Golden Pantheon - Greek - Game Over ~ Scum Win

[TA1LGUNN3R]

hm. I read through again, and unfortunately didn't see anything too damning. If I were pressed to vote, I'd vote for Vic, but it just looked like his usual behavior which he seems to get a free pass for. After the joke votes, he votes on two inactive cases, one of which leads to a claim, and then as soon as a somewhat serious discussion begins he adds a bit which kind of went without saying.

-Tails

Psh, whatever. If that's what you're voting for, you might as well vote for yourself.

I agree with Vic that we need a lynch. Anyone who says we don't is scummy, IMO. I'm not taking my vote off of Tails. If he was paying attention to the game, he could see that we were done joke voting and going after inactives before him. Then he shows up and gives nothing.

lol you can't compare my contributions with Vic's. And I don't even know what you're saying here... There wasn't anything going on; you guys got a bullshit claim based on a meta of a sometimes inactive player, nothing really scummy or worth posting about. And that's specifically what I said... D1 crap that's always prevalent, which I have almost no interest in participating in. So yeah, I paid attention.

But this smacks of someone trying to earn brownie points by playing by the book: "omg anyone who considers a no lynch is scummy." If you agreed with that, you'd be voting for MeDeFe for suggesting that.

So we've got:

• Sucking up to town
• Voting inactives... the easy target
• Obvious confusion/misdirection about what's happening
• Denouncement of a proposal, but continues his vote on someone who said nothing regarding the NL

From where I'm standing, you're looking fairly scummy, mate.

Is that activity suitable to your liking, m'lord?

-Tails

[strike wolf]

I am in agreement here with Tails. Chap's behavior seems a little scummy to me. He's been on both inactive bandwagons and wanted to pressure Jonty for being at L-2 while two of those votes were to test Vio's ability and the rest were left over joke votes. Now he's said he doesn't agree with the idea of NL and that anyone who suggests one is scummy but sticks with the easy inactive lynch. switch my slight FOS to a major FOS

[VioIet]

Oh please, overeager vig? How about Firefly Mafia where I vigged the town traitor where that was you. Don't give me that Vio, my play in Resort had mostly to do with the game situation, and I did not nightkill 5 people. The number of mafia in that game was so small, that town basically went after every single person but the mafia players in order for them to win.

Yes, after you viged the cop, it was increasingly difficult to find mafia. Shield could no longer investigate- being dead and all. You were killed on Night 4 for being an overeager vig. Many players in that game believed that you killed too often. You killed someone every day, except for Day 1.

It is true that there were a lot of vigs besides you that were randomly killing in that game. But weren't there four mafia, and 2 third party roles?

What I was referring to in Resort was when I very clearly laid out the probabilities of your night actions and their pros and cons on the target. I concluded that no matter if the person was town or mafia, you had a better than 50% chance of doing something that was either beneficial or neutral to town. Maybe if you had been more proactive in using your role instead of worrying excessively about the 25% chance of killing the person, you might have gotten a hit on Talapus and we might have had a shot. Numbers don't lie, but you chose to go with your gut instead of your head.

I understood what you were referring to the first time. I disagreed with the percentages that you came up with. Killing was not the only detrimental ability. I did not want to use my blocking and protecting ability either. I could have protected mafia or blocked a town power role. I like to be in full control of my actions. I am unsure about random actions- and when unsure- I won't use it. I figure it's better to be safe than sorry..

As for your best games, all of those happened a long time ago. Your recent activity on this forum has overwhelmingly been tied to the games you're modding. That's all well and good, but I'm not convinced that you'll be able to bring your A-game.

It seems that you pretty much came into this game with a bone to grind against me. You don't even give me chance to prove myself or even try to play. Before I even get a chance to make a real post ( I had only confirmed), you start a weak bandwagon on me that forces me to claim.

I have to be active when I'm modding a game, and I've greatly reduced the number of games that I've joined in the last few months. A year ago at this time, I was in six games at once. Now, I am only in one, and it has been that way for quite some time.

