You are being hypnotised... you are very sleepy... you will join this Mafia...
I'll join.COLOR REPEATING SCUM!
Colour: Navy
[color=It has always been this way... you cannot remember or see this as anything but this.limeGreen]In[/color]
What.I'll join.COLOR REPEATING SCUM!
Colour: Blue
ExKirby, Indigo is too close to Violet. D:<What a twist!
Do we know how many scum we have?
Dakarian
Who would be your two mafia buddies if you were mafia?
I have a feeling that whoever is red is going down so hard. Look at all the red votes!
Its a guess, as usually there are only 3 Mafia. Although maybe that would be too much with only 9 people.Dakarian
Who would be your two mafia buddies if you were mafia?
Unvote. ExKirby, I'll deal with you later.
Org, how do you know how many scum there are?
I hope that is not how it works, and I doubt it, actually, but I think that all the red will probably have some effect on the Red guy.The colors have to mean *something*.
If that's how it really works, I'm going to hate web forever.The colors mean NOTHING! Well, almost nothing...
Or so I'd like you to believe.
I can imagine some pretty weird stuff going down here with regards to mixing colours. In.
The point: Since color doesn't directly show roleHow do you know?
To assume that a role has a color chart is to assume that Web was lying about the possible roles, since the only role that can be affected by color is the Role Cop. I guess this could be a true Bastard game but I'm hoping not.
And yes, I can't see HOW my color affects my role.
I've always been one to believe more knowledge helps than less knowledge.
And so on. That's "mostly" it. Remember, 0 is a number, too!
Gotta love those bastard mods.Hahaha. I have thought of bastard mod games where secretly everyone's in the mafia, or noone's in the mafia, or everyone is a naive cop. Wait, aren't most SKs resistant to night kills anyway?
*having dark memories of a game that claimed to be normal but secretely everyone was a SK*
Mr Person, please answer the post. >:I
Mr Person, please answer the post. >:I
I already did. Look moar.
If it IS true, *kicks Web*. I didn't want my first lynch in a mafia game to be by a Bastard mod trick!
I want to request a vote count from everyone to ask: should we claim our colors?
Pandarsenic and Dakarian do a good job of hiding scuminess.
ExKirby,, why am I OMGUS'ing you?
Correct. Note that I knew how it read when I wrote it. I could've written "poor red. He might've gotten hammered" or just left it be.If it IS true, *kicks Web*. I didn't want my first lynch in a mafia game to be by a Bastard mod trick!
1. We know that Dakarian is Red.
Meh. true.I want to request a vote count from everyone to ask: should we claim our colors?
2. I feel like you're doing this just to keep yourself from being put at a disadvantage. I'm going to vote no, because at this juncture I feel that scum could look at the links between their own colors and deduce something about the town's coloration. We don't know what data they do or do not have, so it seems like a bad idea to push it.
3. Though there could be some bastard modding happening with the colors, I feel like it would be best to just go scumhunt the way we normally do without obsessing. If something funky happens, then we can deal with it. Running about confusing ourselves while the scum lie back and watch us no-lynch is not a good way to play.
Um.
Guys, you do realize we all know each other's colors, right?
Pandarsenic and Dakarian do a good job of hiding scuminess.
ExKirby,, why am I OMGUS'ing you?
Why are you OMGUS'ing him?
Vote ExKirby (in black). What do you think about the whole deal with the colors? Further, who do you consider most scummy at this point?
Yeah, okay. Re-checked the vote count, and realized that Mr. Person voted after Webadict's post.
*shrug* Sorry about that. Honest mistake. I mostly wanted to vote in black and ask ExKirby a couple of questions.
HI I'M USELESS!!!Thank you for this chance.
Vote Count (5 to Lynch)
Dakarian - Apostolic Nihilist
Apostolic Nihilist - dakarian
Org - Pandarsenic
Leafsnail - NUKE9.13
NUKE9.13 - dakarian
Mr.Person - Org
Shit, I forgot to unvote Org.This is what I meant. :I
That reminds me, I have a randomvote to continue. ExKirby, what do you think the colors mean?
Personally? I think the colors are not only related to the roles, I think they ARE the roles. For instance, let's say blue is... fuck it, cop. Everyone who's a cop is blue. Other than that, I think the colors mean nothing. Of course, I could be wrong. Hell, we might even have a color cop or something.If that's the case, what role would black, white, yellow, etc, be? I can see yellow being roleblocker, but perhaps that should go to orange? Green would probably be doctor, but who knows? The only way we could possibly figure it out is by colour-claiming, but that could potentially cripple us, and with little benefit.
diakron seems scummy, with all the color thing. So voting Diakron for the time being.
Well, for all the reasons that have been previously mentioned?
diakron seems scummy, with all the color thing. So voting Diakron for the time being.
Quick Q: "With all the color thing"
Mind explaining that?
Well, for all the reasons that have been previously mentioned?
diakron seems scummy, with all the color thing. So voting Diakron for the time being.
Quick Q: "With all the color thing"
Mind explaining that?
Let's consider the scenarios:
A) There is a role which has a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
B) Scum have a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
C) This is a ploy by webadict to spread distrust throughout us all.
If B is true, then claiming our colours is the worst thing we can possibly do. If A is true, it's still bad, but not as bad. If C is true, it doesn't really matter either way. If A is true, then there's likely another role which can determine the colour someone has, but not the role.
Now, our lack of knowledge regarding this can be used by clever mafia very easily. They can try and trick us into thinking that:
A) Our colours mean nothing (if they do; they'll try and get us to claim in an effort to prove their theory while simultaneously getting a list of who has what role )
or
B) Our colours mean something (if they don't, then they'll try and spread misinformation, suggesting that our colours are important/do mean something and anyone who colour claims will immediately appear scummy. Admittedly, alone, there aren't many foreseeable advantages to this, but if there is a role that determines colours, and that role thinks that the colours mean something, then much fun could be had.)
Anyone suggesting that we claim our colours is scummy, Dakarian. I may have been more accurate with my random vote than I thought.
Furthermore, you say that your colour doesn't fit your role; this implies that you have a role which doesn't suit your colour.
Ex: Blue cop, green doctor, red mafia.
Quick nitpick:
Dakarian = WOTer with the Black and white burmise Paranoid Vigilante named Litia.
Diakron = No Avatared player that isn't in this game
Dakarian =! Diakron
(And yes, I had to look back to realize Diakron wasn't playing here :P)
Vote Count (5 to Lynch)After reading these last posts, and looking at this, I have this to say:
Apostolic Nihilist - dakarian, Leafsnail
ExKirby - Pandarsenic
Org - NUKE9.13
Diakron - ExKirby
Don't vote in weird colors. Vote in Red, or I'll get upset and miss your vote.
Unvote.
Apostolic Nihilist, why is wanting to survive a scumtell? The only role on the list Webadict posted that would want to be lynched is the Jester. All other roles on the list would want to survive to help their team (or themselves, in the case of the Survivor and SK).
Org is always scum.No , I am not scum. This is like what happened to Inaluct, as he was almost always scum, but whenever you lynched him, he was town.
More seriously
Org is always scum unless he specifically says he isn't.
Its just the way things are. We are all powerless to stop it.
He left us for better things...Org is always scum.No , I am not scum. This is like what happened to Inaluct, as he was almost always scum, but whenever you lynched him, he was town.
More seriously
Org is always scum unless he specifically says he isn't.
Its just the way things are. We are all powerless to stop it.
Where is Inaluct anyway?
Org is always scum.
More seriously
Org is always scum unless he specifically says he isn't.
Its just the way things are. We are all powerless to stop it.
ExKirby, mind answering my question?Mind repeating the question?
And dak, how do we know you're ot using reverse phycology?
Vote ExKirby (in black). What do you think about the whole deal with the colors? Further, who do you consider most scummy at this point?
That would do for the question. As a matter of fact, I find dak scummish. Things hold in my memory pretty well. Colors may have some role, and I think that dak wants to extract that info from us.Vote ExKirby (in black). What do you think about the whole deal with the colors? Further, who do you consider most scummy at this point?
One confirmation: your vote isn't based on the color you used (ie. using red = the vote goes to the red person). Otherwise, Web would've ended the day since Hammer is in effect.
Unvote Vote Nuke
Misrepresenting the words of another player. Leaf said nothing about FOSing 'wierd colors'. His only post involves, and I quote:QuoteI can imagine some pretty weird stuff going down here with regards to mixing colours. In.
And that was his 'in' post.
Nothing about FOS. Nothing about not liking people in strange colors. You also snuck it in your "OMG everyone is killing red, but not me, I'm being careful!" post. You didn't ask "Anyone know what the colors are for?". You didn't say, "Maybe we should watch what colors we use." No it's a post written to cause panic and make us all cautious.
With a nice, juicy LIE (http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Lynch_All_Liars)right below it.
Right now, I don't see NUKE making a mistake as much as I see Dakarian jumping on easy prey.
Regardless, I agree for the time being — drawing him out is in our best interest.
I will vote for Leafsnail because I don't like his policy of FoSing everyone in funny colours.
Right now, I don't see NUKE making a mistake as much as I see Dakarian jumping on easy prey.
Regardless, I agree for the time being — drawing him out is in our best interest.
I'm not really seeing how NUKE's post was meant to 'draw out panic', but I concede.QuoteI will vote for Leafsnail because I don't like his policy of FoSing everyone in funny colours.
