Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[Baby Spice]

Vote Agent Ireland

Obvious jokes are obvious, and I wanted to make it.

[Baby Spice]

Vote Medhi

Taking obv joke posts way too seriously.
More to the point, taking joke posts you're not involved in way to seriously. It makes it look like you are worried about Lurker attracting votes.

[Baby Spice]

It seems worth announcing that I just landed on communtiy chest and was then assessed for street repairs.

How or why? Nada kloo

For real or is this another joke post?

[Baby Spice]

Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
So
{Agent Ireland, Jal, Mogadishu Jones, Xisiqomelir} At least one scum in there.

<snip>

for lurking... wait

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

<snip>

Holy crap somehow I missed posts 43-46.

I'm down for this

unvote: vote lurker

@lurker: regarding post #44, why did you feel the need to announce you weren't moving your vote?

I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.

<snip>

So we have an obvious RVS vote, Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote, blatant sheeping with a vague question to try and hide the sheeping, and blatant wagoning.

Leaving aside the sheeping/wagoning for the moment which are in the slightly scummy field of activities, Jal's post and vote just scream scum.

Unvote
Vote Jal

[Baby Spice]

So what happened to your read on me spice (do you want to be called that or something else?) Curious how Xis's sheeping is better then Jal though when he did to get off pressuring someone who hadn't responded yet.

Happy with anything, though BS does lead to confusion with the phrase Bull Shit.

Still wondering why you appear to be concerned with Lurker attracting votes, since there doesn't appear to be specific concerns expressed. (You do post a lot and with context problems. I may have missed it)

Xis sheeping, well technically it's more wagoning, is blatant. There's no appearance of hiding it behind bogus reasoning. But as fairly blatant wagoning I think it's less likely scummy.

Jal, as the post itself should indicate, by going back through the completed mini game queue.
If the wagon is on scum, then history shows about 50% of the time it has scum on it.

Just the first wagon mind you. I never checked the others that occurred day 1.

Jal's post and vote just scream scum.
Unvote
Vote Jal

If it screams scum, it should be no problem to tell me how it does then.

My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.

Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote

[Baby Spice]

That's great, I see that. How is it mispresenting Lurker? How is saying...

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

"bull shit misrepresentation" and please don't tell me you took the "read four posts" thing as being literal other than the meaning being he has deliberately chosen not to engage in meaningful conversation. How does this scream scum?

I'm glad you read four posts after your last one and decided you didn't need to play the game anymore.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Lurker

Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?

[Baby Spice]

I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.

I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.

You're one of these vague generalizers aren't you Jal?

Questions, lol. The only one I didn't answer is my read on Lurker, which is still fairly null. Being Null I didn't think it that worth mentioning.

and if you want to see the stats compiled, work them out yourself. (I skipped mini 1367 as they took a long time to actually get a wagon past two votes, and counted SK's as scum since from a town point of view they are)

[Baby Spice]

How hard is it to copy the data and post it here?

I keep trying to ctrl-c out of the old paper note book I use for these types of things, but it doesn't seem to work.
I jump and change a lot between computers and mobile devices, and not even my own computer since my laptop died. Paper notes for me.

[Baby Spice]

lurker or Lord, lurker is the scummier of the 2

Care to elaborate as to why?

[Baby Spice]

Pls, quotes and using names and not just personal pronouns adds context which is fabulous, but please trim the quote to relevence. Walls of quoted text for a single line response is not good.

[Baby Spice]

Im not sure if this is directed at me.

Not specifically but that was a glaring example.

[Baby Spice]

Man I wouldnt oppose Lord Mhok getting votes.

Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets people say that scum look for. Just saying.

[Baby Spice]

I've had a lot of unexpected work dumped on me yesterday and today that has to be done, but should hopefully be finished it tommorow.

[Baby Spice]

@Baby Spice:

Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)

Is this meant to be a serious statistic? If yes (which can be inferred from #148), is it based only on minis, or is your sample size very large?

