Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Norinel]

Eh, I think excessive lurker hunting is a scum tell.

This always happens in slow-starting games. There are 1 or 2 people who are insistent that LURKERS EMERGE and account for themselves, posting "X hasn't written, FOS X" and "Mod, let's get a prod on Z". This is an easy way to be "active" without doing anything confrontational, and I don't buy it as pro-town play. It's a bigger deal if we get all the way to lynch without hearing from everyone... but at this stage, I'm not sure it matters all that much.

FOS Wuffles

Incidentally, but I have yet to see a game in which scum have been true lurkers all the way to the end as you suggest. Everyone always worries about it, but it never seems to happen. Yeah, WIFOM I guess, but whatever. I think the temptation to "fit in" as scum is too strong to ignore the thread entirely.

You're absolutely right about one thing though, that your argument is total WIFOM, and for that reason, please do not attempt to disprove my arguments using logic like that.

I disagree that Lowell's argument is WIFOM, unless you define WIFOM as an argument beyond the general form of "I am not doing X that would be otherwise beneficial if I were scum, therefore I am not scum". In particular, I don't see how "[lurker hunting] is an easy way to be "active" without doing anything confrontational" is WIFOM at all. Clarify, please?

Lurker hunt or no, "i just cant think of anything to say" is way too poor a response to being hunted, so

unvote: the statusquo, vote: lunalovegood

at least until she makes a post that correctly uses apostrophes, capital letters, and periods. (Although that last one was her fifth post so far, not second)

[Arafax]

Unvote

my random vote....Going to do a read through....Back in a few minutes...

[Arafax]

Here's what I came up with:

Nothing except Thestatusquo's extremely bad vote...IMO, it's a very bad play & I just find it hard to believe that it was done by accident.

Vote - Thestatusquo

[Thestatusquo]

Hi!

[ziliu]

I really don't like the way TSQ's last to posts saying absolutely nothing constructive, and I believe TSQ to be scum.

Mind you, TSQ, I'll state this again: I like a response from you how you can continue to accuse me of joining bandwagons without original reasoning, when you joined a bandwagon without any reasoning. And, because you didn't state them back at the time of the vote, I'd like to hear your reasons for voting Elias_the_thief.

[Thestatusquo]

Then read the thread, dumbass.

[lunalovegood]

Ouch.

[Thestatusquo]

K. So. That's your only response after not posting anything since your overly defensive begining to day one, and saying you didn't see anything at all by page 4? Not good enough. Not good enough at all.

unvote, vote lunalovegood

This puts her at three. See, I learned my lesson.

[Wuffles_II]

Then read the thread, dumbass.

No need to be rude man. It's easy to make someone look stupid whilst still perfectly maintaining a facade of politeness :p

And yes, after rechecking, you are correct, luna has made more than two posts.

For that, I think that deserves an

FoS: Wuffles

[ChannelDelibird]

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

[Thestatusquo]

Your FOSing yourself?

[Arafax]

Your FOSing yourself?

Pretty sure he's joking....

Mod

Can we have a Vote count please?

[Wuffles_II]

Confirm vote: thestatusquo

I despise these sorts of plays.

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

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. 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.

HOWEVER.

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

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.

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.

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.)

So, to conclude my logical string of thought,

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.

Unvote, Vote ChannelDelibird

[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.

[Lowell]

I'm of the opinion that TSQ's vote was a mistake, as he says. Count me off the TSQ bandwagon.

mod

, we could really use a vote count. Then I'll place my vote.

[Thestatusquo]

luna is obv scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

please post your opinions luna. I'm happy not to vote at this point, because the people i find scummy already have a good amount of votes on them. i guess i'll do a reread, and post back more for tomorrow.
for now

fos

on luna, 'til you post something with content.

[lunalovegood]

I'd post my opinion if i HAD one but I can't think of anything to say and i'm not going to rush myself to make an opinion when we have the whole game ahead of us.

[Thestatusquo]

Yeah, you're scum.

[Wuffles_II]

[quote=CDB]Incorrect. Another, equally logical explanation is that there is no new information to warrant a removal of a vote.[/quote]

The fact that you posted a "confirmation vote" with no reasons behind it strikes me as very, very suspicious; at best, that post is pointless as you're already voting him; and confirmation votes mean nothing. At worst, the purpose of your post is to attempt to get a bandwagon going on a suspicious townie.

Also, your reasons behind voting TSQ are not strong enough to warrant my jumping on your bandwagon; it could very well have been a mistake, placing a person 1-off lynch, this early in the game. I would have lynched the hammah voter, obviously, not the person who just as easily could have made a mistake.

Also, you give an additional reason behind your pointless "confirmation" vote. "TSQ has been acting scummy ever since"

You're going to get laughed out of 'scum if you don't post anything to support these claims. -_-!

HOWEVER.

TSQ, you're saying someone is DEFINITEVELY scum based on four damn replies, none of which contain any content? Dude, no. How on earth can you support this claim?

Give reasons or, as much as it agrreives me to be aggreeing with the sock puppet, I'm going to end up on your wagon.

[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.

[Wuffles_II]

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:

[Primate]

Vote Count

Lunalovegood -

1

- (Norinel)
Lowell -

1

- (Elias_the_thief)
ChannelDelibird -

1

- (Wuffles)
Thestatusquo -

2

- (ChannelDelibird, Ziliu)
Elias_the_thief -

2

- (bluemonick, Lowell)

Not pointin' fingers of death - Arafax, Lunalove, GhettoAnthony, TSQ.

Despite apparently being Ghetto, Anthony has failed to respond to my kind, good-natured prodding, and now he must be moderated. I will arbitrarily give bluemonick another 24 hours, and if he fails to post content then, then he will also be replaced.

[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'.

[Lowell]

unvote, vote Luna

She really ought to be at more than one. Willfully or not, she's slowing us down.