Mini #509: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Game Over!

[Thestatusquo]

But we have 4 right here on JMar in you, me, CES, and presumably ABR. I imagine flameaxe would probably be willing to vote him too. We should be able to get one more person.

I'm confused about why you're complaining about a problem you're a part of.

[Bookitty]

I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out that the majority of votes had been on dybeck, you wanted them switched to Jmar, neither of them are posting (Mirth is right about this), we're down DrippingGoofball and have no replacement there yet, my three main suspects other than DG are missing in action...

Where is that one more person, TSQ? You think Mirth is scum, according to some of your recent posts, so... who do you think will vote that last vote?

That's why I said we had to build a consensus. And be fairly convinced Jmar is scum, not just lynch him because we can derive information... it's a little too late in the game to be playing with information lynches, in my view, when LYLO is likely soon.

[Bookitty]

That said,

unvote; vote Jmar

.

Lurking under pressure is not ftw.

[Albert B. Rampage]

There is no "Case" On Jmar per se. There does not have to an actual PBPA on a player for there to be a good "case" (har har) for their lynch. In particular, if you're wondering why I place him above other candidates for lynch, it's because in addition to his scumminess, I would love to analyze d1 with all relevant information.

Ummm...wth is this ?

[Mirth]

Sorry for not being as responsive as I usually am, I'm having internet problems at the moment. (I think the computer needs a good cleaning or something). Didn't expect it to be a problem in this thread, as it was going kinda slow, but it looks like I missed a page. Will catch up in a short bit.

[Mirth]

Kitty, 987: They seem to be genuinely MIA. (Though I haven't had a chance to meta game. If my connection holds longer than it takes me to answer this post, I'l check). Pressurevoting people who are genuinely MIA doesn't do much.

TSQ 990: Then I must have missed your justification for Jmar. Please restate it.

Albert 994: I will ask you yet again, why am I scummy?

TSQ 997: This is not an answer, you are avoiding the question.

And I will state this explicitly: I will NOT vote for Jmar unless I see an actual case. The fact that you are pushing it so heavily without giving reasoning for it bothers me.

[Thestatusquo]

When the hell did players become so lazy? You really wont vote unless you see an [quote="Big Official]CASE[/quote] On someone? Thats fucking ridiculous. Just because someone hasn't detailed the reasons why someone is scummy doesn't mean that they aren't scummy. I don't feel the need to post "A case" Because it would require a reread when I JUST DID ONE ABOUT A WEEK AGO. There are things Jmar did that were amazingly scummy, and if you can't find them going back and rereading yourself, you're either blind, or his scum partner. There's really nothing else I have to say about that.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote, vote Dybek

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable. What are you going to blame if we mislynch ? Oh, sorry guys, I must have made a mistake during me re-read 3 weeks ago.

If you don't have any reasons, I'm perfectly fine voting Dybek and leaving you in the dust with you obsession with Jmar.

[Thestatusquo]

Um, if we lynch Jmar and he's town, you are perfectly justified in holding me accountable for his lynch. you don't have to make a case to push someone, and I've made it pretty clear I think he's scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Just because you are wrong doesn't make you scum. 'Accountable' is nothing. Being right is everything.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable. What are you going to blame if we mislynch ? Oh, sorry guys, I must have made a mistake during me re-read 3 weeks ago.

Bullshit is this.

Everyone

who voted for someone's lynch is accountable for that lynch. After all, you're the one who decided to vote that person, resulting in that person's death. A voter is accountable, wether he/she presented a case or not. If you guys looked for yourself and then decide wether jmar is worthy of being voted for instead of only agreeing/disagreeing with others, things might just go quite a lot smoother.
TSQ thinks Jmar is the best player to vote, and therefore he votes Jmar. Now, the fact he doesn't give us a 'case' right now means people are less likely to give their attention to Jmar, but the fact he didn't present one doesn't mean that there aren't any possible points against Jmar. I think TSQ is lazy for not saying what exactly makes him want to vote Jmar (although he gave an analysis a few pages ago), but I think the rest of you is most definitely lazy for not doing anything at all, but just waiting for TSQ to present something for you to agree/disagree with.

