Newbie 1081: Showdown in Newbtown (Game Over, Mafia win)

[Bulvious]

1. I've lost one game, won another, and I played another game off-site which never came to a close, I consider this to be my third game.
2. Undecided at the moment.
3. I've played town and cop, so I'll go with cop for now.
4. Not much experience in this category as I've never had trouble convincing people I've found scum.

Vote: Fatso

For being unwilling to participate (much) in RVS and then merely being reactive. Scumtell IMO.

[Bulvious]

Instead of choosing to ask questions of your own, or come up with something interesting to discuss other than your unwillingness to place an RVS.

Another fair example is posting yet again in response to something I say without any of your own input.

"Merely reactive" implies that you're defensive. Being defensive means you're not offensive, and lacking that, you're not scumhunting. Scum don't scumhunt. You're scum.

[Bulvious]

So now you're backing off what you said about RVS after the slightest bit of pressure? Why?

[Bulvious]

Wasn't talking to you, Alnkpa

startransmission wrote:

The potential debate between them interests me greatly.

Before we launch, anything to say about it?

Fatso wrote:

Anyways, my opinion wasn't "I totally hate RVS and I'm never voting in it. EVER." It was "I don't like RVS that much, so I'm not going to vote right off the bat, but if it's really that important to you, I guess I will."

Really, it didn't read as either of those to me. I read it as "I'm not going to put in any valuable input until people address me or are addressed by others."


Lynchking, you voted for Fatso but you didn't say why. We've stated that RVS is over - I know you're new, but when you make a vote you mustmustmust submit or have a reason to make the vote. What is yours? Do you not like fat people? Are you sheeping my vote?

Fatso wrote:

Wonderful... A bandwagon on my butt because I said I didn't like RVS, was pushed to vote, and voted...

Was it that, though? Voting is your primary tool - if it isn't placed, you're not helping the town. Do you understand this now? I understand you were one of the first to post so it's hard to find anything worth commenting on. But then... Why even comment if you don't find anything going on worthwhile? Just to post? That doesn't make sense to me. If you post early, it should be RVS, RQS, intro, or early analysis. That said, I don't disagree at all with your vote on Lynchking even though it does seem sort of OMGUS to me.

BS wrote:

I see RVS is pretty much over with the storm that's following Fatso's comment. I knew he was going to get jumped allll over for that. I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on, but I can understand why he might not like RVS. I've been trying to get my husband to try the game, and he just does NOT understand how RVS can work or how it moves into scum discussion. I know he's not the only one that feels that way, and quite frankly everyone that hates random voting gets immediately pointed at. Scumtell - meh. It's just too common in a newbie game.

To be truthful, my original vote wasn't a whole lot more than RVS. I figured it was better than voting on someone for profile info, however. In retrospect however, I'm quite happy with my vote. He's proven quite reactive, and thus far he's only made one attempt at scumhunting and that's only after someone sheeped my vote without explanation.

Fatso wrote:

And Zdenek, you do realize you put me at L-2 over a disagreement in how the game should be played.

L-2 isn't really that bad unless two scum aren't voting and they hop on the wagon. Considering an early lynch is not helpful in the least to town, we'd have one or two pretty big scumspects to deal with.
And as far as talking bad about RVS, I've said it multiple times here and I'll say it again. My problem wasn't that you didn't like RVS - that's fine, disagreeing on game theory is usually an OK thing. It was everything that followed that has my eyes on you. You didn't even argue the theory, so why was your prior input useful enough to give? In fact, you backed off. Did you come to agree with me? You certainly didn't say that.

[Bulvious]

Actually, swinging a loaded gun is awesomely good input. I swung it, and you jumped when I wanted you to.

As far as others - I'm not addressing them at the moment. If you want to make a case against someone else then you should do it, however. RVS is a good way to scumhunt at the start of the game - everyone who participated in that without being told to has made contributions to the game. The only reason you're making ANY contribution is because others are addressing you.


And as for your first comment - again, I know you're new so one or two votes is just a HUGE deal for you, but it really isn't. D1, your vote is powerful, and you can use it without much punishment supposing you have a decent enough reason for it. D2, maybe excercise a little more caution, D3 or LYLO, you'd better be careful.

[Bulvious]

super-actively-scumhunting-towny

Yes, because that's a horrible thing.

[Bulvious]

Fatso wrote:
The only person I'm overtly suspicious of now is you, Bulvious. I don't really understand why you're making such a big deal out of me not liking RVS, and then not liking the fact that I voted when it was practically requested I do so. I have to say, you do seem more super-actively-scumhunting-towny than anything else (from my experience).

A few things wrong with this. When you say "Overly suspcious" do you mean you're merely suspicious of me? Or are you admitting to doubting my town-ness without significant reason?
Basically, Fat, in the future it'd be a good idea to be able to back up anything you say in this game. If you can't, and or give in just because of pressure - then you appear to be scummy. People who are lying tend to be more defensive about it than someone who is telling the truth. Liars in this game tend to be scum.

Still, I'm alongside Zdenek with this one. I'm thinking we can write Fat off as noobtown - for now.

Unvote

[]bVote: h3ll0[/b]

I just got out of a game with you and I know it isn't your playstyle to lurk. In fact, you provided a significant portion of the early game content - where are you?

[Bulvious]

Vote: H3ll0

Typo oops

[Bulvious]

Playstyles do vary, especially when someone is trying to establish a meta. That's why my vote was mostly backed by a question more so than reasoning.


Oh well, I've yet to f ind a super-actively-scumhunting-scum. Granted, my experience is quite limited.
And as far as the OMGUS goes - it was OMGUSsy. Just because you have a question doesn't mean it needs pressure to be answered faster. You shouldn't vote for someone for the sole purpose of asking a question. They should have done something scummy to make you vote for them. Lurking is scummy - that's why my vote is on h3ll0, What Lynch was doing was called sheeping, which isn't necessarily scummy at least not in my opinion.


The most towny thing about Fatso thus far is his willingness to talk, and his activity which goes beyond most of us, I've yet to check the site and see that he hasn't posted. Something worth noting in my book.



Sarah, obviously it's early in the day and making a choice based on three pages of info is difficult, but - if you had to place a hammering vote right now - where would it be? On a lurker? No lynch?
Everyone else is free to answer this, also.
Personally, I'd peel off a lurker over anyone else posting in this topic at the moment.

[Bulvious]

I was the same way, H3ll0. Now I'm workin as well XP It's still no excuse to sign up for a game and then be infrequent at best about giving responses. When can we to expect you to give input aaccording to your schedule as of now?

I advocated using your vote as a tool. You're not using it as a tool if your putting it on someone without an almost decent reason outside of RVS. I advocate using your vote to pressure - but when there is no real delay in a response, is pressure needed?

And we both know that of course, but that's not what my question is asking for. It's asking if the deadline were tomorrow and you had the vote that was end-all be-all, what would you pick? I'm not asking you to actually go about that course of action because given the alotted time we have, we are in no rush at the moment.

[Bulvious]

Lol @ Fatso ^^^^


I don't like BS. V/la when she already wasn't putting anything out there. Lamelame
She's also the only one to have not voted - fail voter for the day? When I say "I'd hammer a lurker as of now." It would probably be her.

[Bulvious]

sarahfish89 wrote:

Question: Apart from me, who do you think is the most scummiest at the moment? Same with townie. (other people can answer too)

I don't like this question, at all. To me, this is a question scum would ask in order to find out who the night kill needs to be and who to turn people against. That's... Bad.

sarahfish89 wrote:

I see what you mean about the pointless bit, but I didn't really know how to start posting or anything. It was kinda pointless on page 3 though and I do have minor scum reads on BS and lynchking for inactiveness, but not enough to make a full case.

Also horrible. I understand that she's new, but I posted previously in the topic referencing 'scumhunting'. She's not doing it. She's not engaging people, not asking questions (ones that help town anyway). Scum tend to not really have much to do if they aren't busy trying to throw people off via acting like town. High chance of noobscum in this case. Vote pending.


Additionally, Fatso, you say I'm the scummiest - fair enough. But why? You don't include any reasoning and I doubt you could. So I have to question - am I the most scummy to you because you know you're town and so when someone attacks you, the move seems scummy? Or do you ACTUALLY have a reason? Because you've yet to provide any insight, questions, or comments in regards to my play, while you have been commenting on others.
This seems like a pretty strong contradiction between what you say and what you do.

[Bulvious]

You said it a day ago. Lynch nor BS has said anything that should significantly change your point of view, especially considering they haven't said anything at all. What, then, altered your viewpoint? Was it an epiphany? Or are you following the crowd on this one just as you did when pressured to RVS amongst other things?

[Bulvious]

Fatso wrote

:
Ok, first off that was 5 (I think, maybe 4) days ago. Are you in a time warp or something?

Really? 5 days ago?

In response to the question Sarahfish89 made on March 26th, you said “Bulvious”, on the same day. That's March 26th when you made that response.
You corrected me March 27th.
My response came March 28th.
March 27th is one day after March 26th, not five. But good luck trying to convince people it's ME in the time warp.

Fatso wrote

:
I guess this is more of a matter of opinion, I simply didn't see the post in question as being particularly scummy, but rather as being a newbie imitating what seemed to be a normal method of play. Let me look back at the post, I haven't seen it in a while, and maybe I'm remembering in wrong. I don't think so though.

It's really not a matter of opinion. Everyone has their own playstyle. There is no developed norm for a newb to follow, no set playstyle. To mimic is to be something your not. If you're not being what you are – you're A. Playing the game poorly. Or B. Probably scum.
Either way, not a bad spot to lynch if it a decision can't be made.

alnpka wrote

:
Well Fatso, until now I didn't have you on my personal scum list, but now as you being quite sensitive about some accusations made against you I do. Although you were rather talkative the whole game you now seem to exaggerate. So many consecutive posts seem rather scummy to me. Why did you need to have 3 posts in a row to answer some questions?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Fatso

Zdenek, could you please consider reasoning your votes as such seemingly random voting seems rather scummy to me.

