Mini #367: Endgame'd

[spectrumvoid]

Erm... I'm confused... Does this mean I shouldn't post the Wuffles PBPA? Since it will mislead people? Seems like a pity since I've finished it.

Norinel: I didn't want it to become a shouting match between Arafax and me, which has happened many times in my other games. Also because I knew that some of my points against Arafax were weak, and I voted to make it seem as though I thought they were strong. I was waiting to see if someone would try to use my weak logic as an excuse to push for Arafax's lynch.

Here are the reasons why some of what I said weren't strong arguments:

- BM was lying, but not in this game. So bringing it up was irrelevant. (But it's not scummy, and that was early game.)

- About the reason for saying you're undecided to get a reaction. Your reason is logical (wanting to get TSQ's reaction), and not scummy.

- This is a point I brought up genuinely because I thought it was scummy. I was trying to say that you are only concentrating on TSQ, which is scummy because you are hoping other people will ignore your possible scum partners. Also, it is pro-town to mention other suspicions you might have besides your main one. It isn't vote-hopping, because it'll provide us with more info about the other players if you are night-killed or lynched.

I'd also like to hear your response towards Elias. Yes, you can say that you did read, but you didn't respond to them.

- About voting VS FOSing. I was lying. Wagoning is bad. But I brought it up to see if anyone would continue. If you really wanted to push it, you can argue that Arafax made a deliberate attempt to stage a fake argument. But that's really stretching, and I don't think that's the case.

- About too scummy to be scum. I disagree with this point. Because the converse is illogical, that someone is so protown he must be scum.

[ChannelDelibird]

post the wuffles PBPA please sv.

[spectrumvoid]

I stopped by PBPA at page 10 because I don't want to reread his PBPA now. I numbered things this time, and paraphrased really long quotes to make it easier to read.

Vote: Arafax Maybe if I get you lynched my fax will stop eating my paper

1. Joke vote.

lol, I find that overexcited responses to random votes are generally a sign of a noob. Whether this be a noob scum or noob town response is impossible to say at this point.

2. This is possibly in defence of luna, since luna was the 'overexcited' one.

Ok this is boring. Unvote, Vote Elias. Pressure wagon time.

3. This could be an excuse to vote Elias, but I think this is fine since Elias hasn't said much.

@ Thestatusquo: Dude, the fact that you couldn't read 1/3 of a page since primate's last vote count either makes you extremely stupid or extremely scummy, neither of which I find particularly endearing at this stage.

Not enough to take my sexy pressure vote off yet though, I'd like to see Elias' reactions to it. ^_^

But yeah, FoS: Thestatusquo

4. Interesting that he's the only one so far who hasn't accused TSQ of being scummy despite TSQ putting someone at lynch -1, which is usually scummy behaviour. But he did mention that he wasn't sure if TSQ was stupid of scummy.

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.

Yeah man, post 8. Read the thread, lawl. It's only been 2 pages

5. Originally said by TSQ. The person in it is Ziliu. Wuffles is defending Ziliu against TSQ.

I don't support a claim for anyone at this stage.

I think we can take TSQ's suspicious action as more of a stupid mistake than a calculated scum play. However let's be sure to remember this in future if he makes any more "mistakes" like this one.

And TSQ - I too feel that the random vote wasn't a "Relevant" post - but it still contradicted your claim about #44 being ziliu's first post. Your reply was irrelevant in that respect.

Read the thread more carefully in future or it may end up getting you killed. ^_^

6. Says TSQ putting someone at lynch -1 is a stupid mistake, ie, not scummy. (defends TSQ). Advises TSQ. (Scum trying to help his partner ^^?)

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

not at the time, it wasn't, and I feel that I have already been perfectly clear on the part of your post that was incorrect.

This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted.

I WAS CALLING YOU UP ON THIS SENTENCE, NOTHING MORE. STOP MISREADING MY CRITICISM. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU MISWROTE THAT SENTENCE, AS HE HAD POSTED TWICE, NOT ONCE.

I have already mentioned that several times.

7. Very emotional. Again defends Ziliu. Also note that he has not removed his 'pressure vote' on Elias although Elias has started contributing.

Ahem, back to business. Well, with this TSQ stuff cleared up, lets put some pressure on the lurkers, eh? Vote: Luna.

