![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
BM
I havent read that stuff yet. lolSir Tornado wrote:Setael... You are dead.
BM. Did you miss ZONEACE directing the Doc last night? Didn't hear anything on that from you... What MoS said was much less directive than ZONEACE. K-scope tried to direct the vig at the end of day 1 too. No comment on that from you either. And, remind me why directing power roles is bad too.
Ether, what exactly do you find scummy in my post?
You underestimate us.Mastermind of Sin wrote:I don't see how it was obvious for that to be the plan. I really don't. Sure, it seems like common sense now that I've said it, but I really doubt everyone would have thought of that plan.Battle Mage wrote:I havent read that stuff yet. lolSir Tornado wrote:Setael... You are dead.
BM. Did you miss ZONEACE directing the Doc last night? Didn't hear anything on that from you... What MoS said was much less directive than ZONEACE. K-scope tried to direct the vig at the end of day 1 too. No comment on that from you either. And, remind me why directing power roles is bad too.
Ether, what exactly do you find scummy in my post?
I only commented on MoS's post because i saw a glaring scumtell. Directing power roles is scummy in this context, because it was pretty obvious who the Watcher would target. There was no reason for that comment, other than to fish for a power role.
Hence, scummy.
BM
I STILL haven't developed the stomach to reread yet, but i think it is worth noting for those of who aren't able to Meta Zoneace, the last time i saw MoS and him play together, they interacted in nearly the same way, both defending each other hard. MoS was scum, and Zoneace was protown. (Btw, this was MoC). I find it hard to believe that as soon after this game as it is, Zoneace has forgotten this. In any case, my point is that them vouching for each other is not an indicator of them sharing alignment, but it could suggest scumminess on the part of MoS, not to mention that their vouching for each other is at best, fairly unreliable, as despite their shared games, they don't seem to have a great grasp of each other's play.Bookitty wrote:Okay. Regarding ZONEACE, apart from one random vote at first, Mastermind of Sin defends him (albeit without giving much reason) from nearly the start. Erg0 makes a reasoned argument regarding metagaming ZONEACE, and MoS jumps on this and exaggerates it into a reason for voting Sir Tornado, apparently simply because Sir Tornado voted for ZONEACE, asserting
Vanishes for a while. Then this:Mastermind of Sin wrote:ZONEACE is not scum. You think he's scum because you have never played with him before. Or, you know he's not scum and are pushing a lynch on him because you think he's an easy target and don't realize that those of us who've been around this whole time know the Zonace isn't acting scummy." When accused of copying Erg0's argument, he responds: "How did I just copy what Erg0 said? I said I agreed with him and then attacked Sir Tornado. Just because half a sentence said the same thing Erg0 said does not mean I copied him.
The request for Lemming to be removed from the game by the mod, basically for annoying ZONEACE.Mastermind of Sin wrote:Where did I say I mentioned a reason not to lynch ZONEACE? You can't say it's not true, because what I said was that I stated ZONEACE shouldn't be lynched, and you are agreeing with me while saying that I lied at the same time. That's inconsistent.
In addition, it was early in D1. I didn't think that ZONEACE's wagon would get to the point where I felt I needed to supply a reason. I was giving people a chance to look into him on their own, which they didn't. You haven't either, apparently, or you'd know that ZONEACE just came back recently, having been gone for something like 2 1/2 years.
Yes, I latched onto Erg0's logic and agreed with it. I FUCKING SAID THIS ALREADY. Why do you feel the need to repeat something that I havealready admittedto doing? It doesn't change the fact that I made a specific attack on someone that jumped on the wagon, something that Erg0 did not do. I agreed with his reasoning, but I also expanded from there and found someone scummy for their actions regarding ZONEACE. Erg0 had nothing to do with that.
Then Erg0 and MoS congratulate each other for a little while by quoting each other and appending QFT. MoS argues with JDodge for a bit about White, and then votes White, saying "The inconsistencies TS pointed out seem really blaring. Since I do tend to hate on the Oppressor, I could see him trying to buddy up to me if he was scum. A valid point was made, and I'll follow up on it."
This looks like classic distancing to me, accusing but backing off in the same paragraph:
ToasterStrudel catches some heat, and Mastermind of Sin votes her, then unvotes when she makes her false cop claim. And here's where some of us think MoS made his fatal mistake:Mastermind of Sin wrote:I think TS is scum who felt an easy wagon on White and pushed it just a little too hard. However, I still think Zorg is more likely scum than TS. They could easily be scumbuddies, though. I don't remember either of them ever commenting on the other. Scum often forget to comment on each other because they don't want to be associated together.
