Webcomic Wars Mafia: D7- Be Thankful I'm Not The Author

[Korlash]

Tar stoleded what I was going to say... How messed up is that?

/mrifnoc

[Korlash]

Zaz! <3

This game keeps getting better every time I look at it! A Gorrad, a role, and now a Zaz! Ha ha! Keep it coming,

perfect mafia

!

[Korlash]

I don't know... Not listening to you caught me two scum last time around...

[Korlash]

I was the only one calling farside-mirth scum as early as day 1. I was the one who caught them. My only mistake was trusting Crazy that tricked me well.

Also, good job in thinking Kublai Khan was scum instead of freaking scummy Mirth in Lylo.

Calling something day one, and actually doing something about it day one are two different things. i can sit here and systematically call out everyone as scum today, but come endgame that doesn't make me super cool mafia player. The fact you called Farside/mirth and it took 5 days to lynch them after the fact makes you a good guesser, but a crappy player. Not meaning an insult here, and I'm hoping you don't take it that way.

And uh, good job not making it to LYLO to set me straight. Yeah, see I can turn that one back around on you!

vote: Vino
Because he is scum.

Hmmm... This seems pretty solid...

Vote: Vino

[Korlash]

What did nobody listen to him?

*shrugs* Go read it and find out.

[Korlash]

Pffft.

I am the crappy player that managed to convince the obnoxious Corvus in Lylo to vote for scum Mirth. Its totally my fault that I didnt manage to convince the super awesome Korlash in Lylo to vote for her. Instead he went for the obv town Kublai Khan.

Yeah, Kor. You rack!

You know you can keep on this all you want, but you do realize the three most active and vocal town in that game all fucked up at some point right? You were an idiot when it came to Crazy, I was an idiot when it came to Mirth, and Corv was an idiot when it came to Farside.

But of course you can continue to hold a grudge against me for my mistake, however you should realize we'll be at it forever.

Also, once again. If you called it day one and it took you until LYLO to convince anyone... You need to work on your argumentative process.

[Korlash]

I like how this has become a game of who can prove everyone else sucks worse then them. Very... hip..

And who wouldn't support the Emp and Korlash wagons? Now those are some things people want to be a part of... yeah... Heck even I'm tempted to tack onto one of those. If only this Vino one wasn't so... solid...

[Korlash]

I support a Korlash wagon because he blames other people for his loss in LYLO.

Ha ha ha... Ahhh... I love silly people.

Based on the evidence we have & the criteria that qualifies potential lynchees this early in the game, Vino is not a proper lynch candidate.

see I would think it being page 4 kinda makes no one a proper lynch candidate. but I mean we can start crossing people off early, nothing bad can come from that.

If he isn't blaming you for his mistake in LYLO please let me know.

So first time it's my loss now it's my mistake... Tsk tsk... silly...

[Korlash]

1) Its not his mistake in another game, its his blaming of that mistake on someone else.

So where did I blame anyone for anything again? I mean it sounds like something I would do but I'm just not 100% convinced...

2) No doubt he is lurking. The game is in full swing, he saw then when he posted his "/confirm". He just posted confirm and left. He needs to be rung up and forced to post... regularly.

Lurking on page 4! My god man! What evidence, what proof! This is a open and shut door!

[Korlash]

@Lamont: Pardon me for not quoting that. seems weird to quote myself... anyways that had nothing to do with "my mistake", it had to do with him taking 5 days to get the people he "called on day 1" lynched. I can see where you get that confused though as it has nothing in common at all. Very easy to get two completely unlike things confused that like.

You agreed with my original vote. Now, after a post from Vino about a different game, which you "like" in some unspecified way, you don't like the wagon on him. What changed your mind? Also, why does Korlash's opinions (wrong or right) about a previous game have any correlation with his alignment in this one?

I think it's survival of the fittest. i was wrong in another game thus I'm less of a player and detrimental to the town... hmmm... Damn now that does sound like a pretty decent wagon.

[Korlash]

No, I never said anything about him convincing me. I'm saying you can't claim to have "called out scum" on day 1 unless you also recognize your failure at lynching those scum day 1 as well. If you call player A out as scum but are incapable of lynching them and end up lynching Player B, you have no real claim to fame at calling player A out. The game of mafia isn't about calling people out as scum, it's about proving they are scum and forcing everyone else to help you kill them.

And FYI I didn't lose in LYLO. Being wrong and losing are two different things. I had two super awesome townies watching my back that saved us the game. And yes, Pop had some small hand in it as well.

[Korlash]

Lets see... the spock count is up to what, four? Five?

I'm going to vote: roflcopter because I suspect the vino wagon is designed to set Fishy up for a 1-2 mislynch.

Yeah a random bandwagon is designed for something. So exactly explain to me how this works? A town starts a wagon on another town and then a bunch of other town join it and somehow it's a setup for something? And I'm assuming you are calling both Fishy and Vino town here, because, logically, only town start bandwagons in the RVS and only on other towns.

[Korlash]

This of course is completely senseless. Why are you wasting the pixel space with a point like this? How would you like somebody attacking you with a lame argument like this? Certainly you understand how voting people is part of the process of catching scum right?

I would usually let Tar answer this first but I don't think it matters in this case.

His point is valid. Supporting a wagon and scumhunting are not the same thing, they can be sure, but in your case they aren't. You supported a wagon without any real action, and thus without any real scum hunting. Also can you keep the discussion on the right topic. When talking about "supporting a wagon" don't suddenly change to "voting people" because they are not the same topic and eventually you'll slip up so bad you cant recover from it.

