Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Vote Count
------------------------
Jokerman-EXE - Jim Groovester, [1]
SirBayer - Org, Jokerman-EXE, [1]

Org's nonvote shows, but Jim's motivated vote... doesn't?

This attack's on hold until Web answers, but I still want to know how he's confirmed.

Wait a second. Slow down everybody.

That votecount is right, because that's the votecount at the end of Day 2. I wasn't motivated then and Org had no vote.

Thanks Web.  Anyway...

...he's pretty much confirmed motivator since Jim backed him up.  I totally fail to see how that has any effect on alignment.  They could easily be both scum or both town, or even LW town and Jim scum.  So again, tell me how LW is "essentially confirmed town."

I'll chime in on this. I'm fairly certain there's no way to create confirmed townies in Vote Mafia, barring moderator mistake. So there's no way Lonewolf I could be a confirmed townie.

I will add that I strongly think Lonewolf I is a townie because of what he did, but again, he's not confirmed.

I'll get to you two eventually. I've been trying to but I've been occupied with playing Civ IV with my father. Thank goodness for that extension, because I'm always up for a game of fruitless argumentation with anybody who'll play with me.

[webadict]

Vote Count
------------------------
Jokerman-EXE - Jim Groovester, [1]
SirBayer - Org, Jokerman-EXE, [1]

Org's nonvote shows, but Jim's motivated vote... doesn't?

This attack's on hold until Web answers, but I still want to know how he's confirmed.

Wait a second. Slow down everybody.

That votecount is right, because that's the votecount at the end of Day 2. I wasn't motivated then and Org had no vote.

Lolz.

Stop confusing me!

[Leafsnail]

EXTEND.  Scum is trying to quickend this game while I'm away.  Fuck you, Jim.  Fuck you, Toaster.

Content to follow.

[Toaster]

EXTEND.  Scum is trying to quickend this game while I'm away.  Fuck you, Jim.  Fuck you, Toaster.

Content to follow.

I was the one who didn't want to shorten.  Misrepresentation of facts- scummy.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail:  I missed your answer in your first post.  My bad.

Anyway, I'm reading through your evidence on me, and it's clear you've missed some things.  You're pegging me for no votes early on- it's because my RV was on Bayer and it wasn't moving until I got an answer, which came late.  You tell me to vote for the scum regarding my accusation of Person defending Bandages.  I did vote the person I thought scummier- Person.  You comment on me ignoring Jim's attack, when frankly, there was no attack- all he did was say I was suspicious.  Like I said earlier, I chose to ignore it because it was a non-attack.  His weird reason for backing off?  He stopped thinking I was scum.  So weird!

Your RV was on Bayer, so you decided to post no content at all until he answered your question, then didn't say anything about it afterwards.  The second part could be an explanation of "poorly done distancing" from the mafiascum wiki.  It looks exactly like he was trying to distance himself from you, and you knew the attack wasn't serious because, well, he's on your team.

Re my first post to you:  Of course it lacks content.  Did you not read abc's posts?  They didn't have any content either.  I had to post something to get you to talk, and I say it worked.  The reason I asked the question about the changed tone post is because on review, it looks like someone was coaching him, which of course would make him- and therefore you- scum.

It was more because Jim was using it as a way to defend his scumbuddy from accusations of passiveness.  It was still passive as hell, and containing a loaded question I had no way to answer.

I don't remember this event.  Please quote it for me.

Early part of the game - all the posts of yours I quoted.  Then, when Jim mentions that he has suspicions of you, your content levels go up (or at least appear to).

I'll grant you that I didn't have much in the way of suspicions until Person D2.  That's why I was using my default approach- asking several people questions at once.  It's what I do until I hit something to latch on to.  If you've got a problem with it, oh well.

That's how I'd describe the average scumgame - be useless while pretending to be active by asking questions, then "latching on" to something when someone makes a mistake.  In my towngame, I try to find mafia.

One last question to you:  Do you think active lurking is worse than passive (not posting) lurking?

Yes.  A lot worse.

