My character is one of the crewmembers, just "kittehfied". So I find it hard to believe that yours is the one actual feline character in the show, rather than another "kittehfied" character.
Of course, it IS possible that Manders is a hypocrite and you really do have that PR, but I think it's far more likely that you're just faking it.
My character is one of the crewmembers, just "kittehfied". So I find it hard to believe that yours is the one actual feline character in the show, rather than another "kittehfied" character.
How come you are not providing them with more scrutiny if you believe they are deserving of it? It is okay to toss out the "quick wagon is scummy." phrase. But you should back that up by showing how it is scummy. Otherwise it just sounds like you're just trying to discredit your wagon and those on it without anything to back it up.
And to me it reads exactly like he's just thinking outloud. You are attributing every single action blue makes to a scummy mindset (for a great example, see the end of the post I'm replying to right now). It has become so over the top that it's preposterous.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
You are getting worse not better. Come back when you're not being a hypocrite.
When someone gets to L2 while there are still random votes on them THAT is inherently suspicious to me.
It is only incidental that this wagon happened to be on me.
I have separated them in my mind. Why is that so hard to understand O_o.
Also: I don't care how I come off. I'm not saying "hey you're going to make me look scummy" (I'm doing a fair job of that myself thanks). I do care how people use words and why. Deceptive and manipulative language screams scum to me. Read my response to BE and let me know if you understand my thought process any better. If not, there's really nothing else I can say.
This sounds like the first truly honest response response I have read from you. The rest reeks of specifically not being stream of conscious thinking (or thinking aloud as atlseal puts it).
Actually, I take it back since I've read these posts a few times without fully responding so my chronology is all jumbled. There's some things I'm noticing that look a lot better: the end of the exchange with TIM about being afraid of dying, the refusal to claim and why, and this part. I think I need to reread things and make sure you didn't step in **** like I did in Ged's Normal (meaning I'm going to skip them for now and read them with fresh eyes later; you won't be lynched in the meantime anyways).
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit as evidence that this is not a man worried about his wellfare. Ergo, town - as I've been saying.
Really? This is the post you use as an example? This is, like, a full 50 posts past anything of relevance regarding the issue, and this is after blue (pretty elegantly) tabled the issue.
Blue is still being unnaturally paranoid. Emo Pinata's big post on him was spot-on, and you further get gems like this:
where he somehow changes his tune mid-paragraph (not to mention claims to be done with arguing about the semantics of his own metaphor, then proceeds to belabor the point anyway).
Where I thought BlueElectric was too pure-minded to be scum, I think blue is too shifty to be town.
Vote blue
By my count, that's five (EP, Syrenz, Guardman, BE, LC), aka L-2. Perhaps it's time to reconsider claiming?
Your initial accusation basically said that he was reaching to find a reason to suspect someone (EP #29). Why no mention of the "second" part of what you're saying, i.e. that you thought he was being too cautious and making sure there was sufficient justification for dropping a vote down?
They're one and the same, not two arguments and the only thing my initial post was missing was one word that would have made things clearer:
Quote from EP"s 29 v2.0 »
Is searching really hard for a reason to place a vote safely, and the unvote is a firmly showing that serious business is going on. It's all phooey.
It's a pretty simple tell - a savvy scum puts out some feelers and then puts the vote on the safest spot. The unvote adds to this tell since it reads that blue was using theatrics to prove he's getting down to business.
I think he's faking the PR, based solely on the fact that Manders is no stranger to crippling PRs, and would be a complete and total hypocrite if she included such a role in this game, given how much she has complained about said PRs in the past.
I think she may have mentioned this PR idea before... or at least laughed at the idea...
I'm not sure, but I know I'm not searching her many, many posts just to find out.
-----
To Do:
Reread blue, and blue responses (yes, I'm having doubts).
Reread some of the BE stuff (like atlseal's opinion).
Figure out why AE and WoD are being so flippant (not that it's unusual).
Shame Kaherdron and Zajnet into posting more (especially Kahedron, I love the conversational UK dialect).
As the day progressed, accusations flew and questions were asked. Some were answered, and some were ignored. One thing remained constant: everyone was confused by the silent member. Can he talk? Is he faking? It became obvious that only time would tell.
Vote Count 1.2
blue (4): Emo_Pinata; Guardman; BlueElectric; Liquidity Crisis
Emo_Pinata (1): atlseal
BlueElectric (3): Zajnet; Archmage Eternal; blue
Guardman (1): Wrath_of_DoG
Actually not at all... We are talking about YOUR mindset, not everyone else's. The fact that no one else seems to see it as a legitimate tell is irrelevant of the fact that YOU apparently do consider it a legitimate tell and therefore anyone attacking you for being the second vote should be entirely justified in YOUR mind and not be considered "opportunistic mafia". Clear?
Not quite, Mister Kitty. Point in fact is that I am fully aware that I consider this a scum action, and as such, my awareness of this fact nullifies any possible accusations towards me of it being a scum action.
So, it's opportunistic mafia to call someone on a random second vote, but not to call them on a random third vote? I call bullocks.
See above on my comment to Mister Kitty. In addition, if I am exemplifying behavior I am hunting for, does that not strike you as an attempt to lure opportunism? Why would I behave in a manner I am trumpeting that I believe is indicative of a mafia alignment into this game if I were mafia? Would that not call unwanted attention to myself? Why would I do this when players such as Mister Crisis, who is clearly an experienced player, believe I am seemingly incapable of generating a mafia-driven thought? That would be poor play on my behalf. ^^
Quote from atlseal »
Real wagon, I won't argue that point, but this was not a real wagon. As for your example, I can provide examples of first random vote being scum as I'm sure I can also find third random vote being scum as I'm sure I can find examples of scum refusing to vote in RVS. That doesn't mean that every first or third random vote on a player and people that refuse to vote in RVS is a scum tell.
And I am not saying that every tell indicative of mafia alignment is 100% failproof. You, yourself, should know this as an accomplished player, Mister Seal. To even suggest that I was implying that is preposterous. I simply felt it was a good basis for the hunt.
Quote from atlseal »
So please try and clarify what you were saying instead of forcing me to keep playing guessing games.
I already have, but since you seem to have missed it, I will do so again. When the mafia places a random vote in the RVS, it is almost certainly not random, and that is why one must look for clues that subtly hint at that. ^^
Quote from atlseal »
Not all votes are placed for a reaction. Some are legitimate, I want you dead and my vote is the best way to signify that. No, I do not find your lack of response as indicative of anything. I brought reactions up because you brought them up first.
But if you didn't think it was indicative of anything, then why would you bring them up in response to my bringing them up? If data is irrelevant, it is irrelevant.
Quote from atlseal »
When'd you start to doubt your plays?
In this game or as a whole?
As a whole when I started trying to better myself as a player.
In this game when people tried talking me into unvoting Mister DoG.
Quote from atlseal »
Let me add: '...that just happens to coincide with the starts of a wagon on me.' Even you have to admit, it's a little bit suspicious.
Not at all, Mister Seal. ^^ If my play is lacking, and it is brought to my attention, I will relinquish that point to the person calling me on it, assuming I agree to at least a moderate extent. The fact that two or three people voted on me for it is simply coincidental.
Quote from atlseal »
No, whether or not other people think it's a valid tell, you did, but that clashes with your explained reasoning for going after WoD. All the rest of us think it's invalid, but you seem to have thought it was valid and invalid.
Erm. After all the exchange regarding you, you come back and vote Guardman ignoring everything.
What do you hope to gain from all that? Do you think it's indicative of scum or town mentality to fake a PR as you're claiming?
I don't really care about the exchange regarding me.
BlueElectric did majorly over-react to my random vote.
I see that as pretty null, or at best only the SLIGHTEST of minor scumtells, given that scum tend to be the ones that over-react to random votes.
I've never played with BlueElectric, so I dunno if she's just paranoid town or what.
------------------------
I don't think townies ever have any reason to fake a really restrictive PR. All it would let them do is coast by without providing content, something I'm sure we can ALL agree is far more beneficial to scum.
More importantly, given how utterly negative (And I mean REALLY NEGATIVE) Manders was to the (FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE) PR on her role in Flame Warriors, and the MMM role earlier, I cannot see her inflicting a PR that restrictive on anyone.
I dunno, maybe I'm just giving her too much credit. There will be words to the extent of "You're NEVER allowed to complain about a restrictive Post Restriction EVER again" if that PR is legit.
I don't think townies ever have any reason to fake a really restrictive PR. All it would let them do is coast by without providing content, something I'm sure we can ALL agree is far more beneficial to scum..
And that's not to mention the cases on this forum where scum have faked PRs to avoid scrutiny, such as Az in MTGS Mafia Redux.
There's a reason I voted her for it as I can't actually see her believing that.
I think she's scum (no, her play is not normally like this). Her excuse is that she's trying to play differently, but for a mistake of that magnitude, I don't buy it.
I think he's faking the PR, based solely on the fact that Manders is no stranger to crippling PRs, and would be a complete and total hypocrite if she included such a role in this game, given how much she has complained about said PRs in the past.
I can totally see MH including something like this, even despite the fact that she would be a hypocrite for it.
In fact, that's such a compelling argument to me, that Unvote, Vote Guardman.
This is a very poor vote. You come in here and ignore everything else going on and instead provide this empty vote. The vote is gaming the mod and is against a player who can provide no defense against your accusations. Do not like.
Not quite, Mister Kitty. Point in fact is that I am fully aware that I consider this a scum action, and as such, my awareness of this fact nullifies any possible accusations towards me of it being a scum action.
This. Hurts. My. Head. Let's review, because I can't make sense of what you just said:
You state that you put the second vote on a player in order to see if anyone would you vote you for being the second vote on a player. Someone would vote you because you had put the second vote on a player - an action that YOU consider scummy. That person would be opportunistic mafia for voting you.
