Newbie 1074(Game Over|Scum Win!!!)

[Robocopter87]

__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

1joe60 [0]
desiderata[0]
drewoftherushes [0]

Silver1337 [3] desiderata, Silver1337, drewoftherushes

Verbs [0]
Pine [2] Hazard with a Glove, Hoppster
Hazard with a Glove [1] Verbs
Hoppster [1] 1joe60
Nachomamma8 [1] Silver1337

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

Nachomamma8

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

With 9 Alive it is 5 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

Midnight of March, 26^th, EST.

__________

[drewoftherushes]

@Pine - The "I must not be scum" part of my paraphrase was between-the-lines, but not subtle enough that everyone can't tell it's there. No, you never explicitly said it, but the implication was unmistakable.

I don't mind your playing style, but I will say that if you are town, you should tone it down because you're drawing suspicion from almost everyone, whether or not you ought to be in your opinion. We need the town to stay alive.

[Silver1337]

UNVOTE: Unvote: Nachomamma8
VOTE: Vote: No Kill

I don't see suspicious behavior now, but that isn't to say that I won't change my mind!

[Silver1337]

Whoa, that was an error in my last post.

[drewoftherushes]

And, since we're alluding to the wiki all over the place, here's a quote that might be useful:

"Be concise; it dramatically increases the chance of people reading your posts or caring what they say."

[Hoppster]

Holy crap, first wall of the game. Kind of you to use the spoiler tags though, Pine.

First section of the post is directed at Silver, second at Pine.

Sorry, I was tired. I will explain more now.
So, everyone has figuratively said that "It's okay to vote now, besides, you can change your vote." That is why I have started voting. How I scumhunt is basically I inspect the posts to see if anything is awry. Examples of Mafia-aligned terminology and activity is the following:

- Using too proper grammar or no proper grammar at all.

I'm thinking that it was a coincedence that the mafia just happened to be the ones who used 'too proper grammar'. Don't use that as an attack against people.

UNVOTE: Unvote: Nachomamma8
VOTE: Vote: No Kill

I don't see suspicious behavior now, but that isn't to say that I won't change my mind!

No. Voting for No Lynch helps only the mafia. Lynching is our only weapon against the mafia. We need to use it. If we go to No Lynch, that just means that Mafia get one extra kill compared to the number of lynches we have to find mafia. Unvoting is fine though.

... However, why are you unvoting anyway? You were only voting for Nacho, who hasn't really posted, so unless you're voting for somebody else (which you're not

really

doing, and presumably won't be if you see no suspicious behaviour,) then I don't understand what has prompted you to change your mind.

=====================================

I disagree that a loud, aggressive player is a sure-fire tell of either town or scum. It could work either way (although, granted, it is probably more risky as scum).

Despite this, you're still willing to pile on to a forming bandwagon?

A. I disagree that a loud, agressive player is a scum or town-tell (ie. it is a null-tell).
B. I am willing to vote you.

Those two points are unrelated. Your question implies that in B I am contradicting A. This is not the case. A is not the reason I am voting for you (well, it is in a very loose way, but I'd suggest not the way that you're thinking it is).

But anyway, to answer your question (as horribly phrased as it may be), yes. Yes I am.

Put words in my mouth at your own peril, because it is damn close to lying and misrepresentation. And as you seem somewhat experienced, I do not think I need to remind you what common wisdom suggests we do to people who do that:
Lynch All Liars

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Pine

My sources tell me good things will happen if I do this.

You

just

said that you don't find it likely that scum would play this way, but you overcome those doubts to pursue someone trying to lay all of his cards on the table?

Now look who's putting words into other people's mouths. When did I say I don't find it likely scum would play the way your are playing? I said it'd be

risky

for them to do it.

And there is no such thing as "too proper grammar." It's either correct or not correct.

Seriously... let's not go there. Paticularly as it's in response to a post where correct grammar is scummy.

[desiderata]

@Pine
Diserata: What do you think of Pine so far? (sorry if I missed spelled your name)

Also, yes you can call me any form of my name you wish.

No problem, Haz, you can call me Des.

