Hey Nietz, may I ask a setup question?Each Dreamworld has its preset rules, the sequence of Dreamworlds is already randomly set.
Are the dream rules already preset and assigned for each day or are you going to pick them at random when each day phase begins?
Town theoretically gets as many lynches as it wants today. Awesome~
We should be able to coordinate multiple lynches if we feel convinced enough to remove multiple players in one day.
That said:
##vote pesco47 for pesco47 reasons.
##Vote: Nietz
Obvious reasons, etc
...multi-lynch?
AWESOME
We are definately lynching at least two people today, and more would be nice but it may be dangerous to go too far. Three at most?
##Vote: Alice he's lurked before and stuff.
You know what would be funny is if we all voted for a different person.
##Vote: Alice Margatroid What? A touhou character? What are you doing in a Yume Nikki game!?
words go here
Oh god. Wall o' text already? This is gonna be a fun game. :(Basically =x
Lynch the whole game. Who WOULD win?
In any order, ##Vote: Zakeri for hypocricy (I mean come on. Zakeri Izayoi? And you blame *me* for being in the wrong game? I mean seriously.)
Basically =x
---
I roll a die twice, and get two 3's. That means I choose "6". Of course, to make it fit into the 12 criteria, I've excluded myself from the sample (for now).
##Vote Affinity
Also, hypothetical Question: If one person has 4 votes, and two people have 3 votes each, who dies in this scenerio?
3. If a Majority is not reached before the deadline, the TWO most voted players will be lynched. If there's any ties, ALL players tied at the top will be lynched.
FPMH is NOT what you think it is.>_> Now you're making me think about it.
I've excluded myself from the sample (for now).
FPMH: Choose 1
[ ]Fluffy Puffy Marshmallow Hugs
[ ]Furry Petting Much Hotness
[ ]Fail Prod Made Here
[ ]First Post Mind Hax
Your defence inclines me to the2nd4th option.
Suppose that I want more votes against me. You reminded me about my role.
Rolling a d12 compared to rolling 2d6 is the range of 1-12 and 2-12. You were excluding 2 players.- No, he was excluding one player: Edible (1). Don't even TRY to argue that he should have left the self-vote possibility open.
Self-vote is a waste of time, but... Is Baity new to this mafia thing? Yes, it matters.To the best of my knowledge, this is Baity's first proper game of Mafia.
The only way anything involving multiple majorities will work is if everyone being lynched is Town, and even if we hit one scum with three lynches, adding the NK we still lose three Townies for one scum.that's not a bad deal at this point in the game. >_>
I'm sure Baity knew what he was getting himself into. Newbness is no indication for clearing players (ref Edible and FAV).Alright, let me flip the question on its head. If Baity does know what he's doing with this 'plan' you've concocted, explain to me what it's actually meant to do. As far as I see this plan can be defined as 'Okay, one of us votes using a 2d6 and gets caught being an idiot, then selfvotes to confuse Town'. Doesn't sound brilliant to me.
Read his post, he excluded himselfOkay, you honestly think removing the possibility of voting yourself counts as excluding a player? Please excuse me while I slam my forehead into a wall.
that's not a bad deal at this point in the game. >_>Is it really worth the risk ahead of the safe option of just sticking everyone's votes on two people, giving scum no opening to screw things up?
Baity's reactionary answer to pesco's queries are... not the slightest bit becoming. Also, he seems to thinking that excluding one's self from the random dice roll is scummy (which it isn't), and that self-voting is actually townie (which it isn't); which hints at paranoia. Being this early in the game, I don't think that's valid town-beaviour.Since when did I ever think that voting for myself is townie? Granted, my current play-style is being perceived to be very awkward (probably even; dare I say "foreign"), but I'm trying to work something out.
- There's also the point that, well, using a 2d6 for a random vote is OBVIOUSLY going to get called out for being stupid. Either the entire scumteam has no idea how probabilities work, or Baity just made a mistake. Indeed, if he'd never said 'I'm using 2d6' his random vote would've received no further thought, so why would he mention it if he knew it was a bad idea?...the chance that the entire scumteam is going to fail fundamental probability involving dice would be pretty damn low. 2d6 was the only way I though about reaching "12".
Alright, let me flip the question on its head. If Baity does know what he's doing with this 'plan' you've concocted, explain to me what it's actually meant to do. As far as I see this plan can be defined as 'Okay, one of us votes using a 2d6 and gets caught being an idiot, then selfvotes to confuse Town'. Doesn't sound brilliant to me.I'll answer it; "Anti-bandwagon".
Okay, you honestly think removing the possibility of voting yourself counts as excluding a player? Please excuse me while I slam my forehead into a wall.
Is it really worth the risk ahead of the safe option of just sticking everyone's votes on two people, giving scum no opening to screw things up?
To the best of my knowledge, this is Baity's first proper game of Mafia.First here. I've played a few elsewhere. And watched several, but that really doesn't count.
Since when did I ever think that voting for myself is townie? Granted, my current play-style is being perceived to be very awkward (probably even; dare I say "foreign"), but I'm trying to work something out. See: below.
Rou: What risk? We take a risk every time we make a lynch, this isn't new. Scum have every bit as much an opening to screw things up if we lynch a single person as well. We also have an opportunity to screw scum every time we lynch!At this point, I'd say I would be "anti-multi-lynch". It's a matter of Risk vs. Reward.
We have a better chance of killing scum, right now, if we pull this out. It's basically.. slightly less than double the chance if we go after two, I'll grant, but the odds are increased significantly and it's actually good for us if scum feel compelled to do something crazy towards deadline to save themselves.
I am actually rereading your stuff, and a bit confused. I'm wanting to lynch 2-3 people. Either's good in my book, not too fussed over which. Are you pro-multilynch, anti-multilynch, or what?
@ Baity: You don't like Affinity's vote I take it?It's tipped my suspicion a bit. The only thing I'm being paranoid about is my pathetic excuse of an example.
At this point, I'd say I would be "anti-multi-lynch". It's a matter of Risk vs. Reward.
At best, townies outnumber scum by a large degree. Vice versa is worst (obviously). [Should mass-lynch be opted.]
Rou: What risk? We take a risk every time we make a lynch, this isn't new. Scum have every bit as much an opening to screw things up if we lynch a single person as well. We also have an opportunity to screw scum every time we lynch!Okay, apparently I need to restate my opinion AGAIN.
Response to Rou: Has anyone that's not-Wrathie ever rationalised why he self-votes?You just told me that Baity knew what he was doing with this. Surely you can come up with some sort of constructive reason as to why this would help him out if he was scum?
Also, hypothetical Question: If one person has 4 votes, and two people have 3 votes each, who dies in this scenerio?Three people in this case. Should it be the opposite (two people with 4, one or more with three) only the top two.
Since when did I ever think that voting for myself is townie? Granted, my current play-style is being perceived to be very awkward (probably even; dare I say "foreign"), but I'm trying to work something out.
Regardless, before anybody else decides to stack votes on me simply because of what I presume to be from this single line:
It's tipped my suspicion a bit. The only thing I'm being paranoid about is my pathetic excuse of an example.
Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either
UK's vote is worth nothing?Whoops, fixed that.
Whoops, fixed that.
Also, I hoped Jan would be around to votecount while I was asleep.
Quote from: Zakeri HakureiAlso, hypothetical Question: If one person has 4 votes, and two people have 3 votes each, who dies in this scenerio?Three people in this case. Should it be the opposite (two people with 4, one or more with three) only the top two.
If everyone is voting at day end in 6:6:1, 3 lynches.
...the chance that the entire scumteam is going to fail fundamental probability involving dice would be pretty damn low.
@ Serp: You suspect bussing already?Most of the votes placed in the random voting phase tend to get switched around pretty quickly. It seems like a fittingly newbie move to put an apparently random vote on a fellow scum, intending to switch as soon as a good bandwagon comes up, but then panic when you get called on it.
Why would scum vote themselves? Because you would give them a free pass for it.So suddenly MY opinion alone is worth taking this sort of obscene risk for? I'm not buying it - I mean, it certainly raised the suspicion of other people, so saying he's doing it to earn a free pass makes no sense.
If everyone is voting at day end in 6:6:1, 3 lynches.As Serp has already pointed out, this is wrong.
In 6:6:0, 2 vote jumps will secure single lynch.Meaning we most likely have our three scum - the two jumpers and whoever they were protecting.
If the day ends with multiple wagons on the same number of votes, vote switching will still give us double-lynch at least (assuming small jumps).You do realise this plan revolves around having several solid cases on several players on D1, right? That's asking for quite a lot.
Facts are facts. I pointed them out. What is the issue here?The fact that you didn't really contribute anything new to the discussion is what irritated me.
Still waiting for some useful scumhunting from Rou.So raising the point that Affinity was performing IIoA doesn't qualify as scumhunting? Or indeed my entire point against you, which you haven't argued against and have instead chosen to ignore?
I honestly have nothing to say.
I don't know what to make of the whole Baity situation so I'm just quietly waiting for another development to pop up. Affinity is possibly exploiting Baity's self-vote in an attempt to get Baity more paranoid and send him on his way to a lynch. One of many possibilities, I guess.
If I had to vote, I would go with Affinity.
Okay, firstly obligatory response to today's Dream Rules.
In short, we're begging for disaster on this setup. The only legitimate way to earn multiple lynches here is for two VERY CLEAR majorities at deadline, otherwise we're giving scum far too many chances to screw things up with a last-minute vote change. The only way anything involving multiple majorities will work is if everyone being lynched is Town, and even if we hit one scum with three lynches, adding the NK we still lose three Townies for one scum. (The odds of us hitting two scum in three lynches on D1 are pretty much zero, before anyone tries to argue otherwise.)
As for the BaitySM debate, the self-vote is just plain dumb, in all honesty. What's sad is that it's DELIBERATE -
...If you're actually a PR, I think I'm going to cry. Don't see what scum could gain from this, though.
More interesting to me is Pesco's misrep of what seems to be a simple misunderstanding of the probabilities of 2d6:- No, he was excluding one player: Edible (1). Don't even TRY to argue that he should have left the self-vote possibility open.
- In terms of the probability ignorance, realise that this scum plan you're suggesting only works in one highly unlikely situation - the scum players are all near the top or bottom of the list, thus the 2d6 roll will probably (or in one case, definitely) miss them. The odds of this are also pretty small.
- There's also the point that, well, using a 2d6 for a random vote is OBVIOUSLY going to get called out for being stupid. Either the entire scumteam has no idea how probabilities work, or Baity just made a mistake. Indeed, if he'd never said 'I'm using 2d6' his random vote would've received no further thought, so why would he mention it if he knew it was a bad idea?
Feels like Pesco's taking advantage of the new guy, as usual, and he's screwing with words and odds in order to make what looks like a simple mistake metamorphose into a scumtell. Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either, but Pesco still wins out.
Alright, let me flip the question on its head. If Baity does know what he's doing with this 'plan' you've concocted, explain to me what it's actually meant to do. As far as I see this plan can be defined as 'Okay, one of us votes using a 2d6 and gets caught being an idiot, then selfvotes to confuse Town'. Doesn't sound brilliant to me.
Okay, you honestly think removing the possibility of voting yourself counts as excluding a player? Please excuse me while I slam my forehead into a wall.
You just told me that Baity knew what he was doing with this. Surely you can come up with some sort of constructive reason as to why this would help him out if he was scum?
I'm sure Baity knew what he was getting himself into. Newbness is no indication for clearing players (ref Edible and FAV).
So suddenly MY opinion alone is worth taking this sort of obscene risk for? I'm not buying it - I mean, it certainly raised the suspicion of other people, so saying he's doing it to earn a free pass makes no sense.
As Serp has already pointed out, this is wrong.
Meaning we most likely have our three scum - the two jumpers and whoever they were protecting.
You do realise this plan revolves around having several solid cases on several players on D1, right? That's asking for quite a lot.
Fair enough, ##Vote: Affinity because it's much better than anything else I have at the moment.
And now a user analysis post.
Rat: Just things related to the setup. ...and that's it! I can't really judge right now.
Serp: Very good points about Baity/Affinity. From what I've seen, probably town. Then again this is just from what I've seen on early day one.
Affinity: Like I said before, he could be intimidating baity in an attempt to make him more paranoid than he already is. He looks the scummiest to me right now. Also, IIoA.
Pesco: Messup regarding the setup, I don't see why anyone should hold that against you though. You have done less then Rou and you have ignored his questions. Even in your most recent post, you still didn't address them. This could be a cause for concern.
Rou: Nice points on Pesco. Looking very town, for now. You've been actively scumhunting and you have just been doing a nice job all around.
stop WoTing
Suppose that I want more votes against me. You reminded me about my role. Probability says that I'll end up damaging Town more than helping them if I get lynched on D1 though.
I'm not obliged to put up with Rou being silly every game now am I?
so wait, Kanguya...you say that double lynching is awesome, but 2 lynches is too dangerous?I said that >2 is too dangerous.
And did you REALLY need to guess at Baity's role? There's no need for thatProbably not.
Oh good, you do it when poked. Why only analyze those 5 players though, Kanguya?The others have hardly posted anything.
Agree with the other pesco cut.Will do. Just give some time, okay? :)
Kindly recite the town win condition for me? I'm quite sure it does not include Pesco dying as a requisite.The Town wins when the Mafia is eliminated. I have no reason to believe that you aren't scum.
This stuff is not obligatory to post and you're a real pessimist about the capabilities of the players. This is a normal game of mafia, with day 1 requiring more votes than usual for majority. That is all.With all the talk of 'let's deadlock everyone bar one player' and a trillion multi-lynch ideas, I felt it was worth pointing out the flaws in the arguments that had been presented so Town didn't get carried away.
Waffle.It's not waffling, it's pointing out that Baity's 'Maybe I want more votes, you reminded me of my role' could be a softclaim. Had anyone else mentioned that?
First, my vote reason was FPMH. No mention of dice or probability, the misrep is what you've done.
Rolling a d12 compared to rolling 2d6 is the range of 1-12 and 2-12. You were excluding 2 players.I was arguing against this point here, which YOU raised as a point against Baity and was in my opinion flawed. I don't see any misrep here.
Second, what are you defending Baity so strongly for? How are you so assured of him being town already?If you'd notice, I'm also relatively suspicious of Baity (as I've said previously). The point is that the reasons you're attacking him for are relatively poor (FPMH, dice hax...), and bad attacks are in my opinion worse than bad play since that's how scum get Townies lynched.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm Pesco, not Baity. Just like I don't know why you are giving 11 players free passes, I don't know what he wants to do.Firstly, immediate misrep on 'giving 11 players free passes'. Trying to pass me as a tunneler when I've made points against more players than he has.
Silly point about RVS methods. Irrelevant and DISTRACTING to REAL scumhunting.In response to silly point YOU made about pointing out him excluding himself from random voting. I was pressing you on it to see if you were genuinely trying to use it as an argument.
Not the same as knowing what he was doing. Either your misreping or your reading fails.Explain the difference to me. From what I can see you're arguing semantics here.
Your opinion is worth 1 vote, that means it's worthwhile for anyone to swing it to their favour.In return for earning the suspicion of several other players. Looking at the current votes on him, I'd say this has earned Baity roughly -1 free passes.
You want to know when mod-clarification was made? Right after my post.This doesn't refute the third point - if you want three lynch targets, we should have three genuinely suspicious players.
Responding to you anymore is just a matter of who is right or wrong. Get over it and scumhunt properly if you can at all.And for the umpteenth time, you disregard my case without giving a useful defense. I recall you doing this to Umu last game when you were scum, hoping that his repeated insistence that you were scum would make him look worse for tunneling than you did for your various scummy tactics.
Wanting more votes...Jester?...Aw, crap. I never considered this. It doesn't help that Nietz didn't mention the typical 'there are no roles with win conditions that involve being lynched' clause...GM, confirmation about the possibility of a Jester/Fool?
EBWOP:
I can see some of you people from here: Zak, Serp, Alice, Alert...why not say something for a change so I can converse with someone other than Pesco? Believe me, I'll be endlessly grateful for it.
As a word of advice, don't answer questions aimed at other people - let them defend themselves since otherwise it's a judgement of your character instead of theirs.
Your back-and-forth with Pesco is just you two attacking each others' statements and disagreeing over interpretations. None of the statements I haven't responded to seem unusually scummy to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to defend them in your place, so as far as I'm concerned, you two can just continue to go at each other.I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Do you think that the Pesco/Me argument is a Town/Town fight and that neither of us have any decent points? If so, why are you fine with letting the argument continue?
Also, Roukanken, I notice that you haven't placed a vote yet. Affinity hasn't yet responded to mine on him.Actually, Nietz just messed up the vote count and I didn't notice it until you pointed it out there. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12745#msg12745)
Feels like Pesco's taking advantage of the new guy, as usual, and he's screwing with words and odds in order to make what looks like a simple mistake metamorphose into a scumtell. Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either, but Pesco still wins out. ##Vote: Pesco47
Actually, Nietz just messed up the vote count and I didn't notice it until you pointed it out there. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12745#msg12745)Dammit... Fixed.
And for the record, it's hard to scumhunt when half the players have posted pretty much zilch beyond setup discussion.
EBWOP:
I can see some of you people from here: Zak, Serp, Alice, Alert...why not say something for a change so I can converse with someone other than Pesco? Believe me, I'll be endlessly grateful for it.
I don't know what to make of the whole Baity situation so I'm just quietly waiting for another development to pop up. Affinity is possibly exploiting Baity's self-vote in an attempt to get Baity more paranoid and send him on his way to a lynch. One of many possibilities, I guess.
Your back-and-forth with Pesco is just you two attacking each others' statements and disagreeing over interpretations. None of the statements I haven't responded to seem unusually scummy to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to defend them in your place, so as far as I'm concerned, you two can just continue to go at each other.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Do you think that the Pesco/Me argument is a Town/Town fight and that neither of us have any decent points? If so, why are you fine with letting the argument continue?
Actually, Nietz just messed up the vote count and I didn't notice it until you pointed it out there. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12745#msg12745)
We're going to need to see a more solid stance on that one, particularly the bolded.
That's just you being fail.
Reap what you've sown. I'm not the one that came in here with a vendetta.You know, I get the feeling these posts contradict each other.
can see some of you people from here: Zak, Serp, Alice, Alert...why not say something for a change so I can converse with someone other than Pesco? Believe me, I'll be endlessly grateful for it.
A last-minute vote change remains a really dangerous move for scum to make in general, whether one, two, or three lynches are floating around. I see forcing them to pull that as a bonus, not a flaw. They can screw regular lynches too...
"Anti-bandwagon"I use to think that, too, but people here consider it a legitimate scumtell, and being able to pull yourself from L-1 to L-2 means nothing when people have a reason to vote you. In short, Fongs Gambit is a scumtell on these forums and you should avoid thinking of it much less doing it.
