Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Cyberbob]

ohshi

Huge apologies guys, I was waiting for the thread to appear in the Theme Park.

I'm off to school in about 10 minutes so I won't be able to produce anything right now, but I promise I will get back on board this afternoon.

[Cyberbob]

I find the way to catch up on smallish numbers of pages is to do a stream-of consciousness post to single out posts that I find interesting rather than to try and gin up some xbox hueg paragraphs on events (I don't do walls of text very well more often than not).


**START**

• Post 25 - I don't like the concept of small groups-within-groups. Not sure whether to count this as scummy or not, but BM hasn't made a very good first impression.
  
• Post 44 - BM looks pretty serious about this thing. Not making him look any more pro-town to me.
  
• Post 73 - Excellent dissection of why the pact was (is?) a Bad Idea.
  
• Post 80 - Peter defending the pact... he makes some decent points in theory but I heavily doubt their relevance in practice.
  
• Post 88 - I don't like how Netlava tries to punish discussion of the pact with a round after having spent the initial part of his post doing just that.
  FOS: Netlava
  
  
• Post 93 - More discussion of the pact. Really not liking Netlava at this point.
  
• Post 95 - Disagree with pretty much everything about the pact, agree with the last paragraph critiquing Netlava.
  
• Post 101 - Go back to bed, nhat.
  

[Cyberbob]

Oh god, I accidentally hit submit instead of preview.

I will post the complete version when it's done.

[Cyberbob]

[*]Post 101 - Go back to bed, nhat.

Oh god, I accidentally hit submit instead of preview.

I will post the complete version when it's done. Sad

Fission Mailed.

Cram it.

[Cyberbob]

I find the way to catch up on smallish numbers of pages is to do a stream-of consciousness post to single out posts that I find interesting rather than to try and gin up some xbox hueg paragraphs on events (I don't do walls of text very well more often than not).


**START**

• Post 25 - I don't like the concept of small groups-within-groups. Not sure whether to count this as scummy or not, but BM hasn't made a very good first impression.
  
• Post 44 - BM looks pretty serious about this thing. Not making him look any more pro-town to me.
  
• Post 73 - Excellent dissection of why the pact was (is?) a Bad Idea.
  
• Post 80 - Peter defending the pact... he makes some decent points in theory but I heavily doubt their relevance in practice.
  
• Post 88 - I don't like how Netlava tries to punish discussion of the pact with a round after having spent the initial part of his post doing just that.
  FOS: Netlava
  
  
• Post 93 - More discussion of the pact. Really not liking Netlava at this point.
  
• Post 95 - Disagree with pretty much everything about the pact, agree with the last paragraph critiquing Netlava.
  
• Post 101 - Go back to bed, nhat.
  
• The exchange between OpposingForce and BM sort of lead me to understand what BM is trying to achieve... but I don't think it will do anything other than create an additional layer of confusion and WIFOM.
  
• Post 137 - This speaks of townishness to me. Can't say for sure why.
  
• I wish OpposingForce would calm down, but BM isn't making it particularly easy with his condescension.
  
• Page 7 is essentially a repeat of Page 6 with a little additional accusing of Untitled thrown in. Personally I don't really see anything in it. Also, seriously wishing a wider variety of people would post.
  
• Post 179 - Sums up my position on BM excellently. Not sure about Untitled's "tell", though - BM threatened him with a vote for much less.
  
• Post 198 - This feels a little jumpy to me.
  
• I'd like to register my joy at seeing the pact abandoned.
  
• Post 209 - Ew. Ew, ew, ew. I
  hate
  this kind of ploy.
  
• Rest of Page 9 involves some random skirimshing - which would not have been complete without a little more trolling from nhat. Seriously, Kool-Aid addict much?
  
• Post 235 - Quoted (well, linked actually) for Ultimate Truth. Especially the part about BM's asinine posting habits.
  
• Post 254 - Owned.
  FOS: StrangerCoug

**FIN**

Well, looking over all that as well as a quick skim to get a more general overview of the game so far I'd say Netlava is most deserving of my vote at the moment - the play I FOS'd him for in my PBP combined with his subsequent lack of content despite a fairly substantially-sized chunk of discussion having occurred in between his posts don't make for a very pro-town appearance.

Vote: Netlava

[Cyberbob]

Too Townie.

what

[Cyberbob]

nhat, there is no way in hell "too townie" is ever going to fly as a valid scumtell if I have anything to say about it.

Please stop making me want to vote you; I'm happy with my current vote and I don't like the feeling of being torn.

[Cyberbob]

Why with the hard on for me? You take shots at me in your PBPA, calling my post on page 9 trolling when it's clearly my take on the whole pact situation.

There are myriad ways of expressing disagreement with something without resorting to belittling those you disagree with.

Then you see others piling up on me and you stick your nose in there, too.

Er, no, but thanks for playing. I "stuck my nose in" because I agree with the people disagreeing with you. If I agreed with you I would have said so.

If you don't like it, you know what to do, big guy.

Your wit is too sharp for me.

[Cyberbob]

Minor FoS: animorpherv1

because this is not the random voting stage.

I come from a different site. Things are different, practically all of day 1 is random voting.

Am I to take it, then, that you plan on holding to this

excuse to be unhelpful

rule now?

[Cyberbob]

As for my thoughts about Untitled, it's unanimous that everyone disagrees with me. Many people say that it was flawed. It's what I see. My opinion. For people to vote me for that is plain silly. Disagreement is fine, as I had said before.

Logic as mindnumbingly simple as why the "Too Townie" tell is retarded - not to mention trying to base it on usage of plural pronouns - is not subjective, sorry.

[Cyberbob]

Schooling me yet again with shit that's already been said. Nice one, Sherlock. Now kindly hop off my nuts and find another dead horse to beat.

Cry some more. If you're going to insist on whinging about how such an obvious piece of craplogic is somehow immune to being voted over you won't get any sympathy from me.

[Cyberbob]

That is an interesting question. CyberBob, care to share?

I wouldn't be attacking him so much if he wasn't being such a crybaby about it. Also, I like my Netlava vote and I haven't seen any form of response or explanation from him as to the reasons for his hypocrisy.

If he did manage to come up with a good counter to my accusation then I might vote nhat, but I'm haven't crossed that bridge yet.

[Cyberbob]

Not liking that vote, Cass.

[Cyberbob]

You mean Erratus, right?

[Cyberbob]

I'm not going to buy into anything else until I get a response from Netlava regarding the reasons for my vote on him. I'm surprised that nobody else spotted the actions in question, and I'm even

more

surprised that nobody is even mentioning them after I brought them to light when I voted him.

