Except I'm more than qualified to be an IC, I'm just too lazy to do it! d(''d)
Oops, I made a hypocrisy.
This looks oddly like a scum claim.Johannes583 wrote:At this stage in the game? No, thanks.moose200x wrote:Hey 583, how ya doing? Mind telling us who your mafia partner is?
FoS self - I love screwing around in RVS d(''d)Black Mist wrote:Parama- Why a FoS on yourself for the begining of the game? Is that a method to cover tracks and point the finger elsewhere, or just a lighthearted way of starting the game? You're definition of active-lurking seems to fit our angry moose player. Alot of posts just asking questions and saying hello. How does that fit?
---> Black Mist hasn't posted yet, so moose thinks that voting him for "lurking" is his best shotmoose200x wrote:I am getting angry at blackmist.unvote: vote:Blackmist
The way you put it here makes it sound worse than it is, to be honest. He's attacking jim for not scumhunting, but he's also prodding jim to post content at the same time - trying to stop him from garnering suspicion by taking away the cause of the suspicion. And jim is responding to these prods - he's posted more content than ever now that he's been told to do it. There's a definite relationship between the two though it's not something you pick up on first read.Doubtful wrote: I don't quite see the relationship between jim and DMSIS - from their posting it seems as if DMSIS is just telling jim he has to scumhunt, repetitively.
I really don't think anyone needs to know this.moose200x wrote:What is with the "baked" things you all are talking about, so waht, i smoke pot, get over it. I get drunk too, it's fun.
Can you explain why you say the first line and then end up voting Black Mist in the same post besides the reusing an overused and usually wrong phrase?moose200x wrote:DOCSHOTTYGUNGUY : Planning ahead is SUPER DUPER scum. You are 100% my number 1 target.
...
VOTE: BLACK MIST
1. Goddammit I hate that phrase so much - I'd never seen it here until now but it's always used on EpicMafia dear godmoose200x wrote:Doubtful: I went back to the mist because imo WHY ME = FRY ME. When people say stuff like "why vote for me?" they are preparing their defense. only scum need to defend themselves.
I think you're more buddy-buddy with Doc than moose is, to be honest.jimfinn wrote:I still think Moose is a bit scummy and he and Doc are too buddy-buddy with each other.
Cliquey wrote:Spoiler: speaking of my fights
I absolutely hate your most recent post. Everything about it reeks of scum. Arrogance, ad hominem, ignorance, etc.Cliquey wrote:Spoiler: Holy WIFOM Batman!... wait, I've used that already
He isn't, actually. They're attempting to distance but when you have to give each other advice during the game day it's pretty hard to successfully distance <_<smargaret wrote: Parama: Why jim? Specifically, where is he buddying DMSIS? Feels town.
I don't understand why people can't stand the spoiler tags. CLICK BUTTON. READ WORDS. CLICK BUTTON AGAIN. CLICK NEXT BUTTON. READ WORDS. CLICK BUTTON AGAIN. ETC.smargaret wrote:Several people (3, now) have said that they find your posting style difficult to read, and that is anti-town. Anti-town behavior is either incompetence or pro-scum, and you're the IC.
Lazy, so just going to +1 this.Cliquey wrote:Spoiler: Something to keep an eye on
Then leave out everything else. We don't want a paraphrase of everything DMSIS has said. We want why it's important. Most of the post is boring information.jimfinn wrote:@Parama: the italicized text is analysis in my last post, the non-italicized is information. Most of the italicized text is analyzing possible scum or town motivations for DMSIS actions.
Or voting scum for a "serious" vote that has no logical basis behind it.Doubtful wrote:Trying to get jimfinn to vote for a real reason? (this is different from the one with me and jim because jim was trying to prompt me, while in this case Parama is prompting jim)Parama wrote:unvote, vote: jimfinn
Moose is not active lurking. Get that through your brain.
He attempted to make an argument against DMSIS without providing any evidence - we can't check for ourselves if what jim is saying is true, because we don't know what he's referencing. I hate hate hate when people don't provide evidence.Doubtful wrote:His most recent post:Parama wrote:I encourage active posting, but a lot of what you're posting now is indeed spam, moose. Only post when you have something to say, not when you just want to say something.
Jim doesn't look any better after his most recent post.
