Mini 1698: MDCXCVIII [C'est fini!]

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Also, Woody, to actually address the point you're making... yes, Shazam didn't RVS vote. He voted with an actual reason (whether or not he actually thought it was a strong reason to vote). Gray voted with a fabricated reason, or a pseudo-random reason.

Besides, just because two people do similar things in two posts, doesn't mean they made the same post. Different posts can have different feels to them. And "I've seen town do X" does not mean that X is not scummy.

1. re: gray/shazam - fair enough

2. yes sometimes when town does stuff it is scummy. things like lying for example, lurking, being useless... those are things I see town does and is scummy. Voting somebody for a reason like the alphabet not so much. if anything I give it a slight town vibe because whether intentionally or not he's doing something to create reactions and reactions are good for finding scum.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

I feel as if the recent action in this thread is consistent with a scum derailment of conversations about Mario and Foxxx that were actually going somewhere. It's hard to keep track now of exactly where we are in either of those conversations. Mario, don't think you can get away with not answering post 81 after all this nonsense. I won't be posting tomorrow, jsyk guys.

[MarioManiac4]

If everyone agrees on one person, that's a bad sign, as that means mafia are content with the lynch.
We are better off with everyone grilling their scumread, like you are doing with me right now.

So you're admitting that town gains information if we all agree on one person. But you also don't want us to do it.

No, because in pure statements, mafia can bus.
I meant if the player was actually being lynched and everyone online was jumping aboard, because that would indicate scum were content with the lynch.
It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.

[Kublai Khan]

It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.

Purposefully?

Because it seems like you're missing the point that people are suspicious because you are purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting.

[MarioManiac4]

It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.

Purposefully?

Because it seems like you're missing the point that people are suspicious because you are purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting.

Really?
Because in Post 67 Shazam tried to paint me as scummy for not sharing his opinion on the matter.
I am defending my opinion.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.

Purposefully?

Because it seems like you're missing the point that people are suspicious because you are purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting.

how is he purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting?

[pisskop]

unvote

It seems liken Implosion is arguing less from a point of concern about being noticed for his vote so much as trying to vote in accordance to abstract rules. I'm not sure about it but we'll be able to examine it again on later days.

[Kublai Khan]

It is always best to have more than one suspect and it's the way it's always done.

Purposefully?

Because it seems like you're missing the point that people are suspicious because you are purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting.

how is he purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting?

The part where he was telling people that 3 votes was enough and there should be no other votes because we should have multiple suspects?

[WoodyWoodpecker]

I think you misinterpreted his posts cause I just read them again and he absolutely does not do that.

[Kublai Khan]

I think you misinterpreted his posts cause I just read them again and he absolutely does not do that.

I got that from these:
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p7060802
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p7060886

"3 votes is enough, so people should vote elsewhere because universal agreement means scum is happy with the lynch."

I interpreted the reaction to it (from dragonspawn, Shazam, Necessary Evil, etc..) that they were concerned he was trying to direct votes away from implosion in a manner that suggested he was purposefully trying to direct/control votes. Hence why I said "Because it seems like you're missing the point that people are suspicious because you are purposefully trying to direct how everyone should be acting."

What's your interpretation of everything since you got a different take from all this?

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I

think

he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

See the bolded word? This means he's giving his opinion and not telling anyone what they should do.

So now we have that correct.

you find him scummy for giving his opinion of what people should do? Why?

[WoodyWoodpecker]

he was telling people

And people? Petty sure he was talking to 1 person

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Those 2 links just show him giving his opinion which last I checked wasn't scummy

[Kublai Khan]

you find him scummy for giving his opinion of what people should do? Why?

Where did I say I found him scummy?

[WoodyWoodpecker]

You didn't say you were, my bad. I just assumed

[Kublai Khan]

So should I bother asking other people questions, or should I just explain to you everything about the question including the background of the game, general mafia theory, a summary of events leading up to each question, and how I feel about any and every potential answers and the varying degree of scumminess inherent of each?

Because I've got more questions, and I kinda feel like you're up my ass scrouging to make a turd of a case. If you truly think I'm scum, give me rope to hang myself and back off for a bit.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Dont let me stop you from asking questions, if I see you say something that's not true I'm going to call it out again though

[Necessary Evil]

I think we're better off focusing on one at a time. It creates more pressure and keeps the town from becoming splintered.

now I can speak from experience because I love to tunnel my scum reads. focusing on 1 person at a time is actually a detriment to the game and not helpful. pressuring multiple people are better for a variety of reasons but the most important one is looking at how people react to each of the wagons and votes.

multiple wagons and counter wagons help the game out more, especially later in the game when their are flips to analyze, especially if we happen to lynch scum.

You know what, I think you're right. I was trying to justify my vote on MarioManiac4 and I am finding it difficult to explain why I found him suspicious.

Right now my scum read on MarioManiac4 has become stronger because he is still avoiding my question. I find the totality of his behavior scummy. His vote is not lining up with his reasoning and he has done very little besides defending himself.

[MarioManiac4]

What question? Sorry, I think I missed this.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

MarioManiac4: You didn't answer my question. Why are you voting Implosion and not dragonspawn when dragonspawn was your first real suspicion and you believe there should be fewer votes on Implosion?

Think this one

[Boonskiies]

Can we lynch Mario? Wackpecker has town'd it up a little.

Unvote

[Bulbazoor]

VOTE: mario
I think you should stop blabbering abour rvs. Mario seems a bit iffy. He defends people for basically pointless reasons.

[Boonskiies]

Mario is playing exactly the same as my scum game with him last game. He doesn't respond to like anything. Comes in, posts one thing, completely changes direction of game and expects people to just believe him.

VOTE: Mario

[Boonskiies]

Oh, haha, good vote, Bulb.

[Bulbazoor]

I have played with Mario in marathon before. It may be a different deal than here, but I also read some of his newbie games.