Kid Know Nothing wrote:What's up with the recent need to dismiss people's comments as stupidity? Honestly, insults don't get you very far. Here's looking at you, Almaster and AGar.
Really? I've won a fair amount of games, at least, the mods have told me so.
Nice fencesitting, Elleran. There's plenty to take a stance on as being scummy. Like your partner, for starters.
Ski mask? Check! Sawed off? Check! Guilty conscience, fear of death? Check! Check! Check!
redtail wrote:Elleran has been scumhunting. It's been almost entirely focused on Hoopla, and it's full of contradictions (see my previous posts/my vote), but it's been scumhunting. Lately he's been slacking off though.
So Elleran...
1) Tunnels Hoopla
2) The arguments in the tunnel aren't good at all
3) And she hasn't even done either of those in over a week
I don't see how you two (redtail and KNK) can defend this.
I'm not defending. I'm calling you out on your misrepresentation.
Are you all waiting for me? Although here it's a question of simply saying whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not, I'm not going to participate. Sorry. I hope the fact that a single player doesn't participate won't cause too many problems.
May I know why some of you are so eager to lynch Elleran as quickly as possible? We should use the time given to us. In my previous games (don't worry, AGar, they're both finished) the fact that someone was lynched without having as much discussion and interactions between the players as possible had very bad consequences.
I have the feeling that Elleran may have given up. Elleran, you still haven't answered my questions so I'll copy and paste them:
"Elleran, I can perfectly accept your explanation for unvoting Hoopla. However, it's exactly because there is nothing shocking about that explanation that I'm wondering why you wanted to keep it to yourself and only reveal it on Day 2?
There is also something about your response to redtail896 that confuses me. You say: "At the time I posted the first post, I was thoroughly convinced that Hoopla was lying and was a scum who simply claimed for protection". However, at the time you posted that post (where you stated that you supported lynching liars), Hoopla had already unclaimed. Why would you think at that point that Hoopla wanted protection?"
Also, you insist on suspecting Hoopla because of the claim and unclaim. Why? As I explained, basing my explanation on Mini 973, I think Hoopla would have made the "Paranoid Gun Owner" claim here regardless of role - if not for anything else, just to test that theory of what would happen if claiming "Paranoid Gun Owner" right from the start of a game becomes a trend. Did you consider my point?
As I said, in Newbie 957 Elleran seemed to be lynched for being inconsistent and making mistakes - something similar to what Elleran has been accused of in our current game - yet Elleran was a "Townie" there. I don't understand why no one has commented on that - even Hoopla, who actually linked to that game.
I have already stated that in my opinion drmyshottyizsik was an easy target. I do think the mafia would be likely to want to get rid of drmyshottyizsik - regardless of drmyshottyizsik's role. Yes, even if drmyshottyizsik actually were a mafioso (I'm speaking theoretically; not taking into consideration Hoopla's 14% statistics). If I understand correctly, AlmasterGM also seems to think so according to post number #231. But then I find it interesting that AlmasterGM says that after having discussed so openly getting rid of drmyshottyizsik...
AGar puzzles me. First, there was that famous dialogue with Hoopla. Then I found some of the interactions between AGar and gonnano strange - they were a mix of attacks, accusations and jokes... I feel they were both influenced at least a little by Mini 992, where they both participated. And then there is AGar's attitude towards me. I stated that I couldn't understand the purpose of some of AGar's actions during the dialogue with Hoopla - no reaction. I asked directly and AGar refused to answer, claiming that everything was pretty clear. I explained in detail that at least to me it wasn't clear... and AGar announced not wanting to communicate with me. That may go on for the rest of the game - AGar might always say: "You're still not using half a neuron, I'm not going to address you". AGar, your fellow players are not enemies. We're all supposed to enjoy this game together!
So I find AGar's interactions with some players peculiar. I'm also not happy with how AGar seems to be so eager to quickly lynch Elleran.
Hoopla, you didn't answer me why you were sure AGar would bring up your "Miller" claim.
