Print

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

[notquitethere]

Imp

Because of this, it is possible for NQT to be vampire, and Leader, and have a Scum teammate who is a priest -which would allow him to 'breadcrumb' priest with complete confidence and an ability to 'prove it' as long as his priest doesn't die before he or she can res someone.

Oh not you as well. Do you really think it's plausible that I could learn of a team mate having a priest role and decide to collude with them in bread-crumbing it all in the first hour of playing the game? It's not logically impossible, but it's not very plausible either.

Everyone (and especially Jim, who I know won't answer unless asked directly)  I see something odd about Persus13's recounting of his attack.  It's a detail that makes me believe it happened, because it's downright weird - and I'd like to get people's opinions on that weirdness and what it might mean.

He says that his attacker was described as having great instincts.

That's not odd at all. It's just sounds like Meph's way of explaining how the attacker got away. Small details like that make the claim more believable.

Jim

If it's to my case in general: He cast a vote for weak reasons, and then withdrew it. The latter does not excuse the former. Do you think he would have backed off if I hadn't voted him? He says he likes to base cases on genuine reads n' shit but voting for me because I disagree with him about how a vigilante should operate seems to contradict that.

Jim you're super over-reacting. It was an early Day 2 vote, you said something suspicious, I voted you to press it a bit more then later unvoted in favour of doing more comprehensive reads. Now you're just making shit up: I unvoted you before you voted me. Your behaviour since has only made you come across as scummier. On a lynch-all-liars basis, my vote is going back to you: Jim.

Everyone else, Jim has clearly lied in his response to Toaster to back up his weak case: he just said that "Do you think he would have backed off if I hadn't voted him?" when in fact I had already unvoted when he voted me. Why would a town player need to lie to support their lynch target? Jim is scum and must die tonight.

I then thought to take some time to reflect on the game and so unvoted, and now I'm of the opinion that he may or may not be scum but he's certainly a loose cannon with some questionable ideas about how to play effectively (which is not something to vote someone for as it's independent of his alignment).

How come you didn't recognize this when you cast your vote?

How many times do I have to explain? I thought what you said was pro-scum, I talked to the other players about it and realised it was something a loose-cannon-type town player might say. I also wanted to get a better read on the game. Now you've actually stooped to lying to support your case I can't in earnest vote anyone else.

Also, you never answered this question from Toaster. I only ask because I'm interested in the same information.

NQT:  What do you hope to gain from your "kill versus inspect" questioning?  Same for the "res y/n?"

In general, I'd like to see where you are going next.

Sorry I missed this Toaster: from the kill vs. inspect question I wanted to know whether Jim's suggested way of playing a Hunter was a pro-scum thing to say. It turned out that the Hunter inspect is a lot less useful than I previously thought, undermining the value of the question. I wanted to know whether I'd done the right thing in resurrecting Nerjin. Most people thought not, though many didn't thing the Priest should never resurrect. From there I proceeded to do my normal vote analysis, from which I found Caz and Max the most suspicious. And then Jim openly lied about our interactions so I put my vote back on him (as lying about your lynch target is a more concrete scum act than general patterns of voting).

I can get asking other people for their opinions. What I don't get is the tabulation of their responses either in favor of or against. The only reason you would do that is if you were trying to prove something. I can only assume it was about your case on me, because what else could it have been about.

I clearly didn't use the tabulation to build a case against you. I tabulated so people could have access to the same information I was working with. Let's be clear now as well:  my current case against you is not anything to do with how you'd play a Hunter, it's because you lied to Tiruin about your vote on me and town never have a good reason to lie to press a lynch.

This is, like, so dumb. It emphasizes quantity over quality.

I make no statement of the quality of their cases, but I point out that yesterday you believed Max White was town for pushing his single case. Now you FoS him.

What gives, brometheus?

As I explained in my analytical post, I thought Max was town on Day1 because he questioned a lot of people in the game and appeared quite engaged. Later when I did my full vote analysis, I realised that he'd only ever pressed one lynch case. At the moment, I'm pretty sure you're both some variant of scum or third-party.

Anyways, if the scumteam really is Vampires, then the most effective strategy to find him is to role confirm as many people as not Vampire Lords as possible, and then work within this narrowed-down list.

