Flash Mafia: You won!

[mykonian]

Vote count

Rayfrost(4): Mikeburnfire, Snow white, Elvis_knits, Green Crayons
Green Crayons(3): Populartajo, Pomegranate, Spyrex
Snow_bunny(2): A girl on the internet, Roflcopter
A girl on the internet(1): Crypto

Not voting (3): Porochaz, Snow_Bunny, Rayfrost.

with 13 players, it is 7 to lynch

Please check this, there could be something wrong.

[Green Crayons]

Post in isolation.

Um. At the bottom of your screen:

Display posts from previous: [All Posts] by [Snow_Bunny] [Oldest First]

Since the bunny voting isn't picking up steam, I'm not going to derail the conversation about the (lack of) legitimacy of a serious bunny wagon at this point. I'm just making a note that even with your clarification I find the bunny voting weak.


rofl: What did you like about Ray's answer in post 52?

[roflcopter]

it seemed sincere, which is a good sign someone is town, as compared to manufactured. its mostly a gut feeling thing.

[elvis_knits]

Plus, I'm a misogynist (hi elvis! ).

lol

I almost voted you when I saw you replace in. So far, I have been able to restrain myself though.

---

I say that I'm not getting either a town or scum feeling from mufasa. Is that that hard to understand? It means I'm getting a neutral reading. Which means that I could lean towards third party. Hard?

No, this does not make sense. Third party, SK, is a type of scum. So a person should be reading scummy to you in order for you to start contemplating what type of scum. Neutral is not a deisgnation for scum.

[Porochaz]

Your right. I fucked up, again.

while you're here...

opinion on snow_bunny case?

Ok now I am happy to comment on this...

I think its bull shit. The reasoning behind Girls posts doesnt work. Many players dont vote for L-2 page 5, and a neutral reading on Mufasa isnt wishy-washy, she repeated that multiple times, its like me having a neutral read on ray (I havent gone in depth in Green Crayons post yet.) Cryptos vote pings the scumdar as well as the isos dont really add anything new. However its roflcopters vote with no reasons that makes me upset. Whether its a scumtell, meh, but hes been around long enough to know better.

Post 133, is a horrible reply. Dealing in absolutes. Yuk. Also page number specifics, maybe not, but I consider page 5 of a large game still the beginning and whilst I dont have any problem putting someone on L-2 on page 2 or 200 I can understand why some people would. Also it doesnt mean were getting stuff done, there is a variety of reasons why.

AGOTI is going to be my vote, with rofl second however having now read GC's post I want to go through both Ray and Rofls posts seperately.

[elvis_knits]

Oh, one thing I noticed and I don't think anyone has pointed out, is that prozac refused to place a vote right before snow bunny refused to place a vote and everyone jumped on snow bunny, and nobody said anything about prozac. I would like to know what the difference is. I only mentioned snow bunny because I didn't like her third party comment... but on the field of not voting, snow bunny should not be mentioned without mentioning prozac.

[Porochaz]

Ok so having read over, Ray is looking pretty bad, will wait for his response to GC before I act upon it though, rofl isnt looking so bad anymore, shifting him into the "neutral" zone (heaven forbid) So currently its a toss up between AGOTI and Ray... and Im waiting for Rays response so

vote AGOTI

[crypto]

Why did you change your mind about roflcopter?

[Pomegranate]

I see that there has been a lot of good content during my absence. I read it all, and hopefully there will be a nice, long post tonight or tomorrow.

[Porochaz]

Only one of his posts stood out as scummy. When reading over there was not much more I felt needed to be adressed.

[SpyreX]

I'm starting to get a nasty twitch about MBF (especially his RayFrost chug-a-lug).

However its the weekend so I'm not going to try and pin it down - that whole l-2 versus l-1 debate and the sweeping "all the scum are on the wagon" seems like hyper-aggressive posturing.

[Pomegranate]

@AGOI why is the Ray wagon stupid?

cuz he's obv town.

Would you like to explain why?

Pomegranate's double post is suspicious. Pom felt it was necessary to change "MBF is leaning town" to the more assertive "MBF=town". This lets me know that he's previewing his messages, then altering them slightly before he posts, perhaps in an effort to prevent giving away any scumtells. Or in this case, to try and establish a stong connection between me so that I'd be more trusting of him, or that when I die he looks better/can claim cop.

I always preview my posts, and often alter them slightly. I hope you have no problem with that, as I always do it.

How would I be setting up for a cop claim? There hasn't been night yet.

No, this does not make sense. Third party, SK, is a type of scum. So a person should be reading scummy to you in order for you to start contemplating what type of scum. Neutral is not a deisgnation for scum.

QFT

I say that I'm not getting either a town or scum feeling from mufasa. Is that that hard to understand? It means I'm getting a neutral reading. Which means that I could lean towards third party. Hard?

