I want to play. :)Another Urist, hmm? You will go by Zombie--Zombie is your name!
Man, I cant wait to see jim in action. Im guessing hes pretty blunt, like wuba and vector?
Or BMI, heheehehehehehehe.
Everyone should read BMI.
I promise if I attack you, Jim, it's because I think you're scum and I'm not gonna scared to try just because you're an IC.
I swear it's not to prove anything. I say this mainly because after my ill-advised assault on Webadict, I could see a similar event going horribly, horribly wrong if you think it's purely to prove I'm hot shit.
Good luck. It'll be tough.
You'll probably be wrong anyway, but you're welcome to try.
Psh. Vector got lucky that Dak kept protecting her in BM1.
And I would've IC'd here if I had time to. Too many other things to do. Classes start soon. Working on RogueBot. Various amounts of video games. Also, I'm really lazy.
Psh. Vector got lucky that Dak kept protecting her in BM1.
And I would've IC'd here if I had time to. Too many other things to do. Classes start soon. Working on RogueBot. Various amounts of video games. Also, I'm really lazy.
I'd probably drop if you were ICing. Not experienced enough to go up against you, if the last game I played was any evidence.
Psh. Vector got lucky that Dak kept protecting her in BM1.
And I would've IC'd here if I had time to. Too many other things to do. Classes start soon. Working on RogueBot. Various amounts of video games. Also, I'm really lazy.
I'd probably drop if you were ICing. Not experienced enough to go up against you, if the last game I played was any evidence.
The best way to learn is to be thrown into the fire. You'll learn quite a bit by being harangued by Wuba.
Vector: You seem to be the innocent little key-lime pie. Who would you prefer to have as a scum-buddy?
Touche. I was only testing you just now.Vector: You seem to be the innocent little key-lime pie. Who would you prefer to have as a scum-buddy?
I am not in this game.
Jim: Would you prefer to be a roleblocker, or a godfather?
Hey ed boy, as town, who would you want to be on the scumteam and why?Well, that's a pretty simple one. You want the scum people to be easiest to detect. I imagine it's a reasonable assumption to assume that playing experience is roughly correlated with ability to hide one's alignment, and so I would want the most inexperienced people to be on the scumteam.
Hello, Orangebottle. Which role would you prefer between the cop and the doctor, and why?Hey there Flandre. As far as your question goes, they're both pretty useful. However, the Cop makes it easier to find and nail scum if you use it intelligently. As such, I'd rather be a Cop.
Well, that's a pretty simple one. You want the scum people to be easiest to detect. I imagine it's a reasonable assumption to assume that playing experience is roughly correlated with ability to hide one's alignment, and so I would want the most inexperienced people to be on the scumteam.=/
Billybobfred, who among the players(Not ICs) of this game would you prefer as a scumbuddy?Flandre. She's the only one I've played a game with so far, and I'd rather not be shackled to a complete unknown.
Well, that's a pretty simple one. You want the scum people to be easiest to detect. I imagine it's a reasonable assumption to assume that playing experience is roughly correlated with ability to hide one's alignment, and so I would want the most inexperienced people to be on the scumteam.=/
When I ask questions beginning with "who", I'm looking for names, not Captain Obvious descriptors like "the most inexperienced". Try again.
Where did you get those numbers?Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the the boards allow one to search for the topice by account alone, so I had to search for some post subject. Seeing as almost all the games here have 'mafia' in their name, and hence all replies to those threads would have 'mafia' in their subject, I searched for all threads by you in this board containing the word 'mafia'. You can find the results here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2). Of the six threads that were turned up, one of them was this, one of them was a discussion thread, and one of them was a question thread, and so that left three that I could easily find.
Because the number of Mafia games I have participated in is not 4, no matter how you count them.
And your strict numerical analysis is already bothering me, like you're going out of your way to not be personally responsible for your conclusions.
Vector: You seem to be the innocent little key-lime pie. Who would you prefer to have as a scum-buddy?
I am not in this game.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the the boards allow one to search for the topice by account alone, so I had to search for some post subject. Seeing as almost all the games here have 'mafia' in their name, and hence all replies to those threads would have 'mafia' in their subject, I searched for all threads by you in this board containing the word 'mafia'. You can find the results here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2). Of the six threads that were turned up, one of them was this, one of them was a discussion thread, and one of them was a question thread, and so that left three that I could easily find.Now hold up. There's one factor you forgot to include in your numbers here:
And concerning your displeasure at my method - would you prefer me to say that I chose those two because they are the first and the last alphabetically?
You can find the results here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2).No I can't. =/
And concerning your displeasure at my method - would you prefer me to say that I chose those two because they are the first and the last alphabetically?And nice strawman.
zombie urist, I've never seen you around here before, so answer me a question. Let's say you're a Doctor. How would you pick a target?Probably either myself or an IC until the cop is found if there is one. Maybe Urist McArathos since Urists stick together. :)
zombie urist I've never seen you before either. Are you a true newbie, or just new to this forum with a couple games under your belt elsewhere?This will be the first complete game of online mafia I've played. I tried to play once at another forum, but everyone lost interest in the game.
zombie urist, I've never seen you around here before, so answer me a question. Let's say you're a Doctor. How would you pick a target?Probably either myself or an IC until the cop is found if there is one. Maybe Urist McArathos since Urists stick together. :)
Now hold up. There's one factor you forgot to include in your numbers here:Oh, no doubt. Not only are there other places where one could play mafia, but it's very possible that a mafia game here would not be counted. Those numbers are lower bounds.
There are mediums and forums in which one might play mafia.
Any one of the players in this game could have played in countless other games in countless other IRC channels or forums. Your numbers are incorrect.
My bad, it looks like I won't be able to copy/paste the search directly. If you want to see for yourself, use the forum's seach function, and search for any post containing 'mafia' by that person.You can find the results here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?action=search2).No I can't. =/
Well, you seemed to be irritated by my previous analysis, so I offered you some more arbitrary reasons for choosing those two. How is that strawmanning?And concerning your displeasure at my method - would you prefer me to say that I chose those two because they are the first and the last alphabetically?And nice strawman.
My question for you: Where did you get I've played 4 games? This is only my third IF you include the in-progress witch game. Would you prefer to be scum, or town, and why?As for your four games, that is my mistake again. I tried to subtract three from six and ended up with four.
Allo Flandre. You haven't posted here yet. What do you have to say about our situation?
Well, you seemed to be irritated by my previous analysis, so I offered you some more arbitrary reasons for choosing those two. How is that strawmanning?That's how. You're giving a blatantly shitty alternative and treating it as an actual argument against my point.
Qwiktip: Trying to explain your reasoning, with numbers or without, makes it appear that you are trying to push away suspicion before suspicon starts. Its not working.
Flandre If you have a power role in this game, how do you intend to figure out how to use it? Last game you got lucky with Weba throwing out a remark about what he would do if he was a Doctor (which made it easy), but I know you don't expect that to happen every time.Can you reword the question, please? Are you asking how I would determine a target with each vanilla power-role?
Allo Flandre. You haven't posted here yet. What do you have to say about our situation?I find ed boy's method cute (and faulty), but that is about it. What about yourself?
While you are right, Orange, you hardly need to come to my defense, especially since you are the focus of my attention. What were you expecting him to say, other than that he overlooked it? I miss posts every now and again, so am I equally as guilty?Allo Flandre. You haven't posted here yet. What do you have to say about our situation?
Zombie, are you paying full attention to the game? Reading everything? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2543633#msg2543633)
Because you should be. And the fact that you're not is a mite suspicious. FoS zombie urist.
You didn't really answer my question. You told me who you would protect. You didn't tell me how you would pick your target.I would probably choose the person who appears most helpful in the game. Probably one of the more active players until the cop appears.
This can also overcount. For example, Vector posted in this thread but isn't in this game.Now hold up. There's one factor you forgot to include in your numbers here:Oh, no doubt. Not only are there other places where one could play mafia, but it's very possible that a mafia game here would not be counted. Those numbers are lower bounds.
There are mediums and forums in which one might play mafia.
Any one of the players in this game could have played in countless other games in countless other IRC channels or forums. Your numbers are incorrect.
While you are right, Orange, you hardly need to come to my defense, especially since you are the focus of my attention. What were you expecting him to say, other than that he overlooked it? I miss posts every now and again, so am I equally as guilty?
backtobasesix: Same question Urist_McArathos asked me. Is this your first game of mafia?
No, this isn't my first game of mafia. It is my first game here, but I have played other places.
I'm sorry if I was a being slightly overzealous.
Not very. I've played a game here and there but they've all been pretty informal.No, this isn't my first game of mafia. It is my first game here, but I have played other places.
How extensive is your experience?
Backtobasesix, who would you target tonight if you were a doctor? Why?
Absentee IC, would you like to join us?No, I hate you. :I
IronyOwl: If you were scum, who would you want to be the cop?Tricky question, made trickier by the fact that I don't know most of the people here.
I don't know most of the people here very well, though, so it's hard for me to come up with specific names. Best guess would probably be McArathos and hope he inspects someone other than me, plus the fact that he'll probably be high on the kill list anyway.What do you mean by 'kill list'? Lynching? NK? Either way, why do you say that he'll probably be high on the list?
While you are right, Orange, you hardly need to come to my defense, especially since you are the focus of my attention. What were you expecting him to say, other than that he overlooked it? I miss posts every now and again, so am I equally as guilty?
I'm not trying to come to your defense, though that may have been the end result. One needs to pay attention if they want to catch scum in this game. The fact that he missed a post this early is suspicious to me, mostly because there's a lot less to miss. I knew he wouldn't say much beyond "Doh! Missed that one!" or similar. That wasn't the point. I was trying to see how he reacts to suspicion. Of course, you had to jump in and ruin that. And yes, you would be equally guilty if you had missed a post this early.
backtobasesix: Why are you being so passive?
backtobasesix, you should probably play soon.
I find your logic and tactic here questionable, Orange. Firstly, we weren't out of RVS when you tried this, so the idea that someone's reaction to suspicion that early on could be a good tell seems flimsy. No one typically has suspicions this early on, at least not solid ones, so it's doubtful anyone would even care you were suspicious.
Next, there may not be many tells to read, but there's not much content to them either. Everyone is concerned with asking questions and reading the replies to the questions they asked, before asking more. A missed RVS softball question is not the sort of thing to really fuss about, so why would you find it odd? Do you really think a scum player is going to avoid such simple questions and behave so scummy from the outset?
Orangebottle, now that your attempts to scumhunt zombie have been ruined, are you just giving up on the project?
I find your logic and tactic here questionable, Orange. Firstly, we weren't out of RVS when you tried this, so the idea that someone's reaction to suspicion that early on could be a good tell seems flimsy. No one typically has suspicions this early on, at least not solid ones, so it's doubtful anyone would even care you were suspicious.The entire point of RVS is to ask game-related questions, see if the answers are even slightly scummy, and then follow up with more questions and accusations.
Next, there may not be many tells to read, but there's not much content to them either. Everyone is concerned with asking questions and reading the replies to the questions they asked, before asking more. A missed RVS softball question is not the sort of thing to really fuss about, so why would you find it odd? Do you really think a scum player is going to avoid such simple questions and behave so scummy from the outset?There isn't much content to go on in general. I think it's strange because he totally missed the first post of the game, right after the mod's opening post for day 1, and then proceeded to ask the poster why they hadn't posted yet. He wasn't paying attention. Someone not paying attention is a bad thing, especially when looking for scumtells. Wine, for instance. Your last question reeks of it.
What do you mean by 'kill list'? Lynching? NK? Either way, why do you say that he'll probably be high on the list?NK. He's a pretty good player, so if I was scum I'd probably advocate murdering him relatively quickly.
It's a little early right now to decide that. Even if I read through the first few pages I doubt I would be able to choose a target after only a couple days.Backtobasesix, who would you target tonight if you were a doctor? Why?
ed boy, do you suspect McArathos?I'm slightly suspicious of UristMcArathos. I only voted for him because he had not posted yet. When I first wrote my post, it was targeted at billybobfred, but he posted as I was typing, so I redid it for Urist. As for Urist's voting for me, I'm not surprised, as I handled billybobfred's quite badly. There is also the reactionary possibility, as he is the only one to vote for the person who voted for him (so far).
Flandre: certainly. I was saying that last game, you had the benefit of Webadict's advice to make a decision, so I didn't get to hear your strategy on playing a Doctor. Basically, how would you decide who to protect in this game? Same question if you were a cop: how would you decide who to inspect?Ah.
IronyOwl Thank you for the compliment.If flattery can be intimidating, than this is not it. I am not complaining, but I just found it amusing.
That's interesting, because you appear to be voting him without asking him anything. I mean, now you're asking him something, but that's probably because I reminded you about it.ed boy, do you suspect McArathos?I'm slightly suspicious of UristMcArathos. I only voted for him because he had not posted yet. When I first wrote my post, it was targeted at billybobfred, but he posted as I was typing, so I redid it for Urist. As for Urist's voting for me, I'm not surprised, as I handled billybobfred's quite badly. There is also the reactionary possibility, as he is the only one to vote for the person who voted for him (so far).
The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible. I'm going to wait to see if anybody else changes their votes, but if nobody does (or, if those who do target them towards those who haven't been voted for yet), then I'm going to consider you and UristMcArathos a lot more suspicious. My bad answer could also be considered an excuse to co-ordinate votes on me, as other players (such as Flandre (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2546445#msg2546445)) did not seem to consider it very suspicious at all.What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?
In short, I'm suspecting both him and you right now, but that could easily change.But you weren't suspicious of me until I voted you?
IronyOwl, if you were a roleblocker, who would you be blocking tonight?Depends on who's dead. backtobasesix is a good target for being a blatant lurker, though; depending on how things go, you might top that list for scumminess.
IronyOwl Thank you for the compliment. So, if you could only have one power root as town, who would prefer: cop or doctor, and why? Note that you personally do not have to be said role.Hm. I guess I'll say roleblocker. Normally I'd say cop, but the possibility of a godfather plus the chance that one or more scum won't be that hard to find using traditional methods gives it bad odds for actually being useful. With a roleblocker, on the other hand, the targets will often be relatively obvious (notably ICs), and the small game size gives it a good chance of working just on sheer luck. Plus, unless scum's trying some weird gambit, it basically functions like an inspect if it succeeds.
Jim Groovester, if choosing who to kill off today was your decision alone, who would you choose?
It's a little early right now to decide that. Even if I read through the first few pages I doubt I would be able to choose a target after only a couple days.
Orangebottle: If you were scum, when do you think it would be appropriate to bus your scum-buddy?Were I scum, I'd bus my partner when they're too scummy or making me look too scummy to be useful.
The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.
Well, I asked him a question in my first post, as well as just then.That's interesting, because you appear to be voting him without asking him anything. I mean, now you're asking him something, but that's probably because I reminded you about it.ed boy, do you suspect McArathos?I'm slightly suspicious of UristMcArathos. I only voted for him because he had not posted yet. When I first wrote my post, it was targeted at billybobfred, but he posted as I was typing, so I redid it for Urist. As for Urist's voting for me, I'm not surprised, as I handled billybobfred's quite badly. There is also the reactionary possibility, as he is the only one to vote for the person who voted for him (so far).
I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible. I'm going to wait to see if anybody else changes their votes, but if nobody does (or, if those who do target them towards those who haven't been voted for yet), then I'm going to consider you and UristMcArathos a lot more suspicious. My bad answer could also be considered an excuse to co-ordinate votes on me, as other players (such as Flandre (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2546445#msg2546445)) did not seem to consider it very suspicious at all.What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?
Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.In short, I'm suspecting both him and you right now, but that could easily change.But you weren't suspicious of me until I voted you?
[/quote]IronyOwl, if you were a roleblocker, who would you be blocking tonight?Depends on who's dead. backtobasesix is a good target for being a blatant lurker, though; depending on how things go, you might top that list for scumminess.
When I said a fast game, I meant fast in terms of number of rounds, not total time from start to end.The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.
But keep in mind that if you were to kill off someone other than backtobasesix, backtobasesix's suspicious actions could easily see him/her still considered a target of suspicion and get lynched the next day. Are you sure you would go for him/her?Jim Groovester, if choosing who to kill off today was your decision alone, who would you choose?Right now, backtobasesix, because he hasn't done anything. While everybody else is trying to feel their way into the game of mafia, he isn't for some reason.
OrangeBottle, if you were to choose one person to sacrifice to stop the scum kill this turn (that is, if you were to choose who the scum kills), who would it be?