I actually think I am much better at modding, than I am at playing. That is why lately, I normally choose to mod a game over joining one. I wasn't even going to join this one, but I received a personal request from edoc. I felt flattered, so I joined immediately.

But this smacks of someone trying to earn brownie points by playing by the book: "omg anyone who considers a no lynch is scummy." If you agreed with that, you'd be voting for MeDeFe for suggesting that.

So we've got:

• Sucking up to town
• Voting inactives... the easy target
• Obvious confusion/misdirection about what's happening
• Denouncement of a proposal, but continues his vote on someone who said nothing regarding the NL

From where I'm standing, you're looking fairly scummy, mate.


-Tails

I agree with this. I also find it odd that chap pressured jonty, and failed to vote MeDeFe. I personally felt MeDeFe had a good point. However, for as much as chap says he disagrees- yet he didn't vote him. That doesn't add up.

Vote Chapcrap

[Conzocool]

I apologize for my inactivity; I had a family emergency arise, and I will not be able to get on Conquer Club for an indefinitely long time. Therefore, I'd like a replacement, if possible. I'm extremely sorry for the inconvenience, but this was totally out of my control and impossible to stop. Apologies!

Note: This was copied and pasted to all of my mafia games.

[Victor Sullivan]

FOS safariguy5 (and VioIet, if she hadn't already claimed)

I think this has gone too far and it's become off-topic at this point. Let's get back to the game at hand.

lol you can't compare my contributions with Vic's. And I don't even know what you're saying here... There wasn't anything going on; you guys got a bullshit claim based on a meta of a sometimes inactive player, nothing really scummy or worth posting about. And that's specifically what I said... D1 crap that's always prevalent, which I have almost no interest in participating in. So yeah, I paid attention.

But this smacks of someone trying to earn brownie points by playing by the book: "omg anyone who considers a no lynch is scummy." If you agreed with that, you'd be voting for MeDeFe for suggesting that.

So we've got:

• Sucking up to town
• Voting inactives... the easy target
• Obvious confusion/misdirection about what's happening
• Denouncement of a proposal, but continues his vote on someone who said nothing regarding the NL

From where I'm standing, you're looking fairly scummy, mate.

Is that activity suitable to your liking, m'lord?

-Tails

Hm, I agree with your sentiments, but is it damning? Hm... At this point I'm slightly more interested in this bickering between saf and VioIet. It seems slightly out-of-character for safari.

-Sully

[Victor Sullivan]

I apologize for my inactivity; I had a family emergency arise, and I will not be able to get on Conquer Club for an indefinitely long time. Therefore, I'd like a replacement, if possible. I'm extremely sorry for the inconvenience, but this was totally out of my control and impossible to stop. Apologies!

Note: This was copied and pasted to all of my mafia games.

I hope everything is okay!

-Sully

[chapcrap]

@Tails

When I said that you might as well vote yourself instead of Sully, I was talking about for the reasons you gave. He had done more than you at that point in the game. I don't see how that is scummy.

[Mr. Squirrel]

Vote Count

chapcrap (2) -PCM, violet
jonty (1) - ???
tailgunner (1) - chapcrap,

11 alive, 6 to lynch

*Note* Edocsil had set the deadline for tomorrow. We may or may not be extending it due to conzo's departure. We are still discussing it.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

@Tails

When I said that you might as well vote yourself instead of Sully, I was talking about for the reasons you gave. He had done more than you at that point in the game. I don't see how that is scummy.

That's like saying you favor voting an inactive townie over an active scum... Victor's actions were somewhat scummy, although nothing different from his usual m.o., so I pointed it out. Like I said, voting on two inactive wagons and then posting against a no lynch is nothing revelatory or special. Any scum can do that.

I was just inactive. Upon re-entering the thread, I pointed out suspicious behavior, which is what I'm supposed to be doing. If you think that is inferior to inactive BWing than your game is skewed.

