Mini 392: Jungle Republic - Game over!

[ShadowLurker]

/confirm

[ShadowLurker]

vote:Thestatusquo

I trust friday's scum hunting abilities here.

Vote TSQ

[ShadowLurker]

BANDWAGON LOL!

TEEHEE

[ShadowLurker]

Unvote Vote Kingpin

Interesting there is a "bandwagon" started on page two.

[ShadowLurker]

Cadre is definitely scum for not random voting and only mentioning one person in his first post.

[ShadowLurker]

From what I've seen so far, Shadow is most likely scum. I know it's only been two pages but I've got a gut feeling he's gonna end up with an anti-town role. I'm not gonna vote yet though, I'd like to confirm that feeling first...

I don't random vote, it's stupid. And I only mentioned you because at the moment you are the only one I don't like...

Vote: ShadowLurker

Thanks for confirming my gut feeling...

wow u r so good at this game and cool i wish i could be like u, plz teach me ur secrets

[ShadowLurker]

Guys by my last check, it's page 3. Maybe you guys should be taking things more at face value in this stage of the game and not looking too deep into things.

[ShadowLurker]

@ShadowLurker

- Post #53
this actually raised a flag when i read it... are you trying to diminish the ruckus Cadre is raising b/c he is right? right now i think you're suspicious, but probably just playing around... keep posting like this, and Cadre won't have a hard time convincing me... if you posted anything more than one-liners then we might have something to talk about...

I'm merely saying we shouldn't be looking to far into things as we have not really anything of substance other than reactions to a few posts of silliness I did to generate discussion. I also find people being wary of bandwagons suspicious. If someone doesn't try to start a bandwagon, then we will never move anywhere as someone being scummy isn't going to fall out of the sky. I took the initiative to move the game beyond the random vote stage by trying to form a bandwagon so we can actually have real arguments. Regarding your one liner statement, once again, it is page 3, some people have not even checked in yet, there is not much to respond to as I can't really argue against the principle and whether people believe it is a good idea to generate discussion in that particular manner but the point is that it has accomplished its goal and I am going to actually take the game a bit more seriously from now on.

[ShadowLurker]

A big FOS goes out to both: Rastapopolous and Chamber

As far as I can see, chamber seems to have confirmed via pm and hasnt posted yet and even more suspicious is Rastapopolous who was the second to confirm in this thread, however hasn't posted a thing since the game started.

Are you guys waiting for something? Night perhaps? No ties to killing any innocents during the day? Or just planning on hopping on a bandwagon later? hmm. interesting to ponder.

You have obviously never played with chamber before.

Whats that suposed to mean??

You lurk a lot?

[ShadowLurker]

lol. Chamber is playing on tilt.

Tilt?

It's a poker term for when someone is angry and not playing well or rationally because of their angriness like after they've lost a big pot after playing it perfectly.

[ShadowLurker]

chamber thinks reasons are scummy.

[ShadowLurker]

I wouldn't call this a bandwagon, with only two votes. It's interesting that KingPin called it as much, though I know he was following StatusQuo. Regardless, it's something to go off of.

Thank you for answering your own question. Yes, I called it a bandwagon, though I didn't use quotes.

FOS: KingPin - Post #23 - if you're suspicious of Shadowlurker, why not vote for him, especially this early in the game?

Well, I just didn't feel like a vote was necessary at that time.

I do find that Shadowlurker is very suspicious right now. Shadow seems to be playing reckless. Sarcasm is difficult to read, unless it is labeled as such.
I also think that if switching votes rather quickly is supposed to be "scummy" (notice the use of quotes!) especially when it happens quickly and while "endorsing" the first player to vote for the "target." Example:

I trust friday's scum hunting abilities here.

It was the random vote stage, calm the fuck down.+

[ShadowLurker]

@Lucresia: VELCRO! HAVARDYU?

[ShadowLurker]

FOS: everyone

FoS: LyingBrian

right back.

FoS: Lucresia

too.

[ShadowLurker]

yay im tied with nai now

[ShadowLurker]

Vote count

3 - Shadowlurker (friday-13th, Cadre, Lucresia)
3 - Kingpin (Nai, Shadowlurker, LyingBrian)
2 - Cadre (sprontalic, Thestatusquo)
1 - LyingBrian (chamber)

not voting: KingPin, Rastapopolous, germy

With 12 alive it is 7 to lynch!

It being the weekend, I don't want to be premature with seeking replacements. I will make any decisions by Wednesdayish though.

watch out kelly, im catching up to u in posts

[ShadowLurker]

FOS: ShadowLurker

making posts that spam the thread & contribute nothing is not helpful...

not helpful =/= scum

FoS: LyingBrian

right back. That's two FoSes you've gotten now on the same page.

For a response, I will vote when I am ready and am satisfied that it is the correct move. Shadowlurker, did state that he would take the game more seriously in the future. I don't know if intentionally acting suspicious on D-1 to generate discussion is something that he does on a regular basis. I'll check on that.