I ask you why that person would be considered opportunistic mafia, if he is voting you for committing a scummy action (because you perceive it as such). If he is voting you for a legitimate scumtell, you cannot consider him opportunistic mafia.
Please read the above carefully and provide a clear and simple response that even dumb people like me can understand.
Unless, you are saying that you know that most people don't consider it a legitimate scumtell so anyone voting you for it would likely be opportunistic mafia? I'm having difficulty understanding you.
Unless, you are saying that you know that most people don't consider it a legitimate scumtell so anyone voting you for it would likely be opportunistic mafia? I'm having difficulty understanding you.
It's a tad convoluted, but that's about the size of it.
Of course, I would have to discern, contextually, who thought it was legitimate and who did not. But it didn't happen, so it's not particularly a concern to me at the moment.
I can totally see MH including something like this, even despite the fact that she would be a hypocrite for it.
This is a very poor vote. You come in here and ignore everything else going on and instead provide this empty vote. The vote is gaming the mod and is against a player who can provide no defense against your accusations. Do not like.
Why are you implying this?
He has quite clearly claimed Spot, with that Data/Spot cheezburger image.
I don't like this post. It feels like you're just trying to add some fuel to the wagon without actually joining it.
Do you think this is a legitimate wagon?
I don't know; without Guardman commenting on the game itself, it's impossible to judge him except as a waste of space. I just felt it was worth mentioning.
I don't think townies ever have any reason to fake a really restrictive PR. All it would let them do is coast by without providing content, something I'm sure we can ALL agree is far more beneficial to scum.
More importantly, given how utterly negative (And I mean REALLY NEGATIVE) Manders was to the (FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE) PR on her role in Flame Warriors, and the MMM role earlier, I cannot see her inflicting a PR that restrictive on anyone.
In short, he assumes Manders would never put a PR into one of her games, and he assumes townies would never fake a PR, both of which are flawed claims. The first is obviously mod gaming. The second is overly broad - indeed, (I'm rather sure) a townie's faked a PR at least once on this site, though I can't remember whether it was Az or Puzzle - it was a long time ago.
His point itself - that it could be a fake PR - is fine in a vacuum, and my statement was meant to note such, but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more. So I guess my answer to your question is no, I don't agree with the wagon, and it seems a little uncharacteristic of WoD to get tied up on such a little thing.
Back for the re-read. I'll do two or three posts because I'm going page by page and it will help me organize my thoughts. Also I still plan on answering any pending questions at the end of that and y'all can expect some questions from me.
Quoting is getting me confused and unfocused. I’m writing down post numbers and player names and information I find relevant or my reactions. There will be questions in this wall of text so I’ll bold them to make sure you see them:
#10 - Archmage Eternal - You refuse to answer my question why you posted this. I understand we’re in the RVS at this point, but if it’s just random why not say so instead of just refusing to answer the question. It makes no sense and seems defensive for no reason. Seems off to me and I don’t know why just yet.
#16 – Emo – The only reason I can see you posting this is for baiting or breadcrumbing. I can see reasons why town would do the former and scum would do the latter. You didn’t respond to me when I asked you about it. I am ambivalent about this post.
#17 – Blue electric – I think this is exactly what Atlseal says in the following post where he votes you. You’re reaching to place a vote on weak justification. Overeager is the right word and it seems like you’re trying hard to appear town. I would have been satisfied without the vote because I wanted answers from WOD as well about this. I would not have placed a vote there.
#19 – WOD – Posts another vote which can be claimed as RVS. Could be scummy could be ignorance and that could be town or scum.
#20 – BE – Is now confident she has caught scum and I feel the strike two is unnecessary and not something a townie would say/doesn’t come from a town mindset. This comes from the mind of a person who wants to see someone lynched but doesn’t actually want answers from their target. It’s not just a matter of “I find them scummy my vote stands”
#21 – Emo – What I thought you were doing here was deflecting away from WOD at first. Then I thought maybe he means “Why are you not chastising atlseal for something he did that was scummy?” But I can’t see any reason why you would chastise ATL when Atls vote was real as well and has done nothing that BE was counting strikes for.
#23 – Kahedron – Confirms the end of RVS, doesn’t unvote. Doesn’t add anything to what’s going on either. I find that suspicious.
#24 – Emo – I find this post vague and more of an “Oh I don’t really know what I was saying” so I’m even more confused. That’s why I ask for clarification on 26 and 27
#28 – TIM – Interesting because you say the first question is empty but the second question is not. The next two people who vote find the second part fishy as well. [b]Explain how it was an empty question. What did you think I was trying to ask with the second question in post 27?[/b]
#29 – Emo – I’ve already stated why I don’t like your reasoning regarding my unvote and calling it looking hard for a reason to vote. I also believe you should have attributed this to BE and I believe this question is asked later. I don’t like this post.
#30 – Syrenz – If you want a token question then asking about experience level is it. I don’t think it’s scummy but Syrenz isn’t called out by Emo for asking a token question. The second question to BE is also token considering BE has stated in her two posts the reasons she voted as faulty as I believe they are. Syrenz does call out Kahedron for something I was suspicious about though. I don’t like the jocular tone of the post considering RVS has ended. I find this whole post to be pretty token and then there’s just a vote at the end with the justification “I like this wagon.” [b]Syrenz would you say your questions are token questions? Then if they can be considered token questions why do you think Emo didn’t comment on them?
Emo why didn’t you call syrenz out on his token questions?[/quote]
I find it scummy that you call me out and not syrenz. It seems like you’re cherrypicking to support your case against me but ignore the scumminess of someone else who supports your vote/wagon.
So far I haven’t quoted Atlseal because I agree with his questions and logic on everything.
#32 – Liquidity Crisis – It gets you nowhere to ask people to give someone else the benefit of the doubt. I don’t like that you’re answering for me, I can do that myself. [b]What did you think of BE’s vote on WOD? Why feel the need to defend me when you’re not defending WOD/chiming in?[/b] This post doesn’t make sense to me and the part about the RVS feels tacked I’m not sure if it’s scummy but it gives me pause.
#33 – Emo – I do agree with you here that Atl should butt out but I wanted an answer too. I don’t understand why you asked your question. I think it was as empty as mine has been accused of being. And I continue to disbelieve your reason for voting me.
#34 – Syrenz – Calls out LC for something I’m curious about as well.
#35 – Emo – I don’t get this and I don’t see the need to point it out.
#36 – BE – So let’s get this in perspective Emo asked you a question regarding Atlseal shortly after you gave WOD a strike two. [b]How is atlseal jumpy? And furthermore how is he jumpy up to the point where Emo asked you the question NOT where you chose to answer it? And still! What the heck do you mean the longer the game goes on the more conclusive your decision about him will be?[/b]
That sentence is terrible. You indicate Atlseal has been jumpy but offer nothing of examples. I’d like examples. The longer the game goes on blah blah blah –It is a blanket statement that I believe only looks like content. I don’t like it.
I’ve explained this wasn’t rhetorical.
Zajnet covers this later but this is so silly I want to look at it again:
You say overall lack of attention to events up to that point as if there’s some grand drama going on. But let’s put it into perspective: At the time you voted WOD you had to think he was scummy (at least that’s the idea I’m getting from you). Events up to that point One serious vote. WOD posts another RVS vote after your serious vote and you give him strike two. This is three hours in and he hasn’t posted since. [b]Explain what you mean EXACTLY by “events up to that point” and how he has demonstrated “a lack of attention.”[/b] You say third random voting stage vote on a person is a classic tell of mafia but you don’t seem confident. That’s contrary to your before and after and it says to me “But I’m willing to be talked out of this because I’m realizing it’s weak.”
If your point 3 here is meant to be an explanation of point 1 then why separate them? To me the only reason why is to make it look like you’re providing more content and have more reasons than you really do.
#38 – Syrenz – Asks another question I want to ask to BE. I’m not sure this argument about semantics is scumhunting. I don’t like the way it’s phrased so it’s fishy to me but I do like that you’re asking BE to defend her opinion which doesn’t feel like her opinion/not letting her just wave away her explanation.
#39 – Emo – I like this first part and I don’t and let me know if I’m getting this right:[b] you’re essentially calling out BE for being a hypocrite with your initial question about atlseal?[/b] But then you tell her immediately after that the thing she’s concerned about she’s going to have to get used to.
#40 – LC – No response to Syrenz about answering for me. Still no opinion of what’s going on in the thread other than telling BE what she thinks is a scumtell isn’t. Still no content.
#41 – Syrenz – Pointing out Emo should not be answering other people’s questions. Well at least you’re consistent.
#42 – BE – Still avoiding answering questions because she doesn’t think it’s important. It’s getting really annoying. I believe I start to get mad at her here and I can’t tell if it’s a personality conflict or she’s just scum being obtuse for its own sake.
This response to Syrenz was crap: “Syrenz: To what events do you refer?” “Primarily the fact that I had also voted Mister Blue and that Mister DoG was willing to overlook that and place another vote on him, as well as ignoring the fact that two serious votes (one on him) had happened prior to it.”
Let me translate this to how I’m understanding your justification: “I voted blue in RVS. Wod voted blue in RVS. That’s 3 votes in RVS. He ignores the fact that two votes have been cast and one is against him.”
[b]is that an accurate interpretation of what you said? If so what do you mean by “happened prior to it” and why do you use the words “willing to overlook” [/b]
At this point you are still ignoring atlseal’s vote against you. Emo has already pointed your contradiction out and you’re doing it still
Then you say “Which only added reasons as to why I would like to keep my vote on him, at least for the time being.”
Breakdown: You say reasons as if there’s more than one here. I find that to be a manipulation. You say willing to overlook which assumes a state of mind for WOD and I find that to be a manipulation.
