desperado <- town
generic <- town
tso <- mafia
majiffy <- town
slandaar <- town
windblown <- town
marquis <- town
grimgroove <- mafia
garmr <- town
bigterp <- mafia
pieguyn <- town
telo <- town
I'm just glad you still like me considering if there's anyone to blame for that loss, it's me >_<//BigTerp wrote:Meh, I've tried to get that game out of my head. The way we lost still kind of hurts!! Happy to see you still like me though
you're not gonna get an answer, cause it wasn't a serious reads list :>In post 81, Grimgroove wrote:I want this explained by pieguyn himself.
But thank you for being serious.
I see traces of OMGUS in there, plus do you srsly have nothing else to say? 0.0In post 88, T S O wrote:Desp is Town.
Vote: Grimgroove
There's something off and robotic about his posts.
first you say Desp asked a terrible questionSlandaar wrote:Asking terrible question: Desperado
then you want me to answer it? if it's a terrible question what do you think answering it will accomplish? also, can you explain what "terrible" questions Desp asked and why they were "terrible"?Slandaar wrote:Pie answer the question please.
how can you be sure of that first sentence? the question could have been legitimate and I could be scum just dodging the question. = =In post 125, Slandaar wrote:IF they were not terrible you would have answered them by now. I mean that was your response using different wording.In post 97, pieguyn wrote: then you want me to answer it? if it's a terrible question what do you think answering it will accomplish? also, can you explain what "terrible" questions Desp asked and why they were "terrible"?
unvote vote: Slandaar
Or are you saying they were productive questions that would yield useful answers if so why did you not answer them?
I don't think it's weird at all how AK requests a 1v1 with someone she was townreading. it seems like she wanted to use a 1v1 to sort someone, just like I was using my past games and questioning to quickly sort GG/BigTerp. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with how Generic mentioned pretty much the same thing already..In post 130, Garmr wrote:@GG
My vote on the ice queen was a rvs. It only got serious when she suggested the one on one with someone she thought was town which is pretty odd. Also i'm not getting lost in the past game unlike Thus it's not hypocritical. Also tell me how my view on the past game is wrong.
this is weird for me, can you explain it? notably, this postGarmr wrote:@Slandaar I thought you had post restriction by the way you were acting silly was that just mucking around?
doesn't seem post restricted at all. 0.0In post 29, Slandaar wrote:Desp is down to business already.
no, I mean my list on page 2. and specifically, I wanna know your thoughts on how I used the listGarmr wrote:Isn't that the list from the last game probably just a joke I don't think it scummy or anything.
sorry for confusion = = what I meant was, she was arguing with him in order to sort him as town or not. iirc when she was originally arguing with him, she wasn't sure of her read on him vGarmr wrote:I still don't see the point of arguing with someone you think is town you can just use it to waste time. It's better to argue with your scum reads.
so she wasn't questioning someone she thought was town.In post 103, Amethyst Kitty wrote:Generic, I didn't have you as town until you responded to me. It wasn't exactly the response I wanted, but it's still a town-response though I do wish you would play around a little :/
for me it's weird how you bring up Marquis/Garmr/Telo and say they're doing the same thing you did. seems like possibly trying to redirect attention IMO...In post 119, Windblown wrote:The only votes on me previous to Kitty's were made in RVS. It's a fair point that I haven't posted much here in terms of content but neither have a few others (Marquis, Garmr, Telo) and they seem fairly confident that the lynch option is between me/Kitty/TSO/Grim - which I disagree with, I'm sure plenty of us are active enough to get 7 votes on anyone, even some people who don't have votes on them at the moment. Note that I'm not saying we should necessarily look at someone outside of us four, but that we can do it.
this seems like redirection again, mb cause this was right after a defense.Windblown wrote:Telo's vote on Generic is strange - you say you want reads formed quicker, and you vote Generic because you don't have a read on him, but does that mean you have a read on everyone else even though you haven't mentioned them? Not even sure what the reasoning bit of that post is directed towards.
if you knew it wasn't serious, then how come you wanted me to answer the question? 0.0In post 142, Slandaar wrote:Do you feel questioning joke posts is productive?
Note:I knew your post wasn't serious.In post 134, pieguyn wrote: probably the questions are proactive if you don't know the intent behind my list of doom. however, I didn't want to reveal my reasoning cause it was a reaction test and I wanted to get results first.
what do you think about the previous games discussion?Windblown wrote:Timing had something to do with it, as when I posted 99 I didn't have time to make a longer post and I knew I was going to come back in a couple of hours so I could actually reread the thread and then post something (because the first time I just got lost in the talk of previous games).
questioning a joke post that's proven to 100% be a joke is pointless, but if you don't know it's a joke IMO it's better to just ask and try to find out something. even something that looks like a joke at first can end up having some subconscious thing behind it 0.0In post 157, Slandaar wrote:The point of a joke post is it is a joke; there isn't anything worth pointing out in them because they are not actually relevant content wise.
