Mini 1095 - Fast Food Mafia - Game Over

[EtherealCookie]

/confirm

[EtherealCookie]

Vote: SnakePlissken

for being the first person to vote. Obvious scum tell.

[EtherealCookie]

We have chronopie and cooldog.
There was a rather interesting game that finished recently involving you two.

[EtherealCookie]

It's not like this is any better. Very little posts. I don't mind fast games, though maybe not that fast.

[EtherealCookie]

Why'd you claim?

[EtherealCookie]

Well, I'd have liked to have him answer that question rather than you. I don't like the way you jumped to explain it rather than let him do so.

[EtherealCookie]

Are there previous Fast Food Mafia games?
The vibe I'm getting seems like there are.
If so, where would I be able to find said games?

And yes, the more I dwell on it, the more StrangerCoug's response really strikes me as odd. What reason would you have to defend Statusquo instead of letting him respond? If you were town, the proper thing to do would be sit back and gauge his response. Instead, you jumped at the question and answered it yourself, which is a great way for scum to give his scumbuddy something to say in case he doesn't know what to do.

Strangercougs post read funny to me as well, but not for coaching. His post doesn't take any clear positions against anything, yet warns us of...What exactly? Avoiding shenanigans? What shenanigans are we going to avoid exactly? At the same time he says we should leave me alone right now he poisons my well like woah.

I'm liking a Vote:

StrangerCoug

Odd.
Of course it wouldn't strike YOU as coaching, because then that'd be admitting you're scum. You've noticed this little problem, and now that we're establishing a link between you and Coug, you've decided to distance yourself by bussing your partner. You'd want to do that, because he's being pretty obviously scummy right now, and he's dragging you in with him. If Coug flips scum, Status Quo is very likely his scum buddy.

That being said...

Unvote
Vote: StrangerCoug

He's the more scummier of the two at the moment.

[EtherealCookie]

You failed to make clear what coaching you were referring to. You simply said the post strikes you funny, but not for coaching. There are two incidents which can be perceived as coaching. You seemed to be getting very defensive, though. You don't like being associated with your scumbuddy that you're trying to bus?

[EtherealCookie]

The issue isn't solely the defense. It's the fact you've basically left out any other points I've made. You can't possibly think there's no evidence to suggest a connection between you and Strangercoug. He clearly coached you on how to respond. There's no other reason for him to steal the question from you. Can you see any reason a townie would respond to a question directed to a different person? I can't. So it's either a bad move, and StrangerCoug seems like an experienced player, or it's scum trying to coach his scumbuddy. I don't see how you've interperted this as "misguided musings" and "an inability to read." I think you're simply worried that there's an actual link between you and Coug, and so you've tried to bus him, and now you're attempting to ridicule my argument as to make it appear as if it holds no weight. Furthermore, you state that you were responding to peanuts post. You realize that is a completely subjective thing? You never actually specify who you've directed your comment to. He mentions coaching, but I imply the same thing by responding I did not like how he jumped to answer your question. You are unclear with your response and you assume that the reader somehow understands your complete train of thought. As for your defensiveness, it certainly is a scumtell when you simply respond with "can you read" instead of an actual response that addresses the points made against you.

[EtherealCookie]

There are three clear responses here. The first is that he was not the only player who answered the question. You're focusing on him, but not the other person.

Yes, because he was the first to respond to it. It doesn't matter if another person does, the question is already answered now, and the response the original person was supposed is no longer that important.

The second is that your either or is myopic. It doesn't take into account all possibilities. It just assumes you're right, and then finds ways for it to look as if its right. The miller was the major event that had happened thus far in the day. Is it not natural for people, checking the thread, to respond to it? It seems to me that people coming into a thread that is on day 1 with 1 page of discussion will venture their opinion on what had happened. In fact, the two people who came into the thread did that.

Sure, it's natural for people to respond to the claim. But answer a question that wasn't designated for them? That clearly strikes me as odd. Why not just wait for the person to explain why they did that? And yes, two people did respond to the matter at hand, but as I mentioned, it doesn't really matter anymore after the first person has already answered the question meant for you.

