Mafiascum.net

Your behavior after that post is helping me draw conclusions on your alignment. (Leaning town at the moment)

PhilyEc wrote:Thanks Gorrad, oh and Zwets, considering you're playing so many games, is this the reason you've decided to observe only one person? If so, what exactly did I do that caught your eye?

@Giuseppe
Any idea of who here seems most scummy? I'd really like to know what you're thinking right now (understands you're V/LA but I think you'll see this question later).

@LHNM
Seems like an opinion of Giuseppe rather than a scummy move, could be seen as a pre-emptive strike to start a wagon effect but I dont see that happening anytime soon. That would be taking a leap to assume though. A vote seems inappropriate, even scummy in its own sense.

@Gorrad
Following the lynch all liars principle? "completely incorrect, and hypocritical" to him admiting lying is scummy and never good? Seems very correct to say such a thing in his case, though hes basically agreeing with people that what he did deserves a vote. What you've left out is his defense that hes not good with defending himself in the first place.

I think claiming to be poor at your defending yourself is okay, but lying to do it? Either he paniced or else its another lie. This would seem more appropriate to vote towards.

Er, the @ tag mix-up confused me. Is there anything in this to which you want my response?

The LALAL I can explain- not only was he saying LAL when he himself had lied, but I've both lied and seen people lie for VERY protown reasons. I find the absolutist mantra of 'LAL' used much more often by scum than town, as a weak excuse to vote. So simply put- Lynch all those who say to lynch all liers.

THANK YOU! Someone shares my philosophy on LAL.

@Gorrad
I thought LAL = LAWL = LOL o.o Anyways you answered my question to you anyway, you're not in favour of lynching all liars like I assumed as scum eat up his coming out about lying. Hmmm

Does this mean you think Green Crayons is scummier than Giuseppe?

LAL is scummy

Not necessarily.

PhilyEc wrote:@Gorrad
I thought LAL = LAWL = LOL o.o Anyways you answered my question to you anyway, you're not in favour of lynching all liars like I assumed as scum eat up his coming out about lying. Hmmm

Does this mean you think Green Crayons is scummier than Giuseppe?

No. I agree with GC that what Guiseppe did (the lying to look less suspicious) was bad. Plus Guiseppe then goes on to say LAL (which, I suppose, means he should be voting for himself). I don't see GC as saying to LAL, just that Guiseppe's lie was more scummy than town, which I can agree with.

zwetschenwasser wrote:Not necessarily.

Please provide a counterexample so we can tear it to shreds.

The LAL theory is based on more then the LALAL theory. Both however are stupid. There are specific situations where a lie can be acceptable however those times do not superimpose the times when it's not alirght to lie. The saying should be Lynch all liars who have lied for reasons not in the best interest of the town. the LAL principal is correct a good portion of the time in theory. However, this new lynch all people who cry LAL is bogus. LAL is a principle believed by a lot of people, or at least it seems like there are people who believe it. By lynching anyone who follows LAL you damn all these people before you ever recieve their role.

I agree scum probably use LAL a lot. But in those cases you need to see if the LAL is correct or if the lie was actually for the benefit of the town.

Now more on topic, did he ever say "LAL" or did he simply say "Lying is never good"? Becuase there is a difference, a very big one actually.

Gorrad wrote:No. I agree with GC that what Guiseppe did (the lying to look less suspicious) was bad. Plus Guiseppe then goes on to say LAL (which, I suppose, means he should be voting for himself). I don't see GC as saying to LAL, just that Guiseppe's lie was more scummy than town, which I can agree with.

He lied to look less supsicious? I thought he lied about his random vote being random, that hardly seems to qualify as trying to be less supicious.

Where did he ever say people should be lynched for lying?

And just becuase I'm apparently lost, what did Guise lie about exactly?

Gorrad wrote:Please provide a counterexample so we can tear it to shreds.

How about when someone claims cop then says "I was just lying to draw the night kill, I'm actually vanilla." I believe the concept of LAL exists in that situation and saying that player should be lynched for his lie is in no way scummy.

You're using 'LAL' to mean something different than I. 'LAL' does not work. It cannot be correct. Saying that someone's lie is town or scum, that can be correct, incorrect, etc. That's not what I'm against. I'm against those who believe someone should die simply because of lying.

He never said 'LAL', but saying that 'lying is never good' falls under the same category- admittedly, not to the same extremes, but still...

Oh, and sidenote revival: My favorite character is Aisen.

... It falls nothing near it in this case. You're pushing the case lynch all people who think everyone should be lynched for lying. Guise never said anyone should be lynched for a lie and thusly your entire agrument against him is completly baseless and pusing obviouly false facts.

And in the case of fakeclaim cop, lie, claim vanilla. I believe that player should be lynched simply becuase of that lie. Do you disagree with it?

Gorrad wrote:Oh, and sidenote revival: My favorite character is Aisen.

He's alright I suppose... I kinda like Tousen over him though.

Korlash wrote:And in the case of fakeclaim cop, lie, claim vanilla. I believe that player should be lynched simply becuase of that lie. Do you disagree with it?

If the guy is still alive the next day then I'd find it very suspicious. Usually scum would have to pick someone down to intuition but if someone was acting like cop and managed to claim in a way that they were believable then scum would target them. If scum didnt its because the person is trying to be confirmed town when they arent, falling back on a vanilla role would look scummy. Existing cop would probably push the lynch on them and make it very easy to identify real Cop for scum.