Lurking implies you're lazy, don't like posting much or that you're trying to avoid attention.  The first 2 are nulltells, the last is a scumtell.  However, number 3 is becoming less valid, since lurking now tends to attract MORE attention.

Active lurking implies you're trying to avoid attention, want to look like you're doing something, aren't trying to find scum or are just crap.  The first 3 are scumtells, and I don't think the 4th really applies to you.

My top two scum picks for now are Leafsnail (Reasoning: this post) and Jokerman (Reasoning: reply #355).  Jokerman has been trying to lurk through this game unbothered while others take the heat, and voting me to try to set up a lynch on me.

You've given no reasons for suspecting me.

No, seriously.  The entire section on me consists of:
- Apologising for missing my answer
- Defence against an accusation made on you
- Defence of a post you made earlier
- Asking me to quote something you can't remember
- Explanation of strategy
- Useless question

NONE of these constitute a reason for voting me.  In any way, under any interpretation.

Good work, Toaster.

Jim is completely, undeniably obvscum for the following post.

Shorten.

I don't need to discuss anything critical with anybody. All I'd be doing is arguing with Leafsnail some more but since I'm convinced he's scum and he's convinced I'm scum it wouldn't get anywhere and it might as well wait until tomorrow like it would have if the day had ended when I expected it to.

"We need to lynch right today.  However, even though the town has clearly made no decision and it would be possible for someone to change their vote and seal the shorten request (ending the day immediately) I will still vote to shorten the day.  Heck, it's even possible that scum have some sort of secret voting power that will sway the lynch to someone random, but it doesn't matter."

I can see no town motivation for this at all.

Nor can I see a town motivation for waiting for a "long post" from someone you were apparently so sure of that you were prepared to risk the game on lynching them.

Nor can I see a town motivation for replying to a few fluff posts from Toaster while ignoring the two people who you are "convinced are scum".

And now for something completely different.

Spoiler: Contentless fluff that has nothing to do with the game (click to show/hide)

How come as soon as I change my avatar I start getting accused of saying things that can't be proved or disproved?  Is it a coincidence?  Or...

PPE: Rofl.

[webadict]

Vote Count
------------------------
Toaster - Jokerman-EXE, Leafsnail,
Lonewolf I - Mr.Person,
Mr.Person - Lonewolf I, Jim Groovester, Bandages,
Jim Groovester -
Jokerman-EXE - SirBayer,
Leafsnail - Toaster,
SirBayer -
Bandages -

Not voting -

Day ends on Tuesday 9 PM Central. 1 Extension Requested.

[Jim Groovester]

EXTEND.  Scum is trying to quickend this game while I'm away.  Fuck you, Jim.  Fuck you, Toaster.

Content to follow.

Object to Extension.

What the fuck? You've had TWO EXTENSIONS already. Deal the fuck with it if you can't actually post anything with the time you've been generously given.

Jim is completely, undeniably obvscum for the following post.

Shorten.

I don't need to discuss anything critical with anybody. All I'd be doing is arguing with Leafsnail some more but since I'm convinced he's scum and he's convinced I'm scum it wouldn't get anywhere and it might as well wait until tomorrow like it would have if the day had ended when I expected it to.

"We need to lynch right today.  However, even though the town has clearly made no decision and it would be possible for someone to change their vote and seal the shorten request (ending the day immediately) I will still vote to shorten the day.  Heck, it's even possible that scum have some sort of secret voting power that will sway the lynch to someone random, but it doesn't matter."

I can see no town motivation for this at all.

Nor can I see a town motivation for waiting for a "long post" from someone you were apparently so sure of that you were prepared to risk the game on lynching them.

Nor can I see a town motivation for replying to a few fluff posts from Toaster while ignoring the two people who you are "convinced are scum".

Here's something you might know about me: I'm impatient. I despise unnecessary delays of game.

I knew I'd get flak for requesting the shorten and I knew that scum like you would put words in my mouth when I did this. But I don't fucking care. I just want to move on with the damn game already.

And really, listening to you uselessly prattle on about how nobody's made a decision yet, when, in fact, everybody has, is not something I really wanted to do all through Tuesday.

