Open 667: Day 3

[Börk Börk]

@Bork, are you to new to mafia?

Yes, I've played one game on this site and that's it.

Which doesn't make any of what I say any less valid.

It doesn't make it any less valid but it also doesn't make it any more believable. It's rushed and you really have no solid thing to go off from in that vote.

Oh, and where are your solid arguments and valid points? Oh wait. Nowhere. At least I'm making an effort, wen beyond simply defending myself.

[Pepchoninga]

Seeing four pages here already, I got my hopes up that there would be some proper discussion to pick apart and use to scumhunt. But alas, it's a whole lot of fluff and alt fishing.

VOTE: pepchoninga for contributing almost nothing useful despite having the highest postcount. Because that's not useful at all, and yet artificially inflating one's postcount can prove to be useful as a false argument against one's lynch at a later stage.

Ok, I will take this as a "Bye RVS vote"

Your post is absolutely bad for these reasons: In those 4 pages, we have started a conversation. This conversation is full of fluff. And it was untill we got somethings real to discuss about. Creature seemed to want to give a good thing for us to prodice content but he basically ended the topic himself. There is nothing for us to do except keep posting until we have something real to talk about. And your vote is exactly that. Using the not producing content as an argument for a lynch in the first 4 pages is bad.

Instead of posting fluff and relying on someone else to produce content, you could have tried to do so yourself. That's why I voted you, and it's completely backed up by evidence.

It is beneficial to mafia to produce posts which lack content and distract town from keeping the game moving, as in the end town will have less time to dedicate to scumhunting. Therefore my case on you is also directly related to scummy behaviour, and not just policy.

While your thinking is good, you need to understand that fluff doesn't mean scum. No, scum don't always try to make fluffy posts to distract town. They try to act like a town would, this includes scumhunt and all the other stuff, but they also manipulate town into an opinion. You cannot say someone is scum of the saying that they don't produce content in RVS. Content in RVS is hardly produced. The first players to say something strange or out of the ordinary is what creates the content, hence gets the game started. No, you don't have evidence. Evidence is you quoting a post and explaining what you feel is scummy about it.

[Pepchoninga]

@Bork, are you to new to mafia?

Yes, I've played one game on this site and that's it.

Which doesn't make any of what I say any less valid.

It doesn't make it any less valid but it also doesn't make it any more believable. It's rushed and you really have no solid thing to go off from in that vote.

Oh, and where are your solid arguments and valid points? Oh wait. Nowhere. At least I'm making an effort, wen beyond simply defending myself.

I'm not defending myself. I'm saying why I belive your thinking is wrong. I don't have valid point since I don't have valid reads. I don't have valid reads, since the real game has just started.

[Creature]

Eventuallily I'll have better reads.

[Börk Börk]

@Bork, Can you quote things that looked 'useful' to you?

Give me a good reason to do so.

Your posts are unbelievable and fake.

Says the person who has contributed fuck-all to the discussion.

Asking someone to quote someone else's useful posts is both the laziest and least useful thing anyone has done so far.

Why?
We have four pages. If you're looking for content to make reads off then go find it yourself. I've explained my read, and I feel that there is no need to back it up with evidence, especially when the request is phrased in sich a way that puts the accused individual in a more positive light. This just makes me think that you two are scumbuddies.
And why isn't it useful? Because you can do your own scumhunting without piggybacking me.

Says the one who's throwing scum reads based on shit posts. You clearly and obviously refused to do it because 'your basing your reads on non-game related talks (shit posts)' and that's what makes it so fake and unbelievable.
You also refused to quote some 'helpful' posts because there's 4 pages and can't seem to see a helpful post to solidify your reads against me and you also try to make me appear scum by being a fucking lazy scumass person.

VOTE: Bork

Why do you think bringing the alt talk make me scum?

The alt talk is scummy because it make you look like you're moving the discussion forward, while not actually doing so, as alt fishing has no direct correlation to scumhunting. It's especially bad early on in the game, when we NEED some solid discussion. So it's scummy behaviour.

And the fact that your main defense here seems to be ad hominem attacks against me (i.e. 'fucking lazy scumass person') rather than my content just serves to solidify my point that you're not producing good content right now.

Also, for someone who claims to be 13, you sure use a lot of profanity. Just saying. Calm down a bit.

