Ugh. I'm pretty much voteless then. No way I'm gonna remember to break a decade old habit every time I want to vote.In post 11, Sleepless Assassin wrote:VOTE: Elmo TeH Azn
FoS North
Should I tell them?
I have fixed your vote tags. From now on, please use the users full name and use proper vote tags. This is your first and final warning. Further infractions will result in your vote being discounted. (Not trying to be harsh, it's just that the contrast is much better for me to quickly see with proper vote tags.
Ah. So are you aware you are voting confirmed town?In post 17, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:Curiosity most people tend to abbreviate it to ETA or something similar. At least from past experiences. Thats all
Have you never been scum or am I missing a game somewhere?
Ehhhhhh. It wasn't anything I'd call a scum read but it was the best lead for like 3 posts into a game. I figured sheeping it was a little worse than being first to do it.
Why make the vote if you don't approve of a policy wagon?In post 51, davesaz wrote:VOTE: xXTonereaderXx
This is not a gimmick I like, and it's early enough in the game to express that dislike in the traditional way.
I donotapprove a policy wagon here.
In other news Jodaxq plays with fire, will she get burned?
My vote wasn't an RVS one. I rarely make RVS votes. I like to get into the game nice any early while Role PMs are fresh in everyone's minds.schism wrote:Sleepless voting someone who voted IC and sounded too serious for an RVS Vote.
You're making some interesting assumptions about me. First, you're assuming that my question was in response to ONLY your self vote. It was actually your entrance (saying "hello" with no vote) that made me curious enough to check how you entered past games. The self vote just made me more curious about your experience level. I also never implied anything about your alignment in this game in that question. I was discussing past games. You're also making assumptions about my reasons for falling behind. You seem to assume that it's somehow strategic. If it was, that would be my first time doing that in nearly a decade of playing mafia. I've never once seen anyone benefit from intentionally dropping their activity. My reasons for not being around as much are simple: work. I had to work on Tuesday and Wednesday. I've been off every day that this thread has been open other than that. That is the main thing that determines my activity level.Jod wrote:I think Sleepless Assassin had the worst reaction. His post of "have you never been scum or am I missing a game?" kind of implies that he knows I'm not scum in this game. I also don't like how someone scum read him for being a try hard, he responded with "yeah I get that a lot," and then proceeded to disappear, only saying anything when he was asked a question directly.
See, this kind of stood out to me too. I'm just on the fence whether his motivations for it are scummy. Like what is the logic? Do you think he expected to get you lynched for self voting in RVS? I'm just not sure that that makes more sense than jumping on a wagon to make the game take off or that he actually believed what he said about it.Jod wrote:I don't like havingfitz's reaction either. The reasoning behind the self vote and then the bs reason (yes I know I can't flip a coin to randomize 13 players and yes I know a coin cannot come up odds) is to see if anyone will try to push for the easy lynch of someone who did something that obviously stood out. The fact that Fitz tried to rationalize a scum motivation for it (avoiding offending anyone) and is still trying to get some traction on it looks scummy.
Can you elaborate on this? Why should the site's meta affect the way that you personally react to something? It sounds more to me like you are pushing something you know other people will find scummy as opposed to looking for what you believe scum might do and if that's the case it's pretty clear cut fake scum hunting.elmo wrote:The reason I was all up in arms about your self vote is because of what I know about this site's meta about self voting. No matter the stage.
Nope.Schism wrote:Assassin 195: that fact that you said its not an RVS vote is bad. Really bad.
Because some mods prod and replace if you don't so I got into that habit a while back.Schism wrote:Also if six pages was too much to talk about, why bother making a post to catchup soon. Its not like youre lurking.
I prefer Elmo and Chip to be perfectly honest.Almost Chara wrote: P.S. Please, don't tell me you could vote schism but.. if you could then you should. Only if you don't want to lynch schism should you abstain. Thank you.
