Cause that's just nasty
Mini 584: Sudo_Nym Presents- Over!
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Cake:
Ninja:Really all you're doing is choosing a random element and voting the player that it matches up with. I don't see the small amount of time later Zeek confirmed to be intentional. So really the last part of that post is poor poor justification for a random vote.
Is there really such a thing as a poor reason for a random vote?
Cake:
Nope, not really.
Me: ...?-
-
icemanE
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Haha.Unvote, vote icemanE for saying "we're not in the random voting stage anymore but I can't be bothered to scumhunt.FoS: ZeekI'm not sure I'm ready to lay a vote on him yet because I think we've moved out of the random vote stage, so votes mean more now, but he's rushing a kill for no real reason.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
@sweatpants - what do you want to hear me talk about?He might be. Or he might be newbie scum. I'd like to hear him talk about it a little, if that's alright with you.
Man this reeks of scum protecting his partner.
@grease - I don't think one vote is a serious enough assault on me to say he's trying to protect me by questioning the vote. If I were L-1 this would make sense.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Just because I unvoted without providing info on who I WANT to vote for doesn't mean I'm not pursuing people. Truth be told I unvoted because I think it looks much cooler when it looks like:I want you to explain why you unvoted (because we were out of the random voting stage), but didn't actually pursue anyone.
Vote: Zeek
Now, as for why I'm voting Zeek: He's rushed a lynch on Cake for no solid reason, which gives off scum vibes.
Later Zeek said:
Nice scummy OMGUS vote from Cake.
OMGUS votes aren't scummy, in my evaluation, especially Cake's in this case. Cake raises a good point:
If he had a valid reason to push for my lynch he wouldn't have earned my vote, pushing for a lynch with nothing to back it up doesn't seem very townlike to me.
That's not even an OMGUS vote, really. That's a totally reasonable vote. And that's why I'm voting for him, too: not in defense of Cake (who I'm still slightly suspicious of from that initial burp) but because he's making an unfounded push for a kill.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
My stance at the beginning of the game is to give everyone an equal opportunity by assuming they are town, unless they do an early job proving themselves otherwise, which Cake has not.ZeekLTK wrote:
First, I never "rushed a lynch"; he's only got 3 votes.icemanE wrote:Now, as for why I'm voting Zeek: He's rushed a lynch on Cake for no solid reason, which gives off scum vibes.
Second, trying to lynch Cake would only be scummy if he were town. We don't know that he's town. If he is scum, then how am I scummy for pushing for the lynch of scum?
If you are trying to say you know he's town then you must be mafia, because only the mafia know who the townies are at this point.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Nah, no attack on Cake, I was just responding to what Zeek said:
Can you clarify? I took this to be an attack on Cake, but your response seems to indicate that it wasn't.
Second, trying to lynch Cake would only be scummy if he were town. We don't know that he's town. If he is scum, then how am I scummy for pushing for the lynch of scum?
He's basing the validity of his vote on something that can't be determined right now. He's basically saying "If we kill him and he turns out to be mafia, I was right to rush the kill" which makes no sense.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
It's NOT scummy if he DOES turn out to be a mafia member, but we don't KNOW if he IS. Since we don't know he is scum or have any real reason to suspect he is scum, we shouldn't kill him just to find out.How does it not make sense? You said it's scummy of me to want him lynched. But how is it scummy if he turns out to be a mafia member?-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
I'm sorry to inform you but I believe you and Zeek are the minority in thining its a good idea to lynch Cake or anyone else JUST to find out if they're scum. SoTheSweatpantsNinja wrote:
One wonders what your scumhunting plan is.icemanE wrote: Since we don't know he is scum or have any real reason to suspect he is scum, we shouldn't kill him just to find out.
Or yours.captaincake wrote: It's safe to assume someone is town considering the town is the majority, even so, no one has said that they know I'm town anyways.
There are a lot of quotes that I could apply this too, and since you all can't be scum, I have a general blanket question:How are you planning to help find scum?I'll give you a hint: Saying every early wagon is based on little logic is not a good strategy.FoS: Sweatpants Ninja. And that's how I plan to find scum.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
First and foremost I never used the word bandwagon. Secondly that was not an OMGUS FoS, and I implied an answer to his question about how I plan to hunt for scum using my FoS. I said:TSPN isn't voting for Cake, nor has he said he supports my one-man "bandwagon" (as you've called it - please note that I am the only person voting for Cake currently).
And you also failed to answer his question with your OMGUS FoS.
