I must have missed it the first time. I noticed it with the most recent vote totals. But it has been answered again anyway.Annachie wrote:Asked and answered Pmann. Why ask again?pman5595 wrote:also: DizzyIzzy, any particular reason you are voting for Annachie? That vote is still in place from when you voted for CSL in the first post of the RVS
Mafia 107 - Christmas Time Mafia (Game over)
-
-
pman5595 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 492
- Joined: December 23, 2009
- Location: Wayzata High School
Current Games: [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13952]Mini 957[/url]
Record: Town- 0W/0L, Mafia- 2W/2L, Other- 0W/0L-
-
ready2rock Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 464
- Joined: December 23, 2009
Responses incuriouskarmadog wrote:
So I am scum who doesn’t a.) want to get a quick lynch, and b.) wants the day to go longer to get more information? Nice.ready2rock wrote:
In short, he has only addressed the wagon on someone and uses the person's claim as to why he is not voting for them.
Where did I say that you wanted a quick lynch? The conclusion I am drawing (that you didn't quote by the way) is that " He has not looked at the actual case that people use against someone." In other words, you didn't address the reasons why, for example, you didn't vote for TheLonging other than saying "Oh, he claimed VT and it's in GREEN FONT, so he must be telling the truth and x amount of people on the wagon must be scum.
Wait wait, no I am scummy because I opinion changed? I think you are the scummiest player now, funny how you didn’t have a problem with my stance when I said it about Pie.ready2rock wrote: He also voted for pie, calling him the scummiest player, and hasn't mentioned him since.
Again, not the point I was trying to make. You called him the scummiest player and all of a sudden, you unvote the really scummy player with no reasoning or any views on him such as "his last few posts have seemed a lot more pro-town to me". It's as if once I made my post, pie just went away and I'm positive that if I hadn't voted for you, I would have too. I don't like it.
Meh, not really….think I have already stated who I find or have found suspicious.ready2rock wrote:
Do you find it suspicious?
Really, where? I went through all your posts and did not find anything about a list of suspicious people.
Also, I will clarify my question. WHY do you not find RichardGHP suspicious (outside of his claim)?
I am an expert scum hunter…LOL…how about this…your timing of both the main wagons you have been on. Day 1..not much to go on….I find things that people (especially newer people) argue are scummy day 1 are not indeed scummy, but scum trying to push something to get a quick Day 1 lynch.ready2rock wrote:
Do you have any reasoning as to why I'm such a good wagon other than the reasons I have defended in 342?
...So all arguments on day 1 are invalid? That would make your argument against me invalid and anyone who has posted any opinions today on suspicions scum. Also, I can't help the timing of my votes. What do you want me to do, scumhunt and post in my sleep? Make sure that I'm the first to vote for someone? I guarantee that that will not get anyone anywhere.
R2R, why did you not address my reasons I don’t like a Richard lynch? You scared?
Again, point out these above reasons, because I can't find them. Also, AtE.
LOL, wasnt R2R on your wagon at one point? Interesting connection.TheLonging wrote:
Bullshit, I don't see how R2R is a much better wagon than RichardGHP. How do you think he is?curiouskarmadog wrote:also, R2R is a much better wagon.....
I was, but so were about half of the other players. What are you trying to imply?
please comment on why I dont think richard is a good lynch today...then explain to me WHY richard is a better lynch? Why do you think that statement is bullshit? Why did you not address the post directly before that statement?
He has already made his case against Richard, a case, like all of the other ones except mine, that you just ignored, but I'll let TheLonging speak for himself.
---
Hey Richard….you understand that if you are not the lynch today…you are going to have to use your investigation ability tonight…I don’t want any bullshit, like I forgot..or didn’t see your post..or any of that. Do you have a problem with that? IF so why?
See Fugitive's post on this subject.
whoa whoa whoa...what? Who said anything about a RB? do you know something we dont? If he is blocked, he is blocked and we will deal with it tomorrow. Considering you didnt unvote with this posts leads me to believe you dont even want an attempt to see if he is lying..or see if he is blocked. Welcome to my scum list, bub.sorasgoof wrote:Oh, and if your investigation is blocked, we'll really be in a pickle. I'm not sure I'd believe you if you come back with a blocked investigation. That'd be too easy to make up, you know?
