Please see the Post Content section of the rules regarding asking questions of the Mod.
The wording of rule 5 means that no "Bah" posts are allowed, correct. This is now explicitly stated. - Mod
Cease your pitiful attempts to protect the villainous cur, Skruffs, from our brutal and righteous lynching mob! Join us, instead, in our crusade against the evil Skruffs!Mgm wrote:So what makes it okay for you to use it then?I don't like Skruffs' use of the system so early.
I just wanted to know if Bah posts are allowed. I believe I've asked the selfsame questions in more than one previous game. This is nothing but a null tell.LoudmouthLee wrote:I find itveryinteresting that Zindie felt a need for clarification on this point. That question makes me very uneasy. Quite like Zindy is looking for a way to seem more townlike. It's completely a hunch, but it's definately good enough for a D1 initial vote.
For someone who apparently enjoys bluster, you are quick to attack me over that post.I plan on using the Condorcet voting method here, does THAT make me scum, too?
Lynch>No Lynch. Do we really have to go over all those arguments again? I thought that was only necessary in newbies.Skruffs wrote:LML - why don't you have no lynch in yours? Taking your point forward, isn't it odd that you would rather see ANYONE get lynched then go to a no lynch? That strikes me as blood thirsty.
Perish, ignoble villain!Skruffs wrote:Zindaras, is there anyone else in this game you have noticed, or are you explicitly focused on getting see me to die?
Scumtells are usually unconscious things.Mgm wrote:I'd be surprised. He literally wrote the book on the subject.
You want everyone to make Condorcet votes of everyone? Because that's what this implies.Skruffs wrote:VitR -> Opportunistic. IT is not standard town behavior to not care who gets lynched as long as someone does. In this particular situation, that would also include yourself.
If you do *not* like the idea of a no lynch, then you need to place a list with everyone in front of no lynch, signifying that, because as it stands, if me, Zindaras, or MGM is not lynched, you don't care if someone else gets lynched OR we no lynch.
And why did you give them the benefit of the doubt? Why some specific players and not others?I gave some players I have not played with before, like jeep, benefit of the doubt, because I didn't want to list EVERYONE in the list.
Have you not grasped what I've been doing? I daresay it would be quite obvious, when someone says things like "villainous cur", "ignoble villain" and "god-forsaken semblance of a man" and confirm votes someone 20 minutes into the game, it is quite obvious that that person is joking around.Zindaras - if you are going to unvote me, please retract your statement that I am a villainous cur that needs to be lynched, or else, it will seem you are trying to get other people to do your dirty work for you. KThx.
I have a history with Skruffs. And while I find his posting somewhat odd and scummy, I don't want to have him at 7 votes. My experiences with quicklynches lately made me not want to keep my vote on him. While I'll agree that it is less likely in a game with this kind of player list, I'm going to have to put the blame with Pavlov on this one.Dragon Phoenix wrote:Zindaras: don't know what to make of him. Inconsequential posting, attacked Scrubbs vehemently onyl to drop him the moment the wagon gets underway, to switch to LML on gut. Hm. IGMEOY.
I think this is a good catch. While I believed the disagreement regarding vote lists was more of a game thing, a null tell, this is a contradiction.Dragon Phoenix wrote:Don't back peddle. That is clearly stating:jeep, post 102, basically repeated post 119 wrote:The only reason I can see for NOT using a list in your vote is if you are scum and haven't yet figured out how you plan to make your list so that it reduces your risk while not tipping your hand.
not using a list = scum
There is nothing here about discouraging others to use a list.
In fact, I am upgrading you now to suspect #1:
Unvote Skruffs
Vote jeep
I think you're contradicting yourself. Early on, you voted Mgm, PWS for not agreeing with you on the list issue. And now you're saying that they weren't scummy. So what is it?jeep wrote:I'm guilty of hyperbole. There is no reason to not use a list if you are pro-town. I stand by that.
DP, you take my quote out of context... it was responding to :My response was that there is no reason not to. I may have stated it a little more strongly than needed. If you notice, I only had a list of one in my first vote.In post 99, Mgm wrote: I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy
I don't feel it's back peddling. I stand by my statement, but after your comment, I looked at the rules more closely. It hadn't sunk in that the list would only be used at the deadline. So yes, I understand that there is no compelling reason to put out your list yet. But anyone discouraging the use of a list is scummy, IMO.
