Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[Dattebayo]

/confirm

Hello muffinhead and roflcopter, I believe I've seen you guys before.

[Dattebayo]

I think that's everyone, so

Vote: Dattebayo

Saying hi is a scumtell.

I definitely said "hello" not "hi".

Vote: Clammy

for confirming via pm.[/b]

[Dattebayo]

If everyone plays as a vanilla then that would give scum free reign on killing.

I was trying to figure out if the day before everyone "claims" who they will protect and if that person dies then we can narrow it down. Of course at the same time it also gives scum ideas of who to night kill. Unless someone comes up with a real plan I am fine with letting everyone consider their options and do what they think is best.

In addition, the scum could false-claim doctor, and then we could end up thinking a quack is a doctor if a quack "protects" the scum-"doctor".

Having the doctor's play as vanilla doesn't have any advantages, but it also lacks the potential deaths that leaving the doctors to use their abilities has.

So, I'm leaning towards having the doctors be vanilla unless some one presents a more efficient way to deal with this dilemma.

[Dattebayo]

Somehow, I think going vanilla hands the advantage over to scum and kinda defeats the purpose of the game, but I guess I'll be fine with it if everyone else agrees. I'm trying to think of a way to make good use of the roles.

I don't like this post at all. If you think it hands the advantage over to the scum then you should not just go along with it if everyone else agrees. Just trying to go along and blend in with the crowd is a part of the scum agenda.

Unvote, Vote: Netlava

Anyway, if doctors act as vanilla townies, then the mafia tracker is stripped of its usefulness. So then the only power roles would be masons. Is that advantageous to the town?

[Dattebayo]

I think quacks are townie, so they shouldn't be lynched. And there are only 6 players with "protecting roles", and your plan requires 9.

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:

I don't find your explanation satisfactory. If a plan gives the advantage to the scum, it is'nt going to work, so following along with it won't actually accomplish anything. If a plan is more beneficial for the scum than it is for the town, then you shouldn't go along with it regardless of the support it garners.

[Dattebayo]

Ah yes, what you're saying makes sense. I'll mull it over and come to a conclusion.

[Dattebayo]

So far I like the idea that the doctors sit tight until both quacks are dead. Main goal of course will be taking out the scum.

I agree with this.

Netlava's plan involves 3 potential townie deaths in one night which is really risky.

[Dattebayo]

Vote: Riceballtail

Obvscum

Btw, I simmed through my idea and it doesn't work the way I intend to (by the time the quacks are outed, the scum would have won).

Another possibility is that everyone agrees to target the scummiest player each night and if he doesn't die then we lynch. But this is probably more akin to a less effective vig. Perhaps it could loosely keep track of how many quacks are remaining.

First:
Were you serious with that vote?

Second:
I also thought of the all doctors target one person each night plan but your beat me to the thread. It would be useful if there are two lynchworthy suspects. One could go to the lynch and the other could be "investigated" by means of the doctors/quacks. Even though this could result in 2 deaths in one night, it eliminates the probable lynchee of the next day. If there isn't two deaths then we undoubtedly caught scum. If circumstances allow, I would advocate this plan.

Third:
Riceballtail, could you clarify on why exactly your voting Netlava?

[Dattebayo]

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.


Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

right..

i sidestepped a very clearly articulated and fully developed outline of how scummy i am

...

I'm not asking for any reasons, frankly i don't care that you're voting me.

But if you're wanting anything but "deflection" you'd better start coming up with an accusation

.
Otherwise, if you're okay with being irrelevant, then continue along this line of posting.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

thats the accusation that i'd better come up with. still think i'm irrelevant?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

FoS: Clammy

FoS: springlullaby

[Dattebayo]

Were you serious with that vote?

Yes, for missing the idea that shortening the number of days may be justifiable if it ends positively for town.

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS. And third, I don't like how you never actually stated your reasoning for the vote in the post with the vote; it makes it look like didn't have justification at the time of the vote.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

1.

Lying is poor play from scum, scum should tell the truth as often and as vigorously as possible, telling the truth is how scum get townies mis-lynched for "being caught in a lie".

Or maybe that's too logical.

Or maybe you're not very good at playing scum when you get that role.

