Print

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

[Sinlessmoon]

Sinlessmoon: I was really hoping for some more participation from you, also please quote when you can, I can see from the dot in the list that you must have copy-pasted my question, but quotes are preferred.
I'm sure that there is much more than just my question that needed your attention, please find those when you can, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt right now and assume you're short on time when you wrote that, but we could really use more participation from you.

Again, I apologize. The reason why it wasn't placed in quotation was because I went back to the beginning to check the questions that were asked towards me. From now on I will use only quotes and I'm planning on keeping this thread up with far more frequency.

[Tiruin]

Getting cut off from B12 for a day or two feels like forever. Or felt like it anyways >_>

My excuse is valid however. Net here seems...on/off, more on the off, with sporadic intervals of 'very quick load times' to slower than molasses. :V

Everyone voting: Please don't put your votes In Spoilers. While I see everything (ie check everyone's plans and laugh evilly as a general rule), other people who may be skimming//Short on time may miss that vote--and thus, may misinterpret why it is 'hidden', to speak neutrally.

Anyways, votecount coming up. The extension (which was granted by the way, legitimately), hits the day off to Monday, 9pm. I noted several difficulties on my part with the timer (ie Forgetting to tick the 'stop countdown at 0' and 'Actually, the 9:00 is 9:00am. 21:00' is what I want)...

So update coming soon! With markers!

Addendum-edit: I like how Orange stands out in both primary forum formats.

[Silthuri]

Everyone voting: Please don't put your votes In Spoilers. While I see everything (ie check everyone's plans and laugh evilly as a general rule), other people who may be skimming//Short on time may miss that vote--and thus, may misinterpret why it is 'hidden', to speak neutrally.

Ah. Sorry about that... the thought never occurred to me.
To be completely clear, my vote is currently on Jembot for reasons stated in my previous post.

[Tiruin]

I'm counting it~

Will be right up with flavor and stuffs. 

[makeinu]

*spoils the vote count*

Very active. Like any good IC, you spend time helping others. Your first show of aggression was toward someone who hadn’t posted yet. Because you're an IC, I'll assume that this was an attempt to pressure Sinlessmoon into playing.

Also, I’m curious as to why he jumped in on the question I asked Nerjin.

You were so curious about his answer, yet never commented when he did answer. Why is this? And if you were so curious as to how your opinion matched up to his, please enlighten me on your opinion.

Ah, yeah, sorry, I forgot to comment on that question. I was interested in his answer as an experienced IC.

I think I agree with his assessment, that many BM games are scum victories, largely because the players are new. I haven't read back on a lot of them, but I'd wager it's uncommon for the scum team to be solely composed of new players, and that, plus the fact that there's often a dedicated scum IC who's not playing at all, gives the scum team a decided edge over the Town.

The one other BM I played in had two experienced players on the scum team, and, while the rest of us weren't pure novices, we weren't all that comfortable/familiar with Bay12 protocols.

The other answer is behind the spoiler, because I wanted to leave the quotes in place, and it's really long.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

makeinu:

Makeinu Why such an interest to what I think about scum hunting? Trying to improve your game? ;P

Ha ha, no.

Ok, then, I'll ask the question for Superblackcat again. Why such an interest to what Superblackcat thinks about scum hunting?

Why? Because you don't have any questions of your own to ask?

I want to understand SBC's scum-hunting for the same reason I want to understand everyone's. If I'm stuck in a lynch-correctly-or-lose scenario, I want to know if I can trust him to be able to make the right decision, or if he's going to fly off half-cocked, chasing a whim, because he's been off in NeverNeverLand this whole time.

I think this is a good idea, but why aren't you concerned about all of our scum hunting techniques or lack thereof? Why are you getting so defensive?

Why such an interest to what I think about scum hunting?

needs no answer, for one, because why the hell wouldn't I have an interest in his scum-hunting? That's what we're here to do!

