Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[hasdgfas]

Hi guys, I'm kinda busy right now, but I should be able to get to this game a bit later.

[hasdgfas]

So I'm kind of doing this as I go. As I read, I'll write what I see.

EDIT: I'm splitting this up as I can't do it all at once. This is pages 1-5.

Post 25-BM: What the heck is this supposed to be? This smells off to me for some reason.

Post 32-BM: This needs to be explained better for me to think it's a good thing

Post 33-Korts: Even if this was in jest, it was a good post.

Post 34-BM: I really hate when people use the random stage to excuse scummy play.

Post 49-50: Oh dear. This is really, really bad. Even worse than suggesting it is joining like that.

Post 53-OF: :goodposting:

Post 58-Dynamo: This is even worse.

vote: DynamoXI

Post 61-PG: I don't like how this post is defending the pact when he has nothing to do with the creation of it and isn't a part of it.

Post 64-SC: No, game discussion is fine before everyone has confirmed. What's wrong with it?

Post 71-raider: Gah, not again.

Post 73-worm: Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Post 74-Korts: *facepalm* Seriously?

Post 80-PG: I still dislike the defending of the pact when you're distancing from it otherwise.

Post 86-SC: Technically, the game has started as soon as you get your role.

Post 88-Net: Part 1 of this is saying the same thing as others said and then trying to stifle discussion. Oh dear.

Post 97-nhat: Heck no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

Post 101-nhat: This is even worse than post 97, if that's possible. Why are you trying to stifle discussion?

Post 103-nhat: I'm actually thinking he's just being a jerk instead of being scum right now.

Post 115-Untitled: Please tell me this was a joke, because I really hope he doesn't mean this.



So far my reads are:

Korts: Joking around too much, but leaning town, due to him wanting individual thought.

BM: can't see the flaws in his own pact, probably because he made it. Leaning town.

Cephrir/wolf: Scummy for trying to join the treaty so quickly. It's scummier to follow a bad idea than to create it.

DynamoXI: Even worse than the other two, since there was discussion about the treaty. Scummy

nhat: Just being a jerk. Neutral.

Untitled: Urgh. Basically just lazy. We'll see how it goes.

SC: Also lazy, but a scummy lazy as opposed to just not wanting to read.

worm: Most town so far to me.


Ok, that's it for now. I'm sure my reads will change, but pages 1-5 have been very interesting.

[hasdgfas]

Hey, I'm back with my pages 6-10 analysis.

unvote

(shouldn't have voted in the first place as I'm still not caught up)

Post 127-untitled: Please no.
Post 128-BM: Still not understanding the flaws in his plan.
Post 124-untitled: Ay caramba.
Post 143-untitled: You'd rather get rid of a contributor than scum?
Post 144-BM: What about stupid townies who join the pact?
Post 149-Cass: What does this have to do with anything?
Post 150-MM: Again, useless post. Discussion about the pact includes scumhunting, doesn't it?

Short note: It seems like BM is making more sense about the pact than I thought yesterday, actually.

Post 159-OF: Seems like he's trying a bit too hard to argue this now. This is pretty ridiculous.
Post 174-Korts: Why is not wanting discussion in confirms a null-tell?
Post 190-BM: Oh my gosh. After all this talk about the pact, we're not going forward with it? This is scummier than anything BM has done so far.
Post 194-SC: This has nothing to do with anything either.
Post 204-BM: Pact can actually still be useful if you think about it, unlike you seem to think here.
Post 206-untitled: seriously?
Post 211-untitled: how is theory discussion useless?
Post 214-BM: This was unnecessary.
Post 220-c3: This is, again, unnecessary. Say something about what's gone on.
Post 224-nhat: Oh look, insulting BM over good play. Wow.
Post 225-nhat: ???????????
Post 228-nhat: How is it more asinine and shallow than anything else that goes on in mafia?
Post 232-untitled: Good work at pointing out what's blatant misrepresentation.
Post 235-armlx: The rant is good.
Post 238-SC: Waiting to pick what side seems more popular, eh?
Post 239-EA: And?
Post 242-SC: You have got to be kidding me...
Post 247-SC: What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

My reads lately:
BM-still leaning town, actually a bit more than before, even though he should have still tried out the pact.
nhat-leaning scum as opposed to neutral like before. Really bad arguments imo.
untitled: I haven't liked anything he's come up with so far this game. Thinking scum.
Cass: Seems to just be leaning whatever way looks popular recently.
SC-Leaning scum because he still hasn't looked good.
OF-A bit too obstinate, but I'm leaning town, as I feel like he has good intentions.