That doesn't mean we won't have multiple targets by the end of today. Plus, the vote switching falls under the category of scum manipulation, which in turn helps us figure out who's who by the time day 2 starts.Quote from: PescoIf the day ends with multiple wagons on the same number of votes, vote switching will still give us double-lynch at least (assuming small jumps).You do realise this plan revolves around having several solid cases on several players on D1, right? That's asking for quite a lot.
I don't know what to make of the whole Baity situation so I'm just quietly waiting for another development to pop up.
It's not waffling, it's pointing out that Baity's 'Maybe I want more votes, you reminded me of my role' could be a softclaim. Had anyone else mentioned that?I had thought about it myself, but the only softclaim I could think of is Fool. I doubt there is one, and if there was, they're wouldn't allude to it unless they wanted to scare people from lynching them. This, combined with the paranoid attitude Affinity mentioned makes me think Beilos is a mafioso.
Oh good, you do it when poked. Why only analyze those 5 players though, Kanguya?Why not? We've already gone over how trying to analyze everyone day one isn't helpful, so why not focus on the ones that stand out. I'd say analyzing five players is a very good start for day one.
Serp, I still don't understand what you're saying. If you don't think either of us are being particularly scummy, then shouldn't you be objecting to the argument and suggesting someit looks like you think the same of Pesco - so why let two Not Especially Scummy people argue when there are other More Particularly Scummy players worth talking about?Maybe by picking apart each others' posts, one of you will become more particularly scummy. I don't see any reason to suspect you over any of the other people I'm not voting for at the moment, but I'm not going to defend either of you in your place. If I had good reason to believe that either of you were town, I'd try to redirect you, but I don't. Are you telling me that I should be trying to stop you from scumhunting?
I remember Rou saying something about Affinity's vote on Baily being "Facts Facts Vote" Which puzzles me, since I don't see why discarding evidence as facts makes a vote misplaced? Rou appears to be forcing a Beilos = Townie perspective onto himself.Read the thread again. The point I made against Affinity was IIoA - he voted, stated some facts and produced nothing new.
That doesn't mean we won't have multiple targets by the end of today.Then shouldn't we cross that bridge when we come to it rather than assume we need to lynch as many people as possible today?
Pesco - Anti-scumWould you mind clarifying this? I'm seeing Pesco do exactly what he did in Worker's Union - crazy setup plans (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12709#msg12709), picking on easy targets, disregarding arguments, only producing content after several (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12757#msg12757) posts (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12811#msg12811) of (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12839#msg12839) pretty (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12855#msg12855) much (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12869#msg12869) nothing... (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12891#msg12891)
The Aggressive nature is awkward, but what I see here is a complete flip from his actions in Workers Union. I'm not considering this the ultimate town tell for Pesco (I've put him lower than affinity) but it's enough for me to regard him as town sided.
Roukanken - Pro-scumAs I'VE said above, the Baity = Town point is moot. The only reason I've had to spend so long talking about Pesco is that there was at the time little else to comment on.
As I've said above, Roukanken seems to be trying too hard to take the Beilos = Town approach when I really see no legitimate argument for believing such. He's then continued to defend Beilos and Attack Pesco. This has lead to, as Serp put it, a married couple's bickering which is a distraction from actual scumhunting. Note: I'm not saying Roukanken started this, but he's making absolutely no effort to stop outside of FoSing people who are probably making posts and catching up.
Maybe by picking apart each others' posts, one of you will become more particularly scummy. I don't see any reason to suspect you over any of the other people I'm not voting for at the moment, but I'm not going to defend either of you in your place. If I had good reason to believe that either of you were town, I'd try to redirect you, but I don't. Are you telling me that I should be trying to stop you from scumhunting?No, I'm saying you shouldn't let other people argue if you honestly think the argument is a distraction to other bigger targets. If you have no reason to think that either Pesco or I are scum then there's no reason for this argument to take place. By your logic there'd be the same chance or better of someone becoming Particularly Scummy if I argued with another random player, since they're as scummy as Pesco is. Therefore I raise the question - do you think either Pesco or I are worth suspicion at the moment?
As for baity, what exactly are you trying to "work out"? Just curious.To see who would jump the gun, and use the very small of amount of evidence that I've "created".
...the chance that the entire scumteam is going to fail fundamental probability involving dice would be pretty damn low.
What does that have to do with anything?Nothing. Now that I've slept, I can say... it's quite pointless.
Where would Baity like to place his vote?Nowhere at this point. The reason why I self-voted is two-fold.
There is a chance that I lose connection to the internet, provided I don't refill the credit. Depends entirely on how well I remember.
Thumbs up for my internet randomly having a fit as I was posting >_>2. Attempt to fish out a few people (as a case; I have to start somewhere...).
What would I be scummy for, pray tell? You voted yourself to improve your self-image, from what I understand; and doing that just because pesco voted you and said "FMPH" is blah. What's to explain that other than paranoia?I have no evidence you're even scum to begin with. If I start, it would be either pure guesswork and assumption, or your reaction to my posts / anybody else's, which I'm still analyzing. Voting to improve my self-image? See above. And below, just below this.
No roles in this game have being lynched as a win condition.What does this tell the rest of you? It's not a win condition for me if I die here and now.
I use to think that, too, but people here consider it a legitimate scumtell, and being able to pull yourself from L-1 to L-2 means nothing when people have a reason to vote you. In short, Fongs Gambit is a scumtell on these forums and you should avoid thinking of it much less doing it.
That's just you being fail.Personal attack instead of saying something contributive.
Reap what you've sown. I'm not the one that came in here with a vendetta.COUGHCOUGHCOUGHCOUGHCOUGH
Never get involved in a married couple's fight.This. I didn't want to get involved in the inevitible bickering between Pesco and Rou.
Gensokyo Blender makes up for it in the next post, but I will be taking into the fact that Pesco was holding a gun to his head.I need to get over the fact that my posts only make sense when I'm under pressure. The only decent analysis I've done was the Jan case in MSP, and that was when UK was about to throw me off of a bridge. x_x; Also, I like the name you assigned me.
Serp - pro-townI agree, except switch Rou with Affinity and move Baity up a bit, he doesn't particularly strike me as scummy, although I may be too forgiving. Otherwise, very nice.
I'm seeing quite a bit of determined scum hunting. as long as this keeps up, Serp is cleared for me.
Affinity - anti-scum
I'd love to see more than the vote on Beilos, but since we share a similar opinion on Beilos (And because of Rou's attack on Affinity) I'm not going to be regarding him
Pesco - Anti-scum
The Aggressive nature is awkward, but what I see here is a complete flip from his actions in Workers Union. I'm not considering this the ultimate town tell for Pesco (I've put him lower than affinity) but it's enough for me to regard him as town sided.
Roukanken - Pro-scum
As I've said above, Roukanken seems to be trying too hard to take the Beilos = Town approach when I really see no legitimate argument for believing such. He's then continued to defend Beilos and Attack Pesco. This has lead to, as Serp put it, a married couple's bickering which is a distraction from actual scumhunting. Note: I'm not saying Roukanken started this, but he's making absolutely no effort to stop outside of FoSing people who are probably making posts and catching up.
Beilos - Pro-scum/Anti-town
As I've mentioned above the voting for yourself idea is wrong on several occasions, and while some people pass it off as an honest mistake, Beilos has gone far enough to admit that he is doing this on purpose for some supposed reason that I have yet to determine is anything other than scaring people not to vote for him.
1. No Lynch is not an option (in this world). The fact that I can't trust my internet connection also adds to this.I'm pretty sure people would be lynched even without your self vote. Second reason is good enough, I suppose. As for alignment, I don't even know anymore. More posts so I can judge please. :)
Read the thread again. The point I made against Affinity was IIoA - he voted, stated some facts and produced nothing new.
And Baity's habit of answering other people's questions is doing him no favours. I'm not saying that he's definitely Town like you claim I am - just that Pesco's reasoning for attacking him was flawed.
[...]
The only reason I've had to spend so long talking about Pesco is that there was at the time little else to comment on.
I'm seeing Pesco do exactly what he did in Worker's Union - crazy setup plans, picking on easy targets, disregarding arguments, only producing content after several posts of pretty much nothing...
Let me put it this way. I'd rather try to sacrifice myself to take out at least 1 scum by evidence, rather than rely on PR's. My self-voting is only temporary, and I will address the reasoning to my switch accordingly.
I need to get over the fact that my posts only make sense when I'm under pressure. The only decent analysis I've done was the Jan case in MSP, and that was when UK was about to throw me off of a bridge. x_x; Also, I like the name you assigned me.Hmm... knowing this would make me want to let up on you if it weren't for the paradox that it would make your posts worth less. Also, I'm glad you like it. It's much easier than remember all of the names you've jumbled together currently.
No, I'm saying you shouldn't let other people argue if you honestly think the argument is a distraction to other bigger targets. If you have no reason to think that either Pesco or I are scum then there's no reason for this argument to take place. By your logic there'd be the same chance or better of someone becoming Particularly Scummy if I argued with another random player, since they're as scummy as Pesco is. Therefore I raise the question - do you think either Pesco or I are worth suspicion at the moment?
EBWOP: Give me* some time. Also, if that came off as aggresive, it wasn't intended to be.
Also, random /quote at the end. x_x My bad.
Why not? We've already gone over how trying to analyze everyone day one isn't helpful, so why not focus on the ones that stand out. I'd say analyzing five players is a very good start for day one.
Also, my main issue is that it wasn't just a scum analysis. He effectively stated who he thought was town as well. Which gives too much info to the scum.So you think that when analyzing, I should skip everyone who I think is town? Maybe I read this wrong but that doesn't make much sense.
So you think that when analyzing, I should skip everyone who I think is town? Maybe I read this wrong but that doesn't make much sense.
It does, actually. First, you coach scum when you tell them WHY someone looks town. Secondly, you give them a laundry list of targets if more people agree (though this is a lesser concern). You notice I tend to avoid saying who is probably town in my analyses. It still shows, but I don't explain why (Ok, well, it's something I'm trying actually)Ah, I get it now. It gives a list of people for scum to target as to get rid of townier looking townies instead of the scummier ones. Thanks for clearing that up.
onto Beilos~You've given me a strange nickname over a nickname (which is, incidentally over another nickname) already.
I thought I covered this in my last post, but let me say it here. Fong's Gambit does nothing besides get you lynched. Everyone here recognizes it, and everyone here, regardless of their affiliation, will want you lynched for it. The only way this would work is if your were scum and someone was protecting you for no reason - hence my original suspicion of Roukanken.
Affinity and Baity indeed need to post.
Baity, I'm not sure about but still lean scum on, and he's trying to WoT his way out....I thought I covered everything already? Rereading to see if I missed anything.
It's not waffling, it's pointing out that Baity's 'Maybe I want more votes, you reminded me of my role' could be a softclaim. Had anyone else mentioned that?Yeah, seems like a pretty glaring softclaim to me. Seems that only you and KY picked up on it, though. I do have to wonder what BaitySM is thinking, though.
The Aggressive nature is awkward, but what I see here is a complete flip from his actions in Workers Union. I'm not considering this the ultimate town tell for Pesco (I've put him lower than affinity) but it's enough for me to regard him as town sided.Really? Because I'm seeing the same damn thing. Maybe he isn't pulling lyncher/lynchee arguments out of his arse, and maybe he isn't being a fluffypillowfactorypoaster, but on the other hand he's still trying to actively discredit Rou based off of...ad-hominem? and isn't doing much scumhunting otherwise.
@KY: I'm still not seeing the Affinity case. What reasoning do you have that he is trying to "intimidate" BaitySM instead of simply genuinely believing that he may, in fact, be potentially scum?It was really the best thing I had at the moment, before the Rou/Pesco stuff started popping up. I'll unvote if I find a better case after I reread, which will have to be tomorrow morning since I'm pretty tired right now.
I have no evidence you're even scum to begin with.
Otherwise, very nice.
You're looking slightly more scummy with the constant arguing but still probably town.
Your recent post is very good, would like to see more. Most likely town.
Like I said before, he could be intimidating baity in an attempt to make him more paranoid than he already is.
Very good points about Baity/Affinity. From what I've seen, probably town. Then again this is just from what I've seen on early day one.
Really? Because I'm seeing the same damn thing. Maybe he isn't pulling lyncher/lynchee arguments out of his arse, and maybe he isn't being a fluffypillowfactorypoaster, but on the other hand he's still trying to actively discredit Rou based off of...ad-hominem?I'll admit, I wasn't there until after Pesco was lynched, but It seems more than a few people are disputing the idea that Pesco has changed.
Ultimately I'm pretty sure that KY is Town and that Serp is (ultimately misguided) Town.What has Serp done that you would feel has been wrong?
-Let random votes fly
-(somehow) generate discussion on D1
Both options were just as random as each other, in terms of the impact it would have on the game. It isn't hard to determine which option was chosen. I seem to have accidentally used the gambit without realizing it, it seems [as it is my first game here; I was unaware of the complications it causes].
What has Serp done that you would feel has been wrong?In case my post didn't make it abundantly clear already, it was for voting Affinity due to an action BaitySM did when BaitySM's alignment is still not yet guaranteed to be scum.
If you'd notice, I'm also relatively suspicious of Baity (as I've said previously). The point is that the reasons you're attacking him for are relatively poor (FPMH, dice hax...), and bad attacks are in my opinion worse than bad play since that's how scum get Townies lynched.
2. Attempt to fish out a few people (as a case; I have to start somewhere...).
Voting to improve my self-image? See above. And below, just below this.
Let me put it this way. I'd rather try to sacrifice myself to take out at least 1 scum by evidence, rather than rely on PR's. My self-voting is only temporary, and I will address the reasoning to my switch accordingly.
None of the statements I haven't responded to seem unusually scummy to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to defend them in your place, so as far as I'm concerned, you two can just continue to go at each other.
@Serp: Voting Affinity for an attempted bus by BaitySM only makes sense if BaitySM is necessarily scum
Finally the remaining lurkers all need to exist. I dislike the fact that a lot of them (myself included!) have managed to slip under the radar for this long and I'm pretty sure that at least one of the lurkers is very likely to be scum atm.
When you read those 3 sentences, you're saying it was to generate discussion, but there's still more to it and you'll explain when necessary? I think I will go out on a limb and say... explain it now. You're being way too coy about it, but let's face it, it's kind of the unspoken burning question several of us have at the moment. Be up front about what you're doing now so we can determine if you're not worth being one of the at least 2 people to be lynched today. Cuz you definitely are at the moment and it gives us time to regroup and pursue other avenues if needed.Before I start, ##Unvote (seriously, I forgot about unvoting myself after my post in the morning).
@Baity:Keyword; slightly. Like 2%. (Very Weak) Reason?
Well, no that's not the point. You said that you found me slightly scummy. Why.
Also, you don't seem to know who is scum at the moment, which is rather bad. All your actions thus far, I would argue, have been purely defensive, which is rather bad as it entails that you don't know who the scum are.
Also, he seems to thinking that excluding one's self from the random dice roll is scummy (which it isn't), and that self-voting is actually townie (which it isn't); which hints at paranoia. Being this early in the game, I don't think that's valid town-beaviour.Categorizing behavior. Over the internet, it's quite easy to initially lie your way through. However, as the game goes on, it gets harder and harder to lie, as there is a greater amount of information you have to check over, using your lies to create other lies (or distorted truths, whatever you prefer). In short, I simply disagree to your justification that I was a non-townie at this point (i.e. the very start).
What I am (trying) to do:First off, I doubt you'll ever manage to make yourself look as obvscum as wrathie >_>. That being said, how does this master plan of yours benefit Town? Your plans for survival make sense in this frame of logic, but if they're not coupled with active scumhunting, then what's the point?
-Make myself look so much like scum, that you'll waver it off, because nobody plays like that... (save for me in this game, I hope) >_>
-From that, survive lynching round of D1 (very unlikely at this point).
-Survive N1.
-...(insert future plan here). Hopefully, I get to pull something out at this point.
To explain the first point, allow me to retaliate with, "Why would it be beneficial for a scum to put themselves upfront like this?" (i.e. why would a scum member make themselves look scummy?)WIFOM. Also I've seen this used to great effect by Kilga in Bamboo Forest Mafia once to secure a massive amount of mis-lynches in the next couple days. So...yeah.
Serpentarius's comments on the fight between Rou and Pesco are, however, the biggest alarm I've got. He's sort of staying on the sidelines, injecting with vauge 'you're both being stupid' comments.
Weirdest thing I've seen. Serp's vote on Affinity for something *Baity* did is already strange; compounding it with '...and you guys just keep fighting, I have no opinion' is equally bizzare. No comment on anything Affinity himself has actually said, either. Yeah, I'm not seeing why people are calling him protown.
@Everyone: Do people write these walls because they think they're obligated to, or because they don't realise how horribly painful they are to read? For god's sake, there's not even that much to talk about! >:(
ITT Carthrat hates everyone.What a narcissist.
To explain the first point, allow me to retaliate with, "Why would it be beneficial for a scum to put themselves upfront like this?" (i.e. why would a scum member make themselves look scummy?)
Surely, after reading my first point, it could make you pass off as a townie, but the fact that it didn't work as the majority have casted suspicion on me proves that this is arguably one of the stupidest things scum can do. Further, I can say with great confidence that (almost? Rou might've had the idea that I was.) nobody thought of this.
Serp: Affinity/Baity thing.. eh, I guess. I'm wondering what your present stance on 'the best two' is, right now. What two would you lynch if it's up to you?
Serpentarius- Undoubtably town. Great scumhunting and nothing remotely fishy.What exactly is this? I've already brought up the whole 'Hey, neither of you look particuarly town/scum, so instead of contributing I'll just let you blab about each other' point, so saying there's 'nothing remotely fishy' is sort of jumping to a conclusion.
Gut says both pesco and Rou are scum. This play off of each other seems forced; I'm not feeling town bouncing off of town here.Thanks for all the reasoning you've supplied for your suspicions, Edible.
I'd place Serp and Carth as working for the good of town. Baity reminds me of Sol in 9squad, newbie who bit off more than he could chew.
UK is actually paying attention this game. KY is trying harder than usual. Kiro and Alice, uh... well, they exist?
I will admit it's occurred to me that Affinity hadn't done anything more than provide a generic opinion behind a vote, but he's provided that much at least. We should waiting to see that Beilos flips town before holding it against him since if Beilos is scum it becomes a moot point.So making a poor case is okay if it lynches scum? Whatever happened to bussing?
I don't think it's a distraction. The chance might be the same or better if you were to start picking someone else apart (which is precisely what you're aiming to do now, right?), or it could be worse. Do I think you and Pesco are worth suspicion? Absolutely, but just not really any more than anyone else at the moment, and neither more than the other.Here's what gets me - you manage to say that I'm both suspicious and not suspicious.
