Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[JackALope2323]

/confirm

Woo. First return game.

Ought to be interesting. I hope I can remember everybody.

[JackALope2323]

Vote SaintKerrigan

Can't trust those Zerg scum.

[JackALope2323]

Neither do I.

[JackALope2323]

I'm sorry, get a

what?

[JackALope2323]

Ahhhhh balls.

Of course I fudge up the joke.



*ahem*

I'm sorry, get a

what?

(There we go.)

[JackALope2323]

GMT -8

A decent amount. I'm not a religious Mafia player, but I've put my time in.

I can post quite a bit. Don't have much better things to do until graduation, anyways. And even then, not much to do after that, either.

[JackALope2323]

Unvote, Vote Cruelty

Just because every time I see your avatar out of the corner of my eye I see Clint Eastwood, then I look at it and realize it's not Clint Eastwood, and get disappointed.

Finger @ Ice

For the attack on Kerrigan for (What seems to be) a joke, and for post 33, which seems to be throwing a smokescreen into the game, possibly to fog up any scummy actions.

Also, the quick backlash against Fitz' vote (Which was also, apparently, a joke) is rather suspicious.

I'll need more evidence before I vote, but I've definitely got my eye on you.

[JackALope2323]

Because I don't feel above 50% that you're scum yet. It's more like 40%, although your last post did lower it to about 35%.

I only put a random vote on cruelty because I like having my vote on somebody, and my last random vote had sat on Kerrigan for too long. Mixing things up, y'know.

Plus, it really does annoy me that it's not Clint Eastwood.

As it is, though, maybe it's just your personality, but your equally "joking" votes seem to be in a bit of a serious tone, with only a forced humor to them. I'll accept your explanation, but my finger is still on you, even if it is a bit drawn back.

[JackALope2323]

JackALope: Why do you feel the need to re-random vote?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLINT EASTWOOD. D=

Also, I feel that (At this point) we're still in the random voting stage. We're slowly climbing out of it, but in the mean time I may as well enjoy it while I can.

P.S. You can just call me Jack.

[JackALope2323]

Charter, it was a random vote. In case you couldn't tell from my reasoning.

I'll put a serious vote on someone once they hit above 50% on my Scumometer.

Ice has gotten close, but he hasn't hit it yet.

[JackALope2323]

Man, people being serious about a game. What's next, people being serious about life?

Also, Ice, I don't see why you're so reluctant to give a black and white answer. Anything but would be ambiguous, and potentially confusing, which is highly anti-town.

[JackALope2323]

Ice, is post 39 serious or just a joke?

Usually I tend to jump in to a game and try to cut to the point as quickly as possible, but people in this game seem inclined to relax a bit, and I followed suit. That being said, it seems as if Jack is doing that for me.

Ice, no offense, but this seems VERY ambiguous to me. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Especially the last sentence. It seems as if I'm doing WHAT for you?

Your explanation does seem innocent enough, though, so

Unfinger @ Ice

. You're off my chopping block for now.

Let me just put this out there that I really don't like Scott's low content posts.

I have to agree with Kerrigan that Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is very shaky. While I don't think that Mafia should be taken (too) seriously, I don't like Gecko saying that, since Ice takes Mafia seriously, he

might

become over-aggressive later in the game. Until I see Ice become aggressive, I don't see why we should automatically presume he WILL become aggressive.

I also don't like the "already getting ferreted out" line. Too accusatory for my liking, especially considering how Ice doesn't seem to even be that angry.

And SAMP, they are very different. Charter deliberately came out and called B.S. on Gecko's vote. Scott is lurking, and coming up to slyly suggest the idea of B.S. on Kerrigan's unvote and Gecko's vote, without coming straight out and saying it. He's not being straightforward. Being anything but straightforward is ambiguous, possibly confusing, and therefore scummy.

As it is, though:

Unvote, vote Gecko

for his shoddy reasoning and his over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them.

Finger @ Scott

for being a sly little weasel and having little content posts.

I WOULD finger SAMP, but I believe he's simply misunderstanding logic here, and not necessarily outright disagreeing with Charter.

[JackALope2323]

You're lurking by sitting by while everybody else is providing the content, and popping up every now and again to make a one line comment, which doesn't offer any REAL opinion or thought on the matter, but slyly suggests what your opinion MAY be, without tying you down to it.

It's all sneaky like, and I don't like it when people are all sneaky like.

