Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jack A T]

Extend.
Unvote.

Assuming this is because I said they were townie enough, why do you not say I'm buddying with Hapah?  Why is this relevant anyway?  We're trying to get town kinged today.

It's been a while since I went back and read the earlier days, but I remember thinking that you three seemed to be supporting each other kind of closely and voting on the same lines.  Often enough that it seemed odd to me.  Hapah wasn't giving off the same buddy-buddy vibe.

Shakerag: Please explain how Toaster buddying makes Toony and I FoSworthy.

Because I'm suspecting you're all a scumteam, yeah?

Shakerag: So, basically, you dumped that mass of FoSes in the thread Day 2 without noting anything whatsoever to back them up, and your reasoning now is hazy at best.  You still give absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

However, you think you've found the scumteam. (4 or 5 mafiosoes in a 13 person game, with third parties as well, makes sense.  6 does not.)

Thus, you vote...Zombie Urist.  Clearly, you are interested in eliminating the scumteam.  Clearly.  Only when Hapah points out that this would lead to a bloodbath do you switch to voting a member of this supposed scumteam.

Uh-huh.

A few questions:
*How many mafiosoes do you think are in this game?
*Why, when you think you've found the scumteam, did you vote Zombie Urist instead of, say, a member of your supposed scumteam?
*Can you give some examples of the whole "supporting each other" stuff?
*Can you build a single, independent case against any of Toony, Toaster, or I that doesn't depend on the others being scum?

[Toaster]

Jack:  My bad, I missed it.

Toony, Hapah, and Jack all seem reasonably townie enough so far.

Toaster: Why?

Because your arguments use reason and you've done nothing objectionable.  Basically, townie behavior.


Toony:

Toony:  I tend to agree that you're tunnelling Book.  Who else do you suspect and why?

I'll put one on Shakerag.

What exactly is your case on him?  I read back and see you calling him scum, and you cite lurking and hypocrisy.  That's not much of a case- do you have anything else?


Deathsword:

Tylui, because of all the stuff that I brought up in D1 that he hasn't adressed. And since he has reappeared, I'd like to know if he has anything to say about all that.

This is a pretty weaksauce vote, given it's bandwagony on the person who- in the post prior- explained why he hadn't been able to vote.  Can you actually cite scummy behavior (as in, not just lurking) on any living player?


Hapah:

This is suspect.   It's indirect, but I see you trying to set up a "one or the other must be scum" mentality here.

That wasn't my intention. Their argument is/was the most interesting thing happening, though, and I think Book's argument makes more sense.

You're still framing it as "either-or."


Shakerag:

Shakerag: Please explain how Toaster buddying makes Toony and I FoSworthy.

Because I'm suspecting you're all a scumteam, yeah?

If we're scumbuddies, why would I need to buddy them?  That makes no sense at all.

[Shakerag]

That's true, but gut reactions don't really go too far without voting him at least, and your lack of even a FoS on him in your newest post (flooding with FoS) is discouraging.

Okay, and?  Yes, I have a gut feeling Bookthras *may* be scum.  Obviously if I wanted to solidify that feeling one way or another I would have to interact with said Bookthras.  Are you trying to specifically push for me to pressure Bookthras? 

I'm not a cockhole. :<  By "this day" I mean D3.  I was suspecting why today was strange for you to post when you were normally active the last two game days.  Why is it ridiculous to assume Leafsnail's flip?

Sorry, channeling my inner Dariush there.  I'm not quite sure I'm parsing your second sentence there correctly, but I have been pretty consistently stating that I've been busy IRL.  My last point is just that I find the idea of scum shooting "miller bullets" to be a tiny bit far-fetched. 

Shakerag: So, basically, you dumped that mass of FoSes in the thread Day 2 without noting anything whatsoever to back them up, and your reasoning now is hazy at best.  You still give absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

Your point being?  So what if I FoSed a bunch?  It's a Finger of Suspicion.  Do I have to have solid reasoning now for a suspicion?  Let me grab the definition of the word, as I think you're maybe not clear on this issue.

1. the act or an instance of suspecting; belief without sure proof, esp that something is wrong

However, you think you've found the scumteam. (4 or 5 mafiosoes in a 13 person game, with third parties as well, makes sense.  6 does not.)

Yes, because clearly (having a suspicion) == (found the scumteam).

Thus, you vote...Zombie Urist.  Clearly, you are interested in eliminating the scumteam.  Clearly.  Only when Hapah points out that this would lead to a bloodbath do you switch to voting a member of this supposed scumteam.

You do know what a pressure vote is, right?  Also, I think it should have been pretty clear from context that I was only voting you to avoid "voting shenanigans".  And yet ... you're getting really goddamn defensive about it.  If, in my opinion, you were town, you wouldn't be reacting like this over me voting you.  I think I feel pretty comfortable leaving my vote on you for now.