But keep in mind that if you were to kill off someone other than backtobasesix, backtobasesix's suspicious actions could easily see him/her still considered a target of suspicion and get lynched the next day. Are you sure you would go for him/her?Jim Groovester, if choosing who to kill off today was your decision alone, who would you choose?Right now, backtobasesix, because he hasn't done anything. While everybody else is trying to feel their way into the game of mafia, he isn't for some reason.
zombie Why so apologetic? You do understand part of scumhunting is to pressure people into making mistakes, right?I only apologized once and that was because I missed a post. Yes, but what are other parts of scumhunting?
zombie, what are your thoughts on backtobasesix?I think he should start asking questions instead of just answering them. I don't think he's focused on the game right now.
zombie urist, if you were scum, would deliberately let yourself get killed if it meant that your buddy was likely to go one and win?Probably. It really depends on who my partner was and how skillful he is. I don't know how I can "deliberately let" myself get lynched without doing something really stupid.
The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.
On an unrelated note, sitting on this vote of mine isn't doing town any good. Unvote.
So backtobasesix, how did you manage to not realize that the game had started?
Weekends are no excuse! Get active!
I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).This seems... scummily elaborate and technical. You start by more or less saying "scum would want to vote the same target soon after one another," point out that it's only really a scumtell if it keeps happening, and then get derailed into how that wouldn't apply to power roles. That last part in particular feels like rolefishing or nervous banter, but the whole thing seems flavored that way.
Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.Why would I need reasoning to vote you with a question?
Except that the roleblocker is a scum player. The roleblocker has no interest in blocking other scum.Derp. I'm accustomed to more open-ended setups.
IronyOwl, If you could remove voting ability from one person for the rest of the game, who would it be?Ooh. Tough one. Nobody strikes me as so utterly incompetent that I don't want them to be able to do anything anymore, and similarly nobody's been scummy enough that I'm sure they should be neutralized. I guess I don't have an answer, actually; if I had to pick someone, probably backtobasesix because evidently he's not going to play the game anyway.
The multiple voting for the same person is somewhat suspicious, though. I imagine that scum would want to off as many other people as possible (as a faster game means one that they have a better chance at winning), and so would want to co-ordinate votes as much as possible.BM doesn't have a hammer, so that wouldn't work as well. They'd have to hold the line until the end of the day, every day -- admittedly not an impossible task.
On an unrelated note, sitting on this vote of mine isn't doing town any good. Unvote.
So backtobasesix, how did you manage to not realize that the game had started?
I don't like this.
You drop whatever thing you were doing with ed boy for reasons you don't make clear, and instead, you jump on the popular case that the two ICs started and endorsed. Why?
Flandre, if someone was about to be lynched, and they claimed that they were a townie with a role, could you believe them? What would you ask to verify this?It depends on whether I was among those who thought that person was scummy, and even then I would be a little doubtful about their town-ness. Although it might be good strategy if the target was about to get mislynched (attempting to draw the real scum into wasting their night-kill on him), it appears as though he/she were trying to wriggle out of the inevitable (which is an act some would undoubtedly consider scummy in itself, and I would consider more likely). In my opinion, an act of self-preservation comes more naturally than sacrificial play, so I am inclined to believe the former.
ed boy: Have you considered that the scum might want to seperate themselves to avoid detection, and as a result, intentionally vote for different players? Also, what do roles have to do with anything? The scum with the role could share intel with his/her partner, and that would be preferable for the both of them.What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).
zombie, what are your thoughts on backtobasesix?I think he should start asking questions instead of just answering them. I don't think he's focused on the game right now.
As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.The game has started a while back, so I am sure that if this were the case, he would have found out about it already. He could have forgotten that he was playing, even. The weekend was pretty sleepy, so we might hear from him tomorrow. Hopefully.
zombie Why so apologetic? You do understand part of scumhunting is to pressure people into making mistakes, right?I only apologized once and that was because I missed a post. Yes, but what are other parts of scumhunting?
I want to know your thoughts and techniques on scumhunting apart from asking questions and waiting for mistakes.Are you asking me because you don't know how scumhunting works, or are you asking me because you want to know what you need to hide from me?zombie Why so apologetic? You do understand part of scumhunting is to pressure people into making mistakes, right?I only apologized once and that was because I missed a post. Yes, but what are other parts of scumhunting?
You mean he should stop doing exactly what you're doing right now? Why aren't you scumhunting Zombie?Yes. :-[ I was out of town most of the weekend. I'm going to sleep now.
Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.The phrasing of these sentences is really awkward.
... once again proving the dangers of putting peoples lives in the hands of programmers.Hey!
As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.If you know what the answer's going to be, why are you asking the question? If his response is obvious, your question is unnecessary and you're wasting your time. Ask somebody else a question and stop filling our heads with nonsense.
I want to know your thoughts and techniques on scumhunting apart from asking questions and waiting for mistakes.Are you asking me because you don't know how scumhunting works, or are you asking me because you want to know what you need to hide from me?zombie Why so apologetic? You do understand part of scumhunting is to pressure people into making mistakes, right?I only apologized once and that was because I missed a post. Yes, but what are other parts of scumhunting?
As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.The game has started a while back, so I am sure that if this were the case, he would have found out about it already. He could have forgotten that he was playing, even. The weekend was pretty sleepy, so we might hear from him tomorrow. Hopefully.
Sorry guys, I didn't realize this had started already, I didn't expect it to start so soon.This is the thing I am talking about. It confuses me and I am questioning it.
Asking questions you already know the answer to can be helpful at times; every response scum has to give is another chance to screw up.As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.If you know what the answer's going to be, why are you asking the question? If his response is obvious, your question is unnecessary and you're wasting your time. Ask somebody else a question and stop filling our heads with nonsense.
If you know what the answer's going to be, why are you asking the question? If his response is obvious, your question is unnecessary and you're wasting your time. Ask somebody else a question and stop filling our heads with nonsense.If you believe this then why did you do this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2546570#msg2546570)?
I can see that; you didn't answer my question though. I know what information you want, but I don't know why you want it. Tell me.I want to know because I want to improve my game. As I said earlier, this is my first serious game of mafia and I want to get better. If you don't want to share, thats ok, but just because the scum know the strategies doesn't necessarily mean they can avoid it.
I'm not going to spell out my tactics and strategies on scumhunting right where the scum can see them. It's enough to know that I'm going to be looking for scum as best as I can.
I'm not trying to come to your defense, though that may have been the end result. One needs to pay attention if they want to catch scum in this game. The fact that he missed a post this early is suspicious to me, mostly because there's a lot less to miss. I knew he wouldn't say much beyond "Doh! Missed that one!" or similar. That wasn't the point. I was trying to see how he reacts to suspicion. Of course, you had to jump in and ruin that. And yes, you would be equally guilty if you had missed a post this early.That's why.
You don't need reasoning to do so, but it helps. It was not the vote by itself that was suspicious, it was the fact that it was one of three of a kind.Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.Why would I need reasoning to vote you with a question?
But yes, third vote without a good reason for it is noteworthy, at least.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.ed boy: Have you considered that the scum might want to seperate themselves to avoid detection, and as a result, intentionally vote for different players? Also, what do roles have to do with anything? The scum with the role could share intel with his/her partner, and that would be preferable for the both of them.What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).
ed boy: Of course not, that's a terrible idea. We would be down to four townies and one scum by day's end, and the next morning it would be three town. If we mislynch, we go to three townies, then two the next day because of the NK. That situation is known as LYLO. It'd be pretty easy to mislynch too: four dead townies who contributed nothing in terms of suspicions or cases, then the remaining three have to figure out who among them is scum. Town mislynches frequently enough as it is.It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).
I also wonder why the FoS on IronyOwl; Why are you getting that suspicious of the Owl? Do you have any reads on anyone else? If so, what are they and why aren't you questioning them? If not, why not just vote for Irony at this stage instead, if that's your only suspect.I'm also suspicious of backtobasesix, but lots of other people are. If I were to say "I suspect backtobasesix", then I wouldn't really be adding anything new to the discussion. I had a minor suspicion of IronyOwl, and nobody else did, so I put that up.
He doesn't know what the answer's going to be - he can guess with high confidence, but there is always to possibility that his guess will be wrong, which is why it is a good idea to ask anyway.As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.If you know what the answer's going to be, why are you asking the question? If his response is obvious, your question is unnecessary and you're wasting your time. Ask somebody else a question and stop filling our heads with nonsense.
unvote.Well, that depends on what you consider to be following up. I ask people questions and I see their answers. Often, I am satisfied with the answers and I don't see the need to ask further questions. I might then leave that question, and ask a further question, which might seem like I'm abandoning the old question, but I'm not ignoring it.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
EBWODP:What's EDWODP? I didn't see it in the list of abbreviations.
billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.
What's EDWODP? I didn't see it in the list of abbreviations.Edit By Way Of Double Post. Most people leave out the D, from what I've seen, but it means the same thing.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.I don't have time for anything proper, but I'd like to point out that this applies to your original reasoning as well. You claimed three votes on you was suspicious because scum would want to do X.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.
As for the roles, it means that the townies involved have different information available. The logic "I voted for X for the same reason as Y" requires all of the townies to definitely have access to the same information to work, which is not the case.
Billybobfred: Where do you draw the line with scummy lurkers? Would you so readily jump onto a bandwagon to lynch one?billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.
If it's just lurking, I'm not going to be calling for torches and pitchforks all that quickly.Billybobfred: Where do you draw the line with scummy lurkers? Would you so readily jump onto a bandwagon to lynch one?billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.
I want to know because I want to improve my game. As I said earlier, this is my first serious game of mafia and I want to get better. If you don't want to share, thats ok, but just because the scum know the strategies doesn't necessarily mean they can avoid it.
Thank you for answering my question, Zombie. I personally disagree with your outlook; I feel that if I outline my strategy it will help the scum players know what I'm looking for and plan to avoid it, or counter it.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.
Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.
You're too defensive and FAR too passive for my tastes, ed boy
Local Time:August 22, 2011, 11:54:29 pm
Last Active: Today at 04:13:24 pm
Extension.Sure, I have a question or two. For you, Jim Groovester.
We need it.
We also need something to light this game on fire and really get it going. Which one of you's going to step up and do it?
Come on, isn't there anything suspicious you've seen? Anything you think is suspicious? Odd? Out of place? Weird? Peculiar?
Ask about it. Let nothing go unquestioned.
Unvote, backtobasesix.Your reason for voting for Backtobasesix is a rehash of what IronyOwl and I have said, and a large part of the reason I was voting him. "He's lurking and I'm worried about his alignment because he's lurking." Do you have any original reasons for voting him?
You're not really doing anything and I'm worried about what your alignment could be because you haven't taken the effort to get out there and show me that you're town. So, I resort to hanging you.
TolyK: Look into your heart, you know it to be true.No. Lives are put in the hands of the hardware dudes. :P
Thank you for answering my question, Zombie. I personally disagree with your outlook; I feel that if I outline my strategy it will help the scum players know what I'm looking for and plan to avoid it, or counter it.You can disagree with me, but, as you mentioned, even though there is a list of scumtells on the first post, we still rely on it for scumhunting.
It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).I really think you need to avoid only using numbers in your analysis. 5:2 might be a worse ratio than 3:1, but with more players there is more communication which can lead to accurate lynches. Also, you need to consider the special roles which can significantly impact the game.
Yes, but you don't even seem to acknowledge the responses which makes it seem like you're asking questions just to appear like you're participating.unvote.Well, that depends on what you consider to be following up. I ask people questions and I see their answers. Often, I am satisfied with the answers and I don't see the need to ask further questions. I might then leave that question, and ask a further question, which might seem like I'm abandoning the old question, but I'm not ignoring it.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.Then who are you thinking of lynching? All you're doing right now is complaining that backtobasesix is lurking without contributing in any other way. Its totally possible to pressure more than one person, such as with the FoS, billybobfred
I've read that bold and clever plans don't work as well due to all the WIFOM involved.I want to know because I want to improve my game. As I said earlier, this is my first serious game of mafia and I want to get better. If you don't want to share, thats ok, but just because the scum know the strategies doesn't necessarily mean they can avoid it.How about instead of asking other new players about how they play, you try something bold and radical, and then I tell you whether it's going to work or not.
I've read that bold and clever plans don't work as well due to all the WIFOM involved.
Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.
Where will you be if backtobasesix comes back?
Like, I'm not thinking of lynching basesix at this time, hence the extension. My vote on him is strictly pressure.Then who are you thinking of lynching? All you're doing right now is complaining that backtobasesix is lurking without contributing in any other way. Its totally possible to pressure more than one person, such as with the FoS, billybobfred
No.Yes, but in this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2548028#msg2548028), you condemned Zombie Urist for parroting Ironyowl's attack on Basesix. You then voted for Basesix for the exact same reasons Zombie and IronyOwl were going after him. Why would you contradict yourself like that?
You'll find that when people vote lurkers for lurking there will be lots of people with unoriginal positions.
Jim Groovester
Is it just me, or is he awfully passive for an IC?
OrangebottleLook here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=80018.msg2138658#msg2138658) if you need more content to look at, though it was from earlier this year and I was much worse then.
Can't read this guy very well. Most posts in the thread, and none of them seem to be obviously useless... probably town.
That wasn't a condemnation, that was a piece of advice.I'd say the former, as you haven't been doing much in terms of scumhunting. In fact, as far as the balance goes between player and IC, you're way too far on the IC side, almost the point of active lurking as a player.
And in any case, had backtobasesix done more than make three posts, I can guarantee that my case on backtobasesix would have differed from IronyOwl's and zombie urist's, maybe not in the most substantial part (lurking) but in other areas that I would likely have questions about. But, because he has only made three posts, and completely disappeared since that point, he's not giving me or anybody else who's after him a lot of material to work with, so the cases will look exactly the same.
Is this a problem? It depends. Do you think I'm trying to blend in by borrowing somebody else's case, or do you think I'm after backtobasesix because I'm concerned about his lurking? The former is scummy, the latter is fine.
Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.
In your first (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2543729#msg2543729) few (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2544906#msg2544906) posts (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2547297#msg2547297), you ask Zombie a typical RVS question and apply a vote press. Fine. That's alright. However, your next (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2548028#msg2548028) posts (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2552757#msg2552757) end up being (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2556168#msg2556168) a series of posts encouraging others (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558625#msg2558625) to hunt scum while not hunting them yourself, or just (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558687#msg2558687) defending (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2549948#msg2549948) yourself (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2550499#msg2550499). Either that, or they're (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558820#msg2558820) almost entirely unrelated to teaching or hunting. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2546225#msg2546225) You've made a lot of defensive or teaching posts, and maybe two scumhunting posts. A textbook case of Active Lurking. Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.
I love how you summarize my posts in the least flattering way possible. They're not nearly as bad as you make them out to be.You make it sound like I did that on purpose. It's just the way I saw it. Thanks for the advice, I got what I came for. Unvote.
I'm not active lurking. I'd love to be more active, of course, but as I've said, I've been busy. I'm still throwing out questions to people and trying to track down leads. Maybe not in any amount of volume that satisfies you, but if I cared what you thought I wouldn't be living up to my reputation as a player or as an IC.
I'll point out that using every single post as evidence dilutes your case and will make it hard to convince other players with it. People have a hard time believing that large portions of a player's contributions are scummy. Focus your case on the most convincing arguments, stick to specific, demonstrative evidence, make sure you have it ready, but you don't necessarily need to quote or link it if it's apparent what you're talking. (billybobfred, take note, this applies to your most recent post as well.) If you can focus your attacks like that you'll be several times more effective at playing town.
Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.
Kindly go fuck yourself if you think I'm making it up.
Urist_McAtharos, your vote on ed boy seems entirely contrived. I'd like answers on how he's being too defensive and passive. Primarily, I don't like how you suspect him here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557355#msg2557355) without elaborating why, and then you vote him here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557508#msg2557508) for reasons I don't see the merit in.
Not gonna just sit on the vote, though.You said this after withdrawing your vote for ed boy. It seems that everytime you don't get a response, you give up and simply move on to someone else.
When ed boy didn't respond, you didn't bother to press for actual reasons. Instead you withdrew your vote and started on backtobasesix. It seems that you don't actually want to go too deep and are just voting for pressure.Well, you seemed to be irritated by my previous analysis, so I offered you some more arbitrary reasons for choosing those two. How is that strawmanning?That's how. You're giving a blatantly shitty alternative and treating it as an actual argument against my point.
I don't want arbitrary reasons. I don't actually think your reasons were bad. It just looked like you were trying to avoid betraying any kind of personal preference. It's overly cautious, and that's a scum trait.
