First, I never said it was a "scumwagon," mostly because I don't think that the people of the wagon are all that scummy. Ottofar was near the top of my list, but his recent posts have allayed a lot of my suspicions, and Jim/Jack weren't all that high on my list to begin with. Jack has moved higher, but again, I don't think he's scum just yet.
So there's no point at all, then. If you're not willing to scumhunt them, why should anybody else? This is just pure laziness and passiveness, not good qualities for a townie. Specifically, you're trying to get others to do your scumhunting for you, a major scum tell.
Think of it this way. If your goal is to get everyone to notice that the wagon is happening, wouldn't it make sense to also question the people involved? Now not only are you keeping potentially scummy (but not actually scummy, according to you) behavior in the spotlight, you're also determining if it's actually scummy or not. But no, it clearly makes more sense to just point out potentially scummy behavior and do nothing. Don't determine if it's actually scummy or not. Don't determine if it's a scumwagon or not. Just point it out and lurk away! That's a great way for the scum to win. Not sure how that would help a townie catch the scum, though. So either you're the worst townie ever or a fairly clever scum. Since I know you, I'm gonna go with the scum.
And then you fly to defend yourself when I point out your absence. Two whole paragraphs, ending in a vote, just because I pointed out the fact that you were gone when people were attacking you, but not when they're looking at someone else? Really? I wasn't even attacking you, just pointing out an observation. That's pretty suspicious. In addition, you haven't even said a single word to me all game, and then somehow, despite the arguments you've already made and the suspicions you've already said you have, you think I'm scummy enough to vote, as soon as you realize that your vote on Jim was garbage that no one believed? I find that pretty interesting, given that you said yourself that a townie should "use the tools the town has to stop scum," which means that either your suspicions were garbage and you don't believe them to be true, or you're just attacking me in a terribly-thought-out OMGUS.
I actually specifically did not defend myself, I attacked you for the bullshit WAY you attacked me. Your actual argument is fair. I was in fact gone Saturday, most of Sunday, and I think most of Friday. If you'd like to question me about that, feel free, but your case seems to be that I was gone so therefore I'm scum. Or perhaps you're disregarding how passive you're being, I dunno. But then you'd just be delusional.
And the first paragraph is about you, not me. I know you're not stupid enough to misread me that badly, so you're intentionally trying to deflect away from yourself onto something that seems scummy. Too bad for you OMGUS isn't a scumtell or even really applicable here since you didn't vote me until later.
So what would you have done, Person? Given the same situation as me, would you have voted someone you didn't think was scummy, just because? Or would you join the wagon? Or what? I'm curious to know, because you seem to know exactly how a good Townie would act. And don't go screaming OMGUS, because at least I have reasons behind my vote.
I would vote the player I thought the most scummy. That sounds absurdly obvious when I say it, doesn't it? If I didn't think anybody was scummy enough to vote but I saw the wagon, I'd scumhunt somebody in the wagon. The reason you're scum is that you chose not to do that and instead tried to get others to see the wagon as scummy without saying you thought they were. Passive, passive, passive.
And now, Mr. Person.
I must wonder how pointing out how the town seems to be overly willing to make and change bandwagons isn't, in a way, discouraging them.
I must also wonder why, with stronger evidence against Jokerman than you had against SirBayer, your attack on Jokerman is so much lighter than your attack was on SirBayer.
Mr. Person, I didn't like your D1 attacks on SirBayer and piggybacking off of Zrk2, I didn't like your dislike of attempting to figure out what the laws are and whether anything related to Org was true today when you were arguing against Jimbook Groovethras, but I'm not ready to vote in this conflict yet, seeing how Jokerman also feels scummy to me. Need more information.
I haven't said anything about the willingness of others to bandwagon AFAIK. Changing votes often is fine as long as they're justified.
What specifically did you not like about my SirBayer attack? I also did not piggyback off Zrk2. I don't even know when he voted or what his argument was. I do remember making the SirBayer case and that one was definetely not influenced by other people.
I note that you need more information but don't actually throw any questions towards me. Why might that be?
It's like a catfight just erupted in here.
Mr.Person, what's your opinion of Zrk2?
