Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jotheonah]

Another possibility that bears consideration is that a secret voter is framing Axxle.

[Captain_Frisk]

All right - caught up. 

My thoughts:

Shraeye's scumslip:
Even being guilty of the biggest scumslip in history on f.ds, I have a hard time believing that a scumslip is really a scumtell.

Morgrim Hunting

Second, I think Morgrim-hunting is a scumtell. Which is to say, vote: Dsell. I don't like how you characterized your vote as being a policy vote and then decided later that it was actually an RVS vote. ScumFrisk did exactly that in MIX (sadly, scumVoltgloss convinced a whole bunch of scum and a couple townies that Morgrim-hunting-hunting was the scumtell. Moral: Morgrim-hunting^n is a scumtell if and only if n is odd (n=0 is the case of just being Morgrim, which is neutral)).

Sure I was scum, and I was in favor of Morgrim hunting in M9.

This does not make it a scumtell.  RobZ hunted Morgrim in MX - and it got him lynched (town), and then Jorbles and I killed the mogrim hunter hunter (O).  We (scum) wanted to leave Morgrim alive for the inevitable craziness that would occur when we got to lylo (either he'd be an easy lynch, or he'd early vote).  M9 was won by Voltgloss because of Morgrim's behavior - right?

Unfortunately for scum in MX - he was replaced by the excellent Voltaire - who immediately locked onto my scummitude, and the rest was history.

Card claiming

Third, I want to encourage everyone to be very cautious about naming your card name or revealing anything about your card name (like if it is action, treasure, curse, etc.). As far as I can tell it doesn't function to provide "named townies" (since we are told it's possible for multiple folks to share a card). I am concerned that we will have a repeat of MIX, where there were scum power roles that benefitted from knowing names of cards (or, more accurately, suits). In particular, I think it's not best to reveal your card name even if you are at L - 1 since the card name does nothing to prove your alignment and may help scum, who have a lot more information.

I tend to agree - I've been generally against goofy claiming (side / seat / suit), but I've also never had a role that made use of that information in a meaningful way.  However - your specific stance made me nervous.  What makes you think that scum have more card related information than town does? 

Mod Question: ## Will cards be revealed on death? ##

I guess I just don't see enough information out there that would lead me to believe that card claiming at L-1 should be avoided - and yet eHunt is out there discouraging it.

Actilurking
Meh.  I was accused of it - and I wasn't doing it.  Playing scum is harder than playing town.  Playing scum in 3 simultaneous games is harder still.  You want to be careful of your posts.  Lurking is scummy.  Acti-lurking might just be co-incidence.

Secret / Doublevoting
At least we know its out there.  Rolefishing is bad - right?

I usually like to have my vote on someone on day 1, but we're far enough in that random voting feels strange, and I don't have a strong enough read to real vote yet.

[Watno]

Actilurking
Meh.  I was accused of it - and I wasn't doing it.  Playing scum is harder than playing town.  Playing scum in 3 simultaneous games is harder still.  You want to be careful of your posts.  Lurking is scummy.  Acti-lurking might just be co-incidence.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. You're complaining about being scum in 3 games being too hard? So is that what you're doing? Also, I don't agree that acti-lurking is less scummy than lurking. Lurking can be caused by just not being there. Acti-lurking is exactly what you get when you're careful of your posts ("I'll better not state an opinion regarding that. But if I don't post anything, people will accuse me of lurking")

[Captain_Frisk]

Actilurking
Meh.  I was accused of it - and I wasn't doing it.  Playing scum is harder than playing town.  Playing scum in 3 simultaneous games is harder still.  You want to be careful of your posts.  Lurking is scummy.  Acti-lurking might just be co-incidence.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. You're complaining about being scum in 3 games being too hard? So is that what you're doing? Also, I don't agree that acti-lurking is less scummy than lurking. Lurking can be caused by just not being there. Acti-lurking is exactly what you get when you're careful of your posts ("I'll better not state an opinion regarding that. But if I don't post anything, people will accuse me of lurking")

I'm just saying that acti-lurking might also be caused by phone posting / scanning thread etc. - which may or may not be scummier than just not checking the thread - so it shouldn't be viewed as super scummy.   

[Watno]

I think we need to define what act-lurking is^^
When I say acti-lurking I mean only posting stuff that is not relevant to the game.
It seems to me what you understand as acti-lurking is looking at the thread without posting. Right?

