Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Korts]

/confirm

[Korts]

Dum dee dum dee dum. I'm just a queer swiss peasant. No need to look in this direction. Dum dee dum.

[Korts]

Dum dee dum dee dum. I'm just a queer swiss peasant. No need to look in this direction. Dum dee dum.

when i first read this, i was trying to picture a gay pheasant. rofl

creepo

[Korts]

Voting scum: protown. BM gets a cookie.

[Korts]

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!

[Korts]

Seriously though BM, I think we should just let everyone make up their own minds. I don't want people following you

[Korts]

But we should follow you in the anti-treaty coalition?

Duh. Everyone who endorses individual thought should join under my flag and vote wherever I do!

BM, I'm just kidding, I'm actually interested how you'd handle this pact thing. (I'm just saying this so we don't get into this pre-game)

[Korts]

But we should follow you in the anti-treaty coalition?

Duh. Everyone who endorses individual thought should join under my flag and vote wherever I do!

BM, I'm just kidding, I'm actually interested how you'd handle this pact thing. (I'm just saying this so we don't get into this pre-game)

How about a merger? That way you dont have to worry about me being an evil swiss dictator, like so many before me.

BM

An uneasy truce maybe.

[Korts]

That's four so far for the treaty. I think we should stop at 5 tops, BM.

[Korts]

Fos: anyone joining the pact

Geez, the game's not even started yet

[Korts]

So join my ANTI-TREATY COALITION! We're currently allies with the Pact, but don't let that bother you, we're all for individual thought as long as you follow my instructions.

[Korts]

Really? I called a truce, but I didn't intend to sign up... BM, I'm out if you don't mind, I value individual thought over group hugs.

earthworm, the ANTI-TREATY COALITION is a joke. It was actually funny at first, I like to think.

[Korts]

And anyway, the Pact seems a tad too democratic for me. The coalition has proper hierarchy: there's me at the top, and there's the sheep below.

[Korts]

Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.

Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.

[Korts]

Alternatively, join the coalition. We don't have any rules or guidelines, we just oppose baseless trust in each other.

I've already got a nice slogan for the Coalition. "Playing it like Mod intended" how's that sound?

[Korts]

kill: nhat

[Korts]

overkill: nhat

228 in-game posts and you are already acting like you've got a couple thousand. Don't be a snob, don't be a prick, don't be an elitist jerk, please.

[Korts]

Geez, man. What I'm saying is this: what the fuck's post count got to do with anything?

[Korts]

You know, BM, how flattered I am by your offer, I really am. But individual thought and freedom of suspicions I can't bear to be infringed by a treaty that encourages bandwagoning.

Convince me that there won't be any trust or mindless vote following involved, and I may reconsider.

[Korts]

OF, I don't see BM threatening you with a vote.

[Korts]

lol

I'm gonna be watching your career in this game closely, BM. This treaty is an interesting proposition, and it seems too formal to me to work properly and without bias in a game of mafia.

[Korts]

BM, you're pretty much demanding a N1 kill now

[Korts]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

[Korts]

If you do survive, though, I'll be the one to string you up, mark my words.

please explain?

If you're scum yourself, you obviously won't have so big a chance of dying, no?

[Korts]

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

reason?

jumpy?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

Pure torture. It's like a dozen BMs and armlxes. Walls of text ftw

[Korts]

What response would you have expected? Or considered protown?

Any response would have evoked the same question, I just have the urge to throw shit at you >_>

[Korts]

BM, one thing I don't want you doing is being condescending. OpposedForce is making pretty good arguments in my irrelevant opinion, and all you have to do is point out the plotholes, you don't have to add how gullible/stoopid/foolish he is etc.

Untitled, what would you rather be doing, other than discussing? BM is contributing, contrary to appearances when skimming. Read the arguments thoroughly, and you'll have a better view.

[Korts]

OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.

Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.

[Korts]

OF, let me explain it without the unnecessary BS.

Scum will try to hide in the Pact. Therefore the Pact isn't a bad tool for scumhunting, since the scum will try to be inside. QED the points that A) scum will hide in the Pact and B) the Pact is detrimental to scumhunting are contradictory.

This is why i love you! <3
If only i was gay, and you weren't so ugly....



BM

Hands on the keyboard, buster.

[Korts]

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

[Korts]

Basically, though, it comes down to this, in full honesty. I'm against any form of "trust" without basis. Masons, Neighbours I understand, since their role demands some degree of trust towards their partner; but an ad hoc clique of unconfirmeds I do not like, and having a code of sorts to vote together seems to me like an excuse to bandwagon.

Join the COALITION, everyone! We represent freedom of vote and freedom of suspicions! No hierarchy, no trust, just a stance opposite the Pact.

At this point, i'm starting to worry you are being serious... lol

BM

Haha, semi-.

HoS, that's such a theatrical and ultimately pointless expression...

we can't vote yet. Anyway, it's the first absolute scumtell we've had this game. What do you make of it?

BM

I think you're blowing it out of proportion, since after his first three posts, he actually said some things. I'll need to read him properly, though, to be able to evaluate whether he's been misleading us/lying about himself.

[Korts]

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

reason?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

reason?

I dunno about the confirms, but the game hasn't started, and i'm still catching up.... 0.o

I can't imagine what it must be like for you guys!

BM

in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

Distraction? from what? Other games? roflmao. I'm actually in tears of laughter here.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are still in the pre-game stage. But, if you can explain what you mean by 'annoying' and 'this crap', that'll help you, and me, alot.

BM

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

In these two posts, BM, Untitled raises some points. In all honesty, you do reply to them, contrary to his statement that you don't, but I think that your posting style may be misleading him >_>

[Korts]

Okay, five posts, but in seven pages, and those damn quote pyramids...

Actually, the only thing I feel amiss is that he doesn't think the discussion about the pact and its validity is a discussion at all. Otherwise he seems to think discussion doesn't belong in confirmation stage, which is pretty much a null tell.

[Korts]

Korts, has anyone ever told you, you are too soft?

BM

Heh, not in so many words, no. But I guess I'm kinda fogiving with Untitled here. Thing is, your posts admittedly contain a lot of noise in which the significant parts are embedded, and I can see Untitled skimming and not noticing that you had in fact replied to his points raised.

[Korts]

do you think Untitled's attack on me is justified?

BM

Not in so many words, no. Nor especially scummy.

[Korts]

lol I'm not suicidal, you know. PBPA? It's only confirmation stage and you're already over fifty (!) posts...

Overall, I'd say you should be followed closely because of this pact, but you haven't been scummy per se. I'm just sayin', Untitled calling you "annoying" isn't a tell either way. Him threatening you with a vote for it is, however worth note, and I did note it. It's safely tucked away in a txt file.

[Korts]

Haha

I suppose I'm just wary of anything that involves any amount of baseless trust, which the voting clause basically implies. You especially should be watched because you proposed it.

[Korts]

Haha

I suppose I'm just wary of anything that involves any amount of baseless trust, which the voting clause basically implies. You especially should be watched because you proposed it.

so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?

BM

why are you trying to paint this black and white?

[Korts]

Haha

I suppose I'm just wary of anything that involves any amount of baseless trust, which the voting clause basically implies. You especially should be watched because you proposed it.

so you see my suggestion of the concept as scummy?

