snort No, no 3:58 vote for me. Maybe 3:59:59.
Seriously though, I will try to have a vote in this evening after work. Also:
People (ok11 and Hero) are saying I made an OMGUS vote. I thought that was a vote for no reason, but I had a reason for my vote yesterday. Or am I misunderstanding?
Oh, one more thing. ok11 mentions in her post that she was no longer of Sitnam because he voted for what turned out to be scum two days in a row. What? Normally, that would make sense, sort of, except that if scum had enough numbers they could have at least one member vote for another wolf. Alternatively, if they saw that one of their own was going to be lynched, they could just have another one of their members vote for that person.
Exempting someone from being scum for voting for scum doesn’t make much sense in this game because there’s (at least) 3 factions: town, wolves, and cabalists. Sitnam is as likely to be a wolf who voted for a cabalist as he is to be a townie who voted for a cabalist. He’s less likely to be a cabalist who voted for a cabalist, but the possibility is still there. The same reasoning applies to any other votes.
I accidentally a predicate. :smack: She was no longer suspicious of him, is what I meant to type.
What makes you think there are more than three factions?
Ichini, OMGUS = “Oh my god, you suck” and usually refers to the act of voting on the person voting for you.
Scrubbed.
“maybe I should just…” isn’t a very strong argument. After that vote you really twisted a lot of events around to justify yourself. So far this is the only activity we’ve see you do: attack me for being suspicious of Seeker/You.
I understand replacing into a game can be hard work, but you sat on me all yesterDay for reasons that I demonstrated to be false. Admitting you were mistaken is o.k. and would go a long way in resolving my issues with you. I think the actions of other people today have been pretty scummy but want to figure out where you are coming from before I move my vote.
You have posted on The Dope several times since the beginning of toDay. Why did you wait to post here until just now? Were you not reading the thread? If you were reading the thread, why did you not think it was important enough to post and defend yourself when you were leading the lynch vote?
To be honest, it seems to me your trying to smudge the Cabal. If you think they are some nefarious faction aligned against Simpletown, say it out loud man! :dubious: </sarcasm>
I don’t get you don’t get it. Do you seriously not see a difference between:
“Post 12345, X says A. That’s interesting in hindsight, no? Nope, it’s nothing.”
and
“Post 23456, Y says B. I’m finding that a stretch unless C.”
The first doesn’t commit you to anything - only when someone asks you to clarify you have to make something up, while the second gives your opinion on what happens. In the latter I know why you find it note worthy and can check your line of reasoning (is it a stretch or are you stretching it yourself, etc)?
You’re excused, if you excuse mine. But you still have my vote (in the most friendliest of ways, though I think that goes without saying).
But THAT was my point. I found it interesting. I find shiny things interesting too, but that doesn’t make them scum tells.
I think it was interesting that Hero was talking about an interaction he saw between 2 players and came up with the response that “Player A, your actions toward Player B make sense only if you’re Scum” And then Player A is lynched, and he’s Scum. And THEN, Player B is NK’d and he’s Scum too! Only there probably isn’t a way Player A would know Player B was Scum.
Is it interesting? Yes.
Is it informative? I don’t see how.
Your sarcasm tag is throwing me off here. Twice now Cabal have not claimed before a lynch, so I assumed them to be anti town. I don’t understand how “smudging” Cabal is a mark against ed. Is this a woosh or are you saying Cabal are not anti-town? How would you know this?
I’m writing this post in a hurry, so I apologize if it’s incoherent, or if I messed up the coding.
I’d like to address some portions of your post. If you want me to respond to some of your other points that pertain to me, just let me know. Also, I think you missed my question in post 685.
I think Hero’s post and my reply are a good summary of my misunderstanding, and why I made a mountain out of a molehill.
You’re right that I incorrectly assumed the color would tell us what type of scum we’ve got in this game. Every game I’ve read either had an open/semi-open set up, or had color explaining what sort of threat the town was facing, so I didn’t think this game would be any different in that respect. Knowing what we know now, it’s obvious why sachertorte didn’t tell us anything about scum.
I don’t agree with you that MentalGuy was snuggling in post 255. I think it’s clear from that post, as well as post 714, that I’m close to the top of his suspicion list.
MentalGuy, I understand why you’re suspicious of me, but I think post 714 is the first time you’ve mentioned being suspicious of Natlaw. Is he on your list based on Oredigger77’s case, or for something else?
