No, but you (that means everyone who hasn't) might want to acquaint yourself with them, since they're a bit different to the ones in Suburu's games.
ERRRRG I know it's total WIFOM but why is this making me think SFG isn't mafiaSaturos-fangirl wrote:
welp, i guess im getting lynched for scumhunting. w/e just make sure you find the scum, okay? ill see you guys again at endgame, hopefully with a town win rather than a mafia win.
pleasepleasepleasepleasePLEASE be smarter in this game than you were in M1, M2, and M3
If we're still in the RVS stage, we're doing something wrong.Wojjan wrote:
Wow, where did those posts come from?
Putting someone on L-1 is silly and dumb, especially in a somewhat RVS
- rust +1.5
LadySuburu wrote:
If we're still in the RVS stage, we're doing something wrong.
*Wojjan facepamlmsWojjan wrote:
Putting someone on L-1 is silly and dumb, especially in a somewhat RVS
Yet, if you put someone on L-1 it raises some suspicion. Why would he not give strager a chance of speaking? Why would he make way for a Hammer to instantly get him? Doesn't it seem weird? Especially since we got a lot to discuss, seeing the number of posts a moment.LadySuburu wrote:
Also: There's no need to wait until deadline every single day in mafia games. If five people suspect that someone is mafia, we lynch them. Of course, you want to give them a chance to post and or claim before you do.
Wojjan. have you read very many of my posts?Wojjan wrote:
Subi, and actually all of stragers bandwagon, I'd like you to think twice if your vote isn't really based on anything. We're on 5 to lynch today, so if we kill a townie today, and the mafia does so too, we only need three votes for a mafia to hop in and get a kill tomorrow. If they've coordiated at night, and decided to both get a vote on one, two votes can bring us in danger.
Also, my suspicion of rust went up by a notch for never saying why he voted strager before, and even now not clearly stating what of stragers behavior could be scummyrust45 is now on 2.5 suspicion rate in my eyes, and the highest on my list. He hence gets my vote.
- rust45: +1
vote: rust45
Random Vote Stagestrager wrote:
Q's:
What's RVS?
What's Hammering?
ahh i KNEW i was forgetting someone...strager wrote:
SFG, What are your opinions on 0_o?
Main reasons for voting: If you trace through some of our conversations, you'll find there are other posts that have my reasons included as well. Example: My post on Page 10, and the resulting conversation from that.strager wrote:
LadySuburu, your main reasons for voting for me are outlined in the following posts:
viewtopic.php?p=152992#p152992
viewtopic.php?p=153782#p153782
Of me acting like kuu, I would appreciate specific examples. Even with supporting posts I doubt that's reason enough to vote for someone.
In the second post above, you show that rust45, SFG, and I (and to a lesser extend 0_o) are all pretty suspicious by our jumping on bandwagons. With the recent L-1 vote against me by rust45 (which you say looks pretty random) has your level of suspicion not changed? rust45 now has made two L-1 votes, whereas I have not made any. You explicitly mention that putting L-1 without reason is scummy: viewtopic.php?p=153787#p153787
The exact same reasoning could be applied to rust45 and SFG for tie-ing votes as well. I think rust45 even started the tie-ing thing (unsure).LadySuburu wrote:
Main reasons for voting: If you trace through some of our conversations, you'll find there are other posts that have my reasons included as well. Example: My post on Page 10, and the resulting conversation from that.
If you're referring to my acting in M2, of course I'm acting differently. I'm in a different situation. I don't have a false role claim on my head, I'm not being heavily attacked by one or more highly skilled players very well, and I'm not a newbie. Again, I would like specific examples else your claim is worthless in my eyes.LadySuburu wrote:
Acting like kuu: You weren't acting as I know you to act, which is apperently less than I thought. You were acting much different than how you are now acting in defense.
1: I'll check to see who for sure started the near-lynch trend. I'll also see how involved you were in it.strager wrote:
The exact same reasoning could be applied to rust45 and SFG for tie-ing votes as well. I think rust45 even started the tie-ing thing (unsure).LadySuburu wrote:
Main reasons for voting: If you trace through some of our conversations, you'll find there are other posts that have my reasons included as well. Example: My post on Page 10, and the resulting conversation from that.
