Mini 396: ChatMafia Mafia; GAME OVER

[Jack]

Vote:Draygn_mage

for saying he doesn't remember how to play this game.

[Jack]

Vote: Draygn_mage

for saying he doesn't remember how to play this game.

Ditto, and for randomnesses sake.

vote draygn_mage

Scummy post. You put the third vote on draygn_mage and use "for the randomnesses sake" part to distance yourself from the bandwagon.

Unvote, vote AngusHutchsky

Unvote, vote milkman

for lack of counting ability. That was the 2nd vote on draygn_mage. Also, you seem to be making a serious accusation when there isn't much to go on.

[Jack]

Vote: Draygn_mage

for saying he doesn't remember how to play this game.

Ditto, and for randomnesses sake.

vote draygn_mage

Scummy post. You put the third vote on draygn_mage and use "for the randomnesses sake" part to distance yourself from the bandwagon.

Unvote, vote AngusHutchsky

Unvote, vote milkman

for lack of counting ability. That was the 2nd vote on draygn_mage. Also, you seem to be making a serious accusation when there isn't much to go on.

nm,

unvote

re-read and see how that could be scummy. I think he's just misusing the word "random" though.

[Jack]

The only other thing I could do to convince you is roleclaim, which I am not quite prepared to do yet.

You pretty much just said you have a pro-town role though. I don't like it.

[Jack]

@Jack- well he's not likely to make a post saying he has an anti-town role, is he?

Well the only thing that would "convince" us is if he was doctor/detective what have you. So by saying he has a role that would convince us he is essentially claiming he is a doctor/detective/what have you (so we shouldn't lynch him) without actually saying what his role is and thereby not opening himself up for counterclaim.

Vote:AngusHutchsky

Your at 5 now with 7 to lynch. Make a real claim.

[Jack]

unvote

If he can confirm his role that's with a picture that's swell. I assume the mod will be posting the picture? I don't see how much use his role is, he doesn't have any more information than the rest of his so his picture would be no more than a guess.

Vote:Zindaras

I don't get his vote on HurriKaty and my vote was the lynch -2.

[Jack]

Ah, I see I was wrong about which vote was cast by HurriKaty. No matter, it's still in the dangerous bandwagon zone. As was yours, Jack. And I don't really like how you're making a ridiculous vote on me.

FoS: Jack

What was dangerous about it?

[Jack]

Yes, we do have time, but Tamuz has given me as much evidence as you can dream of on Day 1. I don't plan on moving my vote today.

Who?

[Jack]

Sorry, confused 2 T's. Twito will keep my vote all day.

Either you're townie and honestly are convinced he's guilty (somehow ) or your scum trying to get out of posting by making a strong claim and sticking with it.

It's ridiculous to be sure someone is scum on page 5.

Unvote, Vote:StallingChamp

It's too early in the day to drop out, stick around man

[Jack]

First of all, I am not positive that he is scum. I am about 80% sure, and that tends to be as high as you will ever see Day 1.

Secondly, I play alot by gut.

Thirdly, what do you mean by drop out?

You sounded like you were trying to confirm vote twito and then lurk the rest of the day.

I don't see how you can be 80% sure.

[Jack]

Unvote, Vote:Coron

For lurking.

[Jack]

We'll see. My thinking is that scum would lurk during the Angus thing knowing he was innocent.

[Jack]

We'll see. My thinking is that scum would lurk during the Angus thing knowing he was innocent.

So you single out Coron for this? There are other lurkers, you know.

Unvote, Vote: Jack

FoS: HurriKaty

Fairly sure we've got 2 scum there.

Huh? I can only vote for one person you know. I noticed Coron. Who were the other lurkers?

More importantly, why is voting for lurkers when the game is clearly dying down a bit scummy in the slightest? I'm tempted to move my vote back to you.

[Jack]

Huh? I can only vote for one person you know. I noticed Coron. Who were the other lurkers?

You're not unvoting him, even though he posted. Then it's not a lurker vote anymore. And there are enough people who haven't posted a lot of content throughout the day.

More importantly, why is voting for lurkers when the game is clearly dying down a bit scummy in the slightest? I'm tempted to move my vote back to you.

You're not voting lurkers if you still vote him after he makes a post explaining his disappearance.