As you can see I suspect Sweatpants is scum because he supports your idea that its a good idea to lynch people JUST TO FIND OUT IF THEY ARE SCUM. If you have a GOOD REASON to lynch someone (i.e. hard evidence that suggests strongly that they are scum) then its a great idea to lynch them. Currently there is little evidence to suggest that Cake is scum and therefore it would be a grave mistake to lynch him, which you, Zeek, are so eager to do. I don't think we're ready to lynch ANYONE yet since there's NOTHING on this board that is scummy enough to warrant a lynch.So FoS: Sweatpants Ninja. And that's how I plan to find scum.
So to make it explicitly clear, I plan to scumhunt by investigation, not random lynching as Zeek and Sweatpants advocate. Currently there is not an imminent deadline so there is no reason to rush things along like you are doing.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
HahaSimulpost for the loss.
Not entirely, no. There was already a few votes on Cake before Zeek said "Are we going to lynch him or what?" So he didn't start the bandwagon. And you haven't started a bandwagon either, but I suspect you. So in actuality that statement is completely false since I don't suspect anyone who has started a wagon. If anyone has started a wagon, its me, Cake, and Joohoono on Zeek. So wagons have nothing to do with my voting.So, iceman: your plan is to vote and suspect people who start wagons. All that's going to do is encourage timid play from townies who don't want to get voted for voting someone else.
You're right, you didn't say it. But you supported Zeek's policy, which, when laid out in words, essentially says "We should lynch Cake to find out if he is scum". You call it a strawman, I call it a summarization.Also, nice strawman. "Just to find out if they're scum." Don't recall ever saying that.
I mean that I want to make sure that we are lynching someone based on strong evidence, i.e. an investigation, not lynching left and right until we come up with scum, which seems to be the direction you and Zeek are headed.What exactly do you mean, scumhunt by investigation?-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
OK, that's all fine and good. We're pressuring Zeek, does that work for you?Listen, I'm all for careful, cautious, play when we get later on into the game. But Day 1, you have to start somewhere. And zeek's essentially being voted on for starting us somewhere. By attacking him, you're punishing him for pressuring cake, which is a pro-town thing to do. Pressuring people on day 1 = good.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
ZeekLTK wrote:I'm reading through again and this is something that stuck out to me. Ever since we left the "random voting stage" Iceman only votes or FoSes when someone calls him out on "not scumhunting".
For example:
icemanE wrote:
Haha.TheSweatPantsNinja wrote: Unvote, vote icemanE for saying "we're not in the random voting stage anymore but I can't be bothered to scumhunt.FoS: ZeekI'm not sure I'm ready to lay a vote on him yet because I think we've moved out of the random vote stage, so votes mean more now, but he's rushing a kill for no real reason.icemanE wrote:
Just because I unvoted without providing info on who I WANT to vote for doesn't mean I'm not pursuing people. Truth be told I unvoted because I think it looks much cooler when it looks like:TheSweatpantsNinja wrote: I want you to explain why you unvoted (because we were out of the random voting stage), but didn't actually pursue anyone.
Vote: Zeek
...
I especially love the first two quotes, because practically nothing changed in the game other than TSPN kept pressuring ice about "not scumhunting" and somehow that caused him to go from an FoS to a vote against me.icemanE wrote:
I'm sorry to inform you but I believe you and Zeek are the minority in thining its a good idea to lynch Cake or anyone else JUST to find out if they're scum. SoTheSweatpantsNinja wrote: One wonders what your scumhunting plan is.
...
There are a lot of quotes that I could apply this too, and since you all can't be scum, I have a general blanket question:How are you planning to help find scum?I'll give you a hint: Saying every early wagon is based on little logic is not a good strategy.FoS: Sweatpants Ninja. And that's how I plan to find scum.
IMO, I think he's doing this because he's mafia, so he's trying to appease the town. He doesn't want people to know he's not trying to catch scum, so when someone (it's mostly been TSPN) says "you're not scumhunting" he responds with an FoS or a vote against someone to try to make it look like he is...
Basically, he's trying too hard to simply *appear* to be scumhunting without actually doing it, which I think is scummy.
unvote; vote iceman
This is a ridiculous, absurd attempt to form a connection between defending myself and my voting pattern. I voted for you because you were pushing for a lynch on Cake, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I FoS'ed Sweatpants for supporting your idea about rushing the kill. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I'm not even scumhunting, either. I'm scumseeing, you don't have to hunt very hard when someone makes it so freaking obvious. Cut the bullshit.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Do you really think he deserves a vote for that?hmm...opportunistic you say...Dude, the whole game is opportunistic. We pick apart what little tidbits of information and reactions we can until people break. So yes, I am opportunistic as well as everyone else that is playing this game. Bad Logic Lowell.
vote: Lowell-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
In support of Faerie's overdefensive idea, how about this:
ZeekLTK wrote:I cast a third vote for Cake in #32 saying "let's stir the pot a lot" (a reference to iceman's response about his seemingly random FoS against cake).
