Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Skruffs]

Hi everyone.

this post seriously misrepresents me. I never said anything about him being scummy. The reason I 'had no sympathy' for him was because of the self-hammer...

No, your first post in the entire game. Not today. You basically said his play was poor over all, and his appeal to emotion was scummy, but you thought he was town.

Why would he think scum would start day one off playing like shit?

[Skruffs]

Okay, sorry, but that took forever.
Regarding the Hascow vs Cream issue, I see nothing wrong with Has's fos. In fact, I find Cream rather suspicious myself.
On the topic of Netlava, I see him as somewhat scummy, but he could just be an overeager townie. I'll need to see a bit more action to be sure.
Otherwise, Skruff's post directly before mine seems a bit suspicious to me. Stepping into WIFOM territory to defend someone that's only slightly under fire tends to catch my eye.

Why would I throw WIFOM out with my first post to defend someone? I've only read one page of the game; the WIFOM that you are just SO eager to apply to the situation is a ggenuine question. Why, logically, would scum intentionally draw suspicion to themselves day one? Day one lynches are invariably of the poor-playing townie type; why would scum want to volunteer for that role?


Happy Birthday, Battlemage.

Why would he think scum would start day one off playing like shit?

WIFOM. What you just asked me was: Why would scum start off playing D1 scummy?

That is exactly right. Why would scum intentionally act scummy at the beginning of the game, when nobody has any i nformation about anyone and thus are likely to lynch the player acting the most scummy

on their own

, rather than someone who has ties to other dead players that they shouldn't have, as would be revealed later on in the game?

If you want to try and dismiss the question as WIFOM, go right ahead, but that's not really like you, Armlx, to avoid a question because you think there isn't a correct answer. Soooooo

Fos

unto thee.

Sigh. I know I promised this game some NK speculation, but engineering studies are getting to me. I'm just too tired right now.

There are two reasons you would want to do a N! NK speculation. Neither of them strike me as especially helpful, both paths could have been exploited by scum. Also bear in mind that the killer always returns to the scene of the crime. Soooo

Fos

.

[Skruffs]

I'm going to go ahead and

vote: Netlava

, for the same reason as everyone else: voting someone that he had a town read on, and totally ignoring the accusations the next day. I'll also put out an

fos: Skruffs

for responding to my WIFOM accusation with more WIFOM.

I'm not defending a player, in the first place, I am asking someone to deliberately state the reasons they are suspicious of someone - which you immediately stepped in for THAT person and acussed me of WIFOM. When I then posited the same question to you, you responded with the exact same answer: WIFOM.

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

Why would scum intentionally act scummy at the beginning of the game, when nobody has any i nformation about anyone and thus are likely to lynch the player acting the most scummy on their own, rather than someone who has ties to other dead players that they shouldn't have, as would be revealed later on in the game?

This is a dumb question and you know it. You can't just say any action was too scummy to be scum.

Rolling your eyes doesn't answer the question. I am also not saying that "Any action" is too scummy to be scum. I'm not saying ANY action is too scummy to be scum - you are putting words in my mouth. I am asking to what ends you based your opinion that scum would act that way, in the very beginning of the game. A) It provokes interest and attention to the player, B) it draws possibile roleblocks or investigations, C) it would force his scum to weigh in and either defend or bus them, which is unhelpful for all of the scum involved.

So, yes, as an experienced player, before you write someone off on such a weak argument, I would expect you to elaborate on WHY you think that weak argument is valid - and simply trying to dismiss the questoins with "WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM" only makes you look MORE suspicious.

[Skruffs]

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where did I respond to you with WIFOM?

Otherwise, Skruff's post directly before mine seems a bit suspicious to me. Stepping into WIFOM territory to defend someone that's only slightly under fire tends to catch my eye.

I'll also put out an

fos: Skruffs

for responding to my WIFOM accusation with more WIFOM.

You used "He's WIFOMING!" as an excuse to avoid the subject, not once, but twice. WIFOM is offering two choices of which both are false; I was not offering any choices at all, but ra ther asking someone why they made the choices they did.

The original point was that someone acted "Very scummy" day one and that's why they were lynched. This came from someone who is (I think) very good at reading people, which makes no sense.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?
Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house? Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

No.

And by the way, the 'police' in the metaphor, that's not a reference to any kind of claim; its more a symbology for an 'established' player acting out oddly towards an unestablished (druggie) one on day one.