-JEEP
Skruffs and I have had earlier run-ins. He has caused my completely undeserved death in multiple games. So I want to get rid of that possibility now.foolinc wrote:Zindaras: I’m not sure if I totally buy the metagame reasoning for starting the Skruffs wagon before switching to LML.
When Mgm only stated he wouldn't do the Condorcet voting.Translation: I on't want to take advantage of the tools I've been given. I don't want other people taking advantage of them, either.
But I want to know how I pushed your buttons.Talitha wrote:Zindaras: You asked about where and how the players I meantioned pressed my buttons - I didn't actually note down the details, just the fact that they did. This was mainly due to it being early day 1 and I don't care to expend too much energy this early
Yeah, but I don't see how Mgm discouraged the use of lists. So, following your own logic, he wasn't scummy, but you did vote him.jeep wrote:Huh? How am I saying they weren't scummy and how am I contradicting myself?
Anyone who DISCOURAGES the use of a list is scummy. That is clear from my post that you quoted, right? People NOT using a list, doesn't make them scummy. It's only if they discourage the use of a list.
I still need to catch up, but this caught my eye, so I'm responding now. I'll catch up on my reading tonight and post again if game night doesn't go too long.
-JEEP
That's the rest of the sentence you quote from, and I think that makes it quite clear that he's talking about what he's going to do, not what everyone should do.Mgm wrote:when everything is still too hazy, so I'll do things the old fashioned way.
This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You "translated" one of Mgm's posts. Your translation is a woeful misrepresentation of the statement. It doesn't sound like it. At all. You took a statement which wasn't scummy and tried to twist it into something which was.xyzzy wrote:Wait, how was I misrepresenting Mgm AT ALL? I took what he said and I sais what it sounded like. The fact that he's good at not looking scummy doesn't mean that when someone says he's scum it means he isn't.
I'm pretty sure I made over 9000 grammatical errors in that sentence. Oh well, as least everything in this post is speled right.
So we can decide to not use lists, but we can't say we're not going to use the lists?jeep wrote:*sigh* I pointed out where MGM discourages the use of lists. I never said MGM was as blunt as I am. It's still discouraging the use of lists. It's like advertising. It rarely says: "Go buy this product now." (Don't start pointing out the few that do... I know there are exceptions.) Often you'll see people that you might recognize saying "I use this" or whatever. It's still (at least trying to) encouraging you to buy the product.
-JEEP
I do not understand this post at all.xyzzy wrote:If he changed it in immediately the next post, then it would be scummy, but without agreement on opinions, then there'll never be a lynch, unless by some amazing coincidence a majority of players agree at the very beginning.
I think the more important point is that you posted an analysis based onSkruffs wrote:Yay thesp. ANd, because of your post, yay pooky. I snickered at it.
I was very impressed with THesp's play in Meadows of Sorrow and I feel he is a great player who will bring a lot to this game. For all the reasons you said above, too, minus the ""Are you trying to get into his good graces with a generic contentless message like "yay thesp"?" part. I'm not a butt kisser. (See former discussion with lml re: friendships nad mafia, playing of)
This is completely besides the point. I asked him to elaborate, I didn't call him scum or said he wasn't allowed to change his list. But if you change your list, then you have to have a reason for it, and I asked him for that reason.xyzzy wrote:Basically, I was saying that it's okay for people to change their opinions on the game, and to tell someone that this has to take a long time in a deadlined game is to ask that they help the scum.
At the time of your analysis, Thesp had already made four posts at that time, including this rather large post. I do not think there wasn't enough for you to analyze at that point.Skruffs wrote:In regards to THesp - I made that opinion of him after his first post and before he started really posting about other things
Side note: I'm wondering if this entire game is being staged inside The Counte of Monte Cristo's head. And, I'm wondering what Frezno really has to do with it.
