Someone with a name that long has to be evil. Bears are also evil.
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
They didn't get the joke?Commodore Amazing wrote:First person to tell me why this post is wrong gets a cookie.elvis_knits wrote:I agree. Except one time when it was LML and he was actually a mason. That sucked.PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:vote Commodore Amazing
first person to cry about nightkills is usually scumbag.
I thought this was weird though:Nobody said they thought he was guilty so I don't know why he's so keen to prove he's innocent. Paranoia much?Commodore Amazing wrote:I'm pretty sure Iammars investigated me last night, so if someone can revive him so he can tell everyone that I'm innocent, that would be lovely.
unvote; vote commodore amazing
Commodore Amazing wrote:No kidding.
Anyway, I'm not scum. I think JechtMurray was one of the shadier fellows to hop on my bandwagon, so I think he's a pretty good place to start with this game.
bigbenwd, I'm not going to claim until I get like 14 or 15 votes. If that happens, everyone will hear my claim, say, "Derf, I don't know why I was voting for him in the first place," and then we'll bandwagon someone who was on my bandwagon.So let's just skip my claim and go straight to JechtMurray.
Ah yes, you're right. I didn't have any game based reason's to vote Commodore aside from his post which started the bandwagon in the first place. I later decided to leap onto it, because as aparently we had a really bad night one and we are unlikely to have any breadcrumbed scum.elvis_knits wrote:I don't find it weird for Dranko to vote, even if he knows his vote won't be counted. It's his way of making his feelings known, even if he can't technically vote.
unvote
vote JechtMurray
When the Commodore bandwagon was picking up, he said:and thenJecht wrote:Go go Amazing bandwagon!Seems to me like he didn't believe in the bandwagon. If you don't believe in the reasons for it, why be on it?Jecht wrote:This looks fun. I feel left out. :'(
Unvote, Vote:Commodore Amazing
*shrug*
Until we have something better to do.
And now with the vote on Dranko for LAL... seems like Jecht is just making up reasons to vote people.
Sorry, I was redirected to http://www.mislynch.orgCommodore Amazing wrote:One more thing: http://www.voteforJechtMurray.com
Yeah, this is fair enough. I was too enthusiastic about what I though was a scum mistake, and it was stupid. I'm in the process of making a monster post detailing interesting posts from the start of the game.Lostprophet wrote:Unvote, Vote: JechtMurray.
Commodore Amazing wrote:Wow. That seems terrible. I'll vote: Aureal
This is what started the CA bandwagon. The very first game post of the game had an aparently empathetic cry about the night. Now, it's obviously pretty risky to base arguements on who comments on night first, as someone always has to. However the first statement did not seem very sincere.I'm pretty sure Iammars investigated me last night, so if someone can revive him so he can tell everyone that I'm innocent, that would be lovely.
The first vote on CA. A reasonable vote. After thisPookytheMagicalBear wrote:vote Commodore Amazing
first person to cry about nightkills is usually scumbag.
Andinhimshallbe wrote:Hmmm... apparently we have something a-rolling.
Works for me Smile.
Vote: Commodore Amazing - Bandwagon, ho! [/thundercats]
AndMacros wrote:i feel like bandwagoning tonight, tonight!
vote CA
no real reason beyond the suspicions already alluded to by others.
As you can see, I'm not the first one to express an interest in joining the bandwagon. In fact, I am the first to vote under the condition that the town did not have anything better to go on. (Ironic that it seems like I'm the new thing to go onMe wrote:This looks fun. I feel left out. :'(
Unvote, Vote:Commodore Amazing
*shrug*
Until we have something better to do. -
Aureal was quick to try and rubbish these points, and trying to make the point that in some way Iammars would have been saying CA was innocent. Obviously this was a bit dodgy logic, as CA obviously was trying to claim his innocence(as Elvis points out), even if it was a joke.Aureal wrote:These points don't make any sense. For 1), dismissing a what-if scenario on the basis that it can't happen, when everybody including the person who proposed the scenario is aware of that, is pointless. And for 2)... what? We're talking about Iammars saying CA is innocent here, not someone claiming his own innocence. And you darn well know that. vote: elvis_knits
This was a big WTF post for me. This is a really sudden leap off a bandwagon vote with very little explaination. The post in question was this:inhimshallbe wrote:Pfft... CA, I should've known you were good. My apologies.
