Simpsons Mafia: will homer survive?

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

lol, I love how Gheb says that I'm completely wrong, but won't man up to the arguments I have against him. Do you really not understand that though I may be accusing you things similar to what the others have been, I've introduce a new set of reasoning to the debate? I'm sorry, but if you're just going to leave it alone and refuse to answer, that just doesn't sit well with me.

Furthermore, refusing to claim is just a horrendous decision. Your proximity to a lynch is enough to warrant a claim, yet you refuse to do so spouting the same arrogant bull****. What good town player threatens the town and won't actively employ all of his resources to clarify his innocence? Your attitude of "I'm to good to do things the conventional way" and general non-cooperative mentality is just plain BAD town play, and there's no way around that.

I'm comfortable with me vote. I suggest you stop the act and do something sensible for once. You aren't anywhere near good enough, nor convincing enough, to pull the bull**** that you are now, and the fact that you won't remedy that is a level of irresponsibility that reeks of scum.

 

[McFox]

I do find it strange that Riddle abandoned Cacti and went after Gheb because he was trying to "defend" him. It would make more sense to lynch Cacti (the source) and move on to Gheb the next day if Cacti was indeed scum.

I've already explained why that puts Gheb before Cacti for me: when I'm scum, I try to make the town second-guess themselves, even when they're not on the right track. Despite Gheb's protests to the contrary, I still see him as throwing a big ole monkey wrench into Riddle's grilling of Cacti. Nothing Gheb has said since then has convinced me that he is town. It would take something fairly compelling to get me to change my vote at this point.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

lol, I love how Gheb says that I'm completely wrong, but won't man up to the arguments I have against him.

Do you really not understand that though I may be accusing you things similar to what the others have been, I've introduce a new set of reasoning to the debate? I'm sorry, but if you're just going to leave it alone and refuse to answer, that just doesn't sit well with me.

Refusing to answer? I clearly answered your post. You're point against me: I tried to stifle discussion. My answer: No, I didn't and I proved in a lengthy post to Cacti why this is the case.

Furthermore, refusing to claim is just a horrendous decision. Your proximity to a lynch is enough to warrant a claim, yet you refuse to do so spouting the same arrogant bull****. What good town player threatens the town and won't actively employ all of his resources to clarify his innocence? Your attitude of "I'm to good to do things the conventional way" and general non-cooperative mentality is just plain BAD town play, and there's no way around that.

I'm comfortable with me vote. I suggest you stop the act and do something sensible for once. You aren't anywhere near good enough, nor convincing enough, to pull the bull**** that you are now, and the fact that you won't remedy that is a level of irresponsibility that reeks of scum.

Stop posting stuff like that. I don't need anybody to tell me how I "should" play this game. This post is a complete waste of space.

You should focus on posting information, not lectures that I don't need to hear from you.

I've already explained why that puts Gheb before Cacti for me: when I'm scum, I try to make the town second-guess themselves, even when they're not on the right track. Despite Gheb's protests to the contrary, I still see him as throwing a big ole monkey wrench into Riddle's grilling of Cacti.

Do you really think I'm such a horrible player? Do you really think I'd use such a predictable and obvious tactic?

Nothing Gheb has said since then has convinced me that he is town.

Convinced?

I've already proven the main accusation against me (me stifling discussion) wrong.

 

[KevinM]

You haven't though.

So yeah you're going to be lynched.

You're arrogance isn't helping you at all.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

i agree with omni that cacti can die. i also thought rockins wagoning was off. vote cacti

not liking the gheb wagon he's probably town

 

[Rockin]

Speaking in all caps implies yelling and calling people liars and casting suspicion on your BW'ers fits my definition of irrational. Just, because you later took pressure off of Kev doesn't mean that your not just scum trying to cover his tracks.

Erm...not really. I just want to say that just because they post in caps while in a sentence doesn't really mean they're yelling. They're just putting more effort and focus upon those words. >>

Rockin - Rockin, Rockin, Rockin. Coasting as always and agreeing with points made by other people while not creating any individual insight for himself. You know, the interesting thing about bandwagons? Most bandwagons that target scum usually don't... bandwagon that fast. In any case, I haven't seen anyone really speak in Gheb's defense which leaves no trail of any other Mafia attempting to defend a cornered scum.