[Cyberbob]

Personally, I don't find his actions that scummy, as a subject of one of his FOSs, even I don't find them unreasonable: lengthly arguments over something in the pre-game would be a great way for scum to appear like they're contributing. And I don't think what you said about how he spent the initial part of his post arguing about the pact himself really applies: he spent two lines stating his opinion on the pact, which is nothing compared to the kinds of posts his accusations were over: take a look at posts 80 or 83.

You missed this:

Post 93 - More discussion of the pact. Really not liking Netlava at this point.

He spent a good deal more than two lines discussing the pact if you take all his posts into account. I don't disagree with his attacking of the discussion; it's the fact that he decided to buy into it after having just criticised it that drew my vote.

[Cyberbob]

Says that he doesn't object to Netlava's attacking the pact discussion, but rather that he agrees with it after having just done so.

Reading comprehension FTW. My vote on him is for his turning around and buying into the discussion after having just attacked it, not for the attack itself.

[Cyberbob]

That's OK. ^_^

[Cyberbob]

Jesus Christ you guys, would it kill you to use the Preview button when making those xbox hueg posts? EBWOPing a massive post just to fix a few tags should not have been needed. As for BM... you really need to start making sure all your thoughts are down before you click Post.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to any points before I go to school (I'm leaving in 5). I just wanted to get that off my chest before I left.

[Cyberbob]

FFS guys. Some of you are complaining about posts being too long, others are complaining about them being too frequent. you cant have it both ways. Sort it out amongst yourselves, because i cant keep EVERYONE happy. -.-

BM

There's an easy way to achieve both. All you have to do is get rid of the quote pyramids and you'll have eliminated 80% of the annoyance right there.

[Cyberbob]

If alot of the crap can be cut out of them it might help.

That's what I meant. Only quote the post you're actually responding to, not the one it was quoting and the one THAT one was quoting and so forth.

[Cyberbob]

I do like Animorphperv for possible scum; partly for the inconsistency Snaps just outlined but also for his arguable rolefishing WRT MafiaMann. Highlighting someone as possibly having a power role is pretty damn anti-town as all it accomplishes is painting a nice big target on their backs for scum.

FOS: Animorphperv1

That would've been a vote were it not for my still not having seen anything from Netlava to inspire me to unvote.

You didnt call it 'excellent' now, did you? I can concede that some people are so blinded by their own arrogance and self-righteousness that they believe whatever they say is always right. But when somebody else buys into it? I'm not standing for it.

This is the single most ironic thing in the history of stuff. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Cyberbob]

"WRT"?

With Regard To.

@ Cyberbob: My "discussion" of the pact does not contradict my reasons for suspecting people. I gave about 2 lines on why I thought the pact's validity was a non-issue, and that peter's & earthworm's long back and forth made it an issue. Note that "too interested" was my reason.

Ah, I see. You were looking at the amount of time spent on the discussion, not the discussion per se.

Unvote, Vote: Animorphperv1

[Cyberbob]

So? I'm not intending it as a pressure vote, so it doesn't make a difference.

[Cyberbob]

That seems reasonable to me. I know I could definitely be posting more, which is really annoying.

The problem is there isn't a lot in the last couple of pages which stands out. Most of the scumtells being brought up don't strike me as being particularly strong, especially when I like my vote on Animorphperv1 so much.

Speaking of which, I have yet to be given an actual reason for why his being replaced makes a difference.

[Cyberbob]

Hmm, while I don't think it was wise for animorpherv1 to say that he thought he knew another player's role, didn't the next 2 pages or so conclude that it was DynamoXI who as rolefishing?

Er, did you

read

Animorph's post? Dynamo might've been fishing

as well

, but there is no way in hell you're going to convince me that Animorph wasn't.

Most of the scumtells being brought up don't strike me as being particularly strong, especially when I like my vote on Animorphperv1 so much.

Misrepresentation and voting based on another's reasoning are also scum tells.

FoS: Cyberbob

I wasn't voting based on another's reasoning. I

mentioned

Snaps' reasoning in the post wherein I voted for Animorph, but the crux of the reason for the vote was definitely the fishing. Snaps got a mention mainly because he led me to read what Animorph had been saying a little more closely (as in in isolation).

In conclusion, no.

[Cyberbob]

what what

Dynamo is definitely scummy. Sineish's point that he engaged in fishing as well as Animorph is ringing true in my mind...

The only difference between the two in my mind is that Animorph has been far less active and Dynamo has been far jumpier with his votes. It's a tough call to make... nah, I think I'll stick with Animorph. Sineish's reaction to my vote was

most

interesting particularly given the amount of misrepresentation he had to engage in to be able to come up with a reason to try and cast suspicion on me. If Animorph ends up dying and cardflips scum I will definitely be taking a careful look at Sineish.

However, if it comes down to a choice between Dynamo and No Lynch (what with the deadline) I would be willing to switch to Dynamo. A slightly-worse-but-still-decent-lynch (or indeed, any lynch at all) is better than No Lynch.

[Cyberbob]

He said he was pretty sure he knew another player's role. To me that is a great deal different from what DynamoXI said when he asked:

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

Not all that different in my mind - what animorph did is akin to a softclaim.

[Cyberbob]

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

I've seen scum do it plenty of times, usually as an attempt to tug at the town's heartstrings in some big old appeal to emotion.

[Cyberbob]

I'm really sorry for my absence, guys. School's really busy at the moment and I've been finding it really difficult to keep track of mafia games.

It doesn't appear as though my vote on animorpherv (i.e. Sineish) is doing much good, and a quick skim doesn't show much of anything else scummy on Sineish's part, so

Unvote

.

I will try and catch up on events more thoroughly.

[Cyberbob]

OK. Some thoughts:

- I don't like the way people are dithering over the Dynamo wagon. That's not to say I support it, but all this indecision is completely unhelpful.
- Having said that, I'm going to throw my lot in with the pro-lynch crowd. Emotional townie or emotional scum - either way he's causing too much confusion and his scummy behaviour has been great in volume. I pretty much agree with Citizen Karne's #906 on both this matter and that regarding Netlava 100%.

Vote: DynamoXI

- I will be taking a nice long look at a few people here if Dynamo flips scum.

[Cyberbob]

Meh, all that does is pretty much confirm in my mind his scumminess. Especially that wink.

[Cyberbob]

Meh, all that does is pretty much confirm in my mind his scumminess. Especially that wink.

So does that mean you'll be surprised when I don't flip scum?

If you're town, you're going into my book as Severely Retarded: Avoid Playing With.

[Cyberbob]

I had never done a self hammer before too and it was quite fun.

I'm glad we got to be your guinea pigs. Makes me feel really special.

[Cyberbob]

I thought I'd been really inactive when I saw the date on the last page. My sigh of relief when I saw the day only

began

today was rather large.

This Cream business... I agree with hasd in that defending someone suspicious who flips town is in itself suspicious, but given how Dynamo responded to his votes I can see how someone would find him emotional town. The manner in which Cream brought his defence of Dynamo up today feels a little forced, though... mrh. I don't think it's a big tell, but I'm definitely going to be keeping a closer eye on Cream from now on.