[hasdgfas]

Still trying to catch up(doing pages 11-15 atm), but I saw this and it's pretty much a bad post all around and would probably be deserving of my vote if I were caught up.

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

That's all I know right now.

Stranger Coug- I'm not on all that much, that's why It looks like that.

[hasdgfas]

Post 143-untitled: You'd rather get rid of a contributor than scum?

how exactly do you know he's not scum? FoS: hasdgfas

This is a good point. I missed this earlier.

This is not a good point. As of when I wrote that, I thought BM was town so I'm obviously going to write my posts with that thought in mind.

[hasdgfas]

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

No. Shut up. That is one of the scummiest things I've seen in what I've read of this game.

[hasdgfas]

Here come pages 11-15:

Post 250-SC: Which one and why? When you say that, explain.

Post 252-Korts: Excellent post.

Post 262-untitled: Yep, expected and just as scummy as expected

Post 265-MM: This is actually a very good question

Post 275-nhat: No, please.

Post 276-nhat: *headdesk* What the heck is this? Ridiculous, that's what I see.

Post 283-nhat: Even more craplogic for something that isn't close to correct.

Post 286-nhat: Thank you for another useful post....

Post 295-nhat: So you're using Too Townie as a scumtell then? Please don't.

Post 308-earth: Another good post by earthworm.

Post 309-raider: I dislike these types of posts immensely.

Post 314-morph: Don't random vote on a double-digit page ever. kthnxbye.

Post 323-veronica: ehhhhhh, I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Good vote placement though, it appears.

Post 327-MM: What is this referring to? And why is this all you're saying?

Post 342-nhat: This is another terrible post. That's not what people are doing at all.

Post 351-Dynamo: Just an all around bad post.

Post 353-Dynamo: Feels like distancing with one or both of them, because he didn't go nearly as far with the cases in 351 as he could and he didn't vote either.

Post 357-cris: And why, exactly?

Post 360-max: Pre-game can have real discussion too. Don't ignore it just because of the name.

Post 362-morph: You haven't read this game at all, have you?

Post 367-raider: Oh look, another "I can't contribute because of stuff" post.

Post 369-SC: OK, but why not get used to it?

Post 370-nhat: Wow, overreaction. Note that I wasn't caught up yet and had all of 2-3 posts at that point. Plus, I said I was neutral on you at that point.


Latest reads:
Dynamo-Scum
morph-neutral, leaning scum depending on if he reads the game in the upcoming pages
nhat-scum. Overreactions and craplogic and misrepresentation(my vote would be here if I was caught up here)
untitled-not as much scum as before, surprisingly, but I'm still slightly leaning that way.
SC-I'm feeling neutral here right now. Some bad stuff, and some not bad stuff.
armlx-town so far. Good points, but a very good player, so I can't really say much so far.
earthworm-I'm leaning very town on him right now. Excellent points in all of his posts, even if he's not as prolific as some.


that's it for now. Expect pages 16-20 later tonight after my night class.

[hasdgfas]

mod:

Can you pick something that isn't orange? I can't read the orange text.

Will do.

olive

will replace

orange.

[hasdgfas]

From what I've picked up, MafiaMann is town, I'm pretty sure I know his role too.

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

No. Shut up. That is one of the scummiest things I've seen in what I've read of this game.

wtf? How is that scummy? I was asking him how he knows. And why are you asking me to shut up? Did I do something to offend you?

Rolefishing to the extreme. If he tells you how he knows, that has a chance of outing a power role for the mafia to kill(not that that may not already have happened, I don't know what morph is thinking). Sorry for the shut up, but that post screamed scum at me so much that I had to stop it from getting anywhere.

