VOTE: The_Jester
I like the idea
Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.In post 18, The_Jester wrote:And what exactly do you like about it?
Hmm i think you got a point. If you choose a random person at the start you might end up with someone that isnt really active and the idea is ruined.In post 23, The_Jester wrote:Yeah but the game hasn't even started rolling yet. I could see that strat used when people run out of ideas/motivation and the game goes silent but it doesn't seem like a valid opening.In post 21, Manuel87 wrote:Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.In post 18, The_Jester wrote:And what exactly do you like about it?
Yes it is.In post 44, gerryoat wrote: is your avi log horizon? it's my fav anime lol
Can you explain why you think this can be scum?In post 80, eagerSnake wrote:This, however, can only be a few things:VictorDeAngelo wrote:My vote on eagerSnake is now a serious vote.
A lazy town
A scum
A town with an ulterior motive
In post 86, eagerSnake wrote:Why are you more concerned with me explaining why I think that could possibly be from coming scum, than him explaining why his vote on me is now serious?
I dont think there is a need to ask the same things twice.In post 75, gerryoat wrote:why is it a serious vote now? can you explain at least?
Can you show me where i pushed on eagerSnake?In post 89, RhazhBash wrote:Now my vote on Manuel is serious. He looks more like he's pushing on low hanging fruit than hunting scum. There's a lot indicative of the type of player Snake is in the thread, but not his alignment IMO.
I would say CCC.
I generally dont like when ppl say "there are 1-2 scum in this group of people" when the group they are talking about is exactly 50% of the players (self not included)In post 160, Grendel wrote: Do you like/dislike anything else in 102?
Yes but why bother to summarise what he posted when you dont tell us your thoughts on those posts but only your over all read on him?In post 256, eagerSnake wrote:I post my analysis of the player before the summary of their posts. This is obvious if you are reading the post. Some people do it different, where they link the post number and then put their thoughts on that post next to the number. I could do that, but that's not the way I did it that time.In post 254, Manuel87 wrote:While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game,
Ok i reread it and see that i took it the wrong way but i still think there was no need to post that summary without commenting on it.In post 301, eagerSnake wrote: I think you misunderstood my post. I actually didn't like the fact he wasn't pushing his RhazhBash!scum read. I wasn't the one analyzing him, Grendel was, I was agreeing with a point that Grendel had made, and gave the PbP as supporting evidence of that fact.
Gerry is Null but i have a slight townlean on him.In post 306, Grendel wrote:@ManuelSo what do you think of Gerry currently?
Do you think he is town?
Can you explain your townread on Square?In post 313, The_Jester wrote: Square's town ftm, as is Grendel.
So you read them scum for not liking their playstyle?In post 313, The_Jester wrote: Not a big fan of snake and CCC, mostly due to their playstyle.
This is the reason i am voting you.In post 313, The_Jester wrote: And I'm pretty sure there's scum between gerry, Manuel and Rhazh but they're all pretty lynchbaity.
So what exactly are you scumreading me for? Because thats exactly what i said in my last posts just with the addition of mentioning that square didnt comment on eagers other reads that were exactly the same but only on the one on rhazh.In post 315, The_Jester wrote:He's uncompromising, not afraid to form strong observations which are logical at the same time, he doesn't seem to care about his appearance and I agree with his reads.In post 314, Manuel87 wrote: Can you explain your townread on Square?No, I'm saying their playstyle doesn't help with reading them as town.In post 314, Manuel87 wrote: So you read them scum for not liking their playstyle?
Snake's readlists are useless cause- as Square's noticed- they don't lead to any conclusions. It's pure IIoA and I could easily see scum do it to fake being helpful.
I have opinions but i wanted to wait for your answer to my question before giving a readlist.In post 315, The_Jester wrote: CCC's coasting hard, doesn't have a strong opinion on anyone (just like you) and I don't agree with his reads.
I think we have a pretty different view on lynchbait if you are serious here.In post 315, The_Jester wrote:Exactly this:In post 314, Manuel87 wrote: What makes you think we are lynchbait?Easy targets.In post 314, Manuel87 wrote: All three players you mentioned here got scumread/scumleaned by some ppl in the last 3 pages.
Dont feel like explaining that further since i think you know and understand what i mean.In post 315, The_Jester wrote:What mislynch? Nobody's got more than 2 votes on them and it takes 6 to lynch. Besides, I haven't even voted yet.In post 314, Manuel87 wrote: You say there is scum among us three and already make an excuse for misslynching one of us by saying we are lynchbait.
2-3In post 315, The_Jester wrote: On a scale of 1-10, how much are you scared of getting lynched?
