Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Hilarious- we are starting off pretty much the same, with CFRiot and Charter getting stuck into each other
I have to say that while I can see the argument for game setup discussion being a scumtell, it can be useful, and to just pounce on anyone who introduces it is a mistake. People make assumptions based on their experience or "the way it always is", which are not necessarily right in every game. It may need someone else raising the possibility to get others thinking about it. The trainwrecked version of this game was a good example of messing with the meta, in that yes, there were three scum, but there was also a sibling pairing, so it was not quite as straightforward as might have been expected.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Listed on the wiki at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Roles . I would recommend the flash introduction to roles by mikeburnfire (linked from that page). It is really well done and easy to get an understanding from. Once you look at that you may rethink the comment about 3 scum or 2 scum and a SK...ShadowGirl wrote: Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.
I meant to ask this earlier. Had, (or anyone who knows) what other 3rd party role is there besides SK? I know there can be multiple killing families, but that's highly unlikely here.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
ShadowGirl wrote: Also, Walnut, the last two sentences in your quote aren't mine. But thank you for the link, nonetheless.
My apologies! I got the two posts jumbled in the quoting and reformatting process.
CF Riot wrote:After looking at that flash, I'm pretty convinced SK is the only likely 3rd party role in this game. At the same time, I agree that there's no point guessing at it when it's very nearly confirmed if there are 2 night kills by D2. I don't see why this would make me rethink that comment though. Clarify Walnut?
It seems to me like there are a lot of possibilities listed there. We had a sibling or lover pair in the last game, which has a town/pair and mafia/pair alleigance. In the same game I was a weak doctor, which means that if I had protected a mafia member I would have died. Assuming the mod's description of deaths did not make it obvious and people did not look up the role, most players would have assumed a certain number of mafia and an SK. Similarly, if an insane doctor "protects" someone they have a 50/50 chance of killing them instead, in which case the dead player's role would reveal nothing about why they died, and increase the likelihood that people would expect there was a serial killer.
Macavenger wrote: On this note, can we please abandon the stupid setup guessing and get back to scumhunting? I haven't had much to say in this game for a while because "is there an SK? Maybe? Maybe not?" has been about all that's happening. This is the reason day 1 setup guessing is usually considered scummy, because it distracts from scumhunting. Unfortunately I couldn't use it as any kind of tell here when what, 6? 8? people were doing it.
Regardless of the validity of the "guessing" element, it has been a useful discussion to help people realise what is actually possible within the constraints of the rules and not make incorrect assumptions. Also, while it may not have been useful for you Mac, there are plenty of other people who may have got value out of it.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
In context, this is the most suspicious post in the game for me as well. Had, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since this was brought up- why vote for Charter now?Hadhfang wrote: There could be cult leaders or survivers though, that's not above possibility. Tbh, speculation on 3rd party roles offers us no help at all, until someone makes a hint at their role if they are pro-town. Having said that Lord Guri's post was that there are likely to be either 3 scum or 3 scum and a SK, it was Charter that brought up the speculation about it.
Vote:CharterReading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Someone has to do it...Blackberry wrote:I think Tinsley is mafia cuz he tried to post an analysis of everyone. And after what we saw last game.
I don't like restarting this, but it's whatever.
I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.
I just barely skimmed through the posts just now. I will actually read the posts either later tonight or tomorrow.
Blackberry, the choice is your's. I am not going to go through the whole spiel about why we all play mafia and how it only works as a community that supports itself, because you know all that. Rather than drag it out, please make a decision quickly about whether you want to play or not. Thanks!Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
And, based on post #83, I would almost expect Had to be mafia and CFRiot a townie he is setting up for a fall. Maybe he is trying to use it as an argument against Charter, but I am not convinced. I have to admit that nothing he says is entirely unreasonable, but the gut feeling is there at the moment.
vote HadhfangReading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I took more note of you saying that you were feeling lazy and considering being replaced. If that is the case, it is better for you to be replaced than the town to be forced to lynch you. Your comment about your role reminded me painfully of Acidmix.C: I'm surprised I haven't gotten more votes on me. I was expecting me to claim that I have a kickass role to give me votes and only one person (charter) has voted me. The question is: is charter's behavior PRO-TOWN or ANTI-TOWN for voting someone that claims to have a kickass role. I don't know yet.
@Netlava: I guess a clearer way to have phrased it would have been to say "Taken individually, no single one of Had's comments strikes me as necessarily scummy, but taken as a whole they make me suspicious". That said,unvote Hadhfang. While I am not sold on his claim, we can work with it.
@Battousai, I see what you are saying about who called you out for lurking, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, if Had looks likely to be lynched early on Day 1 his scum partners could try to distract attention to lurkers to get the heat off him. Equally well townies could say "Hey, let's not lynch this guy yet until we hear a bit more from some of those who have not said much". For me, they are both valid responses, so it is kind of WIFOM.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Everything he says here is provocative, and I can't see how any of it is positive for the town, although some people seem to like the hint about the role. As my number 1 suspect is off today's menu, I would be ok with voting Blackberry if he doesn't get replaced first.Walnut wrote:
Actually, if you are looking at a clearer example of distraction with no logical townie explanation for it, try:@Battousai, I see what you are saying about who called you out for lurking, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, if Had looks likely to be lynched early on Day 1 his scum partners could try to distract attention to lurkers to get the heat off him. Equally well townies could say "Hey, let's not lynch this guy yet until we hear a bit more from some of those who have not said much". For me, they are both valid responses, so it is kind of WIFOM.
Blackberry wrote:I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Hadfhang claimed when he was at L-3 (wlthough he possibly thought he was at L-2). He also made a specific claim that (without wanting to go into too much detail) can be evaluated. Blackberry's claim was out of the blue (at L-7), and was sufficiently unspecific to be not even necessarily pro-town. Admittedly, if it is an overnight action it may be visible, but otherwise unless he clarifies his claim we gain nothing from it.CFRiot wrote: Why on earth would we lynch Black Berry? I realize that was definitely not a wise thing to do and it kind of screws us over a bit if he's telling the truth since he's attracting attention to himself. But are we not waiting on Had because he's claimed? Why then would you make your second vote someone else who's claimed?
Huh? If he is town, he can equally well confuse town players. What makes you think that town will not be confused by what he said? Did you not see his sudden burst of drama as detrimental to the town?Lord Gurgi wrote:I'm against a BB lynch today, because if he's town he's just confusing scum, if he's scum, then he's not confusing anyone. That said, we have people that are being detrimental to the town. I still support a charter lynch, because of previously stated reasons.
Had was my top suspect for reasons stated before. As I noted too, I agree that he should not be lynched today. In my response to CFRiot (this post, above) I explained how I saw the two claims as significantly different to one another. I would add to that Blackberry's burst of action deliberately to draw votes when some pressure was building, the voting without reading, and the more recent distraction of asking the mod about roles from the last game. Why? Because Netlava says that he has a guess about the role, and Blackberry doesn't seem to like that. I guess the "I am only playing because I get to be special- No! You can't know what it is! It iisn't fair!" thing rubs me the wrong way.Macavenger wrote:Why are two claimed (semi-claimed, in one case) power roles your top two suspects?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Certainly not convinced of it. On the infamous 1-10 scale about a 6, but it is a bit of an either/or situation. I am kind of hoping that the response to his play so far might lead him to something more useful, in which case my suspicions would likely evaporate, but if he continues in this vein he is highly suspicious and will remain so.
Of course, it is still possble that he will decide that he is in fact feeling lazy and ask to be replaced.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
[quote="CF Riot]This is my problem with you Walnut. Yes I agree his claim is not pro-town, but I don't think the other examples you give are scummy. He actually didn't vote without reading, he hasn't voted at all. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. I don't particularly like the fact that he hasn't done a full read, but he said his guess was based on recent posts, so his opinions aren't baseless. You say he's only a 6 on your scumdar, but that is high enough to be in lynch territory?
