Mini 234: Astuto-Umore (Finished!)

[Phoebus]

*sigh* That was aimed at Commodore Amazing.

[Fishbulb]

Haha! Got ya, Phoebus.

Score 1 point for the Fish.

[Phoebus]

*bangs head*

This was aimed at CA!

You know - the very objectionable part of your post would be: stating the obvious.

You quote Yosarian.
You point fingers at other people.
My vote is still on Kerplunk.
You are voting me.
All very interesting.

[Phoebus]

*growl*

I need some batter and chips!

[PolarBoy]

Unvote: Nightfall, vote: Phoebus

.

I figure this was some sort of error, and I'd like it clarified and done with. There's no one in this game named Nightfall, and before this your vote was on Kerplunk anyway. I think Stoofer might be confusing this game with Mini 237- Basic Mafia. Is that true Stoofer?.

However, now that I think about it, it is a little strange. CA, why are you so sure that one of the kills on Coren last night wasn't a vig? There are several people I know of who would vig killed Coren night 1 given half a chance.

I don't think vigilantes typically kill people on the first night... and which part do you think is a vigilante? The "riddled with bullets" or the "cut in half?" Sounds like scum and SK to me. I know you don't think it's a vigilante, Yosarian. I'm surprised other people are going after me.

unvote: Mr Stoofer, vote: Phoebus

.

That quote doesn't even support his point, which isn't surprising, since no one has said they think the night one kill was the work of a vigilante, which means there isn't a proper quote to support his point.

Unvote: Mr Stoofer, Vote: Commodore Amazing

[CoolBot]

Commodore, if you didn't think the kill was the work of a vigilante, why did you even bring it up? It's pretty rare that vigs operate on Night 1. This whole thing suggest you have some sort of knowledge about the kill.

vote: Commodore Amzing

[Fritzler]

I'll admit I didn't see it as a joke, but I don't find anything overly scummy about him saying.

[Commodore Amazing]

CA, why are you so sure that one of the kills on Coren last night wasn't a vig?

I don't think vigilantes typically kill people on the first night...

no one has said they think the night one kill was the work of a vigilante.

I think we're having some miscommunication issues here. Yeah, Yosarian2 gave the wink thing, but I gave the go-ahead for getting down to business. Winking is not business!
Kerplunk also said he thought I was speculating on whether or not Coron was killed by a vigilante (the "murderer"):

I thought he was saying that Coron wasn't a vigilante.

In fact he was speculating on the murderer itself.

You know - the very objectionable part of your post would be: stating the obvious.

What am I saying that is obvious? The fact that the vig probably didn't kill Coron. Okay. Why is it objectionable that I say that?

You point fingers at other people.
My vote is still on Kerplunk.
You are voting me.
All very interesting.

I have no idea why you are voting for Kerplunk or why you agreed with Kerplunk that I was scummy. If you're voting for Kerplunk based on a "random bandwagon," you can't expect people to not find that scummy.

Pre-Preview Edit: CoolBot too?!?!? I wasn't even the first one to speculate on the kills; Fishbulb was. Sometimes people get called out for it for "knowing something," but it's really not that much of a leap of faith to assume two groups killed Coron. Then it wasn't much of a leap of faith to figure out who is responsible. Have you

read

the death scene? If someone's guilty of stating the obvious, it's Fishbulb.

Save me, Mr Stoofer! None of these jokers have played in a game with me before. Tell them I'm always worthless for stating anything except the obvious!

[Phoebus]

Well, since playing mafia depends a lot on reason, deduction and getting at the unobvious, why should we keep you around?

[Kerplunk]

About my current scum-cathcing-tactics: I'm trying to catch scum on the first day by looking at small things/slip-ups in their posts.

Current? You mean you just started this "tactic"? What was your previous method? That's been my general approach since I've started playing. Haven't been successful... yet.. but what else are you going to do?

Can't remember what my first tactics were. But in one game I used the IS-method (didn't work) and I guess I was in my shameless bandwagonner-period (didn't work either) and then I just did 'stuff' on Day 1 (didn't work at all). But this is going off-topic.


CA, people just think you're comments on the nightkill are 'off'. Some mafiosi tend to post these kind of posts when they have nothing else to say but still want to contribute in fear of being accused of not adding to the discussion. I think.

[PolarBoy]

Yeah, Yosarian2 gave the wink thing, but I gave the go-ahead for getting down to business. Winking is not business!

What I said was that Yosarian's post had nothing to do with what you said. Then you inplied that people were voting at you because they thought that the night 1 kill was at least in part caused by a vig. As far as I can tell no one ever even suggested it was a possibility, except Yosarian (as a joke), and you (not as a joke, but not with any kind of convicton either).

At any rate I have no idea what the above quote actually means. It would be very kind of you to clarify. I don't really have anything else to say until I get an answer for this.

[olio]

Second that request of Polarboy's about the quote.

At the moment I find Commodore Amazing most scummy, followed with Mr. Stoofer. I counted four votes on CA -

mod

, can you verify that with a vote-count?

