You realize you're telling the scum exactly who not to nightkill.
Lawls - 4 (Elementary Fermion, Cojin, Acosmist, havingfitz)
Acosmist - 1 (Lawls)
Cojin - 1 (RayFrost)
Not Voting - 2 (Panacea, Nachomamma8)
With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch
That was actually him failing to quote
This is just a post for me to clarify the game.RayFrost wrote:I find cojin slightly scummier since his attack on lawls was opportunistic (lawls has been a focus), and I have played with both of them as town with lawls actually being more pro-town this game and cojin being less pro-town.
Agreed. Why hasn't anyone attackedRayFrost wrote:
BaB isn't posting enough for me to get a read on him.
^This is an interesting sentence.Nachomamma8 wrote:
Top two suspects are BaB and RayFrost.
Elementary Fermion post 108, first meaningful post wrote:
So. . . despite Acosmist's research regarding Panacea's chatty nature, I still find it highly suspicious. Feeling guilty? Why not bury the board with loads and loads of nothing. Good luck to the town finding a kernel of evidence among the chaff. Same goes for RayFrost. I am sure it is just a playing "style" or some such, but it is suspicios. In fact, I would not be surprised if these "styles" are cultivated for exactly that reason, and after many games, when the suspicious activity has been used for innocent goles and guilty ones alike, people wouldn't be so sure.
But, as this is my first game on MafiaScum (hello you two other MS n00bs in this "newbie game"), I find the overwhelming posting of feeble-at-best theories to be, well, scummy.
^Actually this post turned out to have very little content.
However, in an attempt not to extend this day even further, I am not going to change my vote. I voted once with firm conviction and I am standing by it. I am not going to be a 2d or 3d vote on someone and ignite a marathon of "EF is jumping on bandwagons defend yoruself scummy &c."
Conclusion, lots of unnecessary posts looks suspicious to me, and when there has been so little action so far, most posts are unnecessary.
yay some questions... maybe now he'll follow up with some opinions?Elementary Fermion wrote: So, since demanding questions of others is where it's at:
1.) Cojin - how does it feel to be at L-2 (assuming that I am correct)?
2.) havingafitz - if Cojin is indeed the second vote on Lawls, and Acosmist the third, do you still view Cojin and Lawls with the same suspicion? Remember:Please explain why or why not your suspicions change.havingfitz wrote:You (Lawls) are staying involved at a low level and not contributing much. You have made one post with a lot of content of debatable value and very very little else. I would not bet on you and Cojin both being scum but I do think at least one of you are.
Yay, some oppinions! Albeit, entirely unrelated to his questions.Elementary Fermion wrote:My top choice is still Lawls, which is why I still have my vote on him. I random-voted for him, and the ensuing discussion, mostly by Acosmist and RayFrost, has persuaded me to keep it.havingfitz wrote:Can everyone give their top two suspects...especially those who haven't got a vote out yet? It's obvious for a few of you (ie those who have voted) but for others not so much.
As for my second choice, it is a tie between. . . Acosmist and RayFrost. The sudden hostility is. . . odd. You were both doing what you were doing, and then doing it with anger. Actually, I would go with RayFrost as Acosmist has been constantly scumhunting and RayFrost as started providing gems like:This is I feel not at all an accurate representation of what Acosmist was saying, though he defended himself well--making any attempt for me to do so redundant. But, the misdirection combined with the sudden attitude shift is setting off alarms for me.RayFrost being somewhat sarcastic wrote:So... town reads is beneficial.
Town hunting is as useful as scumhunting.
So yeah.
You saying it isn't finding scum would be an inaccurate statement.
Cojin wrote:I would say my top 2 scum are laws and well thats all i got,
as far as the pancea sparked my radar on how quickly she jumped wagons, so i guess she is a small blip and the closest thing i got.
I am also willing to put lawls at l-1 by tommorow depending on what people think
This thread is dead. Fock.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Agreed. Why hasn't anyone attackedRayFrost wrote:BaB isn't posting enough for me to get a read on him.mefor lurking?
^This is an interesting sentence.Nachomamma8 wrote:Top two suspects are BaB and RayFrost.
I'm basing that mostly on his pointed comments about Lawls.havingfitz wrote:Dead on content? Huh?
Good post by Cojin, as you recognize.Cojin ISO (questions to Cojin in bold):
ISO 0 - Unvotes, gives IC credentials, asks Panacea a good question about her freaking out over the early L-3 votes.
