Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[Xite91]

OK, that's way more of a stretch than the first quote. So you think that fitz not only knew the setup, but also realised what I was trying to achieve with my gambit and deliberately acted ignorant to shut it down? No offense to him, but I just don't think there's any basis to believe that he's sharp enough for that.

trying to rationalize gut is a tricky business. Was he looking out for his partner?[/quote]

That

remind me, why was LAL enforcement a reason to try to lynch dalt but not a reason to lynch Nexus? Was it because your scum buddy was voting for Nexus and you didn't want to be on the same wagon?

Aside from me....once you have finished catching up, what other player or two are you suspicious of?

a certain person that has said that you were scummy more than a couple times without voting for you.

You didn't specify in the first paragraph
I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only person that did that

Therefore, this could be an easy out for you to attack other player that were either on the Nexus wagon, or anyone that hadn't voted Fitz, but made it clear they were suspicious of him.
By the way, wouldn't he have jumped on the nexus wagon when he changed his vote if that were the case? I was off by then, or

were

you talking about someone else?

Your Me/Fitz case

---

Also this struck me as odd

need to read more carefully, will do so with these in front of me.

You seem to have a pretty "clear" read on me and Fitz without having read that carefully... hmmm

Preview edit;
It does, but mistakes are mistakes, and honestly I don't see him "knowing the setup" being at all likely.
Like said, I didn't think mountainous mafia was hinting at roles, but I actually read opening posts, a lot of people don't, though, because most of them say about the same thing

[tomorrow wendy]

You seem to have a pretty "clear" read on me and Fitz without having read that carefully... hmmm

replacing an inactive player by being as active as possible should help balance the information inconsistency as presented so far.
I'm doing the best I can.

trying to be more careful, I only got two pages in. My PBPA analysis.
8 - iamausername calls for massclaim. Gives order for massclaim, claiming that random.org gave order. No proof of randomness given.
9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.
10 - dalt states that this is his first game, asks to be briefed on game stuff.
12 – iamausername reiterates that his massclaim request is serious
13 – LML demonstrates that he does understand first post game setup, but gives explaination that would prevent a possible scumpartner from falling for iamausername’s gambit. SCUMTELL
16 – LML claims vanilla townie.
20 – Saga accuses LML of being overdefensive. It stands out, but I’m not sure how to parse this.
22 – h.fitz demonstrates ignorance of setup, and understanding of LML’s prior two posts (I didn’t retain this during my intitial read). Accuses iamauser of rolefishing.
23 – Xite gives h.fitz ready made defense of “Do you even read mod-posts?”
24 – h.fitz does not deny reading mod post, glibly states “Apparently as well as iamausername ” so that his error will be associated with iamausername’s alleged failure to read the mod post.
25 – Korask offer vote count. Doesn’t like random voting (newbie tell?) Observes that “username didn't realize that this game was all vanilla, probably an innocent mistaske but I'm keeping my eye on him/her” without questionaing why imausername thought that a massclaim was a good idea. D1 massclaim is utterly against mafiascum.net site meta. Gets caught up in what I feel is nonsense LML “overdefensiveness” drama regarding random voting.
29 – Korask offers random vote for CA, offering proof of randomness

that doesn’t actually prove randomness.

(failed to notice this during initial read) SCUMTELL
31 – Korask offers votecount
32 – iamausername offers explaination for massclaim gambit. Gambit was spoiled by LML, in my opinion. I wish that I could point to someone that demonstrated awareness fo gambit and played along with it, because that would be a town-tell in my eyes.
33 – dalt incorrectly votes for sage. Fails to use proper formatting. If I didn’t know his alignment I would be suspicious of him pretending to be incompetant.
38 – commieB demonstrates failure to comprehend iamausername’s massclaim explaination as well as setup reveal in initial mod post. Claims that early claim of vanilla townie is not scummy, then claims vanilla townie.
40 – LML rationalizes vote for Prana, states that he got “something” on iamausername. What did you get on him LML? States that vote by Prana is scummy because it is third vote on wagon. Why is that scummy?
42-45 exchange between parana and sage that made my eyes glaze over. Did anyone else get anything out of it? I failed to parse it.
46 – LML accuses Saga of answering for someone (who?), coaching, asks for more votes on Prana.
47 – CA disagrees on third vote being scummy, but goes alogn with LML and votes for Prana in the interest of gettign a “healthy” bandwagon going.
48 – Prana unvotes LML, and states that his vote on LML was an insincere puch to get scum to vote for LML. Says that it didn’t work. Fails to state why he thinks that LML was town, or why his plan didn’t work.