[Mirth]

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable.

QFT

TSQ: I just went back and read every single one of your posts. NO WHERE do you actually post a case against Jmar. You just say he needs to be lynched.

You defend CES, yes, but the only thing you actually say about Jmar is that he's scummy because he is. No justification, period.


CES: The reason why I keep asking for a case is because I have read over Jmar's actions and I don't see anything that strikes me as "OMG! SCUM!" I keep asking for a case because maybe I'm missing something (it's happened before). I would like to see TSQ's thought process beyond "OMG! He's scum because I said so!" Same goes to Flameaxe, actually. I would also really like to know why Albert and TSQ are so convinced that I'm also scum? The only reason I'm so against Jmar's lynch is because it is unfounded. Apparently this makes me his scum buddy. If there's anything more to it, I would like to know.

[originality]

Sup fellas. In case you didn't read the mod's note about me not being able to post for a while, I'd like to tell you I have not been able to connect to the Internet lately because I've been out of the country for the holiday season with no Internet. I was sort of expecting to have been replaced by now, but good thing I wasn't. I'm back for good.

A quick analysis of the last few pages indicates that the game is extremely spread out and needs more action. I will therefore switch my vote to the other person I considered scummy (and still do) for a while back, and who I seem to get at least some agreement on with everyone else.

unvote, vote dybeck

[Albert B. Rampage]

Who do you consider scummy that everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with ?

[Thestatusquo]

This "I'm right because I said so" business is unacceptable.

QFT

TSQ: I just went back and read every single one of your posts. NO WHERE do you actually post a case against Jmar. You just say he needs to be lynched.

You defend CES, yes, but the only thing you actually say about Jmar is that he's scummy because he is. No justification, period.

And yet...If you read my posts, I never claim to have given a case against him...Anywhere...In fact, thats not even close to what I am saying. When you are done arguing against straw men, and would like to actually play this game, let me know, k?

[originality]

Who do you consider scummy that everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with ?

Mirth.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Who do you consider scummy that everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with ?

Mirth.

Cool. Why ?

[Thestatusquo]

Who do you consider scummy that everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with ?

Mirth.

Who doesn't think mirth is scummy?

[Bookitty]

I don't.

[Thestatusquo]

Who that matters doesn't think Mirth is scummy?

[Bookitty]

All right, play by yourself, then, TSQ. Enjoy.

unvote

[originality]

It looks like a

lot

of things bother Mirth. Also half her posts are about telling other people their posts aren't worth anything. Nice masquerade there, seeming active but actually not? Maybe, maybe. The point is Mirth is on my top suspicion list. Trying to bring out the worse on everybody. Evidence:

These below make no sense:

We know that Putty Patrollers exist in this game. But we do not know if both Peers and Avalon were in fact patrollers. The first post says they were, but this could be a limited reveal game, where any townie who dies, regardless of actual role, could be labeled by the mod as patroller. We will not know this until someone who has claimed not-putty dies. While this scenerio is not very likely, it is possible, and shouldn't be thrown out right away.

As to dybeck's list of suspicion, I'm not liking how he's writing pretty much everyone except Unright/Albert and Flameaxe as probably town.

Its better to have a narrower but strong list of suspects, if you suspect everyone in the game it leads to nowhere and is scumplay. No sense.

And this little exchange on page 34 was pretty odd:

Mirth:

But know do you know, Flameaxe? And why are you so resistant to giving a straight answer?

Flameaxe:

Because I'm having too much fun not revealing it.

Dybeck:

unvote, vote: Flameaxe. One good reason why not?