[Jim Groovester]

LET'S DO THIS

Spoiler: Leafsnail (click to show/hide)

Whoa, it's milo? No kidding!

A mass claim at this point is still useless. I've forced mass claims in previous Vote Mafias and it didn't help pick out who was scum.

This is not a game of Paranormal with roleblockers and guards and redirectors and all the other power roles that make it easy to pick out lying scum during a mass claim. We would get everybody's role but we would still be in the same boat as we are now, and would look to the evidence that we are already looking at to make up our minds.

The reason is different.  It's to make sure scum cannot break lylo by hiding their powers up their sleeve till the last moment.  We can also check the confirmed town deaths against the claims and thus guess the setup.

In the same vein the town can hide their powers until lylo to break lylo for scum. Mass claiming lets the scum pick these power roles off.

And there's no way to guess the setup. We did not get a known role this game, so it would be impossible to determine if somebody's lying if they role claim. This is a terrible mistake to make, especially to use as a justification for a mass claim.

These words are wasted on you because you just want a mass claim so you and your scum buddies can pick out Double Voters and Vote Motivators and any other role that can screw up lylo for you.

There... aren't very many roles that can screw up things for the mafia in this gametype.  Sure, plenty of stuff that can screw it up for town.  Further more... what bad effects would, say, a Double Voter have against a mafia team?

There are enough that it's not a good idea to out them at this time.

Are you really saying you can't think of a situation where an unclaimed town Double Voter would be useful, especially going into milo and lylo? Consider our current situation. If we mislynch, and the scum don't hit the Double Voter, we get an extra day. There'd be no chance of this happening if there was a mass claim.

Mmhmm. Two people find your attack lacking and the only explanation is they are scum protecting each other. Yes, that makes sense.

In the same way.  Furthermore, although you expressed doubts about Toaster in the past (which you dropped for no reason) you attack me for having them.  Hmm...?

I dropped the attack because I thought he looked like town.

This is nothing unusual. You seem to think it is, though.

And hey, didn't you just say that you thought I was scum for the way I threw out passive accusations without anything backing them up? I'm pretty sure you did. Here, let me quote you.

My point is that mine wasn't a passive accusation.

I said he was active lurking (he was) and which posts he was being so in.

I said he was being passive (he was) and which posts he was being so in.

I thus called him out on his bullshit behaviour.

You, on the other hand, throw out "Hey, you're bussing the guy you're attacking!  Nah, I'm not gonna put in any actual evidence for it.  Just a self fulfilling scenario."

The comment was directed at your scumbuddies accusation, not about Toaster's purported passiveness or active-lurking.

What evidence are you ever going to have of that? You can find evidence that I am scum, that Toaster is scum, but never that both of us are scum together. You're connecting the dots based on whom you currently suspect.

Which is exactly what I did when I said you were trying to buss Jokerman-EXE.

It's pretty easy to say somebody's posts lack content, regardless of whether they do or not. And it's easy enough to use it as a justification for a vote. The reason it's difficult to prove or disprove is that if anybody challenges you, well, you can just disagree with them. You'd be lying, of course, but they can't argue with you over a matter of opinion and interpretation.

That applies... to fucking... everything.

Therefore, since I have presented my case for Toaster's early posts having no content, I shall give you your turn.  In the posts of his I quote, where DOES he post content?  When does he attack or scumhunt?

Bah, I don't care enough to point them out. Let Toaster defend himself. This response is already wearing down my patience enough that I don't really want to trawl through Toaster's post and point out where I think he's doing scum hunting.

Your evidence is very selective. Almost all of it from Day 1, most of the material and reasons I suspected Toaster at the time. It's disingenuous to suspect Toaster for those reasons while at the same time ignoring all his much more substantial posts during Days 2 and 3.

So... he's passive and in the shadows until someone calls him out on it (or reminds him he's looking scummy).  Then he starts posting properly.

This doesn't seem at all suspicious to you?

It did.

But then he started posting properly.

I don't see the problem with this. I suspected him, he started looking like town, I changed my mind.

