Mini 811: Foggy Londontown Mafia - Over!
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
You do realize that FC was the one "following a town current", don't you? I voted Lowell for lurking. FC said they were suspicious. its not a semantices argument at all.Mokina wrote:
I was under the impression that FC found Lowell's lurking suspicious.Your uncalled for defense of FC is noted.
Lowell explained the reason for his lurking.
I concluded that the cause of FC's suspicions had been addressed.
Anyone trying to follow a town current by attacking a semantic point like this one is notable, as far as I'm concerned.
If you're scum, that's a really convenient way to set yourself up for a vote.
FC said Lowell was lurking AND suspicious. If they meant that Lowell was suspicious BECAUSE they were lurking, then there is no need to word the accusation in such a manner. To me it reads the same as how you are saying you are reading me: FC set up a convenient way to vote for what may have become a town current. My vote came first(for lurking), then came FC's unvote and accusation of lurking AND suspicion. Get it?
Why are you so interested in defending them?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
quote="Hero"]As far as FC's comment goes.I read it as him saying that because Lowell is lurking he is suspicious, since nothing else would really make sense considering he's done nothing except the 'Chill out poeple' post.[/quote]
Precisely my point. FC clearly stated "lurking" and "suspicious". There was no implication of cause and effect which you seem to interpret. I want to know why FC differentiated between "lurking" and "suspicion". As it is, two people have now given him the easy answer thus negating the effect of my line of questioning.
Note to all: Stop answering questions not directed at you.
unvote, vote: Far_Cry
There reaction was a bit overdefensive and it also COMPLETELY avoided the main question. I am not letting you off so easy. It is up to players to be clear and concise, not depend on others charitable interpretations in order to stay out of the spotlight.
Tenchi: In order to get to five or six pages we need to keep questioning. What was your interpretation of FC's statement, and do you feel my vote on them is warranted?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I disagree. Scum has every reason to toss out the word "suspicious" without proper evidence. In fact, its probably something scum do quite often. I didn't claim to "think" he meant anything. I asked for clarification, and instead of getting it, two other players stepped in and chose to clarify for him. I am not "making" a case out of nothing. I am voting for who I find most suspicious at the moment. FC's lackluster contribution, avoidance of an issue, and vague statements warrant my vote. If you disagree then that's fine, but it is not in anyones best interest for you to continue defending him. Stop speaking on behalf of FC.Hero764 wrote:
Its just how you want to interpret his words. When he said, "and is suspicious" I read that as "and therefor is suspicious". Why would he say Lowell was suspicious for a different reason when there was no possible way for there to be a different reason? It doesn't make any sense for him to say what you think he meant, scum or not. You're making a case out of nothing here tbh.Precisely my point. FC clearly stated "lurking" and "suspicious". There was no implication of cause and effect which you seem to interpret. I want to know why FC differentiated between "lurking" and "suspicion". As it is, two people have now given him the easy answer thus negating the effect of my line of questioning.
There is no error in my case. FC was never allowed to clarify the statement. When they subsequently posted they candidly avoided the issue. How is that supposed to remove my suspicion of the original statement and the player who made it? As I have already pointed out, charitable interpretations of players statements are not the best grounds for dismissal of suspicion.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
He could have said quite a few things. A telling answer would have been, "well, my gut says he's scummy," or "his random vote is suspicious." His statement was vague. It needed clarification.Hero764 wrote:
This is where the problem lies, what did you expect him to say? There's no way you would get any info out of him with that question. The only logical think he could possibly respond with was that he meant Lowell was suspicious based on his lurking or w/e because Lowell had done nothing else at that point. What good is him stating the obvious going to do us?There is no error in my case. FC was never allowed to clarify the statement. When they subsequently posted they candidly avoided the issue. How is that supposed to remove my suspicion of the original statement and the player who made it? As I have already pointed out, charitable interpretations of players statements are not the best grounds for dismissal of suspicion.
Let's try this then:
unvote, vote: HeroHe is extensively defending another player, and is suspicious.
Perfectly clear or not?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
The statement is worded the same. Lowell had a random vote on FC with no joke or random reason. Just a vote. Also, you neglect the fact that some players play in other games with the same players. i.e. FC could have said "meta" makes him suspicous. Fact is: you do not know what FC would have said. Your interpretation of his statement is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why? You actively diffused an investigation? Regardless of how you felt or interpreted the situation you had no business stepping in, especially after my discussion with Mokina. Yet you continue.Hero764 wrote:Uhm no, not perfectly clear. I've got quite a few more posts in the thread than Lowell had, there's no clear cut reason for my suspicion, because I haven't only done one thing in this thread. See the difference?
My point with my statement and vote: My statement is not clear, and it would not be clear even if you had done only one other thing in this thread. What is "suspicious" about defending another player?
unvoteHero, scum needs to "cast suspicion" on players to utilize bandwagons effectively and mislynch townies. Therefore, unfounded use of the word "suspicious" should be scrutinized.
FC: What exactly is "suspicious" about lurking on pages 2-3 after one has laid down a random vote?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
^^ Good point. In fact, Mokina said Hero was doing good scumhunting this game. Has anyone seen it?
FC: lying about your amount of experience is scummy, especially when you use your dishonesty to cast suspicion on someone else.
Vote: Far_CryPlease explain what you hope to accomplish for town by deceit in the rvs.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Now I am confused. Earlier you agreed with my "case".Mokina wrote:The semantics of FC's post did not make him seem remotely scummy, so at the time I didn't even consider kikuchiyo's question an attack. I thought she'd just misread his post, and I completely agree with Hero - pointing out an error in someone else's case isn't scummy at all.Kiku was fabricating a case because FC didn't say exactly what she would in his situation.