[Leech]

Lat is scummy, but IIRC I called them being the scumteam. I think Lat IS scummier than him, but if Fitz gets to L-1 then it's partially obvious that Lat will not be the lynch of the day, right? Not to mention, I just like to put the hammer on people. It's the most fun position on a wagon, except for the person that started it, that's where it's really at.

First off maybe you should keep track of what you say so you don't have to repeatedly state "if I recall correctly" about a statements you may, or may not have, made in the game. After reading you in ISO, I can't find a place where you said they were a scum team, but I may have overlooked it. Would you mind finding a quote? Also, that segment is doing nothing other than pre-emptively dismissing yourself from a potential mislynch, I do not like that one bit.

Also, it's not scummy because I am claiming the hammer vote before it happens, therefore I can't just say, oh, it was because it was better than a no-lynch, or that the game was dead.

Except for the fact that you've already stated that here:

(although Fitz still looks like scum and I wouldn't mind ====[ ] him, but I'm waiting for discussion to die down and him to be at L-1).

You've already given yourself the "The game was dead" out. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't claim that, considering you already set yourself up for it. "I couldn't do" comments mean nothing, especially when you are already doing it.

If the game was dead, I'd find something more amusing to do than hammer someone... Maybe get on a table and dance the Cha-Cha (by myself no less), or maybe pick on newbies more, or come up with another fun shenanigan against someone, or maybe, just for the sake of this game claim a PR.

So if the game was dead you'd take it upon yourself to be a distraction, add nothing game related, harrass newbies, and do absolutely nothing to get the game back on track?

I don't hammer a person to get a game going, it's a stupid thing to do IMO

Except, you already said you would if HF was L-1 and discussion died down. Who's keeping track, though? Clearly you aren't:

@Whoever asked the Lat/CA question

You can't even remember who asked you questions, or the things you've said in this game (all of your IIRC comments) so why should we take anything you say seriously, considering? A lot of what you say is based on whether or not you recall something correctly. Why don't you just look it up for yourself before posting? I really don't think it matters to you what you are posting, as long as you are posting.

replacing an inactive player by being as active as possible should help balance the information inconsistency as presented so far.
I'm doing the best I can.

Actually, no. I'd much rather you post less and have solid points, than post frequently to the point that you can't remember what you say, like Xite does. Post count does not reflect alignment.

[Xite91]

8 - iamausername calls for massclaim. Gives order for massclaim, claiming that random.org gave order. No proof of randomness given.
9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.
13 – LML demonstrates that he does understand first post game setup, but gives explaination that would prevent a possible scumpartner from falling for iamausername’s gambit. SCUMTELL
22 – h.fitz demonstrates ignorance of setup, and understanding of LML’s prior two posts (I didn’t retain this during my intitial read). Accuses iamauser of rolefishing.
23 – Xite gives h.fitz ready made defense of “Do you even read mod-posts?”
24 – h.fitz does not deny reading mod post, glibly states “Apparently as well as iamausername ” so that his error will be associated with iamausername’s alleged failure to read the mod post.

First, how do you feel about everything that's gone on? This whole post seems to be IIoA
8 - How do you prove randomness?
9 - How is there no evidence there? Isn't he the one that said that he got a good laugh out of it? That's what I would have said if I

did

realize what he was doing at the time.
13 - I thought that LmL was the guy you had the huge towntell for? Isn't that why you agreed with everything he said?
22 - Huh? (between the comma and the parenthesis)
23 - What do you mean "ready made?"
24 - I'm pretty sure that was him making a joke, not him trying to discredit Username

Danmit, again, will respond to leech after this commercial break

[PranaDevil]

9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.

Exsqueeze me? No evidence that I understood the set-up? You mean beyond thinking iam was joking about claiming, thus quite obviously showing that I found it funny BECAUSE everyone would be going "I'm Vanilla, how's about you?" Nope, no evidence there, no siree.