I have many, many problems with this post. First off, Fatso is clearly new and clearly doesn't REALLY know what he's doing. He's trying to make cases albeit weak ones that he DOES exaggerate. Outside of a noob game, I could see all of your accusations being all well, other than the 'consecutive posts' argument. That's just awful. There's no edit button, sometimes things are missed. Plus, he said he has nothing better to do. To me, YOUR case is the one that's exaggerated – plus you give no examples, as Fat said.

Starstransmission wrote

:
I run a kitchen. Saturday and Sundays are brunch days, and the way way we do brunch and the amount of volume we do make for an exhausting weekend.

It's getting really tiring seeing the same food over and over again, too. I work a sushi bar inside of a grocery store. I wish I had a busy day, customers are few and far between!

[Bulvious]

No, but you can go back and check the dates. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[Bulvious]

Post #74

[Bulvious]

In post #74 it seemed as though you were answering the question asked at the end of post #73, Fat.

[Bulvious]

Wow, that was... An awful post. I'm sorry, but that was horrific to make sense of and to read.

Vote: Sarahfish

Maybe I'm just a horrible player for basing this vote entirely on the fact that the target can't make analysis what-so-ever. Additionally, the defense is all weak and there's still no scum-hunting.

[Bulvious]

I'd like to see some activity from either mod. Prods seem in order, if not replacements in some cases, not to mention vote counts.

[Bulvious]

I'm not entirely sure anyone has been doing much scum-hunting for some time, though. It's mostly been "Let's lurker lynch" - all fine and good, but that's something for the future.

It appears a lot of people are good for a Banana wagon - but what that COULD mean is yielding no information what-so-ever on the lynch. We kill her, high chance is, she'll flip town, and because everyone was pretty mutual about it, it would hardly mean anything other than that deadspace is gone. I agreed to the policy, but that's in eleven days. For now...

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Alnpka is actively lurking - to me, this is significantly worse than someone who is likely to be replaced.

He has provided no original content. The most he's done is accuse Fatso of backing down and being sensetive - accusations that were parroted from other players in this game. He appears to merely be agreeing with people - a good move for scum. He's not hunting at all either, let us not forget that.

[Bulvious]

After March 28th, we've been discussing policy lynching, BS, and Sarahfish's experience.

What information has that garnered for us?
Are we any closer to finding scum because of it? Seemed like more of a delay to me.

Additionally, my only response for Aln are two questions:
What original content do you believe you have contributed specifically?
Are you implying that Zdenek is the secondary person with your attention in the end of your post?

ST wrote:

I disagree. I think what questioning there has been was directed at a player who could easily fall into a policy lynch of a different nature, or who is actually scum. And the accusation of "Let's lurker lynch" is a bit of an overstatement. Zdenek asked a valid question, and people answered it. While a few players, myself included, agreed that barring conclusive evidence a policy lynch was acceptable, at no point did town settle on a policy lynch. I'd rather you not point fingers at others for not scum hunting and start doing some of your own.

I don't really care what you'd RATHER I do. Perhaps I'd RATHER you not assume I was excluding myself from those three or so days where we accomplished nothing. I was as guilty as others. My accusation was as much of a splash of water in the face of my own daze as I hope it was for you. And I find it awfully difficult to believe you TRULY think I haven't begun scum-hunting.

Why are you asking this question to h3llo? It seems more of an observation than it is a question with the intent of garnering information. The worthlessness of the question is bolstered by the fact that you follow your question with your own opinion. It's a leading question.

Actually, I asked two questions, I never gave my own opinion. Perhaps the second question was a tad on the biased side - but I'm no journalist, either.
You were keeping useful discussing off topic, or at least that's how I saw it - and I wasn't helping it either. I was also in favor of the policy lynch if you didn't recognize that, and I still would be under the correct circumstances. I was asking that we not dwell over that, and instead move on. BS is a dead fish now, and lingering around the pond watching her float and prodding it with a stick isn't going to make the clock stop until the fish decides to move again - which to me means we should move on.
And leading? I'm new to the game as well, asking for opinions of others are not outside my nature. If someone believes me to be wrong I expect to be told so. Is my question no longer valid merely because it appears as though I'm in favor of the conclusion I believe the question DOES draw? Or is it still a valid question and pending answer?


As far as "So suspicious" who said that? You continually place words in my mouth. I'm accusing you and Fatso. I'm 'so suspicious' of Alnpka. I'm leading with my questions. I'm trying to get another policy wagon going.
Accusing you and Fatso? When did I say that? I asked if it COULD be so. I was asking what h3ll0 thought about it, and I find it odd that you try to invalidate my questions merely because they might not have the best answers in regards to you. To be honest, I had no idea it was just you two on the boat of the BS pol. wagon other than me. It could have been anyone, or everyone. I still thought it a reasonable question to ask.
Not true, I merely directed an accusation against him. As you saw, he responded without the weight of a vote, while I'm still waiting for Sarah to either pull her head into the game and get what we're asking her to do - hence why the vote remains where it is.
Another policy wagon? Give me a break, that's OBVIOUSLY not true because my vote nor ANYONE elses vote is on Alnpka. As I said before, just because you levy an accusation or question against someone doesn't mean a vote needs to be put onto the person you're having a discussion with.


Needless to say, I find it VERY interesting how upset you seemed to get when my focal point changed to him from BS. You didn't even argue the credibility of anything I said. You just seemed to question my intent rather than fact.

[Bulvious]

1. I was sort of curious if he had any other thoughts on it other than he "isn't sold."
2. When someone says "Sort of", you can expect that that means it's not proven, and that it's an example.

Personally, in my experience when lurker lynching is talked on, people seem pretty divided about it, almost 50/50. It wasn't a blanket statement, it was an observation from my experience. I'm saying that this isn't the norm for me thus far - and how can you tell me that's wrong?

Other than possible buddying, why are you voting for h3ll0?

[Bulvious]

Yet another post without any scumhunting from Sarah. I look forward you hunting a bit in the very near future.


I know how you feel, Fatso, and it's always good to give a person a once over now and then even if that person has no evidence of being scummy.


Though I would hardly say everyone labels me town.

[Bulvious]

Fatso wrote:

Also, did you make the same mistake as h3llo a while back? Just want to make sure that's cleared up now.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Zdenek wrote:

Partly because of process of elimination.

Run me through that process. No, not a sarcastic remark of "I eliminated everyone else, and voted h3ll0, duh." I mean tell me why everyone else is eliminated but h3ll0 is the one who warrants your vote. You're VERY bad at showing reasons and I don't think that's play we should see from an exp.-town. You're making accusations without backing them up. It doesn't matter if they appear self-evident to you, if you have a case then it should either be obvious, or you should have evidence in your post. If you don't, your case is as weak as me saying "You're scummy, we should lynch you."


Additionally, this "Blanket of suspicion" as you so call it, happens to be on everyone by everyone throughout the ENTIRE game. You're getting caught on the stats, on the 50/50 remark I said. It's still NOT the norm from my limited experience, and you've yet to say anything else about it. And of course, there's the part where I never said "This fraction is irrefutably correct!" Nope, in fact, I recall saying "Sort of 50/50", and I stand by that.


Not going to sheep your vote until you give a decent enough reason to show me your case. Until then, it's staying where it is.

[Bulvious]

Additionally, Zdenek, the first 'misrepresentation' you quoted isn't true at all. What h3ll0 said there seemed quite accurate.
As for the second, that one might be but only in the scope that what he quoted wasn't really fence sitting. Have you been fence-sitting throughout the game? I'd be interested in seeing more evidence from him to show it. But, let's be honest, just like you, he doesn't really have anything there until he backs it up.

[Bulvious]

Perhaps h3ll0 uses 'pro-town' incorrectly but you DID say he was leaning town.

Additionally, you did not state why h3ll0 was scummy, not REALLY anyway.

Yes, I made the same 'mistake' though I'd hardly consider it a mistake. When someone asks a question and you post immediately after with an appropriate answer and lacking specification - expect to be misunderstood. You appear to be having some miscomm problems - which isn't very good in Mafia.

[Bulvious]

Yet ANOTHER post lacking ANY scumhunting. You're AWFUL town - if you are town. You NEVER have time to post anything and you NEVER find anything scummy of note.


Fatso, as far as your observation saying one of the three of us is scum - isn't that untrue as well? Give me a few examples where this has happened. From MY experience you're just making something up in order to appeal to people.

Still, I don't know if it'd be Zdenek or h3ll0 who would be the scum IF you were accurate. But that's not really assuming much. That's more like saying "Which one appears more scummy out of the three." While I can SEE why scum would want to spark arguments - they wouldn't do it in a way that included themselves. I'd probably put my vote on h3ll0 if I were to choose one out of the three of us. He's sort of made himself to appear my friend - something scum would want to do in a three way conversation. This might appeal to my ethos and pit me against Zdenek, 2v1. But as it is, that's just sort of a moot observation in my book.

[Bulvious]

Fatso, if it isn't untrue then it isn't helpful and it isn't founded upon anything. Your experience on forums is practically null, your lacking of examples also doesn't help.

Now, since you're saying it's "Possible" then fine. It IS POSSIBLE one of us is scum, or maybe even two of us. But it's also POSSIBLE that none of us are scum and that the other 6 players in the game might be the scum instead. And that's why the statement means something other than the levy more weight on the argument that you have no stance in. To me, that is scummy - more scummy than three people arguing, that is.

[Bulvious]

You're in a crowd of people and you notice someone falls over dead. You call it out to everyone and point it out. Of course, you don't KNOW they're dead so you try your first aid and what have you, everything is done, yet people linger because you continue to give your attention to it, and because they feel it's worth their attention.

It's less of a "We prevented..." and more of a "We didn't...."

We didn't PREVENT progress. We did not progress. And I still don't think the pressure on BS was rewarding what-so-ever. We accomplished finding out it was moot in recent days - but that's it.

[Bulvious]

Thus far I like Workdawg's play and find it very pro-town, thus.

Unvote

If you flip scum, I think know who I'll be heading for next.

