959: Malth's Alternate Reality: Game Over

[Jack]

confirm

[Jack]

vote:twomz

[Jack]

My bad I misread

unvote:

[Jack]

FOS: SocioPath

o.O Am I missing a post or something, because I don't get your context.

unvote, vote:Pittbunny

[Jack]

o.O

He accused UK of voting for the mob...before UK actually did it. I'm sorry I missed something?

You sound just like mafia.

[Jack]

To be clear, I wouldn't actually advise a D1 mod lynch.

And yet you didn't unvote.

Voting the mod is a cop out.

[Jack]

Cool. Answer my question if you will? It'll only take a second.

Roleclaim please.

[Jack]

You first.

Unvote; Vote Pittbunny

I seriously think you're suspicious, but feel free to stay in the RVS stage until you feel it's safe to do otherwise.

[Jack]

Vote Cobalt because Cobalt.

Anyone else think that, above all else, Pittbunny is being really diplomatic?

Yes.

[Jack]

Once again, Cobalt is wrong.

This is not very surprising because, well, Navy said it best.

This is scummy and overly anxious.

[Jack]

Jack likes easy targets ^-^.

Why do you say this?

[Jack]

Either self-admittance or the fact that you can't be bothered to post more than five words at a time?

Apologies, you had six that one post.

Why are you annoyed?

[Jack]

And to stave off a "gosh look a 4 word post" reply because I actually want an answer: answer it please.

[Jack]

I say it because that statement was pretty easy fodder when it has negligible benefit for me to say as scum. It's one of those "oh look a scumtells" that doesn't really appear to pan out that often ^-^.

To say that someone is picking on easy targets is to say that they are accusing someone who has done a bunch of scummy things or is a popular suspect. To say that someone "likes" to pick on easy targets is to say they have shown a consistent tendency to do that. That's the rhetorical implication of your post.

So on page 4:

1) cobalt votes you with no reason
2) you insist that cobalt is wrong, and link to someone else who apparently rejects cobalts opinions
3) I asked why you seemed to feel threatened by a vote
4) you tried tried to undercut my question


That's twice in a short time period you've used rhetoric to try and undercut votes and accusations.

I prefer flowery but meaningless prose over one-liners that, while holding the same weight as everything else on Day 1, are blaaaaand. Personal inclinations, more or less.

In previous games I have observed scum keeping up "banter" longer than they should.

[Jack]

Have you played anywhere previously Pittbunny?

[Jack]

Jack, at this point I think you're overreacting way more than UK did.

So UK was being overly defensive when accused, and I was being overly agressive in questioning her about that.

[Jack]

So UK was being overly defensive when accused, and I was being overly agressive in questioning her about that.

Si.

Ok. But it's not clear what your opinion about it is then. The thought is unfinished.

[Jack]

Well, it's something I do, Jack ^-^.

Why should I value the opinion of people who are wrong?

So if you are town, if someone accuses you, their opinion is worthless, and it's ok to us whatever scummy tactics you can think of in response?

Twomz: no lynching the mod please.

Jack: I specifically called you out because yours seemed suspicious to me, since you were reacting like that to something I don't think was even worth mentioning; it wasn't exactly scummy, and it wasn't hurting the town for UK to respond to a vote with no (clearly stated) reasoning, even if UK responded in a way I don't think was the most pro-town in the world.

There's still a gap here though, where you say you found something suspicious, and then say what it was that you found suspicious, and don't say why you found what it was that you found suspicious, suspicious.

I don't think it's relevant that UK wasn't "hurting the town" (no more than it's relevant that it has "negligible benefit for scum" like she brought up). I'm not sure how hurting the town even comes into it, and scum often do things that don't benefit them.

Do you think I'm suspicious because you don't agree with me that UK is suspicious?

[Jack]

unvote, vote:UK

Do an analysis of my vote too.

[Jack]

There's still a gap here though, where you say you found something suspicious, and then say what it was that you found suspicious, and don't say why you found what it was that you found suspicious, suspicious.

It is suspicious because it would be beneficial, as scum, to attack as you did to something that deserves either a small questioning or not much attention at all (at least right now).

Not particularly. And the beneficial to town/scum (or the "doesn't help town/scum) line isn't very useful.