Unvote
Vote: cropcircles - for his most recent post.
This was only an explainatory post with a vote for whom he percieved to have started the CA bandwagon. I didn't think this was all that scummy.cropcircles wrote:@diggy: Commodore was eager to clear himself when no one thought he was scummy. Yeah, these mafiascum folk are a bloodthirsty bunch.
I'mma go with CA on this one. Vote Pooky
This is pretty much where it goes wrong for me. When I spotted this, I had assumed that he had made a big mistake. I had also assumed that there would be some sort of mod punishment for trying to vote while vote-blocked, as it's pretty misleading.Dranko20 wrote:screw all yall vote: coron
Niiiiice. Unfounded lynch attempt there.inhimshallbe wrote:Now I have the feeling that cropcircles is creating a fake right in front of our very eyes. Let's lynch him!
Yeah alright, I admit it. I didn't notice the Dranko vote untill he pointed it out. :shame:Sotty7 wrote:
I took the CA mentioning of bringing Iammars back to life as a joke so I don't really agree with the wagon as of right now.
Dranko20 wrote:
A black man stole my vote. I can't vote today..
Dranko20 wrote:
screw all yall vote: coron
Unvote, Vote: Dranko20
Yeah, that's what everyone's been doing. That was the third time inhim placed a pretty meaningless vote on someone.cropcircles wrote:*waits for a vote count*
*ignores inHim*
As it's my post, I'm obviously going to be biased on this. Due to me forgetting to put 'potential' in front of LAL, I've became the obvious replacement lynch wagon. All I can say is that I was excited to see what I thought was a big mistake. He was 'potentially' lying about the vote block. As it turns out, the big mistake is mines.me wrote: We shall see! LAL!
Unvote
Vote:Dranko20
Yup. I was almost right, barring the word potential. Turns out it was just a mistake so LAL doesn't apply, but it would have if he had messed up.coron wrote:LAL is stupid, but if his vote does show up I will agree that this is a case in which I should apply.
Well, it was an information bandwagon from my perspective. You'll notice that I specified that I was voting until we had something better to do. You'll notice plenty of other people who just joined and said nothing else. Or voted with a celebratory style, much like my 'go go' statement. I was far from alone in joining CA's bandwagon.ElvisKnits wrote:When the Commodore bandwagon was picking up, he said:
Jecht wrote:
Go go Amazing bandwagon!
and then
Jecht wrote:
This looks fun. I feel left out. :'(
Unvote, Vote:Commodore Amazing
*shrug*
Until we have something better to do.
Seems to me like he didn't believe in the bandwagon. If you don't believe in the reasons for it, why be on it?
If you'd read the posts properly, even though my post wasn't phrased properly, I said 'We shall see!' It was easily a case of LAL if his post had turned up. I didn't make up anything.ElvisKnits wrote:And now with the vote on Dranko for LAL... seems like Jecht is just making up reasons to vote people.
I liked this post. I'm not the only one who noticed CA's claim dodging.bigbenwd wrote:so, anyone else notice commodore try to inconspicuously not claim ad get away with it somehow despite his blatant earlier scummyness, and his semi claim post was weird too. something like my role's def. in the game and def. good was his argument. that kind of role would be exactly what I would look for if I were scum, and nobody asked for a claim from him until now? I think his half-assed town claim is the most suspicious thing right now, but I did just read through the thread in like 5 min. so I could be a bit off. i'm going to Vote: commodoreamazing and wait for a claim.
Does no one else find this really strange? Leaving it really late to claim's quite worrying and puts him into an easily lynchable situation by one or two who go 'I think he's fake claiming doc!'. Assuming he is town I wouldn't want to risk waiting to claim until one or two away.Commodore Amazing wrote:If that happens, everyone will hear my claim, say, "Derf, I don't know why I was voting for him in the first place," and then we'll bandwagon someone who was on my bandwagon. So let's just skip my claim and go straight to JechtMurray.
