Obviously, the organizer of this event is the true scum, and thusly must be punished
However, as the back up coordinator is around, it would behoove me to
as a back up plan of action.
This is the only possible solution. Good day.
Based on your reasoning I am a confirmed innocent. You did not acknowledge my confirmed status. Resistance to confirming innocents is scummy. Therefore you are scum. Die scum. Die.
Reply with quote
:O
I missed you entirely.
I beg your forgiveness.
Of course in the future if you don't want that to happen you should make sure to caps your R. Sheesh.
I can only read so closely you know.
Then the only possible choice is Mr.Flay!Isn't petroleumjelly confirmed too?
vote Battousai
That makes him obvscum! Didn't you read Glorious Leader SpyreX's post?
Mr. Flay has a space in it, he is obv-town as well.
The problem is you missed the fact that Flay KNOWS who the scum are. The only way he could know that is if he were scum as well. Therefore, votes for Mr. Flay are proper.
The clear answer is more DDD votes. Always.
Oh yeah!But if we successfully lynched him then we wouldn't be able to lynch the other scum!
I've got my eye on you missy.
Tar let's us touch him! Why can't I play his game?
Please, continue. And for your own safety, remember that Neil Wilson is your host, and therefore untouchable. Mr. Flay is hotel staff, who should not be approached.
*looks at SpyreX's first post*
*looks at this quote*
*looks at username*
I think that's why Zazie ^-^
Ignore the ''R''
I always try to call you Zazie. You'll even see it in certain votecounts .Nobody pays attention to that Very Happy
That message gets more ignored than the "R" >.<
I like your avi. It's pretty ^-^.Nuwen wrote:Yeah. She touched my special profile place.Lord Gurgi wrote: Is that an Ether avatar?
I'm...going to play devil's advocate and ask if you have a demonstrable meta of this?LG and Llamafluff- I'm waiting on more play before I place my vote down again. Right now everyone I fos'd has done the same thing, so I'm going to wait for them to become more active.
I'm kinda wondering why this explanation came AFTER the vote rather than with it?How? That's not the feeling I got from his posts at all. He seems to be one of the more involved players so far, so I wouldn't say lazy, and I don't think there's anything wrong with waiting for more before voting.
Hmm...I think I understand your logic and lean towards agreement with it.
To sum. I think we should color claim. I think we should pick a designated "floor to lock" based on what things look like post-color claim. Every night the bellhop should move players into that floor (either scummy players to prevent them from using abilities, or pro-town players to keep them from being NKed). Eventually we lock the scum out of kills entirely, or force them into making really sub-optimal kills.
If they think they can get away with it. It buys time to come up with a good explanation if it's let past. Also can give time for someone to screw up and supply you with a good explanation.
I do it from time to time, just to see what happens. Now you mention it, I remember debating this with you in BSG. Do you still think originally unexplained votes are more likely to be made by scum?
I don't see any protown benefit. I'm giving Goat the benefit of the doubt though because I'm not sure if he caught the alignment thing.
The possibility of the bellhop being scum makes this plan risky, I think. Claiming floors without going for the bellhop part is possible, but does have the downside of allowing scum a guaranteed nightkill, whereas if people's floors stay hidden there's a chance of the nightkill failing. Of course, the same is true of town poweroles picking their targets. My hunch about PJ is that he wouldn't make a game that can be broken on day 1, but I'm open to arguments if there's some other advantage to claiming now.
I'd have to read. I may have missed itWhy are you commenting on this in particular? I haven't explained my vote, for example.
I keep forgetting when the deadline is for. D'oh.
You explained it at least somewhat saying Zazie was the worst on the DDD wagon.What about my vote, though?
Why is scum guaranteed in this scenario? In a scenario with two bellhops, neither of them are necessarily scum or town.
2.) Claim / CC
--- Expected scenario. Guaranteed scum. Even if we're on the losing end of the 1-1 not terrible as the lynch mechanic is important and not the night actions if we lose the town bellhop.
I like this from Goat
SpyreX: What do you think about waiting a day to get bellhop claims, trying out my plan of shifting people to a safe floor in order to determine the nature of the bellhops we find ourselves up against, and then doing bellhop claims later?