Uhhh. They did unvote.In post 222, Assemblerotws wrote:Just caught up. Surprised I wasn't prodded given how much I let this game slip.
I slightly townread Jo for their reaction test and agree with the IC's reads on Schism. I am also curious why people haven't unvoted the IC.
This would make sense as a policy argument. But effort means nothing when it comes to a player's alignment. All you are determining is how much free time they have and/or how much they care about the game.schism wrote: In regards to Assemble being scum vs Lynchbait: The amount of posting isn't what bothers me, its the effort of the posting that bothers me. Assemble isn't even trying, which is Anti-Town in general.
Deadline is coming up.In post 328, Assemblerotws wrote:UNVOTE: Northsidegal
Sorry, let this slip while finishing the game I was modding.
Who town reads him?
My vote is policy/compromise, yes.In post 337, Chip Butty wrote:Apart from low activity ( this is Assemble's complete ISO), can someone tell me why this is scummy enough to lynch? Are people policy voting?
Ohhhh. Ok the scum slip comment makes more sense now knowing this. It's just an awkward "oh shit, mistake, whatever" comment.In post 367, Chip Butty wrote:Thanks. Read the post but didn't notice the change from "latter" to "former". Wasn't sure what he was on about there, tbh.In post 365, Almost Chara wrote:@Chip: So you ISO'd Schism, got to read and quote his #254 in full, but faile to see his subsequent EBWOP which is literally the following post in the thread (#25????
~A50
Lol what? I'd hope I'd be able to spot it as long as I've been playing mafia.cheeky wrote: I FoS you for being the one to spot this as scummy btw. More on this later.
What is the agenda I'm driving by lumping myself in with my scum reads and saying we should focus on a pool that includes me?In post 406, CheekyTeeky wrote:You failed.In post 403, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:So any reasons behind this vote aside to just sheep?
Going to FOS someone then vote someone else just because of something I said?
Bravo. *golf clap*
1. It wasn't a sheep. You can see in the order of my posts that first I voted you for your very scummy post, then noticed someone vote you with pretty agenda driven reasoning. So in my mind I was voting you for the post I quoted as the original wagon starter. Your blatant misrep here is laughable *golf laugh*
2. It was a reaction test based on my suspicion that the quote I voted you for spewed TMI. How do you know who the vig shot?
I'm happy where my vote is based on your (snarky) reaction.
There isn't anything elaborate about scum jumping on an easy mislynch.cheek wrote: It is very observant and logical play, which makes sense if we take your start date into account. In my experience however, those who point out the elaborate reasons are usually misdirecting the attention away from what was really, their guilty admission if that makes sense?
Ehhhhhh maybe? But that's probably a stretch. Havingfitz obviously didn't shoot himself so it was either vig or scum. It's unlikely that scum shot the guy who almost got lynched instead of assemble. So odds are it was the vig shot. Elmos post seems to just assume that the vig shot havingfitz which could be because she knows who scum shot. But like I said it's not exactly rocket science to figure out who shot him.cheek wrote: TMI slip?
Ouch.jod wrote: I disagree about Assassin. I think his posting feels really fake.
I could see it. He's probably my third choice behind Elmo and Chip.Cheeky wrote:What are people's thoughts on schism? I get the feeling they're buddying up to the IC a little too hard for my liking.
Lack of town intent doesn't mean scum intent. We saw this already with Assemble. It's a very common leap in logic, but not usually a correct one.cheeky wrote: I can't find townie intent in his posts which leads me to believe it's because he's not town
If he's lacking reads, what do you expect him to push? A better bet would be waiting for his activity in general to pick up and seeing if that changes.Cheeky wrote:Lack of reads is fine but the lack of pushes and insight is not.
