Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[foilist13]

There are a few people who are lurking here, but Muffin has caught my attention.

This is from newbie 846, day 1; he was town.

This seems to me like BlueRaven is trying to soft-claim Town, i.e. being ignorant about other peoples' alignments.

Based on BR's experience I don't think this can be chalked up as some sort of newbie slip-up.

This is on the first page, and immediately he looks at the other players and posts relevant information.

The pastry goes on in a similar manner to how he is playing here, except his questions are all game relevant, and clever. He points out significant things in almost every post.

So... you didn't think I was suspicious, and your accusation of my scumminess was sarcastic and silly, but you still voted for me (which makes your 3rd vote in less than a page of posts, I might add).

I poked holes in your argument because I took it seriously, since there was a vote appended to it.

If it wasn't serious, why the vote?

Another example:

post 49, 51, and others.

Now in this game:

Just because you and I butted heads a lot in our previous game... I don't really know if we're supposed to talk about it because it's technically still in progress despite the fact that you, foilist and myself are all dead.

Nothing against Foilist, and not a buddying attempt on you, but he really only replaced in at the end of the day and we didn't interact much before I was killed (by sanjay it seems).

Simple post, still in the RVS, but no content, not that much would be expected.

Why does bob's post annoy you so much? What would you prefer he have done/said?

Similar tone and style to his posts in 846, but this question is not actually relevant.

I'm inclined to agree with Spyrex and Mordy, actually.

As was pointed out earlier, this is pretty much as on the fence as one can be.

Then in posts 85 and 86 he literally says nothing.

It's absolutely ridiculous. When I signed up on the site and got into my first newbie game I went and read some games too.

Here he ignores the actual argument.

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!". It's an agreement without a vote, HoS, or FoS.

I said only "I'm inclined to agree" because I don't think Alamaster's behaviour has been ultra super omg scummy. I think his argument is ridiculous, but having a ridiculous argument does not a scum make.

And secondly... do you honestly think in a 12-player game, that a silly bandwagon from page 2 is going to stay nice and strong through to the end? I highly doubt it. If this game-day ends in fewer than 15 pages I will be greatly surprised.

Then again maybe you'd like this bandwagon to push through to a lynch real quick? Eager to test out your night kill?

What you got to say about that Pastry-boy? If you're inclined to agree, where's your bolded statement of where you stand? FoS: Muffin (<----There's mine )

My bolded statement aka my vote is currently on archaebob for a random vote. I will unvote since we're past that now.

I don't FoS because fossing is arbitrary and has no meaning. If you want to know what my opinions are though, I think that you're trying to be real cautious, saying things like "this game is moving nicely" and how you don't think a pressure vote is needed. You lambast me for not taking a stance yet all you can put up is a measly fos that has zero impact on the game? We call that hypocrisy where I come from and in my experience the only players who need to create or rely on double standards are scum.

I'm the kind of player who always likes everyone to be voting for someone, because it provides a clear and readable trail of whom each player's prime suspicions (real or fabricated) rest on. No going through and trying to decide which carries more weight: the toenail of suscpicion or the hair follicle of suspicion?

Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

I find this more compelling than Alamaster's misguided thoughts as to the behaviour of "all townies" and the responses thereto.

vote: chinaman

Ok after the first quote he starts by arguing semantics, then simply says a bandwagon now won't hold to the end of the day, and makes a non-serious poke at Chinaman. Nice and meaty looking, but no content worth noting.

Then he makes a long chunky couple of paragraphs about how Fos'ing is useless. Again, he has posted nothing of relevance.

Finally, at the end of this "big" post, he votes for Chinaman based on the fact that Chinaman didn't read the thread very carefully. Yes that is a scumtell, but this early in the game can be excusable. I'm not defending Chinaman here, but this doesn't strike me as damning evidence.

Comment on what, specifically? The exchange between you and foilist? Please clarify or link/quote/whatever.

I agree that foilist appears to be reading/replying selectively and the fact that he is continuing is raising my eyebrows, to say the least.

I also agree though, that your approach has been less than diplomatic.

Again, nothing of relevance. A bit of a stab at me, and a comment about Archaebob's play style.

His next two posts are not even pretending to be game relevant.

No, I don't think you've been particularly abrasive or undiplomatic. Certainly more cooperative than 846, but then again I have a high threshold for that sort of thing.

Yet again, nothing.

There's another example of this from Muffin (I'll quote Chinaman, who first noted this in post 49):

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!". It's an agreement without a vote, HoS, or FoS.