48 – Prana unvotes LML, and states that his vote on LML was an insincere puch to get scum to vote for LML. Says that it didn’t work. Fails to state why he thinks that LML was town, or why his plan didn’t work.

From his reactions to my "accusing" him. He was obviously frustrated that he was getting heat that early on. Scum would've been more inclined (in my experience) to be laid back about it and shrug it off that early on. Town want to know why there's a quick wagon on them for no reason. It's got nothing to do with whether I felt he was town when I voted for him, I've made that point quite clear.

As for why the plan didn't work, no bugger fell for it and hopped on the wagon, that's why. I thought all of this was quite obvious at this stage of the day?

FoS: Wendy

Not liking the play at the moment. I don't mind coming in and looking everyone over, but I would expect there to be more scrutiny in things, and not just firing off at everything without properly paying attention to it.

[Xite91]

1) First off maybe you should keep track of what you say so you don't have to repeatedly state "if I recall correctly" about a statements you may, or may not have, made in the game. After reading you in ISO, I can't find a place where you said they were a scum team, but I may have overlooked it. Would you mind finding a quote? Also, that segment is doing nothing other than pre-emptively dismissing yourself from a potential mislynch, I do not like that one bit.

2) You've already given yourself the "The game was dead" out. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't claim that, considering you already set yourself up for it. "I couldn't do" comments mean nothing, especially when you are already doing it.

3) So if the game was dead you'd take it upon yourself to be a distraction, add nothing game related, harrass newbies, and do absolutely nothing to get the game back on track?

4) Except, you already said you would if HF was L-1 and discussion died down. Who's keeping track, though? Clearly you aren't:

5) You can't even remember who asked you questions, or the things you've said in this game (all of your IIRC comments) so why should we take anything you say seriously, considering? A lot of what you say is based on whether or not you recall something correctly. Why don't you just look it up for yourself before posting? I really don't think it matters to you what you are posting, as long as you are posting.

1) I'm busy lately, also I just replaced into a 30+ page game, so I don't have a lot of time to post on this one, and do you really want all of my RL excuses to forget if I actually posted something? Not to mention, there have been a few times when I would start a post, then give up on it because it's a bunch of useless info with maybe a line of non-useless info. I don't really have enough giveadamn to actually go find where I said it, and if I didn't call it then, fine I'm calling it now. Either way, I have been saying he was scummy, just never gave reasoning because I figured it was pointless to point out obvious things.

2) Or maybe I was trying to say that I would wait until we ran out of things to talk about so that town could go into D2 with the most info possible? Just maybe.

3) Wow, nice misrep. I lol'd a bit. No I was exaggerating, dumbass. I would probably harass newbies, though, cuz it's a good way to get a game back on track, but I would probably do something so scummy everyone would jump on me so I could gage reactions, thus keeping the game going.

4) See 2

5) Or, maybe I'm lazy? Also, see 1

Preview edit:
Responding to Prana next

[tomorrow wendy]

felt that my play while replacing in should be quick and loose to demonstrate a lack of guile.
No w I feel that I should read carefully and make solid well organized posts.
Expect more from me in a day or two when I've had a chance to put the time in. Next, fun in the sun for me, but first:

9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.

Exsqueeze me? No evidence that I understood the set-up? You mean beyond thinking iam was joking about claiming, thus quite obviously showing that I found it funny BECAUSE everyone would be going "I'm Vanilla, how's about you?" Nope, no evidence there, no siree.

if you understood, why didn't you claim vanilla? He followed up by stating that he was serious, and you still did not claim, or endorse his plan.

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play. I assumed that you did not understand. To be clear: you knew the setup on page one? Why didn't you go along with the massclaim after iamausername stated that he was serious?

[PranaDevil]

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play. I assumed that you did not understand. To be clear: you knew the setup on page one? Why didn't you go along with the massclaim after iamausername stated that he was serious?

No, sorry, his gambit "failed to catch scum" because I don't think it was a worthwhile gambit. Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla. Which means unless scum were the last two to claim they would have to have been a complete dolt (dalt?) to make that mistake in a normal game, let alone a game like this where everything is staring you in the face.

[tomorrow wendy]

unvote, vote: PranaDevil

[Leech]

1) I'm busy lately, also I just replaced into a 30+ page game, so I don't have a lot of time to post on this one, and do you really want all of my RL excuses to forget if I actually posted something?