8. This is the 2nd person W voted because of lurking. Could it be scum trying to spread suspicion around? (Wuffles forgot to unvote.) Next post says luna lurking is scummy. Note also that Wuffles has conveniently not mentioned Ziliu, TSQ and Elias although there was some suspicion about them before this post. Also, contrary to what he said, the TSQ matter has NOT been cleared up by the time this post was made.

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. Using WIFOM to counter my arguments is not the way to prevent lurker hunts, lawl.

9. This was in response to Lowell accusing Wuffles of accusing people of lurking, and as an excuse to be lurking without doing anything much. I actually think lowell's accusation made sense since Wuffles hasn't contributed other than randomly accusing lurkers.

Hell, I don't care about lurkers either - but with the TSQ scandal dying down, I wanted to keep discussion going.

Lurker hunts, at very least, always provoke conversaton ^_^

10. After Lowell's accusation, he immediately changed his stand saying he doesn't care about lurkers. I find this hard to believe since he has focused on lurkers in his previous posts. He used the excuse of promoting discussion to lurker-hunt. But he could also have promoted the discussion by discussing the 3 people mentioned in point 8.

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

For that, I think that deserves an FoS: Wuffles

11. I'm guessing this is a joke. But why didn't he notice luna's number of posts earlier? I would think that a person who goes lurker-hunting would check the number of posts made.

12. His next post is long, so I won't quote it. He says CDB is scummy for confirming vote on TSQ when he has nothing new to add, and votes CDB. Opposite from Arafax, W looks like he's trying to cast suspicion on as many people as possible, except ziliu). Also, I think that he's vote was too hasty and didn't account the other things CDB did before this.

13. Another long post. A: CDB is scummy because confirmation votes mean nothing, and he's trying to get the bandwagoning going. W says CDB has no reason for voting TSQ, because TSQ made a mistake. And CDB accuses TSQ of being scummy without explanation.

Okay, I buy the confirmation vote point and the no explanation point since it's logical, but W is wrong to say that there was no reason to vote TSQ. CDB and other people have pointed out that putting someone at lynch -1 is probably scummy.

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.

14. Again he claims that CDB is voting based on gut, which he isn't. (It's the lynch -1 thing.) Could this be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent CDB's reason for voting?

15. Next post quotes the places where CDB confirm votes. W says TSQ is only an idiot for putting someone at lynch -1 at page 2. Again asks CDB for a reason, though CDB has clearly stated his reason earlier.

16. Look at this post first:

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.

Followed by this post:

Congratulations sock-puppet, you've just alleviated the Wrath of Wuffles for the time being

See, now that post I can agree with. While I find TSQ's 1-off hammah vote to be potentially suspicious, I have to agree that he has been posting a whole heap of "read the thread, noob" or thoughts to that effect.

That sort of playing style really annoys me, and, since he hasn't replied to my previous request,

Unvote, Vote TSQ

I find this post to be extremely scummy. Why the abrupt about-face? I don't think CDB said anything that world-shattering. W suddenly says TSQ's vote is suspicious, when he's been saying the opposite for the entire game. He is now voting TSQ because he is annoyed and because of TSQ's playstyle. (Could it be that W-mafia has realised no one is agreeing with a CDB lynch?)

17. Next post, W says phrases like 'confirm vote' automatically make him think the person is scummy. (Could this be an attempt to defend his position w.r.t CDB?) I think this is a weak argument, since many players use confirm votes. But I'm cutting W some slack since he joined in Aug, and he might not have played with people who used confirm votes.

*interlude: Anthony gets mod-killed* *W goes to do a reread*

18.

After re-reading, TSQ seems to be in the absolute thick of everything. I'm not quite sure what to make of that right now.

W has changed his mind on TSQ way too many times for my liking, especially since I don't think TSQ has said that much to change W's mind so many times.

19. Votes himself. Probably also a joke. Unvotes.

20.

Guys, this is distracting us. I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

I'm sorry man, but I am totally unwilling to take this argument for what it (doesnt really) appear.

That is a totally emo argument with no logic behind it whatsoever, and reeks of desperation, to say the least.

ANY

scum player could be all "HEY STOP GOING AFTER ME IM TOWN".

TSQ, you just made a terrible play error, whether you're vanilla, mafioso or power townie.

Vote TSQ.