BM

why are you trying to paint this black and white?

I see you as kinda non-commital, sitting on the fence atm. Not really committing to concrete opinions, in order to avoid offending anyone. I know it's early days, but you clearly have more opinions than you are currently revealing, so i want to see them out in the open.

Please answer the question. It's not like either of us have anything better to do. lol

BM

Yeah I look like I'm on the fence about things because I am. The only thing I feel strongly about is that I won't be joining this pact unless I see it work and not be detrimental. In theory, it could go both ways, and I'm interested to see what happens. And I can see your motivation to propose this pact both as BM-town and BM-scum, and it is much more dangerous potentially if the latter is the case.

Other than this, though, I haven't yet seen anything that needs immediate action; I will wait until the game starts to begin properly playing. And in any case, voting is the best tool for scumhunting, and I don't think skitzer would count votes from pre-game as valid.

[Korts]

but I like random stages, it's fun... Anyway, I'm glad that you see your sins and have repented, BM!

[Korts]

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Do we have a limited amount of space, perchance?

[Korts]

A heads up for everyone: I will be away without access starting Thursday until Sunday (21-24) so nothing from me then.

[Korts]

Vote Dynamo

FoS PeterG, Wolf

See previous post.

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

vote: wolf

[Korts]

I smell broken logic.

[Korts]

Mafia is largely a game of quality, not quantity.

This, specifically.

[Korts]

Which do you find more credible: three posts that all make a good case or ten posts that suck?

BM made valid more than some points, even though he also generated quite some noise in the process. Do you have evidence or quotes to back up your claim that BM's posts lack "quality"?

[Korts]

SC, explain to me why you consider a low signal:noise ratio a definite scumtell when the post rates are this high.

Also, you seem to have listed fifteen posts out of seventy-plus as lacking quality. That number doesn't give me an impression of overall tendency.

[Korts]

I mean he's soft-claiming town by including himself in the group who scumhunts. He's labeling himself town, but subtly. I can live with an all out townie claim, even a clever or humorous one. But one under the radar like this rubs me the wrong way.

Isn't the assumption that everyone is claiming a pro-town role of sorts? If so, why is this considered a softclaim as opposed to going along with that assumption?

[Korts]

Ok, guys, I'm back, just a quick note for now. I knew I could count on you to give me some reading material, so I'll get to it pretty soon.

[Korts]

PeterGriffin, your vote reeks of OMGUS.

Where did you attack him to prompt the OMGUS?

Post 101

face + palm......

I'm with armlx.

I looked at most of the the posts since the game has

started

because the pregame to me was just like a bunch of random crap. Nhat so far looks like he has drawn a ton of suspicion, even with his vote on untitled but it hasn't sold me yet (I mean his horrible logic doesn't exactly make him scummy, its just horrible logic). However I will

FoS: Nhat

This reeks of opportunistic scum to me. "Oh, I'm not all that suspicious of him, but since all you people are having a go at him..." Why FoS him if you're not sold on him yet?

@Dynamo: why are you so hesitant to vote? Both cases look strong enough for this phase of the game, and they're both at L-12 or something like that.

Lol idk Im usually don't vote until I see a strong enough case to build against someone as being scum.

Translation: "you make a case, I hop on the wagon, that's how I roll." You'll go far in this game, you will.

yes, there are a lot of pre-game material. but keep this in mind: there's already 15 pages, and some people (like myself) didn't keep up with pre-game when it was happening. maybe there are tells in pre-game, but it's PRE-game, aka BEFORE the game. not everyone has thoroughly paid attention to pre-game because it wasn't when the game actually started.

So you mean to say that just because it's pre-game, scum slips should be ignored? Excuse my klatchian, but that's bullshit plain as day. Pre-game is just as valuable a source of information as any other part, if not more,

exactly

because, like you say, not everyone pays enough attention.

Ok, looks from what I've heard nhat is has been Soft Claiming- and that's not good, therefore

unvote vote: nhat

Geez, man, if you want to play the game, do the footwork. Read through the damn pages, like I do. It's not all that hard. Nhat didn't softclaim, he attacked Untitled for (apparently) softclaiming, although it's debatable whether including yourself in the town is softclaiming at all.

Like Untitled says in the following post.

Post 74-Korts: *facepalm* Seriously?

Heh heh. Naturally.

Hey fine, I guess I'm the scummy bad guy in this game. How's this for being a jerk.

Umm, hascow said you're

not

scummy for being a jerk, actually. Jumpy much?

As for my thoughts about Untitled, it's unanimous that everyone disagrees with me. Many people say that it was flawed. It's what I see. My opinion. For people to vote me for that is plain silly. Disagreement is fine, as I had said before.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that it's painfully obviously so and that even though people had pointed it out to you, you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong that's attracting votes.

Petergriffin had his smart assed comment about my vote count and belittling my game playing ability at the same time reeks of OMGUS because I jumped on him when he tried to criticize me before. That's why.

So basically you admit that you OMGUSed him first, and that his OMGUS is worse because it's him doing it and his attitude is wrong? Let me tell you, yours doesn't sit too well with me, either.

While I'm at it, Snaps_the_Pirate's case on me at #271 sucks since Battle Mage isn't anywhere near lynch either. What doesn't make sense is how one measly person, who has said multiple times that he has to manage things one case at a time, can be trying to push for a lynch when 14 people have to agree that the person is scummy. You, my friend, are blowing my case out of proportion.

Unvote: Battle Mage
Vote: Snaps_the_Pirate

Actually, I wan't trying to make a case against you. I was questioning

your

case on Battlemage. (Your OMGUS vote is noted however.)
You still haven't explained why you voted for BM in the first place. In post 266 you indicated you don't think BM is scum. If you weren't pushing for his lynch, as you now seem to be claiming, why did you vote for him? Pressure to make him post? No, BM will post excessively anyway. Pressure to claim? No, way to early for that.
What other possible motive could you have for voting for him?

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

nhat's being all bitchy isn't helping him at all (hinthint, actually discussing with a logical person while they are being wagoned does wonders for the town in so many ways I hear).

When things get repeated like it's something new, I have no choice but to get at people. There's no undoing what's been done, and if you have anything new to add to your case against me besides me flipping out on unoriginal posts, then get to it.

I seriously wonder how long it's going to be before nhat's lynched solely for being bitchy. Seriously, this previous post isn't constructive at all, so try to reply with logic when your arguments are dismantled. I see you making cases against others, but a defense shouldn't only consist of "I'm right, and screw you".

On the other hand, EA implied that his votes do not mean an intention to lynch (yet). So his vote-swapping is comparable to a load of FoSes for different people, which does not seem scummy to me. I sounds like Nhat has built another very weak case, this time to distract attention.

Unvote
Vote: Nhat

It is a good bandwagon.

This vote stinks. Need I say more? BTW, I don't agree with the EA wagon, either, because his reasons are always enough for a vote, and I know him from two games together to be a person to change votes frequently.

...

Sigh. And that was only two and a half pages. Will continue catching up a bit later, this is getting annoying.

[Korts]

Which do you find more credible: three posts that all make a good case or ten posts that suck?