[Skruffs]

Actually.

unvote, vote: Skruffs

You're better than this stuff.

Curious, you are literally flipping my argument on ARmlx around, and saying the same thing to me. However, you've ignored Armlx through the argument, haven't you?

I went back and checked, to see if you were avoiding ARmlx for a reason, and here we have:

Also, why does this connect me to BM and not to Armlx? You really make 'scum-slips' out of the tiniest things, don't you?

It connects you to armlx most of all, but BM defending you is another indication of some kind of connection. I'm not comfortable speculating scumpairs, not to mention scum threesomes, but it's still something to note for later.

But basically in this scenario you were being hypocritical. You said that even though it connected Cass to armlx more than to Bm, you were uncomfortable speculating about scum pairs. However, aren't you the one who said it connected Cass to BM? Doesn't that mean you are?

Either way, that's two instances (Csas's 'slip' on Armlx where you tried to connect her to someone else, and my attack on armlx which you tried to completely dismiss without actually looking at Armlx) that you have tried to keep the discussion from touching ARmlx too much.

I feel safe in thinking there is enough evidence in play, to ask you why you are trying to protect ARmlx so hard, and so obviously?

[Skruffs]

I'm still thinking Skruffs deserves more pressure, as well as SC.

Let me get this straight:
You thought me and SC were masons yesterday, mostly due to SC following me around 'like a puppy'. However, in both instances you expressed suspicion of the two of us, you have expressed suspicion of me first and SC second.

Now, I'd like you to explain why it is suspicious that SC is following me around, and how therefore I Should be 'pressured' more - if SC is acting like scum, trailing along behind someone, why would you then try to use that as an excuse to push attention on to the player they are following around?

Here are three quotes that I am using to back this idea that you are using SC's actions as a reason to make me 'more suspicious' (And again we won't get into why you are giving Armlx a free pass, which is exactly what you are accusing SC of doing towards me)

But okay. 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.

I think the connection I saw between you and SC isn't as sure as I thought yesterday, SC wouldn't be acting this obviously.

unvote, vote: Skruffs

Lastly, let's not forget the part where you actually breadcrumbed that you thought me and SC were masons:

A quick question.

Why are you following Skruffs around like a puppy?

Nevermind.

See, even in the post you actually wrote it, you realized you shouldn't be saying stuff like that. However, instead of Deleting the post that would possibly cauase a role claim, you actually bpolded it. Yes, you 'strikethroughed' it, but the formatting results in the same draw of attention. You thought htat SC was breadcrumbing a link to me - not the other way around. You drew attention to it and then you began to dismiss attention onto SC except as to how it would build a connection towards me. Then you dismiss what I say about you ignoring Armlx (saying he wasn't using faulty logic when that was effectively what I was acussing him of) and say the exact same thing to me, which suggests you are being hypocritical in your own scum hunting.

So ys, you are defending Armlx by drawing attention with him,a nd you are using SC's actions as a ploy, not to draw attention to him (except through after my lyunch, which presumably would 'clear' him more) but to draw more attention to me.

Are you nervous? Am I snigffing out your scum buddies too quickly?

Unvote, Vote: Korts

I believe this fellow needs more pressure, too.

[Skruffs]

I am not masons with StrangerCoug, for the record.

[Skruffs]

Yeeeah...

Unvote, Vote: Armlx

Seriously, him asking other people to tell him who they think are scum without really looking himself, it's just not his playstyle.. there's something up with him.

[Skruffs]

I dont quite understand the first quote

It means when you are being attacked for an action, not posting is not the way to go.

Speaking of not posting, I want your opinions on who is scum.

[Skruffs]

It's from slightly higher up on this page.

[Skruffs]

And this from earlier in the game:

Lowell, basically I'm asking if you think he is scum or are more leaning neutral on him.

Not to mention that the only two people that I have seen Armlx call scummy, in the entire game, was DynamoxX, yesterday, and Netlava, yesterday and today. In both instances, other players were already voting or attacking those players before Armlx 'weighed in', and he has completely avoided weighing in on other players actions, as far as I can see. I skimmed his posts in isolation and then went back and looked at the pages around the posts where he said those two players were scummy, in order to get a feel for his timing.

Keep this in mind about what he said after pushing hard for a DynamoX lynch yesterday, pushing for a hammer, and calling his townie claim "irrelevant":

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

Why would he say this before the lynch's results were revealed?

