DYH: Reading his posts in Magic Mafia, it's my opinion that he's answering much more logically and with more composure in that game. Here, it sounds like he's scrambling. But I don't think using just these two games is enough to make a decision based on deviation from past play. Simply, I'm going to have to go with my perception of his current play.
Sutherlands: What is more pressure going to do? Hopefully something useful? Like maybe an eventual claim?
WTH?? This doesn't even make sense to me. If I planned out an attack beforehand, why wouldn't I plan out good reasons? Also, if my reasoning sucks, why are people agreeing with what I have said? Let's look at the things I've said that people have repeated (not ver batim, but the gist is there).
Not that I'm trying to convince you, because that would be pointless, but I'll explain for the benefit of our audience. Mafia very frequently have a hard time judging when to come in on a bandwagon, because they have inside information on whether or not someone is scum. As such, one of the most common scum tells is when a person makes an attack that isn't of correct strength for the available evidence.
For example, you went quite overboard in your declaration that loran's action was scummy. It was a little bit scummy, but you drastically misjudged how to react to it, which is easier to do as mafia than as town. What it looks like is that you were trying to accelerate the loran bandwagon just before it could really be called a bandwagon, and then you overstated your case to the point where you drew attention to yourself, because it seemed contrived. In other words, it looked like you were jumping on for the bandwagon's sake rather than the evidence's sake.
I never said your reasoning sucked. loran is definitely worth a look. You are just worth more of a look.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
There was a bandwagon on loran when I said something about him? *looks* Pibbly voted for him for no reason in the first 10 posts, and then DYH voted him (4x) for spamming.
As for going overboard, I don't believe I did. But let me tell you why: I believe that my voting got taken for a lot more than it normally would because people took it and attacked me with it, so I had to defend myself about why I did it. I have been under the opinion that my vote has gotten blown way out of proportion because of people attacking me... but what am I supposed to say about it? "Stop voting me people, you'll make my vote on loran into something much bigger than it is" This is obviously not the best thing I could say, but even the best thing to try to convey that point would make me look more suspicious than I was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
@bateleur: Can you confirm that the number of votes to lynch today is a minimum of 11 and a maximum of 12 (assuming I'm voting 4 times and there are no other multi-voters voting)? I'm a little sketchy on what's listed in the rules.
I second this, as I also found the rules somewhat confusing on this point.
Now, onto the more important matter, Sutherlands.
I do agree that his defence does seem somewhat sketchy. What has stood out the most to me is this:
Quote from Sutherlands »
1) His role requires him to FoS someone every post or FoS everyone during a round. Sounds dumb and unlikely
as I do not see how such a posting restriction is "dumb and unlikely", when we have good reasons to believe that FOSing have more meaning in this game than in your average Mafia game.
I would still like to hear more from Loran about this aledged posting restriction, but I suppose he can't or doesn't want to say anything more about it.
And on the topic of why Loran might be spamming, even though he needs to FOS someone, I believe that he might have to FOS everyone to have some part of his restriction lifted. If I should guess, I would say that he can't vote until he has FOSed everyone. (I believe he has not voted a single time so far, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong.)
I will not put a vote on Sutherlands at this moment, for two reasons. First of all, I would like more discussion on this matter. And second, I don't feel well with placing a vote, when I'm not quite sure how many it takes to lynch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alcoholic Mafia - Town LVP
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
EchoChrome
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Picross 3D
Assassin's Creed 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum
BioShock
Demon's Souls
Final Fantasy I, II, IV, VII & XII
Kingdom Hearts
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Mass Effect
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen
EBWODP: I forgot to say that much of what I said in my previous post is presuming that Loran does actually have some sort of restriction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Alcoholic Mafia - Town LVP
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
EchoChrome
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Picross 3D
Assassin's Creed 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum
BioShock
Demon's Souls
Final Fantasy I, II, IV, VII & XII
Kingdom Hearts
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Mass Effect
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen
I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior. We've had someone very specifically say that it would be bad for the town to FoS or Vote him, and I think only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway. (Note: I don't think that person is automatically town, but nothing good would come of just FoSing him)
@Sutherlands: The major issue for me was that you stated loran would make a good "lynch". Not a candidate, not a wagon, not worthy of a vote, you said lynch. Then you didn't even vote him. The case against you isn't weak, I just happen to find loran's behavior extremely distressing - and having played with him before, it's sticking out - hence the votes on him.
EBWODP: I forgot to say that much of what I said in my previous post is presuming that Loran does actually have some sort of restriction.
And honestly, I think this is an assumption that most people other than me are making that makes me look suspicious because I don't just accept it.
DYH: Ok, well those reasons at least make sense to me. But why would I say those other things (particularly "wagon")? Bandwagon to me has always been a negative term, and saying that someone has a wagon on them to me implies that the case has little substance and people are hopping on for no reason other than to get a lynch that's not themselves. A candidate... well it would be a candidate for lynching, and the vote would be for a lynch... so those I think are just other ways of saying the same thing. The not voting - well I thought I had.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Regarding votes: Rule 3 says all that I wish to say publically on the subject.
If you can't do the sums, I'm afraid that's a difficulty I will not be helping you to overcome.
If you suspect there are other factors which may influence the number of votes required to lynch which I have not revealed then that would constitute a deliberate gameplay factor which I therefore decline to discuss.
If your question is neither of these you will have to phrase it more carefully so that I can be sure I have understood it.
(In general, rules questions should be sent to me by PM. I can always post the answer publically if I see fit, but by asking in the thread you risk stalling the game until I am able to respond.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
as I do not see how such a posting restriction is "dumb and unlikely", when we have good reasons to believe that FOSing have more meaning in this game than in your average Mafia game.
