Code Geass Mafia: OVAH

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I think we should vote for Ermac, he's been inactive he's been nothing but useless, and the connection to FF is also something to look into.

Vote: dark_ermac

 

[Vult Redux]

What have you got to say to defend yourself?

Still want an answer to the question.

Where's your case? I've already defended myself to the inactivity accusation, which seemed to be the selling point for most people.

 

[Overswarm]

search

"Vult"


or

Search

advanced search

Posts by

Overswarm

clickity click click






I'm not sure I really need to explain my case when I'm one of 8 people considering you a top 2 lynch target and you haven't read the thread. My vote stays.

Read up, post a defense.

And no, your inactivity has not been accounted for. I've watched your account and know when you've been online and when you haven't, and I know when you've posted here and when you haven't. Hell, people can just search your name and get a rough idea for themselves.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's not just Adum being weird with the Neighborhood deal. If no one remembers the weird stuff Rei had held against me regarding the Neighborhood...

like. wat. srsly?

I thought it was peculiar that he said something like this, but I dismissed it as being unfamiliar with the Neighborhood concept.

However, there would be plenty of reason for him to ponder this if, for example, HIS neighborhood had a separate goal.

So you pretended to not know what a neighborhood was to avoid giving the impression that you are in one.

Do I have that right?

Sort of, that was more a stupid little side discussion about whether a "neighborhood" is a type of masonry (which I still agree with), which had the side benefit of making it unlikely scum would guess I was in a neighborhood.


Rei, was smart and didn't reveal until he was pressured, unlike you, Rei was good about that.


Or... Rei didn't read the role pm carefully enough, and seeing as there were no posts in the neighborhood except mine (and Jungle's obviously) during the confirmation phase, and Rei showed no knowledge of the neighborhood, AND the tracker mix-up... yeah, Rei didn't know he was in a neighborhood until I directed to the link to the quicktopic in his role PM and told on him to click on it and check his neighbors.

I am now almost completely convinced that Rei's claim is true.

Why?

One, you dropped out when you got pressured, which OS is right about, it is a very scummy tactic.

Two, your early play to "get us out of RVS" was ridiculous.

Three, you're still on the site when you're inactive.

Each to his own!

Doubt you'll get many votes of confidence there.

Wrong.

You had spurts of activity, then randomly vanish under pressure and take no imitative to scumhunt. Sure you had heavy activity when you were active, but due to the long periods where you simply weren't involved, you count as inactive overall.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

vote count

blue yoshi (1) - rockin
sworddancer. (4) - -rei-, vult redux, frozenflame751, exn
vult redux (3) - sworddancer., overswarm, adumbrodeus
overswarm (1) - summonerau
exn (1) - kevinm
dark_ermac (2) - gheb_01, sephiroths masamune

not voting (3) - meta-kirby, dark_ermac, blue yoshi

deadline is last second of 5/23 est
with 15 alive it takes 8 to lynch

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Is it that hard to see that Vult is absolutely not scummy?

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

Seph Guus isn't in this game anymore, he was replaced by Rockin.

@Vult: Did you read my post 588? There I say way I feel like you lied. Your earlier posts imply that you purposely made scummy actions so to try to get reads, while I feel that is not so. Your supposed ways to get reads on others hasn't really gotten any reads themselves, and they seem weak and made up just to get pressure off of your back.

Also Vult I know that you've attacked others, in my previous post I didn't really mean that you hadn't, so that was bad wording on my part. I feel though that you've attacked others for reasons other then your "gambit".

Also I like how you accuse me of being opportunistic and then jump on my bandwagon, which is not exactly a hard wagon to be on.

Also one final question. . .

What gender ARE you? >_>
---

Sword dancer is where we should all be going.

But thats ok let him hop on the Vult wagon near the end of D1 after being a suspect without a lot of reasoning for hopping on it other then he's gotten the most heat.

gg.

You're really good at making assumptions, you know. For one, it's a lie the I've gotten the most heat (others were at a higher vote count at the time) and two there is no way you could know if I was just hopping on to another wagon because I've been accused, as you have nothing real to base that on. Read up, I've stated my reasoning for getting on his bandwagon.

