In post 224, HenryCabotLodge wrote:You never gave me a proper explanation of why you removed your vote on me after I was "obvious scum."
You are either blind or stupid, probably both, in case you didn't catch it.
By focusing on you people were able to lurk, to avoid that, I removed my vote to ask them what they thought. You need to re-read the game, Dont go AFK and then come back acting like you kept up.
Its obvious to me after reading your part match where you also abandoned, that you are just a crap player, now please, please, re read the game. And I have cast doubt on Joram BTW, but you would need to read to see that, right?
If you are this hard headed, im tempted to commit suicide just to leave the game, you are honestly not helping town you are hurting it.
In post 224, HenryCabotLodge wrote:You never gave me a proper explanation of why you removed your vote on me after I was "obvious scum."
You are either blind or stupid, probably both, in case you didn't catch it.
By focusing on you people were able to lurk, to avoid that, I removed my vote to ask them what they thought. You need to re-read the game, Dont go AFK and then come back acting like you kept up.
Its obvious to me after reading your part match where you also abandoned, that you are just a crap player, now please, please, re read the game. And I have cast doubt on Joram BTW, but you would need to read to see that, right?
If you are this hard headed, im tempted to commit suicide just to leave the game, you are honestly not helping town you are hurting it.
Oh and incase you missed it:
Please keep slapping your face until you knock yourself out, Thespio. Having your vote on me did not prevent you from questioning other people. You can question other people while having me, the "obvious scum", still be your vote. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I was in no danger of being lynched. Removing the vote did nothing except show that you had no confidence in it.
Also, you have cast light doubts on almost everyone at some point in this game through your prolific "reads." What you've expressed for JoramvanVugt is not consistent with how you view other people (e.g. aggressive hatred of lurking).
I hope you maintain this dismissive tone, it's amusing. And I'm devastated the game where I had to replace out because of real life didn't impress you, Thespio. Like I said, I only hope I can learn from you moving forward this game!
In post 226, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Please keep slapping your face until you knock yourself out, Thespio. Having your vote on me did not prevent you from questioning other people. You can question other people while having me, the "obvious scum", still be your vote. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I was in no danger of being lynched. Removing the vote did nothing except show that you had no confidence in it.
Also, you have cast light doubts on almost everyone at some point in this game through your prolific "reads." What you've expressed for JoramvanVugt is not consistent with how you view other people (e.g. aggressive hatred of lurking).
I hope you maintain this dismissive tone, it's amusing. And I'm devastated the game where I had to replace out because of real life didn't impress you, Thespio. Like I said, I only hope I can learn from you moving forward this game!
So what does it tell you if im dismissive to people I read as town and not to someone else? draw the conclusion there for me, lets do this then, I'm going to ignore you, because your not really helping or being productive, you are more reactive then proactive. Now cool your jets, if you suspect our new buddy who voted for you by piggy backing then why arent you voting for him, do you honestly still think people are going to take your OMGUS seriously?
All you've said was you voted to "get [Veegee] talking". Micc is clearly asking you to explain why you wanted to get Veegee talking, but you refuse to elaborate by clearly dodging his question.
In post 174, Micc wrote:No you haven't explained why you made the vote in the first place. From your recent posts I have gathered that you are not scum reading the slot. I don't understand what the point of pressuring an empty slot to post is, if you don't actually find that sort of thing scummy.
You then post your quote once more. You didn't have to repeat yourself; Micc got you the first time. He understands you voted Veegee to get him to post. By repeating this answer, you've been dodging the underlying issue: Why did you want Veegee of all people to post?
@StubbsKVM: you could have easily answered that question with anything. I can personally come up with a couple of reasons why a townie would want to vote Veegee, however I can only guess what's going on in your mind. Even HCL came up with a possible reason:
In post 202, HenryCabotLodge wrote:I can see Stubbs' reasoning for the vote. The game was at a standstill and there were a lot of lurkers. He didn't necessarily scumread VeeGee, but the lurking was irksome and putting some pressure on him wasn't a bad way to get somebody in the game who hadn't said much yet but was still in an interesting (remember VeeGee was the subject of the first bandwagon).
^StubbsKVM, if that was the reason, you could have posted something along those lines to appease Micc. But you didn't. Instead you drew out the interaction by repeating the same answer (disregarding the different questions/requests for elaboration) and making it appear that Micc keeps asking you the same question resulting in a unproductive back and forth.
My analysis:
1. If you voted for Veegee because it was the popular opinion at the time:
- Town would just answer with the truth. Townies don't self-regulate as mafia do, because they don't have to worry about accidently scum slipping.