So what does this mean? I don't think this early in the game either of these tells mean that the players are definitively scummy, but it does bother me that they've decided to "lay low." Muffin somewhat mediates this in post 89 (though the OMGUS vote is ridiculous). He's otherwise struck me as participating, though I plan to keep an eye on him in case he tries to buddy/hedge in other places.

Haha... yeah in hindsight it does look rather like an omgus vote. I look at it this way though:

He says I'm laying low and trying not to stick my neck out too far, but only throws a FoS down. No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe, fossing someone doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because only votes are counted.

So when he criticizes me for not taking a stance and purposefully doesn't take one on his own, how can that be anything other than hypocrisy?

The exact same argument he applies to me can be applied to him. "See? I said I agreed when I fossed!". It's an agreement without a vote.

This is another post that looks nice and meaty, but in fact says next to nothing. He basically says he was turning Chinaman's non-existent logic on himself and voting for him to make a point. Ok fine, more power to Muffin.

Then in his next point he reiterates all of the things he said in his last few posts for Chinaman.

I'm going to leave out the first part of this next post because it is irrelevant.

Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

Misrepresent much? Here's an HoS: Muffin for ya. Oh, and guess what, I don't have to play by your rules now do I? I'll vote when I'm good and ready to and not a moment too soon. Opinions are like assholes remember?.... I think an FoS and the like are just as readable as a vote. To say they aren't is just your opinion, but I will build a case on someone FoS'ing someone else just a quick as if they voted.

Why on earth would I respond to this? First of all you didn't ask me anything. Second of all it can be summed up as "yeah? well I'm playing my way so there!"

What sort of response were you hoping for, exactly?

Here he somewhat justifiably says there is no reason to answer Chinaman. Fair enough.

No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe, fossing someone doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because only votes are counted.

This isn't precisely true. Trying to create a good read here has nothing to do with the actual effects of an FoS, only with the perceived effects of an FoS. Which is to say: If Chinaman believes an FoS is more potent than doing nothing at all, he isn't a hypocrite if he makes an FoS but lays into you for doing nothing. If Chinaman, however, agreed that an FoS did nothing, then you'd in fact have a case against him. (Ie: My personal opinions on FoS's, Votes, etc, mean nothing here. All that is important in verifying Chinaman's hypocrisy is whether he is actually at odds with his own beliefs. And as far as I can tell, he is not.)

..................... well I suppose I see your point. But I still think fossing is retarded. Since it has no effect, it ultimately has no purpose.

Either way, the fact remains that Chinaman has decided his way is the only way, since he thinks I'm scummy for not fossing or using some other kind of bolded statement. Then he gets on my case saying "I don't have to play by your rules, do I?"

So... I have to play by his rules (since not fossing makes me scummy) but he doesn't have to play by mine? Fuck that. That's still hypocrisy right there.

Here he gives up his point, but then makes the same one about something infinitely more minor. Chinaman is not playing particularly intelligently, but Muffin isn't playing at all.

In posts 117, 118, and 121 he says nothing of any relevance. He reiterates himself to Chinaman, and Lo and behold! He asks for content from other players!!

Unvote, Vote:Muffin

@MordyS - I believe I answered your question in my response to Archaebob, if not ask again and I'll answer.

Fixed

[foilist13]

That was the most recent album from Muse, Super Massive Wall Post.

Enjoy

[peanutman]

Sorry about my lack of posting. I am unexpectedly V/LA (rather, quite limited access) until Monday evening, though I will have a first read through of the last few pages and comments tomorrow morning.

[MordyS]

@MordyS - I believe I answered your question in my response to Archaebob, if not ask again and I'll answer.

I don't believe you've answered my post at all, but instead of reposting it, I'll just repost this bit: If it was just a typo, how come your vote is still on me? (I do hope you reread the entire post, though, and respond to the whole thing, since it's not going away. You're currently my #1 scum target.)

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Sorry, just realized you moved it onto Muffin. Long posts with broken quotes make my eyes wander.

[foilist13]

I didn't remove my vote from you, because it is my habit to leave my vote where it is unless I plan to change it. Just taking it off is not something I normally do. I'm sorry if that bothered you.

I got caught up, as did archaebob, on the name typo. It was a minor thing (we've all made reading mistakes), but it did indicate, especially coming in the middle of a discussion, that he wasn't doing due diligence to his reading. But on reread, what I noticed more was, "I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it." This is the kind of sneaky, scum-language that drives me nuts where he hedges on either side.