Anyway, I don't like Rockins' bandwagon vote on Gheb. McFox brought up an argument (that I don't entirely agree with, but is justified) followed by Kevin and Marshy who bandwagon for pressure reasons. Rockin', on the otherhand... it seems out of character for him to bandwagon so easily. It would also be EASY to avoid attention if you bandwagon AND agree with statements already made without having to contribute any of your own.

What do you mean 'coasting as always?' I don't always coast, and if I do, I do it as little as possible.

And the reason why I went with the vote because, in my eyes, it seemed to make sense. I've seen how Gheb has been responding to one person to another and it just doesn't sit well with me, especially that he's not really nameclaiming after being really close to a lynch. I dunno...just doesn't sit well with me really. I havn't really said anything in my vote because one or two already mentioned their opinion about it and I don't want to seem like a parrot.

In general, there are times when I am silent in terms of the topic. It just happens when I don't know what to really add

Right now, I don't see anyone really scummy at all atm. It seems like everyone is playing like they're suppose to, so right now, I'm still holding my vote on Gheb.

 

[KevinM]

Unvote
Vote: Rockin

 

[Riddle]

@ Omni: I switched from Cacti to Gheb, because Cacti stood up to my pressure pretty well and Gheb tryed to stifle discussion and I didn't like his reaction to the bw'ing.

@ Rockin/Gheb: Yeah I'm reading too much into the all caps thing (I use italics in the situations he uses all caps), but I still stand by my decision.

 

[Cacti]

Omni, lynching me, the "root of the problem", won't help. You say you want to lynch me to see if I flip scum, and when I do, you would lynch gheb, while saying we can't lynch gheb, because I'll still be able to defend myself. Gheb will still be able to defend himself if I flip scum, as the only reason you have is that he was "defending me", which he wasn't really doing, he was just stating that when only three people are active, one is bound to be blamed, while the inactive ones can cruise through without detection.

I think we should lynch Rockin, because his defense wasn't really... A defense. He just stated that Gheb "didn't sit well with me", while at the end, he says that he doesn't find anybody really scummy at all, but still holds his vote on Gheb. When he had posted it, Gheb was at L-1. If you didn't think that he was scummy, why didn't you unvote him? It is very dangerous for him to be in that position, where scum can hammer him whenever they want.

Vote: Rockin

 

[Omni]

Well it is safe to say that Rockin and Cacti don't share any ties with each other so lynching one to receive information on the other is out of the question. Also, that removes my suspicion on Rockin coming into Cacti and Riddle's conversation in an attempt to defend him unless Cacti is uber BUS'ing Rockin right now (which probably isn't the case).

Unvote
Vote: Rockin

Hey, it's actually fun being on the other side of one of these.

 

[Rockin]

I think we should lynch Rockin, because his defense wasn't really... A defense. He just stated that Gheb "didn't sit well with me", while at the end, he says that he doesn't find anybody really scummy at all, but still holds his vote on Gheb. When he had posted it, Gheb was at L-1. If you didn't think that he was scummy, why didn't you unvote him? It is very dangerous for him to be in that position, where scum can hammer him whenever they want.

Vote: Rockin

I'm not sure if you're trying to twist up my words or not, but I'll speak it again. When I spoke about 'no one else scummy,' I meant in comparison to Gheb, which really....I don't see anyone else really acting scummy or weird. This is why my vote is still on Gheb.

Well it is safe to say that Rockin and Cacti don't share any ties with each other so lynching one to receive information on the other is out of the question. Also, that removes my suspicion on Rockin coming into Cacti and Riddle's conversation in an attempt to defend him unless Cacti is uber BUS'ing Rockin right now (which probably isn't the case).

Unvote
Vote: Rockin

Hey, it's actually fun being on the other side of one of these.

If you feel that is the case, then why are you still voting for me?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Mentos hasn't posted in almost a week. Prod much?

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Refusing to answer? I clearly answered your post. You're point against me: I tried to stifle discussion. My answer: No, I didn't and I proved in a lengthy post to Cacti why this is the case.

