Open 45 - Baby Too Much Scum - Game Over! before 506

[curiouskarmadog]

will check it out with interest.

[edion0]

I pretty much argue in every game I am in...it gets the town talking, that might be why I have never survived to see endgame as town, but it gives the town something to reread later while searching for scum, so I feel like I am doing my part, dead or alive...I would like to point out that since Jennar and I have halted our discussion...this game slowed.

edion, any comment to my question?

um...what question was that? went back and looked and couldn't find where you asked anything really (not counting jennar stuff of course), though i may just be having one of my dense moments...

[bird1111]

he ckd and Jennar argument in depth:

when a random stage fails to provide any other information or conversation, it is over, this looks like a lame excuse "to place a vote for no damn reason"...are you still in the random stage? or was this a serious vote?

Why would the random stage be over if there is no info? The point of it is to get info, so it is not over until there is enough info for disscussion (this is why I said starting to exit when I unvoted, we had some disscussion but did not have quite enough to be truely out of the random stage).

My stands on KarmaDog.

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off. Without a Night phase to off townies in you [n]need[/i] the day lynch to win.

-J

Why would this be a mafia tell more than a town tell, as town also relies on lynching to win?

from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch.

Wait, are you saying that townies should not vote? How do you suppose the day will end?

Guess I forgot the /sarcasm after that.

-Geoff

How was that statement scarcastic?

You are right Karma, from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch. I at least have something to base my suspicions of a lynch on. Others can choose to believe me or not, thats their choice.

-J

You are right Karma, from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch. I at least have something to base my suspicions of a lynch on. Others can choose to believe me or not, thats their choice.

-J

please quit avoiding my questions..arent you voting for me for the same reason I am voting for menme? If not, please explain why your vote if different.

This was accurate as far as I can tell.

You are right Karma, from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch. I at least have something to base my suspicions of a lynch on. Others can choose to believe me or not, thats their choice.

-J

You are right Karma, from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch. I at least have something to base my suspicions of a lynch on. Others can choose to believe me or not, thats their choice.

-J

please quit avoiding my questions..arent you voting for me for the same reason I am voting for menme? If not, please explain why your vote if different.

Its not dodging a question. See it more too bust laughing at you to bother. You voted for Mneme for jumping on some about the random voting but supplied no reason other then his were bad. You come out looking like scum eager for a kill. Townies won't be too worried on day one about a lynch or not. The only night kill we have to fear is the SK.

You are far to eager for a lynch to be town.

-J

Once again, how was he eager for a lynch? Also, expain what you mean by "Townies won't be too worried on day one about a lynch or not."

Its not dodging a question. See it more too bust laughing at you to bother. You voted for Mneme for jumping on some about the random voting but supplied no reason other then his were bad. You come out looking like scum eager for a kill. Townies won't be too worried on day one about a lynch or not. The only night kill we have to fear is the SK.

You are far to eager for a lynch to be town.

-J

so maybe you just skimming through this game but let me put up my reasoning up again so you see it.

this looks like a lame excuse "to place a vote for no damn reason"...are you still in the random stage? or was this a serious vote?

now lets look at what you said

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off.

-J

seems like we are saying the same thing…however, you go a step further and say I come out look like I want a quick kill…why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent me? You fail to mention the fact that I removed my vote from someone that had 2 votes and placed it on someone who didn’t have any votes on them. “eager for a lynch”?..hardly. I removed my vote and placed a vote on mneme to get conversation started (and because I felt her play was strange) Also I note that you have not said anything about flyinghawk, who placed a second vote on mneme. That didn’t look scummy or eager for a quick lynch?…interesting.

unvote
vote Jennar

For poorly misrepresenting me, avoiding questions, and being a hypocrite.

In general, I agree with this, though I do not see hypocracy as a scumtell.

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off.

-J

seems like we are saying the same thing…however, you go a step further and say I come out look like I want a quick kill…why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent me?

I'm not. You gave an out of left field reasoning for your vote. You have nothing to go on a vote for Mneme on other then she went after someone who called the random stage to be useless. then you later say that you did it to spark up some activity. Which is it? You seem to be doing alot of backpeddleing now.

Quote:

You fail to mention the fact that I removed my vote from someone that had 2 votes and placed it on someone who didn’t have any votes on them. “eager for a lynch”?..hardly.


You moved your vote from someone who had nothing suspicious wise going for them to someone with a more abstract vote. It would be easier to draw attention to Mneme for the way she posted then your previous target that had nothing said about them for a page. You are fishing for a bandwagon.

Quote:

I removed my vote and placed a vote on mneme to get conversation started (and because I felt her play was strange) Also I note that you have not said anything about flyinghawk, who placed a second vote on mneme. That didn’t look scummy or eager for a quick lynch?…interesting.



It does but your attitude is more suspicious. Here you are trying to divert attention away from you. If you are town you need to put down the shovel as you look more and more like scum each passing second. Why are you so defensive?

Quote:

unvote
vote Jennar

For poorly misrepresenting me, avoiding questions, and being a hypocrite.