So you admit that I can't be a Vampire Lord, and then say the best strategy is to vote a narrowed-down list of of not_vampire Lords, and still decide to try to lynch me anyway? Just hedging your bets that it isn't vampires? Or is because you already know who the scum team is, so why bother trying to actually hunt scum?

[ToonyMan]

@Tiruin:

ToonyMan: Read back on Caz. Report back. What is your read. What has been your read on me and him.
Why or how couldn't you relate what you just said earlier. Like, in my post here.

Yeah yeah, I see now.  Caz accusing you of vote-hopping wasn't true (which is scummy).  However your reaction to their vote and how you're reacting now screams THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE WRONG I MUST PROVE THEY'RE WRONG TO SURVIVE which I find pretty desperate.


Man this is getting really messy, uh, waiting on response to Toaster...


I agree with NQT that Max and Caz aren't pulling their A-game here, but his vote on Jim is bogus.  Persus13 being attacked last night is somewhat suspicious, but there's nothing really to go on until new information develops.

And Cmega is out now, noooo

[ToonyMan]

Wait hold on did NQT really unvote before Jim said that?  I don't really have time to check...

OOC: As a heads-up my last mid-term is on Wednesday so I should have a couple weeks of breathing room before finals.

[notquitethere]

Toony

Wait hold on did NQT really unvote before Jim said that?  I don't really have time to check...

Proof. I unvoted Jim in #381:

I want to give the game the game a proper look over before I push a Day 2 case in earnest, so unvote for now, but I might be back.

Then later Jim votes me in #391:

Unvote, notquitethere made an enormous misstep and I don't feel like letting him get away with it.

He later says this to Toaster, in #440:

If it's to my case in general: He cast a vote for weak reasons, and then withdrew it. The latter does not excuse the former. Do you think he would have backed off if I hadn't voted him?

In what world is unvoting not backing off? Jim casts his votes as trying to get me to back off, which is dubious in and of itself, but his claim that I wouldn't back off if he didn't vote me is an outright lie.

[Toaster]

Toony:

@Toaster:

Toony:

I'm worried about Toaster though

Are you a lyncher to me or something?  You keep pointing a finger at me without backing it up with any solid facts or reasoning.  See also:

I had the thought of there being a Toaster/Jim scum team and that was very scary to ponder.

No, why do you care?

Normally I'd ignore it (and had been ignoring it) but you're being quite persistent.


Caz:

If it's true that Persus is "still the lead runner," why wait until now to vote him?

Votes don't matter until the day closes. Do you think it's the right strategy to vote as soon as you have someone who looks most likely to be scum, before the day's discussions have gone underway? I don't see the benefit.

Absolutely.

There's no hammer in this game, so there's no risk of a lynch going off early.  Actually voting is a both real and symbolic commitment to your stated belief that someone is scum.  If you're afraid to commit, then you don't really believe in your case.  That's a strong signal of being scum- they're often afraid to commit to their case.

Caz's day end lynch vote on Nerjin was an RVS vote!

You're voting me because I ended up going for the same person I RVS'd? O_o How do you come to this conclusion?

Did you ever actually post a lynch case on him?


NQT:

Figuring out whether my intuitions about how a town player would play a Vigilante Cop helped me see whether my suspicions were justifiable. Not wilfully mislynching people is an important component to playing this game effectively.

See, no, I don't buy that.  It looks a heck of a lot more like you're trying to make sure your argument is popular before committing to it- especially since you backed off it when it started looking unpopular.

I'm a maverick.

Spoiler: ? (click to show/hide)

Toaster: from the kill vs. inspect question I wanted to know whether Jim's suggested way of playing a Hunter was a pro-scum thing to say. It turned out that the Hunter inspect is a lot less useful than I previously thought, undermining the value of the question. I wanted to know whether I'd done the right thing in resurrecting Nerjin. Most people thought not, though many didn't thing the Priest should never resurrect. From there I proceeded to do my normal vote analysis, from which I found Caz and Max the most suspicious. And then Jim openly lied about our interactions so I put my vote back on him (as lying about your lynch target is a more concrete scum act than general patterns of voting).