1 word. Actually, i'll make it even easier. 2 syllables:

PRE-GAME.

1 word. IRRELEVANT. BTW the question posed is bad bad and a false dichotomy, but the answer leaves me shaking my head. ... So pretty much what armlx says.

Oh shit, I forgot that townies have rock-solid unchanging reads on everyone at this stage in the game. You sure caught me, champ.

Never rock solid, but not hoppy as that.

I don't like armlx generalizing things like that. Who's to tell what standard town behaviour should look like?

Because changing your mind more than once is something only scum would do, right?

Based on those reasons, pretty much.

Nobody's attacking the reasons, they're just saying "2 vote hops? SCUM!!!!!"

This, however, makes me rethink my position on EA. He had some reasons, yes, but people did comment on them being too weak. I'd say that counts as an attack.

[quote="cris150]armlx: makes good points about strangercoug "case" against bm, raising some good questions for SC
post 310 - kinda defends nhat and i agree that nhat is probably wrong, but not scum [/quote]

This isn't much of a point against cris right now, but if cris turns scum, I'd say it should be far more difficult to make a case stick on nhat, check the last sentence. Confidence is nice, but you seem very sure.

...

Hohum. I'm getting tired and need to catch up elsewhere, so I'll continue this later.

[Korts]

Earthworm's defense of me is much appreciated, but I'm a bit wary. The problem is that typically, with some exceptions e.g. lynch situations, I won't be comfortable defending other players without knowing their alignment. I usually see scum defend other players more than townies defending other players. This situation, in particular, may be a bit premature, which makes me suspect a possible buddy-up attempt.

This post implies to me an Earthworm-Netlava connection more than the initial defense from Earthworm. Netlava seems to be trying to communicate to EW that the defending should stop, and also nipping any attacks based on this in the bud.

You just lost the 'Convince the BM' Battle. And we both know what comes next.

Not the Comfy Chair!

On a different note, BM, why is Skimmy Scummy? It's anti-game, but I'd dismiss that as a valid scumtell. BTW, you're overly antagonizing SC, I feel, which I'm suspicious of you for.

oh and btw...

Oh My God, U Suck.

Heh, yay for subtlety!

If I'm slandering you as you say I am, then you're slandering me back, and this is a lose-lose proposition unless we can settle our differences.

SC's answer seems very pro-town, and he's reacting pretty level-headedly to BM's provocation. He gets a plus point for style.

On the topic of vote-hopping, what do you guys think of this?

Its a minor scum tell but right now as no one as a solid case anything is possible.

What's this supposed to mean? The existence of solid cases does in no way relate to the strength of a scumtell. This is a very vague sentence; I smell active lurking.

I'm liking EA's post 454 in and of itself, but he is getting very tunnel vision, I feel.

I'll have to continue later, seems I didn't get very far. At this pace, I'll catch up by the time the game ends...

[Korts]

Hm, I had not even noticed that armlx was pushing wagons without putting his vote on them... explains my bad feeling I guess.
I'm curious if he has an explanation.

FoS Armlx

Why only a FoS, though, then?

unvote, vote: Cass

Cautious bussing?

[Korts]

Skimming is scummy because protown players are more likely to read stuff in order to understand it and properly comment on it. Scum dont need to hunt scum, and can afford to be lazy. This does not necessarily apply in tl;dr type posts, but in general, i feel it's a pretty sound scumtell.

Unfortunately, a lot of this game is beginning to get tl;dr for me, due to time restrictions. I'm thoroughly reading everything right now, but I can't promise the same a week or so in the future...

Erm, can I sign the treaty?

Welcome to page 25 ;P

Welcome to the Non-Contribution Zone. Please pick up your complementary vote from one of our players.

[Korts]

Notice that Korts claimed i was 'scummy' but didnt give any reasons, falling on the same pedastal as you- that by participating alot, i am more likely to be scum, despite failing to come up with any real scumtells from those posts.

BM, BM, don't try to misrepresent me. I never said you were scummy, at least not in this game so far. All I said was that I'm gonna keep my eye on you for a while, because this pact's impact on the game could've been both pro- and anti-town, and you were the one who started discussion about it.

True enough, but i see it more often from scum than town, because town has no reason not to commit to opinions.

You're elegantly avoiding the fact that townies aren't always decided on a particular matter just because they're townies.

Let’s change the subject for just a moment so neither of us end up clawing at each other and winning nothing at the end. I will take a look at the other 24 players in this game and post my opinions of them based on their posts, and I want you to do the same thing. I think we've made it clear that we each think the other is scum, so don't do me and I won't do you.

Wow, does that sound like he is scared of BM?

SrangerCoug has said an awful lot, but has not said very much. He mentions his case on me a few times. What case? He has said nothing for me to defend.

He also talks about being misrepresented, yet he stated I was anti-pact. My only comment on the pact was that it was null and wouldn’t affect the game one way or the other. How is that “anti-pact”? Who is mis-representing who?

StrangerCoug has yet to anwser my simple question “Why did he initially vote BM?”. It’s a very simple and fair question. Yet he has completely ignored it.

Vote StrangerCoug

I smell slight OMGUS.

FoS: CyberBob for being, just plain WRONG.

Being wrong is suspicious activity how exactly?

SC, post 497... Don't do that again. Please. On a third scan of the post I realized you messed up the quote tags and there is new info there, but way to make me read properly, damn you!

You say you hope scum joins the pact, which sounds a bit like something scum itself would say. It's like saying I hope scum kills Battle Mage tonight if he doesn't get lynched (especially since it would imply that I know Battle Mage is town)

I don't... exactly follow. Where do you make the connection between the two hypothetical situations?

OK, so it's better for us to engage in an ultimately futile vendetta?

Why is it definitely futile to continue? There has been no proof of this.

Gah. Next post, everything is all nice and clear... Shiny.

Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own.

Um, you took it seriously?

I'm up to page 21 now, I'm closing in slowly, yay. Will be back later.

[Korts]

Cephrir really did say he hopes scum gets in the treaty, which came off to me as his being scum itself.

It's this part that I can't follow. I don't understand how the first part warrants the other.

Laughed at Korts's pact made in retaliation to his own.

Um, you took it seriously?

No, hence why I laughed.

Heh. But in the original context, you said it was BM who laughed at my coalition, and you never implied (at least not in the originally quoted post) that you acknowledged it as a joke.

[Korts]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

Also, how long ago did i make that post? 0.o

Far too long ago. I'm working my way up through the pages, but I'm still about six pages behind... I've half a mind to leave it, but I owe you guys a proper read.

[Korts]

mod:

are there enough colours to change that yellow to something else? If so, I'd ask very kindly... it burnses.

[Korts]

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

And you think I could trust you (or anyone else in the town for that matter) not to call me out on such complete BS?

[Korts]

@Lowell, why is it weak?

[Korts]

It's not a scum direction per se, but it still encourages scum to act in a certain way, which probably won't be beneficial to town.

Please try to explain to me why having scum act a certain way doesn't enhance scumhunting. I mean, to a simple guy like me, it seems the town should be overjoyed that the scum all act one way, no?