[Creature]

I've seen 10 years olds doing the same.

[Pepchoninga]

@Bork, Can you quote things that looked 'useful' to you?

Give me a good reason to do so.

Your posts are unbelievable and fake.

Says the person who has contributed fuck-all to the discussion.

Asking someone to quote someone else's useful posts is both the laziest and least useful thing anyone has done so far.

Why?
We have four pages. If you're looking for content to make reads off then go find it yourself. I've explained my read, and I feel that there is no need to back it up with evidence, especially when the request is phrased in sich a way that puts the accused individual in a more positive light. This just makes me think that you two are scumbuddies.
And why isn't it useful? Because you can do your own scumhunting without piggybacking me.

Says the one who's throwing scum reads based on shit posts. You clearly and obviously refused to do it because 'your basing your reads on non-game related talks (shit posts)' and that's what makes it so fake and unbelievable.
You also refused to quote some 'helpful' posts because there's 4 pages and can't seem to see a helpful post to solidify your reads against me and you also try to make me appear scum by being a fucking lazy scumass person.

VOTE: Bork

Why do you think bringing the alt talk make me scum?

The alt talk is scummy because it make you look like you're moving the discussion forward, while not actually doing so, as alt fishing has no direct correlation to scumhunting. It's especially bad early on in the game, when we NEED some solid discussion. So it's scummy behaviour.

And the fact that your main defense here seems to be ad hominem attacks against me (i.e. 'fucking lazy scumass person') rather than my content just serves to solidify my point that you're not producing good content right now.

Also, for someone who claims to be 13, you sure use a lot of profanity. Just saying. Calm down a bit.

This post made me laugh

[Börk Börk]

Seeing four pages here already, I got my hopes up that there would be some proper discussion to pick apart and use to scumhunt. But alas, it's a whole lot of fluff and alt fishing.

VOTE: pepchoninga for contributing almost nothing useful despite having the highest postcount. Because that's not useful at all, and yet artificially inflating one's postcount can prove to be useful as a false argument against one's lynch at a later stage.

Ok, I will take this as a "Bye RVS vote"

Your post is absolutely bad for these reasons: In those 4 pages, we have started a conversation. This conversation is full of fluff. And it was untill we got somethings real to discuss about. Creature seemed to want to give a good thing for us to prodice content but he basically ended the topic himself. There is nothing for us to do except keep posting until we have something real to talk about. And your vote is exactly that. Using the not producing content as an argument for a lynch in the first 4 pages is bad.

Instead of posting fluff and relying on someone else to produce content, you could have tried to do so yourself. That's why I voted you, and it's completely backed up by evidence.

It is beneficial to mafia to produce posts which lack content and distract town from keeping the game moving, as in the end town will have less time to dedicate to scumhunting. Therefore my case on you is also directly related to scummy behaviour, and not just policy.

While your thinking is good, you need to understand that fluff doesn't mean scum. No, scum don't always try to make fluffy posts to distract town. They try to act like a town would, this includes scumhunt and all the other stuff, but they also manipulate town into an opinion. You cannot say someone is scum of the saying that they don't produce content in RVS. Content in RVS is hardly produced. The first players to say something strange or out of the ordinary is what creates the content, hence gets the game started. No, you don't have evidence. Evidence is you quoting a post and explaining what you feel is scummy about it.

You make a fair point. However here I'm choosing to differentiate between 'being scum' and 'being scummy'. I'll say that you are correct about your fluff posting not necessarily meaning that you are scum. But regardless of whether you are scum or not, the outcome of delaying the transition out of RVS ultimately favours scum. Hence it is a scummy action.

[Pepchoninga]

Seeing four pages here already, I got my hopes up that there would be some proper discussion to pick apart and use to scumhunt. But alas, it's a whole lot of fluff and alt fishing.

VOTE: pepchoninga for contributing almost nothing useful despite having the highest postcount. Because that's not useful at all, and yet artificially inflating one's postcount can prove to be useful as a false argument against one's lynch at a later stage.