This is fine. It's an obvious breadcrumb for some sort of role claim later. His later quote is obviously pretty generic right wing ranting, but I can't find anything that it would allude to.Hezlucky wrote: Unvote, Vote: JechtMurray
since, to be honest, I don't care.
Well done. I'm pleased with his behavior.StrykkerVerde wrote:CommodoreAmazing = Really scummy, why dont we just skip your claim and move on to somebody else?
I dont know what makes you think that plan is acceptable but so far we've questioned you and questioned you and all you've done is dodge having to answer our questions. Now your just trying to dodge answering again, so if it'll take 14 or 15 votes to get you to claim then i say we give it to him.
This I don't like. You concede that Strykker made a good, logical point. Then you want to take the 'easier' way? It makes it sound like you don't really mind who gets lynched. Unless it's your mafia buddy? I noticed you avoided the 'easy' Commodore Amazing bandwagon.Bamboomancer wrote:StrykkerVerde wrote: wrote:
What the hell, you don't care who we lynch? How do you mean that? Would that mean that you don't care because your too lazy to pay attention to the game, or that you don't care because no matter what either of those two arent in your scum group?
Either way your not helping the town by not careing.
You make a good point.
However, Vote: Jecht Murray
is easier.
Sorry, but this was wrong. I wasn't inconsistant at all. I went on the bandwagon, and kept trying to probe for info. But at no point did I ever try to hide the fact that I was bandwagoning.W!nt3r wrote:no the reason is: elvis_knits' post #98 in which she pointed out the face that Jecht was inconsistant in his support of bandwagon's, CA's point in saying Jecht was shady is basicaly saying "Yeah he did look kinda scummy"
FOS: Crop for defending stupidness.
FOS: Jecht for being scummy internet thing.
See? I appreciate Vismajor for taking the time to actually say 'Hold on here' and looking at the evidence against me. Mostly stolen from other posts the evidence is:Vismajor wrote:Hm, weak. He seems consistent in supporting it.
If you want people to bandwagon for info, that's fine, say so. However, just trying to get peoples to commit to a bandwagon without actually doing so yourself is a bit suspicious.W!nt3r wrote:AND/////
Thanks for following blindly behind Dranko, Ibaesha. If you want to jump on the Jecht-wagon, do so...
To be perfectly honest, I'd say the main reason to vote for you just now would be the way you said:W!nt3r, minus some stuff wrote:B: So... are you going to vote for me based on my sounding brash in a total of two posts or because I'm defending CA?Lostprophet wrote:Unvote, Vote: W!nter.
A). Iammars is dead.
B). Your attitude is arbitrary and poor.
C). So, we shouldn't vote for CA because he might end up being a doc? Or that he might fake roleclaim and where would that get us?What???.
C: No, what was trying to say was that you should have a better base for voting CA than his first post. It seems, and It may just be my lack of experience talking, that the bandwagon against CA is all riding on his first comment. Where as the Jecht-wagon appears to have several instances of scummy behaviour within the argument... hell even the W!nt3r wagon has more basis for votes than CA, for god's sake. I've posted twice in a very brash manner adamently defending a player who is seen as the most scummy by 9 people. That in an of itself is scummy as hell, and I see that.
I gave our fellow players a better reason to vote for me than you have. So if you must vote for me, do so in a fashion that at least advertises your reasons.
I've answered you, would you like me to put it in lamens term's next?
but this is slightly double standards. What ifSay we push CA to a claim and he happens to be doc, ok now what? do we effectivly start over pointing fingers at other "he looked kinda scummy..." people?
1: I see. I'm fairly sure I know what you are implying here.Commodore Amazing, numbers mine wrote:1The best thing about all this nonsense is that I could just claim and end it all by being confirmed town
2Speaking of moving on, I recommend that we move on to lynching sinister_bunny.
C'mon, get a grip. The town's already taken a really bad hit night one. As townies, people really cannot just let themselves die without a damn good reason. With 2 dead cops and a dead FBI (which I don't actually know what it would do) we need to make the correct lynches more often than usual because I would imagine we're going to get less leads.W!nt3r wrote:Well to be honest my Death will prove at least one persons innosence. if not more.