I would still like to hear more from Loran about this aledged posting restriction, but I suppose he can't or doesn't want to say anything more about it.
It was more of people saying that the post restriction would be exactly that... that he had to FoS someone in every post, that I found dumb. (I don't know if anyone said exactly that, but that's what I got.) The idea that he has to FoS everyone before he can vote is plausible (but annoying), and there have been a few other instances that I can see as plausible. But for me it all comes down to not caring about FoSing someone who said that it would hurt the town. If I thought that was the case, I just wouldn't do it, even if it meant I didn't get to vote for a couple rounds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Before i post too much further, is there anyone else besides bertrand who has specific role information reasons why i shouldnt fos them? This is your last chance to speak up btw.
FOS Unvote Vote Pod.
Note: This does not mean i'm going to not FOS bertrand again.....i may be a bit more careful if i deem it necessary.
Also sutherlands', assuming DYH's votes don't change the max to lynch count (which judging by rule 3 is not true, Seeing as with his quadruple voting we go to a max of 23 votes leaving it 12 to lynch rather than 11.), 6 on me is more than halfway to a lynch. Heck, even if they change the amount of votes to lynch i'm halfway there.
I still fail to see what you have wrong with my actions, so i will not be changing much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
This is what I think is dumb. arimneas has a speech restriction because he's talking like a pirate? Why would a pirate be in the king's court?
Quote from Sutherlands »
This one I put here because I think it's just arimneas being arimneas. Seem like everyone is speculating about everyone else.
Arr... have yeh ever known me to talk like this in a former life?
I be seein' no reason to move me vote from Sutherlands, for now. The man ain't makin' sense.
Quote from Sutherlands »
WTH?? This doesn't even make sense to me. If I planned out an attack beforehand, why wouldn't I plan out good reasons? Also, if my reasoning sucks, why are people agreeing with what I have said? Let's look at the things I've said that people have repeated (not ver batim, but the gist is there).
He be sayin' that yeh decided to attack loran because he seemed like an easy target. Yeh figured that since loran was lookin' rather scummy himself, yeh wouldn't be questioned on why you were attacking him. But then yeh were questioned, and yeh didn't have any good answers.
Quote from Sutherlands »
^^ this one was apparently UVP's point... even though that's basically what I've been saying.
The fact that loran be unleashin' a veritable cannonade o' spam onto the thread, and thus be fosing more people than he needs to, is indeed scummy. That be UVP's point. But the main reason you originally gave for yer attack on loran was just that yeh thought he was fakin' the restriction, when yeh had no good reason teh think so.
Also sutherlands', assuming DYH's votes don't change the max to lynch count (which judging by rule 3 is not true, Seeing as with his quadruple voting we go to a max of 23 votes leaving it 12 to lynch rather than 11.), 6 on me is more than halfway to a lynch. Heck, even if they change the amount of votes to lynch i'm halfway there.
I'm not sure why you bring this up, did I say something about it? For the record, DYH's votes don't change the number to lynch unless almost everyone is voting. Clarification: There are 20 people in game currently, so 11 to lynch. If DYH has 3 or 4 votes, that puts it up to 22-23 if everyone is voting, so 12 to lynch. If DYH has 4 votes, but there are at least 2 people not voting, the amount needed to lynch is still 11. For the record, I think that DYH is highly probably townie, since a mafia having 4 votes would be incredibly powerful, and in the hands of a townie you would need to actually use it responsibly.
But the main reason you originally gave for yer attack on loran was just that yeh thought he was fakin' the restriction, when yeh had no good reason teh think so.
I never said anything of the sort.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
1) His role requires him to FoS someone every post or FoS everyone during a round. Sounds dumb and unlikely
2) He doesn't have a role restriction and is doing this to everyone to see if anything will happen when he FoSes someone. Most probable in my opinion.
The common assumption when someone repeats a specific posting behavior for no apparent reason is that there's a post restriction. It is not unreasonable to assume then that loran has a post restriction, or that he is trying to pretend he has a post restriction.
So you're telling us that he's not faking a post restriction, and is only doing this to test if something happens when he FOSes someone.
If he wanted to test if things happen when FOSing someone, why wouldn't he just FOS everyone in one single post?
Also, how is it scummy to FOS bertrand even before bertrand mentioned that it would hurt to FOS him?
Yeh be stretchin' yer past words like a cheap banjo string.
1) Yeh said that the restriction he was indicating was "dumb and unlikely." Yer point bein' that he was likely lying. Though the two statements can technically be reconciled, saying "Statement X is unlikely to be true" be a far cry from sayin' "Statement X is possible."
2) Yeh said that the most likely possibility was that he in fact had no restriction.
If yer sayin' that he's acting like he has a restriction, but he probably really doesn't, how are yeh not calling the man a fake?
I'm perfectly happy with my vote on Sutherlands, his defence was pitiful.
I didn't notice him having anything to defend, at least not when you made that post (this has changed since, but it looked like Kenji was trying to make Sutherlands look more suspicious than he then was).
I entirely agree with Pu... I mean, U.V.P. that people are far too interested in dropping hints.
I have no idea what loran is up to but at the very least I think he should avoid FOSing bertrand for now since bertrand has claimed a role-based reason not to be FOS'd.
I disagree with lookingforreality that loran wouldn't be systematic if he was just testing stuff out. If loran is testing something out, doing it in alphabetical order is the best way to make sure he doesn't accidentally miss someone.
I think Sutherlands is entirely right that if we do any sort of plan, it must involve everyone directing traffic so as not to give away all the town roles that need to be in a particular location.