If you have an opinion state it. For example: "Gecko, I think your vote on Ice is wrong, and it's because I know Ice makes long posts, so this shouldn't be considered scummy behavior, but rather simply normal behavior on his part."

Or

"Kerrigan, I think your unvote on Jack, just because he's L-3, is a bit of a stretch, and here's why..."

(Of course, there are some other people in the game who have, as of yet, made any "real" posts. I'm still waiting for them to do so.)

[JackALope2323]

There's a difference between an unnecessarily long post and a well-explained, well-written, unambiguous post.

Rather than, you know, one-liners that can't really tie you to having one opinion or another.

[JackALope2323]

(Of course, there are some other people in the game who have, as of yet, made any "real" posts. I'm still waiting for them to do so.)

So your case can be applied to a number of people, yet you choose me. I am comfortable with my vote.

I choose you because you're the one making the one-liners. Other people are just not posting. Once they start posting, I'll start analyzing their posts.

I agree with Espeonage, though. Fitz needs to get a-posting. His one non-RVS post was just an unvote, and not much else. I think if he goes one more day without a meaningful post, I'll label him as a lurker.

Almaster hasn't made any real posts, either.

Cruelty, as well. I'm not even sure what he's referring to in his last post.

[JackALope2323]

A. It gets discussion started.

B. It makes some people slip up.

[JackALope2323]

@ Cruelty: Whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere? What HAVE you been smoking, man?

@ SAMP: It doesn't SHOW Scott disagrees with Gecko. The only thing it shows is that Scott remembers Ice as being naturally talkative. Scott does not, for one second, say what this means or implies. This is what we're getting on him for. If he had said "I'm used to Ice being a very talkative fellow, so I think Gecko getting on him for talking a lot is a bit misguided.", then I wouldn't be as adamant about this whole thing.

And SAMP, there's more than one way to undermine a vote. There's a logical, reasonable way (I.E. Charter) then there's a quick, sly, not really reasonable way (I.E. Scott) Charter and Scott may have done the same thing, but the quality of their actions differs tremendously.

Your insistence on this isn't helping you on my Scumometer, either.

[JackALope2323]

Really, Almaster? Mind expanding on that, rather than a simple "You're wrong"?

Gecko's sudden muteness concerns me. I think my vote has been solidified, unless he comes back soon with a good counter to all the evidence against him.

Post 110 makes me like Fitz a lot less. Ice is doing a lot more than just poking Fitz and Cruelty to act up, and Fitz knows this. I think he's just grabbing for straws with that post.

Also, Kerrigan's 115 comment on Fitz. That. Times ten.

SAMP: I don't know. But, if Scott was scum, he could say it meant something completely different, since he never specifically said what he meant, if we bring it up later.

AMBIGUITY IS NOT GOOD FOR TOWN. FACT.

And just because you see one person being really scummy doesn't mean you should ignore the other people who are being scummy to lesser degrees.

[JackALope2323]

@ Gecko: If he starts bullying later in game, then we'll talk about it then. We don't talk about possibilities in Mafia. That'd be WIFOM. We only talk about the evidence currently presented in front of us.

@ Cruelty's #1: I think you misread that. Charter said that SCOTT was undermining Kerrigan's unvote, not that Kerrigan's unvote was undermining anything.

And, once again: The actions may have been similar in intent, but radically different in quality. Scott's undermining of Gecko's vote was sly, subtle, and didn't really tie him down to an opinion. Ergo, ambiguous, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON HIM FOR.

Charter, on the other hand, came straight out and said "Gecko's vote doesn't make sense."

And, once more: As far as I can tell, the first is meant to be undermining without really tying Scott down to the fact that he tried to undermine Gecko.

And I don't see AGM piggy-backing on Charter. =/ He AGREES with Charter, yes. But he has made his own valid points, in post 93.

Hand @ Cruelty

All that combined with the fact that you seem to be providing minimal content and covering it up by trying to claim "that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now", (Which I find to be completely wrong, by the way.) isn't making me like you one bit.

Actually

Unvote, Vote Cruelty

Because Gecko sort of kind of redeemed himself in his last post, down to about a 55%, and Cruelty got knocked up to a 65% on my Scumometer.

[JackALope2323]

@ Kerrigan: It's not so much that he's redeemed himself, it's that he's made himself seem slightly more innocent, while Cruelty has made himself seem much more guilty. Gecko WAS #1 on my Scumometer. Now it's Cruelty.