That's why I don't mind dying. I'm looking at Antrax's article on how to be a good townie and so far so good.
I also believe bethelmark has not posted at all. I sent a PM to the mod yesterday -I think- about a number of inactive players.W!nt3r wrote:I request that the following players be poked for having 3 or less posts after a week of open discussion.
Diggy, Bigbenwd, Ibaesha, Macros, Mastermind of Sin, Nightfall, Peacebringer, Pookythemagicalbear, Sinister_Bunny, Smilax765, StrykkerVerde,TSAGod, Tyfo
I agree. Inhim's tried to bandwagon a few times, and never provided anything other than 'Har! I want to lynch x-person.elvis_knits wrote:You think scum would really be protecting eachother? Isn't that asking to die if one is lynched and found scummy?inHimshallibe wrote:I am growing suspicious of those detracting from the runups of W!nt3r and/or JechtMurray. Lynching provides good information. Those going off in 500 different ways just don't help in the first couple of Days.
I will not vote for W!nt3r. I would vote for Jecht, if it comes to that, but after my first suspicions, I haven't found much wrong with his play. Maybe he made a good recovery and really is scum, or maybe he was just being a silly townie. Right now, I think inHim is being scummy by trying to peer pressure people into jumping on a bandwagon that they don't agree with. Bandwagons are fine, as far as I'm concerned, but not just to "get information." I say we get information on someone we think is scummy. Namely, inHim
There you are again. Why were you voting Sinister Bunny? Why have you suddenly abandoned that idea? I'm still posting even though now that I've got a few votes on me, scum are going to take any opinions as a sign of being scum. I'm not afraid to keep posting, as long as it gets people posting I'll keep at it so more scum can out themselves.Commodore Amazing wrote:unvote: sinister_bunny, vote: JechtMurray
Here we have the obligatory vote in the first post. Individually, this post's nothing much to be worried about. Everyone tends to random vote in their first post... except this is on the first bandwagon. Except, considering CA's behavior since the bandwagon and Inhim's aparrent unwillingness to consider CA as a legitimate information bandwagon later on, I'd take this is a token scum buddy vote.Hmmm... apparently we have something a-rolling.
Works for me Smile.
Vote: Commodore Amazing - Bandwagon, ho! [/thundercats]
Oops! Quick unvote. Here's another vote, on anyone really. It doesn't really matter.Pfft... CA, I should've known you were good. My apologies.
Unvote
Vote: cropcircles - for his most recent post.
Err... what? A bit bloodthirsty considering it's 'a feeling'. A nice post to try and derail the (at the time) growing CA bandwagon isn't it? That's 3 posts so far with nothing but "Lynch!" in it.Now I have the feeling that cropcircles is creating a fake right in front of our very eyes. Let's lynch him!
So, Elvis notices that his posts are generally a bit weak. Places a vote on so that maybe some people might notice. *ding!* Perhaps he'd better start posting proper now right?elvis_knits wrote:
vote inHim because I find him to be the least helpful at the moment
I'm hurt. I really am.
Let me catch up, and I'll try and be a bit more "helpful."
Here are the people under my suspicion at the moment. I'll go through later and back these up. I won't now because I'm tired.
inHim's mafia picks: JechtMurray, lostprophet, StrykkerVerde
I'm pretty good with bandwagoning: the above 3, W!nt3r, cropcircles
Won't be getting a vote from me Today: Macros
No one's trying to detract from anything. The 'W!nt3r run up' was nothing. He encouraged people to bandwagon him in his own posts. Hardly anyone really thought it was worth a vote.I am growing suspicious of those detracting from the runups of W!nt3r and/or JechtMurray. Lynching provides good information. Those going off in 500 different ways just don't help in the first couple of Days.
Andinhim wrote:That won't be necessary...
I wrote:
Unvote
Vote: JechtMurray
elvis - I've listed 5 people in the snipped post of mine above. I'll have reason for them to hang no later than the end of today.I think on Day 1 it is more likely for scum not to vote each other, unless it's just inevitable - like a claimed guilty investigation, and then only one might pile on to the vote. Do you really think that all of Jecht and/or W!nt3r's partners would vote for them?="ElvisKnitsQuote:
You think scum would really be protecting eachother? Isn't that asking to die if one is lynched and found scummy?
