P.S. Hi Cass, nice to be playing with you again
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
muffinhead wrote:vote mafiamann , because not voting in the rv stage can be a scumtell. Therefore this is no random vote.
About as weak of a case as making a big deal about someone making a big deal about a self vote don't you say?Vote: Cass because I find making a big deal about a self-vote in the random voting stage to be a rather weak case.
Thats because from a win condition POV, self-voting is going against your win condition if you're scum. However, its also a counter-productive "method" if you're town because it focuses the discussion on yourself (presumedly you know yourself that your town), rather than legitimate scumhunting. I.E. right now, a number of people are FoS-ing or Voting because Coug self-voted. If he is town, he brought it on himself and is distracting us from actually finding scum. If he's scum, he's using the "Why would I vote for myself if I were scum WIFOM". I don't buy the "it sparks discussion" because the discussion is always about the person who self-voted, and it nullifies any suspisions based on people jumping on the self-voters bandwagon. Without the self vote, maybe we could have caught a scum jumping on or pushing aThe town always seems to let the self-voter go.
As others have mentioned, L-3 or L-4 is no big thing. Its roughly half the votes needed for lynch. I wouldn't first get worried until L-2.clock wrote:I'm going to take a wild guess that the scum is on one of these wagons. I see no reason that anyone should be at L-4 or L-3 yet at all. We've barely started discussion and already someone is close to being lynched if any votes change.
I assume you're referring to the scumtell of not voting in the random stage... However, imagine if everyone refused to random vote, or everyone self-voted. How are we going to get anywhere? Not voting in the random stage is denying the town much needed conversation, regardless of how seemingly unimportant the information is. THAT is why not voting (and self voting) IS a scum-tell.Bogre wrote:The scumtell is also crap.
*blows whistle* The minute you placed a vote on yourself, any further vote on you was no longer random.Coug wrote:First off, unless you have a bunch of mindless players, the random voting stage isn't going to get anybody killed, which is why I panicked at the third random vote on me (I count myself because a vote is a vote).
No I don't think, but I'll argue semantics with you nonetheless. You say I'm being opportunistic, but I say you're being opportunistic by attacking everyone who voted for you "because you self-voted". Its not as if I just opportunisticly jumped on the wagon without just cause. Read posts 53, 54, 55... I was just about ready to vote you in post 53, but I waited. Then Ecto made an excellent post that I agreed with and decided to add more pressure witha vote in post 55. Then you panicked.coug wrote:This is awfully opportunistic for putting me at lynch -3, don't you think?
I'm sensing a lurker here... Oh, and now who's being opportunistic?bogre wrote:FOS Rhinox
For jumping on a dumb wagon, being opportunistic.
Lynch them both. Notice they haven't said anything about each other yet.
As I said before, once you voted for yourself, votes on you were no longer random.coug wrote:How many damn times do I have to say that I don't like the idea of anybody having ¼ of the votes in RV?
QFTmuffin wrote:I also dont like the fact that coug is voting for people because they voted for him.
Whoa there buddy. No one's talking about seriously lynching anybody yet. Its way too early in the day for bloodshed. Long days help the town - of course you would know that since you're our most experienced playerecto wrote:I still say we string him up. Somebody's gotta die today, we might as well do the volunteer
The scummy reaction is that you assume everyone voting for you because of the self vote is scum. Also, if dying over disagreements as to what is and is not acceptable in the random stage does not make any sense, then you should have never voted for me. I made it perfectly clear that I'm principally against self-voting. You disagree with my oppinion. You voted for me. Hence, you voted for me because you disagreed with what I thought was unacceptable in the random stage, and you justified it with calling me opportunistic.coug wrote:Seriously, if I have reacted to the current situation in a scummy manner, then please point that out and bring it to my attention, but dying over disagreements as to what is and is not acceptable in the random voting stage does not make any sense.
clock wrote:It's not that I'm against people being at L-3 or L-4, it's that I'm against people being at those numbers on the second/third page for little reason.
2 votes... your telling me 2 votes is adequate pressure? Thats BS is what it is. who's going to react to 2 votes? If it was still in the random stage on page 2, thats completely different. I'd say its a minor scum tell to say you want to limit pressure to 2 votes because the town would never learn anything helpful. When is it acceptable to place more than 2 votes? page 3? page 4? how can you place a limit based on page numbers. I'd think the content and pace of game should determine how much pressure is appropriate. Cougs self vote got the game going very rapidly. He deserved pressure so he would be forced to justify his actions.clock wrote:L-5 would have been adaqute pressure on page two...
Just because I used Ecto's post to support my vote doesn't mean I was basing my vote on Ecto's reasoning. Again, refer to posts 53-55, and my first post where I express my concerns about self voting and not voting. Just because Ecto and I have the same oppinions of self voting doesn't mean we're working together, and it doesn't mean I'm piggybacking off of his idea.coug wrote:I did, however, want a gauge as to how many people and which ones had the WIFOMish thinking of "only scum would vote themselves". Right now Ectomancer fits this state of mind best, and my voting Rhinox is for putting me at an opportunistic L-3 based on Ectomancer's reasoning.
How did you expect to get an idea of who was scum based on reactions to your self vote?coug wrote:For the last time, I intended to get my self-vote off once I had at least a half-decent idea of scum.
If you really think its a null-tell, then the reactions to it are also null-tells. The point I'm trying to make is that a townie self voting focuses the discussion where it need not be focused - on the townie and the semantics of self-voting. That is why I feel A PRO-TOWN PLAYER HAS NO BUSINESS EVER SELF-VOTING IN THE RANDOM VOTING STAGE.coug wrote:Self-votes in the random voting stage are null-tells, which is the point I'm trying to bring across.
This post screams to me as facade of activity without providing any content...bogre wrote:Ectomancer had weak reasons to vote Strangercoug.
Admittedly selfvoting is idiotic but its a null tell, really.
Mafiamann's unwillingness to vote is quite scummy, as well.
Its not conservative play, its denying the town its best weapon early in the game - the power of votes. Imagine if all 12 of us said in our first post: "I'm not going to vote because random votes don't mean anything and I don't find anyone scummy" How would the game get started? How would the town ever get any information? Thats why not voting is scummy. IMO, self-voting is exactly the same thing as not voting.coug wrote:Bogre wrote:
Mafiamann's unwillingness to vote is quite scummy, as well.
I don't consider conservative play like this scummy per se.
QFT. I think this post sums up what I've been trying to say regarding self-voting and not voting. I think we could argue back and forth if we wanted to. However, I feel I've gotten my point across and I now feel there are better avenues to persue.ecto wrote:You completely miss the point. Self-voting is not a null tell if it has become so prevelant by town that it becomes assumed that the person doing it is town "trying to get reactions". Reactions to a self-vote are also a null tell, so there is very little point to them except to:
1: derail wagons - StrangerCoug did this, but even as town this could be expected.
2: bring a case based upon reactions to a crappy move by town - also not helpful because people voting someone over a self-vote is also a null tell. It's not a town move.
You look at why SC voted himself, and the fact that any "reactions" are null tells at best, and SC didnt make a single townie move.
He made a calculated decision to self-vote, expecting people to back off of him, and if they didn't, he could go on attack on the "null tell" basis.
I still see no reason why he should be given a free pass to make anti-town moves without being pressured as the very possible scum that he is.
Double QFT. This is what I was going to do, but Cass beat me to it.curiouskarmadog wrote:QFTCass wrote:
Unvotefor standing by quietly and throwing suspicion on a bunch of players, so he can vote them when the opportunity presents itself. Defend yourself, Bogre.
Vote: Bogre
Because of this post, I consider jonathan in the same category as Bogre. Facade of activity without providing helpful content. Bogre is on the side of making comments that will allow him to jump on a wagon later on if one begins, and jonathan is on the side of playing the "confused newbie asking if he is understanding everything correctly". Except Jonathan has been here for about a year and a half and has no reason to be asking us if he understands everything so far. He has the experience to be able to keep up, so I don't by it:jonathan wrote:Discussion is currently revolving around:
- StrangerCoug's random vote on himself (which is the second vote for him)
- MafiaMann's third vote on SC (second if you don't count SC's own vote) which some people think is opportunistic to start a wagon
- some people think SC's random vote is scummy, some think it's a null-tell
- SC complains when more votes pile on him, so does ClockworkRuse (Clock says it's because the wagon is too quick and scum-driven, and this wagon draws discussion away from other things)
Is this all?
I agree, mafiamann is giving very lame reasons right now. I didn't adress that in my last post because others have been addressing it and I didn't want to make my wall of text to large and cluttered.coug wrote:Granted, this can be argued. However, MafiaMann's given reason for voting me was that he can't spell ClockworkRuse's name, and it's been argued back that he could have just shortened it to "clock". When do you learn how to spell that? Second grade? Third at the latest?
yeah thats a good way of putting it.coug wrote:Are you arguing that I'm being hypocritical here? This is what I'm getting from this part of your post.
OK. I'll believe that for now. Just because I don't agree with it as a strategy doesn't mean it automatically makes you scummy.coug wrote:Again, I wanted to see who would try to justify voting me by WIFOM.
The question is, was the game advanced in a beneficial way? If everyone had the mindset that a self-vote was a null tell and should jsut be ignored, then a self vote would fulfill the same purpose as a no vote - stalling the game. The game advanced out of the random stage because of those of us who don't agree with self-voting and no-voting. MafiaMann's no vote also advanced the game because he is getting heat for not voting and then appeasing. If he's town, this is another distraction and not pro-town.coug wrote:then unless I misunderstand you, then how did one manage to advance the game while the other is essentially stagnating it?
