Mafiascum.net

↑ Mac wrote:That unvote has REALLY disturbed me. Like, I'm pretty sure we don't have any trolls or idiots in this game who will hammer without a claim from Angel. As long as people are aware that an "intent to hammer" is ALWAYS necessary, having Angel at L-1 should be fine and hopefully force some content from her.

Why did you unvote fferyll when no one is gonna hammer prematurely? Especially considering your "suspicions haven't changed."

AA9, get involved or be lynched. I want ff's answer before I consider putting AA9 at L-1

@Deras

- do you mind getting an avatar?

^^ When I unvoted AA (stating my suspicions had not changed) after Carey put her at L-1.

↑ Mac wrote:UNVOTE:

Keep reading Guy.

Note it down my vote is effectively on Eye here though, this is to stop any sort of derp hammermove.

^^ When GM put Eye at L-1.

@Mac is this a change of heart about L-1 strategy? Do we have trolls now that we didn't have then?

↑ TraceyLyn11 wrote:

VOTE COUNT 1.13

[L-2] Z7-852: (goodmorning, fferyllt, ArcAngel9)

[L-5] fferyllt:

[L-5] Deras:

[L-4] ArcAngel9: (Deras)

[L-5] Mac:

[L-5] Eye Urn:

[L-3] VisceraEyes: (Revenus, Eye Urn)

[L-5] Revenus:

[L-4] goodmorning: (Z7-852)

Not Voting:

2 (Mac, VisceraEyes)

• With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.
  
• Day One's deadline: April 18, 2013 CST or in (expired on 2013-04-18 20:45:00).
  
• V/LA: Mac (a couple of days)

↑ fferyllt wrote:Seeing my name in that bandwagon freaks me out.

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: Z7-852

I don't like GM's reads and I still harbor thoughts that AA9 is scum. Being on the same bandwagon with both of them with a player I originally thought was town should and did make me sit up and take notice. GM's case on that slot dates back to Fropome's posts. After reviewing the first 10 or so pages of the thread again night before last, my town read on Fropome is renewed. Z7's posts are better the last couple of days, too. I don't agree with some of his reads, but the reads fit how he's approaching the game.

One thing that puzzles me is how Z7's got me at one end of his scumometer and VE at the other. Our play over the last couple days has been pretty similar in some ways.

↑ goodmorning wrote:IC PART OF THE POST TIME: EVERYONE STOP PAIRHUNTING BEFORE FLIPS THAT IS SO EFFING COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

Why? I heard some ppl saying this, but I never could understand why.

nvm. it's answered later.

VE is rtown for #927 and #928.... and what the hell is #931?!

I assumed the delay in her response was disagreement with me re: Mac, but it turned out she was just being thorough.

K. Pg 38 now. I'm almost there. Seeing that we have 2 days left, I'll focus on townhunt+PoE today.

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ Mac wrote:That unvote has REALLY disturbed me. Like, I'm pretty sure we don't have any trolls or idiots in this game who will hammer without a claim from Angel. As long as people are aware that an "intent to hammer" is ALWAYS necessary, having Angel at L-1 should be fine and hopefully force some content from her.

Why did you unvote fferyll when no one is gonna hammer prematurely? Especially considering your "suspicions haven't changed."

AA9, get involved or be lynched. I want ff's answer before I consider putting AA9 at L-1

@Deras

- do you mind getting an avatar?

^^ When I unvoted AA (stating my suspicions had not changed) after Carey put her at L-1.

↑ Mac wrote:UNVOTE:

Keep reading Guy.

Note it down my vote is effectively on Eye here though, this is to stop any sort of derp hammermove.

^^ When GM put Eye at L-1.

@Mac is this a change of heart about L-1 strategy? Do we have trolls now that we didn't have then?

Nope. Like, you didn't want her hammered prematurely; I just want to give GiF a chance to voice his matter before someone drops a hammer.

There's a difference between "not wanting to hammer prematurely" (and not actually stating intent to re-vote or such) and unvoting so a replacement can read the 49 pages we've created.

There were something like 32 pages when I replaced in - you didn't seem worried about me "having extra time" when AA was at L-1 I think is her point.

↑ VisceraEyes wrote:There were something like 32 pages when I replaced in - you didn't seem worried about me "having extra time" when AA was at L-1 I think is her point.

Angel was at L-2 when you replaced in.

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: ArcAngel

To get her off L-1. My level of suspicion is unchanged, but I don't want her hammered prematurely.