Jennar, how do you feel about flyinghawk? How am I eager for a lynch when I removed my vote off someone who had 2 votes to someone who had none?


Flyinghawk gave more reasons and logic for his change in vote then you did. Where his vote makes sense based upon what Mneme said yours does not. If Mneme is suspicious for voting for someone just to vote for someone then you are more suspicious for voting for someone cus they voted.

Both Flyinghawk and ckd only gave one reason; and both make sense compared to what mneme said (though Flyinghawk slightly more so). Also, you have not given sufficent evidence that ckd was voting just to vote.

My reasoning for voting for you is backed by logic instead of flimsy conjecture. You voted for someone with little reason and got called on it. You suddenly spring to the offensive against me because I did. You attempt to divert attention to Flyinghawk to try and get out of heat. And go so far as to vote for me in an attempt to turn it around.

I have not seen sufficent logic from you so far, and ckd's vote for you was justified. I do not see ckd's pointing out Flyinghawk as attempt to distract you, his point is in some ways valid, the main problem with it is that I have not seen any true mirroring from Flyinghawk, his reason for voting mneme was different enough from ckd's and he hasn't had any other non random vote.

And if Flyinghawk is so scummy from throwing down with a second vote then why did you vote for me instead of him? If he is as scummy as you claim then what makes me that much worse?

This was accurate when this was posted.

You gave an out of left field reasoning for your vote. You have nothing to go on a vote for Mneme on other then she went after someone who called the random stage to be useless. then you later say that you did it to spark up some activity. Which is it? You seem to be doing alot of backpeddleing now.

Who is backpedaling now? You yourself said you thought mneme looked suspicious, why is it ok for you to say that mneme is suspicious but it is not ok for me. There was little reasoning, because (wake up) we are on page 5. Everyone has little reasoning. Do I want to lynch her based on that? No. Did I even call her scum? No. Did I place a vote, and ask questions to get conversation started, yes. Did it? You be the judge.

When did Jennar say mneme looked suspicious?

You moved your vote from someone who had nothing suspicious wise going for them to someone with a more abstract vote. It would be easier to draw attention to Mneme for the way she posted then your previous target that had nothing said about them for a page. You are fishing for a bandwagon.

Am I? What are you doing then?

How was ckd fishing for a bandwagon with his vote on mneme? How was Jennar fishing for a bandwagon?

It does but your attitude is more suspicious. Here you are trying to divert attention away from you. If you are town you need to put down the shovel as you look more and more like scum each passing second. Why are you so defensive?

(laughing). Oh, the “why are you so defensive” maneuver. I call you out for your hypocritical vote, I aggressively attack the obvious flaws in your case, and ask you questions…then you label that has “defensive”. I think you have mistaken offensive as defensive.

cdk has a point here.

Flyinghawk gave more reasons and logic for his change in vote then you did. Where his vote makes sense based upon what Mneme said yours does not. If Mneme is suspicious for voting for someone just to vote for someone then you are more suspicious for voting for someone cus they voted.

OK, now we are getting to the meat and potatoes. “Flyinghawk gave more reasons and logic for his change in vote then you did.”

My stated reason:

this looks like a lame excuse "to place a vote for no damn reason"...are you still in the random stage? or was this a serious vote?

flyinghawk’s reason:

Why did you vote Bird but not Ckillo, who did the same exact option right above Bird's post? This seems very very odd to me.

Vote:Mneme

He provided more logic? How?

And your stated reason for leaving your random vote on me was “backed by logic instead of flimsy conjecture.”

You are right Karma, from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch. I at least have something to base my suspicions of a lynch on. Others can choose to believe me or not, thats their choice.

-J

Again more logic? Does anyone else see what I am seeing here?

My reasoning for voting for you is backed by logic instead of flimsy conjecture. You voted for someone with little reason and got called on it. You suddenly spring to the offensive against me because I did. You attempt to divert attention to Flyinghawk to try and get out of heat. And go so far as to vote for me in an attempt to turn it around.

So you honestly are saying this is not flimsy conjecture? Honestly?
If I am suspicious for my vote, you should be just as suspicious. You don’t see the logic circle of crap on your end?


You didn’t call me out on anything, there was little reason for my vote…we were at page 5, there is little reason for every vote on the board. I find you scummy, because you are trying to push a crap logic case and you are having problems admitting when you are wrong.

And if Flyinghawk is so scummy from throwing down with a second vote then why did you vote for me instead of him? If he is as scummy as you claim then what makes me that much worse?

A reason beyond "I'm voting for you cus you voted for me." would be nice. That is all you can seem to come up with though.

-J

AGAIN you misrepresent me, I never gave my opinion on flyinghawk. Please quote where I claimed flyinghawk was scummy. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I thought it was interesting that you thought I was scummy but he wasn’t. Please show me where he provided more logic for a vote.

Also please explain this to me.. Given your “logic” you don’t see flyinghawk’s play as eager for a quick lynch.

SO let me get this straight. I remove my vote from someone who has two votes on them to someone who has none, because of a mneme’s odd play. In the process I ask her questions to get conversation started.

