In post 495, Lost Butterfly wrote:BBmolla, a response to my questions on you from before would be nice.
Direct me to them please.
Mhork's post was okay admittedly. But I think part of it is I believe he's genuine in his night actions, which doesn't mean town. (Someone do the math, at 100 starting does doing what he did end up 89? Just checking)
Yeah okay let's do this instead
UNVOTE: VOTE: Voided
It's fine if you think I'm scum Mina, but lynching me today would be a terrible waste of money.
In post 504, Lost Butterfly wrote:My read is pending on how he answers a few things, but what I don't like is that he dropped it really quickly and hopped onto Mhork. I know he was calling Mhork a member of the other scumteam, but the way the vote change went down read as though Faraday sweet-talked him onto the wagon. Even if he did really suspect Mhork, I'd have expected more resistance to being charmed by his other top scumread.
I didn't like Mina early, but Faraday came in and saved the slot. That should be a bad sign tbh, but I'm not really worried. Lynching Lost Butterfly day 1 is a HUGE waste, even if you guys are scum, cause I still think you'll legitimately scumhunt to find your buddies. I just wanted to see Mina's reaction to it more than anything.
Yeah my posts were fluffy. I wanted to expel any "town can only all have same role" statements early. For example, Mhork saying his amount and shit assuming that all town have 100 and if his math is correct (I'm just gonna pretend it is) it "makes him town."
I am extra fluffy this game because Faraday and You are around so I'm trying to impress with my quick wit.
In post 521, Lord Mhork wrote:Garuda, do you think it's possible whomever put money towards medium was scum trying to flood the market with useless junk?
Explain the thought process that brought you here please
In post 945, Voidedmafia wrote:No, but apparently the amount that it takes for people to vote somebody for nonexistent reasons has.
This isn't an answer to my question, either.
You seriously are saying this after your vote on Hermy yesterday?
You're still scum for your play. You aren't trying to find scum, you're trying to seem active and jokey.
He is trying to find scum, actually, so this reasoning is shit. I had better reasoning for voting Voided.
In post 1614, BBmolla wrote:Nacho/Empire: Can one of you tell me what we're doing, there are so many people trying to take the lead, just tell me what you want me to do
Since Voided wagon died when bald unvoted him I'll go here.
Jumps opportunistically on a different wagon because I got off the Voided wagon.
In post 3089, BBmolla wrote:I only voted cause I missed the hammer and wanted to make sure I didn't get bitched at if lynch didn't happen.
Just seems more like he was worried about looking scummy by forcing a no-lynch.
In post 3112, BBmolla wrote:Was I allowed to bid on anything? Would have won doctor if I could
Abductor x 1
Auction Detective x 2
Austerity Measures x 1
Bulletproof x 2
Coroner x 2
Extra Vote x 1
Federal Reserve Chairman x 1
Governor x 1
Gravedigger x 1
Love Potion x 1
Market Analyst x 3
Medium x 3
Roleblocker x 3
Self-Watch x 1
Tailor x 3
Someone (Can't remember who) called BBMolla out for only having 1 scumread back on Day 2, I think. It was the previous day, and it just seems like he tried to get another "scumread" with no/shit reasoning.
Demands a townread after no push on his scumreads, being somewhat inactive.
In post 3849, BBmolla wrote:I think the server bugged, everyone posting looks like Nacho
This was a pretty useless thing to say.
In post 3850, BBmolla wrote:Am I OMGUSing if I think Ghostlin is scum tunneling on me?
This was stupid and fluffy.
SUMMARY: BBMolla has been "scumreading" two people (KA and Voided) with no/shit reasoning, and there is absolutely no push to any of his scumreads. Now, he's trying to form another shit scumread on Ghostlin. He has been pretty inactive, gotten more useless after the lynch on Day 2, probably because of the scum apathy.
I actually like this better: VOTE: BBMolla
P-Edit:
Oh, hey, pieguy, I see you made a case on me while I made one BBMolla.
1. My reasoning on Voided was solid, because of the way Voided was WKing LB, you do realize that is a thing right? I had bad experiences of WKing, so I was paranoid of it.
2. Vote Freezer isn't necessarily scummy, it can stop people from hopping from one wagon to another.
3. I'm scum for awkward timing? That is weak as shit.
4. Explain how the sentence was "fake"
@Voided, I did get the feel from that, because uwop started attacking pieguy when he started attacking muffinman.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:59 pm
by pieguyn
he could be, but I'm feeling slightly better about him after his recent posts. I want to be really careful and not leave any option unchecked.
I really can't think hard enough to make a wall case on Garuda right now
1baldeagle1 wrote:1. My reasoning on Voided was solid, because of the way Voided was WKing LB, you do realize that is a thing right? I had bad experiences of WKing, so I was paranoid of it.