Congratulations, you addressed someone elses outdated points. I came in and gave you a new argument. You claimed that all the other arguments put up against you were incorrect because of the fact that YOUR dismissal of the discussion wasn't a result of its content, but the number of people participating. I rebutted with the contention that the number of people participating in a debate has no bearing on its legitimacy. You however, still seem to think that your old points still stand against this NEW accusation. You think I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but I'm not. You've yet to bring anything to the table that can contest the new accusation I've placed against you, and yet you act like you've already done so. Get to work son.

Stop posting stuff like that. I don't need anybody to tell me how I "should" play this game. This post is a complete waste of space.

You should focus on posting information, not lectures that I don't need to hear from you.

Maybe you should focus less on being so arrogant and actually defending yourself properly. I'll lecture you all I want if you're going to continue to play ****ty town play. Everything I suggested has nothing to do with how one should stylistically play the game, but it DOES pertain to what at a fundamental level, townies should be doing to me. You saying that my points are invalid because I'm telling you how you "should" play the game, would be like saying Lynch all Liars is folly because it's "telling people how they should play." You've got your head so far up your own ***, that you can't even recognize what fundamentally cogent town play is anymore. It's disgusting.

Gheb is easily the most unhelpful player in the game right now. Why he's being let off in favor of Rockin is quite surprising to me.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

OK, guys I'm not liking where this discussion is going. This is the kind of inactiviy that won't help anybody so I'm gonna try to pick it up again. But before that...

Prod Mentos for the third effing time. He has posted today/yesterday in the other Mafia games he's in but he still hasn't posted in here a whole week.

Also Vote Count please.

OK, frozenflame. I'm going to respond to all your arguments you brought up...

You DID try to stifle discussion whether you intended to or not. McFox more or less hit the nail on the head with his initial read on you. You keep throwing out the phrases "serious debate" and "worthy debate." Since when are YOU the judge of what the town can and can not discuss? You're shooting down people's opinions, reads, and accusations are worthless and irrelevant with the reasoning that they're "grasping at straws" and "you can't deduce anything from RVS" or other similar premises.

I responded to this before but I'm saying it again...just for you:

1.) It's not the content of the discussion that made it worthless but the fact that it was more like a dialgue. I don't agree that discussion should be based on joke votes but that's only my opinion and doesn't imply scumminess. I wouldn't've stopped them (I actually didn't stop them but w/e) if they wouldn't've been discussing all by themselvs even though I found their debate silly.

2.) To get more people to contribute I proposed to lynch players based on inactivity. This worked out perfectly because it leads directly to the discussion we're having right now. How anybody can accuse me of stifling discussion when I accompished the opposite a while back already?

The fact of the matter is, you're completely wrong. Day 1 is ALL ABOUT getting reads from RVS and grasping at straws to get things started. It sounds to me like you're either afraid that someone was going to accuse you or a possible scum buddy for a whimsical reason, or you're just too self-absorbed that you feel the need to pass judgement on every point that someone raises, as if it isn't worthy of discussion if you don't approve of it.

Or it's just my opinion? It's not wrong AT ALL. There are many better ways to hunt scum than to get information out of joke votes. Baiting reactions and BWs leads us to suspicions a lot faster and we can actually coclude new things instead of beating a dead horse.
I don't know why joke votes are even taken that seriously when the person who posts them doesn't even care.

I'm not sure whether or not to attribute your defensiveness to scummyness, pretentiousness, or simply the fact (as Marshy pointed out) that you were getting somewhat close to a lynch. It's a minor point regardless, but it does add to the case against you.

I wasn't getting close to a lynch lol.

Lynching me based on what? There aren't even any real accusations anymore (unless you still earnestly believe that I'm trying to stifle discussion). Hammering me this early without any reason is like openly saying "Hey, I'm scum ololololo".

Your nitpicky distinctions aren't going to all of a sudden make you right. You were stifling discussion by judging the discussion as useless and refusing to acknowledge it. Whether it was the content of the discussion you didn't approve of, or the number of participants is irrelevant.

Is it really? I explained MANY times why the number of participants is important.