- Scum (imo) know that if they gave that answer, their action might somehow be associated with mafia. They're more likely to go that extra mile to distance themselves from anything that can possibly shed a negative light on them.
StubbsKVM,
1. You chose not to answer.
2. You also didn't acknowledge or dispute any of Micc's implications surrounding you (repeating your incomplete answer doesn't count).
3. You drew out the interaction by repeating the same answer - this makes the exchange seem pointless, making it more acceptable for you to...
4. ...direct the conversation away from this topic.
In post 221, StubbsKVM wrote:This doesn't add up. First you admitted I already gave reasoning, now you're scumreading me for not answering. Please explain.
U answered it, it just took a while, and im not scum reading you, or you would be red, im just cautious of you.
What do you mean it took a while? The only thing that took a while is you seeing it.
In post 214, Micc wrote:And i see reads from akuseru so im not sure what you issue there is either. As far as i remember he never actually dodged a question about what his reads were.
All you've said was you voted to "get [Veegee] talking". Micc is clearly asking you to explain why you wanted to get Veegee talking, but you refuse to elaborate by clearly dodging his question.
No you haven't explained why you made the vote in the first place
. From your recent posts I have gathered that you are not scum reading the slot. I don't understand what the point of pressuring an empty slot to post is, if you don't actually find that sort of thing scummy.
You then post your quote once more. You didn't have to repeat yourself; Micc got you the first time. He understands you voted Veegee to get him to post. By repeating this answer, you've been dodging the underlying issue: Why did you want Veegee of all people to post?
@StubbsKVM: you could have easily answered that question with anything. I can personally come up with a couple of reasons why a townie would want to vote Veegee, however I can only guess what's going on in your mind. Even HCL came up with a possible reason:
In post 202, HenryCabotLodge wrote:I can see Stubbs' reasoning for the vote. The game was at a standstill and there were a lot of lurkers. He didn't necessarily scumread VeeGee, but the lurking was irksome and putting some pressure on him wasn't a bad way to get somebody in the game who hadn't said much yet but was still in an interesting (remember VeeGee was the subject of the first bandwagon).
^StubbsKVM, if that was the reason, you could have posted something along those lines to appease Micc. But you didn't. Instead you drew out the interaction by repeating the same answer (disregarding the different questions/requests for elaboration) and making it appear that Micc keeps asking you the same question resulting in a unproductive back and forth.
My analysis:
1. If you voted for Veegee because it was the popular opinion at the time:
- Town would just answer with the truth. Townies don't self-regulate as mafia do, because they don't have to worry about accidently scum slipping.
- Scum (imo) know that if they gave that answer, their action might somehow be associated with mafia. They're more likely to go that extra mile to distance themselves from anything that can possibly shed a negative light on them.
StubbsKVM,
1. You chose not to answer.
2. You also didn't acknowledge or dispute any of Micc's implications surrounding you (repeating your incomplete answer doesn't count).
3. You drew out the interaction by repeating the same answer - this makes the exchange seem pointless, making it more acceptable for you to...
4. ...direct the conversation away from this topic.
See what I mean by going the extra mile?
Okay, I can see where this went wrong. Read Micc's first question: "Why did you vote?". I did not read "Why did you want to get VeeGee talking?", because that's not what he asked.
Then the second time, he says "No, you haven't explained why you voted?". He does not ask "Why do you want to get VeeGee talking?"
In post 122, Akuseru wrote:Thing is, there isn't much fixation on HCL (besides thespio), and he could have let his vote remain on you as he analyzed/question/or accuse other players. Further more his actions don't dictate the rest of us, so he doesn't have to take his vote off just so WE can direct our attentions to others. I'm leaning more towards that being just the way he plays (new?).
I was right though, all talk of veegee and other lurkers/afks have been dropped while we examine HCL and accusers. Its not that im new i just see that this is the way we are shifting. Though looking at HCL's previous part game, he plays just about the same now as he did in that game, and in that game he was town. While its not a good way to play, shifting views so freely, it seems on par to his previous town play. What are your guys thoughts on the other less active players?
VOTE: VeeGee
Let's do this then?
if you want to jump to lynching thats fine but I was more wondering what your opinion on him is.
Prod Request: Veegee
There's nothing to read. Maybe some votes will get this guy talking.
Both Thespio and stoz(see bolded questions) ask for my read on VeeGee and why I am voting him.
I immediately explain my vote. And I give my read(nothing to read=null).