Lastly, I do not need coaching. I've been playing mafia for 5 years now, 4 on this site. It doesn't make sense for strangercoug to coach me how to respond if I'm his scum buddy because clearly I ALREADY TOOK THE ACTION, and I obviously did it for a reason. The only reason for scumstrangercoug to coach me there is if he thinks theres a chance I don't know the correct answer to the question, which is ridiculous since I'm a 5 year veteran and already took the action, which would imply I know what I'm doing. Therefore the most logical possibility is that he came into thread, saw that a miller claim had happened, and ventured his opinions on it. Which is a non tell. I would expect both scum and town to do it.

I've seen people who've driven for years. They still suck at it. What's your point? I understand that you're experienced, but experienced players still make mistakes. Strangercoug might want to coach you because he might simply be

worried

and done it at the heat of the moment. That isn't really an odd concept to grasp. Furthermore, you just said the post was a non-tell. If that's the case, why are you voting for him?

Bussing is a bit of a stretch since it was my first vote on day 1. Maybe distancing, but really you're going to say I had a realistic goal of getting him lynched on page 3? That's stretching to the extreme. However, think of this way (and I did respond to you with more than ridicule. In fact, the quote you're refencing comes in the midst of a two paragraph post, but I'll get to that later.) Town sees someone drawing a false connection between him and someone he sees at scum, how does he respond? How does this differ from how scum would respond? In order for it to be a scumtell it has to have a clear cut difference in motivation, but it seems to me that both scum and town would have significant motivation to not be tied to a player they think is scum.

So you admit you are distancing yourself from him. By admitting you are distancing yourself from him, you agree that there is a connection between you two, in that he tried to coach you. So, regardless of whether distancing is scummy or a town move, there is still a tie between you two, correct?

This is the part where you lose all focus. First off, you're not talking about defensiveness, you're talking about personal attacks here. That would be valid, if I had ONLY said "YOU'RE AN IDIOT." but I didn't I made arguments about the issue. The fact that you made that long post and I am responding to it proves that, as well as reading back in the thread. I'm an abbrasive player, its what I do. But I clearly was responding to all the arguments as I saw them.

Retaliating with a personal attack is a great way to defend yourself by weakening their argument. The best defense is a good offense, after all.

For you to believe so strongly that Statusquo and StrangerCoug are buddies who have made a connection (SC defending SQ) on the first innocuous question of the game (yours no less) is rather worrisome. I see two possible plays on your part : either scum trying to quickly build up steam on someone's wagon (the first opportunity), or an over-zealous townie blinded to different reasonings for one person's actions.
EC, do you really believe that your version of the events that you've recently explained is the only possible conclusion to come to?

It's day 1. I'm not sure of anything. However, I certainly don't have any better leads. If something is scummy in front of me, I'm going to pursue it. I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that it's a scum move. You voted for me. Does this mean you strongly believe that I am scum? I'd imagine not, you don't have enough credible evidence. But from your perspective, it seems to be the best lead you have so far, and so you'd pursue it. And after all, you've already established that I'm either scum or over-zealous townie, so you seem nearly as sure as I do about other people's roles. Of course, you don't mean it to be read this way; you're just pursuing the leads you have. Likewise, I'm doing the same. I'm always open to new evidence and willing to look over different people, but at the moment, I am getting negative vibes from both thestatusquo and StrangerCoug.

[EtherealCookie]

I'll post more when I'm not at school, but I'd like to point out that StrangerCoug has provided absolutely no rationale for his vote against me. It seems to be more hopping on an opportunity more than anything. When I'm back, I'll respond to your points. However, I've already addressed nearly everything you've mentioned.

[EtherealCookie]

Hopping on what opportunity, pray tell? He's the only one voting you.

Um... Please learn to read.