That's what it was based on. The argument was that Leafsnail had not FoSed anyone or spoken about funny colors at all.
It was explained later that this is referencing Leafsnail using Blue to FOS people in other games.
Thus it wasn't a lie, just an akwardly said randomvote
Org is always scum.
More seriously
Org is always scum unless he specifically says he isn't.
Its just the way things are. We are all powerless to stop it.
Old scumtell is old. Old, yes.
And already subverted. It's a null tell now. So old, perhaps, that it has been forgotten, even by org himself?
However, looking for easy lynches still works VERY well as a scumtell. True that
Consider my vote no longer random. You're trying for nice easy kills without scumhunting and that's scummy. Good to hear your opinion on the matter
I still don't believe color = role so I'm not that bad off with people knowing my color.:[
Besides, if roles were based on colours, a post to incite a reaction from Red could possibly be a tactic to draw out scum.Nope. I would have to know which colours were scum, and whilst red might be a good guess (along with black, I guess?), it was not so. My post was merely telling people to be careful. Dakarian's slip up was an unfortunate and unintended consequence.
At the very least, it drew out Dakarian — I think he's voting NUKE because he caused him to reveal his colour.
Nuke didn't randomvote Org.Yes I did. Sorry.
(Biggest post so far posted in this game)
See, the random voting stage these days is an automatic Bay12 mafia reflex. It bears no risk, no consequence, and no discussion.
Guess what, everybody?
That makes it pointless.
If you're going to say stuff about people, be ready to back it up, so unvote and voteApostolic Nihilist. Try posting something this isn't just you popping in and saying "Hey guys, he could be scum!", that's useless WIFOM that only the scum like.
If either Toony or Vector is Vector's/Toony's partner, it might be Nuke. He still hasnt posted since I asked him about his vote. :I
I suppose it's bad etiquette to answer posts without quoting them?
The post I made immediately after Mr. Person was what explained my reasoning.
Furthermore, Dakarian, I'm keeping my vote off of anyone because any action on my part only makes me look more scummish, which could lead to you lynching a townie. (Not that it matters at this stage of the game, however)
If I were to vote NUKE without providing any original reasoning, I believe that's called bandwagoning. I couldn't provide any original reasoning because you already analyzed his posts to death. There was nothing else to analyze. If I just say,
"I agree with Dakarian for the reasons he stated," at that point I end up looking even more scummy.
I'll admit to being quieter than I would like this game. This is the first I've played with a large variety of roles, and I'm struggling to wrap my head around the optimal way to play.
As it stands, NUKE is our only lead, but I don't think we have enough evidence on him to keep pushing. I think most scum-hunting on day 1 is a waste of time, (but this is my personal opinion); the only thing you can do is jump on people is too different than what is expected.
A lot of factors can change their behaviour — roles, suspicions, even things like stress. Forming theories prematurely tends to backfire, however, and it's not until you have a profile of the mafia and the roles in the game that you should start to take major action.
When Day 2 comes, for instance, we'll have a list of who's died due to what roles and our investigative roles will have a better idea of who's scum. We may not even be playing with an SK or we may be playing with 3 — unknown situations will continue to arise, situations that are difficult to account for; making assumptions off of thing such as initial votes.
Mafia is inherently a serious game, but some stages are more serious than others. From a purely objective standpoint, making assumptions now has a higher chance of lynching town than it does of lynching scum. Scum will usually be extraordinarily careful, trying to act like town, often acting well enough to become a 'spotlighter'; they'll gather the appeal of other players and use them to do whatever they wish.
Asking me questions like, "Who do you think is scum?"; I see those questions as useless during this stage of the game.
I voiced my suspicions about Dakarian earlier, and I still retain them.
We've exhausted all the leads we have, (Well, except for myself; you seem to be quite content with lynching me); waiting until Day 2 will give us more evidence to examine, and from there we can make better assumptions.
While I believe the color has some influence on the game, there's now way for us to establish that except by simply playing.So.
Anyway, Apostic wraps it up pretty nicely with his mini-essay, so I'm gonna hold my vote.ERRR
Unvote.See, see? Here they come, those ultramarine accusations of no weight! It is a leafsnaily thing, but :[ nonetheless. In the olden days, we thought someone was suspicious, we voted for them!
Apostolic Nihilist, that post was long, but you seemed to say very, very little. You're basically saying that there's no point in doing anything on Day 1... but if we did this, we'd find out very little. Almost nothing, in fact. Afterall, what's the difference between Day 1 and Day 2 other than a couple of bodies and a few investigations? We need to start scum hunting early. It also seems very much like you're trying to stay on the sidelines.
I was reffering to the last paragraph. Even yhough I'm pretty sure of your scummyness, day 1 usually pops up a town lynch and therefor should be taken slightly lighter. If I could, I would play Mafia more often =3
If you read the post before?Anyway, Apostic wraps it up pretty nicely with his mini-essay, so I'm gonna hold my vote.ERRR
His essay is wrong. No vote on day 1= not a good thing. I learnt that lesson my first mafia game, and I did not forget it.
I strongly recommend you come forth and rectify your error.
You ignored someone accusing you AND voting for you. I guess 2 votes isn't enough.
Perhaps 3 will make you notice us? Perhaps with a noose on your scummy head?
Let's consider the scenarios:
A) There is a role which has a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
B) Scum have a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
C) This is a ploy by webadict to spread distrust throughout us all.
If B is true, then claiming our colours is the worst thing we can possibly do. If A is true, it's still bad, but not as bad. If C is true, it doesn't really matter either way. If A is true, then there's likely another role which can determine the colour someone has, but not the role.
Now, our lack of knowledge regarding this can be used by clever mafia very easily. They can try and trick us into thinking that:
A) Our colours mean nothing (if they do; they'll try and get us to claim in an effort to prove their theory while simultaneously getting a list of who has what role )
or
B) Our colours mean something (if they don't, then they'll try and spread misinformation, suggesting that our colours are important/do mean something and anyone who colour claims will immediately appear scummy. Admittedly, alone, there aren't many foreseeable advantages to this, but if there is a role that determines colours, and that role thinks that the colours mean something, then much fun could be had.)
Anyone suggesting that we claim our colours is scummy, Dakarian. I may have been more accurate with my random vote than I thought.
Furthermore, you say that your colour doesn't fit your role; this implies that you have a role which doesn't suit your colour.
Ex: Blue cop, green doctor, red mafia.
You ignored someone accusing you AND voting for you. I guess 2 votes isn't enough.
Perhaps 3 will make you notice us? Perhaps with a noose on your scummy head?
I can't find it, could you repost it real fast?
Mr Person, please answer the post. >:I
I already did. Look moar.
Unvote
I am watching you. >:
Hurr Hurr.Mr Person, please answer the post. >:I
I already did. Look moar.
Unvote
I am watching you. >:
Org, you are doing nothing. You aren't even playing attention to this game at all, it seems. You make comments about your vigilance, but don't seem to even know who is involved.
Show up and scumhunt.
Colors = red herring is a possibility I'm willing to consider. Beyond explaining why I did what I did I'm putting the color concept to rest and doing good old scumhunting.>:
You should go scumhunt too, Org. Your rivals aren't too happy of your lack of hunting.
While I believe the color has some influence on the game, there's now way for us to establish that except by simply playing.Which is basically just a rehash of ideas already thrown around by everyone else.
I'm not going to fault anyone for it, of course — even if we do have a minuscule chance of actually voting and lynching mafia on Day 1, I suppose the practice itself isn't bad, right?
Actually, I can't easily recall many games that have had a mafia lynch D1. I'd say 90% of the time (at least) it's been a townie who dies.
That's why I don't like lynching for D1 mistakes; pushing & prodding, trying to draw out more mistakes, sure; but lynching? It's a bit much. At least wait until we have evidence to go off of, I say.
Game of Assassins on my dorm floor and class in half an hour. Can't refute now.What is assassins?.!
I'm not going to fault anyone for it, of course — even if we do have a minuscule chance of actually voting and lynching mafia on Day 1, I suppose the practice itself isn't bad, right?
Actually, I can't easily recall many games that have had a mafia lynch D1. I'd say 90% of the time (at least) it's been a townie who dies.
That's why I don't like lynching for D1 mistakes; pushing & prodding, trying to draw out more mistakes, sure; but lynching? It's a bit much. At least wait until we have evidence to go off of, I say.
Unvote. Org, let's see some scum-hunting PDQ. It's the "not playing the damned game" more than anything else.
You have indeed dug your own grave. Scum have different behavior when someone is being lynched than they do when we are just "scumhunting." The lynch is almost necessary, especially if we are not going off of night actions. We can't say if this is a "power role game" or not. As such, we must go off behavior--and yours is suspicious.
You are not acting anything like your usual self. I saw you in BM3, and you're being far more passive and submissive. You seem like an ideal D1 lynch to get things cranking.
Sorry, Apostolic Nihilist.
The hard part is to tell the difference between someone who's anti-town, someone with a different mentality, and someone that's scummy. That's NOT the same thing.
[...]
Remember, we're not after folks who's mentalities we don't like. We are after people who are trying to kill us.
He's quite accurate though.
I'm of the opinion that lynching people on D1 without solid evidence is not good for the town. It only expedites our demise.