He's not wrong though. NKA is just so full of a number of WIFOM scenarios that while it CAN be used, it shouldn't be the sole reason for any reads. Anything that implicates someone could be scum attempting to frame that person. Or scum could have killed someone for just being widely town read without taking that person's reads into consideration. Or they could have killed a player who is town reading them but showed in a past game they are good at reading them. Or they could have replaced in, not read up, got no posts from their scum partners, and just picked someone. There are just too many unknown variables and possibilities to base your reads on it.Cheeky wrote:when I read his NKA posts, even though I agree with them, I still find hedging against making any kind of solid read. Like he says x implicates y because z which is awesome and supertown but then he goes oh wait I can't use solely NKA to get my reads and leaves it there.
Or a guy who was busy during the holiday season, didn't really get a chance to do a ton Day 1, and tried to get into the game Day 2 by looking at the NKs. He could still be scum, but I don't see a case here.Cheeky wrote:Instead I'm left with what looks like scum positioning, leaving a wide lynching range open without committing to suspeced scum reads.
Do you disagree with my logic? Because I stand by my statement that I'd be shocked if scum stayed off of that Lynch.In post 458, Jodaxq wrote:I think it's just mainly 400 that feels really forced to me. Like coming out and saying "hey we should be looking here and you can't tell me we shouldn't be looking here and yeah I know I was here too" just rubs me the wrong way.In post 443, davesaz wrote:Is this based on positions he has taken, or more a tone thing? If you can point to something specific it will help.In post 441, Jodaxq wrote: I disagree about Assassin. I think his posting feels really fake.
Yeah that's about what I got out of it. And it's not a terrible case. It just seems weird to me that Schism comes out of that with a town read on me. Four votes on town and his first instinct is to call it all town? I also called my vote policy so why is that scummy for chip but not for me? It feels inconsistent to me.tl;dr Chip is scum.
Wouldn't it also be easy to vote a lurker who some of us were admitting was just a policy vote? In addition to being easy, that option removes a townie from play too. And they couldn't rule out Assemble being a power role.Schism wrote:Because it would have been easy for mafia to sit back and force NL using the holiday as an alibi.
Ok, you technically said it "could be perceived as town". I'd still like to know why.schism wrote:I didn't say it was necessarily town.
And yet the thread slowed down. That's not just scum. That's most of us, myself included. Yes, we knew deadline was coming up but I personally didn't ever say "wait, grandma, before you open that present let me help get a lynch through in this mafia game". That has nothing to do with alignment. That's called it's Christmas and some things are more important than mafia. I don't know exactly what Dave was doing, but I do know it was the holiday season and I'm not about to string a guy up for not doing much here over the holidays.Schism wrote:Because people were posting unrelated shit and not putting votes down. We all knew that deadline was coming up and that it was over the holidays.
Meh. Had we not all piled on Assemble, I think the Havingfitz lynch would have happened. I would have jumped on and I'm sure I'm not the only Assemble voter who would have. I actually took something Voyc said along the lines of "go lynch scum" at the end of that post as being genuine.Schism wrote:Unpopular opinion: People voted Fitz because the wagon probably would have stalled due to holidays.
You could, but activity is still a playstyle tell more than a town tell. I didn't say anything about your vote in what you quoted there.Schism wrote:Bullshit. I could have kept my vote on myself in that case. I could have easily saved Assemble for today as scum. No reason for me to aggressively push an easy mislynch as scum.
VCA puts me in the same boat as Chip though. You too for that matter.Schism wrote:I mentioned it D1. Your posting has been significantly better late D1 and I said you were town based on Chip being scum and VCA.
I meant using NKA to figure out who is scum. It has it's place but it's shaky on it's own. Of course I agree with you that it's possible to figure out who killed who. The only one I'm sure of is havingfitz being the vig kill though.Schism wrote:Not when its really straightforward:
NSG obvtown to some.
Fitz was near-confirmed scum due to Assemble being town (Fitz was the counter-wagon_
Tone was another townread and Fitz hated his trolling anyways.
Huh?Schism wrote:Joda is scummy imo due to Fitz flipping SK.