Unvote, vote sorasgoof
this post (and lack of an unvote) screams inside knowledge and fear.
again, I will let sorasgoof address this.
oh oh , guess what R2R, I think Soras is now scummier...does that make me scummier?
See above about pie.
so let me get this straight. You dont believe Richard's claim, and as "town" dont want an attempt to see an investigation?TheLonging wrote:I'm not really comfortable believing RichardGHP's claim still. Sure it seems beyond his capability to look it up and try to fake it... but I wouldn't put it completely beyond him.
You slipping up a bit there sorasgoof?sorasgoof wrote:I suggest you do use your investigation tonight, Richard. Someone better protect you, though, or it won't matter one way or the other. If you aren't mafia, I'll bet the mafia targets you tonight.
FoS: sorasgoof
Again, see Fugitive's post
Furthermore, you think that sora might have "slipped", but it only deserves an "fos" over someone who might or might not have an investigation?....interesting...can you please confirm this is your stance.
Actually, it's not his stance. His stance is that it deserves a FoS over someone that is LYING about having an investigative role.italics.-
-
Fugitive Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: December 1, 2009
- Location: UTC -4
Implying you could control the town and start a wagon. Fairly scummy as it's scum who want to control the town and not necessarily a townie's goal to have control. You're cementing my FoS.EtherealCookie wrote:I know. That's why there are a lot of useless players, too. Continue being secretive.I'll just push a wagon on you, I guess, if you're going to justify your voting with "gut instinct." It's scum behavior, and scum reasoning.
Still going through r2r's posts...-
-
TheLonging Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: December 10, 2009
- Location: Coffeeland
I know he was on my wagon. I found nothing overly suspicious about R2R. I know I probably missed something but nothing really stood out overall as scummy. You don't think Richard isn't a good lynch because you believe his claim as Jack Of All Trades. I forgot if you commented on anything else about Richard, but the only thing I remember you talking about Richard was after he claimed. I think he's a better lynch because of all his posts combined together (or the vast majority of them) are scummy. I can't really believe his claim as much as you do.curiouskarmadog wrote:LOL, wasnt R2R on your wagon at one point? Interesting connection. please comment on why I dont think richard is a good lynch today...then explain to me WHY richard is a better lynch? Why do you think that statement is bullshit? Why did you not address the post directly before that statement?
I don't believe his claim. Like I said before, I don't think he'd go so far to fake a claim like that, but I wouldn't put it beyond him.curiouskarmadog wrote:so let me get this straight. You dont believe Richard's claim, and as "town" dont want an attempt to see an investigation? Furthermore, you think that sora might have "slipped", but it only deserves an "fos" over someone who might or might not have an investigation?....interesting...can you please confirm this is your stance.
Unvote: RichardGHP
I wanna see if Richard's claim is true... if it is, I'll back off. His playing is scummy, but I don't mind seeing if his role is true. If it is I'll back off on him.
As for sora: He's been consistently posting stuff that seem pro-town. His comment made his suspicious level rise quickly in my eyes, but it didn't really overrule it my current vote. His other posts have been pro-town, so I didn't think it was really worth a vote, but he seems like if he keeps doing something suspicious/scummy like that, I'm most likely voting for him.Show0-1 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)Town:
0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)Scum:
0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)3rd Party:
Overall: 0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)
Thestatusquo - and that, ladies and gentlemen, was trolling.