And yeah, it was an attack because you used hot words that didn't really fit the situation, most prominently "you

insist

that cobalt is wrong," to make the post you were referring to look worse than it was. Read UK's post again. Did she really

insist

anything?

She said cobalt was wrong once again, and that it wasn't surprising because [link to your post about cobalt], implying that cobalt is always wrong. That's pretty strong.

I don't think it's relevant that UK wasn't "hurting the town" (no more than it's relevant that it has "negligible benefit for scum" like she brought up). I'm not sure how hurting the town even comes into it, and scum often do things that don't benefit them.

Then what, exactly, is relevant here?

You really like the "hurting/beneficial" line huh? Scum are trying to do "beneficial" things remember. What's relevant is my gut. i.e. you have to decide whether someone doing something beneficial is really trying to help the town, or just trying to look like it, and whether someone hurting the town is doing so for scummy reasons, or for one of the many reasons townies do it.

Do you think I'm suspicious because you don't agree with me that UK is suspicious?

No, I think you're suspicious for the way you went about saying UK was suspicious, not the fact that you think she is suspicious.

Unvote, vote Jack

.

This was your initial reaction to the discussion at hand:

Jack, at this point I think you're overreacting way more than UK did.

It doesn't sound particularly concerned. It's more of a "oh you two and your arguing" post.

It seems like you've been working your way up to this vote, which is what scum often do because they don't really suspect the person.

[Jack]

Have you played in a game hosted by "Mal" before?

[Jack]

unvote, vote:NaveCherub

For obvious reasons.

[Jack]

Eh, I saw that, problem is the numbers don't add up. 4/12

I don't believe it's the math that Cobalt is link-giggling at. In fact, it's a pretty interesting potential f-slip, if it is one. I don't believe I've seen that type before, and wouldn't have were it not pointed out.

Vote: Llama

This is a bad vote.

[Jack]

I was thinking that the "he said "of the town"" point is terrible and weak, but that it was being talked about like it was huge. So when when Pitt votes based on it without caring to think about it and "doesn't even know if it is [a slip]" it is clearly a bandwagon vote. He'd probably been watching it building and looking for a chance to get on board.

[Jack]

unvote, vote:pittbunny

[Jack]

The town win condition is "You win when pro-town forces are the only ones left.".

Die.

[Jack]

We'll lynch pitt today. If he survives, hopefully he'll be vigged. If he doesn't, we'll lynch him again, given that the mafia will never kill him and we have to kill him to win.

Although it is worthwhile NOT hammering for a while, to see if we have a day vig.

[Jack]

He thought you were at L-1 because CJMiller said you were at L-1.

[Jack]

btw, fos:anyone who hammers before we get the chance to see if we have a dayvig. High chance of being mafia who at least think they'll get a free night kill.

[Jack]

I don't know much about dayvig strategy. But what's the use if they never out themselves? They can't use their power then.

Instead of potentially having to lynch pitt twice, we get to lynch twice. That's very nice. And if he's lying about the lynch twice thing, we still get to lynch twice.

[Jack]

Hmm, pit isn't back.

vote:Navy

I haven't seen any reason to think llama is scum.

[Jack]

Kill:CJMiller

[Jack]

I'm feeling a bit like twomz is scum right now.

unvote, vote:twomz

[Jack]

unvote, vote:xvart

[Jack]

I'll get back to you on that.

[Jack]

No post restriction. Does xvart seem scummy to you twomz?

[Jack]

You know, if you elaborate, people might think you're trying to find scum instead of trying to vote hop to get the wagon off your scum buddy or w/e.

This makes no sense. Why would they think I'm trying to get the wagon off my scum buddy if I haven't posted a case? How is that going to work? Do you think CJ is my scumbuddy?

[Jack]

You don't find it suspicious that someone wants to lynch someone for no suspicious reason?

I find it stupid. Think. What good does that do scum? Rather, given the attention it garners, does it do scum ANY good? It's just plain bad play. Find something literally scummy.

He's not interested in actually scummy.

[Jack]

xvart and twomz are scumbuddies.

[Jack]

I'm not psychic.

Their posts.

[Jack]

In what way is he setting up lynches? That's a completely bogus accusation.

"Setting up lynches" is when scum try the "We'll lynch this person, and if they are innocent, then X must be guilty". That's the only legitimate use. There isn't a problem with saying "I think these three are guilty, let's lynch them" there's no setting up there. And lynching a scum to setup the lynch of a townie? Not a real popular scum ploy.