Now, about Netlava. I really didn't like the way he handled Dynamo's wagon; he stated a number of times that he found Dynamo to be more likely to be noob town than noob scum, yet had little to no compunction in voting him. Indeed, he voted him without reasoning directly after one of the scummiest posts I think he's made all game:

L-2, and I'm leaning not scum on Dynamo.

I'll wait and see what other people think before voting (if necessary)

Trying to avoid blame for the eventual town cardflip while still helping the lynch, were we? Then, rather than sticking to your change of heart, you caved into the pressure being put on you for your vote and moved it to a singularly useless target (Cass). That's a seriously scummy way to dance around a wagon if you ask me.

Vote: Netlava

[Cyberbob]

On the topic of Netlava, I see him as somewhat scummy, but he could just be an overeager townie. I'll need to see a bit more action to be sure.

Overeager? Out of all the possible labels one could associate with his behaviour, what led you to give him that one?

[Cyberbob]

Don't worry about responding to the points raised against you, though.

[Cyberbob]

As someone who came pretty much out of the gate yesterday in support of a Netlava lynch, I have to agree that this wagon is moving a little too fast for my liking. I'm seeing a rather opportunistic votes from BlakAdder & perhaps StrangerCoug, and raider's post 991 (as a couple of others have also noted) really smells of scum appearing to support a wagon without committing to actually laying a vote down.

[Cyberbob]

I am pro the bandwagon but I didnt like how large it got and how fast it got. I would also like Netlava to defend himself. Failure to defend would result in my vote anything else and I would need to consider.

See, now this is perfectly reasonable and is something you should have included in your initial post.

[Cyberbob]

He is in an indefensible position!

Well, unfortunately I don't think all scummy moves are physically able to be defended without having to resort to WIFOM.

An error in your logic that's been actually written down or a misinterpretation of something you've written, sure. But explaining something that's entirely in your head?

Hm... I may start a thread on this topic in MD once the game is over.

[Cyberbob]

What would you have us do, Cream?

[Cyberbob]

Hey Cream - please respond to my last post.

FOS: Cream

[Cyberbob]

I hate these kinds of arguments. I find it really difficult to comment on them as a third party, as there isn't a great deal of stuff to actually comment on.

It kinda does interest me that the Netlava wagon has suddenly gone completely unnoticed, though.

[Cyberbob]

Well, it just seems a little odd to me that such a huge thread-dominating argument - that doesn't appear to really be going anywhere to boot - should spring up right as the wagon was nearing a lynch.

It really feels like someone's trying to distract the town to me. I haven't quite figured out who the culprit is, but I'm even happier with my vote on Netlava. His cardflip will be very interesting indeed.

[Cyberbob]

To clarify on a point:

right as the wagon was nearing a lynch.

Well, I guess not really

nearing

a lynch (L-7), but it is certainly approaching the point at which Netlava's lynch is virtually guaranteed. A critical mass of votes, you might say.

[Cyberbob]

lolhai

bit tipsy atm, but I'd like to say that I don't really see the case against Cass; certainly not when such a superior one is against Netlava.

[Cyberbob]

TBH, I haven't been looking too much into the armlx-korts-sc-skruffs thing right now, but that's because I think they are town.

This kind of feels like buddying-cum-something-else. Not sure whether I'm looking at it completely objectively, but I'm getting the feeling nonetheless.

[Cyberbob]

That describes it pretty well, yes.

[Cyberbob]

This looks like a day of competing wagons.

What brought you to this conclusion given the fact that at the time of this post Cass only had two votes - the same number as armlx - and Netlava had (has) seven?

[Cyberbob]

Well actually, I think that Cass' wagon is ripe, fresh, and full of potential (in terms of getting more votes I mean), whereas the Netlava wagon is dying.

what

It's been stuck on 7 for a long time.

And this says nothing to you at all? A lot of people are bemoaning how weak it is without actually stating specifically why (you included). If Netlava is lynched and flips scum I'm going to be taking a very hard look at some of you indeed.

[Cyberbob]

If Netlava is lynched and flips scum...

Do you have a reason to think that Netlava will not turn scum? I think he is scum still so I am very interested in a response.

No, not really, but I try not to fall into the trap of being 100% certain about people's alignments one way or the other.

[Cyberbob]

A lot of people are bemoaning how weak it is without actually stating specifically why

[Cyberbob]

without actually stating specifically why

Getting the hint yet?

[Cyberbob]

Two points of interest:

- Raider's either lying or he simply misspoke. I'm inclined to believe the latter, but given his rather dodgy behaviour already it isn't a mark in his favour.
- Interesting that BM should throw a vote on someone who at that time didn't have any with the reasoning of becoming bored with the day (something I do agree with actually).

[Cyberbob]

Oh, one other thing about raider. If he did indeed misspeak, it would have been smarter of him to simply come clean and admit it right off the bat. By flatout denying it he's dug himself into a hole from which the only possible escape is trying to HUGELY twist his words. Something that isn't at all believable, I'm afraid.

[Cyberbob]

Oh, one other thing about raider. If he did indeed misspeak, it would have been smarter of him to simply come clean and admit it right off the bat. By flatout denying it he's dug himself into a hole from which the only possible escape is trying to HUGELY twist his words. Something that isn't at all believable, I'm afraid.

I didnt misspeak. It was what I meant to say only it is interpreted differently then what it was meant to be.

You obviously didn't read my post properly. You missed this bit:

By flatout denying it he's dug himself into a hole from which the only possible escape is trying to HUGELY twist his words. Something that isn't at all believable, I'm afraid.

[Cyberbob]

It isn't banned, only seen as usually being rather detrimental to the town.

[Cyberbob]

You can get your IC status stripped for it.

That's slightly different, because IC players should be teaching newbies how

to

play rather than how

not

to play.

[Cyberbob]

At any rate, this game probably needs me to finish reading it.

Fixed.

[Cyberbob]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

[Cyberbob]

How many times do I need to say that is not flipping? Not seeing a real case is me not understanding the case as I have said I think 3 times now.

Raider, I gave you multiple chances to honourably reverse your rather ludicrous expectation that people believe this crap. I don't know whether it's because you don't want to admit you're lying or that you actually think you stand a decent chance of getting anyone to buy it, but either way it's really making me feel like switching my vote to you.

My one reservation is not actually to do with the strength of the case on you, but because I really don't like the way that every time the Netlava wagon looked like it was in danger of reaching critical mass (that being the point at which a lynch is practically inevitable) something just

happened

to crop up which a couple of people just

happened

to see as such a momentous topic of discussion that the wagon didn't even rate a mention (well, maybe a desultory "I don't agree with the Netlava case" - note that the specifics of

why

were never really given). I'll also point out that these arguments were almost entirely revolving around some rather vague semantics, and that as soon as something else-but-still-non-Netlava-related came up they almost immediately petered out.