(This happened this evening on EpicMafia but it was a Bodyguard instead of a Cop.)

Korlash wrote:And in the case of fakeclaim cop, lie, claim vanilla. I believe that player should be lynched simply becuase of that lie. Do you disagree with it?

I don't understand this. Like, literally, I do not follow what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase please?

I said LALAL because it was funny to have it briefed to that. I do believe basically in LALAL, I wasn't lying, but I don't limit it to those who only believe LAL- he's using a false absolute, the essence of why I dislike LAL, and that puts him close enough to it for him to arouse my ire.

Arouse my ire...I need a D&D fix ><.

7 to lynch

zwetschanwasser: 3 (GLaDOS, Korlash, Albert B. Rampage)
Gorrad: 2 (ZEEnon, LynchHimNotMe)
Giuseppe: 1 (Green Crayons, Gorrad)
GLaDOS: 1 (Xtoxm)
Seraphim: 1 (zwetschanwasser)
GhostWriter: 1 (Seraphim)
Albert B. Rampage: 1 (PhilyEc)

Not Voting: 1 (Giuseppe)

... Processing ...

I am not moved by the “lynch all people who say lynch all liars” discussion. The only person we seem to need clarification from is Giuseppe. Right now the discussion is focusing too much on theory and too little on scumhunting.

Gorrad wrote:I don't understand this. Like, literally, I do not follow what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase please?

You expet me to understand my own posts? Jeeze, now I have to do everything...

Anyways, I presented a hypothetical situation in which an unnamed player fakeclaimed cop. He then admitted he was lying and was actually vanilla. My conclusion is that the argument "LAL" works in this situation. The player lied, and his lie is definitly worth dying over. you have been saying LAL doesn't work, but it does "in specific situations". Personally I wouldn't call it "LAL" but I think "LAL" is well known enough that if only used in these specific situations would be acceptable as it would save time.

Gorrad wrote:I said LALAL because it was funny to have it briefed to that. I do believe basically in LALAL, I wasn't lying, but I don't limit it to those who only believe LAL- he's using a false absolute, the essence of why I dislike LAL, and that puts him close enough to it for him to arouse my ire.

Not really no. The statement "lying is never good" is perfectly acceptable. There are lots of people who believe this. Granted it is up to players like you and I to set them straight but it hardly qualifies them as scummy. Also, as he never said anything along the lines of "liars should be lynched" or even "Lying is scummy" it's not even close enough to pick up your dry cleaning let alone release your wrath. This whole thing almost seems like a meaningless excuse to try and back up a worthless vote.

Glad wrote:I am not moved by the “lynch all people who say lynch all liars” discussion. The only person we seem to need clarification from is Giuseppe. Right now the discussion is focusing too much on theory and too little on scumhunting.

This post was so chalk full of scum hunting I'm almost ashamed I'm wasting my post on thoretical disscussion to try and prove Gorrad is BSing a case on Guise. Wait a minute... No... I'm the one scum hunting here and you're the one cluttering the thread with worthless posts about how no one else is doing their job! tell you what, next time just take the nap and don't waste my time or I might be tempted to throw you in a fire.

Here's our key difference in phrasing, Korlash. LAL is lynch ALL liers. It's not lynch those who lie under specific circumstances in which lying is inexcusable. It's the using of a false absolute in order to justify votes that upsets me.

As for your second paragraph, I disagree with you. I don't find it acceptable. You do? Whoop dee doo. We'll have a disagreement party and have crumpets and rave music. Do you have a /problem/ with me not finding it acceptable?

Gorrad wrote:Here's our key difference in phrasing, Korlash. LAL is lynch ALL liers. It's not lynch those who lie under specific circumstances in which lying is inexcusable. It's the using of a false absolute in order to justify votes that upsets me.

Which is why I am saying it should only be used in specific situations. If so, it fails to be LAL and becomes Lych all liars who lie in specific situations where it is fine to lynch them for that lie.

Gorrad wrote:As for your second paragraph, I disagree with you. I don't find it acceptable. You do? Whoop dee doo. We'll have a disagreement party and have crumpets and rave music. Do you have a /problem/ with me not finding it acceptable?

Yeah I do as you are pushing a vote along with not finding it acceptable. If someone where to say "Self voting is scummy" I would disagree with it and do everything in my power to change it but it's hardly grounds for a vote.

And before you get started, I don't really care about one vote on Guise or this reason. You see something you don't like, you vote him, big deal. What I have a prolem with is how you voted him by pushing a falseness and when called out on it you seem to have backtracked and even doing that have yet to justify your vote.

so are we lynching zwet or what

The Zwet wagon looks like a scum excuse to lynch a townie based on playstyle.

My favourite is Hitsugaya

Xtoxm,you're in this game? O_o Damn you need to post more xD

Albert, whats up with you and the lazy posts? Zwet wagon doesnt appear until he at least defends himself. Obviously hes explained his actions but theres plenty of room to elaborate.

That boy needs to grow up.

If it looks like scum, smells like scum and plays like scum, its probably scum.

Dude, i've only just replaced in. And I replaced into another game before the opeing arose in this one, so i've got them both to catch up on.

Albert B. Rampage wrote:That boy needs to grow up.

If it looks like scum, smells like scum and plays like scum, its probably scum.

Either that or you have percepted poorly...