Again, where have I said that this is a reason for you to be scum? You're trying hard to make this black and white. You're to be watched, but that doesn't equate by far to being actually scummy. You're in the spotlight now, too late for second thoughts, no?

I'm tackling the issue now, in case, later on, you decide to try and vote me, for starting a Pact, which, in 50 pages time, somehow causes the town to go wrong.

BM

And you think I could trust you (or anyone else in the town for that matter) not to call me out on such complete BS?

if not, why are you bring up said 'complete BS' as a scenario now?

BM

Oh, haha. Read the quote pyramid you're quoting. You brought up the scenario, I just commented on it. Seriously, BM, you're better than this.

unvote, vote: Battle Mage

Misrepresentation and the lot.

[Korts]

In order to keep the thread relatively clean, I'm not gonna quote the pyramid now.

BM, I said you deserve attention for starting the pact. You say that I said I'd possibly use the starting of the pact as a scumtell against you. Hence the misrepresentation. Don't tell me you're this thick.

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

[Korts]

You still aren't making sense. What sort of attention do i deserve Korts? Are you saying i deserve more attention than a guy who has only made 1 post so far? Why would i deserve more attention than any of the other players here!?

BM

You deserve attention because you proposed a plan that could tilt the game either way based on the players inside the pact. Also, I didn't say others deserve less attention, just for other things.

unvote

'Cause you genuinely believe what you say. Which isn't a good thing if you don't understand what you're replying to.

On to a different matter then.

vote: Cass

Her reaction to being pressured on the armlx-FoS issue is telling IMO. First the denial, then the vote on armlx, for a weak reason.

[Korts]

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely. Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

The armlx case isn't really convincing.

[Korts]

I don't know how much access I'll have in the following days, so don't flip out if I don't post much. Sorry in advance for any unanswered questions etc.

[Korts]

I'm back, although I'm on from a public hotspot right now, no net at our flat yet. I may be short and won't check mafiascum frequently.

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely.

That's not what i said atall now, is it?

That's what I gathered. You say "no scumbag would do it" which I took to say that you don't consider it a legitimate point.

Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

Yes. You were happy to admit this earlier. Why do you question it now?

BM

I was on the fence about the pact issue, but to set me up as non-committal overall is misrepresentation. I don't like you much right now, BM.

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Unvote EA because deadline is approaching and I never actually wanted to lynch him.

This seems to contradict "votes generally mean intent to lynch."

I think in this case it was "willingness to lynch".

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

[Korts]

'm not even sure if i'm voting for you. Assuming i'm not, i think you're OMGUSing shadows again. If i am, i guess you'll have to learn to live with the fact that this is a Mafia game, and if i think you're scum, i'm gonna try and lynch you- friend or otherwise.

Heh, you seem to think I'm taking this personally. No, I meant I'm not liking you especially game-wise.

Aww, didums.
*kuddles Korts*

Hehheh. Appeal to emotion noted

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Jesus....do you ever stop and think 'is there really any need to get wound up about this?' 0.o

He said non-committing tells existed. I wanted to know what he thought of you, given that that was my view of your approach to this game. Understand? :Roll:

BM

Your question was pretty much a loaded one. If you're interested in someone's opinion of a person, your first question, in my irrelevant opinion, shouldn't be "why aren't you voting him/her?" However you're rolling your eyes, you're still wrong, haha

Buddying up to BM. His other two posts day one are more buddying and /treaty. If scum was going to join the pact, I think this is how they would do it.

Absolutly agree with you.

This is not a defense. Please try again.

[Korts]

This is not a defense. Please try again.

Lol who said I was making a defense? :p

I was hoping you'd catch my drift and try to, you know, address the points made against you further than "I know I'm scummy". A shrug isn't a defense.

[Korts]

Dynamo, since I have a pretty good feeling that you are in fact town, I just want to remind you that giving up like you're doing now is retarded. Even if it was inevitable that you're the lynch today, and it isn't, it would still help the town more if you don't make it easy for scum to vote you with impunity. And that's exactly what saying "I admit I fucked up go ahead and lynch me I deserve it blah blah blah" does. As it stands, it's impossible to pick out which votes for you are opportunistic and which aren't, because they all look the same.

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

Dynamo can't avoid a lynch now, but if he turns scum, I'm gonna look at you real hard, EA.

[Korts]

Because i said you were 'non-commital'? rofl. I'm LOVING you game-wise. Great comic value, before we string your ass up.

Yeah, you're very funny *pats back* Because you're misrepresenting others, mostly.

On the question issue, it wasn't just aggressive. It was, well, a completely different question, though related, than your later claimed intentions. I hope the last sentence is understandable, my english gets sloppy sometimes...

[Korts]

Because i said you were 'non-commital'? rofl. I'm LOVING you game-wise. Great comic value, before we string your ass up.

Yeah, you're very funny *pats back* Because you're misrepresenting others, mostly.

No. No..not others- just you, amirite?

BM

Sigh... I'll dig the dirt up properly. Just not now.

[Korts]

Sigh... I'll dig the dirt up properly. Just not now.

Don't be lazy please.

It's just that it's Hungary-Denmark qualifications for the 2010 world cup. Plus I'm tired. I'll do it tomorrow, promise.

[Korts]

Hi, I still agree we should lynch Dynamo. Yes, I have seen townies do something like what he did, but scum as well. And he doesn't show any inclination to help town or try to convince us to let him live.

I'm getting vaguely bad vibes from this. Will reread this tomorrow and try to find what's bothering me along with the BM post.

[Korts]

The BM thing will have to wait, at least a couple hours, but it may be more. University life leaves my computer's batteries low.

Noted, however, is Netlava's strange vote, and I'll be glad to see a proper explanation of it next time I pop in here.

[Korts]

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.

Hi, I still agree we should lynch Dynamo. Yes, I have seen townies do something like what he did, but scum as well. And he doesn't show any inclination to help town or try to convince us to let him live.

I'm getting vaguely bad vibes from this. Will reread this tomorrow and try to find what's bothering me along with the BM post.

I think what may have bugged me about Cass' post was the fact that she posted "I'm still up for a Dynamo lynch" which is basically nothing more than a prod avoidance post. Maybe she was trying to fly under the radar, but I've seen posts from her since, so the point's irrelevant now.

BM thing coming up within the hour.

[Korts]

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

Sigh. What I said about armlx goes to you, too. Readthrough on you will be done.

[Korts]

I withdraw my point about BM misrepping others, at least not any more than he usually does... You guys just be patient and explain everything nice and slow to him

About this EA thing though, I'd like you to at least address his arguments, BM. My reason for not liking you has changed to you dancing around the issue.

armlx is... pretty much null apart from my point made in my last (?) post.

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.

[Korts]

Ok, I can't see us stopping a Dynamo lynch annoyingly, because some people apparently doubt his alignment. Fair enough, but guys, we have 9 days to do it, so it's still perfectly doable.

What reasons do you have for wanting to stop us from lynching Dynamo? Or atleast what are your reasons for thinking he is town and not lieing?

I think we've already gone over that a couple of times. Why ask these questions? You seem to be trying to look like you're contributing while in reality all you're doing is asking pointless questions. Active lurking much?

unvote, vote: raider

[Korts]

(accusation of active lurking)

unvote, vote: raider

I would care more about this vote if it would have happened when I was active lurking.