[Skruffs]

Right strangcoug followed me around which suggests either we are scum together or he is scum buddying up to me. You trying to push attention on me, rather than the aspect of the scenario that is scum in either situation, strikes me as someone trying to 'semiclear' their partner (sc) by getting who they agree with (me) lynched as town.

The total ignoring of my suspicion of armlx, or raher, the dismissing of it as me being 'jumpy', also strikes me as someone having an ulterior motive.

[Skruffs]

I think you're right, Skruffs. Based on that connection alone, SC is more likely out of the two of you to be scum. So please address the points I made against the analogy and I can get on with voting SC. It may not be all that relevant to scumhunting, but the fact that you failed to do so or even mention it when I asked you multiple times makes me think I may be onto something here.

First of all, you do not need me to address your points so that you can 'get on' with voting SC. The only reason someone would say that is if they are currently voting me, and are hoping to milk the time they are voting me in an attempt to get more votes, before having to switch to someone else.

Really. You just said, "Yes, he is more likely to be scum, but I think I'd rather just keep voting you anyways, for now."

I did not see your analogy, but I will isolate your posts, find it, and respond to it POST-HASTE. BUT FIRST: Showa.

[Skruffs]

I played cultafia as town, even though I was an sk, because the cults were the real threats. I, as scum, tend to actually give town 'good' advice without actually following it myself.

However, let me suggest this: you referenced two games where I was a power role as the basis of my 'normal' behavior however again, you are not speculating or therizing yourself.


Please point to a game where you are dead as town and acted in a similar manner, vs cultafia, where as a cult leader, you acted smilarly to how you are acting here (those similarities have been pointed out already)

[Skruffs]

Sorry, haven't been posting (skool has just started) and of course, since the wagon is on me makes me not feel like wanting to post

Strengthen up, when there's a wagon on me, that makes me want to post more!

I agree with this, you should be posting alot more trying to explain yourself and convince everyone that you should not be today's lynch.

I was hoping for more but for the time being a vote will have to do.

Vote Netlava

Contradiction here with your last post.
Either you were voting him purely because he wasn't posting enough or you were actually suspicious of him.

[Skruffs]

Dammit, Skruffs, don't ignore me!

Not ignoring you!

You want me to go back and say how my "Armlx is being intentionally anti-town" stance is not circular logic. I am going to do that. But first I have to find where the argument was made, and catch up with everything else.

It's much easier to post to other games where I've been involved the whole way through or whatnto than it is to field inane questions from people who are ignoring my own arguments and using the same type of arguments they are decrying me for using, against me.

[Skruffs]

I got prodded, and will post more when I have my next available chance, which will be after I close the store tonight, so around 1:30 or so AM

[Skruffs]

Bravo. Solid proof, KoC. Not, you know, an obvious attempt at wagoning...

@Korts: Skruffs is a better lynch than Netlava, Cass, or Raider.

a) he made a bullshit analogy; I have previously showed how it's completely flawed and ultimately WIFOM. This itself would be a minor point, if he would just try and prove his point.

b) he has so far refused to reply to my points against the analogy itself, even though I asked him multiple times. Avoidance of the topic gives me incentive to keep my vote on him.

I have not 'refused' to reply to anything, I have been unable to post to the game at all. If you want to insinuate I am intentionally avoiding you, and only you, because you 'got' me, then say so rather than belittling my intentions. : )Thanks!

Scrolling back through your posts to find what your problem with my beef with Armlx is... here;s the most recent one I feel should be responded to:

Laughable. If Skruffs can defend himself adequately, I obviously won't be so suspicious of him; you buddying up to/following Skruffs implicates

you

regardless of Skruffs' alignment. You want to address the fact that you were either buddying up to Skruffs, or basically defending him? Otherwise, feel free to continue the self-righteous OMGUSing.

This has been pointed out, by me as wlel I believe, and yet you are still focussing on me and not on SC. Presumably this will change after I have voided your reason to focus all your attention on me, but we will see.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

If the drug dealer is aware of the cop,

it's common sense for him or her not to flail at anybody

(I said that I'd personally scram, and I suppose that's WIFOM, but while you suspect me, I'm not your primary WIFOM suspect).