No one says anything about this vote and the game is not really getting anywhere so in post #55 I just make a comment "are we going to lynch Cake or what?"
Soon after, post #58, iceman quotes TSPN's question of him (ice) scum hunting and FoS me saying I am "rushing a kill".
Post #60 Cake votes for me, saying it is because I had no good reason to vote for him (some [not just me, Greasy Spot and Lowell to name a few] call this OMGUS). Also I should point out that my vote on him was never intended to be for any particular reason (the "let's stir the pot" comment proves this).
Post #68 and #69 FaerieLord and Marmalade both say "I find the cake wagon uninteresting" (or some variation of that).
Post #73, TSPN has previously called out iceman for "not scum hunting" so iceman votes for me (third vote). He says "OMGUS votes are not scummy" (because I said "nice OMGUS vote from Cake"), again says I am making a "push for a kill" (even though I have not said anything further about Cake [other than pointing out his OMGUS vote] since BEFORE ice FoSed me).
Post #76 I explain to iceman that I never "rushed a lynch" (because really all I did was make one comment). Then I point out that Cake *could* be scum, and therefore I wouldn't be too scummy for lynching scum now would I?
#77 ice says he will assume everyone is town unless they give him a reason not to.
#78 Marmalade says the argument between ice and I is about "play-style differences" and says that won't help the town.
#79-83 we (ice, Marmalade, and I) discuss this.
#84 ice *admits* that my logic from #76 was correct: if Cake was scum then I would not be scummy for getting him lynched.
#85 Cake still attacks me for not having a valid reason to lynch him (but, again, I never intended to)
#88 I point out how I have the most votes and yet all 3 of them are bogus (Lowell later agrees with me in his recap)
#89 TDC suggests that even if Cake was scum, I could be "bussing him" (lol seriously? he's not even half way to a lynch at this point). TDC also makes some valid points regarding other parts of the game, asks some good questions, but then he puts vote #4 against me. I find this vote to be odd and opportunistic since a) TDC hasn't participated in the game up until this point, b) he asked all those questions of different people, you'd think he would wait to get some responses before he cast a vote... especially since the vote he cast was the 4th against someone.
#90 I call out TDC for putting that 4th vote on me for practically no reason.
#92 TDC responds to me, mostly calls me out because I didn't have a reason for voting Cake but keep in mind my vote was never intended to have a reason, it was during the end of the random stage, and I haven't said anything about trying to get Cake lynched (aka other people to vote for him) since post #55 (a post that wasn't all that serious anyways).
#94 iceman attacks TSPN saying "you and zeek are in the minority of wanting to lynch Cake". He FoS: TSPN after TSPN continues to pressure ice about "not scum hunting". (#95 - I point out TSPN was never in favor of lynching Cake.)
#99 FaerieLord comes out of nowhere (hasn't posted since #68) with a long post of my quotes and his one-liners right below them. Concludes with a FoS on me and TSPN. Basically he says I am "rushing a lynch" (even though I haven't said anything that would attempt to get people to vote for Cake since post #55) and then questions what I said in #76 about "cake could be scum", and then attacks me for not having a reason for my vote... (already addressed this above)
#101 TSPN says "on Day 1 you have to start somewhere, and Zeek's vote started us somewhere". Apparently he is the only person to realize my vote wasn't serious...
#104 TDC questions TSPN's previous posts (about pressure and bandwagoning) but does so mostly only to try to get TSPN to view me as scummy.
#105 I point out how iceman only votes or FoSes when TSPN calls him out for "not scum hunting".
#106 iceman says that is ridiculous, tries to defend his vote and FoSes but a lot of the reasoning is poor. (for example says he FoSed TSPN because he "supported me", but he never did; and says he voted for me because I "pushed a lynch" but again, that never really happened either). So either iceman is bad at reading the game or he is just grasping for reasons to defend himself.
#108 I call out FaerieLord because he attacked me but never voted, just kinda tried to push the bandwagon along with an FoS.
#109 TSPN agrees that FaerieLord was scummy (moreso than ice apparently).