Claim please.

I agree with this one, TSQ's emo-ing does seem scummy, and his defence doesn't make sense. It's the timing of this which is suspicious. W was very active previously, disappears for a while (2 pages), then comes back, immediately vote, and places TSQ -1 from lynch. I'm not too sure if this is a coincidence or if W-mafia was waiting for TSQ to make a mistake.

21. Warns people not to hammer. This post is ok.

22. Says TSQ's last post doesn't make him look not scummy, ask TSQ to re-defend himself, and asks Elias to explain himself. Ok post.

23. Quotes TSQ's post to convince Elias TSQ is scummy because of his emo defense. He didn't give TSQ a chance to defend himself like what he said in 22. Mafia pushing hard for the TSQ wagon?

24. Says he wouldn't mind hammering TSQ. Dismisses TSQ's defence, saying he can coolly analyze the situation. Seriously, when someone is -1 from lynch, I think it's impossible to expect a totally cool response. What does this say about W's expectations? I think it effectively stops TSQ from making a defence.

25.

To be fair though, Arafax should know exactly how suspcious he will look on day two if TSQ turns out to be town.

Scummy. Directing a lynch.

26.

Yeah, maybe you're right. So, then, that leaves us with...Arafax as suspect #1?

Because I don't think that makes sense.

Plus, it is ridiculous for TSQ to assume that Arafax should check every single one of his posts - the ones that aren't scummy have no need to be examined further.

Would you quote me saying "I like pie" as a reason to get me lynched?

I hope not.

I think this post doesn't make sense. To decide if a person is scummy, you should check every post, not just the ones that make someone seem scummy, but also those that make him seem pro-town to make a unbiased judgement. But I'm not sure if this shows W is scummy, or he's just confused. Note here that he says Arafax isn't scummy. Then look at this post:

No, it's not rediculous. When looking through a thread to build a case, you look at every single post a person makes, and see how it affects your case. At least that's what I do, wuffles. I'm not saying that he needs to post/read posts of mine which are referring to naked girls being pushed past my dorm room, but if he is going to call me out, he should at least read the posts that are directly contradicting what he's saying. Not doing so is skimming, and just attempting to make me look bad, which is not something town would do. If town was building a case and saw "Hmmm... I'm not really right about any of this" you would assume they would stop building the case. That's not what arafax did.

I can buy the confusion shtick up to a point. And that point is where he says he finds me suspicious for something he not only had a conversation with me about, but agreed with me about. That is uber scummy behavior, folks.

Ok, I'm happy with this, after re-reading, you are actually correct to a large extent. I went a bit blind after reading your "Anyone who is voting me is either a bad player or scum".

But yeah, perhaps it's a good idea to let you live a while longer.

Unvote

Again, an extremely quick turnabout. W seems to waver on deciding if TSQ is scum or town very often.

27.

WOW

You just said that reconsidering opinions is a bad idea man.

When someone believe their opinion to be wrong, they can do one of two things.

1. They can stubbornly dig themselves deeper, which you are most certainly doing

OR

2. They can admit that they were wrong.

I was quite adamant about TSQ was because of his ZOMG post. I still believe he is decidedly scummy, but, you also should admit that his defence was impressive enough for a player such as myself to re-think my -1 to hammah vote.

At least I am able to admit when I am wrong.

Honest of him. But note that TSQ's defence wasn't really a defence, TSQ just counter-accused Arafax. So what impressive defence is W talking about? Is he just looking for an excuse to jump off the TSQ wagon?

28.

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.

This sounds like an excuse to vote hop on and off TSQ to me.

29. Next post, says Arafax needs to realise mafia would be stupid to put anyone at lynch -1, and TSQ isn't that stupid. And he says whoever says TSQ is scummy for doing that is scummy.

I find this post reeking of scumminess. W started out saying TSQ is being stupid, then changed his mind, then now is accusing people of being scummy for doing exactly what he did.

30.

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.

This sounds like W is subtly trying to imply that those people blew his reply out of proportion, but he didn't make it clear.

31.

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

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

This is BS. W did vote him for playstyle, but he also said the -1 vote was scummy. Mentioned in my PBPA somewhere above.

[spectrumvoid]

I stopped by PBPA at page 10 because I don't want to reread his PBPA now. I numbered things this time, and paraphrased really long quotes to make it easier to read.

