VOTE: Lord Mhork
Hey now, I apologized for that!
In post 32, Mehdi2277 wrote:
UNVOTE: Robert VOTE: Xis,why Lord who's yet to appearvs someone who can respond now?
In post 39, Mehdi2277 wrote:
And Xis the game started onlt about 5 hours ago so how his making him post now needed (same for robert).
In post 97, Mehdi2277 wrote:Xis so do you agree with SC that I'm normally serious or do you agree with his earlier I'm being too serious?
In post 97, Mehdi2277 wrote:And if you want participation with the Lord vote why unvote him before he appears?
In post 96, Xisiqomelir wrote:
I like to encourage participation in the game, I think it makes it more enjoyable for everyone.
I'm curious as to where this Lurker wagon will take us. In fact, I'm willing to help it along.
In post 283, Robert2424 wrote:I'm not sure how to feel about Jones. What is everyboys thoughts on him
In post 101, Baby Spice wrote:Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
In post 154, Jake from State Farm wrote:Sup
In post 276, Lurker wrote:Ok, I see I am Near being lynched, L-1, nearly at the end of my rope and the like.
I am A vanilla townie.
I have A Railroad Card, But It Doesn't do anything yet.
Does anyone else have a railroad card?
In post 307, Lurker wrote:My 1-shot ability Is watcher.
In post 290, Robert2424 wrote:Please don't call me bobby. My name is Robert.....
In post 354, Mehdi2277 wrote:And Xis now that I finished reading that wall what did you think of lurker in post 96? I don't want a vague answer I just want your read on him. Was it null, scum, town and why back then?
In post 44, Lurker wrote:Ok... So there was a joke with my username...
Ok then. It look like we are still in RVS, So I'll leave my vote for now.
In post 358, Robert2424 wrote:It says I get two votes this day phase. Via PM from the mod. So a double voter randomly?
In post 351, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:Current Vote Count 1.06
Lurker - 3 (Xisiqomelir, Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-4)
Jal - 2 (Baby Spice, Robert2424) (L-5)
Xisiqomelir - 2 (numberQ, Mehdi2277) (L-5)
StrangerCoug - 2 (Jake From State Farm, Jal) (L-5)
Baby Spice - 1 (Nobody Special) (L-6)
Lord Mhork - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)
Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424
With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)
~numberQ has been prodded~
~Nobody Special has been prodded~
No
In post 374, StrangerCoug wrote:In post 372, Xisiqomelir wrote:Spoiler:
One of these things is not like the others.
VOTE: StrangerCoug
This is flawed. I don't have to agree with everybody else on why Lurker is scummy; if I see something else instead, that's just as good.
In post 270, StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.
In post 398, Baby Spice wrote:*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.
In post 387, numberQ wrote:I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him? What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?
In post 400, Lord Mhork wrote:Also can someone explain to me why a Vanilla claim about having one property before a subsequent 'oh yeah I also have another card and it gives me a one shot watcher' is worth a mass unvote? I think I missed some memo here.
In post 408, StrangerCoug wrote:In post 407, Xisiqomelir wrote:But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?
Of the four people besides Lord Mhork to post cases that were quoted in your post, Agent_Ireland's vote is clearly random while the other three discuss post #44. Lord Mhork's post discusses Lurker's later actions, and your "odd one out" suggests that going with him was a bad thing.Is something wrong with Mhork's post?
In post 408, StrangerCoug wrote:In post 407, Xisiqomelir wrote:This:
In post 270, StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.
Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.
I saw his post as a counterattack demonstrating that Lurker's vote was weak, especially #4 since he insults Lurker in the first sentence.
In post 409, Baby Spice wrote:In post 407, Xisiqomelir wrote:I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?
Didn't I already say earlier that Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets?