What are your scumreads and why?
From my point of view i did more scumhunting then at least 6 other players in the game at that point.In post 327, CCC wrote:Well, I'm not sure about the low hanging fruit part, but Manuel reallyIn post 319, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Good. Now take what you said there and reread Rhahz's reason for voting. Here I'll quote it for you.
I even added some helpful bold on the sentence that made me vote him.In post 89, RhazhBash wrote:Now my vote on Manuel is serious.He looks more like he's pushing on low hanging fruit than hunting scum.There's a lot indicative of the type of player Snake is in the thread, but not his alignment IMO.wasn'tdoing much scumhunting before that post.
I dont like hisIn post 343, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I didn't like how he said he didn't like square's but wouldn't lynch for it, but then his reasons sounded more like valid reasons to lynch. To put it another way, I didn't see him thinking the second two lines but then coming to the conclusion in the first line.In post 339, Huntress wrote:Why is that?In post 258, VictorDeAngelo wrote:Sorry, meant to have two parts to that post.I'm putting Manuel back into my "would lynch today" pile for this post.In post 254, Manuel87 wrote:I dont like how Square world playes but its not a reason to lynch him.
What i dont like about him right now is that he mentioned how eagers analysis on RhazhBash sucks.
While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game, i dont understand why he only refers to the RhazhBash analysis and not to the ones on Victor and Gerry.
It wasnt only because RVS was over. I was leaning town on Jester at that time.In post 439, House wrote: One thing I'd like to know, though... why did you feel it was necessary to unvote simply because rvs was over?
If he doesnt post how do you come to the conclusion he is scum?In post 555, eagerSnake wrote:How is voting someone who hasn't posted scummy? I wanted to kill them because they were lurking. Is that so bad? Usually it helps get some info out of them. Which it did.
How did you come to that conclusion?In post 557, eagerSnake wrote:I already came to the conclusion he was scum before he posted. Are you even reading the thread?In post 556, Manuel87 wrote:If he doesnt post how do you come to the conclusion he is scum?
Yeah sry you are right 266 was about you saying his townmeta is different and ignored the fact that he didnt explain his reads eitherIn post 558, eagerSnake wrote:That's not even what 266 was about..In post 556, Manuel87 wrote:So why did you feel the need to inform us about his scummy meta in 266?
I explained that it felt awkward that he only mentioned your summary on Rhazh but that doesnt mean i have to scumread him for that.In post 600, eagerSnake wrote:Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.In post 403, Grendel wrote:So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.
VOTE: Square World
no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him what good does pointing out one minor detail do in form of distancing?In post 603, Gamma Emerald wrote:Distancing/Buddying
And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"In post 604, eagerSnake wrote:I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.In post 601, House wrote:Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?And this is a classic WIFOM defense.In post 602, Manuel87 wrote:Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?
Where did i doubtcast you? I simply asked you a question about your read that you still refuse to answer.In post 608, eagerSnake wrote:There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?In post 606, Manuel87 wrote:And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"
Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious as i mentioned 2 times already so that argument is pretty bad at best.In post 616, eagerSnake wrote:Then, when called out on it, you take immediately to the WIFOM, almost as if you had already pre-planned to say "why would I do it as scum?"
Fact is your interaction with Square makes absolutely no sense, and leaves yourself open to change stances, and I would be very surprised if that's coming from town.
Partly correct but they also accumulate trust.In post 619, eagerSnake wrote:So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.In post 613, Manuel87 wrote:Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.In post 618, eagerSnake wrote: My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.
In post 623, eagerSnake wrote:"Good arguments?" I haven't seen any from you.. or him.. your sole argument for scumreading me throughout this game has been that my vote on Square was "very bad," which is basically calling me scum for scumhunting. Why not use the same logic for the other people who voted Square?In post 621, Manuel87 wrote:I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.
In post 316, Manuel87 wrote: Eager: His vote on square was very bad with an even worse argument about his meta were he didnt mention that square always playes that way.
After that it felt like he was scared of backing down and pushed it further with silly reasoning like in 279 where he mentions square using his meta as a defense when eager himself was the one bringing up his meta.
CCC voted him way earlier and explained it was to get him to talk so its very different from what you did.In post 623, eagerSnake wrote: CCC also voted Square, why aren't you scumreading him for it?
Gamma Emerald also voted Square, same question.
I am having a discussion with one of my scumreads. So why wouldnt i reply to you if i got time?In post 622, eagerSnake wrote:Also, I notice that Manuel seems to re-actively post only when someone mentions him, instead of pro-actively posting. Nearly 1/3 of his posts in this game are on this page, after I pointed out his association with Square. I'd say at least 2/3 of his posts if not more are similarly reactive.
