I continue to think that bluemonick's parting post should not be ignored. Since inhim's bought himself a little slack, I'll
Cam
your attempt at diversion/derailing and its "success" at getting armlx to vote HP instead of you (yes I know he claims it was b/c HP voted BJ) while not bothering to answer any charges against you is noted.BabyJesus wrote:piling on to get a train going on an innocent noted. Your instincts suck. Actually you are scum, but if you weren;t scum, you're instincts would suck.Harry_Potter wrote:The fact that BJ is not only acting weird, but is also on mathcam's list of possible suspects leads me to think he would be a suitable 4th prospect. He was the penultimate voter on that wagon. I'm going with my instincts on this.
vote Baby Jesus
vote scum Harry Potter
git er done.
Heh. My favorate fake scum tell that people, especally scum, love to abuse. Attack someone, then when they defend themselves, say they're being defense. Never fails.inHimshallibe wrote:Page 4 was more of a general statement for "early in the game." But I like to see the defensiveness. Thumbs up for bad cover.
DGB freaked out, seemed to get really upset and asked to be replaced, and then...Fritzer jumped on her bandwagon for no apparent reason. I do expect bandwagony behavior from Fritzer, but that just seemed disturbing and wrong even with that background. I always give people a certain amount of leeway based on their normal playstyles, but that dosn't mean I won't vote for them if they seem to go completly overboard. And while Fritzer bandwagon votes all the time, I can usually see why he's voting where he is, even if I don't agree with the reason. Here, it made no sense at all.Inhim wrote:This is the first post that made my head turn toward Yos. "I know... but" seems a scummy way to defend a vote. It's also interesting to note that he was getting after DGB voters... and that I currently find zu_Faul scummy. I'm sensing a connection here.Yosarian2 wrote:On that note,unvote,vote:Fritzer. I know he loves to bandwagon, but that vote just seemed beyond the pale.
The point was, I couldn't think of any pro-town reason for SpamWise to say that, at all, and I could think of several scummy reasons why he might do that; for example, to try and stop the bandwagon on viper, or to fish for pro-town roles. When someone does something that a pro-town person should never do, of course I'll point it out.Inhim wrote:The wording here makes the skin crawl. It's like you're wanting other people to think viper has a pro-town power role, but using SpamWise as a meatshield.Yosarian2 wrote:Huh?SpamWise wrote:Holy crap, I think we've done something bad wagoning viper (if my supposition about his role is correct)
Not sure why you would make a post like this...if you think viper's pro-town, and you think he's given some hint about his role (I don't see it, but whatever), then why would you draw attention to it, instead of just putting it in your notes and keeping it under your hat? Why would you give hint
s to the possible role of some other player you think is pro-town?
And again, I was simply pointing out Spamwise's actions made no sense as pro-town actions. He was at least confusing, and at worst scummy. Can you think of a good pro-town reason for him to act the way he did day 1, especally that bizzare "Oh my god, we did something bad bandwagoning viper!" post?InHim wrote:And again, from viper to mlaker.Yosarian2 wrote:One problem I have about spamwise is this. He said this:
But then he kept his vote on viper for another 4 days, only removing it because "the bandwagon was stalled."SpamWise wrote:Holy crap, I think we've done something bad wagoning viper (if my supposition about his role is correct)
If I suddenly came to the conlcusion I might be bandwagoning a pro-town power role and wanted to avoid the person having to claim, I'd just quietly unvote or move my vote without making a big deal about it. Spamwise did just the opposite; made a big deal about it (perhaps to fish for viper's role?) but keeping his vote there anyway.
It's also interesting to note that while spamwise loved the viper wagon and the max wagon, the one wagon he has avoided is the mlarker wagon. He never even commented on it at all, and neither bogre or mlarker ever said anything about him, which makes me wonder if they might be scumbuddies (although I realize I'm getting pretty speculitive here).
Spamwise, what do you think about the Bogre/Mlarker wagon? Bogre, what do you think about the Spamwise wagon?
What are you talking about? I would assume that everyone, both scum and town, would already know all of that, as everyone is in an office. I thought I was simply stating the obveous.Inhim wrote:Ooh, this sounds coachy.Yosarian2 wrote:Um, dosn't your role PM say you're in the office of Jack Irving, and tell you what is in that office?spectrumvoid wrote:Btw, what are the offices for?
Again, I was pointing out that someone's actions made absolutly no sense from a pro-town point of view. I made a post attacking lordy's illogical and scummy post from every direction, showing that there was really no reason for a pro-town person to do what he did in any situation no matter what he thought. That's what good guys are supposed to do. Sheesh.Inhim wrote:I'm going to call this "The Good Scumaritan" - a role that many mafia love playing for the town. Just point point point at all the information that the scum could be gathering. You get to point the finger at other people, but also help your scummates in case you make a departure.Yosarian2 wrote:---lordy wrote:I suspect the moving of offices has to do with the moving of roles.