Why does it matter? Are you that confident and pursuiant of this point that if I didn't, you would think that I was guilty? Why advantage does a scum have in doing this? And have fun checking, because I do do this.

[ShadowLurker]

Shadow:
If your antics were designed to spark discussion then I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. The problem starts when I don’t trust that you are pro-town. With nothing really happening on D-1 and your antics drawing attention to them, your play could be construed, IMO, as an attempt to play the "What advantage does a scum have in doing this" card. True, that scum would be silly for employing this tactic; however, this is easily defended, as you just noted, by implying that scum surely wouldn't act in a way to draw attention to themselves. I have never been in a game with you, so I do not know your playing style or habits.

Why is that argument pulled? Because it is valid, you still have not pointed out ANY advantage scum would have for doing that meaning that what you have said, can't be a scumtell and can't be a case against me.

Now, enter the conundrum that you've employed 1) sneaky scum or 2) dumb townie. Which is it? I don't know, but I will say that it made me suspicious of you.

Where has any conundrum like that been created?

By looking through other games that you've participated in where you have acted this silly in the beginning and comparing that with the type of role that you ultimately had is a good indicator of how you play. I presume that you have thought of this and have acted similarly in all games. However, with the "search" feature currently disabled, it is difficult to research.

So you cannot check whether I do this in other games, yet you still decide to vote me which basically means you're assuming that I have. I have even pointed out where I have done this in this thread itself (Leper Mafia) and you seem to be completely ignoring that fact. Skimming, much?

Am I confident? Yes, I have found that most players employ a similar style of play no matter what the role. However, if a player does not play similarly then they normally follow patterns that are easily deciphered. If that play is revealed to mean that by playing the role similarly in previous games where they were scum, I would think that they were playing like scum in the instant case. Would I be persuaded to vote based on just that? Probably not. But I would note it with an FOS and wait for further confirmation in the instant game.

I would like to see your reasoning over why scum is more likely than a town player to employ that behavior Day 1, until I see that, I cannot see any case against me.

One other thing that made me suspicious is the way you've responded to my criticism of your play. I've noticed that you have been very defensive and vulgar in your responses to my criticism.

It was the random vote stage, calm the fuck down.

Again, this is something that, by itself, wouldn't mean very much, but in this case, with all other things being considered it is something. Now I am not sure about your flippant play or your errant antics to generate discussion but by now I am confident that this is the correct play.

Vote: Shadowlurker

Oh

[]

, you caught me saying naughty words like fuck.

I still do not

[]

see what you mean by "all other things" which I

[]

asked you for already and you still have not provided. You just ignored that, and used that

[]

generality one more

[]

time.

You say you are not sure about my antics to generate discussion but you are confident this is the correct play? HELLO, that is the entire case you have against me is based on that behavior so how can you be sure that this is the correct play if you are not sure on that fact?

[ShadowLurker]

- Post #116

not helpful =/= scum

actually not being helpful is equivalant to scum, at least in my book...

whether or not you act suspicious in every game is unnecessary to ask IMO... if you act suspicious (whether you act that way every game or not), then you should be prepared to be suspected... using the "i do this every game" defense is WIFOM, and so is asking

What

advantage does a scum have in doing this?

words in

italics

are corrections

- Post#117
KingPin says in 3 paragraphs what i basically said above... the only problem i have is

Now, enter the conundrum that you've employed 1) sneaky scum or 2) dumb townie.

i don't believe ShadowLurker is playing as either, i believe he's playing as he normally does, the problem is how he normally plays is suspicious

P.S. I know you don't need my blessing, but thank-you, KingPin, for finally putting your vote where your mouth is...

- Post#118
since i didn't play the game i can't speak for that instance, but if he played that game the same way he is playing this one, i can understand.

- Post#119

Why is that argument pulled? Because it is valid, you still have not pointed out ANY advantage scum would have for doing that meaning that what you have said, can't be a scumtell and can't be a case against me.

it is NOT a valid argument b/c it is WIFOM, see above

Oh shit, you caught me saying naughty words like fuck.

I still do not fucking see what you mean by "all other things" which I fucking asked you for already and you still have not provided. You just ignored that, and used that fucking generality one more fucking time.

i see absolutely no reason for profanity... yes you can argue free speech & whatever, but what i know is that most mods won't condone it... while KellyChen may or may not i don't know, but as a player in this game i for one would appreciate it if you abstained from such language in the future... find different words to make your point, it can actually make it stronger...

unvote: KingPin

vote: ShadowLurker

P.S. and don't bother

FOS

ing me again... if you really feel i'm suspicious then vote for me, or if you want to provide an actual reason besides retaliation why you are FOSing me, then feel free to do so...

Learn the

[]

definition of WIFOM, how the hell is doing something which scum has NO ADVANTAGE in doing and can possibly make the scum fall under suspicion vs. not doing it WIFOM at all? It is not equal probability, so learn the definition of WIFOM, and don't build an entire

[]

case on it.

[]

Mod-edited. I do want this game to be suitable reading for my mother.