I am not sure why you would backtrack like this. You admitted it wasn't a semantics argument, but now you are dismissing my original point. Now, FC has been caught in a lie about his amount of experience. Voting someone who is lying is "anti-town"?mokina wrote:I went back to look at Far_Cry's post ... seems as if we each read it differently the first time. I thought it was referring to Lowell's absence, whereas you thought there was a second reason. Misunderstanding, sorry to pin a semantic attack on you.
FC hasn't actually resolved whether or not there's an additional reason besides Lowell's absence, but he should. The point about the scumvenience of said vote was good call; duly noted.
Now we're back to agreeing with kik?Mok wrote:I'm not going to be hostile to anyone. That's not a good playstyle, IMHO. But here's one for you. Did you suspect Lowell for anything other than lurking? We still want to know.
Sorry, you are correct. On reread I notice you are talking about me and qwints.Mok wrote:
Please read my posts - the only time I've ever complimented someone on scumhunting, it was directed at you and qwints via post quoting. I made no mention of Hero - he hasn't been scumhunting at all, to my knowledge. Do you have some kind of Strawman Mokina win condition or something?kikuchiyo wrote: In fact, Mokina said Hero was doing good scumhunting this game. Has anyone seen it?
Yet you agree with my suspicion of FC? Puzzling.Mokina wrote:I'm really getting sick of this. You're making up reasons to vote for other people, with no basis at all, post-RVS, then not listening to the input of the rest of us. I cite the way you dealt with Hero, who also tried to explain that it might be a semantic attack ... you steamrolled right over him. It's antitown andFoS: kiku-worthy at the very least.
I am not sure why you seem to be so emotional over today's events, but this post seems erratic.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
My goodness.
First off, aside from my rvs vote, i voted Lowell for lurking.
Far_Cry cast an ambiguous statement of suspicion in Lowells direction.
When questioned, FC dodged the question entirely. I voted FC.
I then unvoted and voted Hero to make a point. When I felt that the point had been made(though not as I had intended it) I moved my vote back to FC because my original suspicions of him had not been addressed properlyandbecause they seemed to be deceitful about their amount of experience. Did they lie? Its hard to say. That's why I'm going tounvote, Vote: Hero
Hero764 has gone to great lengths to defend others. Is it scummy to defend other players? Of course not. Funny thing is, Hero has been defending players based on "charitable" interpretations of their posting.
So which is it? I am fine with a day 1 mason claim. There is no way for us to know FC's intent about his initial post regarding his experience. Yet Hero claims to understand it entirely and think others are stupid for not being able to interpret the statement one way, even though the statement canThe Hero764 Theorem wrote:
Far_Cry: vote Lowell for picking on a first time player on this site.[/b]
Interpretation one: FC is a first time player. He is being picked on on this site.
Interpretation two: This is FC's first time playing on this particular site, but has other experience.
This is a semantics argument. much like:
Far_Cry: Lowell is lurking, and is suspicious.
Interpretation one: Lowell is lurking. He is also suspicious.
Interpretation two: Lowell is suspicious because he is lurking.
What benefit is Hero getting out of defending other players in "semantics" arguments? If said players flip town, Hero can say, "I told you so." It is day 1. Odds are in favor of a mislynch as all townies know. Day 1 is certainly not the time to be "forgiving" and "charitable" when it comes to what players are posting.
Hero is well aware of FC's alignment. The only way this could be possible is:
A) They are masons.
B) They are both scum.
C) Hero is scum.very easilybe interpreted differently.
If you think I move my vote around too much, I don't really care. What I post is my body of work. It will remain long after I am gone.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Hero: What blatant lie? Interpreted one way, FC very easily could have been lying. Interpreted another, not so. Please adress why you are giving FC the "benefit of the doubt" in two seperate statements.
qwints: Rolefishing? If you are referring to the "mason" comment I would just like to say that day 1 Mason claims are pro-town. If Hero is a mason with FC then we are wasting valuable resources in pickling either of them apart. If you are worried about narrowing down the nk pool for scum I would like to point out that day 1 claimed masons are generally the first scum targets for nk. If your comment is in regards to something else, please clarify."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
You are not addressing the timeline. He did not explicitly say that it was his first time on the site. Did you read my theorem post? You are interpreting his statements in one way and only one way. How do youHero764 wrote:
Benefit of the doubt, seriously? He said it was his first time on the site, and then that he had 10 games. The only way to interpret that as a contradiction is to add/take away words to his statements. You lied.What blatant lie? Interpreted one way, FC very easily could have been lying. Interpreted another, not so. Please adress why you are giving FC the "benefit of the doubt" in two seperate statements.knowhe didn't lie or attepmt to lie? Even if he is telling the truth, his first statement can easily be read as someone trying to play a newb card.
Read this statement: I like apples and oranges.
What does it mean? It could mean that I likebothapples and oranges. It may also mean that I only like them when they are served together. It may also mean that I like apples, and the various shades of the color orange. Get it? You are interpreting statements in one way and one way only. Just because it makes sense to you does not mean the statement is clear and thusly you should nopt be taking up others arguments on their behalf.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
qwints- I am not arguing theory. If Hero has knowledge of FC's alignment then he should be coming forward. Masons confirm each other. That's their power. Using it early can be just as useful as using it late, and in fact, moreso."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
My side. I think it's time to lynch Hero. He is arguing semantics which, in and of itself, isn't a horrible thing, but he is using his arguments to defend someone by interpreting their statements in an extremely "charitable" fashion. FC has done very little, if anything at all, to convince us he is pro-town, yet Hero seems to be extremely benevolent in his interpretations of everything FC says. There is no motivation for such behavior that isn't scummy.