In post 417, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:Current Vote Count 1.07
StrangerCoug - 4 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir, Mehdi2277) (L-3)
Jal - 3 (Baby Spice, Robert24, Robert24) (L-4)
Lurker - 2 (Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-5)
numberQ - 1 (Mehdi2277) (L-6)
Lord Mhrok - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)
Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424, numberQ, Nobody Special
With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)
In post 439, Lord Mhork wrote:In post 432, Xisiqomelir wrote:
@Lord Mhork: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?
Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?
Yeah it was a little of Column A and a little of Column B. It began with me just being very irritated with lurker's poorly done case, but that last line where I accuse him of IIoA is enough for it to be a case as well. I'd say... 75-80/20-25? Somewhere in that ball park? I wasn't really trying to win votes with that post, if that's what you're asking.
I'd be willing to give StrangerCoug the benefit of the doubt for misreading, though I don't like how I hadjustsaid I had made a mistake. I don't really see the scum motivation here though to misunderstand a really, really obvious correction. I'd say it's more of a null tell/leaning slow player tell.
In post 439, Lord Mhork wrote:And I don't really know what to make of him hopping on lurker like that. If he thought my deconstruction of the terribad post revealed enough scum intent from lurker, more power to him. I'm more worried about his 263. That's where my bad feels are coming, not so much from 257. That hop can be neutral too, I guess.
In post 551, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 535, Xisiqomelir wrote:Back. Will catch up on Jal vs Baby next.
what happened to this?
In post 561, Xisiqomelir wrote:In post 551, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 535, Xisiqomelir wrote:Back. Will catch up on Jal vs Baby next.
what happened to this?
Sorry, got busy IRL with parties etc. Will get to it next year in detail.
In post 105, Baby Spice wrote:
My favorite way that people try to put down reasons they don't like. Skip quoting the reason and ask what it is.
In post 101, Baby Spice wrote:Bull shit misrepresentation as justification for a vote
In post 145, Baby Spice wrote:
Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?
In post 147, Jal wrote:In post 145, Baby Spice wrote:Well for starters, I really, really doubt that Lurker decided that he didn't need to play the game anymore and in no way indicated that he thought that, and with a vote immediately following that comment of yours, how are we not supposed to take it seriously?
You're a numbskull or you're scum hoping you got on something special.
Take your pick.
Waiting on those official numbers.
In post 148, Baby Spice wrote:In post 111, Jal wrote:I'd like to see these stats compiled. You keep throwing around different sort of stats. Is there a post on this or what? You haven't answered the rest of my questions regarding this also.
I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.
You're one of these vague generalizers aren't you Jal?
Questions, lol. The only one I didn't answer is my read on Lurker, which is still fairly null. Being Null I didn't think it that worth mentioning.
and if you want to see the stats compiled, work them out yourself.(I skipped mini 1367 as they took a long time to actually get a wagon past two votes, and counted SK's as scum since from a town point of view they are)
In post 151, Baby Spice wrote:In post 149, Mehdi2277 wrote:How hard is it to copy the data and post it here?
I keep trying to ctrl-c out of the old paper note book I use for these types of things, but it doesn't seem to work.
I jump and change a lot between computers and mobile devices, and not even my own computer since my laptop died. Paper notes for me.
In post 398, Baby Spice wrote:
Since you asked.
Scum: Jal
Leaning scum: Agent I, Xis *****
Null: Jake* Medhi, Mog ***
Vig bait: Mhork, NS & NumberQ ****
Leaning town: Lurker** Robert** SC
Town:
*I did have Jake as leaning scum until recently
**Not sure scum would mention getting Community chests cards so quickly, otherwise was null.
*** Not sure if he's leaning town or just faking so null.
**** Needs to post or be replaced. Vig bait due to LAL
*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.
In post 892, Jake from State Farm wrote:why do you think the throat slit is mafia? in my experiences of playing mafia, SK usually has a non gun weapon most usually a knife and mafia has a gun. Regardless I doubt either was a vig target.