This reply does not refute the accusation of active lurking.

The case is weak as I have been posting alot more then I was. If the vote came a week ago it would have been expected. There are also many others that are lurking it didnt make sense why I was picked but I think because I happen to post at the time it made all the difference.

Translation: "I was lurking but I'm not so much anymore!" Also, please differentiate between active lurking and lurking in general. The first doesn't relate to posting frequency. Your question just stood out as generally unhelpful and pointless, since the point in question had been discussed, and if I'm correct, multiple times also.

[Korts]

Netlava (502) If someone wants to defend someone else is it not always a scum tell, minor or not. If I post something and you interpret it differently then someone else while being wrong someone else might defend me to explain that you did not read my post correctly. That would not make that person scum just because they pointed that out.

DynamoXI role fishing does seem to be pushing more then I have normaly seen. Though town could do the same thing, curiosity can get the best of anyone. I think he is the best lynch right now. The attention he has brought on himself has never been in a good light. Post 719 from cow says it all.

Vote Dynamo

This was your last post with serious content; I have to point out though that your case against Dynamo relies heavily on others' points. I realize you can't always make unique points, but this is still to be noted.

Everyone on the Dynamo wagon: have you EVER seen scum, particularly newbscum, just give up and resign himself to his own lynch like this? I can point to a few finished games when I've seen a townie do it (sykedoc in Mini 577, vendetta in Newbie 615, and CC09 in Mini 617 all come to mind) but never once have I seen this sort of concession come from scum.

I have not been in many games yet so I may not be the best one to answer this, however in one of my games one of the scum gave up and self voted himself for the lynch. The game was SSWIII.

Your next is a single comment on self-hammering. Almost, but not quite, irrelevant.

If you are town, it would be detrimental to your winning cause to self-hammer. Please do not self-hammer.

If I don't get lynched now (which idk how that could happen) later on (possibly in lylo) scum could use all the plausible cases against me to win, something that I think I can take care of right now.

Maybe but then we wouldnt have the all the people in the bandwagon to compare agianst during the later rounds.

Your next post is a single sentence directed at Dynamo. I don't understand this; Dynamo is basically arguing

for

his lynch, and you say this in reply, but the structure of the sentence, which implies you'd be arguing

against

Dynamo's lynch (starting with "maybe, but"), is in contradiction with the actual content, which is another point in favor of a Dynamo-lynch. Correct me if I'm wrong; this isn't a point in case against you, I would just like some clarification.

I dont see a real case on Netlava. It is kind of odd but with a game this size I dont see why people will not be jumpy at first. I still like my vote on Dynamo.

Your next comment is a short note on the Netlava-case and reinforcing your conviction in your vote. No serious content here.

Also, I strongly believe Netlava to have tried to bus Dynamo, and to have failed miserably. In my mind, we may have just caught two scum.

Also, EA's vote on BM seems quite OMGUS to me, and BM's play, while frustrating, seems just like Battle Mage being Battle Mage.

I feel we should lynch Dynamo today, and if he turns scum,

very seriously consider

lynching Netlava tomorrow. I am also willing to do this vice versa, but would prefer Netlava to be lynched first.

Why would you say we need to lynch Dynamo today and then say you prefer Netlava to be lynched first?

A pointless question whose answer is in the quoted post, pretty much. Again, no serious content.

And this is just going back, what, four posts and eight days.

[Korts]

I'm content with raider's reply.

I endorsed the postings from other people while I added a little bit. You can not always have unique points and it will often be someone else's case that gets you to see their point of view. Its called a bandwagon. It happens. This might be something worth more if you called everyone else on it. I wonder why you are going after only me? Kind of strange but if I hit your radar then hope this answers that.

It was a minor point anyway, but I did already say that you can't always make unique points.

My comment was completely relevant. If you think otherwise please explain more. He asked a question and I gave what I thought to be a good example. If you notice he then revised his thought because of my example.

Right. Sorry, I seemed to remember that you were the umpteenth in a long line of people to come up with a counter-example to EA. I was viewing only in isolation, shame on me for that.

Not all posts are going to have serious content. This one was me asking for the case on Netlava as I did not see it. Is it so wrong to ask for clarification?

Not wrong, per se. But it wasn't the first post of yours without serious content, truth be told.

I was asking for clarification. Note the bolded parts. How can you lynch Dynamo today and prefer that Netlava be lynched first?

Right, but if you had read the post thoroughly, it would've been obvious even without clarification that it was just a typo, therefore asking for clarification seemed pointless from my point of view.

It seems to me you had questions for me but why would you vote first and then ask the question. Your case is empty but I will be a placeholder for your vote.

I percieved you as actively lurking, an activity I don't much like. I voted you particularly because the post which I initially attacked you for stood out as a blatant attempt at posting for the sake of posting. Others' possible attempts at lurking didn't convince me of an actual intent to lurk, therefore I didn't attack others.

On the other hand, I don't see how being newer than some makes Dynamo exempt from a lynch in some people's eyes. I'm more than willing to lynch him, and completely agree with Karne.

unvote, vote: Dynamo

[Korts]

Dammit, what did we tell you about self-hammering?

[Korts]

Anyway.

[Korts]

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.

[Korts]

Replacing in for Pixa, anything specific I should look for in my re-read?

Scum?

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're asking your scumbuddy (?) to point out things you should avoid addressing etc.

[Korts]

Hmmm... interesting. I'd say you're sounding like an over-eager newbie, but I know better, as I've played with you.

It is common practice to ask for highlights when replacing.

Yeah, I know It's just that I find it mildly scummy every time for some reason, and I've decided to voice it this time.

Note: It's valuable to the town. Now that you've made a discussion of it, it won't be, but it good information to see who's focusing on what.

I agree, okay. So here's my highlights. BM proposes a pact to be formed of the players, with specific terms of who can join and what their function is, but basically the point is that they vote together unless the players within the pact can give reasons why they don't want to. Some people jump at it, especially Dynamo (whose lynch is based among other things on this) and Cephrir (who was apparently not serious).

Dynamo continually acts very newbish and scummy, I go away for a week or so and various smaller scuffles break out, most importantly one between nhat and someone else I can't recall right now (maybe Cyberbob?) and one between EA-BM near the end of Day 1. Dynamo is eventually lynched for all the little things.

Also, Cass makes a scum slip in the sense that he declares a case on armlx that is pretty much worth voting for at that point, yet she only FoSes him. I call her out for that, and BM jumps on me because that tell is apparently outdated according to him. This implies a connection between Cass and BM to me.

Those are the things that spring to mind without a reread.

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're making mountains out of molehills to make Surye look suspicious.

Minor FoS: Korts

Did I vote with it? No. Then why is speculation harmful?

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.

Nevertheless, I need something to do.

[Korts]

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.

[Korts]

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

[Korts]

Skruffs, it's not unhelpful to speculate. I'm definitely not going to base a case on it, but I'm going to do it to myself anyway, and while I'm at it, I think it helps the town if my thoughts are made clear.

Yeah, and happy birthday, BM!

[Korts]

Replacing in for Pixa, anything specific I should look for in my re-read?

Scum?