It's not hard to ISO yourself to see if you've said something. I'm willing to bet you're doing just that and just saying IIRC in case someone catches you. It's such an easy and indisputable defense.

I don't really have enough giveadamn to actually go find where I said it, and if I didn't call it then, fine I'm calling it now.

It's nice to know that a player in this game doesn't give enough of a damn to actually see if they are being consistent. In fact, I believe I said just that previously.

Or maybe I was trying to say that I would wait until we ran out of things to talk about so that town could go into D2 with the most info possible? Just maybe.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you are saying you will hammer someone, while keeping your vote on someone else? You are clearly stating that you will hammer HF under the right condition, while voting for Lat. That doesn't seem right, at all. You won't vote for HF right now, but you will hammer if he's L-1?

Wow, nice misrep. I lol'd a bit. No I was exaggerating, dumbass. I would probably harass newbies, though, cuz it's a good way to get a game back on track, but I would probably do something so scummy everyone would jump on me so I could gage reactions, thus keeping the game going.

I know you were exaggerating, but the fact you were doing so is actually validating my point. Anything that is not game related, is a distraction. You are intentionally being distracting. Also, you said if the game died you'd intentionally do something scummy to get heat on yourself. If you are town, you would intentionally be scummy to draw attention onto the one person you actually know, for a fact, is town.

Or, maybe I'm lazy? Also, see 1

Or maybe, I'm right. You've admit yourself that you don't care enough to even check to see whether or not you've said something. Being consistent and avoiding contradicting yourself is pretty key to being a townie. You simply don't seem to care about that. You are, however, wording things in ways to give you easy outs if called on it though. That is scummy.

if you understood, why didn't you claim vanilla? He followed up by stating that he was serious, and you still did not claim, or endorse his plan.

Almost everyone didn't claim vanilla. So why is Prana the only one you're questioning about this?

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play.

Xite was the one that immediately corrected HF, not Prana.

[tomorrow wendy]

Almost everyone didn't claim vanilla. So why is Prana the only one you're questioning about this?

Prana was first to claim per the list, and declined to claim. He also stated that he understood the setup on page one, but decided to not go along with the gambit that he says he immediately understood.

[ConfidAnon]

thought you were talking about CA... question still stands for CA though.

I don't believe so. There may have been times when I updated one game but not the others, not entirely sure.

[Xite91]

1) It's nice to know that a player in this game doesn't give enough of a damn to actually see if they are being consistent. In fact, I believe I said just that previously.

2) Why are you ignoring the fact that you are saying you will hammer someone, while keeping your vote on someone else? You are clearly stating that you will hammer HF under the right condition, while voting for Lat. That doesn't seem right, at all. You won't vote for HF right now, but you will hammer if he's L-1?

3) I know you were exaggerating, but the fact you were doing so is actually validating my point. Anything that is not game related, is a distraction. You are intentionally being distracting. Also, you said if the game died you'd intentionally do something scummy to get heat on yourself. If you are town, you would intentionally be scummy to draw attention onto the one person you actually know, for a fact, is town.

4) Or maybe, I'm right. You've admit yourself that you don't care enough to even check to see whether or not you've said something.

Being consistent and avoiding contradicting yourself is pretty key to being a townie.

You simply don't seem to care about that. You are, however, wording things in ways to give you easy outs if called on it though. That is scummy.

5) Xite was the one that immediately corrected HF, not Prana.

1) Ironically, since i am town, I'm not worried about being consistent because I figure my thought process should be pretty consistent without me having to check on it all the time. If I was scum I might go back to check on those things to make sure my posts weren't seen as scummy because of inconsistencies. Just sayin.

2) Maybe YOU should reread the game. I'm voting Wendy. And I keep my vote on who seems scummiest, but if I truly believe that someone else is also scummy AND are at L-1, I will ===[ ]

3) Would it keep the game going? If I got lynched and flipped town would people look more closely to my wagon? Those are two good reasons why that would work. Besides, I like playing VI

4) It's also key to being scum. And I'm not trying to give myself easy outs, I just know that I am human, and therefore fallible.