A few questions:
*How many mafiosoes do you think are in this game?
*Why, when you think you've found the scumteam, did you vote Zombie Urist instead of, say, a member of your supposed scumteam?
*Can you give some examples of the whole "supporting each other" stuff?
*Can you build a single, independent case against any of Toony, Toaster, or I that doesn't depend on the others being scum?

1 - I don't know.  I would hazard a guess at ... let's see, 13 players ... that's usually what, 4 scum and a third party?  Maybe 3 scum and 2 third party?  So I'd guess there's 3 or 4 mafiosoes.
2 - I didn't "think I found the scumteam" jerkass.  I said I had a suspicion about a scumteam. 
3 - I don't really want to go back and re-read the whole fucking thread again, but off the top of my head, it seemed like Toaster/Toony/Jack were of awfully similar minds throughout the previous days.  Supporting each other, voting the same way, noting each other is townie, etc.
4 - Toaster/Toony, not off the top of my head.  You?  Yeah, you're nervous, panicking scum.  This whole response of yours is overly defensive.  And you're trying desperately to twist my words around to get an angle on me.

If we're scumbuddies, why would I need to buddy them?  That makes no sense at all.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly the first time.  I meant that you three seemed to be acting "buddy-buddy" as if you might all be scum and working together. 


Apparently, there is a three-way tie right now (Tylui/Jack A T/Shakerag) if I'm counting correctly.


Hapah:  You're running out of morning.

Tylui:  You're way past when you said you were going to post.

Wait, where the fuck is everyone?  Extend. 

Toaster:  Is your vote on Tylui ready to hatch yet?  You've been sitting on it a while. 

Holy shit, you're right.
Jack A T just to avoid hammer shenanigans.

How does this help and who is your actual top scumpick?

Missed this one.  It helps in that (at the time, anyway) it prevented scum from hammering and getting three people killed off at once.  Right now, my top pick is Jack A T, as noted above.  Who do you want to see in a cage match with Deathsword and why?

[zombie urist]

extend pfp

[Toaster]

Extend.  Not a bad idea.


Shakerag:

If we're scumbuddies, why would I need to buddy them?  That makes no sense at all.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly the first time.  I meant that you three seemed to be acting "buddy-buddy" as if you might all be scum and working together. 

That's awfully flimsy reasoning to build a scum team off of.

Toaster:  Is your vote on Tylui ready to hatch yet?  You've been sitting on it a while. 

It's already hatched.  I'm just sitting here, regurgitating food into its mouth, and waiting for it to fly off from the nest and be a big, beautiful lynching.


Was there a point to that question?

[Teneb]

Due to a lot of stress caused by real-life problems, I am unable to keep playing. And probably will keep that way for the next few months. I'm sorry, but Request Replacement.

[webadict]

Due to a lot of stress caused by real-life problems, I am unable to keep playing. And probably will keep that way for the next few months. I'm sorry, but Request Replacement.

No problem. I think stress is affecting everyone right now. Take it easy.

[Hapah]

Hapah:  You're running out of morning.

Sorry, work's being a pain in the ass. Trying to get everything under control because most everyone is going to be out next week (woo Christmas woo!), myself included. I'm on lunch now, so let's see what we can do. Also, I'm not in favor of an extend, but I won't oppose it (I won't have access to the game from about Tuesday - Saturday of next week, so...)

Hapah:

This is suspect.   It's indirect, but I see you trying to set up a "one or the other must be scum" mentality here.

That wasn't my intention. Their argument is/was the most interesting thing happening, though, and I think Book's argument makes more sense.

You're still framing it as "either-or."

It's not that one is scummy and one is not. It's that one is probably right and one is probably wrong; and I think Book is closer to the truth (as much as a miller-mafiakill confuses me).

(I'm trying not to take anything out of context for the following, but can't quote everything. Call me out on it if I make some error)

Okay, and?  Yes, I have a gut feeling Bookthras *may* be scum.  Obviously if I wanted to solidify that feeling one way or another I would have to interact with said Bookthras.  Are you trying to specifically push for me to pressure Bookthras?

Do you not want to investigate that gut feeling? Or have you just not had the time?

Thus, you vote...Zombie Urist.  Clearly, you are interested in eliminating the scumteam.  Clearly.  Only when Hapah points out that this would lead to a bloodbath do you switch to voting a member of this supposed scumteam.

You do know what a pressure vote is, right?  Also, I think it should have been pretty clear from context that I was only voting you to avoid "voting shenanigans".  And yet ... you're getting really goddamn defensive about it.  If, in my opinion, you were town, you wouldn't be reacting like this over me voting you.  I think I feel pretty comfortable leaving my vote on you for now.

