Anyone with a name that begins with Z is suspicious.
Also, the OP says that all scum get the goon PM. No scum power roles? Hmmmm...
BFEMod wrote: If you are Mafia,you will have received this:
RolePM wrote:Quote:
Welcome to Rainbow Town Mafia! You are a Mafia Goon. You are allied with ____________. You are anti-town, and win when the Mafia controls the Vote. At night, you may communicate with members of your faction and collectively attempt to kill another player. Please confirm by PM.
It says that players may have received those roles, not that they did. The prior rule says that every scum will get the goon pm. The first rule seems more definative than the second one. I'm not saying that was the mod's intention but I thought it was worth bringing up.d3x wrote:And so you should be. For I am the spy that saps your puny SG.Scien wrote:If Nikanor is afraid of you, than so am I.
Aside from all that, I find the MM/Manz conversation interesting. Immediately after the Rule had the listed quote, it further said...Emphasis mine. These are clearly proScum PRs.Other players may have received role PMs describing other normal mafia roles, including but not limited to cop, doctor, vigilante, serial killer, mason,role-blocker,traitor,poisoner, survivor, miller, andgodfather.
I'm not questioning him for rolefishing, I'm questioning him for being concerned about scum rolefishing. I would think that scum would be concerned about the town knowing their roles, not town.Scien wrote:Jumpy monkey is jumpy. You are voting him for what is likely the same reason as why he was questioning you. You don't see that? Whats the difference between your suspicion of him based on role fishing, and his suspicion of you for questioning about roles?MonkeyMan wrote:Only scum would be concerned about town knowing their role makeup. Not saying we do, but certainly suspicious.
They would be, if someone was looking for town roles. I'm not aware of any mod rule that explicitly states what role townies have.d3x wrote:I agree on the Scum part, but why would the Town not be equally concerned of the Scum knowing their roles?MM wrote:I would think that scum would be concerned about the town knowing their roles, not town.
That's where my opinion differs from your opinion. There is a BIG difference. Knowing scum roles helps town. Knowing town roles helps scum.Manzcar wrote:thus why it felt like rolefishing.
There were no set rules stating what roles townies or scum have. So in my mind rolefishing is rolefishing. It's just a small step from fishing roles on townies or scum.
I think you're trying to disguise your scummy concern for the town knowing mafia roles. It's easy to discern town rolefishing and scum rolefishing.Manzcar wrote:No i agree knowing scum roles helps town knowing town roles helps scum. Fishing for roles could actually bring out town roles you didn't mean to bring out so therefor fishing for roles is anti town.
We differ in that I feel fishing for roles is bad for town.
My intentions were to find out if scum are indeed all goons. If they are, that would be a huge town advantage, and we could use it against scum for sure.Manzcar wrote:I believe I said I think which means it is my theory meaning that I am not saying that is what you are doing but what I feel about it. It is not misreping you by stating what I feel or believe or think.
So what did you intend?
Probably not the mod, but I felt it was at least worthy of bringing up, and it ended up giving us some interesting info about your possible motives as well. So it was certainly productive to me.Manczar wrote: So who was going to tell you this information?
Well, like I said, what threw me off was that the goon role pm rule sounded definitive, wheras the other possible roles rule did not sound definitive. I may be off track(about the rule, I'm fairly confident about Mancar), but it's just something about the wording that I noted as odd.Dizzle wrote:If scum were all goons, why would Mod list mafia roles in the list of possible roles?
I think it was fairly obvious that my rolefishing was directed at scum. I can percieve where a townie would be concerned with rolefishing in general, but to me it is more likely that he is scum worried about the town knowing their role makeup. Being concerned about scum rolefishing is scummy, being concerned about rolefishing in general without noting the difference between looking for scum info and looking for town info is suspicious at least. He continues to defend his position without recognizing my point.Scien wrote:I'm going to butt in here and ask a few questions at Monkey. I don't fully understand his claims at the moment, and would like to get a better feel for him.
This was the question that sparked you two off each other. Right off the bat he generalized what you are calling 'scum rolefishing' and turned it into rolefishing in general. What do you feel about this generalization?Manzcar wrote:Why does it matter Monkey what roles are out there?
If he is townie, do you think he would be likely to generalize like that? Or do you think its more of a scum trait?