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Unvote
VOTE: EtherealCookie
For you to believe so strongly that Statusquo and StrangerCoug are buddies who have made a connection (SC defending SQ) on the first innocuous question of the game (yours no less) is rather worrisome. I see two possible plays on your part : either scum trying to quickly build up steam on someone's wagon (the first opportunity), or an over-zealous townie blinded to different reasonings for one person's actions.
EC, do you really believe that your version of the events that you've recently explained is the only possible conclusion to come to?

Unvote

VOTE: EtherealCookie
For you to believe so strongly that Statusquo and StrangerCoug are buddies who have made a connection (SC defending SQ) on the first innocuous question of the game (yours no less) is rather worrisome. I see two possible plays on your part : either scum trying to quickly build up steam on someone's wagon (the first opportunity), or an over-zealous townie blinded to different reasonings for one person's actions.
EC, do you really believe that your version of the events that you've recently explained is the only possible conclusion to come to?

[quote="StrangerCoug]Feel free to comment the moment you're available to do so, but "I addressed it already" does not make the problem go away.

I'll post more when I'm not at school, but I'd like to point out that StrangerCoug has provided absolutely no rationale for his vote against me. It seems to be more hopping on an opportunity more than anything. When I'm back, I'll respond to your points. However, I've already addressed nearly everything you've mentioned.

Feel free to comment the moment you're available to do so, but "I addressed it already" does not make the problem go away.
[/quote]
I'm aware. Give me a while though, I've just got back and need to do some work. I'll hopefully make a post in the next five hours.

[EtherealCookie]

No I did not. In fact, note the wording—Thestatusquo knows what he is and the interpretation that I was talking specifically to him is absurd. I can see how my saying don't auto-assume Thestatusquo is scum MIGHT link me to him, but it's a bit of a stretch.

The latter seems to me very unlikely. Coaching has to be more subtle than that unless you want to just throw out you're scum in the open. Perhaps me using "clearly" wasn't the best choice of words, but it still seems to stick out to me.

So either Thestatusquo is a village idiot or we're both scum, neither of which make much sense.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not taking 100% stands on anything. I'm just following the leads that I find because I have nothing else to go off of.

Did anybody other than me so much as play with the possibility of Thestatusquo-scum before the wagon on me started?

I don't understand this question, to be honest.

You made your coaching comment after Thestatusquo voted me. For him to be responsing to you makes no sense.

I implied with my response that I didn't like how you jumped to answer the question for him that you were coaching or trying to defend him somehow.

I'd like to know who wrote your book of tells, because that person is a crappy author. If you're clearly ignoring important points, then I don't see why the implication of the question is invalid.

Dodging the question isn't scummy? Town should be able to answer it easily.

UNVOTE: jasonT1981
VOTE: EtherealCookie

Reasoning behind this? None has been provided. That just makes you seem more scummy to me.

EtheralCookie and StatusQuo seem to be going for blood over possibly mis-read posts and opinons. I have a town read on both for now, unless they're both scum and playing outside the box hoping the other doesn't slip up. I''m personally going to ignore the miller claim as it could be used by the scum as an attempt to cover up or could be a genuine claim.

Anything more to add?
How do you feel about the votes on StrangerCoug? Do you believe anyone voting for him could be scum? Do you think the case holds any weight?
How do you feel about the two votes on myself? Do you believe anyone voting for me could be scum? Do you think the case holds any weight?


As for the activity, it's rather horrid and slow. Regardless of when the game started, there's a lot of content to respond to. The lurking isn't helping town any.

[EtherealCookie]

@TSQ, what is your fast food joint, quit stalling.

CoolDog, why do you want TSQ to claim?

If I told you I would be in deep shit. But, aparently TSQ knows what I'm getting at.

Clarify on this. Are we not supposed to discuss this? Because I don't really understand the relevance of food chain establishments. I mean, I can see some connections, like obviously a McDonalds would be a power role, but beyond that... What reason would you have to withhold this information?

I can't really ask anymore questions on this topic as I don't understand the importance of food chain establishments.