[Jack]

1. Vague accusations are suspicious. This is self explanatory.

False. Vague accusations are pro town. If you never make vague accusations, that means you never share your thoughts about players who are tweaking your gut but that you don't have a "case" on.

2. Merely saying 'you sound fake' is very vague. You don't have to explain this one either. You don't point to a specific post, you don't point to a part of that post and you don't even say WHY it sounds fake.

Of course it's vague. A certain class of scumtells is always vague. In the face to face game you might think someone is lying, and that would be a good scumtell, but I bet you wouldn't be able to say exactly what it is about their expression and tone of voice that makes it seem like they are lying.

[Jack]

Either the other people see it or they don't. Zero problems with pointing out that someone sounds fake. Many times I've taken a closer look at someone after they've been vaguely accused like that and ended up voting them.

Anyway, did you just go from saying that "vague accusations are suspicious" to saying that "vague accusations are cool to just throw out there, but it's helpful to be specific"?

[Jack]

Someone said something about "vague suspicions" earlier, I can't remember who.

[Jack]

I had nothing to say about baked beans and spam.

However. Twomz. Can I get an official stance on gut votes from you? I'm in favor of them personally as I said at length earlier. But you were against. And when people think things like "gut votes with no reasoning" are scummy, it's often because that's what they naturally do as scum (#1 source for ideas about what scum do). And when I call you on hypocrisy you throw some weasely "nice of you to jump 3 minutes after I vote you". That's a reference to a well known scumtell, when someone is lurking and they jump right in when their name is mentioned. But I have been rather active and didn't post during a couple days of caps lock spam.

You tried the same kind of weasely offensive earlier in response to my xvart vote:

"You know, if you elaborate, people might think you're trying to find scum instead of trying to vote hop to get the wagon off your scum buddy or w/e. "

[Jack]

Hmm no I smell backtracking. The claim that it was to "point out how frustrating it is" is fabricated.

Vote hopping is pro town.

[Jack]

unvote, vote:Twomz

[Jack]

Why on earth is llama at l-1?

Whenever someone changes their vote a lot, people say they are vote hopping. Since this is the standard usage, vote hopping is pro town, because changing your vote a lot means you are looking into a number of people and willing to annoy a number of people. Obviously the content itself can be questioned.

What people (often scum) try and do when they say someone is vote hopping actually a very common scum tactic. You take a common scumtell that is referred to only by name (or better yet acronym). Then you find a townie who is doing something that sounds like it could be called that and accuse them of doing it. That way, you can have a reason for your vote on someone even if they aren't doing the actual scummy version of vote hopping (switching your suspicions around to keep on the more popular wagon).

[Jack]

If more people vote hopped, we'd be better off. Or do you like CJ and cobalt sitting on your wagon?

Now, NavyCherub, that was a question worthy hop (onto the llama wagon).

[Jack]

Cobalt may be scum too. Lurking intentionally?

[Jack]

I think I'll go for join in. But llama said his power wouldn't take effect until night, and he's disappeared so we can't ask him what this does.

[Jack]

xvart is lurking in this game compared to others. xvart is scum. Scum are lurking because llama has a bunch of votes.

twomz
xvart
NavyCherub
Cobalt

Most likely, all of the scum are on this list.

[Jack]

Interesting ability...can we lynch xvart or twomz please? Seriously, some of the people on the llama wagon haven't said anything for a week.

[Jack]

Right the only thing it changes is that "other mod pm's" other than role pm's can now be quoted.

Jack - I still have heard what you got out of your fake daykill. How many times do I need to ask? Or is it super secret?

How many times are you going to imply that I'm scum for ignoring it? This comment here is what I call a "defense by discredit" attempt.

I thought I wouldn't have to spell it out in black and white *facepalm*....

Game Rule 4

(not general rule 4) was the one that has been changed.

[Jack]

Oh. "general rule number 4" is crossed out, so I thought it was that one.

Apparently we can now use TWO active abilities a night.

[Jack]

Twomz or xvart guys.

[Jack]

4 days until deadline. Let's lynch Twomz please. HE ISN'T EVEN VOTING, and yet comments on vector calculus etc.

