Open 67 Two of Four (a7) Over! before 578

[farside22]

You voted for me for not voting, that is your quote. Yet if you are voting on me for not voting it is faulty logic based on the fact that I did vote and unvoted do to some people be dumb asses. I admited the OMGUS, but stated that I waited on you to respond to my earlier comment. Noted you didn't respond till I voted. Reason?

Are you trapping me to say "I didn't read your first post until you voted me" and then are you going to cite that there is another game that I made a post in between the time your two aforementioned posts?

How is this important? I really don't remember/know the reason. Nor do I think it's worth discussing.

You voted for me for not voting, that is your quote. Yet if you are voting on me for not voting it is faulty logic based on the fact that I did vote and unvoted do to some people be dumb asses.

Not sure exactly what you mean here. But let me clarify myself. Voting for you for not voting was stupid. I was in a hurry and was responding to a prod. It was your response to my vote that made you scummy.

You posted on March 24th. Game: Mini 568 - Nubigena (Day 1)
So yup looks like you waited to say something till I voted against you.

[shaft.ed]

You look up at the scoreboard. It still reads Home: 5 Away: 2
farside22's name is still illuminated now with two bulbs blaring next to it.
The clock reads 13:11:43 and is still descending

Vote Count

farside22

(Thorbjorn, Near)

Lowell

(mozsuggs, Erratus Apathos)

Near

(Lowell, farside22)

mozsuggs

(DoctorJimmy)

mozsuggs sleeps deeply in the corner. Uncle Theo is now attempting to wake him with... unconventional methods. This distraction annoys you all deeply (

flavor for I'm looking for a replacement as we speak

).

[Near]

You posted on March 24th. Game: Mini 568 - Nubigena (Day 1)
So yup looks like you waited to say something till I voted against you.

Do you find me scummy because of this?

[farside22]

You posted on March 24th. Game: Mini 568 - Nubigena (Day 1)
So yup looks like you waited to say something till I voted against you.

Do you find me scummy because of this?

Actually I went to find an answer to this question you possed to me.

Are you trapping me to say "I didn't read your first post until you voted me" and then are you going to cite that there is another game that I made a post in between the time your two aforementioned posts?

I'm stating that I found that you posted in another game during the time I asked about your hypocritical vote on me, but did not state anything till I placed the vote. So in sense it makes me believe you are scummie for asking a question in the manner you did and pointing how I'm reacting to a comment that you said yourself was hypocritical. Which in the ends means you points and comments are basically someone I see trying to wiggle loose of a vote against you because you are scum.

[Lowell]

You posted on March 24th. Game: Mini 568 - Nubigena (Day 1)
So yup looks like you waited to say something till I voted against you.

Do you find me scummy because of this?

Given how active you are in other games, it is, in fact, a bit strange.

[Erratus Apathos]

Farside responded to my post seriously. I am lead to think this way because he cited "hypocrisy" and voted me. In the mind of a scum, he is concerned that people find him suspicious. So it's natural for scum to get defensive. The fact that farside pointed out my hypocrisy, and accused me in the same way because of it, he is admitting his scuminess without putting much thoughts into it. This is a behavior of a scum.

Defensive = scummy? That's pretty hard to justify, considering every game of Mafia ever played has at least one townie defending themselves. If Farside is town, how exactly would you have expected her to react?

[mozsuggs]

Hello

[Thorbjorn]

Hello

HE LIVES!

[mozsuggs]

Well, reading through, we aint got much have we? But I am hardly in a position to moan, seeing as i havent poste for days.
Out of evryone, I say that Erratus Apapthos looks the most scummy-just a few posts , and in all of them hes trying to play the "I am really balanced" card. In the few games i have played, that been a scum tell (and one I have tried when i have been scum).

Of course, he could just be really balanced.

But for now

UNVOTE

VOTE ERRATUS APPOTHOS

[DoctorJimmy]

I'm still confused as to what makes farside's response to your vote scummy, Near.

