Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Hoopla's reaction to the wagon on her wasn't scummy, so I'm leaning town on her. Pretty much every post of Vaya's I've agreed with, so town there as well.Peabody wrote:Charter, why are you getting a town reading on Hoopla and Vaya? Can you please point out specific posts that make you come to this conclusion?
Vaya, I wouldn't continue to waste your breath defending yourself against CoCo (aka it's way too early in the game for quote wars). I can't imagine anyone is actually buying what he's selling, I'm certainly not.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
It's just a phrase. Obviously I don't have any facts on anyone, it's like three pages in to the game.
My reason isn't shabby. You claimed to be questioning bandwagoners, but you weren't questioning everyone who was doing it, just Vaya. This makes me think that you don't care one way or the other about bandwagoners, you just wanted to build up a case on Vaya. You were selectively applying the logic.
Now you're OMGUSing as well.
Peabody wagon is good.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Why are you defending Peabody? If Peabody comes up scum, you're the first to go.Col.Cathart wrote:I think for now, that Peabody's vote was a simple mistake, not a real scum-tell. His jumpiness to vote others IS quite suspicious though.
unvote, vote Peabody
Um, no. Go back and read my post (62).Cyberbob wrote:coco/vaya/mathcam/charter argument is a giant mass of red herring, overreaction and nulltell-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I had the same feeling as Talitha. You answered the question yourself. He's just parroting, buddying, and blending in. I particularly don't like his unvote, but then leaving it at that. He doesn't start any other lines of questioning or look at someone else.Cyberbob wrote:
Can you elaborate? I haven't really been getting any sort of a read off of him.Talitha wrote:In other news I'm also interested in mathcam.. I think he could easily be scum.
I agree with CoCo being ridiculous obtuse and misconstruing everything. Unfortunately, I'm not feeling scum off him.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I've been asking lots of questions, how do you think I'm not?Coco wrote:Charter, then why weren't you asking questions as I was?
Here's something; does one not think I might have been watching for reactions while attacking Vaya?
Being ridiculous and scummy isn't an excuse to watch for reactions.
See, this is another one of those misconstrues. I SPECIFICALLY stated when I voted you that it was because you were only questioning Vaya, not everyone who was bandwagoning.CoCo wrote:Also, Charter... you voted for me based upon my attacks at Vaya.
Hmmm...-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
CoCo's responses to your questions were poor. I'm saying I don't see you looking for scum in many people, sure you could be doing it, but it's not happening in this thread.mathcam wrote:-- what do you think of CoCo's response to my questioning? And I don't think you can tell whether or not I've been looking at someone else -- I prefer to have something to say before saying it.
Scummy post. Implying that Mathcam is scummy, but isn't telling us what he finds suspect about Mathcam's posts, he just leaves it up to us to come up with that for him.CoCo wrote:Hey, anyone read iso-Mathcam yet? You should...
As for why I suspect Col Cathart and Peabody.
Col Cathart spends his first three posts waiting for others to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Not strong pro town posts. He unvotes his RVS vote but I see no intention of looking for another place to put his vote.
This is really scummy. He is explaining away Peabody's vote and trying to say it isn't a scum tell.ColCath wrote:I think for now, that Peabody's vote was a simple mistake, not a real scum-tell. His jumpiness to vote others IS quite suspicious though.
Post 6 is more waiting around.
So I'm pretty much suspicious of him because he isn't really looking in to people, just making comments from the sidelines. His list of suspects is pretty convenient as well. Even more is him saying Peabody's answers don't make sense, but does he question Peabody on this discrepancy? No..
I'm not really sure how to explain this well, but this is a poor way of defending yourself, and this is more of giving me the impression that Peabody is town and Col Cathart is not.col Cathart wrote:Lastly: Do you still really think I'm a scumbuddy with Peabody, because I didn't jump to his throat, when everyone else did? As someone else stated before, that's pretty ridiculous. Not to mention, that it was a perfect ground for bussing, so that kind of action for scum makes no sense to me...
Peabody, his initial vote was fishy, as has been pointed out.
His vote on to me was pretty weak, and it's still there. He's not questioning me on anything about it either.