Zombie urist. You say that all I'm doing is complaining about basesix lurking. Reread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2550071#msg2550071), and (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2553042#msg2553042) then (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2556767#msg2556767) tell (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557467#msg2557467) me (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558369#msg2558369)...Well then please tell me what else you have contributed in scumhunting. I don't really care if you didn't mention lurking, since that's not the point. I do care that you haven't done much more while waiting for your question to get answered. All you did was answer other people's questions.
where did you get this completely false idea? I mentioned the lurking only when others brought it up. The entirety of my focus on basesix at this time is from wanting a question answered. Lurking doesn't even enter into it!
You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.This seems rather arbitrary. All the information was there before. Why didn't you look into it earlier?
You make it sound like I did that on purpose. It's just the way I saw it.So you phrased his posts like that on accident? Looks like a strawman.
Oof, you weren't kidding about being ready for a fight if someone went after you, were you Jim? I'm glad for the moment I think you're town.
Stuff
I dropped the ed boy thing because I didn't really know what I was doing with it. He was overly numbery, I told him why that was bad... That's all I had. To be frank, he's doing exactly what I would do if I didn't already know why it was wrong, so I can't really see it as that scummy.
Furthermore, you've made seven posts since game start, and I don't like any of them. Here, let me spell out why.
1. Captain Obvious and false statements. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2544670#msg2544670)
2. Captain Obvious, a shitty defense of 1, and... well, I'll admit your question to IronyOwl wasn't bad. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2546555#msg2546555)
3. Parroting the IC. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2548012#msg2548012)
4. Captain Obvious and asking pointless questions. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2550850#msg2550850)
5. Probably the fluffiest fluffpost that ever fluffed a fluff. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2555661#msg2555661)
6. Stupid questions and crappy attempts to defend previous examples of such. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557265#msg2557265)
7. Captain Obvious, Captain Obvious... I'll admit that calling me out for focusing on the guy who isn't here wasn't bad in itself, but the IC had just done the very same thing -- without blatant falsehoods, I might add. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558808#msg2558808)
You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.
What makes you think ed boy is scum over somebody who just hasn't figured out how to play the game yet?
You don't need reasoning to do so, but it helps. It was not the vote by itself that was suspicious, it was the fact that it was one of three of a kind.What do you mean by "three of a kind?" The third vote on you, or something else similar about them? What was it about its kind that made it suspicious?
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.As I pointed out earlier, this seems to be the same reasoning you were using when Flandre called you out on it. What was it about your own reasoning that made WIFOM not apply?
As for the roles, it means that the townies involved have different information available. The logic "I voted for X for the same reason as Y" requires all of the townies to definitely have access to the same information to work, which is not the case.What's your point, that you're cophunting? That people who mimic votes can't be power roles? That the doctor should definitely not vote the same person as everyone else?
It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).This is interesting. Why are you talking about this hypothetical, and are you getting good mileage out of it with McArathos?
Hm. I like this response for some reason, even though it doesn't really answer the implied question of "how scummy is lurking in your eyes?" Which you ended up answering later anyway.billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.
Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.
Kindly go fuck yourself if you think I'm making it up.
Oof, you weren't kidding about being ready for a fight if someone went after you, were you Jim? I'm glad for the moment I think you're town.Urist_McAtharos, your vote on ed boy seems entirely contrived. I'd like answers on how he's being too defensive and passive. Primarily, I don't like how you suspect him here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557355#msg2557355) without elaborating why, and then you vote him here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557508#msg2557508) for reasons I don't see the merit in.
Contrived? Not at all. What's contrived about suspecting someone who hasn't done shit besides throw out ridiculous questions ("Would you put the town in LYLO to catch one scum?" Fuck no, I only answered that because I figured he was too new to have thought it through), a lot of mathematics BS which he's been told repeatedly won't help, and has spent most of his time answering other people's questions without placing his own theories out there.
I put the FoS on him because I didn't like the fact his questions seemed useless, he didn't seem interested in following them up, and he hadn't answered the questions asked of him yet, including mine, and I wanted to pressure him into talking. I didn't have much of a case on him then, hence why I didn't vote. Frankly, I don't see how his behavior wouldn't come across as at least a little suspicious, newbie or no. I didn't need to elaborate, in my opinion; he wasn't answering questions, I wanted them answered, the FoS was meant to tell him "answer me, or I'm going to get a lot more aggressive".
Alright, I'll try to show you why I feel my case has merit. Let's see, how did I find him overly defensive...
Here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2545335#msg2545335), he gives Billybob a snarky, strawman response to the question "How did you come to that number?". He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.
I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choices, including (as pointed out by Irony here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558023#msg2558023)) contradictory attitudes, i.e. "It's suspicious when he does it, but I'm going to do it to". He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched. Such is the atmosphere of mystery and paranoia fostered by it.
As for not thinking he's overly passive...you cannot be serious, Jim. NONE of his questions, in ANY of his posts, are more than RVS softballs. He never presses for more information, hasn't outlined any sort of case against anyone, and doesn't seem to have any suspects at all. He's not even trying to find scum, and has drifted through till now defending himself and lobbing softball questions or convoluted questions. Then right after I demand some answers, he puts out a wall of text answering questions and defending himself, asks for clarification on an acronym, and leaves. No questions of his own, no suspicions, nothing. He's here and then gone. What more proof do you want of passive play before you feel it crosses the line? How many days does he have to pretend he's still in RVS before you decide he's TOO passive? Those are rhetorical questions, by the way. I have my answer, and I suspect if this response isn't enough to sway you, then nothing will. It's my entire case on ed boy, and it's MORE than enough for me. If it's not enough for you, then I got nothing until he comes back and does something else scummy than you can decide crosses your more forgiving line.
He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.Well, that's because I realize that I haven't been in any mafia games before, so I'm likely going to be making a lot of mistakes in my reasoning. Presenting it more clearly means that others can better point out where I'm going wrong.
I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choicesWhen you're given a wall of questions, you don't have any choice other than to respond with a wall of text defending yourself.
He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.Of course I want to everbody to believe I'm town - this is a trait common to both town and scum. I realise that Mafia is a game where townies can quite easily expect to by lynched, but I'd be pretty thick if I didn't try to avoid it if possible.
ed boy: I am fairly certain that scum would not openly express like opinions, with only WIFOM as a scum-tell deterrent. Wouldn't it be easier for scum to avoid any associations with his/her scum-buddy than to be under constant scrutiny where relationships are concerned?[/quote]
You still didn't answer my question: why are you suspicious of backtobasesix? I asked if you had any other suspects and why, yet you only threw out the one lurking player without even bothering to mention lurking as a factor. You could definitely add something to the discussion by posting your own feelings and questions on the matter, as I did. Nobody had mentioned the poor quality of his posts before, I'd like to think I added a new dimension to the case on him. Who's to say your suspicions won't shed a similar new light? You also STILL haven't told me your suspicions of IronyOwl, which I wanted to hear. Do you have anything to work on? Do you have a case against Irony? Or are you just trying to appear Town?My feeling about backtobasesix are because, of the list of scumtells, the only one that I am observing is lurking. It's more the absence of much else to go on. Besides, even if backtobasesix is a townie, it would be better to lynch an inactive townie than an active one.
He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.Well, that's because I realize that I haven't been in any mafia games before, so I'm likely going to be making a lot of mistakes in my reasoning. Presenting it more clearly means that others can better point out where I'm going wrong.
I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choicesWhen you're given a wall of questions, you don't have any choice other than to respond with a wall of text defending yourself.
He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.Of course I want to everbody to believe I'm town - this is a trait common to both town and scum. I realise that Mafia is a game where townies can quite easily expect to by lynched, but I'd be pretty thick if I didn't try to avoid it if possible.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.I don't have time for anything proper, but I'd like to point out that this applies to your original reasoning as well. You claimed three votes on you was suspicious because scum would want to do X.
I've gotten shit in previous games for sitting on a vote instead of doing anything useful. So I'm not doing that anymore. If I can't get anything out of someone and I don't want to lynch that person, my vote needs to be somewhere else.Not gonna just sit on the vote, though.You said this after withdrawing your vote for ed boy. It seems that everytime you don't get a response, you give up and simply move on to someone else.
"Actual reasons"? I didn't think he was lying. I believe the reasons he gave were his actual reasons, I just didn't like them. Thinking something is scummy isn't the same as thinking something is false.When ed boy didn't respond, you didn't bother to press for actual reasons. Instead you withdrew your vote and started on backtobasesix. It seems that you don't actually want to go too deep and are just voting for pressure.Well, you seemed to be irritated by my previous analysis, so I offered you some more arbitrary reasons for choosing those two. How is that strawmanning?That's how. You're giving a blatantly shitty alternative and treating it as an actual argument against my point.
I don't want arbitrary reasons. I don't actually think your reasons were bad. It just looked like you were trying to avoid betraying any kind of personal preference. It's overly cautious, and that's a scum trait.
Yeah, I admit, I haven't done a lot. Mea fucking culpa. I'm done with that now.Zombie urist. You say that all I'm doing is complaining about basesix lurking. Reread (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2550071#msg2550071), and (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2553042#msg2553042) then (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2556767#msg2556767) tell (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557467#msg2557467) me (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2558369#msg2558369)...Well then please tell me what else you have contributed in scumhunting. I don't really care if you didn't mention lurking, since that's not the point. I do care that you haven't done much more while waiting for your question to get answered. All you did was answer other people's questions.
where did you get this completely false idea? I mentioned the lurking only when others brought it up. The entirety of my focus on basesix at this time is from wanting a question answered. Lurking doesn't even enter into it!
You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.This seems rather arbitrary. All the information was there before. Why didn't you look into it earlier?
... Which conclusion? The "he's doing what I would do" conclusion? Well, I know what he's doing, and I know what I would do if I didn't already know why what he was doing was wrong, and they're the same thing. That seems too obvious, though; are you actually asking why I can't judge it as particularly scummy? Well, I'm town, and he's doing something I would do under slightly different circumstances.I dropped the ed boy thing because I didn't really know what I was doing with it. He was overly numbery, I told him why that was bad... That's all I had. To be frank, he's doing exactly what I would do if I didn't already know why it was wrong, so I can't really see it as that scummy.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Did Toaster tell you?
I don't like Captain Obvious reasoning because it looks like scumhunting, but it doesn't require any actual scumhunting effort. Maybe that's not as big a deal as I think it is, but it's not completely ignorable.-snip-
See what I said to Orangebottle about using every post of a player as evidence.
How, precisely, are these scummy? There's no crime against being Captain Obvious. Similarly, while you say a lot of his questions are useless, he (and I) might disagree. What's the best piece of evidence you have against him?
zombie urist already pointed out your lack of commitment concerning your vote, so I'd like to see those issues answered as well.
... Which conclusion? The "he's doing what I would do" conclusion? Well, I know what he's doing, and I know what I would do if I didn't already know why what he was doing was wrong, and they're the same thing. That seems too obvious, though; are you actually asking why I can't judge it as particularly scummy? Well, I'm town, and he's doing something I would do under slightly different circumstances.I dropped the ed boy thing because I didn't really know what I was doing with it. He was overly numbery, I told him why that was bad... That's all I had. To be frank, he's doing exactly what I would do if I didn't already know why it was wrong, so I can't really see it as that scummy.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Did Toaster tell you?
Quite frankly, I'm wondering why you think Toaster could have told me that. It's a judgement of my own personality under circumstances he hasn't seen. He's not qualified to say what I would have done!
I used all his posts as evidence because the thing I was trying to support was that he hadn't made any good posts. If I had left out a post, someone would have said (rightfully so!) that this implied that I thought the ignored post was good, and that my argument was therefore invalid.
I don't like Captain Obvious reasoning because it looks like scumhunting, but it doesn't require any actual scumhunting effort. Maybe that's not as big a deal as I think it is, but it's not completely ignorable.
His questions are useless (in my opinion) because they consisted of "same question someone else asked", "what is scumhunting", and "why did you do this". The latter wouldn't normally be bad, but the "this" in question was a post that contained the answer to the question. And the only reason I like his question of IronyOwl is because of IO's answer -- but he probably didn't expect that IO being an IC would change the dynamic that much.
6. Stupid questions and crappy attempts to defend previous examples of such. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557265#msg2557265)
Speaking of "not waiting for my current focus" and "being an IC changes the game", Jim, if the Random Number Goddess had granted you the position of roleblocker, who would you block and why?
<.< I'm about to replace out for lack of time. Should I answer your questions anyway or cut off my in-game presence entirely right now?
'Cuz Toaster is the scum IC. Maybe you asked him about it?I know Toaster is the scum IC. I got the implication behind that. The thing I was confused about is, given that Toaster has never seen me actually do what ed boy was doing, how could he possibly know that I would do it if I knew slightly less than I do? If I realize it myself, I can and will come up with the logical conclusion without Toaster. If I don't realize it myself, Toaster can't bring me to the logical conclusion. There is zero reason to believe Toaster was involved.
If your empathy explanation is really what happened, why didn't you say it when you unvoted him?
You'll have to explain exactly how his questions are shitty, because otherwise you're giving him shit for terrible reasons. For example, this post:First: Technically that's one question, singular, though since I missed that fact first I won't blame you for repeating my mistake.6. Stupid questions and crappy attempts to defend previous examples of such. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2557265#msg2557265)
Those questions are actually pretty good. They are good things to ask about. Why don't you think so?
So why was drudging up all his posts necessary then? (It wasn't. Focus on the strongest pieces of evidence etc. etc.)
How is answering questions with simple reasoning or answers a crime?But they were clearly rhetorical questions, as evidenced by the fact that you immediately answered them yourself.
It's not. You're suspecting him for terrible reasons.
He basically said "maybe, depending on everything". So tell me, in what way is that not scummy?zombie urist, if you were scum, would deliberately let yourself get killed if it meant that your buddy was likely to go one and win?Probably. It really depends on who my partner was and how skillful he is. I don't know how I can "deliberately let" myself get lynched without doing something really stupid.
The question is, basically, "Why did you do this thing that you explained while you were doing it?" Why is that not a shitty question? If you wanted to claim his questions weren't shitty, that's probably the single worst one to point to -- why did you choose that one?
unvote.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
Look, if I want to argue that he has never done anything useful, is it really a good idea to only point to one post? You seem to think the answer is "yes". Why?
He basically said "maybe, depending on everything". So tell me, in what way is that not scummy?
Also, I did ask you a question. You gonna answer it or should I just assume this whole thing has been a scum ruse?
First: Technically that's one question, singular, though since I missed that fact first I won't blame you for repeating my mistake.
Second: The question is, basically, "Why did you do this thing that you explained while you were doing it?" Why is that not a shitty question? If you wanted to claim his questions weren't shitty, that's probably the single worst one to point to -- why did you choose that one?
Hello Moroma, do you have any way to explain your predecessor's lurkiness?
Also: I have reread the thread and found little to nothing to go on that hasn't already been said. I'll give it another go.
Players are generally considered town when they aggressively pursue their own lines of questioning on other players and attempt to get answers to their own questions.
You're the only person in this thread whose name starts with an m. Sorry for butchering it, but you should answer the question.Hello Mormota, do you have any way to explain your predecessor's lurkiness?
Also: I have reread the thread and found little to nothing to go on that hasn't already been said. I'll give it another go.
I have no idea who you're talking to.
Jim Groovester, you seem to be awfully intent on proving your point. Perhaps there is more to that than simple stuborness?
Flandre. Where are you? It's been a few days since your last post.I am right here. I am about to deal with Witches' Coven (the day in that thread ends this evening), and then I will join you guys. Hopefully there will not be a power outage in our area to disrupt that.
I do indeed have read the thread. But I also know you are an experienced player. What better way to hide that you are scum than act exactly like a townie? You may even achieve a mislynch. I still find you suspicious.
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. But I think I can see why you asked it. Perhaps you're wondering if he had a role, Orangebottle? Perhaps you are wondering if I'm the doctor, to give you, one of the mafia, a fine target?
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. But I think I can see why you asked it. Perhaps you're wondering if he had a role, Orangebottle? Perhaps you are wondering if I'm the doctor, to give you, one of the mafia, a fine target?Him being a doctor wouldn't explain why he wasn't posting. That'd be really shitty town play. If anything, a doctor should scumhunt harder to find out who he shouldn't be protecting.
Rereading a third time, I have a couple more questions.unvote.Your reasons for your vote on ed boy are very sparse. Elaborate, Zombie.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
Man, I wish Zombie would get in here and answer my question. Specifically:You're wish is granted.Rereading a third time, I have a couple more questions.unvote.Your reasons for your vote on ed boy are very sparse. Elaborate, Zombie.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
You're wish is granted.