It doesn't matter if you think an answer is needed or not, you should have answered it anyway! If the answer to the question is obvious, then why did they ask it?
This answer that you gave me here? Why didn't you say so to begin with? Why was this so hard to get out of you that it took this whole time to hear it? If the answer was "duh" then why didn't you say it? Leaving a question unanswered is unacceptable.

Even if the answer is obvious to you, makeinu, is it too much trouble to answer the question without so much fuss?

Sometimes, getting defensive, and especially putting off answering a question as the asker becomes more agitated, works for me as a scum-hunting tactic, passively pushing the other person instead of actively doing so. Any source of stress can be the impetus to force a break in a facade.

makeinu:
Would you like to answer my questions, now?

Sure. Let's have a lesson and some fun.

-snips-
[1]Why didn't you say so to begin with? [2]Why was this so hard to get out of you that it took this whole time to hear it? [also 1]If the answer was "duh" then why didn't you say it? Leaving a question unanswered is unacceptable.
-snippity-
[3]How does calling someone lazy answer their question?
I'm seriously asking this. Because I fail to see how it does.

This is at least the second, maybe third time I've asked [1], and no, saying that "it was obvious that's what was meant" doesn't count, they clearly wanted you to be specific.

Answer to [1] and [2]: because I wanted to see if he'd press the matter himself. He didn't, which obviates the end of your statement above: he clearly did not want me to be specific, else he'd have pushed the matter himself.

The answer to [3] is in the spoiler.

Spoiler: Exposition (click to show/hide)

Jumping in to answer someone's question is widely (here) considered bad form because it interjects you into the answer chain before the target has a chance to answer for themselves. This gives the target some breathing room, and a possible answer to build from, for a question that they might have been careless in answering themselves, and diverts the attention away from them.

Likewise, I consider it bad form to interject yourself into a question/answer chain the other way, because it takes away from the asked the ability to pressure their inquisitor via not answering. Aside from it being lazy scum-hunting to appropriate someone else's questions, it actively interferes with MY scum-hunting when I can't pressure SBC to try to force an answer out of me.

Superblackcat:

I have no idea what you were talking about... the post before that...

I think he's been referring to way back about the question of the third and first person who voted for a lynch turn on the second, and your answer in regards to it, but I'm not sure as to the exact part of the argument, as there are now many parts and he won't specify.

I am referring specifically to the post mastahcheese quoted above.

I think this is it, or at least part of it.

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

For the second question: I start to become suspicious of all three, but more so of the third person than the second.

Why would you be suspicious of the second person in that scenario, but not the first?

Because scum does not like drawing attention to themselves... Voting first/last draws attention. Sheeping 2nd or 3rd usually draws way less attention, that's why I become suspicious of the 2nd or 3rd.

To my mind, that scenario screams of scum railroading on voter 2. It's a perfect setup scenario, because of thinking like yours here.

You stated that you consider first and last votes on a lynch target to be attention-getting votes, which scum will avoid doing because they don't want to draw attention to themselves, yet, in that scenario, you specifically go along with the persons placing both the first and last votes, your suspicion-drawing votes, and jump on the middle child as suspicious, while ignoring both that first vote!

It seems to me that you're just jumping on the idea of second and third votes as "sheeping", or band-wagoning (I presume you to mean, since sheeping carries rather a different distinction to me), and ignoring your own claims as to what makes a vote suspicious.

Either your internal logic is faulty, or you're slipping, trying to keep your scum-hunting straight and failing.

That makes me suspicious, Superblackcat. And that is why I ignored that question. So that you would press it. And you didn't, which only serves to reinforce my suspicions.


Sinlessmoon, you're off my hook for now, but this lurking had better stop. Please, start bringing the 'A' game.

[Superblackcat]

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

For the second question: I start to become suspicious of all three, but more so of the third person than the second.

Why would you be suspicious of the second person in that scenario, but not the first?

Because scum does not like drawing attention to themselves... Voting first/last draws attention. Sheeping 2nd or 3rd usually draws way less attention, that's why I become suspicious of the 2nd or 3rd.

