|
I'd love to play but I'm in three games currently. I'll take a replacement spot though!
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
What's up nerds? I'm replacing Capitalist. Pigman is dead. Long live Pigman!Gabriel Pope posted:I have used a RNG to determine who the scum are and it came up with Gamerofthegame and Good Sir for the scumteam. I did this my very first game, where I was scum. ##vote Gabriel Pope
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:What's up nerds? I'm replacing Capitalist. Pigman is dead. Long live Pigman! For reference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Since when is aggressive scumhunting a scum behavior? Explain please.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
How is it a bandwagon if I'm the only vote on you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
I noticed that but I'm curious about how Gabe flips first.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:The top 3 lynch candidates have been Lumpen, me, and Capitalist Pig. As CPig's replacement you want the heat off in a hurry and you can't double down on Lumpen because that's who CPig was pushing and it would look super scummy, which leaves me as the obvious target for you. Yes truly, with only 35 hours left in the day I scarcely have time to defend myself. Sorry you drew scum, I would let you ride it out until day two if this game didn't already have a lot of new players.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
fiery_valkyrie posted:I think the WM case is stronger. Note also that he votes CPig, then a couple of minutes later claims to not have a read on him, and is suspicious of 2 other players, but doesn't change his vote. I disagree. He's hedging his opinions more than I'd like but I think that's natural behavior in a new or returning player.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Rarity, I usually get a false positive scum read on you because the way you look for scum doesn't make any sense to me. Aggressive scum hunting is never scummy. Why would that ever be the case?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Rarity, trying to be polite here is giving me a headache. You play mafia weird, okay? Aggressively pointing out anti-town behavior sometimes hits bad town players, yeah, which is why distinguishing between bad town play and scum play is an important skill.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
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. One of the things Somber does that always strikes me as scummy is that he'll talk about his playstyle and use it to project. For example, "I did this thing when I was scum, and a different player with a different playstyle is doing it now, therefore they are scum!" That's written as not 'one thing somber does as scum,' but rather 'one thing somber always does.' Even I buy into the premise that I do this behavior as town or scum, how then would that be indicative of my alignment? I would ask you to be as specific as possible in detailing how my position on Wall Monitor is contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
I felt like I wasn't asking much in a response from Exakt, so that's lame. I know he's been busy though. I still feel completely comfortable voting Pope Gabe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
If I actually need to tell anyone why the post above me is scummy then please just lynch me now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Right now Somber and Good Sir are the only votes I'm 100% comfortable with, although if Good Sir starts posting again I will back off that vote unless it's really, really incriminating. "Hey, let's lynch this lurker over one of the other many lurkers I felt the need to call out, for no particular reason." Exakt and Rarity both cased me hard if poorly yesterday and Gabe has no comment on their content or them as players other than "post more?" If Gabe actually thinks I'm scum why would he just ignore those posts?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
No, they didn't make exclusively meta arguments against me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:his only post is pretty scummy, In a shocking turn of events, it's actually your post that's scummy here. You overexplain the arbitrary nature of your first vote and are far too eager to push a lurker vote right off the bat. Gabriel Pope posted:I don't actually put a lot of stock in the RNG and I'm not going to rest my case on someone's first post. But c'mon son, you gotta step up your game. Almost everybody has dropped a vote, you gotta have some opinions other than "I don't like the guy who said I might be scum." Is that actually any different from what you're doing? As far as I can tell you're voting me for advancing discussion and doing work. I'd also challenge why you call my my vote on you arbitrary and scummy, when you confess to make arbitrary votes yourself. I mean, you should also explain how my vote is in any way arbitrary but that's besides the point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
wall monitor posted:These 'meta arguments' being the bit about Pig swapping out for Somber, or something else? Rarity is arguing that what I've said this game contradicts with how I play mafia or something similarly pointless, but Exakt is saying that what I've said this game doesn't match up with my actions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Valery. you're town. Tell me I'm not crazy here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:Lumpen has made maybe two posts without the word scum in it and that reads scummy to me. Can you explain the rationale?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Hey Somber, I really am sorry for not responding to this yesterday. I'm going through a breakup of a really longterm relationship while also trying to move and find a job, so I'm a bit out of it at the moment xD Oh wow dude, that really blows. You're a better person than I am for staying in the game. For what it's worth I meant what I said a while back, St. Louis is cheap and I can put you in touch with job people! I see what you mean about Wall Monitor as it relates to my scum play back in Low-Effort Mafia, which is a game I still cherish. http://i.imgur.com/34gmo9E.png
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:And now he's going after lurkers on D1. For what it's worth, he believes what he's saying. It's something I could consider if I wasn't sure in my read on Gabe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Honestly, playing mafia has been helping, when I remember to post, because it's giving me something to distract myself. http://votefinder.org/player/wall-monitor
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Sorry Lumpy, I am going to hope that Good Sir begins to play the game, is replaced, or modkilled. Or that the scum have the decency to nightkill him. I'm sticking with my Gabe vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Sorry if my posting was too hostile, I'll work on that. I do feel like I've offered adequate explanation for my vote over the course of the day though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
##vote Good Sir Probably won't get a chance to change that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Just lynch, nothing else is possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't really play mafia on the weekends. Exakt seems like a fine vote to me. I could also go for Gabe. I'm going to read through today again and see where I stand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
I super don't care for the post right above mine, but I agree with Lumpen that Exakt makes the most sense. Exakt's response so far hasn't been terrible, but unfortunately I think it's important that Exakt attacked both Wall Monitor and Pope instead of just Pope. Monitor's post was nuts, but it makes sense from a town perspective. The way Gabriel expresses the same idea is much scummier. Wall Monitor is clear, concise, and open. Gabriel's post is full of obfuscation and hedging. My call would be Exakt, Gabriel, and then maybe Gamer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sorry, my attention has been lacking. I definitely overextended in playing here. ##vote exakt
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Well, moving my vote won't help. Hopefully Rarity or Gamer do work here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
This must be a frustrating game for scum. It was incredibly anti-town for Rarity to throw down a useless vote and then leave us in a no-lynch situation. Gabe at least helped lynch scum. ##vote Rarity
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Oh yeah. I guess we probably have results then.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
If they just have one town result then I guess it isn't worth claiming unless we're about to accidentally lynch that player. I'm too lazy to work it out but I think that would make the game very difficult to lose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Who is scum, Rarity?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Oh well then it's Gabe. ##vote Gabe
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
FV I am hurt that you would investigate me 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I think this is probably wrong but it's the faster way to get the lynch that I want. ##vote Wall Monitor
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 16:43
|
|