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

2.

I can see how you're reading in there that there was no attached acknowledgment of his original post, but as i've already pointed out in this post it's his vote that i find irrelevant and you're also changing what i said.

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his

post

not his vote that was irrelevant.

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think

your post

is irrelevant.

The original argument stands with the new addition of backpedaling.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.[/quote]
I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

I missed this post the first time around but, yeah, this is pretty scummy.

Unvote, vote: springlullaby

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

[Dattebayo]

1.

"Foot in someone else's door":
[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo
Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]
Rofl amongst others has successfully pointed out at #95 that this is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, of course.

-----------------------

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his post not his vote that was irrelevant.

2.

I'm tempted to quote this back and simply ask if you're backpedaling or if the definition of the word is different where you live but i acknowledge that won't suffice for you.

I referenced post, probably because i went back and read and acknowledged his post which i was then accused of not acknowledging, nonetheless i assure you it is his vote i find irrelevant as i have already gone through why he'll be waiting for "scummy clammy" to reveal his night-action plan.

1. That is blatant misrepresentation. Spring never attacked rofl or me and I never attacked rofl.
2. Please post your reference. For I have already posted where you

directly

stated that his "post" was irrelevant.

Unvote, Vote: Clammy

. Clammy's scumminess just eclipsed Net's.

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS.

1.

There's nothing wrong with that. I didn't think his vote was fair, so I voted him. I'll elaborate on my reasoning. When I try to put out various ideas, I do so to promote set-up discussion, which I think is worthwhile in this type of game. The ideas themselves sometimes contain flaws, but hopefully as a group it may be easier to work them out and think of a good idea. But not at least exploring the use of the roles seems like a potential waste, and when essentially every plan involving the use of quacks/docs entails "shortening the number of days," voting me for that is unfair and short-sighted. I don't like it when people shoot down ideas without bothering to consider the options.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

2.

It is a contradiction. From spring's explanation, it seems that the reasons are both the same, but in her case she added clammy's reaction to her fos. I do not see how they are fundamentally different.

And second, voting for both sides in an argument is a bit strange, seeing how that would mean that spring would have to consider both clammy and rofl on the same team, but her reasons do not seem to give forth this line of thought.

1. The problem is that your justification for your vote is more like a defense. You thought that his vote was unfair, and then retaliated with an unexplained vote. I would think a townie would defend himself instead of immediatelly jumping on his attacker.

2. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the first part.

As for the second, I agree. If you look back, I only conceded the contradiction point therefore my keeping his foot in all doors point still stands.

[Dattebayo]

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

That's not an attack on Rofl and I don't see how it can be percieved as one. I was dropped the contradiction point on spring and questioned rofl as to why he didn't. No where in the there did I say I suspicous of rofl.
-------------------------

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

Please don't be condescending.

And, you strawmanned my argument. My argument was that you backpedaled on what exactly you were saying and:

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy, but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

which basically boils down to avoiding the accusation.

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:
Bolded mine.

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

That's not an attack on Rofl and I don't see how it can be percieved as one. I was dropped the contradiction point on spring and questioned rofl as to why he didn't. No where in the there did I say I suspicous of rofl.

-------------------------

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

Please don't be condescending.

And, you strawmanned my argument. My argument was that you backpedaled on what exactly you were saying and:

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy, but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

which basically boils down to avoiding the accusation.[/quote]

[Dattebayo]

Wow, this looks like a bus. A very deliberate bus.

But who first? Clammy or SL?

UNVOTE
VOTE:Clammy
HoS:SL

I have to agree; SL's post seemed forced. SL also tagged on the very telling line:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

I also want to make a note of how Clammy's reaction under pressure has been. He has stooped to the level of calling his attacker's trash without providing sufficient counter arguments. This is exactly how I think scum are under pressure as opposed to the self-righteousness and indignance that I normally see from townies under pressure.

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:

He has stooped to the level of calling his attacker's* trash without providing sufficient counter arguments.

*attacker's arguments

I think Clammy should be lynched today and that we should have all the doctor's target SL to determine his alignment for sure.

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP

I have to agree; SL's post seemed forced. SL also tagged on the very telling line:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

Explain how you could possibly see self-preservation in my vote?