cyberbob - it doesn't count if you're insecure enough about it to have to openly pat yourself on the back-
-
Tarballs Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 369
- Joined: August 12, 2008
- Location: Finland
7th Vote Count of Day 1
5 - RichardGHP(InflatablePie, Nicodemus, diddin, NavyCherub, CCARaven4)
3 - TheLonging(Konowa, Bogre, RichardGHP)
2 - sorasgoof(DragonsofSummer, curiouskarmadog)
1 - DragonsofSummer(Parama)
1 - Annachie(DizzyIzzyB13)
1 - Konowa(EtherealCookie)
1 - curiouskarmadog(ready2rock)
6 - Not voting(Annachie, malpascp, pman5595, Fugitive, sorasgoof, TheLonging)
With 20 alive, it takes 11 votes to lynch.Deadline for this day is January 21st, 2010.Last edited by Tarballs on Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.-
-
curiouskarmadog This Space for Rant
- This Space for Rant
- This Space for Rant
- Posts: 14229
- Joined: June 17, 2007
- Location: Roanoke, Va
what is with all the coversation about a RB? I realize that you might be blocked, but I dont want that excuse tomorrow by saying "well I did this because I thought I was going to be RBed"....that is what I will call bullshit....now if you are RBed, we will have that conversation tomorrow, but right now, you are close to being lynched. IF you really have an investigative ability….then you should use it. The above post feels like you are laying ground work for excuses tomorrow. But to assume that a.) mafia has a RB and b.) that they will use it on you is a stretch.RichardGHP wrote:
Hey ckd... you understand that I can't give you anything if I get roleblocked tonight, don't you?curiouskarmadog wrote:Hey Richard….you understand that if you are not the lynch today…you are going to have to use your investigation ability tonight…I don’t want any bullshit, like I forgot..or didn’t see your post..or any of that. Do you have a problem with that? IF so why?
No, I don't have a problem with using it tonight. But you have to understand, I may not be able to come up anything due to a roleblock. Please understand that.
R2R, in the future, do not respond with italics, it will only make for a unreadable quote pyramid back and forth.
-I didn’t vote the longing because a.) at the time, I didn’t want a quick lynch, and b.) I didn’t think he was scum.
-I changed my opinion. I have also mentioned other people I think are scummy…why not mentioned “I haven’t said anything about them”?
-“why do I not find Richard suspicious”…well, I never said I didn’t…what I did say is there are people who I think are MORE suspicious. Also check out my post 7, Kon asked who I felt was scummy.
-no not all arguments Day 1 is scummy. But a lot are suspicious. And I don’t think you are understanding what I mean by timing…it isn’t the time of day…it is your position on the wagon itself..
-I (as you have stated) haven’t posted that much, so I don’t know why you are having such a hard time finding information in them….please read my post 11, I explain why Richard is not a good lynch for the town (actually the first person in this entire game to use this reasoning)…now that you have found please address.
- r2r, why you are addressing the entire post? The whole thing wasn’t directed toward you?
-r2r, interesting you are speaking for the longing now. Why don’t you let him state if it is a stance or not.-
-
TheLonging Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: December 10, 2009
- Location: Coffeeland
I'd rather not have him speaking for me. If he wants to respond to one of my points directed to someone else because he wants me to clarify it or to call me out on it, fine, but I don't want him speaking for me. It annoyed me a bit too.curiouskarmadog wrote:-r2r, interesting you are speaking for the longing now. Why don’t you let him state if it is a stance or not.Show0-1 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)Town:
0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)Scum:
0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)3rd Party:
Overall: 0-0 at MS.net (0-0 offsite)
Thestatusquo - and that, ladies and gentlemen, was trolling.
cyberbob - it doesn't count if you're insecure enough about it to have to openly pat yourself on the back-
-
ready2rock Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 464
- Joined: December 23, 2009
You keep saying that you have mentioned other people, but WHERE (outside of a post you made 10 pages ago)?-I changed my opinion. I have also mentioned other people I think are scummy…why not mentioned “I haven’t said anything about them”?“why do I not find Richard suspicious”…well, I never said I didn’t…curiouskarmadog, post 420 wrote:
Meh, not reallyready2rock wrote: Do you find [Richard's play] suspicious?
What arguments are suspicious? I feel that I have stated my reasoning quite clearly and have provided original content about the person I am voting for. If not, please find somewhere (outside of RVS) where I haven't.no not all arguments Day 1 is scummy. But a lot are suspicious.