So here is how it went:In post 627, eagerSnake wrote: How is my reasoning not the same as CCC's?
If you like meta reads so much check mine and you will see i always play passively and when i have an argument with someone i post more.In post 631, eagerSnake wrote:Also, you are so quick to reply when mentioned that it seems that you are actively watching the game without posting unless it benefits you to post. That's called active lurking.
You are missing the main problem that is you still pushing on him after you found out he plays the way he always does and dont care about his alignment.In post 632, eagerSnake wrote:Can you explain to me again why my vote on Square was so bad that it makes me scum? He literally refused to explain his reads, so I voted him.
And what case would that be exactly?In post 646, CCC wrote:...okay, having had a look at Manuel and eagerSnake's interactions over the last page or so, I think that eagerSnake's case against Manuel is better than the case I had against Gamma. Therefore:
VOTE: Manuel87
In post 648, eagerSnake wrote:Now you're misrepping me. When did I say I don't care about his alignment?
In post 279, eagerSnake wrote: People who deliberately play in a way that is scummy hurts the town should be lynched for it, repeatedly, until they stop.
I have answered all of those you should read the last few pages again i think.In post 723, CCC wrote: In summary: Your interaction with Square World looks a little scummy. Your eagerness to leap to your own defense, compared with your low scumhunting activity throughout the game, suggest that you're not really all that interested in doing any actual scumhunting yourself, beyon the minimum to look Townish.
It's not by any means definitive, but it's the best case I've yet seen this game.
So you think throwing them around like candy makes your case look better without presenting any valid arguments right?In post 683, eagerSnake wrote:If the word fits, use it. There's a reason these words have become collectively known and used. There's a reason we use acronyms like "WIFOM" "AtE." There's a reason we use words like "distancing" "buddying" "shadecasting" "doubtcasting" "lurking." Because they've been proven to come from scum more often than town.
Now, if you can explain why the words don't fit the accusations, I'd like to hear that. If not, then you can stop doubtcasting my case by randomly throwing out the "buzzword" buzzword.
I would also like to hear your read on Huntress also add Victor to that.In post 725, CCC wrote: I find it surprising that Gamma is so high in your list, and that Huntress is so low. Could I ask you to explain your reads on them a little further?
3 questions i asked you that are perfectly reasonable as your accusastions dont make sens but instead of answering those questions because you cant you call them wifom so it looks like you responded to them while in reality you dodged them while reading me scum for them.In post 782, eagerSnake wrote: 1.He absolutely wasusing a WIFOM defense.
"Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?" "no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him" "Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?"
Thats not shadecasting its a fact. Unlike you i wouldnt lynch someone for their playstyle so what "shade" did i cast on square?In post 782, eagerSnake wrote: 2.He absolutely wasshadecasting Square.
"As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum."
If you know an answer why not present it? Any question you cant answer is wifom because you know the answer you would give will only disprove your silly accusations.In post 782, eagerSnake wrote: 3.He absolutely wasdoubtcasting me.
"And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"" (because I didn't answer the WIFOM question)
In post 609, Manuel87 wrote:Where did i doubtcast you? I simply asked you a question about your read that you still refuse to answer.In post 608, eagerSnake wrote:There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?In post 606, Manuel87 wrote:And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"
Even if there are plenty (i disagree with that statement btw) you should have had one in mind when you used the argument which on is it?
Also let me rephrase it a little. Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?
So this finnaly is his brilliant reason i did "cast shade" on my supposed scumbuddy. That probably can be said about every argument ever made by somebody.In post 610, eagerSnake wrote:So you could say exactly this?In post 609, Manuel87 wrote:Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?
In post 782, eagerSnake wrote: 4.He absolutely wasfence-sitting Square.
"Null: Square: As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum. His argument against Eager was good but as i said before it was awkward that he only referred to the Rhazh analysis." "I dont like his playstyle but i dont think thats a reason to lynch someone."
In post 611, eagerSnake wrote:And yes, it could also be buddying. If you're scum and square's town, then it makes sense for you to keep yourself open to lynching him later (via shade-cast and fence-sitting), while at the same time chainsaw-defending him (buddying).
In post 613, Manuel87 wrote:At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.
Instead of arguing about what i said or answering my question he just repeted the exact same thing he said before that i already had proven wrong.In post 615, eagerSnake wrote:If Square's town: You would cast-shade on Square if he's town because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to. You would chainsaw-defend him to buddy him because if you don't have to be a part of lynching him you could say "I was defending him."