1.) Two people discussing allows way too much coasting for everybody else
2.) One of them will take the blame even though he's statistically unlikely to be scum
3.) It's way to easy to BW somebody and pressure him when chances for him to scum are like 5% at best

Despite all this, I still don't understand why you would actively work against the progress being made by a few players. No matter how few people may be active 5 RL days into an in-game day one, there is no sense in dismissing that subject matter unless the content is inherently counteractive to game progression. Whether there be 10 people all tossing ideas around, or a single active person just posting ideas as food for thought, early game discussion should be allowed to flow. The number of people participating does not in any way invalidate the topic matter.

If you can't understand that, I'm not sure what else can be done. But right now, you certainly don't look very town to me.

Well, all your questions have been answered more than once by now. Not sure why don't look town to you.

lol, I love how Gheb says that I'm completely wrong, but won't man up to the arguments I have against him. Do you really not understand that though I may be accusing you things similar to what the others have been, I've introduce a new set of reasoning to the debate? I'm sorry, but if you're just going to leave it alone and refuse to answer, that just doesn't sit well with me.

I answered everything you accused me of and I did so more than once actually. No clue what you mean... =/

Furthermore, refusing to claim is just a horrendous decision. Your proximity to a lynch is enough to warrant a claim, yet you refuse to do so spouting the same arrogant bull****. What good town player threatens the town and won't actively employ all of his resources to clarify his innocence? Your attitude of "I'm to good to do things the conventional way" and general non-cooperative mentality is just plain BAD town play, and there's no way around that.

looool

Do you earnestly think I'd claim at that point? I claim when I have no solid arguments left, when I'm the only suspicious player and when I'm close to a lynch. Neither of these things was the case.

Congratulations, you addressed someone elses outdated points. I came in and gave you a new argument.

No, you didn't. I answered your points and you simply refuse to accept them. Idk what you try to achieve ...

You claimed that all the other arguments put up against you were incorrect because of the fact that YOUR dismissal of the discussion wasn't a result of its content, but the number of people participating. I rebutted with the contention that the number of people participating in a debate has no bearing on its legitimacy. You however, still seem to think that your old points still stand against this NEW accusation. You think I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but I'm not. You've yet to bring anything to the table that can contest the new accusation I've placed against you, and yet you act like you've already done so. Get to work son.

Wrong, I claimed that "all the other arguments" (lol, there was only half an argument in the first place) are pointless because the number of participants does matter. Why this is the case I explained enough now. Read above if you don't get it.

Also, I brought up a new argument myself, which you ignored all along: Proposing lynches on inactivity proved to start a serious discussion (even though it backfired but there is no reason to suspect me without solid evidence).[/QUOTE]

If you still refuse to adress these points I'm going to ignore you.

 

[Cacti]

prod: mentos

 

[#HBC | marshy]

prod mentos

 

[Riddle]

prod: mentos

 

[McFox]

I don't agree that discussion should be based on joke votes but that's only my opinion and doesn't imply scumminess.

It's not up to you whether your plays and opinions imply scumminess or not.

To get more people to contribute I proposed to lynch players based on inactivity. This worked out perfectly because it leads directly to the discussion we're having right now. How anybody can accuse me of stifling discussion when I accompished the opposite a while back already?

I'm fairly positive that the current discussion is taking place because I brought up a case against you. And the following quote:

I like how he throws out the "let's lynch based on inactivity" when we're 5 days into the game. Then he poses the much-more-obvious and rational "or I guess we could just prod the inactive players" after posing the "but let's lynch them." To me, that says that he actually wants to lynch based on inactivity, but didn't want to "seriously" bring it up, and so decided to throw out the obvious alternative that a Townie would inevitably come back with to cover himself.

was based on Cacti's idea of lynching based on inactivity.

1.) Two people discussing allows way too much coasting for everybody else
2.) One of them will take the blame even though he's statistically unlikely to be scum
3.) It's way to easy to BW somebody and pressure him when chances for him to scum are like 5% at best

1) True.

2) Not true. Yes, if two players are arguing, then one is probably grilling the other. However, if they're both town then the one getting grilled will not automatically get lynched. And when people return from being inactive, they (should) see the situation. Just because one person is getting grilled by one other person does not mean that the grillee is going to get lynched. You seem to have this idea that you saved Cacti from an unfair lynch, because only he and Riddle were arguing. However: a) what if Cacti IS scum (this will be addressed in point #3)?, and b) there's no guarantee (or even inclination) that any of us would've voted Cacti after he got grilled. If he defended himself properly, then there would've been no reason to vote him, even if Riddle arrived at a different conclusion than everyone else.

