Wonderland Mafia GAME OVER: Town/Independent Win!

[Omis]

unvote macman

 

[Steel]

omis what made you want to voet him though? what were you thinking when u read his post and made you want to vote him?

 

[Omis]

When I read it I got the impression that he was just going to toy around with everyone for fun regardless of what might happen

 

[Chaco]

unvote vote macman
That is stupid and callous reasoning meant only to further your jokes. I disprove.

Omis, do you believe jokes are a scum tell? If not, what are they?

 

[Omis]

Yes if they persist, seem to have malevolent intent, or are significantly past the RVS stage.

 

[Chaco]

So, if I were to tell a knock-knock joke. I would jump on your scum list? Because we are past the RVS stage.

 

[Circus]

Off with their heads!:

Riddle (4): Macman, Chaco, Marshy, Gheb_01
Nicholas1024 (3): §teel, Cacti, Xiivi
Cacti (1): Nicholas1024

Not Voting (4): Omni, Riddle, Tom, Omis

Deadline: Friday, November 20th at 11:59:59pm, EST.

With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

FOS: Gheb for his L-2 obsessed question poised at steel neglecting the fact that he was putting Riddle at L-2 himself in that very post.

How is that a problem? What's wrong with me putting somebody @L-2 and how does this contradict anything I said? Please be specific in your answer because it looks as if you're try to make an accusation against me out of nothing. I never said that putting somebody @L-2 makes anybody look suspicious but the intention of your post is to make it look that way. If I'm wrong then please clarify how and why I am wrong.

It's either a null tell you're looking into or you're pseudo scumhunting.

yes, he has votes on him due to his vote on riddle and subpar defense.

no. because i don't think hes suspicious.

You're very vague. Which part of his defense was subpar and why? How does his vote against Riddle justifiy all 4 votes against him? Why is it suspicious of Nick to vote Riddle but not of any other player on the Riddle wagon?

 

[Omis]

So, if I were to tell a knock-knock joke. I would jump on your scum list? Because we are past the RVS stage.

No because that has no malevolent intent.

 

[Steel]

You're very vague. Which part of his defense was subpar and why? How does his vote against Riddle justifiy all 4 votes against him? Why is it suspicious of Nick to vote Riddle but not of any other player on the Riddle wagon?

why are you asking things that ahve already been answered. my post where i voted for nicholas and the post following it explained why it was him and not the others. im sure a couple of the votes were simply egging on the bandwagon to see how nicholas reacts to it. xiivi's post and vote was due to nicholas's response to my question.

No because that has no malevolent intent.

omis what makes a joke have malevolent intent?

 

[Circus]

Riddle has been prodded.

 

[Omis]

why are you asking things that ahve already been answered. my post where i voted for nicholas and the post following it explained why it was him and not the others. im sure a couple of the votes were simply egging on the bandwagon to see how nicholas reacts to it. xiivi's post and vote was due to nicholas's response to my question.



omis what makes a joke have malevolent intent?

When the joke is meant to derail what is going on or to piss people off.

 

[Steel]

A knock-knock joke wouldn't derail what is going on or bother people because it's pretty much useless and unhelpful?

 

[Omis]

I guess. I dont really understand what you are asking me.

 

[Steel]

its pretty straight forward

You said a knockknock joke would not be scummy because it has no malevloent intent. But by your definition, it would.

semantics.,

 

[Omni]

jumping in.

there's a difference between a knock knock joke and saying "Omni, are you town?"

one is incriminating as Omis said while the other is just nothing; more of a null-tell than anything. if a person and jokes they say they are Mafia or claim someone else is Mafia for fun, it's not just a joke

idk what ur getting at steel but his explanation made total sense to me

 

[Steel]

what explanation? im not getting at anything im trying to figure out what he means, but its going nowhere so im dropping it

 

[Riddle]

I got prodded

All I notice right now is some arguing about knock-knock jokes. It doesn't seem very helpful, but I'm going to look at it anyways to see if I notice anything.

 

[Chaco]

Well, I had a reason to it, but they took it a different route. The plan and simple is that it is not helpful, and can be derived as anti-town.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

the steel/omis exchanged snowballed in an unhelpful way. bothered that most of the interactions today have focused on semantics

riddle you never answered my question

more riddle wagon

 

[Riddle]

the steel/omis exchanged snowballed in an unhelpful way. bothered that most of the interactions today have focused on semantics

riddle you never answered my question

more riddle wagon

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't see it. Let me go find it.

 

[Riddle]

Uhh, mind restating it? I can't find it for the life of me for some reason.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Do you think im scummy because i'm cautious about the vote count this early in D1 or just annoying?




if it continues to divert attention, then maybe. for now, not really. if i didn't think you had set anything of value i would have said so

@Steel
At the moment I'm just finding it annoying, as I've seen plenty of townies that are cautious about the vote count.

As far as the whole joke thing goes, I find jokes to be a waste of time beyond the RVS. Won't draw my vote, although it might draw my annoyance.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

uhh, Mind Restating It? I Can't Find It For The Life Of Me For Some Reason.

7 5

 

[Cacti]

cacti, what do you mean be "too safe for something this early on". Not following how being early in the day coincides with how reckless or safe one should play. What is the kind of post you would have preferred him to make?

I'm not sure why I said early on, but I guess being to safe is sort of a null tell, I just meant for people to keep their eyes on him of how he plays.

About the joke argument, I think that if somebody makes a joke to try to derail discussion (such as doing it when we are out of RVS), then it is scummy.

Also, I don't see why everyone is fussing about L-2. I don't see how anything is scummy about it, as if mafia quick-hammered, we'd have two mafia right there. However, L-1 as much more dangerous, as it could leave us in a position where someone like a Yakuza could hammer with no consequences the next day.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm still waiting for Xiivi to respond to my 128.

game deserves a post + reread and i will get to it tomorrow ive just been hella busy and hella occupied by my other games. tomorrow.

Will this actually happen?

 

[Riddle]

vote riddle for 24. what's wrong with "reading too much into" something when it's rvs? -2

nick do you think it's important to have reasoning in the early stages?

gheb's interpretation was how i read riddle's first post

Ah, okay.

There is not anything wrong with reaching in RVS. My point was that he was making connections that weren't there and that it wasn't helping at all.

 

[Chaco]

I'm still okay with your lynch.

 

[Steel]

unvote hmmm

 

[Xiivi]

How is that a problem? What's wrong with me putting somebody @L-2 and how does this contradict anything I said? Please be specific in your answer because it looks as if you're try to make an accusation against me out of nothing. I never said that putting somebody @L-2 makes anybody look suspicious but the intention of your post is to make it look that way. If I'm wrong then please clarify how and why I am wrong.

Let's go over it shall we!

#70

Here you step in and defend Riddle's original post. However, you question the legitimacy of his defense.

#82

Further reinforce that you don't like Riddle's defense here.

However, despite there being a nice bandwagon going, you don't join it, but instead nudge it along until...

#107

Why is Nick @L-2? I don't think he has said or done anything that deserves 4 votes at this point.

Vote Riddle

With the information we currently have there's no reason for Nick to have more votes than Riddle. The fact that somebody, who hasn't done anything suspicious has more votes than somebody, who posts very dubious stuff (to say the least) doesn't sit well with me.

Suddenly, you're faulting the town for wagoning Nick instead of Riddle, despite the fact you never attempted to wagon Riddle yourself. In fact, the only reason you seem to have placed a vote down, is not because Riddle was scummy, but because Nick had more votes. Also you're labeling Riddle as posting "very dubious" stuff, when before you thought his original post was fine and that you didn't approve of his defense.

@§teel

You voted Nick for putting Riddle L-2. Now Xiivi put Nick @L-2. The most logical consequence is that you should vote Xiivi now. What's the difference in Nick's vote on Riddle and Xiivi's vote against Nick? Is there a difference?

This is what I hounded on. You miscontrue what Steel's reasons for voting Nick to L-2 were. He originally voted Nick not only for L-2, but for "I agree!" reasoning as well that seemed to safe. You then draw a parrell between Nick's vote on Riddle and my vote on Nick, calling it the most logical sequence. Yet you neglect the fact you put a L-2 vote on Riddle in the very post, and that this so-called "logical sequence" would also entail voting you. You ask for a difference between the votes, when if you bother reading the reasoning for the votes, you'll see there is a difference.

It's either a null tell you're looking into or you're pseudo scumhunting.

You're very quick to dismiss a case on you, aren't you?

unvote: vote: Gheb

 

[Circus]

Off with their heads!:

Riddle (4): Macman, Chaco, Marshy, Gheb_01
Nicholas1024 (1): Cacti
Cacti (1): Nicholas1024
Gheb_01 (1): Xiivi

Not Voting (5): Omni, Riddle, Tom, Omis, §teel

Deadline: Friday, November 20th at 11:59:59pm, EST.

With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

However, despite there being a nice bandwagon going, you don't join it, but instead nudge it along until...

Riddle was @ L-2 already with Marshy's vote. Didn't want to put him @ L-1 this early.

Suddenly, you're faulting the town for wagoning Nick instead of Riddle, despite the fact you never attempted to wagon Riddle yourself.

Where in that quote have I've been faulting anybody? I even asked the people on the Nick wagon if they think he's more suspicious. I never faulted anybody. Also lol @ the never attempted to wagon Riddle. My vote currently is on Riddle. I am part of the Riddle wagon.

In fact, the only reason you seem to have placed a vote down, is not because Riddle was scummy, but because Nick had more votes.

Yeah because I totally didn't say that Riddle's defense doesn't sit well with me.

Oh, w8!

Also you're labeling Riddle as posting "very dubious" stuff, when before you thought his original post was fine and that you didn't approve of his defense.

Your point? You just repeated my thoughts on Riddle? And?

Also, I never voted anybody for putting somebody @L-2. I didn't even make a deal out of it. It was part of Steel's reasoning regardless of the other stuff he said. He votes somebody for putting a player @L-2 but doesn't do so for another player. So I asked why? I didn't complain about it. I asked. I hope that's not too much asked.

You're very quick to dismiss a case on you, aren't you?

Yeah, I'm usually fairly quick to rip apart false arguments.

 

[Chaco]

Deadline in four days guys, step it up.

Prods if possible, or replacements if needed

 

[Steel]

chaco are you suspicious of anyone besides riddle?

 

[Chaco]

Not much more than that besides lurkers, I want them to post. This D1 started quick, and then became stagnant. Marshy has posted only 5 times the entire game.

 

[Omis]

Vote riddle
While his initial mess up wasnt too bad, he didnt seem to react right in my book. Plus this is the only thing that seems to be going anywhere at all. Also it will make me look at Chaco a bit more which can never hurt.

 

[Steel]

ok. i still don't really agree with the riddle wagon so i'm going to look elsewhere.

cacti's posts have been complete *** and aren't doing anything.

There's nothing wrong with L-2. It's not like someone's going to get lynched this early into day one, and it's not like scum is going to quick hammer. Even L-1 wouldn't be bad; it might be scummy, but would not have any negative consequences. Any hammer at this point would find us an instant scum.

This is parroting.

He stated that he was trying to get the bandwagon rolling in the post where he voted... Stop skimming and pseudo-scumhunting, mafia.

This post has some strange aggression to it as omni pointed out, which can easily give out negative vibes.

About the joke argument, I think that if somebody makes a joke to try to derail discussion (such as doing it when we are out of RVS), then it is scummy.

Also, I don't see why everyone is fussing about L-2. I don't see how anything is scummy about it, as if mafia quick-hammered, we'd have two mafia right there. However, L-1 as much more dangerous, as it could leave us in a position where someone like a Yakuza could hammer with no consequences the next day.

This is parroting and restating.

His other posts were just votes or other stuff having no substance to it. i don't feel he has helped at all and is avoiding inactive status by throwing out crap that has already been said.

let's move this game along

vote cacti

 

[Steel]

Vote riddle
While his initial mess up wasnt too bad, he didnt seem to react right in my book. Plus this is the only thing that seems to be going anywhere at all. Also it will make me look at Chaco a bit more which can never hurt.

what part exactly of riddle's defense moved you the wrong way? why was it scummy? what would have been a better way to react? please answer these

are you just jumping on the bandwagon cus riddle is the only one that has a lot of votes on him?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Unvote

Still too early imo to put somebody @L-1. Omni, Tom and Nick need to post a lot more, haven't seen anything of substance from them in a while. Omis, didn't you say that putting somebody @L-2 isn't scummy but L-1 is? You just did the same thing jfyi. A lot of the day has been wasted with thee whole "joke" debate, which led nowhere.

I'd rather lynch a coaster/lurker toDay than later. I'm still down for the Riddle lynch if nothing better seems to emerge but I wouldn't mind inactives dead at this point. They can become dangerous later in the game. Cacti lynch sounds solid in my book too.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'd rather lynch a coaster/lurker toDay than later. I'm still down for the Riddle lynch if nothing better seems to emerge but I wouldn't mind inactives dead at this point. They can become dangerous later in the game. Cacti lynch sounds solid in my book too.

Lynch all lurkers isn't the worst you could do D1, but I'd prefer a Cacti/Riddle lynch. As far as Xivii's case goes, I feel he's grasping at straws, as Gheb has stated since his first post of the game that Riddle's defense was quite awkward. More to come later tonight.

@Tom
Do you think you could give us that analysis you promised several days ago?