FoS: Walnut[/quote]
You are right in that he has not voted. Neither, in fact, have I. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. For the rest, I would refer you back to post #143. The pressure was building on Hadhfang, and suddenly BB posted with a post that he openly says was intended to draw votes. Does this timing not strike you as suspicious?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Curse that "Submit" instead of "Preview" pushing finger! In a slightly more readable format:
CF Riot wrote:This is my problem with you Walnut. Yes I agree his claim is not pro-town, but I don't think the other examples you give are scummy. He actually didn't vote without reading, he hasn't voted at all. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. I don't particularly like the fact that he hasn't done a full read, but he said his guess was based on recent posts, so his opinions aren't baseless. You say he's only a 6 on your scumdar, but that is high enough to be in lynch territory?
FoS: Walnut
You are right in that he has not voted. Neither, in fact, have I. I don't see any problem with proposing 2 suspects at once in his post either. For the rest, I would refer you back to post #143. The pressure was building on Hadhfang, and suddenly BB posted with a post that he openly says was intended to draw votes. Does this timing not strike you as suspicious?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
@CFRiot: To give an extreme example, if someone never posts they get prodded. If they fail to pick up the prod the mod replaces them. If they pick up the prod but still never post from what I have seen the action differs from mod to mod. In one game I played the mod said that it was the town's business to deal with that issue. So eventually we were forced to lynch that player. It turned out he was mafia, but it still felt disappointing, like a hollow victory. It was a purely mechanical action with no game involvement. In general, I totally accept that people have real lives and can't post as much as they may want to, but if they are not posting much because they don't want to play, why are they playing? In this case BB had posted, but that may go some distance to explain my reaction to his admitted lack of interest.
I take your point about the timing and the riskiness of overexposure. Remember that they don't have to prove fake-claims every day that they are alive; ultimately, they just need to remain not the top candidate for lynching, which is a lot easier, especially when you have a non-specific claim to begin with.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Thank you Blackberry! And no, not for deciding that I am SCUM. I appreciate that you have done the right thing in baling out of the game if you are not interested enough.Blackberry wrote:SCUM: Walnut
AND POSSIBLY: Macavenger
I forget why. Replace me though, I don't have enough effort to do these.
Very sorry mod.
For those who thought I was suspicious for pressing Blackberry on this, feel free to continue to do so, but for myself I think it has played out to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the context (especially as supported by Farside's evidence in post 162) I won't be thinking of BB's replacement as at all suspicious by default, as BB's actions seem more personal than role based.
@Lord Gurgi: While ideally they should be separate games or all players should have participated in both, it is inevitable that people have at least a subconscious reference to the trainwreck that was the first game. I don't know if you and Farside have the time, but if so, it wouldn't hurt to read through. And laugh at the ending...Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I guess what makes it less scummy to me than to some is the lead up to it. In the first case he is responding to CFRiot'sfarside22 wrote: If someone can explain why this is okay I will let it go.
Charter, whether everyone agrees he should or should not have, gives an opinion.For now, strong FoS on Hadhfang, waiting for the rest of the town's opinion on how to go about testing this claim. Battousai I'm also waiting for you to come in and clear your name.
In the second instance, he was following this post from Battousai:
The first two sentences of this are somewhat reasonable, but I found the final question aggressive but ultimately pointless, which Charter picked up on. If CFRiot is a doctor there are two options. One is that Netlava is scum, in which case he has not just handed a big clue to the scum, as they had it already (by definition). The other is that Netlava is town, in which case there is no real point to that question. He should apologise? Vote for himself for having made a mistake? I don't know- Batt, what were you looking for here?What if he really was a doc and it was a real breadcrumb? Then if the scum wasn't observant you just outed a town power role. What do you think should happen if CF is found dead tomorrow as the doc?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Welcome camn! Apologies- it was only when re-reading I realised how much I had paraphrased you in my last post.
So yeah, I had a bit of a re-read, as Blackberry had kind of distracted me and I wanted to get a bit more of a sense of the rest of the day again. One post worth mentioning:
Any chance for an update yet?Battousai wrote: Tinsley- I'll get back to you on that, because if I just post who I find scummy without saying why (I have other games right now, so a reread will have to wait a bit) I'll get asked a bunch of questions and it might distract the town moreso.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
As camn has already answered this, I feel relatively free to ask Tinsley- what were you thinking? How could Blackberry's role have told him anything of note about the mafia? To be purely hypothetical (so as not to compromise anyone's thinking about the current game), is there any role that on Day One, with no Night one and therefore no prior info, would have a better idea or not of which roles the other players would have? That is, other than a role that was intrinsically linked (e.g. siblings, lovers, lyncher/lynchee). Is that what you were implying?Tinsley wrote:
Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?
Mac, who are you talking about here- Battousai or charter? The funny thing about this post is that I was recently trying to get my head around tthis combination of posts (nine minutes apart)Macavenger wrote: farside22 wrote:
@Macavenger: charter is talking about lining up lynches, but the hypocritical part is he is talking about whether Had is still alive, then calls out another player who did exactly as he did.
I'm not seeing what Battousai did as necessarily setting up lynches, but I can see where you're coming from here. I wouldn't consider it a strong point against charter as a contradiction.Battousai wrote: In concerns with Had, I think we should lynch somoene else and see what happens. Come D2 if Had is still alive he can tell us who he investigated and the result. Then we can decide on whether or not to lynch him or somoene else. That's my two cents on that.
This at first struck me as a direct contradiction ("let Had live and deal with it tomorrow" versus "if we let Had live it is complete WIFOM"), then I thought that I had initially missed the point and that the second post was entirely based on the possiblilty of lynching Tinsley and him turning up scum. However, this is going down the same path of setting up lynches that Charter went down, even if it is in its opposite case- setting up non-lynches.Battousai wrote: charter wrote:
You say Tinsley will look scummy if Had turns up scum, would the opposite hold true? Say if we lynch Tinsley today, would you then think Had is scum regardless of his claim tomorrow (if he lives through the night)?
Nope, tomorrow will be completely WIFOM if we let Had live, and scum will play it up no doubt.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Your argument against Charter here appears to be:Hadhfang wrote:
Only because I've had time to think about your post some more, and read through more thoroughly. Your jumping on Riot's post seems a bit over eager, since he said the assumption within a hypothesis, not openl stating that he did assume there were three mafia.charter wrote:Is there any reason you're voting for me now rather than when I first said I'm assuming there's three mafia? I don't understand why you waited so long if that's your reason for voting me.
Not liking this comment about Riot being "misleading" he isn't, his facts were perfectly accrurate, and added to that your assumption and then questioning the same assumption made by sumone else, albiet in a hypothesis is strange.Note liking Had's waiting so long to vote for me. Also not liking Riot's misleading stat trying to make us think there's very little chance Had is scum.
1) You jumped on CFRiot's assumption, even though it was only in a hypothesis.
2) You commented CFRiot's stat was misleading, when it was accurate
and
3) I find it strange that you assumed something, then questioned someone else (CFRiot) making the same assumption in a hypothesis
In 3 points you mention CFRiot twice by name, and once by inference. This struck me as buddying at a time when the votes were mounting on you, so if you were lynched people would re-read Day 1 and see a close connection there.
You also say CFRiot's stat was accurate as an argument against it being misleading, but they are not opposites. The expression "Lies, damn lies and statistics" sums it up pretty well. Also, not to forget that the second part of the stat isn't accurate anyway.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.
Accusations and defensiveness sound like a good thing to me, rather than everyone being passive, lurking and afraid to speak.Accusations and defensiveness is the the order of the day... and we have votes on 50% of the people in the game!