I think Sutherlands is wrong that a restriction on loran is dumb or unlikely but that his #2 may well be true but doesn't necessarily make loran scum. Sutherlands' #3 seems very unlikely. In WDM2- which bateleur played in, and which was also the last time we saw multivoters on this site- my role gained power if people quoted me but I couldn't use it on people who had quoted me. That has synergy. There's no point in a role where loran can use his ability on anyone he has FOS'd, since he has total control over who he FOSs and so it doesn't prevent him using the ability on whoever he wants.
Sutherlands made a fair point with "Would you have voted for someone if you knew it would hurt the town?".
Kenji's reply- "If it's that or be mod killed yes." exposes the problem. It would be silly modding to create a town role which is actively hurt just by another townie following his role restriction (with no intent to target the first role at all). I can think of situations where it could work with both loran and bertrand town (ie. loran loses his ability for the day if he doesn't do it, bertrand loses his ability for the day if FOS'd too much), forcing the town to choose which ability they want more, but bertrand's reaction seemed a bit extreme for that.
Quote from LookingforReality »
Is this trying to say that you have a choice when you FoS everyone?
Doesn't seem much like a post restriction...
loran never said he had a post restriction. Other people are assuming that for him. Other people are assuming a great many things about loran and basing arguments on it.
Overall I don't get the impression that Sutherlands is really really scummy (although I don't agree with everything he says), and I have no idea what loran is up to. It might be an idea for loran to give us his ideas on Sutherlands and on cp's location strategy so he's providing more information than just his FOSs. Maybe all in one post if he can, to avoid more FOSs than can be helped.
The common assumption when someone repeats a specific posting behavior for no apparent reason is that there's a post restriction. It is not unreasonable to assume then that loran has a post restriction, or that he is trying to pretend he has a post restriction.
Like I said, I've probably played too many games with Phanto. I'm used to people doing stuff just to be dumb/crazy/test things.
I also wonder why you are so easily inclined to believe that bertrand's claim makes him townie.
Well, first off, I don't. Second off, if someone does that, they're usually (more than 50% of the time) townie. Regardless of whether he's townie or not I don't think that if someone says that you should say 'well i don't care, I'll do it anyway'.
To post 185: He's next in line because he's using his brain? Even if I WAS scum (which I'm not), another mafia wouldn't stick his neck out for me at this point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior. We've had someone very specifically say that it would be bad for the town to FoS or Vote him, and I think only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway. (Note: I don't think that person is automatically town, but nothing good would come of just FoSing him)
Your original point was against loran for FoSing bert even when he said not to, that's false.
Bertrand says that it hurts the town to do it and loran says what I see as the equivalent of "Whatever! I do what I want!" </Cartman voice> (Post 87)
And that's insufficient evidence. *If* loran actually has a post restriction, this is an entirely believable response from loran.
Sure, we don't know yet whether loran has a post restriction. However, that doesn't make him the automatic target for a lynch, which is what you called for. As DYH pointed out, you weren't asking for him to explain himself - you were saying we should lynch him just for his behavior.
Well, first off, I don't. Second off, if someone does that, they're usually (more than 50% of the time) townie. Regardless of whether he's townie or not I don't think that if someone says that you should say 'well i don't care, I'll do it anyway'.
So which is it? You don't believe him townie, but you believe him more likely to be townie? Or are you still trying to leave yourself an out either way?
As for the last sentence, I don't agree with you, but whatever.
To post 185: He's next in line because he's using his brain? Even if I WAS scum (which I'm not), another mafia wouldn't stick his neck out for me at this point.
I'm willing to wait and see. I'm not pushing a case against Raf right now, but I wanted to remark that I find his last two posts suspicious.
Sure, we don't know yet whether loran has a post restriction. However, that doesn't make him the automatic target for a lynch, which is what you called for. As DYH pointed out, you weren't asking for him to explain himself - you were saying we should lynch him just for his behavior.
Yes, I believe my exact words were "Brothers! We must call to arms now! There is a traitor in our midst. He is sowing discard among us. This man is loran16!!!! We must unite now and rid our councils of this scum before he can tear us apart from each other!"
Oh shoot... no... maybe it was more like "I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior." There's no "automatic target" there, although I did vote for him because of his behavior (in my next post once people pointed it out). Also, why should I have to ask him defend himself? That's a rather rediculous statement if you ask me.
"YOU ARE AN EVIL MAN!"
*silence*
...
"Oh shoot... I forgot... YOU ARE AN EVIL MAN! DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST WHAT I HAVE SAID!"
Oh wait... maybe people normally defend themselves from accusations... yeah... sounds about right. I mean... no one asked me to defend myself, so they're all scum, right? Use logic, man.
So which is it? You don't believe him townie, but you believe him more likely to be townie? Or are you still trying to leave yourself an out either way?
Um... it's called I DON'T KNOW. It's what most townies are towards most people. I bet if you ask anyone here what they think of me they would either say "I think he's probably townie" or "I think he's probably mafia". In this case, I will say "I think he's probably townie"
I'm willing to wait and see. I'm not pushing a case against Raf right now, but I wanted to remark that I find his last two posts suspicious.
Wait... so which is it? You don't believe him to be mafia, but you believe him more likely to be mafia? Or are you still trying to leave yourself an out either way?
You have spewed so much false logic and dumb accusations in here that I'm going to go ahead and Vote fadeblue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Oh shoot... no... maybe it was more like "I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior." There's no "automatic target" there, although I did vote for him because of his behavior (in my next post once people pointed it out). Also, why should I have to ask him defend himself? That's a rather rediculous statement if you ask me.
As DYH pointed out, you weren't asking for him to explain himself - you were saying we should lynch him just for his behavior.