When you bumped him up to two votes, you gave him a very real chance of getting lynched (the only way a person with 2 votes escapes the duel with 9 players is a 4-3-2  or 3-3-2-1 split of the votes, I think). Did you realize this?

Shakerag: So, basically, you dumped that mass of FoSes in the thread Day 2 without noting anything whatsoever to back them up, and your reasoning now is hazy at best.  You still give absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

Your point being?  So what if I FoSed a bunch?  It's a Finger of Suspicion.  Do I have to have solid reasoning now for a suspicion?  -snip-

The thing that concerns me isn't the FoS themselves, but the fact that there was no follow-through. You had suspicions of Book, Jack, Toony, and Toaster, but didn't really pressure/question any of them, I think (and as noted, your first pressure vote of the day was on ZU). Is there a reason for pressing ZU instead of your suspects, or just hard to focus with limited time? Or something else?

Everyone: How many people do we want to lynch today?

Mod: Votecount?

PPE:
No need to apologize for putting life before a game, DS! Take it easy, and I hope your problems work out. I'm sure we'll be around when you're ready to come back.

[ToonyMan]

Yeah an Extend sounds good.

Can't write a full post right now, going out until later.

[Bookthras]

Hapah:

Everyone: How many people do we want to lynch today?

What a question. What do you think? Why?

Obviously, we should try to limit the duel to two people. More deaths during the day than absolutely necessary would only help the scum. It bothers me you had to ask this question, and that you still haven't cast a vote or expressed strong suspicions (not just during D3, but I think during the entire game).

Tylui seems to be the consensus for the first dueler. He's certainly scummy enough to hang, as he was D2, though I still have a stronger noob-read on him than scum-read; the lurking is what's most irritating, and lurking is a common noob-scum tactic... It's fine if he is one of the two.

Who should be the other? My gut still points to Jack being scum, mostly due to interactions with MrCelt, a couple of scummy paragraphs and overreactions. I however think it'd be difficult to drive consensus on that. My next choice, and perhaps the optimal choice for second dueler would be Deathsword.

He has been lurky and scummy in general, but this item shines above the others:

Tylui, because of all the stuff that I brought up in D1 that he hasn't adressed. And since he has reappeared, I'd like to know if he has anything to say about all that.

A clear bandwagon vote, without more reasons than "what I said D1", without even a link or quote, or thoughts as to whether it was still relevant, aiming for what seemed like the easiest possible lynch. Not the first time he did that, either.

On top of his general scumminess, selecting him would probably consolidate the votes better, rather than partitioning into a bunch of twos-and-ones and risk losing a bunch of people to indecision or last minute voting shenanigans instead of just the one death out of two scummy lurky noobs.


He's not the only scummy one. After Jack my next one would be Hapah, for lack of votes/suspicions and implying it'd be fine to hand the scum the equivalent of an additional daykill by lynching more people.

Shakerag: I suspect this voting crazyness is probably your fault, having submitted something like "role whereby voting goes nuts and a bunch of people can die the same day or game becomes random gametype mafia or some other random unpredictable bullshit". I don't know it's you, but it usually is... Please come clear and tell us what you know about this.

[ToonyMan]

Toony:

Toony:  I tend to agree that you're tunnelling Book.  Who else do you suspect and why?

I'll put one on Shakerag.

What exactly is your case on him?  I read back and see you calling him scum, and you cite lurking and hypocrisy.  That's not much of a case- do you have anything else?

He was totally fine with keeping Urist Imik alive until "the next day or two".  I pointed out how he suspects Bookthras, but won't follow through.  And he also is building scum teams on people that aren't going his way without really saying anything else.

Like, I don't recall ever saying Jack was town to me, besides being overly defensive in this response anyhow.

Everyone: How many people do we want to lynch today?

Two, I agree with Bookthras that having more than two is just butchering our own guys.

[zombie urist]

Yech. Bookthras basically un-summarized what I wanted to say about DS.

Shakerag: I would like to see either you or Tylui duel DS.

Hapah: Two is fine. Three is okay IMO if its Tylui/DS/Shake.

Hapah:  You're running out of morning.
Tylui:  You're way past when you said you were going to post.
Wait, where the fuck is everyone?  Extend. 
Toaster:  Is your vote on Tylui ready to hatch yet?  You've been sitting on it a while. 

This is all just calling out lurkers. Everything else is noncommital BS.

[Jack A T]

Spoiler: Shakerag stuff (click to show/hide)

Shakerag: So, basically, you dumped that mass of FoSes in the thread Day 2 without noting anything whatsoever to back them up, and your reasoning now is hazy at best.  You still give absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

Your point being?  So what if I FoSed a bunch?  It's a Finger of Suspicion.  Do I have to have solid reasoning now for a suspicion?