Confusion, as opposed to being convinced that you are right when you don't actually have much to go on? "Delay" is an interesting choice of word here too. There is no deadline and it is generally considered that a longer day is better for the town, so this strikes me as dodgy.as far as I am concerned.. this suspect-everyone ploy is anti-town, as it leads to confusion and delay
In this case, I don't mind being "distracted", and I look forward to what you have to offer based on reading Netlava's postsLets take a hard look at NetLava for a couple days.. simply because he is our vote-leader right now.
Let's not get distracted by other accusations for a little bit, until we are satisfied.
Sound good?
Ok.. I will read NetLava's stuff, and get back to you.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Netlava- if you caught him out on that one, you are a legend! I am startlingly unconvinced, as you are going to get him either way here. Either he takes you at face value and you accuse him of knowing you are town (as you did) or he doubts you in which case you attack him for baselessly doubting you.Netlava wrote:
Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?Macavenger wrote:Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.
I think I would have felt clearer about this post if Lord Gurgi had left it after the first sentence and if so inclined had written a separate post about people carrying on suspicions from the last game. It ends up being a poisoned chalice: "Netlava, here is a defence- it makes you look like an idiot if you choose to take it though".Lord Gurgi wrote:Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.Walnut wrote:I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
No, and that is exactly my point! I don't know whether Netlava is scum or town, but I do know that his playing style is such that could say "Hello" in such a way that half the town would want to lynch him. To give an example from a recent post that shows what I am talking about:farside22 wrote:
It's that a foregone conclusion if you do this with any player though?Walnut wrote:
While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.Walnut wrote:I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.
Making your entire answer to someone's point "rolling eyes" is ambiguous, incomplete and for some people, in some cases, irritating. This sort of thing makes you more likely to be lynched. Is it scummy? If used strategically to avoid answering a question, then yes, but it is pretty standard for Netlava to both behave like this and answer questions, so of no benefit.Battousai wrote:
Agreeing with you shouldn't be scummy, so it must be the attack on you and if that's the case, I see it as OMGUS.Netlava wrote:
I think I covered this back in post #218:Walnut 248: If you think Netlava is being mislynched, speak out against it. If you think he is being justly lynched, don't give disclaimers for being a part of it. This post feels like distancing without actually being a part of the case.After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Um... in post 63 I answered Shdowgirl's question about roles. I think that this was in fact a useful contribution to the town in general, and specifically as people had talked about two NKs meaning that there was a serial killer.charter wrote:Did a reread, here's my thoughts on what I saw.
Walnut in 63, massive derailing of townShadowGirl wrote:
Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.
I meant to ask this earlier. Had, (or anyone who knows) what other 3rd party role is there besides SK? I know there can be multiple killing families, but that's highly unlikely here.
Walnut wrote: Listed on the wiki at http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Roles . I would recommend the flash introduction to roles by mikeburnfire (linked from that page). It is really well done and easy to get an understanding from. Once you look at that you may rethink the comment about 3 scum or 2 scum and a SK...
Answering questions about post 63.Walnut in 79, MORE extra curricular role speculation
Walnut 137, Defends himself against BB even though there is no need to.
How is that defending myself? It seems to me to be completely attacking Blackberry.Walnut wrote:
Everything he says here is provocative, and I can't see how any of it is positive for the town, although some people seem to like the hint about the role. As my number 1 suspect is off today's menu, I would be ok with voting Blackberry if he doesn't get replaced first.Blackberry wrote:I might have to be replaced, as I am getting lazy in not only this, but all my games. I will stay in this game however only because I have a super-kick-ass role. I probably shouldn't mention that but I feel like bragging. I wonder what discussion this will bring up by me claiming I have a super-kick-ass role... lol.
How do I (or anyone else) know whether other people listened to him? I assume that everyone reads what is posted, but I don't know what effect it has on them. That is why, even though I am not sure anyone is impressed by your arguments here, I am obliged to defend myself against them.No one listened to him since he even said he had no interest in playing.
Tinsley, for one, posted in response to him (see post #89).
Walnut in 137, Seems to think lynching BB is not only acceptable, but a good idea. Says that BB was deliberately trying to draw votes when pressure was building. Two things wrong with this. First I think that was BB's first or second post, so it being timed seems very unlikely to me. Second, he 'knows' BB was drawing votes away from someone else...
BB says that he expected to be voted for, which I picked up on. I concede that the drawing votes off Hadhfang theory was a bit unlikely.Blackberry wrote:I was expecting me to claim that I have a kickass role to give me votes and only one person (charter) has voted me.
As I said then, I was hoping that the reaction his initial posts had received would cause him to post more reasonably. Since that point he had not posted, so I could not guage whether this had happened.145, wishy washy about BB after Netlava questions him.
In this post I am still in his top three suspects.Riot in 173, I don't understand why you seem to drop all suspicion of Walnut here and set your sights on Netlava. I don't find it scummy, but why did you drop Walnut?
But I will vote for Walnut anyway...LG in 176, bandwagons, screams scum to me.
Another (more likely) scenario, is that I did not see your post as that scummy, and as Farside had asked for any explanations of why it might not be scummy, I had given one.Walnut in 187, defends me. Don't know why. Possible scenario is because he thinks I'll go and get myself lynched like I almost did last game, flip town, then he'll be in a good spot tomorrow.
I won't on the basis of this post alone. While I not suprisingly don't agree with what you are saying here, I don't necessarily think you are scum either.Go ahead and string me up for this,vote walnutReading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Walnut.. are you saying Netlava is Unlynchable, then? That he always plays scummy.. and thus should never be lynched?
It helps, if it helps people sort out the content from the style in which it has been delivered. I think some of the posts on this page have shown that, in that people have articulated their arguments more clearly. In terms of my vote, I noted in #241 that I was leaning more towards voting Netlava. Not committed yet.Walnut, I understand post 218. What I'm saying is just knowing that doesn't really help us. If you're unsure about Netlava that's fine, you don't have to pick sides, but the way you bring that fact up over and over makes it seem like you don't want us to lynch Netlava, but you won't straight up say he's not scum. It makes you look very noncommittal.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Charter wrote: Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.
I said that right now I am not committed either way on Netlava. Are you saying that to be not voting at this stage of the game is scummy?Macavenger wrote:Overall, I would probably leave my vote on Netlava for now, were it not for the fact that CF Riot and Battousai are both currently on his wagon,Walnut is waffling about joining it
Mac, you keep accusing me of the same thing, in that I tend to post things I think will be aids for other peoples' thinking, rather than just saying "I suspect person x for reason y". To use a recent example, when people were assuming 2 night kills meaning that there was a serial killer, that is simply wrong. If I hadn't pointed it out, I don't know who would have considered other possibilities. CFRiot had the grace to say "Thank you for the clarification", but you vote for me for content not related to this game . As with Charter, I don't think this makes you scum, although it ranks up with the dumb townie reasons for voting for people.Macavenger wrote: charter's 264 is also pretty much dead on. Walnut has posted next to no content this game. He has a few largish posts, but none of them really contribute anything. One of them he spends a whole paragraph talking about how prods work with respect to lurking and what some mods do about it, etc. Basically nothing related to this game. A lot of Walnut's posts are like that.
In post 75 you say that "finally someone has done something noticeable". I thought the same thing, and by post 81 I am questioning Had about it. The posts before that had been a range from random to interesting, but not worth voting for.By post 92, where Walnut hops on the hadhfang wagon, putting him at L-2, Walnut has not really posted any content this game, and continues to make more content-free posts after that. In this context especially, that wagon jump was scummy as hell.
In terms of subsequent content, after putting hadhfang on the shelf for Day 2, Blackberry became the player I was most suspicious of, who has now been replaced, so my content regarding him is no longer relevant.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
This followed Tinsley's question:Tinsley wrote:
I wanted to know if BB/camn's role might have provided any explanation to BB's peculiar behavior. But I think your comments here have flown under the radar. Once again you bring up role/setup speculation, as you have throughout this game causing distractions.Walnut wrote:As camn has already answered this, I feel relatively free to ask Tinsley- what were you thinking? How could Blackberry's role have told him anything of note about the mafia? To be purely hypothetical (so as not to compromise anyone's thinking about the current game), is there any role that on Day One, with no Night one and therefore no prior info, would have a better idea or not of which roles the other players would have? That is, other than a role that was intrinsically linked (e.g. siblings, lovers, lyncher/lynchee). Is that what you were implying?
