Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:42 am**

Grimmy wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:so did you not see his post earlier ac? or were you just trying to pressure him into more analysis?
this is why he voted for me. I accept that he will be the wet towel in my swimming pool of fun for this game.

Im ok with it. but if he does do something REALLY scummy, I will be the first to call him out on it.

<cyber wedgies AC>

neener neener
Grimmy

My idea of having fun is trying to win. That's how I'm going to play. You can make jokes all you want, just make some analysis too. And don't make useless "checking in" posts, please.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:24 am**

VOTE COUNT

Gamma (1): Alabaska J
Yawetag (1): Jebus
ac1983fan (1): Grimmy

Nightfall, you got off lucky from MafiaSSK for your #257. I would have modkilled you had I beaten him to it, and that's what's there in the rules, but I'm not a fan of double jeopardy. —SC

Still looking for a replacement for yawetag.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:25 pm**

ac1983fan wrote:Grimmy seemed incredibly anti-town

i don't think i'd go that far.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:25 pm**

Alabaska J wrote:
ac1983fan wrote:Grimmy seemed incredibly anti-town
i don't think i'd go that far.

That's you. Having the minimal number of posts not to get prodded containing almost no content is incredibly anti-town to me.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:49 pm**

ac1983fan wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:
ac1983fan wrote:Grimmy seemed incredibly anti-town
i don't think i'd go that far.
That's you. Having the minimal number of posts not to get prodded containing almost no content is incredibly anti-town to me.

didn't grimmy also replace in?

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:55 pm**

Alabaska J wrote:
ac1983fan wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:
ac1983fan wrote:Grimmy seemed incredibly anti-town
i don't think i'd go that far.
That's you. Having the minimal number of posts not to get prodded containing almost no content is incredibly anti-town to me.
didn't grimmy also replace in?

Yeah, a lot longer before I did. Also, it was more the lack of content in the post and the fact that he admitted he only posted to not get prodded (esp. the checking in post) that bothered me than the fact that he had very few posts.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:15 pm**

mm... the matches of the year (with a few jokes and a few good analysis; improved version coming later when i have time):
ac1983fan vs Grimmy: ac is a little better to me; Grimmy's posts are very insane, and his very first posts were REALLY bad.
Nightfall vs Spolium: they hurt their own brains with those f***ing textwalls, and sometimes with arguments that make my head explode. Please, calm down.
Alabaska vs ac1983: I think that's over yet...
ooba vs yawetag vs Braeden vs Jebus: the most lurkers overall.

FOS all them but the ones vla.

pacman281292 vs pacman281292: those guys are obvscum. nuf said.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:31 am**

Mod, I placed my vote on Nightfall a page or two back

pacman wrote:pacman281292 vs pacman281292: those guys are obvscum. nuf said.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:38 pm**

spolium what could nightfall gain from saying what he said?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:04 pm**

*yawn* this is soooooo active...

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:18 pm**

RE: Spolium's Post 293

1 . Concise might be good

2. I don’t know what I can say here. I can say that you are reading too much into it, but you’re going to feal how you feal about it regardless of what I say.

3. I meant this game. As (although I can’t cite a game) I still stand by that it happens at times.

4. “Numerous votes on the first page with no reason provided” AND ON THE SAME PERSON. That’s why I brought up the question about metagaming.

5. I agree with Yaw here. The 3 man wagon was a lot scummier than Yaw’s refusal to answer Charter’s question, especially since Charter was refusing to answer his. Gamma even gave Yaw flak for asking Charter to answer his question first. That’s where I think the suspicion should go. Gamma’s character. And now Gamma's replacement… who btw could we maybe get a prod on?

MOD?

6. The fact remains that multiple players weren’t keeping track of where votes were, and that could have led to unwanted results.

7. I’ll say again, when 3 of the first 6 votes in a game (4 of 7 if you accidentally count EMP's double post) are for the same person, I think there certainly is a reason to be worried or at least question those on the wagon. Yaw did the right thing in my book and I’m sticking by that opinion 100%

8. Are you expecting me to act like a jerk or something because you think I’m scum? I’m not sure how to take your comment…

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:04 am**

Alabaska J wrote:spolium what could nightfall gain from saying what he said?

Well, he was supporting yawtaeg's stance that the bandwagon in the random phase was "not so random", so the implication of this is that those who were part of said bandwagon are suspicious. Were he scum and

not

on the wagon, the benefits of this stance would be obvious.