[Erratus Apathos]

Well, reading through, we aint got much have we? But I am hardly in a position to moan, seeing as i havent poste for days.
Out of evryone, I say that Erratus Apapthos looks the most scummy-just a few posts , and in all of them hes trying to play the "I am really balanced" card. In the few games i have played, that been a scum tell (and one I have tried when i have been scum).

Of course, he could just be really balanced.

I don't know what you mean by "balanced". Could you explain?

[Thorbjorn]

Well, reading through, we aint got much have we? But I am hardly in a position to moan, seeing as i havent poste for days.
Out of evryone, I say that Erratus Apapthos looks the most scummy-just a few posts , and in all of them hes trying to play the "I am really balanced" card. In the few games i have played, that been a scum tell (and one I have tried when i have been scum).

Of course, he could just be really balanced.

It almost sounds like you're saying that someone who plays planned and deliberately is more likely to be scum... Which I guess almost makes sense, because scum is the only group who starts with any real information.... But then playing randomly and without any plan wouldn't help you at all, would it?

[mozsuggs]

In a way, that is what i mean. From mmy limited experience, when i have been scum, I have been much more cautious and "balnced" (throwing out comments like "Lets be careful here guys etc).
Now Appoteosis Erratus is prob a better and more experienceed player than that.
But he looks slightly scummy.

Of course, if he is town, then i am simply unfairly accusing him of playing sensibly.

Just too sensibly for my liking

[Thorbjorn]

unvote

vote: mozsuggs

I'm not sure that I can stand behind the play style of always throwing caution into the wind and not paying too much attention to what you're doing. Besides, by voting you I'm throwing caution into the wind, so that makes you happy, right?

[mozsuggs]

unvote

vote: mozsuggs

I'm not sure that I can stand behind the play style of always throwing caution into the wind and not paying too much attention to what you're doing. Besides, by voting you I'm throwing caution into the wind, so that makes you happy, right?

Touche!
Ya got me.
I dont mind a few votes, jst as long as i dont get lynched.
Once again, though, the dangers of actually posting-as soon as i post, i get voted for.
Perhaps I am just an UTTER COCK

[Erratus Apathos]

In a way, that is what i mean. From mmy limited experience, when i have been scum, I have been much more cautious and "balnced" (throwing out comments like "Lets be careful here guys etc).
Now Appoteosis Erratus is prob a better and more experienceed player than that.
But he looks slightly scummy.

Of course, if he is town, then i am simply unfairly accusing him of playing sensibly.

Just too sensibly for my liking 8-)

Okay, but I don't see why you're targeting me with this accusation. Both Jimmy unvoting Farside and Farside unvoting Jimmy were out of fear of a quicklynch, and those unvotes strike me as considerably more cautious than anything I've said or done. Especially Farside's unvote, which was only from L-2.

And as much as I'd like to be called an experienced player, I haven't completed even a single game yet.

[Erratus Apathos]

Especially Farside's unvote, which was only from L-2.

Come to think of it, it's contradictory that she worried about a Jimmy quicklynch when he was at L-2, but then voted Near to L-2.

Unvote, vote: Farside22

[Near]

shaft.ed I have a question about the mechanics of the pregame. You said that exactly two roles without duplicates are selected from doctor, cop, miller, and roleblocker. Is this picked randomly (e.g. dice roll?) or did you pick two out of those 4 based on what you think is fair for this game?

Everything is decided by dice roll

[farside22]

Especially Farside's unvote, which was only from L-2.

Come to think of it, it's contradictory that she worried about a Jimmy quicklynch when he was at L-2, but then voted Near to L-2.

Unvote, vote: Farside22

Random vote versus actual reason for vote. Did you even read what near is saying or are you his scum partner? He has yet to really come up with a good reason for his comments and they are hypocritical, but he votes for me for his hypocrosy.

[DoctorJimmy]

FoS: Near

for not explaining why farside is scummy despite being prompted to do so multiple times.