Surely you know that very early in the game there is less to go on than we would have once the game progresses right? Why is the famous Tar wasting time with bad arguments like this??

If you know there is less to go on why would you make a statement that someone is not a lynch candidate? Wouldn't at this point there be so little No one is a lynch candidate and thus such a statement applies to everyone and thus is moot? And why would you discount someone when you know that we have nothing to go on? How do you know he isn't a valid lynch candidate now? Do you have any evidence of that?

Says you. He needs to post now or be lynched -- the earlier the better.

What happened to the ability to replace useless players?

The best way to get him to contribute is to ring him up. If a scummier player emerges, sure I'll buy it but right now he needs to get rung up.

Yes, lets pressure the guy who isn't here. I'm sure he will magically feel our votes on him and come rushing back. I mean the concept of wagoning a lurker to force him to talk seems... contradictory in and of itself. Although I admit I sometimes want to do it myself XD

The town will benefit greatly from forcing him to post. If a strong case elsewhere appears then fine the sooner lurkers are removed the better because as I am sure you know scum love having them around in the endgame and if we wait until mid-game when we have stronger cases that have to be dealt with, things just devolve from there.

How fast do you expect this game to go? Endgame? Already? On page 5? Of a 25 player game? Why the heck are we talking about endgame?

LOL. This is the best you have for a completely serious case? You really should be looking elsewhere.

Laughing at the guy and telling him he's wasting his time... that always works...

[Korlash]

So certain, are we? We know this wagon was started by town and jumped on by town, do we? FOS: Korlash

See now you contradicted yourself. I'm not certain of anything, YOU are. YOU think it's "designed" for a mislynch of Fish, thus YOU think it was started by a town. And we won't mislynchFish if Vino is scum, so YOU think Vino is town. And the mere fact it's up to 8+ people kinda helps suggest some town jumped on it at some point.

So you pretty much just FOSed yourself... Nice... Good job man...

I lean toward Fishy and Vino both being town, yes. That is implied in "1-2 mislynch": if I'm right and this is a scum setup, the people being set up are not scum. I have no idea what you're trying to say here in the "logically" clause; it appears to be sarcasm, but of nothing remotely resembling anything I wrote.

Ok so you did read it yet kept your contradictory FOS in play. Bad stuff on your part but whatever.

And the entire "logically" part is sarcasm. In fact most of it was sarcasm. Most of the last quote was sarcasm as well. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't get out much do you.

[Korlash]

This is so sad. You both are stuck on semantics. Please drop this stupid issue and understand how one's vote is used to hunt scum. This is pitiful.

Did you vote me or Empking? No? Then why are you even talking about it? This is becoming tiresome.

LOL this coming from a vino lynch supporter and more semantics. Try getting real instead of this crappy false insinuations. Try playing Mafia.

Complete avoidance of the point with an insult thrown my way... Not too good on your part...

Then what is your point?? My vote for him would be at least as valid as yours would be for vino (only mine is better).

... My point was why are you talking about endgame one day 1? Again, avoidance... nice...

Finally, voting to put pressure on a lurker sometimes works. It's just not a good idea right now.

Yeah, sometimes asking a guy if he is scum works. Sometimes walking into the street gets you killed. Sometimes a guy gives you money. sometimes a lot of shit happens.

Sorry I got carried away. It works against active lurkers, and people who would have come back anyway. Anyone not following the thread doesn't even know they are being voted and thus its pointless. prove he's actively lurking and wagoning him is viable.

However, Korlash did imply that the others "joining in" were town, which was not implied by you - in fact, the exact opposite. Hmmm.

Actually no, in order to mislynch Fishy town are needed. In fact in order to mislynch Vino town are needed. In order for it to be a set-up, town must also join the bandwagon. If only scum vote, no one is mislynched. are you following me?

Lamont is on 8 Votes. Vino is on 4. Your implication remains bizarre.

Yeah I've always been inept at keeping track of votes. My bad on that one...

[Korlash]

I never said everyone on the bandwagon was scum, only that they looked like bandwagons with scum a part of them. (This is true of the Lamont wagon and the Vino wagon both.) You said that everyone on the bandwagon was town.

I never said "everyone" on the bandwagon was town. And I never claimed you claimed everyone was scum.

[Korlash]

I hate statements like this. You just berated him with sarcasm then completely undermined your own point. Scummy.

Hi, nice to meet you, I'm Korlash. Obviously you're going to grow to hate me in the coming game and I'm looking forward to it. I guess I should share a little about myself seeing a how you so graciously did so first. I hate people who make worthless statements like this but refuse to actually give their opinions on the point raised. Now if you are somehow suggesting sarcasm and admittance of being a hypocrite at certain times are in any way evidence of being scum then I have a few words of rebuttle for you. if you're only fluffing up the thread talking about how you dislike my style and think i should have gone with a prettier font then I'd have to question why you even bothered to post.

This is completely ridiculous. We should not get 4 pages in a day, especially a day where I'm literally working all afternoon and don't get a chance to check in.

25 players man... gunna be a couple posts a day...

Unvote:

Because I can't actually remember who I was voting without having to double check the vote count. Obviously that random vote has seen it's course.

[Korlash]

I hate statements like that one you gave because you are being wishy washy like anything. Any time you try to comment on an issue and can't tell me which side you're on, you are leaving yourself wiggle room so that if it later becomes an issue, you're able to fall back on whatever position is convinient. Either you're in favour of wagoning lurkers or your not - but if you bother to post about the issue, take a side so you can be held to it.