Out of curiosity - whom? Additionally, are you implying that Startrans is going to be lynched today, or that it's your intent?

Zdenek, is this the case you've been hoping for to get your bead on ST? You failed to give a case previously "just cos it wouldn't have a result."


Really though, Startransmission. While it doesn't appear Zdenek's case against h3ll0 was great, Chkflip's and Zdenek's joint case against you is very convincing.

But at this point I'm still willing to believe that ST is merely a busy man lacking in time. Chkflip, to shorten up your post a little bit - three of the biggest reasons ST is scummy?



And also

ST:
When I see or build a case that's worthy of a vote, I'll place a vote. Not before.

And when exactly will THIS occur? Because at the moment you aren't actively building any cases, and you certainly aren't trying to get scum to slip. So what ARE you doing? Reacting for the moment, it appears.

[Bulvious]

Erm, first quote was Chkflip, second was Startransmission.

[Bulvious]

Why did you unvote him?

[Bulvious]

Ah, nevermind, I caught it.

[Bulvious]

For my reasons posted before, and Zdenek's reasons...

Vote: Alnpka

[Bulvious]

WD40 wrote:

(BTW "sheeping" is a term that I've never heard before. I looked on the wiki for it but couldn't find anything there either. Am I correct in assuming that it means to mimick someone else's vote or thoughts? Following them like a sheep? Would it be correct to say Bulvious was sheeping Zd, based on my accusation above?)

You're correct in assuming that's what it means to sheep.
You're incorrect in your accusation that I'm sheeping Zdenek.

Sheeping him would imply that I never gave an original reason to be suspicious of Alnpka. I did, and long before Zdenek even brought it up - the confirmation was all I needed. Sheeping would also imply I was following Zdenek's vote, however, his vote is on h3ll0, my vote isn't, and he didn't even so much as FoS Alnpka.

WD40 wrote:

Information is only helpful to town

There are many types of information that are useful for scum. Misinformation, scumscales, townscales, etc... Anything that can be used to push a town wagon is useful for scum.

[Bulvious]

Startrans wrote:

Bulvious has had a foot in the door of every potential wagon this game has had. Starting with Fatso, whom he voted for in his first post for reasons that I had brought up earlier. The reasons were valid enough, and the ensuing discussion proved interesting enough that I never challenged the vote.

After town mostly agrees that Fasto was likely newbtown Bulvious moves his vote to H3llo. He cites meta and his distrust of lurkers. Considering what I suspect now is a potential partnership between h3llo and Bulvious, I can't help wonder if this interaction had motives different from what was stated. The vote on h3llo could be an example of distancing, while at the same time giving a partner a kick in the pants to get his head in the game. Bulvious even asks him who h3llo would vote for if the deadline were imminent. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's what crosses my mind on review.

1. Fatso: My vote was the first one on him, and it ended RVS. I suppose Zdenek's previous statement (or maybe it was Chk?) saying it's harmful to end RVS quickly could imply bad things for me here, but really, I felt like the quicker we used our time to get onto more meaningful votes, the more we would learn before the day ended with (hopefully) a fruitful lynch.

He mentions his dislike of BS. Again, valid reason. He rails against SF for not scumhunting and eventually votes for her, joining the wagon with h3llo. There's little interaction between Bulvious and SF, mostly Bulvious pointing out what a terribly player SF is, and SF kinda agreeing.

2. I didn't like SF, she was an awful player and I really truly would have seen her gone for that reason alone if we didn't come to a better conclusion. I am absolutely horrified by posts that are difficult to read.

Sensing that the SF wagon is likely a dead end, he then steps back and asks h3llo what he thinks about the general willingness to lynch a lurker, and if that was a ploy by scum to keep town off topic. I've gone into why I hate this. It's a leading question to a specific player, it throws a blanket of suspicion on players. It's also hypocritical, as Bulvious has been the most vocal in his dislike of lurkers and his willingness to lynch them. He then moves his suspicions to Alnpka... for lurking. Active lurking, granted.

3. That's true, honestly, I feel a sort of companionship to h3ll0, being as I just got out of my first win and second game with him. He and I had the original two cases against the scum that game, and I feel like his instinct or maybe insight did us very well that game, and so town won. I still believe h3ll0 might have valuable input here, and so yes, I did ask him, though what that means to ME is, I want him to answer first, and then everyone else can answer. I suppose I didn't voice that though so it's not fair to expect.

whom Zedenek had just voted for. He reminds everyone that he was suspicious of Alnpka before, but he's not followed up on that suspicion. But now that a wagon is a possibility, he's on it.

4. I defended him because Zdenek's case was shit - inexistant, actually, and I don't see why that's such a horrible thing. Zdenek sat there and kept saying "More rope! More rope!" and I'm sitting here asking... "Why...?" I feel like that's still a good question, and I feel like my defense of him is still legitimate.

His endorsement of Workdawg seems premature to be honest. This is a matter of opinion, but I can't see how he can make a statement like that with such a small body of posting to base a judgement like that on. What has Workdawg done? Voted for Zedenek for reasons that boil down to him being rubbed the wrong way by Zedenek.

5. I REALLY disagree here, I feel like Workdawg's entry seemed quite good. Scum don't really NEED to catch up all that fast. Both him and Chkflip seemed really interested in doing it - and that strengthens their spots to me.

And then he says he finds the case against me presented by Zedenek and Chkflip to be "very convincing". Chkflip did not, IMO, present a strong case. The bulk of it was already expressed by Zedenek, but Bulvious did not comment on it until another player echoed it and placed a vote against me. Then he finds the case "very convincing". And then, when chkflip unvotes me, he apparently loses interest in that "convincing" case and switches his vote to Alnpka...

I thought his case was quite good. I lost interest in it because later he as well as stated he was fishing for responses. He was actually doing something from the very start of his play, and I can appreciate that. And indeed, the case WAS convincing, but does that mean it convinced me? Perhaps not, but it was one of the better cases I've seen thus far even if I didn't want to endorse it with my vote.

ST wrote:

whom Zedenek had just voted for. He reminds everyone that he was suspicious of Alnpka before, but he's not followed up on that suspicion. But now that a wagon is a possibility, he's on it.

My vote is the only one on Alnpka.


Also, I find it quite odd that you say I've had my foot in the door of all of the wagons.
Granted, this is just skimming the votecounts, but other than Sarahfish, my vote is the only one clocked in on those people. Sarahfish did go up to 2, and then to 3, but as soon as Workdawg joined in and cleared the spot (at least in my opinion) my vote went away.

Additionally, Zdenek is L-2, and my vote is not on him, this is so far one of the bigger wagons, and I have no hand in it what-so-ever. I haven't defended Z, I haven't even made a case again him. In fact, I just followed his observation of which I agreed with and voted Alnpka - of which I'm the only person to do so. Yeah, big wagon there, in fact, all of those wagons are just huge.

And of course I understand that VC's don't count every vote and so I might have been on a big wagon here or there, but Fatso's I started, and it was the first half-way legitimate case in the game.



Although to me it seems like your case is sort of BS minus the buddying which I can't very well deny considering what I've said here, I'm glad you finally started playing the game. Nice to see a case from our IC.

[Bulvious]

Workdawg wrote

@Bulvious
Its true that there are types of information that are "bad for town," but I think those types are only bad if you don't analyze them properly. Misinformation, by it's very definition, is anti information; lol. If someone is spewing lies, town should catch and lynch them. There's been much talk about lynching a lurker in this game. Why does someone lurk? To avoid having to post and get caught posting misinformation. It seems logical that everyone is encouraged to post all their thoughts, true or not, because it gives the town something to analyze to get a read on them.

A true town player should only be posting genuine thoughts, however misguided, and their actions should speak loudly enough to prove they are town

My point was that some information is good for scum. People might accidently misinform others, I've seen it happen. Either way, I don't really see you disagreeing with me here.

As for the sheeping. Though Zd never voted for aln, he did put together a few argument against him and said "[aln] is looking worse to me." you even referenced Zd's comments in your voting post. I don't think you've really got to specifically follow his vote to simply hop on his logic and be considered a sheep; at least not IMO.

You did mention you thought aln was active lurking yes. I mentioned that. I know you have a reason, I'm wondering what is the "confirmation" you are implying you've got now. That made you sure enough to vote when you weren't before

Aln is active lurking, I've pointed it out previously, and that hasn't even changed. And if anyone is opportunistic, it's him. My vote wasn't on anybody, so I'm more than happy to have it on him. Perhaps sometime this weekend I'll ISO him, as it is, I have a double shift today and go into work for the second in about four minutes

[Bulvious]

Workdawg, are you intentionally misunderstanding me?

I never said "Some info is bad for town." I said "Some info is good for scum." And it's true.

[Bulvious]

I still stand by my opinion of Fatso as noobtown, Chkflip. To me, it even sounds like you agree. His play is bad, is essentially what you're saying. He's reacting to votes like a new player would. He's not scumhunting as well as an experienced player would. He's not providing good enough reasons for his votes like an experienced player would.

If you really thought he was scum, after all, you wouldn't be telling him to be scumhunting, you'd tell him why he wasn't. You're letting him know what it's a scumtell. To me, it appears you're pressuring/coaching more so than really building a case, which is nice of you, but I still don't see a Fatso lynch occuring today, he's so obviously newbish that it's hard to determine if any of what your saying is even really a tell for scum or a tell for noob.

[Bulvious]

Now, for a bit of information on Alnpka.