There's another example of this from Muffin (I'll quote Chinaman, who first noted this in post 49):

I'm not sure how to answer the language part, as there is no way to defend against "you sound scummy to me," so I'll have to let that one go.

As for the due diligence in reading, once I had a name in my head I read all the posts after that with it in mind. You are simply who I believed we were talking about, and I responded to things as they came. That was compounded when you made post 61 saying that you would probably look up players later in the game. It didn't occur to me that it wasn't you we were talking about, and that seemed a logical thing for a person in that position to say.

Isn't it clear that if you can't prove or disprove this, then it's a null tell? Not to mention that even if we could prove that he researched EVERY SINGLE player before starting play: I think that could easily be Townie play! So I don't know what foilist needs to keep in mind.

That could be a Townie play, but I find it far less likely than a scum player looking for things he can point fingers at. if you disagree with me on that point then there is nothing I can do.

As for being able to prove or disprove something, that doesn't make it a null tell, that only makes it inconclusive evidence. Maybe I'm confused in my terminology and those are the same thing, if so my bad. I thought it was a scummy move, but I can't prove that he did it, only that there was evidence he may have. That early in the game, that was sufficient to earn my vote.

I hope this answers your questions.

[MordyS]

That could be a Townie play, but I find it far less likely than a scum player looking for things he can point fingers at. if you disagree with me on that point then there is nothing I can do.

There is something you can do. You can explain why you believe it's more likely that a scum player would research games beforehand. But even that is beside the point. As Gammagooey never claimed to research people before the game, that was just an argument concocted by AlmasterGM, you can explain why you so quickly jumped onto a pretty awful argument.

I didn't remove my vote from you, because it is my habit to leave my vote where it is unless I plan to change it. Just taking it off is not something I normally do. I'm sorry if that bothered you.

This is beyond scummy, dude. You put your vote on me because you were confused about who we were discussing. After you were jumped on, you left it on because it is your habit to leave your vote where it is? It doesn't bother me personally. It bothers me because it smacks me of scummy behavior. You really didn't care where your vote went. Why not? Because you didn't buy your own argument. You were just looking to get your vote out there. If you really believed your case, the moment you realized your mistake, you would have put it on the person you had a case against. But you didn't buy your own case, which strikes me as disingenuous, scummy, and something you have failed to address in all these posts.

[archaebob]

@ Foilist - I don't at all understand why you wouldn't switch your vote to Gammagooey after you realized that you had got the name wrong.

This makes no sense.

@ Afatchic - why do you find my jumping onto the AGM wagon scummier than foilist jumping onto what he thought was the gammagooey wagon? Do you actually find me more suspicious than foilist?

@ AGM - where did you go?

@ Chinaman - I don't understand why you are resisting putting up a vote. I don't agree with the Muffin that FOSing is COMPLETELY useless...but I do see it as slightly less helpful to the town overall, especially this early in Day 1. Overall, I'm not getting a scummy read on you at the moment, but withholding your vote out of some strange notion of self-righteousness makes it seem a little like you're trying to hide something. SO, do what you want, but I strongly recommend just sucking it up and dropping a vote.

I think we need to forgive the lurkers for now, given that it's halloween weekend.

[foilist13]

I felt no pressure to change my vote whatsoever. Neither you or anyone else is in any immediate danger of being lynched, so I'll take my time.

Why did I jump on that argument? It was my first post, and that was what I had just read, and it struck me as scummy.

It makes more sense for a mafia player to research the other players beforehand, because it gives him an idea of their playing styles, and he can look for things to point fingers at them with. That makes perfect sense to me, and I can't fathom why it wouldn't to you.

It is less likely for a town player to research the other players first because there are more people, and there is no immediate benefit to doing so.

[foilist13]

It is bothering me that no one is responding to my post on Muffin. What, are one of you his scum partner trying to take attention away from your scumbuddy?

[MordyS]

It makes more sense for a mafia player to research the other players beforehand, because it gives him an idea of their playing styles, and he can look for things to point fingers at them with. That makes perfect sense to me, and I can't fathom why it wouldn't to you.

It is less likely for a town player to research the other players first because there are more people, and there is no immediate benefit to doing so.

I'm going to put this aside for a moment since it's not the crux of my issue. Suffice it to say, your argument lacks merit in my opinion. There is immediate benefit to researching fellow players (I've already started researching you to figure out whether this style a scumtell, or your way of going about these things). "There are more people." There are maybe two or three more players for a town player to research than there are for a scum player. Hardly a difference worth discussing. But let me put this aside, because it's the least thing that is bothering me about you.