@ Fitz: Wait, you're voting me for putting suspicion on you?

lolwut

And what makes you believe Cruelty has no solid evidence on him?

@ Cruelty: It's valid to question the unvote, but not to get as riled up about it as we are now. It's a simple random vote-unvote.

I'm pretty sure it's clear to all of us what he means. However, the way he said it makes it so that he could easily switch around the meaning if we bring it upon him as some sort of evidence, and say "Wait, no, I meant THIS instead of THAT!"

[JackALope2323]

Gecko seems more innocent to me just because of the general tone of his post. It seemed more of a "naive, stupid (No offense, Gecko) townie" than "malicious, confusing scum". This leads me to consider the fact that Gecko may just be being really... I don't want to say stupid again, but that's the best term I can think of, rather than scummy.

Of course, I'm still more convinced he's scum rather than stupid. However, think of it as a balance. Previously, there was a lot of weight on the scum side. Now there's a bit of weight on the innocent side, which balances things out a bit.

Of course, Cruelty added a whole lot to the scum side of his scale with his last few posts, making his scum side fall lower than Gecko's currently is.

And now to drink tea in the hopes it makes me start to make sense.

[JackALope2323]

I'm not focused on the concept of undermining posts. I'm focused on the concept of Scott being ambiguous. Deliberately, too.

Primarily because I felt Ice's behavior was scummy. I didn't mean to answer for Kerrigan, I meant to put my own reasoning out there. I had a strong opinion which I felt the need to share.

[JackALope2323]

@ Post 147:

THIS! THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN! I don't understand why Cruelty is the only one who understands it!

@ Cruelty:

Everything needs to be in Black and White because anything else is ambiguous, and AMBIGUITY IS ANTI-TOWN.

@ Ice:

Well, if half the town disagrees with my logic, that must mean the other half agrees.

And, once again, quality. Other people may be disagreeing with me, but the fact that Cruelty is disagreeing with me THE MOST means something.

(Of course, I'm not saying OMGUS or anything. I'm just saying, the reason I'm in at it with Cruelty is because of the fact that he's the one disagreeing with me the most.)

It doesn't matter if lately it has been the case. What I was, and still am getting on Cruelty for, is the fact that, in those five pages, he couldn't find one thing to comment on. He called everything, let me quote here, "not of particular importance".

Go through the first five pages and tell me there's nothing of particular importance.

The ONLY time Cruelty finally started making content-full posts was when we started pressuring him about it. And even then, he STILL made the comment that there really wasn't anything to talk about. To me, that just sounds like Scum trying to find an excuse to lurk.

Of course, now that the pressure is on him, he's trying to CYA and do whatever it is the town wants him to do, in order to get suspicion off him.

In my humble opinion, at least.

[JackALope2323]

I meant Charter in the last post at the top, by the way. Typo.

[JackALope2323]

It could have been meant as a simple statement of fact, rather than saying the fact means anything like ICE's longevity not being a scumtell.

[JackALope2323]

Unvote

My Scumometer is really screwed up right now. Everybody I was having scumtells on I'm having towntells on now, and everybody I was having towntells on I'm having scumtells on now.

I'll need a few to sort out exactly who I want to vote. I'm leaning a bit towards Kerrigan and Fitz, though.

I've realized that Scott's posting is just the way he is: Simple, without too much fluff. The exact opposite of Ice, really. Neither of these are scumtells. They're just the way the players are, and I can respect that.

Kerrigan does seem extremely jumpy. Every time someone puts pressure on him, he practically jumps out of his skin in response, interrogating the interrogator worse than the interrogator previously had him. He seems to be looking for any way to discredit those who are pressuring him. Very anti-town, to say the least.

I agree with Ice on Espeonage. Whether you're scum or town, you really need to be more of an independent poster.

Fitz, your vote is still basically OMGUS.

[quote=Fitz] I'm not voting Jack because of his vote on gecko or his reasoning for that vote....which he gave as gecko being "over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them." I'm voting Jack because he thought enough of his reasoning towards gecko to vote him and then turned around and voted cruelty and called me out which IMO was displaying the exact same behavior. [/quote]

Please, tell me how this is displaying the exact same behavior. I said Gecko was being over-aggressive with little solid evidence. My aggression against Cruelty was not without solid evidence.

I also fail to see how calling you out is scummy. It's just pressuring you. This is just through-and-through OMGUS.

[JackALope2323]

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

This.