Post 1: Introduction - Fluff
Post 2: Answers RVQ, questions RVS - Fine
Post 3: Highly reactive to my comment that was actually directed at Fatso about backing off. - No content, other than perhaps a sign of reactivity from him.
Post 4: Some explanation to Fatso, mixed in with passing observation on Lynch and Banana. - SOME content here.
Post 5: Consent to a lurker lynch if we don't get anyone better. - Whatever, still not content really.
Post 6: Asks for clarification on something. - Fluff
Post 7: Fluff
Post 8: Fluff
Post 9: Votes Fatso - his first vote so far, and then apparently exaggerates 3 posts in a row as a scumtell. Seems odd, odd as in he's making a mountain out of quite a common thing, slapping a big red "SCUM" sign on it - even though it isn't a tell at all.
Post 10: Backs off on the prior accusation of multiple posts in a row being a tell. Mostly fluff, though.
Post 11: Fluffiness involving asking for mod help in making a post readable. - Fluff
Post 12: More consent on lynching "The scummiest lurker" – Fluff, he's already done this.
Post 13: He responds to my accusation of his having no original content with a quote of his observations of BS and Lynch all the way back in his fourth post. Wow, really? That's it? In 8 posts? Not impressed at all. He also references his Fatso vote, though this wasn't original at all. All of the reasons he voted for him for were previously stated and fed to him.
Post 14: He states that he won't say anything without evidence - evidence he doesn't fish for. He also says original content is "any content such as questions that haven't been brought up before." He doesn't understand here that the vast majority of his questions gave little aid in anyones scumhunting, least of all his own - of which there is none to reference thus far.
Post 15: Some content, but still by and large unoriginal.
Post 16: States that active lurking is a scumtell. Still, fluff - we all already know that.
Post 17: Asks three questions. #1 = Fluff, #2 = Asks h3ll0 a fairly legitimate question, but really it didn't seem like an effort to hunt. #3 = Fluff, it's sort of ridiculous to ask someone how they're going to defend themselves.
Post 18: Fluff, and states he doesn't have ANY new evidence on ANYONE after SO much has been and SO little scumhunting has been done by him. Wow, really?
Post 19: Votes Zdenek, saying that we all already knew he was looking him over as a potential suspect. Post 18 directly contradicts that. That's scummy to me.
Post 20: Quickly withdraw his vote after the vote count - fear of a quicklynch, or fear of appearing to be sheeping a wagon? (As that is so obviously what this is) To me, he saw this as an opportunity to appear town for the first time this game.
Post 21: He's told it's OK by Workdawg, so he goes for it. - Fluff
Post 22: Fluff


22 posts go and re-read them if you wish because I'm not going to quote them here, but that's how I look at them and I think that's pretty accurate. 15 fluffy posts is my read, that means 7 with content. How many of those are scumhunting? Zip as far as I can tell. Scum do not scumhunt. He said he's not new to the game but he's new to the forum. I'm not getting the same noobfeel from him as I am from Fatso. He contradicts himself, he fails to provide good content, and his actions (though few aside from the large active lurking brand I still give him) are scummy to me.

[Bulvious]

Zd wrote

Bulvious, ignoring h3ll0's activity levels, do you think h3ll0 is playing differently in this game?

Actually, yes, I would say so. In the last game, h3ll0 had a case, maintained and pursued that case, althroughout the game. This game... I don't really see that from him. In fact, I can't think (off the top of my head) of a great case he's made this game, or has attempted to make.


Workdawg, the fact that some info can be good for scum at all is enough to prove my point. It doesn't matter if it's 'equally' good for town, it's still helpful to scum in some way. If someone lists their top scumspects, and one happens to be town, scum can push that wagon as hard as they can, buddying themselves up (in a way that isn't obvious) to the guy who is suspicious of them. If it's a good enough case, it'll end in a town lynch. I can't think of a way a scumscale would be very good at all for town other than for reaffirmation of certain opinions.



@Fatso and Alnpka
Show me the posts I've labeled fluff that aren't.
Show me where he's tried to prod for reactions minus questions that yield very little, show me where he's REALLY sat down and done some hunting. Additionally, show me where it appears that he's been observing the conflicts between players in this game. Also, tell me why his post 18 and 19 contradict each other and why that's OK for town.



h3ll0 posted while I was posting. I have to say, his vote really confused me until I saw the other two posts. h3ll0, I can't see why you voted for Fatso, though. Other than possibly his 'fence sitting' if that's even an accurate accusation, I don't see what makes that so scummy. Some people are conservative with their vote even in D1 (though that's not a great play, he IS new, I've said it multiple times, so is it really a tell for scum or for newness?)

[Bulvious]

BUT, I can't really say that I like that Fatso has seemingly forgotten about a TOWN's most valuable asset. Fatso, you have no FoS out there, and no vote. Why aren't you committed to any case? Why don't you have a case?

[Bulvious]

A legitimate introduction happens to be fluff. No one else felt the need to introduce themselves for a reason. Or if someone else did, it might have been the IC because it tends to be a good idea to establish oneself as an educator while being the IC. This introduction is useless other than establishing himself as new to the forum - which is obvious if he is a newb in a newb game.

#5 was answering a question, it's not original content, it doesn't provide us with insight on his or anyone elses playstyle or actions. It tells us he agrees that lurking is scummy - something most people tend to agree on, here he consents to lynch a lurker. It's input, but it's not useable content you may be right in saying it's not 'fluff' but it certainly isn't the scumhunting he doesn't do while he's town.
#6, just because you're interested doesn't mean you're providing content. This isn't content, it's asking for clarification, which is fine, but it's certainly not content.
#16 Fine, restating a point isn't awful, I never said that, but to me this is still fluff because it's the same he's said before.

Either way, that's not even really a defense for him. He's still not scumhunting, he's still not being town. He's still scummy.

[Bulvious]

A fool of myself? Ad-hom isn't going to make me incorrect, alnpka, I'm sorry, that's not quite how this game works.

We can PRETEND my case is around you making an intro. I never had a problem with that, it's just not content and I pointed that out, so of course, if you think THAT is what I'm saying, it is quite ridiculous. But it's not.
Yes, you all can, feel free, I feel like I can back my observations up quite well. I don't feel like he's made any great contribution to the game. In fact, this most recent post is showing me that he not only can't defend himself properly because he IS scum, but that he takes it quite personally that he is. It's the exact result of pressure I would expect from scum. 0 defense, lots of ad-hom, and then denial. Quite a weak defense if I do say so myself.
Now, his scumhunting?

He JUST said he has no new information on scum other than Fatso. And THEN he contradicts his own words and says he's been looking at someone else previously. Clearly not true. He hasn't been scumhunting. He hasn't been fishing for reactions, pressuring, or even asking questions beyond what obvious questions one might ask, like for clarification. NONE of his questions tell me he's trying to look for scum, none of his questions lead me to believe he's even pondering the idea of "Who am I looking for?" No, they all seem to just be filler meant to appear as though he's doing something this game. Yes, scum WOULD go out of their way to be nice, because a nice person is usually not a suspicious person. That's not quite what I was saying to begin with, but you've made quite a good point, Alnpka.


Between your lack of hunting, your contradictions, your lack of defense, and then your weak defense when there is one, you must be scum.

[Bulvious]

Well you're correct, I never said your introduction was scummy. I merely said it wasn't necessary, it didn't have any REAL input other than to establish that you were new - it didn't even go as far as to include RVS. You're still not defending yourself by the way. Linking me to a post I've read before and saying "Here's my defense" isn't good enough when it explains so little

[Bulvious]

Err, not true,

it did include RVS

. You voted for Zdenek in your RVS, I had forgotten, I apologize.

Still, the introduction part wasn't very valuable and I'm not going to argue that it's scummy, I'm merely arguing that the total effort of your posts to attempt to scumhunt amounts to nill and THAT is scummy.

[Bulvious]

Well, I'd like to quote those of my posts that were in my eyes scumhunting and hopefully we can work it out. I'd like to excuse already for the length of this post.
First, I agree that it took me a time to get in the game.
Here's my 4th post:

On the other hand, I wouldn't be to centered on Fatso only.

I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on,

Why didn't you vote then? Until the end of RVS you didn't say one word. As startransmission phrased it 'flying under the radar'.

lynchking did almost the same but then hopped on the wagon for Fatso without any further explanation at first. Could you please explain that because I personally think RVS was over at that time.

I both asked and pressured BS and lynchking. Do you need further explanation?

While agreeing to your aversion against quick-lynching, where did he say that?

Here I was asking someone for clarification. But it was a try to pressure on him/her (sorry, read in ISO so I don't know whom) as they could've been plain lying as well.

True, although I personally think that you over-interpret it a little bit. Maybe he meant that with info we allotted over the course of this day to the next we may be able to have a clearer understanding of what was going on today. (Hopefully my crazy thoughts weren't to confusing for you as I see that the preceding sentence is a little bit confusing)

Not as scumhunting as a regular question but nevertheless in anticipation of a response.

Well Fatso, until now I didn't have you on my personal scum list, but now as you being quite sensitive about some accusations made against you I do. Although you were rather talkative the whole game you now seem to exaggerate. So many consecutive posts seem rather scummy to me. Why did you need to have 3 posts in a row to answer some questions?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Fatso

Zdenek, could you please consider reasoning your votes as such seemingly random voting seems rather scummy to me.

Pressuring Fatso as well as posing a question to Zdenek.

My 9th post, that I don't want to quote as this post is already far too long: I take this as a expansion of my post before.

Post 12: Still pressuring on Fatso as well as a explanation to your accusations.

Post 14: Pressuring on Zdenek with post 15 expanding it.

Post 16: Nothing except scumhunting.

Post 17: Posing questions to chkflip and workdawg.

Post 18: Pressuring Zdenek in lieu with the following posts (I already said sorry about them).

Post 24: Getting chkflip back on track.

Post 26: Still pressuring on Zdenek. Still no answer btw.

I skipped about 10 posts that were either introduction or had something to do with my scumhunting posts. Any questions?

In your post #4 I stated you made observation. Your questions were hardly pressuring at all – your vote wasn't placed on either of those you were questioning. While that's not necessary, clearly if you think these are tells, you would prefer to move your vote to them from your RVS, which I don't believe you did.
Your 'hunt' was made even more moot by the fact that both of them were pretty much nonexistent throughout the game.
How did this post help us? It didn't.

Honestly, the clarification hardly seemed like pressure at all, and the overall input to the game with this post amounts to nill.

The next quote isn't even a question, and it certainly isn't scumhunting. You're making a statement – not identifying a tell, or trying to get someone to slip.