As promised, unvote. Vector, I want to hear more about why exactly you think Apostolic Nihilist is scum. I'm not liking how you're implying that Apostolic Nihilist is the only lynch. He hasn't dug his own grave yet, why are you saying he has?
OK... one night and votes get flung around like crazy. Can we vote No Lynch in this game?What, so you can protect your scummy self, Exkirby? After all, a NL means the mafia can't be hit, right?
OK... one night and votes get flung around like crazy. Can we vote No Lynch in this game?Yes.
Unvote.Woah. Sorry, I just thought things were getting out of hand.OK... one night and votes get flung around like crazy. Can we vote No Lynch in this game?What, so you can protect your scummy self, Exkirby? After all, a NL means the mafia can't be hit, right?
Out of hand!?You only tore the skin up. From my point of view, it's still informed vs uninformed. And you seem far too informed.
This game was so half dead that the host had to go prod crazy to get some life into it. The town was out of ideas and pretty darn silent and ready to, at best, no lynch and forget about the day or, at worst, abandon the game.
Now we've gotten past that and starting to get into the meat of the story. Now we're debating and arguing and trying to come up with content that will be analyzed later.
For example, now I know your argument for my death was vaporware. You used someone else's argument to try to pin an attack on me and kept flinging side comments to try to ride it out. When I finally pinned you down to the topic and pressured you, you showed you HAD no argument.
So let me sum up the last few days for you:
You tried to kill me using no proper argument what so ever.
I tore it apart like it was confetti.
Now while you are asking us to no lynch and panicking over what's going on, you have the most votes and are about to be our first lynch.
NOW do you understand?
It's a game where you are given a target and someone has you as a target and you kill your target without being killed.Game of Assassins on my dorm floor and class in half an hour. Can't refute now.What is assassins?
BUYI made a glove with spoons on the fingertips. It works better when people fear being clawed by Freddy Kruger.
SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON GUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD
This game works differently from others. Instead of a deadline, there's a Hammer.Quite. When the hammer happens, further talking will result in some severe modkilling. Best pay attention, lest ye wind up dead.
Basically, the host is waiting for over half the town to vote on the same person. The second that happens, that person is considered lynched no matter if the host is there to report it.
Since we have 9 people, it takes 5 people on the same person to lynch. The SECOND that 5th vote comes in, Exkirby will be lynched and the day is over. Even if the host doesn't show immediately.. even if someone unvotes right after, it doesn't matter: he's dead and once the host comes it will be night.
With Vector's vote, ExKirby is at 4 votes, known to some as N-1. At this point, he has as much pressure as you can give him without actually killing him.
Traditionally, we leave him on this point and make him talk to make SURE that the person is scum before killing. It's not over for him yet: you can be at this point and still live if we pull off (and it's normal to do so) but the time for jokes and 'maybe' comments is OVER.
The last person to put a vote in is called the hammer. Once that vote goes in, the day is DONE and ExKirby is dead. Depending on how web is playing this, he might not even allow him or anyone else to talk after that point even if the host hasn't showed up. In case that's true, it's best to get EVERYTHING you want to say to him and us out NOW before that happens.
Very well. Pulling from your past post, which, was simply hanging on another person's argument:QuoteLet's consider the scenarios:
A) There is a role which has a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
B) Scum have a list of all the colours (and the roles that they have)
C) This is a ploy by webadict to spread distrust throughout us all.
If B is true, then claiming our colours is the worst thing we can possibly do. If A is true, it's still bad, but not as bad. If C is true, it doesn't really matter either way. If A is true, then there's likely another role which can determine the colour someone has, but not the role.
Now, our lack of knowledge regarding this can be used by clever mafia very easily. They can try and trick us into thinking that:
A) Our colours mean nothing (if they do; they'll try and get us to claim in an effort to prove their theory while simultaneously getting a list of who has what role )
or
B) Our colours mean something (if they don't, then they'll try and spread misinformation, suggesting that our colours are important/do mean something and anyone who colour claims will immediately appear scummy. Admittedly, alone, there aren't many foreseeable advantages to this, but if there is a role that determines colours, and that role thinks that the colours mean something, then much fun could be had.)
Anyone suggesting that we claim our colours is scummy, Dakarian. I may have been more accurate with my random vote than I thought.
Furthermore, you say that your colour doesn't fit your role; this implies that you have a role which doesn't suit your colour.
Ex: Blue cop, green doctor, red mafia.
Since the only thing you added was WIFOM I imagine this is the inkstain.
As I said before, my color (red) does NOT fit my role. Matched with my belief that there's a better chance that the colors are something to either red herring us (though that's more recently) or cause us trouble (original idea) than it is something that benefits the mafia, I do not see a problem with us learning more about our colors.
That's the reasoning behind my actions.
So far, your only response from you is WIFOM.
If you believe I'm just plain old lying and that's that then you DON'T have an argument for me and you just want me dead. Take responsibility then and get the town after me. If you believe my argument mostly but still have some specific issue then stop referencing and voice them specifically. If you believe me and you have nothing to add then what's left for you to consider me scummy?
Shit, I forgot to unvote Org.
That reminds me, I have a randomvote to continue. ExKirby, what do you think the colors mean?
Less fussing, more responding.In order, Yes, Yes, No.
Is that a proper answer?
Did I miss an issue you still have?
Or do you still call me a liar?
Very well.. a proposal when you get back ExKirby.Err... come again?
1. Get that vote OFF of me.
2. Get it ON someone else.
3. No Lynch and staying on Unvote are NOT options.
If you don't have a reason to suspect someone, then find a reason. I still don't mind this being your last day, but we're not done what we need to do this day.
Oh, and no, 'ok, I'll do it' posts. Lurk, and you'll get prodded. Post anything BUT a vote change + reason and I'll find someone to use that hammer.
Unvote Vote Pandarsenic
Normally, when asked "Why you are still voting." Those that don't have an answer Unvote. Why are you content to watch other games without caring if a scum or town dies here?
Also, (I may not be alone in thinking this) but ExKirby's answers seemed very obviously ambivalent. He doesn't strike me as scum but as lazy town. He'll be a good fallback lynch if we can't find anyone else.
What, so when I try a new tactic you all go against me?Also, (I may not be alone in thinking this) but ExKirby's answers seemed very obviously ambivalent. He doesn't strike me as scum but as lazy town. He'll be a good fallback lynch if we can't find anyone else.
So, I played with him recently as town, and he's not behaving anything like he was then. I really think he's scum and am waiting for him to do something that makes him more townish.
We really need to kill someone, doods >_> Knowing we're getting scum is good, but if the entire town gets exhausted before we kill anyone things are going to be bad.
So, I played with him recently as town, and he's not behaving anything like he was then. I really think he's scum and am waiting for him to do something that makes him more townish.What, so when I try a new tactic you all go against me?
We really need to kill someone, doods >_> Knowing we're getting scum is good, but if the entire town gets exhausted before we kill anyone things are going to be bad.
I'm here, I'm here.
...
I'm gone again. I'd prefer you not lynch me but I won't throw a fit defending myself if you decide to because I'm tired and I'm going to sleep but first I need to shower and then that'll be like 2 o'clock my time and then I have class at 9 so I'll have to wake up at 8 to be there on time which I clearly won't succeed at so I'll get there like 15-30 minutes late and oh WHATEVER I'm going now.
Whenever you change your tactic, those that are using your meta will be more suspicious of you.
Whenever you use a tactic that causes you to look worse against certain players, those people will think worse of you.
You can change your tactics, but always be prepared for the backlash of suspicion and be ready to stand for it.
i.e. the fact that you're still not trying to scumhunt is really really bothering me. That you need to defend is irrelevant, since it just takes typing two posts: one to defend, one to attack. Ignore folks that don't like it (i.e. the 'deflecting' argument) because they are fools that would vote for you no matter what you do.
Meanwhile, I think Pandar either needs a prod. If he's actually here but lurking, then a lynch instead.
Are we still suspicious of NUKE9.13 for his jump on Org, King of Easy Lynches?
Also, something seems off about Dakarian and Apostolic Nihilist, though I couldn't tell you what or why. :I
heh.. call Org's name and he calls to protect himself.What. I actually was just going through and answering posts. I was not laying low, what I meant was that I could be posting some but have other things to do. :I
Even though the topic is how the one who attacked him was wrong.
Hyperdefensive I see Org. Also good to know that you are trying to lay low and not just 'busy'.
@pandar
So basically you are trying to lynch someone based on MY argument, even to the point of using MY words for it.
A tip: Next time you want to hide your scumminess, put your vote on me. I instaattack those that mimic my arguments to support me.
heh.. call Org's name and he calls to protect himself.Old Argument or not, the point remains and is valid. If you're not using it, I will. >:c
Even though the topic is how the one who attacked him was wrong.
Hyperdefensive I see Org. Also good to know that you are trying to lay low and not just 'busy'.
@pandar
So basically you are trying to lynch someone based on MY argument, even to the point of using MY words for it.
A tip: Next time you want to hide your scumminess, put your vote on me. I instaattack those that mimic my arguments to support me.
Go fuck a goat. I answered your question. It's quite clearly "No, I would have to know they were voting me to react to them voting me."