It's not implicit, but, then again, neither is any other scummy action.

To me, this seems like you're grabbing at straws to find reasons to point out that Ice is lying about what he's said. It seems like just a really insignificant thing to be so worried about, but you ARE worried about it, seemingly only to find SOMETHING to worry about with Ice.

[JackALope2323]

Because, if you weren't feeling pressured, you wouldn't be so concerned about whether or not Ice ever said he doesn't vote on gut reads.

Since you are pressured, you're trying to claim that Ice is somehow lying on a completely unimportant statement. You just want SOME evidence that Ice is a bad guy, and that nobody should listen to him.

IMHO, anyways.

[JackALope2323]

Why should you ask? Because it's unimportant, and there's tons of other things to worry about. The way you went about it suggests that you're trying to point out that he never said that, and that therefore he must be lying, and that therefore he's a bad person and nobody should listen to his legitimate claims against you.

Actually, if anything, it's part of the fact that Ice ISN'T voting you, so I don't even really understand why you're attacking it so much.

You're defending yourself by making everybody attack you seem like bad people who nobody should listen to.

[JackALope2323]

I'm not defending Gecko. I'm saying he seems slightly less scummy. He's still above 50% on my Scumometer.

[JackALope2323]

@ Fitz:

Once again:

NO

My calling you out, while it is in the same way as Gecko, has one very different thing to it, something I've mentioned at least five times so far in this game.

QUALITY

Gecko's calling Ice out had no basis to it. My calling you out, on the other hand, DID.

As if I didn't provide all of the evidence in post 122. Very well. I shall repeat it here, just so you don't try to claim I'm being scummy by making you do your own investigative work.

All the way back on page five, I was very distrusting of Scott, because of the way he was acting. Cruelty was, as far as I could tell, defending him vehemently. On top of this, you also had Cruelty claiming AGM was piggy-backing on Charter, which was, in my opinion, straight out wrong.

Now, at this point, Cruelty is at about 45-50% on my Scumometer. Gecko has previously lowered himself to a 55% or so.

This is the killing blow, per se.

All that combined with the fact that you seem to be providing minimal content and covering it up by trying to claim "that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now", (Which I find to be completely wrong, by the way.) isn't making me like you one bit.

(That's my post, by the way.)

This knocked Cruelty up to a 65% on my Scumometer. As I was getting sick and tired of Cruelty stating what I had just quoted in that quote, I decided to vote him to put some pressure on him.

If you want to say that's not solid evidence, fine. It's not like you have anything much better, yourself.

The unvote came because I realized Scott was not as scummy as I thought, and that therefore Cruelty's and mine disagreement over Scott (Where most of the negative points on Cruelty came from) was moot, and therefore Cruelty's defense of Scott was completely legitimate, and therefore not scummy.

Because you and Kerrigan are more scummy than him at the moment. Your complaints about this just further the OMGUS case against you.

I am inconsistent because new evidence keeps coming out. What, am I supposed to find one person to go after and go after them no matter how much is-town evidence comes out about then? Or do I remain fluid, changing my target as people grow more and less suspicious?

I'm sorry that I'm not as stubborn as a mule.

@ Kerrigan

Well,

I

already answered why this was jumpy. In case you didn't notice.

Of course you would never claim this was true, because this would paint you as scum. Why should I take your word that you aren't trying to imply Ice as a bad guy when, as far as I can tell, your pressuring him on these small little nuiances is nothing but trying to paint him as a liar?

"Attack" and "question" are just two qualitative variants of the same thing. While your tone doesn't necessarily seem to suggest an attack, your state of mind and surrounding activities do suggest it was an attack.

You're asking questions about what everybody who is attacking you is saying, and ignoring everybody else.

You've been pushed into a corner by several people, and are now fighting tooth and claw to get out of that corner. You're doing this through any means possible, which is currently by making everybody's argument against you seem moot by making everybody who is attacking you seem scummy.

My vote is definitely radiating between Fitz and Kerrigan. I'm not sure who to place it on right now, but to turn up the pressure a bit more:

Vote: Fitz

[JackALope2323]

"Kerrigan does seem extremely jumpy. Every time someone puts pressure on him, he practically jumps out of his skin in response, interrogating the interrogator worse than the interrogator previously had him. He seems to be looking for any way to discredit those who are pressuring him. Very anti-town, to say the least."

Post 174.

