Looking forward to a game with all y'alls.
I know a girl named Katie, and she's a total snob. RAR KATIES.
Well, it's still the random stage, so I'm not so sure I'd jump to any conclusions about things being scummy at this stage in the game. And I'm not so sure I agree with you there. A townie wanting to start discussion would put a 2nd vote on an active player, one who would be likely to respond. I kind of feel like putting a 2nd vote on an inactive player would be a much easier scum move. That is, if this weren't in the random phase. And since it is, I don't really think it means much.Vir4030 wrote:Maybe it's because I'm the target, but this seems scummy to me. There were two other people who had 1-votes on them who hadn't posted yet. If Alurin was looking for reactions to a second vote, they would have been better choices.Alurin wrote:Reactions to a second vote seem potentially a lot more interesting than another random 1-vote.
/in before "Alurin is scum for trying to start a bandwagon"
I'm not sure what to make of calling himself scum. I don't see why town would ever want to do that.
Yep. That works too. I wasn't going to straight up assume it was your first forum game. Either way, not scummy IMO, on either count.Vir4030 wrote:Or you can chalk it up to my first forum game. There's no "Random Stage" on IRC.SecretAgentOrange wrote:I mean, you seem to be a little overly defensive here, but I think I'd prefer to chalk that up as in line with your initial reluctance to random vote in the beginning and not as a scumtell.
Malyss wrote: SAO, your original thought that my “moniker prejudice” vote was random is correct.
I don't really understand how you supporting that it was random fits with this post here. Was it a random vote or was it the "jabbing back" of a "cautious, novice player"? If you're responding to his action with any kind of emotion, that's not random. This post is what made me think that your vote wasn't random.Malyss wrote: So, wow, an OMGUS vote on a player with votes on him is enough to qualify me as scum and not as a cautious, novice player who was jabbing back for moniker prejudice? Yes, my name rhymes with "malice." OMG, I must be scum. Wink
I didn't mean that you weren't helping the town at all. For one thing, you've been actively posting and discussing, and that's helpful. What I meant is that your almost single-minded pursuit of Vir on next to nothing is not helpful. You've noticed that Katie didn't post much, and you had a discussion about the nature of OMGUS. Neither of those things involves careful reading of a player's posts. But you have gone through pretty much every post Vir has made looking for something to find scummy about them. There is a time where you have to mark something up in the back of your head as scummy and then move on to see what you can find on other people. I mean, even if Vir is scum, he would have a partner.I am not helping the town right now? I’ve queried another player regarding his vote to find out more about what was behind it after the game started to move away from the RVS as we started to learn more about the various players.
I don't think it's that you asked him why he's voting you. I think it's that you sounded like you said "I wonder why he's voting me" and then "Hey Vir, why are you voting me?" and then, after he explained why he was voting you "Hey, if you think THIS person is so scummy why don't you go vote for them instead of me since your vote on me is random?"Malyss wrote: Perhaps “flat out [asking]” is a scum tell or Vir is unaccustomed to direct questioning, or is made uncomfortable by it. If I want to know something, I will endeavor to question people so that I may have more information so that I can better understand things.
I did read it carefully. But again, noting that someone doesn't post often and having a game strategy discussion doesn't require the careful scrutiny of another person's post that you've been giving to Vir. Now don't get me wrong. Careful scrutiny is awesome. You just need to use it on more than one person for it to be at all useful.SAO, you told MiniKold that he needs to read the thread, but did you read my last post before you posted? In it, I touched upon Katie’s quietness since the 18th, OGML’s absence, and tried to look a bit at OMGUS voting and what it means. I am bringing this up because you made it sound as though I’ve not looked at any other players and their actions.
This is the sentiment that worries me. It seems that the sum of your suspicions of Vir are that he's too town and that he's voting for you. Before, I couldn't really see a reason why scum would act the way you're acting, but now I can. Scum would have a vested interest in getting rid of the most helpful players. Now I'm not assuming Vir is town. There are definitely ways that he could be scum. But, if he is, then he'd probably be best caught later in the game, when you can analyze posts carefully, analyze previous voting patterns, and things like that, instead of just lynching a player who looks "too townie" right up at the front, because scum or not, those are the players who make things easier, and not to mention more fun, in a lynch or lose situation.I am not completely unsuspicious of Vir, but it seems plausible that he is an overeager pro-town paladin. He has come across as having a sincere desire to ferret out the scum, or maybe it’s a strong front from a scum.
Agreed. Get to posting, Katie!Malyss wrote: For the moment, I am starting to feel more suspicious of Katie. She has been absent for some time now. Is she lurking because she still is unsure of what to offer, because she is scum and isn’t sure how to approach the game, or something else?