Upon writing all this, I find Col Cathart much scummier, so
unvote, vote Col Cathart-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
So does this mean that you only vote like once a day or what? Only when you're reasonable sure you're voting for scum? Just looking for some reason why you tend to be hesitant.le Chat wrote:I will easily acknowledge that I am more hesitant to vote than most people. I’ll also acknowledge that its easier for me to give opinions on what I don’t find scummy than what I find scummy… I guess that’s your point when you ask whom I’m most suspicious of and why I haven’t voted. It does make me feel bad when Cyberbob tags onto you saying that I haven’t said anything of value.
Post 237. It's all there.Col.Cathart wrote:Also, I'm still waiting for Charter's reasoning behind naming me a scumbuddy of Peabody...
Huge FOS to mathcam for 270 which says "I don't see the CoCo wagon going anywhere, so I need a little time to wait for the most promising alternative bandwagon to surface".-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
So you're going to claim that bandwagoning is scummy some time in the future then? How can it not affect your decision now, but then you'll let it affect it in the future? What?Col.Cathart wrote:Charter:
First thing - bandwagon. Yeah, I'm stubborn about it, but my guts are telling me, something is very wrong about this bandwagon. Don't worry though, this isn't affecting my decisions in any way... for now.
Umm, no. I've had to poke and prod multiple people for who they are suspicious of becauseCol wrote:Actually every case he's making is 'this is scummy' 'this looks like a town' etc. No explanation. No elaboration. No nothing. One liners. One liners everywhere. In my opinion, this makes you the biggest active lurker on this thread.theyare actively lurking. Guess what? You were one of those people. If you don't agree with what I call scummy and I didn't explain it, then you can ask me and I'll clarify. (I have explained what is scummy about a lot of things, so this is a pretty poor misrep as well)
Well, I think you asserted that his vote wasn't scummy hard enough to be defending him. Plus there was the contrast in the next sentence where you say he is suspicious.Col wrote:I'm even ignoring the fact, that I wasn't defending him, as I already stated in post 267. You are telling, that I'm scummy because (OMIGOD!) I'm not finding his random vote scummy. How can this be?
So basically you find me scummy because...? You didn't say, probably because you just tried to throw something together against the person with the most votes other than you.
Still waiting on a response to post 237.
Yes.Hoopla wrote:Unvote, vote: SensFan
Please either post something, or replace out. Sorry, but 11 day V/LA's without anything is too long.
Request replacement on Sensfan.I have no clue why he joined this game.
Yeah it does, I translated it. You really haven't done anything but vote for CoCo, and it's pretty pointless to vote for him. Who are you going to vote for instead of CoCo after your "soul searching" (which I see as an excuse to wait around a bit before deciding).mathcam wrote:Good news! I just went back and checked, and it says or implies nothing of the sort. Phew.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I didn't explain my Peabody vote. What is scummy with not explaining it? No one ever asked for an explaination either.Col.Cathart wrote:Then give me ONE example, where you are explaining your vote on Peabody before post 237, when you are actually unvoting him. Not to mention, you did nothing except from poking, and short argument with CoCo (ok, you were first to mention that CoCo ignored you and SensFan in his accusation. Something else?).
This is totally not true. I've already said how I had to prod other active lurkers, notably yourself, because you weren't contributing. You can say this is your opinion, but you're very clearly wrong.I wrote:In my opinion, this makes you the biggest active lurker on this thread.
No. STOP twisting what I said. THE REASON I voted for CoCo was because I thought he was trying to build a lynch on Vaya under the pretense of questioning bandwagoning. These situations are nothing alike.
That's enough for me.I wrote:Also CoCo's point that Peabody's wagon is ridiculous, and his posts in discussion with Cyberbob in Peabody's case. They are basically seing the same thing as me, and yet, I'm scummy, not them (well, at least not for it). This is also the place when I'm going back to your vote at CoCo - You voted him because he accused Vaya for bandwagoning, and ignoring your and SensFan's contribution in it.You just did the same thing here, so that makes you a hypocrite as well.
So you're calling me an active lurker, when you're even admitting you're not contributing?
I did respond to points that were needed to respond. Basically the answer to anything else except from Peabody Case (which is also answered in my last few posts) is 'Yes, I didn't contribute enough, I'm going to change it. Sorry.'Still waiting on a response to post 237.Everyone else, what do you think of this?I think this is scummy because you're trying to say I'm scummy for not contributing (which isn't true, but that's a large part of your argument) while admitting you aren't contributing. This is ridiculous. The other part of your argument is wrong too, because you clearly didn't understand why I voted CoCo.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
You also said you'd post that night, but didn't. I'm also pretty sure I saw you post somewhere else on MS a lot then as well. You were gone almost two weeks, which is ridiculous and you should have not been put in this game.SensFan wrote:Not asking replacement at all, since as I said to everyone a few days ago, I'm back now.
