Camilla may just be bad play though. Although the arguement is, it might be worth it to lynch bad players right away to fucking teach them a lesson in that they need to go learn how to play better, therein making the site more competitive.
Based on Camilla's obviously shitty play I am inclined to believe her stupid anti-town. That could quickly change though once we see her attempt at developing an actual case.
still think Shos is scum, they tend to try real damn hard once they are getting pressured and I get that vibe right now from Shos.
In post 74, 2birds1stone wrote:It's hardly nitpicking. It's not like I picked a tiny sentence out of a wall of text and span an entire case around it. These are fairly obvious transgressions, you can call them minor, or even go as far to argue that they're not scumtells (though I obviously disagree), but it's most certainly not picking nits.
hardly nitpicking? you seriously accused me of being scum for not voting in ym first post, and for 'not taking responsibility' of my RVS vote!! aer you fucking kidding me???
and @sean - "try real damn hard" - read my meta, I literally always get defensive when attacked.
VOTE: 2birds1stone
obvious consistency in bad logic and faulty arguments is obvious.
In post 74, 2birds1stone wrote:It's hardly nitpicking. It's not like I picked a tiny sentence out of a wall of text and span an entire case around it. These are fairly obvious transgressions, you can call them minor, or even go as far to argue that they're not scumtells (though I obviously disagree), but it's most certainly not picking nits.
hardly nitpicking? you seriously accused me of being scum for not voting in ym first post, and for 'not taking responsibility' of my RVS vote!! aer you fucking kidding me???
and @sean - "try real damn hard" - read my meta, I literally always get defensive when attacked.
VOTE: 2birds1stone
obvious consistency in bad logic and faulty arguments is obvious.
Yes, that's not nitpicking.
'Nitpicking', as I suggested earlier, invovles taking a small aspect of a large post, possibly out-of-context, and building gigantic cases out of it. I picked on entire posts of yours. This was not "OMG, you used and instead of or", this was "that entire post is scummy". As I said, you can argue that it's not a scumtell, but no, I have left the nits where they belong.
That is just bullshit in disguise. You are trying to negate my argument by saying that i gave it the wrong name. Fine - call it an uber forced case, i dont care. Point is that having not voted in fitst post is no scumtell; nor is reasoning your rvs vote.
those 2 points shos, arn't even really why hes voting you. Ironic because your trying to do exactly what you think he is doing to you regarding negating your arguments.
Removal of accountability (with as much explanation as I can possibly provide)
: When you make an RVS vote, you say, I dunno, "Vote: 2B1S because he's a total nutjob" or something to that effect. In saying this, you have said "I am voting this person for no real reason of my own free will, and if they flip scum, I was either bussing them or being a good townie". Yes, that's a very broad statement, and seemingly worthless than "I vote this person because my pattern of voting the last voter says I must, and their flip has no bearing on my actions". You did the latter. Now, on the one hand, you have done a very good job of looking like this is a new concept to you; on the other hand, your join date suggests not.
*
Not voting in first post
: This is a small point, but it's a point of sorts. There was no notification sent out to the players when this game started; that gives scum a great chance to stall a few RL days off Day 1; eh, it's not much of an advantage, but it's a minor one.
*
Paranoia about L--2
: Self-explanatory
*
Assumptions about set-up
: Self-explanatory, especially when you admit you've never seen this sort of a game before and therefore shouldn't have any preconceived notions of what the scumteam should be.
*
Initially ignoring my serious vote
: Yes, you didn't freak out. That was good. However, any serious vote, however weak, is ultimately good for the town, and any townie should be relieved to see RVS over. You weren't.
Scum enough.
Very well indeed.
1. I seriously do not understand what the difference is between "I vote him because he's stupid" and "I vote him because he RVS voted her". seriously, you said that my vote was 'because I must' instead of 'because I want' - in order to remove responsibility - but nothing dictated me to vote that way, in fact, nothing even dictated me to post; I really see no water in this jar of yours.