[hasdgfas]

Hi, I'm back with pages 16-20:

Post 376-nhat: Why the heck are you being such a jerk? You weren't like this at all in the last game I played with you?

Post 378-nhat: Why don't you ask him instead of everyone else?

Post 385-nhat: Better, but I'd like to see a little more reasoning.

Post 387-Cass: Good bandwagon, bad vote. Defending EA before he could is bad also.

Post 388-nhat: Misrepresentation. That isn't what Cass said at all.

Post 395-Cass: Last sentence is terrible. Just terrible.

Post 397-MM: What?

Post 400-nhat: Then why did you ask a question to everyone else about how cyberbob could be scummy? Also, that looks extremely demeaning to everyone.

Post 401-Dynamo: So instead of going off of one of your own cases, you decide to follow someone else's?

Post 403-raider: So you're caught up, but you have nothing to say?

Post 404-netlava: That is a terrible reason for voting for Cass, especially when you could ask her to clarify like SC did just after.

Post 410-raider: How about you actually contribute some thoughts?

Post 412-BM: This might be BM's scummiest post so far. He votes based on really early things when many things have happened since the post he quotes.

Post 420-Veronica: Did you read why cass called it a flimsy case?

Post 424-EA: I'm pretty sure that nhat was attacking the reasons, EA. How could you think otherwise?

Post 426-EA: You can call it, but for the most part, they are attacking the reasons. Some may not be, but I've noticed that most are.

Post 427-Netlava: What?

Post 433-nhat: This might be nhat's best post of the game so far. Not demeaning anyone and there are actual good arguments and logic.

Post 441-Netlava: Um, I don't see it as defending you as much as attempting to clarify Cyberbob's case against you.

Post 445-Cass: If you're voting on a flimsy case, don't vote. If your votes have other priorities than lynching someone then(for the most part), don't vote.

Post 452-earth: Hmm, very interesting. I like how you point out that he has very little reasoning and is mostly BW'ing.

Post 452-raider: Hi, mind explaining this or contributing something at all? I think I came into the game after you and have been able to say a few things.

Post 458-raider: Hi, could you please contribute something?

Post 467-MM: I hope you go somewhere with this, because it looks like a whole lot of nothing.

Post 471-snaps: Are you sure? I thought he answered it.

Post 476-MM: Really? Wouldn't those be synonymous?

Post 491-nhat: Ok. And?


New reads:

EA- a bit scummy right now, but not the worst offender
raider- please post some actual content
Cass-Leaning scum at the moment
nhat-less scummy than before, surprisingly
BM-I still think he's town, but I haven't liked some of his arguments. It's as though he can't believe anything he does can be wrong at all.
Dynamo-still really scummy


Expect me to be fully caught up tomorrow(finally) and I'll have a vote, probably on Dynamo.

[hasdgfas]

Lowell, did you even realize I'm not caught up yet(haven't analyzed 21-now) and replaced in partway through the game? I'm doing(slower) the exact same thing you are and have pointed out pretty much the exact same things you are plus some more things. How can you vote me for that? For timing? I'm sorry that I couldn't catch up at a better time.

[hasdgfas]

This should catch me up so I can actually respond to most posts as they're posted.

Post 502-Netlava: Only a minor scumtell? Really? That's not what I understood when you pointed it out. Also, is the game you mention in the last sentence over?

Post 504-raider: Oh look, another '/post' post.

Post 509-MM: Oh really? Why?

Post 518-armlx: Actually, it should be, if you don't give info, you don't vote. Not Voting gives lots of info.

Post 519-MM: So basically, you find nobody at all a good choice to lynch?

Post 522-MM: But you think he is most scummy? Then why

not

vote him? Or make a case on him to convince yourself or something?

Post 523-Cass: Right, but it should be the main one.

Post 524-morph: *headdesk* Don't do this because it only helps scum.

Post 531-Cass: An excellent point.

Post 545-Netlava: Last sentence seems to be echoing what has already been said

Post 546-Dynamo: Still probably the scummiest post I've seen so far.