I did take a side on it. Just because I admit there are times when I feel differently does not change my original stance. Case in point, I am against voting lurkers, but will gladly vote anyone I think is an active lurker. Both are valid points situated around the same stance and I'll be held to both, even though to some people they seem contradictory and hypocritical.

The wagon was started by fishy. All three listed above just wagoned with no real reason. Only one of them named two people they would vote which would be Tajo.

I also find it interesting that both Korlash & Tajo are on the same wagon after all that banter back and forth. Could be early D1 scum bussing.

Vote Korlash

So you vote the one guy no longer on the wagon? Makes sense...

[Korlash]

Am I the only one noticing how LC is literally just voting anyone he possibly can, then moving on if it doesn't stick?

Define doesn't stick... His vote on me hardly had the time to apply the glue, let alone see if it would stick or not.

[Korlash]

Clearly assuming that everyone who joined was town. If you concede that some of the people who joined could have been scum, then why shouldn't it be a setup of something on their part?

Where in the English dictionary does the phrase "A bunch of" mean the equivalent of "Everyone"?

And if the wagon was started by a town it can't have been a setup by the mafia. Unless you're telling me the town who started the wagon talked with them beforehand and set it up.

@Everyone else: ask yourselves this -- if I'm completely off the mark, why did Korlash react with such vehemence to a post not even directed at him? If Korlash is town, why fly off the handle the way he did?

It was directed at me. I was on the Vino wagon at the time. You suggesting it was a scum set-up directed it specifically at me and the other wagoners. You don't even know who you are talkiing to when you post?

And explain where I "flew off the handle"? When you accused me and three others of being scum with a masterplan, or the part where you FOSed yourself?

[Korlash]

Double posted for your viewing pleasure!

I definitely support the overall theory that scum would be on the Vino wagon. That would be someone from the list of:

Korlash, Rofl, Tajo

You support the theory that out of 25 players one specific RANDOM wagon of 4 people HAS to have at least one scum? In a 12 player game, sure. Probability wise I suppose it makes sense. But a 4 person wagon in a 25 player game doesn't carry that same weight.

Also it being a random wagon increase the odds town is on it because it wasn't made on real reasons, thus there was nothing preventing town from joining.

This is also assuming Vino is town and Fishy is town, which neither has even been suggested with evidence. Unless you know something I don't....

[Korlash]

Your original post seems to suggest that you thought the others joining in were town as well, at that time. You mentioned this to disprove the theory that the scum were jumping on to hasten a bad wagon started by another townie - you basically said that the scum didn't jump on.

I can understand your confusion but you misunderstand me. I was trying to disprove it was a setup by the scum, I was not trying to say scum didn't jump on. Remember I had my wagons confused and thought the vino wagon was up to 8, thusly "a bunch of town" had to already be on it. As I was confused about the wagon my wording was justly misleading.

i can continue explaining it if necessary but like I said, I was mistaken about the wagon which seems like a point both you and TSS are missing.

[Korlash]

I don't think this is about straight odds and probability. It's not like, say there are 4 scum in 25 players than there is a 2*4/25 chance that scum was on the bandwagon. The only usefulness of examining bandwagons is with the assumption that scum are more likely to join a bandwagon, so the question here really is; is the bandwagon in question one that is likely to be scum-driven? Personally I think the answer is yes and therefore the probability that one of those four is scum is higher than the probability that any given person in the game is scum -- that may be useful information.

Again, explain to me how a 4 person wagon in a 25 player game is one that is "likely scum driven"? Scum don't drive wagons of 4 people in such a large game. There is no gain in it. the fact the wagon never took off suggests scum weren't driving it.

[Korlash]

Fishy made a random vote and three people jumped on it with zero provocation or reasons listed, you don't think it's likely that at least one of those people was scum?

I think it's possible, but it is in no way suggested. Did the early Lamont or Rofl wagons have any better reasons listed? No. The only difference is that the wagons were smaller. Are you telling me my random vote on You makes me more likely scum then Lamont's vote on Rofl just because two other people voted him after me? What, can I see the future?

By your theory I have just as much chance of being scum as Lamont *who did it twice mind you*, flameaxe, and slicey. All 4 of us were second votes on random wagons. The fact you fail to include them yet include my name is proof your theory is flawed. You have not based it on anything other then "it had X amount of people on it" which as I said doesn't effect the early votes on the wagon as they couldn't have known. Your theory is flawed, your logic is flawed, and you have not actually presented any real evidence to support yourself.

I'm all for pressuring early bandwagonerers, I mean that is kinda what a random bandwagon is meant to do, but you have to come up with more then "One of them might be scum... just because."

Tripe. You were replying to a post I had made before any bandwagons got up to 8.

Post 113, lamont was at 5. You are correct. Obviously My timeline has been screwed up. Let me refresh my memory.

Rereading it all I admit it does sound the way you are saying but it isn't. You have to know me I guess but I do often times use the word "town" To simply describe alive players in the game. We refer to ourselves as a town, we do not refer to ourselves as a town with a few scum mixed in. I kinda thought I already mentioned this the first time Percy brought it up but I don't see it in the thread.

Obviously you don't have to believe me on this. I really couldn't care less. This isn't the first time my use of the word "town" instead of the word "players" has gotten me into trouble and it won't be the last. As it is apparent my memory of this game is shot so i can't even be sure this is indeed what happened but as it wasn't my first mistake this can be the only explanation.

[Korlash]

Haven't read up too much since I last posted just saw the claim and had to ask something...

One sec let me check as I'm unfamiliar with the comic...

Why would you need to be familiar with your comic to post your flavor? All you should need to be familiar with is your role PM.

More to come when I actually catch up... might be later then sooner...