Flyinghawk, place a second vote on someone and doesn’t ask any questions to get conversation going

This is evidence to you, that I am more eager for a lynch?? Quit dodging the questions, do you feel flyinghawk is scummy? What are your thoughts on mneme, now?

ckd has a point here.

bold is me.

(laughing). Oh, the “why are you so defensive” maneuver. I call you out for your hypocritical vote, I aggressively attack the obvious flaws in your case, and ask you questions…then you label that has “defensive”. I think you have mistaken offensive as defensive.

And yet you still fail to address the main points of my comments. You fail to point out anything having to do with you trying to redirect to flyinghawk. In fact you deliberately avoid the comment.

I didnt avoid any comment, I was simply pointing out that it appears you are buddying up with flyinghawk. In my view (and I am sure other's) flyhawk's actions (which I will get to later) were very scummy, yet

you

seemed to overlook this. I dont know how to state this any other way.

You never accused them of buddying

this looks like a lame excuse "to place a vote for no damn reason"...are you still in the random stage? or was this a serious vote?

Hey look comments out of context. Lets look at what Mneme said.

Jesus, this is why I think you are simply not understanding my posts. I dont know if it is deliberate or not. This was not out of context. Please go back and reread my post, I posted my reason for the vote on mneme besides flyinghawk's reason to prove a point (a comparsion). You say I am scummy because I didnt provide much reason for my (page 5) vote, however, you seem to over look the fact that neither did flyinghawk. You seem to be defending flyhawk's post by saying he provided more logic and content...but he actually did not...THAT was my point you seem to be missing...repeatedly.

You never really proved that you had more logic (much less better)

joost: Play your own game.

Personally? I'm happy to punish people who treat the random stage as a joke.

unvote
vote: bird1111

Unvoting your random just because the game seems to be stalling seems to be some wierd mutation of "unvote for no damn reason".

Morover, the entire attidude -- that there's some hard and fast stage between "random" and "exiting the random stage" when random votes are discounted is both artificial and seems to miss the point of random voting in the first place.

Now you voted for him because you felt it was a lame excuse but then go to ask him if he is still in the random stage or if it is a serious vote. He gave reasoning for his vote against Bird and you wonder if he is just random voting? You are fishing for excuses to go after people. You have now jumped to me because I presented myself as a target.

interesting, how exactly did you present yourself as a "target"..usually people who are "targets" have done something scummy, yet you say you havent done anything, I am confused. I have already explained, that there was little reason (I felt the play was strange) behind the vote..it was called pressure...I was called starting conversation..Mneme had one vote on her and you declare that I want to lynch her...can you see how you might be over reacting? Also you avoided another question, you yourself thought mneme was acting scummy, how come it is ok for you to say she is acting scummy, but not for me?..please answer the question this time. [/qyite]

ckd has a point.

flyinghawk’s reason:

Why did you vote Bird but not Ckillo, who did the same exact option right above Bird's post? This seems very very odd to me.

Vote:Mneme

He provided more logic? How?

He gave reasoning for his vote. From what I see he finds the reasoning behind Mneme's vote to be odd.

YOU ARE NOT READING MY POSTS...I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT I FELT MNEME'S PLAY WAS STRANGE, how was this different?

You have never really said this.

See this is providing logic as to why he felt it was odd. You don't even go that far. In your typical fashion for the last few pages you don't actually answer points made against you but instead just redirect and sk more questions.

I have answered every "question" you have asked, you have not.

Neither have you.

SO let me get this straight. I remove my vote from someone who has two votes on them to someone who has none, because of a mneme’s odd play. In the process I ask her questions to get conversation started.

You asked questions of Mneme that could be answered if you actually read the post. And as I stated before no one was following the votes on your previous target. you went after someone new to try shift attention to them. And it worked with flyinghawk doing the same. You are very gun-ho for a lynch.

My previous target? You are insane. My previous target was a random vote to get conversation started. You are again misrepresenting me. Do you even know who my "previous target" was? This is why I do not think you are even reading this game. because if you were, you would not make ridiculous statements likes this. Every point you have is either crap logic, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. I encourage everyone to check out my "previous target" ON PAGE 1. Joost, post 15 (for your reference).

With the exception of the third to last sentance, I agree with the post.

This is evidence to you, that I am more eager for a lynch?? Quit dodging the questions, do you feel flyinghawk is scummy? What are your thoughts on mneme, now?

He if you actually read my post instead of just picking out the parts you like then you might have actually caught the answer to this. I do feel flyinghawk was scummy but not as scummy covered as you.

This is a straight out lie. AGAIN, for those reading, this is a lie. the post before my post(80) was post 77, no where in that post does she say Flyhawk is scummy. This is a backtrack upon a lie. PLEASE show me in post 77 where you said anything close to "flyinghawk is scummy"? You actually do the opposite..you defend him. You say his vote made since and he was logical. Again lies and misrepresenting...

Jennar did not infact say that Flyinghawk is scummy in the post.