2. Vote Freezer isn't necessarily scummy, it can stop people from hopping from one wagon to another.
3. I'm scum for awkward timing? That is weak as shit.
4. Explain how the sentence was "fake"
1. yeah but this formed the base for a scumread you carried on him throughout the whole game. you hardly ever added any legitimate reasons to said case, but were still claiming he was scummy throughout the whole game.
2. the way you used it was very anti-town. it accomplished nothing beyond furthering your own push on voided, nor did it do anything to convince others why your push on voided was correct.
3. it's relatively weak, but better than leaving it out entirely IMO
4. the "LOL" at the end did it for me. also, I don't think voided being pissed off at you is a scumtell, but you tried to paint him as scummy with a false reason.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:08 pm
by pieguyn
uuu your reaction was so weak
"oh hey I see you made a case on me"
obv you weren't trying to hide your reaction, since you posted that sentence. but this is a weird as hell reaction for town to have. you're too damn.. calm. I don't buy it
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:09 pm
by 1baldeagle1
In post 3877, pieguyn wrote:uuu your reaction was so weak
"oh hey I see you made a case on me"
obv you weren't trying to hide your reaction, since you posted that sentence. but this is a weird as hell reaction for town to have. you're too damn.. calm. I don't buy it
I just though it was cool that we made a case at the same time.
What do you think of the Molla case?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:10 pm
by 1baldeagle1
In post 3876, pieguyn wrote:he could be, but I'm feeling slightly better about him after his recent posts. I want to be really careful and not leave any option unchecked.
I really can't think hard enough to make a wall case on Garuda right now
1baldeagle1 wrote:1. My reasoning on Voided was solid, because of the way Voided was WKing LB, you do realize that is a thing right? I had bad experiences of WKing, so I was paranoid of it.
2. Vote Freezer isn't necessarily scummy, it can stop people from hopping from one wagon to another.
3. I'm scum for awkward timing? That is weak as shit.
4. Explain how the sentence was "fake"
1. yeah but this formed the base for a scumread you carried on him throughout the whole game. you hardly ever added any legitimate reasons to said case, but were still claiming he was scummy throughout the whole game.
2. the way you used it was very anti-town. it accomplished nothing beyond furthering your own push on voided, nor did it do anything to convince others why your push on voided was correct.
3. it's relatively weak, but better than leaving it out entirely IMO
4. the "LOL" at the end did it for me. also, I don't think voided being pissed off at you is a scumtell, but you tried to paint him as scummy with a false reason.
1. Discrediting.
2. I really wanted to lynch Voided, so I used my Vote Freezer to express that.
3. Fair enough
4. Scum is mad because he's about to be lynched.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:13 pm
by 1baldeagle1
In post 3877, pieguyn wrote:uuu your reaction was so weak
"oh hey I see you made a case on me"
obv you weren't trying to hide your reaction, since you posted that sentence. but this is a weird as hell reaction for town to have. you're too damn.. calm. I don't buy it
What kind of reaction were you looking for? Me raging in all caps?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:18 pm
by pieguyn
I think you accused him of making pointless posts when you did the same thing
I also think a lot of the stuff you pointed out is just him being lazy. I can't deny the possibility of him being scum but it seems likely he could be a mislynch, so I don't want on that wagon yet.
1. is that referring to voided, or are you saying I'm discrediting? 0.0 if the latter, explain plz
2. there's no reason to do that. if I got vote freezer I'd try to freeze a scum vote on another scum or smth like that. your use of it wasn't town motivated.
4. no. it could also be: town is mad cause of someone who's blatantly tunneling him all game, town is mad because he's about to be lynched, etc. plus I disagree that he was about to be lynched in the first place. false logic such as this makes me think you're not considering all possibilities, since you know who the scum on your team are already.
What kind of reaction were you looking for? Me raging in all caps?
why should I tell you what I'm looking for? so you can emulate it when I do the same thing later?
needless to say, yours wasn't it. why do you feel the need to say this when you already explained what the reaction was about?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:34 pm
by 1baldeagle1
At least I had better reasoning to push Voided, than BBMolla. He just has been opportunistic.
Also, why are you considering about the fact that BBMolla might be a mislynch, where you are very sure that I'm scum if you said that Molla has been doing the same thing as me. I don't understand the logic.
1. Voided.
2. If I use an antitown ability to express my desire to lynch Voided, even though it's anit-town, that's has to be telling.
4. So, you think it's a null thing.
I was just curious about why didn't like my reaction, it was natural to me.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:44 pm
by pieguyn
In post 3882, 1baldeagle1 wrote:Also, why are you considering about the fact that BBMolla might be a mislynch, where you are very sure that I'm scum if you said that Molla has been doing the same thing as me. I don't understand the logic.
cause I think molla is probably just lazy. I don't get that impression from you, however.
1. I'm pretty sure you were discrediting him too. just off the top o my head, that sentence that I said was fake as fuck.
