I'd prefer Axxle or Watno at the moment.
I saw your case for Axxle but why Watno?
Insomniac, Insomniac. Do you never read anything I post? But I'm calling out everybody here (except maybe cayvie and ftl). Along with one of my votes on O, I put out an essay on watno. And why he's scummy. And there was only one response at all. ftl asked me
Shraeye, did you mean to vote Watno in your post http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4412.msg108623#msg108623 ? Because you voted O and then posted a case against Watno, unless I'm misreading you. So I'm confused, was that post supposed to justify your O vote somehow, or is your O case that you spend two lines on still stronger than your Watno case?
So the only discussion that generated at all was somebody asking if I was serious about voting for O. Nothing about watno. Not a thing. (watno did defend himself, I'll get there next) So here it is again so people can finally firetruckin' read it.
...
Second, yuma's analysis reminded me that I wanted to talk about watno. Yuma's analysis seems to point out some contradictions. Like first he doesn't see me as scummy then does. So I wanted to know what changed. watno explained himself by saying I was acti-lurking. But yuma's summary of him talking heavily about acti-lurking makes me feel super suspicious. Why are you voting shraeye for doing something that you are also doing? I decided to go look into his posts and come up with my own interpretation. Here is that effort
Post #250 watno says that he's played Mafia before (in German)
#262 possibly real suspicion, possible joke that Morgrim needs help to "play scum."
#326 describe's glooble's "no quantifiable reason yet" vote on shraeye as possibly sheeping; decides that I'm nitpicky but not scum
#328 corrects yuma's misinterpretation of ehunts one-per-day statement
#373 This will be major point A
#377 Says that actively lurking is more scummy than regular lurking
#379 clarifies previous post by saying what acti-lurking is
#608 long time between posts; This is major point B
Major point A
Refuses to see content in my posts.
When a quick wagon formed on my sarcasm, that was understandable. But I was waiting for the steam to pick up in a different way. What I mean is, the people who voted me because they thought they caught a "scummy scumslip" just hadn't yet arrived in their minds to the punchline of the joke. But still, that was a large portion of people and some disagreed with that. So I had a large wagon, but also had plenty of people who explicitly weren't willing to vote for me based on sarcasm. If I were scum watching that happen, I would look for an opportunity to jump on, add a vote, BUT DO IT FOR A DIFFERENT REASON. So it adds strength to the wagon not only in terms of another vote, but also so that people who didn't want to vote based onsarcasm now had the opportunity to vote for another reason. watno fit this description.
vote shraeye
I guess this is a good example of acti-lurking. We shouldn't discuss about what words to use, but find scum. If you didn't get what ashersky wanted to say, why not just ask?
Its not completely clear what he means by this, so I looked at the last few posts I made. In #373 right before that I made a 3 paragraph argument seeing what I would do if I were axxle with the double vote. That feels like actual content to me and to say that I was "only posting stuff that's not relevant to the game" (that's your definition of acti-lurking from #379) is as false of an assessment as you could make. The post I made before #373 was #369. That has "point number A" that also speculates about double-vote "point number B" that was a defense of myself describing the situation as it developed from my perspective (sorry, is defending oneself acti-lurking? because that also feels to me like content relevant to the game) "point number B and a half" is me talking about my increased levels of sarcasm and answering cayvie's post. None of those seem like I'm posting stuff not relevant to the game, especially when I've been pushed by people to explain myself (cayvie, morgrim, etc). In the post before #369, (disregarding the +1 for a good joke) I gave everyone my post totals, as this helps us see who's being active, and I thought my numbers were a better picture of that then Insomniac's.
There is no way that these are content-less posts irrelevant to the game, so for you to say I'm actilurking and try to paint me with that brush feels like you're simply looking for another reason for the wagon on me to keep growing. A very scummy push.
Major point B
Trying simply to shoot everyone down instead of actually scumhunting.
