RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 5, 2007 21:18:04 GMT -5
hmm. Though Drainbead was much nicer enough on this issue (the 2nd one). I'll have to think about this. Scum first, nice now? or Townie first, and still nice? :drinks Wine:
Also, I really like BM's comments on this page. He's got good postings. Just wish he'd do more of that sorta thing rather than just the ST stuff. I think if they were on the same page, It'd be more helpful for us.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 5, 2007 21:21:16 GMT -5
I had you (drain) in mind when I made the joke, as you had just clearly stated the benefit of the doubt that you had extended him. But it certainly can apply to anyone else who is applying double standards. Here's the thing. No other explanation really made sense to me. Even if you break down the voting record, and look at who EVERYONE has voted for, is it really possible that the only people who have not ever voted for someone who is scum are those two? Especially when you put it in the correct context of the whole bandwagon discussion. Ye gods, I'm going to have to have to do some sort of bad LSAT logic puzzle with the voting record to figure this out. I'll do it tomorrow morning, unless someone is bored enough to do my work for me. Speaking of double standards, I get half the votes needed for a lynch (including yours, although I can also see the self-preservation there) because I dare to try to point out something that I think is scummy. I get a sufficient explanation for it, and back off a bit. Then, when I see what might be a sufficient explanation for another slip, and I keep semi-quiet about it because I don't want to be accused of feeding the correct answer to Roosh like BLAM did earlier, I instead get accused of giving Roosh the convenient benefit of the doubt. I think there are lots of trees we can still bark up when it comes to Roosh, but this one never seemed to be one of them for me. If anything, the one getting the convenient benefit of the doubt is PygmyRugger, for doing the exact same thing I did (finding something scummy and trying to build a case for it), only Pygmy actually took a quote very much out of context to do so. All I did was stumble over some improper grammar.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 5, 2007 21:52:18 GMT -5
"I was on CatInASuit's at vote #8, and was vote #5 on MadTheSwines. You got on zumachan's at vote # 13, and CatInASuit at vote #5." This is using your definition of "When It's a Bandwagon". I didn't mention Roosh or Dnooman at all there. All the rest? That would be, hmm let's see...ONE. CatInaSuit...at vote #8. Where are you getting your information that I am hopping on at 8-10 votes strong already. And what are all the rest? Jeez. I've posted my work. Go down the list. Read it again. Just did. You voted for zumachan and that was at the FOURTH vote. When you UNVOTED, it was on the ELEVENTH vote. Therefore, yes, I would say that you were ON THAT BANDWAGON. Eleven votes at the time? and YOU were a part of that voting crowd? YES, YOU WERE PART OF THAT BANDWAGON AT THAT TIME, I WOULD SAY.Moving on...You voted for CIAS when there were SEVEN others on him. You were the EIGHTH vote. You stuck around on him until he was up to THIRTEEN votes and finally unvoted him when there were seven again. So...YES, I would say since you were ON HIM WHEN HE HAD THIRTEEN VOTES AGAINST HIM THAT YOU WERE A PART OF THAT BANDWAGON.Moving on... dnooman. You voted him and he was at one vote then, so yours made two. You then stayed on him UNTIL HE WAS AT EIGHT VOTES and only then did you unvote. Since I would consider more than 5 or 6 to be a bandwagon, YES, I WOULD CONSIDER SINCE YOU WERE ON HIM WHEN HE WAS AT EIGHT VOTES THAT YOU WERE A PART OF THAT BANDWAGON.Moving on... MadtheSwine. Now here you voted for him when he had five. Then your fellow suspect (on MY list, at least) drainbead voted and made it six. YOU then unvoted and made it five again. So in MY opinion, no, that wasn't REALLY a bandwagon yet, but it was awfully close. And Roosh you never voted for at all at the time. Now..me: zumachan. I was the FIRST to vote and kept it there until she had at twelve votes. Bandwagon I was on? YES. Let's move on. CIAS. I voted at five and stayed on until he had 13. So was that a bandwagon I was on? YES. Let's move on. Never voted for MadtheSwineWas on dnooman when he only had ONE other vote on him and then unvoted him before anyone else voted. Was on Roosh (I was the first to vote for him) and then UNVOTED when he had THREE total. So NONE Of those were bandwagons I was a part of at the time. I was on TWO others that were bandwagons at the time, but YOU, YOU were on THREE and a half bandwagons. So what's this harebrained talk about us being equal? You CLEARLY have been A PART of more bandwagons..and that is one reason I find you suspicious. Is that so hard to believe? Whatever Idle...we clearly have different definitions, but I think there is a difference between "a part of" and "got on". I can't control when and who other people vote for. I'm so tired of this arguement with you. I will agree to disagree with you on this matter. If that's the only thing you have to be suspicious of me for, then I think it's pretty weak, as the way the rules are set up, bandwagons are an integral and inevitable part of the game. Plus Day One was very long and lot's of people changed their mind a lot. I would be more suspicious of people who did not change their vote a lot on day one. The scum know who they need to vote for after all. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 5, 2007 21:56:15 GMT -5