At the beginning, Ed boy random voted McArathos with a question. However, he never actually followed up on this vote or question and instead spent most of his time answering questions and defending himself. As I said earlier, he asked a lot of questions without seeming to care about the answers. Additionally, he withdrew his vote and never voted again which made him seem really hesitant to scumhunt.
Orangebottle: Same question ^
Flandre: Why didn't you vote in Day 1?My participation for the latter half of D1 left much to be desired, besides the absence of a vote. There were things that needed doing even after I was finished at my job, and Mafia was not on that list. I was prevented from playing this evening up until recently due to a power outage, and now that I have electricity again, I will make an attempt at a worthwhile post.
Here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2545335#msg2545335) and here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2548754#msg2548754) are some examples.You're wish is granted.I was looking more for specific evidence. Could you link me to one or two posts where you see this behavior?
At the beginning, Ed boy random voted McArathos with a question. However, he never actually followed up on this vote or question and instead spent most of his time answering questions and defending himself. As I said earlier, he asked a lot of questions without seeming to care about the answers. Additionally, he withdrew his vote and never voted again which made him seem really hesitant to scumhunt.
I don't understand this part, especially the 'besides the absence of a vote'Flandre: Why didn't you vote in Day 1?My participation for the latter half of D1 left much to be desired, besides the absence of a vote. There were things that needed doing even after I was finished at my job, and Mafia was not on that list. I was prevented from playing this evening up until recently due to a power outage, and now that I have electricity again, I will make an attempt at a worthwhile post.
Essentially, I was gone for a majority of the day. I do not enjoy that fact, but it is reason enough and more for not voting.My participation for the latter half of D1 left much to be desired, besides the absence of a vote. There were things that needed doing even after I was finished at my job, and Mafia was not on that list. I was prevented from playing this evening up until recently due to a power outage, and now that I have electricity again, I will make an attempt at a worthwhile post.I don't understand this part, especially the 'besides the absence of a vote'
Hello Moroma, do you have any way to explain your predecessor's lurkiness?I have no idea who you're talking to.
Jim Groovester, you seem to be awfully intent on proving your point. Perhaps there is more to that than simple stuborness?
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. But I think I can see why you asked it. Perhaps you're wondering if he had a role, Orangebottle? Perhaps you are wondering if I'm the doctor, to give you, one of the mafia, a fine target?
You can relate to the question and why it was asked, yet suspect Orangebottle of role-fishing for doing so, Mormota?
What's your reason for thinking Orangebottle was rolefishing by asking you that question?
I don't know what it is but I have a feeling it makes no sense. You're reading too much into things; generally you should be taking what people say at face value, examining what they say, and then making judgments about whether or not you believe it.
Don't look at people and assign them completely invented motives, like what you're doing here now.
Stuff about me.
Mormota: How much experience do you have with mafia? Also, if you were a doctor, who would you protect now that you know the cop is gone?
As I''ve already said, RV someone if you're not ure of what to do.
So you tell me you're not one to investigate since you're agressive, yet condemn me for picking the target most sensible at the time and attacking him? I'm not certain you make sense for me.
Isn't it the job of a townie to try finding the mafia? I was asked a question which I could obviously not answer, and surely Orangebottle knew it. How would I know backtobasesix's reason for staying away from the thread? Role-fishing seemed the only plausible explanation at the time.
Billybobfred: You still don't seem to be scumhunting, just answering questions. Why not?
I think you misunderstood me there. I said that Jim said he's not one to condemn since he's aggressive, obviously townie, but when I do the same and aggressively attack someone, he suddenly fails to understand that same concept of being aggressive. That is what I find strange.
Quit crying about how I corrected you.
It's my job. It helps you. You should be grateful.
Stuff
Perhaps if you weren't being offensive (Not aggressive, offensive) then I wouldn't react so.That's not how that works. You can't act scummy and/or completely ineffectual, and then blame continuing to do so on being offended.
Jim Groovester, you seem to be awfully intent on proving your point. Perhaps there is more to that than simple stuborness?
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. But I think I can see why you asked it. Perhaps you're wondering if he had a role, Orangebottle? Perhaps you are wondering if I'm the doctor, to give you, one of the mafia, a fine target?
As you wish, Powder Miner. Tell me then, again, just what are you basing your claims on me? Why do you keep telling me to be aggressive? Are you perhaps afraid you'll forget to do that? How can you even call me passive? I have a feeling you just barged in here, saw someone who you know not to be scum, tried to make up a reason, and attacked.
EBWODP: To explain why I don't really have suspicions: I wasn't here in the RVS and could not ask my questions to get me started on my own train of thought. Now I can either follow someone's example, which is considered scummy, or wait until an opportunity presents itself to attack, which is atleast not scummy for that long. I'm in quite a pinch here, and seemingly because I did what an IC said townies should do. It's hard to follow advice when it appears to get you mislynched.If you follow someone's example and add to their argument with legitimate suspicions of your own, you look far less scummy. However, the fact that you're so concerned about being perceived as scummy...
From what I see, the entire thread is against me, for reasons I'm still not sure I understand. I came in, started scumhunting and that very second people dissed me for doing that. Then I cut back on it, being a new player and unsure of what to do, then people diss me for that. Tell me, if you were a townie in my position, wouldn't you despair? I'm cornered and about to get mislynched, of course I'm defending.
Why am I not scumhunting? Try doing that when everyone is calling you an idiot for being aggressive and a scum for not, plus being a new player on top of that.
Jim Groovester, you seem to be awfully intent on proving your point. Perhaps there is more to that than simple stuborness?
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. But I think I can see why you asked it. Perhaps you're wondering if he had a role, Orangebottle? Perhaps you are wondering if I'm the doctor, to give you, one of the mafia, a fine target?
As you wish, Powder Miner. Tell me then, again, just what are you basing your claims on me? Why do you keep telling me to be aggressive? Are you perhaps afraid you'll forget to do that? How can you even call me passive? I have a feeling you just barged in here, saw someone who you know not to be scum, tried to make up a reason, and attacked.
Jim Groovester, you seem to be awfully intent on proving your point. Why are you so aggressive about it?
I'm quite uncertain what you meant by the question, that's why I avoided it. I do not actually know why he was not playing, I don't know him. At all. Why did you ask?
As you wish, Powder Miner. Tell me then, again, just what are you basing your claims on me? Why do you keep telling me to be aggressive? Are you perhaps afraid you'll forget to do that? How can you even call me passive?
At the time? You make it sound like you have considered other possibilities since. I am aware that the intention of Orangebottle's question was to ruffle your feathers, Mormota, but wouldn't it be more logical to just berate him for asking an unanswerable question than to bring up roles? Also, if you were so uncertain (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2567573#msg2567573) about what was asked of you, how was it obvious that no right answer existed?You can relate to the question and why it was asked, yet suspect Orangebottle of role-fishing for doing so, Mormota?
Isn't it the job of a townie to try finding the mafia? I was asked a question which I could obviously not answer, and surely Orangebottle knew it. How would I know backtobasesix's reason for staying away from the thread? Role-fishing seemed the only plausible explanation at the time.
From what I see, the entire thread is against me, for reasons I'm still not sure I understand.Then ask for clarification. What don't you understand?
I came in, started scumhunting and that very second people dissed me for doing that. Then I cut back on it, being a new player and unsure of what to do, then people diss me for that.Nobody's been insulting you because it's fun. You've been "dissed" repeatedly because your attempts at scumhunting are horribly, horribly mangled, and there's no real benefit in trying to sugar-coat that fact.
Tell me, if you were a townie in my position, wouldn't you despair? I'm cornered and about to get mislynched, of course I'm defending.No. I'd figure out what I was doing wrong and fix it. Almost everyone else in the game has managed to not get dogpiled by the entire rest of the thread, so clearly you're doing something wrong that you don't have to be.
Why am I not scumhunting? Try doing that when everyone is calling you an idiot for being aggressive and a scum for not, plus being a new player on top of that.Going on and on about what a poor, persecuted noob you are looks scummy and doesn't help you get better. If we haven't been properly explaining how to scumhunt, or how not to scumhunt, request clarification.
And please, quite the OMGUSing. I already elaborated on that, and it's getting tiring.What's the purpose of this phrase?
*sigh*School is starting and I'm already spending less time on this game. Additionally, if this game somehow lasts more than another week, I probably will need a replace.
Fine. Unvote.
zombie urist, you've borrowed too many other people's reasons for your votes. It makes me think you don't have any real suspicions of your own.
Powder Miner seemed to jump on me with some rather strange reason, especially considering he said I was stating that scumhunting is not aggressive, which is simply not true. After that, he seems to provide a fairly beliavable explanation, but his first point, the one which should be the main one, is simply wrong, and that arouses my suspicion.Are you saying he's suspicious because he made a wrong statement? Also, it kinda looks like you OMGUSed Orangebottle too, but he didn't call you out for it.
Mormota, it was indeed a justifiable claim. And even if you don't consider it a justifiable claim, that's no reason to OMGUS. And those reasons I brought up "later on" were just me repeating what I had earlier said.Can you list your reasons apart from the recent OMGUS for again?
Noone called you an idiot for being aggressive, that's just an excuse to avoid scumhunting. I've been cornered and about to be mislynched before, indeed, in both of my previous Beginner's mafia games. Yet I still tried to scumhunt. Failingly, yes, but I tried. There is no excuse for not scumhunting, no excuse for being passive. Combine that with the OMGUS and it's very scummy. So let me ask, why did you OMGUS me? I won't be quiet on it. It's suspicious, and I'll press you on it whether you like it or not. And acting confused doesn't change that, because I have a feeling you know perfectly well the reasons, considering everyone repeated them over and over.
So you're saying you didn't vote because you didn't play for most of day 1?Essentially, I was gone for a majority of the day. I do not enjoy that fact, but it is reason enough and more for not voting.My participation for the latter half of D1 left much to be desired, besides the absence of a vote. There were things that needed doing even after I was finished at my job, and Mafia was not on that list. I was prevented from playing this evening up until recently due to a power outage, and now that I have electricity again, I will make an attempt at a worthwhile post.I don't understand this part, especially the 'besides the absence of a vote'
*sigh*School is starting and I'm already spending less time on this game. Additionally, if this game somehow lasts more than another week, I probably will need a replace.
Fine. Unvote.
zombie urist, you've borrowed too many other people's reasons for your votes. It makes me think you don't have any real suspicions of your own.
That being said, I'm honestly still not completely sure what to look for in posts to find scummy behavior.
Either I miss that someone else has posted the same reason or I think my reason is different enough to be worth saying. I don't see how I'm borrowing votes though.Those are excuses, not answers. Why do you keep borrowing other people's votes and reasons?*sigh*School is starting and I'm already spending less time on this game. Additionally, if this game somehow lasts more than another week, I probably will need a replace.
Fine. Unvote.
zombie urist, you've borrowed too many other people's reasons for your votes. It makes me think you don't have any real suspicions of your own.
That being said, I'm honestly still not completely sure what to look for in posts to find scummy behavior.
It's suspicious, and I'll press you on it whether you like it or not. And acting confused doesn't change that, because I have a feeling you know perfectly well the reasons, considering everyone repeated them over and over.
Are you saying he's suspicious because he made a wrong statement? Also, it kinda looks like you OMGUSed Orangebottle too, but he didn't call you out for it.
Helpful stuff
Powder Miner seemed to jump on me with some rather strange reason, especially considering he said I was stating that scumhunting is not aggressive, which is simply not true. After that, he seems to provide a fairly beliavable explanation, but his first point, the one which should be the main one, is simply wrong, and that arouses my suspicion.
Not entirely, no. I'm saying I find him suspicious because initially, his attack on me was hardly justifiable, but after being called out on it, he immediately presented a new explanation, ignoring the part of my suspicions where I tell him that his initial attack was non-sense in my opinion. Also, just how did I OMGUS Orangebottle? He never even voted for me, he jsut asked me a question. You should pay more attention. I am not going to jump on the bandwagon against you, but please do pay more attention, people may find it scummy.You seem to be suspicious of anyone who asks you a question. First orangebottle, then powder miner, and now me.
Also, zombie urist, He was pulling out from voting whenever it was questioned, and further refused to scumhunt, so I started questioning him, adding in an FoS I finally voted when he went crazy and OMGUSed me, despite the fact that he denies he did.What do you mean by 'it'?
Mostly I'm thinking of here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2548012#msg2548012) and here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2569430#msg2569430). In the first post you call backtobasesix out for lurking just after IronyOwl does it. In the second you vote billybobfred, but you only vote him for only answering questions and not . The vote didn't make much sense since I was busy trying to get answers out of billybobfred, and since I am an aged bloodhound it's to be expected that he'll be answering a lot of questions.I thought that IronyOwl's post to basesix meant that he should start playing ie posting. I asked him a question as to why he wasn't really asking questions and looking for scum. As to the second post, I knew that he was going to answer questions, but I also expected him to ask questions of his own.
In other words, I expected a deeper case on billybobfred (now Powder Miner) than what you presented with your vote, which leads me to believe you only voted him and followed along because I voted him, since you did something similar earlier in the game.
You seem to be suspicious of anyone who asks you a question. First orangebottle, then powder miner, and now me.
Ohhhh, speaking of ignoring things, YOU continued to ignore me the three or so times I posted my reasoning and continued to go on with your charade, which is so obviously broken through at first sight, t's not even funny. Tell me THAT'S not scummy. Scum.
In other words, I expected a deeper case on billybobfred (now Powder Miner) than what you presented with your vote, which leads me to believe you only voted him and followed along because I voted him, since you did something similar earlier in the game.I thought that IronyOwl's post to basesix meant that he should start playing ie posting. I asked him a question as to why he wasn't really asking questions and looking for scum. As to the second post, I knew that he was going to answer questions, but I also expected him to ask questions of his own.
Arg
Blarg
Mormota, I'm sorry, you're jut ignoring me now. You only "reasons" for the OMGUs are stuff you're spitting out now that I'm questioning you on it, oh and one more thing... when you vote someone for "jumping on you" with questioning, I'm sorry, but that's an OMGUS. YOu've been ating incredibly scummy in your chainsaw defense against me, and to the entire questioning process. Face it, Mormota, you're scum, and it's painfully obvious by now.
Now you're being ignorant.
As you wish, Powder Miner. Tell me then, again, just what are you basing your claims on me? Why do you keep telling me to be aggressive? Are you perhaps afraid you'll forget to do that? How can you even call me passive? I have a feeling you just barged in here, saw someone who you know not to be scum, tried to make up a reason, and attacked.All he does is asks me why I'm telling him not to be passive, with soem strange claim that I'm reminding myself to be aggressive, and then without reasoning, acted as my reasoning of him being passive earlier was ridiculous, and then says some desperate stuff about how MAYBE I came in and randomly went on him because I'm supposedly scum. I don't see your reasons. I don't actually see any real reasons, just some desperation before the noose.
Stuff
So you're saying you didn't vote because you didn't play for most of day 1?I am.
You have such a delightful manner for a noob claiming to want to learn how to play.
Mormota: *ahem* (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2571642#msg2571642)
At the time? You make it sound like you have considered other possibilities since. I am aware that the intention of Orangebottle's question was to ruffle your feathers, Mormota, but wouldn't it be more logical to just berate him for asking an unanswerable question than to bring up roles? Also, if you were so uncertain about what was asked of you, how was it obvious that no right answer existed?
This was not rhetorical.And please, quite the OMGUSing. I already elaborated on that, and it's getting tiring.What's the purpose of this phrase?
After that, pretty much nothing happened which could have given me a new lead other than people questioning me.This isn't an excuse. If nothing's happening, you need to make it happen.
That being said, I'm honestly still not completely sure what to look for in posts to find scummy behavior.You're looking for people trying to act like something they're not. Lists of common scumtells can help you get started along that path, as can knowing what town should be doing. Neither is a replacement for the actual principle of finding deceptive scum, however.
Either I miss that someone else has posted the same reason or I think my reason is different enough to be worth saying. I don't see how I'm borrowing votes though.Bolded part in particular worries me. Just how often have you been reading the thread, yet failed to notice someone saying something noteworthy about your suspect?
IronyOwl, tiebreaker time.....
Mormota:This was not rhetorical.And please, quite the OMGUSing. I already elaborated on that, and it's getting tiring.What's the purpose of this phrase?
Please tell, which part of your posts am I ignoring?
