Mini 870: Melee mafia. (Mod Abandoned)

[drowmage]

fine. neither of us can read. you're still scum.

[Snow_Bunny]

Tony and Kirby aren't scum together. Unprovoked two directional bussing on day one is outrageous, especially in a damage-based game. Anyone suggesting that the two are partners is either scum or needs to have his/her head examined. There's no incentive to pull a bus right out of the driveway.

Kast and Kirby aren't scum together (same reason as above).
TonyMontana and Kast

probably

aren't scum together. (" ")

Of Tony and Kirby, I think Tony is more likely to be scum, although his self-lynch thing is throwing me off.

His possible partners are those veering the wagon away from Tony and onto Kirby instead,

I'm down for a kirby lynch. The case on tony is being pushed by scum.

I don't like this post at all. Don't assume scum play as you usually would play. Maybe you think it's outrageous, but maybe it's the tactic they chose. You taking it as truth revealed by god strike me as odd. As if you had information about their tactics. And, paired this with what I posted about you in a previous post, you're looking quite scummy. However, I had an early town-read on you, so by now my vote stays.

Snow Bunny is independently scummy for trying to wheedle away from damage postponement and for being the first to play the confirmation bias game in this post, but also for calling Tony and Kirby partners. She opts for the Kirby wagon over Tony's.

If you want me to call me scummy for my stance on rule-bending, go ahead, I can't argue. Even if I have to die for it, my stance won't change. I.do.not.like.rule.bending.

I can see a Kirby-Tony-???? scum team with Kirby trying to early bus Tony.

Vote: Kirby

I'm cool with nixing any of them. Mass feedback would be loved.

I'm actually seeing now a possible Kirby-Tony-Nuwen with some bad tactics out there.
But no, really, there's something odd. I'm seeing Nuwen as scum, but not on the same level as Kirby-Tony. Maybe a SK?

[drowmage]

Snow_Bunny: if I call you scum are you going to lump me into that group too?

[Kirbyoshi]

fine. neither of us can read. you're still scum.

drow, correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but isn't your whole case on me that I'm attacking Nuwen for no reason? And after realizing I haven't attacked him/her this whole game, you still think I'm scum? Why?

Snow_Bunny: if I call you scum are you going to lump me into that group too?

I agree that Snow is independently scummy, but not in this way. I don't think OMGUS is her tactic here.

[hohum]

fine. neither of us can read. you're still scum.

drow, correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but isn't your whole case on me that I'm attacking Nuwen for no reason? And after realizing I haven't attacked him/her this whole game, you still think I'm scum? Why?

Again with the not paying attention. Go back and reread the thread. That was just one of many reasons I have to vote you. Also Re: Nuwen, you still haven't addressed my original complaint.

[Kirbyoshi]

Which was...?

[drowmage]

post 300 and then 306. Specifically that you made the comment, called it a scum tell (which it is not, it's actually a town tell) and then proceeded to rant for 2 pages how you have a town read on Nuwen.

[Snow_Bunny]

Snow_Bunny: if I call you scum are you going to lump me into that group too?

I don't think Nuwen is scum for calling me scum. I gave the reasons why I think he is.

1. How good of a scumhunter are you? No, really. Attach a percent to your abilities - is it any higher than random?
2. What kinds of damage patterns are scum likely to take? How would they differ from vig-style town patterns?

"So, guys, who should I NK at nights, and how should I act during day to blend in?"

MFOS: Nuwen.

Why do you need that info? Seems like a real fishing/budding here.

[populartajo]

Announcing semi V/LA. I got drunk in the weekend and Im going to be busy for job motives until Wednesday. Sorry about this. Will probably post on Thursday or if I have some free time during meetings.

[Kirbyoshi]

Another example of how drow/hohum can't read. I've said time and time again that the points you bring up, and in the posts by me that you seem to have a problem with, I was talking about Snow. In fact, I think it was you who said Snow is "independently" scummy, i.e., scummy even if her buddies aren't anyone who's been under pressure yet. Doesn't that make your argument against me void?

[Kast]

@TM-
(1) Funny how you don't use quotes after getting upset that I posted without quotes. I suppose that's because the post record shows you are a liar.

Playing the "I-don't-speak-English" card isn't a valid excuse for lying.

I never said you shouldn't vote

This game does not have a voting system. I suggested that we vote anyway and asked what everyone thinks. You said no.

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

After C.C posted the opposite opinion, you responded by changing your position.

-Your rules misunderstanding is an irrelevant distraction point. Even if damage resets, voting is still beneficial. Also, we would still prohibit rogue behavior. Allowing townies to free-for-all attack allows scum to indistinguishably do the same.

(2) Again, post record shows you are lying. Your initial post said attacks should be in thread, NOT that there is a point in hiding them.

I can say that I agree that

attacks should be posted in thread

.

I said that there

was point in trying to hide attacks

If this was a typo or misunderstanding, you had time to correct it. You were specifically asked about your position and chose not to correct it.
You changed position AFTER everyone agreed on no punishment.