Vote: Arafax Maybe if I get you lynched my fax will stop eating my paper

1. Joke vote.

lol, I find that overexcited responses to random votes are generally a sign of a noob. Whether this be a noob scum or noob town response is impossible to say at this point.

2. This is possibly in defence of luna, since luna was the 'overexcited' one.

Ok this is boring. Unvote, Vote Elias. Pressure wagon time.

3. This could be an excuse to vote Elias, but I think this is fine since Elias hasn't said much.

@ Thestatusquo: Dude, the fact that you couldn't read 1/3 of a page since primate's last vote count either makes you extremely stupid or extremely scummy, neither of which I find particularly endearing at this stage.

Not enough to take my sexy pressure vote off yet though, I'd like to see Elias' reactions to it. ^_^

But yeah, FoS: Thestatusquo

4. Interesting that he's the only one so far who hasn't accused TSQ of being scummy despite TSQ putting someone at lynch -1, which is usually scummy behaviour. But he did mention that he wasn't sure if TSQ was stupid of scummy.

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.

Yeah man, post 8. Read the thread, lawl. It's only been 2 pages

5. Originally said by TSQ. The person in it is Ziliu. Wuffles is defending Ziliu against TSQ.

I don't support a claim for anyone at this stage.

I think we can take TSQ's suspicious action as more of a stupid mistake than a calculated scum play. However let's be sure to remember this in future if he makes any more "mistakes" like this one.

And TSQ - I too feel that the random vote wasn't a "Relevant" post - but it still contradicted your claim about #44 being ziliu's first post. Your reply was irrelevant in that respect.

Read the thread more carefully in future or it may end up getting you killed. ^_^

6. Says TSQ putting someone at lynch -1 is a stupid mistake, ie, not scummy. (defends TSQ). Advises TSQ. (Scum trying to help his partner ^^?)

wuffles: My claim was that he was lurking. I.E. Not adding anything to the discussion, the fact that he random voted once before the post in question does not do anything to weaken that claim.

not at the time, it wasn't, and I feel that I have already been perfectly clear on the part of your post that was incorrect.

This thread has been open 8 days, and this is the first time he has posted.

I WAS CALLING YOU UP ON THIS SENTENCE, NOTHING MORE. STOP MISREADING MY CRITICISM. I AM MERELY SAYING THAT YOU MISWROTE THAT SENTENCE, AS HE HAD POSTED TWICE, NOT ONCE.

I have already mentioned that several times.

7. Very emotional. Again defends Ziliu. Also note that he has not removed his 'pressure vote' on Elias although Elias has started contributing.

Ahem, back to business. Well, with this TSQ stuff cleared up, lets put some pressure on the lurkers, eh? Vote: Luna.

8. This is the 2nd person W voted because of lurking. Could it be scum trying to spread suspicion around? (Wuffles forgot to unvote.) Next post says luna lurking is scummy. Note also that Wuffles has conveniently not mentioned Ziliu, TSQ and Elias although there was some suspicion about them before this post. Also, contrary to what he said, the TSQ matter has NOT been cleared up by the time this post was made.

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. Using WIFOM to counter my arguments is not the way to prevent lurker hunts, lawl.

9. This was in response to Lowell accusing Wuffles of accusing people of lurking, and as an excuse to be lurking without doing anything much. I actually think lowell's accusation made sense since Wuffles hasn't contributed other than randomly accusing lurkers.

Hell, I don't care about lurkers either - but with the TSQ scandal dying down, I wanted to keep discussion going.

Lurker hunts, at very least, always provoke conversaton ^_^

10. After Lowell's accusation, he immediately changed his stand saying he doesn't care about lurkers. I find this hard to believe since he has focused on lurkers in his previous posts. He used the excuse of promoting discussion to lurker-hunt. But he could also have promoted the discussion by discussing the 3 people mentioned in point 8.

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

For that, I think that deserves an FoS: Wuffles

11. I'm guessing this is a joke. But why didn't he notice luna's number of posts earlier? I would think that a person who goes lurker-hunting would check the number of posts made.

12. His next post is long, so I won't quote it. He says CDB is scummy for confirming vote on TSQ when he has nothing new to add, and votes CDB. Opposite from Arafax, W looks like he's trying to cast suspicion on as many people as possible, except ziliu). Also, I think that he's vote was too hasty and didn't account the other things CDB did before this.