#110 Faerie says he didn't vote because he didn't want to put me at L-1 (it would have only been L-2)
#111 Faerie says "I'm not the only one who hasn't contributed much" and admits he "lurked through the random voting stage"
#113 Nanosauromo comes out of nowhere and says (I'll quote him actually, this is by far the scummiest post of the game):
He really takes everything out of context here. The first quote was #55, and I never said anything to that effect (or any other effect to get people to vote for Cake) since. This just reeks of a player who has been inactive/lurking coming in, seeing who has the most votes, and then going back and finding a reason to vote for them. If this isn't a clear scum tactic I don't know what is.Nanosauromo wrote:Hi guys, sorry for not posting much yet.
Reading over the game, Zeek really jumps out at me as being scummy. He says:
And then, later, he says:ZeekLTK wrote:Are we going to lynch ScumCake or what?
Sorry Zeek, but saying "Let's lynch [insert name here] already!" on page 3 is pretty much the definition of rushing a lynch. You are lying, and the only people who have any reason to lie are scum.ZeekLTK wrote:First, I never "rushed a lynch"; he's only got 3 votes.
Unvote
Vote: ZeekLTK
unvote; vote Nanosauromo
Okay, continuing...
#114 I call out Nanosauromo for being inactive and then voting for me (5th vote), but at the time I didn't realize how scummy that actually was.
#116 Marmalade says what I did (voting Cake and making that comment) wasn't bad (thank you). But he doesn't like how I attack people who attack me.
#117 TDC quotes a question he asked TSPN from #104 and says "quoted for not being answered yet". Basically the question is phrased in a way that if TSPN answers "no" (which is really the logical answer) then TDC will say, "so then you should be suspicious of Zeek and vote for him".
Okay, now let's step back for a second here. Post #89, when TDC enters the game, he has lots of questions for several players (Johoonho, Cake, etc.) None of these questions were ever answered, and they were all fairly relevant to the game. So why did TDC not press these issues? Surely those questions were more important than asking TSPN to change his mind on my behavior. It seems to me, TDC only came into the game with a slew of questions to give himself the opportunity to go in any direction and he didn't particularly care which direction it went in as long as it went against a townie. It happened to go against me, so that is the one he pursued. His questions were ignored by others, but as they had really nothing to do with attacking me, he just forgot about them as well. If he was REALLY interested in having those questions answered, he would have done the same as he's done here, and bring them up again for those people to answer. This shows he's not really interested in finding the correct answers (aka being able to find scum), he just wants to find answers that push his own agenda, which at this point is trying to mislynch me.
FoS: TDC(would vote if not for Nano earlier).
Okay back to the recap:
#118 FaerieLord says "rushing a lynch is scummy" and quotes Marmalade about me attacking people.
#119 Johoohno gives a good summary of the case against me:
• Last to confirm (weak scum tell as said before).
• Eager to vote for CaptainCake - #55 – (has been brushed away as a joke, but it really didn’t sit well with the crowd here).
• Illogical posts (#76) which is commented in #85 by CaptainCake. This is something ZeekLTK avoids responding to, instead he moves on to something else, namely the votes on himself (#87 & #88).
• Doesn’t really explain his vote on CaptainCake which he also kept all the way up to #105.
This clearly is not very indicative of scum and Johoohno realizes this and unvotes for me, but puts an FoS (understandably) on me.
Also I want to point out that for the third point, I stopped responding to it because in #84 iceman agreed with me about that point.
#120 iceman tells Johoohno that it was a smart choice to give me the benefit of the doubt (so why does ice leave his vote?)
#122 FaerieLord says we need something to "rejuvenate the thread" and wants me to claim (I'm on L-3 at this point).
#125 I don't claim but I try to give as brief a summary as possible as to how I've seen the game play out and conclude with my suspicions on various people who have voted for me.
#126 FaerieLord says his case isn't based on the "rushing a lynch" comment (uhm.... that's all you've been saying it's based on all day!) but rather on my "over defensiveness" (this is the first time that's been brought up, maybe Marmalade's post gave him the idea and now he's trying to run with this because his other point was weak?) Then he tries to say I might have been bussing Cake (okay, seriously???) then says I over reacted (uhm, don't you think some of the people who jumped on me over reacted to the stupid comment I made?) then concludes with the fact that I never made a case (again, forgetting that it happened during the random stage).
#127 TDC continues to attack me. I'd like to take this time to point out that other than his first post, he has done nothing this entire game except attack me... he does question why I should claim though.
#128 TDC points out that I am only on L-3, not L-2
#130 FaerieLord thanks TDC for pointing that out and then votes for me (apparently Faerie is afraid to cast L-1 or hammer votes because then he'll be suspicious for killing a townie)
#132 Marmalade wants to know why I didn't respond to his #116 comment
#133 I tell him that's how I play when I am town (I attack those who attack me)
#134 Marmalade has further questions (that are pretty much the same as I just addressed)...