AntB.... I'm getting odd vibes from you. Let's discuss why.
Now, StrangerCoug votes for me in his ISO #3. However, there is something missing; there is no actual reason he is voting for me. He's simply responded to all my points about him being scum and linked with TSQ. So, I state,

I'll post more when I'm not at school, but I'd like to point out that StrangerCoug has provided absolutely no rationale for his vote against me.

In his next post he does not respond, simply saying that I need to address his rebuttals.

Now, in response to the case on me, you respond that,

StrangerCougs vote to me seems well justified in the context given, and StrangerCoug, yes, but I need a bit more convincing.

Justified in the context given? He has provided no reasoning for voting for me, as far as I can see. He has not clearly stated why he's voting for me at all. And you're claiming that you're already pretty convinced, "but need a bit more convincing?" You're basically building up a reason for you to hop onto my bandwagon if the opportunity is right. So, there's two issues here: You haven't even pointed out the reason StrangerCoug is voting for me, and he hasn't either, yet you think he's justified. That's scummy. And then you're not convinced. That's even more scummy. Make up your mind. If you think StrangerCoug has some actual weight in what he's saying, then your vote should've been on me. However, it's impossible for you to think that he has an actual case when he hasn't even stated what his reasons for placing his vote on me. Look at his ISO post #3. He does not mention ONCE that he thinks I'm scummy or anything of the sort. He just votes.
But wait, hold up. Earlier on, you said:

EtheralCookie and StatusQuo seem to be going for blood over possibly mis-read posts and opinons. I have a town read on both for now, unless they're both scum and playing outside the box hoping the other doesn't slip up.

What's going on? The case on me holds weight, yet you think I'm town? How the hell does that make sense? Why are you sitting on the fence?

[EtherealCookie]

Let's try rewording then: Was I the only person to suggest Thestatusquo could be scum before I started getting votes?

I don't like the way you jumped to explain it rather than let him do so.

This here post implies a connection between you two. So, no, you weren't.

Who dodged what question?

Let me reword that. It wasn't a question. It was moreso looking over a point I made at that moment. I wanted him to give me a response to the points I had made rather than fling personal insults. Ignoring the points someone makes is suspicious. It seems like you have no response. Obviously, he did later on, so the argument no longer has weight.

I'm having trouble deciding whether the term I'm looking for is mod-WIFOM or role-fishing, but neither makes the purple look good.

This is ridiculous. You are reading into what is simply an example inferred from common sense that the biggest fast food chain would definitely hold some sort of weight.

Read the post again. Yes, it's me defending, but I counterattack you as well.

Feel free to comment the moment you're available to do so, but "I addressed it already" does not make the problem go away.

Really? I bother to respond to things that I have mentioned earlier on and yet you don't have the patience to go and point out where you

clearly point out I am acting scummy and lay out your case against me?

For your information, I have read your ISO 3, and I still don't see that. What's a counterattack? Your book of tells is bad isn't justification for voting for me, if that's your reasoning. [/quote]

The case made against you does hold weight some weight however its not enough for me to take any action. From your discussion with TSQ I believe you both to be town from that, StrangerCoug IMO has acted on his suspicions against you and as such has voted for you. I believe he has made some valid points to justify that vote and that's why I believe his case holds weight. Despite that I am not fully convinced to jump on the band wagon and vote against you as the debate between yourself and TSQ leaves me thinking your both town or scum playing outside the box. I'm sat on the fence because it gives me a good view of what's going on. I don't like to make my move without having a good reason.

What are these valid points? I see his giving rebuttals to my points made against him, but that hasn't ever struck me as justification for voting. Unless you can actually tell me what these are, it seems like you're just trying to, for whatever reason, justify Coug's vote on me and possibly your vote on me in the future. At the same time, you attack Peanut who I think actually had a very legitimate reason for voting me. I can see where he was coming from.

[EtherealCookie]

Sigh... I might as well summarize so I can stop feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Most of what I don't like about you stems from your case against Thestatusquo. You claim that he's worried about connecting himself to me after I supposedly coached him, so he's backing off from me. That's hard to see. In fact, I'm basically shooting your case that he's being defensive to hell.