Yes. Yes only mini's. They are standard enough here that this sort of crude analysis will work, and the sample size was way to small to be statistically significant (been too long for me to remember how to work out how many samples would be needed but suspect it would be in the hundreds.) But the overall trend was holding very well.
(If you're interested in a 3/10 game which is kind of standard for mini's, any random group of four players has about a 71% chance of containing at least one scum. That's why I trust my little four wagon stat despite the small sample size)

The real use will come later hopefully.

[Baby Spice]

I really should be unpicking that quilt now that I can see colour again. (tired eyes)

But:

Jal, since you're too lazy to bother doing any research, or too scummy to want to:
Quick precis of the most recent four mini theme's
Mini 1388, scum on wagon, wagon on town
Barkley mini theme, scum on wagon, wagon on scum.
Mini 1380 SK on wagon, wagon on town
mini 1371 no scum on wagon, wagon on town.

That took all of five minutes.

Strange that you couldn't take the five minutes that that would require, since even if I did put up everything you would need to take a few minutes to verify it anyway.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.
Strange that you wont attempt to show why the reason for your vote isn't blatant misrepresentation. You bitched about it, but didn't try and show it.

Simply put, your reactions are scummy, your reasonings for the vote was scummy, and you resort to everything but defending your actions, which is scummy.

Wow, I really should make sure these things go through before I walk away from the computer

[Baby Spice]

Burden of proof is on you, deary. You have never denied that fact. If it just took all of 5 minutes, why did it take you

days

just to do this now? I have been asking you since the first time you posted this, which happened before you got busy so that can't be an excuse. You made it looked like it took some serious work with a pencil and paper to do your research that, but I guess only 5 minutes huh?

I still see you're trying to hide behind stats. As I have pointed out, if you really thought my post was "bull shit" misrepresentation, you only needed to vote me on that. Instead, you brought statistics into the game to help propel your vote further. You're still scummy scum.

Strange that you took the comment about Mhork being an easy target at face value.

How is it supposed to be interpreted. I am interested.

Thoughts on everything else going on in the game, please.

Well, actually, as I said, you would still need to go check on what I posted, so the fact that you wouldn't seems strange. Simply, if you don't take what I said at face value, you wont take me providing anything to support it at face value. That you still haven't bothered to check, that you must be relying on someone else's checking without actually saying so speaks badly for you.

Five minutes for those four. Well a lot less actually, I checked what the most recent games were and looked them up in the notes I had made. half a minute more like. But none of that changes the basic point. Had I provided the lot you would still need to check it for yourself or take all of it on face value.

I'm not trying to hide behind stats. You're trying to make it look like that's all I'm using, whereas what I did was decide to use a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

It's strange that you decided that of "72% of mini games will have at least one scum on the first wagon to get to four votes judging by the vote count posts" and "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets", one was acceptable at face value and one wasn't. If you didn't believe me on one surely you would not believe me on the other. But it appears that that's what happened.
Especially given as it was the basis for where to start looking for scum, not as an actual reason for you to be scum.

Since you asked.
Scum: Jal

Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****

Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***

Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****

Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC

Town:


*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently

**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.

*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.

**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL

*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.

[Baby Spice]

I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?

Didn't I already say earlier that Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets?

Switching over to questioning SC is making yourself, and Jake, look better in my eyes.

Mhork is one of those that always seems a little scummy right from the get go.

[Baby Spice]

I've played under a couple of names here, and yes Mhork, it under one of those.

[Baby Spice]

Firstly I hate vague.

But I read and yhink that yhis is town StrangerCoug. Just can't put my finger on specifics.


I think that the quick "I got a card" is townish. I think that the scum would try and keep them secret. At least for the girst few cards to show up.

[Baby Spice]

I think that the quick "I got a card" is townish. I think that the scum would try and keep them secret. At least for the first few cards to show up.

Firstly, bloody iPhone keyboard thingy.

I meant community chest cards, and presumably chance cards though I don't remember anybody saying that they had any.

[Baby Spice]

Aye, roles seem to be based on property cards which were randomly handed out after alignment.

PR claim is next to useless for alignment in this game.

Robert, why not try a third vote then?

[Baby Spice]

Why are you saying this?

Why are you asking this?