And as I've just noticed Inhim posting while I make this one, I'll just respond to that one.
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject:
The 5 are in my post 191. And, I capitalize "Today" when speaking of the game's Days.
1. Fair enough, I can't actuallyinHimshallibe, numbers mine wrote:1First of all, you won'tmakeme start posting in any fashion. I've had quite the time over my winter break to consistently find adequately lengthy periods of time to make the proper posts.
2As for why CA not being an option. None of his posts really clue me in to scumminess.Jecht wrote:He doesn't actually seem to care who he bandwagons.3This is spin. I specifically listed only 5 people.
To whomever was asking about the difference between my two classifications - the ones I wouldn't mind bandwagoning are people that good information can come from reading into the voting patterns in their lynches, just based upon the interaction I've seen these players have with others.
Hurray! I'm glad to see this.Commodore Amazing wrote:Big post
Certainly is. *shakes hand* Unfortunately, I can't say the same. I don't have a proactive role with which to prove myself.I'll even go so far to say I can confirm myself, perhaps as soon as day two, probably no later than day four. If I'm unable to clear myself by day five, I've played so badly that I won't care if you lynch me....Is that a deal?
The main video there features these 'Whistle Tips' which piss off the good townsfolk in the area. I could see it, Bubb Rubb (he's a person by the way) driving around making a really high pitched noise to attack the town.elvis_knits wrote:Bubb Rubb.![]()
So...who thinks Bubb Rubb would be an evil website? For that matter, what criteria would make a website be in the mafia?
This is a big post to work from, so it get's its own post.lostprophet's post 287 wrote:1Yes, I hate analysis. Death to all analysis.2It's role-based, I swear.
cropcircles wrote:
Personally, I think all this analysis is hurting more then it is helping. It's drowning the thread when we don't even have a confirmed innocence yet. It's hard to come to a conclusion about anything when we don't know if the players that were on the recieving end of the wagons are scum or town.
3Geez slackers, he even said it first. *mental note*
CA wrote:
Rereading lostprophet's posts makes me realize he's the first one to misquote me as saying that I was cleared.
4To the truth!
(I assume we're going with the following post. Notify me if I'm wrong, unless of course that'd be against what you're trying to do here):
Lostprophet wrote:
I still don't see why he'd bring that up without bothering to explain his rationale, especially considering there was absolutely no pressure on anyone yet at all. If he'd said "Darn, I'm the only one in the game on Iammars' N1 investigation list, I bet he'd have been able to confirm me," then it would have at least made sense without having read the other thread for context. Even that statement, though, sounds scummy.
What CA's comment boils down to is: "Iammars, who is a dead cop, keeps a list of people who he invesitages N1. I am the one in this game highest up on said list. Ergo, he targeted me last night. Ergo, I am a cleared townie."
I mean, townies certainly aren't immune to crap logic, but that is some crap crap logic.
5CA, if the point of your original statement was not to imply that you would have been cleared, then what the hecky-poo were you doing? Are you now claiming that you are not a townie, and that the fact that I was the first to use the word "cleared" makes me scummy because it's a lie? WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? ME SO CONFUSED.
Smilax765 wrote:The fact that you used the word 'cleared' wasn't the problem, it's that you were making such a deal about 'crap logic', when it could have been a joke.
I don't think so. I doubt it would matter tremendously if he did, because it's probably one of the more correct responces someone could imagine to be being questioned on it. If people think it's scummy, it'd be just bad to say, 'no really, I meant it!' right?Jecht wrote:Did CA ever claim it was a joke? Just curious.
Well:Sotty7 wrote:A the moment, I see no reason not to believe Lostprophet's claim.
Ject - Do you really want him lynched or are you just jumping on the next wagon to save your own skin?
I provided my reasoning behind my issues with his defence, like he suggested.Lostprophet wrote:Now, if you had an issue with the quality of my defense in those posts then that would certainly be a reasonable concern.
Is that a sort of... 'I am Ad-aware-esque! I rolebock or something!' claim? o_0DrippingGoofball wrote:I am replacing Tyfo.
