Sushi Mafia! Game Over

[hp [leaves]]

My post on M_K's case

Post 55: Random vote. Not much to look on.
Post 75: A random post. Not much to look on.
Post 88: Role fishing? Selective scumhunting? This post could be random; but it seemingly isn't.
Post 122: Admits he's scum?
Post 126: Defending himself by calling OGML's argument retarded.
Post 131: (Intended) misinterpretation.
Post 133: Backing up his speculation.
Post 161: Admitting he's scummy by answering all of Falmeaxe's questions "yes".
Post 181: Defending himself by joking around.
Post 217: Still joking around and OMGUS'ing OGML.

Worth a vote? yes.

Vote M_K

Also

FoS Santos

for lurking in a speed game.

[sirdanilot]

Just lurking over here as my random vote on MK seems to have been a bit more than just random...

Active lurking = scum tell. Post please.

I'm not sure if I noted this, but I will be quoting normally again. That was just an experiment and I didn't like the format much either.

Thank you.

Building up to a bandwagon vote are we?

Or maybe I'm just getting bad vibes off of him? I just don't like some of his posts even if they aren't inherently anti-town.

That doesn't clear my suspicion at all.

Could you quote me some posts of others (before the azhrei post) that contain the information you suspect azhrei of copying?

Aragh...third window, coming up...you're going to make me crash my browser, you know?

For the self-voting part, check out posts 77-99.

For the 'we're out of the random phrase' part...

I almost always vote Day One self-voters. Personal philosophy of mine. And a (exceptionally minor) scum tell, which is better than random at this point.

What is more important, is the reactions of people seeing such a scum tell. I'm enjoying sitting on my luxury chair and observing the reactions of the players.

So, RBT, why did you self vote? Let's hear it.

And on and on. Once discussion gets serious, it's clear that the random phase is over. His post had no content in it, so I felt he needed more prodding.

Alright then. You have defended yourself to the point that I feel comfortable withdrawing this part of your case. I'd only be bullshitting myself if I would continue to suspect you over this.

You ignored my comment about ignoring raider.

Because I couldn't resist as his statement was so easy to question. His post stood out to be as I read it. That should answer both questions, I believe.

Maybe it's my lack of having English as a native language but I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here.

So my net is wider than your's. Is that really a scumtell? You're right, I don't think anyone right now is incredibly scummy. I still think RBT needs to contribute more as she is kinda flying under the radar at the moment.

Wait so you don't think RBTY is incredibly scummy at the moment either?

I'm at a loss why you suddenly flip over and vote a completely different person now.

If I don't have a good suspect, I will vote lurkers or players I want to hear from. It's become...I suppose 'meta' is the word. You see, especially in Day 1, a vote is a statement. Unlike an FoS, however, this statement has merit. Votes, as a statement, can mean multiple things. My vote means that I want pressure on RBT to post more content.

I don't agree with lurker votes and never will. Unless they are active lurking or clearly not posting content (like the person you see below). Rereading gives that RBT posted on that very page, but that it did not contain any content. This is a valid reason to vote him. Still, I find it iffy...

Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...

what? 'I'll active lurk but don't worry I don't mind to hammer at deadline!'

unvote vote Santos

I will still keep a

FoS Seraphim

but the reasons above leave me confident enough to unvote him for now.

[Riceballtail]

UNVOTE

I also feel that, for now, Seraphim has explained himself well enough.

This is a bit of a hunch, but I do think that a

VOTE:OGML

is in order. Specifically for the following:

M_K, its not tunnel vision, its looking for scums that aren't your scumteam.

[hp [leaves]]

Seraphim and Riceball is just noise right now. We're lynching M_K. This game has serious strict deadlines, lets not mess around.

Looks much more suspicious to me than

M_K, its not tunnel vision, its looking for scums that aren't your scumteam.

[OhGodMyLife]

M_K: Please explain why tunnel vision is scummy.

[DrippingGoofball]

Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...

WHOA!!!! Hey guys we caught more scum!

[Setanta]

Not liking the NK bandwagon

Unvote

I see his comment about jesters as stupid/newb rather than scummy, thus it is a scumtell. I did the same in RealTime mafia when I was town (and newb).