[Baby Spice]

Medhi please go look at #101 and #105.

[Baby Spice]

I'm sorry Jal, have you actually made a post worth responding to instead of ignoring me and ghen asking about things I've already said/addressed?

[Baby Spice]

Are you actually trying to say you've been responding to what I've said and been asking you the entire game?

Saturday Dec 15 2012:

I'd like to see these stats compiled.

How many replies it takes Baby to respond with said statistics:

First off the lies:

Hows about #148, you know where I told you to go look for yourself. You failed to mention that bit didn't you Jal.
Hows about Jakes #375 where he actually did what I suggested you do and went and looked for himself. Failed to mention that bit at all didn't you Jal.
Hows about where Jake said that it looked true. Again I see you fail to mention that.
Did you in fact go look for yourself or not Jal? Something else you've failed to mention.
How about the other posts that you claim was me ignoring you, which were me dealing with other players.
I know, since I said: "I've played under a couple of names here, and yes Mhork, it under one of those." maybe checking the themed mini queue (since I quoted games out of the coney island list) for someone else using those self same stats, perhaps in a live game that couldn't be quoted or linked too? Maybe even games involving Lord Mhork? Bet that was beyond you effort levels.

You keep throwing around different sort of stats.

I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.

Failed to show where I threw around multiple different sorts of stats didn't you. Hint, you can't show it.

Jal, you absolutely scream scum who can't believe they were caught and can't understand what lead to it and is trying desperately to discredit what you think caught you.
What caught you was a terrible vote. What caught you was your repeated lies and mis representation. All that statistic was was:

a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

Of course the final insult. More misrepresentation.

Are you actually trying to say you've been responding to what I've said and been asking you the entire game?

Well yes I have and did, and no, I believe I said something completely different in the post you are trying to infer that your quote is an answer too.

I'm sorry Jal, have you actually made a post worth responding to instead of ignoring me and then asking about things I've already said/addressed?

^I fixed a spelling mistake

Btw: Apart from blowing it off in #111 Jal has gone well over twenty posts without explaining why her actions in #66 aren't scummy. Nor has she tried to show why her subsequent actions regarding that post aren't scummy. Of course she can't because they were scummy.
Then accuses me of ignoring things.

[Baby Spice]

Ok, specific to #458

1. Wow, statistics huh. Lie. One statistic. Addressed pretty much as soon as you asked. Either you believe me or you don't If you don't then no amount of anything by me will convince you until you go and look for yourself. Which is exactly what I told you to do. There is no burden on me when you would not have believed me anyway.

2. Strange comment from you. Isn't it strange that you keep harping on about a minor point rather than the actual scumminess that I voted you for. Weird in fact. (I use that word a lot too, strange that) I find it gets good reactions from people. Typically the scummy ones worry about it and the townies don't. Strange that.

3. Wow, you like harping on about why me using a statistic to decide to look at a wagon, and given the nature of that statistic it also decided the when, to show that you're not scum or that your vote was not scummy.

4. Strange (there's that word again) that you decide that my reason for looking at a particular wagon doesn't make sense. What is a sensible reason for looking at any one player or at any one group of players?

5:

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't.

Note that statement is a plain flat out lie and ignores me stating, more than once I believe, that I voted Jal for her scummy action.

You know I noticed something strange (Wow that word keeps popping up, weird that)
Jal can't understand why I chose to look at that particular wagon (that statistic thing) and blames something other than her scummy action for my vote (That would be that statistic thing again). Despite me saying many times why I looked where I looked and voted whom I voted.

Now I shall repeat:
I'm sorry Jal, have you actually made a post worth responding to instead of ignoring me and then asking about things I've already said/addressed?

(I'll grant you point 2, strange, was worth responding too)

[Baby Spice]

1.

I've already proven it took you ten posts and 2 1/2 days to prove your statistics. It was not addressed immediately. I don't need to "believe" you. I've already proven, with

facts

, that you didn't.

And I still maintain that you would not have believed any proof so offered until you took the time to check it yourself, or someone checked it independantly. Something you refuse to address I must point out.