Underlined for stress. Also note that PWS isn't TSQ's replacement: Tamuz is. And you would rather lynch yourself than Tally/Adele/me/No lynch?Unvote
Vote : Dragon Phoenix, [jeep, vitaminr, pooky], [mastermind of sin, cogito ergo sum,adele, loudmouthlee, cubsfan, oman], [plays with squirrel (TSQ's replacement), MGM], [everyone else I've forgotten about, Skruffs], [talitha, zindaras,adele], No Lynch.
So town cannot possibly ask if they're allowed Bah posts? That's quite narrow-minded. I simply have, regardless of alignment, a pretty high chance of dying over the course of the game.Lee wrote:Call me a conspiracy theorist, but someone who wants clarification on a "Bah" post is someone who wants the town to ultimately think that they will be nightkilled, and will be "in need" of a Bah! Post. I don't know if that makes sense, but to me, anyone who asks for clarification of rules in thread (IE: Mod, I need clarification of my role) is generally scum. I have used this scumtell in scumchat numerous times, and I feel it's pertinent.
You're acting like you're at Lynch-1, Lee. I think you're being overaggressive here.I hate being attacked with faulty logic. I fight to the bitter end when i feel that a case is being manufactured with no basis to the truth. I am choosing to try to play the calm, cool and collected card right now rather than the guns-a-blazing typical LmL style. I would also appreciate you not talking down to me. I'm no newbie, Thesp.
Do I know you?LoudmouthLee wrote:Have you ever known me to be NOT overaggressive?
Not particularly, no.PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:Is anyone else having a deep unsettling suspicion of IH right now?
Such things can (and I've already seen multiple occasions where this held true) be balanced out by simply adding a couple of traitors. Speculation based on the amount of scum in a group is a very risky business, especially in large games. You can usually make pretty good guesses in Minis, but big games have far more intricate design.Battle Mage wrote:Surely it is usually obvious in a game where there are two mafia families, from the perspective of each family, because even the weakest mafia player has some concept of balance, and if their team alone does not equate to near enough the 1/4 ratio, they will have an inclination that another body of scum may exist.
BM
I wanted to lift this out of Glork's analysis because I pretty much one hundred percent agree with it. I am very much enjoying the Condorcet voting in this game, and it gives us a lot more easy discussion topics that help with catching scum.Gaspar wrote:An extension of the above point, forcing scum to constantly list all of their top suspects in order limits their ability to suddenly or strategically launch a new attack on a different player. While it does not completely eliminate this possibility ("I just did a re-read on Adele's posts, and I find her to be scummy for these reasons...."), it forces scums to keep up some similar threads of thought/suspicion from the very start of the day. It's *MUCH* easier to catch flip-flops and inconsistencies if we have repeated detailed lists of suspects.
Who's ZZ?ZZ
I am going to quote this in every subsequent post I make until people actually start responding to it.Zindaras wrote:I'd also like more people to provide input on xyzzy.
If I am correct, Skruffs never made it that far. Two people who were already voting him voted again to change their Condorcet lists.IH wrote:Are you sure Skruffs made it to Lynch -2?
If he had been high up on your list if you hadn't known his alignment, then the arguments aren't being manufactured (which has quite the negative connotation). Then the arguments are good.If i didnt KNOW he was protown, he would probably have been fairly high on my suspect list. As i do KNOW he was protown, i am naturally very wary of the arguments that are being manufactured against him.
I think this is close enough to deadline to make a list, Cessy.Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Or because Condorcet voting only matters if we make it to the deadline. There's no particular reason why we'd have to make a list to accompany our votes in this game as opposed to other games at this point.
I will happily make a list if and when the deadline nears, but to do soon would be excessive.
It has already been pointed out how bad this logic is. It is perfectly possible to suspect people who agree with you. In fact, it is only normal.LoudmouthLee wrote:I would love to know why I am now on your list, especially we're voting for the same person.jeep wrote:Why wouldn't we use it? It's a lot like a vote with a handful of FOS... I think it should be employed as soon as you want to start ranking people you think might be acting scummy...
So having said that:
vote: Skruff, PlaysWithSquirrels, LoudMouthLee
Is Jeep exhibiting a scumtell?
Tags corrected in quoted material. - Mod
As said before, this is horrible logic and at worst a null tell.LoudmouthLee wrote:Okay. Time for some typical vintage LML stuff. You may call them null tells, you may call them typical LML bluster, but the following things caught my attention. Prepare yourself. LML has turned on the charms.