(Emphasis mine)
Erm... Can you explain this? He pointed out something ligetimate, and you agree with it, while saying that fadeblue is wrong...
If you take that quote with the context of the rest of what he said, yes. He says I called for making loran "the automatic target of a lynch" which I did not, I said he was a good lynch. The part that you quoted I said was true, but why should I have to ask someone to defend themselves?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
With those last couple posts, it looks like RafK's offering himself to be next in line if Sutherlands is scum.
I think the ballyhoo around Sutherlands is overblown (but not 100% without substance, and you made a good point regarding the order of events with loran and bertrand). Day 1 flurry at the first available target, you know.
The aim of building a bandwagon on someone should be to provide as much substance as possible and as little fluff; as much milk as possible with as little moo. Some people have been noticeably providing a lot of moo about Sutherlands but not much milk.
In the meantime, I repeat that I would like loran to give his thoughts. Good, bad, he's the guy who actually knows why he's doing what he's doing, so he's in the best position so say whether he thinks Sutherlands is being fair or unfair towards him.
Well, he's in the best position to say what I'm doing is right or wrong. Fair or unfair has to do with perception of events, so the rest of the town would be the best judge of that But yeah, loran hasn't really said much about it. Except that I'm suspicious...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So... fadeblue... you've been viewing this thread nonstop since your last post... yet you've had nothing to add for over 30 minutes now. Is that because you know I'm right? Do I sense a victory for Sutherlands and a defeat for the scum fadeblue?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Sutherlands: A reaction is warranted by evidence. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant your reaction.
By the way, go ahead and continue your sarcasm and straw-manning. It's amusing.
Here is a summary of the whole loran thing, for everyone's reference:
1) You believe that loran does not have a post restriction, and is simply FOSing everyone to see if something happens. Incidentally, he is doing this one per post instead of all at once, and he chooses to skip arimnaes in his otherwise systematic manner.
2) He FOSes bertrand. bertrand responds by saying "Anyways, looks like it's too late, but I would like to ask that NO ONE VOTE OR FoS ME, unless of course you actually think I'm scum. Like Axelrod just said. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants this."
3) loran dismisses this by saying "Ummm, ....I'll FoS anyone i choose, unless you die because of it....Can't really help ya there, pal." You take this to be indicative of a Mafia member ignoring the wishes of a townie and choosing to be directly harmful to the town.
4) After loran responds, *then* bertrand makes a clear statement that being FOSed or voted is harmful to the town.
5) loran continues his FOSing spree and makes no more mention of bertrand. In post #117, you say "I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior. We've had someone very specifically say that it would be bad for the town to FoS or Vote him, and I think only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway." Note the key phrase here: "a good lynch", not, "what are you doing, loran?" You mention that "only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway," despite bertrand's claim coming after loran's FOS and loran only saying "I'll FoS anyone i choose." That's a pretty confident claim that this is a strong mafia tell.
Is there more that should be added to this summary? I want to make sure I'm not leaving out anything important.
You also express strong doubt that his behavior is a result of his role (post #121), with no evidence to support that belief, other than your prior experience with Phanto. You also try to outguess the mod and make assumptions about how FoSes work in this game.
Anyway, I welcome you to present a case against me, then. I would like to see all the "false logic and dumb accusations."
EWP: I also find your counting the minutes amusing. As if I could read through the thread and write a complete post in mere seconds.
Here is a summary of the whole loran thing, for everyone's reference:
[. . .]
Is there more that should be added to this summary? I want to make sure I'm not leaving out anything important.
No, that was very good. Perfect recap of what happened, although I'm not sure how that helps.
But I did realize that he skipped arimneas (something I didn't realize before). What could that mean?
About number 5... I knew that bertrand's claim came after the FoS. This is why my issue with loran has always been about his RESPONSE to what bertrand said. As for confidence, well it's pretty confident if you take into account that this is the first day.
You also express strong doubt that his behavior is a result of his role (post #121), with no evidence to support that belief, other than your prior experience with Phanto. You also try to outguess the mod and make assumptions about how FoSes work in this game.
EWP: I also find your counting the minutes amusing. As if I could read through the thread and write a complete post in mere seconds.
I was hoping you would say something like this... actually, I was hoping you would deny it. But see, the fact is that you have viewed the thread approximately every 5 minutes since then. If it were ME and someone wrote a big long post contradicting what I said, I would write up a response to it. (Like I just did.) But then again... I don't have to think up a story first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I'm not really sure what this means, you'll have to explain it to me.
This has already been covered. The typical reaction to someone doing what loran was doing is that he may have a post restriction. Thus, when he appears to be careless with it, the proper townie response is, "Explain yourself" rather than "let's lynch him."
I'll continue the sarcasm, but I'm not sure what you believe is strawmanning. One more thing you'll have to explain.
The strawmanning is part of the sarcasm. Notice the "Evil Man" example? That qualifies as a strawman.
No, that was very good. Perfect recap of what happened, although I'm not sure how that helps.
This is for reference so that everyone can be clear about your actions and how the whole thing played out. Notice how Raf didn't notice the timing? He's not the only one, I'm sure.
There are several questionable points in that recap.
1) Your theory about loran doing this only to see what happens, and saying that you don't believe he is faking a restriction. What is your theory for why he's been doing it in the way he has?
2) You've been attacking loran for doing something which is directly harmful to the town. Yet bertrand never said it was harmful to the town until post #88, which comes *after* loran saying "I'll FoS anyone i choose." Now, if loran had went back to FoS bertrand after that, then yes, that would be suspect, but the way it actually played out is perfectly reasonable if loran actually has a posting restriction.
3) Your statement that we should lynch loran because *only a mafia* would play it as he did is overly confident. I don't see how you can justify that belief.