FoS: Walnut
Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?
Maybe I should have been blunter, and just said that your question was at best meaningless and at worst scummy. Instead I tried to show why it was so, and you followed Macavenger's weak lead in saying that anything that provides context for the game is distraction.
What? When I say it, it is cause for suspicion, but when you listen to what I say and paraphrase it, it is good reasoning?I like Mac's suspicion of Batt, Walnut, and Riot, as both Batt and Walnut were already high on my list. All are currently suspicious of Netlava, two of which are currently voting him. I would think as scum Netlava would make a good first target because of his playstyle.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Camn, this is a surprise. The only references to BB's comments have been by way of people speculating whether I was being suspicious in attacking him. I think that we have moved on from BB and people are judging you on the basis of your own play. Unless you have some really good reason for claiming, I don't think that you are a liability, and I think that you should not claim.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
A few things to reply to here. One is that yes, I among several people who have made posts discussing possible setups and roles. Please note that I have not initiated these discussions, merely attempted to correct assumptions or clarify thinking.I and a few others have noticed that you have made several posts discussing possible setups and roles. How are these helping us find scum right now on D1?
In the same way that a shorter day favours the mafia over the town, so does narrow thinking. It's like saying "That guy has blood on his shirt- lynch him!" then it turns out he is the local butcher. It is not necessarily scummy thinking, just limited. Take the example of the SK speculation and this post from Macavenger:
Camn has just proved that I was right and was helping the town by explaining the possibility of multiple night kills not being evidence of a serial killer. Sorry if I am boring everyone by using the same example, but people keep asking similar questionsMacavenger wrote:What does assuming that we have an SK gain us? It shouldn't matter much for Day 1, and should be pretty obvious based on the night kill(s) by Day 2.
@Tinsley: I still can't think of a possible scenario in which on Day 1 with no Night 1 BB could have had a role-based reason for suspecting certain players. I can see that knowing your own role is justification for guessing certain other roles are present, but not for being able to suspect particular people off the bat.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Walnut
Post 92: Puts hadhfang at L-2 with very little explanation. I don’t like how he doesn’t seem to be aware that his vote is L-2, or possibly ignoring it.
My general tendency is to want long days to slowly build up a body of knowledge to make a decision from. Yes, on Day 1 in particular it will still be at best an educated guess, but better that than a quick lynch and not much learned from it. It is common scum play to shorten the day, and I am not going to rush in and contribute to a hurried lynch. It takes being pretty confident to vote, and I was (and am) pretty confident that Hadhfang is scum, so I voted for him.The thing I suspect him for first and foremost is how noncommittal he is.
I think it is absurd. I think that CFRiot has decided that I am scum, so therefore he is looking for a theory that can fit my posts into his vision that I am scum. If people feel like I should explain why it is an invalid argument I am happy to, but even its author is still doubting whether it makes any sense, so in the meantime I won't clutter up the page.CF Riot wrote:
...Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn...
Walnut, what do you think of this?
If I had not given specific examples people would say I had no evidence- when I do give specific examples, you ignore them and say that they are not representing the bigger picture! Mac, may I refer you back to read post #284, where I explain why the role setup conversation was valuable. I have been too polite I guess- take a look at post #304 where you are simply wrong and I am right. I was not going to bother pointing it out, as everyone could see it, but if you are going to keep accusing me I can see that I have to be more explicit.Walnut, you keep raising small points about individual posts in defense, but it's not an isolated problem. Your entire posting pattern this game has been basically worthless. Looking at your early posts:
confirm
random joke about last game
pointless discussion about whether theory discussion is scummy, along with talk about last game's setup
link may have been mildly useful for ShadowGirl's longterm mafia education, but didn't advance this game at all
More random setup speculation that goes nowhere
Echoes my opinion on hadhfang being suspicious, adds nothing
Encourages blackberry to replace out
Bandwagon jump ahoy! hadhfang to L-2. You've still basically said nothing about this game by now, and you vote to put someone on L-2.
Sort of contributes opinions on Netlava and Battousai, but is mostly just WIFOM
And now we suspect both claimed or semi-claimed roles, blackberry for no real reason I can see other than his claim (didn't you say you read mini 578? You should know that's pretty sketchy after reading that...) This is the first time you've taken your own, original stance on something all game, midway through page 6
speculating on berry's role, and defending against questions raised by Riot and I
waffly on berry's claim
hey, contributes an idea about blackberry!
useless theory discussion about prods, lurking and replacement
excited that berry replaced, little talk about last game, nothing really about this one
Ok I'm going to quit here, because we're up to page 8 now, and I think I've made my point - you posted a lot in the early pages, but basically contributed nothing of any substance to this particular game, while hopping on a bandwagon and encouraging people to speculate on and/or lynch claimed power roles. This is worse than lurking, it's active lurking, with a bit of bandwagon jumping and possible fishing thrown in for good measure.
Past this point you start to sort of contribute a little bit more - though with 8 pages of material to draw on, it'd be hard not to. A lot of mini games have a lynch by the point you start giving any substance. Despite starting to trend towards being a little more useful, you've still never really taken a very firm stance on anything - you talk about theory, you waffle about claims, you waffle about joing netlava's wagon. You're not really doing any of your own scumhunting, just talking about other peoples', which is a huge red flag. Not all of your posts are necessarily bad, per se, but taken as a whole it's an extremely scummy pattern.
In terms of your general argument, at risk of going over the same old ground, we had a similar conversation in the last game regarding responsibility for mislynches. You consider me overcautious, waffling, noncommittal, and irrelevant. I consider you impetuous, overeager to persuade people to follow weak arguments, and over confident in your read of the game. Both of us are inclined to find the other scummy due to playstyle- but, being more reserved ("waffly") I don't necessarily vote for you because of it.
Currently, I am trying to keep an open view of everyone, but top of my list are:
1) Hadhfang- not going to be lynched today, but still most suspicious to me)
2) Netlava- as indicated earlier, I am trying to get my head around what is scummy and what is Netlava's default behaviour, but my tendency is getting stronger, so
In a few other points:
Macavenger- despite our differences in style, I think he is a good player, and on re-reading, we have been in agreement more than disagreement this game, so I am surprised by his current line of thinking.
Shadowgirl- how many games are you currently in? I know you dropped out of one to concentrate on the others, but to be honest, whether it is because of time pressure or something else, it feels like you are struggling to keep up.
Camn- As I said earlier, I had written off BB's claim as the workings of a deranged mind. Your claim, as unprovable (without great cost) as it is, will have to be judged on the basis of the rest of your play.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I explained that, just a few posts earlier:I know this is about netlava, but Walnut's post 92 contradicts his being hesitant to vote for someone that he's pulling nowMy general tendency is to want long days to slowly build up a body of knowledge to make a decision from. Yes, on Day 1 in particular it will still be at best an educated guess, but better that than a quick lynch and not much learned from it. It is common scum play to shorten the day, and I am not going to rush in and contribute to a hurried lynch. It takes being pretty confident to vote, and I was (and am) pretty confident that Hadhfang is scum, so I voted for him.
Post #86 is by Netlava, not me. I came to the conclusion regarding Hadhfang in post #92 as his previous post had been defending CFRiot's statistic. I thought that he had really stretched to make the defense, as not only did he say that it was accurate (which it wasn't) but he also said that it was not misleading, which was hard to say immediately after several people had been confused by it.Walnut: Post 86 how is it that CF didn't explain himself? Post 92 how the heck did you come to this conclusion?
I will be back later today with more.