It's all very good distancing, except that at this point it doesn't really look like we have multiple cops, and so his statement in advance of Lemming's counterclaim seems to be a defense of TS in case there was such a counterclaim. Erg0 comes to MoS's defense on this (oooh, seeing a pattern here): "Regardless of your own experience, on this site it's relatively common to have multiple cops (not sane cops, but cops all the same) in a game of this size. I don't come into a game thinking "oh, there will be multiple cops in this game", but seeing multiple cop claims on day 1 forces me to consider the possibility." But at the point that MoS made his statement about multiple cops, ONLY ToasterStrudel had claimed cop. So MoS did NOT see multiple cop claims before his statement.Mastermind of Sin wrote:Most of this post strikes me wrong, and I'm thinking that you're claiming cop just to survive a couple extra days. So IGMEOY: TS
However, even a counterclaim won't prove TS scum, since we could have multiple cops. I'm willing to give TS a chance for now, but we need to watch her like a hawk. She'll slip eventually if she's scum.
Also notice that she *still* hasn't answered many of the accusations against her.
Some heated debate, and Erg0 again supports MoS's argument: "Unsurprisingly, I agree with MoS about the content of his earlier post. Please, let's skip the "I'm the cop, do as I say" discussion. We're just wasting more time here."
I don't fault MoS at all for his arguing against lynching a claimed cop (ToasterStrudel) on Day One. This seems like sound reasoning and I actually find it pretty protown on his part. ZONEACE puts a vote on ToasterStrudel during this time period, for reasons I actually understood for once, and MoS says nothing at all about it, however. Which seems sort of off, considering how protective MoS has been of ZONEACE to this point... or maybe it doesn't. Waits for the cops to claim, and indicates suspicion of ToasterStrudel (again, not scummy in my eyes, because that's what most of the town was thinking at that point, so far as I can tell).
Then he claims he hasn't read most of the recent arguments, and makes this extremely weird comment:
after ToasterStrudel had already been lynched-- a convenient excuse for not having voted for her? Could be.Mastermind of Sin wrote:And now I got to page 54...did the cops claim and I missed that?
Still hyperprotective of ZONEACE even at this point. And Erg0 comes to MoS's defense yet again.
I find the linkages between these three players suspicious. It's possible there's an innocent explanation, but they've linked themselves together pretty dramatically at this point, and I'm not seeing a pro-town reason why that should be.
As always, correct any errors or omissions.
I wouldnt know. But that seems to be what it is being claimed atm.ZONEACE wrote:am i defending MoS hardcore?
come one BM don't let your personal issues turn into ignorance.
Ok i guess i can post what i have so far. But some of it may not be valid, because obviously i havent read the entire game.Bookitty wrote:@Skruffs: My assumption, based on Lemming's play, was that if you had a guilty or innocent on someone, you'd say so. And so when you placed a vote on someone, I wanted to know if you felt you had a case against him, or if it was based on an investigation, because I felt Lemming's investigations could be trusted.
I don't like unhelpful play either, but I will say that when someone announces and pre-excuses their unhelpful play, it makes me more suspicious than when someone just is generally unhelpful without making excuses. That's my main (but not only) reason to suspect Yamahako.
Right now I'm not happy that Setael hasn't weighed in, because Flare remains, in my view, the person with the most evidence against him, and she inherited that.
Additionally Battle Mage was doing analysis and said this on November 24:
and later this, on December 2:Battle Mage wrote:ok im on Page 7 and i think i've already nailed 2 scumbags
Ill continue tomorrow and post all my analysis soon. (3/4 of an a4 page atm)
BM
Battle Mage, could you post your thoughts so far, since you already caught two scum? You promised analysis and content, and I take such promises very seriously.Battle Mage wrote:bah i've been away for 48 hours. will post content either tonight or tomorrow. I believe i also need to finish rereading here?
BM
Post 950 mainly.Niv wrote:with all this going on, is everyone forgeting Y is at minus two. also, people accusing me, why am i scum?
thats WIFOM. Obviously though its a point i've taken into account, hence im not entirely sure of you ALL being scum, but as you've said, alot of needless buddying up has gone on, and i think lynching all 3 of you will be beneficial for the town overall.Erg0 wrote:The thing I don't like is that you drew the most obvious conclusion. How likely do you think it is that MoS, ZONEACE and I areallscum, considering the amount of buddying up that's occurred?