Also I think it's a bit unfair that you should find me more suspicious because I jumped on a wagon with supicion on me, WHILE most of that suspicion was because I HADN"T been pressuring anyone. See if this makes sense. I start pressuring someone which causes you to find me more suspicious becuase suspicion was on me WHILE that suspicion existed in the first place because I wasn't pressuring someone ("puesdo scumhunting" as you would say, which wasn't my intention). Right.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Vote: Vult Redux

Of the three that have more than one vote, he's been the scummiest from what I've read so far.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I think if we lynch ermac we can see if he's related to FF. If not then good riddens he was inactive the whole game anyways. If so FF will be the best candidate for D2.

 

[-Rei-]

i'm about to host a smashfest in a few minutes to get ready for a tournament tomorrow

sorry i can't play for 2 days

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I'm fine with Ermac as well. He was my #2 choice lol.

 

[adumbrodeus]

i'm about to host a smashfest in a few minutes to get ready for a tournament tomorrow

sorry i can't play for 2 days

Decide if you're gonna switch to your second choice first please, here's the loydown:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10323802&postcount=665



By the time you get back on, the day will be over.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I'm fine with Ermac as well. He was my #2 choice lol.

You should switch.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Obtuse:
–adjective
1.not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2.not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.

Yes, you were.

No, no I wasn't. YOU are, and the fact that you couldn't draw a connect the dots through my post and literally ignored my most important section (the one dealing which lynching needing to be used to its maximum capacity) is proof of that. You also laughably misunderstood half of what my post was actually saying. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand to get you through it.

Way to describe what I'm doing through your own lens. How about I just describe what you're doing and put ", and that's exactly what scum would do" and try to pass that off as an argument?

WTF does this even mean? Like dude, described it through my own lens? What? All I said is that YOU contended that the mafia have the OPTION of NKing inactives to minimize the amount of info we get from the NK, and you proposed it in a manner that tried to imply that the scum WOULDN'T do it by virtue of it being an option, despite the fact that YOUR OWN LOGIC directly supports the idea that they have all sorts of motivation to do it! You're talking out of your *** saying that what I did was anything like slapping "and thats what scum would do" on to a line and calling it an argument. I never did anything close to that. Try to have some substance when you make an accusation like that.

Or hey, how about we ignore lines like this:

I didn't ignore it, in fact I DIRECTLY ADDRESSED IT AND MY LANGUAGE MAKES THAT CLEAR AS DAY. Go back and try reading again, maybe you'll get it.

It's not a difficult concept:

We have a useless town member that may or may not be scum. Having him around gives mafia two options at all times at Night (kill him, kill someone else), and while killing someone else might be more beneficial, killing the inactive is near untraceable. No doc ever protects an inactive, no one will track him, no one does anything inactives. Our best hope is for a vig to kill inactives, but we have no control over this or even know if a vig exists.

Saying "well this guy hasn't been scummy at all, let's leave him alone" when he doesn't post is a get out of jail free card. You lynch inactives when you don't have a lead. It's not difficult to follow.

I find it hilarious that you try to paint an inactive getting NK'd as this cataclysmic, awful occurence in a mafia game that cripples the town, but throughout this entire game you've been crusading for the lynching of inactives. You argued for LYNCHING them because they are dead weight, we can't get a read on them, etc. but all of a sudden all these benefits we get from getting them out of the game no longer apply when they get NK'd. You have a disjoint in your logic insofar as how you propose the marginal benefits vs. marginal externalities when it comes to inactives. Here's how your positive matter has been structured:

If we lynch an inactive:

- Boon for town because they are a drag, inflate the amount needed to lynch, hard to get reads on, can be coasting scum, etc.

If an inactive gets NK'd:

- negative for the town because we learn little from the flip and it serves as a tool for the mafia


When in reality, THIS is the cost benefit analysis

Lynch an inactive:

- Boon for town because they are a drag, inflate the amount needed to lynch, hard to get reads on, can be coasting scum, etc.

- Negative for the town because we waste a lynch on someone who had likely little to no connections with anyone, and we limit our ability to draw connections from the flip and get a step up tomorrow

An inactive gets NK'd:

- Boon for town because they are a drag, inflate the amount needed to lynch, hard to get reads on, can be coasting scum, etc.