I dont lke flyinghawk's play. He seems to be mirroring everyone's vote and reasoning...and the fact you are lying for him, backtracking in regards to him, and defending him makes me feel he could be your scum buddy..

His only non-random vote was by no means a mirror vote.

Thoughts on posts outside of the argument sometime tommorow, as the argument itself took longer than expected.

[Jennar]

My stands on KarmaDog.

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off. Without a Night phase to off townies in you [n]need[/i] the day lynch to win.

-J

Why would this be a mafia tell more than a town tell, as town also relies on lynching to win?

The town has time on their side. If 10 days go by without a lynch the town is still in a strong position to win. Each day that goes by without a lynch or town death increases the towns chances of winning. The Mafia need a day lynch to change the status quo. These are the basics of strategy, probability, and understanding of how this game is played.

from now on everyone voting is scum looking for a daytime lynch.

Wait, are you saying that townies should not vote? How do you suppose the day will end?

Guess I forgot the /sarcasm after that.

-Geoff

How was that statement scarcastic?

You can't be serious. How can a statement depicting that anyone who votes during the day being scum not be labeled with sarcasm. Thats like saying "If you post you are scum." If you can't see the sarcasm in that then seek help.

joost: Play your own game.

Personally? I'm happy to punish people who treat the random stage as a joke.

unvote
vote: bird1111

Unvoting your random just because the game seems to be stalling seems to be some wierd mutation of "unvote for no damn reason".

Morover, the entire attidude -- that there's some hard and fast stage between "random" and "exiting the random stage" when random votes are discounted is both artificial and seems to miss the point of random voting in the first place.

Now you voted for him because you felt it was a lame excuse but then go to ask him if he is still in the random stage or if it is a serious vote. He gave reasoning for his vote against Bird and you wonder if he is just random voting? You are fishing for excuses to go after people. You have now jumped to me because I presented myself as a target.

interesting, how exactly did you present yourself as a "target"..usually people who are "targets" have done something scummy, yet you say you havent done anything, I am confused. I have already explained, that there was little reason (I felt the play was strange) behind the vote..it was called pressure...I was called starting conversation..Mneme had one vote on her and you declare that I want to lynch her...can you see how you might be over reacting? Also you avoided another question, you yourself thought mneme was acting scummy, how come it is ok for you to say she is acting scummy, but not for me?..please answer the question this time.

ckd has a point.

Actually he doesn't but I understand since most people don't actually read what I post. I presented myself as a target by actually talking openly and arguing with CKD. The more you post, the more you type, the more there is to pick apart and turn against you. For example, look at Joost. Is it easier to build a case against Joost or me/CKd? Us by far, we have more to quote and twist and spin.

SO let me get this straight. I remove my vote from someone who has two votes on them to someone who has none, because of a mneme’s odd play. In the process I ask her questions to get conversation started.

You asked questions of Mneme that could be answered if you actually read the post. And as I stated before no one was following the votes on your previous target. you went after someone new to try shift attention to them. And it worked with flyinghawk doing the same. You are very gun-ho for a lynch.

My previous target? You are insane. My previous target was a random vote to get conversation started. You are again misrepresenting me. Do you even know who my "previous target" was? This is why I do not think you are even reading this game. because if you were, you would not make ridiculous statements likes this. Every point you have is either crap logic, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. I encourage everyone to check out my "previous target" ON PAGE 1. Joost, post 15 (for your reference).

With the exception of the third to last sentance, I agree with the post.

Lets make sure you understand something. Mafia don't random vote. Period. Every vote goes down with a strategy in mind. Even a dice vote has a reasoning behind it. Constantly claiming that you are 'voting to get conversation started' is a flat cop out. It is political damage control and an easy out for scum. Throwing two votes on Joost on page one to 'generate conversation" is flat crap. When it didn't take and no one followed pressure, Joost didn't blast out on defense, etc. he switched his vote to a new target with crap reasoning to apply more non-existant pressure. It is obvious that you are only reading the parts of this thread and posts that you like and ignoring the blatantly obvious.

This is evidence to you, that I am more eager for a lynch?? Quit dodging the questions, do you feel flyinghawk is scummy? What are your thoughts on mneme, now?

He if you actually read my post instead of just picking out the parts you like then you might have actually caught the answer to this. I do feel flyinghawk was scummy but not as scummy covered as you.

This is a straight out lie. AGAIN, for those reading, this is a lie. the post before my post(80) was post 77, no where in that post does she say Flyhawk is scummy. This is a backtrack upon a lie. PLEASE show me in post 77 where you said anything close to "flyinghawk is scummy"? You actually do the opposite..you defend him. You say his vote made since and he was logical. Again lies and misrepresenting...

Jennar did not infact say that Flyinghawk is scummy in the post.

This is flat proof that you are not reading my posts. I said earlier and quoted my post where I insinuated this that he is lying and digging my posts looking for anything to bring against me. CKD wants me to bust out a crayola and write it down in nice big letters for him to see without actually having to read. This way he could come out and say "you voted for me instead of him you are scummy for doing so!" He is baiting with a loaded question; even though I answered it you both still want to push on this.