Which is why questioning such posts is ... terrible.
the way I saw it, Desp was taking it seriously enough to ask what the hell I did and Generic figuring out the reasoning behind the post.Slandaar wrote:I don't see anyone taking your post seriously.
Do you?
I had a thought just like this when playing him before. in his case I don't think it's alignment indicativeWindblown wrote:Okay, so it's not my imagination when I see some of your posts just going with the flow.
Garmr wrote:Your case in 78 is pretty bad and pretty much saying because he speculated three scum he knows the set up is what your basically saying. Then when Slandaar replies 3 is the norm your next post focus's on discrediting him that's pretty bad in itself. But your making such a uproar about pieguy yet you pretty much vote TSO with out reasoning in the same freaking post.
accusing someone based on where his/her vote is seems like an excuse and not legitimate scumhunting. if that's the case, why haven't you voted me saying something like I'm asking Windblown questions but my vote's on Slandaar? I find my votes don't match up with who I'm pressuring, just cause I only get one vote and I wanna pressure multiple slots at once. also, Desp was questioning why I put 3 mafia too, what about him?Garmr wrote:1. the highlighted part. It's pretty obvious that Slandaar was right 3 is the norm even then you continued to try and discredit him you'd just end up wasting time and that's what was meant by it. Also the fact you want to justify your argument as in my eyes it was a hell of a reach. Also I took so long because I found the dispute in your iso.
Garmr wrote:Isn't that the list from the last game probably just a joke I don't think it scummy or anything. I just agreed with generic. I guess you can say it was sheep but i was already voted on her so it wasn't in that way. I still don't see the point of arguing with someone you think is town you can just use it to waste time. It's better to argue with your scum reads.
this one seems like fencesitting. I asked him to give an opinion on my using past games, and he gave the first sentence. There's not much of an opinion in there. Then the second quote doesn't have any actual stance in there about how I used my list.Garmr wrote:How you used your joke list well good I guess I don't know. It got a reaction out of some players I just figured it was to do with the past game straight away and since it was in the rvs stage I kinda shrugged.
he claims it's not a good idea to talk about past games but then he immediately goes and says it might be fine? this just seems like he's trying to appear neutral such that no one pressures him 0.0 note this was also after a point AK made about past games, so seems he might just be trying to blend in.Garmr wrote:I know that the past game most of been a epic one. But can we keep the past games to a minim later on in the day. Because If we build cases around that the people who weren't in it get a bit left out . But more importantly if this becomes a continuation of the past game and one or more of you are scum you can play that to your advantage and keep things focused on the past game. Through when we don't have many cases it's fine I guess.
cause at this point, I don't feel lynching you is the most optimal move. you're putting effort into your posts and making some points. I think it'll be more clear as the game goes whether you're town or scum, so I prefer to lynch Telo atm. however, I'd be open for lynching you if that's neededGarmr wrote:Hey pie just curious You made a case against me some of it recycled from obvious scum GG and some of it new. Why did you vote telo when you put so much effort into the case on me?
IMO it's not accurate to say someone is suspicious exclusively cause their vote doesn't match who they're pressuring at some point. a lot of the time my vote doesn't match the person I'm pressuring, just cause I wanna keep pressure on multiple slots.Garmr wrote:Basing a vote on someones vote seems like an excuse??? Can I ask pie WTF are you smoking cause I want some. Mafia is a game about reading peoples votes, their opinions on who's scum and examining wagons and using night interactions. You seem to leave out the bit about why I find this suspicious. Read back he only had like one sentence as a reason compared to a page long case he presented on you. You'd think he'd vote the player his trying to push for a lynch.