I don’t like how you’re so sure you’ve caught scum on such a weak tell. You can’t say “Well the reason I voted was because of stuff that happened after I voted.” I think this is retroactive justification.
The part about you believing Atl’s vote was unjustified tells me you’re deluding yourself. You’re doing more retroactive justification here when you say “Then he unvoted me.” [b]Until that point why didn’t you respond to his vote on you? Did you not agree with the justification that Atl had provided for his vote on Emo?[/b]
Don’t like the interaction at the end of the post between you and Emo.
#43 – BE – this explains what you meant by prior to it.
#44 – Zaj – I agree about the minor scumtell. I agree that events up to that point is a crock when she’s talking about 3 posts in three hours. I don’t like you asking about LC being an alt considering LC hasn’t really provided any content.
#45 – BE – What’s the point of this?
#46 – LC – We’ll see that people disagree about this making all this arguing pretty subjective. I will say this is the best explanation against I’ve seen so far and the only person actually giving an explanation. Still no real comments on the game though.
#48 – BE – [b]Baiting how? What did you hope to accomplish with this? Who were you attempting to bait with this and did they fall for your bait?[/b]
#49 – atl – I don’t agree with this statement. I didn’t like the use of humbly in BE’s post but here yours is just snark. I agree it’s possible to get people lynched or in claim range with random votes but I can’t provide an example of it ever happening.
#50 – BE – But I don’t like this response either.
#68 – Guardman – questions BE’s strike two post (I’m not insinuating he agrees with my feelings on this). Are you saying Yes Yes go on as in you like the line of thinking? Are you also agreeing with Zaj’s reactions to BE’s wagon on WOD?
#69 – BE – I agree we should be basing our assessments on current play and mindsets. I don’t like that it takes you this long to get this point across. But “sustaining” the vote is one thing. The way you’ve been answering questions makes it sound like you’re defending the initial vote with logic that couldn’t have come until after you voted. I don’t mind supporting votes with evidence if it keeps piling up but it sounds like you’re saying your initial vote was supported by these facts at the onset.
This answers my earlier question regarding the baiting. So what you’re saying is that you initially planned to trap someone using a weak scumtell? But yours was the second random vote shouldn’t we suspect you O_o?
You finally give some meat to your theory of the scumtell you’ve used as a trap. I don’t understand how the second vote is a scumtell, you are the second vote, then use the third vote as another scumtell. This is silly.
You imply that the scum are the ones that have to be aware of their actions in RVS. Do you think that the scum have to be aware of their actions at any other point in the game?
Your response to atl here makes me go hmmm… I’m not sure what it means but I think I’m understanding your play better.
But I don’t like your sudden dropping of WOD’s case under scrutiny that you have a filter between you and reality. ESPECIALLY After you spent the entire rest of the post defending it. You already know I’m frustrated with you by a continual postponing of answering my questions.
#76 – TIM – I agree about your analysis of Emo’s reason for voting me initially. I think I’ve answered your next question and believe this is true for a lot of people in here that there’s a leap in logic from talking about something linked conclusively to being nervous/paranoid about it. I like the push for more information
#77 – LC – I’ve explained why I disagree that I’m being paranoid. Not sure how you missed why Zaj was unvoting and voting someone else considering the posts right above it. Good questions probing BE. I agree with your assessment of BE’s reasons backing off of WOD. The last sentence here: Do you mean at this point you find BE self conscious? Do you find her scummy?
#79 – BE – Specifically your response to LC: How well you play can be shown in the game (which so far is pretty scummy to me). You have stated that scum tells are circumstantial based on person to person psyche. can reading a person’s game history and reading their mafia games give you an insight to a person’s psyche?
The last part and this is rhetorical: Why should we believe that your post toward Emo regarding your backing off of WOD’s case was direct when you’ve been anything but direct this entire time. The only parts of your posts that I like are the ones where you cut the bullcrap. Everything else I see as a manipulation.
#51 – Syrenz – I do like that you keep pushing BE for answers. I agree with your question here. Overall I like this post. Syrenz is still voting me at this point but still scumhunting. I don’t agree with his justification (or lack thereof). However, because he’s grilling someone else and still leaving his vote on me to get an answer I think he’s in a town mindset.
#53 – Emo – I understand your reasons for WHY you “curtail” the discussion but you had to know the discussion would happen anyway. You still shouldn’t have answered for BE. If you think it’s being misapplied then you should have said that instead. I do agree that BE is being obtuse (I know a thing or two about that)
I agree with your interpretation of BE’s response to you and support this 100%.
Still disagree with you about the theatrics. Why no mention of Kahedron’s blatant question regarding the end of RVS?
#55 – LC – Getting into the game here and I agree.
#57 – Atl – if you thought it was a flippant remark then why do you think I posted it O_o
#58 – AE – Concise, seems to be paying attention. What’s your opinion of my wagon at this point in the game?
#59 – Atl – It’s weird to me for you to discount it as an unneeded flourish, but by saying “making that play” you seem to assume there was some strategy behind saying what I said there (ie that I actually was making a play). It just seems contradictory to me.
#62 – Zajnet – Why do you not like my reaction? What is it saying to you?
#63- Emo – What do you mean flirting two directions? In my next post I asked questions how is that not pressing for answers? O_o
I agree that BE’s being pretentious and illogical. We both agree she’s being obtuse. But you say you don’t see a reason why scum would invent reasons and use logic to try to get someone lynched. O_o. Using weak scumtells that are {referenced in wiki/old} to start a wagon can’t be scummy? Are you saying that you can’t see scum starting a wagon using generic scumtells in the hopes of appearing to be scumhunting? You used this logic to cast your vote on me (by saying I’m using generic I got my scumhunter hat on tactics) but why aren’t you as suspicious about BE?
My initial response to your question “the scum decide it’s time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?” is “I dunno. Did you?”
You calling it nervous laughter doesn’t make it nervous laughter. I explain later why I ask for the vote count but since you’re not actually talking to me it looks like you’re talking “to the town.” I don’t like that.
And briefly: I don't think this arguing of posting restrictions gets us anywhere. Guardman still has the ability to provide content. You can ask for clarifications and if you're not satisfied then vote him for it. Manders faked a posting restriction in the Red Dwarf mafia Mini and she was town. Can we move on please?
#20 – BE – Is now confident she has caught scum and I feel the strike two is unnecessary and not something a townie would say/doesn’t come from a town mindset. This comes from the mind of a person who wants to see someone lynched but doesn’t actually want answers from their target. It’s not just a matter of “I find them scummy my vote stands”
Do you really think I would advocate the lynch of a player (as in, fully getting lynched) without giving them an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them? Moreover, do you really think enough people would have voted Mister DoG at that point given his contributions (or lack thereof) to the game at that point? Even enough to put him in claim range? Because if not, then I don't see where your concern lies, and if so, you're just lying.
Quote from blue »
So far I haven’t quoted Atlseal because I agree with his questions and logic on everything.
This does not surprise me in the slightest at this point.
Quote from blue »
#36 – BE – So let’s get this in perspective Emo asked you a question regarding Atlseal shortly after you gave WOD a strike two. How is atlseal jumpy? And furthermore how is he jumpy up to the point where Emo asked you the question NOT where you chose to answer it? And still! What the heck do you mean the longer the game goes on the more conclusive your decision about him will be?
atlseal was jumpy due to his slinging of votes around. Which question from Mister Pinata are you referring to? And how is the last part not clear? The longer the game goes on, the more conclusive my opinion on his alignment will be. There will be more interactions, more bodies, more revealed, and overall, it will be easier to draw a conclusion regarding his alignment later on in the game. Was that really a question that needed to be asked?
Quote from blue »
That sentence is terrible. You indicate Atlseal has been jumpy but offer nothing of examples. I’d like examples. The longer the game goes on blah blah blah –It is a blanket statement that I believe only looks like content. I don’t like it.
You have your reason now. It was an obvious question with an obvious answer. If he asked me to provide more, I would not have been able to at that point, given that it was the only thing I could state about him at the time. So I cut off further inquiry with my remark that I would be able to say more later on. Obvious question, obvious answer. In addition, it was only a second sentence to a first sentence. If I needed to "fake" content, as you are implying, then I could have made it into a largely convoluted post (as you see I am quite capable of). Moreover, I have provided a large amount of content, as compared to players such as Mister DoG and Mister Archmage. So what exactly did you hope to gain from smearing me like this?
Quote from blue »
You say overall lack of attention to events up to that point as if there’s some grand drama going on. But let’s put it into perspective: At the time you voted WOD you had to think he was scummy (at least that’s the idea I’m getting from you). Events up to that point One serious vote. WOD posts another RVS vote after your serious vote and you give him strike two. This is three hours in and he hasn’t posted since. Explain what you mean EXACTLY by “events up to that point” and how he has demonstrated “a lack of attention.” You say third random voting stage vote on a person is a classic tell of mafia but you don’t seem confident. That’s contrary to your before and after and it says to me “But I’m willing to be talked out of this because I’m realizing it’s weak.”
Firstly, there were two votes on you prior to Mister DoG's vote of you. Secondly, there were two serious votes, not one (as you suggest here). That was really all of the "events up to that point", but all still worth noticing, especially when Mister DoG was the focal point of two of the events. He demonstrated a lack of attention by continuing to random vote as I have stated before, as well as not addressing the fact that there was a vote on him. I said third vote on a wagon is a classic tell of mafia, but it was shown to me that this is only the case in the event of a legitimate wagon as opposed to random voting. However, as I said, while it has been proven to not always be the case in regards to the second random vote during RVS, it was still a tell worth noting, and that in conjunction to the lack of attention at that point, I felt my vote was okay staying on Mister DoG. I realize that it's not enough to get him lynched at this point, but as I said, I'm still keeping my eye on him. So, in your opinion, should a member of the town not be able to be convinced that they are pushing a weak case and change their vote as such? Do you think that all members of the town should be stubborn and not listen to reason? How is that productive in the slightest? Is that not more indicative of personality and playstyle than alignment?