That's all nice. Too bad your ISO 3 doesn't mention that at all. All you do is respond to the points I've made. You're not clear at all. We're not mind readers. I'd have to make a lot of assumptions and inferences to determine that's your reasoning for voting. Furthermore, does it seem like I even strongly support the case? I have dropped it, so I see no reason for this to be under discussion at the moment. I felt he was slightly scummy back then. Right now, I'm getting more a neutral vibe, though cooldog is bringing some good points to the table. I shall wait for TSQ's response before passing judgment. If it's ever revealed that you are scum, then I will feel suspicious about him once more. And my case wasn't that he's being defensive at all. It was that he was that A) I felt there was a link between you and him. B) He wasn't paying any heed to my points. Anyways, this topic has become way too outdated and I see no need to further discuss it.

[EtherealCookie]

Of course not. I don't think a bad case is scummy. I think, however, another playing claiming a bad case is a good case and saying that if they were convinced enough they'd jump on the vote is scummy. See: AntB.

[EtherealCookie]

And when it's done simply for a defensive reason, of course, which is what I interperted StrangerCoug's vote to be. An attempt to turn the table. At the moment though, I really am more suspicious of AntB more than anyone else. I'll wait to see what else he has to say, along with what TSQ has to say, before changing my vote.

[EtherealCookie]

And the VI has arrived.
Vote because something doesn't sit right with him, and he admits to skimming over the posts. There's only been a hundred and twenty, and he's skimming already.
I shall contribute more in a bit.

[EtherealCookie]

All right. I'm not in support of TSQ revealing his establishment. As TSQ brought up, we don't know what scum can do with that sort of information, and we don't even know if CoolDog is pro-town power role or pro-scum. Even if CoolDog is town, everyone else can read this chat, and if the scum somehow have some special benefit from knowing what TSQ's establishment is, then we've potentially helped out scum, assuming TSQ himself isn't scum. Does it seem like a good trade off? Absolutely not. The odds are that scum'll benefit more than town'll benefit. So, CoolDog comes off scummy for pushing TSQ to reveal his establishment. Also, doesn't CoolDog realize he'll be killed for claiming a power role, which he has basically done by saying his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is? Of course he does. I don't see why he wouldn't. He shouldn't have even hinted at his power role if he was town. He claims he understands he is going to die, but would rather reveal one scum player and die than not do so at all. What possible suspicions does he even have of TSQ to think he's scummy to undertake such a risk? After all, he said he can't see scum claiming Miller so early on. Then he hints at a doctor saving him. Guess what? Now he's built up a backup for when he survives. "The doc saved me." So, the only explanation that he is scum; he has nothing to worry about. I think it's pretty clear right about now.

Unvote

Vote: CoolDog

My suspicions of AntB still exist, but they are nowhere as strong as they are about CoolDog.

[EtherealCookie]

^

Unvote, Vote: CoolDog

Comma, in case I needed one.

[EtherealCookie]

Could someone please explain to me why we're voting cooldog? I'm getting an annoying bad town read from him. All the votes on him have been with little or no substance. This wagon screams misslynch.

Little or no substance?
Really?
Am I to take it that his behavior is normal for a townie, then? To take odds that are better for scum than for town, to claim a PR knowing you'd be attacked at night? To go after a person who you said wasn't scum because scum wouldn't claim Miller? That's contradictory. The only person who wouldn't have to worry about being killed for claiming a town PR would be the scum themselves. Unless he's a complete idiot, why would he do something like that? And he's just building up a doctor excuse to fall back on so that his survival makes sense.

[EtherealCookie]

Like I mentioned if you had read my post...

and if the scum somehow have some special benefit from knowing what TSQ's establishment is, then we've potentially helped out scum, assuming TSQ himself isn't scum. Does it seem like a good trade off? Absolutely not. The odds are that scum'll benefit more than town'll benefit. So, CoolDog comes off scummy for pushing TSQ to reveal his establishment.

and, of course, CoolDog mentioned that he has a PR that somehow plays to his favor if he knows someone's establishment. I believe that. I just don't believe he's town because a town player would never reveal that as it wouldn't benefit the town dying on N1.