[Korlash]

Because I'm tired of people pushing the buck on new players and ending up lynching just townies. That seems to be the way everyone rolls in these forums instead of trying to coach the newbies. Its so stupid.

It's called newbie games... If you want a newbie card and coaching go there, otherwise don't expect to have anyone hold your hand.

I'll want another night to be sure, but it looks like we can't have both a second scum group AND an SK.

... Why not?

Firstly, what I said about the day investigation was true. It was my first thought when I saw qwints' post. Furthermore, when I referred to it as a 'counterclaim', in my head it was more than simply a counter roleclaim. It was completely unnecessary, and caused me a lot of unnecessary confusion.

I like how when you talked about your 'referring to it as a counterclaim' you ended up explaining nothing. In fact, instead of explaining it you seemed to try nd shift the blame onto Qwints for you not understanding it...

But you can't be sure of what's in my head, of course. I could be lying. But I would like someone to explain to me how this is a scum move, rather than what I said it was: a stupid mistake.

You want someone to explain how lying would be a scum move?

In this particular example though, no I doubt it's a scum move. I think it's a misunderstanding on the part of the people pushing the vote on you combined with your utter lack of being able to correctly explain it. So while you try and figure out how to word it I'm just going to jump ahead.

Vote: SC

This whole thing has been a lie ot push the case on Santos, and your covering up of it (and the cap in hand choirboy apology) has just nailed you as scum.

unvote, vote: Percy

Um.. perhaps you can explain to little old me how any of this, if indeed a lie, had, has, or will ever have to do with Santos? It's one thing to push that something is a lie, it's something far more to try and say that it discounts something it had nothing to do with.

On the "Vino/Santos 'this sucks'" issue... Vino's was more of a recap then a this sucks... That's my say on it... >.> Moving on...

@ santos: Can you address the concerns about your statements yesterday and how they conflict with your claim today?

[Korlash]

This is a total untruth. There's no misunderstanding, it's something deliberately designed to try to make his case on Santos look better. Look at the original lie:

Man I hope you explain how this links to Santos...

He lied to make people who aren't really paying attention dismiss Santos' point. It was part of his big case on Santos. There is no question that was scummy behaviour.

Santos' point? What point? It was a side comment that meant nothing, proved nothing, and only suggested a small bit of speculation that served no purpose at the time. How in the hell does this in anyway make his case on Santos "look better"?

Fast forward a few posts and now Percy has been cornered into continuing to say that he thought it was a day investigation. He can't say that a day investigation is extremely rare and that wasn't what he was thinking at all because he'd be changing his story yet again. He got painted into a corner and came out with a ridiculous explanation of it. I know that Percy is an experienced player, and I'm sure that a day investigation would have been the last thing on his mind. Not to mention the fact that in his hammer post and the posts after he NEVER MENTIONS AN INVESTIGATION but obvious DOES mention the counter-claim.

... The first game I was a cop in I was a day investigation cop who won town the game... Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Regardless, it's unimportant...

In his hammer post he doesn't specifically say the "counter claim" is the reason he is voting, he says it "needs addressing today." His explanation was that he felt the counterclaim was unneeded, thus his statement that it needed addressing makes sense. i'm trying hard not to answer this stuff for him but its hard to argue my points without addressing yours...

There's absolutely a reason why lying in this case benefits scum and there's absolutely no chance it's just a misunderstanding that he's worded poorly. He continues to say that he thought there was a day investigation, despite never mentioning it before being caught in the lie and being experienced enough to know how rare they are.

Only sith deal in absolutes... Sorry got my games mixed up, only scum can be positive about anything. There's always a chance of a misunderstanding, a chance that grows exponentially the longer you refuse to even look at other points of view other then your own. I do agree with you him not including his reasoning about the day investigation at the time of the hammer means that he could be lying here now, but it doesn't prove it. It doesn't even suggest it really, unless you're saying it's impossible for a townie to hammer someone without giving a reason.

Now, as it is relevant to the conversation, the counterclaim thing. It can be seen at least two ways. The way you see it, as his reason for hammering, and the way I talked about it before, a statement about something he felt needed to be addressed. I don't know which it is, I don't really care. The fact of the matter is I can break down everything he said and explain everything in such a way that not only does it match up to his explanation but it also doesn't suggest him as scum. whether or not it's the truth, the fact such a line of reasoning exists means his explanation can in fact be real and be from a townie. Which once again calls into question your assurance that such a possibility doesn't exist. In all fairness it means very little coming from me and not him, but if I have to answer for him in order to address your BS accusations then I gotta do what I gotta do...

I'm completely confident in my vote, and that was a very sympathetic reading there Korlash (not to mention a possible chainsaw defence.) If Percy get lynched and flips scum, I know where my sights will be next.

Oh yeah, that's very good. Automatically pair the guy your voting and the guy pointing out your BS attacks. How original.

Sarcasm aside, it's not sympathetic. I was all ready to join the wagon on Percy until he posted his explanation, causing me to reread and edit my post the otherway. I actually read the entire thing with the added perspective that I was open to him telling the truth, and you know what, it actually made sense. Why don't you try it and instead of reading it with your biased "i'm right and nothing can change it" attitude and maybe you can make something of this discussion.

I honestly thought that qwints' certainty about L_C's role was due to a day investigation, as well as a counterclaim. That's why I thought he claimed, to be honest - if you'll check, I warned against counterclaiming earlier, saying it was a bad idea. I assumed (for some reason) that he had investigated L_C and wanted to end the matter.

Why didn't you say anything about an investigation in your hammer post? And why did you feel his counterclaim needed to be addressed?