Or are charter and Hoopla just trying to get me out of the game for some other reason?-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
CoCo is, once again, going out of his way to really unhelpful.
Col.Cathart, you are quickly joining CoCo's ranks. I've shown how your accusations are wrong, and if that's the most you are coming up with in terms of who is scum, then the only explanation I can think of for it is you're just trying to lynch me because I suspect you, not because you think I'm scummy. You never responded to my initial case on you, you didn't refute my points in that last post, and you're STILL going on about me and have STILL not given any reason why I'm scum, just that I post infrequently (which isn't actively lurking, another of your wrong accusations).
WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THIS? My vote was just a pressure vote, I don't care if people take my vote that early seriously or not. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME SCUM?col wrote:This is pure gold. How do you expect anyone to take your vote serious if you're not going to back it up with ANY reasoning? In my opinion, this is huge town mistake (yes, mine too, see below)
No. Wrong. Don't tell me what I said, I said it and I know what I said. I voted CoCo because it looked like he was trying to build a lynch under the pretense of questioning bandwagon votes. I didn't do the same thing as CoCo, because I'm not applying logic inconsistently to build a lynch.col wrote:The main fuel for your vote was the fact, that CoCo ignored SensFan and yourself in his 'bandwagon war'. Without it, your argument would never be created. And yet you just did the same thing as CoCo. In short, you did the same thing, as someone who you voted for, BECAUSE he did that.
A) This makes no senseCol wrote:So the thief cannot say to other thief, that he's a thief? I admit, I WASN'T contributing, because I wasn't paying attention to the game. My mistake. Now in order to repair my mistake, I'm trying to contribute more, and scumhunt as good as I can. So now you can say, I'm someone who was accused of thievery, who's now the cop catching thieves. The cop, who probably won't be respected for a loong time, because of past deeds, but he still is doing his job.
B) Why does this make me scum?
Col Cathart, none of what you've posted or said indicates that I'm scum in the slightest. You're even admitting that, so why are you voting me if you aren't trying to show that I'm scum?
Also, I'm done arguing with you because you ARE wrong but you just keep twisting what I say. I've set you straight, and I'm sure everyone else will see that.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I would like you to reiterate what else you've done besides interacting with CoCo and what opinions you've formed on players besides him. I say your CoCo vote is pointless because no one else has expressed interest in voting him, you aren't trying to convince anyone else to vote him, and you aren't really questioning him much anymore either. I don't see the point of your vote on him other that to mark your suspicion on him. I guess that's a point, but it's a poor one.mathcam wrote:
First, I haven't voted for anyone but CoCo, but that doesn't mean I haven't done anything btu vote for CoCo. Second, I dispute that it's pointless to vote for someone who isn't one of the current forerunners, espeically early on the first day before two major candidates get identified. Third, putting "soul searching" in quotes with an attempt to stigmatize the phrase is as ridiculous as CoCo's "early reports" fiasco. Finally, you can see it however you want, but that doesn't make it a valid interpretation -- I can see SensFan's absence for 11 days as his attempt to embody his mafia character and going and killing people in real life for 11 days on a massive crime spree, but that doesn't make it anywhere near a reasonable interpretation of events. Even without this hyperbole, this was a cheap shot. If I had just unvoted and not mentioned the fact that I was actually grappling with the decision, you wouldn't have even brought it up.Charter wrote:You really haven't done anything but vote for CoCo, and it's pretty pointless to vote for him. Who are you going to vote for instead of CoCo after your "soul searching" (which I see as an excuse to wait around a bit before deciding).
Most importantly: I find it interesting that you think I'd vote for someone other than CoCo, and not CoCo himself -- why do you assume my soul-searching will necessarily come up pro-CoCo? Know something we don't?
Cam
Yes, I'm not trying to use the soul searching phrase as an argument, I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy. It seems like you're waiting for the town to go in a definite direction and THEN decide on CoCo. I say this because you have expressed mild, at best, suspicion of anyone else.
Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.
I stand that it isn't. I'm trying to get others to see Col.Cathart's scumminess. I addressed a question to everyone, but they must have missed it.mathcam wrote:Btw, charter: With chat's unvote, is your vote on cathart now "pointless"?
Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.Cyberbob wrote:
I don't think either of you are actively lurking at the moment, so not a whole lot I guess?charter wrote:Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
This is getting ridiculous. I explained how it was scummy in the next sentence.mathcam wrote:
I don't see how. Not all of us rely solely on our gut for our votes. Brains take time to work things out.Charter wrote: I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy.
Well then, why aren't you trying to convince others to vote Coco? You must have other suspects at this point in the game, why not vote one of them? Being the only person to be voting someone, and not trying to get others to vote them, IS pointless.mathcam wrote:
Those aren't reasons --Charter wrote:Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.youthink the vote is pointless, I do not. Given that I don't know who I'd vote for afterwards, how is an unvote any less pointless than the CoCo vote?
First off, I do not think Coco is in any way, whatsoever, helpful, just need to clear that up. Second, if you agree with a policy lynch on Coco, that's fine, but that's clearly not what you think. You've said you think he's scummy, not that he's so anti town as to be policy lynched.mathcam wrote:2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he'snot,FOS: Charter), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.
SerialClergyman, can you explain why you have the reads you do? I don't agree with almost all of them and you didn't explain any, so I have no idea what you're thinking right now.
I am thinking a scumtrio of Cathart, Peabody, mathcam.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Serial comes in and it does not impress.
I'll try and not do a wall like he did.
With regards to mathcam, every reason you list, I see as scummy. How you explained this making him town makes zero sense.
Cyberbob is the person in the thread who is making the most amount of sense. I agree with your first point, the rest, not at all. Some of them are flat out wrong as well.
Your Vaya/le Chat reads pretty much say nothing and are largely based off single posts.
I am struggling to see how SCscum would make that post, it really makes zero sense if he actually were scum.
Something else I am extremely curious about, Peabody, why is your vote still on me? From what I gather, you voted me because I felt Vaya and Hoopla were town and didn't give any reasons for that. I will
unvote, vote Peabodywhile he cooks up something good in response. It pains me that Col Cathart is escaping scrutiny, but his scumbuddy is just as good.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Heh, just as I thought, terrible reasons.CoCo wrote:Charter, all anyone has to do is take a look at your vote history. You've switched votes around more than anyone.
And? Why is that scummy? I'll preempt the inevitable 'trying to get a quicklynch' BS argument by pointing out I unvoted Hoopla less than two hours after I voted. Bandwagons are protown.coco wrote:1. You jumped on the Hoopla bandwagon.
Correct, and you're still scummy for that. My vote was totally justified.Coco wrote:2. You voted me because I failed to question you or Sensfan.
Please point out where I gave this reason when I voted Peabody, because you're inventing it.Coco wrote:3. You vote Peabody over his late RVS vote.
What does this even mean? If it means that I vote Cathart because others are and I'm just jumping on the wagon, then this is once again, completely false. When I voted him, I was the only one voting for him.Coco wrote:4. You vote Cathart during a strong wagon.
What you really meant to say when you listed reasons was "charter, your votes have been very pro town". Your claim that I've been opportunistically voting is BS as well.Coco wrote:It appears they are all opportunistic votes to lynch someone, anyone. Your hands are pratically wrapped around straws at this point and I have no problems rejoining the wagon on you.
To the rest of the town.I'm sure everyone agrees that Coco is being incredibly dense and unhelpful. Normally we would policy lynch someone like this, but seeing as that's a poor idea in this game (many actively scummy people more deserving of a lynch), I propose that we just ignore everything he says until he shapes up. Cold Shoulder. 100%.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I am pretty sure Peabody is scum and two of the people not voting him and ignoring him are his buddies. This list to include
mathcam
Col.Cathart
Talitha
SerialClergyman
le Chat
SensFan
I really have absolutely no clue how all of these people seem to have nothing to say AT ALL about Peabody, and he is sitting at L-1. You all need to state whether you think Peabody is scum or not, and why.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
After thinking about this this morning, I am going to pull a 180.charter wrote:I am pretty sure Peabody is scum and two of the people not voting him and ignoring him are his buddies. This list to include
mathcam
Col.Cathart
Talitha
SerialClergyman
le Chat
SensFan
I really have absolutely no clue how all of these people seem to have nothing to say AT ALL about Peabody, and he is sitting at L-1. You all need to state whether you think Peabody is scum or not, and why.
unvote
Upon further reflection, while many people are ignoring Peabody, there really isn't anyone trying to stop his lynch, which I would expect to happen if he was scum. Seems unlikely his buddies would leave him to the vultures without hardly a word or a last minute bus attempt. Also, Col.Cathart asking him to claim after saying he doesn't find Peabody scummy made my scumdar go berserk with this poor attempt at rolefishing.
