Open 186; Jungle Republic (Game Over)

[Scott Brosius]

Vote: Memorable Raindrops

Those words don't belong together.

[Scott Brosius]

Can we just get him replaced?

[Scott Brosius]

bigmc- This is how saber plays. It's completely null in my opinion. I am not sure why you keep pressing the issue though.

CKD- I think the continuing attempt to lynch saber on fairly weak ground is scummier behavior than the potential lie about the missed vote.

What does everyone think about lynching lurkers? I'm usually against it D1 since if that person is town, there are limited interactions to go off of, but in this setup we have 5/12 people being anti-town. It is easier for us to hit scum aiming for lurkers by basic probability. I would be more willing to lynch a scummy lurker in this setup than others.

[Scott Brosius]

Yes, the last post was the first time I saw you attack his arguments instead of his standard play style.

People will still lurk regardless of discussion about it.

[Scott Brosius]

uot;]bigmc- This is how saber plays. It's completely null in my opinion. I am not sure why you keep pressing the issue though.

This is the exactly the attitude that simply excuses his play as "just saber." This is precisely what I am afraid of with Saber.

CKD- I think the continuing attempt to lynch saber on fairly weak ground is scummier behavior than the potential lie about the missed vote.

Then why aren't you voting one of the scummy wagoners on Saber?

What does everyone think about lynching lurkers? I'm usually against it D1 since if that person is town, there are limited interactions to go off of, but in this setup we have 5/12 people being anti-town. It is easier for us to hit scum aiming for lurkers by basic probability. I would be more willing to lynch a scummy lurker in this setup than others.

I'm very against this unless we have absolutely no other option such as being under a deadline. And who do you consider being anti-town?

1- I am not ignoring what saber is doing. I'm saying that voting strictly on that basis is poor. bigmc corrected that and attacked SW's content which holds more water than a null playstyle reason.

2- I was responding directly about bigmc for the question that CKD asked. I did not say the entire wagon was scummy, I said pushing it on grounds of playstyle was.

3. I used the term "anti-town" in this situation to refer to non-town players. There are 3 mafia and 2 wolves, hence 5/12 players in this game are not aligned with the town.

Unvote, Vote:Scott Brosius

for calling out the Saber wagon as anti-town, but failing to actually vote or specify even one of the wagoners for their "scummy behavior".

I would like you to quote where I called this wagon anti-town, or where I said everyone on SW's wagon is exuding "scummy behavior".

---
Another note. This is not Saber's "generic playstyle". From the game I played with him (and marathon), he came off as a good player. The problem I have is that he is not really invested in this game.

I think it has been since this "bet" started. Have you played with him since this bet started or was it awhile ago?

[Scott Brosius]

I was only addressing bigmc in that post not the entire wagon. I did not place a vote on him because he bolstered his case with SW's content, not just style.

I'm not going on a Lynch All Lurkers platform here, just suggesting that in this setup, I think it's more of a scumtell than in other setups.

[Scott Brosius]

Really? Because I think you and CKD are trying a little too hard to make my mistake look like a scum move. Fishy? Maybe. Scummy on its own? Hell no.

FoS: CKD & Dank

This post reeks of OMGUS

hewitt- what made you change your mind? Your post a few pages (122) back was:

If I wanted to lynch saber I would be voting him. I don't think we should be putting pressure on saber because it's A) annoying B) is going to take up a large part of the day probably and C) means that any player that has a reputation for acting anti-town (zwetschenwasser, Empking, Mastin) should be pressured like this and it's honestly going to do nothing to help or progress the game in a healthy manner.

However, I do understand why people would put pressure on saber, he is acting anti-town. But just because I understand it does not mean I agree with it.

You went from wanting to look past it to not condoning it. Why?

And this is one of the best posts yet. I was not satisfied with hewitt's answer either.

I think given the timing of his vote and the sudden change of heart to put SW at L-1 makes hewitt my top suspect at the moment.

Unvote
Vote: hewitt

[Scott Brosius]

You're acting like your lynch is a sure thing now. Are you going to act normal from now on or just keep teasing us? I need to know if I should just hammer you now so you're not a liability later on.

