Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[Snow_Bunny]

Snow_bunny is someone to look at in future days. While she has been extremely scummy, we haven't discussed enough and it won't give us enough information tomorrow. We can debate her positions at dawn and see where they take us.

Pardon me, but, extremely scummy? Elaborate, please.

Also,

mod: Going on VLA 'til Tuesday.

[Budja]

unvote, vote BC

[BloodCovenent]

unvote, vote BC

*facepalm*

[MacavityLock]

My apologies, I've been sick over the past week.

Mac: No, nothing is impossible. Due to my experience and thinking, odds are (in my mind) that we have very few VT's and I have a gut read that his claim was false. Short enough?

Yes. I think the answer is crap, but I can at least parse it now.

My claim makes me so easily provable as town it's ridiculous for you to want my lynch.
My claim makes absolutely zero sense to be coming from scum as it's so easily disprovable.

How is your claim easily provable, without you or your partner dying and flipping mason? How is it disprovable without naming your partner?

I do think that given the claim, you're probably a bad lynch for today, so I won't be switching my vote to you, even though I still find you scummy. I agree that the stumping-sacrifice offer makes more sense given a mason.

I'm kind of worried about DS, given active lurking.

I'll raise my hand for a BC lynch if I can't convince the rest of you that Budja is scum.

When have you tried to convince the rest of us about anything? Your case on Budja consists of literally just

Reasons: Opportunistic, few posts of substance, possible odd relationship w/ Macavity

Is that supposed to sway people who weren't already on the Budja-wagon?

I think I still prefer a Snow_bunny lynch, but I would prefer a BC lynch to a Budja lynch, so I will also respond in the affirmative to imag's straw poll.

[kikuchiyo]

Still here, guys. I will be working on catching up today and tomorrow.

[DeathSauce]

When have you tried to convince the rest of us about anything? Your case on Budja consists of literally just

Reasons: Opportunistic, few posts of substance, possible odd relationship w/ Macavity

Is that supposed to sway people who weren't already on the Budja-wagon?

I have written more on Budja than just that, you either haven't read all of my posts or you are intentionally misrepresenting them. It is also hardly surprising to see you defending him.

[MacavityLock]

When have you tried to convince the rest of us about anything? Your case on Budja consists of literally just

Reasons: Opportunistic, few posts of substance, possible odd relationship w/ Macavity

Is that supposed to sway people who weren't already on the Budja-wagon?

I have written more on Budja than just that, you either haven't read all of my posts or you are intentionally misrepresenting them. It is also hardly surprising to see you defending him.

True, I missed your iso post 17, which points out a quote from Budja, and calls it opportunistic. You also say that he was opportunistic in your intro post. This is just you saying the same thing 3 different times. Did I miss anything else?

I am serious about the question of whether or not you seriously think you've made a case that will swing people.

[DeathSauce]

I normally don't build cases, I point out scumminess and mistakes and let others weigh in on them.

Why are you so interested in defending Budja? You're cementing my earlier thoughts that there seems to be a tie between the two of you.

[MacavityLock]

My point here is not that you're attacking Budja. It's that you're actively lurking and that

I'll raise my hand for a BC lynch

if I can't convince the rest of you

that Budja is scum.

is disingenuous.

This is especially true now given

I normally don't build cases,

I point out scumminess and mistakes and let others weigh in on them

.

If you were attacking anyone else in the same way, I'd be pointing it out.

[DeathSauce]

"Actively lurking", pfft. Do you even know what that term means?

I asked you why you were defending Budja, and you ignore it and try to point out some minor semantic difference in my terminology. That, my friend, is disingenuous.

[MacavityLock]

It's not a semantic difference, it's a contradiction in your posts about the way you're approaching this game. Again, my point would hold if you were attacking anybody, not just Budja.

If you couldn't tell by now, Budja is somewhere in my top 3 most townie right now. Ever have a game where you happen to agree with someone, even if that person isn't popular with other players? If you want to attack him, go right ahead. If you can find something scummy about him other than his opportunism (which I happen to disagree with), maybe you

can

convince me. But you haven't been able to, and you haven't been trying. And I can attack you right back if I think you're contradicting yourself in those attacks.

[Budja]

Well, are we lynching BC or not. 2.5 days to go.
It nice to be defended and all, but remember we've got to get a lynch down soon.

[imaginality]

I think there's enough support.

Unvote; vote BloodCovenant

[MacavityLock]

Unvote. Vote: BC.

[Chinaman]

I am on phone. do not lynch/hammer anyone till much closer to deadline. will write more tomorrow.

[BloodCovenent]

Wait... could someone draw out the case on me? Budja, i've been DYING to hear yours. Mac, show me my posts that were scummy.

[BloodCovenent]

Unvote. Vote: BC.

Mac, I really don't get it. What about me is scummy to you? Also, i'm down for a budja lynch, or a Net lynch.