This is the kind of behavior I'm talking about. Town, normally, does not question a person as to every little thing they claim to have said. Town, unless it's crucial, which these last two times you've questioned have not been, does not ask for a direct quote of someone saying something.

I see almost everything you do as scummy because almost everything you do SEEMS scummy. If we weren't allowed to think someone's general behavior wasn't scummy in a Mafia game, where the hell would we get?

I never said they were completely identical. I said they were, in essence, the same thing, just at different levels of aggression.

I know your state of mind through your surrounding activities.

I.E. the rest of your posts.

Your state of mind, as far as I can tell, is one that is very nervous, very jumpy, very paranoid, and altogether throughly distrusting of ANYBODY, besides, of course, those who agree with you 100%. Sort of like a politician.

I'll take notice that as soon as I mention you ignoring everybody else, you automatically make a post where you decide to get on everybody else.

No. That's sort of the point of being scum. To make all your truly scummy actions not seem like scummy actions at all.

[JackALope2323]

Hey guys, sorry I've been absent.

I'd post something now, but I just woke up, and I need to get ready for school, too.

I promise I'll get something out once I get home at around ~2 PDT.

[JackALope2323]

Making the promised post.

Anyways.

I'm definitely not liking Espeonage. Just because you are on the fence doesn't mean you can't give reasons as to why you're on the fence. It seems a bit like justifying lurking, which is, in my view, very, very scummy.

@ Fitz: Why exactly have your suspicions towards me lessened?

I also feel your getting on Espeonage is band-wagoning, but I won't make any definite claims until I get more evidence.

@ Magna: Didn't notice that post by Espeonage. Thanks for bringing it up. I must agree that it is really... Well, I don't know the term for it, but the way you pointed out that he really doesn't make any definite statements about anybody beside Fitz (Who everybody was ganging up on by that point anyways) is very scummy.

I apologize for not noticing it earlier, by the way. Very important post, that one is.

@ SK: I'm sorry, but WHAT question? I could have SWORN I've answered all of your questions. I apologize if I truly have missed something.

If it was about Ice disagreeing with me that you are trying to scum paint him, then here is my response:

If you have someone stabbing someone else, and the stabbee is claiming "Oh, he's not stabbing me!", is the person still being stabbed?

And, once more, just because you're claiming you're not attacking doesn't mean you aren't. To use the above example again, if the stabber is claiming "Oh, I'm not stabbing him!", is the person still being stabbed?

Although, if someone could point me in the direction of Ice's post where he makes this "hazy scum read", I would love to review it for myself.

@ Everyone:

I feel stupid for asking this, but what is ISO?

[JackALope2323]

A fence explaining your fence sitting is NOT unneeded.

PLEASE, explain to us WHY you're fence sitting. Is that THAT hard? Tell us about the reads you're getting on people, ( And don't tell us you aren't getting ANY reads what-so-ever, either.) and why these reads make you fence sit.

That explains your inability (Or indesire to, depending on how you look at it) to read long posts. It does not excuse it.

You could, you know, read the entire post. And this isn't an essay. Just because you're in college doesn't mean everything else has to be like college.

If you can't waste your spare time playing Mafia, why in the HELL did you sign up for a game in the first place, KNOWING that you won't have enough spare time that you WANT to use in order to play a game?

NO YOU CANNOT PLAY JUST FINE WITH THE TIME YOU HAVE. YOU CANNOT READ POSTS. YOU CANNOT MAKE STATEMENTS. YOU CANNOT PLAY MAFIA THE WAY YOU ARE CURRENTLY DOING SO. WE ARE NOT MAKING THINGS HARDER THAN THEY REALLY SHOULD BE. I HATE TO MAKE SO MANY ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS AT ONCE, BUT FFS, MAN.

Mod, is there any possibility of a forced replacement?

By a vote of players, or something? Anything?

[JackALope2323]

@ Kerrigan: It's an oldvote, left over from when I had wanted to put some pressure on Fitz.

It's on there now just because I don't feel comfortable not pressuring anybody at some point or another.

Anyways.

Also, what is with this semantic back-and-forth between you and Ice on this whole scum read/scum point/neutral read/neutral point/etc. bullcrap?

I may just be being paranoid, but it almost seems to me like scum fighting each other (over something rather silly) to push suspicion off of both.

@ Hoopla: Your defense of Espeonage is a bit shaky, in my opinion, as is your attack on Scott, but it seems that both your and my opinion on both of them is based on meta and theory. So I'll leave it at that.