Quote from blue »
If your point 3 here is meant to be an explanation of point 1 then why separate them? To me the only reason why is to make it look like you’re providing more content and have more reasons than you really do.
I don't see how anybody can legitimately feel I'm not providing content at this point, Mister Blue. Including yourself.
Quote from blue »
#42 – BE – Still avoiding answering questions because she doesn’t think it’s important. It’s getting really annoying. I believe I start to get mad at her here and I can’t tell if it’s a personality conflict or she’s just scum being obtuse for its own sake.
Quote from blue »
This response to Syrenz was crap: “Syrenz: To what events do you refer?” “Primarily the fact that I had also voted Mister Blue and that Mister DoG was willing to overlook that and place another vote on him, as well as ignoring the fact that two serious votes (one on him) had happened prior to it.”
Let me translate this to how I’m understanding your justification: “I voted blue in RVS. Wod voted blue in RVS. That’s 3 votes in RVS. He ignores the fact that two votes have been cast and one is against him.” is that an accurate interpretation of what you said? If so what do you mean by “happened prior to it” and why do you use the words “willing to overlook”
Addressed this earlier in my post.
Quote from blue »
At this point you are still ignoring atlseal’s vote against you. Emo has already pointed your contradiction out and you’re doing it still
Have already explained my reasoning for such.
Quote from blue »
Then you say “Which only added reasons as to why I would like to keep my vote on him, at least for the time being.”
Breakdown: You say reasons as if there’s more than one here. I find that to be a manipulation. You say willing to overlook which assumes a state of mind for WOD and I find that to be a manipulation.
I don’t like how you’re so sure you’ve caught scum on such a weak tell. You can’t say “Well the reason I voted was because of stuff that happened after I voted.” I think this is retroactive justification.
No. I voted him for the reasons I stated and left my vote on for the reasons I stated and your attempt to paint me as mafia for doing such is reaching at best and indicative of a mafia agenda at worst.
Quote from blue »
The part about you believing Atl’s vote was unjustified tells me you’re deluding yourself. You’re doing more retroactive justification here when you say “Then he unvoted me.” Until that point why didn’t you respond to his vote on you? Did you not agree with the justification that Atl had provided for his vote on Emo?
I have also already explained this. And no, I do not. I believe Mister Pinata is town at this point.
Quote from blue »
Don’t like the interaction at the end of the post between you and Emo.
And why not?
Quote from blue »
#43 – BE – this explains what you meant by prior to it.
Then why on earth did you bother typing up that convoluted line of crap prior to this point that you knew already existed due to the fact that you were aware of the events in this game up to the point you made this post?
Quote from blue »
#45 – BE – What’s the point of this?
To satiate my curiosity as to whether or not Mister Zaj put any merit into the initial actions of the game, and if not, why he was placing his vote on me. Why do you care so much?
Quote from blue »
#48 – BE – Baiting how? What did you hope to accomplish with this? Who were you attempting to bait with this and did they fall for your bait?
To bait opportunistic players, who were more likely mafia than town, and obviously not because nobody called me on my actions. Which you would know if you were paying attention to my actions this game instead of just looking for every excuse you can to paint me as mafia.
#69 – BE – I agree we should be basing our assessments on current play and mindsets. I don’t like that it takes you this long to get this point across. But “sustaining” the vote is one thing. The way you’ve been answering questions makes it sound like you’re defending the initial vote with logic that couldn’t have come until after you voted. I don’t mind supporting votes with evidence if it keeps piling up but it sounds like you’re saying your initial vote was supported by these facts at the onset.
I stated my reasons for voting Mister DoG and I stated my reasons for sustaining my vote after the initial point. I have been straightforward about this and this question keeps being asked of me. If there is one thing that DOES irk me, it is repeating myself. So I would kindly ask you to look for my answers to these questions before you continue to ask me them, as it would be most appreciated. Thank you.
Quote from blue »
This answers my earlier question regarding the baiting. So what you’re saying is that you initially planned to trap someone using a weak scumtell? But yours was the second random vote shouldn’t we suspect you O_o?
@Bolded: Yes. @Unbolded: No. I explained this to Mister Kitty. Please see my above statement.
Quote from blue »
You finally give some meat to your theory of the scumtell you’ve used as a trap. I don’t understand how the second vote is a scumtell, you are the second vote, then use the third vote as another scumtell. This is silly.
You are silly, Mister Blue.
Quote from blue »
You imply that the scum are the ones that have to be aware of their actions in RVS. Do you think that the scum have to be aware of their actions at any other point in the game?
That's a silly question, Mister Blue. Of course the mafia have to be aware of their actions beyond the RVS. What I was implying was that the town does not have to be overly paranoid during the RVS.
Quote from blue »
Your response to atl here makes me go hmmm… I’m not sure what it means but I think I’m understanding your play better.
What about it makes you go "hmm"? Share your newly founded perception of my play with the rest of us.
Quote from blue »
But I don’t like your sudden dropping of WOD’s case under scrutiny that you have a filter between you and reality. ESPECIALLY After you spent the entire rest of the post defending it. You already know I’m frustrated with you by a continual postponing of answering my questions.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, Mister Blue. Could you explain a bit more clearly?
Quote from blue »
#79 – BE – Specifically your response to LC: How well you play can be shown in the game (which so far is pretty scummy to me). You have stated that scum tells are circumstantial based on person to person psyche. can reading a person’s game history and reading their mafia games give you an insight to a person’s psyche?
To an extent, yes.
Quote from blue »
The last part and this is rhetorical: Why should we believe that your post toward Emo regarding your backing off of WOD’s case was direct when you’ve been anything but direct this entire time. The only parts of your posts that I like are the ones where you cut the bullcrap. Everything else I see as a manipulation.
Considering I have provided my reasoning for doing such (ironically, I feel compelled to answer this, despite it being rhetorical) and I would know better than anyone else what my reasoning is, that is why.
#10 - Archmage Eternal - You refuse to answer my question why you posted this. I understand we’re in the RVS at this point, but if it’s just random why not say so instead of just refusing to answer the question. It makes no sense and seems defensive for no reason. Seems off to me and I don’t know why just yet.
Not random. Not defensive. Nothing off about it. Just not going into detail about it now. Theres no need to. I'll say it has to do with my role, nothing more.
#58 – AE – Concise, seems to be paying attention. What’s your opinion of my wagon at this point in the game?
I don't understand it at that point. What, 3 serious votes? TIM looked to be just jumping in to jump in. Don't understand Emos vote, because of an unvote? Then theres Syrenz. He likes the wagon? Based on what?
@Syrenz. Why did you like the Blue wagon?
FOSSyrenz. Jumping on the wagon because he likes it. Theres nothing there and he adds nothing. Post 83 replies to blue in regards to the wagon being suspicious. Just asks nonsense and doesn't explain the reason for the wagon or even push for more support of the wagon. Then in post 135 he unvotes and has to think on blue and evaluate the wagon. What? He liked the wagon, whats there to evaluate? It looks off. Comes at a time when blue is in claim range and refuses to claim. That tends to persuade people to vote for said player and Syrenz says nothing about it.
In short, he assumes Manders would never put a PR into one of her games, and he assumes townies would never fake a PR, both of which are flawed claims. The first is obviously mod gaming. The second is overly broad - indeed, (I'm rather sure) a townie's faked a PR at least once on this site, though I can't remember whether it was Az or Puzzle - it was a long time ago.
His point itself - that it could be a fake PR - is fine in a vacuum, and my statement was meant to note such, but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more. So I guess my answer to your question is no, I don't agree with the wagon, and it seems a little uncharacteristic of WoD to get tied up on such a little thing.
I don't like this post at all. It seems too defensive, wordy, and cautious to tackle what is otherwise a minor issue.
Vote: Liquidity Crisis
Blue: An empty question is by definition a question with no purpose.
Hmmm I was asking him. Did you reveal you were female in that game?
Ohh, I see, you're implying that I learned this through scum daytalk.
Sorry, you're out of luck there.
Wuffles is my twin brother, and he told me to read that game, mentioning BlueElectric's rather interesting naming conventions. I believe he thought she was taking the piss, at first.
He referred to Blue as a "she" when he told me about it, so therefore I've never thought of BE as a guy.
Ohh, I see, you're implying that I learned this through scum daytalk.
Sorry, you're out of luck there.
Wuffles is my twin brother, and he told me to read that game, mentioning BlueElectric's rather interesting naming conventions. I believe he thought she was taking the piss, at first.
He referred to Blue as a "she" when he told me about it, so therefore I've never thought of BE as a guy.
Moot point now, but yeah. Maybe BE was jumping in and leading the witness here. Oh well carry on.
#68 – Guardman – questions BE’s strike two post (I’m not insinuating he agrees with my feelings on this). Are you saying Yes Yes go on as in you like the line of thinking?
It means I wasn't specifically reading you, and probably won't, so no, I didn't really get an impression of you, other than the aforementioned naming conventions.
Moot point now, but yeah. Maybe BE was jumping in and leading the witness here. Oh well carry on.
@TIM. Take on blue and BlueElectric?
I've been reading BE as town, although I haven't had time to go thoroughly through some of the details of her responses to others. atlseal's take on her has me a little wary of this read, though. I think blue is probably town at this stage. His latest reread shows signs of genuine scumhunting, and I think some of what I had earlier called "obfuscating" actually stems from a misunderstanding.