"setting a trend to get many people near lynch" -- I didn't really set the trend I think. I did start the "vote for yourself as a joke" thing which SFG followed.If you're referring to my acting in M2, of course I'm acting differently. I'm in a different situation. I don't have a false role claim on my head, I'm not being heavily attacked by one or more highly skilled players very well, and I'm not a newbie. Again, I would like specific examples else your claim is worthless in my eyes.LadySuburu wrote:
Acting like kuu: You weren't acting as I know you to act, which is apperently less than I thought. You were acting much different than how you are now acting in defense.
Well for one I don't think it was that wild, I already said you and SFG were high on my list, and I recently started to have doubts about SFG's guilt.strager wrote:
That vote on me was pretty wild. Can you explain your exact reasoning?
Finally someone realizes this truth. This is the first game of Mafia I've ever played. Due to this I'm still not playing very well. I'm still trying to get the hang of this. And yes, I know I should've joined a newbie mafia game first.Saturos-fangirl wrote:
rust is obviously a noob, he may be mafia or may not be mafia, but he's acting a bit like strager did in M2, minus the roleclaim
Thing is, they are just as likely to be a mafia trying to hide. If they were gathering information for the next day, wouldn't they be asking questions and stimulating discussions as opposed to hiding in a corner the whole time?adam2046 wrote:
I have nothing I feel like commenting on at this point in time.
Just posting so people know I'm actually reading.
Oh and instead of killing off people who don't talk straight away (which I think is a tactic that the mafia would consider using) you should encourage them to speak first, give them a day and if they still refuse to speak actively, kill them off. Lynching people who act like this first day might be a mistake because they could just be gathering information to use the next day (or they could be an aux role trying to hide.)
Because it's easy to do, just like you're doing.0_o wrote:
Also I don't really see why mafia would want to get rid of quiet people, I would think they would want to have people no one knows anything about in the final days to cause confusion. (it worked the last 3 games...)
"kill anyone here on purpose"? What? Firstly if I was really desperate to get rid of anyone I probably wouldn't have switched off of you after I got you on L-1 (inadvertently mind you, I didn't think rust would swoop in right after me).strager wrote:
I'll have to go with adam on this issue. It seems 0_o is trying to kill anyone here on purpose, as if he's not really part of the Town. At least that's what I see of him.
Well actually, the easy thing for mafia to do would be to keep their trap shut and let the town lynch anyone who isn't them. I, on the other hand, do care about who is lynched, and think we should get rid of the dead weight that's gonna kill us at the end.adam2046 wrote:
Because it's easy to do, just like you're doing.0_o wrote:
Also I don't really see why mafia would want to get rid of quiet people, I would think they would want to have people no one knows anything about in the final days to cause confusion. (it worked the last 3 games...)
I had forgotten roles are not revealed. Down the road there'd probably be at least one Mafia on each lynch against anyone here, though, so hopping off the bandwagon against would be to avoid this. Of course, this is a WIFOM situation.0_o wrote:
"kill anyone here on purpose"? What? Firstly if I was really desperate to get rid of anyone I probably wouldn't have switched off of you after I got you on L-1 (inadvertently mind you, I didn't think rust would swoop in right after me).strager wrote:
I'll have to go with adam on this issue. It seems 0_o is trying to kill anyone here on purpose, as if he's not really part of the Town. At least that's what I see of him.
Hehe... that explains why you're reluctant to vote SFGLadySuburu wrote:
There are rare cases that a townie hammers without waiting for some discussion, but those are rare.
I lol'dBagelBob wrote:
I've read through the game once and to be Frank, you all look guilty.
strager, you're going to get lynched, even claiming vanilla would help since roles aren't revealed upon deathdeadline wrote:
vote: strager
adam has not done ANY scum-hunting and none of his posts has any quality.LS wrote:
SFG: 4, 4, 3
rust45: 4, 3, 3, 3
strager: 3, 3, 3
0_o: 3, 3
LS: 3
Wojjan: 3
adam: -
Pasonia: -
I don't see what's wrong with that post really. Truth is, we are going to have to dig deeper to find mafia this game, so we are gonna have to look a little harder than previous games if we want to win.BagelBob wrote:
This post bothers me. 0_o is speculating on the game set-up instead of scum-hunting, a supposed scum-tell, but it's really too early for that to mean much. However, he's making a case that Mafia are going to look like Townies. This is scummy because it gets people thinking that townies are really scum.