Tbh, i dont think doubleposting is any substitute for a substantial argument... -.-Erg0 wrote:It's not WIFOM, it's common sense. You need to acknowledge the basis of your theory and argue on those terms. Simply noting that we agree with each other a lot is not a case, you need to explain why it's scummy for us to do so.
Erm, hello!?Setael wrote:I was surprised BM ignored the Yama wagon in his big post, and then when erg0 questioned him on it:I don't have a problem with BM not thinking Yama is scummy since I didn't on my read, either. What I do find scummy is that he avoided commenting on it, and only took a stand on it when prompted. I could see Yama and BM as scum buddies, so I'm considering hammering.BM wrote:With reference to your question, Yama isnt on my scummy list (unless he replaced someone there) so i dont think he's a great lynch atm, but ofc, as i havent read the last 20 pages of the game, i doubt my judgement is going to be great. lol
Looking at the wagon, i can see alot of potential scum on there, but whether that is bussing or not, i cant say.
But first, has Yama claimed?
Did you make ANY attempt to read my analysis?Niv wrote:is it that you don't like the streem of conciousness style, or soething in particular within that ost?Battle Mage wrote:Post 950 mainly.Niv wrote:with all this going on, is everyone forgeting Y is at minus two. also, people accusing me, why am i scum?
No comments on Yamahako, because uptill where i've read, he hasnt done anything remotely scummy. I dont see why 5 scum would be surprising, but in actuality, those 5 may not ALL be scum. They are my 5 top suspects atm. Oh and the case on Zoneace isnt dependant on MoS being scum, though i'd say the case on Erg0 is more so. I find your argument that MoS is too good to make mistakes to be a poor excuse for an excuse.Elmo wrote: BM: Why no comments on Yamahako? I need to go and reread your post in more detail. That said: Five scum? Your case on Erg0 and ZONEACE are based on MoSScum being linked with them in ways I don't consider very convincing - heaven forbid that MoSScum do something like accuse a scumbuddy, aye? I don't see how agreeing with Erg0 a lot or defending ZONEACE for metagame reasons means they must be buddies together. I find it rather questionable that MoS would leave himself open to this, actually. With respect to MoS being scum, I tend to agree with Bookitty's analysis of his interactions with TS, and actually I'd say that makes it less likely he's linked to Erg0 if heisscum. I am less than impressed with your case on Niv, which is "mostly post 950". I don't see anything scummy there - what's bad about not voting the claimed cop? As far as I can make out, your case on Aimee is essentially 'she agrees with MoS once', which is pretty poor. I think you should show how MoS and Erg0's interactions imply they're scum, and you should quite definitely expand on Niv and Aimee, considering how certain you seem to be ("definitely lynchworthy").
Yes. The case linking them is pretty strong from where i'm standing. You seem to be surprised at me being suspicious of more than 1 person. I'm sorry, i guess i forgot that there was only 1 scumbag left.Elmo wrote:You want ALL THREE lynched? You seem remarkably sure that's you've nailed a whole batch at once. I don't like this. Depending on the number of scum, that's practically LyLo if you're wrong.Battle Mage wrote:i think lynching all 3 of you will be beneficial for the town overall.
Erm no its not OMGUS. As far as i can see, they have both been on and off voting for Zorg since virtually the start of the game-pausing only to run up alternative mislynches. And please bear in mind that just because someone is voting for you, does not mean that they are not scum, and being afraid to vote for a scummy player based on this, is idiotic.Elmo wrote:With respect, this is pretty icky stuff. Your case (as such) on Erg0 is essentially "MoS is scum and MoS is linked with Erg0 because they agree a lot". You can't reasonably expect him not to comment.Battle Mage wrote:You Erg0, seem very keen to attack me and defend MoS. He has latched onto your arguments more than a few times. Again, you are a capable player, and i dont see why you are reaching so far to defend him...
Not sure how much stock to put in this, but both MoS and Erg0 are voting for you - this isn't just OMGUS, is it? Hmm. I don't like a lot of that, and it makes me want to re-read the Zorg case, again.
point taken about you. I guess because of the general buddying up, i'm subconciously lumping you two together. Tell me, Erg0, have you had a look at MoS's voting record throughout the game. I'm sure it would be a pretty interesting read.Erg0 wrote:Run up alternative mislynches? You mean like when we ran up Toaster Strudel, the mafia godmother? Zeppo is the only mislynch of the game so far, and only MoS was on that wagon - I was opposed to the lynch, based on seeing him play differently as scum in a game I was modding at the time. I wasn't on the White wagon either, and that's the only other situation you could possibly be referring to.Battle Mage wrote:As far as i can see, they have both been on and off voting for Zorg since virtually the start of the game-pausing only to run up alternative mislynches.