And this is another reason I suspect you. You're not being nearly as reasonable as you should be, while you're stubbornly holding onto suspicions that aren't valid but nobody can argue with. A very common scum tactic; it's happened in tons of games and I've even done it myself once or twice.

I still have no idea what you're saying.  You're basically saying "You're wrong" and then declaring "But I can't prove you're wrong".  I'd say the reason you can't argue with the idea that Toaster was active lurking his ass off is because he was active lurking his ass off.

It's a very difficult argument to make, to say someone's being unreasonable when they shouldn't be. There's no proof for that, outside of post-game admission. But it's an argument I will make because it is an argument I believe to be the case.

Spoiler: Mr. Person (click to show/hide)

SirBayer pretty much summed up why I suspect you. Going after easy lynches, being lazy with your reasons for votes, lurking through milo; this is not your normally strong town game. The only explanation is that you're scum.

You're not going to convince me otherwise at this point, but I'll play along. What makes Lonewolf I scummier than Jokerman-EXE to you right now? I really want to hear this.

Org and ToonyMan were easy lynches because they were acting really scummy. If you had a problem with their lynches, you should of brought it up while they were still alive. You didn't. In fact, you voted for ToonyMan. So don't you dare try and attack me for "going after easy lynches" without first proving my arguments invalid. And it's too late, because even if you did poke a giant hole into my arguments, I couldn't change my vote at this point anyways.

I don't have to prove your arguments are invalid, I just have to show everybody how scummy you've been. The validity of your arguments and how suspicious you're being have a lot to do with each other, but you can be suspicious even with good arguments. And ultimately, how suspicious you are will get you lynched.

Case in point: You may have been right about ToonyMan and Org being scummy, but it's an awfully suspicious coincidence that you used the exact same justification and they both flipped town. Somebody might think you were going after easy lynches instead of people you said you suspected.

Like Jokerman-EXE. He's scum to you. But you've taken no action against him aside from strong words. Convenient.

Shorten.

I don't need to discuss anything critical with anybody. All I'd be doing is arguing with Leafsnail some more but since I'm convinced he's scum and he's convinced I'm scum it wouldn't get anywhere and it might as well wait until tomorrow like it would have if the day had ended when I expected it to.

If anybody does need time to discuss things I'll retract this shorten request, of course.

So why did you vote to shorten the day? It's not like we're in a hurry or anything, the only reason to shorten is when the result of the day is obvious and unchangable. I'm ahead by one player vote. That's very mutable, especially since Bandages is voting me based on a mistaken view of how the game works.

I just answered this. I'm impatient. Also, I have an extra vote so you're a bit further in the lead than you think.

There, I responded. Obligations satisfied.

[Leafsnail]

In the same vein the town can hide their powers until lylo to break lylo for scum. Mass claiming lets the scum pick these power roles off.

It IS basically lylo.  If we were to break the setup, now would be the time to do it.

And there's no way to guess the setup. We did not get a known role this game, so it would be impossible to determine if somebody's lying if they role claim. This is a terrible mistake to make, especially to use as a justification for a mass claim.

Most of the possible roles would've shown some kind of sign by now, actually.  Certainly all the multivoter ones.  And then we just take the unverified ones with a pinch of salt.

There are enough that it's not a good idea to out them at this time.

Are you really saying you can't think of a situation where an unclaimed town Double Voter would be useful, especially going into milo and lylo? Consider our current situation. If we mislynch, and the scum don't hit the Double Voter, we get an extra day. There'd be no chance of this happening if there was a mass claim.

Uh... how many people here haven't voted on any day?  Any and all double voters would have been outed (incidentally, the mafia currently has a lot more role info, due to having 3 confirmed claims to work around).  And even if we do get into a situation like that, the double voter will almost certainly die during the next night.

The comment was directed at your scumbuddies accusation, not about Toaster's purported passiveness or active-lurking.

What evidence are you ever going to have of that? You can find evidence that I am scum, that Toaster is scum, but never that both of us are scum together. You're connecting the dots based on whom you currently suspect.