So, yeah. I'm seeing something definitely fishy going on, and I refuse to be distracted by it. It is going to take a very strong case indeed on someone else before I change my vote.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob's post is scummy because the post implies heavy guilt on raider, by flat-out claiming that raider is lying, but then comes up with a shaky reason about distractions and what-not. The post seems like a scumpartner talking to his teammate.

Needs less Kool-Aid.

I'm glad you agree about raider, but the part about distractions is in no way shaky.

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

Yup, this is all part of my plan *cackle*

/facepalm

[Cyberbob]

What do you mean by needs less kool-aid?

It's something of a figure of speech. Basically I'm suggesting that you need to think about your posts more.

seeing how everything can be called a distraction from one's favored lynch.

a) Incorrect.
b) Besides, I went into far greater detail on why the behaviour has been suspicious than simply "its somthan other dan teh linch lolzorz". Please read my post again.

Plus, you outright claimed he lied. I'm not sure how much stronger you could get from that.

I'm still a mite hesitant to call it definitively scummy. I don't blindly buy into LAL; in this case (as, once again, I pointed out before) I'm still ever-so-slightly on the fence as to whether he really thinks he can get away with the lie (which is scummy) or whether he simply got himself into a bit of a hole and is too stubborn to admit it (which is more of a null-tell, really).

Don't get me wrong; if it wasn't for the running interference going on every time your wagon looked like it was on track for a lynch I would probably switch my vote to him. By "very strong case indeed" I was talking about something like a cop investigation or a scum claim or something of that fairly-indisputable sort.

[Cyberbob]

But to play Devil's Advocate... Cass was doing the same thing with her FOS parade on Day 1 from what I saw.

Very very obviously very very different situations.

[Cyberbob]

To be honest, I think you need to take a step back, and reconsider your game. Making posts like this is certainly not helping your chances of making it to the end of today live.

Schooling much?

[Cyberbob]

o_O

[Cyberbob]

I'm very inclined to vote you right about now.

What's stopping you?

[Cyberbob]

Also, I was completely unaware Sineish was in this game. I shall reread his posts.

The player whom he replaced (animorpherv) was very very scummy. I'm not surprised he flipped scum.

As for the other kills... not sure how much there is to say, really. Will reread dead scum, et cetera et cetera.

[Cyberbob]

^thats pretty much where i am.

So you're suspicious of yourself for knowing too much about the nightkills than you should?

Huh.

[Cyberbob]

Hm... I would be hesitant to so liberally apply the scumtell brush to

everyone

speculating on page 67. IME speculation is something townies like doing as nightkills are one of a town's few sources of information; while I agree with your argument about scum feeling each other out I don't think that they were the only ones doing it for the aforementioned reason. Also, I don't really see how you can think that BM was doing anything other than having a little joke. If I thought he was being at all serious, perhaps... but nah, I don't.

Having said all that, however, I definitely agree with your points about armlx and Surye.

...

There's one more thing that bugs me, though. Why didn't Korts make it onto your List of Dhoom after having done all the stuff you outlined in your first paragraph? It seems to me that he's more than deserving of a spot on there, based on what you've said about him.

...

I think I might come up with a list of my own, now that I think about it; I find they really aid cohesive thought. It will have to be tomorrow, though, seeing as it's 1:23am and I'm dead tired.

[Cyberbob]

Well, this is the post I assume you referring to (being the one directly above yours):

I've seen poisoner as pro-town before, but never as a mafia role and felt that needed to be looked into more. The way its described, it seems like double kills which is pretty rediculous.

The issue is that was a potential slip, showing BA knew more about the kills then he should.

[Cyberbob]

Er, that would be "you

were

referring to".

[Cyberbob]

Are you getting confused between BM and BA or something?

BM!

My bad.

Bob: korts is dead. Unless you think he's going to come back in the game and delete his reveal from our memories, there is no reason to have him on my scumlist, just as there's no reason for the other mafia to be on it.

/facepalm

See, this is why I told myself posting after midnight was a bad idea. Urgh.

Serious thoughts are forthcoming.

[Cyberbob]

I'm having a very hard time trying to figure out what benefit a claimed survivor has on the town.

If a survivor is driven to claim, the town has nothing to lose in lynching him or her. In LYLO with one town, one Mafia, and one survivor, the chances of a quicklynch are higher than with two townies. At the same time, I'm trying to imagine why a survivor wouldn't be NK bait..

All of the sentences in bold are in direct contradiction with the unbolded sentence. Does not compute.

Vote:StrangerCoug

[Cyberbob]

All of the sentences in bold are in direct contradiction with the unbolded sentence. Does not compute.

Let me clarify: I don't see what benefit town has to keep a claimed survivor alive.

That isn't a clarification, that's a completely new statement. I'm happy with my vote.

[Cyberbob]

but basically makin raider out to be the bad guy and moving disscussion away from sc

I kind of agree, but I also don't think tunnel vision is good for the town unless a deadline is looming. It isn't, so I think we can afford to talk about things other than SC.

[Cyberbob]

Sorry guys, but I'm going to be more or less unable to post until Friday; I have three exams this week and I pretty much don't have time for the Internet. I

might

be able to sneak in a couple here and there, but that is by no means a guarantee.

[Cyberbob]

FOS: raider8169

Same reasons as yesterday pretty much. I'm still really suspicious of the way he flip-flopped on the Netlava wagon and tried to get out of it with a word twist that can best be described as laughable. The reason I'm not voting for him... I recall armlx agreeing with the points against him and I am not sure yet whether to chalk it up as sneakily supporting a town wagon or distancing.

Also not liking the way raider felt the need to reinforce the fact that he has been saying for a while that he didn't like armlx. He never went beyond describing a vague feeling... which taken in conjunction with armlx's aforementioned behaviour could definitely feasibly be distancing.

I'm going to do some more reading, I think.

[Cyberbob]

This is a good question and I'm not sure yet. My current inclination is one of either Sineish or Arm, since I don't see why a mafia should have a watcher (sees who targeted people) and a tracker (sees who someone targets). But I'll need to do some serious rereading before really pegging anyone for it.

These roles make perfect sense for scum in a game with multiple scum groups.

when i replaced in i read the thread i agreed most with
his reasoning throughoutg the game,,
So i followed BM's vote like and over eager lapdog,

but now i supposed there isn't any room left on BM's coattails, perhaps i need to think for myself now,,, damn it

lolwut?

mFoS: tubby216

[Cyberbob]

How does it make perfect sense to have a tracker and watcher in the same mafia? It's really not enough to just come out and say that they make perfect sense. You ought to explain why.

Because we've already seen them?