But I did realize that he skipped arimneas (something I didn't realize before). What could that mean?
Huh?
About number 5... I knew that bertrand's claim came after the FoS. This is why my issue with loran has always been about his RESPONSE to what bertrand said. As for confidence, well it's pretty confident if you take into account that this is the first day.
Read the above. loran's response comes after bertrand saying he didn't want to be FOSed or voted, but before bertrand explicitly says it's harmful to the town.
Ok?
This is a point regarding your apparent belief that you don't need anything solid to back up your arguments other than your own personal opinion.
I already did, it was in the post I typed up about 50 minutes ago.
That's your case? Then it needs no further response than this.
I was hoping you would say something like this... actually, I was hoping you would deny it. But see, the fact is that you have viewed the thread approximately every 5 minutes since then. If it were ME and someone wrote a big long post contradicting what I said, I would write up a response to it. (Like I just did.) But then again... I don't have to think up a story first.
Not everyone plays in the careless way that you do.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
wow, that was certainly an interesting 6 pages. so unvote
Loran's FOSs are certainly odd. I would certainly think that there is some sort of mechanic that he is trying to use. Whether it be role ability or something that he knows about the game, i have no clue.
This entire sutherland thing has me kinda confused. Everyone else seems to be screaming at him. While he does look a little scummy from his actions, im not sure if this is enough to pounce like everyone is. Then again, it is day one and some people will go for anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Legacy15 and Butteblues18 for the Sig and Avatar!
Wow, I go to sleep at 2 pages, and when I wake up, there is 6 pages - And I'm at 40 posts/page...
Anyway, I don't like the way Sutherlands is attacking Fade for making valid points. I think the only reason he is trying to attack Fade is because these "valid points" are all points against him. Omgus anyone? I would vote him right now, but I dont know how many votes he has on him right now.
Speaking of people providing plenty of moo and not much milk.
"Mooing" is just not helpful to the town. Mafia have every reason to moo- making noise about one of their scum buddies for distance or for distraction without actually asking hard questions, making noise about townies without committing to an argument, etc. Anything that might sway people without committing the scum.
Townies have every reason to provide "milk". Information about each other is how we find scum.
As such, no matter what is up with Sutherlands, I find myself very suspicious of people who repeatedly "moo". WoD seems more suspicious than Sutherlands to me as a result.
vote Wrath of Dog
Not stupid enough to think this is going to move the wagon on Sutherlands; it's apparent that a critical mass on that has emerged, for better or for worse. But I'm not going to make a case on WoD and then not vote, some scum would just accuse me of pushing at him without voting
I hereby express suspicion of bertrand in a non game relevent way.
Well, it's too late for today.. Today you can FoS me all you want. Just tomorrow please no one do it randomly. Tomorrow, no one do that. Thank you.
About Sutherlands.. while I'm not 100% convinced he's scum, he's definately acted scummy. And his lynch would probably reveal a lot of info, as we could look at who wagoned, who first attacked, who drove, who rode, etc. but I'm not quite sure whether he is the best candidate.. I'd be ok with his lynch but there's no need to do it now. IMO we are going a bit fast.
I'm for making him claim though.
Let the claimagicity begin.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sutherlands: What is more pressure going to do? Hopefully something useful? Like maybe an eventual claim?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Well, I was only paying attention to tone and presentation. It's enough for me personally, but if others feel differently, that's up to them.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Not that I'm trying to convince you, because that would be pointless, but I'll explain for the benefit of our audience. Mafia very frequently have a hard time judging when to come in on a bandwagon, because they have inside information on whether or not someone is scum. As such, one of the most common scum tells is when a person makes an attack that isn't of correct strength for the available evidence.
For example, you went quite overboard in your declaration that loran's action was scummy. It was a little bit scummy, but you drastically misjudged how to react to it, which is easier to do as mafia than as town. What it looks like is that you were trying to accelerate the loran bandwagon just before it could really be called a bandwagon, and then you overstated your case to the point where you drew attention to yourself, because it seemed contrived. In other words, it looked like you were jumping on for the bandwagon's sake rather than the evidence's sake.
I never said your reasoning sucked. loran is definitely worth a look. You are just worth more of a look.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
As for going overboard, I don't believe I did. But let me tell you why: I believe that my voting got taken for a lot more than it normally would because people took it and attacked me with it, so I had to defend myself about why I did it. I have been under the opinion that my vote has gotten blown way out of proportion because of people attacking me... but what am I supposed to say about it? "Stop voting me people, you'll make my vote on loran into something much bigger than it is" This is obviously not the best thing I could say, but even the best thing to try to convey that point would make me look more suspicious than I was.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I second this, as I also found the rules somewhat confusing on this point.
Now, onto the more important matter, Sutherlands.
I do agree that his defence does seem somewhat sketchy. What has stood out the most to me is this:
as I do not see how such a posting restriction is "dumb and unlikely", when we have good reasons to believe that FOSing have more meaning in this game than in your average Mafia game.
I would still like to hear more from Loran about this aledged posting restriction, but I suppose he can't or doesn't want to say anything more about it.
And on the topic of why Loran might be spamming, even though he needs to FOS someone, I believe that he might have to FOS everyone to have some part of his restriction lifted. If I should guess, I would say that he can't vote until he has FOSed everyone. (I believe he has not voted a single time so far, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong.)
I will not put a vote on Sutherlands at this moment, for two reasons. First of all, I would like more discussion on this matter. And second, I don't feel well with placing a vote, when I'm not quite sure how many it takes to lynch.