OK, do you stand by those suspicions? Has that list changed? if so, to whom?Also check out my post 7, Kon asked who I felt was scummy.
I'll try this question one more time. What do you think of RichardGHP's play throughout the game? Do you think that the people who have voted for him, especially the people who have given a PBP analysis on him, have a legitimate case against him? WHY OR WHY NOT?
see above.And I don’t think you are understanding what I mean by timing…it isn’t the time of day…it is your position on the wagon itself..
1. what is this part in response to?please read my post 11, I explain why Richard is not a good lynch for the town
2. Please use post subjects instead of your format (i.e. post 389 instead of my post 11), it makes it easier to find for me.
Also, I apologize to TheLonging in trying to speak for you. I thought that, given your previous posts on the subject, that that was reasonable to infer. However, if you feel annoyed by it, I won't do it again.-
-
RichardGHP Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Posts: 1760
- Joined: December 20, 2009
- Location: New Zealand
I higly doubt that the mafia doesn't have a RB. Even then, there is still most likely a town RB that could end up RBing me. I think it's pretty safe to say there is at least one RB in this game.curiouskarmadog wrote:
what is with all the coversation about a RB? I realize that you might be blocked, but I dont want that excuse tomorrow by saying "well I did this because I thought I was going to be RBed"....that is what I will call bullshit....now if you are RBed, we will have that conversation tomorrow, but right now, you are close to being lynched. IF you really have an investigative ability….then you should use it. The above post feels like you are laying ground work for excuses tomorrow. But to assume that a.) mafia has a RB and b.) that they will use it on you is a stretch.RichardGHP wrote:
Hey ckd... you understand that I can't give you anything if I get roleblocked tonight, don't you?curiouskarmadog wrote:Hey Richard….you understand that if you are not the lynch today…you are going to have to use your investigation ability tonight…I don’t want any bullshit, like I forgot..or didn’t see your post..or any of that. Do you have a problem with that? IF so why?
No, I don't have a problem with using it tonight. But you have to understand, I may not be able to come up anything due to a roleblock. Please understand that.
Regardless, I was just making sure you were aware of the possibility.-
-
DragonsofSummer Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1640
- Joined: January 22, 2007
- Location: In the Shadows...
@everyone: Stop speculating on roles in this game. Role speculation, and night action speculation are both scummy. Hence my vote on Soras, he basically just tried to guide the night actions of multiple players in this game, some of which might not even exist.
@cks: I do, but I would rather hold off on my thoughts for now.
@cookie: I will give thoughts on the case I am currently pursuing and anything that might be connected to that case. Also are you really going to bust my balls over an unexplained fos?"I want you to hit me as hard as you can."
-Tyler Durden-
-
InflatablePie they / themAccept When They Dothey / them
- Accept When They Do
- Accept When They Do
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: December 23, 2009
- Pronoun: they / them
- Location: Shrug City, West Covina; Ottawa CA
Back from another long day at work. Happy New Years. ._.
@Bogre (387): I essentially stated that in last night's observation post, and I agree. Still suspicious of pman.
@ckd (389): I'll admit, the possibility of an investigation slipped my mind. Since we get a scan best-case, I'llunvote. I don't believe his claim due to his scummy actions and if he had claimed anything besides a scanning role (even one-shot), I'd still be on him. Remember that post about me not changing my mind? Yeah, I was stupid to say that.
@ckd (390): I don't get it.
@malp (399): I agree with talking before deadline... but we have had pages upon pages of stuff to talk about, and you say NOTHING else?FoS: malp.
@Fugi (402): I think he "just found" this role. I have reason (minor "evidence") to believe so, but it can kind of go circular.
@sora: (408/409): Seems like an odd thing to mention. Also *facepalm*.
@Fugi (427): How did I miss that? Devil's advocate, he could mean he'll just yell OMG FUGI IS TEH SCUM over and over. Worth noting, thanks for pointing that out.
@Longing (428): Your posts have taken on a slightly more aggressive tone, but you're contributing more. Still holding suspicions, though.
