Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Arafax]

So Wuffles tell me who is more scummy?
1. The person putting someone lynch -1 by accident
or
2. The person putting someone lynch-1 without reading the game thuroughly and then telling everyone that they need to hammah?

Changing your mind is not scummy...Telling everyone that they need to hammah without reading through the game thuroughly is scummy....That's what I was trying to say there.

[Thestatusquo]

What? That is not at ALL what you said earlier. Not even close. REALLY happy with my vote right now.

[spectrumvoid]

I'm busy yesterday, today and a couple more days rushing out a project. I'll be back latest Sunday.

[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

[Wuffles_II]

The main reason why TSQ is becoming a really jumpy topic of discussion for me is because he's so damn hard to read.

He seems to post really really scummily, and then all of a sudden starts making sense again.

I am merely basing my votes/unvotes upon his most recent "style" of posting.

Is anyone else seeing this? Because it's killing me.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP -

Votecount

please primate?

[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.

[Norinel]

Wow, lots of new really good stuff coming in quickly. From quick rereads: Arafax, I'm not sure I see, except that he might've stayed on tsq for too long. Wuffles, I've already noticed as being all over the place, but that's definitely a function of activity/aggressiveness, both of which can be good for the town in the long run. Regarding TSQ, my usual policy is if we get someone to a pressure claim for a good reason, and they claim townie, lynching them is better in the long run.

For now, I'll just second the vote count request.

[Primate]

Vote Count

Thestatusquo -

2

- (Luna, Arafax)
Arafax -

1

- (TSQ)
Wuffles -

3

- (Ziliu, Lowell, CDB)

6

to lynchify.

[Thestatusquo]

I think two things are rather interesting:

One, obviously I still think Arafax is the play, and two, has anyone noticed how luna has not posted at all since she stopped being in the center of attention?

Wuffles is interesting, I'm going to re-read all his posts tonight, and see if he doesn't strike me as scummier than arafax, but I doubt it because arafax is looking really scummy to me.

[lunalovegood]

I'm still sticking with my TSQ vote because I don't think Wuffles did anything wrong.

[Thestatusquo]

how about Arafax, and would you please post your reasons for voting me?

[Wuffles_II]

TSQ, one thing Arafax has done consistantly is post his reasons.

The fact that he places FAAAAR too much emphasis on your -1 to hammah vote right near the start is irrelevant.

But he just needs to realize that it would be beyond stupid, BEYOND retarded, hell, even beyond WIFOM for a mafioso to DELIBERATELY put anyone at -1 to lynch that early in the game.

It would not serve a mafioso any good at all to do so - just look at how much scrutiny TSQ has come under since he did that - He's now going to have to be absolutely on his game for the rest of Primate Mafia, alignment be damned.

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

rawr!

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - The last sentence should say "Putting someone at lynch -1,

that early in the game, whilst having no desire to lynch that person,

is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

[Thestatusquo]

wuffles. my last post was directed at luna.

[Thestatusquo]

Also,

unvote, vote wuffles

that's the exact opposite of what you said before.

He's two from lynch guys, proceed with caution.

[spectrumvoid]

My LOS: TSQ, Arafax, luna, Wuffles, in that order. (short post, still working on proj).

[Arafax]

I can't get over TSQ though, but I'll

unvote TSQ

and try to look elsewhere....I'm not seeing Wuffles as scummy though; the whole too scummy to be scum to me.

[Lowell]

I think two things are rather interesting:

One, obviously I still think Arafax is the play, and two, has anyone noticed how luna has not posted at all since she stopped being in the center of attention?

Wuffles is interesting, I'm going to re-read all his posts tonight, and see if he doesn't strike me as scummier than arafax, but I doubt it because arafax is looking really scummy to me.

I'm going to

unvote, Vote TSQ

. A bit embarassing, since earlier I said I wouldn't.

Something about the way TSQ continues to attack his accusers doesn't feel right. He slings mud at Luna and Arafax, then is happy to vote for the next big bandwagon that comes along (Wuffles). He sets that vote up to not look implusive in this post, where he says he plans to "re-read all [Wuffles'] posts." Honestly, I didn't even have to read down to his next post to know what would come of it.

[Wuffles_II]

I'm going to be very, very careful about my next major reply - several people in this game seem to be quite adept at blowing things out of proportion, perhaps myself included.

TSQ - apologies, I read your post I was referring to with correct syntax.

I am a very aggressive poster, that is for sure. No way will I ever go under the radar in any mafia game I have played (or am playing) to date. It's understandable why I would be receiving attention.

But yeah, a big check on CDB, TSQ, and Arafax coming either all in one, or in parts, this weekend, I hope.

[Thestatusquo]

Lowel, I posted a response to everyone who has raised points against me. Arafax, I think I very well showed why I thought they were scummy, and luna I didn't say she was scummy, I said she hadn't posted since the attention came off of her. Both these statements are true, and unscummy.

I voted wuffles based off of this post:

TSQ, one thing Arafax has done consistantly is post his reasons.

The fact that he places FAAAAR too much emphasis on your -1 to hammah vote right near the start is irrelevant.

But he just needs to realize that it would be beyond stupid, BEYOND retarded, hell, even beyond WIFOM for a mafioso to DELIBERATELY put anyone at -1 to lynch that early in the game.

It would not serve a mafioso any good at all to do so - just look at how much scrutiny TSQ has come under since he did that - He's now going to have to be absolutely on his game for the rest of Primate Mafia, alignment be damned.

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

rawr!

Which seems kind of strange considering that he was just asking people to hammer me based on the same things he's attacking here. I also found his post about "If he isn't the play we should go...x" To be scummy, especially considering it was on someone on the same wagon as he is. That isn't enough for the vote?

[lunalovegood]

From this point on, I really feel that anyone who points fingers at TSQ because of that should be regarded with suspicion. Putting someone at lynch -1 is just not something anyone, regardless of alignment, would deliberately do.

I would like to say I have already said all of my reasons for voting for TSQ and that wasn't one of them.

[Wuffles_II]

TSQ, I was NEVER voting you based on the -1 to hammah vote you placed.

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. the results of my reread:

Luna: lurked the majority of the game. stands by her conviction to lynch tsq on reasons i can only define as OMGUS. pretty much playing too badly to be scum.

tsq: very active and involved in all things in the game. he made one mistake that gave him a lot of pressure early. overall, he wasnt looking too scummy, up until he miscontrued information and wrongfully claimed wuffles had contridicted himself. it could just be another mistake, but it seemed scummy to me.

Wuffles: he's also been very active in the game. nothing that i can see to make him particularely scummy.

ziliu: posted a lot early on, but seems to have faded somewhat. id like to hear more from you.

Arafax: another one who has been very active in all aspects of this game. nothing to make him seem scummy yet.

norinel: has made very few posts. would like to hear more from you.

spectrum: replaced blue early on, havent heard much from you recently. please post more.

lowell: replaced orton. id also like to hear more from you.

channel delibird: prety active throughout the game. not much to be said in terms of scumminess.

in conclusion: lowell, spectrum, norinel, ziliu, and luna need to post more.
tsq is the only one looking scummy to me right now, seeing as he hasnt responded after wuffles corrected him on his mistake.

[Thestatusquo]

You know wuffles. You're right. I had thought you were on my wagon because of the -1 lynch thing, but going back and re-reading, I can't seem to find you post any reasons EVER. Just a vague agreement with channeldelibird, and a comment about my playstyle. That's it in the sense of reasons. Don't quite know how I missed that before, because they you were willing to have someone hammer me, and you hadn't even posted reasons to be voting me.