Just stating facts, makes a valid point on DMSIS, tries to tell the town he needs time to analyze. How's that scummy?jimfinn wrote:@Doc: Regarding my comments about you being too town, that is because you seemed to being trying too hard to appear town (e.g. saying things like "you don't want to jokingly claim scum") that certainly have the ring of a scum who wants to act like he is helping the town but really is saying something unlikely to ever be needed again this game that it doesn't really help the town that much.
As a newer player formerly used to f2f mafia, I'm still trying to get used to the day start and not being able to scumhunt based on night actions; D1 scumhunting is rather difficult for me. I certainly don't want a lynch, especially not on p3 of D1, I'm just pointing out comparatively scummy actions in the hope of starting discussion and moving past the RVS.
No, calling out scum for doing scummy things. You can't call someone scummy without telling them why, can you? Plus, I don't remember if he did, but if a scum reacts to a post like this by trying to do what they should've done earlier, they're obviously trying to appease the town. Which makes them look worse.Doubtful wrote:Prompting. Though I'm guilty of this as well.Parama wrote: Jim: Why the delay in your vote on moose? If you thought he was scummiest at the time of your PBPA, why did you not only not switch your vote, but leave it on DMSIS? You unvoted in a later post but still didn't change your vote.
I don't respond to every post in the thread, and I had already given my reasons as to why I thought they were scum together anyways.Doubtful wrote:You seem so sure... you're definitely trying to lynch one of them, seeing that you think they are scumbuddies. I've stated that I don't quite see the relationship between jim and DMSIS, you didn't respond.Parama wrote:
I absolutely hate your most recent post. Everything about it reeks of scum. Arrogance, ad hominem, ignorance, etc.
unvote, vote: DMSIS
I will lynch either jim or DMSIS today. Whichever one gets a bigger wagon, I don't care which. They're both scum, and blatantly obvious scumbuddies. I refuse to lynch anyone but these two, because these are our two scum.
Who the hell leaves their vote on a claimed power role, though?Doubtful wrote:Why unvote? jim was at L-2 at that point, scum can't quickhammer and before a cc no town would put a claimed cop at L-1 (because as I said, it favors scum to do a scum-cop trade)Parama wrote:unvote
Anyone counterclaim? If there IS a counterclaim, we need to hear it NOW.
This is brilliant. My earlier suspicions confirmed - scum is probably in Doubtful/smargaret.moose200x wrote:I love how he left doubtful in the null zone.List (scummiest at top, townest at bottom - self-excluded)
Cliquey
Parama
Johannes
Doubtful
Chaodck
put here because they haven't done anything pro=town or anti=town, so impossible to get a good read.
In which scenario, he is trying to appease the town, which makes himself look worse.Doubtful wrote:Parama:I understand your vote: just not the way you state it. It feels like you are trying to get jimfinn to unvote moose, and then vote someone else with a real reason - by saying that his reason was null (which it indeed was) and then allowing him to switch targets.Parama wrote:Or voting scum for a "serious" vote that has no logical basis behind it.Doubtful wrote:Trying to get jimfinn to vote for a real reason? (this is different from the one with me and jim because jim was trying to prompt me, while in this case Parama is prompting jim)Parama wrote:unvote, vote: jimfinn
Moose is not active lurking. Get that through your brain.
Too Townie To Be Town Fallacy is terrible logic always, but that wasn't his argument anyways <.<Doubtful wrote:Well... jim is trying to make an argument on the basis that "X is too town, so we should lynch X", which is actually quite common in F2F, AFAIK.Parama wrote:He attempted to make an argument against DMSIS without providing any evidence - we can't check for ourselves if what jim is saying is true, because we don't know what he's referencing. I hate hate hate when people don't provide evidence.Doubtful wrote:His most recent post:Parama wrote:I encourage active posting, but a lot of what you're posting now is indeed spam, moose. Only post when you have something to say, not when you just want to say something.
Jim doesn't look any better after his most recent post.
Just stating facts, makes a valid point on DMSIS, tries to tell the town he needs time to analyze. How's that scummy?jimfinn wrote:@Doc: Regarding my comments about you being too town, that is because you seemed to being trying too hard to appear town (e.g. saying things like "you don't want to jokingly claim scum") that certainly have the ring of a scum who wants to act like he is helping the town but really is saying something unlikely to ever be needed again this game that it doesn't really help the town that much.