Mirth:

Dybeck, why are you jumping at Flameaxe all of a sudden? Surely, you've noticed he's been annoying and resistant for the past few pages?

Dybeck:

Voting him has proven elsewhere to make him more coherent. Let's see what he's trying to hide with this play acting.

Mirth:

You didn't actually answer my question, you know. I didn't ask why you voted him. I asked why you voted him *now* as opposed to some earlier point in time, since he's been keeping this nonsense up.

She just jumps from offensive to offensive. Its like she nitpicks all posts for some bad interpretation and goes with it. Now that bothers

me

.

[Bookitty]

vote: originality

[Albert B. Rampage]

vote: originality

Why ? I thought you just wanted to stop him from lurking.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I realise you didn't ask me, Originality, but I thought I'd weigh in anyway.

First, this is scummy:

Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him. unvote

Why do you care if you're the third vote on someone? If you think they're scummy enough to pressure with a vote, then three votes don't matter, do they?

You point out Peers (town) and then post this:

Why are you guys ganging up on Peers? Now I bad for pointing him out. Let's not forget that the mafia will do whatever they can to lynch a possible powerrole, so FoS everyone against Peers for crappy reasons.

A bit odd. Why are you defending him? Why not just say it's risky to lynch a powerrole and leave it at that? Seems a bit too certain Peers is town.

And this:

Nope, he had 3 votes in him already, with me it would make it 4. When I say I hadn't seen he already had two votes I meant the votes on the previous page, because one of them was right above me. There was no sense of me putting him at -3.

But you thought you were putting him at L-4, didn't you? Or did you think you were putting him at L-3?

I jumped off because there were too many votes on the dude, why would I keep my vote on him, its not like he had anything substantial against him anyway.

So why vote him in the first place? And why is a third vote (you did think it was a third vote, right? or was it the fourth vote? Do you remember what you said?) too many votes?

He might not have been dangerously close to a lynch, but why would I keep a fourth vote on someone I don't find especially suspicious? Now if he had some sort of case against him thats a different story, but it was a pressure thing anyway, and 3 votes are enough for some pressure.

But remember, you thought yours was the third vote when you unvoted... I know it's hard to remember what lies you've told.

Blight catches this (plus town points for Blight!):

And you thought your vote was the third one. So, why unvote?

Because I had just gone back and looked at the last postcount, which to my surprise showed that there was one vote more then I had previously thought. Pretty implied. Did you even read my unvoting post? It says there, "I didn't see the votes". You then are supposed use logic to understand that I did see them later.

This doesn't make sense. You said you thought it was the second vote (Oh crap, I didn't see he already had two votes on him)... so... why wouldn't you correct Blight on this, if you were telling the truth earlier? And you explain this to Blight by quoting yourself? It's a nonexplanation. It's a discrepancy. It's a lie.

Tries to set up a lynch for the next day on Cogito Ergo Sum:

If Peers came out town, then a mafia CES would be a good possibility, as it seems as if he is trying to build credibility for himself on the town's eyes by supporting someone he knows for a fact to be town, which would explain his strong conviction. Something to remark is how CES defends Peers so much in these final moments when its 90% sure Peers is going to be lynched.

And this weird appeal to emotion about Flameaxe:

Far from an unreasonable assumption. He kept going after me for (crappy imho) reasons yesterday, now he finds crappy reasons against me today. I just don't see how what I'm doing is scummy. How is it weird me saying what you quoted when he keeps going after me? I'm not implying that he literally doesn't like me personally and wants me dead, it is a figure of speech if thats not obvious. Still, even if I was trying to imply a weird feud thing between me and him, you cannot say "I'm not getting this at all". Has he been doing anything other then try to find reasons against me? You could say that you thought it was rather unlikely or something, but completely turn a blind eye on something like that is too much ignoring facts on your part.

Flameaxe may be picking on you, Originality, but I think I've made a pretty good case against you using your own words. So try to think of it as you picking on you.