Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[ICEninja]

Pretty sure I'm at L-3

[manutdforev10]

am going to declare V/LA till monday. too much work, i will get a full read in when i can.

[DavidParker]

This game feels like it's actually on page 10 .. :O

[Jerbs]

Ok, I agree policy Lynching will get us nowhere. It is a horrible idea, ad will turn up a town, witch won't help the town. Suggesting it is scummy, but for now I am inclined to leave mute alone.

How do you know policy lynching Mute will have him flip town?

Not at all what he said. You seem to be paying little attention. Mute was the one who suggested a policy lynch on Javert for being Anti-town. Manut didn't suggest one on Mute.

@Jerbs: Do you have a scum-suspect?

Sorry. Replace Mute with Javert in my post. What I meant was that manut said "It is a horrible idea,

ad will turn up a town

" This seems to mean that manutd knows that Javert is town.

My scum suspect would be ICE. Prox hasn't done much and I would like him to post more, as well as Edge. Prox especially, cause most of his posts are contentless

First, my talk about bussing was in direct relation to Ice's argument that

Jarbes

was either hypocritical or knew who scum was (making himself scum) and your subsequent argument that bussing might cause a modkill. I denied the validity of your statement. My position is that I don't even care if he is bussing. We do not have enough information, at the moment, to make that kind of associations.

Do you mean Javert? Or Jerbs? I would asssume Javert because at that point I had only made one post, and was not tied up in the whole Javert thing

Edger wrote:
There's a clear difference between somebody taking a (what should have been) clearly baiting action early at the very start of the game and somebody (ie you) being an ostensibly serious wagon for the same silly reason that many people were joining the wagon and then saying "Teehee I was faking it"

Well as I stated in my last post, I've never seen that "clearly baiting action" before. I figured it was just RVS play that could have been fueled with scum knowledge. As I've said countless times before, it was the strongest case I could make with what I had. I never said "teehee I was faking it". I never faked anything. Why do people keep making up things about what I did? I simply stated that I over-pushed the wagon based on the strength of the case.

Hmmm...

Also, the only way Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy. I too, as indicated by a comment made earlier in this post (that is now obsolete but I don't feel like deleting for transparency reasons), believed he voted a player for reasons of not posting yet. Simply declaring a player scum without "if" is one of the most solid scum tells in the game, I'd say. I don't usually make serious votes like this so early, but...

Vote Javert

.

then

Regardless of alignment, I make these votes and back out on them just like I would RVS votes, because I don't usually believe alignment can be determined by what happens on the first 2 pages of a game, barring strange occurrences.

Claiming to have a "solid" scum tell and then backtracking to say it was all intentional and harmless hyperbole to gauge reactions sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Actually, it sounds like I did something very similar to what you did. You stated that "magnus is scum", and voted for him. I stated that "Javert is scum and this is why", and voted for you. You unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of your vote was served, and I unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of my vote was served. You are somewhat hypocritical to be calling me scummy for this.

You never faked anything? Yet you said you have a solid tell on Javert, then later said you just used the hyperbole for reaction hunting purposes.

Vote: ICEninja

He's also kinda overcautious, with a bit of recklessness to make himself seem town

ICEninja is now at L-2 (according to him)

[DavidParker]

I'd just like to post my agreement with Rob that 3-4 days before deadline if the activity and content of some of the players in this game doesn't pick up I will fully support a lynch of one of these players. It makes the game more enjoyable and.. is just more helpful if everyone is actively posting their opinions (as wrong as some people mind find those opinions to be).

Yes, I know I don't support policy lynches, but 3-4 days before deadline, lynching someone for not posting any content is not what I consider a policy lynch, but a player being anti-town and lurking, which is definitely a scum tell in current meta.

[DavidParker]

By the way, despite hating lurkers, I do like what Prox has posted in general, he has been straight-up and hasn't pretended that he will "catch up soon" or post some semi-fake-content which I would see as more likely to come from scum who don't have the time to keep up with all the wall posts we are posting. Also, I love Catcher in the Rye, so that reference wins mega town points.

[magnus_orion]

So I've been looking over ICE a bit, and I intend to do so more at some point, but before I forget, I want clarification to his answer to my question.

Explain why you felt like Javert had town motivated actions overall. Be specific.