I have also not argued since you posted games that I don't believe you, yet you are trying to fabricate that I am.

That would be after Jake's post that he went and checked. I maintain that you would not have believed me regardless until you or someone else checked. Evidence suggests that Jake checking is what stopped your arguing, not me posting anything.

2.

"What exactly do you find scum worry about relative to town, Baby? (corrected)

I looked through several your past games. You don't bring up statistics, at least not in the 10+ games I looked at. If you aren't bringing up statistics, then how can you gauge the reaction to someone asking for proof and being adamant to you proving it to be a scum reaction?[/i]

I know, since I said: "I've played under a couple of names here,

Why yes, it is a recent thing. It grew out of a specific game. And as I repeatedly said, it was a tool to give me a place to look, not a place to vote. You seem hung up on that big time.

Scum worry about being caught. Scum worry about not knowing or understanding why they got caught. If you don't know why or understand why it's kind of hard to talk your way out of it.
This is the whole basis behind reaction fishing.
To put it in simple terms.
My vote worried you. You don't understand the reason for it. Therefor you argue a non-point to death to try and talk your way out of it.

Why I wanted to look at a specific wagon at a specific size is a complete null point. You're harping on about it is a scum reaction. You're misrepresentation of the facts surrounding it is a scum reaction.

Or am I confused and you're talking about your use of the word strange?

I looked at that too. You barely use the word strange in games. We're talking 0-2 mentions a game, and more to the tune of "strange choice" regarding a night action. Of the few times you used strange several times? You're scum. You were cult in Stars Aligned III, which seems to be the equivalent to mafia for that game and your were a traitor cop in Secret Society Mafia.

You need to look at other games under another name. Wait, didn't I suggest that already?

Either way, you don't employ the former tactic, and of the rare occasion you more consistently employ the second you're scum.

At least you're finally doing some work to support your statements. But you have more work to do.
I'll give you a hint though. It does seem to happen more when I'm snarky.

3 & 4.

I will repeat myself.

I was the second vote on Lurker, which effectively started the wagon rolling. You had to read my "bull shit misrepresentation" post first before two more people hopped on. If you felt my post and vote were scummy and bullshit, you didn't need a statistic.

It doesn't make sense for you to look at the wagon first and THEN look at who is scum on it.

Why doesn't it make sense?

Next, I want you to show case how "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets" is a statistic. Also, how it actually related to the topic at hand (how it's acceptable at face value).

It must be.

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't. I'll let you figure it which is which and how they're different.

My reason for voting you is purely your scummy action, followed by further scummy actions which keep my vote there.
mHork is one of those easy targets and until he does something truly scummy I won't be voting for him. Not for being Mhork anyway.

Since "lord Mhork is one of those easy targets" is the only one of those two statements you mentioned that is actually affecting my vote, then it must be a statistic. I don't see it myself but it's your words that say it not mine.

[Baby Spice]

I am going for A as of her last post. Also, she has failed to really address my arguments.

lol, it's B. Always has been. Even when I am scum, it's B.

And I've addressed your arguements ad nauseum.

[Baby Spice]

Baby Spice, what is your read on our dear Agent Ireland as of late?

Hmm. I would have said improving following a poor "middle sector" from a casual read. But I am thinking that floating and buddying you (Jal) is a more accurate description.

Unvote

Meantime. Hows about you Cliff note the case on SC for me?

SC has posts and a vote I don't like, don't we all at times. But I also don't like AI's vote on SC.

[Baby Spice]

My vote was originally on SC because he voted for Lurker based on a response Mhork made, which didn't actually argue a case for Lurker being scum. SC also never mentioned Lurker is a scummy light prior to his vote. My original post is here.

What problems do you find with SC's posts?

He's voting me :p

Much the same, though nothing solid.

As much who he votes for when, and the reasons given. Or perhaps, the people he's apparently using to support his votes.
on Jones as a second RVS
Me on Medhi.
Jones and Medhi on Mhork
mhork on Lurker
then you (Jal) on me, but way late in the piece.

None of that seems right for SC.

[Baby Spice]

Mod: Where is Jakes vote?