To my mind, that scenario screams of scum railroading on voter 2. It's a perfect setup scenario, because of thinking like yours here.

You stated that you consider first and last votes on a lynch target to be attention-getting votes, which scum will avoid doing because they don't want to draw attention to themselves, yet, in that scenario, you specifically go along with the persons placing both the first and last votes, your suspicion-drawing votes, and jump on the middle child as suspicious, while ignoring both that first vote!

It seems to me that you're just jumping on the idea of second and third votes as "sheeping", or band-wagoning (I presume you to mean, since sheeping carries rather a different distinction to me), and ignoring your own claims as to what makes a vote suspicious.

Either your internal logic is faulty, or you're slipping, trying to keep your scum-hunting straight and failing.

That makes me suspicious, Superblackcat. And that is why I ignored that question. So that you would press it. And you didn't, which only serves to reinforce my suspicions.


Sinlessmoon, you're off my hook for now, but this lurking had better stop. Please, start bringing the 'A' game.
[/quote]

Nice one, Makeinu. Nice one... (Yay for what seems like OMGUS)

You are suspecting me, because you don't like the way I scumhunt? And this parameters are given so loosely, there are NO parameters...

Why didn't I follow up on my question? Because it wasn't a question to start with, it was sarcastic, and a poke at you. You didn't answer, mastah follows up on you... and you just push everything away at me like it was a plan? Good try.

I assumed there were more than 3 people voting btw.

Also you give me no information... you gave me - 2nd person votes, 1st and 3rd jumps... So I give you.. "I become suspicious of all 3, but more of the 3rd than 2nd."... I'll add (Than 1st) too.

This is because no one on this forums plays like how I play. Or I haven't met any of them yet... If they jump on the second with my reasoning, it seems goddamn scummy to me. It doesn't fit with their meta.

3rd more than the 1st because hammer is more useful than starter... And they both draw the same amount of attention. Maybe the hammer a bit more since it's more recent.

But I really don't like how you deflected it as 'It was always my plan'. That's bullshit. You don't do that in mafia, you do that in war.

FFS

[Superblackcat]

That came out wrong!

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

For the second question: I start to become suspicious of all three, but more so of the third person than the second.

Why would you be suspicious of the second person in that scenario, but not the first?

Because scum does not like drawing attention to themselves... Voting first/last draws attention. Sheeping 2nd or 3rd usually draws way less attention, that's why I become suspicious of the 2nd or 3rd.

To my mind, that scenario screams of scum railroading on voter 2. It's a perfect setup scenario, because of thinking like yours here.

You stated that you consider first and last votes on a lynch target to be attention-getting votes, which scum will avoid doing because they don't want to draw attention to themselves, yet, in that scenario, you specifically go along with the persons placing both the first and last votes, your suspicion-drawing votes, and jump on the middle child as suspicious, while ignoring both that first vote!

It seems to me that you're just jumping on the idea of second and third votes as "sheeping", or band-wagoning (I presume you to mean, since sheeping carries rather a different distinction to me), and ignoring your own claims as to what makes a vote suspicious.

Either your internal logic is faulty, or you're slipping, trying to keep your scum-hunting straight and failing.

That makes me suspicious, Superblackcat. And that is why I ignored that question. So that you would press it. And you didn't, which only serves to reinforce my suspicions.


Sinlessmoon, you're off my hook for now, but this lurking had better stop. Please, start bringing the 'A' game.

Nice one, Makeinu. Nice one... (Yay for what seems like OMGUS)

You are suspecting me, because you don't like the way I scumhunt? And this parameters are given so loosely, there are NO parameters...

Why didn't I follow up on my question? Because it wasn't a question to start with, it was sarcastic, and a poke at you. You didn't answer, mastah follows up on you... and you just push everything away at me like it was a plan? Good try.

I assumed there were more than 3 people voting btw.

