12Keyblade votes for ReverendPsycho here:reverendpsycho wrote:VOTE: 12Keyblade
For holding up the start of the game.
All from the first page.12Keyblade wrote:FYI, I confirmed b4 TheFlyingGreenMonkey.reverendpsycho wrote:VOTE: 12Keyblade
For holding up the start of the game.
Vote: reverendpsycho
We don't need a Serial Killer (Psycho) in a Newbie Game!
Good luck to all! (Except the scum. They can go die in a hole)
What I see here, is KittyMo accusing TFGM for spite-voting, yet you not giving that same warning to Key who had committed the same crime and in the same severity. KittyMo decided to only acknowledge how 'OMGUS is scummy' when she became involved in the voting process.KittyMo wrote:OMGUS is scummy.TheFlyingGreenMonkey wrote:KittyMo wrote:TheFlyingGreenMonkey wrote:Vote: No LynchUnvoteVote: TheFlyingGreenMonkeyfor voting no lynch on Day 1 and claiming to use logic and be experienced at Mafia in the same post.UnvoteVote: KittyMofor voting for me ;D
The interaction between reverendpsycho and 12Keyblade was not in the same severity as what happened between KittyMo and TheFlyingGreenMonkey. The first interaction included playful beginning of the game banter and occured on the very first page. The KittyMo-TheFlyingGreenMonkey situation occured on the second page and happened after KittyMo voted for TheFlyingGreenMonkey because he had done some legitimate scumtell. Therefore, the first vote set mentioned was more random and playful, while the second was more OMGUS on the part of TheFlyingGreenMonkey.Monsieur wrote:What I see here, is KittyMo accusing TFGM for spite-voting, yet you not giving that same warning to Key who had committed the same crime and in the same severity. KittyMo decided to only acknowledge how 'OMGUS is scummy' when she became involved in the voting process.
Vote: KittyMo
No.geekalicious wrote:The KittyMo-TheFlyingGreenMonkey situation occured on the second page and happened after KittyMo voted for TheFlyingGreenMonkey because he had done some legitimate scumtell. Therefore, the first vote set mentioned was more random and playful, while the second was more OMGUS on the part of TheFlyingGreenMonkey.
Now, looking at this quote, in response to Zach, who is a now known villager, you don't seem to be practicing what you preach; it looks like hypocrisy.geekalicious wrote:@Zachrulez, why are you whip-lashing your vote around so much? You quickly go from voting for me to voting for 12Keyblade to now voting for xRECKONERx.This doesn't so look much like meticulous scum hunting/ pressure voting to me as it seems like you just finding someone else to blame on the spur of the moment.
I was using my votes in the case of TheFlyingGreenMonkey and BlueRaven as pressure votes that I withdrew when answers were forthcoming or, in the case of BlueRaven, when he started contributing to the discussion. With Zachrulez, I feel like I took more time to analyze him over a series of time and then built a case up against him based on multiple points. He had launched full out attacks on five players (me, 12Keyblade, xRECKONERx, Krauthammer, ronnieroo) that weren't based on sound logic and seemed like he was trying to put the blame on someone else, so I felt justified in my vote for him especially since he later refused to even really deny the claims or role claim at the end. Also, keep in mind that this is my first game, so my game style is likely to change over the course of the game. I've been trying to be more careful in my analysis to try and avoid mislynching another innocent.Monsieur wrote:Why are you whip-lashing your vote, Geek?
I was genuinely surprised that Zachrulez accused me of scumbuddying. However, I don't see how that's related to your second point... No, your post wasn't related to me, but I see it as my job in scum-hunting to point out contradictions I see in posts, even if those posts aren't aimed at me. I based my case on Zachrulez on him using faulty logic and stretching posts to make it seem like others were being scummy. It's sort of natural for me to point out what I saw as a contradiction in your post.Monsieur wrote:I find it ironic that in this post, you seem to be surprised that Zach is accusing you of scum-buddying with Kitty. Yet, you respond to my post voting for Kitty, even rationalize her actions and yet you had no correlation to my post whatsoever.