[Baby Spice]

Ah found it. Happened on my birthday which is probably why I missed it.

[Baby Spice]

@Spice what did you think of jal's vote when she made it and before you saw the wagon and analyzed the wagon as a whole?

I didn't like it at the time. Still don't.


Why do you ask now? Why not a hell of a lot earlier?

[Baby Spice]

and stiring up an argument that has been ... placed to the side for a while to the betterment to the town, is blowing the town read I had on you.

[Baby Spice]

I suspect you. Jal the main person who argued might be voting elsewhere but that is not a reason for me to stop pushing you.

Actually you're last ten to fifteen posts are trying to stir Jal up against me. No one else.

No, this is why she's scummy. Nothing.

Just you trying to stir Jal up against me.

That you continue whilst denying it is scummy as hell.

SC's posts and votes are not town SC, but then that could be explained by SC's "replace out" post.

But Medhi trying to stir up an arguement like he is.

Vote Medhi

Scum medhi means conf town Jal, since no scum would stir up an argument like that involving a buddy.

[Baby Spice]

Baby, who is this other account of yours?

Annachie

[Baby Spice]

So I'm supposed to be saying my action is scummy and if I don't I'm even scummier. And you can call it stirring up against you or me wanting her to vote you. Yes I want you to look suspicious to others when I think your scummy.

No, you're supposed to admit that your posts are designed to stir Jal up against me again. Because that is what they are. Trying to deny it is real bad. Stirring like you are doing is also real bad.

If you thought I was scum, you would be trying to build a case against me. This you haven't done.

It is a classic scum technique.


Actually:

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed

Who is FOSing me? I don't think I've seen one on anyone this game.

Why do you ask now? Why not a hell of a lot earlier?

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed so I wanted to ask it clearly. If it was bad before you analyzed the wagon why not say it then is the root of the problem.

But why now?

[Baby Spice]

@Spice Spice Baby: How exactly did you reach the figure of 72%?

Went back through the mini theme queue and looked at completed games, using the first vote count post that had a wagon of at least four people for my data points.

Then just counted and divided and all that good stuff.

Mini games are remarkably consistant in their format which is why I feel this sort of approach works. Actually, it was a game where a player declared there were three scum because there usually is three scum in a mini that got me thinking about it. (Turned out a scum tell for him in a mini was being vague about the number of scum in a mini)

I counted the SK as scum, though I will grant that counting an SK as town might have been better. As it was there was only one SK in the set anyway so it made little difference.

I'm reasonable happy with the result since in a 3:10 format (By far the most common mini format) any random grouping of four players has a 71% chance of having at least one scum in it. (Not that that is anything more than an indication that the rough and ready survey of the games is about right)


Pretty sure that most of this is mentioned earlier, but I can forgive you if you skimmed over it a little.

and Medhi, I do believe I stated that I specifically wanted to look at the first wagon to get to four votes.
(Ok, a quick check shows that it was more implied)

[Baby Spice]

Oh cool. I posted my 585, it went through, and then when the page reloaded 586 was up too. I wonder how close the timing had to be for that?

Close enough that I didn't get your 585 as a ninja post.

[Baby Spice]

You know you just defeated your own argument, though, right? If I can get a 71% chance of a Scum being in any 4 names I draw out of a hat, I don't really need to focus on the first 4 people on a wagon so I can get a ~71% chance of one of them being Scum.

Of course most of that was in this post.

Including the answer to your follow up question.

[Baby Spice]

Scum medhi means conf town Jal, since no scum would stir up an argument like that involving a buddy.

I find these kinds of statements are incredibly dangerous. (and made often by Scum, to boot)


Medhi keeps pinging me as Scum, but something in my gut says he's not, so null/leaning Scum.

But let me make this perfectly clear.

Not only does Medhi's piss poor attempt to stir up trouble mark Medhi as scum, it makes SC look bad as the wagon on him is the only reason I can think of for Medhi bringing this stuff up now, it also confirms Jal as town. Note: I asked Medhi several times "Why now?" and he never said. Kept answering a "why" question, not the "why now". Diverting Jal from SC to me is the only reason that comes to mind. The SC wagon was gathering strength.