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're asking your scumbuddy (?) to point out things you should avoid addressing etc.

I probably shouldn't judge from this single post, but it looks like you're making mountains out of molehills to make Surye look suspicious.

Minor FoS: Korts

qft.

BM

Seriously. Is your point that I shouldn't point out things only slightly suspect?

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.

Well, him being a roleblocker would make it slightly less probable that his main suspects were mafia (because he'd have blocked them assumedly). No evidence, though.

Any reason you'd feel this was worth noting?

Also, Cass makes a scum slip in the sense that he declares a case on armlx that is pretty much worth voting for at that point, yet she only FoSes him. I call her out for that, and BM jumps on me because that tell is apparently outdated according to him. This implies a connection between Cass and BM to me.

Maybe you should reread before you say things like that. I'm pretty sure I didn't vote him, because I liked my vote where it was.
...

FoS: Korts

First, I appreciate your OMGUS. Second, what's your point? You didn't vote him because you liked where your vote was, despite your reasons against armlx (pushing wagons without his vote reinforcing his stated opinions) being stronger than the one with which you were still voting nhat (making papery thin cases in semi-random stage, no less, shock!). You instead only FoS armlx; this seems much like a feeble distancing attempt. BM defending you is just another thing.

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.

Though what makes me doubt the case is Armlx jumping on it. Armlx just keeps giving me bad vibes...

Please try to explain why you think armlx is scummy, otherwise I'll just think you're further distancing.

I agree with the netlava bandwagon. I just dont want to see the bandwagon get that large so fast. I would like to see how Netlava posts today before adding my vote.

Thus far I agree with hasdgfas. I dont think the FoS was needed but it did help get the point accross.

This has the fair aroma of opportunism; embracing the newly found suspicion of Cream while maintaining a healthy dose of support for Netlava's wagon. Also, off the top of my head, I don't remember you supporting Netlava's lynch yesterday, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll go ahead and

vote Netlava

for the same reasons as in post #832.

Reinforce me in my faith, post 832's reasons are the same except one addition as nhat's 830, right?

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.

The wishy-washiness of this post amuses me. What about Netlava again?

[Korts]

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.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

Also, FTR the Netlava case is weak, but I like raider's explanation.

[Korts]

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.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

Also, FTR the Netlava case is weak, but I can accept raider's explanation of his support.

[Korts]

DAMN YOUR INVALID SESSIONS!

[Korts]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

[Korts]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

Let's break his example down:

Alright, and I'll translate into mafiaspeak:

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?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

"If I were scum, I would stay quiet." (I hope you do know why "if I were scum"-type statements are generally WIFOM.)

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?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

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??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too).

In my irrelevant opinion, Skruffs is asking the town questions derived from a bad analogy that boils down to circular logic (a.k.a. WIFOM).

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing.

Why the mafia lecture? I asked why the analogy made sense, not to explain the basic dynamics of the game.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

Actually.

unvote, vote: Skruffs

You're better than this stuff.

[Korts]

I do know, but keeping as quiet as possible so as not to arouse too much suspicion is simply common sense. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a noisemaker for a Mafioso, but I'm ironically the only person I'm able to think of where that's the case. If you know of a game I wasn't in (that's been completed, mind you) with vocal scum, please let me know.

The only problem with this is that meta doesn't necessarily coincide with whatever common sense dictates. If you want examples where I'm vocal scum, feel free to visit my wiki page, all my completed games are listed there. I tend to be vocal either way. I can't really give examples other than mine off the top of my head though, I don't keep thorough track of players in relation to alignment in my finished games and I don't much read games I'm not in.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

If no other options are feasible, then to use a term I have a dislike of, the most obvscum player should probably be lynched. The operative word, however, is "if". The cop should probably go after the guy that's flailing, but he shouldn't assume he's the drug dealer.

Please, stay out of the analogy and keep the discussion in the realm of mafia, because it's unnecessarily confusing.

I agree that the town shouldn't assume things, but conviction in votes is necessary for a lynch. I wasn't arguing with the statement that assumptions are bad, I was arguing that Skruffs' point seemed to be an anti-town point ("don't lynch the scummy guy").

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Skruffs can probably answer this better than I can, but think of the journalist as scumhunting town. You don't report news by saying "Oh, so and so committed such and such, so he must be guilty!" News reporters don't decide who's guilty or not; jurors do. I find it easier to explain jurors than news reporters when using a real-life example to explain Mafia.

The town is both reporters and jurors. But yeah, I guess. It still doesn't change that the basis of the whole analogy was circular logic.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

I'm pretty sure scum did lynch DynamoXI, and I'm after Netlava in particular.

Yeah, I'm not questioning your conviction, I just think the question itself from Skruffs is a loaded one. It implies the answer Skruffs is expecting, nay, demanding, and is thus anti-town.

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being common sense.

It being common sense does not mean it can't be WIFOM. Common sense isn't the optimal way to scumhunt.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

If I knew of undercover cops, I wouldn't. If I had reason to believe that I can get away with it, then I would probably do it, but if I knew I could get into trouble that way, I would avoid it.

You're just restating the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact that it being common sense=/=it not being circular logic.

[Korts]

@Skruffs: That is not the defintion of WIFOM. You just described a leading question. WIFOM is generally an "if I were scum" or "why would scum" type of statement. Search the wiki and you'll see what I mean. Also, I don't think your long-winded analogy has much to do with any of this.
In related news, it may be obvious, but I'm thinking of a Skruffs-Netlava connection. I think Netlava might be our lynch today, but if either of them flips scum, the other will be my first vote the next day.

We're not exactly five pages into Day 2. I really don't like the way you're so confident in Netlava winding up as our lynch. Are you in a hurry?

[Korts]

Not particularly, it's just that just a lot of people suspect him and he hasn't offered much defense. Besides, saying "

I think

Netlava

might

be our lynch" doesn't sound that confident to me.

Well, it's hardly your opinion that counts in this case

[Korts]

I understand why Korts is responding to Skruffs the way he is, so I'll downgrade to just an

FoS: Korts

. His shooting off cases without much of a good reason is still noted.

Um, what cases did I shoot off?

[Korts]

Whoops—our talking about Skruff's posts got me to mistake you for BlakAdder, and Skruff accused him of shooting cases off like that. My apologies.

Un-FoS: Korts
FoS: BlakAdder

A quick question.

Why are you following Skruffs around like a puppy?

Nevermind.

[Korts]

And on that note.

unvote, vote: Cass

Next.

[Korts]

No. I changed my mind about Skruffs. Cass is the next in line on my list of suspicions.

[Korts]

No. I changed my mind about Skruffs. Cass is the next in line on my list of suspicions.

Why Cass?

Mostly still the case I made against her yesterday.

[Korts]

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 haven't seen armlx providing obviously flawed logic, which you did. Care to respond to

my

questions, or do you just avoid my arguments and OMGUS?

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?

I'm not comfortable speculating scumpairs, but when exploring circumstantial tells such as the FoS instead of vote, connections are naturally implied.

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.

Beg your pardon. I primarily drew the conclusion of a possible connection to

armlx

from Cass' FoS; your argument against armlx I didn't find really convincing, since it relies on him being good at reading people, also known as Burden of Proficiency, if I'm right.