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:23 am**

Nightfall wrote:RE: Spolium's Post 293

5. I agree with Yaw here. The 3 man wagon was a lot scummier than Yaw’s refusal to answer Charter’s question, especially since Charter was refusing to answer his. Gamma even gave Yaw flak for asking Charter to answer his question first. That’s where I think the suspicion should go. Gamma’s character. And now Gamma's replacement… who btw could we maybe get a prod on?
MOD?

Done.

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:26 am**

Nightfall, why is a 3 man wagon (putting whoever it was at L-4) in the RVS scummy?

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:06 am**

Jebus wrote:Nightfall, why is a 3 man wagon (putting whoever it was at L-4) in the RVS scummy?

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:39 am**

My issues with the wagon were that
1. By the time the 6th vote was cast, 50% of the votes were on one player
2. None of the players voting that player gave a (serious) reason for their vote
3. When questioned about their votes those users would become confrontational and attack players that questioned their vote. Yaw and I both received negative comments from the members on the wagon.
4. They refused to comment on whether their votes were for in game reasons or because of meta gaming.
5. They seemed to stick together a bit to closely in their defense of each other and suspicion of other players.
6. 3 votes while yes L-4 is still a ways from being lynched, someone could wrongly read something into that if they aren't that experienced. Even I admit at one point or another I was thinking maybe one of them is such and such role, or two of them are maybe this role and that's why they're voting without sharing much info as to their reason.

Please note that I was against the speed at which this "random" wagon took shape.
I asked if metagaming was involved and along with Yaw who questioned the wagon received attack like replies. The wagoners seemed like a cozy little bunch.

Under pressure Gamma seemed to crack. Which is why he had my vote for day 1.

Gamma wrote: 1. when have i been acting like a sheep?
2. active lurking can be applied to you. don't accuse me of not being up to your activity standards, I have a life.
3. you're only saying this because charter called you out on it. So fuck this shit. I'm not listening to it at all.

vote nightfall

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:42 am**

Spolium wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:spolium what could nightfall gain from saying what he said?
Well, he was supporting yawtaeg's stance that the bandwagon in the random phase was "not so random", so the implication of this is that those who were part of said bandwagon are suspicious. Were he scum and
not
on the wagon, the benefits of this stance would be obvious.

OR I am town and was
A) Not wanting some metagaming plan (ie. lynch player x on sight) to effect this game.
B) Concerned that 3 of the first 6 votes were placed on the same player in what is the dubbed the "Random" stage.

Posted: **Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:12 am**

I will be V/LA from friday night to sunday mid-morning, and I will also be V/LA from the 26th to the 29th.

Posted: **Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:31 am**

Alabaska J wrote:
Jebus wrote:Nightfall, why is a 3 man wagon (putting whoever it was at L-4) in the RVS scummy?

to spur some conversatications, I shall put my opinion into this question.

Its has always seemed suspicious when a number of votes get tacked on to one person in the RVS, because there are so many options to place a random vote, it seems suspicios that people would pile them on to one person so early in the game.

Grimmy
yes I am insane, thanks for asking. And yes, I would like fries with that!

Posted: **Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:10 pm**

well, seeing as it is the random voting stage, quicklynches are usually abandoned.

i have seen one game where one did happen though. lemme rummage a bit…

Posted: **Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:21 pm**

Nevermind; wasn't like what i was thinking

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:32 am**

@MOD: V/LA until Tuesday and mass prod please

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:01 am**

Zilla replaces Yawetag.Also doing a mass prod (except on Zilla)

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:53 am**

Heya, I read up on quite a bit, but give me a bit to finish up.

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:25 pm**

Zilla - nice avvy. Also, waiting for your response...

Grimmy wrote:
Alabaska J wrote:
Jebus wrote:Nightfall, why is a 3 man wagon (putting whoever it was at L-4) in the RVS scummy?
to spur some conversations, I shall put my opinion into this question.

Its has always seemed suspicious when a number of votes get tacked on to one person in the RVS, because there are so many options to place a random vote, it seems suspicious that people would pile them on to one person so early in the game.

Grimmy
yes I am insane, thanks for asking. And yes, I would like fries with that!

Why is it suspicious for a random wagon on one person in the RVS?

Mafiascum.net

Mini 742 Monopoly Mafia - Game Over!