[jotheonah]

I'm with whoever said the prolonged discussion of acti-lurking is, in fact, acti-lurking.

[Galzria]

Well I disappear for a day and you all get serious.

Thoughts:
Shraeye doesn't seem scummy over those posts, and I really have a hard time seeing anything he posted as a legitimate "scumslip". That said, his reactions WERE a bit more confrontational than anything he ever posted in M-IX, and certainly it doesn't match to the personality I know in Diplomacy. It may be as good as Abby other vote if nothing has been found by deadline, but I don't think it's a good press right now. Certainly going to be watching a bit more closely.

eHunts posts on the other hand really did rub me the wrong way, but I would be hard pressed to say exactly why. I don't know if it's tone related or content related. Well, it's not exactly content related. I don't agree with everything he's said, but I do agree with some. It's just... His inflection? His assertiveness? I don't know. But something about the way he's said what he has puts me on edge. Still, not going to vote for him now because maybe it really is just the construction of his posts that bug me. Certainly he seemed scummy in past games to me and was town, so I'll try to filter any reads I have on him (especially gut reads and not content reads) through the "is that just how I read eHunt" lense.

Joth has been leaning back towards his sarcastic days, and I'm not sure how to read it. It's stood out to me though, but I always have to be careful here. Joth has never actually been Mafia, despite being in a number of games, so all of my reads on him of being scum to date have been wrong (I pegged him as scum D1 in M-III, but he was SK) Still, this Joth seems a little edgy to me... So I'll be keeping an eye on his posts.

Nobody else has really jumped out at me. For the people saying (and I notice this coming from mostly new players) that "meta-information means little because people can change the way they play at anytime" - Quite bluntly, you're wrong. You may subconsciously try, hell you may consciously try - but it isn't that simple. People have certain tendencies as both town and scum that, no matter how hard they try to change them, still come across in their posts. When I'm scum, I'm very confident. Town has a tendency to trust me almost universally. When I'm town, I get suspected a LOT more, and always seem very scummy to at least a handful of people (often townies). I've known this meta about myself since M-III. I've actively tried to change it from both standpoints (being scum Abe being town). At the end of the day however, the meta usually holds true. The same is true for my reads on Robz. I can nearly always peg him correctly. And Robz is very, very good at reading Voltgloss. None of us want to be locked into a meta, but there are always little things throughout every game that are consistent matches to a scum/town personality for any given player. And they're things that the player simply can't help.

Lastly, card-naming: Generally I think that it's a bad idea en-masse. However, I'm not sure that claiming on your death bed is detrimental to town. I was scum in BMMM and we were warned about card-claiming, flavor claiming,side claiming, etc. At the end of the game however, we scum had no information about any such claims that would've helped us. Certain town members however, did. In RMM-I and RMM-II we debated card claiming, but again I'm not sure that scum had any more information that would've made such claims useful than various members of the town. My point is, I think that putting the information out there (which is likely to be revealed upon death, although we can get that clarified) before the hammer falls is *probably* going to be more beneficial to town than not. Still, I think each person is different and the final decision should be left to them.

[Robz888]

I sent prods to O and ibgtennis. I would like to cut them some slack since the game started at a weird time, and it was the weekend. Hopefully they will get in here soon.

Mod Question: ## Will cards be revealed on death? ##

You will have to wait until someone dies to find out what information will be revealed upon death.

[jotheonah]

Man, Galzria looks super town in that post. Which, by his own admission, means we should probably lynch him.

[Voltaire]

Galz, either you're breadcrumbing something weird, or that post has some great auto-correct errors.

I also feel rubbed the wrong way about ehunt's post, but I'm reminding myself that scum is probably still lurking. I'm comfortable keeping my vote on O for now. I want him out of the woodwork, especially since he's an experienced player.

I've seen the new people playing like new people - that's a town read for now.

Eevee, I didn't follow your advice and start note-taking the first time I read. Woe is me...

[Captain_Frisk]

I think we need to define what act-lurking is^^
When I say acti-lurking I mean only posting stuff that is not relevant to the game.
It seems to me what you understand as acti-lurking is looking at the thread without posting. Right?

Yep - and it looks like I'm wrong.  Apologies! 

I'm with whoever said the prolonged discussion of acti-lurking is, in fact, acti-lurking.

+1 to Jonah - although wouldn't this comment also qualify?

Galz - are you trying to write the same post as me - or is ehunt really the only person who stood out during your read?