Vel-Rahn Koon looked very investigative in the beginning (which was good) but not so much later on - possibly because of little time? Vel-Rahn Koon, at one point you said: "I get the feeling that the Alamaster/AGar battle is a Town v. Town scenario". Very soon after that you expressed dislike of one of AlmasterGM's posts during that "battle" and voted AlmasterGM. What is your current opinion on that situation surrounding AlmasterGM?
gonnano, you noted the quick succession of votes for Hoopla and AlmasterGM. Why didn't you note it when the same thing happened with Elleran on page 10?
Zachrulez hasn't really done much so far. Zachrulez was the most eager to get rid of drmyshottyizsik (once again, I'm not impressed with that at all) and in general, as others also have mentioned, has focused quite a lot on drmyshottyizsik. Zachrulez also made some comments on AlmasterGM and that was basically all. Zachrulez, what are your observations on ConfidAnon so far?
ConfidAnon is another player who hasn't done much. There was the vote for gonnano to "add another name to the discussion"; then ConfidAnon made a short statement in response to one of gonnano's posts, which I thought was again with the intention to bring attention to gonnano... but, interestingly, more recently ConfidAnon has mentioned not thinking gonnano had a strong reaction to ConfidAnon's vote. Otherwise, ConfidAnon has made a couple of remarks and that's basically all. ConfidAnon, what are your observations on Zachrulez so far?
Kid Know Nothing, it was very interesting for me to read your detailed thoughts on what happened during the first few pages of the game. I'm hoping to see a continuation!
Kid Know Nothing wrote:I'm not defending. I'm calling you out on your misrepresentation.
Ok.
Where's the misrep?
I'd like to echo this sentiment.
If someone is making contradictory, tunneling, flawed scumhunting, is it really scumhunting? I believe it's moreso likely to be from scum who are trying to make the appearance of scumhunting to avoid being accused of lurking or middling. Note that Elleran's entire vote-history is thus:
1) Hoopla for unclaiming PGO and him feeling that one previous game in which I replaced out of with Hoopla gave us uber psychic powers. (Would be cool, I'd love to psycho-communicate with Hoopla during games sometimes lol)
Unvoted shortly thereafter.
He hasn't cast a vote since.
@G&H - No, I'm not intending to ignore you for the rest of the game unless you resume playing like a naive VI. If one good thing came out of the town in Mini 992, it was Seacore's expressing how people need to stop waiting around for the deadline to come. Elleran is proving to be unhelpful, commiting scummy actions, is fencesitting with his opinions, and has attempted most of the tricks in the book that are fairly scummy. He isn't scumhunting, he's trying to mask fluff and pass it off as scumhunting. Also, meta 101: You can't meta someone based off of one alignment alone. Good scum players will try and play to their perceived town meta to throw people off their trail. Unless you can provide examples of a game where Elleran was scum and had a substantially different playstyle (on-site, mind you. I feel off-site meta is completely and utterly worthless), your example of him in Newbie 957 is worthless. Sorry to say it, but meta isn't just something that you look at one or two games and say "Oh hey, that's how he plays."
In other news, the massclaim is complete with G&H's refusal, although before we do any lynching, I have a question to ask.
G&H - Why are you refusing to participate? What harm do you see?
Ski mask? Check! Sawed off? Check! Guilty conscience, fear of death? Check! Check! Check!
Good and Honest wrote:Are you all waiting for me? Although here it's a question of simply saying whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not, I'm not going to participate. Sorry. I hope the fact that a single player doesn't participate won't cause too many problems.
You're joking, right? We have two days until deadline - massclaim means everyone. If you disagreed with the concept you should have spoke up before, because you're seriously fucking us over. I don't care one bit for your playstyle because the whole game of mafia revolves around lying, and trying to detect liars - it's like having a playstyle of not voting. Eliminating a necessary facet of your game doesn't make it a playstyle. Though, I don't understand your objection in the first place because this passage of play is beneficial for you to be truthful no matter what.