In post 892, Jake from State Farm wrote:
lurker was scum and I was suspicious of that Cheer Dog/SC slot yesterday. The fact lurker flipped scum, that vote by SC early on looked like a bus vote.
In post 901, Mehdi2277 wrote:How? Since every vote on lurker can be called bussing if you don't explain what's forced about it?
In post 901, Mehdi2277 wrote:If it's prior suspicion then how has cheery affected your read on that slot along with anything else since then for him. I remember you commenting on sc, but I don't remember commenting on his replacement.
In post 932, Jake from State Farm wrote:
I will say i too have some info but not sure what to do with it. Hopefully some discussion will help me figure it out if the info I have is helpful or not.
In post 0, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:
Player List-Boldindicates player confirmed
1.Agent_Ireland*
2.Mehdi2277
3.numberQ***
4.Jal
5.UberNinjaNobody Special*
6.Xisiqomelir
7.Cheery DogStrangerCoug
8.SafetyDanceRobert2424
9.Lurker
10.Baby Spice
11.Lord Mhork
12.TehBrawlGuyMogadishu Jones*
13.Jake From State Farm
* indicates prod
In post 181, Robert2424 wrote:Mainly just a feeling I've gotten from her. I have no way of really explaining it, its more just a feeling then anything. It can change, idk, don't have any control over it.
As For mhork, I'm unsure how to feel about him, he seems to have came out of nowhere all the sudden, being active, and Jumping onto the Lurker bandwagon. I haven't seen much, but mainly he's been confusing to me. He dose seem a bit scummy, but not sure.
As For Lurker, he's now committing a lot more to the game then before, I feel like now there is a bandwagon on him that he's actually going to commit. Meaning the players voting on him, putting enough pressure for him to talk and make more then one sentence posts really. I'm not going to discredit putting pressure on people via votes(if putting presure on him to talk more and to stop being scummy is there intent that is, idk, I can't read there minds). I'm placing one on Jake to do just that, get him to talk more. Not to bully, but I do think he is a good player and can make good reads if he'd just post. But I do think that if Lurker is town, one voting for him is scum.
In post 980, SafetyDance wrote:In post 976, Mehdi2277 wrote:Tbg was the person I chose. I considered jal but I was expecting UN alive and assumed jal might be kept alive by scum to have un keep on fosing her.
Possible yes. Done in about 1 percent of games on site this size also yes.
Ah ok. Well your electricity bill says otherwise. You stayed at home last night. No reason for VT to lie.
VOTE: Mehdi2277
In post 993, Mehdi2277 wrote:And xis scum motive to claim 1 shot doc who saved no one is?
In post 1072, Jake from State Farm wrote:
I am also curious how you got your extra card at night,but Xis claimed to get an extra card during the start of the day.It doesn't add up personally.
In post 1267, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 1266, Jal wrote:Cheery - why did you use your useless power card on me?
Because you had claimed not having 2 cards, and therefore by using it on you I could see if it actually did anything.
Which to then explain that I'll have to actually tell you what it was - A deed counter which tells me if someone has at least two cards. (Which I was fairly sure everyone did as it makes the most sense) The answer was that you did have at least two cards.
I also assume more light "green" cards would increase the number I can check for, otherwise it won't tell me anything.
In post 1289, Jal wrote:Xis, re-explain what you mean.
In post 968, SafetyDance wrote:In post 947, Mehdi2277 wrote:
I was unsure whether to reveal this but considering it doesn't reveal my role sure, I also got a chance that gave me a 1 shot doc. I can reveal who it was on, but the main point is chance/community chest cards can give other role powers beyond things like a vote.
Who was it on?
In post 976, Mehdi2277 wrote:Tbg was the person I chose.I considered jal but I was expecting UN alive and assumed jal might be kept alive by scum to have un keep on fosing her.
In post 1321, Mehdi2277 wrote:Lastly no motivation ever given for me to fake claim protecting someone with a 1 shot doc I believe.I said I protected x. Safety says I didn't and I'm scummy for what?