For what its worth, I agree with you. There is something about Ecto that just doesn't sit right with me. I can't put a finger on it right now, and its possible its more of a gut feeling than based on actual evidence.coug wrote:I'm attacking Ectomancer's tunnel vision, taking posts out of context, misrepresentation, case dodging, and apparent oblivion of my intent to vote him until I actually did at this point. I say "apparent oblivion" because I feel his reaction to my vote is contrived and meaningless.
However, this could be a slippery slope because where do you draw the line between what is opportunistic voting and what is legitimate pressure voting?ecto wrote:Backing Clock's case:
vote MafiaMann
The problem is, its notbogre wrote:So I don't post content, yet you agree with my accusation? *boggle*.
My problem was that you stepped in and made short, blunt comments that simply reiterated arguments that were already voiced without adding any new analysis, support, or defense. If you were on vacation, then I guess that makes sense. However, If you posted in other threads that you were on vacation, why not post here? It shouldn't be expected for me to have to go search the forums for an explanation as to why you might not be posting elaborate posts, and the way you said you were on vacation implies that I should have known:vote mafiamann , because not voting in the rv stage can be a scumtell. Therefore this is no random vote.
As for the lurkerish comments, as I have stated in other threads I am on vacation,
Not true. I gave my own take on my own suspisions, as well as presented some new ideas. Your post seemed like an exact regurgitation of thoughts that were already voiced. Again, if you were on vacation, I can see why your posts would have been like that. Of course, voice all of your suspisions. Thats the point of the game. Just make sure to offer new insight if your repeating an old suspision, and don't make it sound like you're just repeating what was already said. Like this:bogre wrote:Take note that you have just done what you accuse me of doing, except you threw more words in between the spaces. I personally don't have any problem with seeing people point out what they see is scummy over a mass of other players.
^^^ that was much better than your 3 line post that I quoted before. Its an argument that was already made, but you're offering your own insight.bogre wrote:Cass put it very well: Mafiamann's tactic is a tactic of appeasement. This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest scumtells, and deserving of my concentration.
I'm not sure why you want to hear specifically from me about muffin... unless you mean MafiaMann... we have a mafiamann and a muffinhead... which are you referring to?bogre wrote:Rhinox, I would like to hear your opinions onmuffinman, and hear those of muffinman on you. Notice that Muffin has not answered anything I said.
what I mean is, muffin called out mafiamann but completely ignored coug's self vote. Calling out mafiamann is not the problem - doing so while ignoring coug kinda is.Second, calling out mafiamann for not voting and ignoring coug's self vote,
Zaphod WAS the dominant male until his mate Flower (the dominate female) was killed by a snake in season 2. Then iirc, Zaphod left the whiskers to become a full time roving male.MafiaMann wrote:Well after some research i did on the show Zaphod is the head meerkats husband if that means anything. if anyone else has a counterclaim go for it.
An interesting and contradicting line of posting there ecto. First, you back clock's case to vote for mafiamann, and then after mm claims, you turn around and attack clock with weak reasoning? *scratches head* We all know what a townie role PM looks like because its posted on the front page, and MM's claim contained no information that wasn't general information. Plain old powerless townie, or scum using a flavorless safe claim... either way, that claim is no good reason to back off the lynch. And I certainly don't follow the logic that leads from advocating a MM lynch to advocating a clock lynch. If anything, ecto is hunting power roles. MM has no power role, just move on and try to flush out another?ecto wrote:Backing Clock's case:
vote MafiaMann
-------------------------------
An interesting point about Zaphod. I've always been a Whisker.
-------------------------------
unvote
vote ClockWorkRuse
I'm town, so I know what the town role PM looks like and MM has it exactly correct. (No surprise there, it's posted by the mod). ClockWork seems to either not be sure that is exactly how the town PM's look (meaning he is scum), or he is fishing for a Power Role (who else but scum?).
You see, MM already claimed, and Clock is still voting MM. I interpret Clock pressing for more flavor as sort of saying "are you sure thats all you've got, because thats not enough of a reason to back off". I don't view looking for more flavor out of a claim as hunting for power roles - what I do view as hunting for power roles is looking for lots of role claims.Ectomancer wrote:You're killing me here Rhinox. Go back and look at ClockWorks posts and see who is the one digging for Power Roles.
ClockworkRuse wrote:There is no more flavor in your pm in that? Nothing at all that might separate you from scum?Bolded by me.ClockworkRuse wrote:That's not from your role PM, so no that doesn't help. And at this point a counter-claim could be very bad in my opinion.MafiaMann wrote:Well after some research i did on the show Zaphod is the head meerkats husband if that means anything. if anyone else has a counterclaim go for it.Is thereanyflavor in your PM besides what you've posted?
That is kinda the point of a role claim. A last resort "look if you follow through with the lynch this is what you're losing".ecto wrote: This isn't flip-flopping. This is going after scumtells. This is altering your theories based upon new evidence. I didnt like that little exchange by ClockWork with MafiaMann.....at all. It looks to me like he pressing MM to go ahead and reveal if he actually has a power, but wanted to hold back yet, OR, he is looking to see if there might be any extra flavor type addition to a traditional town role just in case.
This actually makes some sense, but to use it to attack clock is a bit of circular reasoning (If clock is scum, he would want to know how power flavor sounds so he can use it to fake claim later. Clock is searching for extra flavor, so he must be scum looking for a way to fake claim a power role later on.) IMO, this is something to keep in mind for later in the game. Its not enough to warrent an FOS right now.ecto wrote: In addition, the example PM by the mod is for a vanilla townie. If ClockWork wants to claim a Power Role later (roleblocker for example) as scum, he would want to know how that flavor sounds from the mod prior to making his claim.
Haha... nice try. I've seen this before. The more experienced scum player gets the newbie to back off by acting irritated, annoyed, and angry, telling the newbie to "shove off" so the newbie sheepishly backs off out of fear of suffering retribution from the big, bad, intimidating, more experienced player. Well I'm not intimidated, and its going to take more than an appeal to fear and emotions to get me to back off. Not saying thats absolutely what you're doing, but you're experienced enough to know there is no reason to feel "insulted" about a comment in a mafia game, and I'm smart enough to realize that.ecto wrote: Now do you see why I found his hard pressing for more flavor suspicious enough for a vote? Weak reasoning? Go insult someone else.
How is it so much of a stretch for me to think that you're hunting for power roles. If you accept every claim as blindly as MM's, then we'll keep going until we force everybody to claim, and that would work out quite well for the scum now wouldn't it? Afterall, nobody is ever going to say "got me, I'm scum... lynch me".ecto wrote:I still see no reason why he should be given a free pass to make anti-town moves without being pressured as the very possible scum that he is.
Notice how I'm still voting jonathan because I want some signs of life, and I'm still pursuing other options as well (i.e. you.) Doesn't seem like I'm simply focused on getting this first lynch over with to me. I'm just not objecting to it if its going to happen. (Read: I think its a good lynch, but I'm by no means suggesting it is the only good play or the end of today's conversation - althought I think thats what you're trying to paint me as thinking.)ecto wrote: I think you have your blinders on because you are so focused on getting this first lynch over with. Chill out, scum hunting isn't over just because you think the day might be ending soon with a lynch.
I'm not being overly forgiving because I'm not sure there is something to forgive. You certainly can't accuse me of being overly forgiving without admitting that you're being overly forgiving of MM's comments.ecto wrote:Youare being overly forgiving (he pressed twice for extra flavor, 'are you sure there's not some flavor??') for his behavior.
I'm just not sure your scum alarm should have been going off that hard. I don't agree with your justification for switching from MM to Clock. Your argument (that he's hunting for power roles) falls flat because from my point of view, your actions seem more consistent with power role hunting. (oh look, MM claimed and he's a simple townie. Lets move on and see if we can get someone else to claim.) Unless...ecto wrote:Personally, when my scum alarm goes off harder than it has the whole game, Im switching my vote, regardless of where my vote currently lies.
...you can give me one good reason for believing MM's role claim.ecto wrote:P.S. - role claims aren't about "this is what you might be losing". It's about whether you believe them or not PLUS the reactions of other players in the game.
Its not now nor has it ever been my intention to lynch the lurker. The reason for my vote is to try to force the player to participate with good content. A lurker at this stage of the game could be an SK type role trying to avoid saying anything that would make him suspisious, or a scum player sitting by if we're about ready to lynch a townie. Even if thats not the case, making sure all players participate now is important for future days so we can have reads on players and so we have information on record on which to compare to future posts for contradictions. IMO, its important to know everyone's posting style and ideologies as early as possible.bogre wrote:@Rhinox: Today is not the time to lynch lurkers, imo...[my ommision]...I must say I've never seen the point in 'I'm voting you lurker answer now'. One vote is not too much pressure on a lurker, just more of a placeholder, imo.
You speak as if you know and/or expect that we will lynch MM and he will definately be scum... because if MM is town then thats a good reason to NOT consider ecto for lynch. Regardless, as others have said, there is little reason to be talking about D2's lynch right now. Too much will happen between now and then that will change the status quo.bogre wrote:Ectomancer I believe is a good lynch for tomorrow. Look at how he jumps on Mafiamann's bandwagon with very little reasoning, then as soon as that is pointed out, he finds a weak, papery case to jump -off- the bandwagon and try to direct attention away from Mafman.