I'm off to watch the finale of TWBB, but expect me to do a (although probably short) PBPA of my two FoSes so far: diddin/pman later tonight (at the latest, tomorrow night).-
-
sorasgoof Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 850
- Joined: December 23, 2009
I did unvote, so I don't know what you're talking about, really.curiouskarmadog wrote:
whoa whoa whoa...what? Who said anything about a RB? do you know something we dont? If he is blocked, he is blocked and we will deal with it tomorrow. Considering you didnt unvote with this posts leads me to believe you dont even want an attempt to see if he is lying..or see if he is blocked. Welcome to my scum list, bub.sorasgoof wrote:Oh, and if your investigation is blocked, we'll really be in a pickle. I'm not sure I'd believe you if you come back with a blocked investigation. That'd be too easy to make up, you know?
Unvote, vote sorasgoof
this post (and lack of an unvote) screams inside knowledge and fear.
Did I really bring up something that no one had thought about? It seemed like a pretty obvious thing to me. I was just saying that he could easily fake a "blocked" investigation to strengthen his assertion that he's a JoaT.-
-
Parama Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 18799
- Joined: November 22, 2009
Back, been away since around 2 PM yesterday with no internet access.
First off,Mod: my vote has been on DragonsofSummer since page 12 of the thread.
Second, that hasn't changed after I read through the thread up to this point.
Third, I do not have the time right now and will not have the time for a while to respond to the 6 pages I came back to. If there's anything specific you want me to look at/respond to, I'll try, can't promise anything. It's too late for me to type up anything tonight and I have homework that I have to get done tomorrow and Sunday.ShowEver wanted a playlist full of a lot of music I really dig? Here you go.
RateYourMusic page because song contests are like the only reason I'm still here.
GET TO KNOW ME
I basically post like I'm always on twitter, ignore my spamminess.-
-
RichardGHP Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Posts: 1760
- Joined: December 20, 2009
- Location: New Zealand
HOLY MAFIA, BATMAN, MY SCUMDAR IS TWITCHING! That last post of yours (before the one quoted) made me quite suspicious indeed.sorasgoof wrote:Did I really bring up something that no one had thought about? It seemed like a pretty obvious thing to me. I was just saying that he could easily fake a "blocked" investigation to strengthen his assertion that he's a JoaT.
By posting the previous post of yours, not only are you subliminally suggesting to the mafia how to play their next move, but you also may have ruined tomorrow, since if my investigation is RB'd, we have nothing to go on tomorrow and are back at square one.-
-
sorasgoof Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 850
- Joined: December 23, 2009
All right, let's think for a minute. What would be easier for you to fake? An investigation, or simply saying that you were blocked? It doesn't take any thought at all for you to lie and say you were blocked.RichardGHP wrote:
HOLY MAFIA, BATMAN, MY SCUMDAR IS TWITCHING! That last post of yours (before the one quoted) made me quite suspicious indeed.sorasgoof wrote:Did I really bring up something that no one had thought about? It seemed like a pretty obvious thing to me. I was just saying that he could easily fake a "blocked" investigation to strengthen his assertion that he's a JoaT.
By posting the previous post of yours, not only are you subliminally suggesting to the mafia how to play their next move, but you also may have ruined tomorrow, since if my investigation is RB'd, we have nothing to go on tomorrow and are back at square one.
Also, if the mafia does have a role-blocker, do you really think they wouldn't have blocked someone tonight anyway? How am I scummy for trying to anticipate their actions?
Lastly, if I had never posted anything, and you are blocked, we'd still have nothing to go on tomorrow, so it's a moot point.-
-
EtherealCookie Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 662
- Joined: August 23, 2009
Lol.Fugitive wrote:
Implying you could control the town and start a wagon. Fairly scummy as it's scum who want to control the town and not necessarily a townie's goal to have control. You're cementing my FoS.EtherealCookie wrote:I know. That's why there are a lot of useless players, too. Continue being secretive.I'll just push a wagon on you, I guess, if you're going to justify your voting with "gut instinct." It's scum behavior, and scum reasoning.