3) We ALL have a 5% (seems like it should be higher) chance of being scum. So what makes Cacti town? Even though statistically, most of us are not scum, we know that several players in fact: are.

Proposing lynches on inactivity proved to start a serious discussion (even though it backfired but there is no reason to suspect me without solid evidence).

Again, you are in the hot seat right now because I brought up stuff against you, and when I quoted someone about lynching on activity, it was Cacti, not you.

 

[mentosman8]

Lol sorry for not posting recently, t'was a busy week as I said in the other threads, and I've been catching up in order. Seeing as FF7 took me forever to read through and such, I didn't get a chance to get back here yet. By the end of the night I should be caught up here and in TSM, and things should be a little more open at least for a while. Sorry again guys, but ya know, life happens.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm fairly positive that the current discussion is taking place because I brought up a case against you. And the following quote:

[insert McFox quote]

was based on Cacti's idea of lynching based on inactivity.

Again, you are in the hot seat right now because I brought up stuff against you, and when I quoted someone about lynching on activity, it was Cacti, not you.

Untrue.

Just because your accusation against me was based on somebody else's quote doesn't mean I wasn't the first one to mention it. On page 7 I posted this:

Nice contribution, Omni...

It's really hard to find out anything if nobody ever posts here =/
We might as well just do lynichings based on inactivity...

I mentioned lynching based on inactivity before anybody else did exactly in that post. Saying that I'm stifling discussion after I posted something like that isn't valid at all - and me stifling discussion is the main argument on all my votes.

In this post I posted I mentioned my whole intention: starting discussion to stop inactivity. Not actually scummy.

 

[mentosman8]

Ok, finally caught up in this game too(sucks being away for most of a week>_>). Anyway, I do agree that Gheb is scummy. Frozenflame brought up a solid point, and also, based on some metagaming, Gheb doesn't seem like this weak of a townie. He was at L-1, and his arguments weren't changing anyone's mind, and he refused to claim acting like he was better than everyone else. On top of this, in FF7 he made comments near the end of day that if he was still somewhat suspicious it would be bad for town, so we may as well lynch him. Here, he's doing the opposite, repeating arguments over and over trying to get his way away from a lynch. Something is definitely different one way or the other.

Kevin and Frozen seem to be playing their normal selves, which of course they are strong enough players that that doesn't mean too much, but I've definitely seen similar play from both before as town. Nothing too solid, but something for me to use as a stepping stone thought wise.

For now, I'm going to put gheb back at L-1, as he is pretty much my top suspect right now.
Vote: Gheb

Also, one final thing, Gheb if you were looking at the other games I'm in, I clearly stated it's been a really busy week, which is why I had to be catching up on games. Don't you think the fact that I was clearly working through one game at a time it would have made sense to give me today before you started complaining about me posting in Mega and FF7 knowing I had read through a lot from both of those threads and that I was slowly but surely catching up with the games. That goes to the others who prodded me as well. I made it clear in both of the above games I would be catching up on my games, both of which Marshy, Gheb, AND Riddle are in, so I know they saw the posts. Yeah, RL johns etc, but it was clear I was getting here>_>

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Ok, finally caught up in this game too(sucks being away for most of a week>_>). Anyway, I do agree that Gheb is scummy.

Based on what? I debunked the "Gheb stifles discusion" argument many times now and it's basically the only argument against me so far. Sounds more like a weak justification to jump the BW imo.

Frozenflame brought up a solid point, and also, based on some metagaming, Gheb doesn't seem like this weak of a townie. He was at L-1, and his arguments weren't changing anyone's mind, and he refused to claim acting like he was better than everyone else. On top of this, in FF7 he made comments near the end of day that if he was still somewhat suspicious it would be bad for town, so we may as well lynch him. Here, he's doing the opposite, repeating arguments over and over trying to get his way away from a lynch. Something is definitely different one way or the other.

Metagaming like that is useless since I only had a few posts in FFVII Mafia and this one. You don't know anything about me or my playstyle since as you mentioned yourself lacked the time to even read everything carefully.