Rou, you are going to lose on the vote reason. The d12 thing was added later from what I read. I also don't think point by point will get anywhere. Probably both of you should organize defenses/attacks and take them as a whole. Because some of your scumtells are basically junk (such as the one I mentioned), while there appear to be a couple good ones hidden amongst themI never claimed he voted Baity based on 2d6, I got mad at him when he pointed it out later. Why does a point have to be presented at the start of the case to be flawed?
Rou, I wouldn't have entertained that either. If he wins because he was lynched, it would be bullshit anyway and since most of the time a jester is just RFG'd, I'd just say "Good job winning with a bullshit role. Let's play mafia now"If the typical 'no roles with lynch as win condition' rule was there I'd have given it no further thought, but it was conspicuously missing so I panicked. I apologise.
Fong's Gambit is too popular (well-known) to be used effectively. The options that occurred to me at the start were:You know, there are better ways to generate discussion than self-voting, such as, say, developing a genuine case against another player rather than a jokevote. >_>
-Let random votes fly
-(somehow) generate discussion on D1
Both options were just as random as each other, in terms of the impact it would have on the game. It isn't hard to determine which option was chosen. I seem to have accidentally used the gambit without realizing it, it seems [as it is my first game here; I was unaware of the complications it causes].
I would consider that being reactionary to the extent of self-vote is scummy in itself. The analysis in the case at that time (e.g reactionary self-vote) is really already implicit in the accusation since it occurs so commonly that I don't need to explciitly put it in. I would say that it was also better than any other vote I could place, since he was the most scummy then.So there was nothing new to talk about, no original analysis to produce? It's just a clear-cut 'Selfvote obvscum see you on D2'?
The problem now with Rou seems to be that he charges at Pesco for the stuff regarding #46-49 when Pesco didn't vote Baity specifically for that.FPMH is an initial suspicion which either stays or goes based on later posts. He KEPT IT ON based on the dice and the self-vote.
The flipping the question around in #56 feels like a false scenario or something like that (probably didn't use the right words for it). Why are you trying to prove something in Baity's defense? I did not get good vibes with that post.I don't even understand this point. Pesco's argument for Baity being scum was that claiming he rolled 2d6 and then selfvoting was all part of some master plan. I asked him to give one possible legitimate example to prove he wasn't BSing and he failed to provide.
I actually did not catch any notion of this in any of your posts because the way you go after Pesco and ignore Baity after pointing out his softclaim makes me feel like you think he's a Town PR. See also "defense of Baity" point I made above. So if you are suspicious of Baity, how do you see this fitting in with your suspicions about Pesco being scum?Quick bus to make Pesco look good and stop him from being the classical MotK policy lynch.
I'll need to see Rou's points set out clearly to respond. They've been founded on the dice misrep as far as I can tell and I regard those as worthless.THIS IS NOT MISREP. It's not as if I'm claiming you said something you didn't, and while it may not have been your initial reasoning for voting Baity it was easily your weakest reason.
Rou's barely addressed what was spoken by people other than Pesco and can't seem to keep a clear head. Complaining about the lack of anyone else... doesn't work for me when he buys so thoroughly into Pesco's snarkiness.Forgive me for finding it annoying when people have no objection to Pesco's ad-hominem attacks on me. Seriously, he's MotK's resident Draco in Leather Pants. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPants)
I don't think it's far-fetched. If we find a reasonably plausible scenario that links two or three players as scum, I say we try to lynch them all. Going after several unrelated suspected scum gives us the advantage that we clean up several leads at once, but going after a group of apparently coherent scum makes it a lot harder for any of them to escape a lynching, in case our suspicions are correct. I favor the latter.But if our suspicions of said group are wrong, there's a good chance we'll lynch nothing but Townies.
Re-reading Roukanken v. Pesco, it looks to me like Pesco is just being an ass. Whether that's normal for him or not, I don't know, since I've only seen scum-Pesco in my history here. Still, I've seen townie players use abrasiveness to great effect before, so I won't consider it a scumtell.Do you see ANYTHING as a scumtell? I find it hard to believe that you honestly don't see anything as worth commenting on in this argument for one side or the other.
-Make myself look so much like scum, that you'll waver it off, because nobody plays like that... (save for me in this game, I hope) >_>Isn't this the inverted Too Townie fallacy? "You're so scummy, you must be Town?"
Surely, after reading my first point, it could make you pass off as a townie, but the fact that it didn't work as the majority have casted suspicion on me proves that this is arguably one of the stupidest things scum can do. Further, I can say with great confidence that (almost? Rou might've had the idea that I was.) nobody thought of this.Baity, as much as I hate to break it to you Stupid Scum =/= Smart Town. Sometimes it's just Stupid Scum.
Quite the opposite. My whole point is that neither of them seem really scummy to me, but I don't mind them squeezing each other and seeing if something scummy pops out. They're both playing smart, as I see it. At this stage in the game, you can agree with people's methods without agreeing with their votes.Serp, I find your lack of an actual opinion annoying. You have your own suspects for scum, correct? If so, fight about them, argue your side of the debate. Don't sit back and let other people do the work for you - scumhunt, dammit.
I think I explained my reasoning pretty well in the post you ninja'd. If one being scum implies that the other is scum, I favor going after them both, since multi-lynch is an option. That's why I placed the vote in the first place - I kept it 'cause Affinity hadn't shown up to defend himself yet.Where, anywhere in that post (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13026#msg13026), did you raise this idea? Are you trying to say that we're either both scum or neither scum now? Honestly, why is wringing an opinion out of you so hard?
I've read a lot of the rest of what's been posted, but haven't found much to comment on. My brain is a little fried anyway.T_T
I always seem to have this problem of being completely and absolutely wrong in my analysis, so I'm going to go ahead and reread everything even though it's only page five.Why are you outright saying 'I might be wrong with this'? It feels like giving yourself an escape route if you get proven wrong.
Also:WIFOM. Also I've seen this used to great effect by Kilga in Bamboo Forest Mafia once to secure a massive amount of mis-lynches in the next couple days. So...yeah.Unfortunately, I've had no history of Mafia games here, so there's no way I would know that Kilga used it.
Uh, damn. Do I really need to respond to this?Don't respond to it.
You really aren't helping your case, Baity. Even aside from the fact that looking too scummy to lynch is a stupid tactic from a selfish perspective, you also end up screwing with the town and forcing them to spend half a day trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to do. If you're actually town, you've basically made a gigantic diversion of yourself for the scum to hide behind.Yeah, I apologize for coming out with this a bit late. I had other matters to attend to, followed by a combination of mass + dinner.
Rolling a d12 compared to rolling 2d6 is the range of 1-12 and 2-12. You were excluding 2 players.in an attempt to make me look more scummier than what I need to already be (in other words, using me as the diversion for himself). Though it could be play from either side of town, or scum knowing that I'm town and getting a free lynch.
Read his post, he excluded himself and player 1, which means it's 2 players. More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now.The reason was assumed still FPMH. However, as the worst-case scenario appeared, more garbage posts came out. The result? Diversion from himself, attention towards me.
Why would scum vote themselves? Because you would give them a free pass for it.Note: I have no idea about who does what in each Mafia game. i.e. false accusation. Remember that I stated:
Might as well try something new. I've watched quite a few games before (on other forums and whatnot).I also have not watched any games here.
Umm... You kinda do have to vote for us to take you for being remotely interested in the going ons of the day.
Even if you have nothing to say about Baity or Affinity, there are 10 players that you can talk about. People that you can definitely say stuff on: Carthrat, me, Rou, Serp and maybe Kiro.
Things have developed since this post. What's your reads now?Further pushing.
For a second lynch, UK looks like a good avenue, outlined above.You might as well be going for a "lynch everybody". Like so:
Lurkerscum would be Edible or Alert as of now. UK, KY and Baity are independently suspicious.
You can do better than that. Put some backbone into it.Hmm... cover-up? This would be the only evidence (as of now) that Affinity is affiliated with pesco. However, I believe it to be attempting to redirect the vote to a more "convenient place", again going for a solid multi-lynch.
You know, there are better ways to generate discussion than self-voting, such as, say, developing a genuine case against another player rather than a jokevote. >_>Mainly:
And if it wasn't intended as Fong's Gambit, what exactly was it meant to do?
Your self-voting biases me to assume the worst about you (i.e. Wrathie, he's a policy vig)From that single line, I can only assume Wrathie... did something "unique"? Regardless, keyword in bold.
From that single line, I can only assume Wrathie... did something "unique"?Wrathie is a...strange player. English isn't his first language and so he makes some glaring errors there, and he's been known as being obvscum in almost every game he's played. Even when he's Town. He's also the only person I've ever seen self-vote during LYLO. >_>
Here's what gets me - you manage to say that I'm both suspicious and not suspicious.
And are you honestly saying that there's no-one else you'd rather question and thus you're going to sit and watch two players give arguments that don't convince you? That's, at best, sheer laziness.
But if our suspicions of said group are wrong, there's a good chance we'll lynch nothing but Townies.
And if we can make several of these plausible scenarios and lynch one player from each, that cuts down our suspicions considerably. Putting all our eggs in one basket is insanely risky.
Do you see ANYTHING as a scumtell? I find it hard to believe that you honestly don't see anything as worth commenting on in this argument for one side or the other.
Serp, I find your lack of an actual opinion annoying. You have your own suspects for scum, correct? If so, fight about them, argue your side of the debate. Don't sit back and let other people do the work for you - scumhunt, dammit.What do you think I've been doing? My case against Affinity wasn't strong, I know, but it was the best angle I saw at the time. Now I'm pressing Kanguya. You're lucky in that your scumhunting target has cooperated nicely with walls of text for you to reply to. The Affinity case didn't go anywhere, and Kanguya hasn't been online to respond to his yet.
Where, anywhere in that post (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13026#msg13026), did you raise this idea? Are you trying to say that we're either both scum or neither scum now? Honestly, why is wringing an opinion out of you so hard?
Serp is being as neutral as Switzerland, and that infuriates me. Leaving an argument to boil over without supplying any sort of opinion means you effectively leave finding the scum to other players, which is bad Town play.
I'm saying that you're middling in suspicion. That's not a contradiction.But you say later in this post that you're neutral on Pesco, and reading me as Town. 'Neutral' and 'Middling in suspicion' aren't the same thing.
I'm just wary of either scum or clueless townie derailing the vote at the last moment and sending us on a wild goose chase for the next few days. If we put all of the alleged conspirators on the line at once, we're likely to get at least one of them, no matter what crazy unexpected stuff happens as the deadline approaches.How could Town screw it up if we set up 6/6 at deadline? I don't honestly think anyone would be willing to take that risk unless they were two scum jumping to save themselves, in which case we have easy suspects on later days.
I've commented on it. You're pressing Pesco, which is good, but your arguments about his supposed scumtells so far haven't convinced me. I don't see anything suspicious in what he's said, and I don't see anything suspicious about you forcing him to defend himself. Your argument with Pesco is about Pesco himself, and I've let you know what I feel about him - neutral, which is to say I don't favor lynching him over anyone else, and I don't favor saving him over anyone else.If I'm attacking him without reason, like you say I am, surely that should be a point against me. But you ignore it since apparently baseless attacks are okay on D1? :|
As to how I feel about you, I suppose I can elaborate more there. I'd say that you look the most pro-town so far, for making an effort to keep everyone on their toes at the very least, if not for the fact that you seem to be tunneling a bit. I don't see evidence for Pesco one way or the other, and the evidence on you is conflicting, so I'm witholding judgement.Here it is again - you say 'You look the most pro-town' and then say 'I'm withholding judgement'. If you say I look pro-town, doesn't that basically mean you disagree with the case against me?
What do you think I've been doing? My case against Affinity wasn't strong, I know, but it was the best angle I saw at the time. Now I'm pressing Kanguya. You're lucky in that your scumhunting target has cooperated nicely with walls of text for you to reply to. The Affinity case didn't go anywhere, and Kanguya hasn't been online to respond to his yet.I will concede this point to you. KY, hurry up and saying something useful.
By "the post [Carthrat] ninja'd," I wasn't referring to that post, which was on an entirely different page, but to this (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13166#msg13166) one, and the two people I was referring to going after were Affinity and Baity, not you and Pesco. I'm not sure where you got that idea.I thought that when Carth was talking about your neutrality in the Pesco/Me debate, the post you referred to in reply was about said debate. I apologise.
I've made my opinion on Pesco clear from the beginning. I don't find your case on him compelling, but I don't find his defense compelling either. We need to lynch someone, and the more the better, and I have no reason to suspect him of being more townie than anyone else, so if he gets lynched, I won't mind, but if he doesn't get lynched, I won't mind then either.You don't have a reason to suspect him, but you don't have a reason to trust him. Whatever happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty, ye of the Shikieiki avatar?
What's wrong with being neutral in this regard? It's a perfectly valid point of view to hold two or more players as equally scummy, and be indifferent as to which of them gets lynched, as long as one of them does get lynched. As to leaving scumhunting to other players, I'm doing scumhunting of my own, too. I'm not going after the same player you are, but I am hunting.The point I'm trying to make here is that claiming neutrality is an easy way for scum to comment without needing to choose a side. I think this should be particularly noteworthy if Pesco flips Town, since it could be Serp trying to avoid connection to a Town/Town fight.
Horrible IIoA. There is not the slightest backing behind any of your opinions which is really horrible and arbitrary. The only actual judgments you actually put forward are 'good' and 'bad', and 'switch Affinity with Rou', with nothing of contributory worth. Smacks of active lurking, and of trying to get under the radar with half-hearted opinions such as the quotes above. Not to mention handholding and piggybacking of people such as Serp and Zak. Also, I feel that Serp's point against me isn't that strong, and I don't see you pointing out it's exact merits. Also note that word 'could' in the last quote, which smacks of fortune telling and WIFOM.Well, okay. There's not really anything I can do to answer this other than that I agreed with their points, perhaps I agreed with them too much? I'm not confident in my opinions but if I really look that bad then I suppose I must get them out there instead of mindlessly agreeing with others who DO have valid points. I guess that agreeing and then doing nothing else was a horrible error on my part and there's nothing I can change now other than avoiding it in the future.
As for who else looks scummy right now, I'm tired of Kanguya Yaraisan humping my leg. Only the scum know who's definitely townie, and objectively speaking, I don't see how I've done anything to warrant that kind of trust.You did indeed, look the most townie at the time that I posted that, however new developments may cause me to think otherwise. Once again, next time I do an analysis (probably very soon) I will not explain why someone looks town to me and/or just avoid them all together.
KY, hurry up and saying something useful.I'm going to (attempt to) do that in my next post. I'll see what I can come up with.
The point I'm trying to make here is that claiming neutrality is an easy way for scum to comment without needing to choose a side. I think this should be particularly noteworthy if Pesco flips Town, since it could be Serp trying to avoid connection to a Town/Town fight.
How could Town screw it up if we set up 6/6 at deadline? I don't honestly think anyone would be willing to take that risk unless they were two scum jumping to save themselves, in which case we have easy suspects on later days.
If I'm attacking him without reason, like you say I am, surely that should be a point against me. But you ignore it since apparently baseless attacks are okay on D1? :|
But you say later in this post that you're neutral on Pesco, and reading me as Town. 'Neutral' and 'Middling in suspicion' aren't the same thing.
Here it is again - you say 'You look the most pro-town' and then say 'I'm withholding judgement'. If you say I look pro-town, doesn't that basically mean you disagree with the case against me?
I'd say that you look the most pro-town so far [blah blah blah] if not for the fact that you seem to be tunneling a bit.
You don't have a reason to suspect him, but you don't have a reason to trust him. Whatever happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty, ye of the Shikieiki avatar?
The point I'm trying to make here is that claiming neutrality is an easy way for scum to comment without needing to choose a side. I think this should be particularly noteworthy if Pesco flips Town, since it could be Serp trying to avoid connection to a Town/Town fight.
In particular I'll bring up that he's happy enough to lynch Pesco, or so he said earlier, but that guy wasn't on his prime suspect list, and in general he's just claimed neutrality over the whole R/P thing. It's not pro-town to sit back and refuse to push your superior case. It's very pro-scum to let lynches just slide through, if possible. I don't like how we've gone from 'it's fine for them to squeeze each other' to 'eh, let 'em die we've got spare lynches'. That's not the point of spare lynches. >_>
Serp/Baity is my pair at present.
Do care about how on the PvR thing, you've gone from 'it's okay to sit on the sidelines, and neither of them look scummy', to 'sorry, rou, but I'm staunchly neutral on you vs. P' to 'but it's okay to lynch pesco, I guess, no problems' despite apparently having serious issues with other people.
And if you don't believe what I'm saying now (and that I'm protecting Edible for instance), check the signup thread. Now check the start of this thread....what? You're protecting edible?
-Make myself look so much like scum, that you'll waver it off, because nobody plays like that... (save for me in this game, I hope) >_>Or perhaps act so much like scum that you try to convince town that you're not scum, if you are. The "nobody plays like that" comment is basically saying that "I'm not scum since I'm playing so badly." This is honestly a pretty dumb gambit, especially so early in the game when you had NO suspicion on you whatsoever. It could indicate paranoid newbscum. Note the COULD.
-From that, survive lynching round of D1 (very unlikely at this point).
-Survive N1.
-...(insert future plan here). Hopefully, I get to pull something out at this point.
suspicion on me proves that this is arguably one of the stupidest things scum can doSo that automatically means good playing town instead of inexperienced newbscum?
High-risk, low-reward if done by scum (you're probably better off shutting up and blending with the crowd)You were trying extremely hard to convince everyone else that you're town from the very beginning of the game! That's quite scummy, IMO.
High-risk, variable-reward if done by townie. Depends on what I can do if I survive.
WHERE IS EDIBLE ARGH[/b]
I'm rarely around much on Friday/Saturday EST. I'll run some analysis once I'm at work and not busy.
@UK: This post is pure IIoA. You've done a nice job summarizing the game, but there is no analysis in this post whatsoever. So what was the point of poasting it in the first place?
. I extremely dislike UK's method of posting which is very strongly IIoA.
@ UK: Which and why of Rou's points are the good ones and which ones are bad? Lay them out in chronological order for me, Rou should do it too (which ones are the good ones in his opinion).
@ Alice: You've already addressed UK's lack of content and lurkers. I find her post to KY about coaching quite silly as that's exactly what she's doing herself. Edible has pulled a clean fence sit with his post, also adding nothing to the pot. Baity and KY's responses have been all round unsatisfactory. KY doing a lot of piggybacking and no independent posting (i.e. without prompting). Baity lacking sensible replies. Mr Alert needs to post more than asking what FPMH is.