13. Another long post. A: CDB is scummy because confirmation votes mean nothing, and he's trying to get the bandwagoning going. W says CDB has no reason for voting TSQ, because TSQ made a mistake. And CDB accuses TSQ of being scummy without explanation.

Okay, I buy the confirmation vote point and the no explanation point since it's logical, but W is wrong to say that there was no reason to vote TSQ. CDB and other people have pointed out that putting someone at lynch -1 is probably scummy.

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.

14. Again he claims that CDB is voting based on gut, which he isn't. (It's the lynch -1 thing.) Could this be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent CDB's reason for voting?

15. Next post quotes the places where CDB confirm votes. W says TSQ is only an idiot for putting someone at lynch -1 at page 2. Again asks CDB for a reason, though CDB has clearly stated his reason earlier.

16. Look at this post first:

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.

Followed by this post:

Congratulations sock-puppet, you've just alleviated the Wrath of Wuffles for the time being

See, now that post I can agree with. While I find TSQ's 1-off hammah vote to be potentially suspicious, I have to agree that he has been posting a whole heap of "read the thread, noob" or thoughts to that effect.

That sort of playing style really annoys me, and, since he hasn't replied to my previous request,

Unvote, Vote TSQ

I find this post to be extremely scummy. Why the abrupt about-face? I don't think CDB said anything that world-shattering. W suddenly says TSQ's vote is suspicious, when he's been saying the opposite for the entire game. He is now voting TSQ because he is annoyed and because of TSQ's playstyle. (Could it be that W-mafia has realised no one is agreeing with a CDB lynch?)

17. Next post, W says phrases like 'confirm vote' automatically make him think the person is scummy. (Could this be an attempt to defend his position w.r.t CDB?) I think this is a weak argument, since many players use confirm votes. But I'm cutting W some slack since he joined in Aug, and he might not have played with people who used confirm votes.

*interlude: Anthony gets mod-killed* *W goes to do a reread*

18.

After re-reading, TSQ seems to be in the absolute thick of everything. I'm not quite sure what to make of that right now.

W has changed his mind on TSQ way too many times for my liking, especially since I don't think TSQ has said that much to change W's mind so many times.

19. Votes himself. Probably also a joke. Unvotes.

20.

Guys, this is distracting us. I am town, we need to focus on finding scum. Since I am not scum, all you guys are doing is throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you're scum trying to push a lynch on a town, or perhaps you're just a bad town player, but either way, you're not helping the town by focusing on me like this.

I'm sorry man, but I am totally unwilling to take this argument for what it (doesnt really) appear.

That is a totally emo argument with no logic behind it whatsoever, and reeks of desperation, to say the least.

ANY

scum player could be all "HEY STOP GOING AFTER ME IM TOWN".

TSQ, you just made a terrible play error, whether you're vanilla, mafioso or power townie.

Vote TSQ.

Claim please.

I agree with this one, TSQ's emo-ing does seem scummy, and his defence doesn't make sense. It's the timing of this which is suspicious. W was very active previously, disappears for a while (2 pages), then comes back, immediately vote, and places TSQ -1 from lynch. I'm not too sure if this is a coincidence or if W-mafia was waiting for TSQ to make a mistake.

21. Warns people not to hammer. This post is ok.

22. Says TSQ's last post doesn't make him look not scummy, ask TSQ to re-defend himself, and asks Elias to explain himself. Ok post.

23. Quotes TSQ's post to convince Elias TSQ is scummy because of his emo defense. He didn't give TSQ a chance to defend himself like what he said in 22. Mafia pushing hard for the TSQ wagon?

24. Says he wouldn't mind hammering TSQ. Dismisses TSQ's defence, saying he can coolly analyze the situation. Seriously, when someone is -1 from lynch, I think it's impossible to expect a totally cool response. What does this say about W's expectations? I think it effectively stops TSQ from making a defence.

25.

To be fair though, Arafax should know exactly how suspcious he will look on day two if TSQ turns out to be town.

Scummy. Directing a lynch.

26.

Yeah, maybe you're right. So, then, that leaves us with...Arafax as suspect #1?

Because I don't think that makes sense.

