NY 114: Mafia vs. Werewolves (Game Over)

[Timeater]

I'm not defending foilist, I'm attacking you.

You have yet to answer my question, So-Crates.

[Timeater]

@So-Crates

I am not defending foilist. I am attacking you. Also, you haven't answered my question.

Also, what does insulting players accomplish? No butts about it, that is what you are doing. Of course the vast majority of people wont be able to remember your attack post in this massive game. Everything needs to be referenced in games like this. Your "theory" is nothing more than a veiled insult.

[LimMePls]

This game only serves to further support my theory that people don't actually read the cases other people put out.

Who among the Foilist defenders can actually say what my case on him is without looking back at it?

I can't. I ISO'd you to reread your case, and I have to say it's pretty damn good. 1104 is very logical. However, I think in 1108 foilist13 answers your questions against him very well. You haven't responded to that post, so I'm wondering whether you are just going to ignore it and keep voting him, or challenge any parts you disagree with.

[Socrates]

1) Read through the vezo incident and my posts regarding the matter. If you have ANY dispute as to the invalidity of any of what I was saying please bring it to light. You cannot call me scum because I voted for someone who turned out to be town. That is simply not a scum tell.

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum

immediately after someone else voted for him first

just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

2) Parama was tunneling nhammen.

I thought his case on nhammen was ridiculous, and at the time thought it was scummy

. I went through and analyzed it as you saw and found it didn't amount to much of anything. Between that post and my next, I read over his play and found it consistent in his absolute conviction that he had found scum.

This is the pattern of behavior he's exhibited. So when he jumps on me and suddenly I'm the confirmed scum I wasn't all that surprised. That

could

be scum, but I find it unlikely scum would be so aggressive and call so much attention to themselves in such a blatant way. That is WIFOM though, which means he is

either a poor town player or scum

. I can go on about his poor town play if you still aren't convinced. I don't know what his alignment is, nor do I have anyway of interpreting his behavior as to me his behavior is illogical. With that conclusion in mind, what exactly am I supposed to do other than to get the yapping dog to go away?

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

Another interesting thing about you, and this was pretty much the crux of Parama's initial push on you, is that when pressed, you pretty much avoided calling Nhammen scum at all costs, even going so far as to admit to what Nhammen was calling you scum for and then rush to his defense against Parama's case against him, which is an interesting thing for another player to do for another player if they don't have an explicit scum read on the attacker. Yes, defending a town read is an good thing to do, but you explicitly waffle on Nhammen's alignment at the very start of your defense of him (post 597) :

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

You are probably scum. You are probably Nhammen's scumbuddy. You should probably be lynched today.

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is Parama's case on him actually good? Not a chance in hell.

Now look at that quote you posted in actual context. I've seen plenty of townies exhibit exactly the same behavior I described in nhamen. I looked at Parama's case and found it unsatisfactory as my quote testifies. So do you expect me to think nhammen is scum here? He attacked me based on a misassumption. That is equally poor town play as scum play, and not any more likely to be one or the other. So where exactly am I supposed to think he is scummy?

Now let me clarify something else. At that stage of the game I had a distinctly neutral read on nhammen. I was not defending a town read at all, I was attacking a poor case. The focus was on Parama, not nhammen. There is never a reason to leave a case alone if it is flawed. To do so is starkly anti-town. I don't care at all who the case is on, nor should I. Should I look and say "Oh, Parama is attacking nhammen for his case on me. Sweet, now I'm off the hook. I better leave Parama's case alone so no one pays attention to me?" How is that in any way pro-town?

Yea sure, attack cases you disagree with. This isn't highly relevant to why you are scum except with respect to what I said earlier. The point will be relevant when you flip scum as it is a pretty basic buddy tell on Nhammen.

[Socrates]

How is mislynching in a gigantic game a "classic scumtell", sir? Do you assign the same scumtell to all the other people who voted Chronopie? Do you assign that tell to me as well?