As such, if im correct, ibby is now a cute little townie.
Awwww.
Second of all, if you do know that for some non-public reason, why would you share that information with the scum?
---
Stopping and pointing out who the lurkers are, in order to get them to post and to put pressure on them, IS A PRO-TOWN ACTION. Duh. I never said "we should lynch a lurker", although I generally don't think that's a bad idea. Especally in a large game, I almost always make lurker lists, and quite a few times the way people react to being listed as lurkers help me catch scum. I wish other players would keep better track of lurkers and keep an eye on them, but they generally don't, so I have to.Inhim wrote:Meh, I just don't like this. There's bound to be better options at this point in the game beyond a lurker lynch.Yosarian2 wrote:Looks like it's time for me to make a lurker list.
Lurker List:
BabyJesus: Not really a lurker, he did just post on the 1’st, but does it seem to anyone else he’s not posting as much as usual? He’s only posted twice since July 11’th, and I’d like to hear more from him.
Harry_Potter: He just posted, and he did say he’d be out of town until Augest 10’th so there’s no sense prodding him. Nonetheless, even before he said that, he only posted 4 times all game, and has said almost nothing. Once he gets back, we really need to hear a lot more from him.
MrBuddyLee: Lurker. Has not posted since July 18’th. Mod, please prod him.
PookyTheMagicalBear: Lurker. Has only posted once in the past month.
bluemonick (replacing viper0933): Has only posted once since he replaced viper, and that was about a week ago.
The point is that when a newbie is squirming and looking scummy, it's not always good to jump on the bandwagon right away, especally if there are already a lot of other people on the bandwagon; I sometimes prefer to to sit back and question them first, especally if we're in no rush. There's certanly nothing scummy about that, and I have done that in the past quite a few times as town. It's a good pro-town stratagy. In this case, I actually think that the way I did it, forcing blue to answer questions while threatening him with my vote, played a major role in his complete breakdown. My vote was not on him when he died, but yet I think I played a major part in finding scum. See how that works? And if you actually were to take a look at day 1 of Himalyn mafia, you would see that almost the exact same stratagy worked almost exactally the same way there. Don't just brush it off; if you actually want to find scum, and aren't just trying to shift attention away from yourself, go take a look.Inhim wrote:Well pin a rose on your nose. I'm not all that concerned with what you've done in the past. It holds no bearing to me, and furthermore seems like a scummy defense, especially when you yourself point out your previous game and your previous playstyle. Oh, but I am concerned with what you've done this game. And one such thing wasYosarian2 wrote:Take a look at Himaliayn mafia, recently finished over in the New York forum. I was a townie, and I was on nearly every single bandwagon all game, townie or scum.notvoting bluemonick. Yes, you have given reasons, butyou still didn't vote for him, a scummy scum scummer.
Or perhaps I just wanted him to have a chance to actually answer instead of getting lynched? Because I wanted to find out if he was actually scum instead of just lynching him for acting just like he always acts?Inhim wrote:STALLING.Yosarian2 wrote:The suspicious things about Lordy was that he first speculated in thread that someone else was a vanillia townie, which is something you should never do as town, then when she voted for him for that he flipped out and OMGUS voted for her back. Both are scum tells.spectrumvoid wrote: I disagree with the lordy bandwagon. What has he done to seem scummy? There was some confusion over his so-called claim, but I read that as other people misinterpretating what he originally said.
Anyway, I do think that bluemonick's post was very suspicious, and I'm considering voting him, but I'm not going to join it just yet as it's moving quite fast, I'll wait for him to try and clarify whatever it was he was trying to say in his rather bizzare last post.
Yeah, I thought so. Thanks.Inhim wrote:Great voting.Yosarian2 wrote:Actually, that's a very good point, ibaesha . Harry Potter's the last person who should be attacking someone else for lurking.
unvote
vote:Harry Potter
Inhim wrote:I really think you're downplaying the possibility that bluemonickYosarian2 wrote:Fair enough. Still, while blue was perhaps was not the greatest stratigic thinker at mafia, it is still quite possible that the only purpose of that comment was to get back at Brian and/or other people on his bandwagon for getting him run up like that. The comment really did feel like a barb specfically directed at Brian, and Brian seemed to think so as well based on his later post.mathcam wrote:Yeah, me too. But that the initial guess was wrong doesn't mean we should stop looking.Yos wrote:Actually, at the time I was suspicious that it might be Brian McQueso who was his scumbuddy, but that's clearly not true.