For a second lynch, UK looks like a good avenue, outlined above.
@UK: Hey now I resent being told that gaming the setup's bad, it's won games in the past. Early day one, nothing else to do, at least it's something to talk about.
@Everyone: Do people write these walls because they think they're obligated to, or because they don't realise how horribly painful they are to read? For god's sake, there's not even that much to talk about!Quote
I have an excuse. Easiest way to do 3 pages of catch upQuote-Make myself look so much like scum, that you'll waver it off, because nobody plays like that... (save for me in this game, I hope) >_>
-From that, survive lynching round of D1 (very unlikely at this point).
-Survive N1.
-...(insert future plan here). Hopefully, I get to pull something out at this point.
You are trying to be too scummy to be scum? OH I wish I had two votes right now, so I could use them both on you.QuoteTo explain the first point, allow me to retaliate with, "Why would it be beneficial for a scum to put themselves upfront like this?" (i.e. why would a scum member make themselves look scummy?)
For the exact reason you said. So we'll wave it off.
Alice once again makes a good post. And says what I was thinking better than I did.
And...pesco points out something I missed.
Wait, you pointed out why it was anti town and didn't vote Baity, Alice?QuoteI never claimed he voted Baity based on 2d6, I got mad at him when he pointed it out later. Why does a point have to be presented at the start of the case to be flawed?
Then I misunderstood. I apologize. It goes back to pesco then :PQuoteIf the typical 'no roles with lynch as win condition' rule was there I'd have given it no further thought, but it was conspicuously missing so I panicked. I apologise.
OH NOES! APOLOGETIC MOE! RUUUUUN!
Seriously, there isn't much else you can say on that. I'm not sure how to take it but it's not a major point.
As for the self vote being a part of a master plan, just going to note it apparently was with Baity. You may have your facepalms at the ready.QuoteForgive me for finding it annoying when people have no objection to Pesco's ad-hominem attacks on me. Seriously, he's MotK's resident Draco in Leather Pants.
Um...I didn't? I did tell pesco to stop being a jerkass, and I told you to enumerate your case in a form that isn't a WoT. Please reply, over?
Some of Baity's points read null tell (as he says either town or scum could do it). He also brings up not playing other MotK games too much. They were just examples, not accusation of emulations. In fact, reading Baity's post closely, I don't see a single good point. All of it seems to revolve around "I didn't play or watch here" and "Pesco pushes people". I didn't see a good scumtell out of any of this.
Oh hey Rou, you said it better than I did :(...againQuoteHere it is again - you say 'You look the most pro-town' and then say 'I'm withholding judgement'. If you say I look pro-town, doesn't that basically mean you disagree with the case against me?
Not to answer for him, but this is a misrep. He's saying you WOULD look protown...if you weren't tunneling pesco.
Ok...caught up. I will now reread KY, Baity's WoT, and Rou's WoT.
I was arguing against this point here, which YOU raised as a point against Baity and was in my opinion flawed. I don't see any misrep here.
If you'd notice, I'm also relatively suspicious of Baity (as I've said previously). The point is that the reasons you're attacking him for are relatively poor (FPMH, dice hax...), and bad attacks are in my opinion worse than bad play since that's how scum get Townies lynched.
Firstly, immediate misrep on 'giving 11 players free passes'. Trying to pass me as a tunneler when I've made points against more players than he has.
Secondly, your argument that Baity was scum revolved around there being a decent plan behind what he was doing. If you can't come up with some sort of legitimate benefit that Scum!Baity could get from this plan, I'll consider your defense null and void.
In response to silly point YOU made about pointing out him excluding himself from random voting. I was pressing you on it to see if you were genuinely trying to use it as an argument.
Explain the difference to me. From what I can see you're arguing semantics here.Fair point
In return for earning the suspicion of several other players. Looking at the current votes on him, I'd say this has earned Baity roughly -1 free passes.
This doesn't refute the third point - if you want three lynch targets, we should have three genuinely suspicious players.
And for the umpteenth time, you disregard my case without giving a useful defense. I recall you doing this to Umu last game when you were scum, hoping that his repeated insistence that you were scum would make him look worse for tunneling than you did for your various scummy tactics.
And for the record, it's hard to scumhunt when half the players have posted pretty much zilch beyond setup discussion.
Can I PLEASE GET SOME OPINIONS FROM YOU LURKERS OUT THERE?! IF I HAVE TO SPEND D1 DOING NOTHING BUT ARGUE WITH PESCO SINCE NO-ONE ELSE IS SAYING ANYTHING USEFUL I'LL PROBABLY HAVE AN ANEURYSM.
To see who would jump the gun, and use the very small of amount of evidence that I've "created".
I have no evidence you're even scum to begin with. If I start, it would be either pure guesswork and assumption, or your reaction to my posts / anybody else's, which I'm still analyzing. Voting to improve my self-image? See above. And below, just below this.
Let me put it this way. I'd rather try to sacrifice myself to take out at least 1 scum by evidence, rather than rely on PR's. My self-voting is only temporary, and I will address the reasoning to my switch accordingly.
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12779#msg12779) is most assuredly IIoA, and his first real post. On page 3
Frankly, I didn't want to get involved in the Baity dice whatever. If you look back, not much had happened between page 1 and page 3 besides setup speculation and that Baity dice thing + self vote. So which is worse, setup speculation or nothing at all?
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12906#msg12906) is actually pretty bad too. If you have nothing to say, why post? And why don't you have anything to say? There are THREE PAGES SO FAR. Oh, and obligatory why aren't you voting Affinity if you would do it if you had to?
Rou asked me to post, and I figured that it would be worse if I didn't post at all. Regarding the Affinity vote, I wasn't too confident in my case but it was the best case that I had. It wasn't voteworthy but it was a case.
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12923#msg12923) was beat to death already. I'll give him a slight pass on it since he seemed genuinely unknowing.
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12936#msg12936) was also beat to death. I don't know why I didn't care as much about it as I should. It's just very flat...sorry, I'll be useful eventually. and the EBWOP cares too much about image.
If there's one thing that I hate, it's people getting angry at/accidentally offended by me.
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13010#msg13010) is an herbal blend of excuses, analyses that shouldn't be made, and waffles. (poke pesco, don't want to get involved in P v. R.)
Worst post ever. You have every right to hold that against me.
yes, at this point I'm retconning what I said about not so scummy. I didn't read him close enough.
Analysis issue resolved.
This (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13224#msg13224) is a weak defense. Oh, and it's mostly apologetic moe and no real counterpoints.
Well, this is a bad excuse, but I had just woken up and I wanted something out there.
Kanguya's Baity post is solid, but it took too long to come out. Grain of salt, basically.
IRL reasons.
Ok, seriously...at this point I think I want three lynches.
Baity, Kanguya, and Pesco.
Pesco's ad hominems and apparent disregard for Rou's case make me lack warm fuzzies. I DO want Rou to enumerate his case in a paragraph rather than point by point wall, so that pesco has no excuse to dodge, but I'm leaning pesc-um.
Frankly, I didn't want to get involved in the Baity dice whatever. If you look back, not much had happened between page 1 and page 3 besides setup speculation and that Baity dice thing + self vote. So which is worse, setup speculation or nothing at all?
Rou asked me to post, and I figured that it would be worse if I didn't post at all. Regarding the Affinity vote, I wasn't too confident in my case but it was the best case that I had. It wasn't voteworthy but it was a case.
If there's one thing that I hate, it's people getting angry at/accidentally offended by me.
Worst post ever. You have every right to hold that against me.
Regarding Serpentarius, I don't think it's his job to break up the arguing between Pesco and Rou. He had his focus on Affinity and Baity at the time so he actually pushed their argument into a corner from what I read and observed it while waiting for Affinity. The only reason he seems to be suspicious is because he acknowledged not bothering to stop it and I find it ironic that Rou was the first one to say this when it should be obvious from Rou's point of view that he had more control over stopping his own argument with Pesco than Serpentarius would. So why is Serpentarius getting extra heat for it when pretty much nobody else told Pesco or Rou to drop it? However, I don't think it's that bad of a case mainly due to Carthrat's recent question. I would also like to hear Serp's response regarding that subtle attitude change that Carthrat pointed out.You try answering basically the same question half a dozen times and managing to keep exactly the same tone in each answer. That said, we have about 30 hours left in the day. I think it's time to settle on who we want to lynch.
Quote@ Serp: You suspect bussing already?Most of the votes placed in the random voting phase tend to get switched around pretty quickly. It seems like a fittingly newbie move to put an apparently random vote on a fellow scum, intending to switch as soon as a good bandwagon comes up, but then panic when you get called on it.
That kinda fails since he's voting himself right now. What supports your theory is his reluctance to revote Affinity, which isn't particularly great for consideration right now.
That said, I've been increasingly unsatisfied with my Affinity vote since I placed it, though your defense of him has been noted. By keeping it, I was mostly just hoping to provoke an interesting response.
Pesco: So what's your opinion on Rou? You've gone on him for all this time and in the end, you'd go for UK as your second lynch? Is Rou Town in your eyes given you've spent the most timewriting affectionate poemstalking about him today? Also, you seem rather apathetic about that secondary lynch target. Hrm. You definitely could try harder on that point.
QuoteFirstly, immediate misrep on 'giving 11 players free passes'. Trying to pass me as a tunneler when I've made points against more players than he has.I wouldn't call it a misrep per se, since you have spent most of your effort on pesco. However the rest is alright. (Of course, later, Baity DOES reveal his "master plan") What makes a burden of proof fallacy alright?
Secondly, your argument that Baity was scum revolved around there being a decent plan behind what he was doing. If you can't come up with some sort of legitimate benefit that Scum!Baity could get from this plan, I'll consider your defense null and void.QuoteExplain the difference to me. From what I can see you're arguing semantics here.Fair point [This is relative to which post?]QuoteThis doesn't refute the third point - if you want three lynch targets, we should have three genuinely suspicious players.Fair [This is relative to which post?]QuoteAnd for the umpteenth time, you disregard my case without giving a useful defense. I recall you doing this to Umu last game when you were scum, hoping that his repeated insistence that you were scum would make him look worse for tunneling than you did for your various scummy tactics.This is one of the best things you have in that post Given how many points you disagreed with in your wall, why do you agree?
THIS IS NOT MISREP. It's not as if I'm claiming you said something you didn't, and while it may not have been your initial reasoning for voting Baity it was easily your weakest reason.
Pesco's argument for Baity being scum was that claiming he rolled 2d6 and then selfvoting was all part of some master plan.
More interesting to me is Pesco's misrep of what seems to be a simple misunderstanding of the probabilities of 2d6:
- No, he was excluding one player: Edible (1). Don't even TRY to argue that he should have left the self-vote possibility open.
- In terms of the probability ignorance, realise that this scum plan you're suggesting only works in one highly unlikely situation - the scum players are all near the top or bottom of the list, thus the 2d6 roll will probably (or in one case, definitely) miss them. The odds of this are also pretty small.
- There's also the point that, well, using a 2d6 for a random vote is OBVIOUSLY going to get called out for being stupid. Either the entire scumteam has no idea how probabilities work, or Baity just made a mistake. Indeed, if he'd never said 'I'm using 2d6' his random vote would've received no further thought, so why would he mention it if he knew it was a bad idea?
FPMH is an initial suspicion which either stays or goes based on later posts. He KEPT IT ON based on the dice and the self-vote.
Read his post, he excluded himself and player 1, which means it's 2 players. More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now.
Quick bus to make Pesco look good and stop him from being the classical MotK policy lynch.
Moving on, (expect repeated information to occur; I will try not to recite any other opinions that others have given, but it's expected to happen knowing me)
Excuses like this suck. Why make them at all?
pesco accuses me of protecting Edible from the exclusion of my random selection;in an attempt to make me look more scummier than what I need to already be (in other words, using me as the diversion for himself). Though it could be play from either side of town, or scum knowing that I'm town and getting a free lynch.
Explain what the point of 48 (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12736#msg12736) is for then?
Then denies it has anything to do with the claim of protection;The reason was assumed still FPMH. However, as the worst-case scenario appeared, more garbage posts came out. The result? Diversion from himself, attention towards me.
Also,Note: I have no idea about who does what in each Mafia game. i.e. false accusation. Remember that I stated:I also have not watched any games here.
We've only got your word for the claimed experience and it's not a valid defense.
From here to the end is what? Not scumhunting that's for sure.
Encourages 2nd option for lynch, probably thinking that there's enough dirt on me (i.e. opting for a multi-lynch for maximum effect):
*KY's post regarding my situation, and give or take a bit of content*Further pushing.
You might as well be going for a "lynch everybody". Like so:
And of course...,
-KY votes Affinity-Hmm... cover-up? This would be the only evidence (as of now) that Affinity is affiliated with pesco. However, I believe it to be attempting to redirect the vote to a more "convenient place", again going for a solid multi-lynch.
Yes, some parts are a bit "flawed", but that doesn't change the fact that he still manipulated (almost) everything (subtle or not) to his favor. And lying through one point.
Why are you outright saying 'I might be wrong with this'? It feels like giving yourself an escape route if you get proven wrong.
Regarding Mr_Alert, I've worked with him in the past in Masters Servants, and Paranoia. He has a lot of IRL things that suddenly cause him to be away for relatively large amounts of time, so I don't think that should be held against him. On the other hand, his last login was only about 2 hours ago.
In retrospect here, even though I only brought up the bussing possibility, I think Serp could also have spoken about a scumAffinity joining the wagon aspect. The response from Serp on this, lacking followup is pretty evident of an unconvincing vote in the first place.
I don't see this bactrack as a clean one.
Affinity's side of the vote from Serp has just been minor return prod, this was enough to illicit a backtrack from Serp?
UK's case on Gensokyo Blender is really nice, but it's worrisome because it contains mostly "KY is acting like KY Always does, and that's no good." I'm not a big fan of clearing people just because it's their meta to play badly (for whatever reason), but at the same time, there really isn't an actual scumtell to work with in the whole case. I'm alright with the lynch, but I wouldn't vote for it.
Regarding Mr_Alert, I've worked with him in the past in Masters Servants, and Paranoia. He has a lot of IRL things that suddenly cause him to be away for relatively large amounts of time, so I don't think that should be held against him. On the other hand, his last login was only about 2 hours ago.
Being asked to rationalise Baity's actions is not burden of proof?
Your one word replies to selective quotes mean nothing without the surrounding context. That is why I was asking relative to which post.
Finding me scummy without agreeing with Rou doesn't add up.
If you can't come up with some sort of legitimate benefit that Scum!Baity could get from this plan, I'll consider your defense null and void.
Serp/Baity is my pair at present.Why are you creating scumpair theories when nobody has flipped yet? It's D1 ffs.
But this is alarming; 'if x = town lynch y' generally is, particularly in day one. I would call Serp as scummier than Pesco on the strength of his neutrality (what a weird turn of phrase). I'm presuming you think Serp's not as good a lynch as Pesco, Rou, owing to your vote and earlier statements. Why? And why shove this predictated logic in there, too?To be honest, I wanted to advance the Serp case a little further before I shifted my vote. That and I still kinda had the red mist telling me Pesco was scum even after I woke up, so yeah.
First, I think we'd screw it up by not even getting to 6/6 due to disagreements within the town, and second, I think that some townie could then screw it up by making it look like scum were jumping to save themselves, just out of pure cluelessness.This is obscenely pessimistic of you. No-one here is clueless enough to make that sort of move when it's been EXPLICITLY said not to do it.
It looks sincere from here, even if I don't agree.Define sincerity.
I'd say that you look the most pro-town so far [blah blah blah] if not for the fact that you seem to be tunneling a bit.Which makes you okay with seeing me lynched? That I'm relatively townie excusing some tunneling?
I won't disagree with you that this sort of thing can be a scumtell, but the simple fact is that your argument against Pesco just doesn't convince me. I'm only willing to lynch him if no better options come up. I have two picks at the moment, and a third isn't inconceivable, so Pesco is still an option, but no more, as far as I'm concerned.Compare this to:
We need to lynch someone, and the more the better, and I have no reason to suspect him of being more townie than anyone else, so if he gets lynched, I won't mind, but if he doesn't get lynched, I won't mind then either.You've jumped again, from 'I don't see any reason not to lynch him' to 'I only want to lynch him if we have no other options'. Huh?
Regarding Serpentarius, I don't think it's his job to break up the arguing between Pesco and Rou.You're missing the problem. I never at any point said that he had to break up the argument - what the problem was is that he had no opinion on either side of the debate whatsoever. That isn't constructive townie play, and his ever-changing opinions on PvR aren't helping him.
Rou: I will disagree with you that Pesco kept his FPMH on Baity for "both" the dice and the self-vote. Pesco is not dumb. I am certain he was talking about dice just to get reactions out of Baity and Baity provided them.So making a bad case in order to provide reactions is apparently okay?
And I would like to turn it around that Scum Pesco doing a quick bus on Scum Baity to earn Town cred doesn't seem to jive with the subsequent attack on you. He clearly got heat for it and probably expected to get heat for it and that would defeat the purpose of his bus.Misrep AGAIN - Pesco never attacked me, he tried to disprove my theories. It was wholly defensive, if admittedly not the most polite kind. >_>
Funny, either you or Rou do in my book....Wait, what? What happened to this?
Pesco and Rou could be anything, but if one of them is scum, it's Pesco. He's being hypocritical about personal vendettas and such, and has ignored Rou's GOOD points.And then later on in your post you suddenly start accusing him again. The hell?
But pesco always does that. I'd be more worried about "poor reasoning" later in the day. This is a null tell at the time of that post.How can flawed reasoning be a nulltell?
My top three preferred lynches right now are as follow: BaitySM, Kanguya Yaraisan, Mr_Alert. Incidentally, since we all seem to agree that anything more than a triple lynch is certainly a bad idea, this doesn't leave any room for poor Pesco47. Roukanken, if you're still convinced that Pesco47 is worse than the guy who still has his random vote from the beginning of the game, the guy who was humping my leg on horrible reasoning 'till just recently, and freakin' BaitySM, I think we may have reached the point where I'll actively discourage your tunneling.Why do you instantly assume that your three lynches are the ones everyone agrees on? Alert has a history of struggling to find time for the game, so I'm willing to give him until Day 2 to pick up.
The self voting was valid for keeping my vote on him.I will say this one last time, just because it's been argued to death already: I don't care if it isn't why you voted him or why you maintained your vote, making a poor point isn't good in any case.
Since you're so fond of past games as evidence, I'll point out that when we were scum together, I told you to bus me so that I get lynched first. Me bussing Zak in Alice's game didn't turn out to be good play for us. How is your theory here valid according to empirical evidence?People aren't empirical evidence. This is total WIFOM.
What's wrong with saying "I might be wrong" when I probably am?Here's a better question - if you don't think your theory is correct, why mention it?