My tendency early in the game, when I don't have enough good logical evidence to have a firm belief that someone is scum, is to use my vote to apply pressure. In the post where I voted MiniKold, I said that while Malyss was looking scummy, I didn't think she was scum because I couldn't think of a reason why scum would act the way she was acting. Since, I have changed that opinion. She looks scummier now than she did before to me. But, MiniKold also hasn't started scumhunting, and the longer this is the case, the more scummy he looks as well. Also, I'd like to point out that, while his vote was most probably in jest, it was a vote in jest in a thread where a good deal of serious discussion has already taken place. My vote was more about the refusal to start scumhunting than the chance that it was a serious OMGUS. I don't think that Malyss looks so much scummier to me that I want to switch my vote to her, especially since now that would put her at L-1. She also hasn't really responded to my post yet, and I'd like to give her a chance to do that. If Malyss is scum, we have plenty of time to lynch her, AFTER more discussion has taken place. I don't think I have nearly a good enough read on most of the players here to be comfortable with a lynch just yet.Lord Gurgi wrote:Not lurking Vir, thinking. At this point this back and forth has cleared SAO in my eyes.Unvote. I am a little concerned that Malyss is defending herself in so much of her posts, rather than scum hunting.
SAO, why do you vote for Mini-Kold over Malyss? It would seem to me that it's a better idea to vote the person who's given more reason for you to vote, than avote that was obviously in jest.
I guess this makes me fall to my second suspect.Vote: Malyss.
I've gone over my reasoning for why I voted there to death, but I'd just like to ask what the difference for you is between one vote and two? I mean, at this point in the game, two votes isn't anywhere near a lynch. You'd need three more people to pile on. If it's a valid reason for one vote, why isn't it a valid reason for two? I mean, as soon as I realized he wasn't lurking, I did take the vote off. But then again, it's possible that I hopped off because I was facing the great ire of OGML and I was so terrified of him that I had to take off my vote.Brandi wrote:My notes so far:This reasoning isn't really substantial enough to warrant a second vote. So he's an IC and he's lurking. So what? This is just as baseless as a random vote. I agree when OGML states that:SecretAgentOrange wrote:Unvote Katie; Vote: OGML
IC's shouldn't be lurking, and with so little to go on at this point in the game, I don't think there's a better place I could put my vote right now.
Going "what he said!" and dropping a vote, on the other hand, is scummy.
I feel like I was out of character because I was shocked and angry. I felt like I was being called scared and stupid. In retrospect, this was a stupid thing for me to think, but at the time it was my first week working a nightshift job, I was up all night thinking about the mafia game, and I honestly was kinda crazy. The frustrating thing is that I can't point to my previous play and say "this is how I always am". I'm consistently kind of wishy-washy in my voting, quick to throw a vote and quick to take it off unless I have solid suspicions that someone's scum. I always write a lot. And I really don't like lurking ICs. These are all demonstratable things about me, but I can't really point them out because it's all in one game that's still going on. I guess I just have to say that you'll have to watch my play in this game consistently, and I hope that my later play speaks for itself.SAO goes on in her next post being way too defensive over the matter and goes on to say that the purpose of her vote was to get OGML to talk.
PG3:
OGML is happy with his vote, SAO continues to be over defensive. Completely out of character from how I percieved her on page one.
I didn't really say that scum wouldn't gambit. I said that scum wouldn't gambit like he did. If he was scum, he would have had to think to himself "Hmm. I think that as an IC, I'll lie to the newbies about the definition of lurking, and then start attacking them if any of them fall for it." I don't trust Gurgi to be a townie, but I do trust him as an IC to not do something like that. I could be wrong though. I don't really know the guy. And it's possible that he forgot he was playing with noobs, and just slipped and did something that's totally normal in a normal game.Its rarely ever good for townies to lie. =PLord Gurgi wrote:Also, OGML hasn't been lurking at all, I was just hoping to catch someone for being overeager.
How can we know you weren't SCUM trying to pull newbie townies in to make themselves the center of lynchattention?
FOS: Lord Gurgi
Scum can use gambits.SAO wrote: I really don't think a scum player would do a gambit like he did.
If this is in response to my saying "the definition of lurking" what I meant was that Lord Gurgi claimed that OGML was lurking then later came out to say that OGML wasn't really lurking, it wasn't long enough to be considered lurking.Brandi wrote:First of all:
Lurk
-intr.v.lurked, lurk·ing, lurks
1. To lie in wait, as in ambush.
2. To move furtively; sneak.
3. To exist unobserved or unsuspected: danger lurking around every bend.
4. To read but not contribute to the discussion in a newsgroup, chatroom, or other online forum.
I guess this is something that I don't understand. This isn't really my trying to defend myself here, but just as a general question to pose to anyone. Is it necessarily scummy to vote for someone for the same reason as someone else has? I notice this is something that newbies do a lot, town and scum. I mean, does each person have to come up with an individual reason to think someone is scummy? Say Player A admits to trying to quicklynch someone and Players B C and D say "crap that's scummy!" and vote for Player A. Are Players C and D scummy? Or say on page 8 Player 2 says "Whoah! Look at this scummy thing Player 1 did on page 1!" and Player 3 goes "You're right! That is scummy! I didn't notice that!" Is player 3 scummy? I don't mean this in terms of my own instance of a second vote, I'm done there. Just a general Mafia question.Once you are out of the random stage, a second vote could be scummy depending on the reasoning.