So if you haven't figured it out:
Why did I want to get VeeGee talking? Because he wasn't contributing anything.(as there was nothing to read!)
In post 214, Micc wrote:And i see reads from akuseru so im not sure what you issue there is either. As far as i remember he never actually dodged a question about what his reads were.
I understand you want to move on, but when will you address Micc's accusation?
Yes he did.
Do you not consider post 206 to be a post of what his reads are?
Actually my reads in that post are a response to the requests/suggestion to post from thespio, micc, and stubbs.
In post 230, StubbsKVM wrote:I do, but I had to ask again, after he failed to give them.
StubbsKVM, you asked me if I have any reads and I gave you the answer: "I do".
What do you mean by you had to ask "again"? When was the first time? Where have I failed to give reads when asked?
In post 231, StubbsKVM wrote:Okay, I can see where this went wrong. Read Micc's first question: "Why did you vote?". I did not read "Why did you want to get VeeGee talking?", because that's not what he asked.
His first question was straight forward and you gave a satisfactory answer to it: To get VeeGee talking. I never said you didn't answer it. Not sure why you're pointing this out here either.
In post 231, StubbsKVM wrote:Then the second time, he says "No, you haven't explained why you voted?". He does not ask "Why do you want to get VeeGee talking?"
Actually before he says something along the lines of "No, you haven't explained why you voted", micc posts:
In post 170, Micc wrote:Can you explain why you bothered pressuring the slot when it was empty if you didn't see it as scummy?
^I don't know how you would read this question, but to me it sounds like micc wanted you to explain why you wanted to get Veegee talking. Also, because of this addition to his questioning, when he later posts, "No, you haven't explained why you voted" he is (I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong micc) referring to the now more developed questioned "Why did you vote for Veegee, and if it was to push him to post content/talk, why?"
Spoiler: Also, random jab but I can't help myself:
"Can you explain why you bothered pressuring the slot?" =/= "Why do you want to get Veegee talking?"
but
Do you have any reads? = posts your reads now!
O_O really, StubbsKVM?
In post 231, StubbsKVM wrote:Both Thespio and stoz(see bolded questions) ask for my read on VeeGee and why I am voting him.
I immediately explain my vote. And I give my read(nothing to read=null).
So if you haven't figured it out:
Why did I want to get VeeGee talking? Because he wasn't contributing anything.(as there was nothing to read!)
First things first. *slow clap*
Took you four pages, but you finally posted your reasons for voting Veegee in attempt to get him talking: Thespio and stoz asked you for your read, you had a null because he wasn't contributing anything, so you voted veegee to prompt him to talk. Great!
...However, I'm not sure why you're telling
ME
this. I never asked you why you voted Veegee or why you wanted to get Veegee talking. I have issues with your plays not the content of your posts. Why post your reasoning behind the vote now when micc is not questioning you about it anymore? Why didn't you give him that answer when he asked for it?
Spoiler: I recently posted what I think the answer is to that last question but I'll post it here again:
In post 228, Akuseru wrote:1. If you voted for Veegee because it was the popular opinion at the time:
- Town would just answer with the truth. Townies don't self-regulate as mafia do, because they don't have to worry about accidently scum slipping.
- Scum (imo) know that if they gave that answer, their action might somehow be associated with mafia. They're more likely to go that extra mile to distance themselves from anything that can possibly shed a negative light on them.
StubbsKVM,
1. You chose not to answer.
2. You also didn't acknowledge or dispute any of Micc's implications surrounding you (repeating your incomplete answer doesn't count).
3. You drew out the interaction by repeating the same answer - this makes the exchange seem pointless, making it more acceptable for you to...
4. ...direct the conversation away from this topic.
Took you four pages, but you finally posted your reasons for voting Veegee in attempt to get him talking: Thespio and stoz asked you for your read, you had a null because he wasn't contributing anything, so you voted veegee to prompt him to talk. Great!
...However, I'm not sure why you're telling ME this. I never asked you why you voted Veegee or why you wanted to get Veegee talking. I have issues with your plays not the content of your posts. Why post your reasoning behind the vote now when micc is not questioning you about it anymore? Why didn't you give him that answer when he asked for it?
Never mind, I misread your last paragraph. You're actually still withholding XD But still, my apologies.
It looks like this Akuseru/Stubbs exchange is boiling down to a disagreement over semantics. Stubbs didn't realize that Micc wanted a more in-depth explanation of his vote and Akuseru didn't realize Stubbs meant "please post your reads now" when he asked for them. Is this a fair assessment, Stubbs and Akuseru? Because if that's the case, this looks like a pretty innocent and, ultimately incosequential, disagreement.