Specifically, I'm referring to his ISO posts 3 and especially 4 where Javert seems very intent on bringing the town to a productive state. His reasoning for placing his original vote was, in my eyes, town motivated, and his vote on me, while misguided, appeared to be likewise placed by someone with town motivation. I'm not saying he's town, as while I've stated you can't determine that someone is scum from the very beginnings of the game you likewise can't declare someone overtly town this early, but it helps me in narrowing down good scum hunting targets for day 1.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my questions.
Why do you think that the actions you refer to would be done by someone with a town motivation?
Why does his vote appear placed by someone with a town motivation.

Exactly what about Javert's response to your "overly strong accusation" gave you a town impression of him. I seek to remind you that you said your vote "served its purpose" by giving you a better read. So you believe that, in some way, his reaction to your vote, which you'll have to point out for me, gives you a town impression, which you'll have to explain how.

Basically your claim in all of this is that you accomplished something useful in your vote, and having done that, your vote was no longer necessary. However, I have yet to fully understand what that useful thing was, exactly. I realize that, ultimately you acquired a town impression of Javert, but I'm seeking to know the specifics in between these two elements.

[magnus_orion]

further re-review of the game...
@Mute: Who is scum?
@conspiracy: To be clear, are your recent posts suggesting you don't find ICE scummy? (it appears that originally you thought he was, but changed your mind later... is that correct?)

prox isn't reading... suggests he has no stakes in the proceedings.

FOS: prox

@manut: when you get back... do you have any opinions any at all? Who is scum?

@jerbs:

He's also kinda overcautious, with a bit of recklessness to make himself seem town

This is at worst contradictory and at best vague. examples and explanation please.

@edge: commentary on ICE's more recent play. Your accusation involving hyperbole keeps getting referred to... the original accusation is interesting because you seem to claim ICE should've known what Javert was doing. Why do you believe this to be the case?

@Oso: do you believe ICE to be scum for reasons other than his attack against Mute?

@Javert: in retrospect, your original case on ICE is pretty confusing... while it's understandable that his failure to cite games and his attack on the first post to reasonably advance the game do, on the surface conflict with his desire to see the game advance, his stated motivation is consistent with his actions, ie. If he wanted the game to advance, then voting the person with the most interesting vote at the time with an overblown accusation would be an effective way of doing it.

@poirot: do you think hypocrisy is scummy?

I'm still gonna need ICE to clarify the stuff I mentioned in 106, but as of right now I'm not really supportive of the ICE wagon... that being said, Poirot has mentioned things to the effect that more interesting things lie after this wagon was pursued somewhat, but the initial foundation, at least, I feel is pretty shaky. I'll need to look into these later things poirot's referred to when I have more time...

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: @edge: I would like some commentary on ICE's more recent play from you*

[Jerbs]

f
@jerbs:

He's also kinda overcautious, with a bit of recklessness to make himself seem town

This is at worst contradictory and at best vague. examples and explanation please.

He seems, as Prox said, to be watching carefully and planning everything he posts.

He sounds like such a phony.

He's so apologetic and polite. He's perfectly reasoned and never leaves out a word.

However, he jumped on Javert early on, and played a bit reckless. According to

http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?tit ... cklessness

This shows that ICE is cautious, yet at some points in the game seems to fake recklessness to try to look town

[ICEninja]

am going to declare V/LA till monday. too much work, i will get a full read in when i can.

Until Monday? You're going to be taking more than 1/3rd of day 1 off with that V/LA.

You never faked anything? Yet you said you have a solid tell on Javert, then later said you just used the hyperbole for reaction hunting purposes.

Really? This is your reason for jumping on my wagon? This is definitely as opportunistic of a vote as Prox's. Exaggerating and faking something are not the same at all. Saying I'm cautious but also reckless? How does that even make sense? I'm just playing how I always play, except more frustrated.

By the way, despite hating lurkers, I do like what Prox has posted in general, he has been straight-up and hasn't pretended that he will "catch up soon" or post some semi-fake-content which I would see as more likely to come from scum who don't have the time to keep up with all the wall posts we are posting.

Seriously? Have you read his ISO? He's hardly contributed anything, and really seems to be just hopping on my wagon and supporting it without contributing to it.

People have done a lot of accusing me of being on and off opportunistic wagons, but people really need to be looking at Prox and Jerbs. Do they really believe in votes for me, or are they just trying to push a mislynch?

Magnus, I'll set aside some time to be very specific about responding to you.