[EtherealCookie]

but simply my role is tied very closely to my joint. And I mean very closely, the joints aren't assigned at random, they actually corrispond to a role. For my role the joint I have fits perfectly with the actual role itself. In TSQ case his joint (if I'm correct, which I am sure that I am. <slight ego) should seem scummy, but in reality not. I'm willing to bet that his joint is just scummy, which would correspond to scum

Said you were just a power role? Doesn't seem like it. You know some sort of link between joints and roles. And why would we lynch you? Because you're bloody suspicious. Why would you ever claim your PR at D1 for no reason? The only reason is because you're not afraid of scum killing you. Why would you not be afraid of scum killing you? Because you're scum. And now you're trying to say that this set up most likely has a doctor. Funny thing: You don't know for sure. Yet you're so willing to take this risk? And for what? Because you're suspicious of a person, whom you had this to say about?

I honestly don't think a town player would claim miller unless they have a death wish. Yes thats wifom but I just find scum claiming miller so early un-likly.

[EtherealCookie]

All right. Fine. I see the VI thing, though I just don't get it. It's not difficult to understand revealing your role for absolutely no reason = bad for town.
And, CoolDog, I don't even understand your first three questions. Reword them. All I know is that you initially said scum would never claim miller, but now you want TSQ to claim establishment. That's so contradictory. It's like you're just trying to show off that you're a power role, and any normal townie wouldn't want to do that. Scum would, because it might help keep people from lynching him as town wouldn't want to risk the possibility of losing a PR.

[EtherealCookie]

A power role is any role with an ability.

Ability.
Miller does not have an ability.
You have the ability to use the knowledge of a player's establishment to do something related with roles, with what you've implied so far.
[quote="Dictionary]ability - power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc. [/quote]

[EtherealCookie]

Ugh..
Always forget that last quotation mark.

[EtherealCookie]

And to clarify, scum has no motivation to kill Miller more than another townie, so it doesn't matter if he reveals it. He doesn't have some special ability that'll hinder them. It just shows he's a regular townie. You, on the other hand, have an ability. If you're pro-town, then you've just put a role that could've helped us in a lot of risk.

[EtherealCookie]

I don't know if I should still be comfortable where my vote is. On one hand, CoolDoG is doing a horrid job of defending and justifying his actions. On the other hand, he might just be village idiot and a lot of people seem very comfortable with switching their votes to him. (StrangerCoug, for example.) It makes me a bit uneasy; If he's town, we're giving scum an easy opportunity here. It is important to closely watch those who have poor reasons for voting CoolDog.


And, ConfidAnon, lurker, scum, or both?

[EtherealCookie]

Uhh. You're not flying by with just "Hey you're scummy" and a few posts extracted with questions about them that've probably been answered or you've just pulled out of your ass because you can't be bothered to read.

that ethereal is a little scummy, number 3 in my list after AntB (1) and peanut (2).

Cases on everyone you think is scummy. Paragraphs. Logic. Please? Thanks.

Stop agreeing with people. Actually come up with your own theories. All I'm seeing from you is, "Yeah dude, good job, I totally agree, yeah, he's totally scummy, nice question." Seems like you're scum trying to slide past as "pro-town" because you just regurgitate what everyone else has already said, and you don't seem to be doing a good job at reading either.

2) that CoolDog is not scum (definite townread)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA! Town my ass. Third party, scum, very slim chance of VI.

Also, doesn't CoolDog realize he'll be killed for claiming a power role, which he has basically done by saying his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is?

How does this not make sense?
CoolDog has claimed a power role. Here's a quote for you, in case you missed it while you were speed reading:

EC, if you want to know why I'm saying this you had better be ready for another claim.