You're just changing the facts to fit your argument now.
I think i made myself perfectly clear yesterday. I said that if you placed a vote on Yama, for your absolutely non-existent reasoning, you would become my top suspect, and what do you do? Not only do you ignore my warning, but you also drop a HAMMER with no further validation ATALL.Setael wrote:Hey BM, have you finished reading the thread?
I think it's pretty obvobv that if I was scum and KNEW Yama was going to come up town, I would not have hammered since the only outcome would've been casting suspicion on myself. Cry WIFOM all you want, I'm not that stupid. I hammered because Yama was scummy and there was no way to reverse that wagon and still end the day this century.
I should've stuck to my guns on BM yesterday, even if there was no way to turn an entire town.
vote: Battle Mage
this makes no sense. You were thinking about placing a vote on him, with shite reasoning, then you read his play, discovered that he wasnt as scummy as you originally thought, and yet decided to throw the hammer down, based on your DECREASED suspicion of him?Setael wrote:Except for the fact that I reread him and was satisfied that I could be wrong about him, which has been happening to me a lot lately. So saying I had no further validation at all... that's a lie.BM wrote:I think i made myself perfectly clear yesterday. I said that if you placed a vote on Yama, for your absolutely non-existent reasoning, you would become my top suspect, and what do you do? Not only do you ignore my warning, but you also drop a HAMMER with no further validation ATALL.
This doesnt make sense in the context of the allegation against u. Tell me, when you originally suggested that you wanted to lynch Yama, was that when you still felt he was protown? If so, you are hypocritical inconsistent scum. If not, your response does not correspond to the original statement made, which you have yet to defend against.Setael wrote:mos wrote:So your validation for hammering Yamahako was that you were satisfied with being wrong about his alignment?You and MoS both seem to have misunderstood. I thought he was town when I initially replaced in and caught up on the game and therefore was not planning on voting for him at all. In another game I'm in I refused to join 2 wagons because I thought they were town and they BOTH turned out to be scum. Realizing Yama could be the 3rd time this is happening to me in like 2 weeks, I decided to reread him. The reread (as I stated when I hammered) made me realize he'd actually been very scummy and all those on the wagon were probably right instead of me. So, realizing I had probably been wrong about him (in thinking he was town) I hammered.BM wrote:this makes no sense. You were thinking about placing a vote on him, with shite reasoning, then you read his play, discovered that he wasnt as scummy as you originally thought, and yet decided to throw the hammer down, based on your DECREASED suspicion of him?
Let me field this one. Any lynch victim other than yourself, amirite?Setael wrote: Though I still think BM is scum, this most recent bandwagon jump by Bookitty looks very scummy as well.
Really? I mean, i havent read the entire thread, i see 3 obvious scumbags jumping out at me, and 3 people, including a claimed cop, pop out and vote for someone else with no explanation. What part of asking explanation for that is a little strange?Bookitty wrote: I think there's a possibility both Setael and BattleMage are scum, one defending me oddly (Battle Mage asking for explanations from people who were voting me was a little strange, and made me suspicious)
wait a sec.Mastermind of Sin wrote:Battle Mage, are you even paying attention? When I voted Setael, there were only 2 votes on her. After I unvoted, there were only 3 votes on her. Her wagon has never been more than 3 people besides myself, so how has the Setael wagon "shrunk"?
It sounds more like you were keeping track of how changing your votes would look on yourself and saw the tide turning against BooKitty. You saw me unvoted Setael, who you were also voting, and you thought that it would look opportunistic for you to drop the Setael vote after other people had just done it. Therefore, you specifically supported the BooKitty wagon without dropping the Setael suspicion so that you could have the best of both worlds. And since you thought that switching off the Setael wagon would look bad on you, you figured you could pin the same charge on me, since I'd already done it. That's what it looks like to me, BM.
i have to wonder if that is a coincidence...Mastermind of Sin wrote:That's a good vote count. My top 3 suspects are all being voted.
appeal to emotion. STILL need to read the rest of the game. ZOMFG!Mastermind of Sin wrote:You should know better, Skruffs. Please don't be lazy like me.Skruffs wrote:I believe that is a Zing.
Vote : Mastermind of Sin
read it, and i stand by my comment.Mastermind of Sin wrote:That's not an appeal to emotion.
Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
ok cool.ZONEACE wrote:i did, im considering it. will respond tomorrow or thursday
rofl.Simenon wrote:So now I see why Jdodge didn't pick up all my game related pms last night. ):
it'd be more awesome if it listed the votes imho.Patrick wrote:Yet another awesome top of page votecount.
You so scummy, we lynch you, yes?Korejora wrote: For the record, the votecount looks accurate to me.
Why are you not doing the obvious and asking members of the claimed mason group whether Bookitty is indeed a mason?Ether wrote: I acknowledge Bookitty's claim but will not move my vote.
Thats dumb logic. Or is it scum logic? I sincerely hope my vote is on you.Setael wrote:Ummm.... if Bookitty's a mason, why is Simenon voting for her?
I believe this means either Boo or Sim is the "untrustworthy" mason. My money's still on Bookitty being scum.
Just in case I'm wrong,unvote. I'd like to get everyone's take on the claim before any hammering happens.
Ah ok. In that case, i find it hard to see why anyone is pushing a lynch on you with this verocity. I mean, you're unconfirmed right? So presumably 1 or more of the mason group members are anti-town, unless the mod is simply pushing paranoia to weaken the group. Even so, you have 4 members left, and probably only 1 or 2 at most are scum? I'd rather we spent our time hunting mafia, and i see no good reason to let Setael live at this point.Bookitty wrote:@Battle Mage: Niv already confirmed me, so I don't think anyone doubts my claim. That said, I still don't understand the case against me.
But then by the same logic, surely the SK, knowing that the Cop had been roleblocked, would target someone else. I'd say its probably more likely that either 1 of the scumgroups was otherwise incapacitated, or that both targetted Erg0 in light of his Doc breadcrumb.Skruffs wrote:This is why I was suspicous that the other nightkill was from an SK: The sk might have tried a kill on me thinking the mafia would also try a kill on me which would override any doctors.
Anyways, it's why I Was suspicious of the person who was pretty sure there was a vig.
No, in honesty its probably more a case of few people bothering to read it. I'd have expected at least some comments on it before now in light of the activity. :pKorejora wrote:Okay, am I the only one that thinks that Battle Mage's post is lacking in support and explanation?
Lol in case you havent read the game yet, i think its wise to remind you that we've already had mason claims in the game before today. Simenon and Niv to name a couple.KJ wrote:I am pretty sure more masons being outed wasBattle Mage ([url=http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=883658&sid=d1139477a105352ab05597dc2e7f6439#883658]1965[/url]) wrote:Bookitty claims Mason. Strange that this hadn’t been revealed sooner, with so many people who could potentially confirm it.notpopular with the ladies today.
I wasnt saying that she sucks. I'm with Setael in alot of games, and her logic is usually fine. Similarly i am told on good authority from others that Setael is an excellent player. Hence i am a bit miffed about her comments in this game, which dont fit the persona. I'll go through and point out some examples in a sec.KJ wrote:Ouch? Do you want to point out where she gave contradictory or invalid arguments, instead of just saying you think she sucks, or whatever that was supposed to mean?Battle Mage ([url=http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=883658&sid=d1139477a105352ab05597dc2e7f6439#883658]1965[/url]) wrote:By post 1881 I’ve discovered an awesome time saving device. Rather than scrolling up long posts to find out whether they were written by Setael, its actually possible to read a sentence or two, spot the horrific attempt at logic, and discover that it was a post of hers.
Lol dont get upset with me. If i recall, you neglected to make a legitimate vote (and by legitimate, i mean a vote that actually counts towards the votecount.) Underlining does not a good vote make.KJ wrote:Actually, I voted youBattle Mage ([url=http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=883658&sid=d1139477a105352ab05597dc2e7f6439#883658]1965[/url]) wrote:KJ continues to hint at suspecting me, but still doesn’t validate it with an actual vote.in that post. And I explained why I wasn't voting anyone before that post; I'm sorry if my reason just wasn'tgood enoughfor you.
The logic in the quote above is atrocious beyond words. Capish?Setael wrote: I am now torn. If I was wrong about Bookitty and she is a town mason, it makes sense for Simenon now to change his vote to MoS, since if Boo comes up town, the odds become higher that Simenon is the scum mason. Plus, he's not making sense to me. The Niv suspicion being his first reason to move off Bookitty, and then instead of going for Niv he votes MoS. Again could be because any mason who comes up town narrows it down. Plus he outed Ether regardless of what he says.