Well, one. If you are masons, please claim. If not, its time to swing. Or at least get Hero to L-1 or L-2 and have him claim. His behavior is ridiculous."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Which is exactly why Hero should be lynched, or at the very least, run up to L-2 and asked to claim. Also, do you have evidence to back up this claim that masons are not likely to exist in this set-up? I would say about half of the games I have read have included masons.Wiirdo wrote:I agree with qwints in that kiku is pushing for a claim based on very little. It's not likely that they're masons, or even that masons exist in this setup.
Noone mentioned a "quicklynch" but you. Please choose your words more carefully. Trying to paint what I say in a poor light can be seen as scummy. Further, Just because it is page six does not mean it is "too early" for a serious bandwagon, a role claim, or a lynch. When the evidence is there, then action should be taken. I have pointed out two distinct times when Hero has "charitably" interpreted ambiguous statements in defense of another player.qwints wrote:It's WAY to early to be talking about a quick lynch. You seem awfully eager to force a claim early.
Can anyone point to anything FC has done which would lead one to believe that he is pro-town? i.e. is he worthy of such defense?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Hero: You have a case on me? I didn't notice. I am at odds with you because you are choosing to interpret in a lenient fashion. This is not a noob forum. I am not grandstanding on a "FC Lied!" platform. I am pointing out the ambiguity of his statements and your "friendly" interpretation. Why are you so adamant about defending FC? Do you think he is incapable of defending himself? My issue with him is not "horrible logic". I have shown that to be the case with my "theorem" post. There are different ways to interpret his statements.
qwints:
If thats how you choose to interpret it that's fine, but you are ignoring the key word "or". I am perfectly happy lynching Hero for his behavior and if the votes piled on I would be fine with that. "Quicklynching" isn't something I can do alone and its not what I have suggested. There are an almost infinite number of reasons the wagon could derail. Calling a "quicklynch" preemptively is poor scumhunting.qwints wrote:This seem like a call to quick lynch to me.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I never said nor implied that the statements "contradicted" each other. I am arguing that his first post, regardless of the information contained in the second post,Hero wrote:Yep, just keep ignoring everything I say. I never interpretted anything, his posts didn't contradict he each other. He wasn't 'lying'. Accept it already.may have been an attempt at a lie. You simply discount the possibility. Why? Why do youtrustFar_Cry?
The only person he could lie about being masons with would be his hypothetical scum partner. Another reason why a day 1 mason claim is a benefit to town. i.e. If he is found out to be lying, he has to also implicate a scum buddy.wiirdo wrote:He could just claim mason and lie anyway.
Mokina:
You have done a complete 180 here. He is attacking me and calling my argument "false logic"(my words not his), yet you agreed earlier with my case on FC. What gives?Mokina wrote:Hero's trying to defend himself at this point. He has been trying to justify the initial attack on you, which was a perfectly valid argument. I see nothing wrong with objecting to a vote based on semantics. I can only conclude that you have been fabricating a case against Hero because he attacked you.
How can my logic be flawed if you completely agree with my original point?Mokina wrote:I went back to look at Far_Cry's post ... seems as if we each read it differently the first time. I thought it was referring to Lowell's absence, whereas you thought there was a second reason. Misunderstanding, sorry to pin a semantic attack on you.
FC hasn't actually resolved whether or not there's an additional reason besides Lowell's absence, but he should. The point about the scumvenience of said vote was good call; duly noted.
How is my case fabricated? I have pointed out TWO DISTINCT INSTANCES OF HERO INTERPRETING POSTS IN A CHARITABLE FASHION. Nothing more. I have made no other accusations.
Mokina wrote:Experienced protowns don't make counter-cases.They know that legitimate players can make errors in judgement, nay, need to if they want to win.If you were part of the town, I suspect you'd behave similarly.Scum, on the other hand, always know what they're doing - they're killing off protown threats in a convenient manner, and they start with the ones who notice their weak arguments right off the bat.
So why do you interpret my asking for Hero to be lynched as "scummy"? Couldn't it just be a "legitimate player" making an "error in judgement"?
How do you know that Hero is a "pro-town threat"?
I disagree entirely with this point. Masons are of particular trouble for scum. Masons are the only players who can generally "confirm" each other without a mislynch, nk, or night action. The whole "you can talk to each other at night" pales in comparison to their ability to "clear" townies without sacrificing numbers. Masons claiming early is almost never a bad move and I have already detailed my reasons for asking Hero.Mokina wrote:It's in the interests of the mafia to have someone rolefish for masons, and you're either being a complete antitown tool or you're obvscum.
Why not? Hypothetically, If I were masons with Tenchi, and Hero claimed to be masons with FC, then I would bank on the fact that Hero was lying and would push for his lynch. If he was lying then we'd have his scum partner as well. What's the problem with that?Mokina wrote:If you aren't part of the masonry and you're actually protown, you don't ask for that information.
Funny how you insult my intelligence while posting ignorant drivel.
Tenchi: You have been camping your vote on me since RVS. Care to elaborate?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Ebwop: I read this wrong:
I thought it said "are part of the masonry". Not "aren't". However, the point still stands. I have no problem at all with a day 1 mason claim when one or both parties are under serious pressure or in danger of being lynched. Would I ask them to claim out of the blue? No.Mokina wrote:If you aren't part of the masonry and you're actually protown, you don't ask for that information.
Also this:
is in response to you implying that I am "scum... killing off pro-town threats." Just to be clear.kiku wrote:How do you know that Hero is a "pro-town threat"?"Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
So its okay if someone lies?Hero764 wrote:
It. doesn't. matter. if. he. attempted. to. lie. or. not.