I've been reading BE as town, although I haven't had time to go thoroughly through some of the details of her responses to others. atlseal's take on her has me a little wary of this read, though. I think blue is probably town at this stage. His latest reread shows signs of genuine scumhunting, and I think some of what I had earlier called "obfuscating" actually stems from a misunderstanding.
Tell you what, Mister Iceman, why don't you go reread my posts and give us a clearer opinion, as well as your stance on me vs. Mister Blue. Take your time.
Ultra brief reread (I reread the thread but don't have time or patience for quotes and all that)!
BlueElectric - TOWN for reasons stated before.
TheIceMan - TOWN for genuine scumhunting, though biased by having the same reads as me.
blue - NOT SCUM for being me in Ged's Normal while I played the part of andelijah (L_P); TOWN-ISH for after being frustrated and pressured and rambling on and on coming back with a decent reread that was very thoughtfully presented (that I have comments on but will get to when I do), but I wish there was a vote somewhere in anywhere.
SYRENZ - CATTY to think he would skip a cat-themed game (and what's with Skander's tiger thing?). TOWN-ISH for asking eloquent questions, but SYRENZ is cool like that. TOWN for calling out Zajnet.
Zajnet - SCUM-ISH for piggy backing off WoD. SCUM-ISH for piggy backing on BE. VACANT but still voting a lot.
Guardman - DOGGY with many cat pictures, and I am also wary of his PR but there's a lot he can do to make a read go either way. SCUM-ISH for claiming Spot.
Liquidity Crisis - SCUM for what I highlighted before plus some other stuff.
atlseal - TOWN-ISH for questioning BE on a fairly intimate level while being respectful and holding her accountable. SCUM-ISH for nonsensical defense of blue, but highly mitigated by the approach he has taken to my wagon.
Archmage Eternal - GRUMPY but that's typical AE.
Wrath_of_DoG - TOWN for paying attention and cutting to what he feels is an important new direction.
Kahedron - MISSING but it's only been two days I guess.
So that's where I go from here: unvote, vote Liquidity Crisis.
TOWN-ISH for after being frustrated and pressured and rambling on and on coming back with a decent reread that was very thoughtfully presented (that I have comments on but will get to when I do), but I wish there was a vote somewhere in anywhere.
Guardman - DOGGY with many cat pictures, and I am also wary of his PR but there's a lot he can do to make a read go either way. SCUM-ISH for claiming Spot.
It's a tad convoluted, but that's about the size of it.
Of course, I would have to discern, contextually, who thought it was legitimate and who did not. But it didn't happen, so it's not particularly a concern to me at the moment.
Okay, so I have a few problems with this. Mainly it doesn't really fit with this:
So being the third vote on somebody, let alone in the RVS, is not telling of alignment? How do you figure?
Additionally, I was under the impression - though I may have been mistaken - that you were unvoting WoD as a result of people saying that the third vote is not a reliable tell (which you are now implying you knew before). If this was not the reason for unvoting WoD, what was?
There appears to be a distinct lack of consistency between the things you are saying.
I don't know; without Guardman commenting on the game itself, it's impossible to judge him except as a waste of space. I just felt it was worth mentioning.
In short, he assumes Manders would never put a PR into one of her games, and he assumes townies would never fake a PR, both of which are flawed claims. The first is obviously mod gaming. The second is overly broad - indeed, (I'm rather sure) a townie's faked a PR at least once on this site, though I can't remember whether it was Az or Puzzle - it was a long time ago.
His point itself - that it could be a fake PR - is fine in a vacuum, and my statement was meant to note such, but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more. So I guess my answer to your question is no, I don't agree with the wagon, and it seems a little uncharacteristic of WoD to get tied up on such a little thing.
I think I like my initial assessment that you were just trying to add some fuel to the wagon with no accountability for the actual wagon.
#30 – Syrenz – If you want a token question then asking about experience level is it. I don’t think it’s scummy but Syrenz isn’t called out by Emo for asking a token question. The second question to BE is also token considering BE has stated in her two posts the reasons she voted as faulty as I believe they are. Syrenz does call out Kahedron for something I was suspicious about though. I don’t like the jocular tone of the post considering RVS has ended. I find this whole post to be pretty token and then there’s just a vote at the end with the justification “I like this wagon.” [b]Syrenz would you say your questions are token questions?
I believe my questions are relevant - or I would not ask them. More specifically, I already got into why I think experience is a relevant question, I wanted BE to be more specific in her reasons for voting WoD before I proceeded further and I was wondering why Kahedron ignored the posts preceding his.
I didn't like post #26 which felt like Blue was just mudslinging and I agreed with TIM's assessment of this post being an empty question.
Then in post 135 he unvotes and has to think on blue and evaluate the wagon. What? He liked the wagon, whats there to evaluate?
I liked the wagon at the time I voted for him. Obviously that is able to change. Blue's posts around the time I unvoted him gave off a different vibe than the ones I voted him for.
I don't like this post at all. It seems too defensive, wordy, and cautious to tackle what is otherwise a minor issue.
[B]Vote: Liquidity Crisis[/B]
Precisely. And it's a complete turn-around from his opinion before. LD before I question him: Scum tend to fabricate post-restrictions. Upon me questioning him about his post: Suddenly remembers that town do it as well. Something is off.
LD's been bothering me from the start, so I think it's about time I do a PBPA on him. Will do this shortly.
Really? This is the post you use as an example? This is, like, a full 50 posts past anything of relevance regarding the issue, and this is after blue (pretty elegantly) tabled the issue.
Yup, it's the best example of it. It was still quite relevant. He was forced to claim, and support enough for a claim is almost always
As a bonus, that's all you've done!
Get off your high horse. I'm forced to split my time between you and BlueElectric.
And now your feelings on Mister DoG, please, Mister Seal?
His reason for Guardman is bogus.
See above on my comment to Mister Kitty. In addition, if I am exemplifying behavior I am hunting for, does that not strike you as an attempt to lure opportunism? Why would I behave in a manner I am trumpeting that I believe is indicative of a mafia alignment into this game if I were mafia? Would that not call unwanted attention to myself? Why would I do this when players such as Mister Crisis, who is clearly an experienced player, believe I am seemingly incapable of generating a mafia-driven thought? That would be poor play on my behalf. ^^
Get back to me when you're finished with that wine in front of you. I don't care too much for a drink.
And I am not saying that every tell indicative of mafia alignment is 100% failproof. You, yourself, should know this as an accomplished player, Mister Seal. To even suggest that I was implying that is preposterous. I simply felt it was a good basis for the hunt.
Can't find and don't have the time to find the post right now, but I remember you saying something akin to that you were pretty sure you caught scum with it. That's not just 'starting the hunt'.
But if you didn't think it was indicative of anything, then why would you bring them up in response to my bringing them up? If data is irrelevant, it is irrelevant.
To make it clear.
In this game or as a whole?
As a whole when I started trying to better myself as a player.
In this game when people tried talking me into unvoting Mister DoG.
In this game, but could you please be more specific as to what it was that started convincing you that you were wrong about DoG.
The day lingering on, the kittehs aboard the ship continue to poke and prod each other into responses, attempting to fish out the traitors. Will they decide to kill one of their own, in the hopes of finding a traitorous punk? We won't find out meow.
I agree with WoD that MH probably wouldn't give a PR that restrictive...
And I don't like that he says he can't create his own lolcat images. There are sooo many variations already out there that it feels... arbitrary.
Vote: Guardman
Please review rule #3:
Quote from Rule #3 »
3. Please bold your votes/unvotes like this: Vote loran16 and Unvote loran16. Only bolded votes (or votes otherwise distinguished from your normal text formatting, provided that the particular formatting of the vote remains constant) will be counted.
Of course, it IS possible that Manders is a hypocrite and you really do have that PR, but I think it's far more likely that you're just faking it.
I am doing a re-read, expect some questions.
So instead of answering the question you ask why you should? Answer the question.
Do you not have anything to say about anything that's been going on since your last post which was a fly by vote with small justification?
Like I just said to Syrenz I'm doing a re-read of everything. Expect more a little later.
Erm. After all the exchange regarding you, you come back and vote Guardman ignoring everything.
What do you hope to gain from all that? Do you think it's indicative of scum or town mentality to fake a PR as you're claiming?
You are getting worse not better. Come back when you're not being a hypocrite.
This sounds like the first truly honest response response I have read from you. The rest reeks of specifically not being stream of conscious thinking (or thinking aloud as atlseal puts it).
Actually, I take it back since I've read these posts a few times without fully responding so my chronology is all jumbled. There's some things I'm noticing that look a lot better: the end of the exchange with TIM about being afraid of dying, the refusal to claim and why, and this part. I think I need to reread things and make sure you didn't step in **** like I did in Ged's Normal (meaning I'm going to skip them for now and read them with fresh eyes later; you won't be lynched in the meantime anyways).
Really? This is the post you use as an example? This is, like, a full 50 posts past anything of relevance regarding the issue, and this is after blue (pretty elegantly) tabled the issue.
-----
...
Now I really need to reread.
-----
Well, I'm voting for him....
They're one and the same, not two arguments and the only thing my initial post was missing was one word that would have made things clearer: It's a pretty simple tell - a savvy scum puts out some feelers and then puts the vote on the safest spot. The unvote adds to this tell since it reads that blue was using theatrics to prove he's getting down to business.
Well, he's voting for me...
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
You see nothing wrong with this statement at all? Every single post I've made you've called scummy! As a bonus, that's all you've done!
I think she may have mentioned this PR idea before... or at least laughed at the idea...
I'm not sure, but I know I'm not searching her many, many posts just to find out.
-----
To Do:
I'm not sure when I'll get around to it.