Kairyuu, save this day when you post your reads, ok?

[Jack]

What bothers me is that you don't care at all about finding scum, even with a rapidly approaching deadline.

*unvote, yawn, guess I'll figure out who to vote for later, yawn, may as well revote for now until I figure it out* <--is scum, does not care

[Jack]

Not getting reads on anyone is a huge scumtell. In a game with all town, there will be crazy suspicions all around (played in one of these recently actually). But scum don't mentally commit to thinking someone is scum when they know they aren't, and don't really care that much.

[Jack]

Can someone explain this mental backlash thing to me? The only kill last night was one of Navy's recruits lashing back at him?

[Jack]

Well I used a 1-shot roleblock on xvart last night and there wasn't a mafia kill apparently. I don't see the mafia targetting navy, and "mental backlash" is specified.

Vote:xvart

[Jack]

That may or may not have been a reaction test.

[Jack]

Lol, worked out well for you.

[Jack]

What abilities did you get btw? Why do I want to think it's a night kill immune...

[Jack]

We win when the pro town forces are the only ones left.

[Jack]

His ability must be to say easily disprovable things.

[Jack]

Your claim says nothing about the thing you got voted for...

[Jack]

Two, unlikely to be scum:

Think about it. If xvart were scum, he would be nigh unlynchable, one of the only weapons town has against scum. after a couple mislynches, the only way xvart gets lynched is

if one of his buddies were voting him

.

What buddies?

[Jack]

The guy you're replacing claimed survivor JOAT.

[Jack]

You don't care that I didn't respond to your accusation?

fos:CMAR

[Jack]

Well, I think we just lynch pittbunny today.

[Jack]

Not keen on another quicklynch just yet.

CMAR is next on my list of scum after pitt.

[Jack]

No one thinks pitt is scum.

[Jack]

From the OP:

The town win condition is "You win when pro-town forces are the only ones left.".

[Jack]

CMAR is next-scum.

[Jack]

vote:pittbunny

[Jack]

I told you guys CMAR was scum! (ignore my lazy dead topic rambling :p )

[Jack]

Actually UK, you can thank Llama for that. He motivated BOTH scum and gave CMAR a free day kill

Lol, I'm just waiting for UK's reaction to this bit...

[Jack]

While the rest of the group talks about Fate's death and try to figure out who he might have been, you sneak away from the rest and start sifting through his belongings. During your search, you find two items of extreme importance. The first is an incredibly detailed dossier talking about the one who calls himself UK. To prevent this from being used by the wrong people, you take a quick read through all the important bits and cross out any parts identifying the person in detail. You also find a few notes about recent conversations with UK. You deduce that Fate must have been talking to UK, and make a mental note to chat with him later......

The second seems to be a hypodermic needle. It seems to contain some sort of tranquilizing fluid. You silently slip into your pocket when no one is looking, and go and ponder this new information........

You have new abilities!

Passive Abilities:
Mason: You are a mason with UncertainKitten, Andrew Laeddis (from Shutter Island). However, In his delusional state, he thinks he is back in WWII and is Captain John H. Miller (from Saving Private Ryan). Without access to medication, he is extremely unstable and may go truly insane if you tell him what the truth is, so be extremely cautious.

Mason Communication: You may day-talk here http://www.quicktopic.com/44/H/YwrwQFrBVKt.

Active Abilities:
[One-Shot]Tranquilizer: At night, you may RB one person with the medications you have on you.

[Jack]

Jack, I REALLY wish you had fucking TOLD me my kills didn't work. It would have been REALLY helpful!

Your character would have gone insane if I told you the truth! Instead you went insane because I didn't :p

[Jack]

What was that about llama giving cmar a dayvig? Because if he did he should have claimed that...

Someone gave me a power too, that was him I guess? Confusing.

[Jack]

I think I hinted that her shots

would

work. I was arguing for her to kill navy instead of CJ. But I was a bit confused about it myself, since I read the pm but saw that UK was sure she had it.

[Jack]

If he'd gotten a successful protect it would have been game winning.

[Jack]

Nah. Didn't CMAR act like he'd always had the daykill and llama didn't call him on it? We crushed the mafia over the first 4 days and should have had an almost perfect victory.

[Jack]

Besides Fate/Jack didn't know you would turn into a lyncher.

I figured something would happen.