He hasn't posted content:

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

[Jack]

Its also scummy to keep saying "I think so and so is scum because he did _______. and Scum do ________ as a delaying/misdirection tactic." Scum do EVERYTHING as a tactic

Irony?

You can't notice any irregularities if people don't post.

[Jack]

I see absolutely no reason to vote for Coron when he was lurking because of limitted access. With that logic, you could vote me for lurking, as I do at points when I cant think of anything to say, or for anyone else who had been lurking.

He said limited access till Monday and I voted him on Friday. Do you really disagree with pressure votes? Sure townies lurk, but people lurking is never a good thing.

[Jack]

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

I think you're wrong on this one. I know for myself that I don'd like being prodded or seen as not interested in the game, so I let every one know I'm keeping track of the game although I have no time or reason to post a long post.

I need a reread. I'll try to do it today...

Just because townies do it doesn't mean scum don't. And it doesn't matter if you vote townies for lurking.

[Jack]

He hasn't posted content:

I'll try to post something of actual content soon.

It's a mistake to let someone of the hook for an "I'll post something in a bit" post. Scum do that as a delaying tactic, I've seen it happen. You should know this. This makes me think you are scum. You've also echoed StallingChamp's "we've got scum here" even though it's only day one.

1) This is not an argument why you're not voting other lurkers.
2) Yes, I'm letting him off the hook, as long as the post he promised actually comes. That seems fairly obvious.

How about, oh I don't know, you can't vote more than one person at once? If you don't single someone out you aren't going to get taken seriously. It's easy for people to ignore "you 4 post more ok". I see no reason to concern myself with other people until then. Your number 2 is less safe than my way.

Getting lurkers posting isn't as important enough to warrant all this discussion.

[Jack]

How about, oh I don't know, you can't vote more than one person at once?

You can FoS more than one person at any given time, you can change your vote after someone has posted they will post more content (and that post was, for me, the reason to change my vote).

If you don't single someone out you aren't going to get taken seriously.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea?

Past experience. FoS's are weak.

Getting lurkers posting isn't as important enough to warrant all this discussion.

We're talking about how you're scum. That is important enough to warrant discussion.

Except we aren't discussing how I'm scum, we're discussing what the best way to deal with lurkers is. You haven't made any connection between "singled out one lurker" and "scum". Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?

[Jack]

Past experience. FoS's are weak.

Weaker than doing nothing at all, as you have done?

And you have done what?

As dragyn_mage said, it's an irregularity that you're singling out Coron, not anyone else. I don't like the way you don't unvote when he posts.

No, it would be an irregularity if I did everyone one round and then only one person the next round. He hasn't posted any content yet.

[Jack]

It's irregular because you attack one person, but leave similar cases untouched.

This is not irregular, by the definition of the word. You're going to have to come up with a reason of your own rather than piggybacking off of draygn_mage's logic.

[Jack]

This is not irregular, by the definition of the word. You're going to have to come up with a reason of your own rather than piggybacking off of draygn_mage's logic.

It is irregular because you use different measures for different people.

Meh, I just liked the way dragyn worded it. It doesn't change the point, however.

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

[Jack]

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

It is not irregular behaviour for you, the irregularity lies in the fact that you treat two similar cases in dissimilar ways.

1) I haven't treated the similar cases at all...yet.

2) Why is that scummy?

[Jack]

Sure townies lurk, but people lurking is never a good thing.

I'm probably having a duh moment, but could you explain exactly what this means?

If townies lurk it widens the pool of possible mafia and makes a correct lynch or cop investigation less likely.

[Jack]

I agree with Zindaras' argument wholeheartedly, but I'm torn at the moment as to whether Jack's defense is scummy or idiotic. I find it difficult to believe that Jack can't understand the irregularity that has been pointed out (it seems blindingly obvious to me), so I see it as three possible things: Jack is scum and is desperately trying to cover his slip by being very literal in his defense; Jack is town and genuinely does not understand the accusation; Jack is town and doesn't want to be caught admitting he has made a mistake, for fear of the town interpreting it as scum giving up, and so defends his point beyond the realms of credibility.

I really can't make up my mind at the moment, so I'll

FoS: Jack

and keep my vote on StallingChamp for now.

What's wrong with being literal? He used the word irregular with a nod towards draygn_mage's logic, which clearly does not apply as he admitted. He wants to say that he thinks it's scummy that I'm not going after other lurkers but has yet to give a reason why and I want him to.