Seriously though, it allows that group to hunt for power-roles and the other scumgroup with twice the investigative power (and without giving them a cop). I shy away from the Death Miller option simply because of how bastardish it is.

[Cyberbob]

Not sure what to make of BlakAdder (he just seems to be a whole lot of nothing to me), but the points made regarding Tom are very well-made. Still, I do like raider and little to nothing has changed since the last time I posted about him.

FOS: Tom Mason

I will have another look through Tom's posts. Whether he or raider gets my vote will depend on what I see.

[Cyberbob]

PBP on Tom Mason coming right up. Won't be every single one of his posts, only those of significance.

• Post 1322
  - Kicks off with a vote on Cass and a backing of Netlava. Not too sure about this post; I would have liked a bit more elaboration on why he thought Netlava was town. The reasoning for the vote itself was kind of weird, but I suspect that might be have more to do with how he worded it. It's kind of odd too that he felt the need to stress the fact that he has been around for a while when anyone can see that for themselves with a glance at his join date.
  
• Post 1344
  - In his defence of his labelling of Netlava as town he's giving points that I would consider scummy behaviour... the only difference that I can tell in the way he saw Cass and Netlava is one of magnitude - which I don't think is enough to form such a strong stance over.
  
• Post 1402
  - Defends SC against hasd. I disagree with this position; SC obviously knew how bad his vote was going by how quickly he withdrew it. Also not liking the way he tried to misrepresent hasd's position by describing it as "jumping on [SC] and pointing fingers to rally a voting wagon." That's not what he was doing at all.
  
• Post 1404
  - If this is sarcasm, it's very poorly done. If it's serious... it's self-contradictory.
  
• Post 1491
  - More anti-Cass sentiment, possibly a touch of buddying up to Lowell?
  
• Post 1517
  - Yeah, I think it's safe to call it buddying now. Also can't come up with a reason for calling Netlava town beyond his gut, which allows him to not have to rebut the (valid) points against him. Bit of a cop-out, I think.
  
• Post 1542
  - Noticeably moderates his position on Netlava, says there are "valid points" against both players but tries to compare Cass' FOS blitz on
  Day 1
  with Netlava's flailing. Refers to his gut again.
  
• Post 1569
  - More pushing of the case against Cass (which, now that he's put it in clearcut terms, does make some sense)... but the part about Netlava is atrocious. Cass isn't allowed to flail around but the wagon against him excuses the same sort of behaviour (only worse) in Netlava? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but to make a call like that at the time requires either psychic powers or knowledge the rest of us don't have. I would like a more in-depth explanation of this post.
  
• Post 1583
  - Makes a decent point against SC, which could have turned into something more if SC hadn't been able to explain his forgetfulness.
  
• Post 1685
  - Lays an FOS on SensFan due to his replacement of Cass, which I think is a bit timid considering how sure he was of her before. Being replaced shouldn't lessen one's scumminess.
  
• Post 1717
  - More pressure on SensFan, but still no vote. I think he's giving him too much of a free pass from what he thought of Cass. Also agrees with EGL about Skruffs.
  
• Post 1751
  - Admits to his rather massive slip when voting for Skruffs. Nulltell in my book; WIFOM or not, nobody would make that kind of mistake deliberately.
  
• Post 1765
  - More pressure on SC, possible minor buddying with BM.
  
• Post 1788
  - Jab at raider8169, which I agree with 100%.
  
• Post 1809
  - Ramps up the pressure on SC and votes him. What I find fascinating about this post is his treatment of SensFan. This is the first time he's mentioned him at all in quite a while, and once again he just completely lets him go. Strange.
  
• Post 1841
  - Brings up a point against armlx and goes back to attacking Skruffs.
  
• Post 1850
  - Gets shut down by armlx, falls back to his "real" point that he should have made more clear in the first place.
  
• Post 1897
  - Ew, ew, ew. Tries to take credit for his suspicions of armlx and SensFan despite having to retroactively clarify his argument against the former and the latter having been
  given a completely free ride through the previous day
  . This post smacks of "yay dead scum (see how town I am?)" to me.
  
• Post 1917
  - In elaborating on his previous post, he says nothing about how he virtually completely ignored SensFan. He also reverts to the original argument against armlx despite the quantity-of-posts part at least having been proven wrong.
  
• Post 1952
  - "if ONE lurker was a dirty scum they ALL must be amirite?" Also, the bit about how he would have voted if he was really following BM is WIFOM.
  
• Post 1972
  - Casts suspicion on Citizen Karne.

[Cyberbob]

Given the above (particularly 1569 & 1897)... I'm happy to

Unvote, Vote: Tom Mason

.

Raider is scummy, so I'm still watching him, but Tom has made a few too many slips for my liking.

[Cyberbob]

Dammit, triple post:

I will be V/LA (link to thread) for a week starting on Saturday.

[Cyberbob]

Nothing. My opinion of Tom has changed such that I find him more worthy of my vote than you.

[Cyberbob]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

You had a case against SensFan; it was the same one you had against Cass. For the purposes of the game itself they are one and the same. You might or might not have attracted much interest, but did you try?

Besides - you had no problems with trying to get a wagon against Cass going right up until the end despite lack of interest. Don't try and use the "it would have been pointless" argument, because pushing Cass' wagon was equally "pointless" with all the votes on Netlava.

If you want to grill me for SensFan, start grilling a lot of other people who downplayed Cass's play for the two days prior. I came into the game on Day Two, and almost immediately disliked what I was seeing from her.

That's not the same thing and you know it.

My issue with armlx was about the way he posted, not his number of posts. He would casually drop one-liners and slide away. I did not like how that looked. I have never played a game with armlx before so I had no way to gauge his style or anything of the sort. I went off an instinct.

If you'd read my post properly you would've seen that I acknowledged this, but you ruined your credibility with your clarification that looked a great deal like a change in your message.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

The whole point of an FOS is to indicate suspicion without committing to a vote; I see no problem with throwing them around a bit on Day 1.

I find it hilarious that you didn't find Netlava at all opportunistic. Yes he was being backed into a corner, yes he panicked, but that doesn't change the fact that he voted for whoever he thought would get the pressure off him. That is about as opportunistic as it gets.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

That's right, I haven't yet. My last FOS would have been a vote except that I wanted to have another read of his posts before committing to it. I didn't get around to it before having a look at you, however. I might do so tomorrow (I have my last exam later today), but I doubt it will change my vote.

Besides, the two situations are different. You spent the whole of Day 1 pushing very heavily your case against Cass before dropping it as soon as she was replaced. Raider has always been in the back of my mind, but there has usually managed to be someone a little scummier around.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

That's because the reasons for those votes were somewhat crap. She and Netlava might have done similar things, but he was doing them far more wildly and was actually using votes as opposed to FOSes.