Also comparing my role from FFVII to this is absurd - in FFVII I had literally no other choice since there was no way for me to make up for Blazers mistakes. Now, I have arguments on my side, which still aren't debunked by anybody, who voted me.
Another rather weak accusation, especially since metagaming doesn't even apply in my case.

For now, I'm going to put gheb back at L-1, as he is pretty much my top suspect right now.
Vote: Gheb

Yeah, putting me @ L-1 so scum can drop the hammer for whatever reason? Good idea, bro.

Unvote Vote: Mentos; 2 weak arguments, that were already debunked before, as justfication to jump the BS. Putting me @ L-1 to expose me to random scum hammer drops.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Correction in my vote...I wanted to say to "jump the BW", not the "BS" lol

 

[mentosman8]

Actually there are legit reasons to find you suspicious, and you have not "debunked" anything. You have argued it, yes, but the points still stand. You say you didn't stifle discussion, you started some, however those two points are completely different things. You did stifle an ongoing discussion, just because new discussion arose because of that does NOT mean that you didn't stifle the earlier one. You still haven't given me a solid point against Frozen's comments about saying that discussions were useless if they only involved a few people, when that is not true at all. I have seen cases where a back and forth between two people has given VERY solid information.

On top of that, it's clear that most of the town still finds you suspicious, yet you refuse to so much as name claim to try and help alleviate suspicion. That's a bad town move. If there's a vast majority of the town looking at you, refusing to name claim makes it appear that you don't have one, and that adds to suspicion on you.

And when did I say I didn't have the time to read carefully? I didn't have time to make a solid post in FF7 because I WAS reading it carefully. That argument is BS.

Finally, you've been at L-1 for an extended period before. That tells me either A. Scum isn't willing to hammer at this point, B. You're scum and your buddies haven't hammered yet, or C. Scum has already been voting you. Regardless of the reason, putting you at L-1 doesn't mean someone is going to pop in and drop the hammer. If they planned to do that they would have done so long ago.

You say I have weak arguments against you, but you straight up OMGUS me upon my vote of you with equally weak reasons. That solidified my thoughts on you for the day.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Actually there are legit reasons to find you suspicious, and you have not "debunked" anything. You have argued it, yes, but the points still stand. You say you didn't stifle discussion, you started some, however those two points are completely different things. You did stifle an ongoing discussion, just because new discussion arose because of that does NOT mean that you didn't stifle the earlier one. You still haven't given me a solid point against Frozen's comments about saying that discussions were useless if they only involved a few people, when that is not true at all. I have seen cases where a back and forth between two people has given VERY solid information.

I already explained why only two people debating = not good.
It's basically an invitation for scum to just coast all their way through D1 cuz everybody's either just trying to not get involved too much or else they're waiting for a BW to happen. It's not like you need to stifle such a debate if you're scum because such a dialogue is already helpful enough for scum. They can just continue to be inactive. I'd rather get it over with soonish and prevent coasting by calling out on inactive players or threaten them (though knowing that it could beckfire).

If you blame me on stifling discussion that accusation also holds true on anybody who prefered to coast through early D1 to avoid suspicion.

On top of that, it's clear that most of the town still finds you suspicious, yet you refuse to so much as name claim to try and help alleviate suspicion. That's a bad town move. If there's a vast majority of the town looking at you, refusing to name claim makes it appear that you don't have one, and that adds to suspicion on you.

Claiming this early won't help town. If I claim vanilla people will prolly lynch me either way because it could be just a dummy claim plus losing a confirmed vanilla D1 is better than risking to lynch a power role or force them to claim D1. If I claim a power role scum already has an easy target for a NK and can just continue to coast their way through D1. Besides, most people didn't even explain what is so suspicious about me but just jumped the BW. Don't really feel like explaining myself considering there is only one reason to vote me and I argued that many times. If I get lynched merely because of BWing then the last vote on me is 90% from a scum player and nobody would be that crazy to reveal himself this early.

Finally, you've been at L-1 for an extended period before. That tells me either A. Scum isn't willing to hammer at this point, B. You're scum and your buddies haven't hammered yet, or C. Scum has already been voting you. Regardless of the reason, putting you at L-1 doesn't mean someone is going to pop in and drop the hammer. If they planned to do that they would have done so long ago.