What does it have to do with the line you quoted?

Please do not pose half-thoughts in lieu of case, as I can't defend myself when you are doing this.

I'll make it clear now because I see what's coming that I think roflcopter is very likely to be scum because his lashing on the antitown-ess of clammy's plan lack any finesse. Clammy I can't get a hold of, this is why I'm pushing him.

And I oppose the plan of all docs targetting one player at night, especially on day one - maybe I would go along with it in the future, when we have more cardflips. Dattebayo, Light-kun, why are you so bloodthirsty?

[/quote]
First of all, I think that the line I quoted of you showed that you were seeking rolf's approval and favor. I'm sorry if this wasn't explained clearly.

I'm not bloodthirsty. I think it's quite likely that you'll make it out of the night alive. If you don't, the situation is bad, but the potential gains outweigh the potential losses.

Players in support of the all doctors target SL:
Datte
Light
Raider
Rofl

Players against the plan:
SL


Please point it out if I missed you and if you have not stated your postion, please do.

[Dattebayo]

Why hello? Please do take the time to read and reply to my post instead of ignoring me, because you know, you're kinda voting to evict me from this game and not even giving me a chance to defend myself.

Anyway. it seems I will be targeted tonight because I have a thought process that is too sophisticated for this town. And because of some deluded idea that I would be the kind of sugary-scum who would 'seek people's favor' were I scum. I'll say here that I take offense for the latter notion beyond anything else, as scum, I still take no shit.

At the moment and with clammy's lynch moving closer, I still think clammy needs to explain himself. I also think that independently of clammy's alignment, roflcopter is to be looked closer at.

In the previous post you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind why I think you were trying to get on rofl's good side but then here you are calling the argument a deluded idea and shit without actually understanding the reasoning behind the accusation (hence your quesitoning). That's scummy in my book.

Anyway, the following is the reasoning behind that accusation:
You spent the entire post attacking Clammy and then voted him. The exact thing that rofl had been doing. You then asked rofl what he thought about that. This question seemed to be meant to emphasize that you were now on rofl's side of the argument and that you wanted to see what he thought of you now. It seemed to me that you were trying to get on rofl's good side.
But you are claiming that you were scumhunting by asking that question. From what I've seen of you so far, that is not how you scumhunt. But before I assume that, I am going to look at some of your previous completed games.

No one hammer please. Let's wait for militant and for everyone's approval of the plan.

Players in support of the all doctors target SL:
Datte
Light
Raider
Rofl
Riceballtail
Sotty

Players against the plan:
SL

PLEASE, POST YOUR THOUGHTS REGARDING THE PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO! Thank you.

[Dattebayo]

In response to Spring:
I don't think your post with a bunch of links effectively points answers my argument. There was no way you could have understood my arguments if you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind them therefore it is still scummy of you for concluding that the argument was a deluded idea and shit. It's not a matter of who didn't understand who but rather that you didn't have the back up reasoning to understand my argument (hence the questioning). So, while it is possible I misunderstood, there was no way you could have and for that your action remains scummy.

In addition, you misrepresented me above one of your links.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"

This makes it look like that one point I made was the entire basis for me deciding to target you at night. It was not. I have already explained my other reasoning.

And finally, I do in fact plan on meta-ing you.
1. From the way you've scumhunted this game, I get the feeling that the way of questioning at the bottom of your post a few pages back addressed to rofl is not how you scum hunt.
2. I'm not voting you.

Players in support of the all doctors target SL:
Datte
Light
Raider
Rofl
Riceballtail
Sotty
Netlava
Militant

Players against the plan:
SL

Still waiting for two players to weigh in: PACMAN AND SUN PLEASE POST YOUR POSITION ON THE PLAN

[Dattebayo]

Okay, your defense has no boiled down to "I predicted your reasoning was bad." That's not going to cut it.

I'll restate my other reasons as keeping your foot in all doors, and the obvious attempt at a bus on Clammy.

1. As scum, you would try to emulate the genuine way you scumhunt as town.
2. I was responding to you asking me to drop my vote (as in the ones that appear in vote counts) on you here; in no way was I eluding responsibility.