[Baby Spice]

You not liking the answer =/= it not being the answer. I already answered it. I noticed it then wanted to ask to help explain part of the fos reasoning more before continuing with pushing you. It being a "poor attempt" is a nice way to make me want to attack you more.

No, you have never answered the question: "Why now?"
I've asked four times now.

Btw, since you like the term.

Vote =/= FOS. Never has, never will.

So your answer to "why", the question I didn't ask, is also completely misleading.

FOS Medhi

Finger of suspicion. I think you are scummy but am not ready to vote you yet.

Vote Medhi

I think you are scummy and am placing a vote on you. (For those not following I am already voting Medhi and am doing it now for illustrative purposes)

FOSing seems to have gone out of fashion.

You're actions, and timing, means that SC must be scum too. Otherwise there is no reason for you to try and divert Jal, who is the biggest pusher on SC, onto myself at a time when the SC wagon is gaining momentum.

FOS SC

[Baby Spice]

No you didn't. Please bold the answer as to why now.

Nice big letters too.


Then for giggles, how anout you explain why doing so now is not an attempt to divert Jal onto myself as opposed to the normal town actions of trying to show why I am scummy. (I'm not of course, but that is what you should be doing). Evidence and quotes and actual logic and reasoning would be good.

I can, and will if needed, show clearly and concisely that diverting Jal is what you were trying to do.

[Baby Spice]

Now since it's part of why you're being fosed, I noticed it was never asked, and the question was loaded since I can't see a good answer.

And

diverting and showing scummy are pretty much the same thing

just worded differently with different connotations. Even if they were separate the motive is the same. I want you lynched.

Just wanted to make sure no one missed that.

[Baby Spice]

Scum medhi means conf town Jal, since no scum would stir up an argument like that involving a buddy.

I find these kinds of statements are incredibly dangerous. (and made often by Scum, to boot)

...it also confirms Jal as town. .

Really?

Your [Medhi's] actions, and timing, means that SC must be scum too.

...

...


I'll tell you why any statement like these is bad:

1) It's arrogant as all hell. You, right now, are cocksure you've gotten 2/3 Scum (and an innocent!) pegged on D1, while the entire rest of the game isn't even sure about one. Do you truly think you are

that

much better at this game than all of us? The reason none of us are that sure is because...

NO true. I'm damn certain I've gotten one scum, which then leads to one conf town and one huge chance of being scum. Evidence? I voted Medhi not SC. If I was "Cocksure" that SC was scum then I would have voted him, having a wagon and momentum and such.

2) ...the game is just not that simple. Even if Medhi IS Scum and doing exactly what you say he is, which is a stretch in the first place, he could have many other reasons to do it besides saving ScumSC. He could be simply trying to take an easy lynch on you today, thinking an SC lynch wouldn't be hard to pull off tomorrow, he could be buddying TownSC, he could be framing TownSC so that when he dies he implicates SC, etc.

Hmm, why are you pushing this line? We get a scum flip on Medhi and then these points become relevent. Not before.

3) There are no such things as absolutes. Short of mod confirmations, un-CCed/dead Seers in Open games, and other such things, you can never be absolutely sure. Jal definitely could be Medhi's scumbuddy. (although I doubt it) I've seen and done crazy busses, the reason they work is because people say "Oh, that's impossible. X must be Town.", while I laugh my ass off in wolfchat.

True. But Medhi's actions aren't a bus are they? It is a deliberate attempt to stir up a town/town fight. Actually lets phrase that properly. It is a deliberate attempt to rekindle a town/town fight.

4) Planning lynches past today does nothing but help Scum. Again, assume absolute best case scenario; Medhi's scum, you convince everyone, and we lynch him. The scum gets not only all of the Night phase, but also all of today (

do Scum have daytalk?

) to prepare for tomorrow. If SC's actually Scum, they know without a doubt you're going to go for him hard, and right out of the gate. If he's Town, they know they can sit back and lol while you attempt to lynch a townie.