Plus, it is ridiculous for TSQ to assume that Arafax should check every single one of his posts - the ones that aren't scummy have no need to be examined further.

Would you quote me saying "I like pie" as a reason to get me lynched?

I hope not.

I think this post doesn't make sense. To decide if a person is scummy, you should check every post, not just the ones that make someone seem scummy, but also those that make him seem pro-town to make a unbiased judgement. But I'm not sure if this shows W is scummy, or he's just confused. Note here that he says Arafax isn't scummy. Then look at this post:

No, it's not rediculous. When looking through a thread to build a case, you look at every single post a person makes, and see how it affects your case. At least that's what I do, wuffles. I'm not saying that he needs to post/read posts of mine which are referring to naked girls being pushed past my dorm room, but if he is going to call me out, he should at least read the posts that are directly contradicting what he's saying. Not doing so is skimming, and just attempting to make me look bad, which is not something town would do. If town was building a case and saw "Hmmm... I'm not really right about any of this" you would assume they would stop building the case. That's not what arafax did.

I can buy the confusion shtick up to a point. And that point is where he says he finds me suspicious for something he not only had a conversation with me about, but agreed with me about. That is uber scummy behavior, folks.

Ok, I'm happy with this, after re-reading, you are actually correct to a large extent. I went a bit blind after reading your "Anyone who is voting me is either a bad player or scum".

But yeah, perhaps it's a good idea to let you live a while longer.

Unvote

Again, an extremely quick turnabout. W seems to waver on deciding if TSQ is scum or town very often.

27.

WOW

You just said that reconsidering opinions is a bad idea man.

When someone believe their opinion to be wrong, they can do one of two things.

1. They can stubbornly dig themselves deeper, which you are most certainly doing

OR

2. They can admit that they were wrong.

I was quite adamant about TSQ was because of his ZOMG post. I still believe he is decidedly scummy, but, you also should admit that his defence was impressive enough for a player such as myself to re-think my -1 to hammah vote.

At least I am able to admit when I am wrong.

Honest of him. But note that TSQ's defence wasn't really a defence, TSQ just counter-accused Arafax. So what impressive defence is W talking about? Is he just looking for an excuse to jump off the TSQ wagon?

28.

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.

This sounds like an excuse to vote hop on and off TSQ to me.

29. Next post, says Arafax needs to realise mafia would be stupid to put anyone at lynch -1, and TSQ isn't that stupid. And he says whoever says TSQ is scummy for doing that is scummy.

I find this post reeking of scumminess. W started out saying TSQ is being stupid, then changed his mind, then now is accusing people of being scummy for doing exactly what he did.

30.

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.

This sounds like W is subtly trying to imply that those people blew his reply out of proportion, but he didn't make it clear.

31.

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

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

This is BS. W did vote him for playstyle, but he also said the -1 vote was scummy. Mentioned in my PBPA somewhere above.

[spectrumvoid]

Gah. I kept getting the error message: This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota

[Thestatusquo]

Arlen, (elias the theif.) You KNOW I was home from college this weekend (being that I am your brother.) and that I was running around visiting various friends/family. So why did you feel it necessary to mention that I haven't posted in this thread since friday? Like...That's deliberately misleading the town.

[lunalovegood]

Well that's interesting

[Elias_the_thief]

It wasn't meant as an accusation. It was in response to CDB who asked if we could go ahead and lynch you. I was reminding him that you hadnt posted recently and that he should wait for a response before trying to lynch. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[Lowell]

Arlen, do me a favor and follow TSQ around to see if he attends any meetings in the back offices of stripclubs or butcheries. Also, check under his pillow for a pistol. Report back to me.

Scum hunting. I'm on this, people.

Oh, and TSQ, likewise.

[Elias_the_thief]

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.

[Elias_the_thief]

about those names you quoted....

[Thestatusquo]

about those names you quoted....

I don't see anything wrong with them...

[Arafax]

I started to read that PBPA on Wuffles again and got about 1/3 of the way through before I realized what I was doing?

I hate deadlines, but I love more posting...Perhaps a deadline would bring out more posting....Um, where's zuilu?

2 brothers huh?...Hmmm...I have played games with my wife; I hate the tension in the house...I feel for you guys.

PS - I have never seen so many PBPA's in my life.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, I'm in college, and he's at home. So whatever.