Also you give me no information... you gave me - 2nd person votes, 1st and 3rd jumps... So I give you.. "I become suspicious of all 3, but more of the 3rd than 2nd."... I'll add (Than 1st) too.

This is because no one on this forums plays like how I play. Or I haven't met any of them yet... If they jump on the second with my reasoning, it seems goddamn scummy to me. It doesn't fit with their meta.

3rd more than the 1st because hammer is more useful than starter... And they both draw the same amount of attention. Maybe the hammer a bit more since it's more recent.

But I really don't like how you deflected it as 'It was always my plan'. That's bullshit. You don't do that in mafia, you do that in war.

FFS

[Tiruin]

Sinlessmoon, you're off my hook for now, but this lurking had better stop. Please, start bringing the 'A' game.

*points at OP*

Please be active. The greatest killer of beginner games is poor activity.

*caps the orange marker*

My work is finished.

...

Now to return to that votecount. >:I

[Sinlessmoon]

Sinlessmoon, you're off my hook for now, but this lurking had better stop. Please, start bringing the 'A' game.

*points at OP*

Please be active. The greatest killer of beginner games is poor activity.

*caps the orange marker*

My work is finished.

...

Now to return to that votecount. >:I

I can't promise super long posts, but I definitely will try and make my posts informative and stuff.

[makeinu]

Let's break this down more, then. Since the quote pyramid is apparently confusing you.

The original question posed to you:

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

Your initial reply:

I start to become suspicious of all three, but more so of the third person than the second.

My original question to you:

Why would you be suspicious of the second person in that scenario, but not the first?

And I still want to understand why, in that case, you completely disregard any suspicion for the first person to vote the townie lynch and jump on suspicion of the second more than anything else, despite your own logic that the first vote in that scenario is, by definition, the most suspicious! Because it draws the most attention.

Because scum does not like drawing attention to themselves... Voting first/last draws attention. Sheeping 2nd or 3rd usually draws way less attention, that's why I become suspicious of the 2nd or 3rd.

Giving credence to my counter-claim:

To my mind, that scenario screams of scum railroading on voter 2. It's a perfect setup scenario, because of thinking like yours here.

Which you never even address.

And then you deflect my concerns:

You stated that you consider first and last votes on a lynch target to be attention-getting votes, which scum will avoid doing because they don't want to draw attention to themselves, yet, in that scenario, you specifically go along with the persons placing both the first and last votes, your suspicion-drawing votes, and jump on the middle child as suspicious, while ignoring both that first vote!

It seems to me that you're just jumping on the idea of second and third votes as "sheeping", or band-wagoning (I presume you to mean, since sheeping carries rather a different distinction to me), and ignoring your own claims as to what makes a vote suspicious.

Either your internal logic is faulty, or you're slipping, trying to keep your scum-hunting straight and failing.

That makes me suspicious, Superblackcat. And that is why I ignored that question. So that you would press it. And you didn't, which only serves to reinforce my suspicions.

By saying:

Why didn't I follow up on my question? Because it wasn't a question to start with, it was sarcastic, and a poke at you. You didn't answer, mastah follows up on you... and you just push everything away at me like it was a plan? Good try.

You didn't mean it. It wasn't a real question.

It was a good try, because it worked. It revealed that you aren't really scum-hunting here.

I assumed there were more than 3 people voting btw.

That, and that alone, I will concede. However,

Also you give me no information... you gave me - 2nd person votes, 1st and 3rd jumps... So I give you.. "I become suspicious of all 3, but more of the 3rd than 2nd."... I'll add (Than 1st) too.

This is important, so listen carefully. The original question was not mine! AND you got the whole scenario wrong. Repeating:

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

Tell me, does that read even remotely like what you wrote about the scenario just above here?

This is because no one on this forums plays like how I play. Or I haven't met any of them yet...

People on epicmafia apparently play by not reading the thread, from what I'm gathering, because this is a pattern with you. Your meta, if you will. You consistently don't read the thread and have no idea who is saying what.

Tell me, is that natural? Or is it something you only do when you're scum?