[JackALope2323]

Because I believe you already have enough pressure on you. Any more would be superfluous.

[JackALope2323]

fitz and scott and cruelty.

Now to Hoopla's question. Yeah I read the last page. You should all be thankful my current tutor can't teach.

Well we had RVS and I have already shown my opinion on that. Then came the long arguements which I skimmed over so sadly I can't comment there.
Then came the StK thing. Now I skimmed over the early stuff and have been trying to wade through the later stuff.

Now the way I see it scum are sitting back and letting those guys argue.

Pretty hypocritical of me but I am leaning towards the quieter people as the scummy people.

COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH

I don't really think this is a scum act. A scum would only do that in dire circumstances as far as I see it.

And what exactly is Kerrigan in right now?

Got a claim of scum here folks. As for those saying "scum wouldn't do this", that's baloney.

unvote, Vote Saint Kerrigan

For trying such a desperately stupid scum gambit in an attempt to seem like the innocent little townie who is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good of the town, in order to get his

L-4

BANDWAGON DERAILED.

Even if you're town, as one person so eloquently put it, your "emo" game isn't helping in the town at all. Going "Oh, woe is me, everybody hates me, LYNCH ME NOW!" is not pro-town. In the least. And I can see you doing that for the rest of the game if we don't lynch you.

[JackALope2323]

Anti-Town and Scum are one in the same. They both prevent the town from winning.

[JackALope2323]

Unvote: SaintKerrigan.

I'm going to, Fitz. Just had to wait until I was at L-1.

And this completely solidifies your scumminess.

If you were truly town, you wouldn't have bitched out of your "pro-town" plan at the last moment, just to save your ass.

I like where my vote is.

Also, Charter, what makes you say that about Cruelty?

I would also like to say that I agree with pretty much everything Magna says. + Town Points for you, Magna.

Especially

Bullshit. Only poorly playing scum can’t muster up any passion for their arguments.

and

Have you seen them care to the point that they don’t bother to do any significant scum-hunting? Because despite the fact that I pointed SK in that direction several pages ago she instead chose to self-vote.

@ Kerrigan

I never said you'd scum-vote after Day 1. What I did say is that you'd keep up the whiny emo "Woe is me everybody hates me" crap you've been doing up to now.

And that won't get town anywhere.

And please, tell me why you think self-voting is not anti-town.

Do you know what an ACTUAL townie claiming vanilla does? One less target for scum to focus on. It eliminates you off their list of potential cops/doctors, increasing their chances of hitting a cop/doctor.

IT IS THE MOST HORRIBLY ANTI-TOWN THING YOU COULD DO.

And if town doesn't lose too much by lynching you, why are you NOW (Now that you've gotten to L-1) trying SO desperately to save your ass?

YOU REEK OF SCUM, SK. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW.

And yes, SK, it DID look like you were trying to derail your wagon. You vote yourself to try to seem the little innocent victim, which makes everybody sympathize with you and take their votes off of you. Fortunately, it seems like most people in the game are smarter than that.

Let's get that noose ready, please.

[JackALope2323]

@Fitz:

No, town should not fight as hard as scum to stay alive. Town-aligned characters win if the town wins, not if they're alive at the end. Scum players, IIRC, in most games, win if they are alive at the end of the game.

Not to mention losing a scum-mate if you're scum is much worse than losing a town-mate if you're town.

Scum self-vote in order to gain sympathy, or in order to try to show that they're willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the town, thereby attempting to make people think they're town, thus prompting players to take votes off of the self-voter.

I EXPLAINED WHY CLAIMING VANILLA TOWNIE IS DETRIMENTAL IN MY POST.

Now, if we somehow DON'T lynch SK, that's ONE less person the Scum is going to bother targeting. SK, if he IS a townie, and we don't lynch him, as effectively INCREASED scum's chances of hitting a cop or a doctor!

[JackALope2323]

Vote: Espeonage

For now. I'll see how the day goes.

[JackALope2323]

My goodness. OMGUS already?

I like my vote.

And what do you mean "Standard votecount scumhunting procedure"?

Also, post 356 is quite possibly the scummiest thing I've seen all game.

"I don't want to die, so I'm going to hammer this wagon to make sure I don't get lynched."

Noice one.

[JackALope2323]

Oh yes, because we all know I wasn't one of the first few people on the SK bandwagon, even if I didn't vote him until late in the day.