Also, my main Peabodyscum theory stems almost entirely from Col.Cathartscum, so it would be dumb on my part to lynch Peabody first, especially since he's looked way more pro town recently.
Will continue this post when I get back from dinner and proceed in voting mathcam.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Yeah, I always assume three scum to start with in a mini. Once I see evidence of something else, I reevaluate. It's dumb to speculate day one, so I just make assumptions.SensFan wrote:I would say that I'm pretty sure there's 3 Scum or more, that's not a stretch at all.
Also, I started that last post like six hours ago... So I need to finish it when I get back.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Continuing my post from last night...
Well, you're still scummy for waiting to pick someone else you find scummy besides Coco and then hedging your bets on a charterwagon. Looks like that didn't go so well.mathcam wrote:Though I can't say that I'm liking everything charter's saying, in hindsight, my vote on him feels a little OMGUS. Also, somehow CoCo has managed to appear very reasonable the past couple of pages -- I'm not sure what to make of this. One thing's for certain -- that CoCo and CyberBob now both agree on Peabody means I need to stop dismissing that particular bandwagon so lightly.
Unvote: charter.
The last couple of pages have been interesting. Aside from possibly rethinking Peabody, I'm actually feeling relatively happy with the active participants. Tally is probably moving towards the lynchable side of my list.
Cam
Coco is acting more anti-town than ever these past few pages, so this is a bad job of dropping your Coco suspicion.
Other points that still hold water: you never tried very hard to convince people to vote Coco or myself, you just let your vote sit on us.
Another reason I find you scummy, you only suspect the main people that are coming under fire and when they're under fire. This happened early with Coco, charter, and now Peabody.
unvote, vote Mathcam
Hmmm. I suppose this is just a newbie mistake then. A shame that all of your other games went like that. See what happened to the Peabody wagon here? L-1 and it disintegrated, no need for an unnecessary claim. Null I guess.Col.Cathart wrote:
*facepalm*charter wrote:Also, Col.Cathart asking him to claim after saying he doesn't find Peabody scummy made my scumdar go berserk with this poor attempt at rolefishing.
So far in any single game I played on mafia scum, when someone is going at L-1 there's a natural question about claim. And it sometimes cames from someone who's not voting for that person. It's a popular practice around the board, as far as I can see, so if it's different, then I'm sorry, I'm still kinda new to this mafiascum style of game. I don't see it as anything scummy at all.
I would have expected people to be trying to push for another lynch than Peabody, someone to start attacking those voting Peabody, any sort of a defense, but the biggest defense that happened was Talitha's unvote to vote someone she finds scummier, and that wasn't scummy. Also, Peabody wasn't in a hurry to claim, and recently I've been seeing scum eager to claim some power role they invented.Vaya wrote:
What kind of reaction would you expect if Peabody is scum? With him looking like a likely lynch, I wouldn't expect scum to try too hard to stop his lynch, it would just make them look scummy as well.charter wrote: After thinking about this this morning, I am going to pull a 180.
unvote
Upon further reflection, while many people are ignoring Peabody, there really isn't anyone trying to stop his lynch, which I would expect to happen if he was scum. Seems unlikely his buddies would leave him to the vultures without hardly a word or a last minute bus attempt. Also, Col.Cathart asking him to claim after saying he doesn't find Peabody scummy made my scumdar go berserk with this poor attempt at rolefishing.
I actually like 504 by SC, the part about how Talitha hasn't been scumhunting much, mostly defending herself.
Lets lynch you. Now I know I'm right in my suspicions of you. Lynching someone you 'think' is town just to get to day two? Yeah right.mathcam wrote:I agree that Cathart's role-claim fishing was not particularly scummy.
I agree that there's something slightly fallacious about the too townie argument, but I also think there's something sketchy about the fallacy itself. Given that a majority of the players in any given game will be townies, and that all players are trying to roughly play within a set of standardized norms, any reasonable type of play or playstyle will be more likely to be used by a townie than by scum. That doesn't mean there's nothing to be read from it. Anyway...
Let's just lynch Peabody.Vote: Peabody.We need a day 2.