And I didn't vote for VS, I only said that I would if I had to. Also, that's not necessarily what I found scummy about you. I already outlined what I found scummy about you in the bulletpoints, which you've yet to address.

For continuing your vote on me for no valid reason, or worse, false pretenses, and in lieu of the deadline... vote chapcrap

-Tails

[safariguy5]

Oh please, overeager vig? How about Firefly Mafia where I vigged the town traitor where that was you. Don't give me that Vio, my play in Resort had mostly to do with the game situation, and I did not nightkill 5 people. The number of mafia in that game was so small, that town basically went after every single person but the mafia players in order for them to win.

Yes, after you viged the cop, it was increasingly difficult to find mafia. Shield could no longer investigate- being dead and all. You were killed on Night 4 for being an overeager vig. Many players in that game believed that you killed too often. You killed someone every day, except for Day 1.

It is true that there were a lot of vigs besides you that were randomly killing in that game. But weren't there four mafia, and 2 third party roles?

What I was referring to in Resort was when I very clearly laid out the probabilities of your night actions and their pros and cons on the target. I concluded that no matter if the person was town or mafia, you had a better than 50% chance of doing something that was either beneficial or neutral to town. Maybe if you had been more proactive in using your role instead of worrying excessively about the 25% chance of killing the person, you might have gotten a hit on Talapus and we might have had a shot. Numbers don't lie, but you chose to go with your gut instead of your head.

I understood what you were referring to the first time. I disagreed with the percentages that you came up with. Killing was not the only detrimental ability. I did not want to use my blocking and protecting ability either. I could have protected mafia or blocked a town power role. I like to be in full control of my actions. I am unsure about random actions- and when unsure- I won't use it. I figure it's better to be safe than sorry..

As for your best games, all of those happened a long time ago. Your recent activity on this forum has overwhelmingly been tied to the games you're modding. That's all well and good, but I'm not convinced that you'll be able to bring your A-game.

It seems that you pretty much came into this game with a bone to grind against me. You don't even give me chance to prove myself or even try to play. Before I even get a chance to make a real post ( I had only confirmed), you start a weak bandwagon on me that forces me to claim.

I have to be active when I'm modding a game, and I've greatly reduced the number of games that I've joined in the last few months. A year ago at this time, I was in six games at once. Now, I am only in one, and it has been that way for quite some time.

I actually think I am much better at modding, than I am at playing. That is why lately, I normally choose to mod a game over joining one. I wasn't even going to join this one, but I received a personal request from edoc. I felt flattered, so I joined immediately.

But this smacks of someone trying to earn brownie points by playing by the book: "omg anyone who considers a no lynch is scummy." If you agreed with that, you'd be voting for MeDeFe for suggesting that.

So we've got:

• Sucking up to town
• Voting inactives... the easy target
• Obvious confusion/misdirection about what's happening
• Denouncement of a proposal, but continues his vote on someone who said nothing regarding the NL

From where I'm standing, you're looking fairly scummy, mate.


-Tails

I agree with this. I also find it odd that chap pressured jonty, and failed to vote MeDeFe. I personally felt MeDeFe had a good point. However, for as much as chap says he disagrees- yet he didn't vote him. That doesn't add up.

Vote Chapcrap

I don't have any axe to grind Vio, it's your own fault for not saying anything and then getting called out for it.

Let's see your game activity up to this point:

1. Confirm post on Nov 22.

2. Acknowledgement of pressure on the 25th.

3. Claim on the 28th.

4-6. 3 posts defending claim on 29th.

So I know you could be more active, but it took lynch pressure to get there. If you were this active from the start of the game, then the inactive bandwagon on you never would have materialized.

I agree, you are a good mod, but I feel that if you put even half the time and effort into the games you play as you do the games you mod, you could be a much better player. As it is, all you're basically saying is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you say you're a better mod than you are a player.