If Square's scum: You would also cast-shade on Square if he's your buddy because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to for town-credit. You would chainsaw-defend him to keep him from being lynched.
You call it Wifom because you cant answer those questions. Your accusations were all wrong and you couldnt explain any of them thats why you call the questions on your reasoning wifom.In post 782, eagerSnake wrote: Now if you can argue that he wasn't doing those things, I'd like to hear it.
But you can't. Instead, you're trying to throw out evidence simply because it involves commonly used mafia terms. Terms that have been proven to describe mafia behaviors. What's worse, you're trying to take the fact I was calling out his behaviors, and turn it against me, with only the reason of "buzzwording," rather than actually looking at his behavior and deciding if he's guilty of what he's accused of, which he is.
I will not claim before intent or i see a decent reason why i should be lynched.In post 877, gerryoat wrote:manuel you should claim now
ThanksIn post 894, House wrote:Bottom of the page, below quick reply.In post 893, Manuel87 wrote:@House: how can i combine the two isos?
Choose a name, click +, rinse and repeat until bursting with joy.
I would consider it but i still think we should lynch in Eager or Gamma today.In post 904, gerryoat wrote:manuel would you consider voting square today?
But i think The_Jester could be the one scum off the Wagon.In post 898, House wrote: Do you really think scum will be likely to have three members on the d1 lynch, which they are trying to do to Manuel?
That's why I think Victor is the scum off the wagon.
Not with you thats for sure.In post 913, eagerSnake wrote:Would you be willing to lynch The_Jester today?In post 911, Manuel87 wrote:But i think The_Jester could be the one scum off the Wagon.
probably depends on Victor and Gerry.In post 917, Grendel wrote:Wow, it took me openly second guessing myself for people to admit that Gamma isn't widely town read. You guys had me feeling like I was seeing things that weren't there.
Is there enough support for a Gamma lynch to push it through today?
UNVOTE:
After doing the Iso on him plus Eager i realized he was following Eagers vote almost every time while scumreading him without giving any convincing reason.In post 950, VictorDeAngelo wrote: He isn't in my preferred lynch pile. If you want me to help lynch him, I want a persuasive case.
After that he disagrees on arguments from EagerIn post 711, Gamma Emerald wrote:Thanks Snake. You're on my would lynch list, but that explanation helped you quite a bit.
How does he come to the conclusion to vote me instead of Eager because he likes Square for contradicting himself? (Square read me town in his analysis yet he would lynch me)
No i dont i already said that i will not lynch in my townreads.
No i am saying your reads changed for no reason.In post 953, Gamma Emerald wrote: So are you saying my reads can never change then?
VOTE: EagerSnakeIn post 955, House wrote:Stop.In post 954, Manuel87 wrote:No i am saying your reads changed for no reason.In post 953, Gamma Emerald wrote: So are you saying my reads can never change then?
VOTE: Gamma Emerald
Gamma isn't happening today.
Look at the vote count.
Lynch his buddy eager and we'll get Gamma tomorrow.
Well i am not saying it makes sense. But its probably the only szenario that could benefit scum in the end.In post 1235, House wrote:What scenario makes sense with me as scum?In post 1232, Manuel87 wrote:And House himself pointed out the only reasonable szenario him being scum would make sense.
The one where eager is bussing you and I bus him to save you instead?
What kind of fucked up scumteam would that even be???
Somebody so unstable as to go balls out on their own buddy on d1 will most likely go into nuclear meltdown mode if their other buddy throws then under the bus in return.
My entire point was that there IS NO scenario that makes sense with House!Scum.
Gamma got called out on his scum theater, so he voted eager to create distance. When eager fakeclaimed that bullshit, he used that excuse to hop off until Square forced him back on the wagon with his counter claim.
Gamma is caught scum and there's no way around that simple fact.
So that makes three of us.In post 1346, gerryoat wrote:I thought the same thing. That if he was town he'd actually scumread you more for that. But, he kinda looked like he was trying to worm himself out of a lynch and then vote the opposite person rather than himself.
I actually thought the same.In post 1447, gerryoat wrote:Also Victor's watcher claim has to be bullshit, I refuse to believe that watcher wouldn't be on claimed PR.
Thats what i said yesterday and then the lolhammer came on Friday night without Victor having a chance to explain.In post 1700, House wrote: That is why we have no business cutting this Day short!
You see the main reason i think he is scum is his vote on me when he had a scumread on eager and a townread on me. I think he never really explained how he came to the conclusion that i am scum.In post 1703, House wrote: Gamma has made some stupid mistakes.