I think he's scum and I'm trying to pin him down on this one. His argument is contrived and I think I've revealed it as such. It's the same as before:

[quote="Zindaras]Ah, I see I was wrong about which vote was cast by HurriKaty. No matter, it's still in the dangerous bandwagon zone. As was yours, Jack. And I don't really like how you're making a ridiculous vote on me. FoS: Jack [/quote]

What was dangerous about it?

High danger (=chance) of being a bandwagon vote.

To recap before this point, Zindaras jumped on the Angus wagon while saying he was going to keep an eye on bandwagoners. Not only is that hypocritical, but voting for bandwagoners is an easy out for scum. He later FoS's me and votes HurriKaty for votes which are in the "dangerous bandwagon zone". I ask him what's dangerous and he says that by danger he means a high chance of being a bandwagon vote, which doesn't make sense if you look at the original wording. He didn't think out his vote because he's not really looking for scum.

Now look at the last page where he was accusing me. You see draygn_mage makse a post about irregularities and gives examples which involve a player changing his behavior. Since my vote for Coron is only one action it can't possible involve me changing my behavior from one manner to another, that would require two actions. Zindaras however says:

Anyway, what I'm accusing Jack of is a perfect example of an irregularity.

...

As dragyn_mage said, it's an irregularity

Which he quickly retracts in this post:

t is irregular because you use different measures for different people.

Meh, I just liked the way dragyn worded it. It doesn't change the point, however.

He didn't really buy into draygn_mages reasoning and think it applied to me, he was just using it for support. The two of us took up an entire page and he still hasn't explained his reason for voting me. First he tried to use someone elses logic and now he's changed his reason to "he's voting coron but not other lurkers" but hasn't explained why that is scummy (or irregular but that's just semantics). It isn't btw, that's how I like to call out lurkers. If you call out three people they all know you just want them to delurk, if you call out one he may think you find him genuinely scummy and post something worthwile.

I was going to wait until Coron posted again but this post is too long not to

Unvote, Vote:Zindaras

[Jack]

I have said, multiple times, that I'm voting you because you're using different measures for comparable players, which insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between the players. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

Your whole irregularity argument consists of nothing but semantics, and you haven't explained how it's irregular to vote one lurker but leave the rest untouched. You haven't explained why it would put more pressure on anyone to vote one lurker and leave the rest alone than to vote one lurker and FoS the rest.

That's regular behavior for me, therefore not irregular. But you've finally explained your reason, thanks. I'll counter with your own logic: you are voting me but not anyone else, this insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between me and the others. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

In my experience, it puts more pressure. In my first newbie game I called out one of the scum for lurking but dropped it to go after someone else, he kept lurking and only dropped in to put the lynch vote on me.

[Jack]

EBWOP: The word you are looking for is "discriminate" Zindaras.

Also,

Unvote, Vote:Coron

because I'm getting a nasty "scum sit back and watch while townies accuse each other" feel from this game.

[Jack]

As far as I can piece together between naps while viewing the Jack vs Zindaras argument, the complaint is that...

1. A lurker (Coron) was voted and no FOSes were distributed amongst the other lurkers.

2. When the voted lurker made a contentless post (I'll come back and post content later), the voter should have unvoted and moved on to the next lurker.

3. The voter disagrees, claiming that he is waiting for a post with content before he moves on to the next lurker.

4. Somehow my post (scum use anything to stay alive and only irregularities in playstyle and reasoning are useful scumtells) is dragged into it and becomes the reason for the OMGUS vote.

Did I miss anything?

Nope

[Jack]

I'm honestly wondering if Twito is some sort of Jester to be acting as shitty and annoying as he is right now.

I think your scum who smells an easy twito lynch.


Well, maybe.

[Jack]

By the way...someone posted that they wanted to pick what I draw not let me pick myself, so go ahead and pick.

I don't see the point, as long as you say beforehand what you are going to draw and the mod posts it, not you.

[Jack]

I don't see the point, as long as you say beforehand what you are going to draw and the mod posts it, not you.

I'll tell you what the point is (The reason I want us to choose what he "draws"). He knows his role, we don't. If he decided, he can fit the "drawing" to the role and we can't know about it.

I suggest a group photo in the park with a pink sky. Why? Because it's weird enough to not be thought of beforehand.

So you think he could could be a scum artist? But that would mean he isn't a confirmed innocent at all.