Alcoholic Mafia - Town LVP
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
EchoChrome
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Assassin's Creed 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum
BioShock
Demon's Souls
Final Fantasy I, II, IV, VII & XII
Kingdom Hearts
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Mass Effect
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen
Alcoholic Mafia - Town LVP
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
EchoChrome
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Assassin's Creed 2
Batman: Arkham Asylum
BioShock
Demon's Souls
Final Fantasy I, II, IV, VII & XII
Kingdom Hearts
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Mass Effect
Metal Gear Solid 4
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen
@Sutherlands: The major issue for me was that you stated loran would make a good "lynch". Not a candidate, not a wagon, not worthy of a vote, you said lynch. Then you didn't even vote him. The case against you isn't weak, I just happen to find loran's behavior extremely distressing - and having played with him before, it's sticking out - hence the votes on him.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
And honestly, I think this is an assumption that most people other than me are making that makes me look suspicious because I don't just accept it.
DYH: Ok, well those reasons at least make sense to me. But why would I say those other things (particularly "wagon")? Bandwagon to me has always been a negative term, and saying that someone has a wagon on them to me implies that the case has little substance and people are hopping on for no reason other than to get a lynch that's not themselves. A candidate... well it would be a candidate for lynching, and the vote would be for a lynch... so those I think are just other ways of saying the same thing. The not voting - well I thought I had.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
If you can't do the sums, I'm afraid that's a difficulty I will not be helping you to overcome.
If you suspect there are other factors which may influence the number of votes required to lynch which I have not revealed then that would constitute a deliberate gameplay factor which I therefore decline to discuss.
If your question is neither of these you will have to phrase it more carefully so that I can be sure I have understood it.
(In general, rules questions should be sent to me by PM. I can always post the answer publically if I see fit, but by asking in the thread you risk stalling the game until I am able to respond.)
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
It was more of people saying that the post restriction would be exactly that... that he had to FoS someone in every post, that I found dumb. (I don't know if anyone said exactly that, but that's what I got.) The idea that he has to FoS everyone before he can vote is plausible (but annoying), and there have been a few other instances that I can see as plausible. But for me it all comes down to not caring about FoSing someone who said that it would hurt the town. If I thought that was the case, I just wouldn't do it, even if it meant I didn't get to vote for a couple rounds.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
FOS Unvote Vote Pod.
Note: This does not mean i'm going to not FOS bertrand again.....i may be a bit more careful if i deem it necessary.
Also sutherlands', assuming DYH's votes don't change the max to lynch count (which judging by rule 3 is not true, Seeing as with his quadruple voting we go to a max of 23 votes leaving it 12 to lynch rather than 11.), 6 on me is more than halfway to a lynch. Heck, even if they change the amount of votes to lynch i'm halfway there.
I still fail to see what you have wrong with my actions, so i will not be changing much.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Arr... have yeh ever known me to talk like this in a former life?
I be seein' no reason to move me vote from Sutherlands, for now. The man ain't makin' sense.
He be sayin' that yeh decided to attack loran because he seemed like an easy target. Yeh figured that since loran was lookin' rather scummy himself, yeh wouldn't be questioned on why you were attacking him. But then yeh were questioned, and yeh didn't have any good answers.
The fact that loran be unleashin' a veritable cannonade o' spam onto the thread, and thus be fosing more people than he needs to, is indeed scummy. That be UVP's point. But the main reason you originally gave for yer attack on loran was just that yeh thought he was fakin' the restriction, when yeh had no good reason teh think so.
Is this trying to say that you have a choice when you FoS everyone?
Doesn't seem much like a post restriction...
When did he said he had a post restriction, and when did he say it was to FoS everybody?
I'm not sure why you bring this up, did I say something about it? For the record, DYH's votes don't change the number to lynch unless almost everyone is voting. Clarification: There are 20 people in game currently, so 11 to lynch. If DYH has 3 or 4 votes, that puts it up to 22-23 if everyone is voting, so 12 to lynch. If DYH has 4 votes, but there are at least 2 people not voting, the amount needed to lynch is still 11. For the record, I think that DYH is highly probably townie, since a mafia having 4 votes would be incredibly powerful, and in the hands of a townie you would need to actually use it responsibly.
Alright then, I guess that answers that question. Maybe I've just played too many games with Phanto.
I never said anything of the sort.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
What do yeh say about this, then?
2) Is saying he doesn't
Nowhere does it say he's faking it.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
So you're telling us that he's not faking a post restriction, and is only doing this to test if something happens when he FOSes someone.
If he wanted to test if things happen when FOSing someone, why wouldn't he just FOS everyone in one single post?
Also, how is it scummy to FOS bertrand even before bertrand mentioned that it would hurt to FOS him?
1) Yeh said that the restriction he was indicating was "dumb and unlikely." Yer point bein' that he was likely lying. Though the two statements can technically be reconciled, saying "Statement X is unlikely to be true" be a far cry from sayin' "Statement X is possible."
2) Yeh said that the most likely possibility was that he in fact had no restriction.
If yer sayin' that he's acting like he has a restriction, but he probably really doesn't, how are yeh not calling the man a fake?
I didn't notice him having anything to defend, at least not when you made that post (this has changed since, but it looked like Kenji was trying to make Sutherlands look more suspicious than he then was).
I entirely agree with Pu... I mean, U.V.P. that people are far too interested in dropping hints.
I have no idea what loran is up to but at the very least I think he should avoid FOSing bertrand for now since bertrand has claimed a role-based reason not to be FOS'd.
I disagree with lookingforreality that loran wouldn't be systematic if he was just testing stuff out. If loran is testing something out, doing it in alphabetical order is the best way to make sure he doesn't accidentally miss someone.
I think Sutherlands is entirely right that if we do any sort of plan, it must involve everyone directing traffic so as not to give away all the town roles that need to be in a particular location.