[Elias_the_thief]

about those names you quoted....

I don't see anything wrong with them...

note how he says the statusscum and thescumusquo

[Thestatusquo]

note my quoted name for you, and my earlier claim that you have no sense of humor.

[spectrumvoid]

I copied directly from the original post... it wasn't me who said that. I don't think Elias was accuse you of lurking, he did post that in reply to CDB. And I think he was defending you a little because he didn't want you to get lynched before you had a chance to say anything.

I wish my brother would play mafia too.

[Lowell]

I wish I had an army of clones, all of whom would play mafia together, communicating by clone telepathy (which I can only assume exists) and making us an invincible mafia-crushing mason group. That is, when we're not off fighting (or, on slow news days, committing) crime.

Seriously, does anyone have anything here? Or are we just inserting the word "scum" into everyone's names? Don't get me wrong, that's exceedingly clever, but what else we got?....

UNVOTE

I'm not sold on any of this.

[spectrumvoid]

*waits for wuffles's response*

[Wuffles_II]

Well, here are the parts Spectrum mentions that could be miscontrued as me basing my suspicions of TSQ off the -1 hammah vote he made.

@ Thestatusquo: Dude, the fact that you couldn't read 1/3 of a page since primate's last vote count either makes you extremely stupid or extremely scummy, neither of which I find particularly endearing at this stage.

Not enough to take my sexy pressure vote off yet though, I'd like to see Elias' reactions to it. ^_^

But yeah, FoS: Thestatusquo

spectrum's reply:

Okay, I buy the confirmation vote point and the no explanation point since it's logical, but W is wrong to say that there was no reason to vote TSQ. CDB and other people have pointed out that putting someone at lynch -1 is probably scummy.

Yes, well, as I have CLEARLY stated SEVERAL times, I do not believe that TSQ's -1 to hammah vote is a good enough reason to be voting him.

The fact that other people have pointed it out means nothing to me if I don't believe their points to be the case, correct?

Congratulations sock-puppet, you've just alleviated the Wrath of Wuffles for the time being

See, now that post I can agree with. While I find TSQ's 1-off hammah vote to be potentially suspicious, I have to agree that he has been posting a whole heap of "read the thread, noob" or thoughts to that effect.

That sort of playing style really annoys me, and, since he hasn't replied to my previous request,

Unvote, Vote TSQ

Note: I say "Potentially". I mean this in the sense that it is possible that it is scummy. However, I did not, and never will, vote TSQ based upon that alone.

TSQ being EMO, sure.
TSQ being scum cuz he -1 to hammah'd Elias? No friggin way would any scum do that deliberately that early. It just placed suspicion on him for the entirety of the rest of the day.

31.

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

Get your facts straight.

rawr.

spectrum's reply:

This is BS. W did vote him for playstyle, but he also said the -1 vote was scummy. Mentioned in my PBPA somewhere above.

So yeah, NO IT ISN'T BS.

[spectrumvoid]

About your first point, YOU think that the -1 vote isn't a reason. But that's irrelevant. CDB thinks that it is. That's CDB's reason for voting. So it's just wrong for you to say that CDB is scummy because he confirms a vote without a reason. He DID give a reason, it's just that you didn't agree with it. So you are misrepresenting CDB.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think you're scummy mainly because of the reasons for voting TSQ, it's your frequent change in attitude towards TSQ that ticks my scum radar.

Here's a summary w.r.t Wuffles/TSQ.

before point 6: you say TSQ made a stupid mistake

point 16: you say he's potentially scummy. Yes, you did say 'potential', but you also voted TSQ, which implies that you think he's scummy. Even if I buy your 'potential' thing, why did you vote for someone you don't think is scummy?

point 18: you're undecided aobut TSQ.

point 20-24: you think TSQ is scummy.

point 26: you don't TSQ is scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

This game is really getting interesting. I cant post much now, but I promise more later tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

No one posted while I was out? wow.
anyways, that PBPA revealed a lot of things I didnt notice up to this point about Wuffles. Thank you Spectrum. To me Wuffles is looking a lot more suspicious now that I see his questionable and at times hypocritical play throughout the game.

[Thestatusquo]

Elias. I've been looking over your other games. Do you ever post content?

[spectrumvoid]

I have to say rarely. I'd like to hear more from everyone too.