First, I have to pore over the raw logs. Look for IPs trying to access encrypted files and the such. If I see fishy behaviour - I'm going to deny them access in .htacess!
*** How's that for flavor text, folks? ***
Dude... he just described something really random. I asked if he really needed to do that. I didn't say, omfg, you're a power role. If he is, he just came out by himself.elvis_knits wrote:WTF. It doesn't seem like a claim to me. It seems like a theme-based joke. Why would somebody who is replacing and has no votes on them want to claim? And why are you calling out power roles??JechtMurray wrote:Is that a sort of... 'I am Ad-aware-esque! I rolebock or something!' claim? o_0DrippingGoofball wrote:I am replacing Tyfo.
First, I have to pore over the raw logs. Look for IPs trying to access encrypted files and the such. If I see fishy behaviour - I'm going to deny them access in .htacess!
*** How's that for flavor text, folks? ***
Was that... really necessary?
Are there going to be any other replacements?
unvote
vote Jecht
Because I make other posts too!elvis_knits wrote:Dude...how is making a sarcastic comment > lurking?Jecht wrote:Again, I'm proving my point again as to why I should just lurk like all these other people. If I'd just ignored that and let someone else make a sarcastic comment instead of me maybe they would've been leapt on instead.
(Not that I encourage lurking).
The opening post wrote:Still Getting Thousands of Hits Daily
armlx
Aureal
Bamboomancer
bethelmark
bigbenwd
Don't forget about the worst offender, because that's a grand total of no posts since the 15th of December.The bit at the bottom, that says 'display posts from previous' wrote: armlx
Aureal
Bamboomancer
bigbenwd
First, I'm not surprised with W!int3r's good reaction, and I probably wouldn't have blamed him for voting you after that post. That said, I'm glad that you don't count W!nt3r as scummy at the moment (even if that's at the detriment to me) because I have found him one of the better posters in this game.inHimshallibe wrote:Well, sometime the best claims you've got are the ones you already are. All they take is a bit of tweakng, and voila. And you've got WIFOM up to yourLostprophet wrote:Oh come on. There are literallymillionsof fake claims that can be used in this game. If I were scum, would I reveal a role that could be even summarily linked to any of the kills last night (BTW, Bubb Rubbblowing up ears?). I realize that there's not way as a vanilla townie of proving anything, but logic's gotta play in somewhere.
At least pickgoodreasons to off me.
FOS: CES.
These posts are for posterity's sake, folks. Keep these people in mind.earsin that post.
You know you play too much Mafia when this quote makes your day!Aureal wrote: Don't kill Jecht, he's the one keeping this game going.
Yeah yeah, I get it. But I was pretty sure the idea with links like that was to wait untilBamboomancer wrote:A leap HOW?
Mastermind of Sin - William Hung (I Feel Sorry For You Mafia) - had his eyes melted out and the rest of himself blown to bits Night 1
Who on the internet do you feel more sorry for than the star wars kid? =/
Role-fishing and potential deception via incorrect definitions is something relevent to the whole town. If I seriously think someone's trying to out some power roles, I'm going to make that point to the whole town.Role-fishing in post 520 and failure to capitalize the parts of my username in post 521.
I often see people trying the 'sit back and relax' approach. You can'tHezLucky wrote:I don't need to explain anything quite yet.Sotty7 wrote:Yeah the fact he just slaps a vote on you Adele is really not helping his case in my eyes
I'm happy just lying back and watching scum slip up.
I can tell the difference between a townie on my wagon and a scum. This wagon provides information to me. If you're on it and you're scum, I may already have you figured out.
I believe in you, Hez!HezLucky wrote:Well no duh you can't always tell.
But sometimes you just have to believe in the Hez.
If my wagon gets big enough I'll be able to point the scum out to you easily.
Right now, it's too likely that my wagon is either concentrated with more town or more scum than the numbers usually provide. I need a bigger wagon on me before I am to do any pointing.
HezLucky wrote:I don't mind being lynched before endgame. I think it would be more profitable for the town actually.
But I am going to put up a fight before I claim (which will be VERY interesting indeed oh boy) in order to help the town catch scum.
Not that I really care whether the town wins or not.