[Korlash]

Why didn't you mention the dayclaim??

Sorry, just have to clerify. Do you mean day investigation?

In fact, a day-investigating cop is probably a different role to a normal cop, so the counter-claim part of it isn't even as important as the guilty verdict would have been. If you honestly thought he said something like 'I am a day-investigating cop and I have a guilty on you' then the counter-claim isn't too damning, because it's possible we have two different cops, the guilty verdict is the obvious issue. Yet when hammering you say that the counter-claim is the issue.

I still wish Percy had addressed his actual hammer post or at least I had seen this before I posted my last post. It is a good point if his reason was in fact the counterclaim, but like I said his hammer post is interpretable in another way.

[Korlash]

He says the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing right away AS PART of the sentence where he hammers Lamont. It's a counter-point ot the very sentence where he says he was willing ot let his lynch wait in light of the claim but now he won't. So it is aboslutely the direct reason why he hammered - 'I was willing to let it wait but now I won't because of the counter-claim.'

The sad part about all of this is I originally agreed with you. But that aside...

Look at the statement in question. The phrase "Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim," Means that he originally wanted to let the lynch wait but now no longer does. The phrase "the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today. " shows that he thinks this point needs to be talked about that day. They are in and of themselves conflicting statements. One calls for more action that day and the other calls for the end of the day. Because of that point, logically the part about the counterclaim can't be his reason for a hammer as it calls for a longer day. Now yes, I can also see it as saying "We need to talk abotu this now before the day is over." however, that still doesn't make it his reason. As it stands in this scenario he doesn't give a reason. He just trails off.

Before we continue discussing this I think it's important Percy explains his hammer post.

While it's always possible I am mistaken, I'm about as sure as I can be about that point.

Yeah so sure about it in another post you claimed there was no way you were mistaken. You can't make a statement like that and then say there is a chance you were mistaken. That would be a contradiction, and those are bad.

And even if there is some other way to interpret it, and I can't see any that come close to as reasonable as the interpretation above, it still never explains why he didn't mention the investigation he thought he saw. That surely a more powerful reason than a counter-claim from an apparantly different form of cop.

I'll come back to this after Percy explains his hammer post.

Finally Korlash - points like nothing is absolute and you need to look at it from his perspective can be applied ot any argument against anyone ever. Why didn't you defend Lamont by the same sort of reasoning? Why not any of the other wagoned people? Anyone who appeals to uncertainty like that to try to derail scumhunting is automatically suspicious to me.

Dude, you're the one that said there was no chance of a misunderstanding. I didn't "apply it to you", technically you brought it up. None of the other wagoned people (or to be more accurate none of the people attacking them) said what you did, thus there wasn't the reason to say it that there is with you. Either this is a very poor attempt to misrepresent the situation or you've just proven my point AGAIN that you're just as fallible as anyone else.

[Korlash]

People have two choices - to say I screwed up, or to say I lied. I maintain that I had no reason whatsoever to lie in such a stupid, stupid way. Whilst scum have to lie, they usually do so for a reason, and I can't see how this speaks to my scumminess. SC continues to point out why he thinks there is no valid explanation, but his "why this makes Percy scum" is weak.

Actually no. I've been caught as scum more times for saying something I felt was irrelevant that ended up contradicting something small I said earlier. Things that hold the belief "scum have no reason to lie about this" is what scum usually mess up on most. In short, it doesn't matter if people can find a reason why scum would do it, only if they believe you in fact did it.

Although yeah, his "why this makes percy scum" is weak. So weak I in fact voted him for it and he has yet to actually clarify that for me...

[quote="Percy']Vino posts a picture of Spock. This seemed odd to me.
Later on, Korlash mentions that the "spock count" is up to "four? five?". Even though several players (myself included) asked him to explain, he never did. Could you explain, Korlash?[/quote]

It was a joke. I was counting up how many times that picture of Spock had been posted in the thread. Obviously it wasn't for everyone but it made me chuckle so whatever.

Korlash - your point about his hammer post has now been definiteively ruled out, Percy has explained that his hammer post was indeed explaining his hammer of Lamont, not bringing up two conflicting points about wanting to hammer lamont but wanting to talk more about qwints. Does this change your viewpoint?

The only thing that has been ruled out was that it was grammatically incorrect. As far as his reasoning behind his hammer, it hasn't changed. While I can barely distinguish it among his other stuff, I do see where he says he hammered LC because he felt he had a guilty investigation, not simply because of a counterclaim. Which means via his explanation there is no lie. Whether or not you believe this is up to you, whether I believe it or not is up to me. My view point on Percy has changed may times today I'm sure it will change many more. But that's irrelevant as I care only about my viewpoint on you atm.

I would like to direct you bak to my 456:

Santos' point? What point? It was a side comment that meant nothing, proved nothing, and only suggested a small bit of speculation that served no purpose at the time. How in the hell does this in anyway make his case on Santos "look better"?

This is my biggest issue with you and I would like it clarified before i press on with Percy. The outcome with him will link specifically back to this point which is why I need it cleared up first.

2. Percy attacks his next target and tries to make his target look worse and himself look better by adding in a part about qwints having a guilty verdict.

See... You are continuing to use it as a reason to believe Percy is scum while avoiding actually explaining it. Explain how he in any way makes Santos look worse with his statement today?

[Korlash]

Seriously though, your defense of Percy is a stretch in my eyes. You're placing a lot of faith in another individual, which in this game is usually indicative of something. I can understand if you're playing the Devil's Advocate.

