DP12 JeepFest Mafia GAME OVER

olio · Post Post #16 (isolation #0) » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:22 pm

TSS, you did notice LML's list of possible reasons for one night kill?

vote: PeaceBringer

olio · Post Post #33 (isolation #1) » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:27 pm

I do get feeling Axelrod is making way to a safe-claim, even though he ends his speculation with disclaimer:
[quote="Axelrod]
And I'm not making this speculation based on my own role either, just what has been presented. [/quote]

olio · Post Post #51 (isolation #2) » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:25 pm

Vesuvan's sudden appearance after being called out seems scummy to me too. Even though I agree with his theory about early speculation, it also strikes me as an attempt to divert attention from himself.

unvote: PeaceBringer
vote: Vesuvan

olio · Post Post #80 (isolation #3) » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:43 pm

I found SaberKitty's reasoning for her vote confusing. Can you please explain it a bit? Do you vote Vesuvan because he hasn't participated and is close to lynch even though you don't think there's a good reasoning behind that bandwagon?

Also your behaviour feels to me like somebody trying to act "just coming along and voting".

FOS: SaberKitty

olio · Post Post #86 (isolation #4) » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:31 pm

I'm waiting for some sort of explanation from SaberKitty before considering switching. I still think that popping up right after being called out for lurking AND having participated on the site otherwise while the thread has been open is scummiest tell at this point. SaberKitty is close though.

olio · Post Post #104 (isolation #5) » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:59 am

Vesuvan wrote: Not noticing a thread is open when the other threads I've posted in are in a different forum is a scum tell now?

Either you were lurking on purpose (scummy) or not paying attention to this game (poor play).

Vesuvan wrote:If someone puts the lethal vote on, then they are running a very big risk of being lynched in turn the following day and there is a very good chance of them being scum.

In my opinion this is a threat, with a purpose to keep yourself from claiming. Vesuvan, do you think your role is the sole one winning the game for the town? So precious a role, that when out on open, the game is lost for the town?

I'm really torn between SaberKat and Vesuvan, when it comes to voting. I still feel Vesuvan is scummy, but SaberKat just passed him. I'm ready to put that lethal vote on Vesuvan though.

unvote: Vesuvan
vote: SaberKat

olio · Post Post #105 (isolation #6) » Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:00 am

Argh... Sorry.

unvote
vote: SaberKitty

olio · Post Post #138 (isolation #7) » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:01 am

Vesuvan wrote:
olio wrote: Either you were lurking on purpose (scummy) or not paying attention to this game (poor play).
Or logging onto the site quickly to post in two games that I was actively participating in and was able to reply to quickly, and not checking other forums since I didn't have time to.

Really, the point you're bringing up isn't much of a point at all.

It isn't? The thread is open for three days, you're participating in other games and post in the thread only when it's noticed you're missing. Maybe it's just me, but for the first day vote I think that's a good reason enough.

Vesuvan wrote: It's not a threat; it's a statement of how I would expect players react when someone puts a lethal vote onto someone who has just explained themselves. That's a large part of why I am generally unwilling to claim without a good reason to do so.

So, when playing with you that "statement" is a sure way to keep you throwing in the last vote ever, right? What you're saying is that anyone putting a last vote on a un-claimed person is probably scum and the blame is always on them, not in the person who didn't feel like claiming. How it does fit for scum to get in that spotlight you also mentioned the last votegiver should in your opinion receive?

Vesuvan wrote: As to how important my role is, that should have no relevance whatsoever on my decision. If I'm a vanilla townie, then I'm better off unclaimed in that situation to keep our power roles hidden from the scum, who I don't doubt were on that bandwagon to either get a quick lynch or fish for information.

My take in this situation is following and it differs from yours and Meme's I see:
If you're vanilla townie being bandwagoned on day one, sacrificing yourself will keep power-roles that much longer in play and uncovered. In my opinion if the next person bandwagoned claims a real power-role, you've played poorly if you're townie.

Vesuvan wrote: wtf? You're ready to lynch someone for refusing to claim with no real reason? Added to the BS "logic" I've quoted above...

I'm still of opinion that I have decent reason for my

day one

vote and I still view your "statement" as a threat I'm not going to be afraid of.

olio · Post Post #140 (isolation #8) » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:35 pm

Someone, any reason for voting me?

olio · Post Post #166 (isolation #9) » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:42 pm

Vesuvan wrote: It it's a lethal lynching vote you're talking about, then I disagree entirely. You do that when you're reasonably sure that the person is scum, not for fairly weak reasoning - unless you're scum, that is.

Vesuvan wrote:
olio wrote: I'm still of opinion that I have decent reason for my
day one
vote and I still view your "statement" as a threat I'm not going to be afraid of.
Yes, for your
day 1 vote
you have answered me. For your
willingness to lynch based on a player not claiming under a weak bandwagon
you have convinced me that you are scum.

Ok. In my opinion we've discussed about two different things here which are not related.
1) my reasoning behind my vote on you
2) putting in the lethal vote

I had a reason for my vote on you and I've moved forward when I found something more solid.

When it comes to number two, there's something in your playing style I think is selfish which in my opinion doesn't fit with pro-town play = scummy.

You said:

Vesuvan wrote: If I don't see a reason to claim, I state why and ask for a reason why I should do so from those calling for my claim. If someone puts the lethal vote on, then they are running a very big risk of being lynched in turn the following day and there is a very good chance of them being scum.

Of course, if I do see a "real reason" for the bandwagon, then I'll claim in that sort of situation.

So, you'll be the sole person deciding if you'll claim or not, doing it only if you see reasons real enough in your opinion - no matter how many votes on you, no matter how powerful your role is, with statement "Whoever puts in the lynching vote should be considered scum". Maybe my logic is way off, but if everyone'd play like that we'd never get further than day one. No townies would be throwing in the lynching vote, as those nearing the lynch could just spam that statement.

What I was trying to say, is that I'll be willing to throw in that lynching vote if other pro-town players aren't.