Open 317 Masons & Monks (Game Over) Finished: September 8

[DeityKabuto]

EBWOP: However, I suppose it's in your best interests in the future to play how you want to. Eventually you'll establish a meta, I'm sure.

Well considering both of us have the most posts this game, lets form an alliance.

Active posters are usually not scum, so I feel safe with this.

[Blackberry]

YAY I'M NOT REPLACED!!

*reads stuff*

[Mist7676]

BlackBerry is not replaced. Sorry I'm such a procastinator.

[Mist7676]

Fighting Shadow, on the other hand, is.
If his V/LA was an emergency than it could have gone longer without him knowing.

Testing!

[Darkcoffeejazz]

EBWOP: However, I suppose it's in your best interests in the future to play how you want to. Eventually you'll establish a meta, I'm sure.

Well considering both of us have the most posts this game, lets form an alliance.

Active posters are usually not scum, so I feel safe with this.

This isn't Big Brother or Survivor. It's Mafia.
Please don't ask me something like this again.

[Mist7676]

Scott Brosius has replaced forest_air. Welcome him!

Or else....

[Mist7676]

Mist you are a lucky idiot.

Scott Brosius has replaced FIGHTING SHADOW.

Crisis averted..
continue

FUN FACT: SCOTT BROSIUS WAS MY FIRST MOD!! NOW HE IS ONE OF MY FIRST PLAYERS!!!

[Scott Brosius]

I tend not to read very thoroughly when I replace in, especially without a scum flip. So I'm skimming. Anything EXTREMELY important I should know immediately?

[cjdrum]

Again, wall - skip to the big-fonted section if you don't want to read it. Cirno: read it, dammit.

Doing stuff is Townie. Looking like you're doing stuff is scummy. In your read posts, you've given little to no reasoning, but have fleshed the post out so it looks better.

Please choose one of my posts that you feel falls into the latter category and explain why you feel it does.

#136 - simply saying "Yank,Dark,Fighting,Blackberry are town.
" and "Guido is scum" is NOT analysis.
Post #154 - again, mentions a whole bunch of people, ending with "Chevre is now 'scum' rather than 'leaning scum'". Why you think Chevre scum isn't reasoned there at all, but someone skimming the thread could look at your post, see a whole bunch of names and be happy with it looking analysis-y.
Post #242 - mentions a whole bunch of people in the first section, then lists four people you believe are scum. See note for #154.

[quote="cjdrum"You're allowed to add people. I just don't like the

suddenness

of it. It comes out of the blue, basically - they say maybe one or two things, and you say "they are definitely scum".

You do realize that the two people I added, yourself and smallpeoples, weren't added suddenly because of one or two posts, but because they were lurking and/or active lurking over long periods of time, right?[/quote] What about Chevre? Sure, I was lurking, smallpeoples was lurking, but you suddenly changed Chevre from "leaning scum" to "definitely scum" - why?

Yes, but you don't ask a single question to two people you believe are Mafia and one you believe is Town. That's just plain stupid - especially if the "Town" player answers first.

I don't actually see a problem with that. But I don't seem to have ever addressed the same question to two people i find scum, and one person I believe is town at once. Can you show me where you see that? Or are you just trying to attack without reading the thread?

In Post #160, you ask Chevre for her reads on Guido (who you believed was scum), smallpeoples (who was still null according to you), and me (who you believed was scum). That's ridiculous. I don't get why you would do that, as we have no connections - Guido and I you thought were scum, or smallpeoples and I were lurking... But there's no common trend.
Also, in Post #195, you question Guido, smallpeoples and myself. Same thing here, except slightly more useless.

I was reading the game.I was not posting in the game because I wasn't.

You weren't posting in the game because you are scum and wanted to slip by.

No, I wasn't posting in the game because I just wasn't. I just didn't post. That's all.

After I was "around to be pressured" again, why didn't you vote for me?

I actually did vote you when you showed that your presence would be consistent.

Yeah... I had five recent posts when you voted for me. That was in the space of 24 hours. A burst of not-really-very-many posts isn't consistency.

I'm getting the strangest distancing feeling from your "I'm voting Guido for pressure" - he currently has the most votes. He is most likely to be lynched. If you did not want him lynched, DON'T BLOODY VOTE FOR HIM WHEN HE'S GOT THE MOST VOTES ALREADY!

I'd like to bring your attention to exhibit A

"Also, honestly, I really would rather lynch [Guido]. [Guido's] wagon would provide more information than that of a lurker and [Guido is] more dangerous to keep around for another day."