So this is a different sentiment than you expressed?

And that's not even her point.

↑ Mac wrote:UNVOTE:

Keep reading Guy.

Note it down my vote is effectively on Eye here though, this is to stop any sort of derp hammermove.

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: ArcAngel

To get her off L-1. My level of suspicion is unchanged, but I don't want her hammered prematurely.

They look strikingly similar to me, actually. But he's REALLY disturbed at one, and he posted himself the other.

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: ArcAngel

To get her off L-1. My level of suspicion is unchanged, but I don't want her hammered prematurely.

So this is a different sentiment than you expressed?

Yep.

You don't want AA hammered prematurely (read: right now) for no reason. I don't want Eye hammered so I can give GiF a chance to read and voice his opinions. As soon as he does this, my vote will go back on.

↑ VisceraEyes wrote:There were something like 32 pages when I replaced in - you didn't seem worried about me "having extra time" when AA was at L-1 I think is her point.

No, that wasn't my point. A page or so after that Carey decided to replace out. I thought that the AA wagon went to L-1 for derpy reasons. The next vote could have been more well thought out but the wagon IMO did not represent anything like a solid consensus.

I'm not sure how closely you read your predecessor's posts. At times I thought he was doing protown stuff - pushing people to post reads and stuff, even though he wasn't posting much thought of his own, especially when the thread activity would die back to near nothing. His votes, though, were weird.

↑ Mac wrote:

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: ArcAngel

To get her off L-1. My level of suspicion is unchanged, but I don't want her hammered prematurely.

So this is a different sentiment than you expressed?

Yep.

You don't want AA hammered prematurely (read: right now) for no reason. I don't want Eye hammered so I can give GiF a chance to read and voice his opinions. As soon as he does this, my vote will go back on.

For no reason?

If that's what you thought then I can see why you didn't like my unvote.

AA9's #1031 is terribad.
"You want to policy lynch? I'll policy lynch you instead!"

Not sure if it's alignment-indicative, though.

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ VisceraEyes wrote:There were something like 32 pages when I replaced in - you didn't seem worried about me "having extra time" when AA was at L-1 I think is her point.

No, that wasn't my point. A page or so after that Carey decided to replace out. I thought that the AA wagon went to L-1 for derpy reasons. The next vote could have been more well thought out but the wagon IMO did not represent anything like a solid consensus.

I'm not sure how closely you read your predecessor's posts. At times I thought he was doing protown stuff - pushing people to post reads and stuff, even though he wasn't posting much thought of his own, especially when the thread activity would die back to near nothing. His votes, though, were weird.

I just let you speak for yourself then.

I read them - didn't take long. The longest post he made was the one bitching at everyone for complaining that he has a life I think. His votes looked like what they were: +1 thread sentiment votes from an inactive and an admitted OMGUS. Capable of coming from both town and scum.

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ Mac wrote:

↑ fferyllt wrote:

↑ fferyllt wrote:UNVOTE: ArcAngel

To get her off L-1. My level of suspicion is unchanged, but I don't want her hammered prematurely.

So this is a different sentiment than you expressed?

Yep.

You don't want AA hammered prematurely (read: right now) for no reason. I don't want Eye hammered so I can give GiF a chance to read and voice his opinions. As soon as he does this, my vote will go back on.

For no reason?

If that's what you thought then I can see why you didn't like my unvote.

That's what I thought. Although you did say your suspicions haven't changed, you didn't say you would put your vote back later or anything like that. I know you did later obviously, but the intent wasn't there and I didn't see any sign of it being there: at the time, I thought it was possible scum-partners distancing early on and realising that AA could actually be lynched. what was disturbing.

Now I think you are pretty town-like.

I thought it was implicit, given my statement that my suspicions hadn't changed. barring something giving me reason to think she looked better or to think someone else looked worse, my vote was going back.

I'll keep that in mind for future games.

Logically speaking, it implicit (suspicion enough for vote = suspicion enough for vote).

GiF you know we're hanging on your every word here, right?

No pressure.

↑ fferyllt wrote:GiF you know we're hanging on your every word here, right?

No pressure.

This. But without the "No pressure" part.

Don't feel like you need to make a huge case or something either, a comment on the present wagons, whether or not you support and who you think we should look at otherwise would suffice for now.

↑ VisceraEyes wrote:Logically speaking, it

was

implicit (suspicion enough for vote = suspicion enough for vote).

What?