[Jack]

ehhh, I don't know, what's the rush? I'm getting a bit of a scummy "let's end this already and lynch a lurker" feel from that post.

[Jack]

I find the development of the Angus wagon after I voted him extremely suspicious. Katy and Jack just pounced on it.

I voted Angus because of his little "I have a pro town power role but I'm not going to tell you what it is" hinting going on in one post that was very scummy.

[Jack]

I take that as you are back now. Cool that now you are here. Can we expect a post with content?

*stupid answer to stupid question*

No, I'm going to post as little content as possible just to piss you off.

*real answer*

Yes, when theres something that I have a good, not already spoken for opinion on to post about.

We don't mind you posting who's opinions you agree with.

[Jack]

Vote Coron instead. Scouts honor my ass.

[Jack]

Err, it's still "tomorrow".

Well, at least, for me it is.

It was two days, and he posted yesterday in "artifacts" in which you were also playing and posting. You attacked me for voting him and now you are outright defending him. What's up with that?

[Jack]

I think he'll get around to it.

*shrugs*

If he waits too long, yeah, he could get my vote.

scumdar

[Jack]

At this point, I'm not even sure if my opinion would change your mind, because you seem dead set on sticking to the fact that you want to lynch me when there are a million other discussions going on.

You want a contribution to the game? Alright, fine.

Vote: Zindaras

I don't get it. Why do you even play mafia? You obviously have time to show up and post, but you never say anything.

[Jack]

Unvote, Vote:HurriKaty

I'll unvote you when you post your opinions on everyone playing, even if you are just echoing others.

[Jack]

unvote

thanks

[Jack]

Ok, I actually by Katy's persecuted bit. I don't find her particularly scummy.

Twito will keep my vote all day.

I'm amazed, he actually hasn't posted since voting twito. You still think twito is scum?

[Jack]

Vote:Masterchief

Also want to here Anix's thoughts.

[Jack]

unvote, vote MC

That's all you're saying?

FoS: AngusHutchsky

That looks very much like a scumbuddy trying to throw MC under a bus. Tell us

why

you're voting for MC, even if it's pointing out another person's reasons.

Also, I'd like to hear from you on the other subjects of discussion recently.

Weird post, I'm pretty sure his reason is Deadline--let's lynch a lurker same as mine which you don't seem to comment on. He says he has a confirmable role, we'll find out tomorrow.

[Jack]

Why bother with FoS?

Vote:AngusHutchsky

[Jack]

I know none of you are going to believe this,

so I don't know why I am bothering, but I went out of town this weekend. No, there is now way for me to verify it, and yes, I know I could have sent in my picture earlier in the week.

Yes you're right, none of us are going to believe you. Especially since the night lasted 4 or 5 days.

[Jack]

We could give angus another day. But I don't see anything else.

[Jack]

I think the people pushing for an Angus lynch right now are scummier than Angus himself.

Uh, he is really scummy. The only reason not to vote him is that tomorrow could prove it without a doubt.

[Jack]

I think y's point about a painting not confirming his innocence is good. He should just be lynched. If we give him another chance we're just going to end up lynching him tomorrow.

[Jack]

"Don't lynch me, I might have stopped a kill! Somehow!"

[Jack]

Why did you point it out?

[Jack]

I don't think we're getting anywhere.

[Jack]

I think we should just lynch angus. We're just twiddling our thumbs here.

[Jack]

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

[Jack]

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

More proof that we should definitely be lynching Jack, with this great "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument.

No, you wouldn't be damned if you hadn't.

[Jack]

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

More proof that we should definitely be lynching Jack, with this great "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument.

No, you wouldn't be damned if you hadn't.

You're basically saying that I'm scum regardless of Angus's alignment.

Your comment is scummy regardless. It's like putting on the hammer vote, could be scummy whether the person is town or mafia, in different ways.

[Jack]

You're immediately saying it's scummy. Using logic, you could also simply state that I'm town who's defending someone he thinks is town, which is also independent of Angus's alignment.

I don't like your immediate interpretation of it being scummy.

I think it's scummy because I don't see any reason to doubt Angus's scumness. But I guess you and ChannelD feel different.

[Jack]

Well, there's only one scum other than angus, correct?

We'll have better odds tomorrow (assuming nightkill(s)) of lynching scum, and a possibility of cop finding scum. Today, I don't think we'll do much. Especially since deadline is in two days...