Thoughts on posts outside of the argument sometime tommorow, as the argument itself took longer than expected.

Next time please break this down into several posts instead of one. It is annoying trying to figure out where your statements actually are.

-J

[Flyinghawk]

My stands on KarmaDog.

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off. Without a Night phase to off townies in you [n]need[/i] the day lynch to win.

-J

Why would this be a mafia tell more than a town tell, as town also relies on lynching to win?

The town has time on their side. If 10 days go by without a lynch the town is still in a strong position to win. Each day that goes by without a lynch or town death increases the towns chances of winning. The Mafia need a day lynch to change the status quo. These are the basics of strategy, probability, and understanding of how this game is played.


-J

At the same time, however, there is a SK. You are correct in the statement that the Mafia needs day lynches in order to win easily, but technically they could just let the SK do the dirty work for them.

Because the mafia have no NK, the only real difference between the town and the mafia is that the mafia know who their partner is. Keep this in mind.

[edion0]

alright, so i know that i haven't been the most talkative player this game, but i just wanted to let everyone know that i just got hired at a new job yesterday and will pretty much be going from sleep to class (9-1) then work (2- 9 or 10).

i'll try to be getting on every night to continue my regular play, but in case i don't and two or three days go by w/out my saying anything, i'm not lurking or avoiding q's.

[mneme]

Jennar, you appear to not understand how this game works.

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

Again, this is not a particularly unusual game in the day. The mafia and SK want to find a quick victim and get the town to help lynch them without revealing too much info; the smart townies want to form bandwagons and use them to find the mafia (and the SK, though that's harder).

And you? Seem to be looking for victims, rather than playing the game.

unvote
vote: Jennar

casting around "so and so is quick to lynch" for more or less no reason -is- being quick to lynch; too much of a push, too fast.

[Jennar]

Jennar, you appear to not understand how this game works.

The problem is that I understand this game all too well.

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

Again, this is not a particularly unusual game in the day. The mafia and SK want to find a quick victim and get the town to help lynch them without revealing too much info; the smart townies want to form bandwagons and use them to find the mafia (and the SK, though that's harder).

In essence a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so. It is an attack for the sake of an attack. By majority the Scum are more likely to jump on Town wagons in an effort to lynch them. Wagons rarely form against scum unless there is a flat out mistake from the Mafia. Since I think we can assume that none of the scum here are that stupid then the purpose and function is relatively defunct.

And you? Seem to be looking for victims, rather than playing the game.

unvote
vote: Jennar

casting around "so and so is quick to lynch" for more or less no reason -is- being quick to lynch; too much of a push, too fast.

I've only labeled one person in that manner so I don't see how you think I am tossing that around. This is the second play you have made that could be considered odd and I am inclined to side with CKD now that you are looking more and more like scum.

-J

[mneme]

Jennar, you appear to not understand how this game works.

The problem is that I understand this game all too well.

No, you don't. Punk.

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

In essence a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so.

Um, no.

A bandwagon is any sequence of people jumping on the same person.

By majority the Scum are more likely to jump on Town wagons in an effort to lynch them. Wagons rarely form against scum unless there is a flat out mistake from the Mafia.

And thus you show how much of a punk you are.

If the scum play this way, they will always lose against moderately competent town.

But if they -don't- play this way, they have a better chance of losing one or more of their number to an early bandwagon.

And if they try to jump on bandwagons on scum-mates without being willing to ride those bandwagons to a conclusion, again, they risk exposure.

This is why bandwagons are important; they are how the town gains info -- and thus how the town wins.

What, do you think the town is -asleep- while you and your scum-mates are off trying to get a townie lynched?

Punk.

[Jennar]

Jennar, you appear to not understand how this game works.

The problem is that I understand this game all too well.

No, you don't. Punk.

Your lack of maturity is astounding.

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

In essence a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so.

Um, no.

A bandwagon is any sequence of people jumping on the same person.

.....Did you even read what I wrote. You just stated what I said.

By majority the Scum are more likely to jump on Town wagons in an effort to lynch them. Wagons rarely form against scum unless there is a flat out mistake from the Mafia.

And thus you show how much of a punk you are.

If the scum play this way, they will always lose against moderately competent town.

But if they -don't- play this way, they have a better chance of losing one or more of their number to an early bandwagon.

And if they try to jump on bandwagons on scum-mates without being willing to ride those bandwagons to a conclusion, again, they risk exposure.

So we apply circular logic to every wagon? That you have to assume that scum jumped on a wagon against their teammate in order to avoid exposure? And hence each person on that wagon should be evaluated as scum? And if he didn't then what? You are walking into a logical trap.

[/quote]
This is why bandwagons are important; they are how the town gains info -- and thus how the town wins.

Wagons provide little information beyond a base voting history. They should used straws that tip scales into one realm or another not the basis of an argument. Any scum worth half his salt will pay his team mate not difference during day and portray himself as town in every way. You are too busy looking for correlations between individuals to try and draw conclusions which will only get you headway against scum idiots.

Punk.

Idiot.