This part. See bolded. Translated, this means that because the scum know the town's out looking for scum, the scum will be trying not to act anti-town. Common sense, yes. WIFOM, absolutely. "If I were scum, I would/wouldn't..."-type logic is useless. Reason: scum will try to act counter-intuitively simply because of the town speculating on intuitive scum behaviour.

Okay. Theorizing about what scum would od, or not do, is completely useless, right? That's what you are saying. THe thing with WIFOM is that it's ONLY WIFOM if the person who is presenting the decisions is presenting TWO FLAWED choices, neither of which are actually the 'right' answer. You flailing abou tand saying "OMG WIFOM" does not explain why or how you think either of hte choices presented - that scum would do this or that they wouldn't - are completely false. This is most likely because you know they are NOT false, and that hopefully by just shouting WIFOM you can negate the argument from being discussable entirely - sort of like trying to declare something as inadmissable without actually saying why. So I discredit your claims that my analogy is 'wifom'.

Based on this piece of broken logic, Skruffs explains, with the analogy, that Dynamo was too scummy to have been scum. Post mortem, that's a) not saying much, and b) not very productive at all, while also being an utter fallacy. I'm convinced that if Skruffs had caught up before a Dynamo lynch, he'd most likely have been all over his wagon.

Interesting. More interesting because:

Hascow's post 726 convinced me about Dynamo's scumminess; until now I just saw him as a lurker-scapegoat, an easy D1 lynch against the lazy newbie. It's still an easy vote for scum, but I'm pretty comfortable having him lynched. His defense doesn't help much, either; "some posts of mine were pro-town" and "I'm a dumbass" don't amount to much. Also, protip, Dynamo: No Lynching D1 is a big no-no. You'll be back at the same position pretty much D2, only with a night phase having decimated the town.

unvote, vote: Dynamo

If I am not mistaken, most of my suspicions of Armlx were based on the way he endorsed an easy day one lynch, without trying to put any of his own reason, logic, intuition, etc into it. Not even just towards the day one lynch, but his 'roly poly' lurk beneath the radar attitude in general, which I have referenced several games to as my reason. His response was that I was acting similarly in other games I was a POWER role in, vs him being SCUM. If you look athte comparison, it sounds like he is trying to FISH for MY ROLE - SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE SOMEONE ELSE WAS DOING EARLIER IN THIS DAY, YES/NO???

But of course... since you two think the same way and do the same things, there is absoluteoly no reason not to say that hte two of you shouldn't also defend each other. Only unlike you, who is looking at hte person SC is defending as the more likely to be scummy, I Am looking at hte person doing the defending. ARmlx for his part is trying to avoid the conversation.

On a different note, does anybody else find Cass suspicious for voting Armlx when pressured for only FoSing him?

The armlx case isn't really convincing.

Vote Dynamo

FoS PeterG, Wolf

See previous post.

I agree with this sentiment, though I think wolf was being much more blatant.

vote: wolf

I could most likely pull up more.


I *believe* I answeree your questions 0 if I did not, please quote the eact questions you want answered after your respond to this post.
Thnsk!

[Skruffs]

will be MIA for a few days.

[Skruffs]

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

Tha aside, why did you move away from armlx?

[Skruffs]

I'm willing to bet 10 - 1 that StrangerCoug is icelandic mafia.....

[Skruffs]

Scumlist:
Part 1:
Armlx
StrangerCoug
----------
These two have strong ties in regards to Korts, yesterday. Korts pretty much attacked me for pointing out that Armlx is not playing his usual town self, and when StrangerCoug 'blindly' followed me, he said that SC was probably my scum buddy, but continued to push against me (even after it was pointed out that it would be more likely that SC was scum than me with the way he was buddying up to me). When the "issue" was resolved, he half heartedly voted StrangerCoug, but then slipped as quietly as he could to focus on the NetLava wagon.

Part 2:
Speculators (BlakAdder, EGL, Armlx, StrangerCoug)
IT sounds like there's a lot of scum fishing around to see what everyone else knows. Page 67, especially, is full of paranoid scum trying to get info from each other without revealing who they are. If you guys really want to speculate, you should go back to the beginning of Day 22 and see who was speculating about the night kill *then*, because it *looks* that one player was both drowned and burned alive, which means that either both mafias targeted the same person, or a mafia and someone else did, and the other mafia's kill didn't go through. Which means that the mafia who's kill didn't go through (if that's what happened) knew at the beginning of day two that there was another mafia, but the one who's kill *did* go through (if it wasn't both of them) may *not* have realized as much.