[jimfinn]

Vote Count D1 #2: Deadline is here
With 13 alive, it is 7 to lynch.

ConSpiracy (0):
Edgerobin (0):
Mute (3): Prox, ConSpiracy, ICEninja
ICEninja (5) (L-2): Javert, Edgerobin, HumblePoirot, Oso, Jerbs
Oso (0):
manutdforev10 (0):
HumblePoirot (0):
magnus_orion (0):
Javert (0):
RobCapone (0):
DavidParker (1): magnus_orion

[Mute]

@Mute: Who is scum?

See, this is what I mean Conspiracy. This is asking a question to me.
Why bring you up? It ties into answering Magnus.

You, Conspiracy, I feel are scum. You have only 3 posts in this game, of which your second one is highly scum-opportunistic I feel. You jumped on the then easiest wagon (me), and instead of giving your case to me as well as against me, you simply spoke out in much the same way ICE has but gave me no room to defend myself with. I feel this to be a scum tactic to push for a lynch.
If you'd like I thought of another real-world example, where you are a lawyer/attorney, and I am the person being questioned. Picture it as a scene from a crime show. You are giving your case and personal opinion on the matter, pressing for why everyone should feel that I am scum. You do not ask me a thing to defend myself. You simply say your piece, then go about your day. That leaves me sitting at the bench with a dumb and confused look on my face which leads to nothing but "oh he must be scum (or for the sake of this example, guilty)" as a reaction to the jury.

I don't know what to take of ICE. I feel he's been grasping at straws and jumping on the easiest wagon as well. He used my random voting in his case for me that I've seen. But, why is he solely focusing on me?
These are all the votes I feel from page 1 to be the entire list of RVS votes.

Vote: ConSpiracy

, Name alone makes him obvscum.

Vote:Edgerobin

for making me want to drink wine.

Vote mute

mute's can't do well in mafia since they can't talk

Vote: ICENinja

How much scummier can you be than a cold heartless assassin?

You could be Subzero.

vote Mute.

This has to be the most quintessential RVS I've seen in a while.

Vote: Oso

[Insert generic RVS reason here]

No. It's decided that you are Subzero. I get to be Scorpion.

I hate subzero honestly. He's UberH@x with his FREEZE YOU TO DEATH!! powers.
but, I've found a more worthy target whom is scum:

Unvote; Vote: manutdforev10

You have a hard to pronounce name. You must be scum. Only scum would not want to be easily identified.

VOTE: HumblePoirot

Hello to David Parker, HP and ICENinja; the folks I have played with before.

Glad to meet the rest of you.

/in as well. Last mini was a disaster, this should be better!/

It wasn't

that

bad...at least we didn't have any double-voting, NK Immune Jesters or anything like that.

Anything else regarding ICE has been said by everyone else. However, I myself don't feel strongly enough of him being scum to place a vote on him and put him at L-1.

Everyone else I can't say whether I feel they are scum or not.

Jerbs

[Mute]

EBWOP: Sorry, meant to hit preview but his submit instead. =x

Jerbs too has only three posts this game, but I feel his posts to be more town-driven than anything.

[DavidParker]

cool you quoted all the RVS votes?!???

@Ice: I think prox's lurking to be more genuine business to some extent, and not having the oppurtunity to get fully involved yet. Jerbs I think is quite possibly a scum lurker. But I think if you flip scum, it'll just show he was hopping on your wagon in an attempt to win town points by bussing.

[Mute]

cool you quoted all the RVS votes?!???

Yes. I know your stance regarding walls, and to a degree I share them. If I make a post where it's largely quotes, I will minimize what I say to not make the walls larger than need be.

I said why I posted the RVS votes, did you read that much or was that mini-wall too big to see over?

[ICEninja]

Alright magnus, here is very specifically what I felt I accomplished in my vote.

Firstly and most obviously, it drove us in to meaningful discussion and real votes. Unfortunately this lead to a bandwagon on me, but there have been some scummy jumps on to my wagon which could very well help town. This is what I was referring to when I said "and then some" when referring to that I had accomplished my goals.

In Javert's ISO 4, he explained exactly and clearly what he was intending to accomplish with his vote. Very specifically, he said this:

Not explaining a vote the instant you make it is not scummy, and I would be amused to see any person voting for me try to argue otherwise. I was hoping - at the least - to see magnus_orion's reaction, but with David Parker's post I suspect any reaction I may have gotten has now been lost.