2. ....... .........this is so forced. seriously. I can go right now back to the board index and get back here with no less than 50(increase that numbers as you'd like) game which started in a post without a vote. are you seriously accusing me of stalling the game on post 1? and even furthermore - look at the damn post:
In post 3, shos wrote:so many people, damn. people should be notified that the game started, I think
"there was no notification sent out to the players when this game started" - IN CASE YOU DID NOT NOTICE THAT IS WHAT THE POST IS ABOUT. if I wanted to stall the game I wouldn't post that. SO forced.
3+4. I can't see any reason for my setup spec and the fear caused by it to be a scumtell, not to mention self explanatory. I gave you my not-so-unlikely analysis of the game(yes, without investigating alllllll the ways a 7p game can go) and gave you very specific reasons on how and why being in L-1 is dangerous. Just the fact that Camilla has been like that for a while now makes me sure that she is scum. If you think this is a scumtell, you are welcome to correct me; analyse the setup yourself. tell me everything.
5. that was not a vote to come out of RVS. eventually it was meaningful since it promoted this discussion, but at the time, I coulda sworn it wasn't serious. the reasoning behind it was just about as stupid as any RVS vote you can find. Now that you elaborated, it might look a tad less stupid, but still it is SOOO forced that even if this happened again in another game, I'd react exactly the same.
explains to you why he is voting me and what I am doing. he gave me specific points, and I answered them one by one. The first two are those two precisely. Maybe instead of failing in talking
for him
(not why
he
's voting you), you should tell me why *you* are voting me?
In post 82, shos wrote:That is just bullshit in disguise. You are trying to negate my argument by saying that i gave it the wrong name. Fine - call it an uber forced case, i dont care. Point is that having not voted in fitst post is no scumtell; nor is reasoning your rvs vote.
No, once again, you're missing the point. Nitpicking actually is scummy. Being wrong isn't. Forcing a case would also be somewhat scummy, but honestly, does this look like I've gone and put fucktons of effort into it to you?
You're taking FuDuzn's line of reasoning because it not only gets you off the hook, but it gets your detractor killed. Problem is, he's wrong.
Out of interest, shos, who do you think is the scummiest person who's not voting you? There's a slight issue, IMO, when every single one of your scumreads is on your wagon (though admittedly, it is a trap I've fallen into before as town).
yes, it does look like that. you put effort in making a case against me, half of which is WAAAY forced and even the non-forced stuff are faulty and using bad logic.
what is FuDuzn's line of reasoning.? I'm taking the logical line of reasoning. ever heard of Occam's Razor? you're going against it consistently, and really I have nothing else to say. if you keep posting stuff that do not make sense and stand behind them, then you're either a VI or scum, and I doubt you're a VI atm.
of the people not on my wagon- it doesn't look like there's anyone scummy; so I'll give you soat, because he is the least-townie of them, methinks. I am well aware to the fact that my scumreads are all on my wagon - but that's a problem when half the town seriously wants to lynch me for not voting in the first post, and the other half is just THINKING.
reread the damn game and your damn case and start thinking too.
I am starting to feel as this is either a town/town or scum/scum argument, but not a combo of the two(ie if we lunch one I think the other is the same alignment). I say this because my reads of each of them are waivering a bit and I can't put a solid scum or town read on them really anymore. My vote will stay of 2birds though because I believe it is best to go on first instinct.
The greatest trick the devil ever performed was convincing the world he doesn't exist
In post 86, shos wrote:I'm taking the logical line of reasoning. ever heard of Occam's Razor? you're going against it consistently, and really I have nothing else to say.
Occam's Razor? There's something truly hilarious about someone plead Occam's Razor in mafia.
It just doesn't apply. For example, if someone's on a wagon which lynches scum, the simplest explanation is that they're town. Of course, bussing is such an omnipresent strategy that this would be a silly explanation to make.
More generally, it's always simpler to assume someone's being honest than it is to glean the true intentions of their post; however, it is the mafia's job to lie and misinform. Applying Occam's Razor whilst reading someone else's posts is ridiculous, or at least, applying it strictly is.
I will just claim because I already used my power, I am a 1 shot sane cop and I investigated Seanald last night because I figured more likely then not scum would have been on the 2birds wagon in a small game like this. According to my investigation he is not mafia, though we always have a Godfather to worry about. VOTE: horrordude
Kondi, he replaced Camilla.
The greatest trick the devil ever performed was convincing the world he doesn't exist