Stoz and notscience have been conspicuous by their absence, especially with the suspicions expressed over Stoz. notsicence indicated he didn't have wifi yesterday and would be posting today, so I'm not too vexed over his absence today but I am def looking forward to hearing from him.
Have we given up on JoramvanVugt? His only post in three days was to express his displeasure at people pressuring him and saying he has no reads.
In post 235, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Have we given up on JoramvanVugt? His only post in three days was to express his displeasure at people pressuring him and saying he has no reads.
No i dont think we should ignore his super long absence, even a new player who is active is eager to participate. It was odd how he jumped on my badwagon without an actual opinion and hasnt formed any new opinions.
In post 235, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Have we given up on JoramvanVugt? His only post in three days was to express his displeasure at people pressuring him and saying he has no reads.
No i dont think we should ignore his super long absence, even a new player who is active is eager to participate. It was odd how he jumped on my badwagon without an actual opinion and hasnt formed any new opinions.
So where have i jumped on your bandwaggon? seeing as i was the first one to vote up HCL in my first post in the thread.
this is just a weird thing to say wtf
In post 235, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Have we given up on JoramvanVugt? His only post in three days was to express his displeasure at people pressuring him and saying he has no reads.
No i dont think we should ignore his super long absence, even a new player who is active is eager to participate. It was odd how he jumped on my badwagon without an actual opinion and hasnt formed any new opinions.
So where have i jumped on your bandwaggon? seeing as i was the first one to vote up HCL in my first post in the thread.
this is just a weird thing to say wtf
Your only justifications for why you voted him were directly sourced from my read on him, you didnt even bother adding your own thought, plus the fact you just came back and i know you have been online reading and not posting makes you look like scum.
In post 235, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Have we given up on JoramvanVugt? His only post in three days was to express his displeasure at people pressuring him and saying he has no reads.
No i dont think we should ignore his super long absence, even a new player who is active is eager to participate. It was odd how he jumped on my badwagon without an actual opinion and hasnt formed any new opinions.
So where have i jumped on your bandwaggon? seeing as i was the first one to vote up HCL in my first post in the thread.
this is just a weird thing to say wtf
Your only justifications for why you voted him were directly sourced from my read on him, you didnt even bother adding your own thought, plus the fact you just came back and i know you have been online reading and not posting makes you look like scum.
I dont know if you have been reading everything but ive posted almost every day. i dont know why you are so aggressive towards me? wanna get me lynched or something?
Im voting for you.
You start the game by random voting a person that says hi but then later in the game you unvote and say a random lynch is stupid even though you are the one that started all of this.
It seems like your opinion changes with every post. first you want a random lynch then you talk about people starting a random bandwaggon even though you were the one to start it. idk you just seem to suspicious to me.
If you were playing in my last game on another forum you would already be dead by now. somebody would have daykilled you already
@Joram, actaully last time i saw you post was like 2 days ago, and you post maybe once every 2 days and its not productive.
Im voting for you.
You start the game by random voting a person that says hi but then later in the game you unvote and say a random lynch is stupid even though you are the one that started all of this.
It seems like your opinion changes with every post. first you want a random lynch then you talk about people starting a random bandwaggon even though you were the one to start it. idk you just seem to suspicious to me.
If you were playing in my last game on another forum you would already be dead by now. somebody would have daykilled you already
@Joram, actaully last time i saw you post was like 2 days ago, and you post maybe once every 2 days and its not productive.
So voting for somebody and using the same reason somebody else used is not allowed? i voted him day 1 in the 4th player made post in this thread i believe saying his assumption that somebody is guilty and voting for that person just because he/she said HI is stupid. I've read almost every post in this thread and im still playing this game
there are people who post less then me and you keep going after me.
Are you trying to get the attention of your maffia buddie HCL? trying to get the attention onto me so that no maffia member will be lynched day 1?
In post 245, JoramvanVugt wrote:So voting for somebody and using the same reason somebody else used is not allowed? i voted him day 1 in the 4th player made post in this thread i believe saying his assumption that somebody is guilty and voting for that person just because he/she said HI is stupid. I've read almost every post in this thread and im still playing this game
there are people who post less then me and you keep going after me.
your fine to use the same reason, but your random vote, post 4, couldn't have had the reasoning given later. it was random, so...
In post 206, Akuseru wrote:
"The kind of defence [stoz] would expect to see from town" O_O? For someone so big on clarification, one would imagine you’d be appalled at StubbsKVM’s No-I-don’t-want-to-elaborate behaviour.