I find itZindaras wrote:Oman, iocaine powder doesn't have a smell.
Mod, I assume that the wording for Rule 5 means that no "Bah" posts are allowed?
Please see the Post Content section of the rules regarding asking questions of the Mod.
The wording of rule 5 means that no "Bah" posts are allowed, correct. This is now explicitly stated. - Modveryinteresting that Zindie felt a need for clarification on this point. That question makes me very uneasy. Quite like Zindy is looking for a way to seem more townlike. It's completely a hunch, but it's definately good enough for a D1 initial vote.
Now, I'm not even sure he finds me suspicious because of it, but I wanted to list it for completeness' sake. I do not see how this makes me scummy either.LoudmouthLee wrote:Let's look at the 4 people who have their votes on me:
Adele - Rationale: Disagrees with my stance on random voting.
Scruffs - Rationale: OMGUS coupled with "misrepresentations that are not misrepresentations".
Zinadras - Radionale: Modified OMGUS (as I found his Bah opening post to be slightly scummy, and it was good as an opening post)
I'd also like more people to provide input on xyzzy.
Oh. Was it someone else? >.>Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:I'm gonna call this a Freudian slip and say you're attracted to wheelchairs.Zindaras wrote:This reminds me of Pooky's claim of Stephen Hawking.
Yeah. Of course. I don't find it very likely that BM is lying, but there's the possibility. He's hardly a confirmed innocent with this claim.Skruffs wrote:You would rather lynch a claimed cop role than yourself or no lynch?
I'd also like more people to provide input on xyzzy.
Xyzzy.Gaspar wrote:P: I missed the claim. ugh. It's annoying that we don't have a chance for people to possibly counterclaim, but claims like that are retarded in scums hands regardless. I don't think Cubs is that likely to be scum though.
@LML: I completely missed it.
Give me a sec to look at the lynchlist to see if there are other possibilities.
And it is your duty to make sure that the best lynch happens. It is your duty to make your suspicions clear. How consequential are our lists, really? How consequential is it to have 5 different levels of scumness/townness?Battle Mage wrote:lol calm down Zindy. I didnt say that No-Lynch is the ideal option. I'm merely trying to point out that there is no especial reason TO lynch now, assuming Cubs is who we want to die either way. I realise you may have a phobia of the words 'No-Lynch', but in this case, i really cant see what the issue is. If i come on tonight and i see that me changing my list around will make a positive difference, i will do so. Otherwise, i'm content enough to leave it how it is, assuming it is inconsequential for today.
BM
This is a fairly large misrepresentation, generalizing "I'll do things the old fashioned way" into "Nobody should use them".Translation: I on't want to take advantage of the tools I've been given. I don't want other people taking advantage of them, either.To make it clear: I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy, so I'll do things the old fashioned way.
I can't misrepresent people if I'm just saying what I think they said!xyzzy wrote:Wait, how was I misrepresenting Mgm AT ALL? I took what he said and I sais what it sounded like. The fact that he's good at not looking scummy doesn't mean that when someone says he's scum it means he isn't.
I'm pretty sure I made over 9000 grammatical errors in that sentence. Oh well, as least everything in this post is speled right.
Essentially a very weak point. Thesp isn't 20 people, last time I checked.xyzzy wrote:Very, very, very[...]very, very wrong. Good reviews stick with people; if I think someone's scum then 20 people say hemust betown, then I'm going to agree with them because I'm inclined to believe townies and among that many people most will be townies (unless it's that 200 player game?).
This point is also very weak. I ask Lee to elaborate on his changes, and xyzzy's counterpoint is that Lee is allowed to change his list.If he changed it in immediately the next post, then it would be scummy, but without agreement on opinions, then there'll never be a lynch, unless by some amazing coincidence a majority of players agree at the very beginning.Lee, please elaborate on the changes in your Condorcet lists:
You go from this:
Vote: MoS, Adele, Zinadras, Scruffs, [Jeep, MGM, Xyzzy]
To this:
Unvote, Vote: Scruffs, MoS, Zindaras, MGM, PWS, Xyzzy
Without any real explanation, with no posts in between.