I see you didn't really grasp my point there, Does my response to foilist clear that up at all?

Also, I wasn't talking about you. You were the exception in my head. I just take issue when people ignore a case on someone while professing a town read on a player.

[Socrates]

This game only serves to further support my theory that people don't actually read the cases other people put out.

Who among the Foilist defenders can actually say what my case on him is without looking back at it?

I can't. I ISO'd you to reread your case, and I have to say it's pretty damn good. 1104 is very logical. However, I think in 1108 foilist13 answers your questions against him very well. You haven't responded to that post, so I'm wondering whether you are just going to ignore it and keep voting him, or challenge any parts you disagree with.

^^^ This post is highly likely to come from someone who is protown. Incidentally, I haven't grasped why you are suspicious of MS, yet. Link to a case please?

[Socrates]

@Socrates:

1) Have we played together before?

2) Can you link me to the previous game you played with Parama?

Newbie 855.

Give me a sec. PYPII and he replaced me in Last will where he proceeded to pretty much only vote scum the entire game.

[nhammen]

Try scumhunting

I've already found certain scum, so I won't be doing much of that right now.

UGH! You should NEVER put so much stock into your "reads" that you decide you don't need to look for any more. What if you are wrong? So your incorrect opinion makes you ignore any new information that might convince you correctly. Additionally, there are most likely at least 6 scum in this game. Do you even have that many scum reads? Find more scum please.

Unless I am mistaken, you are talking about Dirty Dirty South mafia. Here's the thing, the person that your team faked a roleblock on to get lynched? One of your scumbuddies! That was an elaborate bus that enabled your team to coast into endgame. Your previous post seemed to indicate that you thought that my player slot was town, so I don't think that is what you are implying here, so I must ask. Am I missing something or did you just get all weasely up in here, SC?

I haven't read that game yet, but from what you said, Serial's accusation makes even less sense than I already thought. I am now very curious what Serial was implying...

I liked Nhammen's whole post. Except these parts. nhammen looks like he's unvoting Socrates because he likes him. Thats really not a reason, and he went from "Kill because I RBed him" to "Don't Kill because I love Socrates!"
Just something odd. I'm keeping my eye on that.

I'm unvoting because he is showing pro-town behavior (as he always does). And because other players have half convinced me that even though I used this RB on his player slot, the chance of a Doc protect is rather high, so I can't be really sure of anything. Not sure enough to lynch based on just role actions and a scummy playstyle.

If there is a cop, he should investigate Serial tonight. (Cop specifically, not Seer. Seer should investigate Nhammen if foilist doesn't flip werewolf, I'm not sure where else if Foilist does flip werewolf. Probably Timeater.)

About a Seer targeting me: I can see that removing the questions about my alignment would be a good idea. It would probably be a good idea for a Seer to target me regardless.

But we're still left with someone claiming to have roleblocked someone else and in the process leaving us with waaaaay fewer NKs than standard in a game this size. Right? I'm not willing to watch the socrates wagon die down. His is the only lynch that makes sense.

Games this size tend to have either 2 or 3 NKs a night. If this game has 3, then a Doc protected 1 and I prevented 1. If this game has 2, then only one of these occurred. So, in my mind 3 kills implies that my RB successfully prevented a kill, making Socrates scum. But 2 kills, a Doc protect is highly likely, considering that D1 ended with a confirmed Town and a claimed Roleblocker.

Someone give me the right to suspect claimed monks and masons and I will look at vezopiraka, Seraphim/animorpherv1, LynchMePls, and daniel/Faraday more.

First off, nobody is stopping you (except for looking at vezo). Personally I am choosing not to look at any of them because there is a lesser chance of them being scum. SO I will wait until we have some flips before looking at them.
Secondly, vezo is confirmed Town. He is the one person you shouldn't be looking at. For him to be scum, either LynchMePls, or BOTH Faraday and ani have to be scum. So, until one of these other possibilities arises, there is NO REASON to look at vezo.