A) He joined in march. That isn't exactly "newb" territory anymore.
B) If we all had the mentality of "it was a stupid mistake!", we would never get anywhere.
C) It isn't a null-tell because you've done it as town. If there was a bit more sarcasm there, and he made it obvious it was a joke (which he made obvious it wasn't), I could see it. But when it comes right down to it, it s a scumtell.

QFT. He's since said he's played else where.
Jester/Lyncher speculation is pointless and distracts from scumhunting. It's definitely scummy to be talking about it as it serves no purpose imo.

Two identical posts ._. And one was posted after the first one was considered scummy

I don't really see why what I posted could be considered scummy, I came back in after LA, unvoted as I had no reason to keep it on GC and then said I'd re-read and post my thoughts.

RC) Both mentalities are merely opinion; Null because you did "it" before and "it" being a scumtell. Sure many people share the second thought, but then that makes it merely popular opinion.

So basically if everyone agrees it's scummy it doesn't matter as it's just a popular opinion? Surely this could be used to defend any action? basically you can respond with "No wai" to anything said citing it as popular opinion, not fact.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here but this is what I'm getting out of this point. Please calarify if I am taking this the wrong way.

[quote="septia]Sorry for inactivity, I've been pretty busy. Will get into it tomorrow and catch up.[/quote]
How'd that go? Stop lurking

FOS: Septia.

[quote="Alvinz!]Bleh. [/quote]
Thanks Care to post something?

Fos: Alvinz

Then lets flip the scenario. Tell me: what would Town do "when they see behaviour in the thread that doesn't look normal"?

Not normal? Well that depends on what people think is normal. I suppose out of the ordinary behaviour like that could be deemed as scummy. Why assume jester etc, and not just scum?

M_K, its not tunnel vision, its looking for scums that aren't your scumteam.

What do you mean by this? Like looking for other scum or what? How is this really helpful? I do get the point that you're quite convinced he's scum, but yeh still.

So I'm heading back to class now, will catch up the rest later.
Santos is lurking in plain sight too.

fos

for him.
Will come back finish reading the thread and decide who to vote for etc.

Untill later

[sirdanilot]

We seem to have at least 4 lurkers, pear bear, santos, alvinz and septia. Don't shoot me if I forgot one.

In my opinion, you cannot classify the latter two as actively lurking anymore since they haven't posted in a while. If they pop in with another useless post then yes I could see how they are actively lurking together with pear bear and santos.

Lurker lynches, however, are mostly useless and bad town play. The only exception I make to this is Santos, for the reasons I posted (in short: not willing to discuss, but willing to hammer).

The only thing we can do to conventional lurkers (who just don't post) is to request for them to be replaced out. The only thing we can do with active, but otherwise not scummy lurkers is to FoS them and request them to post. We can only lynch them if nobody has a suspect, which will not happen. But of course there are other ways, most of which will stop working if I reveal them (but are probably obvious enough for the more experienced players). The only thing we can do with active, scummy lurkers is to lynch them. In fact, I would recommend doing so.

[Pear Bear]

My post on M_K's case

Post 55: Random vote. Not much to look on.
Post 75: A random post. Not much to look on.
Post 88: Role fishing? Selective scumhunting? This post could be random; but it seemingly isn't.
Post 122: Admits he's scum?
Post 126: Defending himself by calling OGML's argument retarded.
Post 131: (Intended) misinterpretation.
Post 133: Backing up his speculation.
Post 161: Admitting he's scummy by answering all of Falmeaxe's questions "yes".
Post 181: Defending himself by joking around.
Post 217: Still joking around and OMGUS'ing OGML.

Worth a vote? yes. Vote M_K

Also FoS Santos for lurking in a speed game.

Seraphim and Riceball is just noise right now. We're lynching M_K. This game has serious strict deadlines, lets not mess around.

Looks much more suspicious to me than

M_K, its not tunnel vision, its looking for scums that aren't your scumteam.

Why would you find that suspicious when you just now placed your vote against MK?