Also, something seems off about Dakarian and Apostolic Nihilist, though I couldn't tell you what or why. :I
something seems off about Dakarian and Apostolic Nihilist, though I couldn't tell you what or why. :I
Dakarian and Apostolic Nihilist, though I couldn't tell you what or why.
though I couldn't tell you what or why.
Also, I couldn't tell you what or why.
Quicknote:
You wonder why I seem rushed with my accusations...
But the only reason you have your analysis of those people (including me) is BECAUSE of my 'rushed accusations'. Everyone I havn't touched yet is lurking and those I have are active.
That's not a coincidence. That's scumhunting.
RVS didn't work. Randomquestion didn't work. Randomaccusations.. .oh, that works well, especially when you include a bandwagon.
Yes, the claim of you lying is included.. it got you to explain yourself instead of lurk. It also meant I wouldn't have to bring it up uselessly later on because you already explained it.
Now what I don't like are 'what would you do as a doctor' questions. How is THAT useful to the town? On the other hand, I HAVE seen it useful for the mafia, since they learn who the town feels is 'most trusting' (you tend to protect those you believe are pro-town).
Passive accusations aren't much better.
Yes, Apolic. I'm the Jester. Well it doesn't really matter, does it? I'm screwed beyond belief anyway! "Whee, let's all go fo the easy lynch!" Seriously. One game, I get day 1 screwed for following people's advice. Here, I do the opposite and stick to who i think is scum and I'm screwed. Sheesh, this community is not being fair on me.
*sigh* Sorry if I seem a little more offensive as per usual-the people on the IB Forums have made me overly sad. Leafsnail, if you want the details, PM me.
Oh, and Vote Me.
Er... wouldn't that mean that this game could theoretically drag on forever, very easily? Especially once we get down to the lower numbers. I guess that just means all players have to be active. Lurkers are something we cannot tolerate, then.
There was a slight chance that ExKirby was jester, and would win upon his lynch.
There was a slight chance that ExKirby was town, and nothing would happen.
There was a large chance that ExKirby was scum.
However, if we had simply waited one day, we could have confirmed it.
The mafia would've almost surely taken out the jester with a NK. They don't want him to win anymore than we do.
...Why would Dakarian vote to lynch him? If he was scum, he knew for sure that ExKirby wasn't scum, so he was either Town or Jester. That doesn't make much sense... what's the point of voting him!?
*combusts*
Okay. I've been operating under the assumption that Dakarian (or rather, anyone) actually cares about the jester winning. If they don't, then that changes everything...
So I ask you, Dakarian: Why did you take a humongous risk when you could've simply waited one day and received the same results with no risk whatsoever?
I'm going to let him answer for himself instead of trying to stuff words down his throat.
But I accept my action: I had planned on my vote being the hammer and believed I was right. Now, Nihilst...why is it that you seem so sure that it was one of the worst things to do, so sure that what we did was wrong before the lynch and yet you flung the hammer?
ExKirby would like you all to know it was sarcasm. Yeesh.I would like ExKirby to know that, in my opinion, that was really stupid, unnecessary, and for doing so he should perhaps reconsider his mafia-subsection participation.
Not sure. He hasn't posted for a while. I think the scum might've been going for a safe bet that wouldn't reveal much about them, or something.Well, it does tell us something about the scum: They think stupid. Killing active or fairly active players works is always better than killing lurkers.
At the very least, we would end up with a dead townie, a colour, and a role; conceivably, this could help us decipher the pattern (if there is one. I'm beginning to doubt that there is).
Anyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.
At the very least, we would end up with a dead townie, a colour, and a role; conceivably, this could help us decipher the pattern (if there is one. I'm beginning to doubt that there is).
So, I'm starting to guess at a pattern, but I think that's going to have to wait until later-game or something. The only problem here is that we're going to have to continue using it only as a tool to mildly sway predictions, rather than as a matter of absolute certainty.
Ok, so why didn't you tell us your pattern prediction?Presumably because an incomplete hypothesis could only hurt Town. If we start trying to wrap our assumptions around a pattern that isn't even necessarily correct, we're limiting our options.
At the very least, we would end up with a dead townie, a colour, and a role; conceivably, this could help us decipher the pattern (if there is one. I'm beginning to doubt that there is).
So, I'm starting to guess at a pattern, but I think that's going to have to wait until later-game or something. The only problem here is that we're going to have to continue using it only as a tool to mildly sway predictions, rather than as a matter of absolute certainty.
Ok, so why didn't you tell us your pattern prediction?
Apost has indeed been suspicious, but I'd also like to ask where Org is. Why do you think Pandar was NK'd? What do you think about Exkirby's lynch?Wait. What. How does that make sense? Oh, maybe you mean why, as in why would scum kill them.... Maybe because he is good in mafias most of the time.
... Yeah, AN is lurking. Folks need to get out here and claim, dude.
Mr.Person.
We need to get the discussion going again.
What do you think of NUKE's accusations toward me? What do you make of ExKirby flipping town?
You haven't made many posts at all recently and furthermore your most recent posts have contained little of substance.
Vector: Mr. I've made 7 posts in the past four pages. Mr. Person has made 3. I'm hardly lurking as much as he is right now, so it's interesting that you're targeting me.
Mr.Person.
We need to get the discussion going again.
What do you think of NUKE's accusations toward me? What do you make of ExKirby flipping town?
You haven't made many posts at all recently and furthermore your most recent posts have contained little of substance.
Vector: Mr. I've made 7 posts in the past four pages. Mr. Person has made 3. I'm hardly lurking as much as he is right now, so it's interesting that you're targeting me.
That's his second prod this game... >:(-Karma :I
Honestly, I seem to remember being one of those people. His jester reveal makes him even more suspicious, and at that point he was almost worth killing just to teach him a lesson (... almost).As per request.
Lynching him was probably one of the most pro-town things we could have done then, given the information we had. Discussion was all I was trying to start, as it's sadly lacking.
You, on the other hand, I don't trust. I've seen you in two other situations as town, and you're not playing town. The disconnect and "forcing yourself to be aggressive" so people will think you're town is ridiculous, and I call bullshit. We've got reads on you, and you've insta-changed into a different player.
I really am forcing myself to be aggressive, and it looks horribly scummy. I'm finding it difficult making accusations with so little to go on and it shows. I've never played a hammer-enabled game before and other circumstances prevent me from having as clear a head as I'd like.
I was prodded a bit earlier and panicked a bit, so I said some strange stuff which caused a downward spiral, resulting in the position I rest at now. I can't really deny how suspicious I look at this point. You're all perfectly justified in lynching me, but I'd rather we go after scum.
I also think you're trying to spread blanket suspicion for an innocuous act--that is, offing someone who is either 1. lying town 2. SCUM or 3. the dumbest jester ever. Those are all reasonable lynches (except for the jester one, that is... but as I said, there's other reasoning for that).
I wasn't trying to spread blanket suspicion. I was asking if others felt the same as I did.
Actually, looking at it again, I'm sure I had it completely wrong. If someone had unvoted then they would've been more suspicious because of it -- ExKirby was very obviously scum to any town player, but to the scum they would've had to consider the possibility of him actually being jester more seriously.
Now we move on to the Nuke matter.Let us. I will happily deal with your questions and accusations.
Voting for a lurker is easy, and not that necessary when the person truly hasn't posted, since we can Prod them instead.True. Nevertheless. My vote for MrPerson was based on instinct which stems from the days when mods wouldn't prod people. I was not attempting to start an easy bandwagon, but to give MrPerson an incentive to post. You should consider it from the pre-karma system point of view.
Then you throw a 'soft attack' on Nihilist with plenty of wish wash.I fail to see how a 'soft attack' is bad. We can hardly expect the scum to conform to every scumtell in the book, or even any scumtells. We could wait for people to slip up by themselves and say 'Oh also I am scum whoops I didn't mean that'. Or we could wait for power roles to solve the game for us.
"He's not acting scummy, Once again. We cannot expect the scum to voluntarily enact scum tells. No one is acting particularly scummy, in my opinion.We are always acting in mafia. Yes. I feel you are deliberately misinterpreting me here- You must admit we always act in mafia. And you must also admit that one is more commonly town than scum. And you must surely agree that it is easier to act as town (as in, town acting like a townie) than as mafia (acting like a townie) anyway, even without the added practice we get at acting as townies.
but he's not acting normal, Indeed. He is acting nervously, not thinking things through completely, not making the right connections, perhaps because he can't, being scum.
but we always not act normal in mafia,
but not as well as we could."
Then you say he's suitable for lynching for that.. then forget to actually vote for him.-I said (and once again, I feel you are deliberately misinterpreting me), that, in the absence of better targets, he is suitable for lynching. Yes. Surely you must agree that, given one person who is slightly more scummy than everyone else, it is better to lynch the slightly more scummy person, rather than at random or, heaven forbid, not at all?
Easy killer- Now hold up. Lynching is never easy. I have not bandwagonned blindly, you will notice. I have not appealed to emotion, or done any other scummy tricks to make people bandwagon. I have merely stated my opinion, and my vote to go with it. If you refer to my org vote, well, did that go well? Could it possibly be expected to go well in the hands of anyone but webadict? No. It could not. And I know this. Besides, I have explained, it was random behaviour intended to raise discussion.Well I hope I have answered your major issues. Please inform me of any issues with this or any other items that you feel I have not dealt with and I will explain them. I can, because I am town.
+ passive aggressiveness I fail to see what is wrong with this. Extrapolate, please.