Cam
I'm still following my ignore Coco idea. You guys should too.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Cyberbob, what do you think of mathcam?
Consolidated case on mathcam for everyone- First unvote (Post 165) of Coco, where that ended all his lines of questioning, and he didn't attempt to start any new ones. His reason for unvoting was he found Coco's answers to his questions about why Coco only questioned Vaya satisfactory (this was the only one Coco actually gave an answer to).
- His revote of Coco, a mere two posts later. He uses Coco original attack on Vaya as one of his reasons, BUT this contradicts why he unvoted. Not only that, but if you look at what he says (Post 215), he justifies it by saying that Coco's answers gave him "plausible deniability" and Coco's reasoning for solely questioning Vaya is "hardly airtight".
- Having to wait and think about if he wants to continue voting Coco when it's clear no one else is interested in pursuing Coco. I still maintain it was just to wait to see who else would emerge as an easy target.
- Despite what he says in 356, he really hasn't done any scumhunting.
- Puts me at L-2 in 362, no real reason given, though we find out later it was OMGUS.
- Does a complete 180 on Hoopla in 410, but no mention of why.
- Unvotes me after pretty much everyone not voting me says they don't like the charterwagon. Once again, drops all lines of questioning.
- This is horribly scummy, how does anyone think this is a town move?Tries to lynch someone he thinks is town in 505.
- Lack of trying to figure out anyone but Coco's alignment
- Always voting easy targets, normally ones that have lots of votes, but doesn't give much reason
- Voting someone he thinks is town
Not happy about the Peabody lynch that is threatening to materialize. I do not like it at all. Nope.
Talitha, what do you think of mathcam's trying to lynch someone he thinks is town?
FOS this, because you're preemptively defending yourself if Peabody is town.Talitha wrote:When Peabody flips scum (my gut is now telling me that he will) I'm going to look very closely at those who pointed at my unvote as scummy (or "inappropriate").
If Peabody is town my unvote would've been extremely appropriate.
This is the first reason I've had to suspect Cyberbob.
unvote: Serial Clergyman
vote: Peabody-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
By saying your unvote was justified, but now you've gone back to voting him. You can't be voting him and patting yourself on the back for unvoting at the same time.Talitha wrote:Cyberbob: Why was the timing iffy? If he wasn't at L-1 (or 2 or whatever!) I wouldn't have needed to unvote to stall the lynch!!!!
charter: How am I pre-emptively defending myself if Peabody is town?!!
So you don't find it scummy at all then?Talitha wrote:What do I think of mathcam trying to lynch someone he "thinks" is town? Exceedingly honest! He's keen to end the day which I am sympathetic to, and he has tried to get his prefered lynch (CoCo) lynched with no success. Saying he thinks Peabody is town is MISLEADING. It is more accurate to say that he thinks Peabody has more chance of being town than he does of being scum. Unless a scum has screwed up big time, anyone who says they're sure about someone being scum on Day 1 is either bluffing or lying, IMO.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Ah, yes I did miss your point.Talitha wrote:charter you've missed my point completely. It wasn't about defending myself... it was about those who were jumping up and down because I unvoted. To me it looks like they have more info on Peabody's alignment than I do.
Where does less preferred end though? He hasn't said two words on Peabody all game.And no I don't think settling on a less preferred option after 23 pages of day 1 is particularly scummy.
He said he gave Peabody a 1/3 chance of being scum, which is like throwing a dart to do your voting. I guess I went a little overboard saying he thinks he's town, but he certainly doesn't think he's scum, and it seems to me like he's just trying to lynch Peabody and not because he thinks Peabody is scum.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I don't know what percentage to assign my read, but I do think you're scum.mathcam wrote:Do you think I'm more than a 50% chance of being scum?
I meant your two posts later. You can "change your mind" all you want, but it was scummy.mathcam wrote:There was 50 posts between those two posts! That was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and thus scummy. How does the number of those 50 posts being mine have any relevance whatsoever? And changing your mind is not a contradiction. When I re-voted for the same reason as my original unvote, it's clear that I no longer considered CoCo's responses satisfactory.
No one else will say more than two words about you, which puzzles me to the extreme.mathcam wrote:
Not sure what to tell you, no one else seems to have this opinion.charter wrote:Despite what he says in 356, he really hasn't done any scumhunting.
The rest of his "defense" was pretty much just agreeing with me (sans the lynching someone he thinks is town, which I went overboard on, but it still reeks of scum) so I'm even more happy with my vote.