He calls for people to actually explain why his actions were scummy, full well knowing that, considering this revelation, weren't. Granted this wasn't the reason I initially voted for him, as I insinuated that a player declaring someone scum has scum inside information, but he's right. He wanted to see a player's reaction to pressure, and had good intentions. Town points for being the first player to actively scum hunt with specific goals in mind.

Secondly, he examines my play more closely. He points out this about my play:

Essentially, ICEninja complains about Mute for making two random votes because random votes do not advance the game. But immediately afterwards, when I make a vote that is seemingly not random - i.e., a post that will likely advance the game - ICEninja jumps on me as if it is suspicious in Post 22.

While I didn't attack him to shut down action that would advance the game, and therefore this contradiction doesn't really stack, it shows more solid and genuine looking scum hunting from Javert. This wasn't exactly the reaction I was expecting, per se, and it had a dash of OMGUS in it, I felt that it was town driven suspicion. Javert fully knew that his vote was not scummy. Therefore, he attacked a vote that was based on actions that weren't scummy. This is a good and logical argument, if one assumes that I knew what he was doing at the beginning, that indicates further scum hunting.

I generally regard the first player to make a well reasoned vote that makes sense to be pro-town. This is because scum, in my experience, are less likely to be making waves. It's simply safer for scum to sit back and wait for someone like Javert to throw down a vote on me and to pile up the votes after a lot of people suspect the player, much like what Jerbs and Prox have done.

Since then, Javert hasn't read as the most town player, but I won't be voting him any time soon unless he says something that really bothers me. Hopefully you now have a good detailed understanding of everything I was thinking.

Now, I'd like to finally take a breather for trying to explain to everyone why I'm not scum and point out to everyone how scummy Mute has been behaving.

Right now, everyone who thinks that I twisted around Mute's words, read this statement:

The reasoning I had then was a scum-ploy to oust their partner to favor a town-reputation.

This is referring to the fact that he felt, at the time he voted Javert, that Javert was busing his partner to gain town cred. I would like to remind everyone that he made this statement IN BETWEEN his FoS and vote for Javert:

Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?

He clearly felt that Javert would not be scum busing his partner. Yet now he goes back and states that his reasoning for voting Javert, which happens in his next post, was that he was ousting his partner to gain town cred.

Also, when questioned about why he found Javert scummy enough to vote, he made this very strange statement:

Yay best defense I have is nothing but needless WIFOM at this point which even I don't fully trust. =_=

I can't quite put my finger on why this bugs me, but this just doesn't strike me as a town response to a very straightforward question.

In ISO 13, he states that he hasn't responded to CS's points simply because they weren't directed at him. That's a pretty weak excuse to not answer questions. In his own example of a guy addressing a crowd about him, I don't see any reason why the accused can't stand up and refute the points, once again speaking to everyone.

The funny thing, ISO 13 is all excuse as to why he isn't answering CS's questions, and he does absolutely nothing to actually respond. The whole post feels like a red herring to me. Especially with the amount of quotes he uses to fluff it up.

In ISO 14, he basically says everything all over again, and then

finally

responds in very weak terms, and very briefly.

In ISO 15, he OMGUS attacks CS pretty hard. His reasoning for suspecting him is, as far as I can tell, "he suspected me and attacked in a way that I couldn't easily defend". He also makes a pretty bold statement:

You, Conspiracy, I feel are scum.

This is a pretty strong statement to not follow up with a vote. Is it because you realize how weak your attack on CS is, and have scum knowledge that he's town?

[Edgerobin]

@ edge - lurking is anti-town plain and simple so to be against a lurker lynch is sketchy at best. I am not saying that we drop a bandwagon and go after them but if we hit a point in the game early on a lurker lynch should definitely not be something to be against. Lurking is anti-town because it deprives town of content and lurkers aren't likely to scum hunt very well, if at all.

secondly I would like to add that i don't really care for the reason that Ice gave for his mute vote and I don't like the strong reaction he had to the policy lynching suggestion. I will be honest I am not 100% against a policy lynch if I know the player's habits and he is going to screw town over (furclow for example) and I don't think anyone in here has shown traits of being bad enough to deserve a PL. I do think if a few more days go by and we have some genuine lurkers, I will definitely be up for a lurker policy lynch, but it's too early in the game for that.

