Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[BloodCovenent]

Damn alternates.

[ortolan]

Fourth vote count

Josh Lyman (6): MacavityLock, imaginality, Budja, Fuzzyman, Chinaman, BloodCovenent
Fuzzyman (1): Snow_Bunny
Snow_Bunny (1): jasonT1981
Budja (1): Josh Lyman

Not voting (3): ConfidAnon, Netopalis, Locke Lamora

7 to lynch

I'm assuming that's your alt, BC?

[Snow_Bunny]

I am not liking Lyman's wagon at all. Too quick, too scummy.

[BloodCovenent]

I am not liking Lyman's wagon at all. Too quick, too scummy.

What do you suggest then?

I'm assuming that's your alt, BC?

Yep

[Snow_Bunny]

I am not liking Lyman's wagon at all. Too quick, too scummy.

What do you suggest then?

Unvote, vote: Budja

^More of those.

[MacavityLock]

@Budja: Your vote might be just a bit more than a random vote, but still, it is there. I don't like "I random voted in a wagon!" either.

Why not?

When you throw in a random vote in a forming serious wagon, you are just being opportunistic.

Why do I think fuzzy voted for a no-lynch? The hell I know. I only know that he did something I consider a scumtell. And that's enough.

Does context play any role in your scumhunting?

Please explain, as currently I am not understanding what you want to ask me (and neither how that question has any relation with what you quoted.)

Budja's 70 is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. 1) Budja's vote on Fuzzy was clearly not random, as he quite specifically explained why he voted. So, why was this vote opportunistic? 2) You said that you consider Fuzzy voting No Lynch a scumtell. Why didn't you examine the context of said vote? As Budja said, and I agree with, it was very clearly an attempt to leave the RVs.

Snow_Bunny, on another note, we've now had a player do the same wagon-jumping as Budja, only far more egregious. Chinaman

random

-voted Fuzzy on page 1 (4th vote), and has now jumped to the Lyman-wagon (5th vote). SB, is this opportunistic? Is it scummy? Is it scummier than Budja? Why haven't you commented on it?

(By the way, welcome BC.)

[BloodCovenent]

Chinaman

random

-voted Fuzzy on page 1 (4th vote),
(By the way, welcome BC.)

How does some one's random vote happen to be the fourth vote on some one?

And thank you.

[MacavityLock]

Chinaman

random

-voted Fuzzy on page 1 (4th vote)

How does some one's random vote happen to be the fourth vote on some one?

Take a look at Chinaman's Fuzzy-vote post. It's quite clear that Chinaman had no legitimate stated reason for it, therefore I called it random. I obviously don't know his actual reason for the vote, but of course there probably is one. The point I was trying to make is that between Budja's Fuzzy-vote and Chinaman's, Chinaman's should be more likely to trigger

When you throw in a random vote in a forming serious wagon, you are just being opportunistic.

[Budja]

@Macavity, glad were on the same page then.

@Snow Bunny, you are wrong . Until you have come up with a better point, I'm not going to bother defending myself now.

#2 is now BC.
You call out the early Josh wagon votes as opportunistic and then tack your vote onto the wagon. Thats quite hypocritical.

[Chinaman]

p15 was indeed random and meant to be funny due to this game. L-3 means the same to me as L-6 so I didn't think much of SB getting onto Budja for his. Now that you point it out though Mac, your point makes sense.

on the other hand...

Budja's p83 has a slight feel for buddying up to Mac.

My vote on JL will remain till he shows back up and has caught up. I am not willing to remove it just because he's at L-1. Would give the idea that someone could just stop posting to get out from under the spotlight. I will however ask that nobody hammer him till he's had a chance to do what he said he will do.

[imaginality]

Budja's 83 misses BloodCovenant's point as I see it, which is not that all the votes on Josh are opportunistic, just that (BC thinks) Budja's one in particular is. It's not hypocritical for BC to think that Josh is scum and Budja might be bussing him, and to vote Josh.

[Talilan]

Fifth vote count

Josh Lyman (6): MacavityLock, imaginality, Budja, Fuzzyman, Chinaman, BloodCovenent
Budja (2): Josh Lyman, Snow Bunny
Snow_Bunny (1): jasonT1981

Not voting (3): ConfidAnon, Netopalis, Locke Lamora

7 to lynch

[Locke Lamora]

Would still very much like it if Josh could answer my question.

BC: if you would like either of them lynched, why Josh instead of Budja? Do you think Josh is just more scummy?

[Snow_Bunny]

Budja's 70 is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. 1)

Budja's vote on Fuzzy was clearly not random,

as he quite specifically explained why he voted. So, why was this vote opportunistic?

This post has something for you:

@Snow,

my vote on fuzzy was only a bit better than a random vote.

Josh's wagon is superior so I changed. I changed because I agreed with Macavity's case.

It was NOT clearly random. Either that, or Budja is lying at his convenience. Opportunistic in either case.

2) You said that you consider Fuzzy voting No Lynch a scumtell. Why didn't you examine the context of said vote? As Budja said, and I agree with, it was very clearly an attempt to leave the RVs.

