Newbie 694 (over)

[Xtoxm]

With Inf, I felt he was scum who thought he could cruise through the first day and let someone else get lynched without having to do anything. He didn't give any opinions, just went with the crowd and said you can't get info on D1.

[hambargarz]

infamouseace2 was the second most suspicous player after militant on day1. I felt he was suspicious due to his blatant refusal to contribute anything. Naturally Westbrook has inherited these suspicions and remains a top suspect.

[ClockworkRuse]

And CarnCarn, go ahead and give your reasons now. I'll answer them after you've made your point.

They're basically the same. I think players (town especially) tend to become less motivated if a day wears on unnecessarily (after someone has become a pretty apparent lynch for the day).

This is true, as we all noticed when _over was gone. But at the same time, if the town is active like we were, longer days equal more information.

And Xtoxm, I'm still waiting for an answer. What about the kill "suits me?"

[GIEFF]

I thought that we should avoid talking about nightkills as they are WIFOM, CR?

Although as I mentioned earlier Xtoxm, saying you find another scummy without really explaining why makes YOU look scummy.

And hambargaz, didn't you find militant extremely scummy when he did the same thing to you? militant said he found something scummy that you did, and all he later posted was that you were sort of lurky, and you immediately jumped all over him for it. Why haven't you done the same to Xtoxm for saying CR is scummy without much reason?

[ClockworkRuse]

I thought that we should avoid talking about nightkills as they are WIFOM, CR?

Although as I mentioned earlier Xtoxm, saying you find another scummy without really explaining why makes YOU look scummy.

And hambargaz, didn't you find militant extremely scummy when he did the same thing to you? militant said he found something scummy that you did, and all he later posted was that you were sort of lurky, and you immediately jumped all over him for it. Why haven't you done the same to Xtoxm for saying CR is scummy without much reason?

We should, but seeing as he is basing his suspicion of me off of it I have ever right to question it.

[hambargarz]

And hambargaz, didn't you find militant extremely scummy when he did the same thing to you? militant said he found something scummy that you did, and all he later posted was that you were sort of lurky, and you immediately jumped all over him for it. Why haven't you done the same to Xtoxm for saying CR is scummy without much reason?

Interesting choice of words, I wouldn't use the word "extremely" scummy, militant was simply the most scummy of all the candidates I never said he was super duper scum because of that. Again, As I have repeatedly explained, I "immediately jumped" on him for reading back with a bias on me without saying what it was that tipped me off as being scummy, It implied he didn't have anything and was just targeting me in particular because I was attacking him. His actual reason, ie. me being lurky, didn't really have anything to do to it.

I agree with recent comments on Xtoxm, but although Xtoxm's comments have been short, they have conviction and are not wishy washy which make him less (somewhat) less scummy.

[GIEFF]

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

Xtoxm still hasn't told us his reasoning, even after repeated questioning. How would that NK benefit ClockworkRuse?

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

95 (second vote for militant):

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

FoS hambargaz

If Xtoxm is scum, you seem the prime candidate to be his buddy. Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him? Can you explain why you think Xtoxm has shown more conviction than militant?

mod, can we get a prod for SilverPhoenix?

[hasdgfas]

VOTE COUNT:

Xtoxm(1): GIEFF


Not Voting: ClockworkRuse, CarnCarn, SilverPhoenix, Westbrook_Owns_U, Xtoxm, hambargarz
7 alive, 4 to lynch

mod, can we get a prod for SilverPhoenix?

I have prodded him previously and he hasn't picked it up, so he's being replaced.

[GIEFF]

Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him?

I found one, ham:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=264

That seems pretty typical of how I would expect two scumbuddies to interact. A reverse-OMGUS igmeoy followed by two smiley faces and never mentioning it again. Not to mention Xtoxm saying "I'm not sus of ham" twice.

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

[hambargarz]

I'll be addressing GIEFF's points on me in multiple posts, as I only have time in short bursts

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

This was my point I was making, he only gave a reason for me being scummy, AFTER he looked back with an "interest" in me. My point was, why wasn't there any points brought up on me to warrant that original reread with a bias on me. My point is that he DIDN'T have anything scummy on me prior to him rereading with that bias on me. My point is he reread with an intent of finding some dirt on me in particular with when he had no suspicions to justify it.