Hey, he's new. Shit happens.
But I don't see scum intent in his posts.
Ok fair point but that still doesnt really explain his vote on me.In post 1703, House wrote: d1, he was screwing around with, what looks in retrospect, a person he knew from another mafia site. That just happened to be scum.
Victim of circumstance that I mistook for damning association.
I dont really blame him for the Victor lynch i think his case wasnt bad and Victor not watching claimed PR made his watcherclaim look fake so i understand the votes.In post 1703, House wrote: I'm the one that pushed him onto selling a Victor lynch, because I had decided d1 that Victor was playing way too conservatively for his town game. That's me.
Gamma actually made a very good point about Victor in his case, one that I really could not see as something that town would say when jumping off a scum wagon.
He voted Victor. So what? So did the majority of the player list. He wanted CCC that day, but I basically gladiated him and Victor. Blame me for that. Not him.
I dont know about that one to be honest. Grendel would have voted Gamma for sure.In post 1703, House wrote: This is what I can't get past though... I can't see scum!Gamma leaving ME alive over Grendel.
I've already proven I could ram through lynches. If already proven time and again I wanted Gamma dead... ISO ME!
Last night's kill was an attempt to get me to ram through my pet Gamma lynch that I'd been nursing all game long.
Eagers case wasnt rational he had no valid argument against me.In post 1713, Gamma Emerald wrote:I was seduced by Eager's rational case.
You droped your push on CCC and are townreading him now.In post 1708, House wrote:Really?In post 1706, Manuel87 wrote:You have also proven to drop scumreads
What scumreads have I dropped before today.
Name one.
Yes this wasnt against Gamma. Just that i dont excuse Jesters hammer based an Victors play. Sadly with the quick lolhammer the other votes on Victor dont give much information because he didnt have the chance to explain himself.In post 1707, House wrote:Gamma didn't hammer Victor...In post 1706, Manuel87 wrote:The hammer is an entirely different thing though.
Well you didnt townread him yesterday but you had him Null and i think you said that you dont care about him anymore or something like that.In post 1716, House wrote:Where did I show a townread on CCC before today?In post 1714, Manuel87 wrote:You droped your push on CCC and are townreading him now.
Yeah that sounds about right but i wouldnt say you are less of a threat but your read can change. Grendel was on Gamma since early day one and never dropped his read.In post 1718, House wrote:Let's make sure I have this straight.In post 1717, Manuel87 wrote:Well you didnt townread him yesterday but you had him Null and i think you said that you dont care about him anymore or something like that.In post 1716, House wrote:Where did I show a townread on CCC before today?In post 1714, Manuel87 wrote:You droped your push on CCC and are townreading him now.
You are saying that Gamma!scum would leave the guy that wagoned began scumreading him d1 and harassed the shit out of him d2, that has every desire AND THE POWER to lynch him, alive... instead of a player that has a scumread on him but admits himself that he is unable to lead lynches?
This is what you want me to believe? That I'm less of a threat to Gamma than GRENDEL because one read changed?
THAT is your theory?
Thats possible. The question is do i think she is a player that would make that mistake. It would have been easy for her to stay on her CCC read instead.In post 1722, House wrote: She's done a whole lot of nothing.
It's quite possible her vote on eager was bad distancing that she got caught up in and couldn't justifiably leave the wagon after I started pushing him.
I am more suspicious of CCC right now.In post 1735, CCC wrote: This when Jester is being fairly widely scumread.
Of the three people mentioned by Huntress here, one (myself) I know for certain sure is Town. One is very probably Town; that is House. And then there's Gamma. There are good reasons to scumread Gamma, but House has recently made a very good case for the idea that Gamma is Town.
Consider the possibility that Gamma is Town. If this is true, then Huntress just proposed a scumlist of three (out of seven) players who would all be Town. The odds of threerandomplayers includingzeroscum (assuming two remaining scum) are (5/7)*(4/6)*(3/5) = 2/7.
Yet a scum player has a strong incentive to suggest a scumlist that consists only of Town players. Let's say that a scum player has an 80% chance of producing an entirely-Town list of reads.
The prior probability of Huntress being scum (still assuming two remaining scum) is 2/6. Then the odds of Huntress being scum from this single piece of evidence (assuming that Gamma is Town) increase to over 50%.
@Eggman: You didnt mention looking for a replacement in your last post so i´ll quote it in case you missed it.In post 1732, The_Jester wrote: No time to play so
I gotta replace out, sorry Mod. My RL situation was different when I signed up for the game.