Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

[xRECKONERx]

right now I think that xRECKONERx is pretty sketchy with his wanting to just policy lynch me for no reason, but that might be a bit of OMGUS

And throughout all of this, there is nothing from Suave...

nope, nothing from me,

because now we're all just pointing at eachother, and nothing is getting done.

my opinion on the random lynch is that I do not support it in any way. if we do that, we waste a whole day. I'm sticking with my hoopla behavior case/theory for now, because I still don't have a good feeling about her play this game. (and I know I sound like a broken record)

That's mafia in a nutshell, and it gets quite a bit done in the long run. What you see as "pointing at each other" will be important tomorrow - committing to a stance on a player (or avoiding alignment discussion on a player) are telling after someone flips.

I want to know what you think about the rest of the game. Aside from Hoopla, who is scum?

well right now I'm going to say RECK isn't being the most pro town player by wanting some random scum, exactly like hoopla was/(is?) going for. so hoopla is on the top of my list, RECK is a second. I don't really have my eyes on a third at this point.

Wait... what? I'm anti-town by wanting to lynch a random scum? How the fuck does that even make sense?

[tubby216]

no he is trying to say you want to lynch anyone regaurdless of scumminess

[xRECKONERx]

False.

[julienvonwolfe]

Also, I would never lynch you tubby.

Are you being serious here?

[tubby216]

Also, I would never lynch you tubby.

Are you being serious here?

awe atleast someone loves me and appreciates me

[HowardRoark]

Torqez replaces ZazieR

[xRECKONERx]

Hi Torqez! I anxiously await your catch-up post.

[Nuwen]

Your

singular

catchup post. Yes. Hi.

[MacavityLock]

And then, his post 10, where he says "fine, reck, I'll follow" and votes for Geek [me]. Blatant, opportunistic scum hopping on a wagon.

Do you think that a scum would be that obvious/conspicuous about wagon-hopping?

Anything new from 2nd half read?

[Torqez]

Heyas! Busy atm, but will read up soonish.

[HowardRoark]

Vote Count (D1)

tubby216 (2) -- Symbol, ErictheRed
Hoopla (1) -- MrSuave
MrSuave (3) -- julienvonwolfe, MacavityLock, ekiM
ErictheRed (2) -- iamausername, xRECKONERx
Symbol (1) -- tubby216
Torqez (3) -- Torqez, Nuwen, Hoopla

Not Voting (0)

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline: 12 NOV 2009 at 5:15 pm UTC (Countdown)

ekiM has been prodded (2nd)

[Torqez]

OMG....wow...okay....now I realise the significance of:

Your singular catchup post. Yes. Hi.

lol, from here on in, I am going to put in a plea. I humbly request you to disregard all what Zazier said -_- ...lest his

interesting

(for lack of a better word), be used to judge me

But anyway....that aside... the thing I want to comment on most is Hoopla's proposal of randomly lynching anybody.

I somewhat agree with this, but largely not. I am currently playing another game where I make a similar suggestion for Day 1 - but with a

KEY

difference. As opposed to randomly lynching someone, I argue to put someone at L-1 who I feel a suspect as scum. This way (just like Hoopla said) it pressures ppl to change votes, defend, or just argue their PoV earlier or with pressure. I have no qualms about lynching someone I suspect for gaining more information going into Day 2. Howeveve, like I said - this is for someone with scummy behaviour or just appears to be scummy (gut feeling even).

Reason for this, is that I find often, on Day 1, people can take pretty much anybody and drill down so much into 1 (or couple/few/several) things that can be used to justify lynch votes - and probably largely incorrectly. So I don't think it matters 'that' much. But I do like to see who changes votes and when - and think this information is vital.

That being said, I think just 'randomly' voting for anybody doesn't serve the same purpose. And suggestion of the idea, could even be made to draw attention away from our current lines of thinking....

RE: Everything Else.
For me, right now, I have somewhat of an overview of everyone (but reading through 17 pages wasn't easy). I think I still want a re-read before delving too deeply into who else I find scummy.

BUT since I disregard Zaizer, and would like to make my own contribution to the game, for now, I'm voting this way for the reasons above.

Vote: Hoopla

[Symbol]

Nuwen, why are you policy-voting for Zazie's replacement (who, upon preview edit, seems to have posted)?