Camdidpoint toward other scum, and that now you're trying to hide this person by pushing it all on Brian.
Heh. Good, logical response.Inhim wrote:Yosarian2 wrote:Yes, I never did vote for bluemonick. The reason is the same one I just gave last page for waiting on voting for Lordy, except it's even MORE extreme in this case; as of the time of the posting, I was currently in something like 3 or 4 games with bluemonick, and in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those games he was looking incredibly scummy and seemed to be working as hard as he possibly could to get himself lynched. So rather then vote for him right away, I kept asking him questions, and doing my best to try and find out what his alignment was; I'd rather try to figure him out instead of just lynching him everywhere if he just always looks scummy. I kept pressure on him, and it was actually after attempting to respond to several of my questions when he completly broke down and confessed in that bizzare way. After that point I of course would have voted for him, but someone hammered him before I had the chance.
(shrug) In general, I often feel like I get better responses to questions if I demand someone answers my questions when I haven't voted for him yet, but while making it clear that I might vote for that person if they don't answer or if I don't like their answers. That's a common playstyle for me, especally when trying to figure out if a suspicious looking newbie is scum or just a townie playing badly, and I think an effective one; for example, look at the first day of Himalayan Mafia, where I asked Tidus several questions and kept putting pressure on him all day without voting for him, until he finally cracked and self destructed; and again, in that game, I never actually ended up voting for him.
Not at all what I said, and I think you knew it.Inhim wrote:What, because bluemonick voted you makes you innocent?Yosarian2 wrote:Also, I should note that the key scumtell that started the bandwagon that ended up in bluemonick's death was the fact that he voted for me with a completely craplogical reason.
"charges against me?"Mastermind of Sin wrote:your attempt at diversion/derailing and its "success" at getting armlx to vote HP instead of you (yes I know he claims it was b/c HP voted BJ) while not bothering to answer any charges against you is noted.BabyJesus wrote:piling on to get a train going on an innocent noted. Your instincts suck. Actually you are scum, but if you weren;t scum, you're instincts would suck.Harry_Potter wrote:The fact that BJ is not only acting weird, but is also on mathcam's list of possible suspects leads me to think he would be a suitable 4th prospect. He was the penultimate voter on that wagon. I'm going with my instincts on this.
vote Baby Jesus
vote scum Harry Potter
git er done.
Did you really just type that?Yosarian2 wrote:Anyway, nice attempt to try to divert the town by attacking me instead of defending yourself.
Really... this just happened? Of course, I should have known this would be the response - trying to make me look all pushy, when I have no choice but to come in and push. Yes, I said I'd try and answer questions, but understand that I amHow about you actually go back and respond to some of the points TSS made against your predecessor, masterchief?
Um, yes. When I voted for you, I said I wanted to give you a chance to defend yourself before you were lynched. You have completly refused to do this, at all, instead launching an incredibly detailed point-by-point attack on me. Fine; whatever, attack me if you want, that's how the game is played. But I still want to hear you defend some of the key points he made about MasterChief's behavior yesterday.inHimshallibe wrote:Did you really just type that?Yosarian2 wrote:Anyway, nice attempt to try to divert the town by attacking me instead of defending yourself.
Really... this just happened? Of course, I should have known this would be the response - trying to make me look all pushy, when I have no choice but to come in and push. Yes, I said I'd try and answer questions, but understand that I amHow about you actually go back and respond to some of the points TSS made against your predecessor, masterchief?
Actually, done properly, this can be a very effective scum gambit. Wait for someone to make a poorly reasoned argument against a scum buddy. Reiterate the argument in a way that makes the flaw in the argument a bit more apparent. Wait for someone to notice and point out the flaw. Remove vote from scum buddy and apologize for not seeing the flaw in the original argument. Wait for town to turn against the maker of the original argument. Instead of just focusing attention on someone outside the group, you've now both distanced yourself from your scum buddyYosarian2 wrote:One thing about that kind of trap, is thatit can only work if I'm not in Blue's scum group. The primary scum tell that Blue committed for was that he was trying way to hard to attack me and to get me lynched with absolutly no good reason.tags fixed
The thing is, with the Lordy bandwagon, you onlyMy play so far this game has been ... not jumping on the blue bandwagon right away without trying to queston him farther first.
Whaa...?You were also on the bluemonick wagon, jumping on there to make yourself look less scummy when he came up protown.