[Galzria]

Abby = any, Abe = and. No breadcrumbs. PINL (for those not following BM-V, PINL = Promise I'm Not Lying). Just bad auto-corrects from my mobile.

[Grujah]

I find any votes based solely on shar's "I got caught" straight-out bad. It was obvious sarcasm, when you read the whole thing (sentence before) as a whole. Bolding just the part that makes him look scummy without whole content is scummy.


That being said, vote: Glooble. He is acting just like he acts always as scum! He comes out of lurk with a vote on a established wagon. Classic Globscum.

[jotheonah]

Abby = any, Abe = and. No breadcrumbs. PINL (for those not following BM-V, PINL = Promise I'm Not Lying). Just bad auto-corrects from my mobile.

He's breadcrumbing letter carrier/lie-detector hybrid. Abby = Dear Abby, Abe = Honest Abe. Brilliant.

[jotheonah]

I find any votes based solely on shar's "I got caught" straight-out bad. It was obvious sarcasm, when you read the whole thing (sentence before) as a whole. Bolding just the part that makes him look scummy without whole content is scummy.


That being said, vote: Glooble. He is acting just like he acts always as scum! He comes out of lurk with a vote on a established wagon. Classic Globscum.

I could get behind this. His bro-cred with me has finally run out after all the times he's fooled me.

[Galzria]

I think we need to define what act-lurking is^^
When I say acti-lurking I mean only posting stuff that is not relevant to the game.
It seems to me what you understand as acti-lurking is looking at the thread without posting. Right?

Yep - and it looks like I'm wrong.  Apologies! 

I'm with whoever said the prolonged discussion of acti-lurking is, in fact, acti-lurking.

+1 to Jonah - although wouldn't this comment also qualify?

Galz - are you trying to write the same post as me - or is ehunt really the only person who stood out during your read?

Was my post similar? I don't know. I'll have to reread yours. If it is, it just means what you said doesn't jump out at me because I obviously agree with much of it.

No, eHunt isn't the only one who stood out to me. I named the top three, and while those three are under suspicion from others as well, I tried to provide my own perspective on each. It's hard being out for a day, and then coming to the party late.

There are others who have said and done minor things that have raised my eyebrows, but nothing significant. I'm honestly more likely, I think, to search for scum amongst those who don't seem scummy - but you know first hand how that approach worked when applied in M-VII.

I'll wait to see what ibgtennis has to say, but his nonposting somehow gives me a very bozzball read. I hope that when he does post that changes.

[Eevee]

I'm surprised no one has called me out fot voting shraeye yet. This looks exactly like the classic f.Ds day 1 wagon I tried to warn everyone about..Unvote

I will say this though, his personality seems to somehow be totally different from IX, so I dont regret finding him scummy first. I agree ehunt is looking weird, he is assuming stuff from the game setup only scum could know, and definitely being more aggressive and peading than earlier. Also trying to limit everyone to just one post a day is weird. Dunno, maybe Vote: ehunt will warrant an answer from him.

PPE: five new replies, I type slow on ipad. Some of this might be outdated already.

[Galzria]

I find any votes based solely on shar's "I got caught" straight-out bad. It was obvious sarcasm, when you read the whole thing (sentence before) as a whole. Bolding just the part that makes him look scummy without whole content is scummy.


That being said, vote: Glooble. He is acting just like he acts always as scum! He comes out of lurk with a vote on a established wagon. Classic Globscum.

I could get behind this. His bro-cred with me has finally run out after all the times he's fooled me.

+ (insert # here) forum points.

[eHalcyon]

I find any votes based solely on shar's "I got caught" straight-out bad. It was obvious sarcasm, when you read the whole thing (sentence before) as a whole. Bolding just the part that makes him look scummy without whole content is scummy.


That being said, vote: Glooble. He is acting just like he acts always as scum! He comes out of lurk with a vote on a established wagon. Classic Globscum.

I called it out because it jumped out to me, so I missed the context that framed it as snark.  I recanted on a subsequent re-read.

I echo jo's thoughts on Galz.

[TheMunch]

I'm with whoever said the prolonged discussion of acti-lurking is, in fact, acti-lurking.

100 times this.  Shraeye has had content in a lot of his posts and I think its about time people both notice that and comment on it (I'm looking at you Cayvie in posts 335 and 364; you bold the least content filled part of the posts and start this whole tangent.  There very well might be others that are guilty for this but it deserves to be noted that people are guilty of this; see: watno.)  I'm not trying to tie myself irreparably to Shraeye as I dont really have a good read on him one way or the other, but that doesn't mean there are other things of validity to discuss.