#136 TSPN says Faerie is rolefishing and votes for him
#137 TDC finally looks at other players in the game and echoes TSPN that he also feels that Faerie is rolefishing
#142 Faerie again outlines his "case" against me:
1)Rushing thing
2)Bad logic when it comes to lynching
3)Over Defensiveness
4)OMGUS
Again, most of that is garbage (especially #1 and #2)
#143 Lowell joins us
#144 TDC finally remembers his questions from a long time ago and reminds Cake about them. Also points out several players haven't commented on the issue, including someone named "Rage" (we have one in this game?)
#145 nm Rage is in a different game
#146 TSPN outlines why FaerieLord's points in #142 are garbage
#147 Faerie makes the "slip up" (IMO) about the vig (saying "Scum would go 1 for 1 sometimes (I would if you were the vig)." Apparently no one else [or at least not Marmalade] finds that wording to be odd. I still do. Also still wants me to claim apparently.
#148 TDC questions the "vig" part of that quote.
#151 Cake makes a rare appearance only to tell us that he is going to be gone longer (must have been prodded)
#153 iceman is waiting for Lowell (why not comment on the other stuff that's happened?)
#155-#156 TSPN and Johoohno both vote for MafiaSSK
#157 TDC seems to have backed off from me and says he is considering voting MafiaSSK, but isn't quite ready to drop his vote (I dunno what else needs to be discussed regarding me)
#158 Lowell's long summary...
#159 ... leads him to (incorrectly IMO) suspect Johoohno for FoSing me, wonder about the Cake wagon (wasn't much of a wagon), call out Greasy Spot for some posts, say Nano's post was "solid town" because of WIFOM (are you kidding me??? [I missed this the first time because I hadn't really remembered Nano's post being so bad]), and says Marmalade is probably town. Votes for Greasy.
#161 I question FaerieLord's "vig" comment and vote for him because of it (it's a better reason than Cake, eh? :p)
#162 FaerieLord, instead of addressing or explaining it says "where the fuck did I say that?" (even though I QUOTED HIM in #161)
#164 Greasy points out that the posts Lowell is VOTING him for aren't really that scummy (they aren't at all IMO).
At this point I willFoS: Lowellfor trying to tell us Nano is town (in his recap) and attacking Greasy, who had been inactive for a while, for virtually nothing.
#167 I quote Faerie again to show him the vig quote and again ask him what the hell he was talking about.
#170 FaerieLord says "Nothing brought up the vig. I just said that if I was scum and someone claimed vig, I'd quick lynch him. Because vigs go 2 for 1 at times, which is too much for a 3 team mafia to handle." - I find it very odd that he would bring this up, or even paint a situation where he would be scum. This reeks of some kind of outside knowledge or something because, as town, I can't figure out why he would be talking about a vig or anything to that effect at this moment.
As if I couldn't have by now, I definitely willFoS: FaerieLordfor this.
#171 FaerieLord says he is not feeling the Greasy Spot case (similar to what he said about Cake earlier).
***Also this last post by Faerie again he brings up bussing (this is like the third time he has). Seriously. The situation of me voting for Cake is maybe the worst situation of "bussing" that scum could ever do because there was no attention on either of us really before that happened. The fact that you keep bringing this up means you are still stretching for any reason to make a case against me, which is very scummy.
----
So basically in this recap I have changed my vote to Nano and I feel TDC, Faerie, and Lowell are all suspicious thus far.
To add... after I FoSed TDC I felt a lot of his posts were more pro-town, but that still doesn't negate all his posts that lead to my FoS.
But those are just my feelings based on this recap. Anyone else is free to add their two cents and pick out something I missed, or explain how I misinterpreted something.
To make it easier for the mod:
unvote; vote Nanosauromo-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Did you read the sentence I wrote above your giant wall of text? I guess not, here it is again:I fail to see what your point is.
You are incredibly over-defensive. Look at Faerie's posts for clarity on what that means, and actually read them, too, because its apparent that you haven't from your "analysis".In support of Faerie's overdefensive idea, how about this:-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
I'm not against that at all, since that's the point. But your's wasn't really a recap of the entire game, it was for the most part a history of everything everyone has been suspicious of you for and why they're wrong... i.e., defense.ZeekLTK wrote:I made a recap of the game... how is that over-defensive? Or are you just against anyone doing something that might cause them to find scum?-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
If you could elaborate on that it would help, since Zeek has been the main target for the past few pages, with little focus on anyone else, so it would be nice to hear who you're referring to.I'm pretty sure there are better targets out there.