[Jack]

I think we should just lynch angus. We're just twiddling our thumbs here.

QFT

...

Vote:Jack

...for trying to rush an Angus lynch.

Hypocritical much?


I believe we went over coron as a lurker extensively. If someone is lurking an fos is not going to get them to delurk. You have to pretend serious suspicion of someone to get them to respond.

"protecting masterchief/stallingchamp" god that's weak. Who was voting for masterchief at that point? Why would I put my vote on one lurker which is bound to draw attention to other lurkers? Why don't you think Zindaras was protecting Coron?

[Jack]

Well, there's only one scum other than angus, correct?

Actually, no. Not for sure, at least. Most of us don't know how many mafiosos there are and can't be sure AH is 100% scum.

Do you know something we don't?

FoS Jack.

Zindaras was claiming there would be a stronger counter wagon if Angus was scum, I was saying that there would only be one other scum if angus was scum (3 is standard).

Add to that the fact that I feel that many of the players who are voting him are scummy and the fact that I feel that if Angus really was scum

there'd be a stronger counter-wagon/counter-argument,

I really do feel that there are enough reasons to believe that Angus is, in fact, town.

Oh the irony!

[Jack]

ok more detail.

WARNING: This post is quite long.

Post by Post Analysis: Jack

(spontaneous decision)

Yeah right.

Post 14: votes dragyn_mage for saying he didn't remember how to play the game. Which isn't what he said.

page 1

Post 69: You expect him to say that he's NOT pro-town? WTF?

Post 79: Translation: IF YOU DON'T CLAIM A POWER ROLE YOU WILL DIE!

I was wrong on this. I was thinking it's an easy scum claim to say you have a power role but not say what it is. Some roles it's best not to claim though, don't think Angus's is one of them mind you.

Post 125: Votes Coron for lurking despite StallingChamp being a very appropriate place for his vote. I don't get it.

I get impatient.

Post 128: So now you're sure that Angus is innocent?

Was conditional. If he was innocent they would lurk.

Post 130: "I can only vote for one person!!!!! ...who were the other lurkers?" Asks why voting for lurkers when the game is dying down is scummy. Answer: because prods are better and StallingChamp is scummy.

I've always voted instead of asking for prods.

Post 140: And if you do single someone out, you're ignoring someone potentially just as scummy.

Temporarily.

Post 142: "Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?" Because you feel he's more likely scum than StallingChamp, for example - you are voting for someone who

might

post something scummy ahead of someone who has. It's also that you're singling him out.

You get a lurker to post somethig and then you move on. There's plenty of time.

I also think your definition of irregular is wrong but don't want to get into another discussion about it.

Post 237: Tells Y off for suggesting that we lynch a lurker. Cough cough.

I never said anything about lynching coron.

Post 278: I do feel you are making too much out of Coron not posting 'tomorrow' as he had said he would. This is the kind of thing I do all the time, and I can't be scum in every game. Zindy's following post is good...

Isn't this a prime example of "irregular" behavior even though it isn't irregular for you? In fact you saying this while disagreeing with my defense is "irregular". Gosh, you must be scum.

Post 280: ...making this a bit silly. I really do think that half the reason you're attacking Zindy is that he doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you.

Possible :p

Post 354: Angus case...

Post 378: Itching to lynch Angus.

Post 381: "The only reason not to vote [Angus] is that tomorrow could prove it without a doubt."

...EXACTLY.

Post 390: Claims we'd lynch Angus tomorrow if we let him live today, which obviously would not be the case if he's telling the truth.

Post 400: Brings up a point against Angus that I came across doing this PBPA. Angus forgetting to send in a picture choice might have been coupled with forgetting to send in a kill choice. However, that would require a lurky mafia partner, unless he was in a two-person group, which is not

impossible

...

Post 403: "Why did you point it out?" Because you in particular are trying to get him lynched quickly and he's trying to survive. That's as pro-town as it is pro-scum.

Post 407: "I don't think we're getting anywhere". Translation: "LYNCHLYNCHLYNCHANGUS"

Post 411: Same.

Post 424: As I said a few posts ago, I disagree with this.

Post 429: And this.

Post 431: And this.

Post 435: "I don't see any reason to doubt his scumminess". Please look back at your own Post 381 in which you do.