Foilist, post 627 is terrible because you spent an entire page calling Parama scummy/stupid and then you avoid voting him and instead vote for the Mislynch Of The Day(tm), a classic scumtell. You have repeatedly waffled between calling Parama scum and calling him dumb and refuse to take a hard stance on him in any way. Even now you decline to meet him head on and instead try to take him out at the knees and discredit him by calling into question his competence while simultaneously suggesting (but not outright saying) that he is scum. You are not interested in Parama's actual alignment, only in making that yapping dog go away.

I hadn't considered this as scummy. The comment in his 597

You didn't make a good case, and you're a VI by mine.

seems like he is exclusively calling him stupid, not scummy. So his not voting in 627 makes sense.

(For the record, I have experience playing with parama before and he is far from a VI. He has an antagonistic attitude to his posts which make it hard for him to ingratiate himself to others, let alone lead a lynch on another player, but he is a very solid scum hunter.)

He has been a VI in this game though... See his massive tunneling. See his refusal to listen to any arguments that went against his case. See his "I've already caught scum so don't need to scumhunt" comment. Now if you say he usually isn't a VI, what does his play in this game mean about him? Hmmm...

Another interesting thing about you, and this was pretty much the crux of Parama's initial push on you, is that when pressed, you pretty much avoided calling Nhammen scum at all costs, even going so far as to admit to what Nhammen was calling you scum for and then rush to his defense against Parama's case against him, which is an interesting thing for another player to do for another player if they don't have an explicit scum read on the attacker. Yes, defending a town read is an good thing to do, but you explicitly waffle on Nhammen's alignment at the very start of your defense of him (post 597) :

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

You are probably scum. You are probably Nhammen's scumbuddy. You should probably be lynched today.

I'd say maybe he is buddying me. But A) I don't see why scum wouldn't just let me hang and B) budding would involve much more of a Town read than a waffling read wouldn't it? I get a pretty strong Town read from foilist in this game.

I really shouldn't be defending him like this, because if it is buddying, this just makes it more effective. But I do have a pretty good Town read on him. So, yeah...

Unsight, I didn't see your questions in the first place.
First: I didn't ISO MS and I don't plan on it.
Second: I didn't ISO SGR and I don't plan on it.
Third: Chrono was on my scumlist, the wagons for the more obvious scum just never picked up.

UGH! Get off of your stupid Anti-Town playstyle and actually DO SOME WORK!

nhammen - this is the game:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

I will get to reading that shortly.

a) nhammen is a scum roleblocker, or on a team with a scum roleblocker.
b) nhammen's team genuinely blocked your (Socrates) slot - PS this is the answer to nhammen's 'Why would I target SGRAize? Because you were genuinely looking for scum.
c) nhammen feels like if we lynch Socrates slot and find scum, then good times, he'll look great. If not - meh, he can blame any other reason of failed kill.

Ummm... earlier you said:

I think nhammen knows why the kill didn't work because his team, either purposefully or not, failed their kill, and he's taking advantage of the situation.

These two quotes contradict each other about what you believe.

Foilist, your case is just a massive wall of text without explaining why most of the quotes are scummy, and you're using it to hide a simple thing - an OMGUS vote because you're sour that I've caught you and won't let go. Tunneling is the best way to prove scum to everyone else once you yourself have found them, and it's worked beautifully thus far - I mean, look - you and nhammen are obviously buddies

it's worked beautifully thus far - I mean, look - Chrono and nhammen are obviously buddies - oh wait... Yeah, definitely worked beautifully.[/sarcasm]


@vezo, STOP following Parama. This is the WRONG PLAYER to follow. You are just contributing to the VIness of this game.

@LynchMePls 1141: Agree with the majority of this post. Do not agree with this:

While I don't agree about roleblocker being a fairly unlikely role for town to have, I do agree that nhammen was way to aggresive with his vote on SGR. Almost like he was desperate to put the attention anywhere other than on himself. nhammen didn't even consider for a moment that there could be other reasons for one less kill.