That's completely unfair. Cojin's first post is calling Panacea out for an inconsistency in her early posting - she didn't want to place a second vote on someone, so, when she realized she had, she switched to another person...who already had a vote on him. Cojin never said L-3 wasn't a big deal.ISO 1 - Freaks out himself over Pan being put at L-3<--so why was it enough of an issue to question Pan about it?
He made a grammatical error - he meant "Everybody, besides her flop, why do you think we should lynch her?" He explains that in the next post.ISO 2 - Admits to being bad IC, urges discussion, tells others (sans Pan) to flop to a different L-3 and asks why Pan should go.
His thoughts are a bit muddled here, I agree. I think Cojin should answer these questions. There are non-scummy possible reasons, though, so I wouldn't jump all over him for that...yet.ISO 3 - Apologizes for grammer fail. Tries to explain his ISO 2 post and makes these two [sarcasm]excellent comments:[/sarcasm]
"overall its quite a good thing to have her at l-2 at this stage"<---If L-3 is so bad....why are you a proponent of an early L-2?
"her lack of panic makes me feel she is comfortable that she wont be quicklynched (as she may be scum and thus a quicklynch at l-2 impossible)"<--so are you saying you think Pan is scum? BTW...your vote is on your fellow lurker.
Yep, contentless and a broken promise to boot. I expect that avatar to be pretty awesome when it finally comes.ISO 4 - Explains ISO 3 post and says he is going to go get an avatar.
Lawls has been lurking, and Cojin was on him early for it. Point: Cojin.ISO 5 - Answers question (says he prefers being town) and gives his interpretation of Lawls timezone excuse post...and then votes Lawls for active lurking.
Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.ISO 6 - Makes this observation re: me,"What i dont understand is how he blatently ignored how much lawls was lurking yet attacked him for less."which I later show to be completely inaccurate.
Continues to press Lawls.ISO 7 - Answers question re: his opinion of Acosmist and Lawls.
"Nachomamma", get it?ISO 8 - Asks something about his momma and makes a completely gibberish coment on metas.
That's not gibberish. At all. He's elaborating on his Lawls opinion and bringing up valid points. I don't like the direction your criticism is taking, dismissing Cojin's valid points as "gibberish."ISO 9 - Apologizes for his play (I think), elaborates on his Lawls opinion (more gibberish) and asks RF why he (RF) think Cojin is scum (amongst an odd secretary/batman joke).
He provided non-trivial help in defusing the Panacea situation, and he's been on Lawls consistently. His game's been a bit uneven, but I don't see him in the same scuminess class as Lawls.I think Lawls is scummier at the moment...but I really don't see anything redeeming about Cojin's game unless you consider his initial questions to Panacea enough to consider the reast of his posts dead-on
Lawls - voting him, would be pleased as punch to lynch himhavingfitz wrote:Can everyone give their top two suspects?
Panacea's history is a matter of public record, and at least one person has actually checked that record and found it generally to point to her towniness.Nachomamma8 wrote:There are really only 2 problems I have with the TownPan case. 1) You cleared her mostly based on either past experiences with her (which we have to take your word for)
The case was as weak as all very early cases are. It was useful because Panacea's reaction to it, stated before I had done any meta-analysis (before her history was even at issue, actually), was perfectly consistent with her historical town behavior.or based on the weakness of a case so early in the game
This is fair enough and feeds into the clarification I am eagerly awaiting from Panacea...2) You offered no new suspects as replacements. You haven't even voted anyone this whole game; you've only unvoted. You've been far more aggressive in derailing a wagon than you have creating one, and everyone knows it's easier for scum to defend than attack...
RayFrost was wrong on the Internet and I couldn't let it stand. I am going to try to take fifteen minutes before posting when I get that worked up. It also bothers me that Panacea is now busy when her opinions are vital to the resolution of this RayFrost business.Elementary Fermion wrote:As for my second choice, it is a tie between. . . Acosmist and RayFrost. The sudden hostility is. . . odd. You were both doing what you were doing, and then doing it with anger.
People have said this but, uh: 1. your vote is on him, 2. if that's not a bandwagon justification, what is it? I honestly want to know; I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that you meant that as scumliciously as it sounded.Cojin wrote:I am also willing to put lawls at l-1 by tommorow depending on what people think
Epic win.havingfitz wrote:Where did Pan go? Someone check Ray's basement.
Acosmist wrote: Cojin isn't as scummy as havingfitz thinks.He may very well be town…but his play so far has him right up there with Lawls in my opinion. It’s just as accurate a statement to say, “Cojin is scummier than Acosmist thinks.”