I can see someone might think that it could work as a town player, but you run the huge risk of people suspecting you for what is seen as a conventional scumtell, as to some extent has happened here. The other thing is- what does it gain? If someone calls you out for lurking, that is neither a scumtell or a towntell. Yes, it is scummy to lurk and town players should call them out, but it is also an easy way for a scum player to look like they are contributing to the game.Walnut - What do you think of the proposed CF Riot/Battousai relationship? What do you think of Battousai's lurking strategy and the fact that he took it from a scum player?
Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silentlyYou saying you're right doesn't make it so. Camn's claim doesn't validate what you did as useful. Had there been two kills after night 1, we could have started talking about whether or not an SK or something else caused the extra death(s) then. Day 1, it gains us nothing.
Alright, the mod has spoken.Vote Netlava.As stated before, he is my top candidate for today.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
That reminds me- why are you voting for me Charter? After you posted a list of accusations I answered them. My sense of that was that I had clearly explained myself and shown that your arguments did not hold water. To go back to your response to that (post #274)charter wrote:I have no problem voting LG, Batt, or Walnut today to make sure one of them gets lynched at deadline.
@Walnut, regardless of what questions you were answering, your post got a few people off topic for a while. I'm not arguing that what you said was or wasn't justified, just that you did say it, and it did derail the town.
According to you, I answered questions, which may have been justified. What is the point here? Even if you believe the answers "derailed" the town and someone in this process was scummy, would it have been the person who asked the question, not the one who answered it?
I have explained my stance on BB previously. He needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly, or he was scum. I am not sure how I am responsible for whether other people post about him or not- if I attack him and no one else does it is not deliberately fruitless and therefore scummy, as you seem to be saying here. Why do I group Tinsley in there and no one else? Because Tinsley also responded at that time, and no one else did. Again, I am not getting your point in this accusation. Equally, if I had attacked someone that other people were pursuing, would you have called me scummy for getting on a bandwagon? I believe some people did for my vote on Hadhfang.You're right about the 137 though, don't know where I got defend from. More like fruitlessly attacks. I assumed no one listened to him, since there were very few posts that talked about BB or what he said. Also noted, how you group Tinsley in there with responding to BB but no one else.
When the improper words were the key to your arguments, that seems significant. I thought I had pointed out conclusively that your accusations were baseless. Please tell me what I have missed.Walnut, you really didn't defend yourself against my accusations. You corrected my improper use of words in a few cases, but you didn't try and refute much.
Nope, needed a deadline My point was that if we focused only on Netlava he would be lynched, and we would miss the opportunity for more Day 1 converstion. Do you feel that you have benefited from the last few pages?Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.
Sorry- looking back I see that I pasted both questions in one quote, then only answered the second one. I am unconvinced by the Battousai/CFRiot pairing. Early on I had vague suspicions of Batt around the lurking strategy, but subsequent play has seemed much more town like.Tinsley wrote:Walnut - You didn't address my question about the Riot/Batt relationship.
I think here you are confusing posting with analysing the game. Scumhunting is not just about asking your own questions and having them answered, it is also reading all of the conversations going on. Whether I had posted about Hadhfang or not before voting for him is irrelevant. I felt, and do feel, pretty confident about Had. Only time will prove whether my confidence was well founded or not.Macavenger wrote:
That post is actually what attracted charter and I's attention. We're saying it's a contradiction - there's really no way you could be as certain as you're now claiming you want to be that early in the game. The fact that you hadn't even posted anythign about him before jumping on him to L-2 is pretty much the opposite of someone being careful with their vote.Walnut wrote:
I explained that, just a few posts earlier:I know this is about netlava, but Walnut's post 92 contradicts his being hesitant to vote for someone that he's pulling now
It certainly does! It makes me very conscious that if I don't say something on Day 1 I may not have the chance to say it on Day 2.
Has nothing to do with this game.Walnut wrote:Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silently
Sorry, missing two questions in one night is not good Looking back, I was getting a bit irritated,- my apologies for that. A more accurate way of saying that would be to include a "sometimes" with the description for Macavenger. Netlava is a different kettle of fish- I think it is his lack of confidence in his read of the game that leads to him rapidly changing his accusations and votes from one player to another. This is what has had me confused on whether he was scum or not, but on balance I am increasingly confident that he is.You missed one of my questions:Macavenger wrote:
Why does this get me off your scumlist, but not Netlava? I find that an excellent description of his play.Walnut wrote:I consider you impetuous, overeager to persuade people to follow weak arguments, and over confident in your read of the game.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Right now I don't have a lot of space for scumhunting. Count how much I have posted in the last few days, and how much of it has been spent fending off accusations. Usually more or less the same accusations, which adds to the general feeling of wasted time. It is necessary to defend myself, and if I miss any questions, as I did recently, people point out that I have, so the expectation is certainly there.charter wrote: Voting for you because you have yet to do any scumhunting. At first you posted a whole lot of nothing, and now that you've got some votes, all you're doing is defending yourself. Still no scumhunting.
Walnut wrote:@Walnut, regardless of what questions you were answering, your post got a few people off topic for a while. I'm not arguing that what you said was or wasn't justified, just that you did say it, and it did derail the town.
According to you, I answered questions, which may have been justified. What is the point here? Even if you believe the answers "derailed" the town and someone in this process was scummy, would it have been the person who asked the question, not the one who answered it?
That is just silly. You ask me a question, I answer it, and gotcha- I am scum for answering? I would also be scum for not answering, wouldn't I?I think both actions were scummy. I don't point out everything I find scummy.
Walnut wrote:
I have explained my stance on BB previously. He needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly, or he was scum. I am not sure how I am responsible for whether other people post about him or not- if I attack him and no one else does it is not deliberately fruitless and therefore scummy, as you seem to be saying here.You're right about the 137 though, don't know where I got defend from. More like fruitlessly attacks. I assumed no one listened to him, since there were very few posts that talked about BB or what he said. Also noted, how you group Tinsley in there with responding to BB but no one else.
So, was I scumhunting here or not? Again you are contradicting yourself. As pointed out by others, his claim would equally well have drawn investigative and protective town roles, which is hardly brilliant.You've decided from two posts that BB is scum? Pretty bold statement there. Personally, I think his actions were brilliant (assuming he was town) because his claim would have easily drew mafia attention.
Walnut wrote:Why do I group Tinsley in there and no one else? Because Tinsley also responded at that time, and no one else did. Again, I am not getting your point in this accusation. Equally, if I had attacked someone that other people were pursuing, would you have called me scummy for getting on a bandwagon? I believe some people did for my vote on Hadhfang.You give a one liner for voting Had, based on your gut and put him at L-2. It was your reason and your manner of jumping on Had's bandwagon that drew suspicion towards you.
Based on reading a number of pages of play to date, which you seem not to count as I was not attacking people during it. Strangely, the other two people getting on the Hadhfang wagon at that time were Macavenger (who posted even less by way of reason than I did) and Charter, who are now suspecting me for doing the same thing as them.
Walnut wrote:
When the improper words were the key to your arguments, that seems significant. I thought I had pointed out conclusively that your accusations were baseless. Please tell me what I have missed.Walnut, you really didn't defend yourself against my accusations. You corrected my improper use of words in a few cases, but you didn't try and refute much.
You mean, not in the style you favour.The main reason for suspecting you, not scumhunting.
Walnut wrote:
Nope, needed a deadline My point was that if we focused only on Netlava he would be lynched, and we would miss the opportunity for more Day 1 converstion. Do you feel that you have benefited from the last few pages?Plus your latest post is taking a very noncommittal stance on netlava. You even say so yourself. It seems scummy, like all that needs to happen is netlava needs just a little more support, then you'll add your vote.
Yet you still feel my play was scummy? Is it that if a post doesn't include a vote or at least a FOS it is not beneficial to the town?Greatly.