Hey, guys.. .did you miss me? Sorry for my absence the past few days, I've had a family emergency. As I did with Idle on day one, I went and promsied good, solid reasoning for my suspicions of hockeymonkey, and on review, all I'm left with are the few flimsy reasons that have been presented before, but just a nagging suspicion about her. Happily, mtgman has given me something I can read and respond to before settling into going over the past few pages of posts with a fine tooth comb. Diomedes is slipping further and further into scumminess IMHO. Another unconfirmed/unconfirmable "reading" and continued stone throwing with numerous people on Day 2. As the saying goes, sometimes those with the most sin cast the first stones. I think you're bastardizing the old aphorism "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", which doesn't apply here. And furthermore, I can't report what I don't find. I've had three chances to use my power, on a field of twenty-odd people. Even if I find scum, I'm only going to see anything if I land on the one scum who's out doing the killing. If it makes everyone feel better, tonight I'll watch wtf: I'll be able to see if he's really wandering around at night bodyguarding people, and he'll be able to verify my role as a Watcher because I'll be able to tell him whom he was Bodyguarding. Hopefully that will settle this matter, although I know that some people will either assume we're colluding on this, or that I'm a scum investigator. I've already stated what I thought of my results on Hal. I wasn't trying to breadcrumb, although that post was my explanation for examinign him Night Zero. I didn't comment on drainbead's response at all, you might notice. [/quote] I've got no problem with retaliatory voting. I only do it, however, when I find someone's reasoning for voting for me seems scummy. That's the same standard I hold when voting for anyone because of any vote, whether for me or against me. Obviouslym, however, I'm going to notice, think through and respond more to things directed towards me. I don't recall the specific accusations diggit levelled towards me, but if it was pre-role claim, she may have had an excellent point. I was pretending to be a vanilla townie, and I wasn't. If she picked up on that, bully for her, I certainly wasn't going to vote for her for that. Similarly, I haven't attacked panamajack for his fairly frequent questions of me: because I don't find his suspicions or actions questionable. sinjin, Klutz and wtf, on the other hand, acted in manners that seemed suspicious to me: it seemed against the town interest given the information that they should have had as vanilla townies. When I voted for zumachamiro, it wasn't because of Zuma's or dot's votes against me, it was because of dot's curious slip-up. (I've now given up voting based on slip ups, partially based on that incident) You are, but I don't think that entirely destroys the case against drain, from my understanding. You really can't expect me to enjoy that, can you?
|
|
|
Post by whatthefrak on Oct 5, 2007 22:36:19 GMT -5
I think he's bastardizing Jeebus's "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 5, 2007 22:48:34 GMT -5
I think he's bastardizing Jeebus's "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You know what they say, you fool a man once, shame on him. You fool a man twice, well, you can't... err.... You can't fool someone twice in a row, that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 5, 2007 23:49:08 GMT -5
If that's the only thing you have to be suspicious of me for, then I think it's pretty weak Snipped. Well, it's not. Snipped. True, but that doesn't mean go for everyone's head right away. It just leads to mass roleclaiming that only scum will know is true or false. I think that this (what you said in this quote) is a very, very easy place to hide (and claim to make) if one is scum. We'll, I guess time will tell. Maybe I'm wrong. But this game is nothing if not finding people you think may be scum based on observations, suspicions, insights and a plethora of other things.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2007 1:22:47 GMT -5
Here's a big huge FOS to BlaM and Roosh.
