muh316 (4) - splitfarvle, T-Bone, Ellyssa, Jack Forman
Quaroath (2) - Rain, Stels
Stels (1) - Quaroath
Not Voting (2) - muh316, barefoot-fighter
With 9 alive it is 5 to lynch.
You did a FoS on bf in #76 between those two real votes, and that is essentially a real vote too, except you did not want to put her at L-1. More to the point it would have been a real vote if she was not in any danger of being lynched. Rain also pointed this out in #113 as well, but that was before Jack's post and your counterpost. Agreed Stels twisted the phrasing on that particular quote a bit though. I definitely read that as "My (suspected) scum group has been pretty static all game".Quaroath in [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=2848026#p2848026]#137[/url] wrote:Read what I type more carefully, I have never said I think T-bone is scum, I have said that a lynch on T-bone would be more informative and thus better for the town, than a policy lynch. My scum group has been preety static all game. Pretty sure that's not flip-flopping. What's more..Jack Forman wrote: Quaroath- You flip flop more than a fish out of water with your votes. Lets see, i am pretty sure this is in order- Your votes- 1 stels, 2 rain, 3 jack, 4 bear, 5 rain, and 6 bear. You are all over the board and don't tell me it is to get info out when you have not voted t-bone (even though you have suspicions he is scum), but Splitfavle and Muh you talk about but are posting enough info for you to not vote them for info??
your vote list for me is simply full of holes. Untrue even. You have 6 votes listed for me, I've voted 4 times (though technically it's only three as I screwed up the bolding on one. The following are the votes I've made:
RVS:
Stels (This is the one i botched the bold on), Rain (voted this because of the bolding issue on my first vote)
Real Votes:
First "real vote"
Jack over the no lynch issue
Second and only other post-RVS vote:
Rain for the misrepresentations.
These are two different quotes, but I would like to know what T-Bone said in the last page that made you change your mind on him.Quaroath wrote:
Yeah I know, that was a list of people I'd rather lynch for information than policy lynch jack at that time. Don't think a T-bone lynch would be a good idea after the last page. Still feel barefoot-stels.
You're coasting and charting the neutral course. You're not actively playing. Only answering a few directed questions. No insight about anyone else at all other than a gut feeling about 4 people who could be townies. No explanation why, even for them. I think you're hurting town, even if you ARE town. @Everyone else, have you read his ISO? In the view of "only plays defence" and "tries to stay perfectly neutral"?muh316 wrote:What I don't get is why I'm at L-1 on such a weak case.
Not only is the above hella weak, it's also hella scummy. It's akin to saying "you can interpret it however you want, I won't commit to an opinion right now". Scum can easily coast by claiming to townhunt (since they know who's town anyways); scumhunting and posting reasons why you find a person scummy is much harder (read: townier).muh316 wrote:You can understand that whoever was not on that list was suspicious or borderline suspicious.
It's too early to "hammer" muh316, besides his caseEllyssa wrote:@barefoot Welcome back! Still staying nicely neutral I see, though. Interesting that you didn't vote muh even though you noted the case against him, though probably a good thing since he is L-1 and hasn't been on to defend himself yet. I think you're still the only one without any vote besides muh. If he is scum, that may heighten the suspicion on you because scumbuddies wouldn't always want to vote each other (except for bussing, but I'm not sure any of the others who aren't on muh's bandwagon at the moment are really even considering him as a lynch yet).
Though if he is town then you just passed on an easy hammer on him (because you wouldn't have to explain an unvote on someone else before voting, like the others would) so perhaps you're not scum if he's town. I'd still like to hear who you feel your main suspects are though, as well as any reaction to what I said above.
I said "possibly different roles". I didn't mean to offend. I was saying there had been some trouble with names. Please calm down, I'm not Quaroath.Stels wrote:@barefoot-fighter: So explain to me the correlation of being troubled with names and that giving incentive to stating that we have different roles?
Jack Forman wrote:Ebwop- sorry I had two quotes at first but then took one of the out after I re-read it. Quaroath you said in post 116 that T-Bone contribution= zero and in 117 you say you dont have a good read on him due to lack of contribution. So I was just trying to figure out why you hadn't try voting him to get information out of him like you had done to others.
Don't think he's scum. Not going to bother trying to pressure a player I think is town. Post #140 and #146 swung me.Jack Forman wrote:These are two different quotes, but I would like to know what T-Bone said in the last page that made you change your mind on him.Quaroath wrote:
Yeah I know, that was a list of people I'd rather lynch for information than policy lynch jack at that time. Don't think a T-bone lynch would be a good idea after the last page. Still feel barefoot-stels.
Nah, Don't really feel a lot of heat right now.T-Bone wrote:I didn't say anything in the last page. He just wants the heat off of him.
The above is true, on both counts.Rain wrote:Not only is the above hella weak, it's also hella scummy. It's akin to saying "you can interpret it however you want, I won't commit to an opinion right now". Scum can easily coast by claiming to townhunt (since they know who's town anyways); scumhunting and posting reasons why you find a person scummy is much harder (read: townier).muh316 wrote:You can understand that whoever was not on that list was suspicious or borderline suspicious.
I like this new Jack. I will no longer support a PL on Jack.
I have a hard time reading apathy to L-1 pressure. Do you claim VT? What's the point? people get called scum when they get defensive, people get called scum when they are apathetic (or seem to be). Muh not pushing a case on anyone is not particularly town though. The big thing for me is i think town tends to defend then present a case, not just ignore the pressure or say "meh, whatever, lynch me if you want".barefoot-fighter wrote: It's too early to "hammer" muh316, besides his caseisweak. Even now when has spoken, he hasn't said much and I want to hear more from him, but I dont know how to apply any more pressure. He's at L-1, is he tired of the game or something?
If he gets lynched by one quick-hammer now and flips scum, is town lucky. To catch a scum with a case like this, and have him not fight for his life whatsoever...
I admit I'm acting neutral(ish), but I'm afraid of pissing someone off and getting more votes on me. There are players here who are voting for anyone who directly attacks them.
My eyes are on the Stels-Rain-Quaroath-T-Bone little hassle..
Quaroath wrote:@mod, could you please fix the quote tags in #171. Sorry about that.
Yeah 3 sentences. The case that Split posted was already answered. Your going to lynch me for something I haven;t said.Muh is infuriating though. Really? 3 sentences when you're at L-1, for even what you describe as a weak case? :/ Not caring, to the point of apathy? I agree it's a somewhat weak case, but that's because you've posted nothing of substance, so a large part of the attack is on what you haven't said, as opposed to what you have. If it's so weak, there should be tons you can say to tear it up to shreds. But you're not! I think at this point, really, if you get lynched and flip town, it'd be filed under the policy lynch category. Which is ironic in a roundabout way, but perhaps better to do on D1 than nearer a potential lylo-that-contains-muh, especially when you COULD still be Mafia.