In post 1402, Mehdi2277 wrote:Xis the point of that was to focus on the protection aspect. X isn't a player and I've never called you that once.
In post 1321, Mehdi2277 wrote:Lastly no motivation ever given for me to fake claim protecting someone with a 1 shot doc I believe. I said I protected x. Safety says I didn't and I'm scummy for what?
In post 1461, SafetyDance wrote:
TBG and CD have as of yet, claimed if those cards have contained any power (leave that for now) but we have Jal and Monkey both claiming to have gotten vig cards. This means that, presuming Baby or UN didn't have both cards, they'd have had one each. If scum killed like they do every game, it means one didn't shoot and one did. Using Cheery Dog's tracking of UN, he didn't go anywhere so that would mean Baby killed UN and UN didn't shoot, whilst scum killed Baby.
That's the scenario I see based on the claims ("facts") we have.Anything wrong with it?
In post 1470, Mehdi2277 wrote:And tbg either scum are dumb are they already know who to shoot. The worth of keeping town reads hidden to block scum shooting people most trusted isn't worth it. Are docs just randomly guessing who to protect as well? And does becoming scum make it impossible to tell who looks more town then others?
In post 387, numberQ wrote:Sorry for being so late to the party, but I'm all caught up now.
I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him?What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?
Also, take a look at the mini-theme queue, at the post that introduces Monopoly Mafia. I didn't find this info in the first post of this thread. It says that deeds are randomized AFTER alignments are given. Lurker could be a watcher, but also scum.
In post 430, numberQ wrote:Lurker:
Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).
Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.
Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.
....
So yeah Lurker should be lynched.
VOTE: Lurker
In post 1411, MonkeyMan576 wrote:hammering me would be a bad idea. I'm town so as far as I'm aware my cards are distributed among those on my lynch. So I'm guessing Cherry Dog is scum. This is a scum-like risk, not a town-like risk.
In post 1421, MonkeyMan576 wrote:People should unvote me unless they want Boardwalk in the hands of ScumDog and his cohorts.
In post 1441, MonkeyMan576 wrote:ScumCherry hamming would allow Boardwalk to possibly change hands from town to mafia. I haven't done anything scummy, besides not having a lot of time to answer questions. CheeryDog HAS done something specifically scummy now.
In post 1480, Jal wrote:Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.
In post 1492, SafetyDance wrote:You forgot one. I'm also assuming everyone is telling the truth.
In post 1492, SafetyDance wrote:You seem to be assuming your guess on what exactly?
In post 1492, SafetyDance wrote:I'm at least looking at everything we have and trying to make a theory out of it, not apply my own theory to the current circumstances.
We have two claimed vig cards with the town who ended dead last night but you think its more likely that a standard SK (with no power from cards) killed rather than two of the people who held the cards? I think you're the one assuming a lot here.
In post 1492, SafetyDance wrote:A vig can't have killed Baby Spice unless you're claiming Cheer Dog is lying.
In post 1492, SafetyDance wrote:We could sit here until next Christmas thinking about who got roleblocked or re-directed but if you know anything by an educated or more on whom it may have been, say so and explain how it breaks down the chain of events.
In post 1503, guille2015 wrote:My problem with the night actions is that I cannot conceive why scum would kill Baby. Did they think she had scum nailed? But it does seem like that was the case.
In post 1497, Jal wrote:How is town not sharing elementary crap going to hurt town, exactly? No one is willing to share crap all, and I seriously would not be surprised that at least one of the few who has shared their reads on anything concerning this is scum.
In post 1500, Jal wrote:There are people who don't actually want to share anything.
Jake from State Farm wrote:
This is why I don;t feel Monkey can be trusted to follow our kill suggestion. He has basically found a way to avoid all questions and hasn't even attempted to scumhunt. All he keeps doing is saying he has to be kept alive because he is a vig and we should trust him (maybe that's what rank survivalism means?, if so than Xis's vote isn't questionable afterall)
In post 1455, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Currently if I had to choose someone to shoot it would be Xis. His post count is relatively low and his unvote of Lurker looks suspicious.