When you make a claim about the actions of others (like say, that one player seems too "buddy-buddy" with other players), you certainly should able to back it up with something, even if the statement is tied to a FoS.  Especially when the claim you made was your entire reasoning for your Day 2 vote.

Let me grab the definition of the word, as I think you're maybe not clear on this issue.

1. the act or an instance of suspecting; belief without sure proof, esp that something is wrong

However, you think you've found the scumteam. (4 or 5 mafiosoes in a 13 person game, with third parties as well, makes sense.  6 does not.)

Yes, because clearly (having a suspicion) == (found the scumteam).

So, you based your Day 2 vote entirely on an idea that you're now saying needs no solid evidence and was never an idea you strongly held anyway?

Thus, you vote...Zombie Urist.  Clearly, you are interested in eliminating the scumteam.  Clearly.  Only when Hapah points out that this would lead to a bloodbath do you switch to voting a member of this supposed scumteam.

You do know what a pressure vote is, right?  Also, I think it should have been pretty clear from context that I was only voting you to avoid "voting shenanigans".  And yet ... you're getting really goddamn defensive about it.  If, in my opinion, you were town, you wouldn't be reacting like this over me voting you.  I think I feel pretty comfortable leaving my vote on you for now.

Yes, I know what a pressure vote is.  I also know that you felt strongly enough about Toaster, Toony, and I being scum that you made your thoughts on that your entire reasoning for your Day 2 vote.  I also know that you feel strongly enough about that to feel comfortable, quite far into the day, with putting one of the three solidly in death row.  Sure, you can keep on saying you just didn't want a massacre.  However, if you put someone solidly within the duel mess, just a day before the end of they day, and you didn't actually feel like lynching him, something is wrong.

I will also note that even without that vote, there was enough evidence against you to warrant me voting you.

*Can you give some examples of the whole "supporting each other" stuff?

3 - I don't really want to go back and re-read the whole fucking thread again, but off the top of my head, it seemed like Toaster/Toony/Jack were of awfully similar minds throughout the previous days.  Supporting each other, voting the same way, noting each other is townie, etc.

Nice.  Too lazy to actually show any evidence to back up your claims.  That's excellent mafia play.

Also, I'm not in favor of an extend, but I won't oppose it

Hapah: You haven't voted.  You indicated a lack of support for an extension a mere seven and a half hours before the scheduled end of the day, and have not posted since then.  Don't care much for voting, do you?

Everyone: How many people do we want to lynch today?

I want two duelists.  I support a Tylui and Shakerag duel, myself.

[Hapah]

Hapah:

Everyone: How many people do we want to lynch today?

What a question. What do you think? Why?

Obviously, we should try to limit the duel to two people. More deaths during the day than absolutely necessary would only help the scum. It bothers me you had to ask this question, and that you still haven't cast a vote or expressed strong suspicions (not just during D3, but I think during the entire game).

I already outlined that here. Setting the vote up isn't trivial at all, and figuring how how many we want to lynch is important. I got no reply when I pitched the first time (in the linked post), so I pitched it again more explicitly. Sloppy planning could result in a ugly lynch (see also: a hammer on Tylui for 3 kills if I was so inclined). I guess I buried the lead the first time around?

Hapah: You haven't voted.  You indicated a lack of support for an extension a mere seven and a half hours before the scheduled end of the day, and have not posted since then.  Don't care much for voting, do you?

The extend had already passed by the time I checked out for the evening, and I went out to dinner with the (future) in-laws. And I'm always stingy with my vote until I'm reasonably sure about my target.

He's not the only scummy one. After Jack my next one would be Hapah, for lack of votes/suspicions and implying it'd be fine to hand the scum the equivalent of an additional daykill by lynching more people.

I'll give you the first bit, but the second is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. If we don't get on the same page we could easily end up accidentally lynching two (or possibly more!) people. I don't think we were giving the situation the required amount of attention. Looks like we might be on task now, though.

I could get behind a Tylui and/or Deathsword lynch, sure. I don't know that I can say anything about them that hasn't been said. Shakerag would probably be my next choice due to his somewhat inconsistent behavior, but I'd like to let him speak his piece first.

[webadict]

Vote Count
------------------------
Bookthras -
Hapah -
Jack A T - Shakerag,
Phantom of The Library - zombie urist, Bookthras,
Shakerag - ToonyMan, Jack A T,
Toaster -
ToonyMan -
Tylui - Toaster, Phantom of The Library,
zombie urist -

Not Voting - Hapah, Tylui,

5 To Hammer. Day Ends Thursday 9 PM Central.

Day Extended to Thursday.

Phantom of the Library has replaced Deathsword.