The long version of this post:
I'm basing that mostly on his pointed comments about Lawls.havingfitz wrote:Dead on content? Huh?
Cojin ISO (questions to Cojin in bold):
ISO 0 - Good post by Cojin, as you recognize.Even the blind pig finds an occasional acorn.That's completely unfair. Cojin's first post is calling Panacea out for an inconsistency in her early posting - she didn't want to place a second vote on someone, so, when she realized she had, she switched to another person...who already had a vote on him. Cojin never said L-3 wasn't a big deal.ISO 1 - Freaks out himself over Pan being put at L-3<--so why was it enough of an issue to question Pan about it?
I disagree…Pan was freaking a bit at putting someone at L-3, tried to make amends and oops, put someone else at L-3. Despite his shocked next post lamenting Pan being put at L-3 herself (which was inaccurate as she was actually at L-2 and exhibited his lack of game awareness)…he never felt the need to display L-3 shock over Lawls or EF being put at L-3 by Pan. Instead he questions her on why EF at L-3 is an issue and Lawls isn’t (but according to Pan…both her L-3’s were inadvertent [and therefore IMO equivalent to each other])
ISO 2 - He made a grammatical error - he meant "Everybody, besides her flop, why do you think we should lynch her?" He explains that in the next post.Using his “muddled” thoughts?
ISO 3 - His thoughts are a bit muddled here, I agree. I think Cojin should answer these questions. There are non-scummy possible reasons, though, so I wouldn't jump all over him for that...yet.Muddled = gibberish IMO. Cojin brings out the pessimist in me.
ISO 4 - Yep, contentless and a broken promise to boot. I expect that avatar to be pretty awesome when it finally comes.Agreed
ISO 5 - Lawls has been lurking, and Cojin was on him early for it. Point: Cojin.Uh…ok
ISO 6 - Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.Point removed: Cojin
ISO 7 - Continues to press Lawls.Press Lawls? He answered a question...there was no pressing IMO…just reiterating what he had already said.
ISO 8 - "Nachomamma", get it?Ahhhhh…I see…; Gibberish? He's saying that a person can't defend his behavior in a game by calling back to his town meta, as awareness of one's town meta means one is aware enough to fake it. I agree his grammar is unfortunate (here and in pretty much every post), but his point is valid and relevant to the discussion.Grammar matters…your explanation makes sense…his is just babbling IMO.
ISO 9 - That's not gibberish. At all. He's elaborating on his Lawls opinion and bringing up valid points. I don't like the direction your criticism is taking, dismissing Cojin's valid points as "gibberish."The direction I’m taking is pretty clear…Cojin’s posts are lacking IMO and he is not playing attention to the game…which he has demonstrated numerous times.
Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.He is a bit lurky but I can excuse lurking a bit if the posts when they are made make sense. I need to look at EF’s posts a bit closer but he would not be someone I would focus on today. Cojin and Lawls are today’s focus for me.
'havingfitz wrote: Why is Nacho's sentence above interesting? How about answering my question on suspects?
EF is probably the next in lurkishness to Lawls and Cojin.
Where did Pan go? Someone check Ray's basement.
He's another pretty bad lurker, and while it does appear mostly habit, I get a slight sense that he doesn't care who is lynched... more so than disinterested town would feel. So yeah, lurker leaning-anti town.Acosmist wrote: Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.
?BridgesAndBaloons wrote:<crickets>havingfitz wrote:How about answering my question on suspects?
Thanks.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:EF, Cojin.havingfitz wrote:?BridgesAndBaloons wrote:<crickets>havingfitz wrote:How about answering my question on suspects?
Also Rayfrost maybe.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote: Lawls, are you waiting for something? When do you think you will become more active? Or will you stay this passive the whole game? Yes you have made votes, but not of them very [strongly].
But the Cojin case didn't arrive until waaay after you killed the Pan wagon, and you didn't really do a whole lot to offer any substitute suspects before then.RayFrost wrote: Sorry, I didn't know the # of votes on cojin, so I didn't vote him.
Read closer. My first post stated that I was going to focus on 4 people for Day 1 (Ray, you, Pan, and Lawls). My suspicion of Ray has definitely been stated in thread (ISO 0, 1, 3), and my suspicion of you is due to a process of elimination.BridgesAndBalloons wrote:
Nacho's sentence is interesting because he suspected two people, Rayfrost and Me, who I don't remember him voicing suspicion on before. We're also two people that little suspicion has been cast on in-thread.