Still going through r2r's posts...
You remind me of someone who PICKS their target and tries to read over their posts to nitpick everything that seems scummy, instead of someone who looks for something scummy to find a target.-
-
RichardGHP Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Parama's Alt
- Posts: 1760
- Joined: December 20, 2009
- Location: New Zealand
People would be able to find out if I faked an actual investigation. I guarantee it, there would be flaws all over the place. People would find them easily enough. Therefore, I actually intend to carry out a real investigation, most likely tonight. My noob-like play should have made that obvious by now. You really think I would, and more to the point, could, fake something like that?sorasgoof wrote:All right, let's think for a minute. What would be easier for you to fake? An investigation, or simply saying that you were blocked? It doesn't take any thought at all for you to lie and say you were blocked.
You miss the point. By posting what you did, you were giving the mafia the idea of roleblocking me. "OMG guyz dis guy is gunna look like scum if he gets roleblocked tonight! gogo RB!" is a fair interperatation in my mind.sorasgoof wrote:Also, if the mafia does have a role-blocker, do you really think they wouldn't have blocked someone tonight anyway? How am I scummy for trying to anticipate their actions?
You weren't anticipating their actions, you created one for them to contemplate.
I really don't think this statement is worth arguing over, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.sorasgoof wrote:Lastly, if I had never posted anything, and you are blocked, we'd still have nothing to go on tomorrow, so it's a moot point.-
-
sorasgoof Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 850
- Joined: December 23, 2009
RichardGHP wrote:
People would be able to find out if I faked an actual investigation. I guarantee it, there would be flaws all over the place. People would find them easily enough. Therefore, I actually intend to carry out a real investigation, most likely tonight. My noob-like play should have made that obvious by now. You really think I would, and more to the point, could, fake something like that?sorasgoof wrote:All right, let's think for a minute. What would be easier for you to fake? An investigation, or simply saying that you were blocked? It doesn't take any thought at all for you to lie and say you were blocked.
Exactly, which is why you could take the easy way out and fake a blocked investigation. What aren't you getting?
And as for someone role-blockingyou, I actually didn't think of that. I'll admit I made a mistake there.
What I'm trying to say is that if you're lying about being a JoaT, it would be easier for you to fake a blocked investigation than to try to create a "real" fake one, if that makes sense.
Getting off for tonight.-
-
sorasgoof Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 850
- Joined: December 23, 2009
Exactly, which is why you could take the easy way out and fake a blocked investigation. What aren't you getting?RichardGHP wrote:
People would be able to find out if I faked an actual investigation. I guarantee it, there would be flaws all over the place. People would find them easily enough. Therefore, I actually intend to carry out a real investigation, most likely tonight. My noob-like play should have made that obvious by now. You really think I would, and more to the point, could, fake something like that?sorasgoof wrote:All right, let's think for a minute. What would be easier for you to fake? An investigation, or simply saying that you were blocked? It doesn't take any thought at all for you to lie and say you were blocked.
And as for someone role-blockingyou, I actually didn't think of that. I'll admit I made a mistake there.
What I'm trying to say is that if you're lying about being a JoaT, it would be easier for you to fake a blocked investigation than to try to create a "real" fake one, if that makes sense.
Getting off for tonight.
Sorry for the misplaced tags. I fixed 'em for you guys.-
-
ready2rock Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 464
- Joined: December 23, 2009
-
-
Fugitive Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: December 1, 2009
- Location: UTC -4
Not only that, but your defenses are merely insults and deflections onto me. Not very solid at all.EtherealCookie wrote:
Lol.Fugitive wrote:
Implying you could control the town and start a wagon. Fairly scummy as it's scum who want to control the town and not necessarily a townie's goal to have control. You're cementing my FoS.EtherealCookie wrote:I know. That's why there are a lot of useless players, too. Continue being secretive.I'll just push a wagon on you, I guess, if you're going to justify your voting with "gut instinct." It's scum behavior, and scum reasoning.