Self-preservation is Scummy. Also, here 0_o says that putting someone at L-2 is "kinda fishy"I didn't say putting someone on L-2 is scummy, I said putting someone on L-2 by a supposed "random vote" is a little suspicious.
Which he himself did twice.
Pictures serve to distract people and generally hurt scum-hunting.Oh come on
more stuff about self-preservationOf course I was gonna try to keep myself from getting lynched, I am the only one who I am sure isn't mafia, and personally I think I can be useful for the town. I don't really see how not wanting to get lynched at RVS is scum tell
You misinterpret what I mean, what I was saying was that we should stop the silly votes and start getting serious about the game.BagelBob wrote:
Adam in this post is asking other people to point fingers at each other. This isn't laziness, this is scummy.
Sorry for inactivity? Then later he says that he had planned to lurk this game. Those two don't seem to go together.I think by not voting in weeks means that he hasn't placed a vote in a WW/mafia game for weeks (hence why he forgot to bold his vote)BagelBob wrote:
[quote="Pasonia":c0cb3]EDIT @ adam: I'm sorry I haven't voted in weeks. >.>
rust seems to have no problems putting someone at L-1.Well he did already explain that his behavior in the first half of that day was to "make things more interesting", and he is a newbie, but I'm not sure what to think myself.
[quote="Wojjan":c0cb3]I lost count, am I on L-1 yet?Again, self-preservation is scummy.Again, at RVS I don't see anything wrong with wanting to stick around. Though I don't really see this as self-preservation, but what do I know
I take it this game won't last long for me this way
Adam in this post is asking other people to point fingers at each other. This isn't laziness, this is scummy.I see this as an attempt to get people voting for who they actually think is mafia, as opposed to all the joke votes, tying votes, etc. that we've been doing up till then. I was actually gonna post that myself, before I saw that adam already did.
This post is very interesting. At the time, stragers vote was the one he received when he switched with SFG. I.E. he was NOT voting who he thought was scum. I think this gives credit to the "strager was a goon" theory.Possibly, but keep in mind that strager was the one who requested to switch votes, and that was still around the time where most of the votes were jokes. I'm still suspecting strager being mafia, I just don't know if this is good evidence for it or not.
adam has not done ANY scum-hunting and none of his posts has any quality.I'll let adam speak for himself on this one
SFG: 4, 4, 3Could this list be updated anytime soon, maybe at the end of D2? I would like to deduct some more theories from bandwagoning and votes, but I'm not really in place to make a list, since I tend to disappear some times in this period. Sorry for that too.
rust45: 4, 3, 3, 3
strager: 3, 3, 3
0_o: 3, 3
LS: 3
Wojjan: 3
adam: -
Pasonia: -
I believe it's unintentional, but this is a straw-man. The truth of the argument is not in question. The fact is that the argument is in support of the scum, rather than the town.0_o wrote:
OK I'll start with the response to the attacks on me, then look at everyone else in the next post (because I don't like giant posts)
I don't see what's wrong with that post really. Truth is, we are going to have to dig deeper to find mafia this game, so we are gonna have to look a little harder than previous games if we want to win.BagelBob wrote:
This post bothers me. 0_o is speculating on the game set-up instead of scum-hunting, a supposed scum-tell, but it's really too early for that to mean much. However, he's making a case that Mafia are going to look like Townies. This is scummy because it gets people thinking that townies are really scum.
I did indeed leave those words out, but again, two of your three times putting someone at L-2 were in the random vote stage.0.o wrote:
Self-preservation is Scummy. Also, here 0_o says that putting someone at L-2 is "kinda fishy"I didn't say putting someone on L-2 is scummy, I said putting someone on L-2 by a supposed "random vote" is a little suspicious.
Which he himself did twice.
In general. In this case the picture was quickly forgotten. Also, there wasn't any scum-hunting going on at the time.This was supposed to be a general warning that it is a bad idea.O.o wrote:
Pictures serve to distract people and generally hurt scum-hunting.Oh come onI doubt posting a picture is going to hinder anyone's scum-finding process.