Further evidence you are more concerned with attacking your attacker than actually reading the game.

I'd like to bring your attention to exhibit B:

If your argument is "you should only vote for the person you most believe is scum", then I can only say I disagree. I am more concerned with [Guido] right now and so my vote is going to remain there.

Tell me what's wrong here. Not really that hard...
Exhibit B and A contradict each other!
If Guido is dangerous to keep around, then he's likely scum*, according to you. But if you only want to lynch him to find information - 1: There's already a whole lot of information there, and 2: He mustn't be dangerous.
_{*Either that or he's too Towny, and you as scum have to get rid of him?}

Impatient scum. Awkward.

Impatient.... to question people? Also, you are gonna have to explain why it is more pro-town to wait another day to question Guido.

Not more pro-Town. It's only that it's anti-Town that you can't wait. Why is tomorrow different from today? Sure, there'll be three less people, but if Guido's still there you can question him then. If he's not, then he's dead anyway. See what I mean?

Why shouldn't I pressure one person, even if I believe another is more likely scum? Why would changing my vote have been more pro-town?

Your argument is invalid

In order words... you can't actually answer the questions, can you?

Erm. You said I was "confirmed" scum. Not "more likely [than Guido]" - "confirmed". As I said directly before the quoted section - "

You used the word 'confirmed' [referring to me]. You don't get any scummier [reads] than that.

"
Of course you can pressure someone when you think someone else is

more likely

scum. However, when someone is

confirmed

scum, it's different. You lost the context completely.
Question: Why did you neglect

that part

of my post?

Either Guido or nobody, because voting for anybody else right on deadline with these votes would be useless.
Finally, because of Ye Olde reason "I found someone scummy": vote: Cirno

TL;DR - You imply that a no lynch is acceptable. You admit you were reading the thread but not posting. You've not actually read my posts, but still try to attack me. You resort to "impatient scum" and "your argument is invalid" when you can't answer a question. You claim voting anyone other than Guido at this point in pointless, but contradict yourself by voting me.

No, I didn't. Where did I say a no lynch is acceptable?
Yes, I was reading the thread and not posting.
Yes, I

have

read your posts, and I am seriously doubting you're bothering to read mine.
When I can't

be bothered

answering an

irrelevant

question, yes.
I never claimed that. I said that if deadline was

rightnow

, then voting for anybody except Guido would be stupid. Is it deadline rightnow? NO. I believe you are scum, so I voted for you. Right on deadline, with these votes, voting for anybody except Guido would be stupid.
I remember writing that somewhere... Oh yeah! AT THE START OF THE POST YOU PULLED APART.

Cirno, you are twisting my words. You quote my posts, but leave out the vital bits that answer the questions you ask while quoting. You delete sentences while quoting a paragraph, then call the remaining stuff scummy.
This is why I think you are scum.

@Players: Compare Cirno's quotes with my posts for yourself. See what I'm saying.

[Chevre]

God, Deity, you bug me to pieces. First you say this:

- I also have a minor suspicion of the others on my wagon, but haven't encountered them yet.

Which leads me to think that in due time, you are going to opine about the other people who voted you, but then you say this in reference to that point:

- I really don't have anything to say to them, it's way after they voted me now...

So I'd like to you state how you feel about each of those players who voted you early in the game.

- - -

[Cirno]

This is gonna get impossible to follow soon, so let's organize things a bit. The "you" referred to below is

cjdrum

if that isn't already obvious.

You have three main arguments against me:
1.That questioning a wide range of people is scummy.
2.That questioning and voting Guido over you (who I referred to as confirmed scum) is scummy.
3.That I haven't been explaining my reads.

The first argument is worthless because there is no reason why questioning any combination of players, even if they share no "common trends", is scummy or anti-town, especially when said question is "Who do you find scummiest?".

The second argument is worthless because there was no benefit in voting a person who had not posted in

9 days

. And when you did begin posting (on july 9th) I voted you (on july 10th). Note that you only stopped lurking after I called you confirmed scum for lurking. Also, I never wanted to lynch Guido purely for information (In fact, he was the first person I called scummy and never changed that read) and "I prefer lynching Guido over my top scum read" and "I disagree that you can only vote your top scum read" are not contradictory.