Same thing with Scott. IIRC, Scott had never exactly liked SK much either.

Just because we voted late doesn't mean we were late on the bandwagon, Esp.

[JackALope2323]

Christ, I'm sorry guys. I've been having personal issues lately.

Here's my current list. Top is towniest, bottom is scummiest. I'll provide a more detailed explanation whenever I get the chance.

Hoopla. (Seems very town. Flawed logic at some parts, yes, but not scum logic.)

Scott. (Everybody's reasonings against him are flawed. His defense against the flawed logic is solid, as well. Plus, gut-tell that he's town.)

Magna. (He makes good posts, and has few to no scum tells on him.)

SAMP. ( He's the balance here. While I agree his defense of Kerrigan seemed very opportunistic, he DID have good reasoning behind it.)

Charter. (Gut-read that he's scum. Don't ask me why. I don't even know. I'd like to see some posts from him on what's happened so far D2. Once that happens I'll post a more solid read about him.)

Cruelty. (I just need some more posts from him. I can't get a good read on him right now. I know he has personal issues going on, so I won't pressure him. He can take his time.)

Ice. (His ISO 43 doesn't sit with me well. Encouraging a hammer like that just sends off bad vibes. His wagoning Kerrigan stinks of opportunism, too. I'll do a better ISO of him when I get the chance.)

AGM (Besides the active lurking, his ISO 14 just makes me rage. He, once again, ignores SAMP's logic for defending SK, just saying "OMGUS"!)

Espeonage. (Must I give any reasoning on this at all? His ISO 45 is scummy as hell. Maybe this is just me, but in his position I'd talk about the situation he's talking about as if

I

might be scum as well.

For example, he says something along these lines:

"If we lynch Scott and get his scum flip, then everything's good. If we lynch Scott and get a town flip, that means I'll get mislynched. If we lynch me, then that means Scott is scum."

He never mentions

"If we lynch me and

I

flip scum, then we can say that Scott probably isn't scum."

I don't know why, but his refusal to play Devil's Advocate just reeks of scum for me.)

[JackALope2323]

I'm reading the past three pages right now.

I once again apologize for not posting as much as I was in the beginning, but I've been going through some things that tear my attention away from Mafia.

Right now, I feel that Espeonage is scum, and his "Hider" claim is B.S. I MIGHT be willing to keep him alive. I'll let you know at the end of this read.

Ice is probably his scum buddy, too.

[JackALope2323]

Okay, well.

I'm not liking some of the arguments Magna is tossing for Ice and Espeonage being scum. Yes, some of them are solid, but some of them also seem to be grabbing for straws. Trying to get Espeonage lynched as quickly as possible, and Ice lynched tomorrow as quickly as possible.

Example: 430

Espeonage's 432 makes PERFECT sense to me. I'm surprised Magna didn't realize this, too. I mean, Magna seems like a smart guy to me. The only thing I can think of is that he intentionally ignored that logic, just so he could have more arguments against Espeonage.

Magna is still on the town side of my meter, but he's drifting towards scum a TINY bit. Not too much, but a bit.

@ Charter 442:

What's odd about it? Why would any good town player argue against points which he knows are completely valid?

@ Hoopla 433:

I agree with you. I think the people you had in that list, including me, need to be pressured more. We may not exactly be obv scum, but still, nobody should rule us out of their scum lists, as we really aren't cleared yet. I hate to WIFOM, but we could just be scum really good at playing town.

@ Ice 449:

I'm sure this has already been explained, but I'll do it just in case.

If he hides behind town who gets NK'd, he gets NK'd along with him. Hiding does protect him against other night actions, yes.

Example

Say Espeonage IS a hider.

He hides behind Hoopla, who we will presume is town. Scum targets Espeonage for an NK. Espeonage, as he is hiding behind Hoopla, will not be killed. This applies to town actions too, I think. If a cop tries to investigate him, the cop will get no results. I think.

However, if Mafia NKs Hoopla, Espeonage dies along with her.

I like your idea of using the hider to find scum. I'm STILL not sure if we should just lynch Espeonage for being so scummy, though. I'll think about it.

Hoopla's 455 is very good. I like that 455.

Although, we have to remember that he still hadn't claimed hider. While it wouldn't have been hard to simply not pressure a clear, this still sits in the back of my mind.

That all being said, I need to think this out more. Like Cruelty, I don't think we should lynch so soon.

Discussion is good. Lack of discussion is bad.

unvote