Unvote
Vote: Mneme

-J

[curiouskarmadog]

whoa whoa...couple days of dead silence then we get to name calling?...

joost, ckillor, havent heard from you guys in awhile...comments?

[mneme]

ckd: sorry, got tired of Jennar playing with no respect for existing principle, or any, for that matter. His lack of reading comprehension astounds me, as well (any reason = no reason?).

But his contradictions (he actually both said "scum will avoid voting for partners" and "scum will attack partners just like everyone else"??) are actually a strong scumtell, so I'm pretty happy with my vote.

I'm pretty happy with gentle namecalling in this game; it leads to emotional reactions, which can reveal scumsigns.

[curiouskarmadog]

hey man, that is why I attacked jennar to adamantly before, many contradictions...but I got tired of everyone sitting in the shadows so I backed off to hear other's thoughts..

I also dont like how when you attacked him he tried to buddy up with me and put words in my mouth, I never said you were scum, I thought something you did was suspicious but I mostly wanted to get conversation started (but I have stated this several times)

just waiting for joost and ckillor now.

[mneme]

ckd: Somtimes, I find the game works better as a sequence of two player conversations -- you get some convo, then a bit more; eventually you've got enough to try to work with. I didn't find enough worth hanging onto in your earlier conversation, so I sat back and ate popcorn for a bit, but I'm happy to take my own turn in the ring when it comes to it.

OTOH, too many people talking at once can sometimes brew chaos and confusion -- preventing things from getting to the point where you can draw any real conclusion from the text.

But yeah; it's definately time for some others to pop in and talk.

[Flyinghawk]

Jennar, you appear to not understand how this game works.

The problem is that I understand this game all too well.

No, you don't. Punk.

Your lack of maturity is astounding.

In the big scheme of things, calling someone a punk doesn't show much inmaturity. Get over it.

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

In essence a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so.

Um, no.

A bandwagon is any sequence of people jumping on the same person.

.....Did you even read what I wrote. You just stated what I said.

This is what gets me the most. There is a BIG and MAJOR difference between what the two of you said. If someone does jump on a bandwagon with 'no rhyme or reason' then perhaps one could look at that as a small scumtell. But generally people jump on to bandwagons because they find something scummy about a person that a bunch of other people find scummy to.
Read more carefully, k.

By majority the Scum are more likely to jump on Town wagons in an effort to lynch them. Wagons rarely form against scum unless there is a flat out mistake from the Mafia.

And thus you show how much of a punk you are.

If the scum play this way, they will always lose against moderately competent town.

But if they -don't- play this way, they have a better chance of losing one or more of their number to an early bandwagon.

And if they try to jump on bandwagons on scum-mates without being willing to ride those bandwagons to a conclusion, again, they risk exposure.

So we apply circular logic to every wagon? That you have to assume that scum jumped on a wagon against their teammate in order to avoid exposure? And hence each person on that wagon should be evaluated as scum? And if he didn't then what? You are walking into a logical trap.

You need to evaluate everyone's reasoning for joining a bandwagon independently. A bandwagon vote can look both pro-town or scummy depending on the reasoning and the timing of the vote. Because of this, at points there can be contradicting logic, but that doesn't make the logic bad.

This is why bandwagons are important; they are how the town gains info -- and thus how the town wins.

Wagons provide little information beyond a base voting history. They should used straws that tip scales into one realm or another not the basis of an argument. Any scum worth half his salt will pay his team mate not difference during day and portray himself as town in every way. You are too busy looking for correlations between individuals to try and draw conclusions which will only get you headway against scum idiots.

I don't understand your first two sentences, but the rest of them I agree with. Saying that two people seem to be working together at a certain point is a far fetched scum tell at best. Good, or even decen, mafia will know well enough that they shouldn't be obviously working together.

Punk.

Idiot.

chill.

Unvote
Vote: Mneme

for now, i'm leaning to considering this an OMGUS vote.

-J

My comments are in bold. I dunno, maybe i'm just having a bad day, but this post of Jennar's really irked me. The not reading carefully is a big scum tell.

FOS: Jennar

I'll give him 1 chance to defend himself, then perhaps i'll vote for him.

[Jennar]

Without -bandwagons- during the day, the town is no better off with a long day than we would be with a short one.

In essence a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so.

Um, no.

A bandwagon is any sequence of people jumping on the same person.

.....Did you even read what I wrote. You just stated what I said.

This is what gets me the most. There is a BIG and MAJOR difference between what the two of you said. If someone does jump on a bandwagon with 'no rhyme or reason' then perhaps one could look at that as a small scumtell. But generally people jump on to bandwagons because they find something scummy about a person that a bunch of other people find scummy to.
Read more carefully, k.

If you have reasons and logic that has direction to it then you are not bandwagoning. Bandwagoning is jumping on just because the other kids are doing it. Hence why it is described as being without rhyme or reason. Just because it has been an accepted term of another definition here does not change what it actually means.

By majority the Scum are more likely to jump on Town wagons in an effort to lynch them. Wagons rarely form against scum unless there is a flat out mistake from the Mafia.

And thus you show how much of a punk you are.