My strongest Scum read was askbob. This SGR block put SGR over askbob, even if there were other possibilities. And I DID consider other reasons. See:

I roleblocked SGR.

I don't think there is any chance of NK WIFOM, but there is something else I am worried about.

I see 4 possibilities for why their kill would not have occurred.
A) I roleblocked the Mafia Kill. Who it targeted doesn't matter. We know SGR is scum
B) NK WIFOM as Parama brought up. I find this highly unlikely.
C) They targeted an NK-Immune player. These types of roles don't occur very often. And the chances of just happening to hit someone with this role are small. So, I also find this unlikely.
D) A Doc protected their target. Unfortunately, this is likely, as there were claimed PRs. If D is the case, I am guessing the Mafia either targeted me or you, and a Doc correctly protected.

[Socrates]

@SerialClergyman, I have no real issue with your response to my question (I disagree with point C though. When I would have flipped town Nhammen would have been a dead man walking, even with the excuse he could fall back on, especially with you breathing down his neck.), but don't think that doesn't mean I'm not suspicious of you though. Your position is EXACTLY what mine would be right now if I was a member of the mafia.

God, I'm drowning the thread and I am only responding to things.

/Socrates out

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[Parama]

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons.

This is grounds for a policy lynch

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[Leafsnail]

Foilist is still obvious for his mad overdefence and the fact he only focuses on his accusers. Post 1126 is hilariously desperate.

Lowell is also probably scum. Nhammen could've done that since he was about to get lynched yesterday... could be indirect defence of foilist?

Timeater is on the same team as foilist. Note the lack of connection with foilist and the vague "attack" on socrates.

[LimMePls]

@nhammen You said you blocked SGR in 952 and you voted him right then. You didn't admit to other possibilites until 984, and only after others pointed out that there were other explanations for missing NK besides your RB.

@Socrates Start with post 896 and read the next few pages. Note that we had considerable discussion about Sevis on D1 and not once did MS ever even hint that he thought Sevis might be scummy. Then, after Vi NK he immediately leaps on Sevis. When I point this out, rather than offer any sort of credible defense, he instead tries to make the issue about me "dropping" Sevis. His attack on Sevis was weaksauce. Add 951, where he claims the whole wagon on him is only bandwagoning, adding yet another complete misrepresentation to his already considerable list of them.

For that matter, just ISO MS. The whole thing is scummy.

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons.

Yeah, I disagree. I have people with better reads from me. As a matter of fact, I'm becoming suspicious of you. You're not exactly my top lynch candidate, but you are in my suspect list.

Foams: foulest

Also, you and Parama need to stop arguing with each other so god damn much. This will either go absolutely nowhere and turn out to be a ton of fluff or something really detrimental to town. Either way, both of you need to cool down for awhile.

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

Sorry for the mispelling, I meant "foilist13". Not meaning to insult him.

[Timeater]

Timeater is on the same team as foilist. Note the lack of connection with foilist and the vague "attack" on socrates.

Heh. Still not answering questions are we? You would rather make predatory accusations like you have been most of the game coupled garbled misinformation? Oh you would? Ok.

Vote: Leafsnail

Socrates is obviously fighting for his life. Are you all so keen to politely forget SGR?

Anyways, if you must - go ahead, lynch foilist (I am of the opinion Leaf is a better lynch, obviously).

It wont matter that he'd(foilist) be a victim of a feedback loop of non-information and accusation. His tunnel-vision inquisitors will be put to the blade for their scuminess soon enough.

[Leafsnail]

I answered your question - nhammen was about to be lynched. If you're about to be lynched, you'll claim anything.

I love the way you accuse me of making unfounded accusations while suddenly switching to me with no other reasons. Really nicely done.

And I don't get accused until I vote you. Would it be possible to get some non-lame, non-OMGUSing scum ITT?

