|
Because I'm curious why you bring it up as a possibility.fiery_valkyrie posted:I still want to lynch Exact or Rarity most though.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 21:20 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 11:15 |
|
Gabriel you seem strangely reticent about actually voting EXAKT. You seem to be looking for support for jusr any other possible candidate. This makes me curious. Why? Want to talk it over?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 21:26 |
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Because I'm curious why you bring it up as a possibility. The reason I think Rarity is scummy is because she is sticking to a bad case today and got weirdly defensive when questioned about it.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 21:43 |
|
Lumpen I'm not sure what you expect me to say to defend myself, as you seem pretty set on voting for me. I don't like your case, as it seems to hinge mainly on the NK target, which I don't like on principle. I'd rather vote Somber or Gabe, but if I have to die, so be it.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 21:53 |
|
EXAKT Science posted:Lumpen I'm not sure what you expect me to say to defend myself, as you seem pretty set on voting for me. I don't like your case, as it seems to hinge mainly on the NK target, which I don't like on principle. I'd rather vote Somber or Gabe, but if I have to die, so be it. Can you restate your cases on Somber and Gabe?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 21:59 |
|
Lumpen posted:Gabriel you seem strangely reticent about actually voting EXAKT. You seem to be looking for support for jusr any other possible candidate. This makes me curious. Why? Want to talk it over? I'm looking to see who's supporting other possible candidates because I don't think there's any justification for not lynching EXAKT today, therefore people bringing up other candidates are suspect. I guess f_v is technically beyond reproach but it's still my knee-jerk reaction that anyone could be possible scum. I'm planning on dropping my vote when I get off work today. I don't want to cut off discussion, particularly during working hours where it's simple for me to keep up with the thread, but I'm going to be too busy tonight to spend time on the forums. Who here doesn't think EXAKT is a probable scum candidate? Just WM and Rarity last I checked, Gamer seems wishy-washy but sounds like he would be willing to join in.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:04 |
|
Somberbrero posted:I have no idea how to respond to Rarity other than to tell her that she's wrong and say mean words. I'm not sure what you two are doing and how the behaviors you're pointing out correlate in any way to alignment. I don't think a big back and forth is productive here because it will just give Gabriel more room to hide, but there are clear issues with your reasoning. EXAKT Science posted:The main thing that struck me was how it read to me like you were, on the one hand, talking about how important aggressive scumhunting is (I agree, by the way), but then also are excusing WM's scumminess. It felt like you were trying to stifle discussion while also talking about why that discussion is so important, which struck me as scummy. I've also seen you buddy up to scummy-acting townies and vouch for them when your scum, and I know that you're very good at faking scumhunting and leading townies around. Before you ask, yes, of course I'm over what happened in Low-Effort Mafia, why do you ask? My Gabe case is based on this doozy of a post: Gabriel Pope posted:I really don't like this post. It seems very premature to declare yourself and valk cleared. The timing smells of desperation play, and I don't like Lumpen's continuing fixation on Gamerofthegame.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:09 |
|
Gabriel Pope posted:I'm looking to see who's supporting other possible candidates because I don't think there's any justification for not lynching EXAKT today, therefore people bringing up other candidates are suspect. I guess f_v is technically beyond reproach but it's still my knee-jerk reaction that anyone could be possible scum. And here's another interest check as far as cuddling me. He doesn't want to be the one leading the charge on my cuddle.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:12 |
|
EXAKT, any thoughts or analysis you'd be willing to share on Rarity and/or gamerofthegame?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:24 |
|
EXAKT Science posted:I didn't like the way he went back and forth on WM, and I've seen him win as scum before by doing pretty much exactly this. Can you show where he went back and forth on WM? In that quote he just asks you to outline you case that he did go back and forth.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:24 |
|
EXAKT Science posted:My Gabe case is based on this doozy of a post: My only experience is with a vanilla game, so I'm not used to having power roles around. And when I log in and see posts like these: Gamerofthegame posted:Doubt it. wall monitor posted:Okay, theory time! I figured I should at least entertain the idea that there could be something fishy going on, if only because we might need to persuade one/both of them to vote for you.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:25 |
|
Huh, I thought I had a vote up already. Right now I'd vote Somber > Pope > WM and I'm definitely not voting Exakt. Pope's latest posts have been very scummy, in particular the whole "lynch Exakt to test Lumpen's claim" scenario because he's setting up a chain lynch based on Exakt flipping town. Also his interpretation of me softballing the Somber case to Exakt is wrong on two levels. Firstly, they're different cases with different reasons and the second is that it doesn't jibe with the Rarity/Exakt scumteam he's pushing. There's no point in softballing a case to a scum buddy.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 22:48 |
|