Still going through r2r's posts...
You remind me of someone who PICKS their target and tries to read over their posts to nitpick everything that seems scummy, instead of someone who looks for something scummy to find a target.-
-
InflatablePie they / themAccept When They Dothey / them
- Accept When They Do
- Accept When They Do
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: December 23, 2009
- Pronoun: they / them
- Location: Shrug City, West Covina; Ottawa CA
diddin 94 wrote:I'm alive, my internet just went down the shitter for a while. I'll post something after I read through the thread.
Internet down the shitter or not, he posts after a vote and pseudo-prod. Votes TL after Konowa, and FoSes Richard after 5 votes (4 of them unvoted) for "jumpy voting habits". Richard refused to RVS vote, voted Fugi for "bandwagoning" in 29, then unvoted a page later in 54.diddin 95 wrote:Vote: TheLonging, for 2 reasons.
1. OMGUS vote
2. Random voting is very anti-town and you should at least have an opinon on who is acting scummy and who isn't.
FOS: Richard, for jumpy voting habits and wagoning, but he tends to do that in all of his games and I need more to determine if it's because he's scum or because he's a noob.
As an example, pman jokevotes "everyone" in 7 (and unvotes, saying the RVS is stupid), RVS votes soras in 18, unvotes in 32, votes Fugi in 46, unvotes in 49. But Richard has jumpy voting habits. Mmkay then.
In his vote on TL, his reasoning fits but I believe his points were already made by others (Parama addressed the OMGUS feel, pman addressed RLing). Ann points this out in 165.
This is after r2r's 187, asking why people think TL is scum. Looks like diddin never had a real reason to vote. Calls out pman on his RVS stunt finally. I'm suspicious of pman, but I think that's a stretch.diddin 191 wrote:unvote, TL seems honest and it looks like he just made a beginner's mistake for me.
Pman however, starts out the game inconsistently in the RVS, then seems eager for somebody to hammer TL. Posting that TL is at L-1 without adding any other content could mean "hey mafia buddies, somebody hammer him quick!" Not enough to warrent a vote, but enough to warrant an FoS for pman.
Do I really need to address this? scumdar go twitch twitchdiddin 225 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and Vote: No Lynch. All of this blind speculation is just causing paranoia and I think it would be better to not have a lynch unless I see something particularly scummy.
Richard, Navy, Bogre express their opinions on this, and...
You know what's funny?diddin 232 wrote:unvote, thanks for letting me know. I'm still semi-new to the mafiascum rules. I want to be sure I'm voting for a scum, or as sure as I can, so I'm holding back my vote.
Not buying this newness crap.Bogre 229 wrote:Personally I dislike the diddin unvote, it seemed too eager.
First off, being paranoid is scummy because town doesn't have a reason to be paranoid on Day 1. Or, at least, scum has way more reason to be so. Not to mention, you're not Richard (paranoia question was directed to him), are you?diddin 236 wrote: *quote tunnel*
Paranoia is scummy because when you are paranoid, you have an excuse to vote a townie and your paranoia "justifies" it. In other words, it's an excuse for bussing townies. You want to assume everybody is town and hunt for scum, not assume everybody is mafia and hunt for town.
And Pie: wouldn't it seem more scummy if I kept my vote for a no lynch after all of the suggestions. I think suspicion would be directed towards me either way, but I still want to find scum this round.
Stresses again that he wants to find scum. Which he can't do with noting NL. A 180. And yes, since you voted NL in the first place, it didn't matter what you did, but if you would have pushed for NL, I would have found you scummier, I admit.
Didn't mention pman until his second post, actually. Adds a small summary to fluff up his post. Then says why he's suspicious of [x], even though every reason seems to be a rewording.diddin 243 wrote:Beginning of this thread was RVS, I was gone because of bad internet, but the only thing I saw that was particularly scummy was pman self-contradicting himself and Richard's OMGUS vote. Konowa also seemed to want to start a wagon. Fugitive and Richard argue over who's badwagoning and OMGUSing, Richard unvotes in a STOP SUSPECTING ME! manner. TL promotes a random lynch and OMGUSes Konowa and the wagon starts on TL. TL claims Vanilla Townie, the wagon on him falls apart. Not really much else has happened in terms of voting.