No you clearly dont get it, because thats not what i said atall. I'm saying that as Simenon and Niv had ALREADY claimed, they could easily have confirmed Bookitty's masonhood, especially as they were voting for her!Korejora wrote:Yes, yes, I get it, you think that because some of the masons had claimed that the rest of the masons should have also claimed. I just think you're wrong.Battle Mage ([url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=884152#884152]1980[/url]) wrote:Lol in case you havent read the game yet, i think its wise to remind you that we've already had mason claims in the game before today. Simenon and Niv to name a couple.
A sounds bit of advice would be, dont try and get clever until you are sure you understand what the other person is talking about.KJ wrote: The less the scum knows, the better, so unless there's a better reason for one of the masons to claim, such as what Bookitty had, then IMHO, the masons should have stayed quiet, as they did. Well, besides the Ether issue. You notice how no one liked that? Maybe you thought it was the right play, since you seem to think the masons should have come out a lot sooner.
Lol dont be so over-defensive. Guess what, as far as i'm aware, votes usually only count when you put them in bold. If it makes you happier, i'll go and check whether the Mod made an exemption for you, but regardless, from my perspective, and i suspect the perspective of the majority, your vote was not really legitimate. Have i drawn any false conclusions from that? Erm, nope. So before you accuse me of setting you up or something similar, you really ought to get some idea of context. Why we are even discussing this is beyond me...KJ wrote:Are you just making false assumptions to try and make me look bad? I find lying about the obvious to not be such an effective strategy, personally. Or maybe you just don't read votecounts. No wait, the mod must be lying... yeah, that's it.Battle Mage ([url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=884152#884152]1980[/url]) wrote:Lol dont get upset with me. If i recall, you neglected to make a legitimate vote (and by legitimate, i mean a vote that actually counts towards the votecount.) Underlining does not a good vote make.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. An easy way to explain the problem is by seeing whether you draw the same conclusion as Setael.KJ wrote:No, sorry, I don't understand how a town mason turning up doesn't narrow down the scum mason possibilities, or how the reasons she thinks Simenon outed Ether are wrong. Maybe you could help me out, here. I'm obviously logically handicapped.Battle Mage ([url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=884152#884152]1980[/url]) wrote:The logic in the quote above is atrocious beyond words. Capish?Setael wrote:I am now torn. If I was wrong about Bookitty and she is a town mason, it makes sense for Simenon now to change his vote to MoS, since if Boo comes up town, the odds become higher that Simenon is the scum mason. Plus, he's not making sense to me. The Niv suspicion being his first reason to move off Bookitty, and then instead of going for Niv he votes MoS. Again could be because any mason who comes up town narrows it down. Plus he outed Ether regardless of what he says.
Not really, because if masons arent confirmed town, you keep an eye on them as much as, if not MORE THAN anyone else.KJ wrote:1856 was an obviously misleading post? :/ I thought she had a point. Masons voting each other seemed odd at the time.Battle Mage ([url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=883658#883658]1965[/url]) wrote:Niv confirms, and Setael makes an obviously misleading post.
Lol have you read the second half of my analysis? Heck, have you read the last paragraph of it?!KJ wrote:1860: Skruffs thought that if the second kill had been attempted on him, then it probably wasn't a vigilante. He is the most protown at the moment, and the only claimed power role, so that seems pretty realistic to me.Battle Mage ([url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=883658#883658]1965[/url]) wrote:I don’t think Skruffs conclusion in post 1860 is very realistic.
If that is the case, please keep asking me questions. I'm quite happy to clarify things all day if it helps you get a better grip on the game.KJ wrote: I really don't feel that you're backing up anything you say, Battle Mage. Not even slightly.
Oh the irony. You failed to rebutt my points, and eventually resorted to the same obscure behaviour which you accused me of in the first place. Im awestruck that you could genuinely think you have any sort of case here. And if i recall, you replaced Aimee?Korejora wrote:I think that only scum would be this misleading, and we should throw him overboard.Elmo ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884532#884532]1983[/url]) wrote:Kore: What do you make of BM's spin doctoring against Erg0 et al?
I found a great time-saver: don't bother to read a post two miles long when you spot the horrific attempts at logic and realize it was written by Battle Mage.
Are you serious?Bookitty wrote: Her debate with Battle Mage is not doing her any harm in my estimation, though.
Yeh ill go back and look for it in a sec.Bookitty wrote:@Battle Mage: Can you quote the "doc" breadcrumb that Erg0 left that scum apparently picked up on?
OMGUS? Ive never been called 'provocative' before over the internet. Are you trying to flirt with me? If so, try and work on your bedside manner.Korejora wrote:Behaviour which Iaccusedyou of? Meaning, you don't think you actually did it? Despite that I quoted you pretty much WORD FOR WORD?