In post 1467, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Like the Xis wagon idea...posted my reasons why previously(Lurker unvote, inactivity). Plus Guille seems to have some sense.
Vote: Xis
In post 1602, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Mehdi is near confirmed scum but Xis lynch still gives us the most info.
In post 1455, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Currently if I had to choose someone to shoot it would be Xis. His post count is relatively low and his unvote of Lurker looks suspicious.
In post 1467, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Like the Xis wagon idea...posted my reasons why previously(Lurker unvote, inactivity). Plus Guille seems to have some sense.
Vote: Xis
In post 1746, Mehdi2277 wrote:And xis can you explain your vote on me. I don't see where it follows from what you said yesterday so what did change?
In post 1768, SafetyDance wrote:Wouldn't mind the medhi and xis claims now. And for Mohrk and Guille to post.
In post 1480, Jal wrote:Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.
In post 1489, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:Current Vote Count 2.05
MonkeyMan576 - 5 (TehBrawlGuy, Lord Mhork, Jal, Jake From State Farm, Xisiqomelir) (L-1)
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:
Where's the contradiction? She was claiming to shoot anyone not wanting to do the mock-lynchwithMhork included regardless of his position. That's the only reason for an investigation? I can't see this as logical at al.
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:
What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:No use trying to admonish us for something you didn't bring up either. Hindsight Hero much?
That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:You voted CD for his Deed card claim but you're now giving him townpoints for doing so? What the fuck?
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:Rolefishing over Scumhunting?
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:You haven't noticed the posts mentioning the discrepancies in LM and CD red cards
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:trying to press you to post when you said you were going to waiting for the two lurkers to post.
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:How is that now scumhunting?
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:Putting the puzzle of the board together, you think its better to be in the dark?
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:I don't like your cop claim at all. You gave off scum vibes a lot reading through day one, which got bumped down day 2 thanks to Mehdi and Monkey.
This post claims "trust me" which of course leads to the opposite.
In post 1877, Jal wrote:It's simple. Xis believes there is actually a vig (2 in fact) and a sk. We kill the SK, who was the one other who claimed vig. Logically, one would assume they still should believe there's a vig, at least somewhat in that theory. Maybe nottwovigs, because they thought there was another shooter, but we essentially lynched my cc yesterday. Where did belief in the vig go?
In post 1869, Jal wrote:Also, I am going to fuck up Uber for completely shitfesting this game, because the only reason I have suspicion is because he sperged all over this thread and I hate playing days other than D1. I actually am pretty sure the Sk killed Uber also now, as that was Agent Ireland's main suspect at the end of yesterday.
In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:
In post 1879, Xisiqomelir wrote:
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.
There is literally zero chance Jake is scum. I am never investigating him this game. Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.
Your working out here is fantastic, got me convinced. (this is sarcasm)
In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:In post 1879, Xisiqomelir wrote:
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:
What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.
Exempting himself as a tracker or vig target was suspicious.
So suspicious, you never brought it up. You didn't claim yesterday so no one was any of the wiser, so why not, when there was ample opportunity to post, did you not mention it? Again, why try to beat down the rest of us for not doing so yesterday?
In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:So you have a narrow-minded view of what scum-hunting is and it has to fit your criteria of "voting".
In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:Finding discrepanciesistrying to identify scum.
Helping piece together who has whatishelping town.
Waiting for you to post before votingiswaiting to hear what everyone has to say to help form a better opinion on who is scum.
In post 1891, Jake from State Farm wrote:@ Xis - why investigate Baby night 1 instead of SC who you were more suspicious of?
Investigating Jal makes no sense either when mehndi or guile were better options.
I said earlier I saw a lurker/xis connection and this claim really sucks. You definitely made it seem like you caught someone when you started the day. Also your comment about nobody slipping makes no sense because you didn't have a guilty.