Yes, hard. Or better yet, not hard, but not making much sense.

It looks like Ray "knows" why rofl voted for bunny. At post 108 - and, indeed, at post 114 - nobody knows why rofl voted for bunny except rofl. It's a horrible move to make: "I agree with this vote based off of reasons that I don't know!" Second: It looks like Ray is trying to hide behind rofl's status as an "awesome" player. We've already seen how easily Ray attached himself to an aspect of rofl's play style (per point two). Now we see him blindly following that very same player. It's reckless and, more importantly, a good scum-excuse to vote for another player; after all, nothing's better than an authority appeal when you're questioned why you wanted to vote for another player. His hesitation looks like he's trying to place himself for the hammer.

I didn't mean to spit in the face of Green Crayons' post, though; it's a fab addition to the RF case. RF can be one of AGOTI's scum buddies.

I could see a RF, rofl, AGOTI scumteam.

i'm torn about ray, what he did that i originally voted him for was scummy but i'm being swayed by how much he's flattering me. (i know, i know, all the flattery is actually scummy too, but i'm egotistical and want it to continue.)

green crayons' whole case is very solid though.

it seemed sincere, which is a good sign someone is town, as compared to manufactured. its mostly a gut feeling thing.

These two posts seem contradictory to me. The part about flattery is refreshingly honest, but look at it this way:

"I know he's scummy but I don't want to vote for him. But there is a really good case on him."

Three posts later-
"But my gut says he's town.

Scum trying not to vote for a buddy?

Vote: roflcopter

.

[crypto]

Only one of his posts stood out as scummy. When reading over there was not much more I felt needed to be adressed.

What needed to be addressed the first time?

Why

did your opinion change? What does the question of whether or not something needs to be addressed have to do with the question of whether or not something is scummy?

[Porochaz]

Only one of his posts stood out as scummy. When reading over there was not much more I felt needed to be adressed.

1. What needed to be addressed the first time?
2.

Why

did your opinion change?
3. What does the question of whether or not something needs to be addressed have to do with the question of whether or not something is scummy?

1. His vote without no reasoning, especially when there was no good reasoning behind it from anybody else.
2. My opinion didnt change, really. I still think that third/fourth vote on Snow was bad with no reasoning. However I looked at the bigger picture, ie. his posts as a whole and decided that this one post was not worth bothering about when there are more pressing concerns like with AGOTI and Rays soon to be post on Green Crayons post.
3. I answered your question properly. There was nothing else in any of his other posts that needed addressed. The way I saw it was that my thoughts on that post were "thats iffy", my thoughts on his game so far is... not much... there has been one minor blip on the radar, not even worth commenting about. One post does not constitute a case unless its a ridiculous mistake.

[RayFrost]

tl;dr

: Ray is scummy because 1. his scatter-shot excuses for his play looks like preemptive posturing, 2. his "input" is contrived and insubstantial but makes him look active and 3. he attached himself on the bunny wagon with vague support and authority-following while seeming to position himself in for the hammer. Thus,

vote: RayFrost

.

Ummm... defending myself from somebody's suspicions is pre-emptive?

Also, me saying both 1 & 2 is not really "covering my bases" considering I didn't include such things as "I do find mufasa legitimately scummy", "I had reasons for voting that weren't just to bandwagon" or similar.

Yeah, all my posts are contrived. I relay my thoughts inside the little post box, thus constructing them into a form.

My lack of voting SB means that I don't find the case strong enough to vote for, despite the fact I like it.

Wanting more SB pressure and similar != willingness to hammer.

[Green Crayons]

Ummm... defending myself from somebody's suspicions is pre-emptive?

Don't shift my arguments against you. The problem in and of itself isn't that you're defending yourself. And you aren't

just

defending yourself, it's how you're going about defending yourself.

1.

I don't like how Ray is performing

a shatter-shot of excuses

for his actions early in the game. Three examples come to mind:

A.

When the mufasa-wagon was being criticized by mike, Ray says that 1. he didn't think L-2 was dangerous but even if that is true that 2. he didn't realize that it was L-2 so he should be forgiven.

These are not compatible defenses

. If he didn't think L-2 was dangerous, then him not realizing he put on L-2 is a non-issue. Likewise, if he didn't realize that he was putting on an L-2 vote, then L-2's "danger zone" importance is a non-issue because it doesn't go to support the determination if Ray was just being forgetful.

It looks like he's trying to cover all of his bases prior to being questioned so that he can easily defend himself later on because he has already established these baseline excuses irrespective of what avenue people decide to criticize his actions

.

B.

