Open 437: Town of Semi-Nightless Plots (Game Over)

[Equinox]

Vote Count 1.01

Sisterman (2) - Cheery Dog, funkybike1
andrew94 (1) - TeChNoWC
greygnarl (1) - seilkops
Mr.K (1) - ProsecutorGodot
ProsecutorGodot (1) - Sisterman
seilkops (1) - greygnarl

Not Voting (4) - andrew94, Hiraki, Mr.K, Voidedmafia

With 11 alive, it's 6 to lynch.

The deadline is Wednesday, August 29, 2012, at 10:00 AM EDT (UTC-4).

Mod Notes

Hiraki is V/LA until August 20.

[funkybike1]

You guys do realize that insulting each other will only help the scum?

[Sisterman]

Who's insulting who? All I see is a bunch of people playing the game of mafia. Unless you consider "scum" an insult. Which, okay, that's fair. Also: UNVOTE:

VOTE: seilkops

If you would like to contribute to the inevitable downfall of the scumteam, please post your thoughts regarding this current development and your thoughts as to who is most likely to be scum. If not, prepare to die. eventually.

[TeChNoWC]

Actually, you said in your first vote on me that you were randomly voting. But now you're trying to say that, no, it wasn't random at all, my post was actually scummy. I agree with the guy whose name is hard to type. Is my post scummy or is it not, and are you randomly voting or not? I'd like an explanation, sealman. Lest you get the "club"

Techno. They call me techno.

Unvote
Vote: Seiklops

I like my vote better here. Clubs out and ready to swing.

Even if andrew is a dirty little liar and needs to post already.

Pedit: Thoughts on Godot now?

[Sisterman]

Am I pedit? Is that me? Regardless: I still think he's a little "off" but him being slightly scummy in my eyes was really just an ancillary benefit to my true cause: Escaping joke phase and getting to the actual "game playing" of mafia as fast as possible. I would be still be voting him if seiklops wasn't a better candidate in my eyes, but he is, so I ain't.

[TeChNoWC]

Am I pedit? Is that me? Regardless: I still think he's a little "off" but him being slightly scummy in my eyes was really just an ancillary benefit to my true cause: Escaping joke phase and getting to the actual "game playing" of mafia as fast as possible. I would be still be voting him if seiklops wasn't a better candidate in my eyes, but he is, so I ain't.

Pedit means I was about to post and then you ninja'd me and I saw your post on preview after I hit the preview button. You knew to this site? You say 'pedit' (preview edit) when responding to something that was not in the initial thread when you started typing.

Compliments on your reaction grab.

Funky, any reads? Want to lay some thoughts down on current events other than being diplomatic?

[seilkops]

I figured Sister was going for a reactionary post with

Mafia is a serious game. It's like a courtroom. which is a serious place. And I'm the judge, jury, and executioner. Godot overdid his joke in his first post, a clear scumtell, to anyone with superior aarryyaan scumfinding abilities, and then makes a defensive post which actually doesn't make any sense. there's no reason for a bunch of people not having posted things like "i'm choking on the seriousness of this game" to be a factor in anyone's vote. especially not when it's a vote as good as this. in conclusion, kill that guy.

so I just played off that by voting him, and seeing what would happen. Sister is town, and I think grey is scum, is what I got from that.

This is me not RVSing

Vote:Seilkops

for trying to form an early wagon on Sisterman.

If you were RVSing you wouldn't have put the third vote on someone.

Is their an RVS handbook? Nobody's voting you, and I definitely need to adhere to the strict RVS rules so UNVOTE:
VOTE: Greygnarl

Are you being serious?
You come in and say that you are RVSing but you place the third vote on someone.
You come in and say you are RVSing but quote a post that could be considered scummy. (BTW I don't think it's scummy, just sayin it could be taken that way.)

Then when I vote you, you OMGUS me?

Yup, being serious.

You come in and say you are RVSing but quote a post that could be considered scummy. (BTW I don't think it's scummy, just sayin it could be taken that way.)

You're blatantly covering yourself right their, so keeping my vote on you. Only scum suspect I got right now.
Why isn't Sisterman's post scummy?

I've got a better idea, friend. How about instead of posing the question "Why isn't Sisterman's post scummy," which could be deflected in eight thousand ways, all of them town, you posit why the post IS scummy, so that I don't have to post all eight thousand things for you to see the light.