I felt no pressure to change my vote whatsoever. Neither you or anyone else is in any immediate danger of being lynched, so I'll take my time.

This is what is bothering me. You felt that Gammagooey was scummy because you believed he might have been researching players before the game began. You made a mistake, though, and thought the case was against me. You voted for me. Once your mistake was illuminated though, you "felt no pressure to change [your] vote whatsoever." How about the pressure of pursuing your case? If I had brought this up, and you answered with, "I forgot my vote was there," or "I don't know what I was thinking," or "The truth was I wasn't in love with my Gammagooey case in the first place so I didn't feel completely compelled to vote for him," I would have bought that. But instead you continue to defend your Gammagooey case WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY giving no good explanation for not changing your vote to him.

So one more time I'll ask: Why, after realizing you made a mistake, did you not vote for the person you felt you had a legitimate case against?

It is bothering me that no one is responding to my post on Muffin. What, are one of you his scum partner trying to take attention away from your scumbuddy?

I'm waiting for Muffin to respond first, and currently, my attention is on this situation with you.

[afatchic]

I also don't buy the case against AGM. I think he genuinely thought he had a case when posting it. I don't think he was faking that or anything. I do think that it was blown out of proportion and he was attacked a bit hard about it. That was good though since it quickly brought us out of the RVS.

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

If it was just the first post of AGM that we were discussing, I would probably agree with you, as despite him being wrong, he might have thought he had something at the time.

The problem is that in the post after it, despite a short explanation by myself and having several people tell him that his logic is flawed, he not only continues to push on the case, but goes after Mordy for disagreeing with him based Mordy's explanation for why he doesn't think it would be scummy, which honestly seems like more of a mafia theory argument on what is a good/bad play than a defense or an accusation.

It seems to me that Almaster was trying to get people to follow him with no actual case behind his words, and I'm leaving my vote on him until I get an explanation.

That could be the case, but in my opinion I think it was more of a townie move that honestly thought they were on to something. In my experience, i would say a townie is more likely to push a case like that on the first few pages, than a scum stepping out that much at the start. If he would have backpedaled when questioned about it, rather than pushing on, i may be inclined to agree with you.

[MordyS]

Three questions for the generally fabulous SpyreX:

1. Are you neglecting this game in favor of other games?
2. Do you have anything to contribute outside your iffy "killing" argument?
3. Do you really buy that "killing" argument yourself? It seems like a stretch to me. Yes, maybe coupled with other things it could be a scumtell, but on its own?

To be more direct:

God, you're annoying. I hope you get killed quickly.

Killed in mafioso language has a fairly specific connotation and using it like you did supports that.

Even if it were true that killed has a specific connotation ("nightkilled" presumably?) do you believe the "I hope" mediates that somewhat since he's not saying, "I can't wait to kill you," but rather, "I hope someone kills you?" (The only major issue I think you may be tracing is that by saying "I hope you get killed quickly," if he means nightkilled, he's assuming that archaebob isn't Mafia himself. An assumption he can only make if he knows the role - ie: If he himself is Mafia. This seems like a bit of a stretch, but I could buy that case.)

[MordyS]

It is bothering me that no one is responding to my post on Muffin. What, are one of you his scum partner trying to take attention away from your scumbuddy?

Oh shit. I just realized, this is a scumtell (or something messy), ain't it. If "no one is responding to [your] post on Muffin," and not responding to that post is supposedly a scumtell that "his scum partner [is] trying to take attention away," then does that mean that everyone in the game is scum?

Illustrated:
If not responding to a case = scumtell,
and no one has responded to the case,
then everyone is logically scum.

But since we know that everyone in the game isn't scum,
that means that not responding to a case is not a scumtell,
which means -- well. I don't know. I already think you're scummy for other reasons. Why don't you tell me what this otherwise signifies, foilist13? I've got a strong gut feeling that it means you're feeling pressure and you're annoyed that instead of jumping all over your Muffin case (which, by the way, I took a look at. I want to hear what Muffin says before I respond, but I wasn't impressed), I'm still knocking on your door. Sound about right?

[peanutman]

I know a few people have already raised it but this is a fast moving game and not everyone can be online every day. That being said, I am usually much more present, and plan to contribute more as of Monday. However, this is what I've picked up so far. I'll start by doing this,

unvote

, given my first post out of RVS.