5) Because the gambit wasn't gonna work IMO and what he did seemed like a null tell to me

[Leech]

1) Ironically, since i am town, I'm not worried about being consistent because I figure my thought process should be pretty consistent without me having to check on it all the time. If I was scum I might go back to check on those things to make sure my posts weren't seen as scummy because of inconsistencies. Just sayin.

Which perfectly explains why you can't remember what you've said, and what you haven't. When called out on it you just say "Well I'm saying it now!" which is pointless.

2) Maybe YOU should reread the game. I'm voting Wendy. And I keep my vote on who seems scummiest, but if I truly believe that someone else is also scummy AND are at L-1, I will ===[ ]

Jesus Christ, this line again? Maybe YOU should work on your comprehension. The quote that started this happened BEFORE you switched your vote. The fact that you changed to Wendy after you made that comment, does not negate the fact that you made it. "I'm voting this person now!" does not erase "I'm waiting until L-1 to lynch this person, but until then I'm keeping my vote here" before that vote switched.

3) Would it keep the game going? If I got lynched and flipped town would people look more closely to my wagon? Those are two good reasons why that would work. Besides, I like playing VI

That wouldn't work, actually. If you were intentionally being scummy, that's falsely leading the town into a position where they could lynch you because of your actions. If anything it would prevent people from taking your lynch seriously, because of your self-destructiveness. Intentionally being scummy is the perfect way to make it so no information is learned from your wagon.

I'm not trying to give myself easy outs, I just know that I am human, and therefore fallible.

I disagree, the way you are writing your posts makes it look like you are looking for easy outs. Especially when I did catch something you "IIRC'd" about, which was wrong. "Oh, I'm saying it now!" You are making it so your points, even when they are wrong, cannot be disputed which is actually anti-town. You may know your alignment, but we do not. So by covering your own ass, you are withholding discussion that could lead to others actually believing you are town. Which, in the end, is scummy.

5) Because the gambit wasn't gonna work IMO and what he did seemed like a null tell to me

I was pointing that out to Wendy, not asking for an explanation. I'm not sure why you replied to it. Considering she apparently voted for Prana due to a misconception on events that happened in the thread, I corrected it. Interestingly enough, she has posted since then and hasn't mentioned that at all. More specifically, she quoted one comment of mine from that post, but left that out entirely. I'm curious to know why.

@Wendy: Why didn't you acknowledge the fact that Prana wasn't the one that "ruined" Iam's gambit after I pointed that out?

[Xite91]

1) Lolwut?
2) Just pointing out that you failed to realize that I was voting someone else.
3) That, my good sir, depends on how well I played and the people left playing after me.
4) I thought I had said it, hence my saying it now, so that you have it if I do contradict myself.
5) I was attempting to clear my good name, since you seem so hellbent on sullying it.

[Lateralus22]

Because the information was readily available for us in the opening post. That's why.

I hereby ask you, honestly. Look back at this game. Be honest with the situation. Did you know that there were 2 goons and 10 townies before you posted? I sure did.

Yeah, but when I wasn't in the game I read about IAU's gambit beforehand and then I learned about the setup.

Again, though with the jumpy overcautiousness.

There's a difference between not wanting to get banned or mod killed from a game and being an over cautious scum trying to look pro town.

Hi lat, mind telling me why you voted for me?

Post (#252) and Post (#273) should tell you everything you need to know.

Lat is scummy, but IIRC I called them being the scumteam.

What? No you didn't. How could you even make a mistake in thinking you did? I consider calling scum teams to be very important, there was one point in the game I even asked you who my scum partner would be if I was scum. I would have thought that if you would have figured it out you would have bothered to tell all of us. It's starting to look like you're just making stuff up as you go along, not caring wether the town finds scum or not. If we're both scum why don't you go ahead and make a nice case, you realize when you find scum you should get them lynched right, and convince everyone else to get them lynched?

1) Ironically, since i am town, I'm not worried about being consistent because I figure my thought process should be pretty consistent without me having to check on it all the time. If I was scum I might go back to check on those things to make sure my posts weren't seen as scummy because of inconsistencies. Just sayin.

Great, now scum no longer have to make sure they're being consistent because townies don't have to worry about being consistent by your logic.