I'm not going to quote any of it, but I invite you all to read the interaction of Roosh, BlaM, and myself on pages 4 and 5. I'll summarize it from my perspective:
1. Roosh says something to the effect of WTF and CK not having voted for scum. 2. I wonder how he knows they haven't. 3. BlaM jumps on my case with an explanation about how I took everything completely out of context, that he was defending Hockey, and I'm scummy for including everything except for the sentence about Hockey's alleged participation in bandwagons. 4. My rebuttal was that I didn't understand the post the way BlaM interpreted it, although I pointed out that I still didn't understand where Roosh was coming from, it still had a -huge- inconsistancy, which I pointed out. 5. Roosh does some headslapping, explaining his post in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way than BlaM did.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2007 1:27:31 GMT -5
<snip> In an open setup, it's poor form. In a closed setup, I disagree. But that's for an out of game discussion so i won't bother with it in here. I think this is an in game discussion, and would appreciate you answering the question instead of avoiding it.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2007 1:35:27 GMT -5
<snip> If anything, the one getting the convenient benefit of the doubt is PygmyRugger, for doing the exact same thing I did (finding something scummy and trying to build a case for it), only Pygmy actually took a quote very much out of context to do so. All I did was stumble over some improper grammar. Roosh has since admitted that he flubbed. I don't know if it was a typo or a slip, but regardless, it was a flub. I did not take anything out of context. You simply cannot compare the flub I pointed out to the "they" argument you're trying to build, it's just silly.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2007 1:57:44 GMT -5
<snip> 5. Roosh does some headslapping, explaining his post in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way than BlaM did. To expand on this one, Roosh says it was an editing error, while BlaM simply glosses right over the fact that a flub even occurred, instead elaborating on what Roosh -meant- to say.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 6, 2007 2:22:21 GMT -5
Well, it's one reason I dislike people speaking for me. I have no idea why, but Blam's been really nice to me all of toDay, I have noticed it, and filed it away (as I like his non-ST ideas, but when it comes to the ST issue, I'm leaning towards ST over Blam).
But to me it makes sense. My explanation is the correction, I have no idea WHY Blam was defending me, and I didn't expect it, but non-the-less, it will inevitably lead to these sorts of issues. So yeah, I guess you need to look at Blam as to why he's been defending me, and such. But i did point out, I hadn't read any of the next page before I posted my correction. It's not much, but it's one thing I value- my word. But this IS mafia, so i guess it goes out the window.
But yeah, ask Blam all you want, I'll be curious to know those answers too.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 6, 2007 2:37:32 GMT -5
<snip> In an open setup, it's poor form. In a closed setup, I disagree. But that's for an out of game discussion so i won't bother with it in here. I think this is an in game discussion, and would appreciate you answering the question instead of avoiding it. This feels like a hostile tone. Which makes me wonder: What knowledge do you hope to gain from this question? What's your motivation for asking me about this issue? I still feel it's a strongly out of game discussion on the Make up of Closed settings in order to protect Pro-Town Roles a way a "Townie" should behave. However, I'm not going to sit in the middle of the game and explain my opinion on "This is how townies should behave in a closed setting game" That to me is an out of game discussion, and one that I don't want spilling over into the game, because at this stage it'll create LOTS of WIFOM, and possibly another clusterfuck like Day 1. On day 1 I tried to introduce new ideas that I see working in MafiaScum for closed setups, but that led to insanity. Thusly, I do NOT want to bring up more ideas on the behavior of a Town during a closed setup game, and what townies should do/watch out for esp. in regards to power roles and such. 1. It'd lead to lots of unnecessary debate. 2. It's kinda unhelpful to present MID-Game, as it's better at the start if people know these sorts of things. 