Obviously you will be given a chance to say what you can to try to salvage the day for yourself. 2 links of examples where she quit as scum when there was heat put on her is pretty damning.
"heat put on her"? Really? Because, from where I am sitting, there was very little suspicion on her in both of those games and her quitting basically just reflects her laziness and inability to read up. It spins a nice story to make out she cracks under pressure, but you ignore all facts.
Vollkan, your story has changed from your original post. When I made the statement that she quits as scum when pressure was put on her, you questioned that and said there was no pressure on her. Now your basic argument is that she quits when pressured, not that she quits when scum. Please clarify which argument you plan on using to defend yourself, because it is very hard to debate against a shifting argument.
You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying.
I said she quits when pressure is placed upon her to post - (because of said pressure, not because of alignment). As opposed to where suspicion pressure is placed upon her.
Xtoxm wrote:Huh? Pretty sure we are not deadlined.
Are you mixing up your games, Bio?
You play with me too much...
Yes. The deadline is in Haschel's game. I was thinking as I drove back to work from lunch that I was going to mix those two specific games up. Little did I know I had already done it during lunch. Having trouble keeping straight which game you and RBT are masons in and which game you guys are just playing poorly
vollkan wrote:You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying.
I said she quits when pressure is placed upon her to post - (because of said pressure, not because of alignment). As opposed to where suspicion pressure is placed upon her.
The game where she called everybody an ass for suspecting her even though mellow was doing the same thing is quitting because she was pressured to post?
vollkan wrote:You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying.
I said she quits when pressure is placed upon her to post - (because of said pressure, not because of alignment). As opposed to where suspicion pressure is placed upon her.
The game where she called everybody an ass for suspecting her even though mellow was doing the same thing is quitting because she was pressured to post?
What game are you talking about?
I've already shown that she wasn't under suspicion in either of the two games. She was under pressure to post, however, and her snapping fits perfectly with the fact she is generally a crap player. Here, we have the same thing, she gets pressured to post and then snaps because she doesn't want to.
She got voted once and called scum. She then flipped out and quite.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.
babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote:
A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times. and B) I'm not gonna say this is right, but I'm definately not the only person not posting here so dont even go there. I have a life outside of mafia and if my amount of posting isn't up to your standards, deal with it. I'm not changing my lifestyle to get a vote taken off of me.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote:
Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation. Then decide to post genuine content other than filler on the rare occasions you post. I mean, it's okay to be too busy to post often as long as you actually help. You aren't.
babygirl86 at 7:40 AM wrote:
you know what? screw you people.
I've already shown that she wasn't under suspicion in either of the two games. She was under pressure to post, however, and her snapping fits perfectly with the fact she is generally a crap player. Here, we have the same thing, she gets pressured to post and then snaps because she doesn't want to.
...she made that statement. She was suspected for her game play, but not enough to get more than two or three votes. People just looked at the more active players and were content to let her slide under the radar. When they finally started questioning her harder, she "blew up."
So, lurking to avoid suspicion and blowing up as soon as votes started to pile on her.
I'm not really liking how you took Mellowed Man's post out of context to prove that there was no pressure on her.
mrfixij wrote:
I'm known for my policy rants, and I'll try to keep this one short, but at no stage in the game, save for possibly lylo, is a list of all players and your thoughts on them a good thing.
it helps me organize my thoughts, i suppose i could just put em on a note pad, but i'd feel like a geek.
I'm not trying to discrdit the mason claim, just at the time they came out, they were both pretty high on people's lists. It was just a shock to me.
PyroDwarf wrote:
Juls/mrfixij: I was leaning scum on her,
tbh
. Her page 4 summary was not very helpful, seemd liked forced scum hunting. SHe focuses on the mason team, then on the vig. G-force puts on some pressure about her leaving her vote on OP, then she quits. Mrfixij has one post, and its good, so we shall see.