[massive]

Official Vote Count

Commodore Amazing: 4 (draygn_mage, Kerplunk, Polarboy, Coolbot)
Kerplunk: 2 (Fritzler, Phoebus)
Phoebus: 2 (Mr Stoofer, Commodore Amazing)

Not voting: Fishbulb, olio, Yosarian2

[Phoebus]

Commodore Amazing,
No I do not suppose I can really expect a third vote on a bandwagon to be viewed as "non scummy" by everybody. But that's beside the point.

I don't think vigilantes typically kill people on the first night... and which part do you think is a vigilante? The "riddled with bullets" or the "cut in half?" Sounds like scum and SK to me. I know you don't think it's a vigilante, Yosarian. I'm surprised other people are going after me.

The problem with that post lies in the fact that nowhere in the post do you explicitly say why you're voting me. No I don't expect an explanation for every vote but those kind of posts usually contain a vote and nothing else. In this post, you give an explanation about your previous post. You express surprise at other people "going after" you. And you vote me out of (in a way) the blue. I had just expressed my concern over one of your posts. I was not even "going after" you.
I am now.

unvote: Kerplunk ; vote: Commodore Amazing.

[Mr Stoofer]

Save me, Mr Stoofer! None of these jokers have played in a game with me before. Tell them I'm always worthless for stating anything except the obvious!

Well I'm not sure I could save you if I wanted to.

I

still

don't understand how CA now has 5 (I think) votes. It seems to be related to his statement that Coron was probabbly not killed by a vig, because vigs don't usually kill night 1. This has me scratching my head because vigs don't usually kill night 1 (unless they're idiots). So I don't see how stating that fact (which CA rightly categorised as "obvious") makes him scummy.

I'm obviously missing something.

[Mr Stoofer]

In my experiences, town are so paranoid that they are going to notice these little things and blow them out of proportion, but most of the time they are just misunderstandings. Meanwhile scum sit back and just randomly add thoughts, but don't actually take a side until the town has come to a decision. Kinda like I'm doing right now... oops!

This is what I think is happening.

[Fishbulb]

I

still

don't understand how CA now has 5 (I think) votes. It seems to be related to his statement that Coron was probabbly not killed by a vig, because vigs don't usually kill night 1. This has me scratching my head because vigs don't usually kill night 1 (unless they're idiots). So I don't see how stating that fact (which CA rightly categorised as "obvious") makes him scummy.

I'm obviously missing something.

Yeah, I'm kind of in the same boat. Phoebus' last post is the main thing that concerned me. Commodore Amazing's random vote after the comments he made seemed out of place. He gave no reason, and Phoebus wasn't voting him, so his discussion and the vote have no relation to one another. Just seemed odd. Doesn't make him scum though.

But, here's the deal, what are we going to get on Day 1? Probably nothing more than a hunch. *shrug*

[Phoebus]

It might not make him scm but from where I'm sitting, a decent day one lynch. Or at the very least, someone to push for a claim.

And as far as the bulb's post quoted by Stoofer goes, well - you have a better idea for doing stuff on day one? We use what we get.

[Fishbulb]

I can't tell if you are asking me, or Mr. Stoofer... But I'll respond anyway.

I wasn't saying that what was happening was right or wrong. Nor who could be scum and who is not. Just an observation that no matter what happens today, it will probably end randomly. We can try to pick apart people's posts to come up with a reason, and that's really all we can do. But catching someone saying something odd doesn't really get us closer to finding scum, just gets us someone who said something odd. It's enough of a reason for me, though. Let's hang 'em!

(Note: I'm fine with lynching Commodore Amazing, but I'm not adding my vote just yet in case someone has something else to add.)

[Mr Stoofer]

you have a better idea for doing stuff on day one?

And if that is directed at me, my idea is to lynch the guy who I think is reaching too hard to find scumminess in harmless posts. That would be you.

[Fishbulb]

Well, then you misinterpreted my post entirely. I said that people not getting involved are likely scum. Hence, those that show a strong opinion are generally just overly enthusiastic townies. If you follow that line of reasoning as you did when you quoted me, then Phoebus wouldn't be high on your suspect list at all.

Don't quote me and then use it to justify something completely unrelated to what I was saying.

[Mr Stoofer]

Fishbulb, I think you may have misunderstood me. The "you" in my post 69 was Phoebus, not Fishbulb.

[CoolBot]

The reason CA's post is so scummy is it's the sort of post someone with knowledge about the kill would post. Why even bring up the possiblity of a vig, unless he wants the town to begin considering it? He's either trying to hide his connection to Coron's death under the cover of a vig, or trying to indicate he's a vig. Vig's don't usually go around announcing themselves, so I think it's the former.

[Fishbulb]

Yeah, and I don't agree with that being scummy. Not that we shouldn't lynch him, just that isn't a very good reason to do it. But what else are we going to get on Day 1?

Fishbulb, I think you may have misunderstood me. The "you" in my post 69 was Phoebus, not Fishbulb.

Okay, I understood that. Phoebus' question was in regards to post 65 in which you quoted me, and then added "This is what I think is happening." So, your response to all of that implies that you agree with me, and then when Phoebus questions you on it, you say that what you mean is that you find Phoebus scummy, which is the exact opposite of what I said in that quote that you agreed with. I'm seriously confused.

[Mr Stoofer]

To Fishbulb: I have just read your post 70 again and you are right - I had misunderstood your post 48 (which I quoted in post 65). Sorry.