Here's the complete situation:jonathan wrote:Personally I don't understand why everyone is jumping on Mafiamann for voting for SC. AFAIK, during random voting people sometimes give nonsensical reasons. So Mafiamann saying that he can't spell "clock" is not a scum-tell to me. I also don't think that Mafiamann was opportunistic in starting a wagon--if he added a vote, it would only be the second (not counting SC's vote). If we go by Means, Motive, and Opportunity, he did not have the opportunity.
This would mean that I suspect all the people who say that MM is scum because of these things. (But this is only if I am right that the SC vote is not a scum-tell.)
A separate issue is Mafiamann's non-vote in the RV stage, which Rhinox says it's a scum-tell and with IMHO good reasons (he posted this in post 115). So voting for him based on this is acceptable, but not for the SC vote. (And yes, I know I did not vote during the RV stage.)
I don't think asking for flavor is power role hunting. Looking back, if anything IS power role hunting, its the fact that clock asked MM to claim while MM was still only L-2? That seems to be a little pre-mature to be asking for a claim, even if MM was anxious to claim and asked if he should claim soon.jonathan wrote:And I agree with Ectomancer that asking for flavour is very much like power role hunting.
Especially since MMs question "should I claim soon" was already answered better here:clock wrote:I would say yes, it would be good for you to claim soon. Plus, please add any flavor your pm might have because the rules state the scum have been given safe-claims.
However, the fact that clock still wants to lynch MM makes me think that he is not a scum that is power role hunting. Otherwise, he would have said he believes MM's claim so he could try to draw out a power role from another player. I still feel that this is only something to keep in mind for later. If we lynch MM today and he is town, then its more believable that clock COULD be power role hunting, but if MM is scum then that just about absolves clock of this accusation.coug wrote:It would be a good idea to consider claiming, but you don't have to just yet. You must claim at L-1 if you haven't yet.
I agree. This is a much more likely scenario than Clock trying to hunt out power roles. But again, if MM gets lynched and is scum, it mostly invalidates this argument.ecto wrote: As I stated, I believe this is an attempt to make sure that when he finally claims (and possibly wanting to claim a power role), he wants as much information about any additional flavor that might not have made it into the sample PM as possible. Why? So that he doesn't make a stupid flavor mistake simply because he isn't sure what additional flavor a role other than vanilla might have.
Uh... Wolf?Never even thought about predators myself, i was just worried about commandos, and now we have an SK type role too, and who knows how many there are in that group or in the commandos for that matter.
Rishi directly told us we had predators to deal with. Are you trying to make us think you didn't know about predators so you could hide the fact that you're a predator?Rishi wrote:As the sun rises over the Kalahari, the Whiskers family has a busy day ahead. It will be rough foraging for millipedes and scorpions while the desert sun beats down on the defenseless meerkats. Even worse,the meerkats constantly have to be on the lookout for vicious predators as well as the evil Commandoes, a rival mob intent on taking over the burrow! But the Whiskers are strong and resilient. Stay alert.
This tells me that during the day, we will be defenseless to attacks. However, we're strong and resilient. Maybe that was a hint to clock that if he picked the wrong meerkat to mess with, he'd be toast.Rishi wrote:It will be rough foraging for millipedes and scorpionswhile the desert sun beats downon thedefenselessmeerkats.
Butthe Whiskers are strong and resilient.Stay alert.
Yeah, I was the one who made both the posts you quoted to ecto, jonathan.Ectomancer wrote:I dont recall making these statements and I'm not onjonathantan86 wrote:Thanks for all the unvotings.
Unvote(My vote was on clock but now he's dead)
Just for the sake of clarification, I don't count 2 as a scumtell since I don't think he is "jumping" on SC. I posted that I don't consider illogical defence during RV a scumtell as well, but you may have a point that 5,6,7 are scumtells since he posted them *outside* the RV stage.ecto wrote: Let's count the scum tells:
1: not voting
2: opportunistic voting (jumping on SC and calling it random IS opportunistic)
3: appeasement (voting to make muffin happy
4: appeasement again (unvoting immediately after being questioned about voting SC)
5: illogical defense (calling the vote on SC random)
6: illogical defense again (saying he didn't want to start a wagon, when he was actually jumping on a wagon, not starting one)
7: illogical defense again (couldn't spell clock)
I don't think appeasement is a scumtell though...he might just have an important power role so he might not want to get involved in controversy. Having said that, he has just claimed that he is townie, so it *is* possible that 3,4 points towards him being scum.
There are good reasons to consider 1 a scumtell, yes.
I'm defending MM because I don't want a mislynch. Yes, I know what I would look like if MM is scum, but that doesn't mean that we should preserve our reputations at all costs.ecto wrote:If you consider all of that in context, thats an awfully big hole that MM dug himself. It seems quite obviou to me why everyone is jumping on MM. What I want to know is why are you defending MM and then turning around and saying you're suspisious of everyone on the MM wagon? How do you think this will make you look if MM IS scum?
Um what is "his meta"?cass wrote: Mafiamann looks very scummy indeed. Still, his meta is holding me back from the wagon for now, plus the fact I am in no hurry to end this day.heavydrugs...so....
That reminds me... you concede that all but 1 of my points are valid scum tells, but you still defended MM. There are more appropriate ways to avoid a "mislynch" or in this case a premature lynch other than defending that person. For example, holding back your vote and continuing today's conversation until a point where it becomes appropriate to hammer. I don't think you can say you're trying to avoid a mislynch if you're both defending someone and conceding that he's scummy. Thats kinda contradictory.jonathantan86 wrote:Thanks for all the unvotings.
Unvote(My vote was on clock but now he's dead)
Just for the sake of clarification, I don't count 2 as a scumtell since I don't think he is "jumping" on SC. I posted that I don't consider illogical defence during RV a scumtell as well, but you may have a point that 5,6,7 are scumtells since he posted them *outside* the RV stage.ecto wrote: Let's count the scum tells:
1: not voting
2: opportunistic voting (jumping on SC and calling it random IS opportunistic)
3: appeasement (voting to make muffin happy
4: appeasement again (unvoting immediately after being questioned about voting SC)
5: illogical defense (calling the vote on SC random)
6: illogical defense again (saying he didn't want to start a wagon, when he was actually jumping on a wagon, not starting one)
7: illogical defense again (couldn't spell clock)
I don't think appeasement is a scumtell though...he might just have an important power role so he might not want to get involved in controversy. Having said that, he has just claimed that he is townie, so it *is* possible that 3,4 points towards him being scum.
There are good reasons to consider 1 a scumtell, yes.
I'm defending MM because I don't want a mislynch. Yes, I know what I would look like if MM is scum, but that doesn't mean that we should preserve our reputations at all costs.ecto wrote:If you consider all of that in context, thats an awfully big hole that MM dug himself. It seems quite obviou to me why everyone is jumping on MM. What I want to know is why are you defending MM and then turning around and saying you're suspisious of everyone on the MM wagon? How do you think this will make you look if MM IS scum?
I wouldn't expect anyone on MM's lynch to have to defend themselves for it. MM played pretty scummy, and even self-hammered. Usually, I would expect a scum to be on a D1 lynch of a townie, but because MM was so suspisious and self hammered, its really impossible to tell for sure.curiouskarmadog wrote:what was the point of this post at the beginning of Day 2....this almost has the feel of someone trying to defend their participation of a townie lynch..StrangerCoug wrote:May I chime in and say that MafiaMann seems more like a VI, come to think of his death?
or am I just reading into it?.
I agree with you here. I think the most likely probability is that clock targeted woodsman because he was newest into the game and there was close to zero chance that the kill could possibly be linked back to clock. Unfortunately for clock, woodsman was a pretty tough meerkat. I don't think there is too much to learn from this kill because both the target and the killer are dead, and to the best of our knowledge, the killer was working alone as a SK. Case most likely closed.Cass wrote:Stranger, I think there was a theory that Clock killed woodsman as an attempt to frame MM. Would make more sense that he was trying to frame someone else though, as MM was already going down. I should reread everyone in isolation, maybe there is some manipulation to be found.
Coug, someone might say the exact same thing about this post of yours.StrangerCoug wrote:I know conversation is slow, but aren't you awfully opportunistic today?
Unvote if necessary
Vote: Cass
Cass gave plenty of reasons for her vote, as already explained. Either you're not reading the thread, or you just selectively missed them. Either way, her reasons are much more justified than you calling her opportunistic. Yes, I'm accusing you of hypocrasy.StrangerCoug wrote:For a vote not to be opportunistic in my eyes, I need the reasons or where I can get them in front of my nose when I see the vote. It's me.
StrangerCoug wrote:You see how much clarification helps, Cass?
I'll go ahead and look at Bogre.Unvote: Cassin the meantime.
These two posts seem both like appeasement and opportunism. First, you're taking heat for weakly voting cass, so you unvote quickly. Then, you justify your vote on Bogre with an argument that was made in the last couple pages. It also tells me you're possibly not doing a good job in reading the thread. That case against Bogre has been around for a little while now, and just now you're deciding its scummy enough to vote? After you accused Cass of opportunisticly voting for Bogre? It seems very fishy to me.StrangerCoug wrote:Bogre's post in isolation reveal that his 11th post is an attempt to line up lynches, which is not a good thing. The fact that his twelfth post has a defense starting with "It might be WIFOM" is leading me to disbelieve said defense.