3. If scum don't know it, it's kinda like giving a list on basically "how to look townie in Roosh's eyes". I don't wanna give that out. 4. If someone townie looks at it, and goes well I haven't been doing that! He must think I'm scum! Or I think he's scum for thinking that because I'm town and i don't do that! Leads to LOTS of WIFOM and stupidity. So I don't feel comfortable bringing up those sorts of things. And it makes me wonder why you want me to answer that Q so badly, I feel as if its fishing for info on how I play games. But I'll restate my feelings again on the matter, for you: I personally do believe Townies that claim roles in Closed Games can be helpful under certain scenarios. There are certain ways to play where they can become useful assets to the Town, and certain strategies are more valid by their implementation. What those scenarios are, I will not expound upon currently. We've already got 2-3 running themes each day being debated (ST vs. Blam "on lynching"/ Hockey's "Bandwagon definitions"/ Diomedes "Is he a Scummy Detective"/ "What's a Scum Slip"/" Roosh's Plan", etc. I don't wanna add Roosh's Ideas on Mafia 2.0 to the list. Because it was tiring, and futile i felt. Also, I think it probably hurt us in the long run, and for that I apologize, but we'll see how this game goes. I'm a little bit in low spirits though at our lack of ANY scum kills. =( If you don't agree with me on the Townie's claiming issue, then I'll gladly agree to disagree with and we can discuss it further, post game. My view is only my own, and I don't mind differing opinions on how to play this game. It's part of the challenge of Mafia.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2007 7:54:02 GMT -5
Boy...that benefit of the doubt sure smells good, Roosh. Can I have just an itty bitty taste? Lick the spoon, maybe? Smile Cookies, I would call that a lynchable slip as well, just like your two. His explanations are only slightly better than yours as well. The lynch condition means that we will wind up with at least one bandwagon because it is the only way to actually lynch someone. As for bandwagons, just think if I had voted for myself, I could have been on all 5 bandwagons as well.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2007 8:05:09 GMT -5
I have the feeling that today is going to be a run-off between drainbead and Cookies. No-one else seems to have been as scummy as these two to the majority of the town.
I have a suggestion which is probably going to be unpopular but I think may help the town.
Do we continue the whole wait until the end of the day waiting for more scumtells and try to rush it in an hour or so or do we start asking now for our two main candidates to start claiming now.
I'm not saying we should not keep looking for scum tells from everyone else, but in terms of speeding the game up and deciding between our two main candidates what do people think? Not to mention avoiding the general rush as the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 6, 2007 9:46:46 GMT -5
I'll claim whenever people think I should. I've been waiting to let everyone else decide when, because I don't want to claim too early if I don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 6, 2007 10:09:44 GMT -5
I feel the same way. I would like to hear from the non-voting public before either of us claim. Vote for one of us or explain why you're not and/or introduce a third party to this little democracy of DEATH.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 6, 2007 10:36:54 GMT -5
Cookies, this is the second time you've mentioned adding a third party to the mix. If anything, I think that's bad for us at this point, as it will potentially make the eventual lynch rushed and result in a bad decision. I can only think you're saying that because you know I'm town and you're scum, and potentially adding another townie to the mix ups your odds.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 6, 2007 10:50:50 GMT -5
Or, I'm allowing for the possibility that the other people aren't voting because they might have someone else in mind? There is an "and/or" in that sentence...
Do you really think I'm in any sort of position to orchestrate getting anyone at all up here with us?
*In her best hypnotic voice* "You do not want to vote for me anymore. I am not the scum you're looking for. You will find yourself compelled to unvote me, and vote for Top Dog instead."
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Oct 6, 2007 11:18:07 GMT -5
Or, I'm allowing for the possibility that the other people aren't voting because they might have someone else in mind? There is an "and/or" in that sentence... Do you really think I'm in any sort of position to orchestrate getting anyone at all up here with us? *In her best hypnotic voice* "You do not want to vote for me anymore. I am not the scum you're looking for. You will find yourself compelled to unvote me, and vote for Top Dog instead." That helps. Anyone who wants us to vote Top Dog has to be scum. Vote Cookies
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 6, 2007 11:37:59 GMT -5
*sigh* Just put my name in blue if you don't feel like actually explaining yourself.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 6, 2007 12:14:05 GMT -5
Hockey Monkey, voting for someone die to the influence of Mr Top Dog is a scumtell, I hope you have something better to backup your vote for Cookies.