I really don't see where this is coming from. You're spending an inordinate amount of time telling us what you will do in the event that people are lurking. Aside from the fact that I think your approach to lurking is completely wrongheaded, I can't see any reason for this - other than, of course, making yourself "consistent" so as to justify those policy lynching in advance.

Well as I stated in my last post, I've never seen that "clearly baiting action" before. I figured it was just RVS play that could have been fueled with scum knowledge. As I've said countless times before, it was the strongest case I could make with what I had. I never said "teehee I was faking it". I never faked anything. Why do people keep making up things about what I did? I simply stated that I over-pushed the wagon based on the strength of the case.

It just doesn't make sense to me that you'd think it more likely that scum-Javert would be outing a scummbuddy than baiting. You're basically saying that you thought it more likely he'd outright break the rules than bait.

Secondly, you're understating your backtrack significantly. If you genuinely thought his action was only possibly scummy, then describing it in the way that you did was lying. The line between rhetorical hyperbole that everybody uses to persuade people and outright lying is often not that clear, but here I don't think it can seriously be argued that you weren't lying about your opinion on Javert at some point.

This just isn't true. You completely misrepresent Mute as saying that his random votes "accomplish a lot". what he actually said was much more understated:

Not at all. I asked him "how do your votes help the game" and he responds "how don't they?" and lists a bunch of things votes (and he's implying HIS votes) do to advance the game. It isn't a strong tell, but it's what I got out of it.

Ah..."It isn't a strong tell" - code for "I'm wrong but I am not going to admit it".

Quoting Mute's post:

How don't they? Voting to get people involved, get discussions going, acquire info, find people whom are felt to be scum, etc etc etc. I prefer to vote for random reasons until a point where serious discussion is reached, and the RVS ends and the game proper begins. Then my votes get based on solid reasoning.
I do not feel it has yet but we are close with your current post.

You described him as saying his votes "accomplish a lot" and that he is listing a bunch of things. Read the damn list. He is basically just claiming the conventional justification for RVS - namely, to get things moving. His list is entirely accurate as a statement of the purpose of RVS and, to that end, two votes (or three, or four) is just as valid as one.

I'd just like to post my agreement with Rob that 3-4 days before deadline if the activity and content of some of the players in this game doesn't pick up I will fully support a lynch of one of these players. It makes the game more enjoyable and.. is just more helpful if everyone is actively posting their opinions (as wrong as some people mind find those opinions to be).

Yes, I know I don't support policy lynches, but 3-4 days before deadline, lynching someone for not posting any content is not what I consider a policy lynch, but a player being anti-town and lurking, which is definitely a scum tell in current meta.

Again - what is the point of this?

If you think lurkers are scummy, you are just warning them not to lurk?

If you don't think lurkers are scummy, why the hell are you even contemplating lynching them?

@edge: commentary on ICE's more recent play. Your accusation involving hyperbole keeps getting referred to... the original accusation is interesting because you seem to claim ICE should've known what Javert was doing. Why do you believe this to be the case?

Sorry, I thought I'd been clear on this.

Town should be analysing people's posts. They don't always, but we have to assume that they will. Now, on reading Javert's post there are only, in my view, four possible interpretations:
1) Javert is insane
2) Javert is scum outing a scumbuddy
3) Javert is scum pretending to out his partner
4) Javert is null trying to bait (I say null because obviously scum can try baiting as well)

1) isn't worth taking seriously. 2) would be against the rules. 3) would have no point (it doesn't clearly say "this guy is my partner", nor is it in any way going to get the target lynched, since it premises the target's scummines on Javert's own). 4), of course, is the most likely - no matter what Jav's alignment.

So, if he was thinking at all about Jav's alignment, he should have concluded that the best thing to do would be to hold off and see what happens. The fact that he didn't can only suggest that he wasn't interested in Jav's alignment.

[ICEninja]

Edger, two things. One, I never once thought that Javert was going to push a lynch on a scum buddy at the beginning of day 1. Outing him now would potentially give Javert some town cred later if magnus gets lynched. Javert could come back and say "I knew it all along", etc. Two, scum throwing a partner under the bus for town cred is by no means against the rules. Mod has blatantly stated this in game. Several of your statements against me are incorrect because of these facts.