That's exactly the point. In RVS you shouldn't HAVE to be concerned about not getting lynched since all the votes are random. If a lynch happens in the RVS, then multiple people are doing something wrong. It is not necessary to try and live through the RVS. RVS should be a time when you look for initial reasons to start pushing someone.O.o wrote:
more stuff about self-preservationOf course I was gonna try to keep myself from getting lynched, I am the only one who I am sure isn't mafia, and personally I think I can be useful for the town. I don't really see how not wanting to get lynched at RVS is scum tell
I'm sorry if I misinterpret what you MEAN, but I can only go off of what you SAY. Next time, if you MEAN "we should stop the silly votes and start getting serious about the game" then maybe you should SAY "we should stop the silly votes and start getting serious about the game" instead of saying "anyone wanna point real fingers now?".adam2046 wrote:
You misinterpret what I mean, what I was saying was that we should stop the silly votes and start getting serious about the game.BagelBob wrote:
Adam in this post is asking other people to point fingers at each other. This isn't laziness, this is scummy.
You seem to misinterpret on purpose too.
You're right in a sense. However, you admit that this would be something you could see both sides doing. Why does that make it scummy?Wojjan wrote:
As predicted, I was away for a while, due to massive amounts of visiting town halls.
BageBob claimed doctor. Yay, now we know. Thanks for making this harder for all of us, we're bound to lose you on N2. Unless of course you're a scum. I do think your theory is credible, but if I were scum, I would have seen this happen too, and theree's no solid proof yet you're the doctor, since you can freely say who you protected as long as that person is still alive.at least you explained...
- BagelBob: +0.5
I can't talk about this, since I have no idea what you're saying. Could you clarify, please?Wojjan wrote:
't seems I missed that post on adam, and I checked it again. There's no possible way you can see this how Bagel did without looking for reasons to suspect him.
- Bagelbob: +1
I'm sorry, looking for scummy things that people do is scummy? Sorry, but looking for scummy things is called scum-hunting. Try it some time?Wojjan wrote:
Bagel, there is nothing wrong with self-preservation, especially in the RVS. Or what for most seemed as the RVS. You're, again, looking for ways to get suspicion on others. Scummy in my yes
- BagelBob: +0.5
I'd like to point out that both Scum and Town lurk. That being said, I still don't like it. More on this later.Wojjan wrote:
SFG: 4, 4, 3Could this list be updated anytime soon, maybe at the end of D2? I would like to deduct some more theories from bandwagoning and votes, but I'm not really in place to make a list, since I tend to disappear some times in this period. Sorry for that too.
rust45: 4, 3, 3, 3
strager: 3, 3, 3
0_o: 3, 3
LS: 3
Wojjan: 3
adam: -
Pasonia: -
Pasonia, why are you even in? You're rarely here at all, and vote without reason. Maybe he sees no interesting things in the day phase since his time to shine is at night? Or is he just trying to lay low? I wou:ldn't have any clue.
- Pasonia: +0.5
BagelBob wrote:
And when I said re-read 3, I meant examine SFG's posts. Since she was the NK, it's important to figure out WHY she was NKed. Thus, her posts from the previous day need to be examined.
While reading, keep in mind 2 things
1. SFG was not voting to lynch strager
2. SFG was probably the 2nd most suspicious person after strager
I can come up with 3 reasons that SFG would be NKed.
1. SFG was right on the money. Pasonia or rust (her two main suspicions) are scum. Also including the possibility of adam, but early game and not so much later
2. The Scum wanted to find out who each other are. One posted to Kill: SFG to test if the other was SFG or Suburu (WIFOM argument as pointed out by adam prior)
3. Strager was a scum. Echo didn't tell the other that he was alone and he posted Kill: SFG expecting his "buddy" to either disagree or agree, but being surprised by the day.
All 3 of these are made because there was a short night.
Anyone, Questions, Comments, Alternatives?
At the end of your post you saidBagelBob wrote:
Turns out that I'm not going to quote this post. Instead, I'm just going to put forth this simple question to 0_o:
Why are you defending everyone else?
It's understandable to defend someone you KNOW is on your own team, but it is the duty of the town to LOOK FOR SCUM. How about in the future you start ATTACKING people instead of DEFENDING them? You need to be SCUM-HUNTING instead of doing this.
You wanted thoughts and comments, and I gave them to you. I'm not trying to defend anyone in particular, I was just stating my opinions on the validity of your attacks. Yes we want to find the mafia, but if someone argues someone is mafia because of ____, and I don't agree with the reasoning, I'll point it out. Unless you feel everyone should be out for themselves and only defend accusations against themselves?BagelBob wrote:
Thoughts? Comments? Proverbial Expressions?