I'm alright with the lynch, but I wouldn't vote for it.GODDAMMIT, NOW THERE'S TWO OF YOU. *Holds head in hands*
Zakeri, KY has some convincing scumtells against him. His following of a popular townie at the time, myself, looks pretty bad. It's an instinct for newbie scum to attach themselves to a townie, loudly proclaiming "This person is definitely town," 'cause of course the scum know who's town and who's not. You shouldn't need me to tell you this.This has to be some sort of emotional fallacy right here.
Finding me scummy without agreeing with Rou doesn't add up.
I agree you are scummy though since you've been mostly posting ad hominems and dancing around Rou's points.Why is this not good enough reasoning for suspicion? Your response of 'Well his argument is so crap it isn't worth my time' doesn't help either.
Being asked to rationalise Baity's actions is not burden of proof?You outright said 'He knows what he's doing with this'. I ask you 'what could he be doing then?' and you can't even give me one possible theory. THAT'S what annoys me.
Are you claiming that not posting good opinions, waffling like mad, and overall IIoA are not scumtells?No, I'm saying that some scumtells have more weight than others when you consider a case on people. This is still Day 1 after all.
Zakeri, KY has some convincing scumtells against him. His following of a popular townie at the time, myself, looks pretty bad. It's an instinct for newbie scum to attach themselves to a townie, loudly proclaiming "This person is definitely town," 'cause of course the scum know who's town and who's not. You shouldn't need me to tell you this.
No, I'm saying that some scumtells have more weight than others when you consider a case on people. This is still Day 1 after all.Note the subtle change from 'scumtells' to 'important scumtells'.
Ahh, I see....Huh? Are you agreeing with Serp's point? If so, why aren't you voting? And why do you trust Serp's point over UK's?
Here's a better question - if you don't think your theory is correct, why mention it?
Zak is also looking bad for doing the same as Serp - passively supporting a lynch despite not genuinely believing in it.I would actually put it as defending a lynch while letting it slide if I were to put it in a "Zak is Scum" perspective. I wasn't really supporting the Blender Lynch.
My top three preferred lynches right now are as follow: BaitySM, Kanguya Yaraisan, Mr_Alert. Incidentally, since we all seem to agree that anything more than a triple lynch is certainly a bad idea, this doesn't leave any room for poor Pesco47. Roukanken, if you're still convinced that Pesco47 is worse than the guy who still has his random vote from the beginning of the game, ...
...Huh? Are you agreeing with Serp's point? If so, why aren't you voting? And why do you trust Serp's point over UK's?
...Wait, what? What happened to this?
And then later on in your post you suddenly start accusing him again. The hell?
How can flawed reasoning be a nulltell?
Why is this not good enough reasoning for suspicion? Your response of 'Well his argument is so crap it isn't worth my time' doesn't help either.
Since people were asking for it, here's a little summary of my points on Pesco:
- A distinct lack of scumhunting, focusing instead on defending himself
- Multiple cases of attack ad hominem
- Overlooking several points based on 'lack of context'
- Deciding that if my case isn't totally perfectly flawless he can't possibly be scum
No, I'm saying that some scumtells have more weight than others when you consider a case on people. This is still Day 1 after all.
Note the subtle change from 'scumtells' to 'important scumtells'.
Serp pointed out a specific scumtell that I felt was good enough to produce a vote on. And I didn't change my vote since then there wouldn't be enough for Beilos.
Buhhh. Got side tracked yesterday and am stuck filming a Japanese cooking show today. :/ Will try to figure stuff out later tonight.
In the meantime, ##Unvote
This is obscenely pessimistic of you. No-one here is clueless enough to make that sort of move when it's been EXPLICITLY said not to do it.
Define sincerity.
Which makes you okay with seeing me lynched? That I'm relatively townie excusing some tunneling?
Compare this to:You've jumped again, from 'I don't see any reason not to lynch him' to 'I only want to lynch him if we have no other options'. Huh?
You're missing the problem. I never at any point said that he had to break up the argument - what the problem was is that he had no opinion on either side of the debate whatsoever. That isn't constructive townie play, and his ever-changing opinions on PvR aren't helping him.
So making a bad case in order to provide reactions is apparently okay?
Why do you instantly assume that your three lynches are the ones everyone agrees on? Alert has a history of struggling to find time for the game, so I'm willing to give him until Day 2 to pick up.
I will say this one last time, just because it's been argued to death already: I don't care if it isn't why you voted him or why you maintained your vote, making a poor point isn't good in any case.
This has to be some sort of emotional fallacy right here.
Still, at the moment Serpentarius's inability to have an opinion on a case, and then coming up with about five different views when pressed is particularly annoying.
he's tunneling pretty badly on KY - here (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13338#msg13338) he basically says 'KY is finally making sense but I'm voting him anyway'. Huh?
...what? You're protecting edible?What? Misinterpretation?
check the signup thread (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=92.0). Now check the start of this thread.
They're exactly the same; it's a list in chronological order of the people who signed up.
Still, at the moment Serpentarius's inability to have an opinion on a case, and then coming up with about five different views when pressed is particularly annoying. His pessimism about getting two safe lynches doesn't make any sense and seems to almost setting the stage for a 'clueless Townie' to screw things up at deadline, and he's tunneling pretty badly on KY - here he basically says 'KY is finally making sense but I'm voting him anyway'. Huh?
In terms of new suspicions I'm really not liking Kiro, actually - he feels a lot harsher and more aggressive for some reason, attacking other players' points rather than making his own.
I'm not confident in my opinions
instead of mindlessly agreeing with others who DO have valid points
Though it could be play from either side of town, or scum knowing that I'm town and getting a free lynch.
Keyword; slightly. Like 2%. (Very Weak) Reason?
In short, I simply disagree to your justification that I was a non-townie at this point (i.e. the very start).
What are you asking here? Are you asking me why I don't suspect pesco? Because...I do suspect him. I suspect others more. As for you, I thought some of your arguments were weird and didn't make much sense. I don't have to agree with your arguments to agree with your conclusion.I'm asking why Pesco seems to think that you have to agree with my case for him to be scum. If you can make a case against him then that should logically be enough.
No one? Really? I could easily see a less experience player doing it when faced with a compelling roleclaim or something.Not when the entire Town has told them not to. And if we have it at 6/6 then we'd need 2 of your clueless Townies to mess things up.
Well, isn't that implicit? If there's no reason not to lynch someone, then you lynch him if there are no better options. See my point just above.This implies that lynching is necessary. If we have a choice between lynching one player who's probably scum, and lynching two players one of whom is probably scum and the other could be anything, we'll be worse off choosing the latter in the event that Player 2 is Town. In the same way we only want to go for the triple lynch with 3 strong suspects, we want 2 for the double lynch.
Alright, I'm getting a little sick of having my neutrality towards Pesco being misconstrued as a lack of opinion. Your case is that Pesco is scummy. My response is that your case is not compelling, and Pesco doesn't look scummy. You claim that if I hold this view, I must necessarily break up your argument, here. I held that it was early in the day, so I didn't mind if you pressed each other and looked for scumtells. You seemed to have a problem comprehending this point, 'cause I've been reiterating it for the last few pages and haven't made any progress on you.1. I only asked why you didn't break it up at that point because at the time I thought you were interpreting the PvR debate as Town/Town.
In the first hours of the first day, yes! Absolutely!No. No, no, NO.
See my point above about all early cases. Also, considering that you've completely dropped the Pesco angle that got us here in the first place, are you conceding that your point against him was poor as well? 'Cause that's what I've held from the beginning, you know.Two points here:
Are you referring to the italicized part specifically, where I point out that Zakeri ought to know about such an obvious scumtell? Which he then agreed with?It just feels condescending is all. Like you're goading him into agreeing with you.
Please, show me where I've contradicted the underlined statement up above if you're going to continue holding this point. Your criteria for "different view" appears to be limited to "different word choice."Alright then:
Your back-and-forth with Pesco is just you two attacking each others' statements and disagreeing over interpretations. None of the statements I haven't responded to seem unusually scummy to me, and I'm sure as heck not going to defend them in your place, so as far as I'm concerned, you two can just continue to go at each other.Translation: "Neither of you seem that scummy, but I'll let you argue anyway."
I don't think it's a distraction. The chance might be the same or better if you were to start picking someone else apart (which is precisely what you're aiming to do now, right?), or it could be worse. Do I think you and Pesco are worth suspicion? Absolutely, but just not really any more than anyone else at the moment, and neither more than the other.Translation: "Both of you are relatively suspicious."
Re-reading Roukanken v. Pesco, it looks to me like Pesco is just being an ass. Whether that's normal for him or not, I don't know, since I've only seen scum-Pesco in my history here. Still, I've seen townie players use abrasiveness to great effect before, so I won't consider it a scumtell. I still don't blame Roukanken for putting pressure on him, though. Since we have the luxury of a multi-lynch, I won't object to a Pesco lynch, as long as no one else has become significantly more scummy by the deadline (lurkers, I'm looking at you).Translation: "Pesco is being a dick, but since that's very rarely used by Townies I'll ignore it as a scumtell entirely."
Quite the opposite. My whole point is that neither of them seem really scummy to me, but I don't mind them squeezing each other and seeing if something scummy pops out. They're both playing smart, as I see it. At this stage in the game, you can agree with people's methods without agreeing with their votes.And we're back to 'Neither of them are scummy' again.
I'm saying that you're middling in suspicion. That's not a contradiction.
I've made my opinion on Pesco clear from the beginning. I don't find your case on him compelling, but I don't find his defense compelling either. We need to lynch someone, and the more the better, and I have no reason to suspect him of being more townie than anyone else, so if he gets lynched, I won't mind, but if he doesn't get lynched, I won't mind then either."Apparently I now want to lynch a player who I just said isn't scummy, because obviously we need to doublelynch, right?"
Roukanken, if you're still convinced that Pesco47 is worse than the guy who still has his random vote from the beginning of the game, the guy who was humping my leg on horrible reasoning 'till just recently, and freakin' BaitySM, I think we may have reached the point where I'll actively discourage your tunneling. We need to settle on our lynches soon."And now I don't want to lynch him because I want to get rid of an inactive instead."
Baity, I don't like how you're using 'it's my first time playing here' as your universal excuse for everything.Not everything, but where its necessary. The fact that people used examples (of other people) which I have no idea about makes things a hell of a lot more confusing for me.
Effectively admitting Fong's gambit
*facepalm*
Quote from: RouYou know, there are better ways to generate discussion than self-voting, such as, say, developing a genuine case against another player rather than a jokevote. >_>While it might have seemed that I was after people who would vote for me after, it was actually directed at pesco.
And if it wasn't intended as Fong's Gambit, what exactly was it meant to do?
You should probably just have dropped it.Maybe, but if I drop it, it may as well create more suspicion.
Ah, what might the reason be then?Originally, it was this...
Categorizing behavior. Over the internet, it's quite easy to initially lie your way through. However, as the game goes on, it gets harder and harder to lie, as there is a greater amount of information you have to check over, using your lies to create other lies (or distorted truths, whatever you prefer). In short, I simply disagree to your justification that I was a non-townie at this point (i.e. the very start).Now I feel, after looking over what I posted (last night? I have horrible memory), it's more this (and better suited to the 2%):
-KY votes Affinity-In case you couldn't pick it up, it sounds like the most ludicrous claim I could make.Quote from: pesco47You can do better than that. Put some backbone into it.
Baity, a question for when you get back - who are your current suspects besides Pesco?From the top of my head, I would say Serp. If memory serves, there was something in one of the posts that caught my eye. The others, I haven't exactly drawn any logical conclusion yet, apart from Affinity at the whopping 2% suspicion.
In addition, he's been drawing way too much attention to himself and his "role," which makes me want to force him to divulge said role, especially considering we have approximately a day left and I'd like to avoid the mess we made of last game's D1 end.I'll gladly comply with this, but if I do, it's essentially giving up the role. If you agree, or disagree with me divulging (in accordance to Edible's request), please say so, and I will do so, at about the time he said this (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13454#msg13454), with the obvious addition of 24 hours. I chose that time because it's the most suited to mine. I'll even try to go for about 3 hours earlier, but that's really pushing my body to the limit in terms of physical strength.
I never said I thought it was wrong when I posted it, did I? In fact, your counter point against that was met with My own counter.You made three points, I made three counter points. Of those three, you found some difficulty with one and were forced to accept the other two.
Rou: Making a bad case is not always the same as making a serious case. I think some things can go unspoken, like how Pesco decided to push an "obviously bad case" for reactions, but only after Baity had already secured Pesco's vote by doing that self vote. Serp actually pointed it out best that there's leeway to make a bad case when the game just started because there's nothing else to do early on. I don't know why you're complaining in particular about Pesco on this point when Baity is a top lynch candidate right now.The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.
On your point regarding Serp not having an opinion on your argument, Serp conveniently pointed out the post (link's broken though, I had to reference it manually as #105) that you indirectly asked why Serp wasn't "objecting to the argument." I do think that qualifies as wanting someone to step in and give both sides a temporary pause.Again, I only said that there because I thought Serpentarius considered us Town/Town. Given that he didn't, his lack of opinion feels like a copout.
And to say that he has no opinion on the fight works from either a Townie perspective not having enough info to determine whether this is a Town vs Town fight or not, or a Scum perspective of knowing there's a potential mislynch in the works and letting it run its course. You seem to think it's the latter, but I don't think how he worded it is conclusive enough for it to be so and I don't see why you think so.Oh hey, we don't have enough info on this debate! Let's sit here and do nothing about it rather than discuss it to generate new information.
I'm also not sure how this got stronger than Pesco's case and while trying to get a 3rd lynch in given the Day setup may not be a bad idea, I don't think the way you've worded your case on Serp merits it. What you described could very well indeed be a clueless Townie anyways, but at least he's produced more than some other players this game. I'd put Alert or KY ahead of Serp in such a case. By the way Rou, what's your opinion on KY anyways?I don't honestly know how to analyse KY right now. He's been like this in the last two games, and he was Town in both of them. Basically, he's Wrathie v1.5. >_>
Which has to be the single worst line I have ever seen from him (other than his emotional trainwrecks, of course), showing a very inconclusive use of meta, as well as an accusation that doesn't stand up on its own (attacking other people's points is completely fine if it shows them to be scummy), and in fact, doesn't even have any grounding in any of Kiro's posts! I'll leave the defence to Kiro himself, but judging that Rou seems to be trying to pin suspicion on pretty much everyone for very bad reasons, he has jumped leaps and bounds on my scumdar.I will admit that my suspicions of Kiro do have a good deal of basis in gut instinct, but I'm just very annoyed by his method of play right now. He's very closed-minded in his targets of discussion - he's still talking about pretty much no-one besides Pesco, myself, Baity and Serp - and he's not making his typical constructive points, choosing instead to spend all his time picking at other people's arguments rather than presenting his own.
As for your points against Serp, what's wrong with witholding judgment? It's definitely not a 'pesco or me' thing; not by any means; if people don't find any of your points alright enough to consider the other party scum, then what's wrong with finding people okay? Carthrat pretty much did it, and so did I to a large extent, why aren't you attacking us too instead? It's something I can't seem to understand, selective scumhunting is definitely scummy.Actually, let's do a little reading here.
I agree with Rou on this issue. You should answer directly to his argument about your method of attack instead of going off-tangent like this. Also, a little tunnely, which I disapprove of.
Rou's barely addressed what was spoken by people other than Pesco and can't seem to keep a clear head. Complaining about the lack of anyone else... doesn't work for me when he buys so thoroughly into Pesco's snarkiness.THAT is what I call having an opinion.
Pesco is unhappiness as well for joining in these excruciating rants. Baiting Rou is sort of uncool. Being generally snipy is sort of uncool. Acting the victim later is also pretty weird when his posts are so *obviously* meant to inflame.
...don't like Rou/Pesco argument
People who don't have opinions are automatically anti-town in my book, really.Herein lies my point about Serp.
@Kiro: There's been much hounding at me to respond to Rou, such that it's been listed as a point against me for not responding to everything he says. I only see UK and Rou asking for a reply lately, do you think I should?Not giving a reply means that you're halting discussion. That's anti-town.
Not everything, but where its necessary. The fact that people used examples (of other people) which I have no idea about makes things a hell of a lot more confusing for me.But why should it be a player-specific trait that 'I will vote for a player who selfvotes'?
While it might have seemed that I was after people who would vote for me after, it was actually directed at pesco.Why Pesco in particular? What had he done at that point to arouse your suspicions?
From the top of my head, I would say Serp. If memory serves, there was something in one of the posts that caught my eye.Precise. T_T
What issues with what people?
Pesco isn't any more or less scummy than the average player. We have a multi-lynch option, and only 2 especially scummy players, so any third lynch is better than none, including Pesco.
@Rou: What's so bad about being aggressive and calling out people on what they say? That's what arguing in mafia is, surely. That and the latest 'oh my god why am I even playing mafia' is starting to get hysterical...I suppose this is relatively obvious, but I think the main problem is that we're talking WAY too much for D1 (I admit I'm notably guilty of this). There are barely any facts on the table, so arguments are basically never going to be clear-cut and every point leads to a counterpoint, which is itself countered and so on ad infinitum. Everyone's arguing their opinion, but because no-one has real concrete evidence pretty much everyone disagrees with everyone.
But why should it be a player-specific trait that 'I will vote for a player who selfvotes'?Hold on, I'm not getting the question. Could you rephrase? I can't get a perfect read of what you're asking for.
Why Pesco in particular? What had he done at that point to arouse your suspicions?Let's see; summary of suspicions (different to justifications, so I'll end up using different pieces):
Precise. T_TWorking on it. >_>
Ok, I'm going to go over this slowly. This is called Wine in Front of Me, and trying to involk such a thing is considered scummy play, since it shows you're intentionally working on confusion. Anyone that needs to confuse other people into not voting for them means that they don't feel that they can find anyone that the town wants to lynch more than them. This means that you are either Pro-scum, or Anti-town. This is why you are being lynched.
Re: WIFOM
I know what WIFOM is. I've used, and seen WIFOM in past games as a means of thinking further, and not just as a tool of confusing people (though, they may as well be doing the latter at this point, since we're on quite a limited time frame... damn it I feel so bad about this).
It's also not the only reason why I'm being lynched I believe.
Hold on, I'm not getting the question. Could you rephrase? I can't get a perfect read of what you're asking for.You selfvoted despite it being a pretty pointless and ridiculous action. Your defense was that you didn't kow that that was how we reacted to selfvotes over here. I'm asking 'how else would anyone respond?'
The awkward answer in this post, about why "scum" would vote for themselves. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12781#msg12781) I'm not going to let this one go.Why didn't you mention things like this earlier?