Wait, really? That's a pretty easy vote for scum to make. Self voters always seem to draw some heat in RVS, but usually tend to be town.Cheeky wrote: Hey guys, can we discuss this quote? I just started going through ISO's again and Chip's very first post always comes from town for me.
Actually a very good point. I wasn't even thinking about the Schism wagon right before that.Cheeky wrote:It kind of makes sense that you would push Assemble (easy mislynch) when a lot of negative attention was on you and enough people were lurking not to change their opinions without someone tunneling them into it
Same.Dave wrote:I think joda is town from d1.
Elmo or chip. Dave's 532 is actually exactly how I feel about both schism and Elmo.In post 524, CheekyTeeky wrote:Who do you want to lynch today? So far I understand you're willing to lynch both Elmo and Schism.
At the time, Jod believed that to be my reaction to the self vote. When reading Jod, you have to look at Jod's intent. The point is that she used that self vote to develop a read on myself and others. It reads as genuine scum hunting even if she was mistaken about my post.Cheeky wrote:3. The "result" from SA she claimed she got, wasn't related to her self vote. SA said her first "hello" post triggered a meta read which came up with the fact Jodaxq has yet to roll scum on MS. The statment wasn't related to the self vote and so is actually a misrep of reaction evaluation.
Nothing in his replace out looked to be related to alignment. How do you think it would have gone differently from Chip-scum?Cheeky wrote:Also wasn't Chip's replace out towny?
How? Most of us openly admitted Assemble was a policy lynch but have actual reasons to suspect Elmo. If it's the fact that Elmo hasn't been very active, you could say that about most anyone in this game.Jod wrote:Elmo is an okay lynch for me but it feels too similar to the assemble lynch.
I'm not gonna ignore a mislynch that I think scum would have jumped on just because I could be implicated by it. That would be poor scum hunting. What do you think of Schism's assertion that scum avoided the wagon combined with the fact that Schism was on the wagon?OGML wrote:There's one post that basically turns the tide and all but guarantees assemble will be the day one lynch, and it's Sleepless Assassin's vote in 316. He turns around on day two and makes this misylnch the main issue in 400. There's just something about the way he does it ("I doubt anyone can tell me with a straight face scum stayed off the wagon. I'm fully aware that leaves myself and my scum reads.") that is rubbing me wrong.
Does anyone in particular stand out as scummy for doing that?OGML wrote:I'm really squicked out by Joda getting wagoned up to L-2 on page 21, under the cover of sheeping the innocent child.
Well, deadline is two days away so...yeah.In post 596, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:I would have to make a vote.In post 595, davesaz wrote:That VC smells like both Elmo and Cy are scum. If they were both town and townreading each other I'd expect them to try to agree on an alternative wagon. Town and scumreading each other should be voting each other.
Wasn't an accusation. More just commenting on deadline because nobody seems to realize it's close. And was dodging a prod at the same time.In post 599, Elmo TeH AzN wrote:Haven't felt well past two days anyways. Was waiting on a VC. And didn't even post anywhere lately
Why the switch? I liked your last vote better.In post 604, CheekyTeeky wrote:Alright lets go with Cy.
VOTE: Cytheflyguy
AC were you already voting someone?
Probably because cheeky and almost chara got here first.In post 721, Jodaxq wrote:Why exactly am I the prime suspect anyway?
I don't see cy hard defending a buddy and focusing more on a hood town read than much of anything else if they are scum together. And Elmo voted jod in what looked like an attempt at an easy mislynch. She doesn't look like a buddy in either of two scum's ISOs so I'd be very surprised to see her flip red. Why do you think OGML is town?In post 725, CheekyTeeky wrote:I could back a schism lynch. Why is Jod obv. town?In post 723, Sleepless Assassin wrote:Vote kat
Jod and cheeky are obvtown and I'm not convinced OGML called cy and Elmo together as scum with them.
But not by scum?kat wrote: I tried to get thoughts out there ASAP in case my slot was killed by a vig or sk