You're right, posting that is ambiguous. Again, I think you should only defend someone if you KNOW they are on your team. Any other defenses should come from the person who is being attacked. The thing is, you can't specifically know if what you think they were doing is right. You can give it your best guess, but that's all it is.0_o wrote:
At the end of your post you saidBagelBob wrote:
Turns out that I'm not going to quote this post. Instead, I'm just going to put forth this simple question to 0_o:
Why are you defending everyone else?
It's understandable to defend someone you KNOW is on your own team, but it is the duty of the town to LOOK FOR SCUM. How about in the future you start ATTACKING people instead of DEFENDING them? You need to be SCUM-HUNTING instead of doing this.You wanted thoughts and comments, and I gave them to you. I'm not trying to defend anyone in particular, I was just stating my opinions on the validity of your attacks. Yes we want to find the mafia, but if someone argues someone is mafia because of ____, and I don't agree with the reasoning, I'll point it out. Unless you feel everyone should be out for themselves and only defend accusations against themselves?BagelBob wrote:
Thoughts? Comments? Proverbial Expressions?
Sorry, I was wrong. I didn't know that you had forgotten to bold you vote because of the edit. However, you still said that you planned to lurk this game.Pasonia wrote:
Sorry for inactivity? Then later he says that he had planned to lurk this game. Those two don't seem to go together.BagelBob wrote:
[quote="Pasonia":44520]EDIT @ adam: I'm sorry I haven't voted in weeks. >.>
Could you quote "the mafia thing" so I know exactly what you're talking about?Pasonia wrote:
Your logic is broken the moment you quote THIS post, and now I regard you as scum because you're able to go into so much detail on the mafia thing, while saying little about the person you protected or about yourself.
It doesn't matter to me if it's WIFOM, I'd still be pleased if you could say one, becauseLadySuburu wrote:
There are many possible reasons SFG could have been killed, but it's all WIFOM.
As for the current situation, I think Pasonia looks a bit scummy.
As for the approach I reccomend, I think we examine what happened D1, and analyze it.
*goes back to WoW*
When it comes down to it, Everything is WIFOM.Again, we need REASONS for people looking scummy, not gut end-stinks.
It seems you missed the last two games where I was "analytical" and got killed night 1.Pasonia wrote:
I clearly remember the last time BagelBob was "analytical" it ended in his ignoble death at the hands of the WW2 townies.
You think I'm scum because I'm trying to look like a townie? It appears that you've missed this post. Also, I haven't been "trying to look like a townie", I've been "trying to look for scum".Pasonia wrote:
Therefore, risking a WIFOM I am pretty sure BB is also a scum this game, and is in fact trying very hard to look like a townie while discrediting the rest as scum.
What point is it that you think I'm trying too hard to prove? I don't recall having made any assertions other than what I think is scummy. If you want to say that my reasons aren't scummy, go ahead, but unless you provide proof to the contrary, I won't change my opinions. As for "just" being inactive, I believe I've stated that before. However, you haven't been "just" inactive. It's obvious that you've been reading the thread, but up until now, you haven't posted unless prodded. You're avoiding posting on purpose, not due to circumstances beyond your control.Pasonia wrote:
I hope you guys do remember that while it's good to prove a point, trying too hard (hint: trying like BagelBob is doing) can be detrimental especially if you'd been lying (i.e. you are scum). Just because I'm inactive don't mean shit.
Ah, I see, you were referring toWojjan wrote:
What I meant to say was that you can't possibly think that is what adam meant, so you were looking for reasons to get him lynched off.
I may have phrased that the wrong way.BagelBob wrote:
Adam in this post is asking other people to point fingers at each other. This isn't laziness, this is scummy.
If you're saying I did something in the RVS that was suspicious, then you might want to read through the game again, or say it was Kuu.Wojjan wrote:
This is the same thing you did with 0_o for calling trying to get the stupid voters of the RVS to, you know, see that he's gonna get lynched on no fact at all. I personally would have foound it more weird (not scummy, but weird) if he DIDN'T protect himself.
Well, bummer, but lets look at what you think could be the reasons for SFG's night kill now.LadySuburu wrote:
Well, I just did a reread and got absolutely nothing out of it.