For example, Hey Gooble (in 324) and Watno (in 373), you both mention that you are suspicious of Shraeye.  You are both most notable for being suspicious for reasons NOT involving the ridiculous "scumslip".  Care to elaborate?

And not that I want to continue silliness involving semantics of "acti-lurking" but this all started with the post by Ashersky.  If I understand correctly, Active Lurking (already mentioned but worth reiterating) is the act of making you look active while contributing nothing to the conversation, usually used to avoid topics while avoiding looking like you are avoiding topics.  If that is the case, then why is Ashersky actually worried at all about being accused of active lurking.  To active lurk there would need to be topics that he would want to avoid, but there weren't any at the time of the post.  It just seems silly to me to be worried about being accused of something scummy when that act is physically impossible.

That all being said, my vote is on ehunt and will remain there for the time being.  People have pretty much fleshed out why it is worthy to be suspicious of ehunt.

[shraeye]

My original ashersky post had content in it that was overshadowed by the sarcasm.  That was "why were you so focused on card-claiming that you said that a discussion regarding it had started and stopped, when all it was was ehunt posting once that it's a bad idea?"

This got super lost in the aftermath.

[eHalcyon]

I'm with whoever said the prolonged discussion of acti-lurking is, in fact, acti-lurking.

100 times this.  Shraeye has had content in a lot of his posts and I think its about time people both notice that and comment on it (I'm looking at you Cayvie in posts 335 and 364; you bold the least content filled part of the posts and start this whole tangent.  There very well might be others that are guilty for this but it deserves to be noted that people are guilty of this; see: watno.)  I'm not trying to tie myself irreparably to Shraeye as I dont really have a good read on him one way or the other, but that doesn't mean there are other things of validity to discuss.

For example, Hey Gooble (in 324) and Watno (in 373), you both mention that you are suspicious of Shraeye.  You are both most notable for being suspicious for reasons NOT involving the ridiculous "scumslip".  Care to elaborate?

And not that I want to continue silliness involving semantics of "acti-lurking" but this all started with the post by Ashersky.  If I understand correctly, Active Lurking (already mentioned but worth reiterating) is the act of making you look active while contributing nothing to the conversation, usually used to avoid topics while avoiding looking like you are avoiding topics.  If that is the case, then why is Ashersky actually worried at all about being accused of active lurking.  To active lurk there would need to be topics that he would want to avoid, but there weren't any at the time of the post.  It just seems silly to me to be worried about being accused of something scummy when that act is physically impossible.

That all being said, my vote is on ehunt and will remain there for the time being.  People have pretty much fleshed out why it is worthy to be suspicious of ehunt.

Pretty sure I called out shraeye before cayvie did, even if she made it bigger than I did.  cayvie's #364 gives plenty of non-scumslip reasons for suspecting shraeye.  Making a fuss about a portmanteau is ridiculous.  English is a mess of a language anyways.  Was Shakespeare an idiot for making up a new word every 5 pages?

What content has there been in shraeye's posts?  Sure there has been some, there's some in everyone's posts.  There hasn't been anything noteworthy enough to warrant your passionate defense.  Your first paragraph is a bit contradictory in that shraeye was the one who unnecessarily made a big deal about the word in the first place, instead of just asking about it in the first place.  Shouldn't that cause you to be more suspicious of him?

Which reasons from other people do you agree with that you think ehunt is suspicious?  I don't think it's been very well fleshed out at all.

I get kind of a bad vibe from you, but that might just be because I've never played a game with you before this.

[ehunt]

So much to say. I will probably split today's "one big post" into lots of little posts with numbers for easier questions. I want to talk about:

1. responses to specific questions asked of me by
 a. voltgloss
 b. frisk
2. mafia theory + allegations that I am bossy
3. "one post a day"
4. the ehunt wagon (preview: i don't like it)
5. the shraeye wagon (preview: it's scummy)
6. shraeye (preview: he's scummy)
7. the double-vote (preview: I no longer think it's dangerous to talk about the double-vote)
8. the lurkers (preview: vote: O)

[jotheonah]

this should be good.

[Insomniac]

I find 5 and 6 to be hilariously opposing so I am in fact looking forward to those posts