[DrippingGoofball]

Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...

Yeah.

Admits to lurking but calls it 'semi' lurking. Says he doesn't have much to add, but waits by the sidelines for discussions to 'work themselves out' without input from him, whatever he means by 'discussions working themselves out.'

However, this wimp who has, by his own admission, little to say, is willing to hammer.

ANYBODY.

He's waiting for the discussion to work itself out, ie,

get to lynch minus one

. Right? That's the gist of it.

And when we're at lynch minus one, whoever is being lynched, he's willing to hammer. It doesn't matter who. As long as it's not him.

He's just Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer. When we need a hammer, he'll be there. But not for anything else. For anything but the hammer, count him out. He just doesn't have much to say.

I'm sorry folks but this is scum all the way.

unvote, vote: Santos

[Hybris]

Ok... I missed that the first time he said it, I read and my mind went "generic I'll post later" comment. So um... yeah. I don't think thats how he intended it to come across, but he has some serious explaining to do. Actually...

Vote: Santos

Because right now, its looking to be either him or M_K, and right now that comments making me lean to him.

[raider8169]

We seem to have at least 4 lurkers, pear bear, santos, alvinz and septia. Don't shoot me if I forgot one.

In my opinion, you cannot classify the latter two as actively lurking anymore since they haven't posted in a while. If they pop in with another useless post then yes I could see how they are actively lurking together with pear bear and santos.

Lurker lynches, however, are mostly useless and bad town play. The only exception I make to this is Santos, for the reasons I posted (in short: not willing to discuss, but willing to hammer).

The only thing we can do to conventional lurkers (who just don't post) is to request for them to be replaced out. The only thing we can do with active, but otherwise not scummy lurkers is to FoS them and request them to post. We can only lynch them if nobody has a suspect, which will not happen. But of course there are other ways, most of which will stop working if I reveal them (but are probably obvious enough for the more experienced players). The only thing we can do with active, scummy lurkers is to lynch them. In fact, I would recommend doing so.

You forget me, however I do not concider myself lurking so much as I just get sidetracked. I hate day one as there is not much information to concider and I am horrible at trying to pick out scum from just that. I like looking at voting patterns and figure out things by peoples actions and not just words.

Right now the case on MK seems weak however by weak I mean MK has said a bunch of little things that is quickly adding up. Joking around is ok at any point in the game as it is still a game but if the joking around is all the person does then it is another story. As it stands I am ok with an MK lynch.

Lynching lurkers for the sake of lynching lurkers would make this a quick game. There are always going to be lurkers but its the ones that get replaced are the ones I really dislike. To get replaced takes a while on top of the time it takes for the mod to realize someone needs to be replaced. In this game that could be the span of the entire day. Just something to be aware about for the time being.

[raider8169]

Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...

Yeah.

Admits to lurking but calls it 'semi' lurking. Says he doesn't have much to add, but waits by the sidelines for discussions to 'work themselves out' without input from him, whatever he means by 'discussions working themselves out.'

However, this wimp who has, by his own admission, little to say, is willing to hammer.

ANYBODY.

He's waiting for the discussion to work itself out, ie,

get to lynch minus one

. Right? That's the gist of it.

And when we're at lynch minus one, whoever is being lynched, he's willing to hammer. It doesn't matter who. As long as it's not him.

He's just Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer. When we need a hammer, he'll be there. But not for anything else. For anything but the hammer, count him out. He just doesn't have much to say.

I'm sorry folks but this is scum all the way.

unvote, vote: Santos

I never read it that way but it does make sense. I would like a response from him before I add my vote.

[Setanta]

We seem to have at least 4 lurkers, pear bear, santos, alvinz and septia. Don't shoot me if I forgot one.

In my opinion, you cannot classify the latter two as actively lurking anymore since they haven't posted in a while. If they pop in with another useless post then yes I could see how they are actively lurking together with pear bear and santos.

Lurker lynches, however, are mostly useless and bad town play. The only exception I make to this is Santos, for the reasons I posted (in short: not willing to discuss, but willing to hammer).