Yes, it's indicative of me thinking SC's is pushing the Percy wagon for means other then good old fashioned scum hunting. The fact I had to resort to defending Percy to push my own point is regrettable, but luckily it hasn't seemed to do any damage to the case on him or his own defense.

As far as my own defense of Percy goes, Devil's Advocate is a pretty good way to describe it. To make my own point clear I don't disagree with *most* of the attacks on Percy, but the ones I do I need to push against. And I can't do that without in some way shape or form defending Percy in the process. My first and foremost thought has not been to defend Percy but to push my vote on SC, something that has yet to be cleared up mind you. I will say once it has been cleared up I'll have some words for Percy as well, so no fear there eh?

Sure it can match with his explanation. But is his explanation plausible? Is it consistent and does it match with the rest of his play? SerialClergyman is arguing that no, it does not. If you read below you will see why I think the same. That said, you seem to also agree that Percy has contradicted himself, and you're essentially sitting the fence on the issue, so I'm a bit consternated as to exactly what your position is.

For my argument I don't care if his explanation makes sense. (yet) I care about making sure the attacks on him are legitimate.

As far as fence sitting, yes. I have been. I cannot say i disagree with SC's pushing of the Percy wagon and then turn around and jump on it along with him. I have to do one before the other, hence my obligatory fence sitting.

[Korlash]

so would it be accurate to say that you're strawmanning the argument against percy in order to support a vote on his most vocal attacker?

No. Not unless you want to back said statement up. And even in the event I did strawman anything, it's not the argument against Percy it would merely be SC's attacks. Similar things to be sure, but not necessarily the same. But like I said you'd have to show where I was strawmanning first, which you shouldn't be able to do seeing as how I haven't done it.

[Korlash]

If Percy flips scum, Korlash is scum. You've tossed in so many red herrings to try to derail this argument it's ridiculous. The attack on me for being too confident in my case was always pitiful. I thought you could just be a paranoid townie when you came up with that ridiculous read of his hammer post, but after that snippet above I can't see how you're playing as a townie at all.

I didn't attack you for being too confident. i attacked you for stating there was no possible way you were wrong, which is untrue. If Tar had responded to my attack you would see I attacked him for much the same thing. Using words like Can't and impossible and the like implies inside knowledge, inside knowledge like being scum for example.

(My bolding to show the parts that are later denied by the source)
It was always a stretch to say that he was talking about Qwints' claim in some completely off-topic point about discussion, even though that's completely at odds with the hammer he had just delivered. So it was always going to be very unlikely.

Dude I presented like three separate possible variations of his hammer post. One of them had to obviously be wrong. You're going on a far stretch to say I "twisted" him hammer. Looking at it from varying viewpoints is not twisting it.

Which completely rules out your theory quoted above about them being two different thoughts, and us not knowing the reason for the hammer.

And yet do you acknowledge that now indeed he does have a problem? Do you say 'fair enough, my read of his hammer was wrong, yours was right, Percy really does have a case to answer?' Nope,you just stroll on by as if the whole part about your read of the hammer post didn't happen.

Do you even read what you bold? " Thus I voted, and I voted because of what qwints said." doesn't prove you right. It doesn't prove me right either mind you. This is another vague explanation from Percy that could go either way, and even more proof you're incapable of looking at things other then with your biased opinion.

And what's most laughable of all, is that you've repeatedly said how much you agree with the case on Percy! You agree with most of it, he has questions to answer, I'd like ot hear more about it etc etc - yet your ACTIONS right from the start have been vote the person who is the most vocal supporter of Percy, defend Percy at every turn with mind-bogglingly kind readings and refuse to put any pressure on him whatsoever. Yeah - those remarks about how much you agree with the case on Percy are totally going to save you when Percy flips scum.

Because you're fucking trying to tie his lie to the santos wagon. His 'lie' has nothing to do with the santos wagon, it has nothing to do with his vote on Santos, and it barely has anything to do with Santos. Either you've been trying to quell the Santos wagon with this or you've been trying to gain false support on this Percy wagon right from the start. All I've wanted since my first post of the day was for you to explain this and you've avoided it every damn post.

You want to link me to scum Percy fine, but if he flips town you're equally scum for this shit. Stop fucking avoiding this point so we can move on.

[Korlash]

Korlash, I think I understand your angle, but your stalwart defense of Percy's slip in trying to make your point has reflected poorly on you.

I don't really care how it reflects on me personally as long as my point is made. How I come across and what you think of me shouldn't effect how seriously you take the one thing I have been trying to point out.

I mean take the people who think I'm scum for what i've been doing, shouldn't they be interested in the reason I did it? In fact, I would think making myself look bad should have increased the outcome from my original point... yet it seem the opposite... oh well.

SC, I think you're overreacting about how solidly Percy's slip implicates him as scum. It's pretty scummy, but your over-reactions and certainties are what Korlash seems to object to. I've used "certainty speech" as town before so I can't say it's a solid scumtell, but the forcefulness of your reaction is not looking very townly.

While yes I may take object to those here and there but they are not my main point. My main point against him is the fact he pushes that Percy lied and is therefore scum, but in doing so he himself lies and thus himself is scum. After I first questioned him about it his answer was a false misrepresentation in and of itself. Then he continues to use it as a major point in his attacks on Percy. And, I might add, he is the ONLY one to use such an attack that I am aware of. So stuff it all you idiots who try to say I'm only attacking the "most vocal." You lie and I'll attack you lot as well. *shakes fist old man style8 And stay off my lawn! ... Sorry got carried away there... where am I?

Also @ SC: Not trying to be a jerk here as I know you haven't posted since my last post but I have to ask you once again to respond to my said point mentioned above. My opinion of you right now is not one of great reliability so i feel it necessary to constantly nag you about it until I get my answer.