Garmr wrote:Well here's a more opinionated one. It's a fucking joke list in the rvs stage. I figured it was a joke list with something to do with the last game as soon as you posted it. I'm not slow like some. It has no relevance to me and pushing it on me isn't going to get information out me because I repeat it has no relevance to me. Also I told you before I don't see how it could be alignment indicative.
so if the joke list was out of context, then by this it would be bad, right? just wondering why you don't mention that when I ask about it earlier 0.0 instead you just mentioned it got some reactions out of people.Garmr wrote:It is a bad idea and no matter how many times I fucking explain it to you don't get it. I said it's ok if you fucking put it in CONTEXT which you weren't DOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
why does the fact he wasn't voting you at that time matter? I was sheeping based on his case on you, not his voteTelo wrote:But it sticks out pretty blatantly in post 194 when you say that you're voting me to sheep Generic when he isn't even voting me until 211. That's a blatantly opportunistic vote and it sets off warning bells.
but you said it was out of context 0.0 by the other post, wouldn't that make it wasting time and alignment indicative?Garmr wrote:Your list is none alignment indicative post from for you. Any response that gets a reaction are because they didn't catch onto your posts joke making it unintentionally a reaction test. Because it has to be misread to get a reaction you can point out that it is a joke post to nullify any responses on you. Also talking about that anyone that catches on to it from the start can fake a reaction. This is why it has nothing to do with me because I caught onto it
from the start.
what makes you think he wasn't suspecting TSO?Garmr wrote:Because it's the way he did it. To me it seemed like he thought it was a break through it felt like he was putting allot of emotion into it. Now if you have suspicions for someone you make a big fuss about it you usually vote them.
this is one of the things causing me to read him as pissed off town 0.0Garmr wrote:Now look at when he switched his vote from Telo to me he said "Difficult to comment on TSO argument so I won't. It's not really a argument anyway? 1. says it was was difficult to argue with so takes his vote off him. 2.Says its a argument then says it's not an argument whaaa?
no it's just following another person? afaik it doesn't necessarily have to be who they're voting. also, I was asking why it mattered where his vote was, not why it mattered that I was sheeping him 0.0Telo wrote:1. why does it matter that he claims sheeping in his vote on me? Because 1st of all sheeping is weak and way too easy and 2nd sheeping means that you are following someone else's vote yet the someone you claim to be following hadn't even voted me.
I thought Grim was suspecting TSO hereSlandaar wrote:The question shows hes not thinking, the logic is fine from Garmr absolutely fine, Grims vote looks to be in the wrong place. That is the point, that is it.
Was the TSO vote ever explained? (no it wasn't) town SHOULD look at things Garmr's way because that is the only sensible way to look at it.
Pie is scum.
so I wanted to know for sure why Garmr thought he wasn't. atm I saw him being scum and throwing blame around with incorrect logic as a very real possibility @_@In [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtdpic.php?p=5390823#p5390823]post 70[/url], Grimgroove wrote:TSO apparently not liking this approach and preferring "wait and see"-methods, given the three day deadline, rings DANGER - ROADWORKS AHEstillAD.
I wanted to continue the discussion with Slandaar so I could get a better read on him. but he died = =Marquis wrote:1) "shit" is fake shit
2) second line looks like easy towncred fishing
what the hell are you talking about. the only valid lynch options on D1 were Terp and AK, so there was no way I could even try to lynch you.Marquis wrote:VOTE: pie
his answers to all my questions were consistent. because of that it feels more likely he could have a town motivation behind his actionsGrimgroove wrote:What changed that?
I mean his intentions in his posts that I questioned. by "seeing his ideas" I mean I can understand the points he was trying to make. I disagree with the point about people's votes absolutely having to be somewhere and his read on you, but I can at least see a possible motivation for his ideasGrimgroove wrote:What? You see his ideas but disagree with them? What ideas? What do you mean by "seeing his ideas"?
no I just wanted to respond to his points so there'd be no confusion. the comment you quoted wasn't related to me responding to his points, it was my intention before Slandaar died.In post 385, Grimgroove wrote:Whut?In post 383, pieguyn wrote:I wanted to continue the discussion with Slandaar so I could get a better read on him. but he died = =
You didn't know he died when continuing the discussion with him?
Whut?
This makes zero sense.
Zero.
And your sudden shift with regards to Garmr makes equal sense (that being zero). I do not see where he's coming from, even with Slandaar dead, who was vouching for him.
this seems really weird for me = = night actions for me tend to be a lot of WIFOM, so the fact you're defending against this logic here seems really odd. instead of saying "anyone could have killed Slandaar" you try to specifically show it wasn't you. also, why do you find it unlikely that someone else blocked Garmr?In post 402, Grimgroove wrote:Your findings in this instance do indicate some logic, but there’s one mistake: I had no reason to kill Slandaar as scum, apart from the general impression that he looked town to everyone. I had worked hard to convince him near the end of Day 1, and if you r-read you’ll find that I managed to do so, or was at least getting there.