2. what does this mean?
4. yeah and the fact that you painted it as scummy is, in itself, scummy. it's an all too easy way to line up a lynch.
also I hate your backdown here. as soon as I call you asking about my reaction scummy, you, rather than defeating my points, try to pass it off like it wasn't a big deal. why back down here? if you're town, clearly you and I had different ideas about reactions and we could work smth out. thus, IMO the fact that you backed down immediately implies you don't wanna raise suspicion by arguing with me. the explaining the read twice shares a similar defensive attitude.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:57 pm
by 1baldeagle1
Oh, that's nice. Molla gets the lazy card.
1. Eh, not really, Voided was discrediting more.
2. "Wow, baldeagle really wants Voided lynched, maybe we should do that."
4. It was scummy to me, Voided is getting pissed over one frozen vote
Backdown? I don't really care about the reaction thing, I was just curious about it. There's really nothing to argue here.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:01 pm
by Voidedmafia
In post 3875, 1baldeagle1 wrote:@Voided, I did get the feel from that, because uwop started attacking pieguy when he started attacking muffinman.
Whether or not I was going to be lynched had nothing to do with how pissed I was at how you used that, FYI.
In post 3882, 1baldeagle1 wrote:At least I had better reasoning to push Voided, than BBMolla. He just has been opportunistic.
I do agree with this re BBmolla.
In post 3883, pieguyn wrote:1. I'm pretty sure you were discrediting him too. just off the top o my head, that sentence that I said was fake as fuck.
Also, when he claimed that me not noticing that Garuda volunteered to advert BP before me D1 was "spreading misinformation" despite A.) that doesn't make sense, and B.) No one told me that Garuda already said they were going to.
I only remember calling your attacks on me stupid. I remember that you've gone out of your way to paint whatever I've done into being something scummy. Unless I'm missing something, that's not being more discreditory (lolnewwords).
In post 3884, 1baldeagle1 wrote:4. It was scummy to me, Voided is getting pissed over one frozen vote
1. Eh, not really, Voided was discrediting more.
2. "Wow, baldeagle really wants Voided lynched, maybe we should do that."
4. It was scummy to me, Voided is getting pissed over one frozen vote
Backdown? I don't really care about the reaction thing, I was just curious about it. There's really nothing to argue here.
1. so it's not suspicious because voided was doing it more ok. that's one hell of a shitty argument you have there
2. so your vote freeze was to express how much you wanted voided lynched?
4. already covered that
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:47 pm
by Lost Butterfly
Lots of stuff to respond to right now.
I'm somewhat concerned by the fact that Garuda started pushing Nero extremely hard
after
I came out with an innocent. In Muffin's case, it makes sense, because he's been attacking Nero for ages. But you guys were town-reading him for most of the game, including when most of the stuff happened that you said sounds nothing like his town self (like the reaction to the doorknob dig). Yes, I understand that now is the time to reevaluate your prior reads. But even today, you gave me the impression you were somewhat lukewarm on the wagon, but were making a PoE "counterwagon to upside down" vote.
And it's worrisome because in this particular set-up, you would not
know
Nero's alignment if you were evil. So you would have an added incentive to push his lynch once someone came out with evidence he wasn't an ally (particularly if you're on whichever side has investigation immunity).
I mean, I do think it's best just to ignore the result and evaluate Nero based on his play, but it's kind of weird that
everyone
has reacted to it with a collective snore. Not one person is trying to defend him with the "this lynch is
statistically
less likely to hit scum" card.
In post 3865, 1baldeagle1 wrote:@LB, chainsaw defense is where you attack the attacker, who is attacking the person you are defending.
Hmm. You're missing something here. In your own words, can you explain why this behaviour is scummy?
(I
am
heading somewhere with this.)
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:53 pm
by N
Ugh, I'm such an idiot. I forgot the password to the Hydra account so I reset it. But I think the site is having trouble sending emails at the moment because I haven't received a new one yet and now Quilford is probably unable to log in too.
Anyway, we were pv's first neighbours and Garuda was the second. Pv said that garuda didn't really talk much but were more likely town than scum. I'm inclined to trust that, but I am still a bit paranoid because pv and I/Quilford told each other everything, including that we had doctor and were protecting him last night. I'm sort of worried that pv may have passed that on to garuda, but it could just mean that scum have Strongman.
In post 3852, ProHawk wrote:Was I unclear in some way? Why do you make pointless comments intermixed in a gigantic wall of quotes
So...why a scum fakeclaim?
Eh, what exactly is the point of this line of questioning, Voided? Particularly given you thought my gambit was pointless, what else were you expecting him to say?