+ WIFOM creation Um. When? Extrapolate, please.
+ suggestion without follow through See above; weak attack is better than no attack at all.
= Ugly Mafiascum.
I'd vote for you, but I'm already voting for you so instead I'll just hope you get lynched.
Well, you're quite right. I'm acting in a way unfamiliar because my usual town strategies (I don't even think I have a usual town strategy. I've only played a few games) don't work well under the 'hammer' rules. I'm not generally an aggressive person. As town, I have to be aggressive, so I'm mostly forcing myself to say and do things I don't really think, which can lead to this strange discontinuity between my posts. It's quite disconcerting, looking back.Thank you for that. Of course, admitting the existence of the problem does not justify it. It does help me, however.
Just a question (to everyone), but do you think that the people who continued voting ExKirby after he 'revealed' that he was the jester are suspicious?No. They have justified themselves. I think they were wrong in doing so, but not exceedingly scummy. After all, the scum does not want to lynch the jester either.
Web: a prod or a replace on Nuke.Others are less active than me. I apologise for my awolitude, but if you cannot find someone else to question, you are suffering from Tunnelvision!
it's hard to drive a discussion when your targets go awol.
That's his second prod this game... >:(May I point out that this was 9 replies after my last reply? I am not questioning the mods decision, but, for example, org posted before my previous, and after this post. Did he get prodded?
Ok so he answered the questions. A purely reply post. Nothing wrong with them, but a little questioning post later on might be good.Apost has indeed been suspicious, but I'd also like to ask where Org is. Why do you think Pandar was NK'd? What do you think about Exkirby's lynch?Wait. What. How does that make sense? Oh, maybe you mean why, as in why would scum kill them.... Maybe because he is good in mafias most of the time.
I think he may just be a noob, though he has been in a few mafias. Needs to stick his head down and try not to do scummy looking stuff.
However, here is his next post!That's his second prod this game... >:(-Karma :I
Yeah, Mass prod.
Evidence of lurking spotted.Ah, right, I misunderstood this. Sorry. I posted 11 minutes after leafsnail because partly coincidence, partly leafsnails post brought colour mafia up on the main FG&R page under the mafia thingy, reminding me to post. The fact that he voted for me was irrelevant (although you only have my word for it)
Keeping silent until 2 attacks fall on him then a 11 minute response time.
Since you're replying to me regularly, you havn't been spending the last 30 minutes writing that post as you want to pretend you are.
(See post below)
Instead, you've been prodded before and, though you are a regular in other games, avoided this one.
This one is pretty boring. Not an excuse, but a reason, at least. You want a carefully kept secret of mine? I lurk less as scum. I find it more exciting, thus, I post more.
I alone aim at you and you ignore me. A second places their vote, thus starting a bandwagon and in 11 minutes you post.
I did not ignore you. I responded to you. And as I said, that leafsnail voted for me was irrelevant.
You say you'll post directly but instead you are Refreshing in order to read my post and, thus, respond to THAT in 9 minutes.
(See post below)
You were lurking and hoping my words would go unnoticed. Now you're scared enough to throw quick defenses rather than actively hunting or even commenting over today's events.
I am sorry that you did not consider my previous responses adequate. Do tell if I have missed anything in this, certainly not quick, defence
You solidify the noose around your scummy neck with every minute.
I am not scum.
That explains why a town would do what you do.*shrug* If you are so convinced I am scum, you are treading a dangerous road. Hopefully I have cleared up the issue now. If not, explain why, and I will explain my actions as best as possible.
But I do not believe that is why YOU are doing it. I also believe you had a darker motive than just being tidy with your posts.
-I said (and once again, I feel you are deliberately misinterpreting me), that, in the absence of better targets, he is suitable for lynching. Yes. Surely you must agree that, given one person who is slightly more scummy than everyone else, it is better to lynch the slightly more scummy person, rather than at random or, heaven forbid, not at all?
-I did vote for him, before (How did you not realise this?). I then switched votes to MrPerson to get him to stop lurking. At that point I considered MrPerson a better target than AN. Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
Thank you for that. Of course, admitting the existence of the problem does not justify it. It does help me, however.
See, see, see, he admits it. He recognises the necessity of acting and admits that his acting here is of a lower quality.
No. They have justified themselves. I think they were wrong in doing so, but not exceedingly scummy. After all, the scum does not want to lynch the jester either.
Others are less active than me. I apologise for my awolitude, but if you cannot find someone else to question, you are suffering from Tunnelvision!
[Note: My vote on org is to provide motivation for him to be more active. I am not attempting to shift attention to him.]
I lurk less as scum. I find it more exciting, thus, I post more.
About your soft attack on NihilistI fail to see how this phrase is contradictory. I am saying here that instinct (which drove me to vote AN) is wrong, say, 40% of the time.
Fluff. You gave me a mess about how scumhunting works with a dash of WIFOM:
"Naturally, once more solid evidence is provided, your instinct should be as good as ignored, for it is so often wrong. But it is not more often wrong than right."
Contradictory phrase is contradictory.
Your statement wasn't a mere question. You said Nihilist was suitable for a lynch: that's a declaration to kill. Still, instead of pursuing someone you felt could be lynched you pressure lurkers. You look wishy washy and the accusation sounded passive for the ending suggestion.Ok right hang on.
@The Apostolic accusationYes. I said. I admitted this. I actually said this in the post I voted for him.
Simply put: Vague. A vague 'he's acting odd and not quite town'.
Weak accusations =! "I consider him a worthwhile lynch."I never said "everyone vote AN". I did not press my attack with undue intensity. I am not in charge of everyone's votes.
On the other hand, "Someone needs to die, oh well you'll do" = scummy.
And no.. what you did is FAR from the only thing to do. There's always actual scumhunting.There is scumhunting, yes. If my scumhunting was or is insufficient, my apologies. However, scumhunting must always be combined with the free flow of opinions. That is helpful to people. It indicates (in a world without bluff) whose side you are on, or rather whose side you are not on (I feel so pedantic, but, no, of course I am not suggesting that anyone you vote for is automatically on a different team from you. I am aware of bussing as a scum strategy. I am just making the point that it is useful).
Better targets arise over the day.Quote-I said (and once again, I feel you are deliberately misinterpreting me), that, in the absence of better targets, he is suitable for lynching. Yes. Surely you must agree that, given one person who is slightly more scummy than everyone else, it is better to lynch the slightly more scummy person, rather than at random or, heaven forbid, not at all?If I took that advice, I'd be requesting the town to kill you RIGHT NOW instead of debating with you.
So no, I don't subscribe to the "anything not 100% town will do" theory.
I can sort of understand the confusion here. Substitute scumminess in my quote with goodtargetness. I considered it no longer useful to vote for AN, or rather, I considered it more useful to vote for MrPerson.Quote-I did vote for him, before (How did you not realise this?). I then switched votes to MrPerson to get him to stop lurking. At that point I considered MrPerson a better target than AN. Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
So though most of your post was about Nihilist, you REALLY wanted Person dead instead. So the vote wasn't just to wake up a lurker: Person looked more scum than Nihilist when you made that post.
So, why is Person scummier than Nihilist?
I never had Org on my mind when I wrote that so I find it funny you brought it up. I refer to the 'willing to kill Nihilist' matter, which you confirm by your belief that 'slightly scummy is enough to lynch'.Well, I was guessing about as to what you could possibly mean.
Passive Aggressiveness is what tends to separate a half decent scum from a half decent town. Scum tend to be passive while town tends to be aggressive. Half decent scum want both: aggressive to pretend they are town but passive enough to avoid the spotlight.I see where you are coming from, then. However, you confuse aggression with stupidity. I can see how you might mix the two up; aggression in the context 'what town does' is going out and scumhunting. Attacking people, yes. But not pressing the attack to the lynch, and without thinking, just for the sake of attacking. That is stupid. I had no case on AN. It would be stupid and waaay more scummy of me if I were to vote him in the beginning of the day and maintain my vote come hell or high water.
So they do things like make suggestions on who to kill without getting their hands dirty. They vote flip. They attack then back off. Passive Aggressiveness.
When it comes to you, the post in question REEKED of it. No direct attack on Nihilist. No direct questions on Nihilist. No specific evidence. Not even a vote. Can you honestly tell me you were being aggressive?
Well then, all the less reason for me to want to press the attack on him. Which you, if I understand correctly, have criticized me for?QuoteThank you for that. Of course, admitting the existence of the problem does not justify it. It does help me, however.
See, see, see, he admits it. He recognises the necessity of acting and admits that his acting here is of a lower quality.
Finally something, but it required a heavy push to get it out of you.
However, I must disagree due to Meta knowledge. Nihilist has made a name for himself in being very perceptive but also very passive. To be blunt: one quick breeze and he shakes like a leaf, even when he has the scum in his grasp. He's now changing his attack style to accommodate.
So he DID explain his 'change of acting'.
Basically thisQuoteNo. They have justified themselves. I think they were wrong in doing so, but not exceedingly scummy. After all, the scum does not want to lynch the jester either.
Explain.
We'll know for sure by tomorrow; scum should want to eliminate him by NK so he can't win. If he isn't killed, then he's scum and we lynch him D2.We should have done that.
