MagnaofIllusion (4) <-~ Jack, Zachrulez, Zajnet, Charlie
Jack (1) <-~ imkingdavid
Zajnet (1) <-~ Locke Lamora
Not voting (1) <-~ Porochaz
Oops, I didn't realize how long it had been since I posted. Also, yes I am kind, in most cases, but that's not how my username is spelled.Incognito wrote:- imkinddavid has been prodded.
At the moment? Other than Jack, I am a bit suspicious of the speed that the MoI wagon popped up, so those on that wagon are suspect, in my opinion. I'll need to take the time tomorrow to look through each person and see whose behavior has been most suspect though.farside22 wrote:IMKD: Who else do you find scummy and why?
Only if the person hammered is town, you seem to be assuming that there would be scrutiny tomorrow, and that will only happen if the person is town...Charlie wrote:I put faith that this /in-vitational game is jackass-free (we were somehow selectively selected by each other and all...). Anyway, I'm having trouble understanding the logic above... I would think that both the person who hammered and the person who put the lnychee at L-1 would be under scrutiny.
I have limited experience with Zajnet, but what I have seen of him this is how he plays. He needs to get in here and post more for sure, but I think he is a weaker target in all honestly. On a slight tangent, I don't understand why people will /in for an invitational and then lurk. I understand life happens and this is just a game, but it is getting a little frustrating.Locke Lamora Post 174 wrote:Sotty: if it's not clear, I find Zajnet pretty scummy right now. His attempt to excuse just about everything he does on D1 and his lack of tangible opinions on just about everyone except Magna (who he hasn't got much more on) are contributing a lot to that. I'm dubious about Magna but I'm following up on that right now, so I'll come back to you. I think Sando has made some good points about Farside and Charlie lately. I agree with his assessment of the L-1 vote and I really don't like Charlie's revote.
Seriously this guy is scum.Porochaz wrote:I have caught up whilst I have some town reads but no scum reads as of yet, I need to read when its not early morning, however I think anunvotewould be appropriate at the moment.
He's not scum hunting in my view and admits to it. Then says there is still time and we are told there is 4 days left before deadline. I would say he's floating by offering nothing as scum.Zachrulez wrote:After catching up I'm still happy with my Magna vote.
I'd also be happy with a Zajnet or Porochaz lynch today. Porochaz's play has bothered me for reasons I've already pointed out (and has since faded out of the spotlight) and Zajnet seems to be posting just enough to stick around but hasn't really been doing all that much. Magna's reactions to him and the way he attacks him but never actually pressures him is something that's bothering to me...
After reading Charlie's play, he's done some strange things... but I can't really classify him as likely to be scum. His actions just seem too blatant to me, actions that draw a lot of attention, which is something scum generally don't want.
Really quiet? Really? I post generally once a day. Due to a busy day Thursday I was unable to do so. I posted Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. If you are expecting multiple small posts from me you should either expect disappointment or adjust your expectations. I don’t make serial posts as a general rule.farside wrote:MOI seems really quiet now that pressure is off of him I'm tempted to switch back to Magna
You have no-one who you feel is playing scummy enough to warrant a scum read? So was your initial attack on Sotty simply for pressure?Poro wrote:I have caught up whilst I have some town reads but no scum reads as of yet, I need to read when its not early morning, however I think an unvote would be appropriate at the moment.
It was my initial question. I wanted to see her reaction and if she would widen the meta-field. When she didn’t I inquired about what most bothered me – the lack of meta attack on others (in my very next Post).Locke wrote:That was your original objection. I don't see anything there about why she brought up only Zach. The tone of that seems more along the lines of my objection; that is, she's making a point against Zach but excusing (or undercutting, if you prefer) it at the same time that she makes it.
Opprotunistic voting? Yes I feel that is a bad thing. Let’s look at your voting record (outside of RVS so far).Charlie wrote:You make it sound like it is a bad thing.
MoI wrote:Finally why can’t you explain your confidence without lying?
You can’t for certain determine when they are Mafia or not. That’s a straw-man attack. You commented that one of the two is exhibiting behaviour that you expect from a Mafian. You do not indicate which player it is. That’s fence-sitting, which I believe is a bad thing.Charlie wrote:How do I figure out which is mafia..it is like Day 1. Again, you make it sound like it is a bad thing.
But hopping on a popular wagon as opposed to questioning / putting pressure on the player whose behavior you find confusing or scummy is much worse than actually following up on suspicions. And you don’t address either of the following points. Please do so –Charlie wrote:Certainly better than sitting around to the point that I get accused of active lurking! Which I am glad it has not come to that.
MoI wrote:Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play?
Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.
Demonstrating your behavior as Cognitive Dissonance is not over-complication of matters.Charlie wrote:Actually if I were to go on this statement alone I think it justifies my vote on you (Over-complication of simple things = mafia-ish). Would you kindly tell me more about this Cognitive Dissonance and how it fits on me being mafia?
No I missed it. I started composing before you or farside posted. Due to a hectic day at work it took me that long to put everything together. I saw farside's post but missed yours.Porochaz wrote:You didnt read my next post did you?
Explain the difference you see with the meta you know, beside my lack of spamming the thread like I used to which most people at this point know my internet access is no longer available at work.Porochaz wrote:Apologies, I made a mistake and read sotty's post wrong. Ive read through the thread and got some stronger opinions, it might sound like OMGUS and Im wary of voting her but farside is not playing to her meta at all. It's been a while and whilst I know it's not the case I get the feeling that she might be out to get me after PYP, but joking aside her posts leave me uneasy.
why?The point was whoever hammered (although the chances were slim) would be under intense scrutiny the next Day. You're going to have to take my word for it that I was confident that this would not happen. I cannot explain it any other way unless I lie.