I wasn't sure. My initial interpretation of his post read as him lieing. Him lieing is a possibility. Always has been. You still seem to be avoiding the question ofHero wrote:The point of the matter is that you posted saying he lied about his experience. Since you keep bringing up how it "may" have been, why were you before so sure that he lied about it?WHY DO YOU TRUST WHAT HE IS SAYINGWHEN ONE OF HIS FIRST POSTS COULD EASILY BE CONSTRUED AS AN ATTEMPT TO MISREPRESENT HIMSELF TO THE COMMUNITY?
I NEVER DID.Hero wrote: And more importantly, why did you say his posts contradicted each other when they clearly didn't.
Have you no comments on anything else? What do you think of Mokina's recent flip flop?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Hero should be lynched. He has again ignored arguments. I detailed Mokina's flip with quotes and this was his response:
Hero read post 159. You are not this stupid.Hero wrote:Mokina's flip flop? I can't see where she ever agreed with your case in the first place so....either quote it for me or quit making up stuff.
He accuses me of claiming some sort of "contradiction" accusation when I never used the word. For some reason he seems to think I am pushing the fact that FC lied, when the fact is I am pushing the question of "if it is agreed that FC may have attempted to lie, why is Hero giving him the benefit of the doubt?" Hero has STILL NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.
I initially accused FC of lieing. The fact that he says "I didn't", doesn't change the fact that his original statement was ambiguous, nor does it squash the possibility that his initial statement was an attempt at misrepping himself.
One more time:
Hero, why do you simply choose to believe and trust FC? Why would you not let him defend himself?
Here's Mokina's agreement with me on my original point. AGAIN.
Can you see it?mokina wrote:I went back to look at Far_Cry's post ... seems as if we each read it differently the first time. I thought it was referring to Lowell's absence, whereas you thought there was a second reason. Misunderstanding, sorry to pin a semantic attack on you.
FC hasn't actually resolved whether or not there's an additional reason besides Lowell's absence, but he should. The point about the scumvenience of said vote was good call; duly noted."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Whether FC was lieing or not is not 100% anything. That's my point here. He made an ambiguous statement that could easily be interpreted as deceitful.Hero764 wrote:
Lying and contradiction go hand in hand, you think he lied in his first post, because his second post contradicts that. They don't. I don't care what you are pushing now, before you were clearly trying to push that FC was lying, which was 100% false. Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
If you don't believe him then why are you insisting that he is 100% clear?Hero wrote:
OH MY GOD.Hero, why do you simply choose to believe and trust FC? Why would you not let him defend himself?
This has nothing to do with FC. I never said anything about believing and trusting him, quit putting words into my mouth.
Not ignoring it. I actually agree with you here. Lowell just put you at L-2 I believe. He can explain this action for himself.Hero wrote:And what do you have to say about Lowell's comment? That has to be one of the scummiest posts all game, and you just ignore it?
unvote
Hero: if you are a mason please claim so. I am not "clearing" you of suspicion here, but I am not sure what we are arguing about any more. it seems that we are both pushing separate issues that don't necessarily conflict with each other.
Mokina and Lowell are both parasites to this argument at the moment and I would like to here more from them.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
No misrep here. Asking for a mason claim in a situation where one player is inexplicably defending another and one of those players has a viable wagon is simply not scummy. The claim would clear them both which only benefits town.
You need to catch up, iam. Please show where I said FC's statements were a "contradiction". My concern with FC was first on his ambiguous statement regarding Lowell, and secondly on the ambiguity of his statement regarding his leve of experience. I don't know whether or not his statements contradicted each other because I don't know what he was trying to accomplish with his first statement. My issue with Hero is the fact that he seems to be willing to give FC the benefit of the doubt in that particular situation. Given that FC has shown a propensity for making ambiguous statements (yes, two is a propensity imo), I don't see any pro town reason for Hero to give FC the benefit of the doubt(aside from being masons). Hero is assigning FC 0% liability in this argument. That could be interpreted as clearing FC 100% of liability in this argument, hence my statement.
What "quicklynch adventure"? If Hero is scum and knows FC is town then he has motivation to defend him. i.e. if the FC wagon gained steam and was then lynched and flipped town, scumHero would be looked at as protown. I can't speculate on whether or not they are scum partners because Hero's defense could be seen both ways. To wit, I have pointed out again and again that I find Hero's behavior in giving FC the benefit of the doubt to be "anti-town". Plausible evidence imo.Mokina wrote:You seem pretty anxious to have the town believe Hero truly trusted Far Cry. Why would that make sense for scum? Do you think FC's a scumpartner? I am voting for you precisely because you have made no other accusations. You're voting on a weak case with no plausible antitown evidence, and your latest quicklynch adventure makes me think you know that he's the one you want to lynch anyway.
You don't think Hero and I could be scum together? I believe you may be pushing a false dichotomy here. The only way you can assume that I am scum because I know he is town, is if you know he is town which means that you are scum. Brilliant. Do you know that Hero is town?Mokina wrote:There are two possible scenarios. If you started the game with information that Hero is antitown, let us know. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that you are the scum, starting the game knowing damn well that he's town.
Mine is not a "semantic" argument. Also, I did not continue my attack on FC. I shifted to Hero.Mokina wrote:When he did not clarify, you continued to attack him for it using a purely semantic argument ... assuming that you were right and I was wrong. You were determined to find something wrong with him in particular. That would almost make me suspect some kind of investigative power role, except that we haven't had a night phase yet.