Spyrex accusing AGM of a scum-slip about the word "killing" is really a weak argument to contribute to the building AGM wagon. His quote seems much more like a visceral reaction to Archaebob's comment that says much more of his annoyance to the latter's RVS joking-style than to the game itself.

As for Gammagooey, there is one thing he stated that really doesn't sit well with me.

Mordy-I have trouble seeing the motivations for a mafia to stick his neck out and say that something is absolutely not scummy and draw attention to himself.

Why feel the need to prevent thoughts of buddying between you and Mordy. I had given that prospect much wait until you went out of your way to mention it. Even if this isn't the case, I am rather opposed to identifying people as town, in the early days for a few reasons. For one, the scum can single-out people who seem most pro-town based on those statement. Also, it can cause the town to ignore them in their scumhunting, based on the fact that some people feel they are town.

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

***---___---***---___

Now, for my preliminary case on Archaebob.

Vote : Archaebob

. Here's why:
1)

@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?

@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.

Now, your question does ask

why

he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected. And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.
2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.
3) Regarding your exchanges with Foilist, you repeat at many times that he is ignoring your important questions and arguments, but I had trouble myself finding them. If you do have questions that are repeatedly unanswered, either repeat them, quote them or link to them. It would make your arguments much more convincing to me, and to the rest of the town I believe.
3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
AlmasterGM (2) Gammagooey, SpryeX
Gammagooey (1) AlmasterGM
Chinaman (2) cruelty, Muffin
Foilist13(2) archaebob, MordyS
Archaebob (2) afatchic, peanutman
Muffin (1) foilist13

Note Voting (2) lexprod, Chinaman

[foilist13]

@Anyone who is still unhappy about me leaving my vote on MordyS - I'll go in depth into what I was thinking so that you can stop asking me about this.

After you pointed out my mistake,

1) I usually find someone to vote for before I stop voting for someone else.

2) You were not in any danger of being lynched

3) You had started to make a case against me, so at that point my vote essentially became a OMGUS vote while I tried to defend myself. Then I built my case against muffin and changed my vote accordingly.

@MordyS - I spent a lot of time on that Muffin post, and it irritates me that it has quite literally been ignored. As far as pressuring you to respond that is exactly what I was doing, although in a half-hearted way. Obviously not everyone can be scum, that comment was loosely directed at the two people who were on at the time.

[archaebob]

@ Foilist - no one asked you to change your vote without figuring out who you wanted to vote for. the point is, you had figured out that you had wanted to vote for gammagooey, but accidentally voted for someone else. upon having realized your mistake, you should have felt like your vote was in the wrong place, and have had some proactive desire to correct that. no one was asking you to totally withdraw your suspicions, or unvote, or anything like that. we are all just a little bit puzzled that you consider voting for the people who you actually find suspicious entirely irrelevant.

@ peanutman - I acknowledge your case and your suspicions of me, and understand the issue you have right now. I'll have you know that writing long coherent posts is my default mode of play, but that I generally don't fall into my default mode of play until a little ways into Day 1. Foilist and Muffin can attest to the truthfulness of that last sentence. Your going to have to accept right now that I have something specific in mind, and I'll just have to accept that you suspect me.

@ AGM - I'm a little bit irked by your disappearance from this game.

@ lexprod - time is running out. you need to start posting or be replaced.

[SpyreX]

Three questions for the generally fabulous SpyreX:

1. Are you neglecting this game in favor of other games?
2. Do you have anything to contribute outside your iffy "killing" argument?
3. Do you really buy that "killing" argument yourself? It seems like a stretch to me. Yes, maybe coupled with other things it could be a scumtell, but on its own?

To be more direct:

Even if it were true that killed has a specific connotation ("nightkilled" presumably?) do you believe the "I hope" mediates that somewhat since he's not saying, "I can't wait to kill you," but rather, "I hope someone kills you?" (The only major issue I think you may be tracing is that by saying "I hope you get killed quickly," if he means nightkilled, he's assuming that archaebob isn't Mafia himself. An assumption he can only make if he knows the role - ie: If he himself is Mafia. This seems like a bit of a stretch, but I could buy that case.)

1.) A little bit. This game is a bit -dense- for my time as of the moment. Fast is one thing but this one has some serious WORDS that takes time to parse and then I start and get sidetracked. That will change.

2.) Contribute to the mass wave of business? Not currently - I'll freely admit I need to READ the last few pages and not simply SKIM them.