No, I think I'm at L-3. illiniguy09 and Monsieur are the only votes that I see.12Keyblade wrote:It's kinda late, so this might be spammy, but ATM geek's at L-2. Content in the morning.
Well, the line of thought for me on that was that answers about questions would be more forthcoming from players about the allegations if I voted for them. However, I've since seen that this isn't always the best strategy and that I should probably have waited and seen more actions/ simply used a FOS before I voted.Monsieur wrote:Care to expound that thought on "pressure voting"?
More or less, what it is, how you executed that in the thread, and what you've accomplished with it?
So wait. Since I try to really look for scum and back my conclusions up with explanations in well-formatted posts and thus don't SOUND like a newbie, that means you're more likely to vote for me? Wow...12Keyblade wrote:I'm more inclined to vote for geek, as BlueRaven SOUNDS like a newbie.
Yes.... I've noted that both BlueRaven and ronnieroo don't post very much.12Keyblade wrote:Since then, posting has dropped off from BlueRaven (can you drop from nothing?), geek has slightly dropped, and I've kept about the same.
Mastin is a player known for exceptionally long posts filled with wonderful content. Really, it's quite brilliant.Monsieur wrote:Who is Mastin?
1. Don't pose a question to me then answer it yourself. That's just rude.Monsieur wrote:What's the difference between your pressure voting and Zach's?
I can answer this question.
2. Yes, Zachrulez used his votes are reaction testers. However, as you'll note, that strategy made him look like scum and got him lynched when he was just an innocent. That's why I deliberately mentioned (with bold added):Zachrulez wrote:Looking back on day one, there is one significant difference between the use of your vote and the use of Zach's vote. Your vote was used to support arguments that weren't your own; you never went out of your way to contribute different reasons, rather you parroted others.
On the other hand, Zach was willing to start new wagons and back it up with his thought process, whether weak or otherwise. You claim that your voting was used to attempt to make players be more forthcoming with their answers.
No.
If anything, you impeded that from happening by voting to lynch Zach.
Zach's votes were reaction testers. His game play was reactionary and the interactions with the people whom he argued with could provide to be useful.
I'm basically admitting to you that my first two votes were based on only one major scumtell early in the game on the part of TheFlyingGreenMonkey and BlueRaven, and that I probably should have waited it out and seen more about the players before I cast my vote. I'm trying to be more meticulous and weigh my cases out better now, something you can see when I cast my vote against Zachrulez.geekalicious wrote:Well, the line of thought for me on that was that answers about questions would be more forthcoming from players about the allegations if I voted for them.However, I've since seen that this isn't always the best strategy and that I should probably have waited and seen more actions/ simply used a FOS before I voted.
TBH, yes. But not because of your posting style. Within BlueRaven's badly spelled and formatted posts I sense a hint of "town." Within your posts, I've found that I have an easier time believing you to be scum than BlueRaven. Oh believe me, I can put on a pretty face and make nice analysies even when I'm scum, so simply the fact that you're posting well does not automatically mean that you are completly cleared to me.geekalicious wrote:So wait. Since I try to really look for scum and back my conclusions up with explanations in well-formatted posts and thus don't SOUND like a newbie, that means you're more likely to vote for me? Wow...
Hello WIFOM. Dear god.BlueRaven wrote:btw why would i want to kill reckoner? he was defending me more than trying to lynch me. and the case illini brought up wasnt very strong in my opinion, it just covered all the old pointers about me which we've all seen before...
ronnieroo, I am quoting this for emphasis as I am currently interested in what your response is.Monsieur wrote:I'd like to hearronnieroo'sthoughts on who her suspicions lean towards post-Zach-lynch.
Please start and/or continue investigating minor suspects then.geekalicious wrote: Additionally, I also suspect that scum was on Zachrulez's wagon. However, my progress in sniffing out scum is being somewhat impeded by the fact that illiniguy09 (my main suspect at the moment) hasn't posted anymore content in reply to my suspicions.
Finally, 12Keyblade, I noted that you've posted in the thread but you didn't reply to my comment about the way your voting is leaning based on how a player "sounds." Would you mind commenting?