Walnut wrote:Other than in recent games I have a 100% success rate at being a mafia target on night one- my ghost will mouth it silentlyHas nothing to do with this game.It certainly does! It makes me very conscious that if I don't say something on Day 1 I may not have the chance to say it on Day 2.
Don't repeat the mantra- look at what I am saying, and think about it. If you had something useful to the town to say, and were aware that due to lynching or NKs you might not get a chance to say it later, why would you wait a day?Other games have nothing to do with this one.
Initially I did not suspect Charter or Macavenger for accusing me, but when the arguments are getting so lame I am starting to get a bit suspicious. Call it playstyle, but to me pushing a bad argument is worse than not pushing an argument.
Bah, tired of hashing over the same old points. Claiming vanilla is not going to change my vote on Netlava.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
That is a truly weird reason for voting.Tinsley wrote:Because Netlava is so close to a lynch:
Vote: Walnut
Charter, you continue to set up these nonsensical situations where you decide my play is scummy either way. For example:
1) You say something to accuse me, and vote for me.
2) I defend the accusation.
3) You say something that disagrees with my defense, and continue to vote for me.
4) According to what you just said, at this point I am supposed to stop defending myself.
As your last post is phrased as statements rather than questions, is it therefore to be ignored? Then people will suspect me for not answering, and any vaguely plausible sounding accusations will be taken as gospel.
This is just plain illogical. We are talking in a public forum, and the idea is that everyone reads what is written by every player. You don't determine who the scum are based on a one to one conversation with someone else, you use all the evidence in front of you. And tomorrow will be another day, with the night's results to provide more evidence. Seeing people are assuring me that I will get to speak on Day 2, I am looking forward to itYou don't need to defend yourself anymore, I'm already convinced you need to be lynched.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I am going to take a wild guess and say that I am more sober than Camn, and not so convinced that Batt with one vote on him Day 1 was all that likely a lynch on Day 2. I think the interactions around Batt need reviewing though.
Then I am going to start the day's business! Thesp, you are both a claimed cop and my number one scum suspect on Day 1. What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Vote Charter
Charter is guilty as hell. His approach today is to rush in saying "Of course Walnut is the lynch for today, and I am prepared to say anything and everything to support that. If you say something else, you are just distracting the town".
Aside from some of the stuff that other people have already pointed out, in his first post he says (mybold)
Six posts later:charter wrote:vote walnut
Thesp, who did you investigate? Why? Why shouldn't we lynch you?
Walnut is definate scum.Another tell is asking Thesp what he thinks now...
Similarly:charter wrote: I'm voting Walnut for the exact same reasons as yesterday,not for asking Thesp anything.
Walnut wrote: Thesp, you are both a claimed cop and my number one scum suspect on Day 1. What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?
That is clearly someone fixated on a particular lynch and so obsessed with his efforts that he contradicts himself, makes things up and keeps on blindly raging. When he first suspected me yesterday, I simply took it as trying a bit of an argument against any player to see what would happen. However, he kept on going, even when the case was well answered. Not just saying that myself:Charter wrote: Walnut's question of "What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" I interpreted as "You were wrong about Netlava being scum and you're my number one scum suspect, what do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" Going back, I can see how what I said created confusion.
Now I am convinced he is scum, and he has run out of chances to say "Going back, I can see how what I said created confusion. " and be forgiven.Battousai wrote:Charter: from Walnut's defense of to you, I think he dispelled most of the points you had against him, yet you still find him scummiest
This next bit is stupid:
This game is about information. As well as trying to get people to only talk about what you want them to talk about, you are denying that night has happened- we now know that Netlava was a townie, and Battousai (a townie) has been killed. We know that other night roles have had a chance to take an action, and we knew that there was at least one claimed investigative role. How could you legitimately deliberately ignore all that extra knowledge?Charter wrote:I'm voting Walnut for the exact same reasons as yesterday, not for asking Thesp anything. Nothing has changed except Batt has left my LoS.
It should be noted that Charter's case on me, as much as I have been able to understand from his ravings, was based on 1) distracting the town with irrelevancies, and 2) non-committalness and lack of scumhunting. On 1) I say again what I have said all along, that everything posted can lead to something useful and on Day 2 he has already overstepped his mark on trying to direct and shutdown conversation; and on 2) I say guess what? All that conversation has been useful, as it has led to me being convinced that Charter is scum.
@Tinsley
Ask Macavenger about the Coron lynch in 578- or to save you the time, I can tell you that it was a Day 1 lynch, suspicious as hell, and it turned out to be all enthusiastic townies. In this case, especially when you threw in Thesp and Mac as having been willing to vote as well, you have named the vast majority of the players, which makes it hard to get much of a tell out of.While all members of the scum team may not have voted Netlava, I feel confident that one or two did.
Kind of a weird question, since I started the day by saying that Thesp was my number one suspect. In the context of Day 2, are you still finding me suspicious?Tinsley wrote: Walnut – I think everyone knows where I stand on him. Who do you suspect now that Netlava is gone?
Obviously, Charter has now superseded Thesp on the list. The guy I am almost sorry for is Macavenger. He has been keeping a lower profile while sharing with Charter the role of attacking me, but is embarrassed as Charter keeps getting it wrong. It is hard to both froth at the mouth and sound reasonable. If Charter were lynched and came up scum, there is no way that Mac would not be the next day.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Eh, cross posted with Thesp.
My read on Tinsley is still more town than not. I think he is honestly scumhunting with an open mind, and while sometimes being unduly influenced by other players is doing a good job.Walnut, what do you think of Tinsley? What do you think of Lord Gurgi?
I am not very clear on Lord Gurgi, but lean towards town. On Day 1 Netlava tried to build a case on one ambiguously worded post, which I didn't buy into. He had a huge analytical post back at #317 which, while I don't agree with every point, gave me a town vibe.
Thesp, what is your opinion on Tinsley? How about on Charter?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I bow to the superiority of the member since 2004, the supersaint, the paragon of mafiahunters!Thesp wrote:
I've quoted part of your post that's painfully wrong.Walnut wrote:everything posted can lead to something useful
No, actually, I don't. At the very least, there is a "can" in there which makes it at least technically true. I find the reactions you get out of people on supposedly non-critical discussions are informative.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Thesp, apologies- that was not meant to sound patronising. I think that if you had started out with
rather thanThere is a point of diminishing returns to posting.
then the conversation would have been more civil, as I agree with that. As for not thinking my post #501 was worth commenting on, that is your prerogative- you can only put the information out there, assume everyone will read it, and hope that most people will take it on board.I've quoted part of your post that's painfully wrong.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Oh dear, the dreaded game setup speculation that everyone used accused me (and many others) of during day 1.Charter wrote: If the mafia have someone who kills whatever cop or doc or whatever that targets it, then this game is HORRIBLY unbalanced and we must have some ridiculous town power to compensate. I'm just not seeing it.
Sigh. Please tell me what I should do differently if I was town- make bad points in praise of him?CFRiot wrote:You're making good points about Charter but this is exactly the right move if you are scum.
@Tinsley: Charter has superseded Thesp on account of his actions on Day 2. I still find Thesp highly suspicious, but as I said in #501, if we were to lynch Charter and he were to be revealed as scum, I would advocate a Macavenger lynch on Day3.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I thought I had answered this in #522, but looking back I see that my answer was not specifically about his investigation, but more about whether I thought he was scummy, which I do. The thing about this is that it is the best result to claim if you are scum, as it is unprovable. If he is town, then it is just really bad luck to have picked the guy who got killed. I don't think we should lynch him today though, as there is little harm in letting him live while we are all aware of him, and on the off chance that he really is a townie who got unlucky, he may get something useful tonight.Tinsley wrote: ABWOP: I'm still waiting to hear Walnut's reaction to Thesp's investigation.