Rarity posted:Pope's latest posts have been very scummy, in particular the whole "lynch Exakt to test Lumpen's claim" scenario because he's setting up a chain lynch based on Exakt flipping town. That was yesterday and I pointed out why chain lynching EXAKT -> Lumpen would be a bad idea in the same post. Rarity posted:Firstly, they're different cases with different reasons and the second is that it doesn't jibe with the Rarity/Exakt scumteam he's pushing. There's no point in softballing a case to a scum buddy. What How does pointing out that those posts look like they were coordinated not jive with the theory that you might be scumbuddies?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:04 |
|
Rarity posted:Huh, I thought I had a vote up already. Right now I'd vote Somber > Pope > WM and I'm definitely not voting Exakt. Pope's latest posts have been very scummy, in particular the whole "lynch Exakt to test Lumpen's claim" scenario because he's setting up a chain lynch based on Exakt flipping town. Also his interpretation of me softballing the Somber case to Exakt is wrong on two levels. Firstly, they're different cases with different reasons and the second is that it doesn't jibe with the Rarity/Exakt scumteam he's pushing. There's no point in softballing a case to a scum buddy. There is no Somber case. Your vote is based on the assumption that I can't believe aggressive scum hunting is a scum behavior. At best that's poor meta reasoning, at worst it's completely divorced from reality. I'd encourage you try and play the game at some point.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:05 |
|
Gabriel Pope posted:That was yesterday and I pointed out why chain lynching EXAKT -> Lumpen would be a bad idea in the same post. Your whole post set up the idea that if one is town then the other is scum. You even punctuated the proposed "Lumpen is town but read the NK wrong" option with a "yeah right" quote:What How does pointing out that those posts look like they were coordinated not jive with the theory that you might be scumbuddies? The point of softballing is hiding behind someone else's case so they take the blame for a bad lynch. It's what you've been accused of doing with posts on Exakt. Do I need to tell you why scum don't want other scum to be blamed for lynches? Somberbrero posted:There is no Somber case. Your vote is based on the assumption that I can't believe aggressive scum hunting is a scum behavior. At best that's poor meta reasoning, at worst it's completely divorced from reality. I'd encourage you try and play the game at some point. Well whatever it is it's still different to what Exakt's been saying
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:17 |
|
Rarity posted:Your whole post set up the idea that if one is town then the other is scum. You even punctuated the proposed "Lumpen is town but read the NK wrong" option with a "yeah right" That same sentence pointed out that the alternative to taking him at his word was to lynch the doctor. I was illustrating the situation: in that scenario we wouldn't be able to trust Lumpen but we wouldn't be able to safely lynch him, either. At any rate, the point of me listing off all the possible problems of reading into Lumpen's claim based on EXAKT's flip was not, in fact, to suggest that we should read into Lumpen's claim based on EXAKT's flip. [quote="Rarity" post=""441350634"The point of softballing is hiding behind someone else's case so they take the blame for a bad lynch. It's what you've been accused of doing with posts on Exakt. Do I need to tell you why scum don't want other scum to be blamed for lynches?[/quote"] If only there was someone else who had been strongly advocating for lynching Somberbrero right before you and EXAKT both jumped on the case... someone who could take the fall for you if you got the bandwagon to take off and got a town flip...
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:38 |
|
I've been working/househunting/at the dentist (ow), apologies for not keeping up much today idk, it might just be me being a newbie, but I still don't trust Lumpen much. Since people are moving away from that though, I'd consider Gabriel again
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:39 |
|
If Lumpen was lying, there'd be a 50% chance he'd be counterclaimed and die as a result. It's not out of the realm of possibility but it seems unlikely.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2015 23:45 |
|
Gabriel Pope posted:At any rate, the point of me listing off all the possible problems of reading into Lumpen's claim based on EXAKT's flip was not, in fact, to suggest that we should read into Lumpen's claim based on EXAKT's flip. Holy poo poo. You literally said you were "pretty confident" about using the flip to test Lumpen's claim. quote:If only there was someone else who had been strongly advocating for lynching Somberbrero right before you and EXAKT both jumped on the case... someone who could take the fall for you if you got the bandwagon to take off and got a town flip... Wait, so now we were both softballing to you? Any more of your story you want to change?
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 00:00 |
|
Rarity posted:Holy poo poo. You literally said you were "pretty confident" about using the flip to test Lumpen's claim. EXAKT is probably scum, and I don't think a Lumpen/EXAKT scumteam is running some kind of gambit (my scenario #2, which I discarded) so lynching EXAKT will most likely confirm Lumpen's claim. But we cannot rule out the scenario where EXAKT and Lumpen are both town and Lumpen was simply misguided (which I listed as #1.) I know my post was long and rambly but you're being really obtuse. Case in point: I have no idea how you two posting after me could be construed as "softballing to me". At any rate, we can sort it out Tuesday. ##vote EXAKT Science
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:10 |
|
Reminder that we need a full 5 out of the 6 remaining Townies voting together in order to lynch a Scum today. Also hoping that if they have a Roleblocker, EXAKT is it. Otherwise I figure I'm dead tonight. Assuming EXAKT flips Scum, Scumbuddy probability is Rarity > gamerofthegame > Gabriel. I'm pretty confident that Somberbrero and wall monitor are Town and obviously f_v is confirmed Town.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:15 |
|
Sorry, my attention has been lacking. I definitely overextended in playing here. ##vote exakt
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:18 |
I can hammer whenever, so continue.