I know what WIFOM is. I've used, and seen WIFOM in past games as a means of thinking further, and not just as a tool of confusing people (though, they may as well be doing the latter at this point, since we're on quite a limited time frame... damn it I feel so bad about this)....This makes no sense. WIFOM is never constructive - it gives us two options and no way to discern between them, and one of these choices is cataclysmic. How does that help us 'think further'?
You selfvoted despite it being a pretty pointless and ridiculous action. Your defense was that you didn't kow that that was how we reacted to selfvotes over here. I'm asking 'how else would anyone respond?'Varies by the person. The fact that basically everybody took it as a "wtf r u dong" [intentional spelling error] action was a bit... surprising. Others, took their own unique stances in the situation.
I did what now? Checking...Why didn't you mention things like this earlier?Your earlier explanation of this point revolved around the use of player meta instead of simply making a weak point. Why the change?
...This makes no sense. WIFOM is never constructive - it gives us two options and no way to discern between them, and one of these choices is cataclysmic. How does that help us 'think further'?I should have just said "learning experience". My apologies for the horrible choice of words / expression / context / (whatever the hell I did wrong, there's probably several things wrong with I just wrote).
I'm asking why Pesco seems to think that you have to agree with my case for him to be scum. If you can make a case against him then that should logically be enough.
Maybe, but if I drop it, it may as well create more suspicion.
I'll gladly comply with this, but if I do, it's essentially giving up the role. If you agree, or disagree with me divulging (in accordance to Edible's request), please say so, and I will do so, at about the time he said this, with the obvious addition of 24 hours. I chose that time because it's the most suited to mine. I'll even try to go for about 3 hours earlier, but that's really pushing my body to the limit in terms of physical strength.
Not when the entire Town has told them not to. And if we have it at 6/6 then we'd need 2 of your clueless Townies to mess things up.
This implies that lynching is necessary. If we have a choice between lynching one player who's probably scum, and lynching two players one of whom is probably scum and the other could be anything, we'll be worse off choosing the latter in the event that Player 2 is Town. In the same way we only want to go for the triple lynch with 3 strong suspects, we want 2 for the double lynch.
This logic that it's okay to randomly accuse people with no suspicion when there are better targets around is horrifically flawed. It's like taking your random vote at the beginning of the game and sticking with it, giving reasoning as you go along.
You do realise that if PvR IS a Town/Town fight, sitting and letting us pick at each other would be an excellent plan for scum, right? Whoever wins it's a free mislynch.
No. No, no, NO.
I can't believe you're actually saying this.
There is NO reason to make a case that you know is poor. Pick out people's mistake because you honestly believe they're scummy, don't do it if you know there's a flaw in your logic.
I've given a good list of reasons for why to suspect Pesco, but as is you're still proving worse in my eyes.
HERE'S MY POINT - IF YOU THOUGHT MY CASE AGAINST PESCO WAS POOR, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU VOTE FOR ME LIKE ANY NORMAL TOWNIE WOULD?
It just feels condescending is all. Like you're goading him into agreeing with you.
Alright then:Translation: "Neither of you seem that scummy, but I'll let you argue anyway."
Translation: "Both of you are relatively suspicious."
Translation: "Pesco is being a dick, but since that's very rarely used by Townies I'll ignore it as a scumtell entirely."
And we're back to 'Neither of them are scummy' again.
"Apparently I now want to lynch a player who I just said isn't scummy, because obviously we need to doublelynch, right?"
"And now I don't want to lynch him because I want to get rid of an inactive instead."
Happy now?
KY's obvious due to vote, on calling people as townie. Baity as well for his earlier weirdness play. And the deal here is more just letting some random lynch slide by when you have other ideas; in your later posts after the fact you're looking at a bait/KY/alert triumvirate? (not too impressed by a shot on alert, really, but eh.)
Does a 6/6 seem at all likely to you right now?You've changed the question from 'Will 6/6 work?' to 'Can we pull off 6/6?'.
What!? I can't believe you're saying this. It goes against everything I know about lynching philosophy in mafia. Sure, lynching a Town is wose than lynching no one at all, but why would you assume anyone as 100% town? Why would you assume that in saying "I don't think your case on Pesco is good," I'm thinking that Pesco is 100% town? You start the game with the same degree of suspicion for everyone.So to take your apparent theory the whole way, we should lynch everyone since everyone is as suspicious as Pesco is!
Reading through the thread, you don't even agree with this! Here (https://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12763#msg12763), you say that you're pro-doublelynch, and anti-singlelynch, with no mention at all of how this should be modified depending on how many good cases we have. This is what a contradiction looks like, Roukanken.YOU'RE the one who seems to think that this second lynch is simply something to fall back on if there are no other options. And was it really so bad to assume that Town would be able to come up with two reasonable suspects in 72 hours?
At the time, BaitySM was starting to look pretty bad. At the time, everyone seemed to agree that a multi-lynch was a good idea. If it had been a typical one-lynch day, I probably would've jumped on the BaitySM case like everyone else, but I wanted to stir things up and find a good candidate for a second lynch.Waffle. The question was 'why did you find my argument on Pesco okay if it seemed flawed to you?' and you haven't even come close to answering it.
Not really, considering that Pesco's argument was pretty much entirely a defensive one. His attacks were all on your character and your technique, not on your towniness. If Pesco wins, then he doesn't get lynched, and someone more suspicious does instead. Again, you yourself said here (https://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12763#msg12763) that it's not smart to defend other players' statements.Perhaps not but if I win, Pesco gets lynched, flips Town, and then everyone turns on me. Possibly two mislynches, and scum has nothing to lose.
That doesn't make sense. If you're no less suspicious of Pesco, but just more suspicious of me, then you ought to be pushing for a triple lynch. Instead, you're just paying lip service to Pesco right now as an afterthought.I still want a double-lynch - triple is too risky for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
I'm pretty sure that Pesco thought your case against him was poor. Notice that he didn't vote against you. Your point here makes no sense at all. I figured it was just a bad case early in the first day, which, as I've made known, I consider better than nothing. For all I knew, Pesco might've cracked with a bit more pressure.Scum!Pesco's main method of defeating a case against him is to ignore it entirely, as you saw him doing to Umu in Worker's Union. Did he vote for Umu in Worker's Union, or did he choose to focus his time on the easy target Wrathie? Gee, I wonder...
How do you get from "not any more [suspicious] than anyone else at the moment" to "relatively suspicious"? If anything, that should be read as "relatively not suspicious."You outright said in the second post that the two of us were worth suspicion. You can't say that every player at once is 'worth suspicion', that's just outright paranoia.
Irrelevant, and as far as I can tell, it's just his personality.So ad hominem attacks are okay?
Quote was "neither of them seem really scummy to me." That should be read as no more or less scummy than average.What do you mean, average? People are either acting scummy or they're not - it's Boolean logic. Either you think a player should be lynched or you don't.
Considering that you agree with that statement (https://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12763#msg12763), as previously linked, yeah.As I've already said, doublelynch IF WE HAVE TWO GOOD SUSPECTS.
Yes, that's right. My opinion has always been "I don't mind lynching Pesco if no one better comes up." Someone better came up. Now I don't want to lynch him.But if you think he's a relatively decent suspect, why didn't you bother pressing his case? Leaving someone else to do all the arguing doesn't help Town at all.
Still waiting on that grand list of contradictions and waffling opinions. All I see here is a few unrelated quotes you take issue with.I've clarified my point. Feel like explaining your concept of 'average scumminess'?
I consider Baity and KY scummy on their own merits, more likely than the average player to be scum,Okay, I'm going to finish off by pointing this out again.
You've changed the question from 'Will 6/6 work?' to 'Can we pull off 6/6?'.
Admittedly the odds of it working are low, but that doesn't give us an excuse not to try for it.
So to take your apparent theory the whole way, we should lynch everyone since everyone is as suspicious as Pesco is!
You said you'd lynch Pesco if there were no other options - i.e. no-one else had done anything suspicious besides Baity. Lynching for the sake of lynching doesn't do Town any favours - if you can't give a reason as to why player X is scum, either look harder or press harder. You were doing neither of these with Pesco, but you were still fine with lynching him.
YOU'RE the one who seems to think that this second lynch is simply something to fall back on if there are no other options. And was it really so bad to assume that Town would be able to come up with two reasonable suspects in 72 hours?
As I've already said, doublelynch IF WE HAVE TWO GOOD SUSPECTS.
Waffle. The question was 'why did you find my argument on Pesco okay if it seemed flawed to you?' and you haven't even come close to answering it.
Perhaps not but if I win, Pesco gets lynched, flips Town, and then everyone turns on me. Possibly two mislynches, and scum has nothing to lose.
Besides that, a Town/Town PvR would make an excellent distraction for scum lurkers.
I still want a double-lynch - triple is too risky for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Scum!Pesco's main method of defeating a case against him is to ignore it entirely, as you saw him doing to Umu in Worker's Union. Did he vote for Umu in Worker's Union, or did he choose to focus his time on the easy target Wrathie? Gee, I wonder...
You outright said in the second post that the two of us were worth suspicion. You can't say that every player at once is 'worth suspicion', that's just outright paranoia.
So ad hominem attacks are okay?
I've clarified my point. Feel like explaining your concept of 'average scumminess'?
What do you mean, average? People are either acting scummy or they're not - it's Boolean logic. Either you think a player should be lynched or you don't.
But if you think he's a relatively decent suspect, why didn't you bother pressing his case? Leaving someone else to do all the arguing doesn't help Town at all.
Okay, I'm going to finish off by pointing this out again.
After my argument came out, you considered Pesco to be of 'average' suspicion. Since apparently that's the level of suspicion you put everyone at, that means my argument did nothing. Why, then, are you okay with me saying nothing of use and producing a weak case? Weak cases are worse than saying nothing because they lead Town down the wrong track. And you're FINE with that?
EBWOP: And another thing - given the points I've raised against you, am I'm still only of 'average scumminess' in your eyes? Or are you still fine with what you consider weak reasoning?
Considering the early speculation about how we could use this room to kill off half the players at random, I'm not alone in this sort of thinking. If no one stands out as unusually scummy, it's in the town's best interest to execute at random.But that isn't the case, and I don't see why anyone should assume as such. Instead of saying 'we should lynch a random player if we can't find targets', why not spend your time FINDING TARGETS?
It's virtually always better to do one lynch than no lynch, and better to do two lynches than one lynch.This is assuming that both lynches go as planned, which seems to be something you yourself aren't sure of.
You were putting pressure on him, as I had been intending to do with Affinity. If he broke, it would've given us a good second lynch target. As I saw it, you were doing the same thing I was doing.Key difference - I commented on Affinity. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12745#msg12745) You didn't comment on Pesco.
Now you're the one being pessimistic. In any case, part of my justification for letting you continue on Pesco was that it was still early in the day. If you had continued to push Pesco into the last part of the day, when we needed to settle on our lynches, I would've called on you to stop it then. I did call on you to stop it then, when I settled on Mr Alert as my preferred terciary lynch. I also figured you'd drop the case anyway when you were satisfied and move onto something else if it continued to fail to produce.So you'd rather I spent time with someone who didn't seem particularly scummy rather than with someone you had genuine suspicions of?
A Town/Town SvR would be even better, apparently. See my EBWOP about how Kanguya seems content to ride this out.I will admit this point to you - KY typically isn't one to lurk, usually he tries to produce and fails. Add to this the fact he was on 8 hours ago, and...
You're missing the point. You said that I ought to vote against you if I found your case bad. As I said earlier, you seemed sincere to me. Heck, Pesco himself said something earlier about how angry Rou strikes him as townie.Scum can be sincere. Town can make honest mistakes, so scum can 'sincerely' point them out and watch the mislynch run itself.
Anyway, I also note that you're suddenly basing a lot of your arguments from the assumption that Pesco is innocent, despite the fact that his responses to your accusations are exactly what you consider to be his scum M.O. Care to explain this?I'm looking at it from your viewpoint, where the two of us are both 'not especially scummy' and trying to analyse what you'd do in said situation. I still really don't like how Pesco is playing.
Apropos of nothing, it'd be stupid and paranoid to say it. You explicitly asked me whether I thought you and Pesco were worthy of suspicion, though, and to answer "No, neither of you are worthy of suspicion" would be stupid and scummy. Everyone is worth suspicion, from the start. Only through making good cases and catching scum do people become somewhat exempt from it.But when you walk into a game, do you immediately FoS everyone playing because they're all worthy of suspicion? No. You look for someone doing something MORE suspicious than usual, and press them in a search for scum.
Uh, what? I thought it was standard procedure to have a little chart in your head of who's acting more scummy than who. The scummiest person is the one you press to have lynched. If two people are equally scummy, you lynch one based on gut feelings or randomly or whatever. Average scumminess is what everyone is considered to have from the beginning.So by this logic, if someone produces nothing scummy all game but doesn't do anything that useful either, they deserve to be lynched if necessary?
As I explicitly said, I considered him a decent lynch if no one better came up. This seems to tie back into your objection to my idea of a broad scumminess scale instead of a boolean one. I would've considered him a bad lynch if he had managed to appear un-scummy through townie behavior. As things stood, I considered him no better than any other randomly chosen person. If you had asked me what I thought about a UK lynch or an Alice lynch, I would've told you the same thing. Fine as a terciary if no one better shows up.But this seems like a pretty large assumption. "I will agree to the Pesco lynch if none of the remaining players do anything scummy at all"?
This seems to be a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes good scumhunting. Your argument did indeed do nothing at all to make me think of Pesco as scummier. It was a weak argument. But it was an early game accusation, and at the time, it was the most detailed case out there. It didn't convince me of Pesco's scumminess, but I wouldn't call it useless by any means. I think it was better than saying nothing, 'cause it forced Pesco to put some words out there. There's nothing wrong with leading the town a few steps down a wrong path when we're free to pursue so many paths simultaneously, and when we have no indication of what the right path is.Alright, here's where the problem kicks in. I attack Pesco, he says some new things, and you don't give any opinion on them. To continue your 'path' analogy, this is you looking at the signpost on the crossroads, ignoring one path entirely.
Looking at it all together, your points against me seem to stem from disagreements in what constitutes good scumhunting.So in the end, this entire argument is based on differing views on how to hunt?
I said you were tunneling earlier, but I think that was an overreaction on my part. The reason you've mostly been talking to me is that I'm responding to your posts much more frequently than anyone else. My biggest point of suspicion against you is that you seem to be giving KY a free pass. I guess my opinion on your scumminess is contingent on KY's flip. If he were town, I'd consider you unusually unscummy. If he's scum, then you're on top of my list of suspects for trying to push me or Pesco to be lynched instead of him.Here is where I probably need to make an admission. One of my biggest problems with Mafia is when I suspect someone, I decide that whoever they're targeting is immediately innocent if there's a fragment of doubt. The only reason I'm still supporting the lynch of Baity - Pesco's target - is that his play is so horrendously bad even keeping him alive is a WIFOM in itself. As such, I didn't want to attack KY out of fear that I was being goaded by scum into a mislynch.
You guys are awfully quick to jump on me, given there are much better targets for inactivity this game. :V I wonder who started that trend.'Jump on you'? You realise no-one has voted you, right?
I'm aware, but when one sees his name thrown around as a lurker and certain other names are not also mentioned, one gets worried.
Alice is online. Got anything to say? You've been pretty quiet today...This what you're looking for? Off the top of my head KY has been mentioned as has Alert, and UK has a real life explanation. Carth and Kiro are possibly edging on lurking. Who am I missing?
@The people who haven't replied: Divulge "said" role (as per request by Edible)? Y/N? [if this can even get answered anyway)Shit, too late to give a Y.
Also, Pesco is town. Mark my words.
You're awfully sure of yourself. Why?Seconding this question. Still don't see how his refusal to reply to my case, his ad hominem attacks and his subsequent disappearance don't qualify as scumtells.
Ugh, rereading UK is a pain in the ass. Stop replying to every bit of every post everyone makes, or else any good points you might have get lost in the shuffle of worthless commentary.
...
You're awfully sure of yourself. Why?
That said, Baity's responses are filled with more waffles than breakfast. As a word of advice, don't answer questions aimed at other people - let them defend themselves since otherwise it's a judgement of your character instead of theirs.Since people seem to like pointing out how everyone is coaching scummy players, I figure I'd join in, too.
Misrep - The point isn't to get just you to not vote, it's to get other likeminded people to not vote. bascially, the point of using WiFoM, confusing people.QuoteWhy would scum vote themselves? Because you would give them a free pass for it.So suddenly MY opinion alone is worth taking this sort of obscene risk for? I'm not buying it - I mean, it certainly raised the suspicion of other people, so saying he's doing it to earn a free pass makes no sense.
The fact that you didn't really contribute anything new to the discussion is what irritated me.Would have been nice if you said as much, rather than being vauge about it. Even still, he did contibute: a vote with a case behind it.
If you'd notice, I'm also relatively suspicious of Baity (as I've said previously).Not counting the part that I put as suspected coaching, I don't see where you commented that you didn't like what Beilos was doing.
I'll no longer accept this. The flawed reasoning you're complaining about is something that you're forcing Pesco to hold up against his will in his accusation. Excluding people from the vote is not one of the reasons he is voting Beilos now, and he's explained twice now that it isn't.QuoteAnd Baity's habit of answering other people's questions is doing him no favours. I'm not saying that he's definitely Town like you claim I am - just that Pesco's reasoning for attacking him was flawed.I'll accept this
[...]
The only reason I've had to spend so long talking about Pesco is that there was at the time little else to comment on.
Earthquake fun! (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Quakes/ci10410337.php) In any case, with that, and the Japanese cooking show and some other stuff, it looks like I'm a bit too busy to play right now, and unlike the last game I played, I no longer expect things to get better by day 2. So, I'ma go ahead and request a replacement.Well, replacement spot open then. Interested players please PM me ASAP.
Edit again: I'd also like to see post numbers/links to all of Pesco's Ad-Homined attacks on Roukanken. From the attacks I've seen, they were rude and indirect, but I fail to see how "Roukanken needs to Scumhunt" is an attack on roukanken's Character rather than his playstyle. At the time, I think it's a valid complaint.
Roukanken starts off by immedietly taking an offhand comment from pesco and ripping it apart with an entire paragraph. Votes Pesco for the gotcha game he tried to play on Beilos. This post is generally made of Beilos-hate hate (the jargon term being chainsaw defence), especially with the comment on Affinity's vote. Was he trying to claim Affinity was posting an IIoA ? This still bothers me.I repeat - attacking someone for a bad reason isn't okay if you're right. I was indeed calling Affinity out on IIoA.
Next post, Rou continues arguing the player exclusion point when Pesco said there was no reason to, since it wasn't part of his reasoning. Pesco's point of ignoring newbishness is countered by having Pesco explain why what Beilos did was not newbish. This is faulty because newbishness is not corelated with scumminess.He mentioned it. Don't say something in this game if you don't want it to be related to you. If no-one had pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, scum Pesco would've had no reason not to say that it was part of his plan.