Ok, I will take this as a "Bye RVS vote"

Your post is absolutely bad for these reasons: In those 4 pages, we have started a conversation. This conversation is full of fluff. And it was untill we got somethings real to discuss about. Creature seemed to want to give a good thing for us to prodice content but he basically ended the topic himself. There is nothing for us to do except keep posting until we have something real to talk about. And your vote is exactly that. Using the not producing content as an argument for a lynch in the first 4 pages is bad.

Instead of posting fluff and relying on someone else to produce content, you could have tried to do so yourself. That's why I voted you, and it's completely backed up by evidence.

It is beneficial to mafia to produce posts which lack content and distract town from keeping the game moving, as in the end town will have less time to dedicate to scumhunting. Therefore my case on you is also directly related to scummy behaviour, and not just policy.

While your thinking is good, you need to understand that fluff doesn't mean scum. No, scum don't always try to make fluffy posts to distract town. They try to act like a town would, this includes scumhunt and all the other stuff, but they also manipulate town into an opinion. You cannot say someone is scum of the saying that they don't produce content in RVS. Content in RVS is hardly produced. The first players to say something strange or out of the ordinary is what creates the content, hence gets the game started. No, you don't have evidence. Evidence is you quoting a post and explaining what you feel is scummy about it.

You make a fair point. However here I'm choosing to differentiate between 'being scum' and 'being scummy'. I'll say that you are correct about your fluff posting not necessarily meaning that you are scum. But regardless of whether you are scum or not, the outcome of delaying the transition out of RVS ultimately favours scum. Hence it is a scummy action.

Scum do admittedly enjoy staying in RVS, but also me not screaming for an escape of RVS isn't scummy. I also did try to get a discussion out of the bold Creature comment, but he ultimately shut this topic 'till a later time.

You seem to agree with what I'm saying, yet your vote is still on me because you think that I delayed us getting out of RVS?

[Vijarada]

@Bork, Can you quote things that looked 'useful' to you?

Give me a good reason to do so.

Your posts are unbelievable and fake.

Says the person who has contributed fuck-all to the discussion.

Asking someone to quote someone else's useful posts is both the laziest and least useful thing anyone has done so far.

Why?
We have four pages. If you're looking for content to make reads off then go find it yourself. I've explained my read, and I feel that there is no need to back it up with evidence, especially when the request is phrased in sich a way that puts the accused individual in a more positive light. This just makes me think that you two are scumbuddies.
And why isn't it useful? Because you can do your own scumhunting without piggybacking me.

Says the one who's throwing scum reads based on shit posts. You clearly and obviously refused to do it because 'your basing your reads on non-game related talks (shit posts)' and that's what makes it so fake and unbelievable.
You also refused to quote some 'helpful' posts because there's 4 pages and can't seem to see a helpful post to solidify your reads against me and you also try to make me appear scum by being a fucking lazy scumass person.

VOTE: Bork

Why do you think bringing the alt talk make me scum?

it's funny because your reason for voting is even worse

[Vijarada]

Keyen is town based on his calm and logical reaction to the votes on him.

that's obviously fakable, bro.

[Vijarada]

My vote goes to indigo for 116/117. he doesn't offer an opinion, he just says what's already been said without taking a side.

VOTE: indigo

[Vijarada]

celtic u never answered 63 i am sad

[Börk Börk]

Seeing four pages here already, I got my hopes up that there would be some proper discussion to pick apart and use to scumhunt. But alas, it's a whole lot of fluff and alt fishing.

VOTE: pepchoninga for contributing almost nothing useful despite having the highest postcount. Because that's not useful at all, and yet artificially inflating one's postcount can prove to be useful as a false argument against one's lynch at a later stage.

Ok, I will take this as a "Bye RVS vote"

Your post is absolutely bad for these reasons: In those 4 pages, we have started a conversation. This conversation is full of fluff. And it was untill we got somethings real to discuss about. Creature seemed to want to give a good thing for us to prodice content but he basically ended the topic himself. There is nothing for us to do except keep posting until we have something real to talk about. And your vote is exactly that. Using the not producing content as an argument for a lynch in the first 4 pages is bad.

Instead of posting fluff and relying on someone else to produce content, you could have tried to do so yourself. That's why I voted you, and it's completely backed up by evidence.

It is beneficial to mafia to produce posts which lack content and distract town from keeping the game moving, as in the end town will have less time to dedicate to scumhunting. Therefore my case on you is also directly related to scummy behaviour, and not just policy.