So, if multiple people are being shuffled to the safe floor, then we don't need to out the bellhops as they are both acting pro-town. If nobody is being shuffled, or if people are being shuffled randomly, then we should get bellhop claims, and we would then know that we're probably dealing with 1 town 1 scum, or just 1 scum, or what have you.
Question: Why not? Aren't you the only one who knows your alignment? Now, I'll grant it's not a PRODUCTIVE answer, but why are we townhunting in this scenario?
Hint: Yourself isn't ever the right answer.
Fair. But way to not address other concerns.@FL:
Productivity is the answer. The lock mechanic lends itself to townhunting, as it were.
That's a pain in the ass. I'd rather not. If you aren't paying enough attention to know who I'm quoting, then you aren't paying enough attention.I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).
What does this have to do with anything? I was talking about your false dichotomy that with 2 bellhops at least one is scum.
WHAT other concerns? That we, in fact, pick a scum that is playing the towniest game that ever towned and thusly he cant...be....?'d
This was covered. I agree with you.
And voting for yourself wouldn't create ties and/or more information to look at when the game progresses as well as being, ultimately, counterproductive.
I missed something here?
So yea still not sure what huge negative we would get from locking via the towniest player (thus forcing a less than optimal kill assuming all other factors equal).
Thank you. There is FINALLY a logical argument for why I should tag my quotes. I'll try to do it more, but I will state there are times I'll forget.Goatrevolt wrote:
Meh. It takes 3 seconds, and while I know who you're quoting now, it's a pain in the ass down the line if I'm trying to read you in isolation and have no clue who you're going back and forth with. I have a good memory, sometimes freakishly good, but I can't remember every single post made in a game. It's just an extra unnecessary hassle.
Anyway, it's not ultimately a huge deal, just a pet peeve of mine. This is the last I'll say about it.
If I hadn't done it, someone else would have. I debated this before doing it. I decided that there was more advantage to actually just doing it than waiting for someone else too.I would've preferred if we had a consensus on this first, but whatever.
I would suggest that no other bellhop claims unless we have decided that that'd be a good idea (I think it isn't).
I agree wholeheartedly. Though I have a feeling that at best I'll look neutral given the stuff about how a scum bellhop doesn't necessarily exist. I was more attempting to play devil's advocate there.I need to go back to work, but it would be a good idea to analyze forbiddan's reactions to the ideas of claiming to see if it makes sense from a town-bellhop point of view. I'll do it later if nobody wants to step up and handle it in the meantime.
It makes multi quoting harder though. And picking out excerpts of posts.LG wrote:
FL: You know if you click the quote button you'll get the name included. It's much easier than copy-pasting.
EBWOP: Also, I use quote selected usually. Which doesn't provide the name.LG wrote:
FL: You know if you click the quote button you'll get the name included. It's much easier than copy-pasting.
Ok, so basically you are going for the "You all suck. I'm bored. Die" in a monotone approach? This does NOT help the town...
The only effective way to stop setup speculation is to show that it hurts the town. I dont see it hurting the town much if at all in this situation, and the only alternative was to push my speculation as better, which means im going to start losing interest in the game.
I'm about ready to join you in a mad reals LF vote.
My vote on you isn't an accident or pressure. Its a for mad reals vote.
How do I play? Can you link the posts in question?SpyreX wrote: Thats cool FL but play my chain-lynch-guess-who game too!
Maybe I'll reread the game and find out! But at a later date, as I must leave.
Further, if he WAS scum, I would be all ready to lynch someone else. Guess who?
The thing is...why say something when you could just be leading by example. There might not be much to look at but you can always try to scumhunt and at least create an early D1 case rather than just keep looking bored.LF wrote:
@FL - Yeah thats kind of my early game attitude. I try to scumhunt a bit, get met with a "stop annoying us we are speculating" attitude. Kind of left me with a choice of "argue about something I dont really care about" and "keep trying to suggest we scumhunt".
that'd be one hell of a prod.Goat wrote: My vote on Zazie is pretty mad in it's realness as well. The madness is in fact so real, I'm about to kick Zazie into a well.