I don't have one. At all. Nothing he's said has rung alarm bells. That doesn't mean anything, I'm just not looking for scum that hard anymore.
Although looking at it now, he does seem to be changing votes with shitty reasons a lot. Definetely moving into the next player I'll question when I need new scumpicks.
Unvote, vote Mr. Person. I explained about his tunneling on Jim in a previous post and his recent throwing out accusations without arguments is horrible. Examples in the morning.
Since it seems to have come up, how about you guys tell me what my meta is, I'd like to know as I'm not self-aware enough to pick it up myself.
The only people who should care about their own meta are scum. Townies have more important things to do like catch scum. So why do you care about your own meta so much?
Um, wow.
Mr. Person: Why did you suddenly forget about Jim?
Who said I did? He's still scum, Jokerman just jumped ahead as the scummiest. Admittably I have a problem with changing my vote around a bit too much, but this case I think it's justified. I'm more sure of Jokerman than I am of Jim. Another reason I must admit to be true is that Jim had no votes coming in from anyone else and obviously wasn't being lynched. Now I could make a case on him and try to sway votes, but Jim's been very reasonable and hasn't been as passive as Book was. I also can't really question Jim about things Book did since they're different people. So Jim's not looking likely to get lynched, even if I did make a giant push against him. Jokerman might get the support if my attack is good, so I don't have any reason to stay on Jim. But Jokerman might actually get lynched, which would be good. I'd say it's a good idea to swap my vote over. And if Jim does something scummy or whatever, yeah, I'd gladly change my vote back over. While it is an either-or situation, that's only because I can only vote one at a time. But there's nothing saying only one of them can be scum, so there's no harm from switching over since I'm pretty sure about both of them. I'm just ever so slightly more sure about Jokerman, and Jokerman will be a much easier sell to the rest of the town.
Dude, are you fucking retarded? I am voting for him, and have been for several posts. How about you read the thread?
And yes, I suppose that's what that is. Now tell me, what exactly is suspicious about asking someone to explain why they're voting you? In fact, why are you voting for me? You come out of nowhere to unvote while claiming that you don't really support his plan so that you can throw a vote on me, with absolutely no reasoning at all, in what seems like an afterthought? No, fuck that noise. Unvote Mr.Person, vote Darvi. Mr.P, you're still near the top of my list, but holy shit does this guy take the cake.
Votecount would be nice too.
Once again you get violently angry about getting voted. I can actually see the Darvi case here, it's not a bad one. Problem is, this is like the third time you've voted a player who voted you. It's looking like you're just reactive and defensive. You must admit, all this attacking of the people attacking you can be construed as defensive, correct?
@Zrk2: I'm not quoting that post with all the spoilers. Way too much work to strip that down to something manageable considering you dumped a bunch of unrelated quotes in there from a post of another bunch of unrelated quotes dumped together for no reason. Good work on constructing the worst post I've ever seen. Please improve ASAP. These are all in order with a few of your comments skipped. If you want me to quote your posts, clean them up first.
I do try to get people to stop talking if that talking is bad for them. And this shit was since it's pure Grade A WIFOM caused by talking with Org. It's completely preventable by not talking to Org. It's completely useless since Org has nothing to offer the town. It's completely stupid since Org is confirmed Jester. So I'm trying to figure out why anybody would spread WIFOM like that. Worst part is, Book and Jim were questioning Org at the expense of scumhunting anybody else. Now, why would a townie use ALL their time scumhunting a player whose alignment is already known? That makes no sense. Feel free to figure out the laws, just not from Org. Everything Org says is a lie or a calculated truth designed to look like a lie.
You don't see a problem with scumhunting a player whose alignment is already known? Are you a complete idiot or just not thinking this through?
Some scum are active, yes, but no townies are passive.
Nothing's preventing Org from being helpful besides his role? What? It's too bad that he has NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO HELP THE TOWN since we have NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO HELP HIM! Why should Org help us since we're going to backstab him first chance we get. And in any case, are you willing to risk that a known non-town aligned player is telling the truth "just because"? His role may not make him lie, but it doesn't make him tell the truth. That's enough to make him untrustworthy.