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:02 pm
by Garuda
I'm a little delirious right now but I see some awesome things to respond to so this game is the only game worthy of my wonderful presence on thanksgiving day.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:02 pm
by Garuda
In fact, I believe you all should probably be thankful for my presence here.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:09 pm
by Voidedmafia
In post 3889, Lost Butterfly wrote:An actual result (as should be obvious). I've explained the ProHawk thing...and there's a reason I didn't run with it for very long.
I wanted to make sure it wasn't just you doing it for the sake of your gambit.
In post 3889, Lost Butterfly wrote:Eh, what exactly is the point of this line of questioning, Voided? Particularly given you thought my gambit was pointless, what else were you expecting him to say?
Reacting hostilely to such an accusation, I can understand from either alignment. But what I'm not understanding is why he'd immediately jump to you being scum who's fakeclaiming a guilty rather than town who's fakeclaiming a guilty (the third option would be LB getting a true guilty on ProHawk, but that doesn't really relate to his reaction to it).
In post 3891, Garuda wrote:In fact, I believe you all should probably be thankful for my presence here.
I feel comforted and not comforted at the same time by this comment...
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:16 pm
by Garuda
In post 3852, ProHawk wrote:Why? Because it is mini or because he managed to fool the lot of you?
No, because there are no reasons on the wagon and upside down actually flipping scum would be a Christmas miracle.
In post 3858, Nero Cain wrote:On day 1 or 2 (post 1652) you had a "leaning town" read on me. In some other post you said something like "I don't think Nero is scum." So what made you switch your read?
There was a beautiful light that has something to do vaguely with lots of people flipping town and your catch up posts sucking big time.
In post 3858, Nero Cain wrote:The reason that Nacho was voting me is 'cause PV had a strong town read on UD. Apparently PV didn't have a very strong read on me (I though he did but I guess that was in another game opps) though Sean did and even Morph and Pyro are starting to see how fucking town I am. So its me not liking how Nacho is selectively using dead towns reads.
In post 3873, pieguyn wrote:not to mention 6 days is hardly close to deadline
It's gonna be close to deadline, believe it or not.
In post 3887, Lost Butterfly wrote:But you guys were town-reading him for most of the game, including when most of the stuff happened that you said sounds nothing like his town self (like the reaction to the doorknob dig). Yes, I understand that now is the time to reevaluate your prior reads. But even today, you gave me the impression you were somewhat lukewarm on the wagon, but were making a PoE "counterwagon to upside down" vote.
We aren't lukewarm anymore. I went reading through his ISO after I jumped on his wagon, and suddenly I discovered that this was the direction I was missing all along (as well as a direction you seem to be sorely lacking in yourself, I note).
In post 3887, Lost Butterfly wrote:And it's worrisome because in this particular set-up, you would not know Nero's alignment if you were evil. So you would have an added incentive to push his lynch once someone came out with evidence he wasn't an ally (particularly if you're on whichever side has investigation immunity).
When Garuda scum requires a cop innocent in order to figure out who I can safely mislynch as scum without accidentally killing scum, you might be veering into tinfoil territory.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:19 pm
by Garuda
Like, I feel that it's an incredible testement to how scummy Nero is in that you claimed a fucking cop innocent on him and I realized that he was actually so scummy where that cop innocent did jack and shit in making me feel that he should live. I mean, every time I read a Nero post lately, I think "holy shit. they've finally done it. they have created the
Deep Blue
of the mafia world! Can't play scum for shit, though."
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:20 pm
by Garuda
In post 3892, Voidedmafia wrote:I feel comforted and not comforted at the same time by this comment...
Whenever you don't feel comfortable, look into this tiger's eyes and realize everything is gonna be alright.
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:21 pm
by Lost Butterfly
@Voided: his reaction did strike me as a bit stiff. "Well, if that happened, then that would mean you were scum." But I'm partly to blame for asking such a stupid question.
Actually, in Garuda's defence, I see most of what he said about Nero was stuff that happened today.
In post 3850, BBmolla wrote:Am I OMGUSing if I think Ghostlin is scum tunneling on me?
Actually, I think you might be onto something here. Ghostly Penguin's suspicions of you have been paper-thin policy-lynch type stuff, and they just keep harping on about how
antitown
you are. Your
reasoning
for what you're advertising makes perfect sense. The only thing stopping me from voting them right now are two strong towntells in their favour (Banakai's claimed advertisements and Ghostlin's rants upon replacing in).
baldeagle is sort of a dark horse suspect right now (I'm afraid I've been underestimating him all game). But at least his reasons for voting you are based on your playstyle (which is kind of easy, but at least plausible reasoning from a newer player who tends to associate lazy play with scummy play).
I also hate pieguy's attack on espeonage. It was lazy and bad. I like GP for more likely to be town
Eww. I disagree with pretty much everything in this post. Pieguyn looks blindingly obvious town right now (sure, he's really hyperactive and jumping from paranoid suspicion to suspicion, but in a way that has the calculation of a gnat).
