Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[Sanjay]

DRK, what did you think about the merits of my vote on ConfidAnon back on page 5?

[ConfidAnon]

@CA
You're really trying to stretch this jester thing. Any particular reason (besides dodging SJ's question)?

Yes, I'm stretching the issue because the reaction you gave me when I first brought up the point was very defensive, and you continue to overreact. That's scummier than the original point, which is still valid.

[DeathRowKitty]

I didn't think much of it at the time, since all he really did was say the theory wasn't bad, not that he believed it (and he even mentioned it would require BB to be playing a very weak scum game). Given CA's recent posts though, I think this gains a lot more merit.

That's scummier than the original point, which is still valid.

I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...

[Sanjay]

[quote="DeathRowKitty"]I didn't think much of it at the time, since all he really did was say the theory wasn't bad, not that he believed it (and he even mentioned it would require BB to be playing a very weak scum game). Given CA's recent posts though, I think this gains a lot more merit.

If you don't mind, could you elaborate?

[ConfidAnon]

Meh, I'm not gonna restate the case again. I believe that you were the one who sparked the jester discussion, you believe that you didn't and that nook did. We'll agree to disagree.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, here's the post you originally took issue with:

Okay, just throwing it out there, shoot it down if you want.

You get the most votes, the closest to a lynch, and then BigBear votes no lynch.
Far_Cry votes BigBear for wanting a no lynch.
You vote Far_Cry.

Shoot it down.

To be honest . . . . that's not that bad of a theory.

One thing holding me back: I've seen BigBear play as scum. He's competent, and voting No Lynch is horrible scum play.

He acknowledged it wasn't "that bad of a theory," but then went on to say that he didn't think BB-scum would act like that and there was no vote or FoS accompanying this post. Basically, I didn't think it was as big of a deal as you made out of it.

Fast forward 11 pages. CA makes an argument against me based on incorrect evidence and places a vote, which would make sense in the context of the post I linked to.

We'll agree to disagree.

"We" implies both of us. Only one of us agrees to disagree (I disagree to the agreement that we agree to disagree). Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

[ConfidAnon]

I smell OMGUS in your last post, DRK.

Yes, yes I do.

[Sanjay]

Meh, I'm not gonna restate the case again. I believe that you were the one who sparked the jester discussion,

you believe that you didn't and that nook did

. We'll agree to disagree.

If you actually believe the bolded, how do you still have a case on DRK?

[ConfidAnon]

I don't believe that, that's what he believes. I was stating both viewpoints, and then that I'd agree to disagree. Sorry for not wording that clearly.

[Sanjay]

No, it was perfectly clear.

You believe that DRK thinks that nook started the jester conversation, correct?

[Sanjay]

Isn't it amazing that as humans, we can have beliefs about the beliefs of others?

Many species do not come anywhere close to possessing this faculty.

[ConfidAnon]

No, it was perfectly clear.

You believe that DRK thinks that nook started the jester conversation, correct?

I fail at wording posts. This is going to look scummy, but what I meant was that neither of us are going to change our minds on this matter. He says that nook started it, I say that he started it.

[Sanjay]

I agree. It does look scummy.

[Sanjay]

Do you think that if DRK actually does believe that nook started the conversation about jesters then his reaction is unreasonable?

[Shrinehme]

Post 97 – So the reason behind your vote is? (

Shrine

)

Far_Cry's insults looked more like strategic distancing than genuine emotion.

How?

Seemed unprovoked. I see little purpose for this tidbit thrown into his post: "Oh, by the way, you are a total idiot nook. And I never new you were gay." ... other than to start an argument with Nook, which could have strategic distancing value.

Post 115 – Why ask EC about Bear,

Shrine

?

Wanted to hear more from EtherealCookie.

My reason for asking was more for the Bear part. Your vote was against Far_Cry at that moment. Yet, instead of asking EC what his opinion is of your top suspect (which was based upon you thinking he was distancing with Nook), you asked him about Bear. So why not one of your top suspicions?

It's unfair to say Far_Cry could be called a "top suspect" of mine at that point. I did not analyze everyone's behavior up until that point and think he was most suspicious. The vote was thrown his way casually based on a mere observation/possibility.

Post 107 – Which is why Bear’s vote after the no-lynch was for you and not for FC? Why didn’t you address this vote from Bear when you thought he was trying to catch scum by voting no-lynch?
Actually, talking about this, how come you didn’t even ask anything about it?
You giving him a way out is also noted. (

Shrine

)

He didn't back up his vote, so it was clear he wasn't planning to go anywhere with it.

Re-phrase the first question?

Your thoughts were that he was trying to draw scum out by voting no-lynch. But instead of voting the one who voted him for voting no-lynch, he voted you. Meaning, your thoughts were wrong. Yet, you didn't ask anything about it at all. Why?

Didn't feel a need to do so. After he'd voted me I couldn't tell whether he was gambiting or taking advantage of RVS, or whatever.
Should I have?
Can you elaborate on "You giving him a way out is also noted."?

No, I don't feel that it's a bus. I am not Scum,

let alone aligned with him

. I don't really see how his vote could even be interpreted as a bus.

Oh? How do you know?
Also, how come you did comment on EC’s vote against you, but not Bear’s vote against you?

You're interpreting it wrongly. "Aligned" as in, being partnered with him via role [scum partners, ect.].