[ortolan]

Twentieth vote count

Budja (4): Josh Lyman, Fuzzyman, Snow_Bunny, DeathSauce
BloodCovenent (3): Budja, imaginality, MacavityLock
Netopalis (2): Chinaman, BloodCovenent
Josh Lyman (1): danakillsu

Not voting (2): kikuchiyo, Netopalis

7 to lynch.

Just a reminder that the deadline is still set for Wednesday the 13th, 10pm, AEST time (52 hours from this post) - this will not be extended under any circumstances. Without a majority no-one will be lynched.

[MacavityLock]

Unvote. Vote: BC.

Mac, I really don't get it. What about me is scummy to you? Also, i'm down for a budja lynch, or a Net lynch.

Right now, I find your vote pattern to be scummy.

You should know that you are not my top choice for a lynch. You are my top choice for a lynch of the players that could feasibly be lynched today.

[Netopalis]

Wait... could someone draw out the case on me? Budja, i've been DYING to hear yours. Mac, show me my posts that were scummy.

You have yet to respond to my large post.

[BloodCovenent]

answers are in according to your paragraphs in your large post net.

Net, I think I made it abundantly clear that I did not like the claim. I didn't like how you speculated a lot and assumed a lot of things regarding josh's role. You assumed a role would flip before getting confirmations. I sincerely wanted to know where you got that from, and it took you... well, no iirc you never fully answered that question. Sorry for me being so curious about your knowledge of josh's role, it was just very suspicious.


Yes, sometimes players do 'spoon fed' answers to other players. It's rather scummy. Why would a town player spoon feed an answer to another player, no reason. Why would scum player spoon feed an answer, well it's possible that they saw their scum buddy in trouble and want to give them a way out. Or perhaps they give a town player a way out, also this buddies to two of them together sometimes. Making the likely hood of the town player willing to vote or lynch the scum helper very little.


It was interesting how quickly you dismissed the question and give little to no regard for it. Yes, i acted rather abrasively when I responded, I feel that the role could be possible in a themed game. So let me ask you this now, do you think that Josh's role is likely to be a scum or town role? why or why not?


Well, actually now I would like you to answer the spoiler'd question of mine. How do you know that scum-josh's role would unbalance the game? Besides, you called it a vig, it's not really a vig.


Ok, so you say i'm tunneling budja, I would love for you to point out where my tunnel vision is. Also, how do you determine it as a scum tell? What ferocity?You say he's an easy target to attack, why? Because he's scummy? Or what? What's so easy about attacking him?


I didn't misread fuzzy's post iirc, and I want you lynched because you reacted so awfully to china's claim. Asking for him to out his partner is so bad, then iirc you say that's a great scum move, to claim mason. I don't think it is, because that would only protect him and one of his partners for so long, that is considering you think there are three scum in the game. If there were only two scum, your 'theory' would make sense. otherwise, scum claiming mason with a three man scum team makes little to no sense at all. Would you like to know my theory? I think you are scum, and you were confused with China's claim that it threw you off, you expected him to claim his partner too, so they could confirm each other. But china won't do that, and you demand to know why. Damn right i feel threatened by your posts, why, because I'm pretty sure you're scum. Yea, I want to lynch you tomorrow because you're damned scummy.

[BloodCovenent]

[quote="MacavityLock"]
what about my voting patterns are scummy? I would love for you to back that up with some evidence.

So, i'm not your top choice for a lynch, but I am your top choice for a lynch that is feasible today. yea, way to contradict yourself.

[MacavityLock]

what about my voting patterns are scummy? I would love for you to back that up with some evidence.

Given what we know now about Lyman's claim, I don't like that you brought him to L-1. I don't like that you re-voted Lyman for his second wagon. I don't like that you easy-wagoned Budja with your second vote on him. I don't understand your Neto vote.

So, i'm not your top choice for a lynch, but I am your top choice for a lynch that is feasible today. yea, way to contradict yourself.

We're 2 days from deadline. It is in no way contradictory.

[MacavityLock]

Upon a closer read of 545, I now do understand your Neto vote. Other points still stand.

Besides, you called it a vig, it's not really a vig.

How is it not a vig?

[BloodCovenent]

what about my voting patterns are scummy? I would love for you to back that up with some evidence.

Given what we know now about Lyman's claim, I don't like that you brought him to L-1. I don't like that you re-voted Lyman for his second wagon. I don't like that you easy-wagoned Budja with your second vote on him. I don't understand your Neto vote.

Unlike Netop, i didn't make assumptions and presume information about Lymans role. And I don't know why you think that I know more about than anyone else. What's wrong with bringing a player to L-1? What's wrong with revoting him? If i thought him suspicious or scummy, what's wrong with voting him again? You guys keep saying easy wagoning of Budja, how is he an easy wagon? I would like to know.

So, i'm not your top choice for a lynch, but I am your top choice for a lynch that is feasible today. yea, way to contradict yourself.

We're 2 days from deadline. It is in no way contradictory.

I disagree, you say one thing, and then say the other.

How is it not a vig?

Because the victim stays alive and is allowed to talk.