Vote: Bogre
To be all honest i think im beginning to lose intrest in this game so I will try to keep up as much as posible and try not to e a lurker as I personally hate them
Unless you are not fluent in the english language, you would know "To be honest" is a common figure of speech that maybe shouldn't be used as much as it is because the literal implication is that you have not been honest. Its like if someone asks you "Do you like football?" and you answer "Honestly, I'm more of a hockey fan." That example wouldn't make me wonder what you were lying about, and just the same, I don't think that particular phrase makes muffin a liar either.curiouskarmadog wrote:I find that people who tend to use this phrase are scum.muffinhead wrote:
To be all honest
unvote, vote Muffin.
have you not been honest about other things?
That may be so, but it hardly proves that everytime that phrase is used, its coming from a scum. Also, I disagree that it is a slip, because its such a commenly used phrase that is meant to add emphasis and validity to a statement.CKD wrote:this is not the first time I have caught scum using this subconcious slip AND it is not the first time I have commented on this particular phrase or phrases of the like..."to be honest", "in all honesty", "Honestly I have never...", or my favorite "to tell the truth".
But dont take my word for it I can supply you with 2-3 games (they should be completed) that scum have used those terms..
Do tell, what was said slip? I read through your posts and I couldn't figure out what you're referring to. But I did find you expressing suprise and confusion after clock's death:CKD wrote:it is a slip...keep in mind I also caught Clock on a scum slip too...
CKD wrote:woah so what just happened?...so was Clock part of the mafia or something else? (confused)..like a SK maybe?
Well, you were voting for coug. Coug was getting overshadowed by Bogre and muffin as far as scumminess goes. I also never said there was a bandwagon. I said you saw an opportunity to throw your vote in early after muffin received 3 FoS's, so you couldn't be accused later on of jumping on his wagon if some of those FoS's started turning into votes.CKD wrote:I am noting this attack or defense....there is no bandwagon on Muffin..just FoSes..the current vote leaders are coug and Bogre...so I am being oppertunistic by jumping off the leading bandwagon?
So what, we're suppose to read your mind? The only other time you mentioned muffin in your posts was when you questioned him for calling himself the most experienced way back at the beginning of the game. If you have more on muffin, please do tell.CKD wrote:Also you think my vote was just solely on that?...funny you didnt ask before you attacked/defended Muffin.
I never said that I definately thought the 2 of you were scum partners - I said that your post defending bogre was questionable and if bogre ends up being scum, I would consider that as evidence pointing to the two of you as scum partners. But that doesn't mean I've connected your fates together. This was the post I was referring to:Muffin wrote:@ jonathen and Rhinox- What makes you think that me and bogre are scumpartners?
First, you say you never saw any examples of Bogre being scummy and ask for quotes, even though they had already been provided by wolf and commented on by ecto and others since D2 began.muffin wrote:Im trying to understand the bogre case and i would like to request quotes of his scumminess if you want me to even consider joining the wagon. I would like to hear from bogre defend him self again.
ok... I don't have the experience like you do, but I can see why you would call it a tell. Rest assured, every future game I play I will be looking to see who uses that phrase and they're allignment. Maybe I'll come to view it as a legitimate tell, or maybe not. But I no longer think its a scummy move to attack muffin for that.CKD wrote:Rhinox, I remember early in my mafia “career” someone attacked someone for using the “to be honest” phrase. I thought much like you did, and attacked that person (so I guess, I understand where you are coming from.) The person in question came up scum, so I made mental notes to see if scum typically use that phrase. Out of the 5 times I have seen it, 4 of the times they were scum…the 1 time, it was a townie that had faked claim (don’t even get me fucking started on that game)…so from my point of view, it is a tell.
Oh... well I did see that, but you said you caught clock on a "slip". Maybe you meant tell. Anyways, yeah I did see that, I just didn't consider it a slip.CKD wrote:Post 65 (in reference to clock)…he was asking questions that were utterly ridiculous, in an attempt to look more townie…not sure how you missed that when you pulled my other quotes.
If you're not interested in playing the game or trying to catch scum, then as far as I'm concerned your a useless liability to my win condition. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I want to win to, and I don't want someone in my town who doesn't care about the game.Muffin wrote:Now as a summary i am losing intrest in this game and this will most likly be my last game on ms while I have a break. Well actully i will mod a game then leave as thats what ive always wanted to do. Now i would like to go out in fassion with a win which is why i havnt decided to be replaced. But when you just dont have that intrest in the game its hard to find scum and help so if im lurking and looking scummy then I do apologies for letting the town down but it still means im here and I will help to the best that i can do.
First let me say that I have a tendency to go after questionable accusations, and I realize that is usually viewed as defending the player that was accused. I didn't like how first you sided with clock to vote mafiamann and then after mafia's claim turned around to attack clock. You explained why you did and I understand now, and I won't hold it against you if you think i am scummy for defending clock.ecto wrote:You defended Clock rather strongly. I'm not questioning you because he turned up scum, I'm questioning because nobody should have had any idea of what his alignment would be. I know one scum tactic is to defend a townie against an attack, because when they turn up town, you of course were the wiser. It makes them much less likely to go against your "judgement" later.
Tell me why I should not believe this to be your motivation earlier. Clock turned up SK (we think), but as scum, you would have been just as likely to believe him town and would have acted accordingly.
Yeah... to be politically correct, I should have worded it like this: "Muffin, there is a good chance you are scum and I'm confident with my vote on you, but if you really are town, it won't be as bad of a hit to the town since you are uninterested and unwilling to seek a replacement."ecto wrote:That was a good answer directed to me. I did take exception with the following statement from the previous paragraph because it is inherently untrue:
Rhinox wrote:
Even if you really are a townie, I don't think we'll lose anything by your death.
Of course we lose something. This is a game of numbers, and any that we lose from our column is a bad deal for us.
For some reason this comment doesn't it right with me. I guess its because I'm so conditioned that asking for claims is sorta bad. Also, I know I'm still voting for muffin and I won't lose sleep if he is lynched, but I think we should wait for a hammer until we here from bogre or his replacement. (for the record, I hate replacements because they are usually able to get off the hook too easily.)coug wrote:Claim or die, muffinhead.
Bolded by me for emphasis. I'm not sure I like the sentence I bolded for 2 reasons: 1, you're kind of lining up your vote for tomorrow (assuming muffin gets lynched) - sort of a "pre-approved" reason for throwing out an early vote. 2, If all bogre has to do to easily save himself is postCass wrote:@Bogre: show up, dammit! We need to hear your opinion on Muffin, your defense of yourself and some general involvement in the game.At this rate, you're going to be tomorrow's lynch - but if you'd only post, you could easily save yourself.(Assuming you're town, of course. If you're scum, keep lurking .)
and me planting an idea that Cass wanted Bogre to say anything so she could justify unvoting and hammering muffin, she says:Cass wrote:QFT. Based on the claim, I'll decide if I want to hammer.
Before muffin even claimed, she is already submitting that she might have a problem hammering. Also unsettling is that Cass is asking for the second time for muffin to claim (note: muffin is still inactive, and would presumedly read all the requests to claim - no need to keep demanding it) and what is especially concerning is that Cass is specifically asking for information that would help the town that would presumedly only come from a power role. This is basically the same thing Clock did by asking for "more flavor".Cass wrote:I also want to be honest and say I still have my reservations about the muffin lynch. While he is definitely scummy, a) I have the same issue Vi mentions - a large amount of players that set of alarms in my head, making me doubt that I'm looking at the right one, and b) I don't really like Vi painting Muffin as a good 'utility lynch'. Not because it isn't true, it just feels off, coming from him. That combined with me pursuing the Bogre lynch for a long time... well, I'll just keep an eye on him I guess.
@Muffin: please claim. Especially if you're town. Extra especially if you have information for town.
Remember, Cass and I can easily go Meta you and show examples of you using FoS's. But for the record, everyone, he's not lying about the "at length" partVi wrote:Oh, and I'm not one to FoS people. If I don't like what you're doing, I'll say so, and you'll know it. At length.
That was sort of an implied message in my post... The fact the no one is eager to hammer makes me want to think that scum (and sk) are either already on the wagon, or...ckd wrote:something about this statement doesnt sit right with me. if muffin is a townie, how do you know that the SK (if we have another) or scum are not already on the wagon?
...exactly ^^that^^ too.ecto wrote:It is actually a WIFOM statement though, even still. An SK or scum could just as easily be wanting to avoid the scrutiny that can come from being the hammer vote against a townie.
Questioning an accuser for what I feel is a bad argument is a fine hair from defending the target of the accusation, but it is still often interpretted as defending the player. Sometimes even the most subtle defenses are overlooked at the time, and only later the epiphany is made that "oh, he was actually defending that player there...". I just like to make sure I leave no stones un-turned.ecto wrote:Asking for someone to re-evaluate their case based upon latest trends is a fine hair from defending the target of the case.
No, no, no don't misinterpret my comments. I believe I said exactly...Vi wrote:To that end, I agree with Ectomancer 348 that Rhinox's attempt to pin the tail on the scummy is WIFOMtastic - that Ectomancer looks bad in his analysis regardless of whether he hammers or not (and whether he's scum or not).