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Are you asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour with examples? I don't think townies should defend anyone but themselves. I'll leave it to Xtoxm to defend himself against the points put against him. All I'm saying is my opinion. My interpretations of Xtoxm's posts is that they are concise but contain decisive action. I hate when people post pages and pages of content with lots of wishy washy positions and thought processes. It makes rereading harder and in turn is anti town.

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

You've actually posted an example of what I'm talking about. Obviously everyone saw Militant's post as forced, thats all you have to say. Place you're vote. No beating around the bush. He was the first to say it (showing initiative rather than being a sheep) and gave a strong position (Voted rather than FOS/no action).

95 (second vote for militant):

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

I don't know if it was 95 seconds (I refresh the site often, but no that often!) Xtoxm's position was clear, Easily readable. I agreed, My position is clear. You can see I have the same attitude to posting as he does. I assumed it was obvious to everyone else. But I explained myself to people who questioned me about it in case they didn't see it.

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

If Xtoxm is scum, you seem the prime candidate to be his buddy. Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him?

There's a danger of getting into WIFOM with that, but Ye, you always run the risk of that when you agree with other posters like I have. But his reason was compelling so I had to. Xtoxm saying he was not suspicous of me piqued me a bit that he may be scum trying to buddy with me, though he hasn't shown me anything else since and as I've written above, his posting style has a pro-town feel to it from my perspective (although you guys have a different opinion on that).

[hambargarz]

Hmm it seems as though I answered most things in my first post

That seems pretty typical of how I would expect two scumbuddies to interact. A reverse-OMGUS igmeoy followed by two smiley faces and never mentioning it again. Not to mention Xtoxm saying "I'm not sus of ham" twice.

From my previous post, I thought it was an FOS, I guess an IGMEOY is more fitting because it was a pretty weak point. (Xtoxm obviously saw this too). You brought up the fact that it was not mentioned again, but I don't think it was worth mentioning again because it's such an insignificant point. None the less the IGMEOY is real.

[hambargarz]

I was going to wait for more rereads before posting but thought I'd mention this now because I'll be away from machine for a coupla days.

I've been rereading, gathering thoughts on various people and I've noticed something about CR. CR has jumped on suspicious behaviour the whole thread but steered well clear of discussions regarding infamouseace2's anti-town behaviour. I've recently noticed a similar vibe in his behaviour to Westbrooke.

[ClockworkRuse]

I was going to wait for more rereads before posting but thought I'd mention this now because I'll be away from machine for a coupla days.

I've been rereading, gathering thoughts on various people and I've noticed something about CR. CR has jumped on suspicious behaviour the whole thread but steered well clear of discussions regarding infamouseace2's anti-town behaviour. I've recently noticed a similar vibe in his behaviour to Westbrooke.

To be honest, I haven't really been paying attention to inf.

Care to explain what you mean by your last sentence?

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm looking at inf's posts in isolation.

A lot of these seem like really newbie comments.

I do see where he said no lynch, which is scummy. He does play the 'it's my first game card', but everyone gets

one

of those, in my eyes.

It seems a lot more like he just doesn't understand the dynamics of the game then him being scum. A lot of the actions he submitted don't really benefit the scum.

You could say it is active lurking, but looking at the play I'm leaning more toward just a new player to mafia.

[CarnCarn]

Are you asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour with examples? I don't think townies should defend anyone but themselves. I'll leave it to Xtoxm to defend himself against the points put against him. All I'm saying is my opinion. My interpretations of Xtoxm's posts is that they are concise but contain decisive action. I hate when people post pages and pages of content with lots of wishy washy positions and thought processes. It makes rereading harder and in turn is anti town.

Well, you defended him by saying he acted with conviction, and thus it was protown. You both seem really confident that you are both town, which is somewhat strange at this point, I guess. If you're going to defend xtoxm's posts as protown, you're going to have to explain why if people ask you.