Oh, and I forgot to say this:
HE says he came up with his current reasons at the time he voted me.Quote from: Mormota on August 27, 2011, 02:36:52 pmAs you wish, Powder Miner. Tell me then, again, just what are you basing your claims on me? Why do you keep telling me to be aggressive? Are you perhaps afraid you'll forget to do that? How can you even call me passive? I have a feeling you just barged in here, saw someone who you know not to be scum, tried to make up a reason, and attacked.All he does is asks me why I'm telling him not to be passive, with soem strange claim that I'm reminding myself to be aggressive, and then without reasoning, acted as my reasoning of him being passive earlier was ridiculous, and then says some desperate stuff about how MAYBE I came in and randomly went on him because I'm supposedly scum. I don't see your reasons. I don't actually see any real reasons, just some desperation before the noose.
IronyOwl: You've admitted to being lurky. Do you have any reasons for being lurky? Are you going to be more active now that Jim's dead?Being busy. I'm going to have to be, since zero playing ICs isn't going to work very well.
If you people aren't going to post, I'll force you to. We've still got scum to lynch.
Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?
I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.This is terrible logic, for several reasons. The main one being that town wants to be active to find scum and win, so it's blatantly silly to say I'd be more active as scum, since the same goal (not losing) and method (doing stuff) applies at least equally well to being town.
I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.This is terrible logic, for several reasons. The main one being that town wants to be active to find scum and win, so it's blatantly silly to say I'd be more active as scum, since the same goal (not losing) and method (doing stuff) applies at least equally well to being town.
If you mean I'd probably be trying to make myself appear more active, that might have some merit, but again then we get into WIFOM territory, since scum me would know that normal lurking looks fine and active lurking looks not fine, and thus normal lurk like a townie.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the point of "avoiding WIFOM." That doesn't mean picking a potential outcome and sticking with it, or ignoring that your reasoning involves it; you don't avoid "he wouldn't do that unless he knew I knew he knew I knew he knew" by lopping off the end and going "he wouldn't do that," because then he'd do exactly that.
Now, there's obviously merit to considering the simplest, most obvious choice more likely than some convoluted gambit, but this doesn't seem like that because there's no real reason it'd have to be; maybe I'm genuinely busy but still scum, or maybe I'm lurking to avoid attention, etc.
Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?
Good.IronyOwl: You've admitted to being lurky. Do you have any reasons for being lurky? Are you going to be more active now that Jim's dead?Being busy. I'm going to have to be, since zero playing ICs isn't going to work very well.
Powder Miner is still my main suspicion simply because of the sheer volume of factually false claims he brought up against me. Let me list those:Are you saying you no longer find me suspicious? If so, why?
His initial reason. It may have been a misunderstanding, but it was false, nonetheless.
Claiming I OMGUSed him without a reason. I provided a reason, it was one, even if he doesn't want to accept it. Even if he didn't understand it, I explained it later. He's still claiming I made no reason when I found him suspicious. False.
He's claiming I'm ignoring him. Not true, I responded to each of his points, and when I asked him to point out which part of his posts I was ignoring, he simply said I OMGUSed him without a reason.
Powder Miner, respond to each of those points, because you are currently acting incredibly suspicious. May I also point out that your "scumhunt" was "OMGUS because you OMGUSed me!" ?
I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.
I find Flandre suspicious for the same reason you do, but I can't see much else in his posts, and you are already pushing him. If he reveals something, I am ready to rethink my standing with him.
OK, I'll list my reasons again.So you have no other suspicions at all? I can also see that you've ignored my day 2 advice about fixing your spelling and grammar so that people can understand you better.
First thing, he pulls out from votes whenever quetioned, and then refuses to get onto another target and scumhunt.
That and a misreading of one of his phrases were things I started to question him on, with an FoS to kind of pressure him. (I take FoSs fairly seriously)
Then he suspicioined me for jumpin on him (also known as questioning him), and when I didn't stop questioning him, he cracked and OMGUSed me with next to no actual reasoning, if that. Now he repeatedly demands my reasons despite the fact that I've been telling him constantly, and when I post something (those posts including WHY I think he OMGUSed despite what he say) he will only read what he wants to see, and then ignores the rest while saying that all my answers are false and that I'm ignoring him.
I apologise if it looks as if I am ignoring the thread, but I spent some time with my family, which is a rare opportunity. I have obligations tomorrow morning, but I will participate sometime tomorrow afternoon. Just know that I am not lurking!I'll hold you to that, Flandre. You'd better be here tomorrow afternoon.
I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.
Ra
Ra
IronyOwl
Powder Miner
OK, for the first reason, just because it was false due to a misreading does not make it scummy.
For the second "false fact" you listed, I was worried about the vote, which really had next to no reasoning, and I quoted your post and pointed it out as well. As for the suspicion, you were suspicious because I jumped on you. YOu SAID you were suspicious because I jumped on you. Which means questioning and suspicioning you. Which also means that that's an OMGUS!
And despite what you've been saying, Mormota you have been ignoring my posts! You've only been reading what makes you look good and me bad. Even your skewed quote of what I apparently said shows it. Repeatedly, I explained to you that you have been ignoring the reasoning I had brought up for voting you, and suspicioning you, and then the one you're quoting me as "simply saying that you OMGUSed him wihtout a reason" I had SAID that you ignored my post in which I quoted your voting post and showed it to not have reason, or rather a false reason, the ones you're so fond of accusing me of having.
And what are you talking about? I had you being questioned before you even noticed me. You cracked and acted suspicious, so I voted you. The OMGUS was simply another way you were acting suspicious. I extensively explained my reasons in the voting post, too. You really canot say that.
OK, I'll list my reasons again.
First thing, he pulls out from votes whenever quetioned, and then refuses to get onto another target and scumhunt.
That and a misreading of one of his phrases were things I started to question him on, with an FoS to kind of pressure him. (I take FoSs fairly seriously)
Then he suspicioined me for jumpin on him (also known as questioning him), and when I didn't stop questioning him, he cracked and OMGUSed me with next to no actual reasoning, if that. Now he repeatedly demands my reasons despite the fact that I've been telling him constantly, and when I post something (those posts including WHY I think he OMGUSed despite what he say) he will only read what he wants to see, and then ignores the rest while saying that all my answers are false and that I'm ignoring him.
Repeatedly, I explained to you that you have been ignoring the reasoning I had brought up for voting you, and suspicioning you, and then the one you're quoting me as "simply saying that you OMGUSed him wihtout a reason" I had SAID that you ignored my post in which I quoted your voting post and showed it to not have reason, or rather a false reason, the ones you're so fond of accusing me of having.
OMGUS - Oh My God U Suck, a vote on someone else simply because they voted or attacked youThe first reason it wasn't an OMGUS? It was originally an FoS, not a vote.
So you tell me you're not one to investigate since you're agressive, yet condemn me for picking the target most sensible at the time and attacking him? I'm not certain you make sense for me.
It was not the most sensible target at the time.
You don't seem to know or care what my job is here. I'm here to tell you when you're wrong, and you were wrong.
Quit getting defensive. You had no reason to assume that Orangebottle was rolefishing when he asked, "Why did the player you replace lurk so much?" If you use your imagination slightly less, you'll realize that the motive of the question was actually to get the question answered. Complicated, I know.Isn't it the job of a townie to try finding the mafia? I was asked a question which I could obviously not answer, and surely Orangebottle knew it. How would I know backtobasesix's reason for staying away from the thread? Role-fishing seemed the only plausible explanation at the time.
Then you should have responded with, "I don't know why backtobasesix lurked. Why did you ask a question I couldn't know the answer to?"
That would have been the appropriate response.I think you misunderstood me there. I said that Jim said he's not one to condemn since he's aggressive, obviously townie, but when I do the same and aggressively attack someone, he suddenly fails to understand that same concept of being aggressive. That is what I find strange.
Quit crying about how I corrected you.
It's my job. It helps you. You should be grateful.
I am extremely dissatisfied. I ask follow up questions, and they are immediately ignored by Powder Miner and Mormota. Neither of you use any links ever when summarizing your argument either, which is terrible. Do you two really expect us to reread the entire thread for posts supporting your case? Throw a couple of relevant links in there!
Are you saying you no longer find me suspicious? If so, why?
QuoteQuote from: Orangebottle on September 02, 2011, 10:33:16 pm
IronyOwlQuoteQuote from: Mormota on September 03, 2011, 03:10:01 amThese could easily be red.
Powder Miner
I hope that satisfies you Orangebottle, and I half-understand your FoS, but please could you elaborate on why you find me suspicious?Ah yes. It was partially the answer to my question, and partially the huge tunneling match with Powder Miner in day 2.
Oh. I just clicked something on accident AND THE ENTIRE POST I WAS WORKING ON GOES AWAY! ARGH! Also, how exactly do you link to posts?Most browsers will restore the text if you hit the back button. This is no excuse to have not posted a response yet.
I am extremely dissatisfied. I ask follow up questions, and they are immediately ignored by Powder Miner and Mormota. Neither of you use any links ever when summarizing your argument either, which is terrible. Do you two really expect us to reread the entire thread for posts supporting your case? Throw a couple of relevant links in there!I'll start doing that. nayway, I never noticed your question. Now that you linked me to it, the answer is that no, I have been so caught up in fihgting Mormota that I have not really paid attention to anyone else. Time to fix that.
Powder Miner: I have a hard time trying to read any argument you make, and what I can read seems to be you using OMGUS to death, calling Mormota dumb, and saying they're ignoring you when (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2573218#msg2573218) they clearly aren't (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2574295#msg2574295). I have to admit that I'd do the same in Mormota's case(if they were actually ignoring you), but because I don't enjoy reading terrible writing.
In fact, you are guilty of ignoring me. Instead of answering my second question, you just acknowledge the post with a sentence responding to the text directly after it. You completely skip over the question. That is terrible. You'd have been better off not mentioning that post at all.I already explained I missed that question. Moving on.
Furthermore, your perception of OMGUS is entirely incorrect.QuoteOMGUS - Oh My God U Suck, a vote on someone else simply because they voted or attacked youThe first reason it wasn't an OMGUS? It was originally an FoS, not a vote.
The second? Because Mormota actually had a reason to vote for you (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2570937#msg2570937).
Powder. I want a response that I can read. At the very least, make a quote from each point of this post, and respond to each individually before moving on to the next. For example:
Well, this is just really mistaken. Really really mistaken, or just more blatant buddying. You need to notice how I didn't vote him for the FoS "OMGUS". You need to notice how I was pressing him with it. His reasoning for that FoS was that I was "jumping on him", aka questioning him too suddenly and aggressivley for his liking. That's fine and all, so I grabbed it and used it to press him more, talking about how it was an OMGUSs, (I do in fact take Fingers of Suspicion seriously), and then he voted me because apparently all my reasons were false. I had already explained they were not, and he had been ignoring that. (Ooh wow I accused him of ignoring me again Ohhhh). The only other thing I see in that voting post is some weird crap about how I'm apparently reminding myself to be aggressive.
An OMGUS is still an OMGUS even if you slap an excuse on it. I had explained how my reasons were not fake, and he ignored it and voted me anyway, for attacking him, despite what he said about me having false reasons. It was an excuse, based upon tunneling.
So for all these ridiculous statements and all this buddying, I'd have to vote YOU, Orangebottle.
Unvote Orangebottle. Look at that. I voted you and slapped an excuse on. Wouldn't you consider that still an OMGUS (at least if it was a real vote)? I would.
Next, reply to Mormota.
I am willing to accept advice, even though I am getting tired of arguing against Powder Miner simply because (And I'm growing tired of saying this) he brings up arguments he does not back up with anything, and instead of responding to my questions (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2586220#msg2586220), he brings up something shady and so poorly worded it makes my head hurt (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2586599#msg2586599).
The "something shady and so poorly worded it makes your head hurt." WAS the answers to your questions. For you not to know that means you did not read it. Just because it is "shady and makes your head hurt" is no excuse not to read it, and it's further tunneling, when according to your buddy Orangebottle you were "clearly not" tunneling. Really. It's time to take thi from being a simple tunnelfight to something a lot better.
I WOULD find someone else suspicious, but Orangebottle already takes the spot. You and him, Mormota, are my list of suspects. He has pretty blatant buddying in that post (Why would he do that?, you might ask, because he did FoS you after all. Why? Well, because we're both inevitably going to get lynched due to this fight, most likely me first. He wants to look town if/when YOU get lynched for my townflip, or when you just get lynched.)
I have been using his OMGUS as an argument (Me "jumping on him" is not a valid reason- "jumping on him" is simply me quesitoning him to suddenly and aggressively for his liking. AKA me attacking him. He voted me for continuing to attack him, (including using his FoS which I was just calling an OMGUs to press him on), and then that is an OMGUS. Also, I never called him dumb... where the heck did you get that from? Yes, I did indeed say he was ignoring me (although I mainly said that he was ignoring parts of my posts). How, however, was he "clearly not" ignoring me? You need to back that up, or the point is moot. You do explain that I said he was ignoring him, and that I do not debate. However, trying to make him look innocent of tunneling (he's not, although i admit I am most likely guilty of it too, which is what that phrase is doing) needs backing up or it's just buddying. Not scumbuddying mind you, since obviously one is dead, but plain buddying.
You see, you should always be suspicious of everyone who isn't completely confirmed as townie in some way. Since that is impossible in this setup, due to the possible presence of the godfather, you should still be (slightly) suspicious of me. The fact that you aren't implies that you might be 'in the know', as the Mafia is. Irony and Jim are free to correct me on this if I am horribly wrong(but I don't believe I am).
The "something shady and so poorly worded it makes your head hurt." WAS the answers to your questions. For you not to know that means you did not read it. Just because it is "shady and makes your head hurt" is no excuse not to read it, and it's further tunneling, when according to your buddy Orangebottle you were "clearly not" tunneling. Really. It's time to take thi from being a simple tunnelfight to something a lot better.
I WOULD find someone else suspicious, but Orangebottle already takes the spot. You and him, Mormota, are my list of suspects. He has pretty blatant buddying in that post (Why would he do that?, you might ask, because he did FoS you after all. Why? Well, because we're both inevitably going to get lynched due to this fight, most likely me first. He wants to look town if/when YOU get lynched for my townflip, or when you just get lynched.)
I have been using his OMGUS as an argument (Me "jumping on him" is not a valid reason- "jumping on him" is simply me quesitoning him to suddenly and aggressively for his liking. AKA me attacking him. He voted me for continuing to attack him, (including using his FoS which I was just calling an OMGUs to press him on), and then that is an OMGUS. Also, I never called him dumb... where the heck did you get that from? Yes, I did indeed say he was ignoring me (although I mainly said that he was ignoring parts of my posts). How, however, was he "clearly not" ignoring me? You need to back that up, or the point is moot. You do explain that I said he was ignoring him, and that I do not debate. However, trying to make him look innocent of tunneling (he's not, although i admit I am most likely guilty of it too, which is what that phrase is doing) needs backing up or it's just buddying. Not scumbuddying mind you, since obviously one is dead, but plain buddying.
Big wall of text. Rather inconvenient to read. Anyways.
Here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2570547#msg2570547) you claim my FoS to be an OMGUS. From what I managed to understand from the mess I quoted, however, you are stating that all this time, you didn't even take the OMGUS seriously, which was apperently your main reason up to this point? I don't even know what you are talking about.
Yes, you are saying I'm ignoring part of your posts. However, I asked you clearly to say (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2575404#msg2575404) which part (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2579396#msg2579396) of your posts I'm ignoring. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2582209#msg2582209)
To this, you reply (your post between the last two linked posts), again pointing out how you disregard the fact you called it an OMGUS before the vote. You also fail to explain just what is it I am ignoring.Huh? I explained exactly why I said that was an OMGUS, twice. If you didn't notice that, you've got to be tunneling.
Here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2586220#msg2586220) I brought up a number of points. You still claim it was an OMGUS with a false reason. Let me teach you a bit of English: A false reason is either not someone's true intention (Something which you obviously can't know, basing your arguments on it is thus rather silly) or a reason that is using false facts to come to a conclusion. Neither is true in our case. I had a reason, whether you find it justified or not.I answered that post earlier, disproving your claims that my reasons were false.. Anyway, the first one is exactly it. YOu are using it as an excuse for the vote, and I have already disproved it several times. In case you need a little reading comprehension workup.
You see, you should always be suspicious of everyone who isn't completely confirmed as townie in some way. Since that is impossible in this setup, due to the possible presence of the godfather, you should still be (slightly) suspicious of me. The fact that you aren't implies that you might be 'in the know', as the Mafia is. Irony and Jim are free to correct me on this if I am horribly wrong(but I don't believe I am).