- Negative for the town because the mafia killed someone who had likely little to no connections with anyone, and thus limits our ability to draw connections from the flip and get a step up the following day

If you think about it, the BOONS to the town for the removal of inactives are IDENTICAL regardless of how they are removed from the game. What ISN'T identical is the NEGATIVE impact of their removal, based on the method of removal. Since LYNCHES have more value to the town, information wise, than NK flips, we should be using our lynches PRIMARILY on people with decent amounts of connections to others so that we can LEARN a lot from their flip. NK's a INHERENTLY less useful information wise than lynches because as you've said your self they can be used manipulatively and the town has NO CONTROL over them. Town MUST have a say in the lynch which inherently makes them more reliable insofar as information garnering is concerned, AND less WIFOMy.

Look I can be smarmy too. It's not a difficult concept.

Oh wait, maybe it is considering you couldn't put that together the first time despite I spent a good half of my post explaining it.

If you're trying to imply I'm ignoring scummy activity in favor of lynching inactives... my #1 is Vult, who is both scummy AND inactive.

I didn't say you were ignoring scummy activity. That would be a blatant lie. What you ARE doing is taking PRINCIPLE STANCES that prioritize targeting inactives for lynches OVER people with actual strong connections and scummy behavior.

Where you vote is does NOT a prior represent where you stand principally. Which applies to my vote, which I'll get to later since you had the balls to try and strawman the **** out of me and call me a hypocrite.

Contention, nice word. I like it.

So let's look at your logic here:

Inactivity is anti-town (true)
inactives are not ideal to have around later in the game (true)

I'm going to re-word this for you:

Inactivity is anti-town (true)
Inactives are bad to have around late game (true)

But hey, like you said, it doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the lynch. There can be better candidates than inactives. Afterall, he's my #2 choice, so I basically agree with you on this point.

How we somehow managed to agree on both my syntax and my argument boggles my mind. =P

But again I'll remind you that where you stand principally doesn't necessarily align with where your vote priority is.

News flash: unless you have strong suspicions, you're shooting in the dark on D1 hoping for a scum flip. Chances are, whoever we lynch toDay will be town. It's rare you catch a mafia member D1. However, if you lynch a guaranteed inactive you're guaranteed SOME sort of boon for town. Plus it means that we don't have to deal with that inactive later.

Riddle me this:

Assume Ermac plays the same way he is now.

When would you consider the best time to lynch him?

Newsflash: We DO have some strong scummy lynch candidates TODAY. Just because D1 is probably the hardest day to lynch scum doesn't mean you just admit defeat and automatically concede to just doing something like lynching an inactive.

If we aren't ******** and actually lynch someone that we want to, we're getting a boon for the town anyway. You obviously prefer the boon of getting rid of inactives, whereas I say that the lynch is BETTER used to get the boon of lynching someone who is scummy and has a decent amount of connections and as a result getting much stronger reads going in to day 2. I say that because, returning to the cost benefit analysis I wrote earlier, you get the SAME boon from getting rid of an inactive whether it is by lynch or by NK, whereas you DON'T get the same benefit from a more active person getting NK'd than when you LYNCH them.

Concerning Ermac, I already stated that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a chance to keep his word and step it up day 2. If he doesn't change at all it'll be clear he was probably just stalling and off he goes.

I'm not some zealot going after people who don't post. I want people to post because that's how you FIND scummy behavior. If Ermac continues not to post, we get no info on him whatsoever. He's dead weight and a dead flip if he's town. If he's scum, he gets a free ride if we don't pressure him.

But you are. That's the whole point. You've principally stood for this prioritization throughout the whole game. Go back and read your own posts and that much is clear. Your vote being somewhere that doesn't fall in line exactly which your principal stances doesn't undo all the arguments you've made.

Wait wait wait

You say keeping inactives around is good, because it gives mafia options? Are you high?

Mafia members don't have to follow a set pattern. They set the stage for us to figure out. If you give them a free pass for whatever Night they want, they can take it whenever they want.