3.) The killing argument? Hoss yes I do - keep in mind it IS coupled with the whole "You are scum because you've been reading other players" business.

The "I hope" can't mediate that since if he said "I can't wait to kill you" he'd already be lynched. Kill has a clear connotation that is a part of the night action side and he IS implying a kill which, like you said, has the assumation that he is mafia and archae isn't.

And, of course, the fact the statement itself was overkill to begin with.

But you want posts? I'll done get you posts.

[Gammagooey]

yay, posting. The only one without at least some suspicion mentioned in their posts is lex I believe, who will hopefully have something to say today now that Halloween is over.

Spyrex - herp derp deleted as he Ninja'd my post, and promised moar words.

Muffin - p89 really does seem like an OMGUS vote with a weak explanation attached, from my perspective China does believe that his FoS/HoSes show where he stands, and...

Muffin and archae - I don't really like the pressure to vote from you two on China, especially when it's day 1 with plenty of time until the deadline and he's made clear who he suspects.

Almaster - What in the hell are you doing with making a shoddy case, getting asked some questions, and disappearing. You even bring up your meta from previous games, I call you out on it being different in Stratego, and you still haven't gotten around to answering a) why it's different or b) a different game that I should look at to see the agressive behavior you've been showing here.

Peanut-My mentioning Mordy had 2 reasons 1) I was (and will continue to) trying to get my opinions on several different players out there, so that people will both know where I stand on certain people at the moment, and hopefully encourage others to do the same. If someone else were to post that he thinks the same of Mordy now and attacks him tommorrow, we know that the person has had a large change in opinion that SHOULD be documented with more posts.
2) foilist's vote was still on him, and I do not believe he would be a good lynch.

MORE WORDS shall occur after I shower and get some lunch.

[AlmasterGM]

Seriously guys, it was Halloween yesterday. I had other things to do. This thread has turned into giant walls of text - I'll catch up in a bit.

[Muffin]

Same for me. Was busy most of the day yesterday and probably will be busy until Monday evening. Post later.

[Gammagooey]

WARNING: MORE WORDS APPROACHING.

on archaebob in general: My gut says he's town. He's been asking a lot of questions, most of them good, and although I don't like him pressuring China for a vote I think he's trying to get reads on people and calling foilist out on both an incorrect vote and not changing it once he realized it was incorrect was the right thing to do.

on foilist - I still have a lot of trouble with understanding why you would keep a vote on someone you don't suspect instead of just unvoting, it seems like you were waiting for someone else to make a case against him to justify your vote instead of admitting you made a mistake and making an effort to fix it.

on foilist's case on Muffin - I do think that Muffin hasn't contributed a whole lot, with his main content being arguing with Chinaman. I'd like to see Muffin's response to that foilist's post as well as any other suspicions Muffin has before commenting further.

@Mod:

Do you think you could fix foilist's quote formatting in 125? it would make it a lot easier to read for anyone who hasn't gone through it yet. (lex,Spyrex,Almaster)

[archaebob]

I second Gamma's request to reformat post 125

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

So...you don't think AGM deserved a vote, because in your opinion, he wasn't

actually

trying to push a good case, he was just "voting for someone".

Now, why would you make this argument for him, and not for me? For some reason, you've decided to interpret AGM's vote as not serious, and you think it's justified. But he said in the post that it

was

, in fact, a "serious" vote. Am I not supposed to take him at face value?

I voted for AGM because he had become scummier than my RVS vote. I don't see why that makes you think I'm scummy, and it is interesting that you haven't posted ANY content of any kind about anyone else.

[archaebob]

@ Muffin - I would like you to respond to Foilist's case.

Also, I find your statements about FoS's being COMPLETELY pointless to be pretty ridiculous. While I tend to agree that there is no good reason to withhold a vote on Day 1, I think you are way overstepping yourself with this argument. FoS's don't have absolutely NO effect, and it is idiotic to define having an effect only as something that will contribute to a lynch. You might as well say that posting anything other than a vote has no effect. Why don't we all just post votes, and forget all this debating and stuff?

An FoS is a formal declaration of suspicion against another player. FoSing someone for no reason can be as comparably suspicious as voting them for no reason, and can also illicit a similar sort of reaction from the attacked player. They serve their purpose, and I think you are wasting the town's time with this back and forth argument over nothing with chinaman.

Overall, I haven't seen a whole lot of scum-hunting from you.