I think Sutherlands is wrong that a restriction on loran is dumb or unlikely but that his #2 may well be true but doesn't necessarily make loran scum. Sutherlands' #3 seems very unlikely. In WDM2- which bateleur played in, and which was also the last time we saw multivoters on this site- my role gained power if people quoted me but I couldn't use it on people who had quoted me. That has synergy. There's no point in a role where loran can use his ability on anyone he has FOS'd, since he has total control over who he FOSs and so it doesn't prevent him using the ability on whoever he wants.
Sutherlands made a fair point with "Would you have voted for someone if you knew it would hurt the town?".
Kenji's reply- "If it's that or be mod killed yes." exposes the problem. It would be silly modding to create a town role which is actively hurt just by another townie following his role restriction (with no intent to target the first role at all). I can think of situations where it could work with both loran and bertrand town (ie. loran loses his ability for the day if he doesn't do it, bertrand loses his ability for the day if FOS'd too much), forcing the town to choose which ability they want more, but bertrand's reaction seemed a bit extreme for that.
loran never said he had a post restriction. Other people are assuming that for him. Other people are assuming a great many things about loran and basing arguments on it.
Overall I don't get the impression that Sutherlands is really really scummy (although I don't agree with everything he says), and I have no idea what loran is up to. It might be an idea for loran to give us his ideas on Sutherlands and on cp's location strategy so he's providing more information than just his FOSs. Maybe all in one post if he can, to avoid more FOSs than can be helped.
unvote
That was 1 of the 3 scenarios I put forth, the other two being he does have one, and he has a role usage restriction based on it.
Good question, never really thought about it.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I also wonder why you are so easily inclined to believe that bertrand's claim makes him townie.
Oh, good point. I should have checked for myself. So much for the point that loran FOSing bertrand shows a lack of townieness.
Of course, if loran does it again then the point becomes moot
Let me try this again.
Bertrand says that it hurts the town to do it and loran says what I see as the equivalent of "Whatever! I do what I want!" </Cartman voice> (Post 87)
Well, first off, I don't. Second off, if someone does that, they're usually (more than 50% of the time) townie. Regardless of whether he's townie or not I don't think that if someone says that you should say 'well i don't care, I'll do it anyway'.
To post 185: He's next in line because he's using his brain? Even if I WAS scum (which I'm not), another mafia wouldn't stick his neck out for me at this point.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Your original point was against loran for FoSing bert even when he said not to, that's false.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
And that's insufficient evidence. *If* loran actually has a post restriction, this is an entirely believable response from loran.
Sure, we don't know yet whether loran has a post restriction. However, that doesn't make him the automatic target for a lynch, which is what you called for. As DYH pointed out, you weren't asking for him to explain himself - you were saying we should lynch him just for his behavior.
So which is it? You don't believe him townie, but you believe him more likely to be townie? Or are you still trying to leave yourself an out either way?
As for the last sentence, I don't agree with you, but whatever.
I'm willing to wait and see. I'm not pushing a case against Raf right now, but I wanted to remark that I find his last two posts suspicious.
Yes, I believe my exact words were "Brothers! We must call to arms now! There is a traitor in our midst. He is sowing discard among us. This man is loran16!!!! We must unite now and rid our councils of this scum before he can tear us apart from each other!"
Oh shoot... no... maybe it was more like "I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior." There's no "automatic target" there, although I did vote for him because of his behavior (in my next post once people pointed it out). Also, why should I have to ask him defend himself? That's a rather rediculous statement if you ask me.
"YOU ARE AN EVIL MAN!"
*silence*
...
"Oh shoot... I forgot... YOU ARE AN EVIL MAN! DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST WHAT I HAVE SAID!"
Oh wait... maybe people normally defend themselves from accusations... yeah... sounds about right. I mean... no one asked me to defend myself, so they're all scum, right? Use logic, man.
Um... it's called I DON'T KNOW. It's what most townies are towards most people. I bet if you ask anyone here what they think of me they would either say "I think he's probably townie" or "I think he's probably mafia". In this case, I will say "I think he's probably townie"
Wait... so which is it? You don't believe him to be mafia, but you believe him more likely to be mafia? Or are you still trying to leave yourself an out either way?
You have spewed so much false logic and dumb accusations in here that I'm going to go ahead and Vote fadeblue.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
(Emphasis mine)
Erm... Can you explain this? He pointed out something ligetimate, and you agree with it, while saying that fadeblue is wrong...
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I think the ballyhoo around Sutherlands is overblown (but not 100% without substance, and you made a good point regarding the order of events with loran and bertrand). Day 1 flurry at the first available target, you know.
The aim of building a bandwagon on someone should be to provide as much substance as possible and as little fluff; as much milk as possible with as little moo. Some people have been noticeably providing a lot of moo about Sutherlands but not much milk.
In the meantime, I repeat that I would like loran to give his thoughts. Good, bad, he's the guy who actually knows why he's doing what he's doing, so he's in the best position so say whether he thinks Sutherlands is being fair or unfair towards him.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
By the way, go ahead and continue your sarcasm and straw-manning. It's amusing.
Here is a summary of the whole loran thing, for everyone's reference:
1) You believe that loran does not have a post restriction, and is simply FOSing everyone to see if something happens. Incidentally, he is doing this one per post instead of all at once, and he chooses to skip arimnaes in his otherwise systematic manner.
2) He FOSes bertrand. bertrand responds by saying "Anyways, looks like it's too late, but I would like to ask that NO ONE VOTE OR FoS ME, unless of course you actually think I'm scum. Like Axelrod just said. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants this."