The only thing keeping me from voting you right now is because if you were scum, why make this claim like that?
My head hurts now
In post 1922, Jake from State Farm wrote:Also another thing, in guile's catchup post he pointed to a post that SC made on page 15 and follows it up by saying SC was trying to direct people to vote lurker. But if you actually read pages 15-22 (where SC unvotes lurker) SC doesn't do anything of the sort. I'd almost call it an outright lie.
All SC does is argue about the cards giving power, he never once directs anyone to pit their vote back on him.
In post 1892, guille2015 wrote:Cop claim does not follow Alignment.
In post 1892, guille2015 wrote:Results do not help.
In post 1482, Jake from State Farm wrote:You should shoot who you think is scum or who's a detriment to town.You definitely sound like a SK to me now.
Go ahead and shoot me, just be ok with ridicule post game for your inability to grow a pair.
In post 1892, guille2015 wrote:Why did you want to wait for everyone to chip in before you claimed?
In post 1893, guille2015 wrote:In post 1879, Xisiqomelir wrote:Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.
Also, how do you reach this conclusion?
In post 1938, Lord Mhork wrote:
Xiquelomeir, why did you decide to cop Jal after a SK flip on Monkey? Why didn't you make the immediate link that she was the obvious real vig and obvtown? That investigation makes no sense at all to me. :/
In post 1990, Jake from State Farm wrote:@ xis - after lurker claimed scum why did you not switch your vote to lurker
In post 764, UberNinja wrote:Actually....
I would bemorethan happy if people just unvoted everyone, and didn't lynch anyone until after this weekend.
Wait! Hear me out, hear me out...
That will give me a chance to read the game, gauge interactions, and be useful as fuck (which I just haven't had time to be ... sorry mod and players! I've been working on a dark theme for mafiascum.net which you can see a preview of here ... I promise it's not because I don't care about the game!) so that we can get scum lynches and in general have an awesome rest of the game.
This is a 100% serious offer. 30 pages over 1 weekend = fucking CAKE.
Especially because the dark theme's almost done and it's time for PAYBACK up in this bitch.
Please confirm or deny that you are agreeable to my request by typingUnvote; Vote: In Uber We Trustin your next post.
Thank you.
In post 1990, Jake from State Farm wrote:and also why did you still entertain the idea of lynching Jal?
In post 883, Xisiqomelir wrote:Ubes I would much rather lynch Lurker today, and will hop him after I see whether more people have received +/- votes lately.If you're interested in pushing Jal you'll need something more substantial.
@Mod: Votecount please.
In post 1985, Lord Mhork wrote:You mean this? Great, except for the fact that all you did was confirm something that was already essentially confirmed.
In post 1985, Lord Mhork wrote:Jal was all but mod confirmed as a vig and yet you investigated her anyway?
In post 1985, Lord Mhork wrote:Why? I don't understand this whole 'contradiction of yours.
In post 1480, Jal wrote:Okay, I am shooting from a list including all opposed with Mhork included no matter what.
In post 1983, guille2015 wrote:In post 1979, Xisiqomelir wrote:3/3 scum in neighbourhood is impossible, given that we've lynched Lurker
2/3 scum in neighbourhood would be very unbalanced, and I think it unlikely since we've definitely got one scum in {Safety,Mehdi}
1/3 scum in neighbourhood is the most typical setup on site
0/3 scum in neighbourhood is bastardy, but not something I'll rule out completely (I've seen it once before)
This assumes that the cards were distributed non-randomly according to setup design and balance.We have concluded that they were handed randomly, so this does not apply.
In post 1997, Jake from State Farm wrote:1. Why the hell would you listen to anyone else when we had caught scum
In post 1997, Jake from State Farm wrote:2. That post does imply you want him to atleast make a better case on Jal. That implies you aren't sold on a lurker lynch cause why else would you encourage him?