This doesn't really help your argument.  However, that's quite the interesting catch.  I'd like to hear Jim clarify that one.

Imp:

Everyone (and especially Jim, who I know won't answer unless asked directly)  I see something odd about Persus13's recounting of his attack.  It's a detail that makes me believe it happened, because it's downright weird - and I'd like to get people's opinions on that weirdness and what it might mean.

He says that his attacker was described as having great instincts.

I think you're grasping at straws.  It reads to me like it's just interesting writing.

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Caz: Toaster, Tiruin
Cmega3: Persus13
Jim Groovester: notquitethere
Toaster: ToonyMan
notquitethere: Jim Groovester, Max White
Persus13: Caz


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Monday

Guys, I may have to leave. Sorry. I just can't seem to keep up with this.
 

That's unfortunate. I'd rather see you try to catch up and keep playing, but we can see about getting a replacement for you.

[Persus13]

Mod: You have Toonyman voting both Tiruin and Toaster.

Caz: I'd like to hear more from you.

[Mephansteras]

Fixed.

[Max White]

Unfortunatly my internet is currently dead and I'm waiting for a guy to come and fix the box for the unit. It shouldn't take so many days that I will need to be replaced but it does put me out of action until then, hopefully it can get fixed before the start of day 3. I'm currently posting from my phone using the liberary wirelss, and this alone is painful enough.

I'll be back.

[Tiruin]

PFP

Toony~

@Tiruin:

ToonyMan: Read back on Caz. Report back. What is your read. What has been your read on me and him.
Why or how couldn't you relate what you just said earlier. Like, in my post here.

Yeah yeah, I see now.  Caz accusing you of vote-hopping wasn't true (which is scummy).  However your reaction to their vote and how you're reacting now screams THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE WRONG I MUST PROVE THEY'RE WRONG TO SURVIVE which I find pretty desperate.

What do you do when you see someone attempting, or in the least, erring when addressing you and seemingly provoking you passive-aggressively? Meaning: Denouncing you and your work?

At the time, I saw it as something trivial, so I ramped up the formatting and visual pressure by sounding all authoritarian and grumpy. Stern. Iron-fisted. Not lenient.

You? You scream scum in the same way as Caz is doing here. Trivial error, which you denounce without addressing my posts toward you as a whole.

'Omg I see nao! But your reaction!'

Really? Is what my perceived reaction of great importance to you that you miss the trigger of the action-or may I say, whether or not the person holding said reaction was acting out a pressure attack? Because a pressurized attack was what I was mostly leaning on at the time. Do note, since you read back, that I was never truly sure.

So I went and took out my blade and flourished it with a nice speech. See the results? I bet you do.

However, the bolded portion up there. I never had the intent of 'IF YOU'RE WRONG THEN I HIT YOU TO SURVIVE'. I don't practically care if I die or not, as my use is pretty much. . .ah, let's say, some sort of passivity in this lot of people. Survival is the least of my concerns, sir, and if you're looking more onto that notion, then I have due right to suspect you.

Mostly for quite everything you've said to me thus far has been lacking. Desperation? Quite a superficial note to focus on, too.

Could you explain your thought process in detail about this? I know that exams pretty much suck up your thinking and/or sleep deprivation affects judgement (null), but WHEN you do post, I would LOVE to see a concise explanation from you.

Because you're my #2. Right after Caz.


Jim

Tiruin, you yap at Caz for not following your case.

I can't follow it either.

I sort of get that it's because he said you hopped targets when you really hadn't. Is that the gist of it?

...Wow, when I asked for insight, I never knew I'd be hurt this bad.

Yap..

Yap?!

Huh. So I really do suck at English.

Yeah, whatever, that's my gist of it. And mostly quite whatelse he said that was connected with it and after I poked him on it. Whatever. That's the gist.

I wonder if I should just replace out for someone better in this modus of language here.

Cmega3

Guys, I may have to leave. Sorry. I just can't seem to keep up with this.
 

That's unfortunate. I'd rather see you try to catch up and keep playing, but we can see about getting a replacement for you.

D'aw, fish. :I

Mm, as of the moment..I wish you well-though IF YOU CAN, please do POST in lieu of the lack of the replacement of you.