Or it's because some people have yet to vote?

There are 8 votes right now, which means that 3 haven't voted yet. Marshy is unlikely to drop the hammer since he already dislikes people wagoning me but Omis is a big question mark since he still hasn't contributed so far and he might drop the hammer for whatever reason. Cacti idk about him he's been suspicous of me before and he might just drop the hammer as well cuz he might want to get rid of me.

 

[Cacti]

Actually, I think that I might want to hammer gheb soon... There has been some good arguments against you Gheb, and you have been repeating some of your same defenses over and over again, suddenly being concerned of being at L-1 while you have been at it for a while before, and OMGUSing mentos. Unless anybody has anything to say against this, I will hammer him soon...

 

[Cacti]

Oh wow, ninja'd. Another post will be up in time to see what Gheb has said...

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Actually, I think that I might want to hammer gheb soon... There has been some good arguments against you Gheb, and you have been repeating some of your same defenses over and over again, suddenly being concerned of being at L-1 while you have been at it for a while before, and OMGUSing mentos. Unless anybody has anything to say against this, I will hammer him soon...

This just confirms my suspicions in my previous posts concerning a possible hammer drop.

It's still too early either way there has been way too little serious discussion. There's still the Omni/Kevin vs Rockin issue that's open to debate and I'd rather wait for Marshy to explain some of his points

 

[Cacti]

Well, I think that you are right on about there being not little discussion, but Gheb, you've been rather scummy, with the not name-claiming, and the OMGUS (which is what I was trying to say in the previous post, but I somehow worded it wrong). I think I'll wait until tomorrow to decide to see if anybody wants to unvote, or if one of my suspicions is confirmed in the discussion. I'll just leave it at that for now.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

you've been rather scummy, with the not name-claiming, and the OMGUS (which is what I was trying to say in the previous post, but I somehow worded it wrong). I think I'll wait until tomorrow to decide to see if anybody wants to unvote, or if one of my suspicions is confirmed in the discussion. I'll just leave it at that for now.

I already explained why non-claiming doesn't hurt town.

Me claiming vanilla = suspicous, could be a dummy vote, causes doubts among town at best
Me claiming PR = easy target for scum @ NK + scum can continue to avoid attention cuz we're pretty much back @ 0 again and we just wasted our time
Me fake claiming = stupid and pointless this early and will prolly lead to a lynch sooner or later anyways.

All three claims are bad for town as it either leads to confusion/uncertainity among them (vanilla claim) or gives scum too many options (PR claim) for coasting through the rest of D1.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

wow that's lame. mentos puts gheb at -1 (? votecount please) when we prod him. need to read some more. need to see who's on this wagon. no one should drop hammah. gheb is not the play argh

 

[~ Gheb ~]

OK, I'm off now. Please don't drop the hammer until I get a chance to respond to some other points. I feel like a lot of people have been on the wrong track way too long. This just helps scum to avoid further attention.

 

[Omni]

Whoever hammers Gheb is auto-scum. Do not do it.

@Mentos: Why did you put Gheb @ L-1?

@Cacti: How do you justify hammering Gheb with so much time left before the end of the game? What is your rush? Your explanation in your above post is no means a justification to hammering Gheb since he has been providing responses to the claims.

 

[Cacti]

...is it rushing? If it is, I think that it's just that I usually play on epicmafia, and are used to quicker days.

Macman, reverse gheb's edit! It was an onix before!

 

[#HBC | marshy]

@Mentos: Why did you put Gheb @ L-1?

fos omni for pseudo scumhunting. putting someone at -1 is not an inherently scummy move and his entire post was kinda dedicated to explaining this

though i think faulting gheb for refusing to nameclaim is too subjective to be used against him which frozen and mentos did

 

[Omni]

What is pseudo scumhunting?

 

[mentosman8]

First of all, Unvote: Gheb as I don't want him to be hammered just yet.

Now, on to response to Omni and Gheb. The reason I put the vote on him to put him at -1 was in part due to reactions. Having just read through a lot of the thread, I saw he wasn't likely to be hammered quickly(which is why I'm unvoting now, as Cacti has implied he may do so soon). Now, a few main reactions came up that have made me want that to be where my vote is at the end of the day.