As a newer player formerly used to f2f mafia, I'm still trying to get used to the day start and not being able to scumhunt based on night actions; D1 scumhunting is rather difficult for me. I certainly don't want a lynch, especially not on p3 of D1, I'm just pointing out comparatively scummy actions in the hope of starting discussion and moving past the RVS.
The second paragraph seems like an excuse to not scumhunt during D1.
On the second paragraph: I interpret it as more him saying that he needs time to look at all the cases, accepting the value of D1 scumhunting. To me jim seems quite logical in this post.
It's not that he didn't switch his vote immediately during the post - I can chalk that one up to bad memory. The real issue is that he noticed his lack of unvote earlier, corrected that mistake, yet STILL refused to vote for his #1 suspect. If I had forgotten a vote at the end of a case, and someone pointed this out, I'd probably vote, yes. jim realized his mistake BEFORE I pointed it out, yet did not decide to fix it. That's the difference between what you're describing and what actually happened.Doubtful wrote:Well, if you're town, made an analysis, and forgot to vote in the end, what would you do when asked for a vote? Yes, he did vote according to what you said about moose. He could just be being F2F'ish again and think voting someone = tunneling on them.Parama wrote:No, calling out scum for doing scummy things. You can't call someone scummy without telling them why, can you? Plus, I don't remember if he did, but if a scum reacts to a post like this by trying to do what they should've done earlier, they're obviously trying to appease the town. Which makes them look worse.Doubtful wrote:Prompting. Though I'm guilty of this as well.Parama wrote: Jim: Why the delay in your vote on moose? If you thought he was scummiest at the time of your PBPA, why did you not only not switch your vote, but leave it on DMSIS? You unvoted in a later post but still didn't change your vote.
jim made a half-hearted PBPA on DMSIS and went from deciding he was scummy to deciding he was not and unvoted him.Doubtful wrote:At that point in time the only interaction between jim and DMSIS was DMSIS voting jim for his scumtells and jim voting DMSIS for... no real reason. Can't exactly form a "buddy" relationship based on that alone. I understand your individual concerns on both of them, it's the link that I think is lacking in your argument at that timeParama wrote:I don't respond to every post in the thread, and I had already given my reasons as to why I thought they were scum together anyways.Doubtful wrote:You seem so sure... you're definitely trying to lynch one of them, seeing that you think they are scumbuddies. I've stated that I don't quite see the relationship between jim and DMSIS, you didn't respond.Parama wrote:
I absolutely hate your most recent post. Everything about it reeks of scum. Arrogance, ad hominem, ignorance, etc.
unvote, vote: DMSIS
I will lynch either jim or DMSIS today. Whichever one gets a bigger wagon, I don't care which. They're both scum, and blatantly obvious scumbuddies. I refuse to lynch anyone but these two, because these are our two scum.
It is anti-town to leave a vote on a claimed power role, especially when the town has room for error remaining. There's still 1 other scum even if the claim is fake. The town should NOT listen to the PR claim if the player is still suspicious enough to be distrusted (scum fakeclaim could lead town off a scum lynch onto a town one if town lets them) and the town should try to come to the most logical conclusion on who's scum.Doubtful wrote:I thought you said that you were 97% sure DMSIS and jim were scumbuddies, and 100% sure that one of them was scum? Also, even if there's no cc I wouldn't trust jim, and question him further. I unvoted because I didn't want scum to quickhammer, when you unvoted that wasn't a problem, so there was none.Parama wrote:Who the hell leaves their vote on a claimed power role, though?Doubtful wrote:Why unvote? jim was at L-2 at that point, scum can't quickhammer and before a cc no town would put a claimed cop at L-1 (because as I said, it favors scum to do a scum-cop trade)Parama wrote:unvote
Anyone counterclaim? If there IS a counterclaim, we need to hear it NOW.
I hate how you're dismissing a lot of things as WIFOM, but I guess I can see where you're coming from. It's not completely null just because of the WIFOM possibility, however.Doubtful wrote:And that list?
More WIFOM. Like I say, when jim flips scum you can't trust what he says. Could easily be trying to set me/chaodck/smargaret up with that list so that other people will reference it. WIFOM.