Then there's Ray's vote on Snow White. It goes from because she was "...town last game [they] had together" to "sometimes [Snow White] falls into lurking states" to finally becoming "I'm not voting SW for lurking so much as to remind her not to in some future point." The problem here is that Ray's initial vote on Snow White

was

random ("because she was town last game" is hardly a valid voting point), and then

only when rofl decided to push for some answers did it shift

into a definitive vote to preemptively stop another player from potentially performing an action - even though the game had started less than two hours prior to this point.

C.

This really bleeds over into other aspects of Ray's posting. Specifically, in to who he suspects and why. In post 52,

Ray feels as if mike could be town or scum (though he's leaning towards the former). It's such a non-conclusive answer that straddles both sides of the wall it's really just ridiculous. To me, it reads as: "It may be A, but it may also be non-A, so I'm just going to lean towards A..." with the underlying potential of "...until it would be more favorable for me to lean towards non-A, in which case I already have set up some groundwork for me to make that shift in opinion." It's like he's prepping his play against any and all future criticism while also leaving all doors of action open so that he can safely swing with the popular opinion

.

Also, me saying both 1 & 2 is not really "covering my bases" considering I didn't include such things as "I do find mufasa legitimately scummy", "I had reasons for voting that weren't just to bandwagon" or similar.

This doesn't match up with the circumstances of your actual actions.

Well, this is certainly stupid. Mufasa is at lynch-2 and it's not even page 3. I mean, I suppose I should be happier that stuff is happening, but this is just silly.

vote: RayFrost

for putting the fifth vote on and

Suspect: spyrex and pomegranate

for similar opportunism.

It's important to note the fact that a player came in and directly criticized 1. the speed at which Mufasa's wagon appeared and 2. the current stage of the wagon (L-2). You then went out of your way to guard against both of these criticized aspects - even though the excuses themselves are pretty incompatible. (Interesting to note you haven't defended your excuses.) It is no great leap for you to be so wrapped up in what a more experienced player has said and tried to defend against

all

of those points as to clear your name. It is the fact that you defended against all of the points brought against the wagon as a whole meant you were covering your bases against all of the criticisms made available. Just because you didn't throw out excuses against non-voiced criticisms of the wagon does not discount the fact that you threw out poorly conceived excuses against all of the voiced criticisms of the wagon. Hence, you were covering your bases against the already established lines of "attack" that you knew you might face.

Yeah, all my posts are contrived. I relay my thoughts inside the little post box, thus constructing them into a form.

This nicely ignores point two in its entirety. By the way:

con⋅trived | [kuhn-trahyvd]
–adjective

obviously planned

or

forced

;

artificial

; strained: a contrived story.

Attempting to play wordsmith with a single word instead of addressing the real issues brought forward is scummy.

My lack of voting SB means that I don't find the case strong enough to vote for, despite the fact I like it.

Wanting more SB pressure and similar != willingness to hammer.

Your propensity to hammer has already been hinted at. You still fail to explain why you decided to quote-post/agree with post 108 instead of 105 or 106, why you thought rofl was voting for bunny and what exactly you did/do like about the bunny votes.

But your response does beg the question: If you actually liked the case against bunny but not enough to vote for her, what would push you to the vote? What would have made you like it more? Furthermore, how can you say that with any sort of sincerity after your White vote - which was based off of shifting, crappy reasons that ignored the contemporary going-ons? Do you find your White vote more compelling than the bunny votes?



I'm fine with my vote.

[Green Crayons]

Vote count

Rayfrost(4): Mikeburnfire, Snow white, Elvis_knits, Green Crayons
Green Crayons(4): Populartajo, Pomegranate, Spyrex, A girl on the internet
Snow_bunny(2): A girl on the internet, Roflcopter
A girl on the internet(1): Crypto

Not voting (3): Porochaz, Snow_Bunny, Rayfrost.

with 13 players, it is 7 to lynch

Please check this, there could be something wrong.

Girl has two votes counted. Don't know if this was intentional.

thank you, fixed

[roflcopter]

pom, if you think i'm defending a buddy (rayfrost) why are you starting a new wagon on me instead of joining the existing 4 person wagon? as far as i can tell your entire reason for voting me is what you believe to be contradictory statements.

they're not contradictory by the way, its perfectly possible to see a logical case against somone but still have a gut feeling they're town.

[elvis_knits]

rofl does not seem scummy to me.

And yes, Pom is doing it wrong. If you think rofl is defending buddy ray, you lynch ray first.

[Pomegranate]

Yes, there is a convenient wagon on RF already. Makes sense, but I still don't like rofl.

Unvote; Vote RayFrost

.

[Porochaz]

Urgh, I want to put a vote on Ray but wont put him on L-1 until he posts again, his answers werent good enough, I want him to answer GC's questions.

unvote

However this doesnt mean Im letting AGOTI off the hook, I still think she's scummy as hell.