You can believe that, but I'm not 100% sure. I say no-lynch votes are bad almost always, you say that there's no problem with that one.

Snow_Bunny, on another note, we've now had a player do the same wagon-jumping as Budja, only far more egregious. Chinaman

random

-voted Fuzzy on page 1 (4th vote), and has now jumped to the Lyman-wagon (5th vote). SB, is this opportunistic? Is it scummy? Is it scummier than Budja? Why haven't you commented on it?

(By the way, welcome BC.)

I didn't notice that (possibly because I'm getting a better vibe from his posts than from Budja's). But now that you mention it, it is quite opportunistic. However, I still find Budja the scummiest. His contradiction on his stance regarding Fuzzy's vote ("a bit better than random" and "was weak, but not random"), the questions he asks to different players (I find this a common tactic among scum), opportunistic, and general scum vibe are the major points against him.

[Chinaman]

SB: I think your missing one important thing here. You DID ask us for more votes on Fuzzy. Did you expect that not to happen? I mean, you're a girl and I'm a nerd (a married one luckily, but still). I do what girls tell me to do and it's possible others do too?

*Girls dig that right?*

All kidding aside, part of your prosecution of Budja is for doing as you told him. You do have other points on him though, so I'm not going to say your being hypocritical at this point, but I think what we need to do at this point is A: wait for JL to respond to his wagon and B: really weigh who is the scummier. I personally am not getting a huge scum reading on Budja, but I've been known to be wrong before.

[Budja]

His contradiction on his stance regarding Fuzzy's vote ("a bit better than random" and "was weak, but not random")

"a bit better than random" = "was weak, but not random".
Further clarification: better than random means not random but not strong either.
My "opportunism" is misjudged, and since when is asking questions scummy?

(I know I said I wouldn't but I can't help myself).

B: really weigh who is the scummier.

Lets not narrow down our options here.

Budja's 83 misses BloodCovenant's point as I see it, which is not that all the votes on Josh are opportunistic, just that (BC thinks) Budja's one in particular is. It's not hypocritical for BC to think that Josh is scum and Budja might be bussing him, and to vote Josh.

Eh, true I guess.

[BloodCovenent]

Would still very much like it if Josh could answer my question.

BC: if you would like either of them lynched, why Josh instead of Budja? Do you think Josh is just more scummy?

Well, specifically I felt that this post was more of an overreaction. Mostly from noob-scum. I don't see noob town speaking so confident about something that would be at the worst a null-tell, but in my opinion it's more of a town tell.

But I also find Budja scummy because of how fast he jumped on the wagon with little questioning. And in this post he says that Fuzzy's post came off as forced, well not the post but the whole gambit. Which it really wasn't, Fuzzy would have to explain his actions at one point in time, it just felt a little early from my point of view.

[Budja]

@BC, what about Snow Bunny then? She was pretty sure the no-lynch vote was scummy.

@BC, the gambit was weakly played. I thought it plausible for it to be scum trying to look protown by leaving the RVS, without taking much risk. (Yes, a weak case)

[BloodCovenent]

Snow Bunny did not vote after the No Lynch vote.

I will not deny the gambit was weakly played. But how doe you automatically associate that as being scum? And taking little risk. If anything these types of gambits put a lot of pressure on the author until people understand the nature of the action.

[Josh Lyman]

I find Josh's appeal for mass-prods particularly odd. Josh, did you receive your role at the same time as the thread was opened? I certainly didn't get my role PM 9 days ago, so unless you were given yours a lot earlier, how do you justify trying to draw attention to players for not posting when the game hadn't even begun?

I got my role PM several hours prior to this post. I hesitate to be more precise in order to avoid a modkill for quoting mod communications.

But about two reality days had passed prior to my requesting prods. Other than this one question for me in two posts (compared to my fifteen), do you have any other scumhunting to do? Perhaps not. Perhaps you're actively lurking.[/url]

[Josh Lyman]

@Mod: Can you prod Fuzzyman, please?

yes

- ortolan

[Budja]

@BC, I saw it as possibly scum attempting to perform a townie action, removing the risk early is a bit over-cautious.

[BloodCovenent]

@BC, I saw it as possibly scum attempting to perform a townie action, removing the risk early is a bit over-cautious.

In that case, are all self votes and no lynch votes in the RVS, specifically given from scum? And are they really anti-town even though they yield information and start discussion? I can't see scum-fuzzy doing it because it would attract too much attention at him, like it did on page 1. Most town players do not have much to lose, that's why in actions taken like fuzzy's, it only makes sense for town-fuzzy to have done it.

[BloodCovenent]

This game needs more activity..... it's four pages in and it feels like it's been forever!

[imaginality]

Most town players do not have much to lose, that's why in actions taken like fuzzy's, it only makes sense for town-fuzzy to have done it.

I wouldn't say it

only

makes sense for town to do it - scum don't have to fear page 1 attention too much either. Especially given your point (which I agree with) that it's not particularly anti-town anyhow.

I see that kind of early-game gambit as being something akin to the quizzes that other players use to get out of the 'random vote stage'. Instead of "Question 1: What do you think of no-lynch votes?" it's "Here's a no-lynch vote for ya. What do ya think about this?"