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?

Haha. Nice hyperbole. Even if I was prodecting armlx, your case is based on me drawing two conclusions from Cass' FoS, of which only one is about armlx, plus the fact that I didn't comment on your recent case. Hard evidence indeed.

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

Also, nice OMGUS, Cass I'm gonna do a PBPA on you, because you stink to me.

[Korts]

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.

Explaining further wouldn't be really pro-town. I think I already blew it, though.

[Korts]

EBWOP:

I think I already blew it, though.

Meaning I probably explained it too much already.

[Korts]

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.

Explaining further wouldn't be really pro-town. I think I already blew it, though.

EBWOP:

I think I already blew it, though.

Meaning I probably explained it too much already.

Translation: "I don't see StrangerCoug as suspicious as Skruffs, but I have something to hide from the former. I'm also pessimistic scum that has said something the town shouldn't know about and have therefore thrown in the towel."

Unvote: Netlava
FoS: Netlava
Vote: Korts

lol

You think you can pressure me into saying what I believed you to be?

Inquisitive scum.

[Korts]

EBWOP:

Inquisitive scum.

Inquisitive scum's not what I believed you to be, it's what you are. Just to make sure I get the message through.

[Korts]

Me inquisitive, yes. Me scum, prove it.

You misrepresented me and put words in my mouth that came from your arse. Also, you wanted to pressure me into telling something I specifically said it wouldn't be pro-town to tell. Proof enough?

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.

[Korts]

Why would you think they were masons from that?

I dunno, it was yesterday. I changed my mind and I think they're scum now, especially with Skruffs' BS and SC supporting it.

[Korts]

Well yeah. But SC following would make sense even if they were masons.

[Korts]

Well yeah. But SC following would make sense even if they were masons.

My point is what changed?

I had another think.

[Korts]

Dammit armlx, there you go with the capital S again...

[Korts]

Dammit armlx, there you go with the capital S again...

Is there some deal with the capital S that I missed before or something?

It's just that armlx keeps reverting to calling me KortS. Not game-related in the strict sense.

[Korts]

EBWOP: oh, and happy birthday.

[Korts]

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

[Korts]

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.

Yes, because you were also spouting BS and WIFOM. I decided to pressure the source rather than the supporter.

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?

I don't see how scum

or

town would be motivated to support obviously broken and circular logic (yay for oxymorons) unless it's their scumbuddy they're trying to defend/support.

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)

You were suspicious enough even without SC's support. But seriously, if you don't address the points I made relating the analogy and how it's utter bullshit, I'll think you're pointedly avoiding the topic because you know I'm right.

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. I thought it was wisest if I at least tried to subtly breadcrumb what I was thinking, in case later you claim masons and I can back it up for you. I don't see how from that post alone I'm anti-town.

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.

I'm not dismissing attention on SC. Where have I done that, show me and you get a cookie. I'm attacking you instead of him only because you made the initial BS analogy, and you're better than that vague and useless waste of words and thought.

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.

lol

If my opinion is he wasn't using faulty logic, why should

your

opinion that he was using faulty logic incriminate me? The armlx case is uninteresting to me. Push his wagon all you want, but I'm not gonna take part in it just because not taking part would make me look scummy in your eyes.

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.

Again, explain how I'm defending armlx. Was it because I hadn't commented on the case? I'm attacking you first instead of SC because you started with the BS, and not him. Him supporting it is another thing. If I had two votes, my choice would have been easier. I chose on an impulse, and I'm happier by the moment with how it turned out. Your reaction is pretty much OMGUS, and you haven't responded to the points I made so far.

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

Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Not, you know, that I caught you trying to pass a vague and generalized analogy that boiled down to BS.

[Korts]

Please. Read Skruffs' analogy and tell me it's not BS. Read SC and tell me there's no connection between them.

[Korts]

I just can't accept that you would agree that such obvious WIFOM is actual contribution, SC. Please, read the analogy again. And then, please explain, in detail, how it

isn't

circular logic to the core.

[Korts]

Touché. I'm guilty of it, yes, but I'm not basing a whole case on it. The connection is implied either way, while Skruffs' analogy in defense of Netlava, I think, uses the "too scummy to be scum" fallacy which is a whole different level of WIFOM.

[Korts]

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.

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.

[Korts]

"Too Townie"? No. I'm accusing you of supporting the "too scummy to be scum" argument. The distinction is the recieving end; the former attacks a particular player, the latter defends them.

[Korts]

Whatever. Vote stands.

Someone help me out. This post is extra scummy, I just can't put my finger on why.

[Korts]

Hm. Probably the fact that you can't respond to my points with anything resembling logic, so you confirm that your vote stays.

[Korts]

Sarnathed.

[Korts]

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

[Korts]

Thats helpful

So's that.

[Korts]

If I recall correctly, I have already stated that the Netlava case is unconvincing and uninteresting. The point(s) brought against him are fairly valid, but not really all that strong.

I've been making an effort to rally a competing wagon, but it seems it was in vain. I'm still convinced there's something between Skruffs and SC, and also that Skruffs has been avoiding my major points. For the latter, Skruffs, and for the former, SC would deserve more pressure. Probably in that order.

[Korts]

Way to be inconsistent, Cass. A couple pages ago you were all over me for accusing you of not daring to vote your scumbuddy, yet now I'm not even in your top three? On the other hand, you seem to have started pushing armlx since I brought up the FoS-tell again. What's your reason? Vibe, yeah. You want to look like your conviction in an armlx lynch is rock solid, but you don't want an actual wagon to build on him just because you gave proper reasons for your vote is the feeling I get.

Lowell chalking up someone as town isn't a tell in his case. I've seen him do it as town multiple times.

[Korts]

@all others- the above post by cass is so wickedly scummy it hurts

The lack of real reasoning in defining why people are scummy is certainly disconcerting.

Also the whole wishy-washiness about Lowell and not saying any original comments about the analogy argument.

[Korts]

Among my first posts Day 2, I believe. In reply to Surye asking for a brief summary.

[Korts]

I feel that Cass was borderline appealing to emotion in her last post. Reading it, though, I can't exactly find what gives me that feeling...

[Korts]

Yeah, that must have been it, armlx.

Cass, the case (my case) on you is the FoS tell (the answer to which hasn't convinced me otherwise), appeal to emotion, and pushing a wagon based on "gut" instead of presenting a case resembling anything proper.

[Korts]

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.

[Korts]

As I've said multiple times,

I'm not feeling the Netlava case as much as you guys claim to be.

[Korts]

Thing is, Skruffs, I didn't make an analogy. You did. I had some points against it, which were discussed

at length

between me and SC. I'm voting you because I wanted an answer from you, something which I didn't get yet. I raised the subject multiple times, yet you hadn't replied until now. Did you really expect me not to jump to conclusions?

[Korts]

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.

[Korts]

So what's your reason to vote me?

[Korts]

You following Skruffs' opinion is a valid reason to vote.

[Korts]

I'm with Korts and Hascow here. However, I don't quite feel comfortable voting either of them just off of this.

What? You agree with us, therefore you're considering voting us? How does that make sense?