1. His OMGUS on me. He says I have weak reasons for voting him, then returns my vote with one of his(mind, in the very next reply he makes) on me. There are some types of OMGUS that make some sense, but that was the kind that sticks out to me.

2. I mentioned him Name claiming, and he responded on why role-claiming was bad. A name claim doesn't necessarily out a role(some may, but many may not) and gives us some insight to him. The more important thing is that he blatantly avoided answering what I was actually saying by talking about a role claim instead of a name claim. With the deadline presumably about 3 days away(the game started on the 31st, and although I can't find Mac having mentioned the exact deadline anywhere, but he said in the rules the deadline would be about 14 days, meaning the 14th would be our last day. It's **** well time to claim at least a name so we have time to think about our other options or at least if he's anything useful get votes on NL so he isn't force-lynched by the deadline.

3. Most importantly, his reaction to me putting him at -1. He had been there for a while before, and didn't solidly complain about it, but as soon as I put him there it was a big deal to him. That to me indicates selective argument, and I'm assuming he decided to push it on me due to my inactivity. Selective arguments are a good sign of scum, wanting to argue the players they see more of an opening on instead of others.

Those three points have made me pretty solid in putting my vote back on Gheb before the deadline, which is once again presumably within the next three days. If you have any further questions, or think one of those points is bad, I'll respond once I get home from work tomorrow afternoon. Gheb, to you specifically, you say it's "too early" to claim, but the deadline is likely a few days away and we need time to talk if you claim an important character. Fact of the matter is, it's the time of day when a nameclaim by the vast top vote getter of the day is extremely helpful to town, and your refusal to do so is frustrating.

 

[mentosman8]

Bah, in part due to WANTING reactions, not in part due to reactions>_> this is why i should re-read my posts before I submit them>_>

 

[#HBC | marshy]

What is pseudo scumhunting?

just asking questions that'll lead nowhere in an attempt to look useful

and i really don't want a no-lynch and'll vote gheb if it means we don't have one. there is merit in what people are trying to damn him for. so yeah repeating votecount request along with letting us know if there's a deadline

 

[McFox]

I mentioned lynching based on inactivity before anybody else did exactly in that post. Saying that I'm stifling discussion after I posted something like that isn't valid at all - and me stifling discussion is the main argument on all my votes.

You may have mentioned lynching based on inactivity. However, you're trying to take credit for starting the current discussion:

To get more people to contribute I proposed to lynch players based on inactivity. This worked out perfectly because it leads directly to the discussion we're having right now.

The above quote is: a lie. You did nothing perfectly that lead to the discussion we're having right now, I did. You're trying to take credit for starting town discussion to counter the accusations against you stifling discussion, when that just flat-out isn't true.

1) You haven't "proved" that stifling discussion between 2 people is bad. There is no reason you couldn't have called out inactive players WHILE Riddle and Cacti were arguing. Instead you had to interrupt them. You still haven't answered: What if Cacti is scum? The only response to this you've given is "Well statistically he probably isn't." Yeah, statistically we ALL aren't. And yet: some of us are. What if Cacti is? What if he would've screwed up if you hadn't jumped in?

2) You did NOT start the current discussion that's taking place, and trying to take credit for it is scummy as hell.

Just because your accusation against me was based on somebody else's quote doesn't mean I wasn't the first one to mention it.

The accusation was against CACTI, not you. Why do you keep trying to take credit for what I was calling HIM out on?

Based on what? I debunked the "Gheb stifles discusion" argument many times now and it's basically the only argument against me so far. Sounds more like a weak justification to jump the BW imo.

It was my original argument against you, yes. But you've done nothing but antagonize the town since you've been under the spotlight. As mentos said, name claiming and role claiming are vastly different, especially in this game where pretty much any character could have any role. You refuse to cooperate and even give us a reason to trust you, instead you just sit there on your high horse and repeat "I proved everything everyone said was wrong, and if you don't like it then I just proved that everything everyone said was wrong, and if you don't like it I just proved- etc."

I'm going to be packing and stuff for my camping trip tomorrow, so I'll try to check in if I can. If I can't, I'm happy with where my vote is now. If you guys find a better lynch, go for it.