CKD - I underlined something for you (although your rant about the phrase being a scum tell may have only been because you were bussing your partner in the game I read)
PyroDwarf wrote:
It seems that a lot of people had Xtoxm and rbt in their crosshairs. I think BG was a good lynch candidate, but we have evidince where she plays bad on both sides of the scum-ball. I wanna see what people say about my list here before i place my vote. I got 2 people in mind.
My issue with your list is I can't tell at all who your suspects are on it. It pretty much reads like you think everybody is probably town.
At the end, you have 2 people in mind who you might vote for, but you are waiting for others to talk about your list. Why? Unless your vote is the hammer on somebody, get it out there and publicly express your suspicions.
PyroDwarf wrote:Wait, what? people are buying the mason claim? I'm not sure i understand. On N0, you guys picked someone at random to attack? Color me confused.
I have never been in a game with masons,how likely is it that they are both scum? Or would that just be way to huge of a gambit for scum to risk?
PyroDwarf wrote:Juls/mrfixij: I was leaning scum on her, tbh. Her page 4 summary was not very helpful, seemd liked forced scum hunting.
SHe focuses on the mason team
, then on the vig. G-force puts on some pressure about her leaving her vote on OP, then she quits. Mrfixij has one post, and its good, so we shall see.
Bold for emphasis. Using a critique for my predecessor that he makes only 5 posts before. Explain yourself, now.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
PyroDwarf wrote:Wait, what? people are buying the mason claim? I'm not sure i understand. On N0, you guys picked someone at random to attack? Color me confused.
I have never been in a game with masons,how likely is it that they are both scum? Or would that just be way to huge of a gambit for scum to risk?
PyroDwarf wrote:Juls/mrfixij: I was leaning scum on her, tbh. Her page 4 summary was not very helpful, seemd liked forced scum hunting.
SHe focuses on the mason team
, then on the vig. G-force puts on some pressure about her leaving her vote on OP, then she quits. Mrfixij has one post, and its good, so we shall see.
Bold for emphasis. Using a critique for my predecessor that he makes only 5 posts before. Explain yourself, now.
I am obviously in the 'pyro for scum' fan club, but I think this post from you is off. For one, this is kind of a twist on the same thing you were called out for by G-Force. Also, I actually understand what he was saying in the first post because (I think) RBT made a sarcastic post about being scum and bussing each other which could have been confusing if you don't realize it is sarcasm. I mentioned him missing the sarcasm in my PbPa of Pyro. I think in this case it was pretty obvious the post by RBT just went over his head and I am not sure what you are trying to point out here.
bionicchop2 wrote:I am obviously in the 'pyro for scum' fan club, but I think this post from you is off. For one, this is kind of a twist on the same thing you were called out for by G-Force. Also, I actually understand what he was saying in the first post because (I think) RBT made a sarcastic post about being scum and bussing each other which could have been confusing if you don't realize it is sarcasm. I mentioned him missing the sarcasm in my PbPa of Pyro. I think in this case it was pretty obvious the post by RBT just went over his head and I am not sure what you are trying to point out here.
I find the difference in tone and context between my statement about the masons and his to be substantial enough to make them almost apples and oranges. He made it seem that the mason claim was irrational to accept, and expressed astonishment that anyone was buying it. I expressed a general distaste for it, which is completely due to a lack of personal experience with all things mason (Of course, a game I co-host has a mason group recruiter get NK'd N1.) Also, I expressed more in my criticism of Pyro than simply the mason debacle, but the tone and eagerness to lynch the claimed masons is much more drastic than my synopsis where I state a dislike of the claim.