I didn't post why I thought it was scummy, because I'm more interested in what Gnarl had to say. That question was aimed specifically at gnarl, no one else. I was hoping to get more reads from him, but it looks like that's not going to happen.

No real major feel for Techno yet, but I'll go and list him as leaning town, if just for agreeing with me on Sis.

[TeChNoWC]

So why would you vote someone you thought was town? Also:

Why isn't Sisterman's post scummy?

You seem to be implying here you thought Sisterman's post was scummy. The statement does follow Grey's post (Grey said he didn't think it was scummy, you are asking why), but your vote on SM + quoting a post of his + asking this without implying a townread all seem to me like you were going for a scumread on SM. Now you seem to be backtracking and changing your read to SM is town, AFTER I said it was reactionary and you are parroting my reasoning (nothing essentially wrong with parroting, but funny you didn't state a townread until now).

Why is grey scum for defending SM, yet I am not? And how is that scummy if you have a townread on SM? Only problem I see with greynarl's post is jumping on the idea that bandwagoning in RVS is scummy, when it's not. And that's just plain theory talk. Ultimately it seems he was defending SM and questioning your vote, as am I and SM. So what's the difference?

[seilkops]

For the reaction, like I said. Sisterman's post looked like it was made to get reactions, so I wanted to see what I could get from it.

I asked grey why he thought the post wasn't scummy. I wanted to see his reasons and thought process for not thinking Sisterman's post was scummy, which HE brought up, not me. That raises red flags for me when he brings up something like that.

Now you seem to be backtracking and changing your read to SM is town, AFTER I said it was reactionary and you are parroting my reasoning (nothing essentially wrong with parroting, but funny you didn't state a townread until now).

Probably because I wasn't online, and was waiting for Greygnarls response. It would kinda defeat the purpose if I told him "hey I voted for Sisterman for reactions, so try to look as towny as possible!"

Why is grey scum for defending SM, yet I am not? And how is that scummy if you have a townread on SM? Only problem I see with greynarl's post is jumping on the idea that bandwagoning in RVS is scummy, when it's not. And that's just plain theory talk. Ultimately it seems he was defending SM and questioning your vote, as am I and SM. So what's the difference?

Quote me where I said grey is scum for defending SM. Please, I'd like to read that. No where have I said that, so don't try and portray that as the reason I'm voting grey. I voted grey to see what/how he would say/handle it initially, and kept my vote on him when he talks about Sistermans not being scummy, even though I never said it was. It looked like grey was covering himself, and I usually find that pretty scummy when it's so blatant. The difference is that I'm voting grey for different reasons than you think. Unless you're choosing to ignore that fact on purpose.

I'd really like to hear some other players opinions about what's going on.

[TeChNoWC]

Why are you voting grey then? Why is he scum? Enlighten me.

You are talking cryptically and I can only make inferences from what you have said, not what you haven't. And it looked like a convenient backtrack to me.

[Cheery Dog]

For the reaction, like I said. Sisterman's post looked like it was made to get reactions, so I wanted to see what I could get from it.

So you're placing a reaction test on a reaction test? I find that to be a strange reaction, though I guess this game is made of that type of thing, though if your reaction test is being questioned and it needs to come out as having been a reaction test, then it's not a very good reaction test is it?

UNVOTE: sisterman

[andrew94]

Who's insulting who? All I see is a bunch of people playing the game of mafia. Unless you consider "scum" an insult. Which, okay, that's fair. Also: UNVOTE:

VOTE: seilkops

If you would like to contribute to the inevitable downfall of the scumteam, please post your thoughts regarding this current development and your thoughts as to who is most likely to be scum. If not, prepare to die. eventually.

what happened to your godot vote? what is a joke??


either way, seilkops is seemingly backtracking. How was grey covering himself? i dont think that post you quoted was covering at all!
What reasons are you voting grey for and why arent you stating them?

[Voidedmafia]

what happened to your godot vote? what is a joke??


either way, seilkops is seemingly backtracking. How was grey covering himself? i dont think that post you quoted was covering at all!
What reasons are you voting grey for and why arent you stating them?

First off, HOLY SHIT ANDREW'S POST IS ACTUALLY READABLE!! *MS implodes*

*ahem*

anyways, I think the point was that the add-on of "not that I'm saying it's scummy" was grey covering himself, and I agree with that. I believe that was also why he was at least keeping his vote on Grey. I'm guessing that last statement is based on the fact that Seilk said he's voting gray for "different reasons than you think" and that you don't know/aren't sure about what his reasons

are

, and I would like to know what exactly they are, as well.