This is how he acted the last time I played with him (actually in this same setup). He got wagoned, attempted a gambit and resigned himself to his lynch and gave his thoughts. He was VT.

[Scott Brosius]

As far as I know it was before.

[Scott Brosius]

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Scott Brosius]

Yep

[Scott Brosius]

In addition: Considering there are two separate ""scum groups," why would Saberwolf say "game over, X and X are scum??"

This is how he acted the last time I played with him (actually in this same setup). He got wagoned, attempted a gambit and resigned himself to his lynch and gave his thoughts. He was VT.

So I fail to see how this is part of your argument.

[Scott Brosius]

Also he hasn't been annoying or distracting lately either. Yes if he kept up his original attitude, style, whatever you want to call it, I would be fine lynching him to remove the distraction. But he stopped doing that and made some cases, yet you are still pursuing him for playstyle? You are pushing a weak case and a case that may have been valid early in the day but not anymore.

Unvote
Vote: Memorable Raindrops

[Scott Brosius]

Your case right here seems equally weak. You call out memorable raindrops for pursuing Saber based off playstyle, but you say you'd be fine with removing him for being a distraction. Isn't that essentially the same thing?

I'm sick of people excusing Saber's behavior and calling him town with nothing to show for it. Explain to me how you see him as town without claiming that no scum would play in this manner. That's certainly not true and should not give him a free pass.

My case is that if he was continuing to be anti-town and useless, then yes I would lynch him. The fact is that he is participating, yet MR is still pursuing the playstyle case. That is the difference. He is scumhunting yet MR is pursuing the distraction, useless, anti-town case which isn't applicable.

bottom line, saber's play is a null tell at best

This is what I have been trying to say in its simplest terms.

Yeah, after that last post, I don't think a Saber lynch would be bad.

The good thing about this setup is regardless of Saber alignment, there are bound to be opportunistic wolf/scum on his wagon.

So yeah, MR or Saber.

This post seems really weak. There are going to be wolves and mafia on every wagon, they make up almost half the game. And you are apathetic who we vote as long as it's one of the leading wagons?

[Scott Brosius]

Scott Brocious-you made a point before about saber acting like the previous game where he was VT. You also seem to say his behavior has been changing. Is his behavior different from the other game now?

His behavior is similar, especially with his back against the wall. That game was before the bet though. He did not come into the game as brash as he did in this game. Although I guess it doesn't really matter since he is gone now.

The reason I voted MR was because he replaced under pressure. This seems scummy to me, but if its universally recognized as not scummy, I guess I should change my vote....I don't know, I'll decide later.

Why do you care so much what other people think? If you think it's scummy, vote for him. You seem very willing to go with whatever BW will stick with the post.

@Scott
I prefer lynching scummy players over lurkers.
Anyway, on to your posts. You state that it’s scummy to lynch SW based upon his playstyle. Yet, this only gets pointed out after CKD asked his question about his BMC case. Why didn’t you point this out in regards to the other players who supported the SW wagon for this reason?
This and the stuff about LAL (Saying that lurking is more of a scumtell in this set-up, but not doing anything with it) reinforces my thoughts of you not scumhunting.
What was your opinion of post 178 from GP?

I pointed it after after SW at least made an effort to scumhunt. That was why my comment was timed then.

In the last time I played this setup, 2 scum (1 WW 1 mafia) were heavy lurkers. Constant prodding really limited posting. 1 scum was a little more active but still lurking quite a bit. These were the 3 biggest lurkers in the game and they were all scum. Is that going to mean lurkers in this game are scum? Not necessarily, but I figured since I just played this setup where that was true, I would offer my experience and start some discussion.

As for your comment that I ask about lurkers then do nothing about it, I said this in my original post

What does everyone think about lynching lurkers? I'm usually against it D1 since if that person is town, there are limited interactions to go off of,

As for 178- I always find it useless when someone says "I THINK THERE ARE SCUM ON THIS WAGON". Obviously. There are going to be scum on every wagon. Saying that in an attempt to defend someone or say that you don't like a wagon is useless. In this setup especially where almost half the game is not aligned with the town, of course there are going to be scum on a wagon. I think the comments about SW are null at this point since he is gone.

[Scott Brosius]

I am here will catch up