Really, what I'm seeing here is frustration at being forced to claim, and then you taking that frustration out on me by bringing up past games that really have no relevance to the current game.

This is a small sized game, we need everyone as active as possible in order to get the day moving.

[strike wolf]

I'm going to echo victor's sentiment. I don't really see the reasoning behind the continued argument with vio. She proved her power so I think this is a waste of time continuing to devote all your posts arguing with her Safari, especially as the chap bandwagon is more legitimate and it seems like so far you have stuck to easy town statements. fos

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If you think that is inferior to inactive BWing thanthen your game is skewed.

ebwop, stupid spelling mistake.

-Tails

[safariguy5]

I'm going to echo victor's sentiment. I don't really see the reasoning behind the continued argument with vio. She proved her power so I think this is a waste of time continuing to devote all your posts arguing with her Safari, especially as the chap bandwagon is more legitimate and it seems like so far you have stuck to easy town statements. fos

I'm not a fan of too many roleclaims on Day 1, especially since we don't have a large number of players to begin with. I give chap credit for declaring his views on whether we should consider a no lynch, and while I disagree with him, I do not believe he should be lynched based on what amounts to a difference of opinion.

[strike wolf]

I'm going to echo victor's sentiment. I don't really see the reasoning behind the continued argument with vio. She proved her power so I think this is a waste of time continuing to devote all your posts arguing with her Safari, especially as the chap bandwagon is more legitimate and it seems like so far you have stuck to easy town statements. fos

I'm not a fan of too many roleclaims on Day 1, especially since we don't have a large number of players to begin with. I give chap credit for declaring his views on whether we should consider a no lynch, and while I disagree with him, I do not believe he should be lynched based on what amounts to a difference of opinion.

Well I personally don't see a claim or a vote necessary to put some discussion up on chap (I have neither voted him or asked him to claim and if the deadline is tomorrow I would say we shouldn't rush a claim/lynch today) and I would say that avoiding the conversation all together while continuing to bicker with vio is not really progressing anything. As far as the rest, what do you have to say about him wanting to pressure jonty? or any of the other factors on the case?

[safariguy5]

I believe him wanting to pressure jonty is basically a symptom of chap not wanting to end the day with a no lynch. Basically, he figured since jonty had some votes on him, why not go ahead and pressure him for a roleclaim?

What it really comes down to (and what I've asked views from everyone already) is whether or not we believe that we have gotten enough information from this day, and whether we want to consider a no lynch. As I've said, usually I'm fine with more than 1 roleclaims in Day 1 assuming the cases are semi justified. But I see no really good alternate cases here, and with only 11 players, I worry about revealing too much information to mafia too early in the game. I'm not in favor of forcing a case, and I believe we have enough information from Day 1 to at least consider a no lynch.

[edocsil]

For a few reasons Mr. S and I think it is best to extend the deadline a bit, largely due to the absent players. Tentative deadline Wed.

[chapcrap]

About jonty:

I already explained this before. We were pressuring Vio because of supposed inactiveness at other times in mafia and on the site as a whole. With that as the predecessor, I saw no reason to not pressure jonty into a claim since we were basically just pressuring for no reason anyway.

About my day one thoughts:

I do believe that we should have a lynch today. It is most likely a day 1 lynch will result in a townie being taken down (that's just odds). However, the town has to make lynches, otherwise there is zero chance of scum being killed. This is my reasoning to say that anyone who doesn't want a lynch is scummy. If I were scum, I would love to have not lynch.

About my activity:

After Vio and jonty, I asked PCM where he was because he appeared to be inactive to me. A little while later, saf decided to vote Tails for the same thing, so I went along with it, because inactivity is all the same, so it didn't matter to me which inactive was pressured. How is this scummy? It isn't.

I didn't view Victor as being scummy. So, when Tails tries to say something about Victor for having his usual behavior and pointing out the obvious (which isn't a bad thing), I called Tails out and said that if he wanted to call Vic out, he might as well call himself out because he hadn't done anything. I don't think anything I did there was scummy.