I think you said that townies should be concerned with general rolefishing, and that your rolefishing was different because it was localized on the scum. You really can't see a townie getting concerned when they see any sort of rolefishing going on? You think that your question didn't deserve any kind of attention?
Sure, it's possible he's town. I just think it's more likely he's scum, because of the way he immediately attacked me, rather than try to understand my reasoning. It's the kind of antagonistic mindset that scum would be likely to have.Scien wrote:@Monkey
Ok, that's fair, and I kind of see where you are coming from. However, right from the get go, he threw your rolefishing in the box with general rolefishing. You can tell by the way he worded his first question to you.
I could see a cautious townie generalizing to be safe. I could also see a scum doing what you are suggesting, by deliberately generalizing your actions in order to base an attack off of. Could you tell me what makes you think the scum condition is more likely? Do you believe that the townie condition is not possible?
One can be suspicious without being true scum. His actions at least cause concern, and there could be possible scum motive.Dizzle wrote:MonkeyMan576 wrote: I can percieve where a townie would be concerned with rolefishing in generalI understand that you made a distinction about looking for scum/town info, but it seems like you offer up two different stances on general rolefishing within two sentences.MonkeyMan576 wrote:being concerned about rolefishing in general without noting the difference between looking for scum info and looking for town info is suspicious at least
I think his intentions were clearly to incriminate me. I don't think you're attacking, because you're merely trying to gain information. The difference is, his actions are suspicious, if not incriminating, my actions and you're actions aren't.Scien wrote:Attacked? Do you think that the single question he asked you before you voted him counts as an attack?
Do the questions I am asking you now count as an attack?
I didn't mean it was a direct attack. I meant that he was being over-antagonistic towards a player trying to get information that would be useful to the town.d3x wrote:I can see where MM is coming from on theDizzle wrote:That's an attack or an attempt to incriminate you?Manzcar wrote:Why does it matter Monkey what roles are out there?potentialimplication of this question. I do not read any sort of attack here, though. I likewise don't see any direct attempt to incriminate.
No, I don't think you get it.d3x wrote:Wait. I just went back and reread this interaction and it went as follows...
p8 MM- 'No Scum Power Roles.'
p11 Manz- 'Why does it matter?'
p14 MM- 'This is why I think it matters.'
p15 MM- 'Vote Manz b/c you're concerned about the Town knowing the Scum make-up.'
*disclaimer- These are paraphrases
That doesn't look right to me. You just said that you Voted because he was being 'over-antagonistic towards a player'. To me it reads as a player asking for clarification. You Votedbeforehe made his supposedly scummy comments. Can you give me a bit more information about the initial Vote?
I think the question shows his anti-town position regarding the issue.d3x wrote:I understand and agree. When I said 'you' in my paraphrase of p15, I was speaking in the first person as you. Notice I said 'I' in the same manner in p14. To put it another way, I was saying that you Voted Manz because he seemed concerned about the Town finding out about the Scum roles.
Regardless, my point stands. You claim that he was being over-antagonistic towards you while you were trying to find out potentially beneficial information for the Town. I'm saying that him asking 'why' in the context and timing of the discussion doesn't seem antagonistic to me.
Above you said that you don't think a proTown player would ask 'the question'. The question was 'why'. I am looking for clarification regarding your Vote against him.
You do know that we're not in the RVS anymore, right?ZEEnon wrote:Seems like I have a lot of choices. Hmm.....
Well I wouldVote: Hero764for being the last to confirm.....
Or I couldUnvote. Vote: Sweepfor confirming at the same time as me.....
Perhaps I will evenUnvote. Vote: d3xfor that awesome play on Fuzzywuzzy.....
But wait! I am definitely voting MonkeyMan576 after he mispelled my name.
It's ZEEnon, get the capitalation correct or else you are referring to someone else.Vote: MonkeyMan576.
I'm leaning that way, I wouldn't say I was "very confident". His position is scummy, but town can have scummy positions.ZEEnon wrote:MonkeyMan576 wrote:My point is I don't think a pro-town player would have asked the question, or implied my position was anti-town.So you are very confident that Manzcar is scum, correct?
That's my position, yes. However, I usually like to have a read on more than one issue or action before I have an absolute position on someone's alignment. That is, I feel confident enough to vote him at this point, but I wouldn't advocate hammering him this early or only on one issue. I'd like to see some discussion on other players so we have options on who to hammer, it is far too early in the day to call for a lynch.ZEEnon wrote:I thought you said you didn't think that a town-aligned player would have asked that. Am I wrong?