He goes after Voltaire for "knowing" that O is lurking intentionally, continues his false argument that all I'm doing is talking about words, jumps on TheMunch for trying to keep posts tidy by waiting for ehunt to finish his 7-point multi-post before TheMunch answered ehunt's question to him. Then he jumps on Frisk for policy voting TheMunch and then not unvoting, FoS's the entire yuma wagon for not realizing yuma's mistake was honest, pokes Morgrim for being late to understand that shray is sarcastic, questions how Voltgloss "knows" there's scum on yumas wagon, chides and votes for the lurkers, then winks at sarcastic joth.
Wowie zowie. You just shot down 7 people/factions. Actually 5 people, 1 entire wagon, and a pair of lurkers. I'm all for pointing out consistencies, but the problem here is you point out so many and all so weakly, that you are pointing the smallest of "fingers of suspicion" in every direction instead of focusing your attention and effort on actually finding scum. I suppose the strategy is vocally suspect everyone just a bit, so that nobody's feathers get ruffled, then point out on day 2 that you were right, trying to gain town cred. To me, this is much more suspicious than a lot of things I've seen going on so far. Seriously, you found all of these things suspicious and off, but none of them were worth a more in depth look at the offending parties?
Here is watno's response
Sry for not posting much, I had less time in the last couple of days then expected. It will probably get better tomorrow.
@Voltgloss:
I was hoping more scum would pile on before people started seriously questioning this wagon, but getting at least one scum to join (and I agree with yuma that probably at least one did) is worth something to talk about today.
What I was trying to say regarding this is that I find it a bit strange that you base your thoughts on assumption there's no real evidence for. I think it might be possible, that you in fact know there was scum on that wagon, but had to justify it because you couldn't admit you do.
Watno: you said the wagon on me looked scummy? is there a player in particular who jumps out at you?
Because it seemed kinda farfetched to me that you were intentionally fishing. Eevee, Voltaire, shraeye and Insomniac jump out to me a bit more, since they only voted after they were able to see that others were willing to believe it was intentional fishing.
@shraeye: In fact, i think posts #369 was pretty acti-lurky. Speculating about double votes and posting a wall of text about sarcasm don't really contribute to us getting a read on you. Same for posting a list of post numbers. Starting a discussion about wording doesn't get us further either. It looks like youre trying to get us to think you were saying a lot, while in fact, you aren't.
I don't see your problem with my post #608. If people post something i think might be scummy, i point it out and see if they can explain to me why they did. Since there's not a single person I'm convinced is scum yet, I can't go after them excessively.
I agree with Eevee that Grujah seems to be contributing little even in the few posts he makes.
vote: Captain Frisk for still having a vote on TheMunch "so he notices he mustn't edit posts".
Also, since quite a few people are saying differently, I want to point out that Robz didn't say alignments were random. What he said was that it wouldn't be obvious and some people's alignments would be random.
So he talks again about one of my posts #369, in which I defended myself, had to finally explain sarcasm to the slower members of our audience, and speculated about the double vote. How is me defending myself not helping you get a read on me? I think plenty of people have a read on me, one way or another. You keep saying that defending myself and speculating on the setup of the game are in no way useful. Stop deluding yourself, these are integral parts of mafia.
Here is my problem with post #608 so far. You posted thin arguments on tons of people, and only yuma has responded to you. I know in the quote I pulled from you above you talk to voltgloss again, but the thing you are responding to in #744 (that's the post I pulled above) you are responding to something that voltgloss said before you accused him in #608. What I want to see rather than this laundry list of small mistakes, is for you to commit to sorting them out. Or anything out. Follow up those small pokes you made, don't let people get by without answering them, demand answers until you are satisfied. In short, be a good town player. While typing this yuma slipped in #767 above, which is great. This is what you need to do; latch onto your questions and never let them go unanswered. Don't just machine-gun suspicion all around and see what sticks. the machine-gun suspicion play is super-scummy.
Author
Topic: Mafia XI: Find Yourself in the Courtyard Masquerade -- GAME OVER, TOWN WINS (Read 318825 times)