The only thing we can do to conventional lurkers (who just don't post) is to request for them to be replaced out. The only thing we can do with active, but otherwise not scummy lurkers is to FoS them and request them to post. We can only lynch them if nobody has a suspect, which will not happen. But of course there are other ways, most of which will stop working if I reveal them (but are probably obvious enough for the more experienced players). The only thing we can do with active, scummy lurkers is to lynch them. In fact, I would recommend doing so.

Oh I agree that lynching all lurkers may not be the best play if that's all that's against them, but the likes of Santos's last post is extremely scummy.
And yeah obviously if they've disappeared they will be replaced.


I will

vote Santos

as his last post was basically "lol I'm lurking don't care who's lynched".

Need to re-read the last 2 pages more carefully probably, sometime later, but happy with my vote at this moment.

[Microphone_Kirby]

My post on M_K's case

.....
Post 122: Admits he's scum?

No.

Post 131: (Intended) misinterpretation.

... What the hell are you talking about? Explain yourself!

Post 161: Admitting he's scummy by answering all of Falmeaxe's questions "yes".

... Wrong. Completely wrong, especially since there were no questions.

Post 181: Defending himself by joking around.
Post 217: Still joking around and OMGUS'ing OGML.

... Next time you give an argument, get your facts straight and don't you

dare

put words into my mouth.
I was serious in those two posts... even though I was laughing around the end of Post 217.

RC) Both mentalities are merely opinion; Null because you did "it" before and "it" being a scumtell. Sure many people share the second thought, but then that makes it merely popular opinion.

So basically if everyone agrees it's scummy it doesn't matter as it's just a popular opinion? Surely this could be used to defend any action? basically you can respond with "No wai" to anything said citing it as popular opinion, not fact.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here but this is what I'm getting out of this point. Please calarify if I am taking this the wrong way.

I think you got the basic point right: If everyone agrees [some action] is scummy, it's merely popular opinion, like any one "scumtell" is merely opinion.
The "It doesn't matter" part of your statement is strange. Popular opinion gets people lynched, so it kinda does matter... but only in that regard. Persuasion is a mighty powerful part of this game... but does a lynch prove a opinion right? I don't think so. Like I said:

I think there's no truly 100% reliable scum-tell other than admitting s/he's scum.

... since it's usually Townies getting lynched for showing such "scum-tells".
... Yes, one

could

use the opinion card as a defense... but that would be a

very

weak defense, wouldn't it?

M_K: Please explain why tunnel vision is scummy.

Tunnel Vision alone? It's counter-productive, but that's about it. Alone, it's weak.
But in your case, your also trying to rush a lynch along when there's plenty of time left and you're not even

trying

to build

your own case you've started

; other people were building your case for you. It's good enough for me to vote you.

Yes, I am semi-lurking, but I am not hesitating to post; I just don't have much to add at the moment as most of the discussion usually works itself out. I'm in no hurry to lynch anyone: If a decision needs to be made, then I don't mind being the deciding vote...

Yeah.

Admits to lurking but calls it 'semi' lurking. Says he doesn't have much to add, but waits by the sidelines for discussions to 'work themselves out' without input from him, whatever he means by 'discussions working themselves out.'

However, this wimp who has, by his own admission, little to say, is willing to hammer.

ANYBODY.

He's waiting for the discussion to work itself out, ie,

get to lynch minus one

. Right? That's the gist of it.

And when we're at lynch minus one, whoever is being lynched, he's willing to hammer. It doesn't matter who. As long as it's not him.

He's just Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer. When we need a hammer, he'll be there. But not for anything else. For anything but the hammer, count him out. He just doesn't have much to say.

I'm sorry folks but this is scum all the way.

unvote, vote: Santos

I never read it that way but it does make sense.

I would like a response from him before I add my vote.

Ditto. What do you have to say to DGB's accusation, Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer?

[Slicey]

Oops, didn't mean power roles, MK, just roles in general.

Anyway,

Unvote, Vote: Santos

for the reasons DGB provided.

[raider8169]

Ditto. What do you have to say to DGB's accusation, Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer?