As the day progressed, accusations flew and questions were asked. Some were answered, and some were ignored. One thing remained constant: everyone was confused by the silent member. Can he talk? Is he faking? It became obvious that only time would tell.
Vote Count 1.2
blue (4): Emo_Pinata; Guardman; BlueElectric; Liquidity Crisis
Emo_Pinata (1): atlseal
BlueElectric (3): Zajnet; Archmage Eternal; blue
Guardman (1): Wrath_of_DoG
Not Voting (3): TheIceMan; Kahedron; Syrenz
With 12 alive, it is 7 to lynch.
Please don't hesitate to point out any mistakes.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Not happening.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
And now your feelings on Mister DoG, please, Mister Seal?
I think it's a possibility, but I think we'll see a better suspect arise before the Day ends. I'm content to leave my vote on him for the time being.
Not quite, Mister Kitty. Point in fact is that I am fully aware that I consider this a scum action, and as such, my awareness of this fact nullifies any possible accusations towards me of it being a scum action.
See above on my comment to Mister Kitty. In addition, if I am exemplifying behavior I am hunting for, does that not strike you as an attempt to lure opportunism? Why would I behave in a manner I am trumpeting that I believe is indicative of a mafia alignment into this game if I were mafia? Would that not call unwanted attention to myself? Why would I do this when players such as Mister Crisis, who is clearly an experienced player, believe I am seemingly incapable of generating a mafia-driven thought? That would be poor play on my behalf. ^^
And I am not saying that every tell indicative of mafia alignment is 100% failproof. You, yourself, should know this as an accomplished player, Mister Seal. To even suggest that I was implying that is preposterous. I simply felt it was a good basis for the hunt.
I already have, but since you seem to have missed it, I will do so again. When the mafia places a random vote in the RVS, it is almost certainly not random, and that is why one must look for clues that subtly hint at that. ^^
But if you didn't think it was indicative of anything, then why would you bring them up in response to my bringing them up? If data is irrelevant, it is irrelevant.
In this game or as a whole?
As a whole when I started trying to better myself as a player.
In this game when people tried talking me into unvoting Mister DoG.
Not at all, Mister Seal. ^^ If my play is lacking, and it is brought to my attention, I will relinquish that point to the person calling me on it, assuming I agree to at least a moderate extent. The fact that two or three people voted on me for it is simply coincidental.
I believe I addressed this earlier in my post.
If I missed anything, anyone, let me know.
BlueElectric did majorly over-react to my random vote.
I see that as pretty null, or at best only the SLIGHTEST of minor scumtells, given that scum tend to be the ones that over-react to random votes.
I've never played with BlueElectric, so I dunno if she's just paranoid town or what.
------------------------
I don't think townies ever have any reason to fake a really restrictive PR. All it would let them do is coast by without providing content, something I'm sure we can ALL agree is far more beneficial to scum.
More importantly, given how utterly negative (And I mean REALLY NEGATIVE) Manders was to the (FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE) PR on her role in Flame Warriors, and the MMM role earlier, I cannot see her inflicting a PR that restrictive on anyone.
I dunno, maybe I'm just giving her too much credit. There will be words to the extent of "You're NEVER allowed to complain about a restrictive Post Restriction EVER again" if that PR is legit.
But I don't think it is.
And that's not to mention the cases on this forum where scum have faked PRs to avoid scrutiny, such as Az in MTGS Mafia Redux.
And I don't like that he says he can't create his own lolcat images. There are sooo many variations already out there that it feels... arbitrary.
Vote: Guardman
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
High Mage of Arcane Babblings of [The Izzet]
MafiaScum Wiki Page
Thank you.
Please provide content.
I can totally see MH including something like this, even despite the fact that she would be a hypocrite for it.
This is a very poor vote. You come in here and ignore everything else going on and instead provide this empty vote. The vote is gaming the mod and is against a player who can provide no defense against your accusations. Do not like.
Why are you implying this?
This. Hurts. My. Head. Let's review, because I can't make sense of what you just said:
You state that you put the second vote on a player in order to see if anyone would you vote you for being the second vote on a player. Someone would vote you because you had put the second vote on a player - an action that YOU consider scummy. That person would be opportunistic mafia for voting you.
I ask you why that person would be considered opportunistic mafia, if he is voting you for committing a scummy action (because you perceive it as such). If he is voting you for a legitimate scumtell, you cannot consider him opportunistic mafia.
Please read the above carefully and provide a clear and simple response that even dumb people like me can understand.
Unless, you are saying that you know that most people don't consider it a legitimate scumtell so anyone voting you for it would likely be opportunistic mafia? I'm having difficulty understanding you.
I don't like this post. It feels like you're just trying to add some fuel to the wagon without actually joining it.
Do you think this is a legitimate wagon?
Lair of the Cat (Mafia Stats)
It's a tad convoluted, but that's about the size of it.
Of course, I would have to discern, contextually, who thought it was legitimate and who did not. But it didn't happen, so it's not particularly a concern to me at the moment.
And what else is going on?
I don't know; without Guardman commenting on the game itself, it's impossible to judge him except as a waste of space. I just felt it was worth mentioning.
Just look at how that went over with the last two Star Trek Mafia games on this site.
In short, he assumes Manders would never put a PR into one of her games, and he assumes townies would never fake a PR, both of which are flawed claims. The first is obviously mod gaming. The second is overly broad - indeed, (I'm rather sure) a townie's faked a PR at least once on this site, though I can't remember whether it was Az or Puzzle - it was a long time ago.
His point itself - that it could be a fake PR - is fine in a vacuum, and my statement was meant to note such, but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more. So I guess my answer to your question is no, I don't agree with the wagon, and it seems a little uncharacteristic of WoD to get tied up on such a little thing.
#10 - Archmage Eternal - You refuse to answer my question why you posted this. I understand we’re in the RVS at this point, but if it’s just random why not say so instead of just refusing to answer the question. It makes no sense and seems defensive for no reason. Seems off to me and I don’t know why just yet.
#16 – Emo – The only reason I can see you posting this is for baiting or breadcrumbing. I can see reasons why town would do the former and scum would do the latter. You didn’t respond to me when I asked you about it. I am ambivalent about this post.
#17 – Blue electric – I think this is exactly what Atlseal says in the following post where he votes you. You’re reaching to place a vote on weak justification. Overeager is the right word and it seems like you’re trying hard to appear town. I would have been satisfied without the vote because I wanted answers from WOD as well about this. I would not have placed a vote there.
#19 – WOD – Posts another vote which can be claimed as RVS. Could be scummy could be ignorance and that could be town or scum.
#20 – BE – Is now confident she has caught scum and I feel the strike two is unnecessary and not something a townie would say/doesn’t come from a town mindset. This comes from the mind of a person who wants to see someone lynched but doesn’t actually want answers from their target. It’s not just a matter of “I find them scummy my vote stands”
#21 – Emo – What I thought you were doing here was deflecting away from WOD at first. Then I thought maybe he means “Why are you not chastising atlseal for something he did that was scummy?” But I can’t see any reason why you would chastise ATL when Atls vote was real as well and has done nothing that BE was counting strikes for.
#23 – Kahedron – Confirms the end of RVS, doesn’t unvote. Doesn’t add anything to what’s going on either. I find that suspicious.
#24 – Emo – I find this post vague and more of an “Oh I don’t really know what I was saying” so I’m even more confused. That’s why I ask for clarification on 26 and 27
#28 – TIM – Interesting because you say the first question is empty but the second question is not. The next two people who vote find the second part fishy as well. [b]Explain how it was an empty question. What did you think I was trying to ask with the second question in post 27?[/b]
#29 – Emo – I’ve already stated why I don’t like your reasoning regarding my unvote and calling it looking hard for a reason to vote. I also believe you should have attributed this to BE and I believe this question is asked later. I don’t like this post.
#30 – Syrenz – If you want a token question then asking about experience level is it. I don’t think it’s scummy but Syrenz isn’t called out by Emo for asking a token question. The second question to BE is also token considering BE has stated in her two posts the reasons she voted as faulty as I believe they are. Syrenz does call out Kahedron for something I was suspicious about though. I don’t like the jocular tone of the post considering RVS has ended. I find this whole post to be pretty token and then there’s just a vote at the end with the justification “I like this wagon.” [b]Syrenz would you say your questions are token questions? Then if they can be considered token questions why do you think Emo didn’t comment on them?
Emo why didn’t you call syrenz out on his token questions?[/quote]
I find it scummy that you call me out and not syrenz. It seems like you’re cherrypicking to support your case against me but ignore the scumminess of someone else who supports your vote/wagon.
So far I haven’t quoted Atlseal because I agree with his questions and logic on everything.
#32 – Liquidity Crisis – It gets you nowhere to ask people to give someone else the benefit of the doubt. I don’t like that you’re answering for me, I can do that myself. [b]What did you think of BE’s vote on WOD? Why feel the need to defend me when you’re not defending WOD/chiming in?[/b] This post doesn’t make sense to me and the part about the RVS feels tacked I’m not sure if it’s scummy but it gives me pause.
#33 – Emo – I do agree with you here that Atl should butt out but I wanted an answer too. I don’t understand why you asked your question. I think it was as empty as mine has been accused of being. And I continue to disbelieve your reason for voting me.
#34 – Syrenz – Calls out LC for something I’m curious about as well.
#35 – Emo – I don’t get this and I don’t see the need to point it out.
#36 – BE – So let’s get this in perspective Emo asked you a question regarding Atlseal shortly after you gave WOD a strike two. [b]How is atlseal jumpy? And furthermore how is he jumpy up to the point where Emo asked you the question NOT where you chose to answer it? And still! What the heck do you mean the longer the game goes on the more conclusive your decision about him will be?[/b]
That sentence is terrible. You indicate Atlseal has been jumpy but offer nothing of examples. I’d like examples. The longer the game goes on blah blah blah –It is a blanket statement that I believe only looks like content. I don’t like it.