Secondly: Mafia tend to try to over exaggerate their own threat in an attempt to unnerve townies. Trying to force townies to think that there are more mafia then there really is (especially closer to endgame) makes townies paranoid, and begin to look for 'conspiracies' rather than 'partnerships'. There are 26 people alive at the beginning of the game, which means that there are (with the 25% theory) 6.5, or 7 scum alive. Two groups of 3 with one SK makes sense based on the 25% theory but it SHOULDN'T BE ASSUMED that there are this many or that many alive, especiually if that assumption is the basis for suspicion of one person. Armlx screwed up, again, with that.

Part 3:
Surye's hammer has the word "I think" twice in it, indicating that he was trying to buffer what he saw as a mistake. If he *thought* Netlava was scum enough to end the day with a vote on him, he *should* have tried to make it look like he thought Netlava was scum. Instead, his post tells me he is admitting that


PArt Four, and finally:
This is also crap:

I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!

Lol. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

I remember saying I was anti-treaty until you hammered its point quite deep in my head. Keep in mind, however, that you can just as easily be Portuguese as Swiss.

1st of all: Shame on BattleMage for such a poor attempt at trying to 'clear' people by saying that scum didn't like something and that there fore it must be GOOD. Korts involvement in the Anti Treaty Coalition was obviously because he wanted to detract from that coalition because he thought it was bad for *his team*. However, that does NOT Mean that the Treaty was organized by town; it could just as well have been the other mafia aiming for an early 'grip' on the game to get rid of some of the players they thought were most suspicious. CONSIDERING That you formed the initial "Treaty", and reading through the actual treaty (quoted below), I think that it's possible the later is more likely the case.

Therefore, here is the full list of players that I think have some explaining or squirming to do, in order of "Risk":

Armlx
BattleMage
StrangerCoug
BlakAdder
Surye
EGL

[Skruffs]

Bob: korts is dead. Unless you think he's going to come back in the game and delete his reveal from our memories, there is no reason to have him on my scumlist, just as there's no reason for the other mafia to be on it.

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

Bm- why are you insisting I am not suspicious of you? I think I've made it pretty clear that I am suspicious of you. The only reason I'm not going at you full frontal is because I think you would have taken me out last night if you had a chance, which means, if you are mafia, that your scum team holds no respect for you. Saying this, of course, voids suspicion of you if I die tonight. Preferably you'll be killed before me in this game, although so far that has never happened. But I am suspicious of you, and you shouldn't say otherwise.

Continuing on, if you really think scum being anti-treaty means the treaty is pro-town, why did you drop it at that, rather than routing out other players who were against it?


Sc- are you a survivor?

[Skruffs]

Tom mason - when did you know, in game, that there were two mafias? Please be explicit.

[Skruffs]

On cell, can't explain much:
Tom mason is at top of list, agreeing with my reasoning but maintaining he's voting me for 'not knowing' there was two mafia (or whatever) after I clearly stated that I was referring to yesterday, before two mafiates were dead. Post 1724 brings up many red flags. More later!

[Skruffs]

To protect themselves from:

A) Other scum

Yeah, the Iceland mafia probably knew there were multiple groups due to their doctor as well.

Oh, and

Vote SC

. Not even a real answer.

What do you mean, "as well"? IS this in addition to the other mafia, is that what you mean?

[Skruffs]

Is it a fact or is it presumable? Why do you keep trying to mute your contributions to general meta-rhetoric?

Sc- why do you need to keep your options open? If you are pro-town, you have no reason to need having a survivor as a valid claim, unless you are a miller and think that survivor is more survivable than miller is. If you are survivor, there's nobody to claim to be a mason with later, and acting like you do just brings more attention on yourself (like it already has).

Battlemage - if you hadn't dropped it, you would have explained why, instead of avoiding the treaty-dropping situation entirely and changing subjects to the 'there's no case against me!' Rhetoric. Do you think you are reacting correctly to me suspicion of you, if it really is as unfounded as you went to great lengths to proclaim?

Tom mason has explained my last suspicion against him correctly, but it feels (to me) that his original vote against me had more to it than that he didn't understand my frame of reference regarding the two mafias.