In the case of that post, yes it was a textwall. Yet I've had to wade through your textwalls as well, and I have done it. And where did you ask me to tell you what parts of a post you were ignoring? In that case, it would be the part where I explain that I am not using false reasoning, and that therefore that was an excuse.The "something shady and so poorly worded it makes your head hurt." WAS the answers to your questions. For you not to know that means you did not read it. Just because it is "shady and makes your head hurt" is no excuse not to read it, and it's further tunneling, when according to your buddy Orangebottle you were "clearly not" tunneling. Really. It's time to take thi from being a simple tunnelfight to something a lot better.
My not knowing it is more likely because what you wrote does not make sense. You claim that I'm purposefully ignoring part of your posts, but when I ask you to tell me just what I'm ignoring, you don't point anything out.
That someone else is Orangebottle. Not-so-empty words.I WOULD find someone else suspicious, but Orangebottle already takes the spot. You and him, Mormota, are my list of suspects. He has pretty blatant buddying in that post (Why would he do that?, you might ask, because he did FoS you after all. Why? Well, because we're both inevitably going to get lynched due to this fight, most likely me first. He wants to look town if/when YOU get lynched for my townflip, or when you just get lynched.)
And who would that someone else be? Empty words so far.
Also, your buddying theory has utterly no basis. As Jim said (In reply to me making that mistake, I might add): Do not try to give motives to people. You are trying to find something scummy in me, yet you completely failed to notice that? What are you paying attention to, if not what I and an IC said?
Flandre: You voted for Mormota and then proceeded to do nothing for three days. Got a reason?None that would excuse my absence, or my stale vote of Mormota. I simply saw something scummy in him, voted him, and disappeared to job-related business and the beginning of my vacation. It was more to pressure him than anything else, but I did a poor job of it. It ends here. Unvote Mormota.
You see, you should always be suspicious of everyone who isn't completely confirmed as townie in some way. Since that is impossible in this setup, due to the possible presence of the godfather, you should still be (slightly) suspicious of me. The fact that you aren't implies that you might be 'in the know', as the Mafia is. Irony and Jim are free to correct me on this if I am horribly wrong(but I don't believe I am).
Herp
Derp
Here's another relevant question: how could you possibly miss the question when you responded to the sentence right after it? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2587882#msg2587882)I am extremely dissatisfied. I ask follow up questions, and they are immediately ignored by Powder Miner and Mormota. Neither of you use any links ever when summarizing your argument either, which is terrible. Do you two really expect us to reread the entire thread for posts supporting your case? Throw a couple of relevant links in there!I'll start doing that. nayway, I never noticed your question. Now that you linked me to it, the answer is that no, I have been so caught up in fihgting Mormota that I have not really paid attention to anyone else. Time to fix that.
I have been using his OMGUS as an argument (Me "jumping on him" is not a valid reason- "jumping on him" is simply me quesitoning him to suddenly and aggressively for his liking. AKA me attacking him. He voted me for continuing to attack him, (including using his FoS which I was just calling an OMGUs to press him on), and then that is an OMGUS. Also, I never called him dumb... where the heck did you get that from? Yes, I did indeed say he was ignoring me (although I mainly said that he was ignoring parts of my posts). How, however, was he "clearly not" ignoring me? You need to back that up, or the point is moot. You do explain that I said he was ignoring him, and that I do not debate. However, trying to make him look innocent of tunneling (he's not, although i admit I am most likely guilty of it too, which is what that phrase is doing) needs backing up or it's just buddying. Not scumbuddying mind you, since obviously one is dead, but plain buddying.You claimed he was completely ignoring (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2573218#msg2573218) you. He wasn't. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2572852#msg2572852) Furthermore, when did I ever try to make Mormota look innocent of tunneling? I called both of you out on it at the start of the day. I'm not trying to make Mormota look innocent. I'm trying to get the scummier of the two tunnelers lynched because he is obviously scum.
Well, this is just really mistaken. Really really mistaken, or just more blatant buddying. You need to notice how I didn't vote him for the FoS "OMGUS". You need to notice how I was pressing him with it. His reasoning for that FoS was that I was "jumping on him", aka questioning him too suddenly and aggressivley for his liking. That's fine and all, so I grabbed it and used it to press him more, talking about how it was an OMGUSs, (I do in fact take Fingers of Suspicion seriously), and then he voted me because apparently all my reasons were false. I had already explained they were not, and he had been ignoring that. (Ooh wow I accused him of ignoring me again Ohhhh). The only other thing I see in that voting post is some weird crap about how I'm apparently reminding myself to be aggressive.So, you found a rather passive player, did something that they considered scummy(being really aggressive) and did it? To make yourself look scummy? How can I be sure you weren't just baiting them into voting you so you could scream "OMGUS!!!!", and add that to your argument against them?
An OMGUS is still an OMGUS even if you slap an excuse on it. I had explained how my reasons were not fake, and he ignored it and voted me anyway, for attacking him, despite what he said about me having false reasons. It was an excuse, based upon tunneling.It isn't if you have an actual, valid reason to vote for the person voting for you, which you immediately dismissed as an excuse.
So for all these ridiculous statements and all this buddying, I'd have to vote YOU, Orangebottle.It has some logic behind it. Flawed logic, but nevertheless.
Unvote Orangebottle. Look at that. I voted you and slapped an excuse on. Wouldn't you consider that still an OMGUS (at least if it was a real vote)? I would.
It does have basis, as Orangebottle defends you, saying you clearly did not tunnel when the majority of opinions I have seen so far is that we were both tunneling each other, (as we were in a tunneling fight not just me tunneling you. The further reasoning is Orangebottle saing you never actually OMGUSed and that you had a reason to vote me, despite the fact that I discounted that multiple times.There are a few problems with your logic here:
Fine, fine... Well anyway might as well go for Orangebottle since I'm suspicious of him anyway...You know, if people could actually read your posts, you would've been jumped on like Mormota on day 2.
Hmm... Orangebottle, can you explain why you said you were suspicious of both me and Mormota, but you went mainly for me and even defended Mormota with things that you haven't backed up when you're going for me, yet when it comes time to go for Mormota, you simply tell him that you should always be suspicious of everyone in Mafia. Why not FoS everyone them? It looks like buddying to me, and the FoS looks like an attempt to cover it up by me.
Mormota, Powder Miner: The argument you two are having is absurd, and difficult to follow. I can only see that both of you are desperately trying to stay afloat. Your argument has a generally scummy feel to it, and I cannot where it originates between the two of you. Can I hear of what you two think of each other (and everyone else) outside of the OMGUS argument?Hm. Now I have to ask myslef, "where have I seen this before?"
Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?Oh right. Right there.
By overlooking it. It's really not that hard with a tiny post like that.Here's another relevant question: how could you possibly miss the question when you responded to the sentence right after it? (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2587882#msg2587882)I am extremely dissatisfied. I ask follow up questions, and they are immediately ignored by Powder Miner and Mormota. Neither of you use any links ever when summarizing your argument either, which is terrible. Do you two really expect us to reread the entire thread for posts supporting your case? Throw a couple of relevant links in there!I'll start doing that. nayway, I never noticed your question. Now that you linked me to it, the answer is that no, I have been so caught up in fihgting Mormota that I have not really paid attention to anyone else. Time to fix that.
I have been using his OMGUS as an argument (Me "jumping on him" is not a valid reason- "jumping on him" is simply me quesitoning him to suddenly and aggressively for his liking. AKA me attacking him. He voted me for continuing to attack him, (including using his FoS which I was just calling an OMGUs to press him on), and then that is an OMGUS. Also, I never called him dumb... where the heck did you get that from? Yes, I did indeed say he was ignoring me (although I mainly said that he was ignoring parts of my posts). How, however, was he "clearly not" ignoring me? You need to back that up, or the point is moot. You do explain that I said he was ignoring him, and that I do not debate. However, trying to make him look innocent of tunneling (he's not, although i admit I am most likely guilty of it too, which is what that phrase is doing) needs backing up or it's just buddying. Not scumbuddying mind you, since obviously one is dead, but plain buddying.You claimed he was completely ignoring (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2573218#msg2573218) you. He wasn't. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2572852#msg2572852) Furthermore, when did I ever try to make Mormota look innocent of tunneling? I called both of you out on it at the start of the day. I'm not trying to make Mormota look innocent. I'm trying to get the scummier of the two tunnelers lynched because he is obviously scum.
I mostly said he was tunneling parts of my posts that he didn't like, and some posts. I never said he was tunneling me 24/7. There's a difference. I'm trying to formulate something to make or break my suspicions someone who is a fair bit scummy and seems to me to be cashing in on the whole tunnelfight. How about that?I found a rather passive player (I find that scummy), yes, and then I went in on him because I decided I should get into the action right then and there. No I did not do that to make myself look scummy. I'm sorry, Orangebottle, there are no Jester in this game, and frankly that point makes no sense. And to the next point in this paragraph, how can I be sure that you're not making ridiculous statements to get me to vote you so you can scream "OMGUS!!!!", and add that to your argument against me?!?!?! Why? Because it's ridiculous and WIFOMy. Didn't IronyOwl say something about not making ridiculous reasons to call someone scum? Because that's what I'm seeing.Well, this is just really mistaken. Really really mistaken, or just more blatant buddying. You need to notice how I didn't vote him for the FoS "OMGUS". You need to notice how I was pressing him with it. His reasoning for that FoS was that I was "jumping on him", aka questioning him too suddenly and aggressivley for his liking. That's fine and all, so I grabbed it and used it to press him more, talking about how it was an OMGUSs, (I do in fact take Fingers of Suspicion seriously), and then he voted me because apparently all my reasons were false. I had already explained they were not, and he had been ignoring that. (Ooh wow I accused him of ignoring me again Ohhhh). The only other thing I see in that voting post is some weird crap about how I'm apparently reminding myself to be aggressive.So, you found a rather passive player, did something that they considered scummy(being really aggressive) and did it? To make yourself look scummy? How can I be sure you weren't just baiting them into voting you so you could scream "OMGUS!!!!", and add that to your argument against them?
Oh and by the way, that's the defending Mormota I'm talking about. Right there*facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* It's called making a point. I wasn't actually voting you. I was proving the point that an OMGUS vote is an OMGUS vote despite excuses. I see no way you could think I was actuaqlly trying to vote you, given I made a space in between the vote and the unvote in the same post, along with an explanation of the point I was making. Well, I find two explanations. One, you're stupid, or two, you're desperately scrabbling for all the reasons you can get to lynch me. And I highly doubt you're sutpid, so that leads to the second reason.An OMGUS is still an OMGUS even if you slap an excuse on it. I had explained how my reasons were not fake, and he ignored it and voted me anyway, for attacking him, despite what he said about me having false reasons. It was an excuse, based upon tunneling.It isn't if you have an actual, valid reason to vote for the person voting for you, which you immediately dismissed as an excuse.So for all these ridiculous statements and all this buddying, I'd have to vote YOU, Orangebottle.It has some logic behind it. Flawed logic, but nevertheless.
Unvote Orangebottle. Look at that. I voted you and slapped an excuse on. Wouldn't you consider that still an OMGUS (at least if it was a real vote)? I would.
That vote/quick unvote was pretty scummy actually. Do you even care where your vote is? Were you just applying pressure to get me to back off?
Let's face it. The quick unvote shows that you're unsure of whether your argument is correct or not, and you're just trying to look active so that you don't get lynched. Not working, dude.
There's a word for attacking someone to defend another, and that is the chainsaw defense. At this point though, I think you only want me lynched so you can get us to LyLo.It does have basis, as Orangebottle defends you, saying you clearly did not tunnel when the majority of opinions I have seen so far is that we were both tunneling each other, (as we were in a tunneling fight not just me tunneling you. The further reasoning is Orangebottle saing you never actually OMGUSed and that you had a reason to vote me, despite the fact that I discounted that multiple times.There are a few problems with your logic here:
1)I'm not actively defending Mormota. I'm actively attacking you.
2)I never said Mormota wasn't tunneling. In fact, I was the first to point out that you were both tunneling each other.You seem to be slinging the acronyms and words around with no idea about how they work or what they mean.
Tunneling is what happens when one player attacks another, and focuses solely on them, looking at nobody else at all.
1) Just saying "you're scummier" Is not a reason. Try again.Fine, fine... Well anyway might as well go for Orangebottle since I'm suspicious of him anyway...You know, if people could actually read your posts, you would've been jumped on like Mormota on day 2.
Hmm... Orangebottle, can you explain why you said you were suspicious of both me and Mormota, but you went mainly for me and even defended Mormota with things that you haven't backed up when you're going for me, yet when it comes time to go for Mormota, you simply tell him that you should always be suspicious of everyone in Mafia. Why not FoS everyone them? It looks like buddying to me, and the FoS looks like an attempt to cover it up by me.
I went for you because:
1)You're scummier.
2)Your logic and arguments can range from somewhat understandable to completely ridiculous at times. Like your current reasoning about 'tunneling'.
3)The majority of your posts are largely incomprehensible.
Both of you. Mormota, Powder Miner. Listen to Jim's advice, goddamnit.
By overlooking it. It's really not that hard with a tiny post like that.You saw the post. It eight new sentences in it. Two of these pertained to you. Of the two, you remarked on one but completely ignored the other's existence. When there's hardly a space between them. I find your missing of it very hard to believe.
I mostly said he was tunneling parts of my posts that he didn't like, and some posts. I never said he was tunneling me 24/7. There's a difference. I'm trying to formulate something to make or break my suspicions someone who is a fair bit scummy and seems to me to be cashing in on the whole tunnelfight. How about that?You're using so much wording in so many places without knowing what it means that you've confused tunneling with ignoring. Also, in the post I linked, you only said he was ignoring you. You never went into specifics. You're only doing so now, when you've been pressured. Here's another example of you abusing the words and claiming that Mormota is just ignoring you overall. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2574295#msg2574295)
I found a rather passive player (I find that scummy), yes, and then I went in on him because I decided I should get into the action right then and there. No I did not do that to make myself look scummy. I'm sorry, Orangebottle, there are no Jester in this game, and frankly that point makes no sense. And to the next point in this paragraph, how can I be sure that you're not making ridiculous statements to get me to vote you so you can scream "OMGUS!!!!", and add that to your argument against me?!?!?! Why? Because it's ridiculous and WIFOMy. Didn't IronyOwl say something about not making ridiculous reasons to call someone scum? Because that's what I'm seeing.Oh boy, more abused words. He'd just gone off at Jim for being aggressive, and then you get in his face. Anyway, this point was stupid and I have no idea why I added it in the first place.
Oh and by the way, that's the defending Mormota I'm talking about. Right thereMormota doesn't need my help to defend himself. I'm not attacking you to defend him. I'm attacking you because I think you're scum. Though that impression has certainly weakened during this exchange, I'm going to continue because I still think you're scum.
*facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* It's called making a point. I wasn't actually voting you. I was proving the point that an OMGUS vote is an OMGUS vote despite excuses. I see no way you could think I was actuaqlly trying to vote you, given I made a space in between the vote and the unvote in the same post, along with an explanation of the point I was making. Well, I find two explanations. One, you're stupid, or two, you're desperately scrabbling for all the reasons you can get to lynch me. And I highly doubt you're sutpid, so that leads to the second reason.Three: I'm scumhunting, albeit in a way you aren't used to.
You're scrabbling for reasons, no matter how ridiculous they are, just to get me lynched. Let's face it, dude.Dude, it doesn't matter if I look like scum. I'm trying to get scum lynched. If it makes me look like scum in the process, so be it. Dude.
And here's a hint, going no holds barred without real reasoning to try to get someone lynched doesn't make you look like town. Let's face it dude.
There's a word for attacking someone to defend another, and that is the chainsaw defense. At this point though, I think you only want me lynched so you can get us to LyLo.[sarcasm]Clearly if someone is doing something strange there has to be something scummy to it. If a guy's attacking you instead of the person you're attacking, well, obviously he's trying to defend them, isn't he!?!?![/sarcasm]
1) Just saying "you're scummier" Is not a reason. Try again.1)Yes. Yes it is. The reasoning behind you being scummier is in my posts. Like this one.
2) I can, and I am, say the same thing about you. This would be one of the "completely ridiculous" moments. Also, Mormota was tunneling. Everyone but you acknowledge that
3) Boo-hoo, hoo I'm not good at making posts. that i absolutely no reason to vot someone, and it's simply more scummy scrabbling for reasons.
Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?3)Actually, it can be. Town needs to be understood to actually get anywhere with their hunting, and between misquoting things, abusing the game's words, and all the spelling and grammar errors you make, it's taking me a long time to make heads or tails of what you're posting.