I think that Tails jumped back at me in an OMGUS type of way. I don't condone that, but it wasn't inherently scummy. However, when strike, went along with and even voted me for nothing more that voting inactives and calling Tails out, that seems a little strange. It seems to me like strike is trying to get the ball rolling on lynching me. In addition, strike seemed to side with saf previously about the fact that it is dangerous to lynch people in a game this small. He didn't right out say that he agreed with saf, but almost. And I have seen him post in numerous other games that a day 1 lynch is almost always necessary unless you get many claims (3 or so). This behavior seems quite out of character for strike.

About VioIet:

Give it a rest with her. She has proven her ability. While she could be a mafia double voter, it seems unlikely. Either way, it's not like any more information will be gained from her without a lynch and that seems like a bad idea.

FASTPOSTED by edoc.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

However, when strike, went along with and even voted me for nothing more that voting inactives and calling Tails out, that seems a little strange.

Strike has never voted for you in this game. He FOS'ed you.

After Vio and jonty, I asked PCM where he was because he appeared to be inactive to me. A little while later, saf decided to vote Tails for the same thing, so I went along with it, because inactivity is all the same, so it didn't matter to me which inactive was pressured. How is this scummy? It isn't.

It isn't exactly townish, either. Voting inactives is a last resort, in lieu of real leads. Scum may employ this technique almost with impunity, because it doesn't really harm anyone and it appears (to some people) that they're contributing.

I didn't view Victor as being scummy. So, when Tails tries to say something about Victor for having his usual behavior and pointing out the obvious (which isn't a bad thing), I called Tails out and said that if he wanted to call Vic out, he might as well call himself out because he hadn't done anything. I don't think anything I did there was scummy.

You're stuck on repeat.



My inactivity was irrelevant. It was D1 joke phase, I didn't miss anything. I joined the game after I accumulated some votes, made a contribution, which included an observation of scummy behavior and a partial meta. Isn't that the supposed goal of voting inactives? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have posted, thereby negating your purpose for an inactive vote? You can't have it both ways here.

I do believe that we should have a lynch today. It is most likely a day 1 lynch will result in a townie being taken down (that's just odds). However, the town has to make lynches, otherwise there is zero chance of scum being killed. This is my reasoning to say that anyone who doesn't want a lynch is scummy. If I were scum, I would love to have not lynch.

Textbook answer. Rationalization. Also, I can't help but notice you have a problem with the proposed no lynch. You would think, logically, that you would then direct your vote to the player who proposed it, or someone who supported it, and yet you've got your vote on me, who hasn't said anything regarding it.

I think that Tails jumped back at me in an OMGUS type of way. I don't condone that, but it wasn't inherently scummy. However, when strike, went along with and even voted me for nothing more that voting inactives and calling Tails out, that seems a little strange. It seems to me like strike is trying to get the ball rolling on lynching me. In addition, strike seemed to side with saf previously about the fact that it is dangerous to lynch people in a game this small. He didn't right out say that he agreed with saf, but almost. And I have seen him post in numerous other games that a day 1 lynch is almost always necessary unless you get many claims (3 or so). This behavior seems quite out of character for strike.

You are now redirecting.



So let's add this to my previous list:

• Skimming
• Rationalization
• Redirecting whilst under fire
• You still have a vote on me, even when your reasons have been debunked
• Inconsistent behavior

Lookit, chap, I realize the chances of catching scum on the first day is small, but you keep dropping all these tells. And maybe you aren't scum; who knows? But all these inconsistencies keep adding up, and you seem the likeliest target today, imo. Call it omgus, if you so desire, but that's a thin veil, and only one point amongst all the other tells.

-Tails

[chapcrap]

I don't desire to call it OMGUS.