I've got a better idea, friend. How about instead of posing the question "Why isn't Sisterman's post scummy," which could be deflected in eight thousand ways, all of them town, you posit why the post IS scummy, so that I don't have to post all eight thousand things for you to see the light.

I have a better question: Why are you both answering for grey (the fact that the question specifically asks why

sisterman's

(aka your) post isn't scummy indicates this question at the very least excludes you from answering) and (for lack of a better way to put it) already giving him a sort of template to answer with?

Somehow I get the feeling that Seilk's vote in post 17 was somewhat of a joke that nobody got at the time it was posted.

Quote tag fixed. (Equinox)

[Voidedmafia]

Blarrgh.

Equi: Please fix that quote tag, pwetty pwease?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Time for reads:

Sisterman: Likely town. I don't see scum drawing that kind of attention early on or trying to rush us out of RVS on the first post. Plus, I honestly think that's a great way to play the reaction test.

Greygnarl: Null-leaning-town. He pointed out the things wrong with Seil's "RVS" play, but this could be a distancing ploy. I'll keep an eye out on the GG/Seil connection.

Seilkops: Probably scum, but could be making town mistakes. It just seems too easy to believe right now that Seil has scummy reasons to make those kinds of mistakes early on. I could be wrong and someone please correct me if I am.

Funkybike: Leaning town. He attempts to quell the exchanges going on at the time of his second post. Sounds like an attempt to get us to make a unified scumhunting effort. But he still needs to tell us what he sees.

Tech: Probably town. Going for Seil since Seil reacted strangely to Sisterman's opening attack is a good move.

Cheery Dog: Null-leaning-town. Two posts, one with a vote on SM and one with an unvote. Though his note on Seil's "reaction test within a reaction test" seems like a reasonable observation.

andrew94: Null. One post so far to cover his thoughts and seems to want his questions answered before he continues reading.

Voidedmafia: Leaning town. Questions SM's attack with a valid point, but also makes a good note about the GG/Seil bit still going on (When I read "different reasons than you think" given the circumstances, I'm thinking the best reason is distancing.)

And that covers introductory reads on everyone that's here. As there's more reason to believe in his scumminess than anyone else right now, let's turn up the pressure.

UNVOTE: Mr. K
VOTE: Seilkops

[greygnarl]

@Seilkops, I could see where people might think Sisterman was being scummy because he was being kind of ridiculous but I don't think it looks scummy because I don't normally read scum on people who make a big deal out of themselves.

You need to go back and look at what you posted, because you are constantly contradicting yourself.

[greygnarl]

Time for reads:

Sisterman: Likely town. I don't see scum drawing that kind of attention early on or trying to rush us out of RVS on the first post. Plus, I honestly think that's a great way to play the reaction test.

Greygnarl:

Null-leaning-town. He pointed out the things wrong with Seil's "RVS" play, but this could be a distancing ploy. I'll keep an eye out on the GG/Seil connection.

Seilkops: Probably scum, but could be making town mistakes. It just seems too easy to believe right now that Seil has scummy reasons to make those kinds of mistakes early on. I could be wrong and someone please correct me if I am.

Funkybike: Leaning town. He attempts to quell the exchanges going on at the time of his second post. Sounds like an attempt to get us to make a unified scumhunting effort. But he still needs to tell us what he sees.

Tech:

Probably town. Going for Seil since Seil reacted strangely to Sisterman's opening attack is a good move.

Cheery Dog: Null-leaning-town. Two posts, one with a vote on SM and one with an unvote. Though his note on Seil's "reaction test within a reaction test" seems like a reasonable observation.

andrew94: Null. One post so far to cover his thoughts and seems to want his questions answered before he continues reading.

Voidedmafia: Leaning town. Questions SM's attack with a valid point, but also makes a good note about the GG/Seil bit still going on (When I read "different reasons than you think" given the circumstances, I'm thinking the best reason is distancing.)

And that covers introductory reads on everyone that's here. As there's more reason to believe in his scumminess than anyone else right now, let's turn up the pressure.

UNVOTE: Mr. K
VOTE: Seilkops

In bold you say I might be distancing but when Tech did the same thing you call it a good play.

I agree with you on Sisterman i explained that in the last post.