Exactly where have I planned a D2 lynch?

Now since it's part of why you're being fosed, I noticed it was never asked, and the question was loaded since I can't see a good answer.

And

diverting and showing scummy are pretty much the same thing

just worded differently with different connotations. Even if they were separate the motive is the same. I want you lynched.

Just wanted to make sure no one missed that.

He's right, though. They're the exact same thing with different intent. Show me where the intent is to get votes off SC.

Really? The same thing? How exactly are they they the same thing?

How, exactly, is diverting a person from one suspect to a second suspect, in any way showing that the second suspect is scummy?

Why are you voting Sc instead of her? If it's viability she's not unviable with the post you made before that to me at least.

Since wouldn't getting a bigger suspicion lynched be better?

From the way you sound when you attack her I thought you suspected her more then SC? If not then how much do you suspect the two?

UNVOTE: SCVOTE: Spice post 484

Post 484 was by Jal

Well main point is I think you're argument for her is stronger then for sc and you've argued it for a while longer.

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

That's five Medhi posts in a row all along the theme of "Jal you should be voting Baby Spice not SC". Not a single reason as for why that didn't involve assuming what Jal was thinking, despite corrections from Jal.
The sixth being AI should be voting Baby Spice not SC because of Jal.

When does Medhi start posting actual reasons of his own?

VOTE: StrangeCoug

@Spice what did you think of jal's vote when she made it and before you saw the wagon and analyzed the wagon as a whole?

I didn't like it at the time. Still don't.


Why do you ask now? Why not a hell of a lot earlier?

Since it's a big portion of why you're being fosed so I wanted to ask it clearly. If it was bad before you analyzed the wagon why not say it then is the root of the problem.

I will point out again that no-one has FOSsed me at all. I believe that the only FOS in the game was SC on Medhi.

and stiring up an argument that has been ... placed to the side for a while to the betterment to the town, is blowing the town read I had on you.

I suspect you. Jal the main person who argued might be voting elsewhere but that is not a reason for me to stop pushing you.

The only time, to this point, that Medhi gave a reason was

after

Medhi was called for stiring things up. Not in any of the the posts where was trying to badger Jal into voting for me. Not in the post where he tried to Badger AI into voting for me, immediatly after AI voted for SC.
Also note that all of Medhi's diversion type posts stopped when Jal voted me, then never restarted after Jal revoted SC and I called Medhi on the diversion attempt. (Although #546 could be seen as an attempt to restart)

Baby, maybe I missed it somewhere, but if you think SC is scummy, why not vote SC?

Because I'm not sure on SC. I think I said that what worried me about his posting and voting could easily be the disconnect he claimed he felt. I think that Medhi's diversion attempt is scummy in and of itself, and that it must stem from SC being scum. On that basis I want to lynch the scum I believe I have found, then D2 look at the implications of him Medhi flipping scum. If we got to a deadline situation I'd consider lynching SC.

Spice is fosing me right now

Lovely summary of the game state. Pity it's wrong. I am

voting

you. The FOS earlier was to try and illustrate the difference. Something you clearly didn't get or bother to read.
Do I need to quote the WIKI on how to play Mafia here?

[Baby Spice]

RL problems are tieing me up for a couple of days.

[Baby Spice]

Xis, I was starting to lean town until I looked up Annarchie's post history which doesn't contain what Baby Spice said it would, such as their use of "strange" and statistics. I'm waiting for that reply.

Try looking at: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p4489844. LM was the lynch, Yama the NK, myself as town. That, and DDD's statement that there were three scum, was what made me interested enough to look and work it out. (That game has now finished)

As for the other, as I said it's me being narky more than anything. I don't self meta for scum/town things about my own gameplay.

[Baby Spice]

Will have a look at Lurker soon. Three other games to check and it's also around 40 degrees here. (C not F)

LM (I think it was). Read on Jal hasn't changed in the last few days.

[Baby Spice]

That was kind of a biggie by Lurker wasn't it. Def scum.

[Baby Spice]

So are we doing this now or waiting some more.

[Baby Spice]

Vote Lurker

That should be the hammer.