[Battousai]

Vote Count:

Llamafluff

-3- ConfidAnon, Nexus, havingfitz

ConfidAnon

-2- PranaDevil, Llamafluff

tomorrow wendy

-2- Saga, Xite91

Lateralus22

-1- iamausername

Xite91

-2- Lateralus22, Leech

havingfitz

-1- LoudmouthLee

PranaDevil

-1- tomorrow wendy

Not Voting:

No one

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch (pre-deadline)!


...

Nightwolf replaces Saga!

...

Post 318: No, too close to the line of unfair play, IMO.

[Nightwolf]

Just stopping by to /confirm replacement.

I expect to be fully caught up no later than 24-30 hours from this post.

[Xite91]

Lat is scummy, but IIRC I called them being the scumteam.

What? No you didn't. How could you even make a mistake in thinking you did? I consider calling scum teams to be very important, there was one point in the game I even asked you who my scum partner would be if I was scum. I would have thought that if you would have figured it out you would have bothered to tell all of us. It's starting to look like you're just making stuff up as you go along, not caring wether the town finds scum or not. If we're both scum why don't you go ahead and make a nice case, you realize when you find scum you should get them lynched right, and convince everyone else to get them lynched?

1) Ironically, since i am town, I'm not worried about being consistent because I figure my thought process should be pretty consistent without me having to check on it all the time. If I was scum I might go back to check on those things to make sure my posts weren't seen as scummy because of inconsistencies. Just sayin.

Great, now scum no longer have to make sure they're being consistent because townies don't have to worry about being consistent by your logic.

By "correct", I meant "prove to me," but eh, honestly, this whole Dalt Did/Didn't lie argument is making me hate this game and reading it so much. Honestly, the only thing it's doing other than diluting the tread more, is making my second idea for scum stronger and stronger.

FoS: Havingfitz

I guess I didn't call them as a scumteam, just voted one and FoS'd the other, but honestly, how short is that of actually calling them a scumteam?
Either way, I made a mistake and apologize.

The other thing is that what I meant is that townies should for the most part be able to be consistent without having to check back on what they've said because they feel stronger about it. Scum would be more likely to have to go back and check on what they said all time, but that's just IMO, and I'm not even sure I worded it in a way you could understand /shrug

[tomorrow wendy]

@Wendy: Why didn't you acknowledge the fact that Prana wasn't the one that "ruined" Iam's gambit after I pointed that out?

because I he wrote

It's not usually done, I know, but I have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.

Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think. Even if you're scum I might keep you around if you keep the comedy up. .

unvote; vote: LoudmouthLee

Because I feel like a wagoning.

It's not usually done, I know, but I have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.

Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think. Even if you're scum I might keep you around if you keep the comedy up. .

It wasn't a joke. I really believe that a massclaim is a viable strategy here, but the more it gets discussed beforehand, the less effective it is likely to be. Think about it.

Still quite happy with where my vote is currently lying.

and

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play. I assumed that you did not understand. To be clear: you knew the setup on page one? Why didn't you go along with the massclaim after iamausername stated that he was serious?

No, sorry, his gambit "failed to catch scum" because I don't think it was a worthwhile gambit. Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla. Which means unless scum were the last two to claim they would have to have been a complete dolt (dalt?) to make that mistake in a normal game, let alone a game like this where everything is staring you in the face.

where he states that he understood the setup and iamausername's massclaim gambit when he wrote post #8.

He was supposed to be the first to claim. He says that he understood the setup and the goal of the massclaim, and chose not to claim like he was supposed to because "Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla" -- a contradiction, right? I think he is lying about it, and lying is a symptom of begin scum, right?

[PranaDevil]

Wendy, this is your first game surely, as I'm getting a strong sense of not paying attention to things coming from you at the moment.

At the start I thought he was joking, thus I posted saying so.

When he responded to it I had no idea where he was going, so no, I didn't "understand the goal" of it. In fact I've never once said I understood the goal of it until he said what the goal was, so thanks for putting words in my mouth there.

My vote on LML was, as I have repeatedly stated, a gambit to catch scum myself, it failed miserably but alas it has worked in the past and was worth a shot.

But basically your entire case on me is the following:

iam tried a gambit, I thought it was a joke, he said it wasn't, I chose not to role claim anyway.