@drowmage/KY-
Two pages of back-and-forth and you still haven't cleared up the misunderstanding?

At least my posts have content...

--DM--
KY is suspicious of TM

(everyone should be)

. KY "dinged" SB with reasons. KY has no reason to suspect Nuwen. Consequently, he doesn't.
KY didn't claim that SB (or Nuwen) changing assumptions is a scumtell. From context, he tried to convince SB that:
IF SB was wrong once,
THEN SB could be wrong again
THUS SB should change assumptions again.

CONSIDERATION: You appear to suffer from confirmation bias against play styles that use long posts.
SUGGESTION: IF you have problems reading or understanding, THEN ask questions and make an effort to understand INSTEAD OF assuming the player is scum and fitting evidence to your preconception.

Apologies, the suggestion is not meant to offend and could probably contain more tact. However, your general posting, especially posts 193 and 325 indicate a strong confirmation bias. You seem capable of better play than this, so I hope you will consider it.

--KY--
DM doesn't read carefully. Replace all instances of "Nuwen" with "Snow_Bunny". DM also thinks you are saying SB is scummy BECAUSE she changed her assumption.
To be clear, do you believe that changing an assumption is a scumtell?

The reason I said anything at all was because of your out-of-place comment about

Nuwen's

Snow_bunny's

adjustment of her assumptions.

Also, remember when I posted about avoiding pronouns? That could have prevented this distraction.

@Stark-
Enforcement Squad (ES) is a great idea. Its members should be the players who voted for the Majority Candidate (MC). If a member goes rogue, he should be treated the same as any other rogue. If a member goes pacifist, he should be treated the same as any other pacifist.

[Yosarian2]

Tony and Kirby aren't scum together. Unprovoked two directional bussing on day one is outrageous, especially in a damage-based game. Anyone suggesting that the two are partners is either scum or needs to have his/her head examined. There's no incentive to pull a bus right out of the driveway.

I'd agree with that; it's fairly unlikely they're both scum together. On the other hand, each one looks scummy independently, and I'd say that the odds of either one being scum are significantly higher then average. Following my normal method of "pulling numbers out of my ass", I'd say there's something like a 40% chance Tony is scum and a 40% chance Kirby is scum, or something like that; considering a random lynch is about 25% likely to hit scum, I'd be fine lynching either one today.

Kast and Kirby aren't scum together (same reason as above).
TonyMontana and Kast

probably

aren't scum together. (" ")

I don't really think Kast is scum at this point. His thought process, so far, seems streightfoward and honest to me, and his reactions to game events seems townish. Of course, good scum can sometimes fake all that, but I'd bet on Kast being town at the moment.

[qote]
Of Tony and Kirby, I think Tony is more likely to be scum, although his self-lynch thing is throwing me off.[/quote]

Interesting. Why? I'd say they're about equal.

[chamber]

I never said you shouldn't vote

This game does not have a voting system. I suggested that we vote anyway and asked what everyone thinks. You said no.

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

Kast, I was trying to not intervene but Tony specifically says that voting for a lynch candidate will be unfeasible. This doesn't say one shouldn't vote, it talks about the function of voting. Tony feels players should vote for emphasis as opposed to for a lynch candidate. I don't understand how this misunderstanding has managed to stretch across so many posts.

[Kast]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

[chamber]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

Please don't. I'll go reread the context myself. I have been thinking this since it was first said I was just trying to not answer questions directed at others. Given that I doubt a reread will change my mind and suggest you also reread.

[Yosarian2]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

I agree with chamber here, actually. Tony said that a voting for a lynch "would not be feasible", which basically means it's not practical. In his very next post, he said that people should vote, in order to emphasize their suspicions. He made that quite clear, and he never said that people shouldn't vote, at all.

[populartajo]

Why exactly isnt KirbyYoshi lycnhed yet?

[TonyMontana]

@TM-
(1) Funny how you don't use quotes after getting upset that I posted without quotes. I suppose that's because the post record shows you are a liar.

Playing the "I-don't-speak-English" card isn't a valid excuse for lying.

I see nothing funny, nor relevant here. I don't remember getting "upset" that you posted without quotes. I might have commented on you misrepresenting me without quoting me, which I don't think you can accuse me of doing to you.

Playing the "playing-card" card isn't a valid form of argument, especially since I havent tried to excuse any lies.

Still wish people would stop quoting my use of the word "feasible", in light of having looked it up. -.-

I never said you shouldn't vote

This game does not have a voting system. I suggested that we vote anyway and asked what everyone thinks. You said no.

-Should we vote for a lynch candidate?

I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.

After C.C posted the opposite opinion, you responded by changing your position.

You're reaching. I never even read CC's post before I clarified my position. Which was that voting is a good way to show suspicions.
I've explained the difference numerous times now, so I don't know how else to say it. At least some other people understand why there's no contradiction here.