Again, you're stating that exaggerating and lying are one and the same. I wasn't lying in believing that having scum knowledge of who scum is and who scum isn't is a scum tell. Is it not? The question of the matter is, how much did what Javert say indicate that he has scum knowledge? Given how he said he was reaction testing, that is a perfectly reasonable motive for his statement that magnus is scum, and means he probably wasn't saying anything out of having scum knowledge. Had Javert not been reaction testing, then that would have helped my read on him. If, down the road, one of Javert and magnus flipped scum, I would have suspected the other based on the RVS events.

I admit the wording of my original vote could have been better. I believe that someone knowing who is scum is a very solid scum tell. Stating that someone is scum without a qualifier is usually the slip that scum makes to indicate that they have inside knowledge of who is scum and who is not. My exaggeration was that what Javert did was blatantly stating that he knew who scum was. He was, but he probably didn't have information that actually indicated if magnus is or is not scum.

[Edgerobin]

Edger, two things. One, I never once thought that Javert was going to push a lynch on a scum buddy at the beginning of day 1.

You said:

I figured it was just RVS play that could have been fueled with scum knowledge

What "scum knowledge" would indicate to scum that a person was scum - other than them being scumbuddies?

Outing him now would potentially give Javert some town cred later if magnus gets lynched. Javert could come back and say "I knew it all along", etc. Two, scum throwing a partner under the bus for town cred is by no means against the rules. Mod has blatantly stated this in game. Several of your statements against me are incorrect because of these facts.

Bussing is completely different from outing. It should be pretty damn obvious that Javert-scum would get absolutely no town credit for outing a scum in his very first post - it would clearly finger him as a scumbuddy.


Which is why this:

Again, you're stating that exaggerating and lying are one and the same. I wasn't lying in believing that having scum knowledge of who scum is and who scum isn't is a scum tell. Is it not? The question of the matter is, how much did what Javert say indicate that he has scum knowledge? Given how he said he was reaction testing, that is a perfectly reasonable motive for his statement that magnus is scum, and means he probably wasn't saying anything out of having scum knowledge. Had Javert not been reaction testing, then that would have helped my read on him. If, down the road, one of Javert and magnus flipped scum, I would have suspected the other based on the RVS events.

I admit the wording of my original vote could have been better. I believe that someone knowing who is scum is a very solid scum tell. Stating that someone is scum without a qualifier is usually the slip that scum makes to indicate that they have inside knowledge of who is scum and who is not. My exaggeration was that what Javert did was blatantly stating that he knew who scum was. He was, but he probably didn't have information that actually indicated if magnus is or is not scum.

Just doesn't make sense.

Maybe I am just understanding you, so answer me this:

Assume Javert is scum. Assume Javert knows that Magnus is also scum. Why would Javert out Magnus in his first post?

[RobCapone]

@ ice

Rob, you seem to have a lot of material to indicate you are at odds with David. You seem to disagree with him a lot, but you make good points. I am concerned, however, that a lot of your post was dedicated to disagreeing with him and not a lot of it was dedicated to analyzing his alignment. Do you feel that his actions were scummy? Do you feel like David is more likely to flip scum than other players right now?

I actually have a feeling that he could be scum and here is why.

I don't like the fact that he has defended Javert for his attempt at reaction fishing while completely negating the whole exercise. While I feel that yes Javert put the attention on himself, how can ANYONE think he was pro-town enough to be defended like DP was doing. The fact that he completely ruined the gambit to me means that he was doing 2 things.

1. defending Javert because DP thinks (or maybe knows) he is town
2. taking the attention off magnus

here is where it gets interesting

when magnus DOES make an appearance, who does he go after? David Parker now this looks like they are trying to distance from each other.

than magnus asks me about my comment on DP and says that DP doesn't remind him of furclow

timeout

@ magus - if he is ONLY being annoying and playing like a VI than yes we can excuse it on day 1, however re-reading when I have more energy I am noticing that his play isn't annoying, it's suspicious.

time in

David's reaction to magnus's questions is proof that he isn't taking the game serious OR magnus seriously. If I asked somebody questions and they called me annoying, I'd be on his ass even harder, especially if he gives half-assed answers (and yes I have meta to support this statement)

1. post 86 DP wants to know how many votes Ice has, he does drop subtle hints that he thinks he is scummy, but nothing overly serious
2. post 99 - DP wants a vote count - although on the surface, nothing is wrong with wanting a vote count, the fact that he earlier has said he wanted to know how many votes Ice has, this seems like another attempt to check the wagon.
3. post 102 is worthless and he isn't adding anything to the discussion on the Ice wagon, mute wagon, or anyone else for that matter
4. Mr. I am against PL is now agreeing with me that he would be up for a PL on lurkers
5.