Also I'd love at the endgame-your feedback on Mafia. Seeing you on other boards here, you're quite the astute fellow.

[Jim Groovester]

notquitethere, it just occurred to me that you were doing some heinous rolefishing.

A masked man with a sword is most likely a hunter. Hunters can investigate as well as kill. So, if we believe Persus, we have a monster hunter that's trigger-happy enough to kill someone without investigating them first. If they're town, they'd be someone that genuinely thought Persus is scum and the only person that fits that description is Jim.

A scum monster-hunter wouldn't be completely out of the question but I'm struggling to think which scum-team it would fit with. Is a third-party hunter compatible with the pre-existing supernatural game templates? The other option is Persus is lying, perhaps to discourage night kills.

Jim— is Persus so suspicious that he'd be worth killing without investigating first?

If you were town, why on earth would you think it was a good idea to out the person you thought was the Monster Hunter?

Because you didn't know for sure and wanted confirmation so you'd know who to kill/convert.

Jim

If it's to my case in general: He cast a vote for weak reasons, and then withdrew it. The latter does not excuse the former. Do you think he would have backed off if I hadn't voted him? He says he likes to base cases on genuine reads n' shit but voting for me because I disagree with him about how a vigilante should operate seems to contradict that.

Jim you're super over-reacting. It was an early Day 2 vote, you said something suspicious, I voted you to press it a bit more then later unvoted in favour of doing more comprehensive reads. Now you're just making shit up: I unvoted you before you voted me. Your behaviour since has only made you come across as scummier. On a lynch-all-liars basis, my vote is going back to you: Jim.

It's not a lie, it's a stupid mistake. Clearly you would back off before being voted since that's what happened and I was in error, but voting me because of my opinion on how to play vigilante is still junk and something you should not have done.

Sorry I missed this Toaster: from the kill vs. inspect question I wanted to know whether Jim's suggested way of playing a Hunter was a pro-scum thing to say. It turned out that the Hunter inspect is a lot less useful than I previously thought, undermining the value of the question. I wanted to know whether I'd done the right thing in resurrecting Nerjin. Most people thought not, though many didn't thing the Priest should never resurrect. From there I proceeded to do my normal vote analysis, from which I found Caz and Max the most suspicious. And then Jim openly lied about our interactions so I put my vote back on him (as lying about your lynch target is a more concrete scum act than general patterns of voting).

This seems perfectly reasonable. I, too, consult popular opinion whenever I make an accusation that could be considered controversial. I, too, also expect everyone to let it blow over, since scumhunting by democracy is a perfectly reasonable approach.

I clearly didn't use the tabulation to build a case against you. I tabulated so people could have access to the same information I was working with. Let's be clear now as well:  my current case against you is not anything to do with how you'd play a Hunter, it's because you lied to Tiruin about your vote on me and town never have a good reason to lie to press a lynch.

Clearly clearly obviously clearly clearly. You say clearly when it's not really the case.

The information about who agreed/disagreed is already available since people can read the thread. This doesn't answer my question why you would tabulate the responses.

So you admit that I can't be a Vampire Lord, and then say the best strategy is to vote a narrowed-down list of of not_vampire Lords, and still decide to try to lynch me anyway? Just hedging your bets that it isn't vampires? Or is because you already know who the scum team is, so why bother trying to actually hunt scum?

Apparently you missed the part where I'm voting you for lack of a better target.

Whether or not the scumteam is Vampires, lynching scum is still a necessary task, so the vote is not wasted just because you're not the Vampire Lord.

...Wow, when I asked for insight, I never knew I'd be hurt this bad.

I meant no offense or harm. I'm sorry if I caused either.

[Tiruin]

...Wow, when I asked for insight, I never knew I'd be hurt this bad.

I meant no offense or harm. I'm sorry if I caused either.

No its ok its just me and...my stuffs. Sorry about that..

But yes, that's generally my state with Caz. His responses subtly shifted between 'you shift your vote [WITHOUT_CARE]' to 'Your FoS' the "most" pressured target'.

Both of which are..incidentally, unexplained.