I commented on EtherealCookie's vote because he put forth a reason for his vote. BigBear gave me nothing to comment on.

Not buying your explanation. The only roles that are connected are: Masons/neighbours, lovers, scum and cult.
Of which the first two don't bus, you say you're not scum and cult isn't possible now. I don't see the reason why you'd point the bolded out.

You're reading too far into the wording of the post then. It is poorly worded.

Post 250 – Why the unvote,

Shrine

?

I'm not interested in pursuing Far_Cry's/your lynch.

What changed?

Tone of the game. My vote for him is nice for reaction-searching in RVS/early post-RVS. Not something to follow up with a lynch based off of.

[ConfidAnon]

Do you think that if DRK actually does believe that nook started the conversation about jesters then his reaction is unreasonable?

No I do not.

I admit that my theory is not as strong now as when I first posted it, but the possibility still exists for him to be scum lying through his teeth after being caught.

[Sanjay]

What has changed, ConfidAnon?

Why isn't the theory as strong as it was before?

[Looker]

Mod, can we get a prod on nook?

We're on a new page? Zaz must have been posting again!

Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

How does it show that (meta-based reasons?)?


Just a thought, but if EC gets lynched and flips town, I could see Looker as trying to gain townie points as scum by saying he thinks EC is a townie with an interesting playstyle.

Okay wait. You lynch EC, he flips town, so then you lynch me? That sounds like a personal gameplan to me, Kitty...

Zaz, you rock.

Thanks ^.^
Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

I've had town-looker replace and act all anti-town. So, I wouldn't be sure about that. I don't think Looker'd be silly enough to just stick with one personality depending on if he was town or scum.

Stick with one personality? I can't even stick with one gender! Zaz, r u the only one who knows I'm a she?

I agree. It does look scummy.

Scummier than my alleged "creating undue suspicion"?

I had taken your theory to be some kind of joke to try to get a rise out of people, but now that I find out you were seriously floating it, I think I'm gonna throw you a vote, for trying to create undue suspicion and for dodging my question for no good reason.

Unvote

Vote: Looker

[Sanjay]

Yeah, I don't really know why I'm still voting for you, when you aren't even second on my suspect list right now.

Unvote

Vote: ConfidAnon

[Sanjay]

Now that you've reminded me of who I was voting for, Looker, why don't you tell me who you were voting for and how happy you are with that vote right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

I smell OMGUS in your last post, DRK.

It's not OMGUS if I have a legitimate reason.

Okay wait. You lynch EC, he flips town, so then you lynch me? That sounds like a personal gameplan to me, Kitty...

Yes it does look like that. I seem to say something like that once per game...

I view the possible connection much like I view the possible Shrine scum-slip. It's nothing to make a case on and unless you act scummy it's fairly meaningless. It's more a note I'm making now to come back to if you look scummy later on.

@CA
You missed this:

Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

[Looker]

Now that you've reminded me of who I was voting for, Looker, why don't you tell me who you were voting for and how happy you are with that vote right now.

I was voting for Cookie for forever (I think he was my RVS vote); however, when people started jumping on him, I unvoted. I'm currently happy with that unvote.

@BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?

[Looker]

Just in case you forgot, because it was a while ago.

Unvote:
Vote: EtherealCookie

I think you put shrine at L-1, which is too close to a lynch for my liking.

I'll answer the other questions shortly. Just slightly busy.

Thoughts:

I had no idea what was going on until page 6 or so, to be honest. I couldn't tell what was RVS, sarcasm, or serious. You folks make my brain hurt.

As for scumtells:

I think Far_Cry is an interesting case, jumpy. He seemed to get serious far before anyone else did, and reacted... oh, what's the term... negatively? Now that he's replacing out I feel somewhat sad, because now the replacement can't elaborate on what Far_Cry was thinking.

EC also annoys me like all hell. I think it's suspicious to withhold information and reasoning for one's actions (I hate gambits and anything that could be mistaken as such), which makes EC out to be a living, breathing scumtell.

Unvote

Vote EC

On the other hand I don't see BB's actions as suspicious. Anything to generate discussion is a good thing, and if he did really vote for a no-lynch to get us out of RVS, I applaud that, especially since without it we'd probably still be in RVS.

One other thought:
It's natural to assume there's a Godfather in games of Mafia. As far as I can remember I've never been in a game

without

one, so I can understand why folks would expect there to be one.

[ZazieR]

Though this wasn't aimed at you, I wouldn't mind if you'd respond to this as well, confid

He was being pretty jumpy there . . . that's kind of scummy.

Define 'jumpy'

The guy who bandwagoned himself doesn’t like that somebody else bandwagons? How come?

He wasn't contributing, which, when combined with the bandwagon vote, was very scummy. I know I'm sounding hypocritical here, but I have since made an effort to start contributing more. He really hasn't.

Post 331?

[ZazieR]

Come on, ConfidAnon. We can't lynch everyone that posts like ZazieR.

Your reason for this post?

I want to keep everything from getting buried under a mountain of multi-posts and I thought throwing out empty threats would be a good way to do it.

You're wrong. It's not the many posts that makes players ignore some posts. It's my super hot chickness It gets injected into my posts and it draws every player their attention to it
Seriously though, I don't have problems with many posts after each other. As long as most of them contains scumhunting/content.