As I sit her now, I think about how convenient it is that you strayed from commenting on Cass/SensFan's situation in the midst of the Netlava lynch. You barely scratched the surface and the most you would say was she was a "singularly useless target" (when justifying a vote on Netlava).

That's because she was? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the points against Netlava were far stronger than those against Cass and I stand by my decision to back his wagon over hers.

But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

Yes, that's right. If you were truly as strongly convinced of Cass' scumminess as your Day 1 posts seem to indicate you should have had no problems with going after SensFan. Give him a bit of a chance to speak for himself, sure, but you ignored him for the entire day. The difference between you and me in this case is that I was never strongly pushing against the player he replaced.

As a town, we left a huge gaping hole in the wall when we never asked for your direct opinion on Cass.

lol

[Cyberbob]

If the case against SensFan/Cass changed no where from where it was the previous day, which drew new substantial interest from other parties... Where was the incentive for me to push the idea again?

I had no new information to work with. Without anything new that would supply a more convincing case, I had no reason to harp on the situation. THAT was why I wanted to wait and hear from SensFan.

You waited too long.

Who said I did not find Netlava at all being opportunistic? All I said was that I thought Cass was being more opportunistic than Netlava.

I disagree.

Why? Because Cass was openly shifting her attention all around when ever there was the opportunity. If something did not stick, she went with another approach that was gaining popularity. That was opportunistic. If Netlava were not under the scrutiny and the pressure of voting, then you could call his play opportunistic like Cass's. His play was more desperation.

Desperation does not change the fact that he was trying to cast attention on anyone he thought he could.

And can you blame him? He was being backed into the corner and anything he said or did was being used against him. It is just like you are trying to do with me. You ask me for clarification and I give it... But you do not wish to accept it. You have your mind made up and like when you pushed the vote against Netlava are not willing to fully think the situation through.

Appeal to emotion.

It was Day Two that I came into the game, not Day One.

Did you read Day One at all?

And I already said I did not drop anything against SensFan. I asked for her to post and give some sort of thought on the game. I wanted more information to work with because there was nothing new at the time to influence the case.

When he failed to do so you should have ramped the pressure up and used that failure as your "new information".

And the cases are not different. Right now, you let Raider slip because you turned your attention to me. Talk about how you are going to go back and read him all you want. But you just admitted to the fact that you took up an interest in me, pushed him to the side, and focused on a new idea -- no longer attached to your previous.

I am not focused on you, you just happen to be the one posting right now. When raider posts I will pay just as much attention to him.

It

is

possible to have more than one target of suspicion at once, you know.

That is the same thing you accused me of doing with SensFan when I took up an interest in SC.

The difference being that I do not intend to ignore raider. If you wanted to make this argument you should have waited until it became clear that I was, but it's too early for you to point that particular finger.

It was not going to matter what he did. Your fixation on him caused his wild behavior to only become more irrational. I do not blame him. There was tunnel-vision on the part of yourself and several others to lynch him.

In a game this size a certain degree of tunnel vision is required to achieve

anything

. Besides (and like I have said already) - even in hindsight I still like the case on Netlava better.

I did not ignore SensFan.

Effectively, yes you did.

I mentioned in response to Lowell's vote on SF that I agreed with an FOS for the play that Cass had contributed over the last two days. I asked twice for SF to add thoughts. I noted when I voted for SC that I found it strange SF still had not responded. I never let go of my suspicion. But when there was nothing new and no one else supporting any pry for information from SF, a cry for action was not the right move.

It

was

the right move. You're not going to get anywhere if you have such a fatalistic attitude. Voicing the suspicion, rather than keeping it close to your chest, makes things much easier on the town (assuming for a second that you're a townie) later on in the game.

And you are right, the difference between you and I is that you never pushed against Cass. You barely acknowledged her existence in the game... Until you want to use it against me. And you can still maintain that Netlava was a better lynch decision.

And? I don't see what you are trying to get at here.

[Cyberbob]

No offence to Cyberbob, but it's very hard for me to take him seriously, when he hasn't done the same to me.

Eh? What do you mean?

[Cyberbob]

No offence to Cyberbob, but it's very hard for me to take him seriously, when he hasn't done the same to me.

Eh? What do you mean?

The Blakadder case. It needs your due care and attention.

BM

It shall have it as soon as I return from my V/LA. Assuming the day hasn't ended by then of course.

[Cyberbob]

Meep.

I'm finally back... my ISP took about two weeks longer than they said they would to send a guy around to install a new connection (we moved houses while I was gone but I was expecting the connection to be up by the time I came back).

Will read through the pages I missed right away and try to get back up to speed on things.

[Cyberbob]

Rightyo, away we go. This is just a quick runthrough of the posts that stand out to me which date from after my last post.

• Post 2019 - This is extremely suss. It doesn't contribute anything of Lowell's own to the case, and "The second this case falls apart I'm back on Tom like white on rice"? It's almost tailor-made to try and dodge both the responsibility of maintaining the case and any of the fall out that may be generated in the event that it "falls apart".
  
• Post 2024 - This is something I can almost agree with, but I'm going to be watching Tom very carefully to see whether he actually follows through on his word this time.
  
• Post 2031 - facepalm.jpg
  
• Post 2036 - Huzzah!
  
• Post 2038 - BA claims... I'm not sure whether to believe it or not. I will have to do more thinking as well as reading.
  
• Post 2058 - Incredibly unhelpful post. I've yet to see an occasion where lying about one's claim (doing it by omission is a different story) has helped the town, even if the role in question is a powerful one. I
  can
  definitely see the scum-fishing deal... but I would be hesistant to
  always
  assume that that's what's going on.
  
• Post 2067 - BM makes a very good point. I wish I was there for it; as it is I'm going to have to take him at his word that that is how things happened.
  
• Post 2074 - How about Tom Mason, BM? You've said a few times that you'd be happy to go after him once BA has been taken care of.
  
• Post 2077 - ...And he chooses to go after a lurker based almost entirely on meta when there is a perfectly solid case built up on Tom already. Le sigh.
  
• Post 2089 - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tom goes after SL for
  going back on her word to put pressure on somebody
  . I can almost taste the hypocrisy.
  
• Post 2114 - Ooo, I like this post.
  
• Page 86 as a whole - SL's behaviour is definitely weird to say the least. Her persistent outright refusal to answer questions should strike me as scummy... but it kind of doesn't. My head tells me not to fall for WIFOM, but my gut tells me that no scum of SL's intelligence would persist in such obviously self-destructive behaviour. I dunno.
  
• Post 2154 - SL claims, and I believe it.
  
• http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... ]Post 2162 - Caboose claim is imminent... BM could very easily come out of this looking rather scummy given the fact that he tried to use Skruffs' aliveness (not a word I'm sure) as proof that he isn't scum.
  
• Post 2182 - Or maybe not.
  