And I'm really wondering why in the world that's happening this way. I could conclude RL stress and busy-ness, but how it comes off is just..strange. If he's scum (of which everything in me but my analytical side follows), then either RL is killing him, or he can't think straight.

[notquitethere]

Toaster

Figuring out whether my intuitions about how a town player would play a Vigilante Cop helped me see whether my suspicions were justifiable. Not wilfully mislynching people is an important component to playing this game effectively.

See, no, I don't buy that.  It looks a heck of a lot more like you're trying to make sure your argument is popular before committing to it- especially since you backed off it when it started looking unpopular.

Hardly: if you look at the stats most people agreed with me about how to play the hunter, and that doesn't even figure into my current case.

Spoiler: ? (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: more like (click to show/hide)

This doesn't really help your argument.  However, that's quite the interesting catch.  I'd like to hear Jim clarify that one.

What doesn't help what argument? Let's be clear here: I no longer give a monkey's about Jim's stance on vigilante cops. I'd stopped voting him and moved on to what I thought a more likely target. Then Jim proceeded to lie about our interaction, which I take it we agree is a reasonable cause for concern.

Tiruin

I wonder if I should just replace out for someone better in this modus of language here.

Don't be absurd, you're fine Tiruin: you're usually one of the better players on the forum. You're very focused on Caz right now but if you had to rank all the players in order of scumminess, what would that look like?

Jim

notquitethere, it just occurred to me that you were doing some heinous rolefishing.

If you were town, why on earth would you think it was a good idea to out the person you thought was the Monster Hunter? Because you didn't know for sure and wanted confirmation so you'd know who to kill/convert.

I was only stating what should be obvious to everyone. Also, figuring out who is most likely town is very useful in scumhunting. Like I'd expect a hunter to come out and claim? I wouldn't want that to happen at this stage of the game and I wasn't looking for that to happen. I was openly speculating on the possibilities inherent in Persus' claim. Trying to make sense of it, working out whether it was plausible.

It's not a lie, it's a stupid mistake. Clearly you would back off before being voted since that's what happened and I was in error, but voting me because of my opinion on how to play vigilante is still junk and something you should not have done.

Okay, I admit I should have merely FOS'd you: I thought it was suspicious, I asked others about it and reflected some and unvoted. Jim this whole game is about forming suspicions that might be incorrect and it takes a good town player to admit their mistakes and change their votes. Voting me for what I've since recanted is absurd. So I'm not allowed to make a mistake and take it back but you're allowed to make a 'stupid mistake' and it's all rosy? You're not just a liar, you're a hypocrite too. Tell me, why did you say that to Toaster? Why did you invent details to reinforce your faith in my lynch?

This seems perfectly reasonable. I, too, consult popular opinion whenever I make an accusation that could be considered controversial. I, too, also expect everyone to let it blow over, since scumhunting by democracy is a perfectly reasonable approach.

Well I'm glad we're on the same page here: so why the paranoid OMGUS on me?

Clearly clearly obviously clearly clearly. You say clearly when it's not really the case.

The information about who agreed/disagreed is already available since people can read the thread. This doesn't answer my question why you would tabulate the responses.

Most other players are lazier about looking at information. Also, I was signalling that I gave a damn about the responses and wasn't just asking questions for kicks. I clearly didn't use the information to build a case against you and I'm not sure why you're continuing to suggest otherwise.

Apparently you missed the part where I'm voting you for lack of a better target.

Whether or not the scumteam is Vampires, lynching scum is still a necessary task, so the vote is not wasted just because you're not the Vampire Lord.

Uh huh, and do you expect to find a better target? Look, I think we both agree in the value of scumhunting by diplomacy, so why not tell me your current scum-ranking of the other players?

I suggest everyone does this as its a good tool for drawing out collective suspicions and seeing whether your fellow players have been paying any kind of attention to the game.