Additionally, I don't envision a Zeek lynch happening at this point, as the evidence against him isn't enough to convince those who haven't voted yet to do so. With that information in hand, it would be helpful to look at a vote history, and the voters reasoning behind their votes. I'll skip the random votes, which I think end around post 58, when Zeek first comes under fire.
Post 60: Cake votes Zeek: "If he had a valid reason to push for my lynch he wouldn't have earned my vote, pushing for a lynch with nothing to back it up doesn't seem very townlike to me."
Post 69: Marmalade votes Grease: "I don't like how he continues to random vote after we are quite clearly out of the random voting stage."
Post 73: Iceman votes Zeek: "He's rushed a lynch on Cake for no solid reason, which gives off scum vibes."
Post 75: TSPN votes mafiassk: "So, are you iceman's scumpartner or are you just buddying up?"
Post 89: TDC votes Zeek: "Your reasoning only makes sense if you are pretty certain of Cake's scumness. You have however not given even one argument, why that is and then go on and propose we lynch him. Care to elaborate?"
Post 105: Zeek votes iceman: "Basically, he's trying too hard to simply *appear* to be scumhunting without actually doing it, which I think is scummy."
Post 113: Nanosauromo votes Zeek: "Sorry Zeek, but saying "Let's lynch [insert name here] already!" on page 3 is pretty much the definition of rushing a lynch. You are lying, and the only people who have any reason to lie are scum."
Post 131: FaerieLord votes Zeek: "My case is about your over defensiveness."
Post 136: TSPN votes FaerieLord: "1. Blatant, blatant, rolefishing. Claim at L-2? Really?
2. Pushing the zeek lynch based on the "rushing" argument. Seriously, did anyone, including zeek, really think that saying "let's lynch cake" would speed anything up? I hope not.
Post 155: TSPN votes mafiaSSK: "My read on him is he's a blatant lurker who will just lurk unless we pressure him into playing."
Post 156: Johoonho votes mafiaSSK: "I agree with ThesweatpantsNinja."
Post 159: Lowell votes Grease: "His rushing to point out that mafiassk's post defending iceman (62) could be scum protecting each other just seems too opportunistic. And way too obvious to be true. There's no way I can sanely read that passage and convince myself that mafiassk just came out and openly asked others not to vote for his scumpartner. I can, however, make a big deal of it if I'm just trying to make it look like it matters. Which is what I think Greasy is doing. It's possible mafiassk IS scum and defending a townie, but that doesn't strike me as all that likely either."
Post 161: Zeek votes FaerieLord: "So basically you're admitting that you are scum and if I'm a vig you'd quicklynch me (to go "1 for 1")?"
Post 166: Grease votes Lowell: "hmm...opportunistic you say...Dude, the whole game is opportunistic. We pick apart what little tidbits of information and reactions we can until people break. So yes, I am opportunistic as well as everyone else that is playing this game. Bad Logic Lowell."
Post 205: Zeek votes Nanosauromo: "He really takes everything out of context here. The first quote was #55, and I never said anything to that effect (or any other effect to get people to vote for Cake) since. This just reeks of a player who has been inactive/lurking coming in, seeing who has the most votes, and then going back and finding a reason to vote for them."
That's the history, in my next post will be my analysis.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
A couple conclusions:
- Zeek has voted most, often without a truly solid reason to back it up, other than his most recent vote.
- Nano and Johoonho are clearly bandwagon voters. Nano comes in at post 113 and votes for Zeek based on what Cake and I have said much earlier in the game. Johoonho even admitted jumping on the mafiaSSK wagon. Nano's is much more suspicious, since TSPN's stated intention in starting the mafiassk wagon was to pressure him into playing, which Jo supported.
- Grease's vote in post 166 is unfounded.
- While Faerie's case against Zeek (i.e. he is over defensive) is certainly true and something I find suspicious, its not enough to warrant a lynch.
With a thorough reread of the game it is apparent that, while Zeek is quite suspicious, there is not enough evidence stacked up against him to justify a lynch... yet, but there is a good deal of suspicious material. I would unvote Zeek but he is currently in no apparent danger of being lynched, and I frequently look at this board, so if he gets too close I will probably pull my vote off until something very solid materializes.
Top suspects:
- Zeek and Nano-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Yeah, more or less. There was no imminent threat whatsoever of a hammer, so there was no need to take my vote off him, and I want my vote to sit on the person I'm most suspicious of. Additionally, while I don't necessarily call for a Zeek lynch any longer, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to it.So the reason you aren't unvoting him is because you don't think anyone will hammer before you can remove your vote? I just don't get it... That seems like a bad reason to not unvote if you are planning on it anyways.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
After consider this for awhile, I think I agree with you. I'm not looking for a lynch on Mafia though. He really does need to get back into the game.TheSweatpantsNinja wrote:I don't think nano is lurking so much as just gone. He should probably be replaced. MafiaSSK, on the other hand, has 'fessed up to lurking intentionally (and is definitely active on the site), and needs to be forced into participating.