3) loran dismisses this by saying "Ummm, ....I'll FoS anyone i choose, unless you die because of it....Can't really help ya there, pal." You take this to be indicative of a Mafia member ignoring the wishes of a townie and choosing to be directly harmful to the town.
4) After loran responds, *then* bertrand makes a clear statement that being FOSed or voted is harmful to the town.
5) loran continues his FOSing spree and makes no more mention of bertrand. In post #117, you say "I'm actually thinking loran is a good lynch because of his behavior. We've had someone very specifically say that it would be bad for the town to FoS or Vote him, and I think only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway." Note the key phrase here: "a good lynch", not, "what are you doing, loran?" You mention that "only a mafia would just disregard that and FoS him anyway," despite bertrand's claim coming after loran's FOS and loran only saying "I'll FoS anyone i choose." That's a pretty confident claim that this is a strong mafia tell.
Is there more that should be added to this summary? I want to make sure I'm not leaving out anything important.
You also express strong doubt that his behavior is a result of his role (post #121), with no evidence to support that belief, other than your prior experience with Phanto. You also try to outguess the mod and make assumptions about how FoSes work in this game.
Anyway, I welcome you to present a case against me, then. I would like to see all the "false logic and dumb accusations."
EWP: I also find your counting the minutes amusing. As if I could read through the thread and write a complete post in mere seconds.
I'm not really sure what this means, you'll have to explain it to me.
I'll continue the sarcasm, but I'm not sure what you believe is strawmanning. One more thing you'll have to explain.
No, that was very good. Perfect recap of what happened, although I'm not sure how that helps.
But I did realize that he skipped arimneas (something I didn't realize before). What could that mean?
About number 5... I knew that bertrand's claim came after the FoS. This is why my issue with loran has always been about his RESPONSE to what bertrand said. As for confidence, well it's pretty confident if you take into account that this is the first day.
Ok?
I already did, it was in the post I typed up about 50 minutes ago.
I was hoping you would say something like this... actually, I was hoping you would deny it. But see, the fact is that you have viewed the thread approximately every 5 minutes since then. If it were ME and someone wrote a big long post contradicting what I said, I would write up a response to it. (Like I just did.) But then again... I don't have to think up a story first.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
This has already been covered. The typical reaction to someone doing what loran was doing is that he may have a post restriction. Thus, when he appears to be careless with it, the proper townie response is, "Explain yourself" rather than "let's lynch him."
The strawmanning is part of the sarcasm. Notice the "Evil Man" example? That qualifies as a strawman.
This is for reference so that everyone can be clear about your actions and how the whole thing played out. Notice how Raf didn't notice the timing? He's not the only one, I'm sure.
There are several questionable points in that recap.
1) Your theory about loran doing this only to see what happens, and saying that you don't believe he is faking a restriction. What is your theory for why he's been doing it in the way he has?
2) You've been attacking loran for doing something which is directly harmful to the town. Yet bertrand never said it was harmful to the town until post #88, which comes *after* loran saying "I'll FoS anyone i choose." Now, if loran had went back to FoS bertrand after that, then yes, that would be suspect, but the way it actually played out is perfectly reasonable if loran actually has a posting restriction.
3) Your statement that we should lynch loran because *only a mafia* would play it as he did is overly confident. I don't see how you can justify that belief.
Huh?
Read the above. loran's response comes after bertrand saying he didn't want to be FOSed or voted, but before bertrand explicitly says it's harmful to the town.
This is a point regarding your apparent belief that you don't need anything solid to back up your arguments other than your own personal opinion.
That's your case? Then it needs no further response than this.
Not everyone plays in the careless way that you do.
Do you not understand humor? I think its pretty clearly not a serious comment.
I think yeh be mistaken.
Unvote x1
Vote: Sutherlands x1
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Loran's FOSs are certainly odd. I would certainly think that there is some sort of mechanic that he is trying to use. Whether it be role ability or something that he knows about the game, i have no clue.
This entire sutherland thing has me kinda confused. Everyone else seems to be screaming at him. While he does look a little scummy from his actions, im not sure if this is enough to pounce like everyone is. Then again, it is day one and some people will go for anything.
Anyway, I don't like the way Sutherlands is attacking Fade for making valid points. I think the only reason he is trying to attack Fade is because these "valid points" are all points against him. Omgus anyone? I would vote him right now, but I dont know how many votes he has on him right now.
I believe that Sutherlands should be made to claim. After that, we can assess the situation.
Speaking of people providing plenty of moo and not much milk.
"Mooing" is just not helpful to the town. Mafia have every reason to moo- making noise about one of their scum buddies for distance or for distraction without actually asking hard questions, making noise about townies without committing to an argument, etc. Anything that might sway people without committing the scum.
Townies have every reason to provide "milk". Information about each other is how we find scum.
As such, no matter what is up with Sutherlands, I find myself very suspicious of people who repeatedly "moo". WoD seems more suspicious than Sutherlands to me as a result.
vote Wrath of Dog
Not stupid enough to think this is going to move the wagon on Sutherlands; it's apparent that a critical mass on that has emerged, for better or for worse. But I'm not going to make a case on WoD and then not vote, some scum would just accuse me of pushing at him without voting
Well, it's too late for today.. Today you can FoS me all you want. Just tomorrow please no one do it randomly. Tomorrow, no one do that. Thank you.
About Sutherlands.. while I'm not 100% convinced he's scum, he's definately acted scummy. And his lynch would probably reveal a lot of info, as we could look at who wagoned, who first attacked, who drove, who rode, etc. but I'm not quite sure whether he is the best candidate.. I'd be ok with his lynch but there's no need to do it now. IMO we are going a bit fast.
I'm for making him claim though.
Let the claimagicity begin.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|