• Post 2191 - Following the leader, the leader, the leader... tubby has been doing this a
  lot
  .
  FOS: tubby216
  
  
• Post 2200 - Caboose claims, and again I believe it.
  
• Post 2210 - WRT point 6)... someone needs to read a little more carefully. I posted a couple of times that I was going on V/LA; it's kind of difficult to have any involvement in the game when you're a couple thousand kilometers away from your computer.

There are a couple of pages after that but I don't have much to say about them. The poisoner argument strikes me as entirely semantical, and BM's plan is a decent concept but I don't really have much faith in those sorts of strategies. There's almost always something that can and does go wrong, often leading to a mislynch the next day.

[Cyberbob]

Oh, and I'm still happy with my vote on Tom.

[Cyberbob]

It is not semantics. Like BA said: BM claimed there are no mafia poisoner roles.

I'm not going to buy into it. I'm just going to say that I think it's extremely pointless and leave it at that.

And the fact that you still think BM's plan for the four roles is a "decent concept" worries me..

Firstly, "Still"?

Secondly, if you'd kept reading you would have seen that I don't think plans like it work very well either. When I use the phrase "decent concept" I'm thinking on paper.

On paper

, plans like BM's often seem a lot more airtight than they really are. In practice, however, the mafia always seems to find a way to screw things up.

I said most of that in my last post. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

[Cyberbob]

If I knew what you were saying, then you would not have needed to clarify.

I said it about as clearly as it is possible to be. You're getting too hung up on the words "decent concept" and are ignoring "but I don't really have much faith in those sorts of strategies. There's almost always something that can and does go wrong, often leading to a mislynch the next day."

[Cyberbob]

Vacation/Limited Access.

[Cyberbob]

Caboose

Citizen Karne

Battle Mage

Lowell

tubby216

Skruffs

Surye

That's not good.

[Cyberbob]

why do you wanna lynch bm??

because of a failed gambit to prove town roles?

i am just not seing it

Personally, I'd be interested to see what you do without someone to follow.

[Cyberbob]

but i like fpollowing bm it has gotten me this far in the game hasn't it?

facepalm.jpg

[Cyberbob]

Yay, BM's back in action. Mysteriously a whole bunch of other people started posting at the exact same time.

Unfortunately I'm finding most of this stuff highly irrelevant - we should be focussing on the best case for a lynch we've got. Namely Tom Mason.

[Cyberbob]

so ba isn't strung up at this point why??

better case on tom mason bra

[Cyberbob]

Say... do you guys think you could talk about lynch targets? All this role shit is lovely I'm sure, but I really do fail to see why it deserves to be focussed on to the complete exclusion of anything else.

Do both at the same time, if you really must include something about roles. Just please let's not get bogged down with endless role discussion as has been happening.

[Cyberbob]

well if i am right then you won't be around tomorrow do i guess so

Who are you talking to here?

[Cyberbob]

you cyberbob

And why do you think I will not be around tomorrow?

[Cyberbob]

Kind of. If I die of poisoning tonight I would certainly suspect BA, but at this point we only have the one occurrence - not enough for me to totally buy into the idea of him being a poisoner on its own.

[Cyberbob]

if i am right you are not gonna suspect anyone you'll be dead and therfore no use to us anymore

[Cyberbob]

Meh. As far as I'm concerned anything that doesn't lead to a Tom Mason lynch is of secondary importance. It would be nice if all the people who are continually making those "here, updatan" posts would actually go ahead and finish doing so.

[Cyberbob]

I've read through the case on BM, and I'm not finding it particularly strong. Oh, there are some decent theoretical points made about roles and such, but there is very little actual evidence. Sorry, but without something more solid (my death by poisoning tomorrow would certainly be evidence enough - he targeted me last night IIRC) I can't really justify throwing my support behind his case.

I don't really know why people are disliking the case on Tom so much. Read back over my posts and see for yourselves how dishonestly he was acting throughout the last couple of days.

[Cyberbob]

I thought BM was voting for Tom Mason??? Urgh. I seriously don't know why everyone finds the case on him so weak; it has far more evidence going for it than many of the others floating around.

[Cyberbob]

Er, no... look back through my posts. I had a very decent case going on him long before all this role confusion began.

[Cyberbob]

I would highly suggest you use your vote more productively, springlullaby. Perhaps move it to Tom Mason?

Or BM.
Or Tubby.

Or Tom.

[Cyberbob]

Don't worry, there isn't much chance of that happening. >_>

I've been trying to get a wagon going on what I see as the best target for today - Tom - and the responses have been few and far between.

[Cyberbob]

I have not had much time to try and find the case as you have too many posts. Can you help me narrow down the pages that your case was on?

Sure - this is where I first voted for him (well, the post after it but it was really just an EBWOP).

[Cyberbob]

I have to say, I've lost track of what information BM is supposed to be coming up with as well.

Anyone who thinks the case on BM is stronger than that which is on TM is deluding themselves.

[Cyberbob]

I'll remind you that you said that when BM flips scum.

Whether or not he flips scum has nothing to do with the fact that his case was considerably weaker than the one on Tom. Enjoy your lucky shot-in-the-dark (this is assuming he wasn't kidding in his "claim" above).

[Cyberbob]

EBWOP:

I have to say, I've lost track of what information BM is supposed to be coming up with as well.

Anyone who thinks the case on BM is stronger than that which is on TM is deluding themselves.

/\ Tomorrow's lynch.

hurf durf

Like I just said: the fact that you guys got lucky in no way means your case was the best one going. lern2logic

[Cyberbob]

@ Tubby and Cyberbob - given BM has just admitted to fakeclaiming Cop, why haven't you switched your votes over to him?

I want to be sure he isn't being sarcastic. If he can confirm this, I will vote for him. If he doesn't... I will anyway (I'll give him, say, 2 hours) but I would prefer to be sure first.

So buddying>misrepresentation+fakeclaiming? Got it.

Hilarious misrepresentation is hilarious (and ironic). I have said much the same things about the case on BM as people like raider have said about the case on Tom. The only difference between the two is that the case on Tom actually has evidence going for it whereas the case on BM consisted (I say consisted because he's now looking to near certainly be today's lynch) entirely of conjecture and supposition, which is all well and good but I prefer cases a little more grounded. If Tom had come out and claimed Poisoner would you be posting "/\ tomorrows lynch lol" at any of them?

Also, please note that I'm 99% certain BM is scum after his last post. The point I'm trying to make is not that he isn't scum, it's that you guys got lucky. Nothing more.

[Cyberbob]

I expect to see BM flip scum tomorrow morning.

You seem pretty excited. Bussing, perchance?

[Cyberbob]

I was talking about BM when I said misrepresentation, which is something he's been trying to do about the poisoner role for a while now.

'K.

Your post came after BM's admission to fakeclaiming. You still hadn't voted for him. You still said the case on Tom was better.