I was never trying to pin ecto as scummy no matter what, and I agree that its entirely WIFOM which is why I said about ecto and others...Rhinox wrote:So, the only conclusion I can draw right now is that I'm uncomfortable about ecto, but the evidence for a case is lacking.
Don't misinterpret me suggesting whatRhinox wrote:but the cases depend on first knowing more information about other players roles (i.e. players have to die) before they begin to build any legitamacy.
I'm satisfied with this answer.wolframnhart wrote:@RhinoxIt's not that I was expecting Vi to hammer, it's the fact that he had gone ahead and said he was ok with muffin being lynched, made a case against muffin, implied a few others are scummy to him, then told Jon:Rhinox wrote:@wolf: ckd and Vi are absolutely right and I was thining the exact same thing as I read down through the posts. Why would you have expected Vi to hammer muffin in his first post into the game? And why is is suspisious for him to not do so? I don't think Vi was being contradictory at all, and I think its unfair for you to accuse him so.So Vi was also not taking a stand on a vote on who he wanted lynched and I was just asking why because it seemed contradictory to me.Vi wrote: By not committing to a vote and position on who you want lynched, you're never taking a stand, but willing to do whatever won't get you in trouble.
But Vi has already explained why he didn't vote on anyone just yet and I am satisfied with the answer.
Damn... I was thinking about unvoting while muffin was being prodded so he wouldn't get lynched before a possible replacement came in. But now that he picked up his prod and yet still no post... that sucks. I feel I can't just let him off the hook now because that would be sanctioning his lurking/inactivity, however, I'm less confident in the possibility that he is actually scum. However, I still feel very strongly that having a useless anchor in the town is no good (whats the odds of us having a vig who could take out muffin tonightRishi wrote:Picked up.curiouskarmadog wrote:Mod: status on the muffin prod?
No, I wouldn't feel stupid, I would feel like we were screwed for having a flakey player as our cop, and I would feel at fault any more than I would blame whoever threw the hammer. Also, muffin said he was losing interest in the game. Power roles tend to retain interest because the player is excited to have something to do at night. Vanilla roles are the roles players typically lose interest in. Which means, I've just provided another reason to doubt that muffin is actually scum. :/Cass wrote:Won't you feel stupid if you hammer and he turns out to be a cop? (For example, obv.) For that reason, I do ask you to wait until Muffin has been online at least (or gets replaced).
I'm not actually sure how to take this statement. I can read two distinct messages in here, and they are slightly contradictory.ecto wrote:Simply leaving Muffin's case out there to be utilized at the proper moment without clearing it up here and now is a poor choice for us. What would I recommend we do instead? Wait for the claim in Muffinhead's case. He is at L-1 on what I believe I have demonstrated is a case that isn't as lock down as the confidence I'm seeing displayed would merit. So I would also like to hear once again who is still supporting that case in light of what I had to say. The purpose of that is to make people commit to their opinions.
ooooh! good one. I take it you're not a McCain supporter (neither am I)ecto wrote:I'll stay in Iraq for 100 years if...err..
I'm not sure how much if anything at all to try to deduce from knowing something about Yassarian, but in the show, he was not very helpful to the whiskers. He was a troublemaker with social problems, he got some pups killed, and he left the whiskers to attempt to mate with females from enemy neighboring meerkat groups, all before finally abandoning the whiskers all together never to return.Wiki Article on Yosarian wrote:[edit] Yossarian
Zaphod's younger brother, Yossarian is named after the main character in Catch 22 and has a scar across his left eye, possibly from when he was dropped on his head by a bird of prey as a pup. In the third episode of the series, the narrator states that Yossarian was once Flower's mate and the dominant male of the Whiskers, but Zaphod dethroned him before the series started.[15] The Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins film states that Yossarian and Zaphod were once roving Lazuli males. Yossarian became the dominant male of the Whiskers when Flower's sister was the dominant female, and then left the group when Flower assumed the role.[14]Noted as having "some social problems"[15] and being a trouble-maker, Yossarian initiated two burrow moves while babysitting twice in the first series, but both were badly handled.[15] The first attempt resulted in a lot of confusion amongst the babysitters, resulting in the eight newborn pups Yossarian dragged out of the burrow being partially trampled and almost left to die in the desert sun.[15] One of the other babysitters was able to restore order and get the pups to the burrow. A few days later he tried again. This time the babysitters joined him, but as they carried the newborn pups to a new burrow, they passed the main group and Flower and Zaphod ran after them. To avoid Flower's wrath, Yossarian dropped the pup of Mozart that he was carrying and slunk off. The pup died as a result and therest of the Whiskers temporarily ostracised Yossarian for the havoc wrought by these moves.[25] Yossarian's attempt to help Daisy by carrying her newborn pups to the Whiskers burrow separated him from the family.[19] He also rescued one of Flower's pups in the second series after the young pup had wandered too far from the safety of the burrow.[26]
During the second series, Yossarian began a more concerted effort at finding a mate of his own, andpossibly taking over leadership in another group.He made three unsuccessful attempts to reach Cazanna, the dominant female of the Lazuli, after the death of her mate Big Si.[27][28][29] Nevertheless, he was able to successfully mate with evicted Lazuli female Pancake.[27] Late in the second series,Yossarian left the Whiskers to become a full-time roving male.[30] He has not appeared in the series since.
If we give you another day, will you participate? You're not necessarily going to be nked, and if you're alive, you're not necessarily going to be able to investigate anyone. If we don't lynch you today, what are you going to do to convince us not to lynch you tomorrow if you're not nked? In other words, what are you going to do to show us that you're worth keeping around?muffin wrote:If you dont believe me then just give me another day, or let me be nked.
This is a tough spot for you to be in, eh cass? If you're town, you can't just believe muffin's claim because he would know you're not his scum partner. If you're scum, you would want to keep muffin alive because if he's killed, his sanity could be revealed. And if you're both scum, muffin's claim is a potentially brilliant gambit that will make one of you look good if the other dies.cass wrote:Hm, great...
I propose we let him live for now. That will at least improve the amount of information we gain from next night.
Do you stil feel this way? what do you feel about muffins claim? You posted well after his claim, but didn't comment on it at all. Do you still want to vote for muffin?Reasons: a spurious vote on Ectomancer and his "ignorance" of the case on bogre, and now his lurking (well, he has just come back to post).
I'm not sure about this... first you say...jonathan wrote:I FoS because I wasn't quite sure. About hinting that I have a scumbuddy on the wagon, if that were true (and if I were scum) I wouldn't have wanted to draw attention to that; I could have just put suspicion on SC.
And your reason is...I think some mafia are on the wagon.
Logically, it follows that you're already assuming SC is scum, because any of his scum partners who may be bussing him would KNOW already that SC is scum. But you just claimed you weren't sure about SC, hence the FoS only. If you weren't sure about SC, your logic that some mafia are on the wagon falls apart. What I'm seeing, and maybe this is what Vi was trying to say, is that possibly you know everyone on the SC wagon was townie (which makes sense if you're scum), but you wanted us to think someone on the wagon was scum so we would try to get one or more of them lynched. Or possibly, you're another sk predator, and you don't care who is town or mafia as long as someone other than you is getting pressured/lynched. Basically, this post of yours was a discreet way of FoSing 5 people at one time, without having to expicitly state it. The 4 people voting for SC, and SC himself.because it may make them look good if SC dies and turns out to be part of the mafia.
The point I'm trying to make is we're not sure he'll get another investigation. If there is a mafia roleblocker, the cop is done unless we lynch the blocker. If there is no blocker, but we have a doc, we might get more investiations, but there is no guarentee. If our doc gets nked, or lynched (or has to claim at L-1) then we lose the doc and the cop anyways.cass wrote:Keeping him alive is useful because we get another investigate. If he's town, this is obviously good. if he is scum, we could still get some interesting responses from people. The scenario I fear is this: we lynch him. He flips town cop. I am now confirmed innocent. I am NK-ed. That leaves the town two people less and no information richer.
I just don't like it because it seems you're pre-asking for a pass if muffin is a cop. If you are for a hammer and you want to hammer, then hammer and face the same scrutiny the rest of us will for potentially killing the cop. By you asking for people to endorse your hammer, its almost as if you're expecting that muffin really is a cop, but you want everyone to ask you to hammer so tomorrow we won't hold you responsible. But everyone needs to be responsible for their own vote, which is why I'm not going to ask anyone to hammer.I'm willing to hammer if the others think it's a good idea.
So if I understand correctly, you think we should lynch muffin because his claim is questionable and because it would save us grief later, but the last time you argued for that, you were scum. Are you telling this because you don't want us go through your past games and find this example and think you must again be scum for suggesting the same type of action?I've argued before that the claimed cop should be lynched to save grief later.
I was scum that game.
I dont like the Yosarian/Cop pairing.
Here I get the feeling you're not buying muffin's claim because its too much of a coincidence.ecto wrote:Cass wrote:
Won't you feel stupid if you hammer and he turns out to be a cop? (For example, obv.) For that reason, I do ask you to wait until Muffin has been online at least (or gets replaced).Talk about this coincidence Muffinhead.muffin wrote:
last night I targetted cass and got an innocent. But im not coming to any coclusions till I know that im sane.
Here I think you're saying that "yosarian, the meerkat" was paranoid, although he always did what he thought was best for the whiskers. We know muffin was not a paranoid cop because he gave us an innocent result, so I think you're saying yosarian/muffin =/= cop.ecto wrote:Yosarian was indeed troubled, but he always did what he thought best for town. I would consider him 'paranpoid', even when he turned out wrong.