Again, another weak one. If I do something as town, a lot, and then I see someone else do the exact same thing, it is quite possible to generalize your own situation and make it into a general rule. It's not a full-proof thing, but it's still not much of a thing. His response to Cessy regarding this stuff is also weak."And ifI'vedone it, it must not be scummy!"
Note how LML is on top, but (unless my searching methods are really failing me)xyzzy wrote:Hmm... I guess this is my final list.
Vote: LML, PWS, Mgm, Skruffs, [everyone else], no lynch, xyzzy
Battle Mage wrote:lol had you been reading the game, you wouldnt have asked such a silly question.LoudmouthLee wrote:God, you're awful.Battle Mage wrote:thats all well and good LML, but why the hell would we want to lynch Xyzzy over Cubs? rofl.
Is there anyone you WANT to lynch?
For one, proving your ability willBattle Mage wrote:@Logicticus, Zindy-I'll tell you what. Lets discuss this tomorrow. Ya know, so i can prove my innocence and make you both eat your words.
"It won't change anything, so I'm better off just laying back and doing nothing."Battle Mage wrote:thats completely ridiculous Zindy. Its obvious who is going to get lynched. My vote wont change that either way. You can try your hardest to construe my actions as bad in any way you want-the fact is, my opinions have been made perfectly clear, and your incessant ravings about this are nonsensical.
If there is a role, it has had a scum version. Roles like Burglars are equally viable/useful for scum as for town.I'd say that me proving my role would go some way to proving my innocence. I've never seen scum with this role before at least.
And yes, whilst proving my innocence does not prove me right as such, it does categorically prove you WRONG in your suspicions of me.
Mike's Flash Introduction to Roles. How is your role different from the Thief (I call it a Burglar)? You get information regarding his role. That's a Burglar.Battle Mage wrote:OMFG. I AM NOT A BURGLAR. I dont know how many times i'm going to have to repeat myself over this. Suffice to say Zindaras, i've made my comments for today. I will know more tomorrow, and you will once again here my opinions then, should i survive the night.
If i do die tonight, perhaps then you will go back and read my comments, in order to SEE who i was suspicious of.
My opinions are clear. If people have questions regarding them, I can answer them. I'm trying to get the best lynch for the town.Battle Mage wrote:@Zindy-seeing as the majority of your list seems to be based on 'gut' which is barely explained atall, you can see why i'm not taking your criticisms too seriously. lol
As said before by others, I find this post somewhat odd. I thought Cubs's claim was an indication of Cubstown, so I don't see why Mgm didn't acknowledge the claim in this post, instead simply asking a fairly irrelevant question.Mgm wrote:Why did you pick LML for the duel?
How many times have you seen scum with aMgm wrote:Why wouldn't that power be attributed to scum? Scum who have one or two daykills at their disposal - which a duel basically is - are rare, but it's not unheard of. The only thing that duel proved is that he had the power to initiate one, not that the results would be as he said they would be (kill a scum, guess: not kill an innocent).
Wrong. After Cubs's claim in 601, the following people posted:Also, if he was so obviously town, there were plenty of people who could've unvoted after theclaim. If someone claims the main character you either believe them or you don't.
Uhh, I haven't looked at this one yet, I'll take a look at it.Tamuz wrote:So Zindy if you disagree with my vehemence, what do you think of the relationship between Thesp and Skruff.
Skruffs constantly pokes happy vibes and a George Bush like support to Thesp (allowing that Thesp is Dick Cheney). And then once Skruffs gets under fire Thesp is there, the gallant knight in shining armour to help bail his childe out.
Ireally don't believe those two would be masons. If anything scum would be more believable.
Gut. I had a gut feeling that Adele was scum. I just told myself to reread Dani because I don't really remember anything from him, and I wanted to get a better read.Gaspar wrote:Zindaras: You've made a "note to self" to look at both Adele and Dani, but Adele is listed at one full notch higher than Dani. Before re-reading, what distinguishes Adele from Dani on your most recent list?
So what was it?Mgm wrote:You should ask for your money back. That mindreading class was a total scam.Zindaras wrote:I'm amused that I went from town to scum in Mgm's book simply because I voted him.