You could claim discussion on any scummy behavior is WIFOM. Would scum hammer on L-1 without talking about it first? Wait, that's WIFOM!Manzcar wrote:To rolefish and bring out possible town roles I think scum would do anything. To assume that they wouldn't is naive. It is WIFOM to say that scum wouldn't rolefish their own roles. it isn't like scum is going to drop breadcrumbs on their roles. If something doesn't make sense to me or seems off to me I will ask questions.ZEEnon wrote:Manzcar wrote:I wasn't trying to attack nor incriminate only find out whether the intent was town leaning or scum leaning in rolefishing.So you think that mafia would ask about their own roles for the purpose of rolefishing?
What I find funny is that Monkey keeps saying that I am attacking him and trying to incriminate him but all I did was ask a question. That is when he voted me. I am still not sure whether or not he is scum but I also feel that others need to get involved and more discussion needs to happen.
I still would like to see an actual case that isn't WIFOM on me. To say that I asked a question about someone rolefishing scum roles means I am scum makes no sense to me. There is no logic in it and it is based solely on WIFOM. I would like Zee or Monkey to explain why it is scummy rather than say a town player wouldn't question someone rolefishing scum roles because that is WIFOM. Because as far as I can tell that is all that there is to this argument.
Since you haven't actually raised a valid point against me, that is an obvious OMGUS.Manzcar wrote:So then you believe that any claim of scum behavior made should be taken as valid whether or not there any real foundation for the claim?MonkeyMan576 wrote: You could claim discussion on any scummy behavior is WIFOM. Would scum hammer on L-1 without talking about it first? Wait, that's WIFOM!
Okay then. I say you are scum because you reacted very defensive to a simple question.
That's obviously not why I am attacking you. You are ignoring my argument.Manzcar wrote:You have attacked me for no other reason than you don't like being pressured which is scummy behavior.
It's not a leap of reality. You are scummy.Manzcar wrote:You make leaps of reality to mean what you want in order to color someone as scummy.
I'm saying that you calling it WIFOM doesn't make my argument any less valid. You haven't actually addressed the points of my argument.Manzcar wrote:You also are twisting what I said to mean something it wasn't. The question was asking me if scum would do something. The answer is that it is WIFOM. WHY are you twisting reality to make it something it is not?
VOTE MONKEY
Saying that I attacked you for "no reason"Manzcar wrote:Which argument was silly.
Well that is totally opposite of your attempts to discredit me, and you showing concern for town learning that info in your opening post, but I appreciate your acknoladgement of my position. We have little to argue about at this point.Manzcar wrote:I said knowing what scum roles were out there is good for town and protown several times.
Me being "paranoid" is contingent on you being town, which is hardly a given at this point. But it's always better to understand each other than engage in pointless arguments.Manzcar wrote:Okay now
UNVOTE
by the way my original post was to find out if you were rolefishing and to find out why? My unvote is due to the fact that I now believe Monkey to be a paranoid townie, which is what I was trying to figure out.
Casebuilding is more effective if you have a vote to use. Right now I'm through building my case on Manzcar. There's only one major case. Do you understand the case or not?Raivann wrote:So you are very confident that Manzcar is scum, correct?ZEEnon wrote:MonkeyMan576 wrote:My point is I don't think a pro-town player would have asked the question, or implied my position was anti-town.So you are very confident that Manzcar is scum, correct?
Why did you post this?ZEEnon wrote:Scien's questioning can both be seen a pro-town and scummy, in my opinion. I have a null tell on him/her.
To which Manzcar case do you refer?MonkeyMan576 wrote:For now I'll
Unvote
We can always lynch Manzcar if he is our best suspect at the end of the day, but it would be better to pursue other cases at this point...
Raivann, can you summarize the case against Manczar, and who do you believe is suspicious or scummy at this point?
At this point I'm not sure on anyone, but I'm leaning scum on d3x, and I'm leaning town on Fuzzyman.
Why did you unvote again?Why can't you concentrate on other players with your vote still on Manz? Or did you have a change of heart?