Raider8169's post, ie "I was gone a few days and now sc is up to four votes", also strikes me as odd; if I am not mistaken, raider pushed the netlava lynch over the sc lynch yesterday, which cream147 questioned him about.
Where do you stand on SC, raider?

[Skruffs]

Good distancing there, but you didn't actually weigh in on SC, himself, rather the people pushing against him.

[Skruffs]

What exactly did you weigh on? You offered two ro three sentences which, in each sentence, contradicted themsleves to allow for no actual 'weighing in on'.

"Could be scum, could be town"
"I do not like what he said, but I can see why he said it."
Where exactly are you positing an opinion on him and *not* just covering the bases?

[Skruffs]

in my post where I said bm is prob not a killing role (or not respected by his peers if he is one) I pretty much guaranteed that someone will nk me tonight, either to make bm look bad or to wifom the situation so much that he gets ignored. Inasmuch I have been analyzing players continuously, to get as much of my opinion, analysis, etc into the open as possible.

Bm, I really do not understand how you can, in the same post, accuse me of being the most tunnel visioned player on MS, and then agree with tubby that I am trying to shift attention away from SC. If I remem er correctly, I was the one who directly pegged him in the corner with my survivor question. Also, if you want to run SC up as quickly as possible, when exactly where there be time for him to claim?

My assumption is that SC is going to be lynched and show up as scum. Therefore I am moving on to find as many other scums as I can, as, due to what I said earlier in this post, I doubt I will be alive tomorrow.

On the other hand, both you and tubby are trying to use the suspicion that me and mason are trying to distract from the sc wagon AS a distraction to the SC wagon. If you really thought I was trying to do that, wouldn't you have intentionally not been as easily distracted from it? Or are you really doing the exact thing that you are using as the basis of your Fos?

[Skruffs]

I believe it is extortion to say that when someone is lynched and comes up town, that someone that you are trying to coax into voting them will be considered a partner because they are not voting them.

IS there a deadline? If there is, I Will vote to lynch before it.

In the meanwhile, I will absolutely not stop in trying to get as many scum exposed as possible.

BM, thank you for your last post. I was worried about you being serious about thinking me as tunnel visioned, but apparently I am not tunnel visioned enough for your liking, now?

Could you please quote me defending SC? If you are going to preemptively try to go after me as his partner, you should preemptively show a connection. I believe Korts was trying to tie SC to me, yesterday, and Korts turned out to be scum. It's one of the biggest reasons I went after SC today. Remember my scum list?

Now Armlx is playing quiet to avoid detection, and tubber, BM, raider, and Tom Mason are all hopping higher and higher up. Tom Mason seems to have explained himself but raider and tubber are both acting fishily. Tubby is effectively doing with me what SC was doing with me, yesterday.

My intentions are to get as many people exposed as possible; lynching SC ends the chances for town to do additional scum hunting. The more people we have exposed, the more likely we can tell if the poisoner(s) are town or scum aligned, based on who they attack tonight.

BM: Do you think mafia will try to cross-kill at this point of the game?

[Skruffs]

Second time you've said I'm defending SC, without any quotes or logical reasoning to back yourself up. You say you've changed your playstyle, but you still seem to be falling back on 'argument through repitition".

. Still haven't explained how I wifomed myself for a quick lynch (I'm curious about reasoning).

Your intentions right now seem to be to distract me from everyone else in the game with frivolous, blatantly incindiary comments, exactly like you have done in previous games where you are scum. I will leave you on the scum list for now, and focus on other people. Considering I'm scanning multiple people, and haven't actually voted you, your demanding I make a case against you doesn't make sense, unless you don't like that I am reviewing everyone else. Since you are demanding I make a case against you, I don't really understand why that standpoint is beneficial to the town, if you think I am town, unless you think I am scum, and are trying to get some distancing in from one of the mafias; which only really makes sense if you are not worried about the other mafia.

Question - what will you do if tugger turns up scum, as he seems to be following you much like SC has been following me?

[Skruffs]

In a game with multiple killing groups, do you really think the best thing to do is focus on one person, exclusively, string them up, and work solely on the information tomorrow?

I'm trying to figure out if you're acting so foolishly because you are a selfish townie who just wants to avoid being nightkilled, or if you are actual scum who is trying to confuse and distract the town.