Wait wait wait

You're saying we should ONLY lynch inactives to try and get them all out of the game as fast as possible because otherwise we're giving the mafia options? Are you high?

Like seriously dude, if you even thought for a minute before you wrote that line, you'd realize that anything the town does that gives the mafia options makes that a ****ty play. That's just laughable.

I don't know how you think we're going to be able to remove all of the mafia's options but if you know how, please share with us.

You're so caught up in our own narrowminded mentality that it has to be the town's duty to remove inactives that your principal stance is in direct conflict with the town win condition! If we wanted to remove the choice of the mafia to be able to kill inactive or non-inactive people in this game, we'd literally spend like 3 days wasting lynches just because of your absurd principal stance that we have to remove all of the mafias options.

Limiting their options is good, but not good enough that we waste our lynches to do something as pissant as limiting their ability to kill an inactive, which I've already established has benefits AND drawbacks for the town that are IDENTICAL in the positive and LESS DETRIMENTAL overall.

Cool? I'm not sure where this came from.

I'm hoping you get it by now.

*narrows eyes*

If you have a list of mafia, by all means post them. Because otherwise, you're guessing.

*narrows eyes*

If you feel the need to be obnoxious and then state the obvious, please refrain from doing so.

We should be people who we think are scummy and have connections. That's exactly what I said in the segment you quoted and then tried to ridicule. Of course I'm just guessing, but it's an educated guess based on observation! Gee, I wonder what that sounds like. Oh that's right, scumhunting! I do have a list, it's a list of PEOPLE WHO I THINK ARE SCUMMY and HAVE posted it. Am I not allowed to push for those lynches because I'm "just guessing"?

Whoa whoa whoa

WHOA.

Wait a minute, Mister hippo the crit.

So you've chosen Sephiroth, Adumbrodeus, and sworddancer....

and you choose sworddancer because he's the worst inactive

even though he's posting large chunks at a time

and then you go ape**** on me for having Ermac as my #2 because he's an inactive.

And in your last post talked about how you "weren't going to stand" for going for inactives.


I can see how each of your choices could be good lynch choices for toDay, but your reasoning for sworddancer shouldn't be "inactivity"... because he's not.

This is the most laughable of all the stunts you tried to pull in your post.

The fact that you clearly don't understand the difference between what someone wants ideally and what someone will settle for is characteristic of your over zealousness on this issue.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I could just pull a you here and say "OMG ADUM AND SEPH ARE MY TOP TWO SUSPECTS SO I CAN'T BE CONTRADICTING MYSELF DURRRHURRR" but I'll actually explain to you why I'm not instead of that BS.

I've been principally supporting the lynches of adum and seph because I find them both scummy and they both have a lot of connections to other players, and their flips will yield the greatest crystallization for my reads come Day two. I've had my vote on adum all day and have been trying to get people to join me.

When I recognized deadline was coming soon and no one seemed willing to vote for adum or seph, I changes to sword dance because as I stated in a previous post, I find him to be the scummiest of the inactives, if you can even really still call him that, and I also feel I can learn from his flip, though not as much as adums or sephs.

I'm not voting for him because he's inactive. I'm voting for him because of the aforementioned reasons and the fact that if I don't support that wagon, the more popular ****ty wagons like Vults are going to end up going through which I obviously don't want. Ever heard of a thing called politics, where sometimes you have to vote for something you sort of want, but not EXACTLY what you want, to prevent something you DON'T WANT from happening?

It's that that difficult of a concept.

I think you have good intentions with what you're posting, but you're putting on horse blinders and it's making you sound pretty **** scummy.

I wanna give you another chance, Flame. Answer my question the same way everyone else did. Two, no more no less, lynch candidates from you and your reasoning... as if no one has said anything about them before.

Why exactly do you want to keep Ermac alive, but push for sworddancer? I'm curious.

Lol, get off your high horse. I'm not pandering to you just because you think you've got me by the balls because you can make a big post filled with quip BS.

You want my stances? Why don't you take your own advice and use the search function. I've already explained why Sword can go and Ermac should stay a couple times. If anything, the fact that you're telling other people to use the search function to find your stances, but then you ask everyone else to repost all the stuff they've said as clear as day here in the thread is what's hypocritical.

