying something to everyone else."MichelSableheart wrote:[@Nachomamma: It seems to me that you are using two standards. You have no problems with the fact that completely unbased accusations during a RVS can be brushed away, but you seem to believe that an accusation on very slim evidence being brushed away is a problem. It is my belief that a based accusation, no matter how slim the evidence, will do more to get the game started then a completely unbased vote. In the same vein, I also belief that game related questions are a better way to start discussion then basically random behaviour, even thoughI agree with you thatthey don't do a whole lot for exposing the scum.
The connections you are talking about are, in my experience at least, not very helpful. Especially without a meta available, it is virtually impossible to reliable predict how someone is going to act given a particular role during a RVS. It is simply impossible to say "A is town, because a confirmed scum voted for him during RVS".
Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
I didn't say it was too early to vote me, I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions. Fact is that you asked a question that wasn't particularly intense, and then voted me roughly 24 hours later without even waiting to see if I would respond with my next post (my first post since you asked the question). I still perceive this as scummy and would still like for you to address it.Nachomamma8 wrote:Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
Yeah, I completely ignored your post 62 because you didn't ask me a question. Wasn't obliged to answer it, so I didn't. What were you looking for in response to that post?
Alright, what's the difference? And how is it scummy? I saw something suspicious, I went for it. Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?Jase wrote:I didn't say it was too early to vote me, I said it was too early to vote me for not answering questions. Fact is that you asked a question that wasn't particularly intense, and then voted me roughly 24 hours later without even waiting to see if I would respond with my next post (my first post since you asked the question). I still perceive this as scummy and would still like for you to address it.Nachomamma8 wrote:Why is it too early to vote you? Are you at L-1? *checks* Nope. L-2? *checks* Nope. L-3? *checks* Again, nope. Yeah, I don't see any problem from attacking you based on your refusal to answer a question. I am currently the first person to vote you, as far as my knowledge goes.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
Yeah, I completely ignored your post 62 because you didn't ask me a question. Wasn't obliged to answer it, so I didn't. What were you looking for in response to that post?
Additionally, I may not have asked a question in my post 62, but I did indicate that I had a problem with it, and you failed to clarify or elaborate in any way.
I'm not ready to change my vote yet, but I really don't like the way you're playing right now.
FoS: Nachomama
Actually, you did.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
This post specifically claims hes suspicious of you for voting him for not answering questions.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
broncofaninmd wrote:This post specifically claims hes suspicious of you for voting him for not answering questions.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
Not for answering questions fast enough.
1. Alright, I said I think it's too early to vote me for not answering questions. Meaning that you placed your vote against me well before a reasonable response time for the question had expired. Understand? And all this "Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?" malarky only serves to cloud the issue, nobody said that, nor will they ever say that, and the only purpose that such statements serve is to paint their target as scummy without adequate reasoning. I will thank you for refraining from making such statements in the future.Nachomamma8 wrote:1.Alright, what's the difference? And how is it scummy? I saw something suspicious, I went for it. Did I miss the memo where scumhunting was scummy?
2.Ummm... why is whetheryouhave a problem with my posting or notmyproblem? If you want me to explain something, ask a question. Again, I ask: what do you want me to explain or clarify?
3.Why aren't you changing your vote? You're unhappy with how I'm playing maybe because I'm suspicious of you? Here, we have a phrase for that: OMGUS (OhMyGodUSuck) Basically, it means that you're voting me since I'm voting you. If this isn't the case, why don't you give a few reasons why you're FoSing me?
I had no previous vote, didn't you read the post I voted you in? Unless you mean the vote I placed against BeanBurrito in RVS (the one where I confirmed him scum by process of alliteration).Nachomamma8 wrote:Edit: Why are you voting me now? Why would a previous vote have any water whatsoever if you've found a new suspect? Afraid of looking flip-floppy?
???broncofaninmd wrote:This post specifically claims hes suspicious of you for voting him for not answering questions.Jase wrote:Sorry, addressed this yesterday, but must've forgotten to hit submit.
It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious, and I'd like you to address it. Now, I said three votes was too much because it's only one more vote and there could be a quick lynch.Nachomamma8 wrote:Unvote: MichelSableheart.
Vote: Jase
Please answer all questions addressed to you.
It's actually kinda funny that you vote me for not answering a question when you completely ignore my post 62.
Not for answering questions fast enough.