Similarly, peekercpa, could you clarify what you mean in post 710? When you say you think BillMC is something, do you mean scum, or just non-vanilla? Are you basing that solely on him pointing out a possible pattern? Also, you said you think Sitnam isn’t town, but you’re voting for Hero. Why do you consider him scummier? From what I understand, you’re suspicious of both of them for disliking your play style. I don’t think that alone is a good reason, because based on previous games, player with both town and scum alignment had the same issue with you.
Ichini, I’ve never said that I’m no longer suspicious of Sitnam, or that voting twice for Cabalists somehow exempts him from being scum. Please reread posts 624 and 638, where I said it’s possible that Sitnam is a werewolf, or a Cabalist who bussed his team member. You also didn’t answer my question from post 638.
Please also take a look at post 610 where I FOSed Sitnam. As you can see, my Day 2 vote was partially based on his assumptions about night kills. Those assumptions would indicate extra knowledge only if he belonged to the Cabalist faction. Even if you think Sitnam bussed his teammates both Days, do you really think straggler would have created a tie between his teammates (kitten and Sitnam) on Day 1? I don’t, which is why I don’t think anymore that those assumptions were scummy. That’s why I have a reason to be less suspicious of Sitnam. Now that he’s not at the top of my list, you are.
I was sarcastic because special ed asks ‘Did the Cabal somehow know of the existence of wolves?’, adding a line for me that I shouldn’t take this as an accusation - as if I’m voting him for making accusations against factions and not for making statements about player posts that are interesting/smugind, yet keeps concluding that they are not in the end.
For the record, I’m assuming that each faction is on it own, based on the win condition posted in the rules.
I guess I could have been fine combing your posts too much, but when you say you find something interesting in a mafia game, my first thought is that you found some clue.
Anyway currently looking at Ichini’s posts Day two and I need another joke explained to me:
Ichini, are you familiar with the mafia term ‘bussing’? Is the clever bit that Hero is bussing you?
I did forget to reply to this. I’m sorry. You’re right, getting rid of a Scum faction would be a good thing, not bad if it was a faction that had a NK (and it is possible they both may have killing powers, but that’s not certain). So your point is valid.
1 - Almost Human (MentalGuy)
1 - Hero From Sector 7G (peekercpa)
2 - MentalGuy (Almost Human, BillMC)
1 - Natlaw (Oredigger77)
2 - Ichini Sanshigo (ok11, Hero From Sector 7G)
1 - peekercpa (Sitnam)
1 - special ed (Natlaw)
I had him as suspicious before Oredigger made the case against him, but Oredigger’s case did raise my suspicion level a bit. My suspicion of all three of you is based mainly on voting patterns, with thread comments and actions adding a bit too it.
<Snipped>
Kind of I deleted one of your periods. Sorry
What I was trying to get to is that my “style” of play has created some mixed blessings. Some find it creative, some find it humorous, some find it insightful and some just find it obnoxious. The pleo syndrome to which I refer relates to a past game where he so much said that he vigged me because I annoyed him. Of course, I was a town power role.
All I was trying to convey that oddities in posting styles shouldn’t really have much influence on a person’s vote.
There arr folks that play this game that English is not their first language. It would be akin to voting or questioning someone because of getting the verb tense wrong or a typo. Not what I would suggest would be optimal town play.
What does that have to do with me?
…more specifically, why did it qualify as your final “reason” for voting me
I have:
a) not voted on you.
b) defended your posting style earlier this game (In response to Seeker FOSing you for your style)
c) questioned you for not actually voting on oredigger
You still have not directly addressed C. Instead, you have built an ever evolving case against me that has now spread to other games and the actions other people have taken against you.
So far not a single one of the reasons you claim to be voting on me are true. I think you are either not paying very close attention to this game or have untold reasons for parking your vote on me.
sitnam was giving me grief about not being specific enough. I answered her to the best of my ability.
GD dude. You have been the one giving me grief. I’m just saying that your logic for suspicion is surface FCS. Please just stop it and I promise I will try to be less a priori.
Deal.
Unvote Hero.
Crap, can you at least try to be unreasonable so we can a real slap fest?
you really should elaborate on how the voting patterns are suspicious and which thread comments and actions are suspicious.
As it stands, you’ve just used reasons with no support whatsoever.
Please elaborate, especially if you want to convince us.