 

[Rockin]

Of all the inactives, I'd probably say Dark_Ermac. In all the posts I've read (about 3/4 of all the posts I believe), I don't remember ever seeing any useful posts.

The other inactives (according to the "how many posts you've made in this thread" are Rockin, Meta-Kirby, and Sworddancer (I'm including those who have 20 or less posts as inactive). Looking back through the last couple of posts, I think Sworddancer is contributing, and from what I remember, I believe Meta-Kirby contributes some useful info (though... then again, to be honest, I can't remember many of Meta-Kirby's posts... I may be confusing him with someone else).

To be honest, I can't remember any of Rockin's posts. Gustave was very active, but... well, Rockin took over, and hasn't done much at all since.

So if I were to suggest an inactive I would be most willing for us to lynch, I'd probably say Dark_Ermac, mainly because I can't remember him being useful at all this game.

Well it's pretty difficult to make a lot of post since

1) I'm recently replacing Gustav

2) Other people have been making faster posts then I ever usually do lol

Unvote at least Exn is active, unlike Gustave.

I'm replacing Gustave. Are you paying attention to the game at all? >:

I think if we lynch ermac we can see if he's related to FF. If not then good riddens he was inactive the whole game anyways. If so FF will be the best candidate for D2.

Can you explain how Ermac is related to FF? I'm dying to know.

Argh on Ermac and Sephy. ><;;

anyway

Unfortunately OS, I only have one person I'm willing to lynch, and it's Blue Yoshi. Aside from inactiveness, he hasn't been contributing much in the game. Just giving his johns for being inactive and going after one lynch after another. Says that they're scummy, but I don't think he 'explained' why.

Reason why I only have one cause I don't find a lot of other people scummy in anyway. I had my issue with Rei, but after the claim, I backed off.

I'm willing to lynch either him or anyone else someone have in mind. However, My only exceptions are Vult and Ermac. I still don't see anything scummy about him, aside from him making horrible wording and mistakes. Like FF, I'm giving Ermac a chance to post up, if anything.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Do people seriously expect Ermac to make such an impact later in the game that would justify keeping him around?

 

[Rockin]

Do people seriously expect Ermac to make such an impact later in the game that would justify keeping him around?

While I don't expect him to make a tom worthy post, I do expect for him to play a little better next Day.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Why though? You act as if that logic doesn't work with your main suspect as well.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I'm replacing Gustave. Are you paying attention to the game at all? >:

They were both replaced, I was confused.

Can you explain how Ermac is related to FF? I'm dying to know.

Unvote: Adum Vote: Sworddancer

So you seriously just want lynch him based on the fact that he's been the most inactive and he probably won't say much in the next two days?

He said he'll be more active after those few days. I'm willing to give him that chance. If he isn't lying then he WON'T BE INACTIVE ANYMORE.

If he still isn't inactive then we get on his case tomorrow and take care of business.

The point is if we lynch Ermac today we're gonna get basically NOTHING out of it.

Lynching Ermac JUST because he's the most inactive is like the worst reasoning of all time.

Personally, I see no difference between Ermac and Sword. Actually I think ermac is worse, he said he's going to be gone for two days, the rest of D1. I could see that as an excuse if you were active, but after all of this time and he hasn't posted anything relevant. It's just considered coasting. FF is willing to lynch one inactive person but criticize someone for proposing to lynch another. It sounds like he's protecting the first one.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Why give him a chance? He's proven he's useless and inactive throughout D1. Why expect different D2?

 

[Rockin]

Why though? You act as if that logic doesn't work with your main suspect as well.

Why give him a chance? He's proven he's useless and inactive throughout D1. Why expect different D2?

Because I'm not prone to lynching anyone that's my neighbor without a legitimate reason to him being scummy. (Yes, I am confirming that me and Ermac are neighbors). Tis my main reason for giving Ermac a chance.

However, if D2 (assuming Mafia doesn't NK him) he doesn't approve, then I wouldn't mind considering him as a lynch canditate. >>

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Because I'm not prone to lynching anyone that's my neighbor without a legitimate reason to him being scummy. (Yes, I am confirming that me and Ermac are neighbors). Tis my main reason for giving Ermac a chance.