In the end, I stick to my guns in saying that the two are a difference of degree.
bionicchop2 wrote:She got voted once and called scum. She then flipped out and quite.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.
babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote:
A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times. and B) I'm not gonna say this is right, but I'm definately not the only person not posting here so dont even go there. I have a life outside of mafia and if my amount of posting isn't up to your standards, deal with it. I'm not changing my lifestyle to get a vote taken off of me.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote:
Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation. Then decide to post genuine content other than filler on the rare occasions you post. I mean, it's okay to be too busy to post often as long as you actually help. You aren't.
babygirl86 at 7:40 AM wrote:
you know what? screw you people.
mod please replace me
I forgot the vote by Dizzy (I was wrong to say she didn't have a single vote), but I wrote what I did before in knowledge of his post. Dizzy's post is just my point - the pressure on BG was not "suspicion" in the usual sense of the term. As you identify, she did get called out - but that's just it: as I keep saying and you don't seem to be understanding, the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said). That she is a lazy player. As Mellowman said, and I quoted before, she wasn't under pressure - by any standard there were no arguments against her. It was just that people wanted her to post.
shez wrote:
I'm not really liking how you took Mellowed Man's post out of context to prove that there was no pressure on her.
It doesn't seem to just be Dizzy that is misunderstanding me...
It is clear that BG was under attack for her failure to post. As Mellowed rightly says, she was under no "pressure" (I use inverted commas to indicate I am quoting Mellow). There was certainly pressure on her to post and pressure on her for her failure to post (this has been central to my argument from the beginning). But that's just it - it was pressure attacking something she had said - it was pressure directed at her lack of saying anything. It was the same thing as in Family Guy - she blew up when she gets forced to post.
vollkan wrote:
the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said).
You are focusing on half the case against her. She was under suspicion for her hammer the day before and Dizzy brought that issue up anew upon replacement.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.
babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote:
A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote:
Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation.
vollkan wrote:
the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said).
You are focusing on half the case against her. She was under suspicion for her hammer the day before and Dizzy brought that issue up anew upon replacement.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.
babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote:
A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote:
Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation.
That's just it! As I said "the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said)." She'd given a lousy explanation for the vote and people wanted her to explain it. She is, as I keep saying, a "lazy" player - so she got pissed off.
I mean, the argument being made is that she did this because she is scum who cannot handle pressure. What I am saying is that if you look at her level of laziness globally (and it's pretty significant) you see that this is more just that she doesn't like being pressured to
post
. Of course she was under attack for lack of justification, rightly so.
But what you are doing is drawing an inference, from that, that she quit because of the attack. I am saying that you are essentially ignoring who she is and just focussing on what happened in this one game without regard for the fact that her play seems more dictated by avoiding having to post (in all of her games! which is bizarre - why the heck would you play if you basically just try to avoid posting the entire time)
Start on page 9 of that game vollkan. You will see she got up to 5 votes on her then semi-lurked. She then posted about her lurking when Mellowman voted for her lurking (he was the only one on the wagon to do so). She made one post, then made a post later in the day where she flipped out in CAPS LOCK. She then disappeared and did not show up again until she had no votes on her. When attention started to turn back to her, she flipped out again.
Now you will notice another similarity in this game. When there is no attention on her, that is when she has internet problems, family issues or school issues and just pops in to say as much. Whenever her name is brought up (posts 210,218) she is always on shortly after to respond (posts 216,217, 219, 223). This was Thursday and she claimed her mother went into the emergency room that Monday. She then disappears for 3 days while the conversation goes elsewhere. Then when Xtoxm is asked if his vote on BG is because she is still inactive after getting her internet back, she has her post about how she already told us her mom was in the emergency room and uses a huge appeal to emotion in an attempt to make people feel bad for suspecting her.
Even if you excluded all other games and this was her first game, that would be scummy. Add in the other games where she got emotional and angry as support and it is more incriminating IMO.
vollkan wrote:
That's just it! As I said "the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said)." She'd given a lousy explanation for the vote and people wanted her to explain it. She is, as I keep saying, a "lazy" player - so she got pissed off.
NO, no, no, no, no, and no. Read the damn game. The attack was centered on her hammering ZS the previous day. How can you say people wanting her to explain her vote is having an attack centered on her level of posting? The attack was centered on the hammer.
xtorm wrote:
I am suspicious of these people trying to STILL say me and RBT are scum.