3rd more than the 1st because hammer is more useful than starter... And they both draw the same amount of attention. Maybe the hammer a bit more since it's more recent.

Waitwaitwait... You can't keep your story straight in one post!! You assume that more than three were voting, but the third vote is suspicious because hammer, but your main suspicion is on the second for "sheeping" (by which I still assume you mean band-wagonning)??

But I really don't like how you deflected it as 'It was always my plan'. That's bullshit. You don't do that in mafia, you do that in war.

All conflict is the same. The same techniques apply no matter the paradigm. Read Sun-Tzu.

[Jembot]

I apologise for by lurking thus far, I've been on holidays but I get back tomorrow arvo, at that point I will post a wall of text with all my suspicions thus far

[Superblackcat]

Let's break this down more, then. Since the quote pyramid is apparently confusing you.

The original question posed to you:

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

Your initial reply:

I start to become suspicious of all three, but more so of the third person than the second.

My original question to you:

Why would you be suspicious of the second person in that scenario, but not the first?

And I still want to understand why, in that case, you completely disregard any suspicion for the first person to vote the townie lynch and jump on suspicion of the second more than anything else, despite your own logic that the first vote in that scenario is, by definition, the most suspicious! Because it draws the most attention.

Because scum does not like drawing attention to themselves... Voting first/last draws attention. Sheeping 2nd or 3rd usually draws way less attention, that's why I become suspicious of the 2nd or 3rd.

Giving credence to my counter-claim:

To my mind, that scenario screams of scum railroading on voter 2. It's a perfect setup scenario, because of thinking like yours here.

Which you never even address.

And then you deflect my concerns:

You stated that you consider first and last votes on a lynch target to be attention-getting votes, which scum will avoid doing because they don't want to draw attention to themselves, yet, in that scenario, you specifically go along with the persons placing both the first and last votes, your suspicion-drawing votes, and jump on the middle child as suspicious, while ignoring both that first vote!

It seems to me that you're just jumping on the idea of second and third votes as "sheeping", or band-wagoning (I presume you to mean, since sheeping carries rather a different distinction to me), and ignoring your own claims as to what makes a vote suspicious.

Either your internal logic is faulty, or you're slipping, trying to keep your scum-hunting straight and failing.

That makes me suspicious, Superblackcat. And that is why I ignored that question. So that you would press it. And you didn't, which only serves to reinforce my suspicions.

By saying:

Why didn't I follow up on my question? Because it wasn't a question to start with, it was sarcastic, and a poke at you. You didn't answer, mastah follows up on you... and you just push everything away at me like it was a plan? Good try.

You didn't mean it. It wasn't a real question.

It was a good try, because it worked. It revealed that you aren't really scum-hunting here.

I assumed there were more than 3 people voting btw.

That, and that alone, I will concede. However,

Also you give me no information... you gave me - 2nd person votes, 1st and 3rd jumps... So I give you.. "I become suspicious of all 3, but more of the 3rd than 2nd."... I'll add (Than 1st) too.

This is important, so listen carefully. The original question was not mine! AND you got the whole scenario wrong. Repeating:

Superblackcat: After a townie lynch, the first and third person to vote for them begin to place accusations on the second, what do you do?

Tell me, does that read even remotely like what you wrote about the scenario just above here?

This is because no one on this forums plays like how I play. Or I haven't met any of them yet...

People on epicmafia apparently play by not reading the thread, from what I'm gathering, because this is a pattern with you. Your meta, if you will. You consistently don't read the thread and have no idea who is saying what.

Tell me, is that natural? Or is it something you only do when you're scum?

3rd more than the 1st because hammer is more useful than starter... And they both draw the same amount of attention. Maybe the hammer a bit more since it's more recent.

Waitwaitwait... You can't keep your story straight in one post!! You assume that more than three were voting, but the third vote is suspicious because hammer, but your main suspicion is on the second for "sheeping" (by which I still assume you mean band-wagonning)??