Where exactly have I shown that I have knowledge of anyones identity? Please provide evidence when you make an accusation.Mokina wrote:To put it simply, I suspect you know his identity and are part of an informed minority.
Please show evidence of this "town current". As far as I can tell, I am the one making the biggest waves.Mokina wrote:I do not place any trust in FC's statements, but the point you chose to pursue was weak, flimsy, and trivial. You voted for him based on it, then unvoted when there was a clear town current against it. At the moment, you look like the most opportunistic player here and my vote stands.
Mokina wrote:In the above posts, as soon as you suspect Hero is a mason or other linked role,you ask him to claim or die.If this isn't out of the blue, I don't know what is.
Bolded is the extremely scummy misrep. I asked him to claim. There is no other "linked" role to my knowledge besides masons. If Hero is masons with FC then claiming is the pro town thing to do. It halts the attack and "clears" two townies.
A) I have unvoted.Mokina wrote:People are already starting to bandwagon (see Lowell, who didn't really explain his vote) thanks to your post. In the scenario you're hoping for, if this wagon hits L-1 and he and another mason claim, the scum will be very happy to have two confirmed roles.
B) Why would scum be "happy" to have two confirmed roles? Two "confirmed townies" on day 1 effectively reduces our lynch pool, and increases our chances of hitting scum WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANYONE.
You are either stupid or scum. < Not a false dichotomy. You have shown a serious lack of understanding for how the game of mafia works.
No, at this point it doesn't matter because I haven't been arguing for FC scum for quite some time.Hero wrote: He could very well have been attempting a lie in his first post, but none of that matters.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
No. But someone coming clean when they think they may have been caught in a lie does. You are giving FC the benefit of the doubt as well here. I am not going to argue with you on this point.iamausername wrote:
Pro-town reason to give FC the benefit of the doubt: POSSIBILITY 2 MAKES NO SENSE.
You left out the "masons" part.iam wrote:
No:
Please explain how "claim or die" is in any way an inaccurate paraphrase of this quote.kikuchiyo wrote:If you are masons, please claim. If not, its time to swing.
YOU ARE A FOOL! How does it apply to any claim? Masons "confirm" each other. That's the whole point. I could claim doc right now, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing because there is no way of proving it. Please stop being stupid.iam wrote:
This applies to any claim. So why don't we just massclaim right now?kikuchiyo wrote:B) Why would scum be "happy" to have two confirmed roles? Two "confirmed townies" on day 1 effectively reduces our lynch pool, and increases our chances of hitting scum WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANYONE.
First option, especially when one of the two players who could be confirmed is heading for a lynch. Second option is wishful thinking. If they could fly under the radar that long it would be nice, but claiming early protects other town pr's from night kills, netting us more info.iam wrote:POP QUIZ!
Which is better:
i) having two confirmed town players while there are twelve players alive, two or three of whom are scum
OR:
having two confirmed town players while there are three players alive, one of whom is scum.
I'm not going to jump into a meta argument here and start linking you to games where day 1 mason claims have turned out to be a boon for town, but yeah, see above. The odds of masons making it to a lylo situation are fairly low. If you would like, link me to a game where this has occurred and I will drop the argument immediately. Confirming 2 townies would improve lynch chances for the rest of the game, not just for day, and also draw nk's away from other MORE USEFUL power roles.Mokina wrote:Looks like Iam got to it first. Uh... yeah, confirmed masons aren't worth dirt on D1. Their value increases the closer we get to endgame. Scum naturally will kill them as soon as they claim to prevent this value from manifesting. They only improve lynch chances for one day. Remember fractions? 2/3 is a much bigger confirmed town fraction than 2/7. Q.E.D, a claim on D1 doesn't benefit the town an ounce.
No, the implication here is that you are scum. Not sure why you think I am "mason rolefishing" when I have asked one player, and one player alone if they are masons with the player they have been staunchly defending.Mokina wrote:...and apparently it doesn't just extend to Hero and FC, I'm a mason target too. Is Iam next? Qwints? Find out next episode! I am getting absolutely sick of this.
No, I simply demonstrated why HeroMokina wrote:And you've been speculating about other people having alignment knowledge? In the above post, you come to the conclusion that Hero was scummy in his defense based on the assumption that one of the following is going on:
Hero is scum, FC is a townie. Hero buddies up in hopes of favors.
Hero is scum, FC is scum. Hero protects him from a vote.
Marvelous logic. If we assume that Hero is scum, we can rightly conclude that in this circumstance, Hero's actions were driven by... scumminess!may bescum. How his actionsmay have beenscummy. Don't try to paint me as working with absolutes.
So, according toMokina wrote:Does anyone else notices how very, very circular this is? Her fabrication fails to mention the other two elements in the 2x2 grid that is Mafia:
Hero is a townie, FC is a townie. Hero prevents him from being attacked for semantics.
Hero is a townie, FC is scum. Hero prevents him from being attacked for semantics.
I rest my case.yourlogic, Hero is town? No chance he is scum? You do realize that either FC or Hero or both could be scum in this game, right?
Kiku's not angry, btw.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
If they are acting scummy and defending each other thereby wasting town's time and resources then I maintiain that the situation falls under the category of "have to."Mok wrote:Nobody should be trying to make them confirm before they have to.
Is the second option preferable? Yes, I misposted there. My point was that the second option is highly unlikely and if you link me to a game where it has ever occurred I will cease the argument immediately.