It not always a scum tell as townies do it as well however he response to it means a lot. It is lynch worth on a first day as I think we will get ride of an unproductive member and set a precedence for all lurkers. Granted after the first day I tend to post more as I have more to go off from and the votes are something I can start looking into.

Did that answer your question or were you looking for something different?

[DrippingGoofball]

Ditto. What do you have to say to DGB's accusation, Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer?

It not always a scum tell as townies do it as well however he response to it means a lot. It is lynch worth on a first day as I think we will get ride of an unproductive member and set a precedence for all lurkers. Granted after the first day I tend to post more as I have more to go off from and the votes are something I can start looking into.

Did that answer your question or were you looking for something different?

I believe that the question was meant for Santos.

It's interesting how you feel it applies to you enough that you would not recognize this obvious fact.

[raider8169]

Ditto. What do you have to say to DGB's accusation, Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer?

It not always a scum tell as townies do it as well however he response to it means a lot. It is lynch worth on a first day as I think we will get ride of an unproductive member and set a precedence for all lurkers. Granted after the first day I tend to post more as I have more to go off from and the votes are something I can start looking into.

Did that answer your question or were you looking for something different?

I believe that the question was meant for Santos.

It's interesting how you feel it applies to you enough that you would not recognize this obvious fact.

He quoted me and said you. That seemed like it was directed at me.

[Septia]

Not lurking, havent been online much due to studying for exams. Not that you guys care, sorry, am getting back into this game atm.

The bandwaggon on Santos has been too fast for my liking, and I understand the case on him, but mafia would be more careful to not make a slip up like that. I'm basing this off page 10 alone though,still need to read back.

I'm going to hold back from lynching Santos right now until I see more from him. Will read back now and give my thoughts/ suspicions.

[Simenon]

Vote Count

Microphone_Kirby (8)- Pear Bear, OhGodMyLife, Sipylus, Green Crayons, Jebus, Talitha, Azhrei, hp [leaves]
Santos (5)- Seraphim, sirdanilot, DrippingGoofball, Hybris, Sentata, Slicey
OhGodMyLife (2)- Microphone_Kirby, Riceballtail
Seraphim (1)- CounselWolf
raider8169 (1)- Septia,
Alvinz95 (1)- Flameaxe
Flameaxe (1)- raider8169
Pear Bear (1)- Plum

Not Voting (Santos, alvinz95, ortolan)

It has come to my attention that my "not voting" column is woefully inaccurate. I apologize for the inconvenience.

13 to lynch. 6 days.

More prods coming.

[Pear Bear]

Pear Bear, why are you, in your words, 'lurking'? Your random vote has become more than random? Well, what do you find suspicious about MK? Just leaving your vote on a big bandwagon and walking away again, are you? Thoughts? Opinions? Any semblance of contribution?

Vote: Pear Bear

Sorry for not addressing you, Plum, but I hadnt noticed that you voted me.
I was hesitant to post because my random vote for MK seemed to have been a decent pick in the first place, and I was assessing what everyone else was thinking to determine if I wanted to keep my vote on MK or not.
I realize, now, that random voting and then lurking when everyone else jumps aboard is really sketchy and I don't plan on doing it again. As for MK and his alleged role fishing, In some cases role fishing can be pro-town, and I think that this may be one of those cases.

Unvote MK

[Santos]

I already did.

[Santos]

Hmm, missed the next page. The 'I already did' was directed at Setanta.

Catching up on the next page I notice a lot of people would rather vote for me being honest as opposed to posting some BS excuse that I can't read a forum thread of a few pages and will do so in several days from now. Pathetic.

[Microphone_Kirby]

He quoted me and said you. That seemed like it was directed at me.

...Sorry about that. It was meant for Santos. When I said "Mr. Silent-Semilurker-Hammer", I meant in the context DGB put it as, which seemed to be a "situational nickname" for Santos.
Sorry for the confusion.

Hmm, missed the next page. The 'I already did' was directed at Setanta.

Catching up on the next page I notice a

lot of people would rather vote for me being honest

as opposed to posting some BS excuse that I can't read a forum thread of a few pages and will do so in several days from now. Pathetic.

*sigh* Join the club.