However, if D2 (assuming Mafia doesn't NK him) he doesn't approve, then I wouldn't mind considering him as a lynch canditate. >>

What if he's absent during the time when you can neighborize? He will just be dead weight that will not only be holding you back, but the rest of the town.

 

[Rockin]

What if he's absent during the time when you can neighborize? He will just be dead weight that will not only be holding you back, but the rest of the town.

Nothing I can do but just deal with it, if that were the case. Again, if he doesn't improve on his activity when D2 arise, then I'll be happy to lynch him.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

To prevent further confusion:

I'm not adamantly opposed to lynching Ermac. I would just PREFER to lynch one of the three people I listed, one of whom (sword dancer) happens to fall into the same level of inactivity as Ermac. I never said I wanetd to lynch sword dancer because he was inactive. I've given my other reasons.

If you guys ultimately end up lynching Ermac you won't see shed a tear but the reason why I prefer to not lynch him is one, we learn absolutely nothing from the lynch, and two, he said he would contribute more tomorrow and if he doesn't do that then he's just stalling and voila, scummy central.

 

[KevinM]

I want to lynch Sephy over Sword at this point.

However if I don't see it switching, I'll switch back to Sword.

Vote Sephy

 

[Vult Redux]

One, you dropped out when you got pressured, which OS is right about, it is a very scummy tactic.

Actually, I was fully active during the time I was pressured earlier, and aside from the last two days, I'm here going out of my way to defend myself.

Two, your early play to "get us out of RVS" was ridiculous.

Explain how "ridiculous" = "scummy".

Three, you're still on the site when you're inactive.

I've logged in probably twice, maybe three times, to check up on this game during my absence.

From my Nintendo Wii. My lappy is out of internet, so I only have access through Wii, or my mom's lappy which I only use when she's not present.

take no imitative to scumhunt.

I guess you forgot about the case I had going against you.

I promise you I had scumhunting initiative because I'd thought you were blatantly attempting a rolefishing gambit/trick.

@Vult: Did you read my post 588? There I say way I feel like you lied. Your earlier posts imply that you purposely made scummy actions so to try to get reads, while I feel that is not so. Your supposed ways to get reads on others hasn't really gotten any reads themselves, and they seem weak and made up just to get pressure off of your back.

No, I didn't see it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll respond to it in a following post.

I feel though that you've attacked others for reasons other then your "gambit".

Is this worded right [just affirming]?

Also I like how you accuse me of being opportunistic and then jump on my bandwagon, which is not exactly a hard wagon to be on.

I hadn't seen that post you pointed out. So you're right it's a tad unjustified. I take it back. p:

What gender ARE you? >_>

Use whichever gender pronoun you prefer. Doesn't matter to me.

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

@Frozen: Your willing to keep an inactive until toMarrow under their word that they will be more active? Couldn't any inactive just say that, and thus get off good with you toDay? I mean, it seems like if you go by that logic, we could have a lot more inactives go into Day 2. Tell me, what makes Ermac a special case?

Also just so you know I'm only questioning you and not stating a view. I personally don't want to lynch an inactive Day 1 and I don't particularly care for Ermac's lynch as well.

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

@Vult: I'll just call you by whatever gender your avatar is.

I feel though that you've attacked others for reasons other then your "gambit".

Yes, this is worded right.

 

[Vult Redux]

1) Vult Redux =
Basically because he seems to appear and disappear with pressure.

I really REALLY don't get where this comes from. I left once, after pressure on me had dwindled to 2 votes from the original ~ 5-6 iirc.

Most recent vote count before I left:

vote count

blue yoshi (1) - blue yoshi
adumbrodeus (2) - frozenflame751, gheb_01
sworddancer. (2) - -rei-, kevinm
gustave (2) - xonar, vult redux
gheb_01 (1) - sephiroths masamune
vult redux (2) - overswarm, sworddancer.
-rei- (2) - adumbrodeus, rockin

not voting (3) - meta-kirby, dark_ermac, summonerau

deadline is last second of 5/23 est
with 15 alive it takes 8 to lynch

I promise you I'm not avoiding pressure. In the slightest.