As far as your findings go, all I can say is: it was either someone else who blocked you, but I find that as unlikely as you do. My current line of thinking is a mafia strongman. I haven’t got anything to do with this.
uu...In post 436, Grimgroove wrote:Opportunistic vote detected.
I don't remember you ever saying this. can you link plzIn post 436, Grimgroove wrote:I did say anyone could have killed Slandaar. Literally even, I think. Anyone but me. Slandaar was a generally strong townread so was a good option to kill.
care to explain why?In post 436, Grimgroove wrote:And as far as your reasons go for voting me: they're tremendously poor.
oh great pls no more nightkill WIFOMMajiffy wrote:If everyone's townreading Desperado, why isn't he dead?In post 437, T S O wrote:you're 100% right on Desperado.
weren't you defending the usage of past games earlier to sort people? That's the definition of meta. Now it seems you think meta isn't a valid reason for pushing someone? 0.0Grimgroove wrote:A reason, but 1. meta, 2. comes with a waffle.
IMO arguments based just on votes aren't valid. it's one thing to say someone is voting someone who they're townreading, or if the vote is conducive to a lynch. but IMO just moving their votes with no explanation, or voting someone who's not necessarily the person they're talking to atm, is not a scumtell and I find myself doing that a lot when I wanna pressure multiple slots.Grimgroove wrote:Desperado did not post in between this vote and the earlier waffle. This is the summum of mechanical.
this seems subject to WIFOM. and it happened after she already challenged him. what other option does she have, vote herself? @_@Grimgroove wrote:BigTerp's VT claim pointed to BigTerp being town. Like I said at the time, BigTerp seeing his dire position, would at least try to out a powerclaim as scum. The fact he didn't actually made his VT claim really strong.
nice misrep, I never intended to defend AK. I pointed your logic out cause it was relevant to my case on you and I saw some similarity to your logic on me. in fact I would have preferred if AK had posted herself before I mentioned it so I could first see what she said herself, but I wasn't sure if I could post again until the deadline...In post 534, Grimgroove wrote:@pieguyn:
First question: What was your motivation for running to AK's defense like that?
your use of IMO false logic. also you calling me opportunistic is making me watch out a lot o.o the "ofc" was there to differentiate between you, my new read, and the two reads I still had from D1, given I was mostly focusing on you then.In post 534, Grimgroove wrote:I'd prefer to ask you this in real-time, since this would definitely give you away, but ok: give me your reasons why you would, "of course", be fine with lynching me. Bullet points preferable. No "buts" and "ifs".In post 497, pieguyn wrote:I'm still fine with lynching Marquis or Telo. ofc I'm definitely fine with lynching Grim
In post 534, Grimgroove wrote:This is entirely different. I never thought of using meta as a reason to push anyone. I defended meta as a good way of getting a personal feeling of people, getting a first, personal impression. But you can not, can NEVER, expect meta to be enough of a reason for other people to follow suit. And this expectation defines AK's case against me. A combination of some mysterious meta hanging in the air, and the coasting off a townread stemming from their Gladiation shenanigans.
And what is AK's meta reason? Have you seen it? No. It has still yet to be expressed by AK, as to what that reason exactly is. All you guys got was some mysterious reference of "her partner" having noticed "something" about my play. Ony to later withdraw from that position again. And then later return to it. If this isn't opportunistic scum-hopping ased on a convenient non-argument, I don't know what is.
I can already guess what the meta-argument is, but I'll give them the honour of emberassing themselves.
fair enoughIn post 534, Grimgroove wrote:I don't blame her for not voting herself. Hell, I was on BigTerp's wagon as well, for foolishly considering AK more of a conftown.
I blame her for considering BigTerp's VT-claim as an argument towards him being scum, which I find an impossible leap to make. That VT-claim made him more town, for reasons already explained, and AK's statement it didn't make him more town suunds more like someone intent to portray conviction rather than someone who genuinely reached a logical conclusion. In short: she was playing stupid. So she can say "oops" after it all happened more convincingly.
In post 454, Windblown wrote:That does not look like a scum read. Yes I see you also mentioned him in #331 but you didn't put down a clear read there, you gave two options of "Generic is mafia, or mafia is using his reads (to frame him??)" I don't follow this at all.
this was all the content and it all has to do with Telo. both of these posts were also when Telo had 2 votes on her (him, Generic)In post 484, Windblown wrote:@Telo: Regarding the part of #331 you mentioned (yes I missed that, whoops) - you are right in that it is now consistent with your scumreads although I do think your turnaround on Generic is just based on the fact that he finds you scummy so that in itself is a pretty faulty read. On another note the bussing thing with Marquis/Generic is getting a little ahead of yourself considering neither of them have flipped.
the first sentence in the second post seems like scumpainting and a weird assumption to makeyou are right in that it is now consistent with your scumreads although I do think your turnaround on Generic is just based on the fact that he finds you scummy so that in itself is a pretty faulty read.