Post 437: Jumps to conclusions about number of scum, and reiterates his LYNCHLYNCHLYNCH viewpoint.

HYPOCRITE as alreayd pointed out. Also, I've never been particularly patient.

Now, at the end of all that, I'm going to

vote: Jack

, principally for his singling out of Coron as a lurker, especially when StallingChamp deserved pressure, and for trying to rush an Angus lynch. And, indeed, for all the little things I posted above.

Hopefully I've addressed them.

[Jack]

unvote

because I want to reread on ChannelDelibird. His "I'm sure angus is guilty I'm sure angus is guilty I'm sure oh-wait-alternative-lynch-GIANT-POST-TIME" thing is suspicious.

[Jack]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

[Jack]

You pushed for Angus lynch. I pushed for Angus lynch. You have unexplained second thoughts. I don't. Why is that scummy?

Most of my games are on another site where the mods don't prod.

Lurking isn't scummy, it's neutral.


I find it hard to believe that people doubt Angus is scum.

[Jack]

If you think lurking is neutral as opposed to scummy, why did you vote for somebody for lurking?

You haven't answered my question. Don't you see why I might have become cautious about stringing up Angus like we were about to?

You know, Angus could actually be telling the truth. If he can confirm himself tonight that's good for the town, if he doesn't he's dead scum. That's a win-win for the town. We're not in LyLo.

So they stop lurking.

I think "I can't believe people don't think he's not scum" answers the question.

See above.

[Jack]

I believe he's scum. How many times do you want me to say it?

How did you go from thinking he was scum yesterday, to being convinced he was scum today, to this?

[Jack]

Why bother with FoS?

Vote:AngusHutchsky
...
We could give angus another day. But I don't see anything else.
...
Uh, he is really scummy. The only reason not to vote him is that tomorrow could prove it without a doubt.
...
I think y's point about a painting not confirming his innocence is good. He should just be lynched. If we give him another chance we're just going to end up lynching him tomorrow.
...
"Don't lynch me, I might have stopped a kill! Somehow!"
...
I don't think we're getting anywhere.
...
I think we should just lynch angus. We're just twiddling our thumbs here.

I'd forgotten about da Vinci completely. FoS: AngusHutchsky
...
I would be voting Angus right now but I'd rather we had a few pages of discussion before we lynch him - which we certainly should do.
...
I totally agree with Y, and it's also worth mentioning that I don't believe anyone would be given a role whose sole purpose is to confirm their innocence. There's gotta be more to it (which wouldn't make sense given the nature of the claimed role).

vote: AngusHutchsky
...
If I had a cup of coffee in my hand right now I'd be spitting it over the screen.

Accidentally blocked the kill?

That's both reaching and said from the perspective of a mafiate.

Alright, it's not huge, but that reads absolutely terribly.
...
QFT. I can't see there being a better lynch.

So far we are in complete agreement it seems. Now, here's the interesting post:

@ Jack - I disagree with your anti-Zindaras feeling. He seems pretty town to me in general and t

he defense of Angus that you've taken offense to is sensible.

I do have to admit that there is a slight nagging feeling in the back of my mind that we shouldn't be so hasty in lynching Angus, and Zindy's caution is valid.

In fact, I'm going to unvote. I'm not comfortable with Angus at -1 right now, although given some more time I might go back.

Now, if you read Zindaras's post 423

it doesn't actually defend Angus

. He expresses doubts over the angus wagon, same as he did before. The first time he expressed these doubts (

without

voting) delibird's next post was a vote for Angus. This time Z posts doubts and votes for me. Now all of a sudden Zindaras has a sensible point? Somehow this prompts him to to a pbpa. He claims this was spontaneous which is a really odd claim. It's like he wants to assure us it has nothing to do with Z's vote for me.

He ends up voting me for:

principally for his singling out of Coron as a lurker, especially when StallingChamp deserved pressure, and for trying to rush an Angus lynch. And, indeed, for all the little things I posted above.

Now, the principal reason he previously gave an fos and a weak fos for. The little things he says my answer has satisfied him. "trying to rush the Angus lynch" is the same thing he did if you read his comments. So what I want to know is, how did he go from "Angus is lying and scum" to thinking I'm a better lynch? It's not clear at all, however he attempts to cover it up. He doesn't give any reason for suspecting Angus less than previously. To me, this has all the markings of scum trying to take pressure off his partner. In his last post he says he thinks it was rash, but that it wasn't scummy that he was rash. Then he says I'm rash and therefore scum. It really doesn't follow.

