Yay first random vote!
I'm the only curious one here.
In post 18, evilpacman18 wrote:In post 16, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I don't believe in obvious when it comes to mafia. Any question is a good question. You never know how someone will answer.
Then why did you single him out over anyone else who made a presumably "random" vote?
In post 24, evilpacman18 wrote:In post 19, Lapsa wrote:@evilpacman18 is that you playing piano?
Yeah!
In post 20, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 18, evilpacman18 wrote:In post 16, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I don't believe in obvious when it comes to mafia. Any question is a good question. You never know how someone will answer.
Then why did you single him out over anyone else who made a presumably "random" vote?
Because I thought it might not be random.
what of his post made it seem to you like it could be not "random." I can pick out at least two votes so far that seem like more thought went into them than his.
In post 128, curiouskarmadog wrote:also....
In post 116, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Being defensive and emotional is indicative of scum,
is utter fucking bullshit.
I play emotional..I play hot. I am telling you I do this now...most likely I am going to get fucking super pissed in the game and get angry and emotional (thus my title) am I scum?
MM, are you telling me you have never seen town get emotional or defensive?
In post 134, curiouskarmadog wrote:In post 131, MonkeyMan576 wrote:In post 128, curiouskarmadog wrote:also....
In post 116, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Being defensive and emotional is indicative of scum,
is utter fucking bullshit.
I play emotional..I play hot. I am telling you I do this now...most likely I am going to get fucking super pissed in the game and get angry and emotional (thus my title) am I scum?
MM, are you telling me you have never seen town get emotional or defensive?
I said it is indicative, I didn't say it is a 100% indicator. More often than not, scum get emotional and defensive when wagoned more than town do.
have you ever seen scum support a vote based on "X is emotional and defensive"...(for your reference, I love to meta).
In post 135, curiouskarmadog wrote:better question...or question 2.
as scum, have you ever based a vote on "X is emotional and defensive"
In post 110, KatieB wrote:I mean, he voted Lapsa for 'fluffposting more than Anen' and 'poorly justifying his vote on Anen' which happened before Anen had even posted, and was pretty clearly a RVS vote. Even if Lapsa had done any of the things Luca was talking about, none of them would be alignment indicative.
He's scumreading me for calling Lapsa probtown, but dollars to doughnuts if I hadn't clarified that my feelings are as strong as p5 allows, he'd be scumreading me for having feelings too strong for day 1.
He's scumreading me for not hopping to answer him (which is not indicative of scum), scumreading me for a misunderstanding of my feelings on my suspects (even if his thoughts were accurate, this would not be indicative of scum), for 'not making any sense' (which is not indicative of scum), and for being dismissive of his reasons for scumreading me (which he hasn't yet presented.)
Pretty obviously scum looking for a day1 mislynch that involves a lot of words but not reasons. As soon as everyone has posted, I'd be glad to turbolynch him.
p-edit: but not having any reasons for scumreading me totally doesn't make his vote OMGUS. Totally.
In post 144, KatieB wrote:In post 142, MonkeyMan576 wrote:You have a lot of opinions about how people react to you specifically, but you don't seem interested in finding scum outside of Katie discussion.
What?
In post 153, MonkeyMan576 wrote:You guys are taking my statement out of context. But I acknowledge some players play emotional and defensive as town. Katie's wagon has still brought a lot more day 1 information than is typical so I like my vote where it is for now.
Lapsa wrote:In post 183, Lapsa wrote:@George:
In post 182, MonkeyMan576 wrote:
That's not my entire case at all.
There's also the fact that Katie's wagon has generated discussion and brought about useful information the town can use later in the game.
how exactly is that a part of your case on Katie?
Not so much part of the case so much as why my vote is there I suppose. You want to know what has produced the most pro-town discussion at this point and you can look at Luca and my vote.
In post 182, MonkeyMan576 wrote:
I'm not convinced Katie is scum at this point, but the wagon is pro-town to me. Therefore my vote stays at this point.
Lapsa wrote:
Luca alone is voting for Katie
how broad is wagon you are talking about?
In post 111, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Katie seems to be very defensive and emotional regarding this wagon. This is indicative of scum.
Unvote:
Vote: Katie
I agree Luca's vote was not OMGUS. He clearly pointed out his reasoning. OMGUS is a defensive responce vote without any clear reasoning other than wanting to divert your own wagon.
In post 182, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I'm not convinced Katie is scum at this point, but the wagon is pro-town to me. Therefore my vote stays at this point.
Aeronaut wrote:
That's not my entire case at all. There's also the fact that Katie's wagon has generated discussion and brought about useful information the town can use later in the game.
I'm not convinced Katie is scum at this point, but the wagon is pro-town to me. Therefore my vote stays at this point.
In post 245, droog wrote:In post 116, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Being defensive and emotional is indicative of scum, because scum are more worried about their own survival because there are fewer of them than town. Town worry about scum hunting over survival.
Also, saying someone is probtown this early in the game sounds like someone trying to whiteknight their scum partner.
cereal box facts are more accurate.
hinting scum motive without saying it straight
or pompous mafia theories that mean nothing
are scummy
so youre scummy
In post 287, Lapsa wrote:In post 285, MonkeyMan576 wrote:No one is saying how I'm not explaining myself well. I think I am being very reasonable.
Hint: is neither tiger nor cheetah
In post 394, llll wrote:In post 379, Luca Blight wrote:In post 370, llll wrote:In post 364, Lapsa wrote:In post 360, MonkeyMan576 wrote:If you are interested in voting with me you would vote Katie. She's suddenly absent now that no one is talking about her.
Wow that is impressive.
Impressively scummy, imo.Vote: monkeyman
Why is that scummy?
He's looking for a reason, no matter how see-through to vote for the competing wagon. Obviously trying to distract people from himself.
.
In post 472, Aneninen wrote:In post 467, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Scum lie all the time, just because they claim to not know the vote count doesn't mean they don't know it.
I wouldn't be that sure about that. They might not care if none of them are wagoned, for example.
It seems that you're back to producing theoretical posts... why ?
curiouskarma wrote:give me an example post (dont say every post) where you think Katie is being defensive (and clearly scummy).
Katie wrote:
I mean, he voted Lapsa for 'fluffposting more than Anen' and 'poorly justifying his vote on Anen' which happened before Anen had even posted, and was pretty clearly a RVS vote. Even if Lapsa had done any of the things Luca was talking about, none of them would be alignment indicative.
He's scumreading me for calling Lapsa probtown, but dollars to doughnuts if I hadn't clarified that my feelings are as strong as p5 allows, he'd be scumreading me for having feelings too strong for day 1.
He's scumreading me for not hopping to answer him (which is not indicative of scum), scumreading me for a misunderstanding of my feelings on my suspects (even if his thoughts were accurate, this would not be indicative of scum), for 'not making any sense' (which is not indicative of scum), and for being dismissive of his reasons for scumreading me (which he hasn't yet presented.)
Pretty obviously scum looking for a day1 mislynch that involves a lot of words but not reasons. As soon as everyone has posted, I'd be glad to turbolynch him.
p-edit: but not having any reasons for scumreading me totally doesn't make his vote OMGUS. Totally.