I can't see a logical thought process behind this at all. she was speculating about the possibility that they were bussing. the problem I see here is that weren't you doing the same thing in the first sentence? afaik, you were speculating that it could be based on the fact that Generic was scumreading her. 0.0On another note the bussing thing with Marquis/Generic is getting a little ahead of yourself considering neither of them have flipped.
incorrect, Garmr said somewhere his character was from an entirely different series (drive I think), and Slandaar was a car 0.0In post 523, Majiffy wrote:Also it seems to me that all the characters are limited to the first movie only.
Discuss further.
In post 530, Grimgroove wrote:522 and 525 are dreadful.
But let me get to yesterday's business first.
the hell? his two posts up there are dreadful, but apparently he's town? I don't understand your thought here.In post 533, Grimgroove wrote:I've got a theory on Majiffy and his actions of today and long story short of it: I don't think he's scum. I'm actually failry certain he's town. But I don't want to divulge anything more for now.
you said the turnaround was based off Generic scumreading her, when she explained the real reason in 331Windblown wrote:What am I scumpainting and what's weird about the assumption? I read her posts when I made it and it seemed like she didn't give much of a reason, besides the whole 'I usually have a read on you and I don't this game' (I think that's how it went).
my point is, saying "getting ahead of yourself" implies her speculation is a bad thing. but weren't you speculating that the reason she scumread Generic was that Generic was scumreading her? since she explained her reason, you assuming that's what the real reason is is just that, speculation. you're accusing her for doing the same thing you did 0.0Windblown wrote:re: bussing, a bit confused what point you're trying to make here. I commented on the fact that she thought they were bussing by saying that I think stuff about bussing without any flip from either is just speculation.
because I wasn't sure at that time if I could get another post in before deadline and I wanted to post who I'd be fine with lynching just to be sure I could. your quotes about AK were relevant to my scumread on you so I included them. I never intended to defend AK, just explain my reads.In post 554, Grimgroove wrote:I's not a misrep. Never mind your intentions, you ran to AK's defense and I asked you why. This is not a misrep, everybody can see you did.
Why was it so important to get a reply to that before deadline? AK's wagon wasn't going anywhere. You could have easily let AK answer it for herself if that is what you truly wanted.
mb it's just playstyle but I'm conditioned to watch out whenever anyone puts up false logic, since it seems likely anyone using it could be scum trying to get a mislynch.In post 554, Grimgroove wrote:Why is false logic scummy? (Though I strongly disagree with my logic being false. My logic is close to the only element in this game that shows a sign of sanity.)
And if you don't want to be called opportunistic, here is some advice: don't BE opportunistic.
I mean I understand your points about AK. but I still want an answer for the other things I pointed out > <In post 554, Grimgroove wrote:
"fair enough"?
That's it?
What do you mean by "fair enough"? Do you know see why my points are not "false logic"? Does that mean you no longer scumread me? What is this "fair enough"?
In post 540, pieguyn wrote:In post 530, Grimgroove wrote:522 and 525 are dreadful.
But let me get to yesterday's business first.the hell? his two posts up there are dreadful, but apparently he's town? I don't understand your thought here.In post 533, Grimgroove wrote:I've got a theory on Majiffy and his actions of today and long story short of it: I don't think he's scum. I'm actually failry certain he's town. But I don't want to divulge anything more for now.
if it comes from scum more often than town, do you think that's the case here?In post 578, Desperado wrote:Liking AK for town. Pieguy's played a reactionary game that comes from scum more often than town in my experience.In post 576, Grimgroove wrote:While we wait, what are your reads on AK and pieguyn?
how come you didn't point out that AK didn't declare L-1? it was such a big thing when it was Desp, but now when AK does it you didn't point it out?Majiffy wrote:I don't make the setups, mate.
Flavor is Ja-Rule, with a picture of the movie The Cookout.
^ thisIn post 707, Marquis wrote:nomming game for best flavor. i laughed so much
yeah I was worried about that going into LyLo ;w;In post 728, T S O wrote:It was the whole associative thing with Grimgroove, I didnt really buy your arguments.
you must not know the storyIn post 735, T S O wrote:Also, that was a strong associative.
you stalkerIn post 750, Sakura Hana wrote:Oh hey, a pie completed scumgame on MS.