I have looked at other people, I just don't see anything in any of them. I may be doing that, yes, but that's how I scumhunt. That's my style. That's not Jim's style. That's definetely not Book's style. I hold two different standards because we're two different people who act differently and do things differently. And besides, I'm not voting myself and certainly not dropping a valid attack just because it can also apply to me if somebody so chooses since then I'm not using every resource available to lynch scum. And I know I'm not scum, so I'm sure as hell not voting myself. I don't get the point here.
Let me rephrase that statement for you since I can see now how it could be confusing: "You're trying to acquire dubious information at the expense of scumhunting (which would) get accurate, always useful information."
Asking Jokerman what he was gonna do about it was actually my way of getting him to continue talking and START a conversation. Your claim I was stifling discussion is ridiculous.
Reread, voting.
Unvote, vote Mr. Person. His attacks on SirBayer were overenthusiastic, horribly flawed, and he basically piggybacked off of Zrk2's arguments. His attacks on Jimbook were conversation-stifling ones that showed a strong dislike of searching for information on the laws (only the scum would benefit from knowing how laws effected scumhunting, apparently. We townies don't need to know how laws effect scumhunting...*grumbles*). His current attacks on Jokerman feel too light for the evidence compared to his earlier attacks.
Jokerman, with his current nervous-looking, angry behaviour and rather passive previous behaviour, is a close second. If Mr. Person turns out to be town, and Ottofar's power works, you'll most likely be the first person I'll vote for tomorrow.
"Overenthusiastic"? What, do you want me to not vote for scum? I did not piggyback off Zrk2, his arguments held no sway over my vote of SirBayer. In fact, Zrk2's argrument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org was being scummy while my argument was that defending Org is incorrect because Org has only spouted nulltells and you have no reason to defend someone spouting nulltells. Those are different. Similar, but different.
The laws probably don't have an impact on scumhunting or voting, but feel free to figure out what they are. I will caution you that if anybody DOES know, they either don't want to tell or know something the scum REALLY shouldn't know. So if anybody does know, they obviously don't want to talk, and it's possible that silent person is a townie. And that's assuming somebody does know. I find it entirely possible that nobody gets told the exact rules of certain laws. I find law-hunting to be a total waste of time. But again, if you want to search for the laws, go ahead, just don't do it at the expense of scumhunting like Book did.
I love how you also immediately set up a chain-lynch on me then Jokerman and only look at the most immediate targets available to you. Your top scumpicks are two people you don't think are on a team together. So then why would you attack BOTH of us? Yeah, vote me or whatever, that's fine. But you can't then turn around and also claim Jokerman is likely scum. It doesn't work that way. We can't both be scum, so pick the one of us that's scummier. That other player is your read of a townie. Unless you think we're on a scumteam together, of course, but based on what you've said I don't think you think that's the case.
Long story short, grow a pair and focus on the scummiest player the most. Don't set up chainlynches, it's only correct to do so if it's role-related reasons. Don't try to pass suspicion on a player you think is more likely to be townie than scum. These things are all bad play. Now, are they mistakes or malicious scummy actions?
Irony:
1. If scum were involved in the bandwagon, then I didn't want them to think it was unnoticed. If they weren't, I didn't want them thinking they could slip in on it. If it was only town and they didn't realize, then I wanted to point it out. I still don't see how that's actually scummy at all, so if you could explain that I would be grateful.
Pointing out a nulltell and doing nothing about it is practically speaking the same thing as going unnoticed. And if you thought somebody WAS trying to vote unnoticed, why, that would be a major scumtell. So again, what you're saying is that you thought a scumwagon might be forming and A)did nothing to make sure it was or was not a scumwagon and B)did nothing to stop the scum involved on the wagon or get them lynched. It seems like you were more interested in just stopping the votes than finding out if the votes came from scum or not. Would you say that's reasonable to say?
Jim, why are you throwing your vote around with only the weakest of pretexts, this carelessness with your vote says that you do not care about it, indicating that you are scum.
That's a fair reason for Jim to change a vote around since I certainly would rather get lynched than have no lynch at all.
Author
Topic: Why Would You Do That?: A Mafia Misadventure: Game Over, nobody wins >:I (Read 189277 times)