Here I think you're saying one of two things: either you want to get rid of muffin to save grief for later but you don't want us to think you're scum because thats what you did once when you were scum - or - you're saying that you think its scummy to want to get rid of muffin to save grief, even though you don't think it makes sense for yosarian to be a cop.ecto wrote:I've argued before that the claimed cop should be lynched to save grief later.
I was scum that game.
I dont like the Yosarian/Cop pairing.
Here you explicitly state that you don't think the yosarian/cop pairing makes sense from a flavor standpoint, and you don't believe muffin's claim.ecto wrote:Never watched the show?Yosarian as cop makes no sense. Im not really believing the claim.
With no explanation as to why, you've gone from "yosarian as a cop makes no sense" to "yosarian could be a cop" all based on flavor. why the flip flop? And you explicitly tell us to not lynch muffin.ecto wrote:Im a sucker for flavor. Yosarian hasstrongties to the whiskers. he could be a cop. leave him be.
Now you're presenting as a reason to leave muffin alive that "you've always liked Yosarian". Also, you think that muffin might be a scum cop that must tell the truth. I don't see how this make any sense at all. Firstly, a scum cop is only good to find out the predators - it doesn't take a scum cop to tell us that a townie is a townie. Any scum could do that. Secondly, how do you force a scum cop to always tell us honest results? A scum cop isn't going to investigate another scum, so a scum cop would never be forced to tell us who scum are. If a scum cop tells us who is a confirmed townie, how do we actually confirm that without knowing that the supposed scum cop is not only a scum, but a scum cop, but a scum cop who must tell us accurate results? And Thirdly, if a townie is still a townie, no matter how worthless, a scum is still a scum and I see no reason to leave alive a scum cop even if he must tell us his investigation results. So I don't get what the point of this post was, other than to cause confusion.ecto wrote:I always liked Yosarian, and I believe that there is a situation whereby a scum cop must always tell the truth. I just have to remember what it is.
What exactly does this post mean? Because what I'm reading is that you're inability to provide a good reason to not lynch muffin somehow proves that muffin's case was weak - And that does not make any sense at all. Also, what point does the last sentence have in existing? What failure are you referring to? Five of us saw something in muffin that you refused to believe - that muffin was scum. With the possibility that muffin got bussed aside, you were very intent on stopping the lynch on muffin, even thought you didn't believe his claim.ecto wrote:Hmm, what has been termed a terrible defense on my part is in actuality my display of the weakness of the case. Do not attack others for your failures, rather modify them, or own up to them.
So ecto, if you're scum, you knew Vi would be coming straight after you once muffin was shown to be scum. Also, you spent a good part of yesterday arguing the weak case supporting a possible scum pairing of Vi/Bogre and muffin. That means, you would be hypocritical to attempt to get Vi lynched. So, Vi was a big threat, with little possibility of getting lynched. Things that make you go hmmmmm... I won't try to hang you yet thought because there is a possibility you're being framed.Vi wrote:Considering that Ectomancer was the leader of the "let's not lynch muffinhead" voice and has done such a poor job of defending him, I believe I have a more compelling reason to see muffinhead lynched now than sheer utility. If he flips scum, then Ectomancer has painted a giant target on himself.
oooh... very good point. Actually, the bodyguard thing makes a lot of sense. I didn't even think of that. Scratch the addendum part out of my previous post, because its possible that Vi wasn't even the target last night. That doesn't even remotely let ecto off the hook though.cass wrote: Vi "the babysitter" - sounds like a protective power role to me. Could he have been a doc, perhaps? Or, if we take the flavor very literally, a bodyguard? Then, besides self-defense and framing, an alternative reason for the NK might have been misdirection (Vi protected whoever was targeted).
So if I follow you, you're saying that muffin claimed Cass innocent so that if muffin got lynched and was revealed as scum, jonathan would have an easy target to go after in Cass? I'm not sure I buy that, because I don't think anyone sees Cass as a valid target only because a scum fake-claimed cop with an innocent on her - which means if jonathan tried to make that case, no one would go with it. Also, if this was the plan, why cass? I think it would have been 'better' to set up an innocent on Vi, since there was already the possible bogre/muffin connection (that we only now know was wrong). However, almost any other player would have also fit in the 'innocent result' spot in this plan, so I think there must have been a different reason to say Cass was innocent. I think the probable answer is that Cass thought it would be bad if we lynched a cop, so muffin claimed cop with an added benefit that cass was innocent to try to really buddy up to cass.wolframnhart wrote:I'm beginning to be more inclined to think Jon is Muffins partner. Reason being I think that Muffin claiming Cop and saying Cass was innocent is true (the Cass part). More then likely this is Muffin trying to get Cass on his side (which worked for Cass did unvote) but it seems more like Muffin trying to get a lynch set up for today if he did end up getting lynched (which he did). The reason I say this is because Jon wouldn't touch the Muffinwagon. Maybe he did believe Muffin was cop, but, Jon got on Bogre's wagon and then when attention turned to Muffin he wouldn't touch it. Gave a few empty threats of a vote, but all in all he wouldn't go near Muffin. So Muffin claiming Cass innocent seems more like he was trying to get a "easy" lynch for Jon to get on today.
I think maybe you might take a little bit of heat for doing this so rashly. Firstly, ecto didn't defend muffin solely on flavor. Ecto started defending muffin after Vi replaced in well before muffin even claimed (that is, if you consider calling the case against muffin weak as defending muffin). And secondly, if I humor the idea that Vi was killed directly in an attempt to further frame ecto, your quick vote here could be interpreted as trying to opportunisticly start that bandwagon, especially since you didn't take the time to properly justify your vote.coug wrote:Vote: Ectomancer for defending muffinhead solely on flavor. I don't have time for a good read right now (class is in five minutes), but that's my number one suspect going into today.
Easy there killer, I'm not questioning your other commitments. I'm saying there is a difference between expressing suspisions on someone vs. voting for someone (which may or may not be trying to start a bandwagon). IMO, at the start of the day, in your first post, if you want to vote for someone, you better back it up. The reason you gave was wrong. If you had class, what would be wrong with simply waiting until class was over to make a full post?coug wrote: As I said, I had class in five minutes. That is not enough time to give a detailed case on somebody, but that is enough time to become suspicious about somebody for something. I have a life, you know.
So everybodycoug wrote:Failure to explain your vote = opportunistic vote. Opportunistic vote = scummy. Scummy actions = vote on you. Therefore, failure to explain your vote = vote on you.
Now, don't get me wrong. As I'll explain later in this post, I don't think you're commando. Predator possibly, but there's no way to tell if there is even a predator remaining right now. What I think is that it is your personallity that is slightly abrasive and just comes off scummy, and possibly sometimes you don't think before you say stuff (like with your vote today on ecto, even though it directly conflicts with your already expressed definition of an opportunistic vote). But I do agree with you... ecto is looking more and more like a good scum candidate today.coug wrote:For a vote not to be opportunistic in my eyes, I need the reasons or where I can get them in front of my nose when I see the vote. It's me.
I disagree. How do you know the scum won't claim their scum partner(s) are innocent? Yes, if you know he's theecto wrote:The one situation where you miight leave a claimed cop alive is if you know they are the final scum. You can believe every innocent the give, and if they give scum and you lynch town (except in LYLO), we win.
2:ecto wrote:StrangerCoug deserves votes piled on him for that self-vote. It's not helpful and this pressure might make him think twice before doing it again. He's not going to get quicklynched by town, and if scum piles on, Huzzah! We got one or two for tomorrow...
I still say we string him up. Somebody's gotta die today, we might as well do the volunteer
3:ecto wrote:If we assume Clock was a day SK, he had no idea of MM's alignment. You see, I was going to go back to my case against SC, because I moved off of it due to Clock's case against MM being a better one (IMO). SC's case is still pretty good.
However.
If I'm an SK, I scum hunt. I need them dead, the sooner, the better.
To me, that means that Clock's case isn't trash to be tossed aside. I think it was an honest one.
With that assessment:
vote MafiaMann
I think the case was a good one, and though the information gained may be too WIFOMish to use, I would still like to know whether Clock was right.
In case 1, you wanted to lynch coug due to his self voting, because somebody had to die. This was a weaker reason than for lynching muffin.ecto wrote:Cass wrote:
Won't you feel stupid if you hammer and he turns out to be a cop? (For example, obv.) For that reason, I do ask you to wait until Muffin has been online at least (or gets replaced).Talk about this coincidence Muffinhead.muffin wrote:
last night I targetted cass and got an innocent. But im not coming to any coclusions till I know that im sane.ecto wrote:Yosarian was indeed troubled, but he always did what he thought best for town. I would consider him 'paranpoid', even when he turned out wrong.ecto wrote:I've argued before that the claimed cop should be lynched to save grief later.
I was scum that game.
I dont like the Yosarian/Cop pairing.ecto wrote:Never watched the show?Yosarian as cop makes no sense. Im not really believing the claim.ecto wrote:Im a sucker for flavor. Yosarian hasstrongties to the whiskers. he could be a cop. leave him be.ecto wrote:I always liked Yosarian, and I believe that there is a situation whereby a scum cop must always tell the truth. I just have to remember what it is.ecto wrote:Hmm, what has been termed a terrible defense on my part is in actuality my display of the weakness of the case. Do not attack others for your failures, rather modify them, or own up to them.