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

I would like to announce "The Claimed Masons Mini-Series!". I will go through three of the four confirmed mason (The one I'm not mentioning is Vezopiraka, because he's a "confirmed townie"). First off, Seraphim/animorpherv1.

Seraphim claimed Mason along with claiming Mason for Vezopiraka and daniel. This was meant to clear up a situation. However, when Vezopiraka and LynchMePls claimed Monks, things got really confusing. Basically, Seraphim's claim did nothing to help the situation, aside from "confirming" Vezopiraka as town.

After May 18, 2010, he goes into inactivity period. When he came back on May 20, 2010, he did it simply to join nhammen's bandwagon, which was big at the time. I was pretty mad about this because I was hoping for a lot better return from him then just agreeing with Parama on nhammen and placing a vote on him. He goes inactive again.

He comes back May 23, 2010 for the last time to say he's catching up. Sadly, this never happen. He got replaced by animorpherv1.

In the signup sheet, he showed excitement for this game saying he love Mafia and Werewolf mixtures. If he loved it so much, why did he flake out?

He went from a slightly town read to a considerable scum read.

animorpherv1 decided to join the SGRaaize bandwagon, saying it was the only semi-reasonable thing that could be a lynch. I highly disagreed, even thought I found SGRaaize suspicious, I wasn't prepared to kill him off. Plus nhammen was right that roleblocking could not have happen and that a doctor's protection was possible.

He also let other people do the talking, alas ISO: 5. His last post basically said "Too much posting, I can't keep up, need to be replaced!", which is bull because instead of two, MichelSableheart has to find three replacements. Whenever MichelSableheart will find them, I don't know.

Seraphim/animorpherv1's play has not been very good and animorpherv1 might have been slightly disrespectful.

I'm currently happy with my vote on askbob for now, but I'll give that slot an

FoS

.

[SerialClergyman]

nhammen - you totally caught me out. It seems when I first raised this I was more thinking you failed your kill and wanted to take advantage of it and more recently I've been thinking maybe you didn't and you have a genuine reason to push your block target. The fact that I'm so happy to switch between both possibilities indicates a bit (!!) of leftover confirmation bias from D1 as well as changing thoughts after you pointed out SGRaise was your target and didn't have to be.

[Unsight]

No, I didn't see them. I quoted the same post, so what? I am a selective reader. And I answered them now. Your argument is completely ridiculous.

Really, how could you know what I do or don't read? <_<

This is pretty simple.

Either you're dodging questions and lying about it, which is scummy. Or you're very selectively reading posts which implies you're more interested in creating scum than finding scum, which is even scummier.

[Parama]

If I was dodging questions, why did I answer them as soon I realized they existed?
I am somewhat selective focusing on certain parts of posts over others, yes. The standout parts of a post that make someone look scummier or townier, or the most relevant parts. I completely missed your questions party because they didn't stand out and I don't know if I even realized they were directed at me.

Regardless, your argument is incredibly stupid, and I don't see how anyone could agree with it. Which is good because nobody seems to be doing so, so I'm assuming they see its weakness as well.

[Timeater]

*** Can we play the list your top three suspects game? ***

Code: Select all

1. Leafsnail
2. Parama
3. Socrates

IF EVERYONE COULD RESPOND WITHOUT MASSIVE WALLS OF TEXT THAT WOULD BE GREAT, THANKS.

[Unsight]

If I was dodging questions, why did I answer them as soon I realized they existed?
I am somewhat selective focusing on certain parts of posts over others, yes. The standout parts of a post that make someone look scummier or townier, or the most relevant parts. I completely missed your questions party because they didn't stand out and

I don't know if I even realized they were directed at me.

Regardless, your argument is incredibly stupid, and I don't see how anyone could agree with it. Which is good because nobody seems to be doing so, so I'm assuming they see its weakness as well.

So, now you're saying it's not that you didn't see them but that you didn't realize they were directed at you?