Chainsaw defence.  You're both helping each other by undermining the case on the other, without actually saying why the other one of you is town.  In other words, you're trying to help each other, without appearing to be connected.

Which is exactly what I did when I said you were trying to buss Jokerman-EXE.

You didn't give any other reasons for me being scum at that time, nor did you call me scum.  In other words, you're saying you based your case against me on nothing.

It's pretty easy to say somebody's posts lack content, regardless of whether they do or not. And it's easy enough to use it as a justification for a vote. The reason it's difficult to prove or disprove is that if anybody challenges you, well, you can just disagree with them. You'd be lying, of course, but they can't argue with you over a matter of opinion and interpretation.

I ask you again - in the earlier part of the game, do you think Toaster's early posts have content?  If the answer is no, you're being dumb.  If the answer is yes, I would like you to explain how questions such as "Do you believe Org's claim?" can be called scumhunting.

I don't have to prove your arguments are invalid, I just have to show everybody how scummy you've been.

Scum slip.

[Jim Groovester]

LET'S DO THIS

It IS basically lylo.  If we were to break the setup, now would be the time to do it.

Not gonna happen. If people were convinced a mass claim right now was a good idea they'd be mass claiming right now.

And there's no way to guess the setup. We did not get a known role this game, so it would be impossible to determine if somebody's lying if they role claim. This is a terrible mistake to make, especially to use as a justification for a mass claim.

Most of the possible roles would've shown some kind of sign by now, actually.  Certainly all the multivoter ones.  And then we just take the unverified ones with a pinch of salt.

I don't understand. What's the point of a mass claim if we choose not to trust the roles that are not verifiable? How does that help us figure out who's scum if we have to ignore half the roles that are claimed?

That strikes me as an exceptionally counterproductive thing to do. The lengths you'll go to to justify this idiotic move.

The comment was directed at your scumbuddies accusation, not about Toaster's purported passiveness or active-lurking.

What evidence are you ever going to have of that? You can find evidence that I am scum, that Toaster is scum, but never that both of us are scum together. You're connecting the dots based on whom you currently suspect.

Chainsaw defence.  You're both helping each other by undermining the case on the other, without actually saying why the other one of you is town.  In other words, you're trying to help each other, without appearing to be connected.

I should go document all the instances where you accused people of a chainsaw defense and then figure out how many times you're scum. I can't recall an instance where you were actually ever on to something.

If Toaster and I both attack you it is because we both think you are scummy. You must not mistake coincidence for coordination.

Which is exactly what I did when I said you were trying to buss Jokerman-EXE.

You didn't give any other reasons for me being scum at that time, nor did you call me scum.  In other words, you're saying you based your case against me on nothing.

I can suspect abculatter_2 for what he did and because you're his replacement I can suspect you for the same things.

The only thing I can't do is expect you to explain his actions. But you're being scummy enough on your own that that's not necessary.

It's pretty easy to say somebody's posts lack content, regardless of whether they do or not. And it's easy enough to use it as a justification for a vote. The reason it's difficult to prove or disprove is that if anybody challenges you, well, you can just disagree with them. You'd be lying, of course, but they can't argue with you over a matter of opinion and interpretation.

I ask you again - in the earlier part of the game, do you think Toaster's early posts have content?  If the answer is no, you're being dumb.  If the answer is yes, I would like you to explain how questions such as "Do you believe Org's claim?" can be called scumhunting.

I'll repeat this as many times as you ask it.

I initially suspected Toaster for many of the same reasons you claim to suspect him at this time. However, I changed my mind at a later date when I was able to get a better read on him, and he appeared town to me.

I don't have to prove your arguments are invalid, I just have to show everybody how scummy you've been.

Scum slip.

Quoting out of context is awesome.

So, you just gonna drop that there? Not going to do anything else with it? Okay, cool.

[Leafsnail]

Whatever on the massclaim, then.  I guess it doesn't matter as much as getting you or one of your partners lynched.

I should go document all the instances where you accused people of a chainsaw defense and then figure out how many times you're scum. I can't recall an instance where you were actually ever on to something.