While your thinking is good, you need to understand that fluff doesn't mean scum. No, scum don't always try to make fluffy posts to distract town. They try to act like a town would, this includes scumhunt and all the other stuff, but they also manipulate town into an opinion. You cannot say someone is scum of the saying that they don't produce content in RVS. Content in RVS is hardly produced. The first players to say something strange or out of the ordinary is what creates the content, hence gets the game started. No, you don't have evidence. Evidence is you quoting a post and explaining what you feel is scummy about it.

You make a fair point. However here I'm choosing to differentiate between 'being scum' and 'being scummy'. I'll say that you are correct about your fluff posting not necessarily meaning that you are scum. But regardless of whether you are scum or not, the outcome of delaying the transition out of RVS ultimately favours scum. Hence it is a scummy action.

Scum do admittedly enjoy staying in RVS, but also me not screaming for an escape of RVS isn't scummy. I also did try to get a discussion out of the bold Creature comment, but he ultimately shut this topic 'till a later time.

You seem to agree with what I'm saying, yet your vote is still on me because you think that I delayed us getting out of RVS?

Ah, sorry, I forgot to include that in my post. UNVOTE:

[Vijarada]

who should i be voting, bork? i think you should vote indigo with me.

[Pepchoninga]

who should i be voting, bork? i think you should vote indigo with me.

Wow, a buddy attempt I see...you know this is usually pretty scummy, especially when it comes out of the waters like that.

[Vijarada]

yo pepchoniga, would you be interested in free cupcakes and finger foods at the Vijarada Friend Buffet?

really though, i was asking him who he wanted to lynch because of his full unvote, which is pressure not buddying.

[Pepchoninga]

yo pepchoniga, would you be interested in free cupcakes and finger foods at the Vijarada Friend Buffet?

really though, i was asking him who he wanted to lynch because of his full unvote, which is pressure not buddying.

I'm pretty sure what I read was you asking him who you should vote and then making a clear attempt for a buddy.

And yes, I love cupcakes, especially when they are free

[Börk Börk]

who should i be voting, bork? i think you should vote indigo with me.

If you find Indigo to be the scummiest person at present then vote for Indigo. You made a valid point about him earlier, which is definitely making me consider following your vote. However I think I'll revote someone tomorrow morning, after I've given it some thought. Since I don't think it would be beneficial for me to make an impromptu vote right now.

[Vijarada]

pepcho buddy i think you should vote indigo with me.

keyen my bro, vote indigo cause we're

friends

creature your plan sucks, but it would be redeemed if you voted indigo with me, man.

seriously i'm just pushing my preferred lynch. would you prefer it if i just told people what to do in a non-friendly way? BORK YOU SHIT! GET YOUR ASS INTO LINE AND VOTE WITH ME!!!!!

[Pepchoninga]

pepcho buddy i think you should vote indigo with me.

keyen my bro, vote indigo cause we're

friends

creature your plan sucks, but it would be redeemed if you voted indigo with me, man.

seriously i'm just pushing my preferred lynch. would you prefer it if i just told people what to do in a non-friendly way? BORK YOU SHIT! GET YOUR ASS INTO LINE AND VOTE WITH ME!!!!!

You should convince people with good points and solid cases and not by asking them to join your wagon.

Also please. Just no theatricals xD

[Celtic]

@Pep, I'm not participating in the conversation because

a) it doesn't concern me

b) I'm laying out the framework of the game that I will build upon throughout.

I do have lots of experience playing mafia.

I'm not going to answer your other question because that gives mafia the advantage of knowing what to fabricate for me to townread them.

[Vijarada]

celtic u never answered 63 i am sad

[Celtic]

Both.

[Pepchoninga]

@Pep, I'm not participating in the conversation because

a) it doesn't concern me

b) I'm laying out the framework of the game that I will build upon throughout.

I do have lots of experience playing mafia.

I'm not going to answer your other question because that gives mafia the advantage of knowing what to fabricate for me to townread them.

a) Just sounds totally anti-town however you look at it.

b) I can roll with that, but that doesn't mean the conversation do not concern you.

And no, this is so bullshit. You say what looks town to you, yet you won't say what is your way of reading town. This makes no sense.