[Dattebayo]

Waiting for Sun now...

[Dattebayo]

I'll look at day 1 and see what I can come up with.

[Dattebayo]

Sorry guys, I was busy the past couple of days. I'll go ahead and re read now and see what I can come up with.

[Dattebayo]

I did a quick skim of day 1 instead of an extensive re read due to time constraints.

First, I don't see either side of the Militant vs. Riceballtail as presenting paticularly strong arguments but Militant is holding up better than Rice. Rice should have presented his reasons for calling Militant's post scummy upfront and his failure to do so has me wary. What's even more arousing is the fact that Rice has failed to present a clear argument again in the same game (he was asked to clarify on voting Net in day 1 twice).

My vote returns to its spot on Net from day 1, however. I stated multiple reasons yesterday and he is #1 on my scum list.

Vote: Netlava

[Dattebayo]

Reasons for voting Net:

Somehow, I think going vanilla hands the advantage over to scum and kinda defeats the purpose of the game, but I guess I'll be fine with it if everyone else agrees. I'm trying to think of a way to make good use of the roles.

I don't like this post at all. If you think it hands the advantage over to the scum then you should not just go along with it if everyone else agrees. Just trying to go along and blend in with the crowd is a part of the scum agenda.

Unvote, Vote: Netlava

Anyway, if doctors act as vanilla townies, then the mafia tracker is stripped of its usefulness. So then the only power roles would be masons. Is that advantageous to the town?

Were you serious with that vote?

Yes, for missing the idea that shortening the number of days may be justifiable if it ends positively for town.

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS. And third, I don't like how you never actually stated your reasoning for the vote in the post with the vote; it makes it look like didn't have justification at the time of the vote.

Rice's recent antics have been... odd. His reasoning is flawed, but that isn't always indicative of scumminess. I'll keep an eye on him.

Other players, please way in on the current situation and tell us your thoughts. The lack of content is only helping the scum hide.

[Dattebayo]

Rice seems the scummiest to me, followed by Netlava.

Militant, raider and roflcopter seem protown.

Although I am somewhat suspicious of Netlava, I don't like Rice's reasoning. A lot of people proposed plans on day 1 and we discussed them and they all looked pretty bad. I don't think suggesting a bad plan is necessarily scummy. His was the worst, but I don't think he's still pushing it.

Even though Rice and Netlava are my top suspects, their accusations don't feel like a bus to me so I doubt they are both scum but I think one of them is. I hope that makes sense.

As far as our plan goes, I think we can either just lynch someone and no one targets, or we could continue with having everyone target one person.

The problem with the second option is I don't know who I would want to target and lynch since I wouldn't want to go Rice/Net since I doubt they are both scum here. I guess we could lynch Rice and target Net if rice is town and target someone else (or no one) if rice is scum.

Woah lynching and targetting if someone comes up town?!
Please state your reasons for suspecting the players.

[Dattebayo]

I find it strange that you would totally ignore the fact that Datte is voting you. He even supplied quotes yet you still refrain from justifying what you said. It seems strange that you would totally ignore the fact you are being voted but vote somebody else, possibly trying to switch the attention to them. I am not saying you should not be voting Rofl but I think you should justify what you previously said and what you are being voted for or acknowledge it at least.

Net and I actually did have a back and forth in day 1 regarding some of my arguments against him, so it is unfair to say that he never acknowledged them.

Right now, I am most interested in Sun's reasons for his scum list, his explanation for suggesting to do the all doctor/quacks protect one persons plan if a lynchee turns up townie, and why he feels a we should lynch now.

I'm going to meta rofl; I've played in a game with him once where he was town but I want familiarize myself with his playstyle as both town and scum. So far I've put Rofl off to the side because what i've seen of him so far reflects his playstyle in our previous game together but I'm not going to disregard him any more because of evidence from just one game.

[Dattebayo]

Mod: I am voting Netlava.

[Dattebayo]

Sun, why do you think we should lynch NOW?

Could you explain and give examples of why Net's tone is scummy?

Sun, do you need to quadruple-post? that's annoying.
Me confused

This is your first chance to get in a legitimate post and this is all you have to say?! In our other game together, you at least made attempts at catching scum.