Well, one big difference was that the primary scum tell Blue did, to follow an experenced player onto a bad bandwagon with bad reasoning, was one that I see a newbie townie doing almost as easily as a newbie scum, so I wanted to get a better read on him before I voted. The major scum tell Lordy did, which was to suddenly declare someone to be a vanillia townie under odd circumstances, was something I was having more trouble picturing a good guy doing. So, while questioning blue and trying to find out more about him, I keep my vote on Lordy until I got a better idea of exactally where blue stood.the silent speaker wrote:The thing is, with the Lordy bandwagon, you onlyMy play so far this game has been ... not jumping on the blue bandwagon right away without trying to queston him farther first.lookedlike you were doing that, you weren't actually doing it. You made a couple of posts calling him scummy without voting, then a few people votedbut Lordy hadn't responded yet, and then you dropped the vote on. Nor did the speed of the bandwagon trouble you when you did. So what changed?
Whaa...?[/quote]You were also on the bluemonick wagon, jumping on there to make yourself look less scummy when he came up protown.
Well, I suppose that would be a possibility if it was an experenced player. Does Blue really look like the kind of player who would try something quite that complex?Fuldu wrote:Actually, done properly, this can be a very effective scum gambit. Wait for someone to make a poorly reasoned argument against a scum buddy. Reiterate the argument in a way that makes the flaw in the argument a bit more apparent. Wait for someone to notice and point out the flaw. Remove vote from scum buddy and apologize for not seeing the flaw in the original argument. Wait for town to turn against the maker of the original argument. Instead of just focusing attention on someone outside the group, you've now both distanced yourself from your scum buddyYosarian2 wrote:One thing about that kind of trap, is thatit can only work if I'm not in Blue's scum group. The primary scum tell that Blue committed for was that he was trying way to hard to attack me and to get me lynched with absolutly no good reason.tags fixedandfocused attention on someone outside the group. It's riskier, certainly, but with a much higher degree of reward.
Of course, whatever bluemonick was trying to do, it clearly wasn't done properly.
Does that really look like he was "trying to show the flaw in Brian's argument"? Or does it look more like he was just tagging along hoping for a bandwagon on me?bluemonick wrote:I tend to agree, he's seems less of an "investagator" in this particular game and more like 'laying back'.In every other game I've played with Yosarian, I've tended to agree with his logic and can understand a lot of the things he does.
Im feel comfortable:Unvote, Vote: Yosarian2
No, he doesn't. There wasn't a vote to go with that argument. I just wanted to point out that that piece of your defense wasn't very strong.Yosarian2 wrote:Well, I suppose that would be a possibility if it was an experenced player. Does Blue really look like the kind of player who would try something quite that complex?
Still, you voted Lordy not when you noted the tell and not when his reponse made a vote on those grounds warranted, but in between. I'm questioning your role in the Lordy bandwagon here, not the bluemonick one; mathcam's thoughts on the interaction between you there are much in accord with mine, although I don't rule out crude distancing attempts just because we can safely rule out sophisticated ones.The major scum tell Lordy did, which was to suddenly declare someone to be a vanillia townie under odd circumstances, was something I was having more trouble picturing a good guy doing. So, while questioning blue and trying to find out more about him, I keep my vote on Lordy until I got a better idea of exactally where blue stood.
I reasoned that far on my own , but even corrected, MOS's logic doesn't make much sense. It's heads I win, tails you lose. I'm trying to decide whether that plus the slip is Freudian and means he expects armlx to be pro-town, Freudian and means he and bluemonick are allies, Freudian and means that they aren't allies, or not Freudian at all, just MOS being his usual self.Heh...should clearly have been "to make yourself look less scummy when he came up scum".
(reads back)the silent speaker wrote: Still, you voted Lordy not when you noted the tell and not when his reponse made a vote on those grounds warranted, but in between.
lordy wrote:Actually, no I messed up the offices. Im thinking of the fact that offices determine your role based on my role pm.
And who was in ibby's office resterday? Spamwise.
Vote: ibby
I was merely voicing my theory, and you guys had a nice jump, so
MajorHandOfSuspision: Spamwise.
A little later that day, MOS questioned the reasoning of his vote on Ibby, which I hadn't really paid much attention to when I first responded to Lordy's post, but he was right; there was no good reason for that vote on her he made, and combined with the earlier issues I'd had with him that seemed more then enough reason for a vote.Yosarian2 wrote:Um, you do understand why it's suspicious that you tried to out a vanillia townie, no matter if your reasoning was correct or not, right?lordy wrote:Actually, no I messed up the offices. Im thinking of the fact that offices determine your role based on my role pm.
And who was in ibby's office resterday? Spamwise.
Vote: ibby
I was merely voicing my theory, and you guys had a nice jump, so
MajorHandOfSuspision: Spamwise.
Yosarian2 wrote:Yeah.vote:Lordy"I think X is just a vanillia townie" is suspicious enough; then randomally OMGUS voting that same person (who he just said he thought was a townie?) just pushed it over the edge for me.