It would be a vote, but that would put him at L -1.

[shaft.ed]

You look up at the scoreboard. It still reads Home: 5 Away: 2
Now Near's name is illuminated with two bulbs blaring next to it.
The clock reads 10:45:37 and is still descending

Vote Count

Near

(Lowell, farside22)

mozsuggs

(DoctorJimmy, Thorbjorn)

farside22

(Near, Erratus Apathos)

Erratus Apathos

(mozsuggs)

[Erratus Apathos]

Especially Farside's unvote, which was only from L-2.

Come to think of it, it's contradictory that she worried about a Jimmy quicklynch when he was at L-2, but then voted Near to L-2.

Unvote, vote: Farside22

Random vote versus actual reason for vote.

The reason you voted is irrelevant to the contradiction I'm pointing out here, which relates to the reason you unvoted. Specifically you unvoted Jimmy to prevent a quicklynch when he was only at L-2, then shortly afterwards you put Near at L-2 where he could just as easily be quicklynched as Jimmy could have been. The point is that I don't think you were honestly concerned about Jimmy's welfare.

[farside22]

I unvoted on the 20th of March and voted on the 25th of march. How exactly do you get shortly after in your statement? I stated on the 22nd about not trusting people like moz.
Seriously no matter how I voted it is either I don't vote and Near votes for me for that stupidness or I vote for someone I find scummie and you vote for me for placing someone I find scummie who is avoiding answers by the way, how can anyone defend against either of these two both trying to make me looks scummie no matter how I vote.

[Erratus Apathos]

I unvoted on the 20th of March and voted on the 25th of march. How exactly do you get shortly after in your statement? I stated on the 22nd about not trusting people like moz.

I was going by post count rather than real time. The vote was only three posts after the unvote.

Seriously no matter how I voted it is either I don't vote and Near votes for me for that stupidness or I vote for someone I find scummie and you vote for me for placing someone I find scummie who is avoiding answers by the way, how can anyone defend against either of these two both trying to make me looks scummie no matter how I vote.

You could explain why you didn't trust Moz to not put Jimmy at an early L-1, but did trust him not to put Near at an early L-1.

[Near]

FoS: Near

for not explaining why farside is scummy despite being prompted to do so multiple times.

It would be a vote, but that would put him at L -1.

My initial vote on farside was a pretty random one. I looked at the vote count, and the only two people who weren't voting were me and farside. Responding to my prod, I ranom voted, stating that he didn't vote on anyone.

If farside had thought that my voting was random, I would not have find him suspicous. In fact, I would have expected it. If he completely ignored my post, I also would not have found him suspicoius. His responses didn't sound like a joke to me, and there are scummy elements to them:

I've been waiting to see is Near replies to my comment. Typically I run across hypocritical = scummie. Call it OMGUS. His vote is crap with hypocritical reasoning.
vote: Near

You voted for me for not voting, that is your quote. Yet if you are voting on me for not voting it is faulty logic based on the fact that I did vote and unvoted do to some people be dumb asses. I admited the OMGUS, but stated that I waited on you to respond to my earlier comment. Noted you didn't respond till I voted. Reason?

The fact that he noticed that I also didn't have a vote on anyone, he should have noticed that I am just random voting. However, if he thought I was making a serious accusation, he should have defended himself by saying that my argument is crap and question me/focused on why not voting equals scummy.

Instead, his defense was was by accusing me, calling "hypocrisy". He is saying that since I too didn't have a vote on anyone, it either craps my argument or I too should be suspected for a scum. This is what I didn't like about his argument. Instead of reponding to my argument with self-assured attitude, and pointing out where my argument fails, his main purpose seems to be attacking me in return.

His pointing out and self-crediting for stopping a quick lynch on mozsuggs isn't really helping his case either. Still, while I find this incident pretty suspicious, I also don't feel too strongly about it. So, I am going to unvote.

Unvote

Vote DoctorJimmy

for seemingly trying to find a reason to put join the bandwagon.