Personally, I would like to see everyone give an opinion on the two candidates, which one is scummier and most importantly - WHY!
If anyone does have a third option who has been far more scummy than these two, then by all means say so, but please at least give you opinion on the two main candidates.
I would be especially interested to hear from the people who have not voted. You opinions are required and will be valued.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 6, 2007 12:27:05 GMT -5
I am in the house for exactly eleven minutes, and in that time I have to shower, so this will be very, very brief:
I'm going to vote drainbead because of the two leading candidates, she is the one who's behavior strikes me as scummy; please see my previous posts this Day for explication. The attacks on Cookies don't resonate with me - they seem fabricated and reaching.
I have to run now; probably won't be able to post again until tomorrow (Sunday) evening.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 6, 2007 12:35:11 GMT -5
I think this is an in game discussion, and would appreciate you answering the question instead of avoiding it. This feels like a hostile tone. Which makes me wonder: What knowledge do you hope to gain from this question? What's your motivation for asking me about this issue? <snip> If you don't agree with me on the Townie's claiming issue, then I'll gladly agree to disagree with and we can discuss it further, post game. My view is only my own, and I don't mind differing opinions on how to play this game. It's part of the challenge of Mafia. Please excuse me if my tone seemed hostile. That was not my intent. My motivation for asking you the question is simple. Announcing that you have a defense mechanism for night kills, if it's true, only helps the scum. Knowing that piece of information does not benefit the town in any way. If this information is false, it explains why you never die at night. I can't think of a single pro-town reason why you would announce this information, if true. All I want is one good reason, and I'll back off of it. But you've acknowledged and avoided the question in two long winded posts. My issue isn't with townies claiming as a whole. My issue is with that specific piece of information.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 6, 2007 13:24:00 GMT -5
Man, slow day or what? Weekends are always lagging.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 6, 2007 13:32:48 GMT -5
I know, I keep hitting refresh over and over.
Anyone other than Cat have an opinion on when the roleclaiming should begin?
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 6, 2007 14:35:29 GMT -5
Anyone other than Cat have an opinion on when the roleclaiming should begin? It's your neck on the line, why would you need our opinions on when you claim? And is it just me, or did anyone else find Diomedes offer to investigate wtf a little suspicious? If there's some kind of scummy roleblocker in the game, telling people who he's going to look at ahead of time is inviting disaster; personally, I'm reading it as a setup for a convenient excuse the next Day.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 6, 2007 14:39:19 GMT -5
Anyone other than Cat have an opinion on when the roleclaiming should begin? It's your neck on the line, why would you need our opinions on when you claim? Because I don't want to screw it up. Too soon or too late both come with their own set of problems. What I can say now, and will, is that a bunch of people in this game have been barking up the wrong tree for quite some time. Whether that's due to scumminess or simply being misguided, I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 6, 2007 18:04:22 GMT -5
Cookies, this is the second time you've mentioned adding a third party to the mix. If anything, I think that's bad for us at this point, as it will potentially make the eventual lynch rushed and result in a bad decision. I can only think you're saying that because you know I'm town and you're scum, and potentially adding another townie to the mix ups your odds. Well this is just the sort of thing I was waiting for. I really didn't like the case against either one of you up until now. However, the sort of attitude espoused by this post just stinks to high heaven. First, the appeal to the masses couched in an accusation against a single player. Perhaps more tellingly, the assertion that Cookies must be scum and you must be town based on a suggestion by her that possibly we look to lynch more than just one of the two of you. The whole "one of the two of us must be scum, and it ain't me, so it's gotta be her!" sort of reasoning presupposes a greater foundation that what has been laid here. It's not like the two of you have both claimed the same character/role, it's just that the two of you are up on the block at the same time. Because nothing of that sort has happened, you can't have had that information unless you're scum, as far as I know. vote:drainbead
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 6, 2007 19:01:39 GMT -5
Research into Day 2 has failed to substantiate the impression that I had regarding the events of that Day. Suffice it to say that I felt there was an Alliance-staged event. Without evidence, I feel it unreasonable to accuse the players involved. It would just be smudging them.
I'll have to read through Today again now. This is likely to chew up a lot of time when I should be doing rl things. Still, I'll fit something in.
|
|