Yeah, you're right.  In Paranormal 16, when I used it as the basis for suspecting Jokerman-EXE, I was completely wrong.  It didn't allow me to call the entire scumteam, and all of their motivations at all.

It's not the coordination aspect that bothers me about you and Toaster.  It's the constant, subtle defence of each other, while avoiding any direct interaction, and being evasive about why.

The scumslip stands.  It says "While you're arguments were fine and I was ok with them at the time, retrospectively I will declare them scummy so everyone can see".  This is the action of someone pushing for a mislynch.

[Jim Groovester]

What would I have to interact with Toaster about? How should I be interacting with him?

I've stated I think he's town. I don't have anything I want to ask him, so saying we're not interacting is basically a statement of fact.

The scumslip stands.  It says "While you're arguments were fine and I was ok with them at the time, retrospectively I will declare them scummy so everyone can see".  This is the action of someone pushing for a mislynch.

Not what I was saying at all.

Good scum know how to make reasonable arguments to justify their votes. Mr. Person in the last Vote Mafia showed that he knows how to play a very good scum game, so it's no surprise that his votes on Org and ToonyMan appeared to be well-justified at the time.

However, Mr. Person is hiding behind his arguments for those two votes as if their strength and validity are the only things determining whether he is suspicious or not. And that is simply not true, otherwise, why demand that I disprove his arguments first before attacking him on other things?

There are many reasons to suspect Mr. Person, and all I have to do to show Mr. Person is scum is bring those reasons to light, as I've already done. I don't have to play his game and prove his arguments false before I make any further attack.

There's more to consider when determining if someone is scum than just the reasons they use to vote. Obviously.

[Toaster]

You know what?  Fuck it.  Disregard everything I've said all game prior to this post.

Leafsnail: I was writing a post attacking you for misrepresenting facts about me, and I could only come up with the one about the shorten.  One can be chalked up to a misread or misinterpretation.  I thought about it some more, and I ended up doing a reread.  What it turned up resulted in a pretty radical change in my opinion.

Unvote Leafsnail.

Right now, I'm calling it- scumteam is Lonewolf, Jim Groovester, and Bandages.

Why?  Many reasons.  To start with, see my recent (since near-end of D2) posts attacking Bandages and Lonewolf.  (Ok, don't disregard those.)

Next, they've been distancing fairly regularly, with weak attacks that they back off of after a few posts.  See examples starting here and here.  In particular, Jim says Bandages is buddying me, then Jim goes on to buddy me all day today.  It's been niggling at me that it's happening, but now I see it for what it is.

Bandages, in particular, comes at me very aggressively when I attack him.  I respond in kind, and he completely backs off without even mentioning it.  That's not normal.



Here's the crux of the matter- they're all voting Person.  How they voted him is telling as well.  LW's first post of the day voted Person with no reasoning, and contained WIFOM with his conclusion that Jim was town.  Jim's reasoning is Person being in on both D1 and D2 mislynches, and that he didn't vote right away (at mylo, no less.)  Bandages' reasoning is entirely based on his assertion that LW is confirmed town, and Person was still voting him.  Assuming LW's motivator claim is true, scum now holds 4 votes out of 9.  That makes it lylo, not mylo.  There's not a huge difference, but with that near-majority, all they have to do is split town a little bit, and they win the lynch and the game.

To win this, LW needs to hang today so scum can't give themselves an extra vote.

[Jim Groovester]

And when Leafsnail's suspicions of you conveniently wither away and Jokerman-EXE continues his habit of vote-hopping to the target of most convenience, you should reconsider everything again.

That would be pretty suspicious of Leafsnail to do something like that, wouldn't it? He's been making a pretty big deal of you being scum. You can't just walk away after making all that rhetoric. But he will. Or he'll try to.

And Jokerman-EXE doesn't give a shit. He'll put his vote wherever. It will be as suspicious and transparent as always.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Fuck you, Jim. You're a tunneling bastard and you're slowly starting to feel the pressure. You've been giving off scum-ass vibes all game and I'm glad someone else has noticed. Unvote Toaster.