Put simply my role is tied very closely to my joint. And I mean very closely, the joints aren't assigned at random, they actually corrispond to a role. For my role the joint I have fits perfectly with the actual role itself. In TSQ case his joint (if I'm correct, which I am sure that I am. <slight ego) should seem scummy, but in reality not. I'm willing to bet that his joint is just scummy, which would correspond to scum. As we all know a tell on food-chain alone isn't enough to base a case on, but it seems like his deliberate and un-explained reasons for not telling us such a basic aspect of his role screams scum.

Bolded for your convenience. The implication, I am getting here, from this bold part, is that he is a power role. Furthermore, it seemss that he can use TSQ's role to determine whether or not he is bluffing. Otherwise, there is NO reason he should want TSQ's role. Simply because his establishment and his role are tied doesn't necessarily mean TSQ's establishment and role are tied. If he is really relying on ONE PERSONAL EXAMPLE as a golden rule for all role-establishment relations, he is stupid. For him to be certain about this, his ability must be related to some establishment-role relation discerning ability. Or at least, if he was TOWN, it would be this case. But if he was, why would he even claim? That'd be a horrible idea for town and if he died that wouldn't benefit us at all. And given he's claimed power role, if he was Town, he should die tomorrow. Of course, now he's built up a doctor excuse to lean back on. Bullshit. Don't buy it. Scum/3rd party.

[EtherealCookie]

@ethereal(1): how about you explain why you stated that CoolDog said "his role is connected to knowing what establishment the other person is"?

I JUST explained this.

[quote="EtherealCookie]For him to be certain about this, his ability must be related to some establishment-role relation discerning ability. Or at least, if he was TOWN, it would be this case.[/quote]
His statement leaked that A) He's stupid and thinks because the role and establishment matched for him, TSQ's must... or B) See quoted.

[EtherealCookie]

I see where you're coming from lewarcher, but that seems sketchy. CoolDog shouldn't base off role-flavor connection simply because his relate. If we knew more roles & flavors, and we noticed a repeating pattern, then it'd be okay, but one person's role-flavor connection is not a good basis for a rule.

[EtherealCookie]

If I'm scum, why aren't you voting for me, CoolDog?
I'm not reading into things; I just assumed you'd be smart enough not to make such an idiotic inference. One example as a general rule for the entire game?

I still have a slight suspicion you might be third party, but at the moment I'd rather vote someone that I'm much more sure about.

AntB sticks out as a sore thumb.

im also getting a VI vibe from CooLDoG so I'm going to say NOT lynch him, let the scum get him and potentially save other power roles. Unless the Doc covers him then D2 will be interesting...

Yet your vote remains on CoolDog. Staying on the bandwagon because it's the easiest lynch, Ant?
You also seem to be mimicking others.

So just to be sure I haven't completely lost my mind, your saying TSQ and EC are the scumteam. Based on TSQ not willing to nameclaim and EC defending him?

Earlier, TSQ posted...

Clearly someone disagreeing with you means they are "defending [me]" and must also know my flavor by virtue of being scum with me? Do you at all think about the implications of the things you say, or is it pretty much like just whatever comes out of your mouth?

It seems like you're regurgitating things that have been said and giving a few one liners. Basically, a facade of trying to appear townie without any actual effort put into it.

Now, I've had an issue with your fencesitting and votehopping from the start. Not to mention you kept making excuses to jump onto any wagon at the moment, with claims that X seems scummy but you still need a bit more until you can vote.

Unvote

Vote: AntB

[EtherealCookie]

You don't see how Ant is scummy? It might be because you don't read this game at all!
If Ant flips scum, Chrono is probably scumbuddy.

[EtherealCookie]

The quick summary of AntB's case is that he is heavily fence-sitting. From the beginning of the game, he has been leaning side to side, saying he's not exactly sure who he's going to vote for yet, but stating that he feels the person is a little scummy and more information could persuade him to vote for the player. He's been making excuses to jump onto any bandwagon that presents itself, but at the same time he says these players are kinda town or that he can't truly understand the wagons on them? It's contradictory.


Question: Why did Battousai not mention ANYTHING about AntB? This is very, very, odd.