I am confused here. If I consider all four options when interrogating a player, how do I effectively glean information? At some point one must abandon the obvious mathematical statiscs and go with what they think. Hero's defense and argument seemed scummy to me, hence my vote and subsequent interrogation. If you haven't noticed, I unvoted a while back and am allowing much more discussion to take place. At this point it seems that you are doing to me exactly what you claim I did to Hero. Thoughts?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
At the time I asked I was feeling confident that Hero was scum. I can't lynch someone on my own, that takes votes, and bandwagon analysis can be a large part of this game. I got to a point in my argument with Hero where I thought he was simply avoiding the issue. I never overstated my case on Hero. It was built on two separate incidents where he "charitably" interpreted the ambiguous statements of another player. In fact, both incidents occurred with the same player, so I don't see how my call for lynch or claim was "rushed". Further, this line of questioning ignores the fact that I did in fact unvote, and promote discussion of other players actions. i.e I could have kept pushing, I believe Hero was at L-1 or L-2 at some point. At this time I'm going to:dank wrote:kik, why did you want to lynch/claim so soon, when we still have so much time left?
Vote: Mokina
She has seriously misrepresented my case against Hero and has posted the most genuine contradiction we have seen.
A) How can I be misleading town into thinking Hero is scum? If you are town then you wouldn't know whether or not Hero was scum and could therefore not make such a baseless accusation.Mokina wrote:Please. I am voting for you because it doesn't make sense for town to make the kind of arguments you did. You accused Hero of ... what, exactly? Defending Far_Cry?You attempted to mislead the town into thinking the circumstances could only mean Hero was scum was antitown- when in fact you were pushing what was essentially a semantic case on two different people.
B) I offered up the scenario I felt most likely for townHero. i.e. I have seen Masons defend each other before.
C) Earlier you said you realized that my argument with FC was not "semantics", but now you backtrack on that in order to bolster your case on me.
Mokina: you have moved yourself into the category of obvscum. Congratulations. If youaretown then you're really screwing us.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Sorry, nad, but what else can I say? I don't even feel like we need a "case" against her. Her posts are clearly backwards. The fact that she has now backtracked to the FC case and changed her opinion in regards to me makes this look even more like a chainsaw defense(of Hero). i.e. Mok's attack came in response to my case on Hero. She has flagrantly misrepresented what I said.
What about the statement bothers you?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I am not making anything up here. I am referring to her "earlier" agreement with me. The case about FC "lieing" is debatable. i.e. You yourself have admitted that FCHero wrote:Wrong. She agreed with your earlier case on FC about him calling Lowell suspicious, not about him lying about his lack of experience. You're making up stuff just to strengthen your case yet again, and I don't like it.may have attrempted to lie. You just feel that it is irrelevant. I unvoted you and put the case against you on the backburner, so by your logic my earlier actions should be irrelevant, no?
Also, what case are you referring to? I have stated that we don't even need a case against Mokina. Read her posts.
This is a misrepresentation. Noone is voting "with nothing to go on". The case against you is extremely clear, and iam just pointed it out AGAIN. If changes of opinion are expected and okay, why are you not attacking those who attacked me for my changing opinions earlier?Mokina wrote:Do you believe that, in general, it's a good idea to vote for someone with nothing to go on? And for the record, changes of opinion are okay and expected in mafia. I happen to think you're a bit scummy for pushing a weak case on FC, but way scummier for misrepresenting Hero and generally blowing it out of proportion.
Hero: Why are you ignoring the case on Mokina?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Ridiculous. Both you and Mokina are indescriminately giving players the "benefit of the doubt." There is no logical reason for either of you to not be offering that same reasoning to me. None of my arguments have been so terrible as to have the only option of me being scum according to the logic both of you are using, yet neither of you is willing to accept the very reasonable(even if fallible) explanations behind my arguments. You are both also supporting a wagon with an RVS vote still attached to it. Oppurtunistic behavior imo.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Mok wrote:I was under the impression that FC found Lowell's lurking suspicious.
Lowell explained the reason for his lurking.
I concluded that the cause of FC's suspicions had been addressed.
Anyone trying to follow a town current by attacking a semantic point like this one is notable, as far as I'm concerned.
If you're scum, that's a really convenient way to set yourself up for a vote.Mok wrote:I went back to look at Far_Cry's post ... seems as if we each read it differently the first time. I thought it was referring to Lowell's absence, whereas you thought there was a second reason. Misunderstanding, sorry to pin a semantic attack on you.
FC hasn't actually resolved whether or not there's an additional reason besides Lowell's absence, but he should. The point about the scumvenience of said vote was good call; duly noted.Mokina wrote:I'm talking about the driving point of the argument itself. Kiku as a player is under the impression that she can convince the town using an argument based ultimately around her personal interpretation of the post "Lowell is lurking and is suspicious."
That is never a worthwhile accusation, regardless of actual alignment. When I tried to point that out at the beginning, she had a lash-out reaction ... and more so when Hero did, with a vote. I read newbscum."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Odd. Your attack against me seemed to gain steam when I attacked you. Also odd. I have unvoted Hero and moved on. I have pointed out suspicions against more than just Hero. How do I fit the definition of "tunnel-vision" when I am not even directly attacking the person you are accusing me of tunneling on?Mokina wrote:Townies and scum alike can make weak arguments, and I was quite willing to ignore the flaws with your case at the beginning. However, the abrupt switch and tunnel vision againstnot FC but your attackerlooks to me like scum trying to lynch an obv threat by whatever means possible.
[quote"Mok"]Epic distancing going on between you and Hero? Maybe, and I am not entirely convinced he's protown, but I am pretty much sold on the case against you.[/quote]
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Your case against me REVOLVES around the fact that you believe I am trying to get rid of a pro-town threat(Hero). You can't now be suspicious of him as well without that suspicion weakening your case on me.