Depends on the type of lurking. EF's doesn't bother me at all because he's posting consistently, and he's posting content when he posts (usually). Later in the game, my mind may change about that but I hope that when there is more to talk about, he'll have more to say.Acosmist wrote: Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure?
I would prefer for scum to be lynched, actually.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:He's another pretty bad lurker, and while it does appear mostly habit, I get a slight sense that he doesn't care who is lynched... more so than disinterested town would feel. So yeah, lurker leaning-anti town.Acosmist wrote: Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.
You and Ray debated this to death enough shortly thereafter, so I feel it unnecessary to re-visit. I do, however, agree with Ray about how mentioning that someone is leaning town isn't clearing them, and it's a mite extreme to accuse him of doing so.Acosmist wrote:
Tally the number of people he's cleared or semi-cleared as town in this game versus the number of people he's pointed out as scum.
Then tell me what that means to you.
Oh, guys, come on. I'm not a total imbecile! I saved a couple of Ray's other scumtells for later. So far this was my first intensive meta, and I don't really think I like the practice much. But I can guess enough to know that inclusion ofRayFrost wrote:You mean itAcosmist wrote:Calling someone out post-Panacea...hm....thoughts, Ms. Panacea?RayFrost wrote:unvote, FoS: cojinbecause I'm way too lazy to check the vote countisn'tobvious that I was going "WATCH ME ATTEMPT TO PERFECTLY MATCH THE META THAT PANACEA PUT FORTH IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE FASHION THAT IT IS RIDICULOUS" in those posts?
But maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said he tends toAcosmist wrote: What I noticed was that RayFrost wasn't calling out scum at all. So, the negation of the consequent is true. Modus tollens, RayFrost is not town.
My judgment though isn't based solely on our previous play; I did spend quite a bit of time meta-ing the hell out of him. I feel that he is Town in this game. That's subject to change, of course. But your request that I meta him and report my findingsAcosmist wrote: Panacea has a skewed judgment of you because she's played with you, and she's magnifying the importance of your particular play patterns in those games. I'm not as concerned that you haven't been calling out scum, because I don't expect that from town RayFrost. I am slightly bothered by the fact that you've been clearing so many people, because that's an easy thing for scum to do, with their insider knowledge.
Panacea, time to offer your thoughts on this.
Actually, you don't have to "take his word for" it. You could meta me, y'know. Seems to be a dangerous fad in this game, but we know at least one person has.Nacho wrote: There are really only 2 problems I have with the TownPan case. 1) You cleared her mostly based on either past experiences with her (which we have to take your word for), or based on the weakness of a case so early in the game
I concur here. I also perceived this as town-on-town. I know you both had good points, but while the argument became the center of the game, I think the beating of the dead horse threw us a bit off track.Elementary wrote: As for my second choice, it is a tie between. . . Acosmist and RayFrost. The sudden hostility is. . . odd. You were both doing what you were doing, and then doing it with anger
Ah, my apologies; I did indeed take it literally. And very well; I feel that the fact that my primary study is that of the English language does in fact prevent me to a degree from submitting spelling, transitional, syntactical, applied, grammatical, systematic, and/or coherence errors, or otherwise disjointed sentences.Bridges wrote: That was just an example of a possible meta and wasn't intended to be taken literally. I still haven't meta'd you and I can't determine exactly what it is yet. Also, very interesting that you consider English Major = no spelling errors. I know that math teachers make just as many, if not more, careless errors, than other people.
Please let me know of anything at all that I missed?Acosmist wrote: Panacea holds the key to a number of things, especially RayFrost. We need her posting.
Shall I include the number for the DTV help desk? Honestly, though. You meta'd me. Town OR scum, you have to know I'd have at least told y'all I would be back if I could get online at all.Acosmist wrote: t also bothers me that Panacea is now busy when her opinions are vital to the resolution of this RayFrost business.
I really like this. I might incorporate this, but I think Acosmist would have a stroke.Bridges wrote: I do quadruple posts rather than super long posts, as I personally feel that they are more palatable. It helps make posts understandable when each post has a specific focus.
iirc I already answered that question, so you can go back and look for it. Sorry for the inactivity guys had a very busy weekend.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Lawls:answer this
BridgesAndBaloons wrote: Lawls, are you waiting for something? When do you think you will become more active? Or will you stay this passive the whole game? Yes you have made votes, but not of them very [strongly].