I’ve explained this wasn’t rhetorical.
Zajnet covers this later but this is so silly I want to look at it again:
You say overall lack of attention to events up to that point as if there’s some grand drama going on. But let’s put it into perspective: At the time you voted WOD you had to think he was scummy (at least that’s the idea I’m getting from you). Events up to that point One serious vote. WOD posts another RVS vote after your serious vote and you give him strike two. This is three hours in and he hasn’t posted since. [b]Explain what you mean EXACTLY by “events up to that point” and how he has demonstrated “a lack of attention.”[/b] You say third random voting stage vote on a person is a classic tell of mafia but you don’t seem confident. That’s contrary to your before and after and it says to me “But I’m willing to be talked out of this because I’m realizing it’s weak.”
If your point 3 here is meant to be an explanation of point 1 then why separate them? To me the only reason why is to make it look like you’re providing more content and have more reasons than you really do.
#38 – Syrenz – Asks another question I want to ask to BE. I’m not sure this argument about semantics is scumhunting. I don’t like the way it’s phrased so it’s fishy to me but I do like that you’re asking BE to defend her opinion which doesn’t feel like her opinion/not letting her just wave away her explanation.
#39 – Emo – I like this first part and I don’t and let me know if I’m getting this right:[b] you’re essentially calling out BE for being a hypocrite with your initial question about atlseal?[/b] But then you tell her immediately after that the thing she’s concerned about she’s going to have to get used to.
#40 – LC – No response to Syrenz about answering for me. Still no opinion of what’s going on in the thread other than telling BE what she thinks is a scumtell isn’t. Still no content.
#41 – Syrenz – Pointing out Emo should not be answering other people’s questions. Well at least you’re consistent.
#42 – BE – Still avoiding answering questions because she doesn’t think it’s important. It’s getting really annoying. I believe I start to get mad at her here and I can’t tell if it’s a personality conflict or she’s just scum being obtuse for its own sake.
This response to Syrenz was crap: “Syrenz: To what events do you refer?” “Primarily the fact that I had also voted Mister Blue and that Mister DoG was willing to overlook that and place another vote on him, as well as ignoring the fact that two serious votes (one on him) had happened prior to it.”
Let me translate this to how I’m understanding your justification: “I voted blue in RVS. Wod voted blue in RVS. That’s 3 votes in RVS. He ignores the fact that two votes have been cast and one is against him.”
[b]is that an accurate interpretation of what you said? If so what do you mean by “happened prior to it” and why do you use the words “willing to overlook” [/b]
At this point you are still ignoring atlseal’s vote against you. Emo has already pointed your contradiction out and you’re doing it still
Then you say “Which only added reasons as to why I would like to keep my vote on him, at least for the time being.”
Breakdown: You say reasons as if there’s more than one here. I find that to be a manipulation. You say willing to overlook which assumes a state of mind for WOD and I find that to be a manipulation.
I don’t like how you’re so sure you’ve caught scum on such a weak tell. You can’t say “Well the reason I voted was because of stuff that happened after I voted.” I think this is retroactive justification.
The part about you believing Atl’s vote was unjustified tells me you’re deluding yourself. You’re doing more retroactive justification here when you say “Then he unvoted me.” [b]Until that point why didn’t you respond to his vote on you? Did you not agree with the justification that Atl had provided for his vote on Emo?[/b]
Don’t like the interaction at the end of the post between you and Emo.
#43 – BE – this explains what you meant by prior to it.
#44 – Zaj – I agree about the minor scumtell. I agree that events up to that point is a crock when she’s talking about 3 posts in three hours. I don’t like you asking about LC being an alt considering LC hasn’t really provided any content.
#45 – BE – What’s the point of this?
#46 – LC – We’ll see that people disagree about this making all this arguing pretty subjective. I will say this is the best explanation against I’ve seen so far and the only person actually giving an explanation. Still no real comments on the game though.
#48 – BE – [b]Baiting how? What did you hope to accomplish with this? Who were you attempting to bait with this and did they fall for your bait?[/b]
#49 – atl – I don’t agree with this statement. I didn’t like the use of humbly in BE’s post but here yours is just snark. I agree it’s possible to get people lynched or in claim range with random votes but I can’t provide an example of it ever happening.
#50 – BE – But I don’t like this response either.
#69 – BE – I agree we should be basing our assessments on current play and mindsets. I don’t like that it takes you this long to get this point across. But “sustaining” the vote is one thing. The way you’ve been answering questions makes it sound like you’re defending the initial vote with logic that couldn’t have come until after you voted. I don’t mind supporting votes with evidence if it keeps piling up but it sounds like you’re saying your initial vote was supported by these facts at the onset.
This answers my earlier question regarding the baiting. So what you’re saying is that you initially planned to trap someone using a weak scumtell? But yours was the second random vote shouldn’t we suspect you O_o?
You finally give some meat to your theory of the scumtell you’ve used as a trap. I don’t understand how the second vote is a scumtell, you are the second vote, then use the third vote as another scumtell. This is silly.
You imply that the scum are the ones that have to be aware of their actions in RVS. Do you think that the scum have to be aware of their actions at any other point in the game?
Your response to atl here makes me go hmmm… I’m not sure what it means but I think I’m understanding your play better.
But I don’t like your sudden dropping of WOD’s case under scrutiny that you have a filter between you and reality. ESPECIALLY After you spent the entire rest of the post defending it. You already know I’m frustrated with you by a continual postponing of answering my questions.
#76 – TIM – I agree about your analysis of Emo’s reason for voting me initially. I think I’ve answered your next question and believe this is true for a lot of people in here that there’s a leap in logic from talking about something linked conclusively to being nervous/paranoid about it. I like the push for more information
#77 – LC – I’ve explained why I disagree that I’m being paranoid. Not sure how you missed why Zaj was unvoting and voting someone else considering the posts right above it. Good questions probing BE. I agree with your assessment of BE’s reasons backing off of WOD. The last sentence here: Do you mean at this point you find BE self conscious? Do you find her scummy?
#79 – BE – Specifically your response to LC: How well you play can be shown in the game (which so far is pretty scummy to me). You have stated that scum tells are circumstantial based on person to person psyche. can reading a person’s game history and reading their mafia games give you an insight to a person’s psyche?
The last part and this is rhetorical: Why should we believe that your post toward Emo regarding your backing off of WOD’s case was direct when you’ve been anything but direct this entire time. The only parts of your posts that I like are the ones where you cut the bullcrap. Everything else I see as a manipulation.
#53 – Emo – I understand your reasons for WHY you “curtail” the discussion but you had to know the discussion would happen anyway. You still shouldn’t have answered for BE. If you think it’s being misapplied then you should have said that instead. I do agree that BE is being obtuse (I know a thing or two about that)
I agree with your interpretation of BE’s response to you and support this 100%.
Still disagree with you about the theatrics. Why no mention of Kahedron’s blatant question regarding the end of RVS?
#55 – LC – Getting into the game here and I agree.
#57 – Atl – if you thought it was a flippant remark then why do you think I posted it O_o
#58 – AE – Concise, seems to be paying attention. What’s your opinion of my wagon at this point in the game?
#59 – Atl – It’s weird to me for you to discount it as an unneeded flourish, but by saying “making that play” you seem to assume there was some strategy behind saying what I said there (ie that I actually was making a play). It just seems contradictory to me.
#62 – Zajnet – Why do you not like my reaction? What is it saying to you?
#63- Emo – What do you mean flirting two directions? In my next post I asked questions how is that not pressing for answers? O_o
I agree that BE’s being pretentious and illogical. We both agree she’s being obtuse. But you say you don’t see a reason why scum would invent reasons and use logic to try to get someone lynched. O_o. Using weak scumtells that are {referenced in wiki/old} to start a wagon can’t be scummy? Are you saying that you can’t see scum starting a wagon using generic scumtells in the hopes of appearing to be scumhunting? You used this logic to cast your vote on me (by saying I’m using generic I got my scumhunter hat on tactics) but why aren’t you as suspicious about BE?
My initial response to your question “the scum decide it’s time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?” is “I dunno. Did you?”
You calling it nervous laughter doesn’t make it nervous laughter. I explain later why I ask for the vote count but since you’re not actually talking to me it looks like you’re talking “to the town.” I don’t like that.
Do you really think I would advocate the lynch of a player (as in, fully getting lynched) without giving them an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them? Moreover, do you really think enough people would have voted Mister DoG at that point given his contributions (or lack thereof) to the game at that point? Even enough to put him in claim range? Because if not, then I don't see where your concern lies, and if so, you're just lying.
This does not surprise me in the slightest at this point.
atlseal was jumpy due to his slinging of votes around. Which question from Mister Pinata are you referring to? And how is the last part not clear? The longer the game goes on, the more conclusive my opinion on his alignment will be. There will be more interactions, more bodies, more revealed, and overall, it will be easier to draw a conclusion regarding his alignment later on in the game. Was that really a question that needed to be asked?
You have your reason now. It was an obvious question with an obvious answer. If he asked me to provide more, I would not have been able to at that point, given that it was the only thing I could state about him at the time. So I cut off further inquiry with my remark that I would be able to say more later on. Obvious question, obvious answer. In addition, it was only a second sentence to a first sentence. If I needed to "fake" content, as you are implying, then I could have made it into a largely convoluted post (as you see I am quite capable of). Moreover, I have provided a large amount of content, as compared to players such as Mister DoG and Mister Archmage. So what exactly did you hope to gain from smearing me like this?