Your pressure on Fatso was... Well... Unwarranted. You wanted to pressure him for making multiple posts. That's laughable. That means nothing. Your question to Zdenek was something that didn't need asking, and while it's true that he should provide reasoning, you fail to identify where he didn't and why that was scummy in that particular instance. In other words, you don't scumhunt here either.

In post #9, there's a lot more fluff than input, but you DO provide your first bit of useful content. You identify something that could be a tell! Fatso backing off on something, or appearing to do so. Though that's something we've already see him do by this point, you identify a new instance of it. Is it enough to exonerate you? No, no it's not.

In post #12, you make a laughable excuse about why you won't tell us who your second scumspect is – not helpful – and then the next question... Oh god, this is not even pressure. The question rendered no information nor could it have. Clearly the argument about dates was almost entirely moot except for personal pride on being correct at least on my end, and I'm sure his end too. You're JOKING me if you consider this to be scumhunting. And of course, you post a quote to answer my accusation, which... Really doesn't mean a whole lot to me as I've said, didn't help us much at all.

In post #14, you identify something as scummy behavior, though it isn't very applicable. You ask Zdenek to clarify what he means by Star's active lurking – which is a pretty obvious accusation. Were you asking for coaching there or were you actually curious as to why active lurking is bad?

In post #16, you portray THIS one as nothing but scumhunting. Your question to Fatso is NOT scumhunting – i'm sorry but it really isn't. As for h3ll0's question, it's very obvious that no one could agree with Fatso's horrible accusation that most would agree is the same as saying “Well... SOMEONE is scum.” It's silly, and so is your question. Then you ask Zdenek to defend against Fatso. Why? To see him slip? This would be a very good example of you scumhunting if it weren't for the fact it didn't also make you appear as though you were giving him some advice at the same time. Advice that might be considered buddying, but I digress – none of your questions were very helpful.

Post #17 is a given, if they didn't give us any new information they would be bad town. You didn't give them time to do this on their own. This was something they did do and likely would have done without any sort of prodding what-so-ever assuming they weren't scum. This question MIGHT have meant something if it had come later, but it didn't. It was early, unnecessary, and it wasn't scumhunting.

Post #18 and those that follow show us that you're afraid to stand beside your vote. It also seemed like you were backing off with the intent of looking like a stronger town, or at least that's how I view it.

Post #24.... The fact that you even imply this is content tells me you're fishing the deepest wells you possibly can.

Post #26, this isn't pressure, it's asking a question, and it's horribly shadowed by your reactivity to one statement I made in my full case against you. You also state that you scumhunt in your opinion. Yet you also make the claim (oh, perhaps not consciously) that you have only been suspicious of two people this entire game. As a town, you should be suspicious of EVERYONE. This is failure, in my opinion. This post outlines my entire case without it meaning to. Your failure to scumhunt, and then your failure to even understand that you haven't been.

Your eight posts have yielded no valuable input. You haven't made a strong case against anyone. You haven't sheeped a strong case. Your game presence has been non-existent save for the occasional weak question. That's something a noobscum who isn't sure what exactly he SHOULD be doing, would do.

[Bulvious]

Awh, Fatso!

The first person I've ever been sad to see leave a game.

Best wishes, Fat, I hope to see you in a future game when we've both brushed up some.

/endfluffypost

[Bulvious]

@h3ll0

That seemed a bit obvious, really. Fatso asked to replace out, and to begin with he appeared noobtown which chkflip all but conceded prior to his post where he unvoted. More specific answers wouldn't necessarily be bad.

[Bulvious]

alnpka wrote:
I am very sorry about it, but I will me V/LA the next days, I hope it doesn't matter for you too much. Don't mind asking questions etc. to me though as I will reread it all, I promise.

Maybe this will come off bad, but to me it seems like you're backing away from the game at a pretty crucial time when you're under pressure. To me this appears as though you're evading and at this point avoiding slips. You'll give no input over the next few days as you've done largely across the game. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong - but this seems like a scum maneuver.

Not that it's scummy to V/LA, but it justs seems consistent with all of your other actions.

[Bulvious]

We have limited time to reach a conclusion guys. Four days just isn't a very long time.

I'd prefer an Alnpka lynch, but if we need a compromise lynch we need to come to some sort of agreement somewhat quickly. Maybe it's wrong of me to rush people but when some people only make a post a day if that (most do about that) then we definitely need to hold the deadline in mind.

Get a case out there people, and let's start narrowing it down a bit. I don't see myself voting for Kard or Workdawg (or myself for obvious reasons), so of the current people with votes on them it's Alnpka, Zdenek, and h3ll0 for me. My case for Alnpka is up there, anyone have a final case on the other two or on Alnpka to make? Or on someone else for that matter? If not a case, then the pros and cons on voting for each person? I'll state some pros and cons to Alnpka.

Leaning Town

He's new, so some of his tells could be due to newness.
He's used his vote to a degree throughout the game.
He's maintained interest via asking questions (albeit not very strong or helpful ones.)

Leaning Scum

Little to no scumhunting.
Failure to establish a decent case base on the observations of others scumhunting.
Poor defense (which could also be due to newness).
Reactivity at the start of the case.
He cherry picks things, be it in his defense or in my case. Like when he cherry picked me saying his intro wasn't very useful and called my case ridiculous because of it, and when he cherry picked the very few useful posts he made and called them useful even if it was asking a question that didn't help a whole lot.
Leaves at a crucial point of the game, or rather, sort of AFK's in a sense. It almost seems to me like he either gave up or lost interest. He didn't even explain himself, it was just. "Cya later, sorry." That's not good enough, not to me.

If he flips town, what do we stand to lose?
Nothing.

My overall vibe on him: He's either bad town or he's scum, either way I feel like he's not very useful in the game. I'm definitely the most comfortable lynching him.

[Bulvious]

Those are just my opinions people, and how I observe his play. The way I look at it, it's 2-1, and a 66% chance to kick scum. I'm by no means saying I'm absolutely positive, but with him I feel like there's absolutely nothing to lose lynching him.

[Bulvious]

Work wrote:
shotty is my backup option simply because his slot hasn't been around AT ALL. He replaced in last Wednesday, put an ominous post out there claiming his top picks for scum on Friday, and hasn't been back since. Not to mention he replaced banana stickers who posted very little as well. That slot has been vacant the entire game. Sad too, because I was looking forward to playing with him. Seems like an interesting guy from reading other threads around here.

I don't like this from you. If he flips town we have gained nothing. Not even motivation for his votes. Worst policy lynch I can think of, to be honest.

[Bulvious]

drmyshotty, I fail really hard to see how that's a slip. What Workdawg is saying appears to me to be very logical. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-vote, that's what he's saying. How can you disagree with that? And how can that be a slip? Seems stupid.

[Bulvious]

It was a question made previously. Either way it's not a slip, it's him responding to something in the topic. How is this out of fear? Why would he be prosecuted if he disagreed? It still seems stupid.

[Bulvious]

I still think what you consider a 'slip' is stupid, Shotty. That's a common opinion, just because he happened to agree with it doesn't mean it's a slip, especially not with that. Seems silly, especially when we had an arguement about a different policy later on, though I forgot what that was to be honest. BUT NO THAT'S PROBABLY BUDDYING.

Sarcasm.

Your case against him is as bad as your vote - moot and empty.

I'd like to see more of Star's case against me, more of h3ll0 - period, and I'd like to see Kard make a commitment put his vote somewhere, same pretty much goes with Ckflip. 3 more days guys, at least by my time. I hope to see some valuable input. Workdawg, pros and cons of wasting Zdenek today? and Shotty, if you really insist on your vote against Workdawg - I'd like to see more of a case.

Essentially, if you intend to hold your vote in any spot, explain why and now, explain why you think lynching them beats lynching others. Sitting here waiting for the deadline without any pro-activity seems very anti-town to me.

Also, Star, since you've made your case against me, you've been all but MIA. I understand workin' hard, but again, this is somewhat of an important time.

[Bulvious]

If voicing a popular opinion is scummy and a tell then you're doing just that by saying he's wishywashy. I still don't feel he's that way and if he is then that still makes him less scummy than Aln because at least he's hunting some.

[Bulvious]

There's a couple of reasons I think Workdawg is town.

#1, his entrance to the game was very strong. He even admits that his spot is bad and asks for questions regarding that. He openly accepts any flak that might have come from this and then proceeds to give his observation. He read all of the pages as soon as he got in the game rather than taking FOREVER as replacements tend to, to read up. "More later."
"Not done"
"Not much to comment on."

He didn't make excuses, he plowed through it - something scum have little to no drive to do unless it's to find something that can be miscontrued as a slip, and then they can just take their time.

#2, I think he's town because he adequately defends himself. He doesn't get super reactive but instead responds in a rational manner. This isn't to say scum CAN'T do the same, but they would feel far more pressured than town would. One of the reasons my vote isn't on Zdenek is because of the way he's handled the votes against him. Though, he's also offered little to no explanation on a good bit of things, such as much of his early case against ST.

#3, I think Workdawg is town because no one has yet to give me a good reason to think otherwise and in his play I haven't seen anything that have made me think otherwise. Where is his scum intent? Where do you see it? If the only example is "I agree with lynching a lurker if there's no other option," Then your case is horribly flawed and should probably be chucked for a while until you can learn to scumhunt and find something else about him.

[Bulvious]

Err, those remarks in quotation in #1 were not things he said, but things I'm far more used to seeing people say.

[Bulvious]

All quotes are Zdenek's

My early vote on him was for active lurking and I detailed ST's first 20 or so posts earlier, and explained exactly why I said he was active lurking. What more do you want?

For you to have done it sooner and before you were asked to do so multiple times is my preferred method, I appreciate you asking . I get that you say "Active lurking" which is cool, I dislike lurking and especially active lurking, but I don't want to do your work for you and ISO him when I'm already eying other people. I know what you're saying when you say "People can decide for themselves," but that doesn't mean a case isn't necessary. As town you want to persuade people to your point of view, get them to agree with you through HONEST means (scum's means and motives would be different but they're ultimate goal is to persuade also.) But then, I believe you're more experienced than I and don't need to be told this.