To be quite honest I'm not interested in the case against you.Doubtful wrote:Parama: I understand what you mean, dismissing things as WIFOM, but all of the evidence against me is basically putting DMSIS and then jimfinn at L-1 and WIFOM created by jim's hinting towards me being scum, as far as I can interpret.
WIFOM.Doubtful wrote:OK. jim hints towards relationship with me. I deny any with him. He turns out scum. So? What do you conclude?
UNLESS both scum are already on the wagon. If a townie is on the wagon then yeahDoubtful wrote:If town doesn't have room for error remaining, then you know that the person you voted who claimed PR is scum (lack of quickhammer)
So it means that we can find that other scum without taking this risk of lynching a PR claim.Doubtful wrote:There's still one other scum if the claim is fake. Yes. So?
I did not plan on following any logic he presented - where did I say I would? I waited for a PR cc before anything else.Doubtful wrote:The town should NOT listen to the PR claim if the player is still suspicious enough to be distrusted. I thought you were 100% sure jim was scum? And we can still discuss when claimed PR is at L-2...
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. THIS IS NOTDoubtful wrote:The town should try to come to the most logical conclusion on who's scum. We did, and we would've done the same without the unvote. It just seemed that you were taking your chances, hoping that there's no cc and saving jim as a result if your scum, and a useless move if you're town.
I was not talking about this game, but a theoretical setup.Doubtful wrote:Yes, doc/cop combo claim is non-applicable, because there hasn't been a doc claim yet!
Like I said, I need to reread & post notes after that. I'll see who looks scummiest after that. I kinda have a feeling of where my vote will be going but I just want to make sure.Cliquey wrote:Spoiler: Parama
Fair enough. Wasn't one of my major arguments, just something to note.smargaret wrote:1. That my opinion of Doubtful has changed: We got more information, and I felt his behavior on the DMSIS lynch was scummy. Hence, I changed my position to reflect the new information. That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.
...not sure what to make of this. I'm not feeling as sure about this now... but agh that might be what you're trying to do here which is why I can't change my read based on it. Stupid WIFOM.smargaret wrote:2. That I don't want to look bad: I addressed this already. I want scum to get lynched, and I know I'm clear. Thus I don't want people to have a reason to go after me. I haven't been doing a very good job of that this game, and we can afford a mislynch now (since it's obvious that Doubtful is scum), so if it will make you feel better to lynch me along with him, go right ahead. But then lynch the real scum.
Yes I know. I did not say it was you.smargaret wrote:3. 256 was Doubtful. Just wanted to clarify that.
Crazy Parama notion = smargaret wanted to know if moose would be lynched the next day due to having 4 votes on him at the start of the day, knowing it was a mislynch.smargaret wrote:4. 271 is confusion about the mechanics of forum mafia.
Just because he claimed something doesn't mean he's telling the truth. You should have posted what you were going to post, on the basis of: "IF DMSIS flips town, THEN: <content>, OTHERWISE ignore this."smargaret wrote:5. Backing out of posting content: DMSIS had posted something (claiming RB) that would totally change my reads on jim and doubtful. I didn't want to post something about them based on inaccurate information, that could be dragged out of context. And I am pushing a Doubtful wagon - see where my vote is? There was the cop claim/counterclaim Day 2 before I logged on, and, as you said, obvscum was obvious, so jim got lynched Day 2. But now I'm pushing for Doubtful.
I called you a he once? Bleh, I know you're a she <.<smargaret wrote:6. That I accused Doubtful of bussing scum before we knew jim was scum - well, yeah, he was obvious. Maybe I was tunneling a bit on Doubtful. But Johannes's claim was way, way more believable. Also, I'm a she, not a he.
Wow, thanks for injecting more WIFOM into my game.smargaret wrote:7. Hypothesizing mafia actions: Yes, I'm saying why I wouldn't kill Cliquey if I were scum. It's the same reason I would kill Moose tonight, and Johannes last night. It's game theory - scum kills power roles and obvtown, and leaves the town players who look scummy alive to be lynched during the day. Although, it raises the question of why you (Parama) survived night 1, given that you were the towniest player that day.