Post 554-MM: yeah, since I quoted Dynamo's post I meant another one?

Post 555-EA: Mind going more in-depth on armlx pushing your wagon w/o getting on it? Quotes or something?

Post 560-raider: If you can respond to something just posted, why can't you comment on the rest of the game?

Post 576-nhat: I beg your pardon?

Post 586-morph: Gah, not again...


Anyway, Dynamo is still really, really scummy.

vote: Dynamo

. I'm not sure I've seen a single pro-town seeming post from him.

@Lowell: Did I mention any EA suspicions before that post you point out? No, so why is it scummy to say I don't think he's the scummiest. Plus, you're suspicious of dynamo and have a townread on BM with even worse timing then me. I find this to be extremely hypocritical and it gets a

FoS: Lowell

from me.

[hasdgfas]

Post 502-Netlava: Only a minor scumtell? Really? That's not what I understood when you pointed it out. Also, is the game you mention in the last sentence over?

Yup, I think it's a possible buddy up attempt, but not a definite one. Also the game in question is indeed over.

Mind linking us to it then so we can see what you're talking about?

[hasdgfas]

@Netlava, I remember that game, though it was my first I didnt see you acting very scummy more you just backed yourself in a corner either way just because someone uses that phrase doesn't make them automatically scum.

Heh, I actually quite agree with this statement.

[hasdgfas]

"WRT"?

With Regard To.

@ Cyberbob: My "discussion" of the pact does not contradict my reasons for suspecting people. I gave about 2 lines on why I thought the pact's validity was a non-issue, and that peter's & earthworm's long back and forth made it an issue. Note that "too interested" was my reason.

Ah, I see. You were looking at the amount of time spent on the discussion, not the discussion per se.

Unvote, Vote: Animorphperv1

You realize that he's being replaced, right?

[hasdgfas]

post

i dont feel like posting now, but im still here

This is quite scummy. You should be able to comment on

something

[hasdgfas]

Have we lynched Dynamo yet?

[hasdgfas]

Have we lynched Dynamo yet?

A bit too hasty no?

We need more info before im comfortable with a lynch

A) It's page 29.
B) Dynamo has made 11 posts
C) None of Dynamo's posts have been pro-town.
D) I haven't seen anyone scummier than Dynamo.
E) We should lynch Dynamo.

This isn't hasty. At all. I've been saying this basically since I replaced in.

[hasdgfas]

C) None of Dynamo's posts have been pro-town.
D) I haven't seen anyone scummier than Dynamo.

Explain these.

D) Should be self-explanatory.

C) I can do a PBPA on Dynamo if you really want, but it shouldn't really need explaining.

[hasdgfas]

Dynamo's posts:

Post 0: Confirmation. Ok, fine.
Post 1: I can't really tell what this is. If he's being sarcastic, it's not working very well. If he's following, then that's quite scummy.
Post 2: Wants in on the pact without really discussing it in any regards, which isn't pro-town at all.
Post 3: '/treaty' Do I even need to mention why this is scummy? I'll do it anyway. Don't bandwagon join something like this without giving reasons why it's a good thing. Same with a lynch.
Post 4: This comment really says nothing relating to the game at all. If you're going to take the time to make this type of post, at least post some game-related content also.
Post 5: A bunch of this post is comments that I seem to remember reading previously to this post. Look at the middle where he says he skipped the pregame because it was 'like a bunch of random crap'. Not a pro-town stance to take. He FoS's nhat even though he says he doesn't buy the suspicion on him. He also uses SC's comment about playing a different style of mafia(I don't know if this comment was a joke or not) as a reason to put suspicion on him. I don't understand how you can do that at all.
Post 6: Until you see a strong enough case? Shouldn't you be the one making the case? Sounds like scum just wanting to jump onto a good wagon.
Post 7: He contradicts himself here. He said he agreed to be the second person on the pact, then almost immediately after said he didn't jump on the treaty because there was no treaty at the time.(?) He also jumps onto a popular at the time wagon after saying he wanted a good case before voting.
Post 8: Major rolefishing. There is no town reason to say this. No town reason for morph's either, but Dynamo's was worse because he only wants information on how to figure it out. Town doesn't need that.
Post 9: Yes, it's pretty scummy. I think it may have been mentioned already, but if it wasn't, it sure was going to be momentarily.
Post 10: Um, thanks for that. Nothing game-related at all. It's as though he just wants to stay out of the spotlight.