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't vote for who they find suspicious? What's wrong with 5 votes when it takes 7 to lynch? Moreover, two of the "votes" were FOS's, why are you exaggerating his condition?Fuzzyman wrote:I would go so far to say that 5 votes over a weekend is highly unreasonable to expect.ZEEnon wrote:As you can tell from my fairly late reply, I cannot be on as frequently as I would like to. Therefore, I don't know what could happen from the time I sign out to the next time I sign in. For all I know, it's been a hectic weekend, and I was unable to sign on. Therefore, a lynch could be realized even before I could see it progress. I think that even without voting him, voicing my suspicions of him gives the same results as me actually voting him. Hell, I said I would be voting him. Therefore, I think it gives the same result.
Quit twisting my words. Major, obvious word twisting. 5 votes does NOT mean quicklynch, and I specifically said that he was only on 2 or 3 votes.Dizzle wrote:Monkey, as there are currently 2 votes on Raivann, I believe Fuzzy was saying that it is unlikely for 5 more Raivann votes to occur this weekend. Maybe you knew that and just have no problem with a quicklynch. Either way, I don't like how you cast suspicion on Fuzzy for merely saying that a quicklynch was unlikely. He was neither advocating for it or against it. To assume otherwise is plain scummy.MonkeyMan576 wrote:Are you suggesting that people shouldn't vote for who they find suspicious? What's wrong with 5 votes when it takes 7 to lynch?Fuzzyman wrote:I would go so far to say that 5 votes over a weekend is highly unreasonable to expect.ZEEnon wrote:As you can tell from my fairly late reply, I cannot be on as frequently as I would like to. Therefore, I don't know what could happen from the time I sign out to the next time I sign in. For all I know, it's been a hectic weekend, and I was unable to sign on. Therefore, a lynch could be realized even before I could see it progress. I think that even without voting him, voicing my suspicions of him gives the same results as me actually voting him. Hell, I said I would be voting him. Therefore, I think it gives the same result.
I didn't read it as 5 MORE votes, I read it as 5 votes. So my bad on that, but I am not in favor of a quicklynch, for the record.Dizzle wrote:I'm not quite understanding. By more count, 5 more votes over the weekend would be a quicklynch.MonkeyMan576 wrote:Quit twisting my words. Major, obvious word twisting. 5 votes does NOT mean quicklynch, and I specifically said that he was only on 2 or 3 votes.
Quicklynches rarely happen unless there is a late scum bandwagon or there is strong public opinion against someone. Since we have both manczar and Raivaan as possible suspects at this point, I don't think a quicklynch is likely, or if it were to happen, the obvscum at the end of the lynch would give the town an advantage as far as info is concerned.d3x wrote:@MM- Now that we're all on the same page, what do you think of the original quote in that pyramid? ZEE is saying that he doesn't want to Vote because of the possibility of a quicklynch over the weekend. How viable do you think that is?
I wouldn't say I didn't bat an eye. I thought about it carefully. I have no problem taking accountability for my actions, I just don't want to give the scum opportunity to lynch without discussing it, and I've already voiced my suspiciouns of Raivann, so I figure I might as well be on the wagon. I am leaning scum on Raivann, although I still think Manczar is very scummy. Not sure which is more scummy though.d3x wrote:cruelty- Aside from telling us about things that annoy you {and have little game relevence}, how's about answering p168? Or commenting on the speed with which the Raivann wagon has built to L-2? Or stating an opinion of MM's reluctance to go L-1, but has no problem with L-2?
MM- Dizzle makes a great point. You went L-2 without batting an eye. There are more than one Scum in this setup, I'd assume. How does your play act as a deterent from an early Scum Hammer? It seems like you want to participate on a lynch without taking the responsibility of your actions. Also, if you just Voted him to L-2, why are you heavily entertaining the notion that Scum will Hammer? Doesn't that mean you think Raivann has at least a better than average chance of being Town aligned?
I don't think it's odd, it was more of a warning to anyone who votes next to consider that the next vote will be L-1. If they want to do that fine, but there is a big difference between L-2 vote and a L-1 vote, and I don't think we are ready for L-1 yet. I would still like there to be more discussion, but it is important for Raivann to understand the severety of our suspicions.d3x wrote:Touche. We can only see what you write and the brevity with which it's delivered. I was just saying that it's odd that you'd be willing to go L-2 but would actually voice a negative opinion about L-1 in the same post. That's all.I wouldn't say I didn't bat an eye. I thought about it carefully.