If the scum play this way, they will always lose against moderately competent town.

But if they -don't- play this way, they have a better chance of losing one or more of their number to an early bandwagon.

And if they try to jump on bandwagons on scum-mates without being willing to ride those bandwagons to a conclusion, again, they risk exposure.

So we apply circular logic to every wagon? That you have to assume that scum jumped on a wagon against their teammate in order to avoid exposure? And hence each person on that wagon should be evaluated as scum? And if he didn't then what? You are walking into a logical trap.

You need to evaluate everyone's reasoning for joining a bandwagon independently. A bandwagon vote can look both pro-town or scummy depending on the reasoning and the timing of the vote. Because of this, at points there can be contradicting logic, but that doesn't make the logic bad.

Logic that contradicts it self is bad. When people don't post anything beyond a vote then you ability to deduce reasoning is practically nullified hence why bandwagons give little to no information.

This is why bandwagons are important; they are how the town gains info -- and thus how the town wins.

Wagons provide little information beyond a base voting history. They should used straws that tip scales into one realm or another not the basis of an argument. Any scum worth half his salt will pay his team mate not difference during day and portray himself as town in every way. You are too busy looking for correlations between individuals to try and draw conclusions which will only get you headway against scum idiots.

I don't understand your first two sentences, but the rest of them I agree with. Saying that two people seem to be working together at a certain point is a far fetched scum tell at best. Good, or even decen, mafia will know well enough that they shouldn't be obviously working together.

Wagon votes only provide voting history. You know where a person cast each vote at what point to influence the overall chain of events. They are not the basis for an argument as they are inherently weak. If someone votes #4 on a 5lynch wagon that is no more scummy then voting #3 on the wagon. All it really means is that person decided earlier to cast his vote. If you are rereading a thread or pondering clues it might take you longer to vote and hence put you farther down on the ladder. All in all wagons provide very little to ones case against a projected scum target. In fact wagons should only be used when weighing two similar subjects that quantify an equal amount of scum. They are the straw that tips the scales, not the means of measure.

My comments are in bold. I dunno, maybe i'm just having a bad day, but this post of Jennar's really irked me. The not reading carefully is a big scum tell.

FOS: Jennar

I'll give him 1 chance to defend himself, then perhaps i'll vote for him.

I will never understand the point of the FOS that is used so widely here.

I have answered your points.

-J

[curiouskarmadog]

mod, prod joost and ckillor

[bird1111]

Unvote

edion isn't the only person who might be worth voting more, I need to finnish looking at people in more detail before I vote again, will hopefully be able to do so before I return from Fall Break on Tuesday.

[joost]

I'm here. Sorry about not being around these last days. I've been having some technical difficulties.

I don't have much time to post anything of content now. I will do that later I promise. Right now I would just like to add that I think Jennar's quick change of vote without a real reason besides "idiot" is suspicious.

A lot of interesting stuff has been happening though...

[joost]

Ok, this is what I find interesting about stuff (I won't quote everything to keep things readable):

About Jennar

Apparently there are two ideas about what a bandwagon is, which is not bad, just make sure everyone else knows which definition you are using. Putting a vote on someone that is not the first can be bandwagoning or doing so without any reason can be bandwagoning. That's fine. But to say that

"a bandwagon is just people jumping on a single individual without much rhyme or reason for doing so."

and

"A bandwagon is any sequence of people jumping on the same person."

are the same statement is just not right. And for someone who keeps accusing people of not reading well enough it is an odd thing to say and it lowers your credibility.

I don't think posting often or posting a lot means you are presenting yourself as a target per se. CKD posted just as much as Jennar and the latter got attacked more because of his posts. Stating incorrect things or using bad logic or contradictions are what make you a target for the other players.

A few questions: Did you vote for Mneme because you think he's scum? And if so, is he more scummy than CKD? And if not, why did you vote for him?

About Bird111:

This is what I noticed in your post (#127):

When did Jennar say mneme looked suspicious?

The answer to that is in your own post:

My stands on KarmaDog.

You come and Mneme come off looking like scum who are edging for anything to vote on just to try and get a lynch off. Without a Night phase to off townies in you

need

the day lynch to win.

Did you forget about that? Or did you purposely ignore it? You actually quoted that bit a few times, it's pretty hard to miss.

And if Flyinghawk is so scummy from throwing down with a second vote then why did you vote for me instead of him? If he is as scummy as you claim then what makes me that much worse?

This was accurate when this was posted.

How is this accurate? These are are questions, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Also because later you say:

And if Flyinghawk is so scummy from throwing down with a second vote then why did you vote for me instead of him? If he is as scummy as you claim then what makes me that much worse?

A reason beyond "I'm voting for you cus you voted for me." would be nice. That is all you can seem to come up with though.

-J

AGAIN you misrepresent me, I never gave my opinion on flyinghawk. Please quote where I claimed flyinghawk was scummy. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I thought it was interesting that you thought I was scummy but he wasn’t. Please show me where he provided more logic for a vote.

Also please explain this to me.. Given your “logic” you don’t see flyinghawk’s play as eager for a quick lynch.