That enough reasoning for you, SC? I think it's enough to make a D1 lynch at this point.

[hasdgfas]

hasdgfas, I'm curious what you think of earthworm now.

I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about thinking him town, why?

[hasdgfas]

This is quite scummy. You should be able to comment on something

And now, it turns out that earthworm has been active lurking for quite some time, but you didn't comment on it.

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

[hasdgfas]

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

Nice mistake?

Please explain.

[hasdgfas]

I could've sworn I just posted. Anyway, we should still lynch Dynamo.

[hasdgfas]

I could roll with a Netlava lynch if the wind moved that way.

[hasdgfas]

I think regardless of what he turns Net is a seriously good lynch candidate tomorrow.

[hasdgfas]

I think regardless of what he turns Net is a seriously good lynch candidate tomorrow.

Remember where you said (elsewhere) basing someone's alignment on another's reveal upon lynch is not setting up lynches? Well, you're not basing it on a lynch result right now. You've just advanced from null to minor scumminess, congrats. A readthrough on you will come along with the BM analysis.

But the thing is that it's completely based on Net's scumminess. How is that a scumtell? I also said I'd be willing to lynch Net today, so please explain exactly how thinking someone is scummy is scummy.

hascow: after the initial analysis posts he made while reading up, he basically stopped posting much content, exceptions being the case on Dynamo, a couple questions directed at Net, and other than that... nothing much. I haven't decided yet whether it's a relevant tell either way.

That's completely my fault, and it's simply because there's a lot of talking happening and no action. I'm sure I could comment on things, but Day 1 is already almost 40 pages. Most of my analyses were done in my first big posts and I haven't seen much I've wanted to comment on since then.

[hasdgfas]

Much as I don't really like the way that Raider posts little content, I find that in other games that I am in with him, he's the same. I think it's just his posting style, rather than an indication of his alignment.

Ongoing or can you link us to some examples?

[hasdgfas]

hehehe night guys

Vote:DynamoXI

If you are town I never want to play with you again.

[hasdgfas]

The flavor indeed looks like EA has been targeted by two scumgroups with different MO's.

I know it's not considered canonical to examine the NK in case of a pro-town death, but I'm definitely gonna do a reread of EA in isolation, concentrating on his vote pattern, the players he attacked, and the players who attacked him.

he was a roleblocker. I doubt you'll find anything useful.

vote: Netlava

[hasdgfas]

Right then, so as we all knew would happen, Dynamo flipped town.

I have no sympathy for him, but I feel that scum must have constituted a reasonable bit of his wagon. I'm going to reread his wagon I think, and also the talk that we had when the wagon started to dissipate, and then the following section where it increased into a hammer. I'm sure I can find scum somewhere in there. Netlava's vote has already been picked up on and noted, and I think it's possible that there's more in that wagon.

FoS: Cream

[hasdgfas]

Right then, so as we all knew would happen, Dynamo flipped town.

I have no sympathy for him, but I feel that scum must have constituted a reasonable bit of his wagon. I'm going to reread his wagon I think, and also the talk that we had when the wagon started to dissipate, and then the following section where it increased into a hammer. I'm sure I can find scum somewhere in there. Netlava's vote has already been picked up on and noted, and I think it's possible that there's more in that wagon.

FoS: Cream

He was against the wagon all the way, I doubt that's anything more than a mild tell in his case.

I have to disagree. I always think it's suspicious to defend someone suspicious that turns up town.

[hasdgfas]

Right then, so as we all knew would happen, Dynamo flipped town.

I have no sympathy for him, but I feel that scum must have constituted a reasonable bit of his wagon. I'm going to reread his wagon I think, and also the talk that we had when the wagon started to dissipate, and then the following section where it increased into a hammer. I'm sure I can find scum somewhere in there. Netlava's vote has already been picked up on and noted, and I think it's possible that there's more in that wagon.