Oh hey! Do you think DDD is scum if Batt is?SpyreX wrote: That DDD is los scum. You know, the one you jumped in to protect and asked the worlds most obvious question about right here.
Oh wait, do you mean to say you AREN'T connecting them or you dislike their connections?SpyreX wrote:
I'm definitely not down with the Bat-DDD connection. Thats as far as I've got.
Come now, there is a quite simple explanation I won't supply Spy with .DDD wrote:
I also don't like SpyreX trying to link Battousai with myself. Try this on for size then, Battousai is my number two pick to lynch behind Zazie. Did I just blow your mind?
I do that sometimes. I gotta keep people guessing ^-^DDD wrote:
I got nothing either way, it looks like she was trying to decide if it was a good idea or not as most of us were. Her claim was startlingly aggressive, but again that doesn't give me a read either way.
Haha, somehow I figured you'd say both these things. But yeah, that's basically what would be said, DDD.SpyreX wrote: My mind is totally blown to shreds. SHREDS. Of course it might have meant something if you had mentioned it BEFORE I did but now the cards show Greyhounds.
I meant I dislike the connection o' course.
Or Chaotic StupidLF wrote:
If my meta (which is a little outdated) on FL is correct, she is pretty obv-town at this point. IIRC she is a little more cautious as scum and more reckless as town.
sorry! I can't help it!Patrick wrote:
More from me tomorrow when I get time after work. I think the bellhop claim is more likely to be town, and can confirm that FL is reckless as town =/
See, this is where we disagree. It's not so much he doesn't enjoy breaking the set up, it's the fact he barely put forth any effort to get us "scumhunting" as he says whereas I'd expect a townie to be more active.DDD wrote:
It looks like cheap suspicion to me. Sure your boredom and disinterest due to not enjoying breaking a setup is anti-town, but I'm not seeing the jump from anti-town to scummy in this case.
???Unvote, vote Lord Gurgi.
???
What does this have to do with alignment? I don't quite get why you said this.
Unvote: Nuwen
This...
Also- LG/TDC: I'm totally lost on what just happened between you.
Wagon LF. It's likely to pay off ^-^Elmo wrote:
We got chronic invitational syndrome. Fitting, but in addition to being busy, I'm terribly uninspired and not really helping. I'm considering saying we shouldn't be lynching Danny, because that wagon's been going for a while, and no-one seems interested in an alternative.. but there's been like half the game voting for someone with only their vote on. We need to wagon a bit. Deadline now scares me, because this will be like the least informative day evah.
Ok, what advantage would this have?LG wrote:
I was pushing for a colour-claim before a Bellhop could claim so that the scum wouldn't alter their claim to fit with the Bellhop's colour.
Oh, ok, I think I understand now. Yeah...sorryGR wrote: Alright, I understand it now. I also agree that we should have done an early color claim to lock the scum down into colors early.
This I agree with.SpyreX wrote:
I do raise that the not-color claiming does make some townies BP's which could be a huge gain depending.
I dunno, but sometimes when I answer questions directed towards other people I get voted...I really don't understand it but yeah :S. It's a strange phenomena.Spy wrote: I'm not sure why since thats what I would have said.
It's not so much being against broken set ups, it's that he didn't ACTIVELY try to steer us towards a less boring activity to him. It wouldn't have really mattered if he failed, it's basically in my eyes that he doesn't like set up breaking and feels it's detracting from finding scum, and all he does is sit idly til we're done? Not good enough
Feel free to say something.
I don't see what's so appealing about wagoning LlamaFluff. His attitude towards breaking setups is at least consistent, and I can empathise with the boredom caused by the setup discussion, so I don't see why he's more likely to be scum.
I have two impulses here. The desire for information you've been incredibly cagy about makes me want you to elaborate or I'll vote.Patrick wrote:
Just didn't find her scummy anymore.
Can I have strawberry ice cream?PJ wrote:
"Also, as an incentive to move this day along, if there is a lynch before the next vote count, then all living guests will be treated to raspberry pie and vanilla ice cream. This will have no effects on the game, of course, but I trust it will be scrumptious."