In post 1998, Jake from State Farm wrote:@ xis
The mod even said that the cards were handed out randomly after alignment. This has been discussed already by number iirc
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p4539221
In post 2036, SafetyDance wrote:I'm here, will catch up properly later because I'm running out of time tonight.
If Mehdi flips town, then that would be proof to me there's some sort of mafia power role, be it a re-director or roleblocker or something else. Otherwise, could just be fail on GNR's NAR.
In post 2090, SafetyDance wrote:Now, onto Xis...
In post 1979, Xisiqomelir wrote:@SafetyDance:In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:
In post 1879, Xisiqomelir wrote:
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:That's terrible PoE. For someone that's meant to have a role that deals with absolutes, not including Jake/guille in any scum scenario is terrible.
There is literally zero chance Jake is scum. I am never investigating him this game. Guille is only scum if the rest of his neighbourhood is town.
Your working out here is fantastic, got me convinced. (this is sarcasm)
I've already posted about Guille. Jake's reaction to Uberninja D1 and Jal D2 is consummate town-Jake, from my personal experience of town-Jake.
Yes, you had:
Fantastic case.
In post 2090, SafetyDance wrote:In post 1979, Xisiqomelir wrote:
In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:In post 1879, Xisiqomelir wrote:
In post 1870, SafetyDance wrote:
What? He didn't have a power role day 2, how could he go off the plan? In fact he followed it judging by the lack of extra kill.
Exempting himself as a tracker or vig target was suspicious.
So suspicious, you never brought it up. You didn't claim yesterday so no one was any of the wiser, so why not, when there was ample opportunity to post, did you not mention it? Again, why try to beat down the rest of us for not doing so yesterday?
I wasn't about to make myself a target for scum-TBG.
How are you being "beaten down"?
Note I used the pronoun "us". I wasn't referring to myself individually. You did admonish 'us':
In post 1867, Xisiqomelir wrote:
Bu..bu..bu.. TBG was obvtown!: The fact that he was completely off his own plan put up giant red flags from me, andI don't know why none of you brought the subject up.
In post 2090, SafetyDance wrote:In post 1979, Xisiqomelir wrote:In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:So you have a narrow-minded view of what scum-hunting is and it has to fit your criteria of "voting".
Of course it does. Town wins by lynching.
You're being deliberately dense and stupid. Trying to scumhunt is a bit more than voting. Guess what? Who wins by town mislynching? I'm sure you can figure that one out.
In post 2090, SafetyDance wrote:In post 1979, Xisiqomelir wrote:In post 1884, SafetyDance wrote:Finding discrepanciesistrying to identify scum.
Helping piece together who has whatishelping town.
Waiting for you to post before votingiswaiting to hear what everyone has to say to help form a better opinion on who is scum.
So...have you identified any scum? Who are they? If you haven't, what else do you need?
Unlike you seem to be, I'm not 100% sure of who's scum and who's not. At the start of a the day (which it was), there is no need to rush into a vote. How is a speed lynch useful?
In post 2135, Jake from State Farm wrote:Why mehndi over mhork/guile?
I don't understand your town read of guile one bit. He's done absolutely nothing productive IMO.
In post 2154, Mehdi2277 wrote:It still weakens when it's that small relative to game amount.
In post 2154, Mehdi2277 wrote:My town reads wouldn't really change if he flipped town (and redirecting it to you do you think anyone looks more likely scum if he flips town associatively?).
The simple list of my reads at this moment is:
jal > jake > safety > cheery > xis > mhork > guille (yeah mhork's last few comments has made him below you like the plan outcry and a very vague call of me erratic without much explanation on how it's true)
In post 2158, Jake from State Farm wrote:so I think I will go ahead and hammer mehndi, the explanation why he should be lynched makes sense and I have been skeptical of him all game. I just want to make sure this is correct
I watch Safety
Safety watches Cheery
and I just want to make sure that cheery and safety don't track the same person