[ShadowLurker]

you only addressed one point of my post, interesting... and still using profanity, though thankfully the mod edited it...

You had three points, one of them was I was vulgar, another was not helpful = scum, and the last one was that it was WIFOM. I can't argue what you think of not helpfulness, I answered your WIFOM, and your vulgarity argument is craplogic. So don't try to post more crap logic.

the reason i say you're argument is WIFOM is b/c you said, and again i quote

What

advantage does a scum have in doing this?

saying that there is no advantage for scum to act a certain way makes the implication that scum doesn't act that way, therefore you must be town... but then the argument could be made that you know that is a town trait, and as scum you purposefully employ it to make yourself look more townish... it is a circular argument that goes nowhere fast, and thus WIFOM... if you want to call it a circular argument instead, fine by me, but my point remains... the way you act (if you always act like that) can not be defined as scum or town... but it is suspicious, and my vote remains...

It is not WIFOM, do you have Down syndrome?

It makes the implication that it is not a legit scumtell, not that I am town. There is not EQUAL PROBABILITY.

Let's look at it pro/con for scum

Pro
None

Con
Stirs up discussion (discussion = good for town)
Makes you look suspicious

No scum in their right mind would do it, so it is NOT A SCUMTELL either way.






Also, the only reason you have against me is that I'm using

[]

swear words. That is the whole reason for these 5 votes on me. Your WIFOM argument would refute a point if it was true (which it isn't) and your other point is I'm not helpful which is clearly false as I've generated all the discussion in this game.

So basically, you're about to lynch me because I used swear words. How idiotic.

[ShadowLurker]

Let's look at it pro/con for scum

Pro
None

Con
Stirs up discussion (discussion = good for town)
Makes you look suspicious

No scum in their right mind would do it, so it is NOT A SCUMTELL either way.

Although the pro's and con's are true, I still have seen scum do this so that they can say the exact thing you are saying, that a scum would never do this. lol So, in other words it's all a big loop of possible scumminess.

No, it isn't. The fact of the matter is that that means that a) me doing it is NOT a scumtell, b) it does not make me town at all in any sense, but it does not make me scum either.

[ShadowLurker]

So don't try to post more crap logic.

It is not WIFOM, do you have Down syndrome?

do you always try to prove your innocence by belittling other player's game play? interesting that you are only focusing on me, and that you didn't respond at all to post # 126...

Everything stated in Post 126 was covered in your post.

It makes the implication that it is not a legit scumtell, not that I am town.

No scum in their right mind would do it, so it is NOT A SCUMTELL either way.

statements like these are why i consider this a WIFOM argument... if you make a statement like scum would not do so-and-so, then it can be argued that they WOULD do so-and-so, if only to say that scum would not do so-and-so...

No it cannot, because it is a STUPID move to do X just to say scum would not do X cause it does not make you look more town in any sense.

So basically, you're about to lynch me because I used swear words.

no, i would like to lynch you b/c you're acting suspiciously, and doing absolutely nothing to make your case any stronger, in fact, you're just adding fuel to the fire...

"Lynch you b/c you're acting suspiciously" means no reasons at all. The other points do not make me scum as well as make no sense at all.

Although the pro's and con's are true, I still have seen scum do this so that they can say the exact thing you are saying, that a scum would never do this. lol So, in other words it's all a big loop of possible scumminess.

aka: WIFOM

Lucresia is wrong, nothing new.

- Post #134
well i think we're getting somewhere... the FACT that you are acting suspicious does not make you town or scum, per se, but the ACTION of acting suspicious makes us think you are scum (regardless of whether or not you do this every game)

Wtf? If it's the intent that you think is suspicious, than me doing it every game obviously refutes that. Way to make sense.

making statements like

No scum in their right mind would do it

is not a true statement, b/c scum acting the way you are, could use that same quote to "prove" their "innocence"...

HOW DOES THAT PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE AT ALL? I HAVE ALREADY REFUTED THIS ARGUMENT, STOP ACTING RETARDED. I HAVE SAID THIS DOES NOT PROVE INNOCENCE.

[ShadowLurker]

Also note how LyingBrian only points out the vulgar/not niceties and ignores all the actual content. What a nice misrepresentation in her favor.

[ShadowLurker]

Shadowlurker: you are wrong.

I will now proceed to ignore your forthcoming reaction, which will no doubt include a combination of obscenities and a complete lack of understanding of mafia game theory.

Vote: Shadowlurker

.

I believe that's lynch-minus-one.

The phrasing: "Scum would never do this" is exactly what WIFMO

is

. Trying to say otherwise, and how your actions could never reflect this, seems very much like an overdefensive scum.

WIFOM is not a scumtell especially when it's not WIFOM. What if I changed the statement to "Scum is no more likely to do this than town" ? Overdefensiveness is not a scumtell. Town will be overdefensive too. :waytousecraplogic:

Rastapopolous posted today.

[ShadowLurker]

Way to kill your President.

Town has basically lost cause of this.