How about this: you keep bleating about me making a case against you; why don't YOU make a case against YOURSELF, and I will argue with it. I'll even start with something, against me:

Everyone trying to infer me and SC might be scumbuddies have missed an obvious point that would suggest the same: I gave SC a role to claim if he was in trouble by asking him if he was a survivor. Wouldn't that suggest more that I am his partner than "refusing to vote him", like you are trying to suggest?

[Skruffs]

Can you give me a quick breakdown of that triangle? I am trying to get acclimated here

Skruffs went all Skruffs on everyone, Korts went all logical, and SC just waffled a lot was my breakdown of it.l

ACtually:
I attacked you,
Korts attacked me for defending you
SC had my back
Korts accused me and SC of being scum together, because he agreed with me, and voted me.
I pointed out that hte more logical thing to do would be to lynch SC sicne he was buddying up to me, which makes him more likely to be scum (Either buddying up to me or agreeing with his scum partner).
At the end of the day, he agreed, unvoted, voted SC, but then voted Netlava without really attacking SC for anything.


That's why I haven't been continually going after SC today, it's a foregone conclusion that he will turn up scum.


However, you avoided the entire situation today, and fortunately, BM, as either Town or Scum, very successfully wrecked my train of thought by trying to make the entire game about him. I'm house, and he's the sick guy jumping around the patient room screaming "Diagnose me! Diagnose me!"

Anyways, don't try to make it a triangle when it was pretty obviously a pentagram. I attacked you, Korts deflected attention from you onto SC and ME, SC aided and abetted. Today, I don't remember seeing you weigh in against SC at all.

Citizen Karne

: When someone asks that the hammer be postponed until someone (the lynched) speaks, it is incredibly bad form to hammer that person. It makes you look like you are trying to preemptively silence someone. You are making a judgement call that affects everyone else in the game by saying "I don't think we need to hear from SC again".

[Skruffs]

I want battlemage to talk, first, see where he's standing psychologically. Then I want to see who freaked out over the armlx hate day 1 and day 2.

[Skruffs]

Tom Mason, you were one of hte people who wanted me to stop questioning people and start voting more, correct?

[Skruffs]

BM knows better than to try to figure out who the vig is. Why are you surprised you are still alive? You helped the mafia more than almost anyone else at the end of the last day by trying to shut down any conversation other than votes.

EGL, which of the dead people do you think are death millers?

I dig skruffs and am cool with my SC vote.

Not liking raider.

What are you not liking about me?

I don't like the fact that you are avoiding the SC lynch while you don't suspect anyone one yourself. I don't like the fact that the only vote you cast the entire game was on Netlava.

In fact if I'm alive tomorrow, I'm bringing the Inquisition down your ass.

I also "avoided" the SC lynch, yet you dig me. WHy the contradiction?

[Skruffs]

Because at the time I thought you were pretty town with the line of questioning you pushed on SC. Now I'm revising that vision.

BM, why are you surprised you're alive? What do you think of skruffs in light of SC cardflip?

Wow. What about my line of questioning towards SC did you like THEN but not NOW? Secondly, what about my questioning towards other players? I was accused of trying to derail the SC wagon even though I had started it - how do you weigh in on what happened at the end of hte day yesterday?

And why are you following Tubby in asking for BM's opinion?

[Skruffs]

I would like to follow this with:

Vote : Springlullaby

[Skruffs]

Here I am don't replace me

[Skruffs]

Vote: Battlemage

Until I catch up or find a reason not to.
No I do nto know what is going on since I have been absent.

[Skruffs]

Re; Tom MAson
BM knows that I can generally see through his guises.
I saw that he was seriously F'ed up in Cafeteria MAfia, where he won as the SK because he played so poorly that both mafias did not take him seriously, assuming he was lynch bait.
In Hot Potato Mafia I saw him acting the same way and wanted him lynched for it. He confided in me later in the game that he was intentionally acting that way because he did not want to be able to be 'read' as a vanilla townie.

Apparently after successfully pegging Armlx AND Korts as mafiates (One of each team), while he was off doing his own nonsensical, non constructive, nontownhelping rants, BM decided that it was in the town's best interests to poison me? Tht means he's either upset that I stole the glory from him by being right about my reads on Armlx and others, OR, he's scum and is worried I'm going to build a case on him next.

Yes, I'm comfortable putting him at L-1.

[Skruffs]

Fos: raider8169

you didn't comment on whether you thought BM was town or not.

[Skruffs]

Good game. ^.^