The third argument is worthless because you don't have a single valid example to back up the argument. While I didn't explain my reads in my initial post, I explained them when asked. My read of Chevre went from "leaning scum" to "scum" after a lengthy argument when he refused to explain his vote. My reads of cjdrum and smallpeoples were explained in the same post in which they were made. Yes, that very post you just linked to.

Also, about your "questioning Guido is anti-town because he'll still be around tomorrow or he won't be". That shit was dumb. Real dumb.

[Cirno]

I've two main arguments against you (cjdrum).

1.Blatant lurking. Posting in mishmash while ignoring the thread. Reading the thread and not posting for what you claim is no reason. Responding to a prod and immediately going back to lurking. Active lurking when he finally begins to post.

2. OMGUS. Immediately appearing upon being called scummy for lurking to attack your attacker. Refusing to explain why behavior you believe is scummy

is

scummy with phrases like "Your argument is irrelevant", "impatient scum", and most recently by calling the questions irrelevant. Attacking me for things like changing my read of Chevre despite my argument with her, keeping my vote on Guido despite your 9 day absence, and

questioning multiple people

despite the fact that that is how you play the fucking game.

Dropping the No Lynch thing. I took "Guido or Noone" to mean "I would vote for Guido or I would vote for a no lynch".

[Darkcoffeejazz]

I tend not to read very thoroughly when I replace in, especially without a scum flip. So I'm skimming. Anything EXTREMELY important I should know immediately?

Other than the quote wars that have been occurring with Chevre, Tomie, CJDrum and Cirno (she's a bit better at it though), not much that I know of that would be "EXTREMELY" important.

[Cirno]

btw i'm gonna quickhammer Guido without a claim if he gets to L-1. You may attack me in advance for this if you like.

[Darkcoffeejazz]

You mean he isn't already? I kinda lost track of the tally.

[Cirno]

He is at L-2 by my count (Darkcoffeejazz, VitaminR, Tomie Uzumaki, BlackBerry, DietyKabuto)

[Darkcoffeejazz]

Yeah that makes sense, I suppose. I would prefer if you got a claim out of him instead of quick-hammering, but I can't control your vote I suppose.

[cjdrum]

This is gonna get impossible to follow soon, so let's organize things a bit. The "you" referred to below is

cjdrum

if that isn't already obvious.

You have three main arguments against me:
1.That questioning a wide range of people is scummy.

Wrong. Grouping together three people whom you have completely different reads on.

2.That questioning and voting Guido over you (who I referred to as confirmed scum) is scummy.

Yes.

3.That I haven't been explaining my reads.

Yes.

The first argument is worthless because there is no reason why questioning any combination of players, even if they share no "common trends", is scummy or anti-town, especially when said question is "Who do you find scummiest?".

What about asking Chevre "What do you think of X, Y and Z?" - that is not "Who do you find scummiest?".

The second argument is worthless because there was no benefit in voting a person who had not posted in

9 days

. And when you did begin posting (on july 9th) I voted you (on july 10th). Note that you only stopped lurking after I called you confirmed scum for lurking. Also, I never wanted to lynch Guido purely for information (In fact, he was the first person I called scummy and never changed that read) and "I prefer lynching Guido over my top scum read" and "I disagree that you can only vote your top scum read" are not contradictory.

This is saying nothing.

The third argument is worthless because you don't have a single valid example to back up the argument. While I didn't explain my reads in my initial post, I explained them when asked. My read of Chevre went from "leaning scum" to "scum" after a lengthy argument when he refused to explain his vote. My reads of cjdrum and smallpeoples were explained in the same post in which they were made. Yes, that very post you just linked to.

Explained... In a sentence or two. Maybe. If you can link me to anything with any substance, that'd be great.
It's a bit hard to give an example of something not happening, Cirno, so give me an example of that thing happening.

Also, about your "questioning Guido is anti-town because he'll still be around tomorrow or he won't be". That shit was dumb. Real dumb.

Please explain. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with what I said, so simply saying it is "dumb" is not helpful.

I've two main arguments against you (cjdrum).

1.Blatant lurking. Posting in mishmash while ignoring the thread. Reading the thread and not posting for what you claim is no reason. Responding to a prod and immediately going back to lurking. Active lurking when he finally begins to post.

ACTIVE LURKING WHEN I FINALLY BEGIN TO POST? What is wrong with you? Where was I active lurking, on or after July 9?

2. OMGUS.

When?

Immediately appearing upon being called scummy for lurking to attack your attacker.

Yes, I immediately appeared, but not simply to attack the attacker.