[Korlash]

He's using it to attack Santos. It's right there. It was part of his big case against Santos in the post where he pushes Santos. I can't be more clear than that. AND I've explained how even if you think the above isn't a direct lie, and is in fact a mistake, his covering of that mistake with more and more unbelieveable lies points to scum, not town.

How is that an attack on santos? A big part of his case? A big part you say? Define big part? Did he mention it more then once? Did he emphasis it somewhere I missed? Did he insinuate that Santos was scum for saying it? Not all comments are attacks, some are just comments for the sake of commenting.

Low access means I can't keep going around in circles like this - this entire point is covered in 470. Go through the things you have ot believe to believe Percy.

I don't care about percy. I don't care about believing him. I don't care if he lied. I care about you explaining, backing up, proving, or whatever you want to call it your statement that his lie was in any way relevant to Santos. Every time you've responded to me you seem to say "It just is" which explains nothing...

Elan being the only cop would be unlikely.

... That doesn't mean a counterclaim Strengthens his claim. That's just backwards logic however you look at it.

[Korlash]

Because a counterclaim usually makes a claim less believable. In a situation like this, where you may believe there are more then 1 cop, that does not make the opposite true. In a hypothetical situation, LC could still have been lying when qwuints countered him. A second cop may not have chimed in yet or felt it unnecessary to claim. By your thinking (That only one cop is unlikely) in no way makes LC's claim any stronger, as he claimed first and under pressure he could still be scum lying. Qwuints on the otherhand should have been strengthened because he was the one actually doing the countering. I find it weird that out of the thinking that it would be unlikely to only have one cop, you would call LC the more likely cop out of the two.

[Korlash]

I've been trying to figure out where you stand on Percy, should I take this as a statement to that effect? If you are town then you should, after all, care if Percy has indeed lied. Or are you just being rhetorical?

Not rhetorical, but not literal either. You need to look at the context in which this statement of mine was made. SC said he was more or less done wasting time talking about whether you should or should not believe Percy, something I had no real interest in him talking about at the time. So basically I took it as him implying he had been wasting time talking about something when he could have been explaining the problem I had with him instead, the thing I have been waiting all day for him to explain.

And just to ease your troubled mind, when I said "I don't care about... (insert three things I said here)" I didn't mean I don't care about them, just that I don't care about talking about them with SC at that time. I don't want SC to talk about whether or not I should believe percy. I don't want him to talk about percy's lie and what makes it a lie. I almost entirely don't want him talking about Percy at all. (Minus the stuff he has to explain in order to back up his statement I have concerns about.) All I want is for him to explain how Percy's 'lie' was in any way relevant to Santos, santos's wagon, Percy's case, attack, or vote on Santos, and anything else along those lines in as much detail as he can muster.

I hope this made it at least a little clearer to you about what I meant. And I hope even more that it helps get exactly what I want out of SC.

When did I say he was more likely to be a cop than qwints?

Post 500. Then again in post 513 when you quoted yourself saying it and didn't express any concern over what you said being false.

[Korlash]

I'm here I'm here... I'll try to devote some time here shortly to catch up...

FoS; Korlash - For Lying.

About what?

Also of note is that Korlash appears to have entered a private hibernation after attacks on Percy died down, his last post being another defence of Percy over 1 week ago after a period of a couple of posts a day.

Nothing to do with Percy. Stuff came up and my time on MS died down to a halt. All the time I've managed to get in on the site went to something more important, which I'm still behind on. Although if it helps you sleep better to think my lack of activity had something to do with Percy have at it. Far be it from me to kill your hopes and dreams with my explanations and the like.

Percy has not suggested anything (today/D2) to advance the scum's objective, but has said some awfully scummy things, hence my vote. I believe, however, in the event that Percy is pro-town, that scum-Korlash could be banking on his flip so he could appear more townie for defending him. On the otherhand, they could both be partners. I'd suggest Korlash lynched before Percy just to assess their connection.

Uh huh... So what you are saying is that if Percy flips town I may look more town, so we should lynch me first so when i flip town it doesn't hurt Percy's lynch. I see, that makes a lot of sense. Although seeing as how me being scum seems to lay entirely on Percy being scum(until you presented this new theory that is), yet percy being scum has almost nothing to do with me exactly, wouldn't Percy still be the better lynch to assess our connections? Or of course you could stop bullshitting around and admit you don't want to press Percy, the active hard talker, and instead think the inactive Korlash an easier target. At least then you would have honesty on your side.


On this whole Comic claim thing I haven't really read enough to get the full reasoning behind it but I've never really thought a full massclaim this early in a large game would ever do any good. And the theme of the game suggests to me that a massclaim at this time wouldn't help anyways. I can get wanting to tie scum down to fakeclaims now but... honestly... that doesn't seem like it would be too detrimental to scum really... perhaps I'll have more to say once I read up some more.

So yeah let me read up when I get a free moment... or eight... and... *trails off*

[Korlash]

Percy had 4 votes on him, with you having none.. How are you the easier target when you just now produced 1 vote against you? You make it sound like you don't want Percy to be cleared IF you flipped town. If that's your boy, then ride or die. You later claimed not to care about Percy, and not to be defending him, but the impression most of us get is that you're defending him, no matter how subtle it may be in actuality.

If we overlook my last post, the inactive guy is always the easier lynch. A guy defending himself will last 100 times longer then a guy who is inactive. Barring specific circumstances of course.