Apparently the clear choice is Charter. Do you still favor the quick Day 2?Macavenger wrote: There's also the issue that Day 1 ran 19 pages, which is well past the point of diminishing returns for town, getting into the area of just making rereads harder. A quick Day 2 isn't really detrimental after that, especially when we have a clear choice for it.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
It didn't convince anyone, even when you did cite examples. When I defended myself and pointed out why your examples were not valid, you said that was just answering individual points and that the general argument still held.I could have summed up the reason to vote Walnut in one sentence, but that's not going to convince anyone if I don't cite examples, which I did in the quoted posts.
Substitute Charter, as he is the leading candidate right now (although not on your list of suspects)- are you prepared to vote for him?Thesp wrote: I don't understand the need to wait. We're getting plenty of info already, and at some point, we need to just do it and lynch some poor sucker. If we keep waiting and waiting for "more info", eventually we get deadlined and do a rush job of things. Let's suppose we force it now, and Walnut makes a mason claim, or something equally clearable. Where do we go from there? If we've spent the whole day piddling around, not only is there a whole mess of posts to wade through, but time may be against us (and undoubtedly scum will exploit that). There's already plenty to draw insight from. Stop stalling us and vote for someone.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Amazing, as Charter said.
@CFRiot: You have rehashed a lot of what Charter and Macavenger have said and I have answered already, along with a some oversimplification. You have added some interesting bits too:
Congratulations on getting to the end of the game and having 20/20 hindsight while the rest of us are still plodding through Day 2!I thought this was scummy to begin with, and now with my 20/20 hindsight I think even more so.
I don't buy the whole "quit stalling, take a guess and vote for someone" approach. What do you get? Dead people, who may or may not be townies. Yes, there is clearly a law of diminishing returns, but it should be an educated guess, not just a total stab in the dark. I am happy with Day 1, and it has provided a lot of useful information for Day 2.218: Preliminary disclaimer to lynching Netlava. Takes a very neutral stance saying, "Netlava's play is scummy enough to make you all lynch him, but he might not be scum. I don't know which he is." This is obv fence sitting.
There is a lot of Day 1 spent with me answering questions and explaining actions. While I expressed surprise at being continually pressed when I had already refuted the arguments, I did not "attack my attackers" until Charter started Day 2 with some obviously scummy play, as noted in your own read on Charter:Walnut doesn't have a defense for his own actions, just attacks against his attackers.
As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?He does somevery scummythings, but none of them seem to be working towards any sinister goal of mislynching someone or defending himself unjustly.
And I noticed as I went through looking for scum tells, a lot of his cases are presented very poorly, but do make sense if you interpret them a bit.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Double post ("submit" instead of "preview":()
Angry and aggressive is just another form of manipulation. If he makes talking with him unpleasant, and you stop voting for him, he has manipulated you. It seems to be working, as right now people seem to be saying that Charter is playing too badly to be scum. Camn and CFRiot have said Charter is "angry and aggressive", "very scummy" and "definitely not helpful"- and are not voting for him. As Charter said, amazing.camn wrote:CF- I think your characterization of Charter is incredibly accurate.
I think his responses, especially to me, have been very angry and aggressive.. definitely not helpful... but also not manipulative, like I expect from the Mafia.
Thus, IUnvote : charter
Plus.. talking to him was starting to stress me out.
totally not worth the effort..
I will read on Walnut again now.
cReading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
If by scumhunting you mean baselessly claiming that people are scum, I am indeed guilty of what you say. Compare me to Thesp- he comes out and says something along the lines of "A, B and C are the scum- thanks for coming everyone" and everyone nods approvingly, while I am a pariah because I don't. It clearly wouldn't be in favour of the town to take a considered approach. This argument by Mac is rivalling Charter at his worst.There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.
Tinsley, I am not on your wagon, nor have I ever even voted for you. Are you so convinced that I am scum that you associate all possible evil behaviours with me? Don't believe the hype- I don't eat babies eitherTinsley wrote: Well I don't think Mac was about to jump on a wagon that you and Walnut were on, so I don't think he was going to vote me.
A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?Charter wrote: I'm pretty sharp.
Whether or not you thought my vote on BB a bad move, after BB was replaced I clearly said that my case on BB was closed:CFRiot wrote: What actually happened is BB claimed "something" and you wanted him lynched, and I thought this a bad move. Then once Camn gave specifics, I believed her and as such saw your opinion to lynch as more severe.
If you read that, why would you think that my suspicion on BB was worse when Camn posted something later? That doesn't make sense.Walnut, post #177 wrote: Thank you Blackberry! And no, not for deciding that I am SCUM. I appreciate that you have done the right thing in baling out of the game if you are not interested enough.
For those who thought I was suspicious for pressing Blackberry on this, feel free to continue to do so, but for myself I think it has played out to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the context (especially as supported by Farside's evidence in post 162) I won't be thinking of BB's replacement as at all suspicious by default, as BB's actions seem more personal than role based.
Whether I like it or not, I seem to have been pushed into a weird sort of scumhunting role simply by pointing out the dodgy arguments against me. Of course, you can always choose to believe that people are good, earnest townies who just aren't phrasing things very well, rather than scum looking for a lynch.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I am a massive distraction because I defend myself? On the contrary, you should blame those who keep repeating weak and already dismissed arguments. For a case in point, Tinsley and CFRiot keep asking me what I think of Thesp today:As for Walnut, what bothers me is that if you are town, then you must realize what a massive distraction you are to finding the actual scum. What possible motive could you have for doing this?
Walnut, post #463 wrote: Thesp, you are both a claimed cop and my number one scum suspect on Day 1. What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?Walnut, post #501 wrote: Kind of a weird question, since I started the day by saying that Thesp was my number one suspect.Walnut, post #522 wrote: Charter has superseded Thesp on account of his actions on Day 2. I still find Thesp highly suspicious, but as I said in #501, if we were to lynch Charter and he were to be revealed as scum, I would advocate a Macavenger lynch on Day3.
After all that, CFRiot comes up with this:Walnut, post #544 wrote: Tinsley wrote:
ABWOP: I'm still waiting to hear Walnut's reaction to Thesp's investigation.
I thought I had answered this in #522, but looking back I see that my answer was not specifically about his investigation, but more about whether I thought he was scummy, which I do. The thing about this is that it is the best result to claim if you are scum, as it is unprovable. If he is town, then it is just really bad luck to have picked the guy who got killed. I don't think we should lynch him today though, as there is little harm in letting him live while we are all aware of him, and on the off chance that he really is a townie who got unlucky, he may get something useful tonight.
When I don't repeat myself again, he is convinced that therefore I am scum. For that matter CFRiot, you have not answered my questions (regarding Charter) from post #590:D2 Walnut comes out (appearing to be) following up on his LoS and suspicion from D1 calling out Thesp. Thesp gives his null result, but Walnut votes Charter and lines up Mac for D3 if Charter is scum. This is alright except he doesn't mention Thesp at all. He doesn't say, "I believe you." He doesn't say, "That's scummy but I'll wait for tomorrow."
As people continue to accuse me of not scumhunting, I will repeat myself and say that the person that I am voting for, Charter, strikes me as highly likely to be scum. No one has disputed the evidence against him- the only defense I have heard for his play is that it is just bad town play. Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:Walnut wrote: As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?
This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?
As for the Farkshinshoup/Tinsley accusations, I am more impressed by the argument that Tinsley voted for me with an eye to Day 2. On Day 1 the mafia don't even have to put in much effort for Netlava to get lynched, as his style made him an easy target. So, once the focus was on him, it is plausible that Tinsley as mafia figured that they could try to build the same sort of case on me so placed a Day 1 vote there to build a voting history. His accusation of Farkshinsoup trying to muster up the votes to bandwagon him is a real reach, and not convincing at all.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I still havn't questioned Thesp on his investigation because there was no question to ask. I was already confident on him (being my number one suspect from Day 1) and then he did something which raised his suspicion level with everyone. There was no point in me saying anything about it, especially as the consensus was still not to lynch him today. Charter, on the other hand, chose that moment to go off the rails, and there was much more value in pointing that out.Tinsley wrote:Walnut - You just used your own quotes to prove Riot and myself right. Look at your quotes in 463, 501, 522, and 544. You never questioned Thesp on his investigation while some of us found it scummy. You never provided your thoughts on it until later when I asked. If Thesp was your number one suspect, why did you wait so long to provide your thoughts on his investigation?