Yeah, okay. I apologize. It was rude of me to stop a hopelessly tiring and futile quote war. I'll pick it up again. Not that we'll make any real progress, nor will I likely last long before giving up again, but you're way too provocative and I'm way too irritated, so here we go.
Good reason Number 1: We wouldnt waste everyone's fucking time gradually building up a wagon which will inevitable be shaken by the fact that it is on a mason, when in fact, a claim could have come much sooner.KJ wrote:My bad; you just wantedBattle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884848#884848]1991[/url]) wrote:No you clearly dont get it, because thats not what i said atall. I'm saying that as Simenon and Niv had ALREADY claimed, they could easily have confirmed Bookitty's masonhood, especially as they were voting for her!
oneof the masons to claim early for no good reason. Okay.
According to THE RULES, votes need to be bold to be counted. Whether or not Patrick chose to make an exception on the premise that he suspected you actually intended to make a vote, is irrelevant. The fact was, your vote was not valid, and from your perspective at least, it ought not to have been counted. Hence i drew my conclusion from that fact.KJ wrote:Yes, you did draw a false conclusion, due to making a false assumption, as I said. Let me spell it out to you with a syllogism.Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884848#884848]1991[/url]) wrote:Lol dont be so over-defensive. Guess what, as far as i'm aware, votes usually only count when you put them in bold. If it makes you happier, i'll go and check whether the Mod made an exemption for you, but regardless, from my perspective, and i suspect the perspective of the majority, your vote was not really legitimate. Have i drawn any false conclusions from that? Erm, nope. So before you accuse me of setting you up or something similar, you really ought to get some idea of context. Why we are even discussing this is beyond me...
Premise 1: No vote that is underlined shall be counted.
Premise 2: Korejora's vote was underlined.
Conclusion: Korejora's vote was not counted.
This conclusion is perfectlyvalid, yes, but it's still false, since premise 1 rests on the false assumption that the mod wouldn't count it. The assumption would have been acceptable before there was a votecount, but since you assumed it after there was evidence that the assumption was false, you're just plain wrong.
See what i mean about your attitude? Have you ever come across the word 'tact' before? I suggest you look it up, because all im getting from you atm is extreme OMGUSsy vibes, which at best are clouding a townies judgement, and at worst, forcing a scum onto the defensive in order to save face.KJ wrote: We're discussing this because you appear to be either (1) an idiot misrepresenting the truth because you're too lazy to check the the easily available proof, or (2) scum lying about things to grossly distract the town.
Thats not the impression i got. I thought Setael was suggesting that the affiliation of 1 was directly linked to the affiliation of the others. It seems to be you who is twisting Setael's words here, in order to make her seem more able. As for the reason behind Simenon's votes, if you can make a conclusion one way, you can at least do him the justice of explaining yourself in the face of a logical blockade to the contrary. In laymens terms: "you said you agree with Setael, now when asked to back it up, you choose not to".KJ wrote:Why Simenon wagoned is a point of dispute right now. How should I know the answer to that?Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884848#884848]1991[/url]) wrote:Do you think that the fact that Simenon and Niv are voting for Bookitty means that 1 side must be anti-town?
Equally do you think that it is reasonable to suppose that Simenon would choose to run up a large Bandwagon on Bookitty, if he DIDNT WANT BOOKITTY LYNCHED, because it would make it more likely that he was an anti-town mason?
I don't necessarily think that one side or the other are scum, but as far as I know, Setael believes Ether to be town, so to her, one of those three must be scum. There's nothing wrong with that.
I recall both were in the same post. Dont be pedantic. I dont think there is a Vig, if anyone reads this...KJ wrote:It seemed to me at that time that they had reasons we didn't know about to believe their masonbuddy is really a scumbuddy. There is nothing misleading about that post in the context of when it happened.Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884848#884848]1991[/url]) wrote:Not really, because if masons arent confirmed town, you keep an eye on them as much as, if not MORE THAN anyone else.
Your entire paragraph about serial killers is completely irrelevant. But, you know, instead of wasting time telling me what I already know (which you would be able to find out because I listed the possibilities I had considered), you could just say that you were mistaken in talking about Skruffs' conclusion that there was a vig when you were actually referring to his assumption that the second kill was on him. I don't think anyone would hold it against you.
role?Setael wrote:Sim, I'd like your thoughts on both Zorg & BM. I can't find where you've really commented on that role once all game.