Tell me how I don't want to elaborate.
I am lucky that StubbsKVM posted that quote, until then I had actually missed Akuseru's spoiler tag at the bottom of their post so I had to go back and read it.
Posts lack substance (mostly game play/theory suggestions or a short comment here and there). Bulba even called it out and stoz’s defence was:
In post 152, stoz wrote:I like to seek clarification from people. Even when what someone says seems obvious, sometimes they actually mean something different, especially as they are sometimes making assumptions about how people play Mafia and some of those people have not been playing very long at all. Less ambiguity also gives less opportunities for scum to hide or twist their previous posts into something different.
I was surprised at this answer since I had stoz down as “guy who posts but doesn’t really post anything”. Most of your posts are NOT clarifications (and if you like to seek clarification from people, you’ve had loads of opportunities to do so…but you didn’t).
As for your current read (my comments are within the quote in red):
Akuseru - 55% town
Has been asking good questions and seems to be putting in a good effort.
Empty read, scum can ask good questions and put “in a good effort”
JoramvanVugt - 45% town
Seems to be a bit all over the place, probably because of newness. Pretty hard to read though.
commentary :/
Bulbazoor - 40% town
Voted me, I posted a rebuttal and which he completely ignored. His reasons for voting me are flimsy and VeeGee was reasonably suspicious too. Plus the replace-out is not null from my point of view.
Reasonably suspicious? How so? You’ve never mentioned that before or explained it here. Did you just decide Veegee was “reasonably suspicious” on the sole reason that he’s being voted by others?
Thespio - 70% town
HenryCabotLodge - 70% town
Based on the back and forth a few pages ago I am happy for now to think of both of them as town.
What about their back and forth makes you think they’re town. There have been a couple of back and forth arguments in the thread between 2 players similar to this one. What makes this exchange so special?
StubbsKVM (SE) - 55% town
Seems pretty consistant. Mounting the kind of defence I would expect to see from town
"The kind of defence [stoz] would expect to see from town" O_O? For someone so big on clarification, one would imagine you’d be appalled at StubbsKVM’s No-I-don’t-want-to-elaborate behaviour.
notscience (SE) - 50% town
Started out with some great questions but has gone pretty quiet lately.
empty read
Micc (IC) - 55% town
Great activity. I don't really get his angle on StubbsKVM but he has been asking about other people too.
If you don’t get the angle why aren’t you trying to understand it or if you don't agree point it out *cough* clarification *cough*.
Re: VeeGee: in particular I found the "I think I'll VOTE: NotScience for now" (Post #77) with no explanation to be suspicious, and to me the replace-out is still not null.
Re: Thespio / HCL: The passion and stubborn-ness of both of them seems hard to manufacture, leading me to believe they both know they themselves are town.
Re: notscience: Yes empty, that is why it is 50% / in the middle / null. Where is the rule that says being unsure about some people means your are not town?
Re: Micc: I thought he had no case against Stubbs, but I learnt early on not to try to defend other players unless you think it is a very very very bad idea for them to by lynched.
In post 235, HenryCabotLodge wrote:Stoz and notscience have been conspicuous by their absence, especially with the suspicions expressed over Stoz. notsicence indicated he didn't have wifi yesterday and would be posting today, so I'm not too vexed over his absence today but I am def looking forward to hearing from him.
Is "broken wifi" all it takes to get a free pass around here?
In post 240, notscience wrote:Why did noone call out that Stoz's reads are primarily based on people's activity?
Activity is useful though because it is easy for scum to lurk and harder for them to put in effort. I guess maybe I don't "get" day one though. I know I am judging on effort and passion, but without any solid information like tracker / detective and role claims what else is there to go on?
In post 204, Bulbazoor wrote:Your rebuttal seems pretty defensive, and the omgus is doing nothing to change my stance
What should a rebuttal be if not defensive?
And Joram what are you talking about? Your first vote was on notscience, not HCL.
And Joram what are you talking about? Your first vote was on notscience, not HCL.
Yeah true, IDK why i confused them but i did say my vote should have been on HCL and thats where it is right now. at the moment i dont think we will get to a day 1 lynch agreement seeing as the votes are really spread out atm
Idk, I see your extended absence and your lack of original reasons for a vote concerning. I think town is better off without you honestly, You have no reads on anyone but the person you locked onto. Just for progression and because you aren't helping town you are harming it, i will vote for you. VOTE: JoramvanVugt
probably both, in case you didn't catch it.