-Your rules misunderstanding is an irrelevant distraction point. Even if damage resets, voting is still beneficial. Also, we would still prohibit rogue behavior. Allowing townies to free-for-all attack allows scum to indistinguishably do the same.

If damage reset, someone attacking on their own would be akin to someone voting for someone, while the rest lynched someone else. In this scenario, how would it matter if scum could go rouge?

(2) Again, post record shows you are lying. Your initial post said attacks should be in thread, NOT that there is a point in hiding them.

I can say that I agree that

attacks should be posted in thread

.

I said that there

was point in trying to hide attacks

If this was a typo or misunderstanding, you had time to correct it. You were specifically asked about your position and chose not to correct it.
You changed position AFTER everyone agreed on no punishment.

I don't understand. Is the issue that i clearly left out the word "no" in the latter quote? (was

no

point)

Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

First of all, no one is proposing that's what the question was. Secondly, I took the question as "should we agree on a lynch candidate?"
Do you honestly think I understood your intended meaning of the question?

[chamber]

@Chamber-
Vote for emphasis = vote for a lynch candidate.
A vote for emphasis is placed on your lynch candidate to emphasize your suspicion.

The question is not "do you think voting will result in a lynch?", it was "should we vote?"

It was not a mechanics question. There was significant discussion providing a background for the questions. I only quoted the question for brevity, but if you insist I can post the full context.

I agree with chamber here, actually. Tony said that a voting for a lynch "would not be feasible", which basically means it's not practical. In his very next post, he said that people should vote, in order to emphasize their suspicions. He made that quite clear, and he never said that people shouldn't vote, at all.

You say that like its strange to agree with me.

[populartajo]

Recapitulations of the things I missed:

-Yosarian is still town. Bunny is also high in my aggressive but wrong towndar. Also Nuwen asks where I am. That means she is town.

-Kast-TM battle : I keep thinking Kast is dense town and Tony is neutral annoyed at Kast pressure. Not much information of it other than Tony did contradict himself in some posts but I dont find a scum motivation for doing what he did when its so early. Failing in the scumhunting department is somewhat damning, though but I think its a consequence of the Kast pressure.

-As much as Id like a drowmage lynch right now, I dont like the way hoh..., drowmage attacks him. Hohum, quote your exact case against kirby in your next post.

-Farside, Grover and Spyrex/stark are sick/lurking.

-Interesting to note that KirbyYoshi is voting TonyMontana but I still dont see a palpable case against him. Why is he so obvscum in your mind, KirbyYoshi?

[Kast]

@TM-
-Your use of technicalities and semantics arguments is scummy. Yes, you did not use the word "upset". My point still stands.

-You can claim you didn't read CC's post, but you only posted after he made it a solid majority (7 players) in favor of voting & following a voting system.

-A rogue can lynch his target and overrule the majority. More rogues makes it more likely. Most days only have 2-3 main suspects. Rogues enable a group of 2-4 players to realistically lynch a Runner-up Candidate instead of the MC, especially if the 2 candidates have different AC. In a standard game, this imbalance in voting does not exist. Allowing a few players to overrule the majority gives scum a safe way to undetectably control the lynch.

-When asked if we should allow actions by PM, your answer was negative. You later reversed completely.

That you only explicitly said "attacks" is a technicality. The question was whether we should allow actions by PM. The current majority opinion was no. If you felt the way you later claimed, you should have said it then. Instead, you refused to clarify UNTIL a majority decided PMs were okay.

-Chamber proposed that.

You clearly understood. The claim that your answer excuses you from answering Q2-Q5 does not make sense otherwise. You are attempting to sow confusion by arguing against Q4 as an "explanation" of what you meant by Q1. They are different questions. Congratz though, you seem to have succeeded at causing confusion.

@Tajo-
It is possible that TM is an indecisive townie who changed his mind and just doesn't like explaining himself. However, given this game setup, I find it more likely that he is scum who keeps changing his story to agree with the majority.

In this game, scum benefit significantly from not drawing attention to themselves.

@Mod-

Are conditional orders okay?

[Grover]

Now how exactly do you guys want to do this melee phase?

Does everyone agree with in-thread attacks, so we have no surprises?

Attacking the same person so we don't get our life down so low that we become easy targets is actually a horrible point, because scum can one-hit us or take half our life if we are lucky enough to roll a saving throw...so the scum will have to hammer us themselves, and this will be an action that everyone can witness even if they PM this action.

Whoever suggested we all attack the same player, that person is scummy. I think it was populartajo, but I will have to look back. Definitely very scummy.

Vote Populartajo

[Grover]

I want to hurt either populartajo or Yosarian this turn.

[Kast]

@Grover-

Melee phase is not equivalent to night in this game.

Scum nightkill the same way they normally do. At night. Not publicly.

[chamber]

kast, can you please qoute all of Tonys contradictions,mind changes,whatever and very briefly explain them in context.