But I really don't like how you deflected it as 'It was always my plan'. That's bullshit. You don't do that in mafia, you do that in war.

All conflict is the same. The same techniques apply no matter the paradigm. Read Sun-Tzu.

Alright, let me try, to break this down for you. Btw, if you bothered to go to epicmafia.com, you'd realize it's not a forum...

Makeinu, because my argument for scumhunting, thus far, have been, Scum doesn't like to draw attention... Correct? (You have this wrong, I think that drawing less attention = scum, if someone doesn't draw your attention et all, then he is quite scummy indeed, read please).

Now if that's a yes... What votes draw the MOST attention, given no reasoning is present.

I'd say, without thinking, at the end of the day, the person that - Hammers, and the person the started it... Correct?

Now, Given that the person that hammers it, actually condemns the person to death, while the person that started it doesn't, doesn't the person that hammers it have more power? Correct?

So, in my mind, scum does NOT like to start votes, they like to finish votes... Because other people will start votes.

At a point where, in this 7 person game, having 3 people voting you... makes you a high contender for the dungeon. (And 2 mafia). If the mafia can jump on a someone's vote, doesn't that help them condemn someone? In Actuality, I would think that the starter of a vote usually isn't scum, unless they feel they have enough 'evidence' to get people to jump on their BW.

They try to grab the second seat, because it encourages 'voting them isn't scary, other people are doing it'. At this point, usually, there are two main contenders for the dungeon. If someone else votes this person, it becomes quite easy for the last scum to jump in and hammer it, pulling any reason. Even without the second person, 3 person voting the same person makes it quite likely for them to die.

The problem with your thought of 'railroading on voter 2' is because I don't think bay12 have come to the place where they use these tells... much less over 'evidence' they get from people talking. Thus I don't worry about it. However, if it seems planned, I'm wary of it. Anything that seems coordinated is bad. Anything.

Quite sorry, I thought the question was yours, my bad. I forget these stuff, but it's quite fun arguing mechanics with you because you have a wider view of mafia. (more forums)

Quote from: Superblackcat on Today at 12:31:56 am
Why didn't I follow up on my question? Because it wasn't a question to start with, it was sarcastic, and a poke at you. You didn't answer, mastah follows up on you... and you just push everything away at me like it was a plan? Good try.

You didn't mean it. It wasn't a real question.

It was a good try, because it worked. It revealed that you aren't really scum-hunting here.

Um, Whaddya mean? I didn't really mean the question. I wasn't really expecting a real answer, so I wasn't really bummed when you didn't answer it. However, with mastah following up, and you start to become... defensive. And then... You push it to me.

Then when I point it out, you continue.. to push it to me. Nice. I must say, I may have not been scumhunting, but this is pretty damn coincidental, that you like pushing things off to people.. Usually scum does this.

And for you to do it twice in a roll.. Wow.

Also, if you want to know if it's natural for me to miss things

It's quite natural. I missed the setup for 2 weeks on my first BM... I thought it was 7/2 (In your mind 5:2) while it was 9/2 (In your mind, 7:2)

Alright... sheeping is voting someone purely for the reason someone else it voting that person. Bandwagoning is jumping on the BW.

2nd person is always suspiscious to me, but if 1st and 3rd attacks the 2nd person for being the 2nd person. Then It seems like someone read too much into what I wrote. Usually scum does that. 3rd has the hammer power so I'm more supiscious of him...

But I've never seen anyone on bay12 play like this, So I'm not worried.

Also, the reason why I called Bullshit is because

1) You don't use the time to plan out a battle, like war in mafia. You don't, or I've never seen you, or anyone, else go like. "I'm going to attack this person with this, if the deflect, X, if they whatever, Y." Never.

If this is your new playstyle... great? But I'm keeping an eye on you.

2) You don't post like this. This isn't you. You seem like you're hiding, running, and chucking smoke grenades behind to get away. That's scum. Not scummy, like you say.

[Persus13]

Makeinu: You're voting SBC for playing differences, missing things, and for lazy scumhunting.