IronyOwl: I have noticed that yours was the vote that delivered the lynch to scum Zombie Urist. Even if Jim pushed you to break the tie, it would have definitely benefited you to vote for Zombie to make you look like town. General parrotness would be a liability to you as his scum partner more than it would be to him, and is a weak excuse to vote for him on its own. You are a solid player that would need to either cover for him or get rid of the weak link yourself, and he is just a lurking novice that did not have a unique opinion.Or I could have voted whichever of Powder or Mormota I preferred, leaving it at LYLO today and without destroying my ability to bus him later.
There's a word for attacking someone to defend another, and that is the chainsaw defense. At this point though, I think you only want me lynched so you can get us to LyLo.
Dude, it doesn't matter if I look like scum. I'm trying to get scum lynched. If it makes me look like scum in the process, so be it. Dude.
MMMFFF. Walls of text that I'm not convinced are going anywhere make this hard to handle.
Flandre:
Orangebottle, what makes you think Powder is scummier than Mormota?
MMMFFF. Walls of text that I'm not convinced are going anywhere make this hard to handle.Elementary my dear Watson.
Flandre:IronyOwl: I have noticed that yours was the vote that delivered the lynch to scum Zombie Urist. Even if Jim pushed you to break the tie, it would have definitely benefited you to vote for Zombie to make you look like town. General parrotness would be a liability to you as his scum partner more than it would be to him, and is a weak excuse to vote for him on its own. You are a solid player that would need to either cover for him or get rid of the weak link yourself, and he is just a lurking novice that did not have a unique opinion.Or I could have voted whichever of Powder or Mormota I preferred, leaving it at LYLO today and without destroying my ability to bus him later.
Orangebottle, what makes you think Powder is scummier than Mormota?
Oh dear lord, now you're both getting your words mixed up. That wasn't even directed at you, Mormota.There's a word for attacking someone to defend another, and that is the chainsaw defense. At this point though, I think you only want me lynched so you can get us to LyLo.WHAT. THE. FUCK.
All this time, you said you were suspicious of me because of my chainsaw defense against you. NOW you're saying that a chainsaw defense is something else entirely? Good lord.
Oh dear lord, now you're both getting your words mixed up. That wasn't even directed at you, Mormota.
Dude, it doesn't matter if I look like scum. I'm trying to get scum lynched. If it makes me look like scum in the process, so be it. Dude.
From my limited experience, that is horribly wrong. If you look scummy, then you will derail other townies looking for scum. That is not what you want. You want to avoid looking scummy even as town so that we can effectively hunt the mafia. You have kindled a bit of suspicion in me.
Chainsaw Defense and OMGUS.Oh dear lord, now you're both getting your words mixed up. That wasn't even directed at you, Mormota.
Please do tell me what exactly I mixed up.
The only people who should be concerned with how they look are the scum.Dude, it doesn't matter if I look like scum. I'm trying to get scum lynched. If it makes me look like scum in the process, so be it. Dude.
From my limited experience, that is horribly wrong. If you look scummy, then you will derail other townies looking for scum. That is not what you want. You want to avoid looking scummy even as town so that we can effectively hunt the mafia. You have kindled a bit of suspicion in me.
Blame my short attention span. Anyways, don't you have anything to say about this Orangebottle?
Chainsaw Defense and OMGUS.
The only people who should be concerned with how they look are the scum.
Ah. Didn't see that.Chainsaw Defense and OMGUS.
He often pointed out (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2574295#msg2574295) how my "chainsaw defense" was suspicious. I'm not mixing anything up.
In fact I did not see the post. Just because omehting pertans to me doesn't automatically mean I see it.By overlooking it. It's really not that hard with a tiny post like that.You saw the post. It eight new sentences in it. Two of these pertained to you. Of the two, you remarked on one but completely ignored the other's existence. When there's hardly a space between them. I find your missing of it very hard to believe.
Yes, I did say he was tunneling there. However, he WAS tunneling me for at least some of the time (and I was referring to him tunneling a few of my recent posts there), and let me put it this way, you can't have a tunnel fight with less than two people. Also, the reason you uncluded that point is becuse you're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons to get the town in LyLo tomorrow. IN Beginner's Mafia, LyLo has been good for scum. LyLo is generally good for scum, in fact.I mostly said he was tunneling parts of my posts that he didn't like, and some posts. I never said he was tunneling me 24/7. There's a difference. I'm trying to formulate something to make or break my suspicions someone who is a fair bit scummy and seems to me to be cashing in on the whole tunnelfight. How about that?You're using so much wording in so many places without knowing what it means that you've confused tunneling with ignoring. Also, in the post I linked, you only said he was ignoring you. You never went into specifics. You're only doing so now, when you've been pressured. Here's another example of you abusing the words and claiming that Mormota is just ignoring you overall. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2574295#msg2574295)I found a rather passive player (I find that scummy), yes, and then I went in on him because I decided I should get into the action right then and there. No I did not do that to make myself look scummy. I'm sorry, Orangebottle, there are no Jester in this game, and frankly that point makes no sense. And to the next point in this paragraph, how can I be sure that you're not making ridiculous statements to get me to vote you so you can scream "OMGUS!!!!", and add that to your argument against me?!?!?! Why? Because it's ridiculous and WIFOMy. Didn't IronyOwl say something about not making ridiculous reasons to call someone scum? Because that's what I'm seeing.Oh boy, more abused words. He'd just gone off at Jim for being aggressive, and then you get in his face. Anyway, this point was stupid and I have no idea why I added it in the first place.
If you thought I was scum, you would be asking actual scumhunt questions, not making ridiculous crap up and trying to find the strangest possible meaning nto my posts just to get me lynched. If you were scumhunting, you would look for sensible questions. You're really just trying to get to LyLo.Oh and by the way, that's the defending Mormota I'm talking about. Right thereMormota doesn't need my help to defend himself. I'm not attacking you to defend him. I'm attacking you because I think you're scum. Though that impression has certainly weakened during this exchange, I'm going to continue because I still think you're scum.
*sigh* There is a difference between scumhunting and trying to get someone lynched with ridiculous reasons. You still seem to not understand that. Also, I have already broken down that reason, and shown it's not a reason. My reasons for voting him weren't fake.*facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk* It's called making a point. I wasn't actually voting you. I was proving the point that an OMGUS vote is an OMGUS vote despite excuses. I see no way you could think I was actuaqlly trying to vote you, given I made a space in between the vote and the unvote in the same post, along with an explanation of the point I was making. Well, I find two explanations. One, you're stupid, or two, you're desperately scrabbling for all the reasons you can get to lynch me. And I highly doubt you're sutpid, so that leads to the second reason.Three: I'm scumhunting, albeit in a way you aren't used to.
Yes, an OMGUS is an OMGUS, but not if it's a vote with actual reasons used in the voting. You still seem to not understand that.
YOu're trying to get town lynched to gt us to LyLo. If you really wanted yo lynch scum, you would be going for sensible, real scumhunting reasons. Making insane crap up really doesn't help town.[/quote]You're scrabbling for reasons, no matter how ridiculous they are, just to get me lynched. Let's face it, dude.Dude, it doesn't matter if I look like scum. I'm trying to get scum lynched. If it makes me look like scum in the process, so be it. Dude.
And here's a hint, going no holds barred without real reasoning to try to get someone lynched doesn't make you look like town. Let's face it dude.
You had been taking about how he clearly wasn;t ignoring me at all (he was, even if not the whole time, and note I never actually stated he was ignoring me all the time.There's a word for attacking someone to defend another, and that is the chainsaw defense. At this point though, I think you only want me lynched so you can get us to LyLo.[sarcasm]Clearly if someone is doing something strange there has to be something scummy to it. If a guy's attacking you instead of the person you're attacking, well, obviously he's trying to defend them, isn't he!?!?![/sarcasm]
Leaps of logic like that help nobody.
1) Oh really? You're scummy then! This unbacked-up claim is the ultimate reason everyone should vote you ahahahah! Yeeeaaah, that's not the way it works Orangebottle.1) Just saying "you're scummier" Is not a reason. Try again.1)Yes. Yes it is. The reasoning behind you being scummier is in my posts. Like this one.
2) I can, and I am, say the same thing about you. This would be one of the "completely ridiculous" moments. Also, Mormota was tunneling. Everyone but you acknowledge that
3) Boo-hoo, hoo I'm not good at making posts. that i absolutely no reason to vot someone, and it's simply more scummy scrabbling for reasons.
2) Okay. I'm just going to quote a little gem for you. The first living player's post of day three, if you will.Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?3)Actually, it can be. Town needs to be understood to actually get anywhere with their hunting, and between misquoting things, abusing the game's words, and all the spelling and grammar errors you make, it's taking me a long time to make heads or tails of what you're posting.
First of all, his day two behavior. Powder Miner made a number of false claims while tunneling Mormota, giving everything he had to try and get him lynched. His main reason for the vote was an OMGUS that wasn't an OMGUS (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2570937#msg2570937) because Mormota had a reason to vote for him (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2572450#msg2572450).I made no false claims. It WAS an OMGUS because his supposed reason that my claims were false I had already disproved by then.
Powder Miner proceeds to falsely accuse Mormota (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2573218#msg2573218) of ignoring him several times (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2574295#msg2574295), even when Mormota is responding to his posts. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2573549#msg2573549) Mormota even asks for clarification on what exactly was ignored (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2575404#msg2575404). Powder continues to use this false claim on day 3.I missed it. This is not blatant ignoring. However if you're going to blatantly ignore me talking about how I did not see it, really that's scummy.I had included what he ignored in that post or the one after. And he haad ignored me some of the time. You're twisting my words to make it sound like I said he ignored me every single second. I did not. So if this makes me so suspicious, what do you thinf of the fact that Mormota did the exact same thing?Quote from: Orangebottle
Secondly, Powder Miner blatantly ignored my question here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2587736#msg2587736), which is what usually gets me to start voting for someone and taking sides in a tunnel-war. It's not just that he ignored the question, though. He ignored it while acknowledging the post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2587882#msg2587882). Ignoring questions on purpose, with no reason posted as to why? Scummy.
Third, the quick unvote (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2588865#msg2588865). Townies don't need to use scare tactics to get other townies off their back.More proof of your scrabbling. How do you disguise that as a "scare tactic" If I wanted to vote you, I would have voted, and there's no way in heck someone can take illustrating a point like that for a threat. It's not a quick unvote. It was an unvote in the same post, in other words, I never actually cat my vote at you. (I did later, but that's a different case.) You're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons, and this here is the cream of the insane crop.
A few more things here:I attacked Mormota first. I'm not "only suspicious of people who attack me" Try again.
Note how he is only suspicious of people who attack him. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2588889#msg2588889)
His posts tend to be terribly formatted, which doesn't help the town at all. (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2588865#msg2588865) Scum can't answer his questions right because they can hardly understand him, and Town has a hard time understanding his attacks on other people.More scrabbling. Just because I hadn't been able to post well (and knowing how to quote now, it's changed), in no way makes me scum, and now that my pots are legible, this point fails even harder.
They both look somewhat scummy, what with tunneling eachother an entire day and continuing it the next, and ignoring the IC multiple times, but Powder looks more scum than new.And now I think I've pulled your reasons for voting me apart. But considering your only worry right now is scrabbling for all of the bullcrap reasons you can come up and getting the town into LyLo, YOu probably won't even try scumhunting (for real, ridiculous crap that makes no sense doesn't count), and undoubtedly you won't let logic get in your way.
In fact I did not see the post. Just because omehting pertans to me doesn't automatically mean I see it.
Jim. Look at that and tell me he is not scummy when he is outright contradicting himself from post to post.Jim isn't supposed to be scumhunting anymore. He's dead.
I'm not even going to go further because you just contradicted yourself in your second line. (Not in reading, I read it all, duh.)Nah, that's my job. Because it's me versus him.
In fact I did not see the post. Just because omehting pertans to me doesn't automatically mean I see it.If you didn't see the post, how could you possibly have responded to my comment about your awful grammar? You're backpedaling, scum.
Yes, I did say he was tunneling there. However, he WAS tunneling me for at least some of the time (and I was referring to him tunneling a few of my recent posts there), and let me put it this way, you can't have a tunnel fight with less than two people.I never said either of you weren't tunneling eachother. In fact, I called both of you out on it at the start of the day.
Also, the reason you uncluded that point is becuse you're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons to get the town in LyLo tomorrow. IN Beginner's Mafia, LyLo has been good for scum. LyLo is generally good for scum, in fact.No. I am trying to get you lynched because I believe you're scum. Not all of my reasons are ridiculous; you just choose to dismiss them as such.
If you thought I was scum, you would be asking actual scumhunt questions, not making ridiculous crap up and trying to find the strangest possible meaning nto my posts just to get me lynched. If you were scumhunting, you would look for sensible questions. You're really just trying to get to LyLo.Or I would be presenting my case and trying to get the town to lynch scum. Kinda like I am now.
*sigh* There is a difference between scumhunting and trying to get someone lynched with ridiculous reasons. You still seem to not understand that. Also, I have already broken down that reason, and shown it's not a reason. My reasons for voting him weren't fake.You know, getting you to tunnel me has provided a lot of material for all of us to analyze. It's much more effective than any random question. There's also a difference between calling something something it isn't and actually proving that it is.
YOu're trying to get town lynched to gt us to LyLo. If you really wanted yo lynch scum, you would be going for sensible, real scumhunting reasons. Making insane crap up really doesn't help town.No. I'm trying to get scum lynched to get us victory.
You had been taking about how he clearly wasn;t ignoring me at all (he was, even if not the whole time, and note I never actually stated he was ignoring me all the time.Actually, it's that you stated that he was ignoring you in general. With posts like "I'm sorry youre just ignorin me now". Then, today, you clarified it to "He was ignoring parts of my posts." To use that point in my argument, I have to prove that your argument against him was bullshit. And I did exactly that.
1) Oh really? You're scummy then! This unbacked-up claim is the ultimate reason everyone should vote you ahahahah! Yeeeaaah, that's not the way it works Orangebottle.1) I was telling you that if you read my post you'd already know why I think you're scummy. Of course, you are incapable of reading between the lines, so you just posted that.
2) Please explain to me how that is relevant. You're not even voting for anyone in there, and therefore it's not an example of reasoning.
3) This is pathetic. I think I'm understood now. Anyway, forcing the town into LyLo isn't good for town. Also, to get anywhere with hunting you need to actually pull up sensible reasons. Typing and posting prowess is not one of these, and it wouldn't be even if that was a problem right now. More scrabbling...
I made no false claims. It WAS an OMGUS because his supposed reason that my claims were false I had already disproved by then.Proof. Give me proof. Don't just say "I disproved his reasons by then". Give me a link to a post where you trounced his reasoning, or hell, quote it here. Mind you, if the post doesn't say why his reasoning is false/disproved/whatever, it's not going to work.
I had included what he ignored in that post or the one after. And he haad ignored me some of the time. You're twisting my words to make it sound like I said he ignored me every single second. I did not. So if this makes me so suspicious, what do you thinf of the fact that Mormota did the exact same thing?God, dude, don't just insert your crap in the middle of a bunch of quoted text.
I missed it. This is not blatant ignoring. However if you're going to blatantly ignore me talking about how I did not see it, really that's scummy.My point is, how could you possibly not see it when it's right next to the statement you actually responded to?!
More proof of your scrabbling. How do you disguise that as a "scare tactic" If I wanted to vote you, I would have voted, and there's no way in heck someone can take illustrating a point like that for a threat. It's not a quick unvote. It was an unvote in the same post, in other words, I never actually cat my vote at you. (I did later, but that's a different case.) You're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons, and this here is the cream of the insane crop.It's a scare tactic because you threatened me with a vote to get me to back off. And yes, it is a threat. You could easily have just said "What if I voted for you right after you'd done it to me, for little reason? Would you consider that an OMGUS? I would." but no, you went for the red, intimidating text in an attempt to force me to back off. It failed.
I attacked Mormota first. I'm not "only suspicious of people who attack me" Try again.Yes you are. You aren't suspicious of IronyOwl or Flandre, and neither of them have attacked you. You weren't suspicious of Zombie Urist or Jim Groovester yesterday, and neither of them attacked you. Let's face it: the only reason you're after me right now is because I attacked you first. Mormota and I have both received your vote, and both of us have launched full-scale attacks on you.
More scrabbling. Just because I hadn't been able to post well (and knowing how to quote now, it's changed), in no way makes me scum, and now that my pots are legible, this point fails even harder.No. It makes you hard to read and annoying in general. [sarcasm]And yes. Your pots are very legible. Well done.[/sarcasm]
And now I think I've pulled your reasons for voting me apart. But considering your only worry right now is scrabbling for all of the bullcrap reasons you can come up and getting the town into LyLo, YOu probably won't even try scumhunting (for real, ridiculous crap that makes no sense doesn't count), and undoubtedly you won't let logic get in your way.Nope, I'm still up and punching. Also: I've done way more scumhunting than you have. Don't even try to deny it.