[Jack]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

I see that you're still using crap logic. It'd be a 1-2 mislynch if I'd actually support the Anguslynch, which I don't.

You said if angus is lynched and town then I should be lynched. That would be a 1-2 mislynch, even if you only support the "2".

[Jack]

Somehow this prompts him to to a pbpa. He claims this was spontaneous which is a really odd claim. It's like he wants to assure us it has nothing to do with Z's vote for me.

I do not claim that it has nothing to do with Zindy's vote for you. Quite the contrary, I mention that the fact that you are an alternative is part of my reasoning for looking at you. Here is the post:

That would be bandwagon then. Which was my point.

If you look at any game that I have played in the past, you'll see that a PBPA is, if not a first, a second-time-ever thing for me to do. In that way it was spontaneous (i.e. I don't think we should by lynching Angus today -> Who should we lynch instead? -> Jack seems to be really pushing the Angus wagon, and he is already suspected by another player enough for a vote -> Oh! I could do a PBPA as I am bored, have the time, and could usefully see if it's worth my while voting for him.)

That's not spontaneous in the slightest. Nice backtracking.

In his last post he says he thinks it was rash, but that it wasn't scummy that he was rash. Then he says I'm rash and therefore scum. It really doesn't follow.

How and when have I said that being rash wasn't scummy? The entire point I've been making is that the Angus wagon is scummy.

You said you were rash but were innocent, and your argument is that I was rash therefore guilty. I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning there.

Now, if you read Zindaras's post 423 it doesn't actually defend Angus.

You interpreted it as such, in the very next post.

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

My post is irrelevant. You aren't answering the charge against you. If I said there was a defense, and you said the defense was sensible, you must have read such a defense and agreed with it. But if there was no defense for you to read (whether I said there was or not), then you didn't really agree with anything. What part of zindies post was a defense of angus that you thought was sensible?

[Jack]

I'm saying you should be lynched regardless of whatever Angus's alignment is. I'm simply adding it as another argument.

I think your reasoning and logic is poor, but I also think masterchief-angus-delibird are the scum so I'm going to drop it.

[Jack]

My post is irrelevant. You aren't answering the charge against you. If I said there was a defense, and you said the defense was sensible, you must have read such a defense and agreed with it. But if there was no defense for you to read (whether I said there was or not), then you didn't really agree with anything. What part of zindies post was a defense of angus that you thought was sensible?

Your post is entirely relevant - because it shows that if you are voting me for backing up a defense that wasn't there, then you are a hypocrite for attacking said defense.

You called it a defense, I put it in your terms.

I don't have time right now to respond to the entirety of your post (it's getting late and I am going to bed) but my general feeling upon reading it through was "that's bollocks".

That's a seperate issue to the one that was raised. You agreed with a defense that

wasn't there

. I called it a defense of angus in the way that "the best defense is a good offense", but that can't be the kind of defense you were referring to (ie it's not an explanation of why angus wasn't scum). Your evasion on this is noted.

Agreeing with someone without looking at their post closely is exactly what scum do when contriving an argument.

[Jack]

Jack, I think you should claim.

Why didn't you answer my last post?

[Jack]

2. I'm leaning towards Jack being scum (if we deside, as it appears, not to lynch AH today). I realy don't like the "We know exactly how many mafiosos there are in a game that's suposed to be weird and not conventional and we can rely on that" thing.

This game is supposed to be weird and not conventional?

I would say that the lack of kill last night indicates only one killing party. I don't see their being 2 or 4 scum in a 12 player game. This isn't a wild out of nowhere guess.

[Jack]

Jack, one disclaimer, if you come up town, I will indeed be looking heavily at the people you suspected, and also a bit at a couple of others.

Thanks.

I'd like to request that we do any further discussion at lynch -2 not lynch -1. If angus is scum he knows he's toast tomorrow and will probably hammer.

[Jack]

Jack, I think you should claim.

Also, why are you so eager? Half the people on my wagon haven't even commented since I started defending myself.

@Zindaras: Yes I know. Y mentioned putting me at -1 which would be a bad idea.

[Jack]

That's a seperate issue to the one that was raised. You agreed with a defense that wasn't there. I called it a defense of angus in the way that "the best defense is a good offense", but that can't be the kind of defense you were referring to (ie it's not an explanation of why angus wasn't scum). Your evasion on this is noted.