Right? That's your ENTIRE case on me... of everything that's been said in the game, of every scummy comment made, of which there have been a few (and some of them by me early on in an attempt to lure out scum, like I've already said previously, multiple times), what stands out to you is I didn't follow a single player's gambit when I didn't even understand their gambit at the time?

Sounds to me like you are blowing something out of proportion for the sake of it to me in an attempt to look like you're scum hunting.

[tomorrow wendy]

so you didn't understand his gambit at post 8? then once he made his "It wasn't a joke" post at post 12 you did understand?

Why did you choose to not go along with it? Why didn't you claim?

[tomorrow wendy]

2 questions for everyone that didn't replace in:
at which post number in the thread did you understand that this setup was open, with 2 vanilla scum and 10 vanilla town?

at which post number in the thread did you understand that the goal of iamausername's post at post #8 was to catch scum claiming power roles?

[LlamaFluff]

1) "I do not like the entire post". Great! Why?
2) "He made a votecount! That is IIoA!" Sorta but not really, IIoA more applies to summarizing events that are occuring and not giving your own insight to them, like if I broke down the whole LML-Nexus thing
3) "Voting due to not believing someone". His vote is not horrible in reasoning here, just lacks backing. He is voting someone who he thinks is scum trying to wagon baselessly.
4) "Saying he is useless". You say it is trying to give him reasoning to lurk, without him ever exhibiting lurker tendancies. The "I am outclassed" possibility is completely ignored by him here. If CA wants to go after lurkers, there are other candidates.
5) "Rally Cry". This continues on to be said as "either side can do it". So CA is trying to force a null tell into a scum tell here to help further his case, although he says he views it as a scum tell.
6) "He is rude". Again, not a tell.

2) Wouldn't a vote count be a summary of events that is occuring and not giving own insight into it?
4) Who said I was going after lurkers in particular? His post sets him up to go under the radar for day 1. I don't think he will disappear completely, but it still provides an excuse for a lack of analysis.
5) I play games on another chat mafia site (epicmafia). While that game is vastly different than mafiascum mafia, when I play, players who give rallying cry type comments (no big deal, we can still win this, no point in dwelling on mistakes, etc) are players I've found more likely to be scum.
6) I was never using it as reflective of alignment. You'll see in my original post that I voted him before calling out the elitist statement against noobs. The revote was more for dramatic effect/snarky commentary.

First note how CA has abanoned half his points already (1, 3, 6).

2) I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I do not view it has horrible IIoA.
4) "Setting himself up for", you are accusing him for something that

he never did

. Not only that but something that he might be able to do. There is a difference between saying "I think X is scummy for ABC, but D so i dont know, so vote Y" is setting yourself up to jump to X. "I am not good" is not setting yourself up for lurking.
5) I find the complete opposite true at the more "indepth thinking" mafia sites (no major shot to EM, but it is much more of jokey play). This game is about motivation to an extent, and keeping the game slow early on is a good way to zap that for mafia advantage.

CA reacts to this comment by missing the entire point. IAU brought up that he was lurking to get the wagon off him, CA responds by saying he is tunneling on him, which is not the case. IAU brings up some points, such as the contridiction that I mentioned already, and you never respond to him, instead you stop posting for a few days (ie lurking to get a wagon off of you).

Apparently you missed or didn't read the part of that post where I said I forgot about the thread.

Apparently you missed the question that you responded like this that IAU asked. Also the same question that I reasked you later, and you still never responded to, instead just attacking each of us for asking it to you. So how about an answer?

[ConfidAnon]

1) I shouldn't have to respond to this. "I don't like the whole post" was a statement which was expanded upon later on in the post. It was the reason I voted him, however, it was more detailed than that. I don't see how this is scummy. I said I don't like it, then outlined why.
5) Completely agree that EM is about the jokey play, however, you can have a good game and take it seriously with the right people. I haven't played there in a while because the community contains a lot of fail. However, scumtells that happen in real-time I believe are still valid in a forum game. Not all of them, but looking for similar behavior seems like it would give similar results. I still think it's a scumtell, although this is going to be a difference of opinion I think.

Eh. I tried to be cool in the RVS and use a bandwagoning gambit. Didn't really know where I was going with it. So then I flailed when questioned about it. I didn't do it well, and now I'm paying for it. Sticking to random votes in the future.