Like I said: I'm not 100% sure whether he's being serious or not and I believe I also already said I'm not disputing the fact that he is probably scum.

What I referred to as "the case" was pretty obviously the stuff you guys were saying about him, not the admission. That would be retarded; I would hope that you could give me a little more credit than that.

What is your idea of busing?

My idea of bussing is scum getting on the wagon of one of their scumbuddies in order to appear more townlike when the lynch goes through.

[Cyberbob]

It depends. I try to deal with things on a gut-related case-by-case basis. If someone on a wagon from the start starts acting... "too happy" (best way I could think of to describe it) that they're going to lynch scum that often feels a bit suss as well.

Good bussers, I've found, will try to avoid the stereotype you described. I recall in Weather Mafia hasdfgas being the prime instigator of the wagon against me that got me lynched. He was my scumbuddy.

[Cyberbob]

@ Cyberbob, how long are you giving BM to post again before your vote?

Until 1:20pm my time. That would be in 1 hour and 20 minutes.

[Cyberbob]

ohshi-

Unvote, Vote BM

I kind of fell asleep on my couch.

[Cyberbob]

Ah, so you say you're a protown Poisoner... don't know how believable that is. I know this isn't the best way to verify it, but I've never heard of one of those before - the only Poisoners I've ever seen have been antitown.

I would laugh pretty hard if you flipped town, though, if only because I love the sweet taste of vindication.

[Cyberbob]

ROFL YOU SILLY, RETARDED, BRITISH GIT.

In which plane of reality is this at all appropriate?

[Cyberbob]

But really, I got sick of BM's attitude a long time ago.

You're behaving as bad or worse. lrn2mirror

Also, I can't understand most of what tubby is trying to say.

[Cyberbob]

Er, BM, I don't think anybody needs to hammer you at this point due to the deadline (unless no majority = no lynch).

[Cyberbob]

Yeah, I'm thinking I'm a bit happier with this lynch now. Post 2750 is so ridiculous I'm a little offended that BM would think he stands a chance of being believed.

[Cyberbob]

Sorry about my recent inactivity; I've been having trouble finding anything to comment on without sounding like a broken record as it appears nobody is up to a Tom Mason wagon (my preferred choice, but any lynch is better than none and ATM it looks as though BM's is the only one with a chance of being seen to fruition).

[Cyberbob]

@BM, if Tom is scum and you're not wouldn't he just kill you tonight then?

Well, there is the possibility of a doctor protection though with all the suspicion on BM I somewhat doubt one will come into play. Apart from this one major flaw I think it's a good idea.

Of course, if I don't unvote and Lowell is scum then we have the same situation.

Because of my confidence (as much as one can be almost) that Tom is scum, the choice to unvote or not really comes down to how likely I think BM is likely to be protected.

Hm.

I think I am going to take a shot and

Unvote, Vote: Lowell

.

[Cyberbob]

He will NL

Hey hey hey, just wait a second now. I didn't say nothing about no No Lynch.

If it really comes down to a decision between NL and you, I will pick you and see if I can't talk people round to a Tom lynch tomorrow (assuming I survive tonight of course) when there will be less interference from other wagons.

[Cyberbob]

pretty much everyone is convince bm is scum and want him dead,, (except me )

I would rather that he not be lynched today on account of his promise to poison Tom tonight, but I'm not so fanatical that I would let today end in No Lynch.

Might as well hammer now and get it over with.

Unvote, Vote: Battle Mage

[Cyberbob]

Tubby, if you're implying that you know something about BM that might have influenced the town in his favour...

[Cyberbob]

no i am not implying anything ,,

Good. If you were I think my brain would explode.

[Cyberbob]

Out of interest tubby, is your full stop key broken or something?

[Cyberbob]

The key I pressed to end this sentence.

[Cyberbob]

Thanks for clearing that up - it's been bugging me for the entire game. >_>

[Cyberbob]

Tubby's a Survivor? Weird play, then, to tie himself so strongly to BM...

Still liking Tom Mason. If EGL's correct about how the survivor win condition works (stealing the win), there's no rush at all to lynch tubby.

Vote: Tom Mason

[Cyberbob]

Btw, Cyberbob, you are looking mighty scummy judging by your activity today.

By "activity" do you mean actual volume or posting, or what I'm saying in my posts? If the former, there are people who haven't even posted yet, and if the latter it would be nice if you could expand.

Also, I'm requesting of everyone a list of who they think are scum, for each of the scum roles left.

Assuming there are only one of each group left...

Tom or tubby (your post breaking down his claim was very good) for Portuguese and Lowell or BA for Icelandic. K7 is also scummy, but that's mainly for his lurking. SK perhaps?

[Cyberbob]

How is that funny?

Hm gee I don't know, maybe it's because your last post was on the 21st, you've only posted 22 times in the whole game and you've never posted anything of substance (only one post went over more than one line)?

[Cyberbob]

Lol. I get prodded (sorry about that; had other things on my mind lately) and I come back only to find that we're in twilight.

Might as well answer SL's post:

Well, you aren't voting anyone and not making an effort to scumhunt that I can see.

I was voting Tom Mason, and have been pushing a case against him since Day 2.

[Cyberbob]

btw i will replace back in if mod allows it i have a few open slots

Er, I'd prefer it if you didn't. Nothing against you personally; I don't like people replacing into games they've already been in as a rule.

[Cyberbob]

Le sigh.

[Cyberbob]

Vote: Tom Mason

I really don't see him drawing so many doc protections in a row.

What are we supposed to make of tubby's claim? He fakeclaimed a scum role? Why? Anyone think the mod had a hand in it somehow?

To be honest, I don't think the mod had a hand in it. Tubby was able to get away with a

lot

of shit throughout the game; that would make anyone complacent.

[Cyberbob]

Maybe Adder did protect me for a few turns,

but I find it unlikely

.

Exactly, so do I. Hence my suspicion given that Lowell said he's been trying to kill you for quite some time.

I'm not a killing role, btw. If I was I can assure you I would have knocked you off ASAP - or would have tried to at the very least, given Lowell's failure.

[Cyberbob]

I'll say more if I have to. I think we should lynch Caboose now and take a good look at Tom Mason tomorrow.

I think people should have been taking a good look (hell, a look at all would have been nice) at Tom for a long time now, but if a Tom lynch isn't going to happen today I'm willing to go for a Caboose one instead. They're both pretty damn scummy.

[Cyberbob]

yay skitzer's back

also we should lynch tom/caboose

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, we will deal with Tom Mason tomorrow. I have caught scum here and would like it if you would help lynch him.

OK, but if you're wrong...

Unvote, Vote: Caboose

[Cyberbob]

Everyone, lynch Tom.

I hate you for introducing this WIFOM into my view of him.

[Cyberbob]

Ha!

That's just about the first time I've ever actually been correct about someone being scum ;_;