He's in favor of lynching a lurker, unless there is a consensus otherwise. Asking for a consensus on a day one lynch is an impossible standard. It allows him to back away from whatever stance he is taking at the time of the lynch and move his vote to whomever is lurking. If you think this is just a poor choice of wording, he reiterates this opinion later:

I do think consensus would probably be poor wording - I would have likely used something similar by accident without thinking a whole lot on it. I think what he means is more so lynch a lurker over no lynch. That's ALL I read it as. And if that's being wishy-washy then myself and others are likely to be guilty of that as well. I still disagree with this as being something to go against him, or anyone for that matter. Even the quote that followed. I'm thinking, once again, that when he says "Obv-scum" he's still a bit new so he still doesn't quite know what that means, or he's exhaggerating.

After chkflip presented his case, his newb-town read of Fatso weakens. This is a very convenient change heart, he offers up a review of Fatso's meta for it, but fails to provide any details.

The detail was that it's Fatso's third game and so he's not SO new that he should have been making some of the mistakes he's been making.

Here he agrees with the case, but in such a soft manner that he can easily back down from his agreement if needed.

No, he doesn't agree with the case. To me it appears as though he agrees with it as a lesson to Fat. Fat's play was bad - let's face it - it screamed newb or scum, and if he wasn't scum, Chk's case was GREAT to teach him how to defend and WHY the things he was saying/doing appeared scummy. Chkflip ended up agreeing with the PoV that Fat appeared more new than scum, or at least that's how I read it. It even appeared that Workdawg felt that the lesson was even a bit harsh, bringing up the name calling in Chk's case.

Bulvious analysis led him to vote for Alnkpa and push for his lynch today. To say that you agree with the analysis is an agreement that Alnkpa is scummy, and the rest of the post is just wishy-washiness over this stance, and whenever you like you could simply say that you agreed with the analysis and vote for Alnkpa.

I don't see it as wishy-washy at all. He's agreeing with something you're evidently missing - not the idea that Aln is scum, but the analysis of his content. The content is bad, and while I see that as scum and his following actions as scum, Workdawg doesn't say anywhere in there that Aln is scummy. In fact, he says from the get that "he's got a newb vibe" and at the end "he seems genuine." He even clarifies what he agrees with in the second sentence of your quote.

Here you are clearly making an accusation of Bulvious, which is getting your foot in on the door of his lynch, which is what I suggested you were doing.

The accusation was that I was riding your coat tails. That's not necessarily scummy, he's not even saying that I COULD be scummy. I think he might have said sometime before or after that that it appeared suspicious, but after my defense of my actions and case that followed, he dropped that notion (it appears). To be fair, I myself would have said similar, preferring a person give a strong case over saying "I've said it before and this reaffirms it."



He still reads town to me.

[Bulvious]

ST wrote:

You've had you foot in the door of all potential wagons. Were you scum it would be sloppy to actually place your vote on the players in every instance

Halfway through D1, I'm pretty much inclined to be suspicious of everyone. Even now I've confirmed no one. Now, that doesn't mean I'm ready to lynch everyone, but have my foot in the door of potential wagons? Silly.
I think it's stupid to assume that just because someone can see the merits of a case and states as much, they MUST be getting ready or looking out for the opportunity to lynch someone. I still support my feeling that Chkflip's case against you was pretty good. Does it remain accurate..? Well, your activity has gone down pretty far though you say that's due to work. You again promised content, and again you give little and promise to look around and give more.

It's true that if Bulvious is scum he has picked his targets well and kept himself from pushing anything too hard. That's something that a townie would do as well if he were using his vote as pressure and his motive is scumhunting.

Considering I've tapped a lot of people this game for doing a bad job of hunting, which are you more likely to believe? That my votes are to pressure or that I'm leading a false wagon. (In retrospect though, the only person I would have been happy to lynch would have been Sarahfish, and were she still in the game that would probably remain the same, but Workdawg has done a good job of clearing her name.)

But as Bulvious pointed out, he hasn't actually placed his vote on many players this game, just voiced his suspicion. It's an easy way to keep your hands clean when the focus/suspicion on a player evaporates.

My hands clean? To be honest, I feel like I've been the most pro-active player in this game, if anyone has been getting into the grit of it all, it's me. I've been trying to get people to slip althroughout, and I've called the newbs out and try to fix their play when it should have been YOU doing it. Speaking of which, this is somewhat irrelevant to the paragraph, but your role as educator is not being fulfilled very well at all. Or are you just the type of IC to sit and wait for people to ask questions so you can answer them?

The primary reasons I'm inclined to consider Bulvious scum is the buddying, the leading question to h3llo

Really? Because I defended him? Because I asked him questions YOU consider leading? What about how I've called him out recently or how I've defended Fatso, and Workdawg? Shall we just ignore that? I suppose any future action regarding h3ll0 (like perhaps calling him out and admitting his play is a tad different than in the previous game) could be me pulling away after being told it was a slip to buddy up to him should be ignored, but still, I felt that I should still bring it up. Now, even if I was asking a leading question, what does that really even mean? That I was trying to sway him to my point of view? Omfg that's such a horrible thing! Oh wait, no, no it isn't. He was the only one to voice an opinion against the talk of the policy lynch, so I felt questioning him because he was obviously of a different mind than the rest of us would be a good idea.
So, my other buddies are probably Fatso and Workdawg. The game is a set of 4 scum for sure.

Let's go ahead and assume, hypothetically of course, that I'm scum.

There's that ONE instance with h3ll0... Or...

My early harrassment and case against Fatso could have been taking the lead, being prepared to bus, and even ensuring that I had a decent team-mate at the start of the game. Then, I call him noob-town, something everyone turns around to agree with for the most part. That's actually a pretty decent alaby for him, as it held up for quite awhile, no? I even used it to defend him later on, didn't I?

What about Workdawg? My strong defense of him? I was VERY critical of Sarahfish89, my harassment about her lack of scumhunting COULD have been an attempt to coach her and get her to play the game appearing as though she was town. Now, again, I'm defending him.

Ah, h3ll0, I asked a question we are all going to suppose is leading, and then defended him.

So that's three people one could say I buddied with.


Case in point: Hunting in partners is stupid. Assuming I'm scum because I defended someone is dumb. Now, obviously, scum would have NO reason to defend THREE people who he could have pushed a lynch for instead. That doesn't make ANY sense. Scum only have one partner, Star. To me, if your case is still ONLY based on that, I don't see how there's any stock in it.

And his feeling that the case on me was very convincing. The case presented was not new, but when another player echoed it and pushed it, he then chimes in on it. He doesn't place a vote, and when that pressure on me goes away, so does his intererest in that "very convincing" case.

Lul. Because it wasn't in your favor it's SO scummy. Chkflip's case against you did appear quite good, I'll say it again. You're not playing a very pro-town game... at all. In fact, you're borderline lurking. That's true, it's been true, and you've yet to prove that it's not true. You have ONE case so far, and it's not even that good. If it took you all game to come up with three accusations to lobby against one person that didn't make sense, how is the accusation that you're actively lurking wrong?

I'll admit though, I did feel like an idiot when I found out what Chkflip was doing. As I said, a lot of this game is convincing people that you're correct. His case was very convincing, but used car salesmen can also be convincing. Needless to say, I obviously wasn't sold if my vote wasn't on you.

[Bulvious]

I feel so dense for a couple reasons...

1. What's an either-or fallacy? I'll look it up but know now that as I'm making this post I DON'T know what it means.
2. What's an IIoA? That's something I'd like to just be told, thanks if that can me done.
3. Why is your post red?
4. I'm still not seeing Work's scumminess.



Now, to go down the bulleted list...

#1: Where does he soley base a case on activity? I see where he brings up your activity, but I semi-sort of see why it would be suspicious for you to promise things Saturday and they don't come up till Monday. Your explanation does away with that, certainly, but that doesn't make him worng. I'm a big fan of doing what you'll say you do and I understand sometimes... You just can't. I don't see where this bullet applies totally.
#2: He's taken stands on things, an example would be his stance on information not being good for scum ever.
#3: Okay, that's stretching it, but I DO get what you mean here.
#4: I don't know what this means.
#5: Second guessing - not applicable I don't think.
#6: This seems like the same as #1, lurking is scummy, if you aren't posting enough, you're lurking. While it doesn't necessarily make you total scum for lurking, it's not pro-town. I fail to see where this is a tell.
#7: Now I DO see where you're going with that one. SORT of. Maybe not the misresenting so much as his begging the question. I'm not really sure about this one, I'm sort of a mixture of thought on it - more later.
#8: I read up on it before I finished my post. He did not, in fact, fallicify-ness at all.

An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable.

Now, you're assuming that there's more than two choices. In his example, he says IF there are only two choices - which, sure, there aren't only two, but he's not saying there aren't, he's saying IF there are only two, he'd rather lynch a lurker.

That is not a fallacy.

[Bulvious]

IIoA = Information Instead of Analysis, gotcha... Can I get a few clear examples as to him doing this? It's a bit unclear to me.

[Bulvious]

Workdawg wrote:
Hmmm, I responded to Zd's most recent post, 362, but the post seems to have disappeared. Interestingly, Bulvious has almirrored my thoughts, so I'm not going to repost it, but I'll just comment on some highlights.

Post your thoughts anyway please. I'll defend you but I'm not going to do your job for you or let you say "My thoughts are those of Bulvious's"
I don't like that at all.

Otherwise, I think alnpka would be an acceptable lurker lynch. I'd like to give him a chance since it's his first game (getting lynched D1 for being a newb is a pretty crappy way to go out)... but I'd join that wagon if it meant we avoid a no-lynch.

I'm like minded with Shotty in that this is a pretty stupid reason not to vote for someone. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work. Emotion isn't applicable in a game of fact and information, applying to ethos is often considering scummy for the sole reason that it... Does nothing. Application to ethos should be in that bulleted list as #9 of Shotty's, and it'd be the only one I'd agree with 100%.