[Korts]

Skruffs, why are you avoiding the analogy topic? Please either admit that it's circular logic, or prove to me that it isn't. SC, I don't want an answer from you, let your scumbuddy do the explaining.

[Korts]

Dammit, Skruffs, don't ignore me!

[Korts]

Okay, then, Skruffs, whenever you're ready. But do the legwork, then. Because though you claim you're not ignoring me, you've made no mention of my problems with the analogy other than a promise to address them sometime in the future.

[Korts]

That's a bullshit vote, SC. Not justifying a vote is anti-town. Saying that that's what he did isn't.

Also, I'd still like Skruffs to answer me.

[Korts]

BM, as far as I've gathered, SC's reason to vote you wasn't that you didn't justify your vote, rather that you

stated

the fact that it wasn't weakly justified but not at all. Which is, frankly, BS.

[Korts]

Just a note that my posting frequency will be going down for a week, I have exams to study for.

[Korts]

All right, I'm still here. Just to show that I'm reading, I don't really like the Raider wagon. It boils down to BM and Raider bickering because Raider changed his mind. I'm still for the Netlava wagon.
Just so I don't have to lurk any more, does anyone have any questions for me, or want to know my stance on anything?

This post gives me bad vibes.

Openly admitting to lurking?

[Korts]

facepalm

I have a feeling this is a circular argument...

[Korts]

Okay seriously. Why is it whenever I click the quote button, the damn thing doesn't work?

Check if BBCode is turned on. If not, turn it on. None of your tags seem to be working.

On another note, I still haven't gotten a reply from Skruffs. Seriously, doesn't anyone else find it scummy that he's not answering?

[Korts]

BTW, SC, what exactly is your point with the three quotes?

[Korts]

Big Mac?

[Korts]

Or Butt Monkey?

[Korts]

EBWOP: yeah, looks like I missed Bowel Movement. Thorough reading ftw...

[Korts]

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 think Cass is a pretty good lynch; I made part of the case against her. She's my third suspect after Skruffs and SC. The Netlava wagon I don't agree with, because in my opinion its basis is too weak; I'll expand on this subject later, but right now I only have time for a quick reply. The case against raider has been degraded to a circular argument and I owe it proper thought before I decide on it.

I do, however, think that you're more than a bit suspicious for trying to a) push multiple wagons and b) push all three popular wagons.

[Korts]

Hey, I'm just sayin', try to give some justification.

BTW good luck with that, sounds awesome compared to the minutes of an experiment...

[Korts]

Glad to see your reply, Skruffs. Also, sorry if it was because of RL issues that you hadn't answered.

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'.

Alright, your point is that scum are likely to be less active, because they don't want to slip up, right? If that's so, consider the following situation. The majority of the town agrees with you that lurkers are more likely to be scum. Do you expect scum to keep lurking? Not at all. But I already explained this in the argument with SC, so your accusation of me "flailing about and saying OMG WIFOM" without any explanation is utterly false.

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:
[quote="Korts]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

[/quote]

Your point, as far as I can tell, is that I voted Dynamo while I say that you probably would've done the same? I don't understand what you're trying to make of this.

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?

Your point against armlx is noted, but who else are you claiming to have fished for your role?

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

So? It's a tell against Cass that she voted armlx after pressured to do so, while before that she only FoSed her with the same reasoning. Are you trying to paint this like I'm defending armlx from an attack by Cass?

[quote="Korts]The armlx case isn't really convincing.

[/quote]

It isn't. Your main point against him is that his scumhunting is subpar, which can happen

regardless

of alignment. Call that a case, 'cos I don't.

I could most likely pull up more.

[/quote][/quote]

I doubt you could. I challenge you.

I think you answered my main questions, though, so my vote goes to a much better place.

unvote, vote: StrangerCoug

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement? I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

[Korts]

Seriously, why do you trust Skruffs so much as to follow his judgement?

That only applies in context with the analogy, which is what your cases on both of us ultimately boil down to, and for the last goddamn time, I saw the analogy as common sense. Give me something new to talk about.

And for the last time, common sense does not apply to mafia here.

I also don't like how you jumped on me the second I questioned the analogy.

Oh, so you'd rather assume stuff arbitrarily and get yourself in trouble when your assumptions turn out to be wrong? Is that how I'm supposed to interpret this?[/quote]

What do you mean by assuming stuff arbitrarily?

[Korts]

No, Lowell has a point, actually, that looks kinda like a false dichotomy.

[Korts]

That's true. But it does look like he's implying that the choice is between Net and Cass.

[Korts]

Ok, nevermind that. I thought for some reason that it was, but looking at it again, it doesn't look like one.

Gotta get some sleep now.

[Korts]

EBWOP: post 1536 at post 1534/1532.

[Korts]

Okay, I don't really understand your actions, Cream. You make a fair point in regards to Netlava, and you comment on how KoC's point seems valid, yet your assessment of the situation is that you're keeping your faith in him?

[Korts]

Apparently, I'm not allowed to ask people where this so-called "going after targets of opportunity" takes place. Amazing logic there.

Well, not when it's quoted in the same post you ask in reply to.

[Korts]

Netlava - two bloody good examples right there in that post - it's not like I'm not giving evidence. You flip-flop onto whichever wagon is convenient, and so far today, you've been pushing the raider case, then backing off it, then pushing it again, but you've never committed to it with a vote: your vote has stayed solidly on the wagon with the most chance of overtaking yours: Cass.
Still loving my vote.

Unvote: Cass

There.

Oookay. This is... scummy. And then you go and vote according to a dice roll. That's seriously anti-town. You really aren't helping the town (or yourself) by flipping out.

I'm very inclined to vote you right about now.

[Korts]

Because a) Netlava's overreaction is not a definite scumtell, and b) the rest of the case still isn't really convincing to me.

[Korts]

L-3, by my count. That's far from being too close.

[Korts]

BM, Has-cow: point taken. Although the fact BM is HoSing me for followign something that I would do in most games bemuses and worries me: if that's going to be your case on me tomorrow... Well, enough said.

Not only do you assume that I will survive till tomorrow, but also that you will. Why is this?

Confirm HoS: Knight of Cydonia

I know that you have a meta of appearing scummy, but it's getting to the stage where i cant ignore it here.

BM

BM, I really don't like your overreaction. You're making mountains out of molehills, and the molehill wasn't even a scumtell in itself. Seriously, is it only a HoS because you're afraid to have a very poorly reasoned vote against KoC on your voting record?

[Korts]

BM, my point wasn't that you weren't voting KoC (though thanks, I didn't see the thing with the Netlava vote), it was that the case against him is not enough to warrant even a FoS, IMO. You made a point of being suspicious of him for a thing you admitted was a thing newer players tend to do. Your avoidance of my main point, which wasn't that easy to miss, has caused my eyebrows to be raised. You, sir, are also skimming.

[Korts]

I've only played with him in minis, where the L-1 thing is more than reasonable. I haven't seen him in large games yet. But okay, if you have, sure. Did the town of Multiball explain the "not L-1, rather -2 or -3 in large games" guideline? If not, I think your point isn't valid.

[Korts]

Ok, well, that claim isn't going to stop the hammer, in all possibility.

[Korts]

brainzzzzzz!

damn you, whoever!