Misrep - The point isn't to get just you to not vote, it's to get other likeminded people to not vote. bascially, the point of using WiFoM, confusing people.Explain then why the wording was 'so YOU would give him a free pass' rather than 'so TOWN would give him a free pass'.
Would have been nice if you said as much, rather than being vauge about it. Even still, he did contibute: a vote with a case behind it.A case that had already been discussed before then. It's not like there was a distinct lack of new ground to cover at that point in time.
Also, reading Pesco's Reply 81, I understand what Pesco is talking about. Rou seems more interested in making Pesco look like scum than looking for scum.This is total utter misrep.
Pesco's 86 is very strong (argument wise). Roukanken needs to step up here to make anything of it. And yes, I know Pesco is being mean in this post, but considering what he's putting up with, it's more an issue of self-control than anything else.Let me start by saying the aggression was introduced by Pesco himself:
I see my waifu is suffering from PMS. Read his post, he excluded himself and player 1, which means it's 2 players. More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now. Being on holiday affects your reading ability it seems :P.Secondly, I've already replied to every point made here in later posts.
Not counting the part that I put as suspected coaching, I don't see where you commented that you didn't like what Beilos was doing.
If you'd notice, I'm also relatively suspicious of Baity (as I've said previously). The point is that the reasons you're attacking him for are relatively poor (FPMH, dice hax...), and bad attacks are in my opinion worse than bad play since that's how scum get Townies lynched.And I could hardly keep commenting on him when he wasn't SAYING ANYTHING.
The same post has Rou ignoring Pesco saying that he wasn't voting based on the player exclusion thing and brings it up as a point in why Pesco's voting was faulty. Roukanken seems to be trying to make it look like that was a valid point in Pesco's case just so he could keep strawmanning it to make Pesco look scummy.Again, I hold to my case that you shouldn't make a point unless you mean it. Let's say I accused you of being scum for a crappy reason. If no-one argued with me then I'd gladly say it was why I voted for you - if not, I can easily fall back on the 'I did it for a reaction' excuse that Pesco is using. See where I'm coming from?
Ri0ght now, the only valid point against Pesco was that he seems to be insulting Roukanken with comments like "I'd like to see him Scumhunting." The thing was, I ended up agreeing with Pesco on that when I looked at Roukanken's arguments in depth.
Since people were asking for it, here's a little summary of my points on Pesco:Herein lies a simple breakdown of my current points against Pesco. I'm going to admit that my case was poor at points, but in general I think my heart was in the right place.
- A distinct lack of scumhunting, focusing instead on defending himself
- Multiple cases of attack ad hominem
- Overlooking several points based on 'lack of context'
- Deciding that if my case isn't totally perfectly flawless he can't possibly be scum
Also, from what i see in the backandforth between Roukanken and Serp is that he tried taking one thing Serpent commented on, and ran with it, twisting Serpent's words against him as often as he can to keep the argument going. It looks to me like Roukanken is trying to be as much of a distraction to scumhunting as he can be while being written off as aggressive townie.Examples, please. I don't see how I was twisting Serp's words.
Edit again: I'd also like to see post numbers/links to all of Pesco's Ad-Homined attacks on Roukanken. From the attacks I've seen, they were rude and indirect, but I fail to see how "Roukanken needs to Scumhunt" is an attack on roukanken's Character rather than his playstyle. At the time, I think it's a valid complaint.
I see my waifu is suffering from PMS. Read his post, he excluded himself and player 1, which means it's 2 players. More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now. Being on holiday affects your reading ability it seems :P.
Rou, RTFT. If you claimed to be illiterate because you live in an African country, I would have believed you.
Lol dude.
Kindly recite the town win condition for me? I'm quite sure it does not include Pesco dying as a requisite.
Rou must be really Parsee of the intimacy between me and Kiro from the other game.
I'm not obliged to put up with Rou being silly every game now am I?
That's just you being fail.
But that isn't the case, and I don't see why anyone should assume as such. Instead of saying 'we should lynch a random player if we can't find targets', why not spend your time FINDING TARGETS?
This is assuming that both lynches go as planned, which seems to be something you yourself aren't sure of.
Secondly, lynched Townies are like Aeris - once they're dead, they can't come back no matter how hard you try. An extra night phase may give a cop time to investigate or they may be cleared on another flip. Lynched Townies are always BAD, so it's good to lynch only a suspect you're confident in rather then one as a last resort IMO.
Key difference - I commented on Affinity. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12745#msg12745) You didn't comment on Pesco.
Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either, but Pesco still wins out.
So you'd rather I spent time with someone who didn't seem particularly scummy rather than with someone you had genuine suspicions of?
I will admit this point to you - KY typically isn't one to lurk, usually he tries to produce and fails. Add to this the fact he was on 8 hours ago, and...
Scum can be sincere. Town can make honest mistakes, so scum can 'sincerely' point them out and watch the mislynch run itself.
I'm looking at it from your viewpoint, where the two of us are both 'not especially scummy' and trying to analyse what you'd do in said situation. I still really don't like how Pesco is playing.
But when you walk into a game, do you immediately FoS everyone playing because they're all worthy of suspicion? No. You look for someone doing something MORE suspicious than usual, and press them in a search for scum.
So by this logic, if someone produces nothing scummy all game but doesn't do anything that useful either, they deserve to be lynched if necessary?
But this seems like a pretty large assumption. "I will agree to the Pesco lynch if none of the remaining players do anything scummy at all"?
Alright, here's where the problem kicks in. I attack Pesco, he says some new things, and you don't give any opinion on them. To continue your 'path' analogy, this is you looking at the signpost on the crossroads, ignoring one path entirely.
In addition I still have a relatively strong, much less opinionated case on Pesco in comparison, which he STILL hasn't got around to defending against...
If no-one had pointed out the flaw in his reasoning, scum Pesco would've had no reason not to say that it was part of his plan.
Explain then why the wording was 'so YOU would give him a free pass' rather than 'so TOWN would give him a free pass'.I don't know for certain, but maybe its because you were to only one who gave him a free pass for it.
This is total utter misrep.This is total utter IIoA. Explain to me how it's a misrep.
Again, I hold to my case that you shouldn't make a point unless you mean it. Let's say I accused you of being scum for a crappy reason. If no-one argued with me then I'd gladly say it was why I voted for you - if not, I can easily fall back on the 'I did it for a reaction' excuse that Pesco is using. See where I'm coming from?
##Unvote
##Vote BaitySM. FPMH
FPMH: Choose 1Your point would be valid if Pesco used "I did it for the reaction" as a fallback excuse, not the entire case.
[ ]Fluffy Puffy Marshmallow Hugs
[ ]Furry Petting Much Hotness
[ ]Fail Prod Made Here
[ ]First Post Mind Hax
Your defence inclines me to the 2nd 4th option.
Examples, please. I don't see how I was twisting Serp's words.Like I said, I was only halfway finished with my analysis. I haven't gotten up to you vs. Serp yet, and this post took up a majority of time that would have been spent looking into that.
I don't think you can quite claim the high ground here.
Facts are facts. I pointed them out. What is the issue here?
The fact that you didn't really contribute anything new to the discussion is what irritated me.So yeah. :/
okay, this statement confuses me. First of all, what's "it"? The point that Beilos' newbishness doesn't matter came from Carthrat's asking how many games Beilos was in. If you're talking about the exclusion of players point and his FPMH, then it was because he admited that the exclusion of players was not part of the reason of his vote.Only AFTER someone called him out on it. If no-one had noticed the problem then there'd be nothing to stop him from using that as 'evidence' against Baity.
And even then, the argument about how many players he excluded was based entirely around sementics, because Pesco's point was that he excluded Edible.It doesn't even matter HOW many players he's excluding, it's the fact that the accusation makes no sense whatsoever. Like I said, scum rolling 2d6 would only make sense if the scum were close to the edges - and even if that were the case, declaring that you rolled 2d6 would be utter suicide.
I don't know for certain, but maybe its because you were to only one who gave him a free pass for it.Focusing on consequence rather than intention. It wasn't a matter of 'What happened as a result of Baity's move?', it was a matter of 'What would scumBaity be trying to achieve with this move?'
This is total utter IIoA. Explain to me how it's a misrep.Look again at that summary of my points on Pesco and tell me if any of them aren't justified. I am willing to admit that I made some mistakes during my initial case, but Pesco's inability to hunt and his focus on defending himself over contributing to the Townie cause made me convinced I was targeting the right guy.
Your point would be valid if Pesco used "I did it for the reaction" as a fallback excuse, not the entire case.My point is misinterpreted yet again.
Like I said, I was only halfway finished with my analysis. I haven't gotten up to you vs. Serp yet, and this post took up a majority of time that would have been spent looking into that.Feel free to produce the second half when you can.
umm, Beilos ... you really should have given us more time to contemplate your roleclaim. Edible's prod should have been enough, considering you're one of the top two canidates.Yeah, but I really don't want to add more to the confusion by stating the most absurd roleclaim ever. Especially with the style of play I've "displayed". I initially tried to draw it to notice at the bottom of this (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13706#msg13706) post.
Also, from what i see in the backandforth between Roukanken and Serp is that he tried taking one thing Serpent commented on, and ran with it, twisting Serpent's words against him as often as he can to keep the argument going. It looks to me like Roukanken is trying to be as much of a distraction to scumhunting as he can be while being written off as aggressive townie.
Now this just seems like sour grapes. Rou's point against you is that you think pesco is okay as a lynch even though you peg him as a neutral. Then you go all off-tangent and say the above. Firstly, it's not that no one stands out as unusually scummy, it's that two people seem to be much scummier than everyone else and you want to lynch them.
Secondly, day one is arguably the worst time to get multiple lynches on the account that there are no bandwagons and flips to analyze; and to lynch extra otherwise neutrally pegged people for the sake of hoping to nail scum is very very bad at best. Best is to maintain them into the later days so that more evidence can be garnered for judgment on their alignment, instead of lynching them on day one before they even have a chance.
Yeah, but I really don't want to add more to the confusion by stating the most absurd roleclaim ever in this short amount of time.. Especially with the style of play I've "displayed". I initially tried to draw it to notice at the bottom of this (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg13706#msg13706) post.Fixes in added italics because I was rushing far too much.
It's... somewhat justified reasoning if you can get your head around what I've done, which I can probably whip up in 10-15 minutes, but to get the few people offline to follow it is a different story.
...gimme a moment, there's something strange bugging me externally.
What I am saying is that the 2d6 argument used by Pesco could easily still be around right now if it hadn't been refuted early on. Because he was corrected before he said it was part of his reasoning, he was able to say 'I did it to goad a reaction from him even though I knew it was a crappy point'.Ahh, I see. Then the problem here is that you jumped on something that was potentially scummy before it could be considered scummy. The way I read Pesco's comment on the exclusion of people was that Baity was excluding Edible from his random vote - the cause of his FPMH. Then, when you saw that that was a crummy point to vote on, you jumped on it before Pesco said "More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now." This might have been a real scumslip if it weren't for the gotcha factor you put into it.
You could say the same about pesco. Where was he scumhunting, precisely? I only saw him being offensive and reactionary when he wasn't giving vague prods or making useless statements.
I'm going to admit that my case was poor at points, but in general I think my heart was in the right place.Why should I give you this leeway if you don't intend to give Pesco some leeway in what looks like a misunderstanding to me.
What!? I can't believe you're saying this. It goes against everything I know about lynching philosophy in mafia. Sure, lynching a Town is wose than lynching no one at all, but why would you assume anyone as 100% town? Why would you assume that in saying "I don't think your case on Pesco is good," I'm thinking that Pesco is 100% town? You start the game with the same degree of suspicion for everyone.I agree with you. A case against someone does not determine their alignment or how they've been playing. It's just your perspective on their actions. If I had a shitty case on the scummiest person in the world, it wouldn't make that person 100% town. It would just mean that my logic is flawed and that I should revise it.
I will admit this point to you - KY typically isn't one to lurk, usually he tries to produce and fails. Add to this the fact he was on 8 hours ago, and...I've been lurking through the wallfights between you two because I had nothing to say. Neither had anyone else. Also I was on for 5 minutes in the morning before I went to school. I don't think I could do any sort of analysis in that timeframe.
Never get involved in a married couple's fight. I'm not sure what you'd have me do. Even if I thought you were Town/Town, as opposed to Not-Especially-Scummy/Not-Especially-Scummy, there's not much I can do about it short of defending one side or the other, and there's not much reason to do that with 50 hours in the day and both of you frequently online.Sound familiar? Both of these situations seem awfully similar.
I want to see how KY flips before I pursue a case against Roukanken.Why are you 100% sure that I'm going to be lynched? That seems kind of strange...
first of all, Pesco hasn't made a useless statement.
Second of all, the "Vague prods" were used to gather people's opinions and prevent others from being vague. I fail to understand why that isn't scumhunting.
Ahh, I see. Then the problem here is that you jumped on something that was potentially scummy before it could be considered scummy.You make this sound like a bad thing. YOU'RE the one who's decided 'he didn't give it as reasoning, therefore the point is null and void'. Bad points are bad points.
first of all, Pesco hasn't made a useless statement. Second of all, the "Vague prods" were used to gather people's opinions and prevent others from being vague. I fail to understand why that isn't scumhunting.Did he hit anything conclusive? No. In terms of actual suspicions the only person he declared genuine suspicion of was Baity and KY - again, easy targets. Scumhunting would be genuinely picking people out on iffy statements and pressing them, all he did was ask some easy questions and make some offhand statements without anything else behind them.
Also, as a note, being offensive and reactionary was directly as the result of Roukanken making bad points against Pesco. Rou's case on Pesco as it stands now looks like a list of things that stuck to Pesco when he threw them at him.This is a complete misrepresentation, YET AGAIN. Saying 'Those are good points, but you made some bad points earlier so you must be wrong' is exactly what I'm accusing Pesco of doing here - he's focusing on my mistakes without picking out what I'm doing well, and claiming that if I'm even slightly wrong he's Town by default.
Why should I give you this leeway if you don't intend to give Pesco some leeway in what looks like a misunderstanding to me.Look one last time at that list of reasons I gave. Did I make ANY mention of the 2d6 debate? No, because I AM GIVING HIM LEEWAY ON THAT POINT NOW. I HAVE ADMITTED THAT IT'S NOT THE STRONGEST POINT IN THE ARGUMENT, AND IT ONLY CAME BACK UP BECAUSE YOU KEPT ASKING ABOUT IT.
Baity claim KINDA makes sense, but self-voting 12 hours into the Day is just plain ridiculous. If you are Town, I hope you learn from this escapade.Oh yeah, I've made a mental not to over-complicate my plans ever again >_>
And don't vote yourself, ffs.Makes sense if he's a bomb and doesn't want to needlessly kill a THIRD person today.
Also I think I have an idea why Zakeri thinks pesco must be Town, but it's not something that needs mentioning currently.Just to remind you, Pesco is tied for most votes right now. Just in case that makes this any more pressing.
Just to remind you, Pesco is tied for most votes right now. Just in case that makes this any more pressing.My guess is that given his vehemence, it's either a very blatant scumbuddy chainsaw defence, or they're a mason pair.
I still have absolutely no idea why you're sure pesco is town. Let's hear it. "Because rou is voting him" is obviously not good enough, so you have to have some other reason.
so I'm going to leave it at this: Why can't it be "Because Rou is voting him"?
Since I believe Roukanken to be Scum, Pesco by corollary is Town.
I'm getting tired of trying to analyze what Pesco was trying to do, and what Roukanken is trying to say (Apparently, I was wrong on that five or so times in a row, which either means I'm doing a very poor job, or Rou is changing his tune with no one noticing.) so I'm going to leave it at this: Why can't it be "Because Rou is voting him"?Because scum-Rou does not guarantee town-pesco in this scenario, no matter what you think.
Since I believe Roukanken to be Scum, Pesco by corollary is Town.No, no, no, NO! So what you're saying is that a scum vs. scum argument, like the one that happened in Bamboo Forest (which I might add you modded) is impossible? Or for that matter that basic bussing is impossible?
I wanted a Roukanken Lynch more than I wanted Pesco to get lynched, which is why I started off with the assertation that Pesco was town, and then somehow evolved to forcing me to prove it, which is impossible without certain proof."Here's the conclusion. What evidence can I find to support it?"
Why can't it be "Because Rou is voting him"?Because you're immediately assuming two things: I'm scum, and I'm not bussing.
Roukanken has gotten this far by pressing Pesco based on a misunderstanding he made that he never gave up, which strikes to me as trying to get a mislynch and possibly save Beilos (whether as scum to to mislynch later).WHY ARE YOU STILL PRESSING THE 2D6 POINT? I'VE SAID ALREADY THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL STRONGER POINTS I'VE MADE AGAINST PESCO, AND YOU ARE IGNORING THEM ENTIRELY.
You think Rou is scum because he's voting pesco because you think pesco is town and you think pesco is town because rou is voting him because rou is scum.
No, no, no, NO! So what you're saying is that a scum vs. scum argument, like the one that happened in Bamboo Forest (which I might add you modded) is impossible? Or for that matter that basic bussing is impossible?
"Here's the conclusion. What evidence can I find to support it?"Okay, it was a mistake to assume Pesco was town because the case on him was bad. I had made the post in light of my analysis from the first four pages, and somehow roped myself into halting my analysis to rescue someone who looked like he was on the business end of a bad lynch.
Hypocrisy - you accuse me of twisting facts so Pesco is scum, but you've just admitted to twisting facts so Pesco is Town.
Basically, we're gonna have to choose between Pesco and KY for second lynch, or somehow raise it to 4/4/4. The latter's never gonna happen, and I'm fine with switching to KY if Town doesn't want to lynch Pesco today. I'll do it closer to deadline so scum can't screw things up.On the contrary, I want scum to screw things up and very blatantly out themselves in the process.
On the contrary, I want scum to screw things up and very blatantly out themselves in the process.The problem here arises if either of Pesco of Kanako are scum, since all they have to do is move their vote from Baity to the other one and they survive for a day. Town gains nothing from giving them this opportunity.
Basically =x
---
I roll a die twice, and get two 3's. That means I choose "6". Of course, to make it fit into the 12 criteria, I've excluded myself from the sample (for now).
##Vote Affinity
So between your last poast and now you did not have enough time to poast anything?Well I did but I had nothing of use to contribute that hadn't been stated already.
Really. Come the fuck on.
There's a plan to triplynch, then?
I died a little on the inside because I wanted cool UBOAAAAAAAAAAAAA(ry flavor text... But Ponikkuri is cute, so I'll take it.