|
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:18 |
|
Votecount for Day 2 EXAKT Science (4): Lumpen, fiery_valkyrie, Gabriel Pope, Somberbrero Lumpen (0): EXAKT Science, Gamerofthegame, wall monitor, Not Voting (4): EXAKT Science, Gamerofthegame, Rarity, wall monitor With 8 alive, it's 5 votes to lynch. The current deadline is February 10th, 2015 at 10 a.m. GMT -- that's in about 9 hours, 36 minutes.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:24 |
|
I might as well not even vote but ~*principles*~ ##vote Somber
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:28 |
|
Lumpen posted:EXAKT, any thoughts or analysis you'd be willing to share on Rarity and/or gamerofthegame? I feel okay about both of them, I guess. Both of them, especially Gamer, have fairly scummy metas, but I haven't seen anything particularly damning from them. I'm honestly amazed that Gabe doesn't have more attention thrown his way; he's pushing for me in a super scummy way, and it's crazy that no one else sees it, and I'm not going down before I ##vote Gabriel Pope. Anyway, hammer me if you have to. It does suck that I'm going from never being miscuddled to being miscuddled twice in a week, but that's mafia
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:32 |
|
If exact flips town, I think Gabe is most likely scum.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 01:38 |
|
Rarity posted:I might as well not even vote but ~*principles*~ I want to aggressively scumhunt you in the face right now. EXAKT Science posted:I feel okay about both of them, I guess. Both of them, especially Gamer, have fairly scummy metas, but I haven't seen anything particularly damning from them. I'm honestly amazed that Gabe doesn't have more attention thrown his way; he's pushing for me in a super scummy way, and it's crazy that no one else sees it, and I'm not going down before I ##vote Gabriel Pope. Anyway, hammer me if you have to. It does suck that I'm going from never being miscuddled to being miscuddled twice in a week, but that's mafia I was trying to push Gabe yesterday, when you were pushing me.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 03:31 |
|
Gabe hadn't made that ridiculous scumpost yesterday. Also I tend not to trust you on principle.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 03:44 |
|
Eh. I'm not convinced about Exakt right now... Someone want to sum up the case against him? Meantime I'll go through and do another read. I've got another hour before I have to call it a night.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 04:02 |
|
idk, I don't feel confident enough in Exakt, not that it matters since Exakt is -1 with someone standing by to hammer apparently [b]##vote Gabriel Pope[/b[
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 04:43 |
|
##vote Gabriel Pope There
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 04:43 |
|
Thanks for the vote of confidence, WM. Again, if I get cuddled, that's fine. I still think that Gabe would be a far better cuddle and would net us a scum, but I've stated my case several times over and it unfortunately hasn't taken. If Rarity switched, we'd only need Gamer and one more to hammer, but I don't know how feasible that is at this point.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 07:34 |
|
Well, moving my vote won't help. Hopefully Rarity or Gamer do work here.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 07:38 |
|
Is anyone else here?
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 07:48 |
|
If this is a no-lynch, Town deserves to lose. Shame! Town is going to win eventually anyway, the Scum remain clearly among EXAKT, Rarity, and gamerofthegame. Wall monitor can be considered an honorary Scum for being so helpful to them.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 08:08 |
|
Votecount for Day 2 EXAKT Science (4): Lumpen, fiery_valkyrie, Gabriel Pope, Somberbrero Gabriel Pope (2): EXAKT Science, wall monitor Somberbrero (1): Rarity Lumpen (0): EXAKT Science, Gamerofthegame, wall monitor, Not Voting (1): Gamerofthegame With 8 alive, it's 5 votes to lynch. The current deadline is February 10th, 2015 at 10 a.m. GMT -- that's in about 2 hours, 51 minutes. If you are Town, drop the hammer now!
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 08:09 |
Yeah, yeah. ##vote Lumpen
|
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 08:25 |
nah i'm just foolin' ##vote Exakt
|
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 08:25 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 11:15 |
|
Votecount for Day 2 EXAKT Science (5): Lumpen, fiery_valkyrie, Gabriel Pope, Somberbrero, Gamerofthegame Gabriel Pope (2): EXAKT Science, wall monitor Somberbrero (1): Rarity Lumpen (0): EXAKT Science, Gamerofthegame, wall monitor, Not Voting (0): With 8 alive, it's 5 votes to lynch. The current deadline is February 10th, 2015 at 10 a.m. GMT -- that's in about 0 minutes.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2015 14:26 |