It is tunnelvision. Between my post and my prod you did no scumhunting towards anyone but me. When I didn't appear for a while, you didn't make a two part post with A)Nuke stop lurking and B)some other scumhunting in the meantime.QuoteOthers are less active than me. I apologise for my awolitude, but if you cannot find someone else to question, you are suffering from Tunnelvision!Nice try. Calling it tunnellvision because I didn't forget about you just because you lurked? Sorry. Lurking isn't a defense.
Trying to discredit the person instead of the argument. Noted.
From here you attack Org for active lurking. Good..but one problem:Are you suggesting suggest this is wrong? Are you seriously saying that if I had not pre defended myself you would not have jumped on me for shifting attention to org?Quote[Note: My vote on org is to provide motivation for him to be more active. I am not attempting to shift attention to him.]
Pre-defending yourself. Noted.
About why you lurked:I guess so. But alas, it was indeed a coincidence.
I WOULD believe it if you hadn't ignored my attacks for 2 days, ignored the OTHER times the thread showed up on the top, ignored the request to prod, ignored the other attacks I've done, and ONLY decided to show up as soon as a second vote kicks in.
My. VERY coincidental.
Ok then. Just saying.QuoteI lurk less as scum. I find it more exciting, thus, I post more.
Self-meta: Nulled.Spoiler: Term defined (click to show/hide)
In short: Using your own meta to defend yourself does NOT work.
Summary:
- You're willing to remove someone who just barely seems scummy even if there's no strong evidence towards that person. Settled?
- You made a post vaguely suggesting Nihilist yet don't vote for him. You vote for Person to 'pressure' him but now say that Person got the vote because he looked scummier.. but have not explained why. Settled?
- The post in question is being passive aggressive: a nasty scumtell The post
- You attack me by saying I'm Tunnelvisioned, when all I've done is wait for you to return so I can actually debate with you. This is the first true debate we've had. Don't attack the person, attack the argument. Well I wasn't and haven't attacked you. I think you are town, if a little confused.
- You 'disappeared' for a few days, missing my accusation (which you were online to have seen)and, even when prodded, only show up once the vote is made on you. Well yes. You only have my word that it was not purposeful lurking You now seem VERY interested in the game. Yes. I like defending myself.
You aren't looking good to me at the moment. A great shame
IF nothing changed for the rest of the day, IF we had to stop talking and make our minds up right then as who to lynch, I would choose AN at that point. That was my meaning and if you do not realise this, then (no offence) you are stupid.
But that did not happen; the game moved on. MrPerson was lurking, and I voted for him to make him stop lurking.
At that point I considered MrPerson a better target than AN. Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
I never said "everyone vote AN". I did not press my attack with undue intensity. I am not in charge of everyone's votes.
IF nothing changed for the rest of the day, IF we had to stop talking and make our minds up right then as who to lynch, I would choose AN at that point.
However, it is enough that, given no better targets, I consider him a worthwhile lynch.
Better targets arise over the day.
I can sort of understand the confusion here. Substitute scumminess in my quote with goodtargetness. I considered it no longer useful to vote for AN, or rather, I considered it more useful to vote for MrPerson.
I had no case on AN. It would be stupid and waaay more scummy of me if I were to vote him in the beginning of the day and maintain my vote come hell or high water.
That big post was not intended as an attack on AN, but rather a defence of myself.
Well then, all the less reason for me to want to press the attack on him. Which you, if I understand correctly, have criticized me for?
It is tunnelvision. Between my post and my prod you did no scumhunting towards anyone but me. When I didn't appear for a while, you didn't make a two part post with A)Nuke stop lurking and B)some other scumhunting in the meantime.
I do believe that I did my best to discredit your arguments first, and it was not my intention to discredit you, but rather to bring it to your attention.
Are you suggesting suggest this is wrong? Are you seriously saying that if I had not pre defended myself you would not have jumped on me for shifting attention to org?
And finally
I feel that a great deal of your arguments against me are based on me being very stupid.
It is pretty meta to say so, but I am not stupid.
Seriously.
I am pretty intelligent.
Vector: For all your talk of getting people out here to talk, you seem to have composed very few questions and stated no suspicions at all. What's up with that?
Yay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
[/quot
Well, I'd like to say something but there's this huge debate going on between Dakarian/NUKE now so I'd rather not butt in. Instead, I'll question Org since he has more time and hasn't said much.
What do you think of this argument that's going on right now?
It's either skilled scum vs. skilled town, or skilled town vs. skilled town, it would seem. If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Thoughts?
Yay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.Dont really know what to think, but it prob. is scum and towny, or both scum, but I would doubt thatt although it would be a great thing to do if you are a scum to drop attention from yourself I guess.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
[/quot
Well, I'd like to say something but there's this huge debate going on between Dakarian/NUKE now so I'd rather not butt in. Instead, I'll question Org since he has more time and hasn't said much.
What do you think of this argument that's going on right now?
It's either skilled scum vs. skilled town, or skilled town vs. skilled town, it would seem. If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Thoughts?
Unvote.Dont really know what to think, but it prob. is scum and towny, or both scum, but I would doubt thatt although it would be a great thing to do if you are a scum to drop attention from yourself I guess.Yay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.Well, I'd like to say something but there's this huge debate going on between Dakarian/NUKE now so I'd rather not butt in. Instead, I'll question Org since he has more time and hasn't said much.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
What do you think of this argument that's going on right now?
It's either skilled scum vs. skilled town, or skilled town vs. skilled town, it would seem. If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Thoughts?
Hurr Hurr.When asked to elaborate:
Oh wait this is color mafia. Huh.
And just because I missed a single thing doesnt seem good enough a reason.
Dak seems suspicious. Freaking out because of the color thing.
What is assassins?.!I haven't seen those arguments before!
Dakarian, for acting weird and a bit strange, as well as going crazy over colors, which means 3 things,
a)Townie, wants to survive
b)Scum, wants to survive
c)Power role, a or b
:PNo, I'm pretty sure this is called active lurking.
Dont be mean Web. Just playing Last Stand.....a little to much.....
Old scumtell is old.
I am the king. I rule with an iron fist.
I actually think Pandar might be right about the colors. Or they are nothing. :I
I am not lurking actively, more of a passive lurking, if you will.
I will stick to my convictions.
So, they killed Pandarsenic (a person who was admittedly acting quite scummy) instead of a different target, like Leafsnail. Pandar is good at being mafia but people are also quite wary of him. Leaving him alive makes for an easy lynch later. I doubt they killed him 'just because he was good'; I think they killed him to spread WIFOM or to make the scum players look like newbs. At the time of the Pandarsenic lynch, Dakarian & Mr.Person were the only people voting for him. Inexperienced scum don't NK who they're voting for. You, coincidentally, were not voting for him (neither were many other people, but at least they weren't active lurking.)Apost has indeed been suspicious, but I'd also like to ask where Org is. Why do you think Pandar was NK'd? What do you think about Exkirby's lynch?Wait. What. How does that make sense? Oh, maybe you mean why, as in why would scum kill them.... Maybe because he is good in mafias most of the time.
I think he may just be a noob, though he has been in a few mafias. Needs to stick his head down and try not to do scummy looking stuff.
Yay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.Er, he's not shifting attention to you -- right now, most eyes are still trained on the NUKE v. Dakarian battle that's waging futilely.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
All I'm saying is that you're focusing a bit too much on Nuke, but like I said, that's not scummy, so continue as you were. After all, there's some good questions you've posed to Nuke, I want to hear if he answers them correctly. Overall, I'm getting scum vibes from Dakarian, but I have no idea where they're coming from, so I'm going to ignore them. Blah blah, listen to your gut, I know, but since I have no real reason for him being scum, I'm not going to vote him. I will reread his posts, however.Quote
UGLY. You say I'm being a little bit scummy by focusing too much on Nuke, but likes my questions and wants Nuke to answer. He said I'm town but 'gettting scum vibes' so decided to ignore them. Wanted to do a reread.
Vector
A "oh sorry I'll post more" nonpost. Promised some content last night.. none showed.
Leafsnail
"woke up" Nuke with a second vote on him. Has not posted since.
Org
Current target of Nuke. Cause: active lurking
One post to Apostolic replying to the question of how me and nuke looks: just isn't sure.
Apostolic NihilistQuoteWhat do you think of this argument that's going on right now?
It's either skilled scum vs. skilled town, or skilled town vs. skilled town, it would seem. If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Dangerous:
The smaller issue:
-Most scum cannot or will not perform a strong attack on one another like this. However, you've declared both of us Skilled. Understanding the skill level of the player is very important since a Newbie-Town-Tell is a Semi-skilled-Scum-Tell.
Thus the problem: if we're both skilled then Skilled Scum is more likely to do crazy tricks like this.
The point: don't take everything off the table that easily.
BIGGER issue: If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Given your theory, the first part makes sense (though don't fully confirm based on it). The reverse: If someone lynched is town the other is scum, is dangerous. This CAN be a scum vs town fight or a town vs town fight and lynching one because of the other's flip is a quick way for the town to die.
Note I'm not at the 'lynch Nuke now' quite yet (I make it VERY clear when I'm at that point). Gotta push him more before then.
After that, a large post against org.. will need to look into that seperately.