Agreeing with someone without looking at their post closely is exactly what scum do when contriving an argument.

Translation: "O SNAP, I called it a defense too? Um...I meant it in a different way! Honest! But I, uh... knew what you were thinking and you didn't! YEAH! "

Come on.

Unfortunately for you, everyone else can read.

[Jack]

Really? You've backtracked and evaded my questions and are instead pushing for claim. I've answered all of your arguments. What makes you think I'm more likely to be scum than angus?

Vote:AngusHutchsky

[Jack]

We have 2 days to deadline right? I'd like the other people to comment before full claiming.

I'll name claim now though: I am "

A Jar of Dirt

"

[Jack]

I still don't get it though. Angus is the most likely to be scum lynch I've ever seen outside of a cop investigation, way better than most lynches, I don't see why you're unwilling to lynch him. Most lynches are done with far worse evidence.

[Jack]

The

entire

basis of the lynch is that the lack of a picture in the morning. I've seen more experienced and active members miss night choices before. It's not the nailed-on scumlynch you're making it out to be.

You said you thought he was scum multiple times earlier. Now you keep trying to play it off like pushing for his lynch is scummy. This is ridiculous.

I name-claimed last post if you missed it.

[Jack]

It's from PotC. I don't see how it could possibly be a scum role.

[Jack]

Ooooh,

that

jar of dirt.

The jar of dirt in Pirates of the Caribbean never made its allegiance clear. A jar of dirt can be used for evil just as easily as it can be used for good.

You admit it isn't inherently evil then? Do you still honestly think I'm more likely to be scum than angus?

[Jack]

Yeah, it's the 2nd one.

[Jack]

I see.

Anyway, I fail to see how there's a case for jar of dart being inherently evil OR good. I don't think you can expect us to say "oh, that's definitely a town role" just by looking at the name.

So you want to lynch me for having a role name that

isn't

inherently evil? As opposed to Angus who claimed a ridiculous painter role that won't confirm his innocence even if the painting does show up, who "forgot" to pm the mod even though he was here during the night phase and tried to convince us that he was the reason there was no kill?

Is Hypnotoad inherently evil?

[Jack]

Why don't you want to discuss the reasons you mentioned prior?

[Jack]

Mod, can we have an extension?

[Jack]

'tis bogus.

I'm the doctor, protected draygn mage last night. I assume that's why there was no kill.

[Jack]

I sprinkle myself on people to protect them from the Kraken.

[Jack]

There often isn't a text when the doctor saves actually. Confirming innocents would make the doctor role more powerful.

I don't see how " jar of dirt" means doctor either, it makes more sense as a roleblocker given the movie (in the movie Jack wants to put davy jone's heart in the jar of dirt so he can control him and get him to call off the kraken). But whatever.

[Jack]

Choosing the law isn't part of my role, i.e. doctor. I was chosen for it so to speak, just like Zindaras vis a vis the riddle thing (I would assume).

[quote=Coron]FoS: Jack[/quote]

What are your parameters? I've explained the law making thing. Q.E.D


Lack of killing groups is very odd. Also, I guess I didn't save anybody last night

[Jack]

Be that as it may, I believe we can lose nothing by asking him to reveal the players he protected.

Let me put it this way, I agree with you in terms of this information, ergo I shall verily reveal what you ask i.e. the names of those I protected: draygn_mage night 1 and milkman night 2.

After no kill night one I assumed there was no kill because of my protection. I don't believe that's the case this round, the odds are to great. I also wonder why there was no riddle/law last round.

[Jack]

Let me put it this way
Be that as it may
Far be it from me
In terms of
Concordantly

I have to wonder what the point of having a doctor is if there aren't any night kills.

[Jack]

Vote:Zindaras

I don't know why he keeps claiming I've been confirmed when I haven't. Also Z, are you really voting for

Twito

for being wagony on me?


As it were
Verily
Qua
So to speak
ergo

[Jack]

Let's lynch either Zindaras or C-d.

Verily
As it were
Q.E.D.
so to speak
You're so linear

[Jack]

given the deadline rules

Unvote,Vote:ChannelDelibird

He seems way to anxious to make sure milkman has the most votes.

Verily
As it were
Q.E.D.
so to speak
You're so linear