If you are scum, it's probably a stupid thing to fakeclaim a protection role right now, because that gets Shotty lynched, then you tomorrow, which isn't a good result for you. If you are town, being truthful about whether you are a protection role or not helps us too. I have no interest in reading the rest of your post and answering your questions. If you don't complete the massclaim, I will vote for you today and push for your lynch, so we find out your role and complete the massclaim that way. Drop the gimmick, it doesn't work.
I believe we get a No Lynch if we haven't reached a majority.
Re the "scumhunting" thing: as I said, I think we're just parsing definitions. I agree that Elleran's scumhunting has been awful and unproductive, but it's technically still scumhunting. I'm now leaving this argument, because I don't think it's going to go anywhere interesting. I hate definition wars. The important thing that I think most of us here agree on is that Elleran's "scumhunting" seems to be scum rather than town motivated.
To all non-voters: why aren't you voting? It's a fair question; I'm willing to accept a reason for not voting if you can come up with a good one.
Good and Honest wrote:Are you all waiting for me? Although here it's a question of simply saying whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not, I'm not going to participate. Sorry. I hope the fact that a single player doesn't participate won't cause too many problems.
I think it will. You had ample time to object to the plan (your last post before this one, for example); it's only when it got to you, in last place, that you objected. The worst part of the mass roleclaim is over; we already have all of the negatives, and you're preventing us from seeing the full range of positives. Please claim Doc or not Doc.
You can just call me Redtail. If I could, I'd change my name to that anyway.
G&H wrote:gonnano, you noted the quick succession of votes for Hoopla and AlmasterGM. Why didn't you note it when the same thing happened with Elleran on page 10?
Hoopla had been trying to get that wagon going for a long time already. After I joined in started to take off. My thoughts are that the scum were trying to see if they could get by with ignoring Elleran's scummy behavior, then when it looked like they might not get away with it they started showing more support for his bandwagon.
Good one CA, I wonder why no one else has thought of that already... maybe because G&H has already said that if (s)he answered questions like that it would break his/her playstyle. However, I do NOT think that a doc/not doc claim would break his/her playstyle and I would like to see one pronto. I would strongly advise against lynching G&H today, though. I would much rather proceed with the Elleran lynch and discuss G&H more during Day 2.
Some men are born mediocre, some achieve mediocrity, and some have mediocrity thrust upon them.
- Joseph Heller
gonnano wrote: I would strongly advise against lynching G&H today, though. I would much rather proceed with the Elleran lynch and discuss G&H more during Day 2.
Good and Honest wrote:"Elleran, I can perfectly accept your explanation for unvoting Hoopla. However, it's exactly because there is nothing shocking about that explanation that I'm wondering why you wanted to keep it to yourself and only reveal it on Day 2?
There is also something about your response to redtail896 that confuses me. You say: "At the time I posted the first post, I was thoroughly convinced that Hoopla was lying and was a scum who simply claimed for protection". However, at the time you posted that post (where you stated that you supported lynching liars), Hoopla had already unclaimed. Why would you think at that point that Hoopla wanted protection?"
Also, you insist on suspecting Hoopla because of the claim and unclaim. Why? As I explained, basing my explanation on Mini 973, I think Hoopla would have made the "Paranoid Gun Owner" claim here regardless of role - if not for anything else, just to test that theory of what would happen if claiming "Paranoid Gun Owner" right from the start of a game becomes a trend. Did you consider my point?
That's the exact reason why I didn't post. It seemed so insignificant and common that it would sound like a scum making up excuses.
To your second question, even if Hoopla unclaimed, the initial claim has to be considered. Hoopla could be just as easily a scum claiming for protection as he could be a town claiming to promote fruitful discussion. The unclaim doesn't erase what Hoopla said from people's minds.
I suspect Hoopla because her actions were risky. Although I am more convinced (enough to have unvoted) that Hoopla is a VT who has less to lose than a PR because of the way she takes such risk to promote discussion, PGO is a claim that can't really be investigated.