Refusing to explain why behavior you believe is scummy

is

scummy with phrases like "Your argument is irrelevant", "impatient scum", and most recently by calling the questions irrelevant.

"Who would you vote for if deadline was now" is irrelevant. If deadline was now, Guido would be lynched and it'd be futile to do anything against it.

Attacking me for things like changing my read of Chevre despite my argument with her,

Ohh, that, like, 5 post argument? That

definitely

makes Chevre scum. [/sarcasm]

keeping my vote on Guido despite your 9 day absence,

I never had any problems with this. I had a problem with you not voting me, or explaining why you were not voting me, after I came back.

and

questioning multiple people

despite the fact that that is how you play the fucking game.

DON'T FUCKING TAKE PHRASES OF MY POSTS OUT OF CONTEXT.

Dropping the No Lynch thing. I took "Guido or Noone" to mean "I would vote for Guido or I would vote for a no lynch".

I NEVER SAID THIS!

And that second last paragraph of that second quoted post? THAT is OMGUS. "Finding me scummy because of X, Y and Z is scummy"...

Bloody hell.

[cjdrum]

Also: How about

you

read

my

post, and ANSWER

MY

FUCKING QUESTION?

[DeityKabuto]

God, Deity, you bug me to pieces. First you say this:

- I also have a minor suspicion of the others on my wagon, but haven't encountered them yet.

Which leads me to think that in due time, you are going to opine about the other people who voted you, but then you say this in reference to that point:

- I really don't have anything to say to them, it's way after they voted me now...

So I'd like to you state how you feel about each of those players who voted you early in the game.

- - -

Umm tbh I don't know what to make of this case, and I don't know what you gained from what you call pressuring me.

But if I recall correctly, cjdrum who placed a vote on me did it in the RVS and than he went V/LA than unvoted saying "Why was my vote on DK".

I did mention how I found cjdrum a bit scummy for being inactive and a fail meta.

[Guido Crescendo]

btw i'm gonna quickhammer Guido without a claim if he gets to L-1. You may attack me in advance for this if you like.

Horrible horrible horrible. How does this make any sense if you are town?

Yeah that makes sense, I suppose. I would prefer if you got a claim out of him instead of quick-hammering, but I can't control your vote I suppose.

Double horrible. Holy crap. I mean, I was kind agreeing with Guido B in thinking DCJ was scummy when he (Guido B) and DCJ were having their back-and-forth earlier, but DCJ just shrugging and going, “well, you should get a claim from Guido... but I guess a quickhammer is okay” cements it for me. The fact that there's no questioning or outrage in that decision at all is downright baffling.

DCJ: scum.
Vitamin: scum.
Kill them all.

[Mist7676]

Sorry for no vote counts. I have been reading the past few days. I need to reach my goal of reading 1,000,000 minutes this year and I just started so wish me luck!

Vote Count:

cjdrum - 1 - (Cirno) (L-6)
VitaminR - 1 - (Guido Crescendo) (L-6)
smallpeoples343 - 1 - (YankCane151) (L-6)
Guido Crescendo - 5 - (Darkcoffeejazz, DeityKabuto, VitaminR, Tomie Uzumaki, BlackBerry) (L-2)
DeityKabuto - 2 - (Scott Brosius, smallpeoples343) (L-5)
Cirno - 1 - (cjdrum) (L-6)

Not Voting: Chevre

With 12 alive it's 7 for majority.

[VitaminR]

Guido, way to completely ignore my reply to you AGAIN.

[Cirno]

@cjdrum: I've refuted your main arguments. I've shown that I had good reason to continue to vote Guido over you. Your response is "This is saying nothing." I've shown that I had and gave good reasons for changing my votes on Chevre, cjdrum, smallpeoples. Your response is basically "that is not a good enough reason". Addressing the same question to multiple people is not and never will be scummy. You continue to argue the contrary while refusing to explain why such behavior

is

scummy. I don't think there is anything to be gained from us continuing to go back and forth, so let's leave it at this.

Your line about waiting until Day 2 to question Guido is retarded because there is absolutely no reason questioning him now is scummy or anti-town.

Don't know what you mean by that "And that second last paragraph..." line. Can you explain?

in other news,

>Guido
>Horrible horrible horrible. How does this make any sense if you are town?
Consider the following:

1.I think you are scum
2.Masons and Monks can still be scum.

Where is the value in a claim in this setup?

[Cirno]

>changing my votes
that should be changing my

reads