:P I do active lurk. but atleast I participate. Some people dont.Unvote.Dont really know what to think, but it prob. is scum and towny, or both scum, but I would doubt thatt although it would be a great thing to do if you are a scum to drop attention from yourself I guess.Yay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.Well, I'd like to say something but there's this huge debate going on between Dakarian/NUKE now so I'd rather not butt in. Instead, I'll question Org since he has more time and hasn't said much.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
What do you think of this argument that's going on right now?
It's either skilled scum vs. skilled town, or skilled town vs. skilled town, it would seem. If one is lynched and flips scum, the other is likely town -- the reverse would also probably be true simply because I doubt that scum would wage such a huge debate.
Thoughts?
Org.
Listen, this is not a constructive post. This is, "I agree with 2/3s of the things you just said for the reasons you stated, kbai."
What do you honestly make of this situation? It's changed my perception quite a bit, the longer it goes on the less it seems to involve scum on either side.
At the very least, there are other targets to go after.
Org, you're famous for lurking, but you aren't just doing that anymore. You're active lurking.
These are (most, I missed one or two) of your posts from the past 10 pages:Hurr Hurr.When asked to elaborate:
Oh wait this is color mafia. Huh.
And just because I missed a single thing doesnt seem good enough a reason.
Dak seems suspicious. Freaking out because of the color thing.What is assassins?.!I haven't seen those arguments before! I dont get it. Sarcasm?
Dakarian, for acting weird and a bit strange, as well as going crazy over colors, which means 3 things,
a)Townie, wants to survive
b)Scum, wants to survive
c)Power role, a or b:PNo, I'm pretty sure this is called active lurking. Its a joke, if you will. Sorta. Not really.
Dont be mean Web. Just playing Last Stand.....a little to much.....
Old scumtell is old.
I am the king. I rule with an iron fist.
I actually think Pandar might be right about the colors. Or they are nothing. :I
I am not lurking actively, more of a passive lurking, if you will.
I will stick to my convictions.So, they killed Pandarsenic (a person who was admittedly acting quite scummy) instead of a different target, like Leafsnail. Pandar is good at being mafia but people are also quite wary of him. Leaving him alive makes for an easy lynch later. I doubt they killed him 'just because he was good'; I think they killed him to spread WIFOM or to make the scum players look like newbs. At the time of the Pandarsenic lynch, Dakarian & Mr.Person were the only people voting for him. Inexperienced scum don't NK who they're voting for. You, coincidentally, were not voting for him (neither were many other people, but at least they weren't active lurking.)Apost has indeed been suspicious, but I'd also like to ask where Org is. Why do you think Pandar was NK'd? What do you think about Exkirby's lynch?Wait. What. How does that make sense? Oh, maybe you mean why, as in why would scum kill them.... Maybe because he is good in mafias most of the time.
I think he may just be a noob, though he has been in a few mafias. Needs to stick his head down and try not to do scummy looking stuff.
Not sure how to answer this, except that it means that even you did not vote them, as you said. As I have said many many times before, I can only sporadicaly check and post, at least once a day, unless I do not think I need to add anything. Specially weekdays :PYay,, weekend. School leaves me with not much time, so Ill try to be a bit more active.Er, he's not shifting attention to you -- right now, most eyes are still trained on the NUKE v. Dakarian battle that's waging futilely.
Nuke.You are shifting attention to me.
In NUKE's (perfectly valid arguments) he says that you're active lurking, which you are.
It seems so.
Explain yourself at once!
Nuke is AWOL but I've seen enough to believe he's a scum that's disappeared. Not all who get replaced are town.
Bah, just do a mass prod. A good few people are trying to forget about this one.
But you ARE backtracking. Before you said that AN was scummy. Then you say that Person was more scummy. Now you say you didn't mean 'scummy'.
I don't argue with scum: I lynch scum. I argue with you because I question.. I wonder "perhaps". I question you to learn about you, to decide whether you are town or scum.
When I assume you are scum, I'll stop speaking to you.
I pressed you and pushed you and you feel like puddy. You try to play like you're firm and strong but you end up soft and willing to say whatever may help shake me off of you. You try to make me look like a Foolish, buddy me up by declaring I'm Town, and change your stance on that post in order to make yourself look like you are aggressivly hunting... or testing the waters...or lurker hunting... or correcting a mistake... or just talking nonsense.
Well I'm settled. You're scum. I took my time to get to this post because, at first glance, I thought you were looking better and that I would have to pull back and dive deeper into my wide scan. The scan was useful but now that I've read your post.. no.. you're scum. I'm settled now.
@everyone
I firmly believe that Nuke is scum. I've done my argument with him. I know that the last batch of posts are large but please look over them. Once you have, please do the following:
1. If you find anything wrong with my argument and my reasonings, then please post them. That way, I can either further clerify the matter for you or understand the faults of my statement and reevaluate based on them.
2. if you believe my arguments but still have a concern or doubt please voice a question or accusation towards Nuke so he can reply to you about it and, thus, you can fully decide how you feel about him.
3. If you believe my arguments and cannot find any new questions or doubts then vote for him.
For myself, I will say that I do want him lynched.
I read through that and it does seem he is backtracking. And the fact that he is acting a bit strange with the scummy business does seem....well, scummy. Unvote Vote Nuke. I agree with dakarian's points. he does seem to be a bit active lurking, although more active than myself.What what
Clarify is spelled with an a, not an "e", by the way.
Anyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.
Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
Substitute scumminess in my quote with goodtargetness
I was indicating that I was merely putting down my vote in favour of his death, rather than choosing him as the person to die.
Was supposed to be ignored by the town?
Yes. It was an indication of my own motivation. Pre defence. Open flow of opinions.
Sorry, jeez.I read through that and it does seem he is backtracking. And the fact that he is acting a bit strange with the scummy business does seem....well, scummy. Unvote Vote Nuke. I agree with dakarian's points. he does seem to be a bit active lurking, although more active than myself.What what
Clarify is spelled with an a, not an "e", by the way.
Active lurking is posting posts with no content. I believe my posts had content. You have yet to seriously participate in this game.
Dakarian: Very well. Do you want me to, once again, defend myself, or will you not read it? If you won't read it, well, we've already said all there is to say, and I doubt that another giant post is going to sway anyone else's opinions by this point.
One new point you brought up was an accusation of buddying. Well, I am not. I believe you are town. That is my opinion. If I were an impartial bystander, I would still believe you are town.
Please note that I am not giving up. Just because you are convinced I am scum does not mean that everyone else is, and, indeed, if anyone else thinks I am scum, please give a short summary of why, and I will indicate why you are wrong. Also, should I reach L-1, please give me a moment to say my last things before I go.
MrPerson: Don't be silly. You are misinterpreting dakarian there; it is clear that his first quote was indicating that, unless I return, he believes me scum. Once I returned, he decided to make sure I was scum. Apparently my posts went some way to convincing him I was town again, but then I messed up and slid back into 95% scum territory.
That is obvious.
The post that started the whole mess was soft enough:Now then.QuoteAnyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.My reponse is to pressure vote him to first ask why he agreed to Nihilist then thought him scummy. He answered the first part but I mostly wanted the second part: what is the 'stuff' he's referring to.
In response, I get this:QuoteMrPerson stop lurking it is annoying!
For that matter, everybody, stop lurking, it is annoying!
Anyway. Apostolic Nihilist hasn't really done anything that is obviously scummy. But from the way his posts read and the actions he has made I feel that he is acting in a way unfamiliar to him. Of course, in mafia, we all act, all the time, but seeing as we spend less time as mafia and have more need to act, our acting as mafia is less refined. It is not a solid accusation. However, it is enough that, given no better targets, I consider him a worthwhile lynch.
Anyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.My reason for making this post was to indicate my opinion, and my opinion was that AN was more scummy than anyone else at that time. Yes, had we had to decide who to lynch right then I would have said AN. I thought that sharing my opinion with people would help ease and encourage conversation. Because, you know, that's what you do. When there's nothing to say, you still say something, so that more things to say will spawn from it.
You agree with Nihilst's reasoning but you find him scummy on....stuff.Well, I thought the emphasis was on 'you agree with nihilst's reasoning but you find him scummy' rather than 'on...stuff'
Unvote, Vote Nuke9.13
No really.. explain yourself.
So, what, all scum lie all the time and never makes a single rational statement?Thus this response.
Come on.
"I agree with Apostolic Nihilist."
Was not what I said
I said:
"I still agree with Apostolic Nihilist that we should have left him for the scum to NK, but whatever."
the emphasis was on the second half..Fair enough.
What's your reasoning for thinking he's acting scummy?
MrPerson stop lurking it is annoying!And then the fated post.
For that matter, everybody, stop lurking, it is annoying!
Anyway. Apostolic Nihilist hasn't really done anything that is obviously scummy. But from the way his posts read and the actions he has made I feel that he is acting in a way unfamiliar to him. Of course, in mafia, we all act, all the time, but seeing as we spend less time as mafia and have more need to act, our acting as mafia is less refined. It is not a solid accusation. However, it is enough that, given no better targets, I consider him a worthwhile lynch.
His reasons change when pressured. He voted you to wake up a lurker..Yes, that is why I voted MrPerson, as indicated
No he felt Person was scummier than AN:I can understand the confusion here. However;QuoteOnce again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
But wait.. it's not 'scumminess' it's 'goodtargetness'QuoteSubstitute scumminess in my quote with goodtargetness
Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly good target, and a better target, it is best to vote for the best target?So no, I did not consider MrPerson scummier, I considered him a better target than AN.
