Mini #367: Endgame'd

[ChannelDelibird]

Now, where shall I random vote today? Oh, I know -

Vote: Ghetto Anthony

. So, it's arbitrary instead of random, but who cares? Anthony replaced my scumbuddy in Band Mafia and got himself lynched. Must punish him for that.

[ChannelDelibird]

Seems like that might be a handy excuse for lurking, but I'm too lazy to look up any of your previous games.

Eh, as long as you're productive, it's not really lurking. We'll have to take this on a post by post basis. IGMEOY

I'm very sure that it's not a lurkexcuse.

Anyway, lunalovegood...wtf? Surely it was obvious he wasn't serious.

Don't scare the kids, tsq.

[ChannelDelibird]

Sweet, first post...

Random Vote : bluemonick

...He was scum in our last game together...

Um, no, I was? and Why do I have two random votes so fast? the game just started and I havent even posted yet.

As you said, they're RANDOM. It's not as if we were lynching you.

I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of votes for being defensive in this game. We've already had two huge overreactions...

[ChannelDelibird]

WTF?

unvote, vote:thestatusquo

for putting Elias at 1 from lynch with no reasoning.

[ChannelDelibird]

Lurking? We're on page 2, ferchrissake. Thread's barely been open.

I also generally disagree with the rest of post 45.

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

[ChannelDelibird]

Lurking is more conducively discussed in terms of time between posts, not the number of pages. This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted. Your defense is noted, however.

X

[/b]

Post 8.

Oh, and I'll always defend someone if they are being accused incorrectly.

[ChannelDelibird]

Uh...I don't see how the fact that he posted one random vote changes anything. He hasn't participated in any discussion, or added anything.

Hardly anyone had. It's early day 1. And the fact still remains that debatable minor lurking is much less scummy than what you did.

[ChannelDelibird]

A bit overdramatic are we, Wuffles?

[ChannelDelibird]

I'm happy with my vote on tsq for now.

By the way, could tsq, Wuffles, and everyone else who doesn't have an avatar please get one? It would help me be able to tell you guys apart.

[ChannelDelibird]

I had that problem. It's due to the filetype you're uploading. Try a jpg, that worked for me.

[ChannelDelibird]

Uh, no, I'm still happy with my vote where it is.

[ChannelDelibird]

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

[ChannelDelibird]

Ooh! Goodie! Something exciting!

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

I despise these sorts of plays.

Well, good for you.

Deli, that post served no purpose whatsoever except to make you seem far more suspicious.

The purpose it served was to indicate that I was happy with my vote.

When a person votes for someone, it is because they believe that person should either have pressure put on them or, in your case, that the person is scum and should be lynched.

This is correct.

The emphasis you have placed on your vote here leaves me in no doubt you wish other people to reread your reasons for voting TSQ.

Untrue. People should know my reasons for voting TSQ by now.

Your post contains no relevant new information garnered, no further suspicions, no additional TSQ slips.

Further suspicions? I think he's scum. That'll do for me. I felt he was scummy before and he's done nothing to make me think otherwise.

Therefore, you are contributing nothing.

If you are contributing nothing new, then there must be other reasons for your vote that you are not telling us. Otherwise, there is no need to restate your opinions; the very fact that you have laid a serious vote on TSQ is more than enough to show the town that you believe TSQ is scum.

If a vote was only made when one believed completely that the votee is scum (as you say in the above quote), then votes would be much less common. Votes are an excellent way of

arriving

at the belief that someone is scum, as also they are an excellent way of arrivng at the

disbelief

that someone is scum, based on the reaction to a vote.

So, if anyone is to take the quoted post here seriously, then, logically, they can only assume that, since placing your vote on TSQ, you have discovered new information that you are unwilling to disclose.

Incorrect. Another, equally logical explanation is that there is no new information to warrant a removal of a vote.

If you're town, I can't possibly think of any reason why you wouldn't want the town to know this information, that proves your vote confirmation is justified. (If I were cop, then, knowing that the Doc could protect me, I would claim if I had caught a mafioso, so that can't be it.)

Don't always assume there's a doc if you're a cop, you'll regret it in the future.

I vote j00 until you come up with a good reason for that post. And if not, then, dude, you just made a f***ing terrible play.

The good reason was already there - to reiterate that my vote deserved to stay where it is.

That said, I understand your point of view, but your assumption that it is the

only

possible point of view with regards to the post in question is incorrect.

To reiterate so you're absolutely clear - I believe thestatusquo is scum. He "accidentally" put a player one from lynch for no reason and has continued to play scummy ever since.

[ChannelDelibird]

I didn't post "evidence" behind that statement because there's no concrete evidence as such, I just really don't like TSQ's posts. They strike me as overaggressive, overconfident and sly.

And yes, the purpose of my post was to get a bandwagon on him.

Because I think he is scum.

Why would I not want a bandwagon on scum?

Btw, if I had a cookie for every time someone said "so-and-so has been playing scummy" without backing it up on mafiascum, and DIDN'T get 'laughed out' as you suggest I will, I'd be obese.

[ChannelDelibird]

So, you have no reasons other than "I don't like TSQ's posts".

Well, you know, I really don't like your posts either.

However, I'm voting you because you feel SO strongly as to Vote TSQ and then CONFIRM vote TSQ - with no evidence other than a gut feeling.