For my number two pick, I can go either way.
IF shotty gets back in here and posts something relevant (even if it's a wall on why I'm scum), I can give him a pass for today... but so far I think he'd be my number two.
- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.
- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reasonS Saturday.
- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.
It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

As I said, I get what Shotty means here. There's so many better people to lynch for lurking or inactivity.
In my book, if I was just going to blind lynch someone based on content, it'd be h3ll0.

I've seen very little of him, and Startrans though ST has given a reason.

But, h3ll0 has been nonexistant in the last few days. He said something the 11th, which was two days ago, sure. Not all THAT long, but this close to the deadline? And it wasn't even content. It was a meek defense and a weak question, and his only stuff before that was on the 9th. That's four days with non-content if even a post.

His last activity was: Last visited: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:43 am
This close to the deadline, without a V/LA, I just don't agree.

[Bulvious]

#1: He wants to lynch Zdenek for his play, as far as I'm aware.
#2: If it's arguable then it isn't fact, we argued it, it isn't fact.
#4: Second guessing again, not only that, self-importance is hardly scummy. I could be the biggest most arrogant douchebag but that doesn't mean I'ma kill you tonight
#5: Mmmm... Makes sense, sorta. At this point I'm not really HUNTING per se, but arguing and defending, perhhaps prodding for more info, not sure what you would call it. My vote is on Aln, my case is up, the lack of activity however... Depressing. Work's case is up (I'm pretty sure) and he's doing similarly. Am I scummy for this play also? I also think it's pro-scum to be inactive, if not scummy.
#6: This is true, I don't agree with it obviously. He hardly gave you a chance, this is true. Still, you've been focused entirely on Work. What are your reads on other people? I want more content than you other than tunneling on Work.
#8: I think assuming intent is sort of scummy. It's as bad as forming your case around the possibility that two people might be partners. You can likely easily identify different reasons why, but it's not necessarily true. I still disagree here.

Some of those quotes do have analysis, not only that, but reiterating informaiton or pointing it out for others to see is hardly a bad thing. I've actually missed things that others have caught a good many times, and have appreciated them bringing up the information.

[Bulvious]

Additionally, with 3 and 7, obviously I didn't respond. I'm also clearly still not sold on Workdawg. I'd much rather see one of my preferred people go.

[Bulvious]

I think assuming intent is sort of scummy.

I just sat down to take... I'll stop there. Point is, this statement was stupid, probably the least intelligent thing I've said in mafia. The point of mafia is to discern the intent behind others actions. So, when I say "assuming intent" is scummy, I don't mean "trying to figure it out " or "Weighing" it. I mean, for me, I figure, which is more likely, right? To me, it looks as though you discern that those are his intentions because it fits with what you're saying, not because it's more likely. Disregarding a pretty important word in a post based on assumption is NOT good to do, in my opinion.

[Bulvious]

@h3llo

did kinda sort of justify it. Was providing my observation and I don't see the matter with that.

And yeah. I had no idea it was his third game. But aren't his othdr two games still active? Someone said before that it was his third game but up until that point I had no idea.

[Bulvious]

Kard, you could do some hunting, how about? Ask questions, make observations on gameplay. Don't sit passively and watch everyone make cases and do the hunting. That's scummy.

As far as Zd bandwagoning, perhaps, since you're the person asking the question - what's your own opinion on it? Clearly you think it's a possibility.


Drmy, I still don't totally see it, sorry mate.

[Bulvious]

Additionally, Chkflip, catch up fast please!

[Bulvious]

@h3ll0 guess so. (in reply to the fat more newb than aln)

Workdawg, make a claim.

I have no case against either Zd or Work but I can see the validities in both sides of the argument. Ill change my vote tonight if it comes down to those two.

[Bulvious]

I'm unsure if a Workdawg claim would make a difference at this point. If he's a powerrole, he's more than likely dead N1.

Uhh... Do I even need to tell you why this is scummy?
Assuming he DOES claim PR, someone can counter claim, and then we know we have scum in one of the two since lying is obviously not very town. If he claims PR and no one does counter claim, it's better to let him be the NK rather than the day kill. That's stupid, it's as good as saying "Oh, let's lynch a PR because he'll die anyway." If we have a better chance lynching someone who ISN'T a pr, I'd rather go that route. But again, we're all assuming he's a PR. If he claims VT, then it doesn't matter a whole lot, does it?


ST, while I appreciate your post - the hell man? Input please? What do you think? Aln, Work, or Zdenek? Or no lynch?

[Bulvious]

I WANT to stick with Aln, but with 3 hours to DDay, I will concede with Zdenek as my secondary vote.

ST wrote:
I hope he's placing it on a player who he feels is the likeliest to be scum, not just the likeliest to be lynched.

This describes his play throughout the game. He didn't post a case against you at first and didn't leave his vote on you because he didn't think you'd be lynched today - stupid reason, no? He still says you should be lynched tomorrow, but none of why he would think you and Work would be partners. Clearly, if he's implying he wants to lynch WD, he thinks WD is scum. And if he wants to lynch you tomorrow, you must be his scumbuddy. This could be very accurate - but I don't see any evidence on his end for it. Granted, he never directly SAID that, but he's implying it.

So, for concession, for gut, and for other reasons, I am going to

place Zdenek at L-1

and

Vote: Zdenek

[Bulvious]

Aln wrote:
Ok, sorry for my procrastination.
But I see not much has changed. I now have two very good reason to vote Zdenek. First and foremost, I still think he's scum. Still sensible, even ad hominem. I don't think I need to explain all of it, as either I or some other already did it and considering we don't have much time. Second, we don't have much time and there is no other wagon that seems possible for a lynch now.
That should explain enough now. Any questions

Yes, why are you still not hunting? Why do you have nothing to say about the last few pages? Not one damn thing between Zd and Work? Why do you still appear so scummy? Where's your defense? Why did it suck previously? Why is your town-play lacking?

Lots of questions, please answer them all. And if you can, rectify the errors, i.e. stop being such a shitty town if that's even what you are - please.

[Bulvious]

Actually, Aln, people tend to agree, they just think that you're too noob for it to be a scum-tell.

Two things to look at:

Star's last vote was against h3ll0 - he died.
Kard refused to vote until the very last minute, which ended up being the hammer - the result was Zdenek flipping cop.

Of course I'm not saying it's scummy to hammer town, but I find it odd that he generally refuses to place a vote, and decides to go with Zdenek. He says 36 minutes prior to deadline that he will quickly re-read (which means to me that he will skim the topic to a degree) and then posts his vote with the bare minimum. I don't like it.


Additionally, Zdenek's hesitance to claim should have probably meant something to us, still, if he had been less pro-self preservation and more pro-town he would have claimed, and we would have maybe lynched someone who wasn't the cop, though he would have been the NK. Not what happened, but oh well - that's how I view it.


Aln, I like your newest post - keep that up, it's what we want to see even if it is long.

My only thing to really quote and comment on for the moment is:

WD wrote:
Well... that was unexpected. Why would he have been making up a case against me and pushing it so hard? Crap. I guess I should apologize to the rest of the town for getting that wrong; sorry about that. I thought for sure he was scum and it just doesn't make sense to me.

Let it be a lesson to you then - just because a town member is pushing a vote against you and you know you're town doesn't mean the towny is scum. He pushed the case against you because he thought/thinks you're scum. And at this point, with your following bit of info comes off oddly to me. You can agree with his PoV, but it's fishy - contradicting, Rather, you say "I guess I can sort of" which is a bit of that wishy-washyness people are talking about. Stop it.

[Bulvious]

Bulvious worte:
generally refuses

And when I say that, I mean Kard didn't really place a vote besides on Alnpka. Going to re-read Kard now.

[Bulvious]

So, now knowing that Fatso was on his third game, a lot of his prior things are pretty durn scummy, though I'm still leaning a bit noob on that.

But then Kard comes in, and what has he done?

Nothing. Read his shit over. It's something like "Intro" "Sorry not done reading" "Sorry here's something everyone can agree with" "Opportunistic opinion" "Adding weight" "Oh, sorry, reading more" "Gotta catch up" "Catching up in a hurry!" "OOPP STILL NOTHING BUT HERE'S MY HAMMER!"

Of course those aren't direct quotes and they're really not even all THAT accurate (at least not the order).

What I'm seeing is that he's been really opportunistic, he's failed to comment much on the game, and he's failed to deliver when he's said he would. And then of course there's Fatso's previous play which in retrospect I'm not liking so much at least not when you throw in what Kard's contributed to the spot.

He's clearly extremely fackin' new - at least on this account/site. Kard, what's your play experience? On other forums and etc...? Is there anything there?

[Bulvious]

You said you agree with h3ll0's point of view, as in you could see it from his eyes. Yet you go on to say it's still fishy. I quoted you, read the quote to understand, and if you don't understand, read your post, if you still don't, read h3ll0's post. If you don't understand after that - I can't help you. Lol

[Bulvious]

Kard wrote:
Why do I think he's the strongest player? He's certainly the most active, and he's definitely been putting the most pressure on people. Do you really think scum would let this slip by? I mean, they killed ST of all people, I think it was merely to make everyone look as far away from him as possible, has he didn't have a large amount of interaction with him.

Or they knew that killing ST would frame me because he was the only one applying REAL pressure against me. Doing so would put me in a hot spot due to that fact, and plus I didn't really do a great job with assisting the Zdenek wagon either. So basically: Killed cop, and then they killed the guy who would seem the most appealing to kill off for me.

So, being that ST applied pressure to me, and I was obviously displeased with his job as an IC, how is that distancing? I just told everyone who I had so far seemed closest to. Why not kill one of those and look like I couldn't possibly be scum? Perhaps because I want to keep them for later? But wouldn't it solidify my town role more so to get rid of one of them, someone who I was apparently defending?

To me, your connection that because they didn't kill me I must be scum doesn't really say a whole lot. Seems fragile at best. Additionally, why not say this before the night came along?

Saying something like "I have a theory about someone depending on the NK." Would have made scum second guess. They might have continued to do what they did, and you would have established this theory before hand instead of having pulled it out of your arse.