Read Erg0's posts in isolation. Posts 97-103, 105, 106, 107 ALL comment emotively on directing power roles, and in particular the Doctor. It wouldnt take a particularly bright mafioso to pick up on that and consider it NK worthy.Bookitty wrote:Okay. I've been thinking about this game in connection with a reread of some people I have questions for.
Ether, Setael2's case has to do with the fact that I treated Flare and Zorg differently than I treated Mastermind of Sin for what seemed to her to be similar cases (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the main point of her argument). You've argued consistently that Mastermind of Sin was town, and you pushed a case on Flare and on Zorg (and in fact argued that they were scum together) at about the same time as the post Setael2 is using as the basis for her case against me. So, what about this case made you think I was the scum mason? What part of Setael's case did you agree with?
I'd also still like an answer about what you thought of Simenon's post right before my claim, and his unvoting and voting Mastermind of Sin later on, since I believe you said you thought MoS was town.
Battle Mage, I still await the doc tell you said you picked up. I didn't pick it up, and if you're referring to the level of anger at ZONEACE for directing the doc's play, I think I argued about that just about as much as Erg0, and I wasn't the doc.
Simenon, what changed your mind about this?
Simenon wrote:My experience with unconfirmed masons is that the only use of night talking is to give the mafia a more informed kill/night choice.
Yes, but apparently some people did not want to rush into a lynch of a mason, when the odds of hitting scum elsewhere were perhaps better, and there was more to discuss. But dont take my word for it. Look at the wagon itself.Korejora wrote:Why would it inevitably be shaken by a mason claim? Wasn't it you who said we should "keep an eye on the masons as much, if not MORE THAN anyone else"? Masons are only confirmed as masons, not town.Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=886171#886171]2012[/url]) wrote:Good reason Number 1: We wouldnt waste everyone's fucking time gradually building up a wagon which will inevitable be shaken by the fact that it is on a mason, when in fact, a claim could have come much sooner.
Think before you speak pl0x.
Did i say it was useless? I said it wasted time, which in practical terms is perfectly true.KJ wrote: I also still don't see why the wagon was useless in terms of information. Even if don't know Bookitty's alignment, we've seen a lot of people's reactions to the wagon, which could be useful later.
Incorrect. I'd say that the rules specify that votes must be in a Bold format. Granted, it is open to interpretation, but because of this, my original point is still valid-the rules by no means confirmed that vote as acceptable, and it is well possible that there was intent behind that lack of using the proper method onKJ wrote:According to the rules, the votes have to be in the form "vote: person". I do not see the word "bold" there, and to me, the fact that the sample is bolded means you are supposed to use BBcode, so that your vote stands out enough for the mod to find it more easily. So from my perspective, it ought to have been counted. And the fact that Patrick counted my vote is VERY relevant, since that was your point:Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=886171#886171]2012[/url]) wrote:According to THE RULES, votes need to be bold to be counted. Whether or not Patrick chose to make an exception on the premise that he suspected you actually intended to make a vote, is irrelevant. The fact was, your vote was not valid, and from your perspective at least, it ought not to have been counted. Hence i drew my conclusion from that fact.Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=884848#884848]2012[/url]) wrote:(and by legitimate, i mean a vote that actually counts towards the votecount.)
Lol.KJ wrote:The pot calls the kettle black!Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=886171#886171]2012[/url]) wrote:See what i mean about your attitude? Have you ever come across the word 'tact' before?
Yes OMGUSsy vibes. You tried to make a case on me, then i bit back, and you felt you had little choice but to keep fighting back. Thats what i mean by OMGUSsy vibes. When you attack someone simply because they are putting pressure on you. Its a defence mechanism. If you were town, you would ignore your dislike of me as an individual, and read your case on me again, and my responses. Then list what you have, and ill address it.KJ wrote:"OMGUSsy vibes"? Battle Mage, I voted you, presented a case against you, and then you dodged around it and voted me back when I didn't stand for it. If anyone is pulling an OMGUS, it can only be you.Battle Mage ([url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=886171#886171]2012[/url]) wrote:I suggest you look it up, because all im getting from you atm is extreme OMGUSsy vibes, which at best are clouding a townies judgement, and at worst, forcing a scum onto the defensive in order to save face.
Because im busy revising for my f***ing maths exam. Ive notified anyone whom it may concern that they should sit tight. Ill be able to post properly on Thursday, when i have a day off after my exam.ZONEACE wrote:Battle Mage wrote:I'm Vanilla. Would be nice if you let me post my final suspicions, before you hammer me.
what's stopping you from doing it in that post right there???????????????
that was stupid.