By the way, despite hating lurkers, I do like what Prox has posted in general, he has been straight-up and hasn't pretended that he will "catch up soon" or post some semi-fake-content which I would see as more likely to come from scum who don't have the time to keep up with all the wall posts we are posting. Also, I love Catcher in the Rye, so that reference wins mega town points.

this reaks because actually prox has said

As for everyone else, I'll have to actually read your posts instead of skimming them, I guess.

And

I'll probably never know if you've said something scummy in that post because if I try to read it, I'll just be reading the words and not the message.

both of these are admissions that he isn't even making an effort to read the game, just skimming it.


I don't see any real content from Parker, I don't see any real effort from parker, I don't see any real case from parker about Ice, yet he seems concerned with the vote count(especially since he isn't voting for anyone ATM). Add that to the weird interaction between Javert/Parker/Magnus as I outlined earlier, I am comfortable enough doing this

Vote David Parker

[RobCapone]

and my comment on the Ice wagon, I feel his reactions are sincere and he is defending himself apropriately

his vote on Javert and Mute both make sense to me.

Right now I am more interested in the possible Parker/Magnus scum team possibility

[RobCapone]

looking over the Magnus posts, after moving on from David parker he goes on to try and figure out why people are voting for Ice and says he is against the Ice lynch, now obviously without knowing what Ice is, i can't speculate but if Ice does get lynched and he flips town, this is just going to solidify in my mind he is scum trying to defend Ice for points.

The real reason for this thinking I have is he doesn't really say WHY he thinks Ice is not scummy or not a good lynch.

he asks ice questions and while he is waiting for Ice to clarify he goes through and asks the people voting Ice about their votes.

[Prox]

I'd probably get lazy if no one pushed me to post. I can't go around making wallposts and I can't waste time I could spend posting on reading 1000 word essays on nothing. Skimming will suit me; as it isn't as much what you say as how you say it. Besides, when I have time I really will read the wallposts.

I notice that ICE's tone has shifted a bit since my last visit to the thread. It's now a bit more normal. That makes me think that the old tone actually was an incident of overacting and that ICE has attempted to fix it.

My real issue has been the way he's said things. There've been a few times where I've been close to getting mislynched for trying too hard to end the RVS. But I have also been legitimately lynched for playing the well-versed mild-mannered townie routine too strongly. Seems like tactfulness is overrated in mafia.

Any player can be careful about what he says, but townies should have an easier job doing it.

Since ninja's style has shown itself to be both abnormal and quick to change with pressure, I find it disingenuous.

vote ICEninja

L-1? Time for claim?

[ICEninja]

I said I didn't believe he would push for a lynch. He voted him, but pushing for a lynch on day 1 is absurd. That would be outing his scum partner. My theory was that he was simply distancing.

Assume Javert is scum. Assume Javert knows that Magnus is also scum. Why would Javert out Magnus in his first post?

He wouldn't think anyone would take him seriously, being that it was his first post. Even if they are scum buddies, I don't feel like he actually outed him. People say stupid things in the RVS all the time. Scum often vote for each other in the RVS to distance themselves. I felt it was a possibility that he was distancing himself, but letting it slip that he actually knew someone was scum.

It's optimistic to think that, but hey.

Rob, your case against David is a lot better and more clear now. I'd like him to respond before I comment on something I disagree about, however.

I didn't however, notice the whole bit about magnus. Now that you point it out, it does seem like he's been defending me and questioning those voting me. I guess since this was good for me I ignored it, but now that I think about it he could be doing this with scum knowledge that I'm town.

Now Prox, you really need to explain that vote on me. You're being seriously vague, and there's really no way I can defend myself against what you've said. You really seem to be making up scum tells here. You keep talking about my tone changing and adapting. Why does this make me scum? Town doesn't want to get lynched either. I'm trying to get this pressure off me because there are scummier players than me out there that need to be lynched instead.

This game has been a rough one for me. Of course I'm going to be careful about what I say. Of course I'm going to adapt to the pressure on me. None of this indicates scum in the slightest.

And no, it is absolutely not time for claim. My case against Mute is very sound, and hardly anyone has touched on it. A sizable case was just thrown down against DP, and while I may not fully agree with it, it carries some merit. A claim right now would help scum significantly, and town not at all.