So you wanted to pressure me due to too town fallacy? Meh. Not sure what to make of that either :/smargaret wrote:8. I was replying to Moose asking me what I wanted to do Day 2. I either wanted to pressure you (because you hadn't - and haven't - been pressured) and it was obvious that one of the scum was in the set of {jim, Johannes}. I wanted to lynch one of them, but not after taking more time to look at you and everyone else, because we had time to do more scumhunting.
Why would it benefit Cliquey to kill Black Mist N1?smargaret wrote:9. My translation of 373: I am suspicious of Cliquey because Mist died N1, and it seems like that is the sort of thing that would benefit Cliquey. However, I find Doubtful to be more suspicious than Cliquey, and I would rather examine him. Does that help?
Why would you assume a mafia is telling the truth, though?smargaret wrote:10: That I apparently knew the setup: I assumed jim was being entirely truthful when he instructed his partner to block Moose, and thus, there's a RB, and thus, there's a doctor. I didn't want to take the chance that, say, you were the doctor and have you protect someone other than Johannes on the WIFOM that mafia wouldn't kill a cop because the doc would protect the cop.
I don't like it because it leaves people to try and find what's suspicious even if there's nothing there in the first place. And, "If you try hard enough, you can make anything into a scumtell" so...smargaret wrote:11: The "Very, very interesting" - something struck me as "off" about that quote. I wasn't sure what (looking back, probably that he was trying to bus jim), but it struck me as off. Posting it and seeing if other people have the same reaction isn't reasonable?
Okay, but he didn't really have time to answer - it had only been 5 minutes.smargaret wrote:12: Addressed in 411/412
Again, I don't know what to make of this. All I do know is that it doesn't change my mind.smargaret wrote:13: 444/the mislynch plan: So lynch me today, and Doubtful tomorrow. I've made my case for why he's guilty, you can afford a mislynch, and then I don't have the backdoor. Seriously. I fully believe it's Doubtful. I'm town, but if the only way you're going to look at anyone else is to see how I flip, lynch me.
You parroted the "not contributing much" part and correcting the mistake is a very minor thing.smargaret wrote:14: That I'm parroting Moose: Actually, IcorrectedMoose - I pointed out that Cliquey had, in fact, posted Day 3. I fail to see how that's parroting. And I left my main suspicions/my vote right where they were, with Doubtful.
Actually, I think Cliquey said he needed to reread or something.Doubtful wrote:In Day 2 you made the first post, and tried to avoid accusing people. In Day 3 you barely posted (not a scumtell by itself) but made really no opinions on anyone.
If you feel everyone else is pro-town, PoE says that the person you don't have a town read on is scum, no?Doubtful wrote:You went with the smargaret bandwagon, saying that you don't feel about her but feel everyone else to be pro-town.
???Doubtful wrote:You did object to other people's play, but most of those comments that you say felt scummy were directed at... Moose.
Doubtful wrote:You are obviously trying too hard to not have attention brought onto you, and right now your lack of opinion makes it able for you to support any accusation at all.
Well at the start of the day Cliquey did post some opinions <.<
I don't think you even read this post if you think it lacks opinion...Doubtful wrote:ISO:
Post 457: What's the point of your "opinion" and "strategic" doing nothing?
You're trying to avoid opinion.
...Doubtful wrote:Post 442: You make an opinion on smargaret, trying to avoid actively showing it by voting!
Giving opinions doesn't help town win?Doubtful wrote:This is exactly what you do, except you talk about how we have to deal with your posting habit. Your logic is good, but you aren't helping town win by giving us your opinion.Cliquey wrote:
Now... you said basically nothing about 5 players and spent more time talking about my posting habits than talking about one of the most active wagons. Wow, thats pretty bad... especially because you exonerate DMSIS due to moose and I and really, you've explained why 0 of the things I am doing are scummy. Different, but not scummy.
...Doubtful wrote:Most of these points I bring up aren't completely scummy, but they are points nonetheless.
Yeah, this is pretty much it - Doubtful is calling out scummy things without really knowing what he's saying. And that leads to contradictions.Cliquey wrote:In your paragraph you set up saying that I have opinions, then claim that I have no opinion whatsoever-- can you make up your mind?
The posts you mentioned, you said they were lacking in opinion, right? Uh...Doubtful wrote:The posts I mentioned are basically your most opinionated posts. You didn't vote in them, went along with several wagons, and for jimfinn waited until others piled up on him before saying that you find him scummy.