FoS: Cream

He was against the wagon all the way, I doubt that's anything more than a mild tell in his case.

I have to disagree. I always think it's suspicious to defend someone suspicious that turns up town.

Then why didn't you FoS me yesterday? I think it was just obvious that he was town.

He hadn't flipped yet.

[hasdgfas]

Also, why did DynamoXI get lynched on Day 1? What did he do that was scummy? It would save me a lot of trouble if you guys told me.

if you read his posts, it's not hard to tell.

[hasdgfas]

Seeing as I felt very strongly about voting Netlava today, some people may feel this is being hypocritical.

At the moment, I do not support a Netlava wagon.

got any reasons for that?

[hasdgfas]

CK: Could you call it a "gut" reason?

[hasdgfas]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

Netlava, what you're missing is that voting someone that you don't think is scum just because someone asked for more votes on that person is really scummy. Why wouldn't you just vote for someone you think is scum instead of jumping on the bandwagon?

When I made those posts(I'd like you to point out the ones you're talking about), I didn't expect people who didn't think Dynamo was scum to jump on. I feel like you're trying to blame me for your scummy action, and I don't like that at all.

[hasdgfas]

I'm fairly sure now that it isn't the case that I thought it was, and really, scum would be able to find it pretty easily now, so it wouldn't really be anti-town to say that I thought Skruffs and SC were masons on account of SC following Skruffs around like a puppy and defending him whenever he got the chance.

Somebody tell me this isn't rolefishing please.

How could you see this as rolefishing?

Also, no access on Saturday. I hope to contribute something larger tomorrow, but this game is just a lot of largeness.

[hasdgfas]

Whatever. Vote stands.

So now you're OMGUS'ing Korts? Because if he's not attacking you for the reason you voted him for, why are you voting?

FoS: SC

[hasdgfas]

2) yet you did, therefore my case exists. You confirming your vote now amounts to you saying "damn you and your logic, KILL HIM"

Not until I chimed in about Skruffs. That's what I'm telling hasdgfas.

Chronological order:

1. Skruffs presents his analogy.
   
2. You dismiss it as BS and get on his case.
   
3. I support the analogy.
   
4. You get on my case too.

How, therefore, am I guilty of OMGUS?

SC: he doesn't have to vote you for you to OMGUS him. It's not that you're voting for him, because voting for him at the time you did was for a reason that he has since refuted. Because you're still voting him, it looks to me like it's just because he's gotten on your case.

[hasdgfas]

Battle Mage may be replaced because of inactivity.

[hasdgfas]

I said already for this time around. Using Skruffs to scapegoat me.

I really don't see that, SC. Unless you can explain it better, this looks like plain OMGUS to me.

[hasdgfas]

I still like my vote on Netlava. Nothing has changed my mind

[hasdgfas]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

[hasdgfas]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

Well, he did retract it (if you did not see that).

Frankly, I think this reaching at BM for making a vote, claiming it was given with weak reason and then him saying there was no reason is silly. We could have an endless debate back and forth and both sides would be correct. He did not have a formal reason for the vote, just that he was bored. And yes, that is a reason in itself, but from what he is intending to imply, it is not a reason by way of logically thinking about the vote.

I see no reason to jump on him and point fingers to rally a voting wagon.

It's not about him retracting it, it's the reason he had for voting. Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy. I find that to be a terrible reason for a vote. Calling it 'jumping on him' when all I did right there was point it out is a little bit harsh.

[hasdgfas]

Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy.

Why not?

I thought it was for a while as well, but there could be many reasons for a vote without stating it right away. Let me just name a couple:
1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

In both of those situations, I wouldn't consider voting without stating a reason to be scummy.
99% of the time there is a reason, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Also, by 'wrong', I meant SC being wrong about BM not giving a reason. Not the best word choice there.

[hasdgfas]

1) You're a cop with a guilty, but don't want to come right out and say that
2) You're suspicious of someone and want to see their reactions to a strange move, such as voting without giving a reason.