I've been rereading, gathering thoughts on various people and I've noticed something about CR. CR has jumped on suspicious behaviour the whole thread but steered well clear of discussions regarding infamouseace2's anti-town behaviour. I've recently noticed a similar vibe in his behaviour to Westbrooke.

What exactly are you implying here?

[hambargarz]

Care to explain what you mean by your last sentence?

I got this vibe from posts, 326, 330 and 332. This motivated me to look back at your posts.

What exactly are you implying here?

I realised that infamouseace2 and Westbrook are the same character, which made me curious. I'm implying a scum buddy relationship between the two or at least a reason to suspect one.

Well, you defended him by saying he acted with conviction, and thus it was protown. You both seem really confident that you are both town, which is somewhat strange at this point, I guess. If you're going to defend xtoxm's posts as protown, you're going to have to explain why if people ask you.

I didn't say Xtoxm is town, and I'm not defending him. I'm just disagreeing with some of the points regarding his concise posting style, which I see as decisive rather than wishy washy. I do agree with the other points, ie. that Xtoxm's hammer is suspicous as I've said before.

[ClockworkRuse]

Care to explain what you mean by your last sentence?

I got this vibe from posts, 326, 330 and 332. This motivated me to look back at your posts.

What exactly are you implying here?

I realised that infamouseace2 and Westbrook are the same character, which made me curious. I'm implying a scum buddy relationship between the two or at least a reason to suspect one.

Well, you defended him by saying he acted with conviction, and thus it was protown. You both seem really confident that you are both town, which is somewhat strange at this point, I guess. If you're going to defend xtoxm's posts as protown, you're going to have to explain why if people ask you.

I didn't say Xtoxm is town, and I'm not defending him. I'm just disagreeing with some of the points regarding his concise posting style, which I see as decisive rather than wishy washy. I do agree with the other points, ie. that Xtoxm's hammer is suspicous as I've said before.

...There's a scum relationship... between two people... who weren't in the game at the same time?

Please explain this.

[hambargarz]

...There's a scum relationship... between two people... who weren't in the game at the same time? Please explain this.

I meant between CR and infamouseace2/westbrook

[Xtoxm]

Why was my hammer scummy? Please explain. I don't see it.

Sorry if i'm missing anything, been quite busy last couple of days...Just moved back home from uni for xmas!

[hambargarz]

It was scummy because there was still alot of time left before deadline.

[ClockworkRuse]

...There's a scum relationship... between two people... who weren't in the game at the same time? Please explain this.

I meant between CR and infamouseace2/westbrook

I understand that.

You are saying that the relationship between two people who weren't in the game at the same time indicates scumminess?

Please be a little more clear with what you are trying to say is the point I'm trying to make.

[Xtoxm]

It was scummy because there was still alot of time left before deadline.

That's not a reason. You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

[Westbrook_Owns_U]

You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

We hadn't "decided" on the lynch, he was just a candidate. We had plenty of time to let him defend himself further and such, he never really had a chance for a good defence.

[Westbrook_Owns_U]

I will be V/LA for the holiday season (December 21st- January 6th).

I'll still be able to post (except for the week of New Years) but not as much as before.

Sorry for the double post, jsut announcing this in the games I am in.

[hambargarz]

Please be a little more clear with what you are trying to say is the point I'm trying to make.

Yes it was a bit unclear, I didn't properly proof that post.

Let me summarise what I was saying (hopefully) more clearly. I got a feeling that CR was defending another player with posts 326, 330 and 332. I reread back and saw CR turned a blind eye to infamousace2's anti-town behaviour. This stood out as CR had usually quickly jumped on other players suspicious behaviour. I've noticed that infamouseace2 and Westbrook are the same character. So this implies a possible scum relation ship between CR and infamouseace2/westbrook

That's not a reason. You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

Any extra discussion time is good for us. I think you may have assumed too much in thinking the lynch was decided. Dipstick could have put forth better analysis on other players, analysis that, now, we may have missed out on.