My tendency to tunnel for me...I actually haven't really noticed Elmo.Patrick wrote:
I'm a little surprised that "lack of scumhunting" is being thrown around a fair bit with no mention of Elmo's name. Is there any particular reason for that? (Not addressed to TDC in particular)
Nyeh, you saw it in BSG to an extentPatrick wrote:
That's kind of what worries me.
So I don't exist?LG wrote:
Just about the only people I'm satisfied with the activity from are SpyreX, Goat, and TDC.
Oh, sorry, I meant my tunneling. I thought you meant THAT was what worried youPatrick wrote:
In BSG it always seemed more like he was trying to accomplish something, even in more bored moments. So far it's not clear to me what he was trying to accomplish in his last post, other than perhaps making a post.
Lemme do a quick self post count. It won't prove much but I feel affronted .LG wrote: I post, therefore I am. You do not.
Sure. After you explain your vote on Lord Gurgi. If you have already, I apologize, but would also like a link to the post.Nuwen wrote:
DDD, forbiddanlight, Gurgi, TDC, Zazie - tell me your scummiest two players thus far, please.
Ah, you see, here you make a rather bad assumption. You assume I play optimally. Like I have charts and EVs and all that crazy stuff on my computer for a mafia game. I don't.Nuwen wrote:
I don't see anything from FL explicitly stating that she'll volunteer to be lynched prior to a lylo situation. Even if she did agree to be lynched, I think the more optimal pro-town move would have been to stave off claiming for as long as possible in order to get another bellhop to claim. If I had a pro-town bellhop role PM, it greatly reduces the odds that any other bellhop(s) is/are town too.
Please explain conclusion 1.Nuwen wrote:
I like the idea of moving scummy or unreadable players to locked floors. The locked door acts as a role block and if no kill occurs during the night, we'll know that either 1)Everyone in the game is on green or 2)All scum are on green, barring any mechanics that allow for the opening of locked doors.
For once, I agree. Mostly because this set up is conducive to townie hunting.GR wrote:
Town hunting and scum hunting are 2 sides to the same coin. If you find enough townies, you've found the scum. I think it's a valid strategy in any game, including this one.
Entering: Facetiousness mode!TDC wrote:
I'm not at all interested in lynching fl anytime soon. Even if she is scum, there's still other scum to lynch and she's going to have tp play as if she was town and move people into the safe floor.
Moving scummy people into the safe floor makes no sense at all. If we have someone who's scummy, we uh.. just lynch them?
Good question. The problem is I'm far from "confirmed" or anything like that. If I were, or close to it, I'd feel happier about voting her, but for now she brings up reasonable devil's advocate points. Now, most of them are WRONG, but that doesn't stop them from being reasonable, or at the least not anti-town.LF wrote:
So are you calling FL scum here or what? It looks like you are already trying to justify a lynch of her.
You have to give to take:Nuwen wrote:
I may have been intoxicated, but I still want to see scum lists from the people I mentioned. Now.
fl wrote: Sure. After you explain your vote on Lord Gurgi. If you have already, I apologize, but would also like a link to the post.
Another fair point against scum locking.Patrick wrote:
Still not concerned about FL, I think a scum bellhop would have been more likely to stay hidden so as to avoid cooperating with a town plan (and to sabotage it if a town bellhop existed). We just need to be aware that if FL is a town bellhop, a scum one could still be moving scumbuddies off the safe floor (which is why we should be putting town players on there, not scummy ones imo).
Would creating my own wall of text repeating everything that's already been said be useful at all?Nuwen wrote:
Stop quoting other people at me, I have the capacity to read. Your eagerness to emphasize everyone else's support behind the pro-town locking isn't doing anything to assuage my paranoia.
That's fine. I just found it appropriate to remind you.Nuwen wrote: Yeah, don't worry I'm not ignoring you or anyone else. Just waiting on a massive hangover to clear up while browsing around the site.
Hey, I'd prefer a "Someone was scummy" lynched as opposed to a lurker lynch too. My suspicion of those voting Zazie for such things is increasing.Spy wrote:
I'd prefer THIS to a pure-lurker lynch. However, without question I am fine. Also, to add spice to the pot - if Zaz IS scum I'd put Batt on higher than baseline to be a partner.
