Mafiascum.net

camn wrote:

sam.samhorn wrote: I just said that I guarantee that he's town because this wagon is stupid.

I'd like to take this moment to point out that IT FINALLY WORKED.

stark has posted more in the last 3 days than he had the

entire game

before the wagon on him.
That is what lurker wagons are designed for. Thus NOT stupid.

Right.

So now that stark has stopped lurking, we lynch him for being scummy.

sorry guys. really sick ,bad fever. couldnt catch up today.

sam.samhorn wrote:just for clarification: I have no role information that implies that stark is good. Or bad. I just said that I guarantee that he's town because this wagon is stupid.

... So stark's mason subclaim just got counterclaimed by his all-but-claimed partner?

Back to Plan A.

Korejora wrote:sorry guys. really sick ,bad fever. couldnt catch up today.

You're still on my "why isn't this scumbag lynched yet?" list, you're just lower than Stark is right now.

(Note for Xyl: IIoA = Information Instead of Analysis, supertell of active lurking.)

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

Tarhalindur wrote:(Note for Xyl: IIoA = Information Instead of Analysis, supertell of active lurking.)

Interesting list of tells. I should point out that "Well, that sucks" is actually a null tell, despite popular opinion. (Well, not entirely null - it's a mild vig/doc tell.)

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

You're reaching.

scotmany12 wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

You're reaching.

Oh? What do you think that was?

Tarhalindur wrote:That's the mason subclaim, people.

Once they've gone that far, if they were real masons, they would have claimed flavor, or something to lend credibility to their claim.

A vanilla softclaim is much less suspicious than a mason softclaim. But this may be due to my fondness for vanilla softserve ice cream.

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

1213

stark wrote:1213

Is that 733t speak or rubbish? I can't tell. Can we lynch him already?

DrippingGoofball wrote:

stark wrote:1213

Is that 733t speak or rubbish? I can't tell. Can we lynch him already?

Yosarian2 in post [b][i][u]1213[/b][/u][/i] wrote:

Kmd4390 wrote:

crywolf20084 wrote:Um Camn...How is stark confirmed?

I think she was being sarcastic. Sam "guaranteed" that Stark was town. Btw, I think that's Sam's opinion, not a softclaim.

I think it was because Stark said he was confirmed. Which, I thought, was just a continuation of this thing:

stark wrote:

Yosarian2 wrote:

Thestatusquo wrote:PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTT

Neah. You don't do it right.

That's ok, it's close enough.


So right now, we know that DGB and Shea are confirmed town.

So right now, why don't the two of you name your top suspect for scum.

Then we can move on from there.

And that, like the "Pfffftttt" thing (as I said at the time), was sort of a reference to a really funny (and, oddly, kind of effective) stratagy Quagmire used several times at Starkadium, where he'd start off a game saying "Ether, are you scum? No? BA, are you scum? You're not? Ok, Ether and BA are both confirmed town."

It's still meaningless.

DIE SCUM DIE

camn wrote:

sam.samhorn wrote: I just said that I guarantee that he's town because this wagon is stupid.

I'd like to take this moment to point out that IT FINALLY WORKED.

stark has posted more in the last 3 days than he had the

entire game

before the wagon on him.
That is what lurker wagons are designed for. Thus NOT stupid.

Yes it is. Lurker wagons are nothing more than policy votes, and at this stage in the game, they're a stupid idea; one because there's enough information on other players out there (hasdgfas) to come up with a much greater chance of a scum lynch on day one, two because if people are lurking because they're busy or something on day one I'm absolutely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they start contributing sometime.

Without the added pressure, I still feel stark would have started participating sometime in the game; in other words, I don't think it was "active lurking," and even if it was, this part of day one isn't nearly enough of a sample size to justify a vote.

Xylthixlm wrote:

Caboose wrote:minor FoS Xyl and crywolf. For subtle rolefishing.

What rolefishing?

When you say:

Xyl wrote:stark isn't confirmed town.

After Tar urges everyone to get off the stark wagon for no apparent reason (which implies that he knew something that we didn't know in terms of roles). Your statement might elicit a response of "Well, I'm power role X" from Tar, which makes it subtle rolefishing if Tar is a power role that knows that stark is innocent.

Tar does not have role-based info though, as seen from his recent posts, so the above is all a moot point.

Unfos: Xyl

Tar's reason was obvious: he thought that sam.samhorn and stark were claiming mason buddies.

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Uhh...that's not a mason subclaim at all. Not even a little.

I thought it was, too..thats why I got off the wagon. Thats what I meant when I accused sam of softclaiming.

Lets just ask:

Sam: how do you that stark is town? Are you mason-buddies? If so, prove it.
(add rolefishing to that case against me, stark)

stark wrote:People seem to have this strange idea that I'm flipping sometime soon, which I have no plans to.

How exactly, do you intend on avioding it?

This stark wagon is weaksause. I don't have a read on his alignment or anything, I'm not going to repeat Sam and say he's "obviously town", but no one has given anything like a good reason to be voting Stark here.

Yosarian2 wrote:This stark wagon is weaksause. I don't have a read on his alignment or anything, I'm not going to repeat Sam and say he's "obviously town", but no one has given anything like a good reason to be voting Stark here.

So, don't vote, and let the rest of us do the dirty work.

yosarian-
I obviously support a qwints lynch... But i feel like
a) we are getting more information from pressuring stark
And
b) the case on qwints is just as weak
Thus:
C) it is more productive for us to lynch stark.
We get more opinions, we even get info from stark himself! Which, whichever way he flips, is useful.

Qwints, on the other hand, gives us nothing. Which means he should die, certainly, but later.

Xylthixlm wrote:

scotmany12 wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote:

stark wrote:

Xylthixlm wrote:

stark wrote:I'm also confirmed town anyways.

sam.samhorn wrote:stark is town; i guarantee it.

That's the mason subclaim, people.

Let's put it this way: either you're a mason with sam.samhorn or you are scum. Since you apparently aren't a mason with sam.samhorn... logic ftw.

You're reaching.

Oh? What do you think that was?

I didn't even think anything of it. I thought it was a joke. There is no way that this was a mason subclaim.

scotmany: Someone says "I'm confirmed town" and you assume they're ?

9 to lynch

stark: 6 (DrippingGoofball, populartajo, crywolf20084, Xylthixlm, Tarhalindur, camn)
hasdgfas: 4 (scotmany12, sam.samhorn, qwints, farside22)
qwints: 3 (Kmd4390, Yosarian2, hasdgfas)
crywolf20084: 1 (Caboose)

Not Voting: 3 (stark, Korejora, Rogueben)

DEADLINE: Tuesday March 3rd, 10:00 PM EST

Camm: I'm confused. Why, exactally, are you voting Stark?

camn wrote: b) the case on qwints is just as weak

Qwints claimed vanillia, for no reason, and is refusing to be at all useful. That's not a bad case. What's the case for stark?

Thus:
C) it is more productive for us to lynch stark.

Do you think Stark is likely to be scum? If so, why?

We get more opinions, we even get info from stark himself! Which, whichever way he flips, is useful.

So...you want to lynch Stark because he's posting and qwints isn't?