SCUM
Jim - was previously very townish but now pursuing a case that he has twice undermined with his own lies and hypocrisy
Max - Tunnelling the same player two days in a row, the second time sheeping someone else's weak case
Caz - Parking his RVS vote on Nerjin leading to the latter's lynch
Nerjin - Doing nothing all day 2 after being resurrected as a possible bad dude
Tiruin - Has tunneled Caz almost the entire game. Has she no other suspicions?
Imp - Has yet to press a lynch case as we're nearing the end of the day despite being generally active
Cmega - Mostly comes across as inexperienced but has done nothing all day
Persus - Wishy-washy with his use of the vote (why vote Caz certain he's scum and then immediately vote someone else?)
Toony - Low early-game engagement (probably excusable due to time commitments), but fair engagement since
Toaster - Pretty reasonable play so far, though Kleril said some dubious things
NQT - The Raddest Priest In Town
TOWN

[Persus13]

Jim:

No posts today besdies Tiruin? wow.

Hi Caz, Tiruin's post convinced me you're scum.

This is a bandwagon vote.

That you quickly reversed.

But still a bandwagon.

Yep, I thought the day was about to end and at that point in time was more willing to see Caz lynched than NQT or a no lynch. Sortof like you and several others did with Nerjin. It was also the only I could access the Mafia forum that day even if Bay12 hadn't gone down.

The Scumteam leader has always not had an ordinary role (ex. Werewolf Leader, Cult Leader, Vampire Lord). S4 also had a Vampire Slave who was vanilla scum. However S3 started with a Vampire Warlock. Anyway, NQT couldn't be a Vampire Lord.

Argh, dammit. This is true. If Vampires are our scum team then finding the Vampire Lord is top priority.

For lack of a better target I'm going to continue voting notquitethere, until as such time the existence of a Vampire scumteam is more or less proven, or a more likely target appears, whichever comes first.

This also rules out Persus13. sigh I'm just SOL on all my targets.

I'm sorry, but how does me providing previous knowledge on Vampires mean I'm town or at least, not scum?

NQT:

Everyone else, Jim has clearly lied in his response to Toaster to back up his weak case: he just said that "Do you think he would have backed off if I hadn't voted him?" when in fact I had already unvoted when he voted me. Why would a town player need to lie to support their lynch target? Jim is scum and must die tonight.

Your basing your case on Jim on one sentence that could be a mistake? I've messed up at least twice this game and no one except Caz thinks I'm scum at the moment. I think you're overreacting to his point.

(why vote Caz certain he's scum and then immediately vote someone else?)

Here's a hint.

Day was supposed to end November 8 at 5 PM Mod Time

This post was an hour before day end and the first and last time I could get on the computer before day end on that day because I went to see my school's play. At that point in time the two lynch candidates were you and Caz. At that point in time I had no read on you and thought Caz was scum for multiple reasons.

No posts today besdies Tiruin? wow.

Hi Caz, Tiruin's post convinced me you're scum.

When I get back several hours later. I find this.

Due to the Forum basically being down all day, I'm Extending the day to ~5pm Pacific Monday

I realize I have extra time and so do this.

Cmega3, get in here and talk, it's been a while.

Now you want my scum picks (these are sort of greatest to least)
Caz-overconfident and has made lots of assumptions from thin air (almost as if he has information that we don't). Pursuing a case against Tiruin based on said assumptions (lies, whatever). Posts haven't made sense despite some efforts to clear up. Attacked various others also based on assumptions. Voted strange D1. Has dropped of the face of the earth.
Cmega3-erratic voting and buddying of me D1
Toaster-Kleril acting oddly opening of D1. Kleril also buddied Cmega. Toaster jumped onto the Nerjin bandwagon at the perfect time and provided the momentum to get others to vote him. Voted Caz but attacking other people.
NQT-Rolefishing slightly. A little overly defensive, although that may be because three people are attacking him.
Imp-Lurking and hasn't really contributed a lot to the game besides several outside the box ideas.
Max-Has voted a grand total of one person the entire game. without a single FOS.
Toonyman-Not sure
Nerjin-majorly lurking
Jim-NQT has a point but seems town to me.
Tiruin-also unsure.
Perses-Knight, poor town if attacked by monster hunter.

People I'd love to hear from (aka Lurkers):
Nerjin
Caz
Imp

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

I'm pleasantly surprised. I have the posts in the game.

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Caz: Toaster, Persus13, Tiruin
Jim Groovester: notquitethere
Toaster: ToonyMan
notquitethere: Jim Groovester, Max White
Persus13: Caz


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Today (~8 hours)