Your are a Town-aligned Dreamscape Changer. At a max of 2 times during the game (but not in the same Dream Phase) you can change the present dreamscape by PM'ing the mods. The Dream Rules of the previous dreamscape will become invalid, and the new rules will take their place. Votecount will not reset.
@Mod: Does the word count include quotes?Yes, forgot to write that in.
Well, quote rules are easy to work around. As for the rest, this will be a big pain in the ass for my schedule. I didn't even read closely the last three pages having missed the end of D1...
My other suspicions remain as strong as they were yesterday, but that's not saying much.
49 - Claims Self-voting is the main reason for his vote. Adds protecting Edible as an aside.What are you talking about? (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12737#msg12737)
First off, at this point I'm thinking that if pesco47 is scum then Zakeri *must* be town, as I just can't see scum-Zakeri doing such a blatant chainsaw defence of our fluffy little bunny friend.This is total WIFOM. If Zak flips scum, Alice is an obvious buddy.
Roukanken, and to a lesser extent Edible, are both looking pretty townie.Why Edible? He's still produced very little content thus far...
Rou: I've never seen scum go 'if buddy 1 flips town, buddy 2 = clear'. 'specially not when scum1 is the godfather. WIFOM, silliness, yesssss, alice/zak/pesco scumteam? Not really seeing it.The fact remains that Zak went for a spontaneous, last-minute defense of the godfather, and Alice cleared him for it. Since when is defending scum a Towntell?
I'm still not very convinced about the reasons as to why he arbitarily included pesco as the third lynch on day one instead of the myraid of other people he could choose who were quite innocent.You lost me. You're mad at him for choosing to lynch scum instead of Town?
Rou, regarding Edible: Hence why I said he's looking townie "to a lesser extent." His vote on Pesco was originally just his early game random vote. He did provide some justification for keeping it in reply 188, and he also helped tear apart Zakeri's vote switch to Roukanken at the end of the day.True, I didn't consider this. Still want to see him produce more, though.
Quote from: Zakeri49 - Claims Self-voting is the main reason for his vote. Adds protecting Edible as an aside.What are you talking about? (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg12737#msg12737)
You were excluding 2 players.Means: "In addition to excluding yourself, you were also excluding Edible"
Don't even TRY to argue that he should have left the self-vote possibility open.Looked like to me: "Why does excluding yourself Count as an "exclusion" when you should automatically exclude yourself anyway?" I hope I don't have to explain whats wrong with this sentence.
he excluded himself and player 1, which means it's 2 players. More importantly, it's got nothing to do with why he's getting voted now.Reads: "Because Beilos is an existing person therefore counts, not that excluding himself was the point I was trying to make."
##Vote: Serp
I'm still not very convinced about the reasons as to why he arbitarily included pesco as the third lynch on day one instead of the myraid of other people he could choose who were quite innocent. When I look at it in a way, it seems as if he's trying to get some superficial townie credit without sufficient backing.
And in terms of Baity, ...Relax. If you hadn't notice, that post was explaining my thought process, not an attack on you.
@SP: Glad to see you're at least reading the game, unlike your predecessor. Please produce something regarding Affinity and Carth. Additionally, I'd like you to actually read Zakeri's posts instead of inferring his alignment from others' reactions.I'd do that if I weren't feeling tired(and I actually could, 250 word limit). If Donut is any indication, posting while tired will invariably produce crap posts(tm). Ah screw it actually, I'm not Donut. Carth only right now, though. Tired, and 250 word limit.
I weren't feeling tired(and if I actually could before, 250 word limit)Fixed.
You all will hate me. I also will not be playing the next game because it has become manifestly obvious I can't handle this. But...I hate you.
Nietz, please replace me
You all will hate me. I also will not be playing the next game because it has become manifestly obvious I can't handle this. But......So there could be three replacements in this game now(Alert, Alice assuming she doesn't appear, and UK). *sigh*
Nietz, please replace me
Anyway, replacement position open, PM me, etc.Well, assuming VgameT can't replace, I think I could get a guy.
Thank Suwako we have 3 replacements...wait. One of them is Zakeri?
The one time UK isn't allowed to spam walls incessantly and she drops out. :|I would have liked to see it actually happen.
In reading through the Pesco-Affinity weirdness, I came across something that's really, really weird.
What something would this happen to be?
Most of it revolves around a pet theory I have. It's also incredibly hard to defend against since it's based on what Pesco said throughout the day, and I want more proof before I proceed. I don't want to distract him with it.First off, for like the 543563646365454645th time, antecedents are your friend. Who is "he"? Pesco? Pesco's dead in case you haven't noticed. If it's not Pesco, then who the fuck is it? Sadly we're not telepathic here, you know. (though if we were, that'd make for a fairly boring game, come to think of it)
My main point is that I want to see more from him before I condemntribute.
It will be posted before the day's over.
Also, this is mafia. Cards on the damn table, please. There's no point to hide anything (unless you're scum).The town is bad at playing poker. Here it is...
What something would this happen to be?
Baity's alignment is pretty irrelevant to the conclusion you've drawn because I don't see much of a downside to scumAffinity's position there.
It looks like Pesco was planning to turn Serpent's vote against himself, which in turn would make Affinity look better.
Affinity, regarding my stance on Pesco: Pesco had the votes. More lynches are good (and yesterday's events make a good anecdote for that point).
Should directly answer my questions to him. Coaching?
Uses case as an excuse to attack Serp. Seems to be defending Pesco indirectly.
Keeps his vote on KY, but notes that Pesco's behaviour has been 'weirdening'. Why is this the first opinion you've given on Pesco?
I think Edible is likely town because he had a good case on Zak on day one. Except in reality he didn't really make a case out of it, it was just a good point which I thought was pretty damning. Since he himself isn't going anywhere with it, I'm back to square one with him now. I wasn't liking him yesterday until that point, either. Doubt I'll want to lynch him today though.
Won't object to a Pesco lynch, especially considering his late day absence.This is condoning a Pesco lynch, not enforcing it. If he outright said 'vote Pesco, not anyone else' then that'd be enforcing it, but as is this is misrep.
Give me reasons why the linked text gives you the impression you have instead of me just objecting towards Serp's actions and finding him slightly scummy for it.Chainsaw.
I disapproved of his actions against you, during your back and forth with him, for one.One/two sentences in one post? That's it?
3. Overbearing (God)MomYou lost me.
Lastly, I support the double lynch KY and Baity today because I don't want to see them in the endgame, and that with their current style of play, none of them can seem to be capable to redeem themselves in the process stated above. WIFOMs might be created horribly, and that's not something we want.Is it really just me, or does it look like Affinity was attempting to Justify Beilos and Blender as Mislynches in this paragraph?
As I said earlier, btw, I found it odd from Zakeri that he voted Baity whilst at the same time acknowledging 'self-vote = always bad for town' yesterday. I kinda want him to clarify what he meant here.I think I was speaking with memories of Real Women of Gensokyo when I said that. The one where I Joke-Self-Voted, Kilgamayan made a huge deal out of it, even though I said it wasn't serious, and eventually wound up leading to the Cop outing himself to keep me alive.
I really need a second opinion on this:Is it really just me, or does it look like Affinity was attempting to Justify Beilos and Blender as Mislynches in this paragraph?Eh, it was a valid point:Baity was...yeah, and Kanako Yasaka was Kanako Lurksaka. But I'd say that it was too early for "They will not redeem themselves in any way", because it was DAY 1. He should've given them more time before saying that they'll be useless late game, and should be lynched. So yeah, the argument isn't bad, but the time at which it was said is too early. This long paragraph is basically saying I agree, btw.
and eventually wound up leading to the Cop outing himself to keep me alive.This brings back some memories...not good ones though. FFFFF
I really need a second opinion on this:Is it really just me, or does it look like Affinity was attempting to Justify Beilos and Blender as Mislynches in this paragraph?I agree that his reasoning seems to have jumped from 'they're scummy' to 'they might be town, but they'll be liabilities if we keep them alive', and the fact he's able to say this while entirely ignoring Pesco is pretty argh. Voting players based on later WIFOMs on Day 1 is pretty awkward, and damning them for good based on D1 actions is even worse.
So in terms of suspicion, I'd actually say Sodium Benzoate is the most scummy at this point. However, I'm going to have to do another re-read in a bit once I'm finally awake before I slap down a vote.
- If she's Scum, Dream ends, Waking is skipped, and Dream 3 starts immediatly.Why this instead of just continuing the present Dream like a standard scum modkill?
Why this instead of just continuing the present Dream like a standard scum modkill?I thought this was the usual.
@Nietz: What happens if we lynch someone before you modkill UK?
I refuse to have a repeat of last game.
Also, if the Dream ends before that, deadline for replacement will extend until then end of the Waking phase.
At which point, assuming she cannot be replaced, the day/dream will immediately end again?No, she will be modkilled at the start of Day 3 then, I thought this was obvious.
Screw that.
Sodium Silicate - All of his cases seem to be primarily based off of meta, which is horrid. Appears to be doing not that much scumhunting. Not seeing any justification in his vote for Zakeri beyond "I don't know what you were trying to do soI also think he's been tunneling Affinity(previous post). And he was tunneling Roukan for Day 1 pretty much(should've added that). And why the hell did he trust Pesco over Roukan that freaking much? And it's not like any of my other stuff is any stronger.
No. If she's not replaced, the day will start with her dead already, regardless of alignment.
Oh wow, this is kinda bad. There's really no sign of VGT or Umu?yeah, that's sorta why it wasn't umu that replaced Mr Alert, but me instead. =V
Are you willing to switch your vote to Affinity if necessary?Yeah. But no need for that for now, seeing as umu replaced UK. Hurray!
...where did everyone go? >_>
I don't get you at all during Day 1.Not many do :yanni yogi: You know, despite the fact that I've tried to explain my thought process a few times already.
I still have my suspicions on Alice, who seems lurky and who's voting pattern day one struck me a little odd...Wait, what? This is the second time you've mentioned Alice ALL GAME, besides this:
I was still cursing myself for being talked out of voting you from the three people I considered most suspicious at the time (You, Alice, and Edible).I'm curious as to how you consider him so suspicious despite the fact you've had so little to say about him. Indeed, you haven't picked out anything in any of his posts, you just randomly started saying 'he's suspicious'.
Alice: What the heck, I ask you who you think is scum, you respond by not actually answering that and then telling me I need to exist more? Seriously? Your own posts today have been pretty damn lackluster.Really, so when I said I think that Sodium Fluoride is scum that's apparently not thinking that he's scum?
ScumZakeri would protect ScumPesco because they are both scum and godfather is a role you want to stick around (particularly since pesco is, frankly, cop/vig-bait), and it's not impossible to get away with that. Especially in such a fluid day one, with many lynch options avaliable, and it may not take much to change one vote to another. It's not beyond the pale.So *terribly blatantly*, though? And in such a half-assed manner? I'm honestly seeing it as more of a townie flail than a scum chainsaw defence.
So *terribly blatantly*, though? And in such a half-assed manner? I'm honestly seeing it as more of a townie flail than a scum chainsaw defence.I laughed, but it's still a WIFOM at best. As is it seems we've got it backwards - according to Affinity accusing scum is a BAD thing, and according to Alice protecting scum is a GOOD thing. Am I the only one slightly confused by this?
Affinity, list other players who were equally scummy compared to Pesco yesterday. Saying 'there were other players he could have chosen' without giving examples is poor play.
Chainsaw.
This is condoning a Pesco lynch, not enforcing it. If he outright said 'vote Pesco, not anyone else' then that'd be enforcing it, but as is this is misrep.
So why not any of those other people, and why pesco?He was okay with Pesco's lynch because other people were okay with Pesco's lynch. As he put it, "Pesco had the votes", and he had no reason to believe that Pesco was Town, so...
Just because Serp happened to be against pesco, and because I happened to, at that time, find Serp's actions scummy doesn't mean anything.Yes it does - if Serp maintained his attitude of lynching people who weren't especially scummy, Pesco would be lynched. Therefore you'd want him to change his mind on that or at least make him look bad for it.
Also, would you consider your defense of Serp chainsaw? If not, why, and how are you not contradicting yourself in the process?Yes, maybe it is a little chainsaw-ish. When I get into complicated situations where there are two parties I find equally suspicious I need to try one or the other, since the only thing less productive than being wrong is being neutral. I'm giving Serp credit for insisting on the triple lynch when he could have insisted on just Baity and KY.
WIFOM.At the cost of a whole day? Seems extreme. Pesco could've been investigated that night and found Town, then he wouldn't have been lynched at all (if there's a cop).
He was okay with Pesco's lynch because other people were okay with Pesco's lynch. As he put it, "Pesco had the votes", and he had no reason to believe that Pesco was Town, so...
But D2 Zakeri is bad. First of all, he suddenly drops his
Edible: I'm slightly suspicious of you, as you're not as obvtown as you normally are when you're Town...I don't get it.
Town, from what I can see. Reminds me of Alice in RWoS. Pretty much my reasoning for thinking Alice is town.Firstly, meta clears are bad; secondly, if you want this to hold any merit explain how Town!Alice plays.
Affinity's tracker claim is argh, and I'm not sure if I'm particularly keen on believing it at this point, but I don't think lynching him is a good idea either at this point.
@Serp:
Kiro's switch to pesco was a tad forced, in my opinion.
You still haven't answered my questions about how any part of your case relies on anything other than speculation.
Also, Serp is merely stating opinions without justifying them or relating them to the scumhunting busieness, which does nothing but to raise my suspicion of him.
How did I start off as good? More importantly, what is wrong against Zakeri with taking pesco's side in the argument. Gosh can you evaluate the reasons for the actions instead of the actions themselves? Furthermore, apologetic moe does nothing for me.1.You made two posts which I thought gave good reasoning for your votes on Kanako, and gave your opinions on other people, showing that you were paying attention to everyone else. I thought they were good posts.
@Roukan:In my opinion, Town!Alice (at least from RWoS) doesn't post much(known as Lurker for a reason), but when he posts, he usually gives good reasons for his vote(change or why he's staying), gives opinions on most of new posts, and answers questions directed at him WELL. Unless I missed something, I think that he has all of those.- His reasoning for lynching you was your use of meta (do you agree that every case you've made today is based on meta?), and because Pesco wanted you to play. (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg15209#msg15209)
Quite interesting to see Rou engage in setup speculation like that, judging that there was a Bug Cop and a Scout last game. Theory is by no means set in stone, or even sand for that matter.My main point is that we had three roles in that game - Scout, Cop, and Kavorkian Doc. If this theory holds we have four including you, and otherwise there's little reason for the GF to exist. For the same reason as with the previous game, 4 Town roles in a 13-player game = overpowered.
-wait, wut? That was directed to me? Whoops.No, I was pointing out that there were questions which Alice left unanswered.
...someone having a case on me means that I should think they're scum/enemy to town? I mean, I wish he wasn't trying to get me, and get scum, but at least he's doing something.So you think his attack makes sense? You have no objections to what he's saying about you? o_o
My main point is that we had three roles in that game - Scout, Cop, and Kavorkian Doc. If this theory holds we have four including you, and otherwise there's little reason for the GF to exist. For the same reason as with the previous game, 4 Town roles in a 13-player game = overpowered.
Okay... but dreamscape changers don't really break the game to be honest; the best I can see is that Kiro could be confirmed once the dreamscape is changed. And a bomb could have gone either way in my opinion, especially with Baity.The fact remains they're roles that are attempting to aid town. If there are really that many then almost half the Town have special roles, and that seems ever so slightly hard to believe.
EBWOP:So you think his attack makes sense? You have no objections to what he's saying about you? o_oI have objections, but it was true I was using meta too much, and I can't do anything about Pesco asking for a Alert replacement, can I?
Carth-Neutral, he's been playing well, giving his suspicions, but I like how he says he's suspicious of Edible, but doesn't actually do much about it.
Apart from vote for him? I'll use my MIGHTY KUNG-FU POWERS to just eliminate him from the game next time, then. </sarcasm>Yeah, shit, I was about to fix that in this post. >_> I'm an idiot.
Edible: What does a counterclaim have to do with anything?
Yeah your vote's still on him but you've already said you buy the claim. Actions not matching words. Again, what's going on here, and plz to make up your mind?
Edible-Neutral/Town, because he's sorta acting obvtown right now. Although he did that when he was scum. =V But anyways, he has been scum hunting, and looking for the solutions that would be best for town.
Serp and Rou aren't worth pursuing for now.
unless we can find a better case to pursue.
That leaves Carthrat and Affinity in my eyes, and Affinity's the better candidate there even with his claim.[/QUOTE
Why. The top two don't match up. The bottom is unexplained. Also, I don't see you questioning my defence in anyway. What is your judgment of it?
---
@RouQuoteThe fact remains they're roles that are attempting to aid town.
Note the rule where the more townie roles there are after a certain limit, the more it is likely to damage town. I'm not buying this. Furthermore, if I claimed a doc, would you have believed me, judging that you said the above?
Serp and Rou aren't worth pursuing for now.
unless we can find a better case to pursue.
That leaves Carthrat and Affinity in my eyes, and Affinity's the better candidate there even with his claim.
The fact remains they're roles that are attempting to aid town.
Note the rule where the more townie roles there are after a certain limit, the more it is likely to damage town. I'm not buying this.The point here is that this is why GMs don't flood their games with roles.
Furthermore, if I claimed a doc, would you have believed me, judging that you said the above?Most likely not, for the same reasons. This is even before we consider the stigmata from Alice claiming Doc in your position last game...
Actually, you did claim tracker in the first Mafia game I've ever played... and I think you've pulled it off well. In any case, I don't think it's fair to say that scum has that difficult a time sticking to his falseclaim if he did claim tracker....Wait, are you strengthening the argument against yourself?
Man, even if there was a counterclaim, what stops there being two trackers?I really don't like this statement. Same problem I noted with Affinity - if there were two trackers we're talking 4 Town PRs which is overpowered. Sounds like you're looking for ways to clear Affinity ahead of ways to find scum.
...Wait, are you strengthening the argument against yourself?
The point here is that this is why GMs don't flood their games with roles.
The point here is that this is why GMs don't flood their games with roles.Except in Role Madness, I'm guessing. But those games are almost always stated as such, aren't they?
Guys, you there? >_>You do realise it's either Zakeri or you as most of Town that's around does not want an Affinity lynch?
Well, chances are, the same dam thing is going to happen again:Me getting lynched in the last 30 minutes of a day! Wonderful! /sarcasm
##Unvote
##Vote:Affinity because nothing is happening, and if I don't die, we'll need a lynch
You do realise it's either Zakeri or you as most of Town that's around does not want an Affinity lynch?There are 8 minutes left. I would be hated if I voted myself, and Zakeri is extremely unlikely to be voted. See how that works?
HAMMER KINDLY REMAIN SILENTI like this.