My impressions so far:

1joe60: Quiet.

drewoftherushes: Conservative. Refused to vote so far.
Silver1337: You're not doing yourself any favors. Why vote no lynch? This really only makes sense if you are scum and think your have figured something out about townies. Otherwise, let people talk as long as they want! If we don't reach a lynch we will have all the more information on Day 2 after we see the night kill. There is really no way voting a No lynch this early on makes any sense at all.

Also, proper grammar and spelling are to be encouraged and rewarded. Even if you're town, I would almost want to punish creating an incentive for crappy writing

Verbs: Reasonable play so far.

Pine: Way too aggressive. Dude, you're asking to be lynched. But I don't see anything wrong in the logic he has posted so far, and nothing to warrant lynching him just yet. So I'm sticking with my vote.

Hazard: Don't understand your vote for pine, other than for avoiding having to read long posts. I don't see why you would vote while admittedly "skimming" the thread. Almost like you don't care, since you're getting a townie? I'm open to replies.

Hoppster: You agree that Silver is suspect, yet vote for Pine?

Nacho: ...

[Hoppster]

@ des: drew has actually voted for pine.

Regarding my vote, I'm being more lenient towards people in this game then I normally am. Besides, the only real thing that has been suspect from Silver have been his late vote, his random list of some nonsensical scum-tells and his No Lynch vote, both of which can be explained from the point of somebody new to the site or new to the game.

[desiderata]

Ooops. Missed that vote, thanks Hopp.

Regarding my vote, I'm being more lenient towards people in this game then I normally am. Besides, the only real thing that has been suspect from Silver have been his late vote, his random list of some nonsensical scum-tells and his No Lynch vote, both of which can be explained from the point of somebody new to the site or new to the game.

Don't forget the call not to use proper grammar

[1joe60]

1joe60: Quiet.

I have been pretty quiet but that's because I don't really know how or when to interject into the thread. I read through and see everybody attacking Pine and I don't know what I can add to the conversation if anything at all.

Anyways, Silver1337's style of play makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. i understand what Hoppster is saying, that Silver is new to the website and all, but Silver said that he's played before so that just makes me more suspicious.
UNVOTE: Hoppster
VOTE: Silver1337
Also nachomamma, worst IC ever! he's only had 1 post so far and that was to say that he'll post more later. seriously bro?

[1joe60]

I'm probably being too hard on nachomamma he has probably been away or something, I'm sure he has a legitimate excuse so disregard what I said about him

[Silver1337]

What I meant by the "proper grammar" thing is that it goes along with "spouting nonsense."

[1joe60]

what are you talking about Silver??? Having good grammar is NOT a scumtell!!! How does good grammar relate to spouting nonsense at all???

care to elaborate?

[Pine]

I find irony in the fact that of all of us, Silver has been spouting the most nonsense.

[Silver1337]

I mean that if a person who usually has bad grammar suddenly comes and posts with excellent grammar, wouldn't that be a bit suspicious? Same thing vice versa.

[Pine]

Of course it would be suspicious. It would mean that they probably had help writing their post. People don't just suddenly go from talking like a lolcat to Ivy League-educated overnight.

But not mafia-suspicious. Hence why we're all baffled by your list of faux tells.

[drewoftherushes]

Sorry, I was tired. I will explain more now.
Examples of Mafia-aligned terminology and activity is the following:
- Using too proper grammar or no proper grammar at all.
-

SPOUTING NONSENSE.

What I originally thought Silver meant by this was that someone who pays particular attention to the way they say everything is trying too hard and that effort might be construed as scummy. I don't think it's a bad philosophy (trying too hard to look normal is scummy), but I totally disagree with this being a reliable way to tell who is mafia. Some people just plain write well - I write more in-line with textbook grammar because I'm a writer. Some people get their meaning across and pay no attention to those rules. Neither method is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, scum or town.

What's more telling is how Silver has inelegantly defended this statement. I'm not convinced it's a scumtell, though, just someone being daft.

[Verbs]

Steak is yummy!