And why would I want anyone cleared when I flip town? I don't know his alignment, I don't want him cleared if I get put six feet under. That's just a dumb statement on your part, regardless of my feelings toward him. And if I'm not mistaken before I went AFK I did admit to defending him to some extent for purposes involving furthering my attack on SC. So it's not some impression most of you are getting nor is it a subtle thing.

Be clearer.. are you suggesting I'm scum?

At this point and time no. I'm suggesting your vote on me was made on backwards logic and a reaching conclusion. I'll argue more on the backwards reasoning once I read up providing I still think it's there. My quote there you have is my counter to your reaching conclusion in which I present my own reching conclusion which thusly cancels yours out. You say I "might" be doing something and should be lynched. I said you "might" be doing something and thus your vote is invalid.

... Um shorter version, no. Ask me again after we've exchanged a couple posts...

[Korlash]

It's not guaranteed to do anything, but I have a few ideas in mind:

(1) It may be possible to catch scum in a lie, either today or at a later date, through counterclaim or otherwise;
(2) It may make scum fakeclaims easier to spot later on, given that they will have to tailor their role to suit their flavour.
(3) I am curious whether everyone comes from different comics, or there are some from the same comic.

I am certainly against lynching anyone simply because their character is a "bad guy" in whatever comic. Whilst I could believe Elan was a town-aligned player, "Man with a Hat", "Davan" and "Evil Atom" don't scream pro-town.

Still haven't completely caught up but I'm doing my best to pull myself back into the here and now.

These three things can easily hurt us as much as help. A massclaim may make scum less likely to be counterclaimed as the claim they may have made might be outed before them in said massclaim. A massclaim now could easily cause mislynches due to messed up town flavor. (Take LC if you want an example of this) IT could even strengthen scum fakeclaims as their claim will be tailored made, where-as town claims are mod given. One could argue a good "tailor made" claim might sound better then a mod given one to the masses. And you're third point just brings up a questionable future. Do we accept two claims of the same comic or do we not? What if during a massclaim two non-scum happen to have the same comic? Doesn't that present scum with a new fakeclaim opportunity they didn't previously have? And if a massclaim goes without any evidence of multiple people from the same comic wouldn't it then rob us of any late scum claims that might have considered risking it if left to claim alone? And yes these questions are rhetorical and shouldn't be answered...

All of your points can easily help us as much as hurt us and just as easily do neither. So the question remains why even do it? We could simultaneously out a scum while giving another confirmed town status and leaving a third undetected at all. It's a completely pointless endeavor at this time.

Now if you amend it, make it all the suspicious people claim today to lock them in overnight, that may change some things. 2-3 claims today can help the situation tomorrow while not risking revealing too much. But then it comes down to who claims. I can think of 5 but i doubt everyone would agree meaning to do this may waste what little time we have. So all in all I think the massclaim idea should be nixed.

[Korlash]

While I'm against a mass claim I think my claim is necessary before Percy's flip seeing as how there are a hand full of you that will call me scum regardless of what alignment he shows. And so for that I feel the sooner I get it out the better for everyone.

I am Abby from Abby's Agency

I like the Tar/Korlash double team on Lamont page, but I don't think Lamont is scum. I think he's just plain wrong, and he doesn't really understand that yet. It's possible that this attack could be a scum ploy to get him lynched.

Double team? I have to pull a Kise here and Ask for Clarification. Are you implying that we are somehow connected or simply that we both dealt with LC at the same time.

Santos does make a somewhat good point here about the wagon on Lamont being BS, but I'm not exactly sure what else he is saying.
Post 235 by TSS seems interesting, especially given the double-team on Lamont from page 5.

FoS: Tarhalindur, Korlash, Vino

Not sure if I think the first two are working together, but I could definitely see one of them as scum playing off the other one.

This might just have answered my question. You admitted you felt he was wrong and you're surprised multiple people pressed him for it? And you feel one of me and tar might be playing off the other for two specific posts, one from each of us? I mean that's a little lacking there, even for you.

I'm all for perusing the people on LC's case but it seems like you are trying to tie the people who actually presented arguments with an attack that seems less out of place when used against the people who said nothing and just chain voted.

Now you can cut the bull and just claim you think I'm playing off Tar and we can get down to the issue at hand. Both the Claimed "double team" and TSS's misrep post deal entirely with me, the fact I mentioned his name on page 5 is hardly a tie in to him. I have enough bogus stuff to deal with being linked like I am to Percy, I don't need misleading links to Tar was well...

[Korlash]

Obviously I fail at URLs...

http://abbysagency.us/

[Korlash]

Wow lots of Kise hate coming around... None of it I like. Can we not lynch him and take out SC? Cool, glad I could get a word in edge wise.

Seriously though, with Fishy seemingly pushing a deadline kill over a lynch and Delathi's "Well I guess Kise is the only option left" how can anyone agree with a kise lynch? Insanity...

Also Tar, while I get and understand your paranoid need to speak your mind before night falls, don't you think 4 flipped character is a little lacking in the whole "create a theory" department? You are essentially defining "lead" characters off one flip. I like theorys based on little as much as the next guy, but do you actually think trying to define what is safe to claim and what isn't necessary at this stage?

Also why was I left out of the "seven players to rule them all" saga of the post? As if I didn't have low enough self esteem already...

[Korlash]

I made that post with (I thought?) 24 hours until the deadline. There were, realistically, three wagons which had a chance of producing the lynch in that timeframe. I asked players to vote for one of them (not necessarily Kise, who I wasn't voting at that point). How is this an argument against voting Kise?

What are you talking about, I don't recall ever saying it was an argument "against voting Kise." Or are you asking how my post is an argument against voting kise?