SO let me get this straight. I remove my vote from someone who has two votes on them to someone who has none, because of a mneme’s odd play. In the process I ask her questions to get conversation started.

Flyinghawk, place a second vote on someone and doesn’t ask any questions to get conversation going

This is evidence to you, that I am more eager for a lynch?? Quit dodging the questions, do you feel flyinghawk is scummy? What are your thoughts on mneme, now?

ckd has a point here.

So first you say Jennar was accurate with his questions and then you say CKD has a point when he says that Jennar is misrepresenting him and putting words in his mouth. Do you think that CKD did say that Flyinghawk was scummy?

I basically agree with the rest of Bird1111's post. And I would like an answer to these:

How was ckd fishing for a bandwagon with his vote on mneme? How was Jennar fishing for a bandwagon?"

and more questions for Bird: Do you think Jennar is suspicious? And would you put the hammer on him if you had the chance?

[Jennar]

I don't think posting often or posting a lot means you are presenting yourself as a target per se.

If you post little it gives other less information to twist and spin. You'll notice how CKD avoids answering questions directly and giving direct responses. He never states that he considers people scum only that they have 'odd' or suspicious plays. His ambiguity makes him hard to nail down and to me at least reeks of a scum tell.

A few questions: Did you vote for Mneme because you think he's scum? And if so, is he more scummy than CKD? And if not, why did you vote for him?

I voted Mneme simply because I have no desire to deal with his conformist ideals on how a game should be played only because of precedent and discourse that has been established on this forum.

I still think CKD is scummy but Mneme is causing conflict for the sake of causing conflict and town or no he benefits us none in doing so.

So Joost what are your thoughts on CKD and Mneme?

What do you think about CKD's constant excuse of voting being that he is "trying to generate conversation"?

-J

[Flyinghawk]

I voted Mneme simply because I have no desire to deal with his conformist ideals on how a game should be played only because of precedent and discourse that has been established on this forum.

That sentence is completely and utterly ridiculous. Your saying Mneme is playing LIKE the rules and conversation in previous mafiascum games are played. And that you think thats bad, bad enough that you don't want to play with him.



WHAT??



Perhaps you don't know the actual meanin of the words you used in that sentence, which i hope is the case. Regardless, that is a horrible reason to vote someone. I hope people understand this.

[curiouskarmadog]

I don't think posting often or posting a lot means you are presenting yourself as a target per se.

If you post little it gives other less information to twist and spin. You'll notice how CKD avoids answering questions directly and giving direct responses. He never states that he considers people scum only that they have 'odd' or suspicious plays. His ambiguity makes him hard to nail down and to me at least reeks of a scum tell.

A few questions: Did you vote for Mneme because you think he's scum? And if so, is he more scummy than CKD? And if not, why did you vote for him?

I voted Mneme simply because I have no desire to deal with his conformist ideals on how a game should be played only because of precedent and discourse that has been established on this forum.

I still think CKD is scummy but Mneme is causing conflict for the sake of causing conflict and town or no he benefits us none in doing so.

So Joost what are your thoughts on CKD and Mneme?

What do you think about CKD's constant excuse of voting being that he is "trying to generate conversation"?

-J

you continue to misrepresent and take things out of context, I said the mneme vote was mainly to general conversation, not your vote...you got my vote, because you are coming off scummy..what questions that have been directly to me have a avoided..please repost with the post number.

[curiouskarmadog]

while you are at it, please quote where I said YOUR vote was to generate conversation.

[joost]

If you post little it gives other less information to twist and spin. You'll notice how CKD avoids answering questions directly and giving direct responses. He never states that he considers people scum only that they have 'odd' or suspicious plays. His ambiguity makes him hard to nail down and to me at least reeks of a scum tell.

I think CKD thinks you are scum, at least his vote is on you. And he voted for Mneme because he felt Mneme voted for no good reason at all. I can understand that really.

I voted Mneme simply because I have no desire to deal with his conformist ideals on how a game should be played only because of precedent and discourse that has been established on this forum.

I still think CKD is scummy but Mneme is causing conflict for the sake of causing conflict and town or no he benefits us none in doing so.

I agree with what Flyinghawk said. Voting for someone because he plays like other people on this site, in other words, a well tested way of playing is strange at least. If you don't like the way this game is played, why are you here? I'm pretty convinced you are scum now and I have a feeling that the more you talk the more you will convince me I'm right.

vote: Jennar

So Joost what are your thoughts on CKD and Mneme?

What do you think about CKD's constant excuse of voting being that he is "trying to generate conversation"?

I think CKD only said he was trying to generate conversation to explain his vote on Mneme (well that and Mneme's odd play.) And I think that's a valid argument that early in the game. We were just exiting the random phase and something had to kick this game into gear. I think CKD defended himself well against you.

Mneme has showed some strange plays. I'm slightly suspicious of him because of his voting behaviour (He voted Edion0, Bird1, Edion0 again and Jennar) and his reasoning at the end of the voting phase. I liked his punk-play though, I think it worked and it did lead to emotional reactions.