Vote: MafiaSSK-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
@ Marmalade: This quote:
Why do you consider Zeek innocent just because there is a bad case against him? That's not a valid reason for believing someone is innocent - just because the reason people suspect him currently is not good does not mean in any way that there are no other reasons to suspect him. Speaking for myself, I no longer think he is overly suspicious, but I think it's a bad idea to dismiss the notion altogether simply because no one has brought the right issues to the forefront. The meta that Faerie and co. have mentioned is a stronger reason, in my opinion, to tone down suspicions.(In comparison to myself, for instance, since I consider Zeek to be more innocent than others because the case against him is pretty crap.)-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
A couple posts ago I said I didn't want to lynch him. If you read my post I don't say he's guilty, I just say he's not necessarily innocent, because we don't have proof for that either.So wait... we should consider him guilty even though no one has found a good reason to say he is? Your argument is flawed. Just because people suspect him for a stupid reason doesn't mean he isn't scum therefore you should still lynch him? Why don't we just lynch you then? We don't have a valid reason but that doesn't mean there couldn't be one at some point. You can argue back but it doesn't matter becuase I swear we'll find a good reason to lynch you later. I swear you're scum, I just can't find the right issue yet...
Of course I don't think Iceman is scum but he still could be!-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
That's a really solid point.The discussion of how he played another game succeeded in derailing the town from the pointless track of lynching zeek for being zeek. Of course he's not confirmed town, but there was no good reason to suspect him of being scum now. If you lynched me for being me every game, you'd be right some of the time, but you'd be wrong more.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
I think I agree with that.TheSweatpantsNinja wrote:Well, you aren't really pressuring lurkers by voting them if you aren't willing to lynch them for it if it comes to that, are you? That's a worst-case scenario, but if he refuses to play, then we need to get rid of him, one way or another. Especially early in the game, when we have the luxury of at least semi-random lynches.-
-
icemanE
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Oh my god dude are you serious...MafiaSSK wrote:
Okay since I'm not replaced yet. I have to respond to this post. In that game, I didn't ask for a replacement for that reason. I asked because there was another mini I wanted to be in. Anyways, in this game I've asked to be replaced because I just don't find it interesting.TheSweatpantsNinja wrote:My read on mafiaSSK is he's a lurker who will replace out if he gets pressured. Did it in another game I'm in. Really obnoxious, that, but at least we'll be rid of him (hopefully) soon.
Anyways, to make thing seasier for the replacement,unvote-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Still working on it, probably be done by tomorrow.ZeekLTK wrote:unvote
Ice, if you are "bored" then why don't you try to find scum like you said you were going to?
Did nothing jump out at you? or did you just say this and then decide that was too much work for scum to do?iceman wrote:So now that mafia has more or less destroyed the rhythm of this game,I think I'm gonna go back over everything and see if anyone else jumps out at me.I think everyone else should do the same. I'll report back later tonight or tomorrow.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
In looking back at the game, I'm now pretty sure that Zeek isn't scum. The way he reacted to the initial bandwagon is pretty telling, especially this post:
In reflection I agree with that, it was taken WAY too far, and Zeek might not have done the greatest job defending himself, but that doesn't necessarily translate into him being scum. The thing that keeps me on edge about Zeek, though, is his reluctance to claim - keep in mind there was no real reason for him to do so, BUT simply saying "I'M TOWN A@@HOLES!!" would have been better than nothing. This makes me think he must be a power role of one sort or another.Okay, seriously guys.
All I did was spark the game and get it going and all of a sudden I'm on L-2.
Notice my comment was during the random stage AND I never made a case against him (or really pushed it that hard). It's one comment taken way too far by a couple of people.
Something I found pretty amusing in looking back at the early part of the game is that Sweatpants, in almost every single one of his posts, calls someone out for "not scumhunting". The funny thing is, he doesn't do much scum hunting himself - he simply calls other people out for not doing it, whatever that means, and defends people he doesn't think are scum (especially Zeek early in the game). He has not done a single in-depth analysis, like many other active posters. His only REAL contribution has been to start the "pressure" wagon on MafiaSSK, which I am currently a part of. However, he has spent a great deal of his time since then defending his right to start that wagon and arguing the validity of the reasoning behind it instead of looking into other possibilities. The whole idea of a bandwagon is something he was very against early in the game when it involved Zeek, which is fishy, considering that there was, at the very least, a tangible reason to be suspicious of him instead of just a lurk-suspicion. He has adamantly argued that a Mafia lynch is justified, and I agree, BUT, he was so against Zeek's lynch that this keeps my TSPN-Zeek scum team idea fresh, even despite the fact that Zeek's scumminess has been greatly reduced in my mind. It all falls on TSPN.