Obviously because you're scum and he's a massive detriment to town.mathcam wrote:I'm putting the chances at CoCo surviving the night at 98%.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Do you think mathcam is town? Why or why not? Would you join me in a Cathart vote? What position is Cathart on your lynch spectrum?Hoopla wrote:
No to mathcam, he has a lot to offer town if he's town. And I haven't found him scummy.charter wrote:
What would you say to a scum lynch of Cathart or mathcam?Hoopla wrote:So, the dilemma for me is, using the D1 lynch to remove someone hurtful to the town, or killing someone like Peabody who has an okay chance of being scum and holds a lot more information.
I'd vote for Cathart if it's necessary to get a lynch, but he isn't in my top 2 or 3.
Would you, Cyberbob, join me in a Cathart vote?
It's pointless for me to vote Cathart again if it's just going to be me, but if we get three votes on him, I think we can get some serious information from him. I'm still holding out for the mathcam wagon, but it's looking grim.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I can't really refute this, but I will ask you what scumhunting has he done? Who's alignment has he attempted to figure out?Hoopla wrote:
Yes, because there are a lot more town players than scum, and I have yet to see much scummy/anti-town play from mathcam. He's been logical and active. At the moment, he isn't townier than random, but I don't see any compelling reasons to lynch him. I think a compelling reason to lynch him is the complete lack of trying to figure out others' alignment.charter wrote: Do you think mathcam is town? Why or why not? Would you join me in a Cathart vote? What position is Cathart on your lynch spectrum?
Would you, Cyberbob, join me in a Cathart vote?
It's pointless for me to vote Cathart again if it's just going to be me, but if we get three votes on him, I think we can get some serious information from him. I'm still holding out for the mathcam wagon, but it's looking grim.
After reading his responses, I am inclined to agree that he was just schooled on very poor mafia theory. However, I find him scummy for other reasons besides this, I will highlight them tomorrow.Hooopla wrote:As for Cathart, I believe some of the incriminating behaviour people have picked him up on have been honest mistakes. For example, asking Peabody to claim at L-1, when he didn't have the intention of hammering. I think that's a matter of a new player not understanding the reasons behind why certain policies happen, but doing it anyway, because he feels that's normal.
I feel Cathart is way scummier than normal. I'll explain tomorrow.Hoopla wrote:I understand you now find that particular piece of play null, but it gives an insight into the sort of player he is, which semi-explains the active lurking case behind him. He's still scummier than random, but this is based on a semantics argument with an unconfirmed alignment on D1. It isn't solid, which is why I'd still rather lynch someone who gives more information, or is less helpful to the town.
At the moment, Peabody and CoCo are ahead of him. He's probably equal for the next spot with the lurky Vaya.
I only voted Peabody because at the time I thought he was Cathart's buddy. Right now, I think the Peabody wagon is going to result in a mislynch. I think there is at least one scum on his wagon (and yes, I have an idea for the third scum other than Cathart and mathcam, but that's not for today).Cyberbob wrote:What's wrong with the Peabody wagon?-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Real quick, before I go to sleep, would you vote for Cathart?SerialClergyman wrote:Fair enough.
I'm looking for more from Sens tomorrow after some flips, then. I'm having trouble reading him because I can't see much he's doing of anything, apart from a few caustic comments. If you say his strength is in his analysis after something a bit more concrete, I'll defer to that.
I'm seeing my view worsen on Cathart, but he's behind my preferred lynches.
Where did Vaya go?-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Fuck me. Back to my thoughts in like my sixth post. Pretty sure mathcam isn't scum now.
vote Col.Cathart
Still a scummy post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 13#1834613-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
Had I stopped thinking here instead of my mathcam tangent, I'd say mathcam, Talitha, and SensFan are no longer probable Peabody buddies. SerialClergyman moves in to the spot under Cathart, with le Chat filling in spot three. Vaya gets the honorable mention in my scumfecta due to chronic lurking and Peabody's last words.charter 481 wrote:I am pretty sure Peabody is scum and two of the people not voting him and ignoring him are his buddies. This list to include
mathcam
Col.Cathart
Talitha
SerialClergyman
le Chat
SensFan
I really have absolutely no clue how all of these people seem to have nothing to say AT ALL about Peabody, and he is sitting at L-1. You all need to state whether you think Peabody is scum or not, and why.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia