Tree Stump Mafia - OVER! Who lived happily ever after in the forest?

[Purple]

Now that my eternal rival Cello_marl has lost all of his/her branches and trunk support, it is time for me to continue on my rant of reading people.

While I don't agree that Brocking being judged by his problems with logs. I will admit that him refusing to do so with no reason is suspicious. So I will be helping Cello against Brockin. One page at a time.

Let's start with Day 1.

(Also here is my signature song per player)

Brockin

It's only the second page of the game! You expect them to contribute this early?

So for starters, we can see here that Brockin says I shouldn't have already done something in page 2. He says this on post 28 or so, so by logic i would say he's using 15ppp or 20ppp. This definately makes him scum.

Scum of the earth.

Spoiler

I'm not evil eye ;_;

Regardless, he's butting into things that generally do not include him. At all, I don't know why he would do this at all, starting random conversation? etc. Generally speaking he didn't answer any questions or give any information leading town anywhere here. With Cello's aggressive attitude, something should've started up by now.

(however i can see Brockin was unsettled by his aggressiveness, as was I. So i can't consider this a scumtell)

Guess I'm just afraid of overstumping or w/e. Like I said, it's just an opinion I rather go then just stumping one person after another before losing like...3 or 4 townies in a row. Really, I'm just using traditional mafia tactics here (so as to see the lynch result, see what happens after N1, then start D2 with possible new leads).

He obviously doesn't understand that stumping is generally a lynch. I don't get why he would want this. However it would put mafia at an advantage killing guaranteed townies every night.

-1 brockin.

Totally not in agreement with it. I like to conversate with my better half, as he's the only one I can trust. It...wouldn't be much communication if we posted our logs in the thread, where we could just share our thoughts to you as we are now. I don't see the logic or benefit in this ability, and would much rather keep all logs to ourselves.

-1 brockin.

All thoughts should be available to town. Let's pretend there were two sides of you rummaging through your head. Posting both thoughts and feeling which one is better is something that wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't give scumtells or anything of the sort. However, in a mafia perspective, they would talk about conversation of who to frame, what to do, etc. Cello's question seems like a trap question

total : -2

Right, cause it's my opinion, and you can choose to either follow it or not. (I should've just said 'suggestion,' but both sound similar to me. *shrugs* )

I already explained this issue to Pierre, but like I said, I'm following traditional Mafia tactics here.

Generally, standard mafia tactics are not good tactics for this setup.

Heatstroke looks like a cornered scum who really doesn't want to stump himself. Latest reply on him asking cello to stump himself is scummy enough. (personally, I know I'm kinda one to talk since I'm no.1 in the list, but that's only cause 1) I don't see much of a strong legitimate case against me of being scummy and 2) this is two people on this account and I have to consider Sword's thoughts as well as myself. I don't want to dictate our votes/decisions that we make. it's not fair)

You said this about me. However, wouldn't I be in the same scenario as you're being pressured into?

 

[mentosman8]

First of all, to SSBF, before Mac specifically said that hydras couldn't post logs, it was not against the rules. It is not part of their role to communicate outside the thread, but part of the nature of their playerslot. Therefore, until it was officially made against the rules by Mac, it could have passed through on a loophole. Also, the problem with this is that Brockin didn't refuse based on rules, but instead refused because he just didn't want to.

@Cello: To answer your question, Brockin's response actually caught me by surprise. It wasn't either of the answers I expected when I posed the question. However, it does give me pause for one reason: before logs weren't allowed to be posted officially, they vehemently refused. As far as I'm concerned, the benefit of posting the logs should have been obvious enough that this doesn't make sense. Posting the logs pretty much equates to clearing themselves in the situation. However, after the logs had been banned is the first time he says he would be willing to do it.

Now, what is this leading to? Had they said they would still refuse to post the logs, that shows conviction to what they said and, and given the fire they came under for it would show that they didn't care if it was found suspicious, it was how they felt about the idea and they stuck by it. However, by changing stances after they had come under widespread fire, and when it would no longer be dangerous to them to agree to the idea, it looks scummy. The reason given for the change of opinion seems shaky, almost tacked on, trying to get out of the frying pan. I would support their stumping at this point.

 

[Cello_Marl]

That's that then. Cello, Omis, Sworddancer, tHe-Man, Summoner, Heatstroke, Mentos.

Brockin, the time is 1:36 am. Stump yourself within 24 hours, the next time you sign on and view this thread. If you refuse, we will ignore your votes and opinions and add you to the lynch queue, and the required number of votes to force stump will drop to 6.

 

[SummonerAU]

Macman, will likely not be posting for the next week. Feel free to replace me.

 

[Cello_Marl]

@Brockin, the time is 4:43 am. Stump yourself within 21 hours, the next time you sign on and view this thread. If you refuse, we will ignore your votes and opinions and add you to the lynch queue, and the required number of votes to force stump will drop to 6. I will be adding this to the beginning of every post I make until you stump so that you won't miss it. I'd recommend that everyone else do this too.

Assault against SSBF:

Super Smash Bros. Fan's I(n) S(earch) O(f) for Tree Stump.

1st post) You felt the need to continue "RVS" even though there was clearly something else to discuss. Compounded by later hypocrisy saying that anyone can consider any point (such as when he used my first post against me, despite being told not to), and then claimed it was "just RVS" and he owed no explanation for it. The only reason I can think of that fits is trying to distance yourself from Brockin, and he has provided nothing else. Also, you claim to have no opinion on my alignment, when in a later post, you claim that my first post (which was posted before your first) made you believe that I was scum.

2nd post) Usually, people try to not be hypocritical when they make points. Not so for you. The best way to dissuade walls of text are to use walls of text that reiterate previously made arguments? No. Plus, parroting is a major scumtell for you, apparently, yet you are guilty of it so many times. Also notable was your lack of chastising Nicholas for his most recent Xbawks hueg Wall of Text that sounded like a nautical thieves' petshop.

Here is further analysis on SSBF's 1st and 2nd posts.

3rd post) Starts with light distancing from Pierre. I'll address this further later. Then, he seriously suggests quickly hammering being better than just going to a No Lynch. When I tried to correct his errant thought, he could not be turned. He also says that Heatstroke and my behavior (trying to get each other to stump, which was actually pretty much just me doing that) was anti-town behavior. He makes no attempt to discern what our alignments and shows no interest in finding out. He just suggests it in way that he would receive no blame. Suggests stumping inactives, with terrible reasoning. Defends Pierre's defense of Heatstroke, claiming that it wasn't. Claims Brockin has done "absolutely nothing scummy".

Here is further analysis on SSBF's 3rd post.

4th post and 5th post) Shows clear intent to not stump himself, even in the face of a lynch. Clearly anti-town sentiment, as he also shows no interest in expressing why he feels this way, or trying to understand why it is in all of our best interests to stump himself in the face of a lynch. By this point, it is very clear he either doesn't understand the benefits of my system, or is actively working to undermine it. This was also the point when he chose to cast Today/Mentos into a negative light.

6th post) Apology to Today/Mentos for jumping the gun. Clears up "problem" he had with Pierre. But, how long had this problem supposedly been plaguing him? Almost 48 hours. Why was he so willing to jump onto other players for various problems but he just let Pierre remain unmolested?

7th post) Useless.

8th post) Useless.

9th post) You may notice there is a general change in trend here. Instead of directly attacking my maneuvers as scummy, he's now taken to trying to showcase them as ineffective and useless. You'll also notice that every single point "against" me was already addressed by someone else. Oh, but SSBF would never parrot, would he? That's so scummy, he couldn't possibly have done it (He did). I might do a further in-depth look at this later, but these are good enough for now.

10th post) Complete idiocy. Tries to appear to be a calming influence, and make everything seem alright. This is not the case. This rule change is dire, indeed. It was enough to make me take off the kiddy gloves and stump.

 

[Deleted member]

Well was I wrong there (on cello).
this will be a quick post, still rereading though situation has changed a lot now.

yes cello, I will support you on brockin now, but not on SSBF, right now I'm having him as dumb townie.

 

[Cello_Marl]

14 hours left to stump yourself, Brockin. Although, since I see Swords in the Social thread, I think he should do it right now.

How nice of you to join us after we've gotten all the necessary support, Paprika.

About SSBF, think about what SSBF's motives would have to be to say everything that he has. Those are not the words of dumb town; that is truly malicious intent.

About Pierre, you said, "I want to stump; Heatstroke, cello, pierre (depending on the first 2 though)". You've seen us. What's your opinion on Pierre?

@Mentos: Just for sake of completion, what exactly did you mean when you said, "I'm pretty sure I know what Marshy and Cello were talking about, but I don't think it should be spelled out. If you don't see it, that's not really anything to worry about." to Omis? Be specific.

Anyone else notice that despite Pierre's pronounced inactivity, SSBF hasn't said anything against him?

Until Summoner actually gets replaced, his vote is aligned with mine. So, that means:

Votes on Pierre (4): Cello, Summoner, Omis, tHe-Man

Today/Mentos (as Today) was voting for him, as was Jester/Marshy/Nick (as Jester). If the current players of those slots would let me know whether or not they want to re-vote for Pierre (and why not, if no), that would be great. More or less same question for Paprika. If Brockin flips scum/refuses to stump, we only need 2 more. Despite this, I'd really rather get SSBF first. I won't oppose forcing Pierre first though.

14 hours left to stump yourself, Brockin. Although, since I see Swords in the Social thread, I think he should do it right now.

 

[Deleted member]

mentos posted at 7:19 AM, I at 11:21 AM.
it's called timezones.

 

[Cello_Marl]

My point was that all the necessary information that you needed to make a decision was present before my flip, unless Heatstroke's post was really persuasive to you.

Regardless, what about Pierre? Also, explain to me why you think SSBF is just dumb town and what his motives are in posting his 5-6 posts of substance.

 

[Deleted member]

because that's how I've seen him play before, he just isn't a very strong player. in SSB mafia he did post more but there he was mafia.

and I said I would rethink when you would actually stump since you didn't want to then even though you made a deal.

 

[Deleted member]

on pierre, I expected either of you two to be scum, and now it made me unsure about what to do with him.

 

[Cello_Marl]

because that's how I've seen him play before, he just isn't a very strong player. in SSB mafia he did post more but there he was mafia.

And here, he has giant hypocritical walls of text. Are you trying to clear him for being bad? When I did that in Miller's to Kirbyoshi, it was because I read good intent in his posts. If not what he has done so far, what could convince you that SSBF is scum? It sounds like it would take a full confession.

and I said I would rethink when you would actually stump since you didn't want to then even though you made a deal.

You can't rely on flips alone for information. Reasoning synthetically won't do you any good when the game is done because we lost it. Reason analytically. Think about how and why people do what they do, and test those conclusions.

on pierre, I expected either of you two to be scum, and now it made me unsure about what to do with him.

Ok. I'm town. What has changed about Pierre to shift you to unsure?

 

[Deleted member]

And here, he has giant hypocritical walls of text. Are you trying to clear him for being bad? When I did that in Miller's to Kirbyoshi, it was because I read good intent in his posts. If not what he has done so far, what could convince you that SSBF is scum? It sounds like it would take a full confession.

no I'm not clearing him for being bad, I'm saying that I find it more likely that he is dumbtown than that he is scum. That doesn't mean he shouldn't go, just that he a lower priority.

You can't rely on flips alone for information. Reasoning synthetically won't do you any good when the game is done because we lost it. Reason analytically. Think about how and why people do what they do, and test those conclusions.

I never said I want to base stuff solely on flips. It was you resusing to stump regardless of your alignment. What does synthetic reasoning mean? And how am I supposed to test said things?

Ok. I'm town. What has changed about Pierre to shift you to unsure?

not much, but he was in my unsure region to begin with.

stuff in red.

 

[Cello_Marl]

I never said I want to base stuff solely on flips. It was you resusing to stump regardless of your alignment. What does synthetic reasoning mean? And how am I supposed to test said things?

All you saw was a surface action; my refusal to immediately stump. That was apparently enough to convince you that I was scum. You had to see my flip before you would even consider why I was doing what I was (and you probably still haven't).

Reasoning synthetically means taking a chain of events and coming to a logical conclusion. Event A and Event B have occurred, therefore, Event C will occur.

Reasoning analytically means taking an event, and deducing what events must have occurred for that event to come about. Event C occurred, therefore Events A and B must have happened.

In this case (actually, in all cases), Event C is the post. Events A and B are the motives of the poster. You know exactly why you post what you post, so your post always makes perfect sense to you. We are trying to find out why other people post what they do.

You are supposed to test for these things by questioning your target and checking their responses against your hypothesis.

For example, SSBF has consistently attacked people for inactivity, yet leaves Pierre alone despite his being inactive for over 2 days. Let's compare Today/Mentos to Pierre. Mentos openly declared that he thought I was town, before I flipped. Pierre thought I was scummy. Why would SSBF do this? It's possible that he only supported Pierre because they shared beliefs, or that Pierre was being played by SSBF (HA!), or that he was protecting a scum buddy against a person who had virtually zero credibility in many people's eyes (me).

Consider another earlier point to test this. SSBF had a very cordial exchange with Pierre, in which SSBF said he thought Pierre's claim that "he had done nothing scummy" was innately scummy. Once more, he let Pierre be without pushing the issue. All he did was mention it once or twice, and he was also completely fine with a one-liner response. At the same time that this was going on, SSBF claims that Pierre is very active, asks good questions, and has a very pro-town look to him.

This is hardly a likely course of action if SSBF was town and thought that Pierre was town, given that his primary scumtells (inactivity and not explaining actions) are performed by Pierre over and over and over again, so we can ignore that possibility for now, since it does not fit the facts.

By your own observations, you either don't think SSBF is very clever, or at least just inexperienced. It's very unlikely that SSBF is playing Pierre. It's most likely that he is a newbie that took easy opportunities to protect his buddy. Many of the same parallels can be made with Brockin, who has refused to stump himself so far.

This is why I want SSBF and Pierre to follow after Brockin. SSBF's slip is very much like Swords in Popcorn, only Pierre is paying the price now instead of Tom.

 

[Deleted member]

then, since you are dead, shine light on me by explaining why you refused to stump.

synthetic reasoning is plain impossible in a game like this since I can't ever see one's motives, so I don't see the point of mentioning that, nor the fact that you think I reasoning that way.

you said "testing conclusions" not "testing hypotheses", be consistent please because those two things have an entirely different meaning.

 

[Brockin]

I'm not stumping unless i'm put at L-1/2.

And cello, what do you think of Omis? He's been parroting you majorly up to this point. You haven't said a word, you are focused only on me. Same with Sworddancer. He parroted in his last post.

 

[Cello_Marl]

then, since you are dead, shine light on me by explaining why you refused to stump.

This is exactly what I was saying that you should try to reason, while that person is still alive.

Regardless, let's look at the people I've already mentioned in a previous post on this subject; Mentos, Nicholas and Pierre. Nicholas's first major post, #293, was over early events, but I had no way to know that he apparently did not read later posts before starting to read the thread (or at least, is trying to portray that). We can examine his post and try to figure out why he is thinking what he is, whereas it may have just been on current events (already muddied by various people's opinions) if I had claimed. For Mentos, I got to see how he reacted to pressure from outside sources the longer I waited. I saw a survival instinct kick in, and I got to see if anyone jumped on him for trusting me and how. I didn't get much on Pierre, mostly because I was rushed from the rules change and I didn't want to waste time waiting for him to come back. However, I did notice that he seemed less interested in suggesting points that I was actually scummy and more interested in putting Omis in a bad light.

Those were just the intentional benefits. SSBF's #307 was a sweet bonus.

 

[Cello_Marl]

@Brockin: You're not just at L-1 or L-2, you are at L-0.

Cello, Omis, Sworddancer, tHe-Man, Summoner, Heatstroke, Mentos. All of these people want you to stump. Do it. Now.

 

[Deleted member]

just wondering, how did tHe-Man get on that list? he (they) hasn't been here since before the Heat stump.

 

[Cello_Marl]

Oh, I'm sorry. Cello, Omis, Sworddancer, tHe-Man, Summoner, Heatstroke, Mentos, Paprika.

You're at L+1, Brockin. As far as I'm concerned, this is an official refusal, and we have our first scum.

synthetic reasoning is plain impossible in a game like this since I can't ever see one's motives, so I don't see the point of mentioning that, nor the fact that you think I reasoning that way.

Synthetic reasoning is the type of reasoning most people use. "He defended [name], and [name] is scum, so he must be scum too!"

you said "testing conclusions" not "testing hypotheses", be consistent please because those two things have an entirely different meaning.

When I said test conclusions, I meant alignments, when I said hypotheses, I meant reasons as to why you believe a person's alignment is a certain alignment. I admit I wasn't completely clear when I said "conclusions". Still, stop antagonizing the clear, Marc Paprika, unless you have a point.

 

[Deleted member]

That's deductive reasoning. but noted. I'll just shut up about that.

Brockin, if you still refuse now (you seem to), why?

 

[Cello_Marl]

Until tHe-Man tells us they've changed their mind, their last post says they want Brockin to stump.

 

[Deleted member]

Xonar, I know you're online. start up the tHe-Man machine and get over here.

 

[tHe-Man]

Not changed my mind. Bet the same counters for Ryker.

 

[Brockin]

HEY! You should be defending, broken! *twacks better half with a stick* >:

wow. Cello stumped himself, and was town. Lulz.

While I don't agree that Brocking being judged by his problems with logs. I will admit that him refusing to do so with no reason is suspicious. So I will be helping Cello against Brockin. One page at a time.

That's not true. I gave a reason from time after time it was brought up. I never liked the idea of sharing logs (since, again, we will be talking about it in front of everyone), nor did I saw the benefit in it. Hell, I even said this on Post no. 61

Totally not in agreement with it. I like to conversate with my better half, as he's the only one I can trust. It...wouldn't be much communication if we posted our logs in the thread, where we could just share our thoughts to you as we are now. I don't see the logic or benefit in this ability, and would much rather keep all logs to ourselves.

Mind you, me and my better half has onlyspoke together twice. I don't think he saw much of the benefit either.

He obviously doesn't understand that stumping is generally a lynch. I don't get why he would want this. However it would put mafia at an advantage killing guaranteed townies every night.

-1 brockin.

If anything, stumping is a 'light' lynch. You're not out of the game, so this means you can still contribute and give your opinion. Your only downside is that you lack an action to vote. Plus, your role gets confirmed and the day moves on as normal. Lynching would make you lose the ability to talk, vote, AND gives mafia a free chance to nk.

also, I think you read that part wrong. I'm all up for stumping like 3 or 4 people, but wouldn't mind seeing a lynch too (only so that we can see the results and try to find out why such and such died.)

All thoughts should be available to town. Let's pretend there were two sides of you rummaging through your head. Posting both thoughts and feeling which one is better is something that wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't give scumtells or anything of the sort. However, in a mafia perspective, they would talk about conversation of who to frame, what to do, etc. Cello's question seems like a trap question.

That maybe so, but I always felt that mafia would be able to make a convincing log that shows their towniness. But, you know, that's my opinion on the matter.

It's not like we'd hold back information though. We've actually been posting about who we found scummy, questioned certain people, and so on, so I don't think we've been ducking questions/cases thrown at us (least, I havn't).

You said this about me. However, wouldn't I be in the same scenario as you're being pressured into?

Not really.

A Cornered scum means someone who's basically 'been caught red handed.' It's when they seem to panic or act more differently then before, or trying frantically to throw the discussion or whatever is pressuring them, away from them.

That time when I saw Cello pressuring you, and how you said that he should stump himself first, told me you was a cornered scum (but, you're town, so I guess you got scared/nervous).

Me however, I think I've been pretty calm about the situation, as well as stuff thrown at me. And I wasn't hiding from questions or trying to direct the attention away from another. So, yeah.

@Cello: To answer your question, Brockin's response actually caught me by surprise. It wasn't either of the answers I expected when I posed the question. However, it does give me pause for one reason: before logs weren't allowed to be posted officially, they vehemently refused. As far as I'm concerned, the benefit of posting the logs should have been obvious enough that this doesn't make sense. Posting the logs pretty much equates to clearing themselves in the situation. However, after the logs had been banned is the first time he says he would be willing to do it.

Now, what is this leading to? Had they said they would still refuse to post the logs, that shows conviction to what they said and, and given the fire they came under for it would show that they didn't care if it was found suspicious, it was how they felt about the idea and they stuck by it. However, by changing stances after they had come under widespread fire, and when it would no longer be dangerous to them to agree to the idea, it looks scummy. The reason given for the change of opinion seems shaky, almost tacked on, trying to get out of the frying pan. I would support their stumping at this point.

Mentos, first look at post no 61, as you saw that I said -I- didn't find much benefit in it. At the time, I was speaking stuff based on my opinion, but would conversate with my better half on stuff regarding it and take his opinion (as also said in this post, the last time we spoke (which was around the time we both made an agreement that Omis is scummy for parroting), he didn't find much of the benefit either. Mentos, I think you been with me in enough games that I never in a game when sharing logs were optional, therefore, I never saw much of the benefit. Hell, I only masoned with Junglefever twice (Once as a Lover (****ING. HATE. LOVERS. LOL) maf in TLI, the other as mason in Omis' game). Neither or I believe, gave us the option to share logs within the thread.

Well was I wrong there (on cello).
this will be a quick post, still rereading though situation has changed a lot now.

yes cello, I will support you on brockin now, but not on SSBF, right now I'm having him as dumb townie.

It's funny, But I do remember I asked everyone if I was scummy on for the logs on Post no. 140 and on Post no. 144, you said 'no, not really'. Why the sudden change of mind?

 

[Deleted member]

not "sudden", that was 200 posts ago.
And Cello has proven himself and I agree with him.

 

[Deleted member]

Now enlighten us, why aren't you stumping with over a majority of the people wanting to?

 

[Brockin]

Now enlighten us, why aren't you stumping with over a majority of the people wanting to?

Because majority's main (and only) case has to do with the logs. Not cause of how we've been playing, or any general scummy play. It's just the logs, and it's dissipointing. =/

 

[Deleted member]

Majority is majority. You know that if you don't stump we will have to lynch you at some point (not right now, we would stump other people first). would you be willing to let it come this far?

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

can you explain how not posting logs is 'inconsistant?'

Aslo, that bolded part is incorrect. I didn't want to post the logs not only cause of personal reasons, but mainly cause I don't know, within the thread, who is really scum and who's really town. I hate giving info for scum to work against. I feel it would defeat the purpose of logs, since we could just talk to each other on the thread.

Also, mind you I never saw much of the benefit in seeing logs, and it had to take Cellos PAGES on to speak of it (then Marshy a few pages on). All they had to do was explain the benefits ON THAT PAGE I disagreed with. Then I probably would've came around to doing it, somewhat.

Instead, Cellos has been bagering us with it from time to time, till later on he explained the benefit.

Even more so, look at the quote you pulled up. That was all me and swordsRBroken talked about (which was on the same day I took notice of the game). We only talked for a short amount of time before he had to go. It was another reason why I didn't want to pull out the logs: there was nothing much to speak about.

He told me to read up and catch up.

He asked for my opinion. I told him there wasn't much to judge on

We commented on Cello's first post, and thought it was weird

End.

It was so little, it was hardly worth sharing. Why share something minimal?

It's inconstant because of your reasoning. Not wanting to give scum information, only trusting your partner. . . sure, that's all fine and dandy, but if your log really contained just a little amount of information, then what would be the problem with posting the log? How would posting a log with hardly anything in it "give mafia information"?

Also, back to post 298. . .

I'd like to see where my other, rockier half said that the logs contained a minimal amount of substance. Just quote it please. Besides, didn't macman already say that we couldn't post logs if we WANTED to? Cello/you would still not be satisfied even if we did post the logs. If we had posted logs, we might have gotten modkilled for violation of a rule.

So you didn't even know your partner said this? Shouldn't you of known?

Now then...

@Sworddancer - is there anything else you find scummy about me? Who else do you find scummy besides me?

@Heatstroke - If you had the power to, who would you cast your vote(s) on? Anyone you find suspicious/scummy?

Well, the fact that you are refusing to stump right now seems pretty scummy to me. Also, a lot of who else I find scummy depends on how you flip. For example, SSBF. He has stated how he feels you, pierre, and others are good, helpful players. I think he might be trying to defend you. If you flip scum, then I think Fan would be a good choice to stump next.

 

[Omis]

@Cello
What does Rats from a ship mean?
Why didnt adress Brockin thinking that Im parroting you? Is it because you refuse to acknowledge him due to his refusal to stump or because, for some reason, you have no prob with my "parroting" of you?

 

[Brockin]

Majority is majority. You know that if you don't stump we will have to lynch you at some point (not right now, we would stump other people first). would you be willing to let it come this far?

I really don't want it to, but it seems that you guys will not listen to logic OR my personal reasons for me not liking to post the logs.

It's inconstant because of your reasoning. Not wanting to give scum information, only trusting your partner. . . sure, that's all fine and dandy, but if your log really contained just a little amount of information, then what would be the problem with posting the log? How would posting a log with hardly anything in it "give mafia information"? .

Everyone seems to misread what I say

Posting logs in general, to my knowledge, gives mafia information. Aside from that, the reason I didn't want to post it is because it lacked any useful information.

I'm getting sick and tired of the constant focus on the logs issue, and it seems I'm not going to convince anyone AT ALL about it, so I may as well stump.

ALAKAZAM KADABRA ABRA GENGAR!

can't wait to see how you all look.

 

[Deleted member]

First of all, to SSBF, before Mac specifically said that hydras couldn't post logs, it was not against the rules. It is not part of their role to communicate outside the thread, but part of the nature of their playerslot. Therefore, until it was officially made against the rules by Mac, it could have passed through on a loophole. Also, the problem with this is that Brockin didn't refuse based on rules, but instead refused because he just didn't want to.

Just because Macman didn't refuse it then didn't mean Brockin didn't risk a modkill from him. Plus, logs can reveal gamebreaking information that can ruin the game, purposely or accidently. It's sad how Cello talked about this for so long after Macman clearly stated that it was not allowed. Brockin clearly had good reasons not to post logs, scum or not, illegal or not.

@Cello Marl: I think when Brockin mean he would stump, he was talking about votes. I really do doubt that he's going to stump just because people agree to vote him if he doesn't.

I will also not stump anytime soon.

However, I will respond to your argument toward me. Not just parts of it, but as I promised, I will go through every post to see what I agree with and what I don't agree with:

Super Smash Bros. Fan's I(n) S(earch) O(f) for Tree Stump.

Link does not work.

1st post) You felt the need to continue "RVS" even though there was clearly something else to discuss.

There was barely anything to go off at the time beside from your rulesheet you want us to follow. Also, I will not the last person to attempt to be in the RVS period. This post was made by SummonerAU:

ummwutchar

This post had absolutely no substance in the game whatsoever and qualifies as an RVS post. Yet you never complained about that.

Compounded by later hypocrisy saying that anyone can consider any point (such as when he used my first post against me, despite being told not to), and then claimed it was "just RVS" and he owed no explanation for it. The only reason I can think of that fits is trying to distance yourself from Brockin, and he has provided nothing else.

Someone show me where I said that. I looked through my posts and I have not seem a trait suggesting that. RVS can still be considered information, even if it's only semi-serious at best.

Also, you claim to have no opinion on my alignment, when in a later post, you claim that my first post (which was posted before your first) made you believe that I was scum.

The reason why I originally said that is because I thought you were providing suggestions for us to follow.

The reason why I responded is because you asked me what I disagreed with. I gave my honest opinion on that and what I found on that post really shocked me.

2nd post) Usually, people try to not be hypocritical when they make points. Not so for you. The best way to dissuade walls of text are to use walls of text that reiterate previously made arguments? No. Plus, parroting is a major scumtell for you, apparently, yet you are guilty of it so many times. Also notable was your lack of chastising Nicholas for his most recent Xbawks hueg Wall of Text that sounded like a nautical thieves' petshop.

I'm sorry if I don't share the same opinions about Wall of Text. Long posts in my opinion does not equal Wall of Text, even not a very long paragraph. In my opinion, a Wall of Text is having multiple paragraphs that are not spaced out, which is a kind that I consider Wall of Text.

The only time I can recall parroting anyone in that post was the part where I disapproved of an deadline extension. Even then, it was worth saying because it is useless to do, especially stump they will not happen due to stumps.

3rd post) Starts with light distancing from Pierre. I'll address this further later. Then, he seriously suggests quickly hammering being better than just going to a No Lynch. When I tried to correct his errant thought, he could not be turned. He also says that Heatstroke and my behavior (trying to get each other to stump, which was actually pretty much just me doing that) was anti-town behavior. He makes no attempt to discern what our alignments and shows no interest in finding out. He just suggests it in way that he would receive no blame. Suggests stumping inactives, with terrible reasoning. Defends Pierre's defense of Heatstroke, claiming that it wasn't. Claims Brockin has done "absolutely nothing scummy".

With a quick hammer, even thought I don't support it, we can gather information out of it, especially if the player flips scum. No lynch on the other hand, we gain absolutely no information whatsoever. The only additional information we get is a possible nightkill, which is also another benefit of a hammer.

And I've always wanted to find out what alignment Heatstroke an your alliance was. Turn out you both fliped town and that I didn't directly say it.

You are severely overexaggerating on how Pierre The Scarecrow defended Heatstroke. He only mentinoned it for one paragraph and you went off at him for that. It's not like he made multiple posts on why Heatstroke is town. Further supporting my evidence that you and Brockin are town is that Heatstroke was your first lynch candidate. You got what you wanted and he fliped town. I highly doubt either Brockin or Pierre The Scarecrow are one of the scums. If one of them flip scum, then I would be amazed.

I still consider Brockin a pro-town player, but you do have a point there. I really didn't like his fear of overstumping so I'll give you that.

4th post and 5th post) Shows clear intent to not stump himself, even in the face of a lynch. Clearly anti-town sentiment, as he also shows no interest in expressing why he feels this way, or trying to understand why it is in all of our best interests to stump himself in the face of a lynch. By this point, it is very clear he either doesn't understand the benefits of my system, or is actively working to undermine it. This was also the point when he chose to cast Today/Mentos into a negative light.

After thinking about it, I think Cello is right about this for the most part. However, do not expect me to stump anytime soon. The only time when you can even hope for a stump is when I get pushed to L-1 and get threats of hammer. Especially since Cello fliped town when stumped.

However, this is clearly not your system, Macman choose this and you have to realize that.

6th post) Apology to Today/Mentos for jumping the gun. Clears up "problem" he had with Pierre. But, how long had this problem supposedly been plaguing him? Almost 48 hours. Why was he so willing to jump onto other players for various problems but he just let Pierre remain unmolested?

I have gone after Pierre The Scarecrow before. Take a look at this quote and my response:

Is *The Jester* a hydra? Does *The Jester* have off-site forum mafia experience? Can *The Jester* discern why I voted *The Jester*?

@Brockin: why stop at 1 stumping and 1 lynch per day, or why is 1 and 1 more effective than trying to comfortably stump as much as possible?

unvote vote Omis

Absolutely no explaination for your vote on Omis but most of the post was about The Jester and Brockin. And we've just gotten a serious discussion started.

And you say I haven't gone after Pierre The Scarecrow.

7th post) Useless.

8th post) Useless.

And it's useless because of why?

9th post) You may notice there is a general change in trend here. Instead of directly attacking my maneuvers as scummy, he's now taken to trying to showcase them as ineffective and useless. You'll also notice that every single point "against" me was already addressed by someone else. Oh, but SSBF would never parrot, would he? That's so scummy, he couldn't possibly have done it (He did). I might do a further in-depth look at this later, but these are good enough for now.

I think you've said enough on that post. You're probably right on the matter.

10th post) Complete idiocy. Tries to appear to be a calming influence, and make everything seem alright. This is not the case. This rule change is dire, indeed. It was enough to make me take off the kiddy gloves and stump.

The reason why I said that is because stumps are technically used as deadlines, except that they prevent a person from voting. In a way, they are better then normal deadline extensions, because they mean more then extra time, they gather information, and it can be used multiple times.

And ends my most likely finaly major respond to Cello Marl. Now I'll shift my focus to other people.

With my analysis, I plan on doing it on WordPad. The ones with pro-town image to me will not be mentioned, but I will mention people I consider scummy.

 

[Purple]

we got three stumps, i feel we should stop here and assess who we should lynch.

 

[Deleted member]

@HeatStroke: Actually, we have two, but I'm not sure why we should lynch. Stumping prevents Mafia from being able to kill a person. Can you explain why?

 

[Xiivi]

Day 1 Vote Count X-4

mentosman8: (0)
Omis: (0)
Nicholas1024: (0)
Pierre The Scarecrow: (0)
SummonerAU: (0)
Super Smash Bros. Fan: (0)
Sworddancer.: (0)
tHe-Man: (0)
The Paprika Killer: (0)
Not Voting:mentosman8, Nicholas1024, Omis, Pierre The Scarecrow, SummonerAU, Super Smash Bros. Fan, Sworddancer., tHe-Man, The Paprika Killer (

)
Living Treestumps:
HeatStroke (Town)
Cello_Marl (Town)
Brockin (Town)
5/9 to lynch.
Deadline is May 8, 11:59PM EST.

 

[Purple]

SSBF, look again

me, cello, and brockin are all town stumps.

 

[Cello_Marl]

I'm going to meditate on this for a day. However, one thing is for sure, we'll keep stumping until we have three scum lined up, and we won't stop until then.

@Brockin: Grrrrr...

 

[Brockin]

I'm going to meditate on this for a day. However, one thing is for sure, we'll keep stumping until we have three scum lined up, and we won't stop until then.

@Brockin: Grrrrr...

'Grrrr' all you want. Your tunneling did this. Not us.

Same goes for everyone else' parroting of the log issue.

 

[Cello_Marl]

My tunneling was caused by your lack of cooperation. I was explicit about this very thing.

Regardless, what are your thoughts?