Faerie pushed a little too hard for a Zeek lynch early in the game for my liking. He was pretty unrelenting. I supported him, for awhile, but he REALLY wanted that lynch.
As for whoever replaces mafiaSSK, I'd like to hear a good bit from there rather quick to prevent a lynch - mafiaSSK has been so useless thus far that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into. I still think its an OK idea to get rid of him unless the replacement gets active quick.
I will TRY to get to everyone else ASAP, hopefully by tomorrow night, but that's what I've got for now.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Right, but my speculating that he could be power role has no effect on whether or not he actually is one...FaerieLord wrote:Because if you out him as a power role, who will be at an advantage? Scum, who'll know where to target, or town, who can do close to nothing?(Except maybe a doc)
It's a win situation for the scum-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
Yeah, its just that with a swap in player, the role is kept the same, so he's got a bad image in my mind, is what im saying.CaptainCake wrote:
Wait... So because he's been a poor player so far he's scum, but substituting in a better player won't possibly be able to change your mind on him? Honestly that sounds like one of the worst reasons I've heard to suggest a lynch before a replacement is found.icemanE wrote:What I mean is that he's so solidly fixed in my mind as being suspicious because of his inactivity and downright crapiness.
unvote vote: icemanE-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
I checked out your reasons for voting. You admit in your next paragraph that the votes you placed on mafia and cake could be contested for their validity. I say the same goes for the other two, as well. Voting someone for not scumhunting? I would assume the idea behind such a vote would be to motivate said person to scum hunt, which actually has nothing to do with FINDING scum in and of itself. You aren't voting, in that situation, because you think someone's scum, you're voting to get them moving. So that isn't scum hunting, you're wrong. A by-product of that vote is scum hunting, since whoever you target for it might START scum hunting, but the vote itself does not count as scum hunting.TSPN wrote: But here, let me make sure. I've voted for, this game (very succinct reasons being given):
Cake, for his strange reaction to the vote.
You, for not scumhunting.
MafiaSSK, for his strange reaction to my vote on you.
Faerielord, for fishing.
MafiaSSK, for lurking.
If those votes weren't scumhunting (you could contest mafiassk and cake, I suppose, but the other three), you're going to have to redefine the term for me.
As for voting someone for role-fishing... well, that's not really scum hunting either. It's more like saying "I think you're scum because you're trying to convince someone to do something that would benefit scum". Once again its not direct scum hunting, based on looking into arguments, but voting for someone based on your own theories on what their motivations are. Yes, it would benefit the scum if he were to claim and it turned out he were a power role, but he would do it on his own anyway, if he were a power role, when he was at L-1, so there is no difference.
Your most recent vote, which was for me:
If you read my posts you'll see that I wasn't role-fishing, simply saying that I think his reluctance to claim means he must be either a power role or scum, which has NO EFFECT AT ALL on what his role actually is. Do you think me saying that would cause him to claim? No, obviously not, I didn't even ask him to. Voting for someone based on a "poorly thought out case" is also illogical, especially if that poorly thought out case finds you as its target (which in this case, it does), since it has nothing to do with whether or not a person is scum or not - making a poor argument is equally possible from both town and scum, so that makes no sense.The even-more-blatant fishing, plus the "mafiassk was very scummy" bit (because he wasn't very scummy), plus the poorly thought out case on me, means iceman is my new favorite lynch target.
I am almost convinced TSPN is scum, and Cake could be his partner. I'll get into that later, have to go for now.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
The reason I'm thinking that way about claims is there was a claim in my first game, which is still going on, which had a huge impact on the game. I don't think that's much of a tell, if I understood initially why it was a bad idea to speculate on power roles I obviously wouldn't have done it. Still seems niggly to me though.TSPN wrote: Nope, and luckily, its a tremendous stretch of an assertion. But if it wasn't, and zeek wasn't scum, don't you sort of maybe think the scum might think "hmm, iceman, that's a good point, guess we'd better nk the obvious power role." So its better not to talk about it. Also, scum are more likely to be concerned about power roles than town are, so simply bringing it up is a small tell in and of itself.-
-
icemanE Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: March 31, 2008
-
-
-