FoS: Pacman

[Dattebayo]

Sun, why do you think we should lynch NOW?

No lynch is a bad plan. Do I need to explain why?

I capitalized "now" and you still overlooked it.

I'm just going to make a long detailed post of my worries and questions and accusations regarding your actions so there will be no room for confusion.

Rice seems the scummiest to me, followed by Netlava.

Militant, raider and roflcopter seem protown.

Although I am somewhat suspicious of Netlava, I don't like Rice's reasoning. A lot of people proposed plans on day 1 and we discussed them and they all looked pretty bad. I don't think suggesting a bad plan is necessarily scummy. His was the worst, but I don't think he's still pushing it.

Even though Rice and Netlava are my top suspects, their accusations don't feel like a bus to me so I doubt they are both scum but I think one of them is. I hope that makes sense.

As far as our plan goes, I think we can either just lynch someone and no one targets, or we could continue with having everyone target one person.

The problem with the second option is I don't know who I would want to target and lynch since I wouldn't want to go Rice/Net since I doubt they are both scum here.

I guess we could lynch Rice and target Net if rice is town and target someone else (or no one) if rice is scum.

Bolded mine:
1. You were advocating for a rice lynch before there was even more than 3 full pages of content in day 2. This seems a lot like your rushing into the night. I want you to explain why you advocated for a lynch so early.
2. You wanted to target Net if Rice was town. That plan could lose us the game if Net is town and I don't see how you could have just not noticed that fatal flaw. Explain why you advocated for such a risky plan.

3-4.

Could you explain and give examples of why Net's tone is scummy?

If I could give concrete examples, I wouldn't have said it was a tone read. "Tone" means overall impression.

Anyway, I reread his posts and I don't really see anything. I guess I just had a bad impression from his plan or I might have had him confused with someone else.

As soon as I ask you to give examples, you back off of your accusation of Net. You failed to bring something even as simple as "I found his posts insincere". And you read over Net and didn't find anything; this implies that you didn't read over net when you first dropped suspicion.
This makes me think that you were simply bandwagoning; and to top it all off in post 233 you were attempting to get Net lynched or have the plan used on him.

5. Looking back at you day 1 posts, you were interested in hearing out the entiriety Clammy's plan. But then later on, you suddenly express willingness to hammer Clammy without so much as stating a single reason. In addition, I find your willingness to attack Net odd because you never expressed any suspicion of him on day 1.

Summary of accusations:
1. Advocating for early lynch/ rushing into night
2. Advocating for a plan that could obviously cause the town to lose.
3. Backing off of Net at the slightest pressure.
4. Seemingly bandwagoning.
5. Oddly dropping heavy suspicion on players

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:

Unvote, Vote: Sun Tzu

He's in need of some pressure.

[Dattebayo]

Stop putting words in my mouth and making things up.

1. I didn't

2. I didn't

3. I said it was a tone read. I'm not scum so I don't know who the scum are. Not knowing who they are doesn't make me scum.

4. whatever

5. I don't have any heavy suspicions.

vote Dattebayo

for manufacturing a case against me based on nonsense

Twisting people's words is a scum tactic.

Um...
Did you even read my case? I quoted you and bolded what i was referring to. If your going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth then at least point out what and how I specifically did so.

1, 2. Read my reasoning and explanation. I have good reason to believe you did. One of the reasons being

you said so

in post 233.
3. That's not even remotely close to my accusation; your strawmanning my argument blatantly.
4. Whatever doesn't constitute as a defense.
5. If you didn't have any heavy suspicions, why did you hammer Clammy or suggest that we target Net if Rice turns up town?

Where do you get the NOW from then? Why do you advocate lynching me NOW?

I never said I wanted you lynched (not yet atleast); I just wanted to pressure you. You however suggested lynching.

Your vote on me reeks of OMGUS.

[Dattebayo]

Also, what do you mean you are just pressuring me and not suggesting lynching me? That makes no sense.

Votes have many uses one of which is lynching; another is using it as pressure. I'm apparently using it as pressure. I fail to see how that doesn't make sense.

This is ridiculous. What we discuss in a mafia game is who we should lynch and why. I don't know where you get the idea that I thought we should end discussion and lynch my suspects right now. I never said anything like that. I put some ideas out for discussion.