 

[SummonerAU]

KevinM is always right.

Vote: Sephiroths masamune

 

[M.K]

Seph's CONSTANT misreadings or simple mistakes are staggeringly strange.
First with the misreading of his role PM, now forgetting which person replaced who and basing allegations off that. This is getting more than coincidental.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

KevinM is always right.

Vote: Sephiroths masamune

What type of switch is this? Jumping onto the closest band wagon? You literally provided no statement, opinion, or evidence for switching to me. why you changed your vote, this is an obvious scum tell.

Unvote,

Vote: SAU

 

[SummonerAU]

Yeah, totally.

Where's your hardcore pushing of an inactive lynch now Seph?

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Yeah, totally.

Where's your hardcore pushing of an inactive lynch now Seph?

You have no case and jumped onto a wagon with no reason, these are all scumtells. I wanted to vote off a inactive person because I didn't have a lead, but thanks for the scum activity.

 

[SummonerAU]

Wrong. I wouldn't have jumped on the Seph wagon(isn't much of a wagon) unless I thought there was something in it. Your reaction here, coupled with your last 3 or 4 posts are strange. If you didn't have leads before, why didn't you listen to other people's leads? No leads and pushing inactive lynches (pretty hardly, my original idea behind voting you) is a pretty dam easy path to take. There's 18 pages of 40posts per page and you don't have one?

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Because I'm not prone to lynching anyone that's my neighbor without a legitimate reason to him being scummy. (Yes, I am confirming that me and Ermac are neighbors). Tis my main reason for giving Ermac a chance.

However, if D2 (assuming Mafia doesn't NK him) he doesn't approve, then I wouldn't mind considering him as a lynch canditate. >>

The flipside argument to this is that (at least I think) everyone is in a neighborhood, and no one would want to lynch their neighbor. Well... maybe not everyone...

So that said, someone will lose their neighbor... so you losing a useless neighbor may be bad for you (assuming you're town), but someone losing a useful neighbor will be worse off for town in general.

Hopefully my logic makes sense.

(I guess for me to make this argument, I have to confirm that I too am in a neighborhood. I won't say who else is in my neighborhood, as I see no reason to at the moment... but from the looks of it, everyone is in a neighborhood).

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

Wrong. I wouldn't have jumped on the Seph wagon(isn't much of a wagon) unless I thought there was something in it. Your reaction here, coupled with your last 3 or 4 posts are strange. If you didn't have leads before, why didn't you listen to other people's leads? No leads and pushing inactive lynches (pretty hardly, my original idea behind voting you) is a pretty dam easy path to take. There's 18 pages of 40posts per page and you don't have one?

You say you were fishing, but it wasn't much of a fish if you make yourself look scummy, I think your making up things as you go instead of following a plan as this post implies.

I listened to OS's lead about how FF and ermac might be connected, and that was the inactive I was pushing the most.

 

[SummonerAU]

No, if I'm implying I'm following a plan, I typed badly. The reaction part is just a notable thing. I voted you for pushing inactives very hard. I didn't give a reason because I was lazy.

Also, why aren't you worried about whatever reason Kevin voted you?

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

No, if I'm implying I'm following a plan, I typed badly. The reaction part is just a notable thing. I voted you for pushing inactives very hard. I didn't give a reason because I was lazy.

Voting for someone because they are pushing for inactives, isn't a good reason, IMO. Other people are pushing for inactives, you just picked the one who already had votes on him.

Also, why aren't you worried about whatever reason Kevin voted you?

Because he stated a reason and evidence, that's the difference.

 

[SummonerAU]

No, I'm voting you because you're pushing hard on inactives and the way you've been doing seems way too much for what I would expect. You're overdoing itand the way to try to convince Rockin to change his mind set me off. The way you worded those posts in particular mply that Ermac willl never change his behaviour. I think this is a scummy attitude.

Moving on to your lack of suspects, I know that I personally have done the same thing as scum and had noone as suspicious late into D1. That was in a 9 man game. This game is bigger and has so many more posts. I can't really see how you wouldn't have little things on some people by now unless you were actually not interested in finding them.