There are 12 safe whisker names Rishi gave out in the intro post. All are "good guys" on the show, but scum use them to fake claim. Muffin wasn't Yosarian, he was Hannibal, a commando. Yosarian is still a good guy, just not present in the game aside from a safe name given to a scum. I find it suspect that you would want to believe someone based only on their name, knowing that all scum have safe names to claim with. And I'm not a big fan of just trying to brush it aside as unimportant with the "sue me" comment either...I DO like Yosarian. He was my favorite. So I want him to be a good guy? Sue me.
I'm still not following this. Before we lynched muffin, we weren't down to just one scum. He told us Cass was innocent, maybe (hypothetically) cass is his scum partner. If we'd blindly believe that to be true, we could lose. Could you please describe how you saw things going down if muffin was a scum cop, or possibly reference the game where you've used a scum cop to narrow down targets so I can understand what you're talking about?I do think we are down to 1 scum. If that is right, every innocent result a scum cop gives has to be true. Since you dont know if he is scum or not, you can keep letting him tell you who is town. I've had it work before to narrow down targets.
Yes, but you said you didn't believe his claim. On the contrary, you voted to lynch mafiamann despite believing his townie claim. Why, if you're town, would you vote to lynch after a claim you do believe, and would you ask us not to lynch after a claim you don't believe?Dont forget, he could have been cop.
Wow, another "sue me" comment... So you suspect ecto most. Great, so do I. But you voted, and the only reason you gave why was wrong. I find it a bit hypocritcal that you can go after cass for voting opportunistically and you won't act in line with your own definition of an opportunistic vote. I'm also a bit concerned that you think its a problem for me to ask you to properly justify your vote.coug wrote:Rhinox, if you want to sue me for making hasty generalizations of Ectomancer, then go straight ahead, but as I said, I suspect him most.
Thanks. thats what I wanted to hear. What do you think about this in the context of not believing muffins claim, yet voting for mafiamann despite publically claiming the he did believe MM's claim?coug wrote:EBWOP: For the record, part of my reasoning for my voting Ectomancer is how I don't like how he buddied up to muffinhead when he was about to be lynched. muffinhead flipped Commando, so that makes Ectomancer an object of suspicion.
His bloodthirstiness Day 1 when he tried to off me for voting myself is also something of concern to me, but not as big as siding up with muffinhead without a lot of reasoning.
Who's more certain, those of us who wanted to lynch muffin because weecto wrote: More can be gained by keeping them talking than by lynching them, if that is, you already know they are scum, and some of you were too damn certain, werent you?
I find it hard to believe that you mistakingly thought that muffin was the remaining scum. Thats not even something you have to take time to think about. We didn't kill commando yet, there's going to be at least two of them. I also find it suspect that you've voted for or wanted to lynch many other players (including mafiamann, even though you believed his claim) but when we find someone and you don't believe his claim and you're telling us now that you knew he was scum, you DON'T want to lynch him.What is relevant is that there is a situation whereby you can get a good result from a claimed cop, regardless of their alignment.After I thought about it, I realized that we couldn't in this case because you have to know that there is only one scum.
We never quite got that far in the discussion though did we?Someone HAD to hammer. (Oh wow, it was you CKD)
I think it was clear thatI was busy pursuing avenues of information. I think it equally clear that my line of investigation (though incorrect upon further thought) was cut short.At the time, you had no idea whether my line of investigation would yield results or not,and so you offed your scum mate before anything could possible be revealed.(Ironically enough, there was nothing, but you had to act anyhow)
vote CKD
I think you overstate the situation. I wasn't "ticked off" and I'm not sure anybody else was either. You also seem to imply that the only case against muffin being scum was that he was bogre's/vi's scum partner. That has been refuted and proven outright wrong. We all did re-inforce our positions on muffin, and added to it when muffin started saying things to point to him being scum. However, the outcome you aparently wanted - for us to believe there was no case - was not the outcome we used the facts to deduce. Tell me again, who's acting "ticked off"?ecto wrote: My defense is neither weak nor weasley. What has occured is that there were some very ticked off people when I asked them to re-inforce their case on Muffin in light of the change of heart by town on Bogre. That didnt sit right with me. (They never did address this, but this furor is drowning that out. They act like Muffin turning up scum changes the fundamental arguement. It doesn't)
The discussion was indeed cut off by CKD's hammer unjustifiably. Can he explain why?
I meant to say "scum catcher", but whatever. You're defending things I never even attacked you for here. Paranoid much? I never said nor implied you weren't scum hunting, and I never said nor implied that you were clocks predator partner. However you did. Twice. First, after clock died, you posted that we would have to decide whether or not you were trying to bus clock, and then again in this post you dare me to accuse you of being his partner... why? Is there some reason I should believe we have 2 scum groups of 2 and that you might be clocks partner? Up until now, I've assumed that the predators were individual and separate sk's, be it that we have 1 or 2. The only thing to even make me remotely think you are a predator scum pair with clock now is your obsessive concern over being linked to clock. And believe me, that possibility it not even remotely the motivation behind my current line of questioning towards you.Interesting that you claim that I am targeting the toughest scum hunter, when that person is ME. Im the one questioning cases without taking shit for granted. IM the one who smelled Clock's mistake as scum, and I dare you to suggest I was his partner. Even with Muffin turning scum I was STILL the person digging hard at the rock to make sure we had the right one.
You have a very hard time proving to anyone that I havent been scum hunting Rhinox. Also, for town members, even if you feel like you would vote for me, you are helping out scum by actually stating it. Let them wonder until (if ) you hammer me.
OH right, now I have confirmation bias. I guess that means I should stop questioning you now for information. I guess that means I'm already convinced you're scum even though you haven't recieved my vote yet. I guess that means asking for input from jonathan and cass and everyone else was just for show then. puh-leeze. You must have known the risk when defending muffin that you would be under heavy scrutiny if we lynched him and he was scum - even if you're town. You're responses seem more in annoyance thatecto wrote: Let me say one more thing, only one of you is likely scum. The other need to pull their heads out and look to see who is tunnel visioning and cutting off discussion with hammers.
Yes that is true, but I was also up in the air about it. I was steadfast with my vote however, and muffin was scum. I think I made the right call. I also wasn't the only player voting for muffin who was humoring the idea of letting muffin live.jonathan wrote:Rhinox here thinks that the idea of leaving muffinhead alive for one more night has some merit.
It might be that ectomancer was trying to keep muffinhead around for a bit more to try to get more information from him, without trying to be too "noticeable". And so he's suspicious of ckd because he "cut it short" before muffinhead could say any more.
I was also going to point out this post until ckd brought it up. CKD looks to be intentionally delaying the lynch for more information. not trying to cut muffin off.ckd wrote:ECTO you seem to completely be overlooking this post...is that on purpose or did you just over look it.
A bold and risky statement, and one I'm getting closer to believing. But I'm not ready to vote just yet. Other players still need to weigh in with opinions on the subject.ckd wrote:you are scum.
I was always under impression that a "standard, normal" configuration in a 12 player game is 3-scum, 1-sk, 8-town. Its legitimately possible that both ecto and jonathan "could" be scum. I don't like jonathan's lurking, and I don't like that neither ecto nor jonathan have expressed opinions about each other today, despite the ongoing conversation.wolf wrote: Right now I am torn. I still feel like jon is Muffins partner, I would even like to say my last post to him with his auto silence right now would mean i got him, but with the infrequency of his posts I can't say that is concrete. But with the way ectos posts have been lately I am really starting to wonder if i have the wrong person pegged.
To whom is this directed towards? I feel a little insulted. Are you calling me scummy? I don't recall ever saying "look, you didn't respond to something", and the time you did ask me to shorten my posts because you can't answer to a wall of text (what, is it so hard to read?), I did.ecto wrote:P.S. - Posting walls of text, then later going back and saying "Look, you didnt respond to something", is really beneath response. If something wasn't answered, ask again without the scummy drama.
Here's about as direct as I can put this: point me to a post of yours, after muffin claimed, where you asked a single question.ecto wrote:You cut off a line of questioning I was pursuing, deal with the fact that I dont like you having done it.
I never said you made a mistake by defending muffin - I just think its too convenient of an excuse for you to say to clear yourself that no scum would have made the mistake of so obviously defending muffin. No, actually I don't think anything you've said or done has be a mistake or unintended, which is why I don't buy the whole "I thought we could get accurate info from muffin the claimed cop but didn't realize he wasn't the last scum" defense. But if that was a mistake, certainly its not out of the realm of possibility that you might have made a mistake in thinking you could get away with trying to protect your scum partner.ecto wrote:This is WIFOM meta, but go read my games. Do you really think I make mistakes like this one? What I've garnered thus far is that I was protecting Muffin SO hard because I really didnt want to bus him. Who really gives a rats ass about your scum partner? The object of the game is to win, and I dont need a partner around to do it.
Why does it make sense for me to do what I did when the easy thing would have been a nice hammer Bus were I scum? Anybody could have hidden on that bus....
What I was after was more information, thought I had a way of getting it, but realized I was wrong before our boy got lynched.
This ain't no newbie game, and I'm certainly not going to let myself be taught how to play good townie in-game from a player who just might very well be scum. There are other examples like this comment.ecto wrote:If you have stopped looking for information at anytime during the game, even if you are 99.99% certain you have scum, you still have learning to do.