[Torqez]

Mod: Oh and erm...as mentioned somewhere (can't find the reference just atm again), I don't think Zaizer was voting for himself?

But incase is the procedure, to unvote:

Unvote, Vote: Hoopla

[Torqez]

Nuwen, why are you policy-voting for Zazie's replacement (who, upon preview edit, seems to have posted)?

I believe the policy vote was for Zaz, before I got replaced?.. Posted Here

That scumlist is meaningless after a page and a half of disjointed questions, plus "notes" and "not likes." Congratulations, Zaz, you've wasted pieces of both your life and mine.

Why, for example, am I leaning town if I'm pushing cases on both of your most town players? Do you think our interactions look like town vs. town? If so, why?

That's

useful information. Your stupid vague spam reveals nothing, aside from your inability to string more than one post together into a cogent analysis.

In fact...

Vote: ZazieR

.

This is a policy vote (one of my first on the site, I think). I am calling for Zaz's lynch for the salvation of this site's meta. That replace-in behavior needs to be purged from with fire. I never want to see it again.

[Nuwen]

Crypto was just being facetious.

Unvote

That being said, I think just 'randomly' voting for anybody doesn't serve the same purpose. And suggestion of the idea, could even be made to draw attention away from our current lines of thinking...

RE: Everything Else.
For me, right now, I have somewhat of an overview of everyone (but reading through 17 pages wasn't easy). I think I still want a re-read before delving too deeply into who else I find scummy.

This is what I'm most interested in: If Hoopla was trying to draw attention away from something, what is that something?

And, of course, I want to hear your analysis of players besides yourself (or your role slot) and Hoopla.

[Torqez]

It won't be coming just yet. Rather than just reading and posting my opinions (besides what I have already), I personally much like to interact with people to confirm/negate anything I am feeling.

Right now a lot of the back and forthness could still be much ado about nothing, imo.

[Nuwen]

I like you already. Let's talk about the current wagon on Suave and Tubby <-> Reck. Suave's wagon is one of classic opportunism. There's gotta be scum on it. If you had to pick someone on it to lynch, Torq, who would it be?

What have you taken away from Tubby's fixation on Reck and Reck's willingness to lynch Suave or Tubby?

Mike, you've gone all quiet again.

I think geekalicious is reasonably likely to be scum, but I realize now we probably can't think of lynching him until he gets replaced (for claiming purposes).

Oh and geek got replaced; could lynch his replacement.

I'm a little bothered by this. When I read post 1, I glanced over the "for claiming purposes" addendum and focused only on "can't think of lynching him until he gets replaced." After rereading, I'm now more concerned by the parenthetical statement - pulling out claims is

not

the best reason to value a replacement on Day 1. A replacement needs to speak, commit, and tether himself to the game on day 1; valuing claim ability indicates that you might already know that slot's alignment.

[Symbol]

Unvote. Vote: Nuwen.

[xRECKONERx]

Unvote. Vote: Nuwen.

I see.

[tubby216]

Unvote. Vote: Nuwen.

I see.

enlighten the fat guy plz

[Symbol]

I feel like she's holding an "I am smart scum!" sign over her head every post she makes. She simply looks scummy as all hell to me. I could probably make some sort of a case, but at the moment I don't have the motivation. It's largely intuition. There are some instances that strike me as very shady, but I don't know if I can coherently explain them. And they certainly not damning on a logical level.

[xRECKONERx]

Only 9 days to deadline. And we've pretty much gotten nowhere.

[Nuwen]

Make the case. No more stupid

feeling

cases in this thread, please. Doesn't anyone else realize that accepting gut reads sets a precedent that allows scum to push cases on nothing? "Something

just felt off

, let's lynch him!"

As I said earlier, "gut" doesn't fly past a few pages into the game. Have you read Shanba's scumhunting thread?. Adel describes my attitude towards gut reads perfectly: if your read is based on tone or intuition, it's no better than random. If you can recall specific facts and instances that contribute to your gut read, I'm more likely to believe that you're semi-consciously reacting to tells.

[Symbol]

As I said earlier, "gut" doesn't fly past a few pages into the game. Have you read Shanba's scumhunting thread?.

Wait, I thought I was that Crypto guy who posted several times in it. Shoot.