No, townies scumhunt; while this does involve lynching, a large part of discussion involves gathering reads on players. We were early in day 2 and really didn't have much evidence to go on and yet there you were advocating a lynch. I'm glad that you brought up the fact that you were never actually voting here:

If you read my post, it is obvious that you are lying. I didn't even vote. Therefore, I can't be bandwagoning and I can't be trying to end discussion.

You suggested lynching quite early day 2 but you didn't vote. That seems like scum testing the waters. You wanted to check if others would go along and then you yourself would actually commit.

1. I didn't advocate an early lynch.

2. I didn't advocate a plan that would obviously cause the town to lose.

3. Your "pressure" has nothing to do with my reads.

4. There's no defense against "seemingly bandwagoning". If someone votes for someone who has votes, there's a wagon. That's not much of an argument.

5. For one thing, my suspicions are not heavy. For another, that's what the game is about anyway. When did suspecting people become a scum tell anyway? If it is, you don't look very good. You're dropping heavier suspicion than I am.

1. Once again, I showed where I got this notion that you were advocating an early lynch in detail. Yet all you've done is straight out deny it without an actual response to my evidence regarding this.

2. The same here as in #1. I showed where I got my accusation from and explained. All you've done is deny it.

3.

As soon as I ask you to give examples, you back off of your accusation of Net. You failed to bring something even as simple as "I found his posts insincere". And you read over Net and didn't find anything; this implies that you didn't read over net when you first dropped suspicion.

Oh right, my pressure had nothing to do with your read on Net .

4.

There's no defense against "seemingly bandwagoning". If someone votes for someone who has votes, there's a wagon. That's not much of an argument.

I explained my reasoning behind this; so there actually was room for you to defend yourself. It wasn't just an empty accusation.

5.

If you didn't have any heavy suspicions, why did you hammer Clammy or suggest that we target Net if Rice turns up town?

Methinks you did have heavy suspicion. And your strawmanning me again. Nowhere did I say that suspicion alone was suspicious. Allow me to quote my explanation and the

real

accusation:

5. Looking back at you day 1 posts, you were interested in hearing out the entiriety Clammy's plan. But then later on, you suddenly express willingness to hammer Clammy without so much as stating a single reason. In addition, I find your willingness to attack Net odd because you never expressed any suspicion of him on day 1.

5.

Oddly

dropping heavy suspicion on players

I also want to reiterate Militant's point:

Strange also how when he is accused or called out he posts a lot but before hand he did not post a lot at all, Sun is another one that could be said to be "activley lurking" I think.

Netlava wrote:
Roflcopter is a scummy because he seems to exaggerate how scummy he finds other people. With clammy earlier in the game, it was ok since it was coming out of random stage, but now his posts continue to follow this same trend, which I don't like. From my experience, I've found that scum tend to exaggerate people's guilt and throw out words like "malicious" etc.

Vote: roflcopter

how convenient that you raise an issue now with my treatment of clammy, but had nothing to say about it when it actually happened. something fishy is going on here.

Nice catch!

[Dattebayo]

Vote militant

This is starting to drag on and I think you are the best lynch at the moment.

Reasons?

[Dattebayo]

Actually Net, he did answer.

I encourage everyone to read my case on Sun and weigh in. The more analysis the better.

And I agree with Rofl's post right above this one.

[Dattebayo]

Still here, not much to say except Raider has pinged my scumdar. I don't like how he came in and voted militant. And then when asked to give reasons, says he had bad vibes and then unvotes. I'm sure that if Raider had intended to truly pressure Militant that he wouldn't have backed off so easily.

I've been thinking and I feel confident that Sun is scum. I believe his lynch is the best possible move for the town right now. However, I'm still interested in hearing other's anlysis.

[Dattebayo]

having people vote =/= having people give opinions, though i do agree with you that people should be voting and putting their money where their mouth is.

it feels like there's probably scum sitting back to see which way the wind is going to blow before they join any wagons.

Are you referring to anyone specific here?

Net, why do you want everyone to be voting? Is there anything you find wrong with being undecided right now?

[Dattebayo]

Waiting...