Your read on Seil might be right but I can see a scum going for an early bandwagon and calling it RVS. Unless he can put a post together that doesn't contradict or backtrack I don't think he's worth keeping around even if he is town though. But don't get me wrong, I still think that he is scum.

[Voidedmafia]

You need to go back and look at what you posted, because you are constantly contradicting yourself.

Where?

[greygnarl]

God that last paragraph makes no sense.
In English:
-I agree that Seil might be making town mistakes
-I still think he's scum
-If he doesn't stop stumbling around he will be useless in Lylo so I won't be too disappointed if he turns up as town.

Pedit:I was talking to Seil.

[Voidedmafia]

Pedit:I was talking to Seil.

That doesn't mean you can't explain where these contradictions are.

[greygnarl]

In Post 17 he says he's RVSing.
In Post 31 he says he was fishing for a reaction.

In Post 21 he says I'm his #1 scum suspect
In Post 33 he says he was once again fishing for a reaction.

I will not buy fishing for a reaction as an excuse if you say that's what you were doing every time someone calls you out on a bad post.

[greygnarl]

@VoidedMafia I thought for some reason that you thought I was talking about you. My bad.

[seilkops]

In Post 17 he says he's RVSing.
In Post 31 he says he was fishing for a reaction.

In Post 21 he says I'm his #1 scum suspect
In Post 33 he says he was once again fishing for a reaction.

I will not buy fishing for a reaction as an excuse if you say that's what you were doing every time someone calls you out on a bad post.

Dude. What's the point of reaction fishing if I tell you that I'm reaction fishing. And yeah, you are still my top suspect. The reason for this, like I said earlier, is because of your covering yourself on Sistermans post. I don't like that type of covering of ones self, as I do the same thing whenever I play scum.
Post 31 and 33 are about the same things! I don't know if we're not understanding each other, but I've only reaction fished once.

Let's get this clear now.

When I "RVSED' Sisterman, that was reaction fishing. People keep asking me about the same post, so that's why I have the same answer. It was reaction fishing. Just to make it a little clearer.
It was reaction fishing
It was reaction fishing
It was reaction fishing

[seilkops]

For the reaction, like I said. Sisterman's post looked like it was made to get reactions, so I wanted to see what I could get from it.

So you're placing a reaction test on a reaction test? I find that to be a strange reaction, though I guess this game is made of that type of thing, though if your reaction test is being questioned and it needs to come out as having been a reaction test, then it's not a very good reaction test is it?

UNVOTE: sisterman

I'm a little scared to respond to that, since I can barely read it. I could be answering to anything.
But, I'll go ahead and take a shot at it.
I was hoping Greygnarl would give me the reasons for why he thought Sister's post wasn't scummy, but he never answered. Instead, Sister jumped on, then Tech, and a wagon developed on me.

[seilkops]

Nothing

what happened to your godot vote? what is a joke??


either way, seilkops is seemingly backtracking. How was grey covering himself? i dont think that post you quoted was covering at all!
What reasons are you voting grey for and why arent you stating them?

First off, HOLY SHIT ANDREW'S POST IS ACTUALLY READABLE!! *MS implodes*

*ahem*

anyways, I think the point was that the add-on of "not that I'm saying it's scummy" was grey covering himself, and I agree with that. I believe that was also why he was at least keeping his vote on Grey. I'm guessing that last statement is based on the fact that Seilk said he's voting gray for "different reasons than you think" and that you don't know/aren't sure about what his reasons

are

, and I would like to know what exactly they are, as well.

I've got a better idea, friend. How about instead of posing the question "Why isn't Sisterman's post scummy," which could be deflected in eight thousand ways, all of them town, you posit why the post IS scummy, so that I don't have to post all eight thousand things for you to see the light.

I have a better question: Why are you both answering for grey (the fact that the question specifically asks why

sisterman's

(aka your) post isn't scummy indicates this question at the very least excludes you from answering) and (for lack of a better way to put it) already giving him a sort of template to answer with?

Somehow I get the feeling that Seilk's vote in post 17 was somewhat of a joke that nobody got at the time it was posted.

When Grey says "it could be seen as scummy, but I don't think it is", I just see it as a way to cover himself. Like if a wagon developed on Sister, he could easily just refer to that post, and hop on the Sister wagon.

On my post on 17, yeah I was trying to be a little clever, failed miserably I have to add, with my post. To be clear, post 17 was my reaction fishing post and when Grey jumped all over it, I kept up exchanging with him.

Quote tag fixed. (Equinox)