So you are willing to capitalize on Tenchi's vote?Mok wrote:As for the RVS, that's Tenchi's fault. He might do well to consider the actual merits of a vote against you now. It would be unwise of him to wait until L-1.
Who is trying to come up with reasons not to be voted? 218 is where I point out that Hero is in fact avoiding the issue of "Tenchi's vote". I then ask a question for him to clarify which of my actions he is requesting reasons for. How is that "avoiding the issue"?Mok wrote:218: Kiku avoids the issue so much, it's funny. You're trying to find a reason why we shouldn't vote for you, and you come up with something totally not related to your scumminess?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
ebwop:
^^ What I am referring to with the statement about what your case "revolves" around. According to your above statement, the rest of my behavior is null-tell. Now you are again seemingly backtracking.Mok wrote:Fallible explanations cut no ice with me and I tend to ignore them. Townies and scum alike can make weak arguments, and I was quite willing to ignore the flaws with your case at the beginning. However, the abrupt switch and tunnel vision against not FC but your attacker looks to me like scum trying to lynch an obv threat by whatever means possible.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Um, no. I attacked Hero for his "charitable" interpretations of FC's ambiguous statements. Not quite sure how you missed that since I've posted it time and time again. Trying to present my argument as omgus when my reasons were repeatedly and clearly laid out is scummy. I don't believe FC voted for me. I have also not brought a case against Tenchi, so your second question is kind of stupid seeing as the only people I find suspicious who happen to be voting me are you and Hero.Mok wrote:You had no evidence against Hero other than that he attacked you! Does it make sense for a protown player to push a case like that? Why are you trying to kill off, very specifically, those who are voting for you?
Your bullet point summary is flawed and represents only your opinion. Where have I "made nice with Hero"?
The fact that you would be willing to allow Tenchi's vote to contribute to a player being at L-1 is a bit scummy. No strawman here.
That is exactly what he is doing and yet you are willing to let it stand as opposed to question his motivations. I am willing to buy the rl excuse at this time, but that doesn't change the fact that he has still left his vote floating since the rvs.Mok wrote:It would reflect badly on his towniness if he placed it randomly and then held it there, even as the votee accumulated a wagon.
Its funny how you keep accusing me of "avoiding" issues when you are clearly avoiding any discussion about your giant hypocritical scum slip.
What issues haven't I addressed for you? Please present them in a pbp fashion and I will respond. As of yet, your posts seem to be more hypocritical mudslinging than anything.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Understandable. But if she were to flip town I could make the same argument regardless of whether or not I had made that statement. As it stands I don't see her as flipping town. She's agreed to post her case against me, yet still has not addressed the "slip".nadroj15 wrote: Kiku -- The reason that line bothered me is because it seems like a scum thing to say. If you are scum, and you get Mokina lynched, and she flips town, you could say "She was town, but her behavior was screwing us over." A Get Out Of Jail Free card if people call you out on leading the Mokina bandwagon.
Further:
I attacked FC. The evendence exists in this thread.Mokina wrote:He didn't. You didn't attack him, you attacked Hero, then switched targets when he let off and I started pointing out your weak-argument defense.
I am not attacking Tenchi. I do not expect others to "attack" him, but am pointing out that both you and Hero have ignored the issue until I raised it.Mokina wrote:And yes, you read that correctly. For once, I completely agree with you. It would indeed look scummy if he held it there even as an active player, and I certainly expect an analysis and replacement of his vote when he returns. As of now, though, it means nothing because he hasn't read our quote war.You can't exactly attack him for having that vote, seeing as he's V/LA.
Someone else has already posted the case on you and you have not responded to it. Add to the "slip" previously referred to, the fact that you are continuously misrepresenting what I have been posting.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Hm.unvote.
Very bold move if you are scum. Understand you are not wholly confirmed, but until evidence is presented otherwise I am playing with both of you as town. With that I have to assume that scum have been watching this argument with glee and perhaps egging it on. My suspect list has to narrow, and some rereading will help.
Also, i am looking at the player list and I am seeing that there are players who have all but dissappeared through this entire argument. Explanations from the lurkers should be forthcoming. Did either of our masons glean any information over the last however many pages we've been arguing?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Really no point in continuing this argument. It boils down to a difference in opinion it seems.
qwints: reading you in iso i see you found Lowell's most recent vote to be "crazy scummy"? Perhaps you can elaborate?
Mod: Prod lurkers, please. If Tenchi needs replacement let's make it happen.(sorry Ten )-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Fair enough. We may want to discuss a policy/deadline lynch. i.e. some way we can decide on the fly if we need to. I suggest(once Tenchi is replaced or committed) that we go by post count totals if there is no leading candidate for lynch when we near deadline. Imo, it wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one scum among the lurkers."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Correction:Mokina wrote:
I imagine it was so we wouldn't have to claim and get killed N1, which now we will. Kiku pushed this one too far.dank wrote:Your whole argument of not understanding interpretations is now void with your post about Mokina, and you now indeed admit the post was up for interpretation.
So, why did it take you 10 pages to admit that? Why did you spend 10 pages playing dumb to defend FC?