Firstly, there were two votes on you prior to Mister DoG's vote of you. Secondly, there were two serious votes, not one (as you suggest here). That was really all of the "events up to that point", but all still worth noticing, especially when Mister DoG was the focal point of two of the events. He demonstrated a lack of attention by continuing to random vote as I have stated before, as well as not addressing the fact that there was a vote on him. I said third vote on a wagon is a classic tell of mafia, but it was shown to me that this is only the case in the event of a legitimate wagon as opposed to random voting. However, as I said, while it has been proven to not always be the case in regards to the second random vote during RVS, it was still a tell worth noting, and that in conjunction to the lack of attention at that point, I felt my vote was okay staying on Mister DoG. I realize that it's not enough to get him lynched at this point, but as I said, I'm still keeping my eye on him. So, in your opinion, should a member of the town not be able to be convinced that they are pushing a weak case and change their vote as such? Do you think that all members of the town should be stubborn and not listen to reason? How is that productive in the slightest? Is that not more indicative of personality and playstyle than alignment?
I don't see how anybody can legitimately feel I'm not providing content at this point, Mister Blue. Including yourself.
Addressed this earlier in my post.
Have already explained my reasoning for such.
No. I voted him for the reasons I stated and left my vote on for the reasons I stated and your attempt to paint me as mafia for doing such is reaching at best and indicative of a mafia agenda at worst.
I have also already explained this. And no, I do not. I believe Mister Pinata is town at this point.
And why not?
Then why on earth did you bother typing up that convoluted line of crap prior to this point that you knew already existed due to the fact that you were aware of the events in this game up to the point you made this post?
To satiate my curiosity as to whether or not Mister Zaj put any merit into the initial actions of the game, and if not, why he was placing his vote on me. Why do you care so much?
To bait opportunistic players, who were more likely mafia than town, and obviously not because nobody called me on my actions. Which you would know if you were paying attention to my actions this game instead of just looking for every excuse you can to paint me as mafia.
And why not?
I can respond to the lest later on.
I stated my reasons for voting Mister DoG and I stated my reasons for sustaining my vote after the initial point. I have been straightforward about this and this question keeps being asked of me. If there is one thing that DOES irk me, it is repeating myself. So I would kindly ask you to look for my answers to these questions before you continue to ask me them, as it would be most appreciated. Thank you.
@Bolded: Yes. @Unbolded: No. I explained this to Mister Kitty. Please see my above statement.
You are silly, Mister Blue.
That's a silly question, Mister Blue. Of course the mafia have to be aware of their actions beyond the RVS. What I was implying was that the town does not have to be overly paranoid during the RVS.
What about it makes you go "hmm"? Share your newly founded perception of my play with the rest of us.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here, Mister Blue. Could you explain a bit more clearly?
To an extent, yes.
Considering I have provided my reasoning for doing such (ironically, I feel compelled to answer this, despite it being rhetorical) and I would know better than anyone else what my reasoning is, that is why.
That should cover everything. ^^
Not random. Not defensive. Nothing off about it. Just not going into detail about it now. Theres no need to. I'll say it has to do with my role, nothing more.
I don't understand it at that point. What, 3 serious votes? TIM looked to be just jumping in to jump in. Don't understand Emos vote, because of an unvote? Then theres Syrenz. He likes the wagon? Based on what?
@Syrenz. Why did you like the Blue wagon?
FOS Syrenz. Jumping on the wagon because he likes it. Theres nothing there and he adds nothing. Post 83 replies to blue in regards to the wagon being suspicious. Just asks nonsense and doesn't explain the reason for the wagon or even push for more support of the wagon. Then in post 135 he unvotes and has to think on blue and evaluate the wagon. What? He liked the wagon, whats there to evaluate? It looks off. Comes at a time when blue is in claim range and refuses to claim. That tends to persuade people to vote for said player and Syrenz says nothing about it.
Two votes? You consider him placing two votes jumpy?
I'm seeing altseals vote on BE as a quick buss to show suspicion. Then jumping off and on Emo for weak reasons.
@blue. I don't understand why you say Emo is deflecting in post 26. He's asking BE why she's ignoring altseal.
@WOD. Have you played other games with BE?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Is this where you were made aware of this...
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I don't like this post at all. It seems too defensive, wordy, and cautious to tackle what is otherwise a minor issue.
Vote: Liquidity Crisis
Blue: An empty question is by definition a question with no purpose.
Hmmm I was asking him. Did you reveal you were female in that game?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Sorry, you're out of luck there.
Wuffles is my twin brother, and he told me to read that game, mentioning BlueElectric's rather interesting naming conventions. I believe he thought she was taking the piss, at first.
He referred to Blue as a "she" when he told me about it, so therefore I've never thought of BE as a guy.
Moot point now, but yeah. Maybe BE was jumping in and leading the witness here. Oh well carry on.
@TIM. Take on blue and BlueElectric?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Fair enough, but does that mean no?
I did! Or at least I heavily implied it.
And did Mister Wuffs have anything else to add about the matter?
I've been reading BE as town, although I haven't had time to go thoroughly through some of the details of her responses to others. atlseal's take on her has me a little wary of this read, though. I think blue is probably town at this stage. His latest reread shows signs of genuine scumhunting, and I think some of what I had earlier called "obfuscating" actually stems from a misunderstanding.
I simply meant about my "naming convention", as you put it. ^^
Tell you what, Mister Iceman, why don't you go reread my posts and give us a clearer opinion, as well as your stance on me vs. Mister Blue. Take your time.
BlueElectric - TOWN for reasons stated before.
TheIceMan - TOWN for genuine scumhunting, though biased by having the same reads as me.
blue - NOT SCUM for being me in Ged's Normal while I played the part of andelijah (L_P); TOWN-ISH for after being frustrated and pressured and rambling on and on coming back with a decent reread that was very thoughtfully presented (that I have comments on but will get to when I do), but I wish there was a vote somewhere in anywhere.
SYRENZ - CATTY to think he would skip a cat-themed game (and what's with Skander's tiger thing?). TOWN-ISH for asking eloquent questions, but SYRENZ is cool like that. TOWN for calling out Zajnet.
Zajnet - SCUM-ISH for piggy backing off WoD. SCUM-ISH for piggy backing on BE. VACANT but still voting a lot.
Guardman - DOGGY with many cat pictures, and I am also wary of his PR but there's a lot he can do to make a read go either way. SCUM-ISH for claiming Spot.
Liquidity Crisis - SCUM for what I highlighted before plus some other stuff.
atlseal - TOWN-ISH for questioning BE on a fairly intimate level while being respectful and holding her accountable. SCUM-ISH for nonsensical defense of blue, but highly mitigated by the approach he has taken to my wagon.
Archmage Eternal - GRUMPY but that's typical AE.
Wrath_of_DoG - TOWN for paying attention and cutting to what he feels is an important new direction.
Kahedron - MISSING but it's only been two days I guess.
So that's where I go from here: unvote, vote Liquidity Crisis.
Things I'd like to see: scum lists.
Where?
Okay, so I have a few problems with this. Mainly it doesn't really fit with this:
Or this:
Additionally, I was under the impression - though I may have been mistaken - that you were unvoting WoD as a result of people saying that the third vote is not a reliable tell (which you are now implying you knew before). If this was not the reason for unvoting WoD, what was?
There appears to be a distinct lack of consistency between the things you are saying.
I'm sorry. Having never seen Star Trek (don't shoot me plz), I missed the reference.
I think I like my initial assessment that you were just trying to add some fuel to the wagon with no accountability for the actual wagon.
I believe my questions are relevant - or I would not ask them. More specifically, I already got into why I think experience is a relevant question, I wanted BE to be more specific in her reasons for voting WoD before I proceeded further and I was wondering why Kahedron ignored the posts preceding his.
I didn't like post #26 which felt like Blue was just mudslinging and I agreed with TIM's assessment of this post being an empty question.
I liked the wagon at the time I voted for him. Obviously that is able to change. Blue's posts around the time I unvoted him gave off a different vibe than the ones I voted him for.
Precisely. And it's a complete turn-around from his opinion before. LD before I question him: Scum tend to fabricate post-restrictions. Upon me questioning him about his post: Suddenly remembers that town do it as well. Something is off.
LD's been bothering me from the start, so I think it's about time I do a PBPA on him. Will do this shortly.
Lair of the Cat (Mafia Stats)
We have a cat. Cats are awesome.
Will post this as soon as I do my PBPA on LD.
Lair of the Cat (Mafia Stats)
Yup, it's the best example of it. It was still quite relevant. He was forced to claim, and support enough for a claim is almost always
Get off your high horse. I'm forced to split my time between you and BlueElectric.
His reason for Guardman is bogus.
Get back to me when you're finished with that wine in front of you. I don't care too much for a drink.
Can't find and don't have the time to find the post right now, but I remember you saying something akin to that you were pretty sure you caught scum with it. That's not just 'starting the hunt'.
To make it clear.
In this game, but could you please be more specific as to what it was that started convincing you that you were wrong about DoG.
You honestly believe that Guardman just claimed Spot?
Implication?
You find meta arguments to be silly but then vote Guardman because you don't think Manders would put a PR role in her game…?
Will read blue blocks of text later (this weekend).
The day lingering on, the kittehs aboard the ship continue to poke and prod each other into responses, attempting to fish out the traitors. Will they decide to kill one of their own, in the hopes of finding a traitorous punk? We won't find out meow.
Vote Count 1.2
blue (3): Guardman; BlueElectric; Liquidity Crisis
Emo_Pinata (1): atlseal
BlueElectric (3): Zajnet; Archmage Eternal; blue
Guardman (1): Wrath_of_DoG
Liquidity Crisis (2): TheIceMan; Emo_Pinata
Not Voting (3): Kahedron; Syrenz
With 12 alive, it is 7 to lynch.
Please don't hesitate to point out any mistakes.
Please review rule #3:
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!