Yeah. Every time you reiterate that your posts are based on nothing, despite that, you want a lynching bandwagon (on, granted, a somewhat impolite player).

No one would follow a pointless bandwagon through to a lynch, unless they themselves are mafia.

:trout:

WRONG

You conveniently forget to mention the hard evidence that I

did

point out, among others - the "accidental" lynch-minus-one. This is misrepresentation and it doesn't reflect well on you.

On

one

occasion, as opposed to 'every time', I have made it clear that there was

no further evidence

, as opposed to 'based on nothing'.

[ChannelDelibird]

unvote, vote Elias.

WTF? unvote, vote:thestatusquo for putting Elias at 1 from lynch with no reasoning.

There you go. It's there in black and white (well, just black actually) - TSQ puts a player 1 from lynch.

And no, it doesn't make him scum. It makes him

scummy

. Subsequent posts such as the following make him even scummier:

Keeping in mind you've been lurking, and your first post on the page is just a bandwagon hop restating others reasons, and using crap logic, I think it warrants a

FOS: Ziliu

False accusation of lurking.

Uh...I don't see how the fact that he posted one random vote changes anything. He hasn't participated in any discussion, or added anything.

It's the top of page 3 on day 1. There's not exactly been any great or important discussion to add anything to. It was random voting. Continued false accusations.

He's also been generally overaggressive and seems too sure of himself.

[ChannelDelibird]

On an unrelated note, is Wuffles always this exorbitantly aggressive? He does have a good point on tsq, at least.

Dunno, never seen him before.

On the subject of luna, I rather feel that sitting on the fence is more a general newbie mistake, regardless of town or scum.

[ChannelDelibird]

WHAAAAAATTT????

WTF?????

Way to get yourself modkilled, dumbass.

I'd vote for you if you weren't about to die and possibly lose us our lynch in the process.

[ChannelDelibird]

Correction:

WTF????????!!!!!!!

[ChannelDelibird]

...the fucking arseface.

I'm almost tempted to vote no lynch so that we can carry on as if we mislynched on day 1.

However, my overriding problem with TSQ prevents me from doing so.

[ChannelDelibird]

What, the no lynch plan? Of course it's a bad plan. That's why I'm not voting No Lynch.

As you'd like me to respond to the previous post of yours, I will.

-"I never said I was sure you [Ziliu] were scum at all. In fact I never even voted you."
No, you FoSed him for lurking, which was a false accusation. You said you would only lurker hunt if it was for Ziliu, which suggests that you already felt he was scum(my).

-"luna is too guilty to be guilty"
WIFOM, craplogic, BS...seriously, this is a non-argument. Newbies are just as likely to be scum as they are to be townies, no matter how ridiculously scummy they may be. Note that I do not support a luna wagon at this time, but your reasons for hopping off it are crap.

[ChannelDelibird]

It's only lurking after the thread's long enough to put the player's posts into perspective. At the start of day 1, when there's so little to look at, loads of people won't be able to put much forward. Ziliu could just have been online at a different time to most of the other posters and therefore not posted 'as much' (despite everyone only having one, two, maybe three posts at best). It's not as if anyone else was or was able to post any content at that point, and therefore it

is

a false accusation.

[ChannelDelibird]

Why would you be disillusioned? Sure, G.A. was a dick, but thats no reason to be self-defeating!

Unvote, Vote Wuffles

...uh, why are you voting yourself?

[ChannelDelibird]

That claim seemed to be worded strange, although it's possibly just me. I would be willing to for someone to hammah TSQ (although not yet).

[ChannelDelibird]

I think TSQ's case against Arafax is an interesting one but I'm more interested in Wuffles at the moment. I thought his attempt to set up a Day 2 lynch on Day 1 was scummy, and I also got a feeling that he's been quick to unvote a couple of times during the game (particularly with regards to TSQ). I also notice that he promised us a list of top suspects a while ago but delivered nothing.

unvote, vote: Wuffles

although I could very easily be persuaded to go back to TSQ.

While maintaing a

Big FoS: thestatusquo

[ChannelDelibird]

Inconsistency = scummy IMO. If you think TSQ is behaving in a different manner each time he posts then I would call that a votable offence.

[ChannelDelibird]

'fax, just so you know, TSQ's last two attempts to appeal to emotion should NOT be taken at face value

QFT

Wuffles, I noticed earlier that you were including me in particular in your "big check". Could you expand on why?

unvote

because I've been fairly satisfied by Wuffles' posts since I voted him.

Still very interested in a TSQ lynch.

[ChannelDelibird]

I, too, eagerly await Wuffles' much-hyped epic. Has anyone bought the movie rights yet?

I'm already working on the soundtrack.

/waits for wuffles

[ChannelDelibird]

Oh ferchrissake, I had to simulpost that, didn't I.

[ChannelDelibird]

Am I still voting for Wuffles? O.o

unvote

Sorry I haven't posted for a while, not sure why that is.

Can we lynch TSQ please?

vote: thestatusquo

Reasoning: everything I've mentioned before + I want to.

Not too hot on the Arafax case.

[ChannelDelibird]

post the wuffles PBPA please sv.

[ChannelDelibird]

Sorry I've been lax. Will catch up and decide where I stand.