Only the lazy scumhunting thing is something I see as a scumtell, and SBC's "question" did seem like a sly poke at you more than anything else. the fact you've been deflecting mastahcheese's concerns and didn't really answer the question yet claim you thought it was a real question don't really help your case.

[makeinu]

<snip>

Thank you! Finally! An explanation of things that makes sense, and some indication that you're paying attention.

Unvote.

Btw, if you bothered to go to epicmafia.com, you'd realize it's not a forum...

I had never seen epicmafia.com, nor did I bother to check it, I'll confess. That format seems... weird. I understand better your thing with not reading back. That, by the way, doesn't work on forum mafia.

So, in my mind, scum does NOT like to start votes, they like to finish votes... Because other people will start votes.

See, in my mind, scum does like to start votes, because no one expects them to. They rely on the WIFOM factor, that no one will expect it, to get away with it. Honestly, in that scenario exactly as posed, there's no way to discern who might be scum without further evidence.

I mentioned once before, in another game here, a situation very similar to this this that developed in a game I ran. Two scum left at MyLo (5:2, in your parlance). Scum voted first on a target that they'd built suspicion on, waited for Town to sheep onto the second vote, then dropped the hammer and won the game.

1) You don't use the time to plan out a battle, like war in mafia. You don't, or I've never seen you, or anyone, else go like. "I'm going to attack this person with this, if the deflect, X, if they whatever, Y." Never.

Then I'd suggest you look more carefully, because I see it all the time. If you're not planning strategy, then you're flailing, and that does no one any good.

If this is your new playstyle... great? But I'm keeping an eye on you.

Not new playstyle. Comfortable, old, playstyle.

2) You don't post like this. This isn't you.

As I pointed out to Persus in Limerick, by what do you judge me here? The handful of games I've played on Bay12, I'll wager, and by that, please, explain how this is "not me"? I could quote that, if you'd like, but of the four games here so far, every one of them has had something unique for me to set them apart:

1) Sprint BM, a new forum and a new format I've never seen, with rules I've never seen. Remember, I'm used to forum mafia where PMs are a normal, integral, part of play, and quoting the GM, even with faked roles, is strategy.

2) Paranormal, a semi-open, power-madness game where nothing is apparently predictable.

3) This, where I'm both learning and playing as an IC.

4) Limerick. Finally! a normal g.... *reads JK9++ setup* Fuck! Don't you people play any normal games here? (and here's where I'd normally insert the LOL smiley, but Bay12 doesn't have one *sigh* )

Right now, I have only vague reads on anyone. These are my top scum leads in no particular order.

Pufferfish: Would you care, as well, to bring some game to the table? Four posts, and the holidays are comfortably past now.

Sinlessmoon: You're still lurking, but at least you've bothered to show up this time. Are you going to play, or shall we seek a replacement? Or policy lynch because the day is close to over? I won't go the "last time" route with you, because that's drawing meta into it, and I'd rather not do that.But, as I say to Jembot, this looks like you want others to find suspicion for you instead of on you.

Jembot: As I said before, I'm looking forward to some more specific questions from you, this late in the day. This is your first mafia game, in this format, correct? What you're doing now looks very much like scum play.

Tiruin: waitaminnit... *checks* okay, you're off the hook... this time!


Persus: I never, honestly, took SBC's question as real, though I did wonder what exactly his point was. When mastahcheese pressed it, I saw an opportunity to squeeze them both with a response and see what came out. I'm pleased with what I saw. Though, in SBC's case, it was like getting blood from a stone.

You read that as deflection. I read that as strategy. Three moves ahead. Finding Town is just as important as finding scum, hopefully to ensure the wrong person isn't lynched. Surely you understand the value in that?

[Superblackcat]

Makeinu, Please, Don't put Lurker's as a scumtell, at least not yet. Look for actual scum. Anyone can see lurkiness, but killing someone for lurkiness, especially with a ML, is dumb.