He did not express annoyance at the length of post, he said that he wouldn't read them and justified it by saying that he shouldn't be expected to.GIEFF wrote: springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?
Yeah, me too. I was excited over what that was going to mean for this game.springlullaby wrote:Meh, I thought farside had replaced in. False joy.
springlullaby wrote:I'm currently up to lynch BB, Panzer, for previously cited reasons.
Plus qwint, militant and subgenius for lurking.
No order of preference.
This again? I highly doubt you have no order of preference. Everyone has someone they would prefer to see gone (whether it's scum with a townie they want out, or town with the person they think most likely to be scum). I want to see an order of preference. Why does militant's lurking make him an equally good lynch as BB? Among all 3 lurkers, they all have defining characteristics of their play. Are you truly unable to distinguish between them? I doubt it.I expected you to bring up something like this.springlullaby wrote:@Goat, something's puzzling me. You seem awfully nice to me this game. Saying stuff like "you know this", "spring can testify to it" when it comes to your playstyle, plus the whole not wanting to lynch me for lurking. This is in stark contrast compared to the other game we share, and I think it looks awfully like you buddying up or, more nefariously, trying to manipulate me over your meta. I'll say this here, you do seem consistent with the town meta I have seen from you (1 game), but I don't like the fact that you are bringing it up constantly in the conversation.
Previously, nobody. Now I'm not sure Zilla is scum anymore, so I need to evaluate. Right now, I'd say BB and Qwints would be my top two choices. I'm leaning more towards Qwints than BB right now, but I want to think about it a little bit before committing.springlullaby wrote:Now, your 'working toward a lynch' is all well and good, but who exactly are you willing to lynch beside Zilla, and why?
But he had already said he wasn't reading posts. 4 times.springlullaby wrote:He did not express annoyance at the length of post, he said that he wouldn't read them and justified it by saying that he shouldn't be expected to.GIEFF wrote: springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?
I would lynch him on that alone.
My old remarks against him are still valid, but I don't much care.
If your opinion of my post is "small arguments with Zilla that make up my case against her" then you didn't read it. I unvoted. Do you have no reaction to that?mykonian wrote:ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.
At that point, I was still voting Zilla. I decided to unvote at the end of my post, and didn't go back and do anything about my FoS. I've just had a drastic change of opinion on Zilla, and I want to think about the game a bit more before committing to a vote right now. So I'm fine with leaving the FoS at this moment.mykonian wrote:and Goat, why a FoS in this time of the day?
No, I can understand how it would be missed. I wanted to ask GIEFF about it anyway and see what he had to say about it. I think his answer was fine, and satisfies my inquiry.mykonian wrote:and come on, do you really expect someone to find the "dourscum" mistake. You just read over it, looking for obvious logical/grammatical mistakes.
I did it in parts, I didn't think the zilla part interesting. I think your unvote was a good thing to do. There are more scummy players around then "constantly-doesn't-understand-me"-zilla.Goatrevolt wrote:If your opinion of my post is "small arguments with Zilla that make up my case against her" then you didn't read it. I unvoted. Do you have no reaction to that?mykonian wrote:ok, read it: I didn't think it interesting. Small arguments with Zilla, that also make up his case against her, don't impress me.
More likely town is the best way to put it. 
It hasn't. I show them because I love statistics.mykonian wrote:BTW Goat, how can you play with such win loss ratings as scum? Why would you show them? I should have asked you earlier, but doesn't that get you lynched sometimes?
tip: don't play newby gamesGoatrevolt wrote:It hasn't. I show them because I love statistics.mykonian wrote:BTW Goat, how can you play with such win loss ratings as scum? Why would you show them? I should have asked you earlier, but doesn't that get you lynched sometimes?
I've had people who have played in previous games where I was scum attack me in the next game based on a "too townie fallacy." I've never had it actually garner any support.