Aren't you voting Batt?Spy wrote:
My vote on Zaz isn't just pure lurking. The wagon as a whole is. I am stopping this whole "what do you mean you had reasons!" business before it starts. Razz
I lean this way as well, oddly enough...consider it's coming from LF :S...hmm...LF wrote:
I would actually go for an Elmo lynch before a Zazie lynch at deadline. I have had multiple bad experiences lynching zazie for being a lurker, although I can not remember a game with him where he was scum. I can point to two games where he did disappear (but not get replaced) though as town.
Translation: I'm back, but I have no stance since I already know who all the townies are and I can't find anyone doing something scummy enough to frameElmo wrote: I'm back, but I still don't have any meaningful opinions - I'm halfway through rereading now. Feel free to ask me questions, or so? I'm still struggling to find anything interesting, that's the problem. (I don't think my stance on DDD was bad, although maybe I didn't express it well because it was late.)
LG wrote: ZazieR had more votes.
Not as valid this game. We need four votes on a player for a deadline lynch. This is HALF of a majority. It's not preferable to a majority lynch, but as far as deadline lynches go, it's far less a leg to stand on if you don't believe in the lynch.Patrick wrote: First can be a valid reason close to deadline but doesn't say anything about scumminess.
Data?LG wrote: I don't want to lynch Elmo on day one because he tends to be helpful as either alignment. As far as I can tell, ZazieR doesn't.
It's a parody of your supposed point of view. Perhaps it wasn't well phrased, but the idea is I don't buy you are actually scumhunting, since obviously other players have found cases.Elmo wrote: If you've just stated that no-one's doing anything scummy enough for me to decently attack them if I was scum, why do you think I'd act differently as town?
And he was both alignments in Tofu, hence being helpful as either alignment?Data is me playing with him in Tofu, while people in this game have already attested to ZazieR.
So we shouldn't lynch anyone, eh?LG wrote: Most players are helpful as both alignments.
Unhelpful lurker. I think if he were going to be replaced, he would have by now.
I disagree. What has ZazieR done that's scummy beyond the RIDICULOUS lurking I've known him to do in other games regardless of alignment?Elmo has done less scummy than ZazieR.
So why is it pretty much every other player besides him and Zaz has something?LG wrote: Admitting he has nothing is not the same as what you took it to mean. I prefer his presence to ZazieR's empty promises of the same.
I'm not sure why you think Zazie is a better lynch in the first place, despite all evidence otherwise. Me and Partrick have made our cases. If you choose to ignore them, and turn a blind eye to Elmo's scumminess, so be it.LG wrote: I'm not sure how that is supposed to convince me that Elmo is a more sensible lynch than ZazieR.
The thing is, we don't have enough data from Zazie. I'd prefer he be replaced, because from what I'm reading it's his active lurking you are lynching him for. A.K.A, a passive tell versus Elmo's active tells.I just don't see how what you point out that is definitively scummy doesn't apply to ZazieR. The rest is flimsy conjecture.
Nyeh...with Zaz it's different. I'm playing a meta card I can't fully explain.LG wrote: Active Lurking isn't active? It's an active choice, at very least.
Fine! I'll vote Zaz if he gets close to lynch, but I'm pretty sure he's not scum.Spy wrote:
As an aside: I'm going to be ultra-pissed if we don't get an actual majority lynch. Seriously angry. As in if someone is awesome enough to not help push a real wagon as we get close or, god forbid, not be voting I will vote for them every day I'm alive.
show me again?GR wrote:
It's entirely the opposite of this. Zazie's push on DDD was actively scummy. Elmo's lack of meaningful contribution is passively scummy.
What do you think of my reasons for finding Zazie scummy?
This is true, though Zaz has been implying he's kept up...GR wrote:
It depends on how you define it. Active lurking defined as "following along with the thread but not posting" is a huge tell. Active lurking defined as "posting every 3 days but not saying anything and not keeping up with the thread" is less scummy.
If you read, both me and Patrick are far above "OMG Lurker lynch" regarding you. Lurking is part of it, but it's also your manifest unhelpfulness when you have posted, which is more unusual for you than ZazieElmo wrote:
Pop quiz: If there really are mad awesome "this person is scum" cases out there, why is "omg lurker lynch" getting this amount of traction?