Do you think that if Raivann is Scum, his partners would Hammer him early to stifle discussion and in essence silence him?[/quote]d3x wrote:I am leaning scum on Raivann
Well, he's been dodging the questions I've already asked him so I figured others might have more success than me. Probably more frustration than anything. But I have some questions below.d3x wrote:MM-You say that you want more discussion and that you want Raivann to understand the gravity of the situation. You also say that you wouldn't rule out a Town flip on him. These are understandable points. Do you not have any questions for him so as to make a more secure decision on the player you just L-2 Voted? Ialsofind that odd.
I've already explained I want my vote to be on the record, I'm guessing scum on Raivann at this point and to not vote would be anti-town. I think there's a good chance Raivann could eventually be lynched and I'd rather vote now than give scum the opportunity to vote at L-1. If people have a problem with my vote, I'll unvote if they are worried about a scum lynch.Dizzle wrote:Sure, I guess, but if you're worried about scum being able to hammer at L-1, why even bring the vote count 1 step closer by making it L-2? Why not just give the warning about not lynching or getting to L-1 too quickly? Raivann knows he's amassed a good deal of suspicion so there's really no need for Monkey's vote at all. Raivann is back to L-3 now anyway, I think, but I still don't like Monkey's vote/explanation.cruelty wrote:I can see what MM is saying. If there are two (or more) scum, and Raivann isn't one of them (or he is and they've decided he's a liability) then they can hardly 1-2 hammer without some serious heat being fired their way. L1 is a different proposition, one guy with a convincing reason for his vote could hammer and slip away quite easily.
I really don't see what the point in withholding my vote would be if I believe there is a strong case against him. Are you suggesting I don't vote for him so I don't look like I'm trying to build town cred?Dizzle wrote:Yes, a good townie wants to vote out scum but he ultimately shouldn't care whether he is the one doing the voting. All that matters is that scum are lynched. On the other hand, scum who want to give the appearance of being good townies will vote each other out to gain townie points.
I think any info is good for the town. Why do you think info is bad for the town?Scien wrote:Why ask about the townies? Who do you think it serves more to tell the town about your townie feelings?Monkey wrote:[At Raivann] Who are your top 3 scum suspects at this point. And who do you think are the top 3 towniest players?
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not voting because I'm worried about what people think about my vote. I'm voting because I believe he's scum.Chinaman wrote:So does that mean if a scum gets lynched and there are 3 people on on the wagon, are those 3 people your next top suspects since them not being on the wagon is "anti-town"? Also, I don't like that you are worried about what other people think of your vote. It's not the vote people were attacking...it's you basically holding up a big neon sign saying "Hey guys, for the record, I voted for scum!!" That's what is bothering people including myself. The fact that you want to "make others happy" by removing your vote if they say to do so also bothers me. If you think he's scum, who cares what others think about your vote? It's supposed to be your opinion. If it bites you in the ass later, well, it bites you in the ass. Only scum truely care about how they look in others eyes. Town care about finding and lynching scum. So yeah, the above questions to be answered please.MM wrote:I've already explained I want my vote to be on the record, I'm guessing scum on Raivann at this point and to not vote would be anti-town. I think there's a good chance Raivann could eventually be lynched and I'd rather vote now than give scum the opportunity to vote at L-1. If people have a problem with my vote, I'll unvote if they are worried about a scum lynch.
Are you playing this game? I don't see you on the roster.Skruffs wrote:I singled your vote because your vote came immediately after Zeenon 'passed' on answering the question Raivann asked about why Zeenon thought you were 'null' if your behavior was striking him as both town AND scum. The implications seem pretty obvious to me.
You also tried to 'pass' discussing this at all. This is bad for You, because if someone was saying "This person is both townish and scummy, I'm not going to talk abou tthem", and then passed on further qualifying, *I* would personally be worried that that person might be a scum trying to lay the rails down for a "one-two" mafia lynch later on. IE - YOU should be getting on Zeenon as well, NOT targetting Raivann. My post was to Completely bring out into hte open, something that I see as now TWO (maybe more) players trying to sweep under the carpet. Sinec both players in that partnership, Zeenon, AND scien, have both now tried to avoid that situation by focusin on *everything* else, my suspicions are much more concrete.