Ignoring the fact that you're interchanging "being suspisious of the claim" with "saying you're scum", I have to ask... why? Why does claiming mason automatically make it so? further...
Mason is one of the worst claims for mafia to make
Why is this? I've never played in a game with masons before, nor have I been a mason. Why is it one of the worst claims for mafia to make?
I don't like how you're pushing abnormally hard for a claim, despite the fact that volkan has shown more than enough reasonable doubt that he is scum. I wouldn't like to use a previous player's meta as basis for a lynch unless it was 100% locked down - volkan has shown that its not even close to a solid meta. I also don't like your statement about the deadline we don't have. Maybe you confused it from another game, but thats not a mistake someone should make. Its like saying you lost track of the vote count. I now have to assume that your stance towards volkan was based on the thinking that we were under deadline. Does your opinion now change, knowing that we're not under deadline?
@mrfixij: you haven't resonded to my questions in my last post. You hinted at the idea of advocating a policy lynch of me on the grounds that I speculated on the setup. Please show me where I speculated on the setup. I don't believe I have.
Rhinox wrote: I wouldn't like to use a previous player's meta as basis for a lynch unless it was 100% locked down - volkan has shown that its not even close to a solid meta. I also don't like your statement about the deadline we don't have. Maybe you confused it from another game, but thats not a mistake someone should make. Its like saying you lost track of the vote count. I now have to assume that your stance towards volkan was based on the thinking that we were under deadline. Does your opinion now change, knowing that we're not under deadline?
1. If it isn't painfully clear, my vote originally placed on BG for meta reasons is staying on vollkan for the varying levels of shifting arguments and misleading statements since joining. If 4 people vote for reason x and 1 person votes for reason y, he is here trying to tell us that reason y is the central reason for the suspicion on BG. It is clear to anybody who reads that game he is twisting that.
2. The error was corrected within an hour of making it. I am active in 7 games, which normally isn't a problem, but since one of my other games has xtoxm and RBT in it I did make a mistake. I can't see how this is scummier than being intentionally misleading. My original reason for voting vollkan and reasons for staying there are not deadline related, but it was the reason I felt a claim should have been that day thinking we would need time to find a new wagon if the claim was worthy of unvoting.
Mason is one of the worst claims for mafia to make
Why is this? I've never played in a game with masons before, nor have I been a mason. Why is it one of the worst claims for mafia to make?
Especially on d1, masons is a horrible scum claim and the risk vs. reward just doesn't balance out. If either player turns up scum during the game, the other is an auto-lynch. Only the best players could argue their way out of a mason claim when their 'partner' turns up scum. Now if this was close to endgame, mafia might pull a gambit if the numbers worked out where they felt they could gain enough trust to push enough mislynches for the win.
Rhinox wrote:@mrfixij: you haven't resonded to my questions in my last post. You hinted at the idea of advocating a policy lynch of me on the grounds that I speculated on the setup. Please show me where I speculated on the setup. I don't believe I have.
I'm dreadfully sorry, I went back through your posts and realized that my initial note was indeed wrong. I believe I'd mistaken repeated reference to having 3 scum as a speculation of setup without having taken care to look at the setup myself, and seeing that the standard scum setup would indeed be three. That was careless reading and a careless accusation on my part, which I now respectfully withdraw.
@mrfixij: ok fair enough. This game has been hard enought for me to keep everything straight, so I imagine it would be even harder to replace into and get everything straight right away.
@bionic:
1: I'm under the impression right now that the only reason volkan is on the chopping block is because bg got frustrated and replaced out of at least 2 other games as scum. Volkan argued back that there is evidence that bg acts that way regardless of her role. If that is true, then I fail to see why the bandwagon on Volkan is continuing - there is nothing on him, and nobody has countered volkan's claim that bg doesn't only act that way as scum. Hence, I do not believe that volkan must role claim, and I am suspect that further demands for a roleclaim could be power role hunting.