I have no order of preference and would lynch any of them at the drop of a hat. Panzer is where my vote now, it's my surest call, which doesn't mean my BB call isn't confident.Goatrevolt wrote:
Not afraid of laying it on thick are you. What is it that make you think I'm so town?You are one of the people I think most likely to be town right now. I'm not trying to buddy up in order to garner your support, I simply think you are town. I don't want to lynch someone I think is town, regardless of whether or not they are lurking. I respect your play enough to want to have you come back to the game rather than replace out and us get a variable factor. The reason I've brought up my meta is Zilla kept attacking me for aspects of my play that she said makes me likely to be scum, but are actually just things I do every game. My style of defending myself, for example. The reason I noted you, is because you played in a recent game with me, and you attacked me for the exact same thing Zilla did, and can testify that it is something I do as town.
It wasn't an attempt to buddy, it was me defending myself.
It didn't catch my attention till then.GIEFF wrote:But he had already said he wasn't reading posts. 4 times.springlullaby wrote:He did not express annoyance at the length of post, he said that he wouldn't read them and justified it by saying that he shouldn't be expected to.GIEFF wrote: springlullaby, do you feel that expressing annoyance at the length of posts is enough to lynch Panzer? If not, what else do you find suspicious?
I would lynch him on that alone.
My old remarks against him are still valid, but I don't much care.
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 90#1505290
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 57#1505957
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 62#1507962
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 43#1508343
And others have already called him scummy for it.
Why did you only focus on this latest time he said he wasn't reading posts, and ignore the first four times he did it?
No, just being antagonizing, and okay whoever said sub is being replaced didn't see that.ting wrote:You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.BB wrote:Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?
misrep. Panzer confirmed that his early play was as GIEFF showed it. And it is not solely, as you can see in my post: it is also this attitude of his during the end of the day.Zilla wrote:unexplained rise in suspicion of Panzer solely because he now claims to understand GIEFF
If someone is close to getting lynched, I want a claim. It looked like there was a majority for a lynch.Asking for me to claim without wanting me lynched
Do I need that? Anyway, I feel he has done some scumhunting, he is reasonable, and I haven't been able to find anything unnatural in his play.calling Goat pro-town with no evidence
mmm, I don't see Spring in my top three... I already showed why I wanted to open that possibility. Maybe only to talk about it, but at least it was something, as activity dropped then.wanting to lynch SpringLulliby despite the plethora of more valid targets...
This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?militant wrote:Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.
No. Notice the use of the wordmykonian wrote:This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?militant wrote:Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.
Actually you are right, upon verification, although I think you are at the lower participation side of town, it's not very just to call you a lurker. But don't think for an instant that I have 'no right' to accuse people of lurking.mykonian wrote:Did I miss something? and yes, I object to be called a lurker. I just don't want to be one, and I really try to participate in games (altough a few weeks ago I had some motivation problems), just to avoid getting called a lurker.
And then you, the person that has absolutely no right to accuse people of lurking, come here and tell me I lurk. Could you point out why? Because I absolutely don't like that label.
I read your post, I think you didn't completely understand the motivation behind the one where I asked for three people. I want to see if we can force this day to an end by just looking who the most people think suspicious, and that way find a lynch most of us can agree on. Even if your suspicions are not that clear, would you name them?militant wrote:No. Notice the use of the wordmykonian wrote:This means you have no suspicions at all after 37 pages? Does that mean you want a no lynch? You want to end the day, but you have no idea who to lynch. Would you like a random lynch then?militant wrote:Before you ask, I have not voted yet because unlike you, I don't have any clear suspects in my head. I think this day has dragged on way too long and it would be better if we got some information and evaluated our new position tommorow. Not only would we get information due to the alignment of whoever gets lynched today but we would also learn who died during the night; that would be useful information because with so many theories on who is scum, a lot could be gained from quesioning scum's motivations in relation to whoever died if that makes sense.clear. None of my suspicions are clear because I am confused after 37 pages.
Did you actually read my post?
How would we get information on today's lynch target if we had a no lynch? I'm not stupid. I don't want a random lynch because they are pointless and help scum. With more town than scum, the chances of hitting town are greater so it is not advantageous to randomly lynch. I wish to end the day because all the confusion and indecisiveness that thirty seven pages of one day has created are playing to the advantages of scum, myself a case in point. That also explains why I don't know exactly who to lynch.