I'm cool as a cucumber, friend. You, sir, are clearly the one who's irritated.ecto wrote: @Rhinox - Im not wrong, and your vote is in irritation. I wasn't ready for the day to end, and I was certainly not going to be rushed along. As for your assumptions, your ego is leading you to believe every comment is aimed directly at you and in as negative a manner as possible. Cool your blood.
I'm cool as a cucumber, friend. You, sir, are clearly the one who's irritated.ecto wrote: @Rhinox - Im not wrong, and your vote is in irritation. I wasn't ready for the day to end, and I was certainly not going to be rushed along. As for your assumptions, your ego is leading you to believe every comment is aimed directly at you and in as negative a manner as possible. Cool your blood.
CKD placed the first vote on muffin, and that vote remained until the unvote and hammer for muffin's lynch. At this point, both Bogre and coug had three votes apiece, and CKD was on coug's wagon. If I am to believe CKD bussed his partner muffin, this is the first hurdle I have to get over: Why would CKD abandon both of the popular wagons at the time to proceed to bus his partner, who had yet to even recieve a vote? The only reason that remotely makes sense is that muffin really was losing interest in the game and set up a plan with CKD the night before to have CKD eventually bus him. But if muffin wanted out, why bother with the fake claim and asking to be left alive?CKD 294, page 12 wrote:I find that people who tend to use this phrase are scum.
unvote, vote Muffin.
have you not been honest about other things?
The above is abridged. clock is taking some heat for the to be honest tell and claims for the first time that he caught clock on a slip. The reason I'm throwing this in is i want to ask ecto: Why didn't this blurp on your scumdar then, if you are now so convinced that you were the one who caught clock?CKD 296, page 12 wrote:it is a slip...keep in mind I also caught Clock on a scum slip too...
This is important because its my basis for not believing there is ever a good reason to leave someone alive once you think they're scum.Of course we lose something. This is a game of numbers, and any that we lose from our column is a bad deal for us.
I've read in mafia discussion in the last week or so that in mini normal games, a "standard" setup is 3 scum and 1 sk. Even in a theme game, where the setups are expected to be anything but normal, I now have a hard time believing there would be any less than 4 total scum. This is more speculation than solid evidence, but why would ecto want us to think there were only 3 total scum?I submit that we stick primarily to the most likely (2 scum, 1 SK) until we either uncover another predator by scum hunting, or we eliminate the Commandoes.
Thats only half the post. The other half is ecto voting for jonathan. 2 things to note: ecto was right about Vi being town(for what its worth - the reasons why are nothing but WIFOM), and I got the feeling based on this post that it wasn't a likely scenario that a scum partner would bus bogre in ecto's opinion. Now, in muffin's case, ecto seems to think it was obvious muffin was bussed because "who cares about their scum partner?" Its funny to me that bussing is unlikely when it helps justify ecto's vote on jonathan, but bussing is the only possible scenario when ecto is trying to thwart his own lynch.ecto 325, Page 14 wrote:On Bogre: I looked at the case on him, and I feel Im too close to the argument to be objective. We likely only have 7 town. If I dont vote for him, and Bogre is scum, 5 of 6 of you will need to be voting for him unless his partner decides to bus.
If he were town, I would have thought his bandwagon would have grown faster because scum would be trying to help it along. (I know, entirely an unsupported opinion)
That's why Im really not liking Jonathan's vote when you take in his last 2 comments.
CKD's first post that can be interpretted as "ok, let's get this muffin lynch over now"CKD 340 wrote:muffin's lack of anything is telling.
This particular line perked my attention at the time, but I didn't comment on it. After defending muffin, ecto threw this line in I believe as a first attempt to set up a later attack on someone for bussing muffin if muffin got lynched. The only way ecto would be doing that now is if he already knew muffin was scum despite having just defended muffin. I think this was the point where ecto decided he was going to try to get away with defending muffin because "no scum would so obviously defend their scum partner" and also set up the current attack on CKD for bussing muffin.There are some determined players on this lynch. So certain.
You are correct that Vi made a statement to the tune of wondering if he should even give muffin another chance to post - but saying people were foaming a the mouth is a bit overstated. For the most part, almost everybody explicitly stated many times that they wanted to hear muffin claim before anybody hammered.ecto wrote:The guy was at L-1....people were foaming at the mouth to lynch him before a claim. We didnt even know if he needed replacing at that time. I dont lynch in that situation, and neither should anyone else. Calling for patience was exactly the right move.
The part I bolded was intended to be the breadcrumb. Also, every other time I made a big emphasis on the fact that I was continuing to search for predators, this is why.rhinox wrote:Vote: CKD because we're not only hunting scum... there are potentially more predator roles out there, and if Bogre and Muffin do happen to be scum together, I could see CKD filling in as a predator role quite nicely.And I'm actually more worried about predators than I am the commandoes. Daykills are scary and unpredictable.
The reason I asked is, we don't even know if we have an sk. With all of the claims, if they're all believed, we've pretty much increased our chances today of lynching commando to 50/50 between wolf and coug (0% if jon is lying). Out of the 7 of us, at least 5 of us could still be sk's (all 7 if you don't believe either mine or jon's claim). Thats somewhere between a 14%-20% chance that coug or any other individual is the sk that we're not sure even exists. If you don't think coug is commando, the logical choice should be to lynch wolf. It gives us the highest chance of hitting scum, and if wolf is scum, that would be pretty solid evidence that jonathan is telling the truth, and actually might just end the game unless we actually do have an sk, or a 3rd commando.ckd wrote:Rhino, I think that Coug is a SK (pred) maybe even mafia (but doubtful). If you take jon's claim at face value...then either you or wolf are mafia....if you are mafia, you are playing a good game, so I am leaning wolf. However, I am not 100% confident of jon's claim, but I have no reason to question it at the moment. Coug and Ecto were at the top of my scum list today...if jon is vouching for Ecto, then my vote returns to Coug, unless anything else happens.
also, getting close to the big date (see sig)...might be a very light poster till Tuesday.
I'm up in the air with this line of thinking... There are a number of reasons to explain jonathan's actions. For 1, if he really is a cop, I think he's played it perfectly. His lurking prevented him from being a scum target - and as such, coming out and outright defending ecto would have been a dead giveaway imo. Same for not counterclaiming muffin - muffin's claim wasn't believable on its own, and muffin was still going to be lynched. Why would jonathan out himself when he didn't need to?StrangerCoug wrote:?!?wolframnhart wrote:I was thinking the same thing, expecially since Jon wrote his about Ecto, who he said he investigated night one:SrangerCoug wrote:It is interesting to note that jonathan83 didn't counterclaim when muffinhead claimed cop yesterday, but I'm not going to hold that against him as there may have been a reason not to do so.
Jonathantan86 wrote:Ectomancer said he had this strategy where a claimed cop shouldn't be lynched until LYLO or he turns in a guilty result, but this works only if there is only one scum left. It might have been a genuine mistake on his part. The lack of questions from him does not mean that he is not pursuing a line of investigation, I think, since there already were other people pressing muffinhead.
So I do not really think he is scum, at least not yet. However, I also think he should claim.
Cass hasn't been posting much, but I guess I could say the same for myself.
I think StrangerCoug deserves more scrutiny however, for his Day 1 actions at the very least.
FoS: jonathan83until I see an explanation.
muffin 403 wrote: well i will some up my thoughts on the game. Rhinox, jonathen and wolf all look town from my view. Vi looks much better but t be The rest could potentially be scum.
This is what I was getting at. I was wondering why muffin-scum would say jonathan looks town. Did anyone else really get a town vibe from jonathan based on the way he was playing? Of course, muffin was scum so he would know if jonathan is his partner or not. Muffin also said wolf seemed town. That makes more sense, but did muffinJonathan wrote: About the post by muffin that rhinox quoted, I'm not sure. It's strange to put me in his town list, and it's strange that cass was left out (as she said).
The way you made your claim, plus your name, makes me think you are something more than vanilla that you don't want to reveal. CKD said something to the tune of he breadcrumbed his role but didn't want to tell us yet, and we would understand why when we found out his role, so that makes me think CKD is either lying scum or has something more than vanilla. I have commando immunity, which I think is pretty powerful. Add in jonathan's cop claim, potentially whatever Vi was, and TBW as a bomb and that is potentially 6 town roles. I don't think you were being intentionally misleading by saying 8 vanilla.ecto wrote: I insinuated a power role myself. What do you think about it?
Do you think I was trying to mislead the town by saying 8 vanilla?
Would you say the same for Cop/Doc/Commando-immune townie/bomb-sk-3 scum? What if also you include 2 more town roles? What if you just assume the claimed and confirmed roles: Cop/Commando-immune townie/bomb-sk-3 scum?I think that, even should no more power roles be revealed, that cop/doc/bomb-SK-3 scum is a setup that can reasonably be expected to be considered balanced by someone (not saying that someone would be me).
Do you think he is commando or predator and why?coug wrote: I'm still pretty certain curiouskarmadog is scum
Before you can say this, you have to show good evidence that CKD is commando. If you can't, that further supports that either you or wolf are commando.but if curiouskarmadog is not scum and jonathan83 is telling the truth, then by process of elimination at least one of wolframnhart and I scum.
The setup is very important at the monent (imo) It effects the way we should be scum hunting, and very much the outcome of the game. For example:There's a lot of setup speculation going on right now. I'd rather not outguess the mod with all these theories—detracts from scumhunting too much.