Ask yourself this: suppose volkan were to claim vanilla (any scum can claim vanilla w/o fear of a counter-claim)... would you believe him and would that be enough to make you unvote. If the answer is yes, then I would say that the case is not strong enough for volkan to have to claim. If the answer is no, then I would want you to clearly confirm exactly why you think volkan is scum, because I just do not see a strong case right now. Doesn't mean volkan isn't scum, I just think he has earned the right to define his role slot himself, and not be doomed to his predecessor's poor play.
2. I don't think an honest mistake thinking there is a deadline is scummier than intentionally misleading us. I was just worried that your view of volkan was "we're under deadline, there's no better case, we might as well lynch him, claim or die volkan". Since there is no deadline, there is plenty of time for more discussion, so I was wondering if that meant your view towards the volkan lynch would now be different. Since you still say volkan is scummy, and you say you won't be likely to unvote unless he claims, then I still disagree with you and I'm questioning your motives as to why you need volkan to claim. Many claims, I believe, are more beneficial to the scum factions than to the town. and we've already had 3 claims today, which is 25% of the group. I think the next person to claim today should be someone we seriously intend to lynch. I think right now, you're the only one expressing serious intentions to lynch volkan right now.
Off topic theory regarding the mason claim: I agree its a bad claim to make as scum on D1, but I'm wondering is it suicidal? meaning, are there situations where it can work? Yes, if one of them dies and is scum, the other is an auto lynch, but how would 1 of them die if they're scum? Assuming the town believes them, then an SK or vig would have to hit one. An sk might hit 1 to try to get the town to lynch the other if they're both scum. I've heard an sk's first priority is to eliminate the mafia, just like town. A vig might hit 1 to prove the claim and either give us a good lynch the next day, or a confirmed townie for at least a day. A cop could get a 2 for 1 investigation by investigating 1 of them. Thats 1 reason why the roleclaim demand towards volkan bothers me.
Assuming none of those scenarios happen, I suppose the 2 claimed masons lasting until LyLo (when there is suspected to be more than 1 scum remaining) might raise suspisions, but even that wouldn't prove they're scum. Now consider that both RBT and Xtorm were directly in the town's crosshairs... is it worth playing the mason gambit if you think you can't argue your way out of the lynch otherwise? Either it was planned at night to claim mason if needed, or Xtorm dragged RBT into it by claiming, forcing RBT to play along. Knowing little about mason involvement on the site, my first reaction is to think that saying its a horrible scum move to claim mason D1 is WIFOM if there is a chance or examples of scum being able to pull it off. If its never been done/can't be done, then I'll concede the point and label RBT and X as "most likely town"
1. I never voted bg for just lurking and playing poorly which she does regardless of alignment. I voted because of the quitting and storming off which she has only done previously as scum. I have made this point clear IMO. As vollkan has defended himself, his defense has used misleading statements and his argument has morphed. If vollkan claimed vanilla I probably would not unvote.
2. I think vollkan is actually out of claim territory now as there have been unvotes. I don't feel he needs to claim now if enough people are convinced he is not scum. Claiming IMO is just a safeguard against lynching power roles. While I wanted a claim, I do respect the decision to try and talk the wagon down without claiming as most people tend to use roles like free passes to act scummy. I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about me not unvoting unless he claims (or maybe I misspoke). While he was at L-1, yes I was going to hold my vote for a claim. Now that L-1 is gone, only having vollkan as my top suspect will keep my vote there and if I find a better place for my vote it will move. I won't just tunnel in on vollkan and ignore the rest of the players.
=======
As for the masons - no it definitely is not suicide. One thing I do know about xtoxm though is he does not gambit much and he is not an exceptionally skilled liar by his own admission outside games. I haven't seen a fake claim from Xtoxm yet (outside of claiming vanilla as scum) and I don't think RBT plays that way either. This isn't to say I don't expect them to ever make a fake claim as mafia, but I find it unlikely mason would be the first choice. So, for me, that is definitely giving an early game pass through d1 and possibly d2. Closer to end game I could consider them being scum if both happen to still be alive.