*clears throat*

Sorry, I was tired. I will explain more now.
So, everyone has figuratively said that "It's okay to vote now, besides, you can change your vote." That is why I have started voting. How I scumhunt is basically I inspect the posts to see if anything is awry. Examples of Mafia-aligned terminology and activity is the following:
- Using the word "lynching" excessively, except to place a vote on someone.
- Not paying attention to previous posts.
- Going ONLY with what others say.
- Posting too often
- Rarely posting
- Using too proper grammar or no proper grammar at all.
-

SPOUTING NONSENSE.

I agree that my methods are probably not the best, but they work for me. I wouldn't have won my game on another site if it wasn't for this.

Also, I'm keeping my eye on Pine and Nachomamma8.

This is much better for town than what you were doing before. But you undid anything good this post provided when you voted no lynch...

My first point against you was because I said I dislike players that stall the game by not voting. You countered with “oh but I scum hunt by doing x, y, and z” and than the the no lynch vote happened. That did not help us hunt down scum at all.

Who’s side are you on? Why the disconnect in what you say and do?

Are you going to continue stalling all game because even if you are town, that is only helping the mafia.

UNVOTE: Hazzard
VOTE: Silver

[Silver1337]

Because no one seems overly suspicious, and I can still change it.
UNVOTE: No Kill
VOTE: 1joe60
Why? Well, he always seems to counter everything I say. Although most of you are against me, he doesn't even take in consideration what I'm trying to say. Plus, he's been against me since pretty much my first post.

[Silver1337]

My first sentence in my previous post was directed at Verbs. Sorry.

[Pine]

@Drew: I concur. My suspicion regarding Silver is mostly allayed for now, but the methods he's proposing to use are far from sensible.

My suspicion, at this point, is much more on Hazard and, to a lesser degree, Hoppster. Hazard for reasons already stated, Hoppster for parroting those reasons so vigorously and for the suspicious mutual defense thing those two seem to have going on.

However, I have been a victim of tunnel vision in the past, and would now like to turn the spotlight onto desiderata and nachomamma. Like I said, I intend to challenge and probe everyone before the end of this first week. Joe and Drew, you're next, with Verbs and whoever's the scummiest after that.

@Desiderata-I am normally impressed by point-by-point responses and player-by-player analyses. However, your post (#56) seems to have the flaw of

appearing

productive without actually

being

productive. What, in your post, was anything even approaching original? Everything you had to say in it was a paraphrase or parroting of what someone else had already said. For a simple example, what you have to say regarding Silver's no-lynch vote (@ Silver: which, incidentally, is absurd and counter-productive,) is almost exactly what Hoppster said in the post immediately preceding yours.

@Nachomamma-Really, for the sole "Inexperience-Challenged" player in this game, you've had nothing to say? "I've been busy" is a fine excuse, but we're a couple of days in now. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I really don't think you'd adopt such a newbie-scum strategy as lurk-and-lynch. But it wears thin. Let's step it up.

[1joe60]

Why? Well, he always seems to counter everything I say. Although most of you are against me, he doesn't even take in consideration what I'm trying to say. Plus, he's been against me since pretty much my first post.

Ok, ok, ok hold on a second here. This post is full of accusations without any examples or evidence to back them up. Firstly, I've only countered what you've said ONCE. One time =/= everything. Secondly, you think I don't take in to consideration what you're saying? What kind of accusation is that? Care to provide an example or explanation? because I can't see when I did this. Lastly, your first post was a tad suspicious but I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you came out later and acted even stranger. These accusations don't help your case Silver, if anything they hurt 'em.

[1joe60]

__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

1joe60 [0]
desiderata[0]
drewoftherushes [0]

Silver1337 [3] desiderata, Silver1337, drewoftherushes

Verbs [0]
Pine [2] Hazard with a Glove, Hoppster
Hazard with a Glove [1] Verbs
Hoppster [1] 1joe60
Nachomamma8 [1] Silver1337

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

Nachomamma8

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

With 9 Alive it is 5 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

Midnight of March, 26^th, EST.

__________

um..... you ok bro??

[Silver1337]

@Robocopter: Your vote count needs editing, lol.

[Robocopter87]

LOLFAIL

I'll leave it how it is and make the new one on the next page.

Lol don't pick on me!