Jim: I'm not going to argue with you. You have more experience, I understand that. But Powder Miner is acting in a way that is rather hard to explain. He's not being aggressive either, which is a scumtell if I'm correct. Or atleast a scummy sign. I'm just asking you if you're sure that I should drop my vote. Say so, and I will.
Jim. Look at that and tell me he is not scummy when he is outright contradicting himself from post to post.
The only people who should be concerned with how they look are the scum.
That's probably right.Jim. Look at that and tell me he is not scummy when he is outright contradicting himself from post to post.Jim isn't supposed to be scumhunting anymore. He's dead.
At least, I think that's how ICs work.
Huh? You made several grammar comments, in several different posts. You're backpedaling here. Besides, the problem here is not grammar but typing. Get it right.I'm not even going to go further because you just contradicted yourself in your second line. (Not in reading, I read it all, duh.)Nah, that's my job. Because it's me versus him.In fact I did not see the post. Just because omehting pertans to me doesn't automatically mean I see it.If you didn't see the post, how could you possibly have responded to my comment about your awful grammar? You're backpedaling, scum.
Good. Then that's taken care of.Yes, I did say he was tunneling there. However, he WAS tunneling me for at least some of the time (and I was referring to him tunneling a few of my recent posts there), and let me put it this way, you can't have a tunnel fight with less than two people.I never said either of you weren't tunneling eachother. In fact, I called both of you out on it at the start of the day.
I didn't say all of them were ridiculous. I pointed out a few which are either twisted beyond recognition (The vote/unvote I was illustrating my point with) or just plain not reason to lynch someone with (Grammar)Also, the reason you uncluded that point is becuse you're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons to get the town in LyLo tomorrow. IN Beginner's Mafia, LyLo has been good for scum. LyLo is generally good for scum, in fact.No. I am trying to get you lynched because I believe you're scum. Not all of my reasons are ridiculous; you just choose to dismiss them as such.
The burden of proof is on the attacker, not the victim. What i'm trying to say here is: if you want to claim something is ridiculous, invalid, or whathaveyou, prove it. Otherwise it's all just empty words.
That would be a valid point if your case wasn't "Ooh he got in a tunnel fight ooh he missed that post, ooh by illustrating point he was somehow actually voting for me and using scare tactics, ooh he has bad grammar! Lynchlynchlynchlynchlynch!!!"If you thought I was scum, you would be asking actual scumhunt questions, not making ridiculous crap up and trying to find the strangest possible meaning nto my posts just to get me lynched. If you were scumhunting, you would look for sensible questions. You're really just trying to get to LyLo.Or I would be presenting my case and trying to get the town to lynch scum. Kinda like I am now.
Really, Orangebottle, I've answered all of your questions repeatedly, yet you haven't moved on to new ones. If any of us is tunneling here, Orangebottle, it's you. Trying that card won't get me to burst into tears and root for scum. I'm sorry.*sigh* There is a difference between scumhunting and trying to get someone lynched with ridiculous reasons. You still seem to not understand that. Also, I have already broken down that reason, and shown it's not a reason. My reasons for voting him weren't fake.You know, getting you to tunnel me has provided a lot of material for all of us to analyze. It's much more effective than any random question. There's also a difference between calling something something it isn't and actually proving that it is.
You are? Then why are you using the ridiculous points such as A, grammar, B somehow misinterpreting me illustrating my point about OMGUS excuses to make it sound like scare tactics (Seriously, what the heck?), C calling me scummy without backing it up and saying that calling me scummy is a good point, and never moving on to new questions, tunneling me (and saying I'm tunneling you) instead of actual scumhunting? Answer me, scum.YOu're trying to get town lynched to gt us to LyLo. If you really wanted yo lynch scum, you would be going for sensible, real scumhunting reasons. Making insane crap up really doesn't help town.No. I'm trying to get scum lynched to get us victory.
Why don't you analyze Mormota's posts then. If you're truly suspicious of me for that, you need to see that he was saying the exact same thing, more than I was, and question him too? Or are you just using this as leverage to get me lynched? ANd so you say you proved my argument was crap. You never did. You never showed how he wasn't tunneling me. Therefore you're lying, and your point is null.You had been taking about how he clearly wasn;t ignoring me at all (he was, even if not the whole time, and note I never actually stated he was ignoring me all the time.Actually, it's that you stated that he was ignoring you in general. With posts like "I'm sorry youre just ignorin me now". Then, today, you clarified it to "He was ignoring parts of my posts." To use that point in my argument, I have to prove that your argument against him was bullshit. And I did exactly that.
1) I'd already countered your points. Of course, since you are incapable of doing anything but repeating the same crap over and over and over again, you just posted that.1) Oh really? You're scummy then! This unbacked-up claim is the ultimate reason everyone should vote you ahahahah! Yeeeaaah, that's not the way it works Orangebottle.1) I was telling you that if you read my post you'd already know why I think you're scummy. Of course, you are incapable of reading between the lines, so you just posted that.
2) Please explain to me how that is relevant. You're not even voting for anyone in there, and therefore it's not an example of reasoning.
3) This is pathetic. I think I'm understood now. Anyway, forcing the town into LyLo isn't good for town. Also, to get anywhere with hunting you need to actually pull up sensible reasons. Typing and posting prowess is not one of these, and it wouldn't be even if that was a problem right now. More scrabbling...
2)You claimed that I was saying that Mormota didn't tunnel you at all. I actually did the opposite of that, and called you both out on it at the same time.
3)The town won't be forced into LYLO if we lynch scum. Scum like yourself. And no, this point makes perfect sense. I explained my reasoning behind it and you're just like,"No, no, that's utterly ridiculous."
Why? You need to be able to type well no matter what role you are in this game because otherwise people will get tired of trying to translate your shit and lynch you, or at best ignore you.
I will deny it. I won't back off, sorry. Because you see, making up the ridiculous reasons I pulled apart earlier in this post and refusing to move on to new ones does not count as scumhunting. You're up and punching, but you're not scumhunting, and as I said, you won't let logic get in your way.I made no false claims. It WAS an OMGUS because his supposed reason that my claims were false I had already disproved by then.Proof. Give me proof. Don't just say "I disproved his reasons by then". Give me a link to a post where you trounced his reasoning, or hell, quote it here. Mind you, if the post doesn't say why his reasoning is false/disproved/whatever, it's not going to work. [/quote.] The problem is that I can't edit my post, and the Topic summary only goes so far.Quote from: OrangebottleAlready said above.I had included what he ignored in that post or the one after. And he haad ignored me some of the time. You're twisting my words to make it sound like I said he ignored me every single second. I did not. So if this makes me so suspicious, what do you thinf of the fact that Mormota did the exact same thing?God, dude, don't just insert your crap in the middle of a bunch of quoted text.I missed it. This is not blatant ignoring. However if you're going to blatantly ignore me talking about how I did not see it, really that's scummy.My point is, how could you possibly not see it when it's right next to the statement you actually responded to?!More proof of your scrabbling. How do you disguise that as a "scare tactic" If I wanted to vote you, I would have voted, and there's no way in heck someone can take illustrating a point like that for a threat. It's not a quick unvote. It was an unvote in the same post, in other words, I never actually cat my vote at you. (I did later, but that's a different case.) You're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons, and this here is the cream of the insane crop.Quote from: OrangebottleIt's a scare tactic because you threatened me with a vote to get me to back off. And yes, it is a threat. You could easily have just said "What if I voted for you right after you'd done it to me, for little reason? Would you consider that an OMGUS? I would." but no, you went for the red, intimidating text in an attempt to force me to back off. It failed.Wow, you really don't understand do you? Clearly not. YOu're being remarkably thick-skulled right now, and I'll explain how, in big sentences so you can understand:
I was repeating what I thought Mormota was doing by exaggerating. If I wanted you to back off, I would not have unvoted. You have to be being reaaallllly ignorant to think I WAS threatening you, especially considering what I wrote after I did it.Quote from: OrangebottleI would really appreciate it if you understood Mormota attacked me because I attacked him. You attacked me, an that would be fine, but you're acting very scummily in the process of doing so. I'm not suspicious of IronyOwl and Flandre because they've been lurky, but with RL reasons, so I have no matrial to go on with them.I attacked Mormota first. I'm not "only suspicious of people who attack me" Try again.Yes you are. You aren't suspicious of IronyOwl or Flandre, and neither of them have attacked you. You weren't suspicious of Zombie Urist or Jim Groovester yesterday, and neither of them attacked you. Let's face it: the only reason you're after me right now is because I attacked you first. Mormota and I have both received your vote, and both of us have launched full-scale attacks on you.Quote from: Orangebottle[sarcasm] Oh man I typoed a word. I suppose I'll get instalynched now that I mistyped a word. [/sarcasm]More scrabbling. Just because I hadn't been able to post well (and knowing how to quote now, it's changed), in no way makes me scum, and now that my pots are legible, this point fails even harder.No. It makes you hard to read and annoying in general. [sarcasm]And yes. Your pots are very legible. Well done.[/sarcasm]And now I think I've pulled your reasons for voting me apart. But considering your only worry right now is scrabbling for all of the bullcrap reasons you can come up and getting the town into LyLo, YOu probably won't even try scumhunting (for real, ridiculous crap that makes no sense doesn't count), and undoubtedly you won't let logic get in your way.Nope, I'm still up and punching. Also: I've done way more scumhunting than you have. Don't even try to deny it.
IronyOwl, what is MMMFFF?Why did you ask this question?
I personally find this question rather nonsensical. Powder Miner is currently jumping from argument to argument and generally acting scummy.Why did you answer this question? It wasn't even directed at you.
IronyOwl, what is MMMFFF?An exasperated sound. Sorry if it looks short enough to be an acronym.
Also, the reason you uncluded that point is becuse you're scrabbling for ridiculous reasons to get the town in LyLo tomorrow. IN Beginner's Mafia, LyLo has been good for scum. LyLo is generally good for scum, in fact.This explanation is worthless, because it's explicitly stating the obvious ("scum wants to bring the game to lylo") with only a faint explanation for how that's relevant to anything. Sticking with "You're trying to get anyone lynched on anything you can" is more concise, and thus more relevant, easier to read, etc.
1) I'd already countered your points. Of course, since you are incapable of doing anything but repeating the same crap over and over and over again, you just posted that.LINKS. ACTUAL POINTS. EXPLANATIONS. You've been doing this vague accusation bullshit all game and it does nothing. Show- as concisely as you can- that it's actually true, don't just handwave it off and move on.
Open a new tab, find the post you want, quote button, copy+paste into your actual reply, back button to continue quote hunting.Quote from: OrangebottleProof. Give me proof. Don't just say "I disproved his reasons by then". Give me a link to a post where you trounced his reasoning, or hell, quote it here. Mind you, if the post doesn't say why his reasoning is false/disproved/whatever, it's not going to work.The problem is that I can't edit my post, and the Topic summary only goes so far.
I personally find this question rather nonsensical. Powder Miner is currently jumping from argument to argument and generally acting scummy. Please, and I'm being serious now, tell me how I am currently scummy?You're pulling much of the same stuff as Powder, notably the "I already destroyed these points that I'm not going to link!" attitude.
Jim: He posts huge WoTs with no substance. That is a scumtell I think. More later.
You also deliberately ignore your opponent's wall of text just because he contradicted himself in the first line (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91240.msg2591505#msg2591505).
During aforementioned tunnel war, most of your questions sound like they come from a conspiracy theorist. They accuse people of doing things they aren't actually doing, like accusing me of rolefishing when I asked you if you had any particular reason for your predecessor's lurking.
Mormota:
1)Why were you so incredibly focused on getting Powder Miner lynched that you were missing questions left and right?
2)Why were you answering questions that weren't obvious, or even for you to answer?
3)Where's that Powder Miner case? [joke]Or did Toaster tell you to not post it? It is his #1 scumtell, after all.[/joke]
Mormota:Why were you answering questions not meant for you in the first place? Are you going to reread the thread for evidence, or are you just going to use yesterday?
I would like to be replaced, please. I should have asked to be replaced yesterday, and I feel like an idiot for not doing so, but Mafia is at the back of my mind lately. I do not think that qualifies as lurking, at least...Whatisthisidon'teven
Those excuses I have offered were not false, but playing was starting to feel like a chore, and I have told myself prior to thinking so that I will play this to the very end! Please forgive me, guys. I will most definitely want to play a game in the future. Congratulations on making it to lylo, by the way!
I did not ignore his wall of text. He was, given our limited knowledge at the time, acting scummily, ignoring questions and very often outright contradicting himself, as we have both pointed out over the previous day. As you have pointed out, Jim told us to stop. I obviously did not feel like that to be a correct decision, simply because of how Powder Miner was acting, and I myself was getting tired of all that, so I pointed out one thing, and just one. Not that he responded to it.
Not true. That was before Powder Miner even appeared. I personally disagree with using the word "accuse", but that is obviously subjective.Timeline is pretty irrelevant here. You still accused people of doing things they weren't, but that could just be a newtell instead of a scumtell. So, point dropped.
1, There is no connection between the two. I was focused on Powder Miner, because every single guide I read, plus the ICs, told me to be agressive and focus on one person. I was not "missing questions left and right" either, but you'd have to define that for it become something we can argue about.1. Kay.
2, I did not answer IronyOwl's question, I just pointed out how I felt it to be nonsensical and slightly ignorant of all the reasons we have both brought up at the time, making IronyOwl slightly suspicious.
3, I can post it if you really want me to, but it's rather pointless. Explanation in my above post.
Orangebottle: I do not have anything concrete upon you, but there is something about you as a whole that I, while being unable to place a finger on, find suspicious.Well, I can't really defend myself against a gut feeling, now can I?
Orangebottle: I do not have anything concrete upon you, but there is something about you as a whole that I, while being unable to place a finger on, find suspicious.Well, I can't really defend myself against a gut feeling, now can I?
Congratulations on making it to lylo, by the way!
Max. This is terrible. Just end it. Nobody should be allowed to ask for a replacement at LYLO. It inserts a player who is practically untouchable, because we can't look at their logic, their votes, etc. Not only that, Flandre was inactive for most of the game, so we can't even look at Flandre to judge whether this new person is scum or not. Two townies vs an invincible scum does not a balanced game make. Besides, very few people can even be up to reading the entire thread in a day, much less getting one of two people to lynch the other.
Because unfortunately, noone believes you even when you point out glaringly obviously things (like me not actually having supposed "scare tactics") when you're scummy.
If there is one thing that i've learned from this game, it's either "hurry the fuck up and get your case out" or "extend extend extend!" I had a nagging suspicion that orange was scum, oddly enough. Just like I had the same weird feeling against scum bdthemag in the last game. Weird, huh?
Actually, that noobish behavior is why I'm picking him. I've called all three NKs, they were easily predictable. The scum player was systematically removing the best scumhunters.
Someone mentioned I'd be a very good NK target because I'm a strong player. I was eliminated that night; I figured an IC scum or a more experienced newbie scum would pick someone else, because as debatable as my talents are, there are better targets (especially since I was way off in my suspicions).
Next were Jim, and Irony...the two ICs. Clear, easy choices when no one was commenting on a single player being a powerful factor. Hell, after two days of relentless tunneling, it was pretty clear who NOT to lynch.
OB seems too clever to simply snipe one skilled hunter after another. It seems like the decision a total novice would come to after being given some nonspecific advice by Toaster, like "lynch people that can catch you".
I could easily be overthinking this, but my gut says Mormota. He walked into the game with a screaming, scummy post and hasn't let up yet.
As for Arathos, I suggested killing him because it would be ironic, after he predicted that he would be killed N1.*cringe*
If there is one thing that i've learned from this game, it's either "hurry the fuck up and get your case out" or "extend extend extend!" I had a nagging suspicion that orange was scum, oddly enough. Just like I had the same weird feeling against scum bdthemag in the last game. Weird, huh?Your gut can be a surprisingly good indicator; you should listen to it when possible.
I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT. Still lost though. Because unfortunately, noone believes you even when you point out glaringly obviously things (like me not actually having supposed "scare tactics") when you're scummy. Then Orangebottle made the vote on Flandre, Mormota phased out of the game, and It was confirmed to me that Orangebottle was scum.To be honest, that was one of only two things I thought odd about his attack on you, and I dismissed it because the rest of his case seemed solid. The other was why he was going after you over Mormota, but he provided a reason for that.