Because I find you more scummy, and you are still not answering the question I repeated in 638.I want to ask everyone not voting walnut or LG why you aren't voting for one of them?
Farkshinsoup doesn't say that he doesn't find you scummy; he implies that he does through his comments about you lurking. Saying it is a vote for pressure does not mean that he does not see you as scum.Lord Gurgi wrote: You said it was bad for town to vote someone they don't find scummy, you just did that.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
CHarter, it looks like you read the quote before, not the one following the colon:
Charter, you have not answered this question from post #623:
Quote:
A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?
This is not being facetious or insulting- it is a genuine question for you.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Camn, this argument comes up frequently, but is generally regarded to be WIFOM. It is called "Too townie" and there is a wiki page that explains why it does not work. Also, you are saying that Macavenger is playing perfectly, and his main target is me, but I am not in your top three scum list. Either this is a contradicition, or you are referring to him "playing a perfect townie style". I find that a far more legitimate reason to suspect him. It is easy to hide as scum when you base your arguments on standard scumtells.1. Macavenger. - Playing a perfect townie. Just how I would play if I were scum! Real townies make mistakes.
Also @ Camn: CFRiot says "I'm thinking not scum on LG." You say that you agree with Riot, but you have LG as number two on your scum list. That looks weird- what do you mean here?
@Charter
I wondered if your silence indicated a tacit agreement with them, which would naturally lead to a rethinking of your approach so far.I never saw a point in responding. What am I supposed to say? No, in fact I am scum?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
QFTAt this point, even the most fevered scumhunters could be misleading us all.
On the LG case, in most instances changing your mind significantly over the space of two posts looks pretty dodgy. But going back and reading again, I see that post #175 by Netlava was called out by LG, Battousai and Macavenger in quick succession, so I don't see LG as being particularly suspicious in reacting as he did.
As for replacing Shadowgirl, while she has not been a very vocal player, I can't see that we would have saved much time by the time Mizzy found someone, they read it all and got up to posting speed.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
@Mac: Sorry to hear about your wrist. Get better soon- I am looking forward to taking another round of abuse
I know LG was getting grumpy about people defending him on Day 1, but on this last page there were a few arguments against him that I just don't buy:
Why should you post a whole lot if you want to get someone lynched? As the evidence shows, Netlava was lynched without a constant stream of attacks on him by LG. After his initial post 176, the flow of the game was going in the direction he wanted (ably supported by Camn's "let focus on one person") and it did not need more fanning of the flames.Charter wrote: He's now shown us he's capable of posting quite frequently, but why was he not when he wanted Netlava to be lynched?
Frequently you find yourself in a position where you have two (or more) people you think are scum. If other players agree with you about one but not about the other, you will vote for the easier lynch. There is essentially scummy about this- it is valid town play.Ok, here's some good LG evidence. "Who's the best person to vote for?" "The easiest to lynch of course!" Not because he's the scummiest or because there's the case on him is the best.
It is a good point. I guess where I differ is in how soon you say "I have enough information, and now I am going to guess", especially as continuing play provides more (potentially useful) information (and no, I don't mean to drag that old argument up from the dead again). In all seriousness, maybe that is the advantage of your many years of playing- that you have built up the experience base to be confident in your picks, or perhaps had so many games that individual ones don't seem so significant. Historically, including reading of games that I have not played in, I have not been very good at guessing the scum, so I tend to look for more info.Thesp wrote: How can you play mafia otherwise? Seriously?
That's the core of playing mafia - giving it your best guess and seeing what turns out. The more you do that, the more you get a feel for how people interact, and the better you get at doing it right. (Disclaimer: You will also sometimes get things horribly, horribly wrong. I still believe if you give it your best guess and run with it, you'll be right more than you'll be wrong.)
Changing CFRiot's words regarding Charter from "scummy" to "unhelpful/anti-town" is yet to convince me- I am still for a Charter lynch today.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Charter is still my first choice for today. I laid out a case on him in post #501 which still stands. I think some people got on the wagon a little hurriedly, so when challenged were left without much to say for themselves. Do bear in mind that no player has to come up with all of the ideas by themselves, you can say "I agree with that argument". It is not like we are rival detectives who each have to find their own evidence and are not allowed to share.
I am still highly suspicious of Thesp, but see him as a prospect for tomorrow rather than today.
My view of Tinsley as misguided townie is tending more towards scum as the day wears on. Given the current lack of interest in Charter, I willunvote; vote Tinsley
(But keep your eye on Charter- he is still the top of my list)Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I didn't say "the only reason you canvote for someone is by agreeing with an argument someone else has put forward", I said "youcanagree with an argument someone else has put forward."
Charter continues to amaze me. As I said in #501, he will claim anything, as absurd as it is, in his efforts to lynch me. CFRiot, do you still think that "his cases are presented very poorly, but do make sense if you interpret them a bit." applies to this post of his?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
On Day 1 Tinsley questioned a number of people on a number of issues. While I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusions he drew from them, I got a general town read on him
Tinsley's Day 2 play has been markedly different. While on its own post #466 is not inherently scummy, it is in contrast to his arguments on Day 1 against speculation. In Post #477 he says that the scum must have been on the Netlava lynch and names almost everyone. These things had me starting to think that he was a little misguided, although probably still town.
It was the argument that Farkshinsoup had lined everyone up for Tinsley's lynch that got to me. It is too farfetched, which comes across as desperate, which signals mafia to me. As a townie, I can't see why Tinsley would have attempted such a wild line of reasoning. I am intrigued to see that his line now is
which sets up an exciting two option game, where you choose either Walnut (the default) or someone else for the lynch. This is curious, given that Tinsley is currently voting Farkshinsoup.With charter doing a reread, ShadowGirl set to return any day now, and Thesp more than willing to drop the hammer, it looks like you might get someone other than Walnut lynched. Nice work scum!Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I am not sure I follow the reasoning that if something is poorly worded it is probably an honest townie mistake rather than scummy. I guess it goes back to the idea that there are different ways to be manipulative.No, that post was dumb. On that same token, do you see that post as scum trying to frame you?Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
I have read the whole Mac post against me, and feel that there is nothing worth answering, as it is mainly rehashing, arguments based on incorrect assumptions, oversimplifcations and "you did <insert any role neutral action> so you are scum". If anyone has any specific questions from that, I am willing to answer them.
While I am sorry that I am frustrating you, think about it for a second. I may be scum or may be town. Why would you not consider my arguments on their own merits? Incidentally, I don't think you could pass off Charter's calling my action a contradiction as "poorly worded"; it was not the phrasing, it was the thought itself that was wrong.CFRiot wrote: It is frustrating arguing with you because I know I should answer your questions and comments and treat all game posts as relevant, but I really think you're scum so it feels like my logic is wasted because you know I'm right, you're just defending yourself because you have to.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ
Unless I have misinterpreted them, people have accused me of spending too much time defending myself. As Mac posted a big huge post full of stuff that I have already defended or is such rubbish that is not worth mentioning, I said that I won't waste time and space on it unless people request it. Do you consider that there is anything to answer in his post, and if so, which bit(s)?That you have ZERO defense for Mac's massive case against you makes me want you gone so much more.
Thesp's call about not wanting me there in the endgame sounded reasonable to me in a way, in that I am not the most confident in guessing who the scum are. Then I remembered two things- that confidence does not equate to accuracy, and that Thesp is still highly suspicious and living on borrowed time.Reading your signature makes me feel guilty and helpless.-
-
Walnut Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 560
- Joined: April 7, 2008
- Location: NZ