People I'm suspicious of:
RichardGHP: the only thing he ever does is noobclaim and his voting habits are iffy. I'd like to see more content from him.
CCARaven: His "waffling" post seems to be trying to cover up potential scum-buddies while making himself look innocent by still being semi-suspicious of them.
TheLonging: even though the wagon on him fell apart, he's still semi-suspicious for OMGUS voting and making an appeal to ignorance where he says it was an accident that his post came off so scummish. He might be scum, but I'm getting a town-vibe from him.
pman: bad voting habits, overeagerness to be helpful, and just overall having some scummy actions.
Read his description of Raven. Then read TL's. Then Raven's. Then TL's, maybe looking at the last sentence an extra time. Repeat as necessary. Yeah.
I don't recall anyone pushing to lynch Navy, like he's implying. I mentioned it's noteworthy that in my eyes, if Navy flips scum, Richard's suspicions will skyrocket, if he's still alive. It's speculating a tad, but I like to make note of little things.diddin wrote:Why are we all talking about whether Navy's gonna flip scum? He's done nothing to warrant a lynch, and "lynch him so we can find about others" is not a good idea. So why all of this blind speculation. I think it's just Richard's playing style to not work with people so that he can't be held accountable when they die.
See 265. Why'd you vote for NL, and why didn't you vote Richard then?diddin 264 wrote: *quote tunnel*
Either Richard's scum, or he's the wussiest townie out there. He seems to play only for his own survival, and goes crazy when someone even begins to suspect him. Personally, that's really scummy.
Finally votes Richard. Not new reasons. Yawn.diddin 315 wrote:Richard, nobody asked you to claim, your voting habits still suck, and you play WAY too paranoid. The eager claim cemented my vote.
Vote: RichardGHP
But this, but that, but this. Flip flop more, please.diddin 423 wrote:I'm not liking how Dragons seemed so eager to jump on soras for talking about the potential for Richard being blocked. I still think Richard is lying, but it's pretty scummy to give the mafia any ideas, but the mafia probably would know to anyways, to the post is rendered moot.
---
Anyways, I'm not sure if I'll have my PBPA of pman tonight - he's made more posts and I probably will have more to offer. I'll try and get to it by tomorrow night after work.
Note: something I noticed on P1/2 - TL votes for Navy in the RVS, then switches to Rich. Later, he sorta tries to "distance himself" as I've already seen. Since I don't believe the RVS is "truly random" for scum, it's something of note that I'm not sure was mentioned. Worth a mention now, anyway.-
-
Fugitive Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: December 1, 2009
- Location: UTC -4
-
-
InflatablePie they / themAccept When They Dothey / them
- Accept When They Do
- Accept When They Do
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: December 23, 2009
- Pronoun: they / them
- Location: Shrug City, West Covina; Ottawa CA
That diddin quote w/o the # was 255. Sorry.
Anyway, diddin is suspicious, but I'm not sure if he'd get a vote from me at this time. I'm leaning towards either TheLonging, or possibly pman after I go back, as they seem like better options. I would still like diddin to post a little more, at least addressing some of my points above.If you don't know how to lie, then how do you know when you're being lied to?
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.now playing:
Even on your own, you are not alone.-
-
Bogre Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1434
- Joined: June 17, 2006
Uh...so who did think of that?sorasgoof wrote: And as for someone role-blockingyou, I actually didn't think of that. I'll admit I made a mistake there.
What I'm trying to say is that if you're lying about being a JoaT, it would be easier for you to fake a blocked investigation than to try to create a "real" fake one, if that makes sense.
You sound like a scum who's been writing with the foreknowledge of what could possibly happen, and is scared that he leaked the info.ShowMurder, Corruption, Betrayal.
ArmageddonMUD
www.armageddon.org
Scum do it in the Shadows.
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.