Which now makes him sound like he's after 'good targets' rather than 'scum'.It should be self-evident that scum are good targets. But whatever.
(1)He stated that Nihilist would make a good lynch if no one else looks better (the 'slightly scummy' mess) Yes
(2).. then it's "if we had to stop right now I believe he should die" This is the same thing. If we were to stop right then (when I made my AN vote, no one would look more scummy.
(3)... then he "had no case against Nihilist and was just defending himself" This refers to the end of post 3, in which I was, yes, defending myself against dakarian. By means of explaining my reasoning.
(4)... then it's "he would've chosen AN again..for goodtargetness, not scummyness" Well, no, I never said that. I did say that, at the time of post 3, had we had to stop right then, I would have voted for AN. The reason being reason 1 here.
...now it'sQuoteI was indicating that I was merely putting down my vote in favour of his death, rather than choosing him as the person to die.Which is a quote in reply to a quote of a quote, so not very reliable for anything. As it happens, the vote to which I am referring is post one. I think this was a response to the accusation that I was being all like: "someone needs to die, oh well, you'll do", which suggests I control who dies. It was not a reason for my actions, it was an explanation of what my action was.Quote from: dakarianWas supposed to be ignored by the town?As in, was the town not meant to go, hmmn, you have a point there, we should lynch ANQuoteYes. It was an indication of my own motivation. Pre defence. Open flow of opinions.It was all just babble.
It was not babble, it was, and I quote from the quote he was talking about 'an indication of my own motivation', pre defence (actually just normal defence), and more open flow of opinions. Which it was and have always claimed it was
'Sorry, jeez'? Am I meant to read this as sarcasm, the actual meaning being: 'Man, you are way exaggerating, the thing you want me to apologize for is totally not so bad'Sorry, jeez.I read through that and it does seem he is backtracking. And the fact that he is acting a bit strange with the scummy business does seem....well, scummy. Unvote Vote Nuke. I agree with dakarian's points. he does seem to be a bit active lurking, although more active than myself.What what
Clarify is spelled with an a, not an "e", by the way.
Active lurking is posting posts with no content. I believe my posts had content. You have yet to seriously participate in this game.
How is it not enough that I think its true of his points? Is it because I am third person voting him and I should NOT go with what I think Person?You should vote in the manner that you like but seeing as I am not scum I would like to know which bits of dakarians argument in particular you are convinced by so that I can show you why it is wrong. Just voting for someone saying 'myeah I sort of agree with this' is slightly better than just voting for them without saying anything, but not much.
Apostolic Nihilist - VectorSo, if the scum weren't Apost and Nuke, they could hammer Org (scum player votes, I follow), Nuke (scum player hammers) or Apost (scum players vote, I follow) and win with me tomorrow. So, if noone hammers, I suppose we now know who the scum are.
NUKE9.13 - dakarian, Leafsnail, Org
Org - NUKE9.13, Apostolic Nihilist
No editing, and wtf Org?Fuck
No comments on my claim? Hmm, considering the town tunnel at the moment, I could probably claim SK without anyone noticing.or dakarian and org are scum, or leafsnail and org are scum, or leafsnail and dakarian are scum.
Fun fact: If the scum were anyone other than NUKE9.13 and Apostolic Nihilist, they could hammer with me now and win. Hmm, isn't that nice to know?QuoteApostolic Nihilist - VectorSo, if the scum weren't Apost and Nuke, they could hammer Org (scum player votes, I follow), Nuke (scum player hammers) or Apost (scum players vote, I follow) and win with me tomorrow. So, if noone hammers, I suppose we now know who the scum are.
NUKE9.13 - dakarian, Leafsnail, Org
Org - NUKE9.13, Apostolic Nihilist
What is lylo?No comments on my claim? Hmm, considering the town tunnel at the moment, I could probably claim SK without anyone noticing.or dakarian and org are scum, or leafsnail and org are scum, or leafsnail and dakarian are scum.
Fun fact: If the scum were anyone other than NUKE9.13 and Apostolic Nihilist, they could hammer with me now and win. Hmm, isn't that nice to know?QuoteApostolic Nihilist - VectorSo, if the scum weren't Apost and Nuke, they could hammer Org (scum player votes, I follow), Nuke (scum player hammers) or Apost (scum players vote, I follow) and win with me tomorrow. So, if noone hammers, I suppose we now know who the scum are.
NUKE9.13 - dakarian, Leafsnail, Org
Org - NUKE9.13, Apostolic Nihilist
Those also work, right?
I hope it is one of those, because otherwise, yes, I am dead, and the town has lost. Unless, of course;
Someone unvote me.
So that we can lynch leafsnail.
Logic: If we lynch a towny today, the town loses. If we lynch a survivor, tommorow we will be at 3:2, which is lylo again, but hopefully power roles will have enough information then to save us. Risky, but less risky than the current situation. And as leafsnail has claimed survivor, we can be sure he is either that or scum.
100% safe, right?
No comments on my claim? Hmm, considering the town tunnel at the moment, I could probably claim SK without anyone noticing.
Fun fact: If the scum were anyone other than NUKE9.13 and Apostolic Nihilist, they could hammer with me now and win. Hmm, isn't that nice to know?QuoteApostolic Nihilist - VectorSo, if the scum weren't Apost and Nuke, they could hammer Org (scum player votes, I follow), Nuke (scum player hammers) or Apost (scum players vote, I follow) and win with me tomorrow. So, if noone hammers, I suppose we now know who the scum are.
NUKE9.13 - dakarian, Leafsnail, Org
Org - NUKE9.13, Apostolic Nihilist
What is lylo?
And can survivors not vote or does it not count or what?
or dakarian and org are scum, or leafsnail and org are scum, or leafsnail and dakarian are scum.Dakarian and org can't be scum with Leafsnail as survivor. Otherwise, we'd jump on AN and kill him with Leafsnail.
Those also work, right?
Someone unvote me.
So that we can lynch leafsnail.
Logic: If we lynch a towny today, the town loses. If we lynch a survivor, tommorow we will be at 3:2, which is lylo again, but hopefully power roles will have enough information then to save us. Risky, but less risky than the current situation. And as leafsnail has claimed survivor, we can be sure he is either that or scum.
100% safe, right?
I'm fine with lynching the survivor. Vote Leafsnail. It's a safe lynch, and unless there's a gambit involved in here somewhere, Leafsnail should know not to claim survivor until lylo, because otherwise you get lynched.Circular logic much? "We should lynch Leafsnail because surivors always get lynched before lylo so we should lynch him".
I'm fine with lynching the survivor. Vote Leafsnail. It's a safe lynch, and unless there's a gambit involved in here somewhere, Leafsnail should know not to claim survivor until lylo, because otherwise you get lynched.Circular logic much? "We should lynch Leafsnail because surivors always get lynched before lylo so we should lynch him".
NSBM taught me that a new day means another chance for the mafia to pull away.
Also, your words have shown that you believe he's the survivor. Since the ONLY way for you to escape is if leaf is mafia then that's that.
So no. I'm not removing my vote. Instead I'll wait for the last vote to finish you off.
Firstly, I am voting. Secondly, I realised that now the mafia can either hammer with me and win, or Nuke is scum and we can lynch him for a town victory. You're acting weirdly though. Before, you wanted to lynch me as a survivor, but now that Dakarian has challenged you on this, you want to lynch me as scum. How come?NSBM taught me that a new day means another chance for the mafia to pull away.
Also, your words have shown that you believe he's the survivor. Since the ONLY way for you to escape is if leaf is mafia then that's that.
So no. I'm not removing my vote. Instead I'll wait for the last vote to finish you off.
It's strange that Leafsnail isn't voting, if I was him, I'd have waited and claimed survivor with the hammer vote. I'm just confused as to why he claimed now. I also don't see why he isn't voting, if he really was a survivor, he's probably just vote how the mafia want him to.
There's a SLIGHT chance Person is scum that didn't notice instawin, he also looks the worst individually.I don't really see anything fallacious with Dakarian's reasoning.
AN is more likely based on your theory.
However, either way Nuke is scum.
Well, it's game over when Dakarian's partner arrives.
Barring a dramatic scum claim from MP :P.
Awesome.Actually, mafia had it won until Mr.Person didn't hammer.
EDIT:
Also, Mr.Person...love having Org as your scum partner? XD
Oh fuck, Vector was a death miller.
Org, why the FUCK did you kill Leafsnail? You're a moron. Sure, I should of also claimed mafia, but it wouldn't have done any good, since Leafsnail had already voted. I might of been able to weasle a NL out of him, in hind sight, but oh well. But seriously, why did you throw your only win chance away?
@Mr.person
Leaf wasn't after the mafia. He thought you were town. ALL you had to do was argue him and, AT LEAST, he would've pulled back. Then it would be who looked the scummiest.
You JUST voting for me looked like you were town just giving up. My claim that vector was my buddy sealed my claim since it showed I knew someone.
Org kept playing the 'town' card there too BUT the hammer was thrown anyway so that's moot.
But yes, the big issue was not trusting Leaf and killling off Nuke.
fakeedit:
Person.. Leafsnail was ONLINE and reading the forum. If you said anything he would've read it before Vector spoke up.
the loss in Religion + the fake mafia nowThe fake mafia? Which one was that?
At least I got my chicken...