If you are town then you shouldn't mind drawing the nk away from a possibly more valuable townie. Kiku successfully routed out TWO members of an informed minority in this game. Both of you are behaving like infants now. Upon reread I realized that Mokina breadcrumbed, but Hero claimed first. That reads as particularly genuine in my eyes. At first I was thinking of the breadcrumb as a null tell, but due to the timing of both it and the claim I am forced to believe it moreso than disbelieve it. If you start stumbling around and uttering bitter accusations you are going to undo what could be a very beneficial occurrence for town.Mokina wrote:I imagine it was so we wouldn't have to claim and get killed N1, which now we will. We played like shit.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Upon reread, I would very much like to return to Far_Cry. Hero's defense was certainly odd, but what is more noticeable the second time around is how FC seems to ride the wave of protection and not really ever question it. Though I most certainly believe the mason claim at this point, if FC were to flip scum and both our masons survive the night I would be ultimately more suspicious of them. Either way, I am thinking Far_Cry is most likely scum due to his acceptance of another players defense so early on. Thoughts?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I really read this as a slip. Lowell is actually a good candidate for a scumbuddy, and the way this is worded is just off.FC wrote:I'm not denying that Lowell isin't scum; its just that hes playing some game that makes no sense.
Also, Lowell's reaction to my first attack on FC was somewhat of a deflection, and now, FC is "avoiding" a Lowell vote.
I could tie a third player in here as well, but for now I will let sleeping dogs lie.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I prefer top of page counts. I don't mind a mix, but I like to have one at the top of each page for sure.
Far_Cry is a better lynch. To me it is almost necessary. Nad has put forth his reasons. I would move to avoid a no-lynch situation, but I am much more in tune with sticking with FC at this point.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I don't feel the need to publicize suspicions I may or may not have regarding nadroj at this time. This is simply an attempt by FC to divert attention.Hero764 wrote:Define "not that suspicious".
"not that suspicious" means I don't find him suspicious, but he is by no means clear of any suspicion. I want to lynch FC. If you are who you say you are then you really shouldn't be against it. Are you afraid what will happen if FC flips scum?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Keep reading, Tenchi. It gets better.
Tenchi: Masons have one power. They confirm each other. The ability to nighttalk is generally useless in that all they end up doing is drawing suspicion for working together. Once suspicion is on, they claim and it is good for town. Would it be ideal for it not to happen on day 1? Of course, but if players are under scrutiny and almoat get themselves lynched for suspicious behavior, the claim is better than a mislynch by far. By opening themselves up as unprotected "confirmed" town roles they will generally draw the first one, or possibly two, nks, thereby freeing other possible town pr's to move freely at night. If scum chooses not to nk the masons, they then have to risk failing in their night actions as well as facing a reduced lynch pool in the coming days. Would you rather a mason show up dead at the start of day 2, or a cop? how 'bout a doc? how 'bout a vig? Get it?"Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
I didn't know they were masons.
A: They failed.Tenchi wrote:A. Talking their way out of it.
B. FC actually addressing questions directed at him.
C. Presenting a more powerful countercase
B: He didn't.
C: Again, they did not.
Don't blame me for their poor play. The options are not mine to "give" to them. At any point in time they could have explained themselves. I would also like to point out that they are not actually "confirmed" yet. Their claim is plausible, but not concrete until one of them flips, or scum is found elsewhere.
I disagree that "claiming masons" is a last resort. The power of masons is that they confirm each other. It should be done when appropriate. The circumstances and reactions surrounding the argument should be looked at closely, because if they are telling the truth, then scum knew the entire time that both Mokina and Hero were town. Those on the Hero wagon as well as those defending him should be scrutinized.
Can we stop telling me how to play and get back to scumhunting please? I have narrowed down the lynch pool for us and fingered my top suspect. I can't do this alone."Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
My attack was against Hero/FC. Hero's defense of FC is still shoddily explained. You are both ignoring the wifomic possibility fo a possible town doc choosing to protect one of the masons. Further, in a five man lylo with two remaining scum and two masons, a mason claim doesn't help one bit. So I reject the reasoning that Mokina has set forth as anything other than plausible speculation. Town is better for the claim, regardless of the truth behind it.
I didn't have "mason" suspicions. I had "scum" suspicions. You chose your way out of it by claiming.-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Vote: Far_Cry
Overall I think FC is the best lynch. We have fifteen pages to look at. We don't need to lynch FC now, but people should start weighing in on FC. i.e. reasons why you are or are not willing to vote him.
Iam: Though your questions are relevant, I wonder why the vote? It seems a bit of a step backwards.
Personally, I am not reading nadroj as scummy and I question the wagon going on him. Has anyone put together a substantial case? If so, can they repost it so as to give the rest of us an oppurtunity to see things from your pov?-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
If it helps, I will take a closer look at nadroj and post some analysis. RL is a bit hectic, so I'll be lucky if I get to it later tonight.Hero764 wrote:EBWOP: *facepalm* completely missed dank and kiku's posts.
kiku: Go read FC's meta(hint: he's like CJMiller except he uses worse grammar) and then tell me what you think of him. He could easily just be acting like a moron like he does in every other single game.
You don't nadroj's post content scummy? I find that hard to believe.
Welcome, Serial!
Vote Count Nine
Far_Cry: 3 (kikuchiyo, nadroj15, qwints)
nadroj15: 3 (dank, Hero 764, Far_Cry)
qwints: 2 (iamausername, Lowell)
Lowell: 1 (Wiirdo)
Not Voting: 3 (Mokina, SerialClergyman, Tenchi)
With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.
Current deadline: Saturday, July 11th 8:10 AM EST-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas
Reading Nad in iso and I see nothing to keep me from moving to his wagon. If need be I can post exactly what I think is vote worthy, but I will be waiting a bit. I would still prefer Far_Cry for today. His interaction with the "masons" and the rest of his behavior should not be overlooked. Nad reads as oppurtunistic scum or disinterested town. Hard to tell, but there are a couple of discrepancies in his posting.
How are our lurkers doing?"Yes, Kiku fucked me thoroughly and left me on the side of the road to be lynched." - Snow White-
-
kikuchiyo Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: April 4, 2009
- Location: not in kansas