[mikeburnfire]

I don't think I commented on Mufasa's play yet. My opinion is that it was ridiculous, but is more scummy than townie. "I'm a vanilla townie" is not something a cop or doc would say ... even as a joke. Therefore, I willing to hedge my bets on him either being vanilla townie or mafia. Even so, I don't believe his statement was heavily indicative of alignment, and I like how GreenCrayons jumped right in.

Spyrex is neutral, though I'm getting good vibes from him, that last comment about vigging even if it ended the day didn't sound good to me.

I agree with this feeling.

I always preview my posts, and often alter them slightly. I hope you have no problem with that, as I always do it.

No, no problem here. I do the same. But why did you choose a more assertive tone when declaring me to be town?

How would I be setting up for a cop claim? There hasn't been night yet.

I was implying that you would make a future cop claim once I'm killed and revealed to be town.

I'm a bit concerned about Spyrex right now. He's has done almost zero not-Mufasa related talking so far, and he has commented little on RayFrost. Well, except his most recent post where he reacted to a comment I directed at RF. That's a bit suspicious too, because I was actually trying to get under RF's skin, and Spyrex accuses me of "hyper-agressive posturing" instead of waiting to see RF's reaction.

[Pomegranate]

I always preview my posts, and often alter them slightly. I hope you have no problem with that, as I always do it.

No, no problem here. I do the same. But why did you choose a more assertive tone when declaring me to be town?

Actually, I meant it to be a more casual view of you being town. I didn't like the wording of my first post, and the first one hadn't shown up under the "Topic Review", so I assumed it hadn't gone up.

How would I be setting up for a cop claim? There hasn't been night yet.

I was implying that you would make a future cop claim once I'm killed and revealed to be town.

But even if I was a cop I couldn't know that you are definitely town, because we haven't had night yet, so there wouldn't have been an investigation yet.

[RayFrost]

It's important to note the fact that a player came in and directly criticized 1. the speed at which Mufasa's wagon appeared and 2. the current stage of the wagon (L-2). You then went out of your way to guard against both of these criticized aspects - even though the excuses themselves are pretty incompatible. (Interesting to note you haven't defended your excuses.) It is no great leap for you to be so wrapped up in what a more experienced player has said and tried to defend against

all

of those points as to clear your name. It is the fact that you defended against all of the points brought against the wagon as a whole meant you were covering your bases against all of the criticisms made available. Just because you didn't throw out excuses against non-voiced criticisms of the wagon does not discount the fact that you threw out poorly conceived excuses against all of the voiced criticisms of the wagon. Hence, you were covering your bases against the already established lines of "attack" that you knew you might face.

---

If I feel that somebody finds something I've done scummy, am I not allowed to defend myself at all, then? I thought his points were directed at me, so I responded to them as such. This feels like you are saying that I should ave ignored it and then defended myself when I got attacked for ignoring it or some such. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

---

Yeah, all my posts are contrived. I relay my thoughts inside the little post box, thus constructing them into a form.

This nicely ignores point two in its entirety. By the way:

con⋅trived | [kuhn-trahyvd]
–adjective

obviously planned

or

forced

;

artificial

; strained: a contrived story.

Attempting to play wordsmith with a single word instead of addressing the real issues brought forward is scummy.

---

I do think about what I say, but I don't really think much further than my initial reaction for about 90% of the time. Not quite sure how this is contrived, but eh, I guess an honest reaction from me feels that way?

---

My lack of voting SB means that I don't find the case strong enough to vote for, despite the fact I like it.

Wanting more SB pressure and similar != willingness to hammer.

Your propensity to hammer has already been hinted at. You still fail to explain why you decided to quote-post/agree with post 108 instead of 105 or 106, why you thought rofl was voting for bunny and what exactly you did/do like about the bunny votes.

But your response does beg the question: If you actually liked the case against bunny but not enough to vote for her, what would push you to the vote? What would have made you like it more? Furthermore, how can you say that with any sort of sincerity after your White vote - which was based off of shifting, crappy reasons that ignored the contemporary going-ons? Do you find your White vote more compelling than the bunny votes?

---

Your linked post has nothing to do with desire to hammer at all. I said 108 cuz it was 1. post # I remembered, 2. seemed to stem from the other posts I'd read regarding SB, 3. it was a vote

Votes from me stem from desire for pressure often enough.

My White vote is still there cuz 1. I don't unvote for unvoting's sake and 2. despite wanting to vote SB, I don't wish to hammer / place at l-1 prematurely (IIRC, mufasa was being replaced at the time?). Early hammers are bad. Now I believe she isn't at l-2 or l-1~

unvote, vote: snow_bunny

my stuff seperated via horizontal rules and are bolded.

[Pomegranate]

Did you mean to vote SB? Because you probably shouldn't do it in a quote, and the tags were messed up anyway.

Is your (would-be) vote on her meant to be pressure?