OK, but you're missing one.

3) You're lazy scum trying to hop on a wagon unobtrusively and also avoid making potentially attackable statements.

fine, but getting questioned about the vote should still happen before getting voted for it. If they don't provide a satisfactory reason when questioned well, then they can be voted, but immediately voting someone for not giving their reason is really, really iffy to me.

[hasdgfas]

Btw, cyberbob post is scummy. explanation later

A little bit of an explanation when you said this would have been nice instead of us having to wait for it.

[hasdgfas]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

We don't have to get rid of cass today, though. I do think Cass is a bit scummy, but Netlava is much more so, IMO.

[hasdgfas]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

We don't have to get rid of cass today, though. I do think Cass is a bit scummy, but Netlava is much more so, IMO.

Never liked this logic. Things change overnight. People completely forget about the previous day. Also, I'd rather not set up two lynches at once.

and I'm not saying I'm setting up lynches. I want to lynch Netlava today. Then, we can look at Cass tomorrow and see if we still think she(?) is scummiest.

[hasdgfas]

I really like my vote.

[hasdgfas]

Strangercoug, I'm ot asking you to remove your sudden L-2 vote, just bringing attention to it.

I find this to be scummy. Why bring attention to it just to bring attention to it.

Not exactly anti-town to wait until L-1 for the hammer, IMHO: seems to be the norm in most games, so why you're calling it scummy now I can't imagine.

The problem with waiting until L-1 for a claim in a large game especially is that after the claim, someone can go "don't buy it. vote: x" without letting the town discuss it.

[hasdgfas]

Strangercoug, I'm ot asking you to remove your sudden L-2 vote, just bringing attention to it.

I find this to be scummy. Why bring attention to it just to bring attention to it.

Scummy on whose part, Skruffs's or mine?

Skruffs.

[hasdgfas]

Your case didn't look like it was made up of actual scumtells, and that's what confused me.

ANYTHING can be a scumtell. It depends on context, player, game, all sorts of variables. Just because it's not on some sort of list of scumtells doesn't mean you can't vote someone for it.

[hasdgfas]

Hmm, interesting night. I need to reread and see what I can find from rereading deadscum.

[hasdgfas]

There's a case on BM?

[hasdgfas]

Sc- are you a survivor?

Skruffs, you better have a darn good reason to ask this.

[hasdgfas]

heh, although Skruffs' question to SC about whether or not he was a survivor was a terrible question, it's gotten some very, very interesting responses from SC. I don't like the dancing around the question he's doing. It's like he's some sort of neutral who wants to claim survivor after the town says there's a reason not to lynch claimed survivors.

[hasdgfas]

heh, although Skruffs' question to SC about whether or not he was a survivor was a terrible question, it's gotten some very, very interesting responses from SC. I don't like the dancing around the question he's doing. It's like he's some sort of neutral who wants to claim survivor after the town says there's a reason not to lynch claimed survivors.

You should vote him.

This wagon is moving a bit fast for me to jump on right now, but I'm strongly considering it if SC doesn't get any better.

[hasdgfas]

SC, claiming might be your best move right now.

[hasdgfas]

And for

hasdgfas

:

Can you post some thoughts towards SC or who you think is peaking scummy from your POV?

You pushed for SC to roleclaim but never followed up with any thoughts. I know you leaned towards SC before but you have been relatively quiet. Just want to hear some insight.

vote: strangercoug

Dancing around Skruffs' question the way he did and then claiming VT doesn't sit well with me. It may have been a scummy question, but a townie has no reason to not say "I'm not a survivor. Why the heck are you asking me this?"
Also, I don't like his unvote on BM due to the case on BM. We know there are two mafia, so they could be scumhunting as well. Why unvote based on him making a good case?

I need to reread this skruffs thing to see what the deal is with it.

[hasdgfas]

Why would he be so secretive about his role as a vanilla townie?

Claiming vanilla too early makes it easier for the scum to hit power roles.

This is a terrible reason. Is this your excuse for not denying to be a survivor as well? If so, that's even worse.