[Bulvious]

He came up with one or two, WD. You are pretty damn wishy-washy and I'm seeing that more and more. It COULD be that you don't want to be mislynched (which is always sort of a worry for townies) so you don't take a firm stance, or you just see both points to the things your ww on, or you're scum. Too many different possibilities for me to really narrow you down for a lynch.

[Bulvious]

I suppose the difference between 'a' and 'our' makes the biggest difference here, Chkflip. Your mixed cases against Star and h3ll0, which, while convincing, you gave up pretty quickly. Will read further into it.

[Bulvious]

Kard, your play has already been lacking, I expect to see more from you on the return, like what you thought of the things said before you joined in the game - you know, like you promised.

[Bulvious]

Or it sets standards of good play and bad play. If I tell Kard what the standards are (and yes, that should be a standard), then he knows what he should do. If he continues not to do it, that's pretty anti-town, and obviously so.

[Bulvious]

But please, keep posting scum. You're helping my case.

Not going to go look up some sort of logic fail to make you look silly here, but I get a vibe that this might be fallacious in some way.

[Bulvious]

Alnpka wrote:
Yeah, guys, I'm seeing a slow decay of this thread. Nevertheless I'm really starting to suspect chkflip, always promising something but never posting something helpful in this day. So to raise some discussion:
VOTE: chkflip

Why? Everyone elses posts are just pretty much the same as what yours have been all game.

@drmyshotty

Knowing Workdawg voted Chkflip and only retracted his vote to avoid a quick ending to the day, how does your willingness to follow Work's vote filter in to your constant accusation of him? It seems odd that you so badly want to lynch Workdawg but your first and only concession is to jump from a wagon against him to a wagon he started.

[Bulvious]

"It's not a big deal" =/= "It's not a deal"

Aka, it's still something to note.

Also, Shotty, your defense sucks. (Aka it doesn't exist thus far.)

[Bulvious]

Thunder wrote:
I think it’s post 313 (this was one of the only post numbers I’ve written down—halfway through reading I thought to myself “Gee, I should really start writing notes!”) but you have a post that is written with emotion and continues to berate Al for not scumhunting enough. Or at least not writing enough information. I guess I’m chalking this up to Al’s language (I’m not harping on it, Al, I just think that there is a distinct difference between first and second languages). It just seems that you expound a lot of energy on Al for not a lot of payoff.

Emotional? Perhaps annoyance. How can you not be annoyed by his horrific play?
I'm seeing little of a language barrier, and a lot of shitty play. I'd understand it if he was posting and I couldn't understand, but he's not posting any information - at all, this remains true.
Additionally, if I were mafia, wouldn't it make more sense to go for what people would figure is a more viable target? Why hone in on someone I'm not getting much from? Perhaps it's that I truly don't like his play and find him to be scum?

There’s also Star’s case against you. He calls you on wagon jumping, which you defend, and there is hardly more said on the matter. But I think he might have been on to something, in terms of you calling on everyone around you and not putting your foot down on them—instead you settle your attentions on someone who I see to be a newbie.

Okay, I don't see where this is scummy if you're in my position and think he's scum though - though I'd be curious to hear why you think he's more noob than scum.

It is also something to consider, that Star is dead now. It is very very convenient that his last vote was on h3llo and not on you, but there was a case on you before, and he had you in his sights before, so maybe eliminating him is a way to stop him from honing in again.

It's plausible, he was the only person to REALLY set their vote in against me. But it also makes just as much sense to say they lynched him because I would look that way. In fact, doesn't it even solidify the idea of a Bulv/H3ll0 scumteam that Star brought up? That he and I were the only two to get his vote and suspicion, that is. That really brings up a variety of points against me. I have no defense other than to say it's not true and it's being made to look that way.

[Bulvious]

I'm also noticing that Chkflip's and Drmyshotty's play are pretty similar of late and both seem to be pushing the Workdawg wagon. Going to look further into their slots.

[Bulvious]

Thunder wrote:
Why can't I use the subbing in and outs as evidence?

First off, it seems convenient for you. Granted, you're not really in a horrible position, but assuming Chkflip is right about a Fatso/Kard/Thunder BS/Workdawg team, this is a super good thing to have people agree on for you. It would be assuming that you and WD are clean on something rather light and unhelpful. If someone is really truly busy with their lives I think they wouldn't give much of a shit about a forum game. This game constitutes of about 5-30 mins of my day every day, and I couldn't imagine it taking any more of that time. Yet still, if I was busy, I would prefer to use my recreational time on other things, rather than sitting down here and trying to think and solve. So there's a couple good reasons why it would be bullox and why it sounds fairly bad coming from the slot that has had three people in it.

but if anyone hammer's him prematurely we can assume them to be mafia.

WRONG

You read my games, correct? In my first game, a town prematurely hammered twice, and I ended up hammering him D3 for a town lose. He was like Aln in that he contributed nothing and defended himself little, but he also was hammering townies like a madman. Needless to say, this isn't true. Additionally, why as for permission if you believe yourself to be accurate and correct? This seems a tad on the scummy end to me.


Thunder/WD scumteam, viable.
But I'm also seeing a bit of Chkflip/Shotty scumteaminess.

Though I suppose Alnpka is still on my radar, his inactivity is making any attempt to get him to respond... Not work. Aln, if you are town, you are quite horrible at it. The second worst I've seen on this site. I'm very displeased with your play and I'd still lynch you if ANYONE actually agreed with me.

Thunder, a question for you. If your top three scumspects are myself, Chkflip, or h3ll0, and you think Chkflip is most strongly scum, then who do you most strongly believe to be his buddy?

[Bulvious]

That's good, now we might get someone who is more experienced and knows how to make a case for himself or against others.

But fuck it's late.

FFFfuuuu. Sorry Antihero, I imagine most of the fun in modding is watching player interaction and it's sort of falling to bits and I'm not helping it a ton.

[Bulvious]

Seeker, much of the benefit to the game a new player brings in is new eyes. Read over the topic and tell us what you think, please.

Chk brings up a good point against shot. The tunneltard has been evading prods, and input for quite a long time.

His use in the game is... Nill. He has a case against Workdawg without any new evidence against him, whereas evidence against Drmy is piling up with every post.

On the other hand, Chkflip has been wagon hopping.

And on the other other hand, your case against h3ll0 makes sense.

Excuse my hesitation to vote people, I still want more clarification and input from the Aln/Seeker spot.

[Bulvious]

Seeker, that puts Drmyshotty a L-1, in future situations you need to announce that so there can't be any mistaking by scum.

Shotty is at L-1

Unfortunately, Seeker, you replaced into a game without an IC, but I'd be willing to answer questions you may have.

Shotty, your D still sucks, and your play is like Zdenek, or are you aiming for that because someone said that's not scum behavior?

Alright, and according to WD's analysis and I think I'd agree, Chkflip is probably town. That narrows it down considerably for me.



Answering Seeker: A policy lynch is a lynch people agree on only because they think a no vote would do worse than killing someone under policy. Like a policy to lynch lurkers over no one.

[Bulvious]

I cannot think of a single reason he would be playing like this if he was town

Laziness.

[Bulvious]

^^^^ that isn't to say it's a good excuse, but even a towny can get lazy and decide not to be active and sort of give up the topic.

[Bulvious]

In fact, I would hardly call this quick or anything, but I'm letting you guys know now. Shotty, you have until midnight Saturday CST to make your defense, I'll be voting for you then if I still feel the same way I do now. You've been given WAY too many chances as is, but here's one more.

Maybe you're a town - if so, you're about as bad at it as Zdenek was.

[Bulvious]

I have to work Sunday so I'd rather not post specific time constraints etc.. etc.. Just much better for me on Saturday.

Also, I'll just go through a process of elim for you guys.

Chk - Other than some lack of activity (Which we've all seen recently and no one can fault you) your play has been pretty town. The quote that stands out most to me in my mind was where you hinted at the intent behind your vote to pressure (your post after ST's defense following your case.)
Drmyshot - His play is shit, he's tunneling, the only time he's posted REAL content was when he was trying to sway me against Workdawg, otherwise it's "He's scum I'm town it's obvious guys!"
WD - Talks openly, doesn't tunnel, but hell, he could just be an excited scum and doesn't want to leave the game alone.
h3ll0 - His play is different than his last game.
Seeker - Aln sub in, continues the noob spot - I dislike that he's new but love that he's willing to ask questions and is actually learning and striving to do better unlike Alnpka.
Thunder - He's new, and he's trying really hard to find new scum, and he's breathing life into the topic that was nearing death.

Anywho, I think WD, and Chk are town.
I think Thunder is town.

Which leaves Seeker, h3ll0, and drmyshot.

Seeker is more nooby than the other three to excuse his flaws.

Drmyshot, then h3ll0, but it's flipflopping really bad, if you couldn't tell from my previous notion that Chk might be scum. Lol

[Bulvious]

Doctor, you're then admitting that you're not trying at all because you're town? Seems like sort of a crap attitude for a player to have on the forums.

In fact, I think that would sum up the vast majority of your play here. Craptacular, and your attitude craptastic.

[Bulvious]

ISO means isolation I THINK.
IIoA means Information Instead of Analysis.

[Bulvious]

/vote drmyshottyizsik

Obvious reasons.

[Bulvious]

Or I guess, if necessary...

Vote: drmyshottyizsik

[Bulvious]

Bah! Go town!

[Bulvious]

I was starting to feel Workdawg's scumminess late into the last day I was in the game but most strongly while I was dead and couldn't say anything.

Still, as frustrated as people must be with me for not voting Work, I'm just as frustrated as them for not voting Alnpka

I think we had some pretty bad town, unfortunately. drshotty didn't seem to care at all how the game turned out and it was largely due to that BIG negative attitude vibeness I was getting from him that made me want him gone anyway. Didn't like it at all, but he figured you out, Work.

Obviously need to revamp my own gameplay, I came off WAY more experienced than I feel/am I imagine.

[Bulvious]

It's supposed to be a joke, yes. Should I change the avatar? I quite like it but after three games with it maybe it's time for something new