I haven't been advocating a vote for you. I realize my vote is still on you, but it doesn't mean anything. I am the only one. I just find it easier to unvote and vote all at once. But, if will make you feel better, I will unvote.

You are right about strike not voting me. I don't know why I thought he did. Perhaps it was in another mafia game that he voted for me. I have probably joined to many. I am in 5 or 6 active games at the moment.

However, my thoughts about strike are true. You dismiss them because of the fire you against me right now, but he advocates lynches on day 1. I have seen him do multiple times. And now it seems as though he is trying for a no lynch. That's scummy.

So, about the 5 points you think I'm scummy:

• Skimming: I didn't skim, I just forgot...perceived as the same and I can't really prove any different.
• Rationalization: Umm, since when is it bad to be rational?
• Redirecting whilst under fire: Redirecting? All I did was talk about the actions of myself and those surrounding me. If my doing that brought to light someone who is acting out of character, then good for me and good for the town. Should I stop trying to find other cases just because you think I have acted scummy? I don't think so.
• You still have a vote on me, even when your reasons have been debunked: Fixed
• Inconsistent behavior: What have I done that is inconsistent? I have been changing my story around. I have been very consistent actually.

So, other than a little mixup on strike's vote (which didn't happen until my last post), I don't really see that I've done anything wrong.

[safariguy5]

I don't desire to call it OMGUS.

I haven't been advocating a vote for you. I realize my vote is still on you, but it doesn't mean anything. I am the only one. I just find it easier to unvote and vote all at once. But, if will make you feel better, I will unvote.

You are right about strike not voting me. I don't know why I thought he did. Perhaps it was in another mafia game that he voted for me. I have probably joined to many. I am in 5 or 6 active games at the moment.

However, my thoughts about strike are true. You dismiss them because of the fire you against me right now, but he advocates lynches on day 1. I have seen him do multiple times. And now it seems as though he is trying for a no lynch. That's scummy.

So, about the 5 points you think I'm scummy:

• Skimming: I didn't skim, I just forgot...perceived as the same and I can't really prove any different.
• Rationalization: Umm, since when is it bad to be rational?
• Redirecting whilst under fire: Redirecting? All I did was talk about the actions of myself and those surrounding me. If my doing that brought to light someone who is acting out of character, then good for me and good for the town. Should I stop trying to find other cases just because you think I have acted scummy? I don't think so.
• You still have a vote on me, even when your reasons have been debunked: Fixed
• Inconsistent behavior: What have I done that is inconsistent? I have been changing my story around. I have been very consistent actually.

So, other than a little mixup on strike's vote (which didn't happen until my last post), I don't really see that I've done anything wrong.

To say that we should have Day 1 lynches is very dependent on the game. As you said in your previous post, usually the large amount of activity to warrant a no lynch is usually 3 claims. But if you apply that to this game, 3 claims means about 25% of the players are going to claim, which gives mafia a ton of information to use. So we have to tailor our expectations to the game size and other conditions.

By analogy, let's say someone taps you on the shoulder. Depending on where you are, you might react differently. If you're walking on the street in the middle of the day, you'll probably respond by turning around and saying hello. If you're walking in a dark alleyway around midnight, you might turn around and try and punch the guy.

These are different responses, but completely reasonable given the circumstances. I say this because sticking to an absolute can get you in a lot of trouble. Go back and look at Albarezzi Mafia where one wagon led to another and we ended up with something close to a massclaim on day 1. Sticking the the idea that we need to have a lynch Day 1 can lead us down that very unpredictable road. We have to adapt strategies to account for different variables, and that's why with a small game and already 1 claim, I'm willing to consider a no lynch.

[pancakemix]

Not to burst your analogy bubble, but in Albarezzi we definitely lynched Day 1. Caught scum too.

Try Zelda.The multiple Links issue led me to argue for a NL on Day 1 in the face of a deadline and too many variables. I got the support of the town and we pulled it off at the end.

[strike wolf]

About jonty:

I already explained this before. We were pressuring Vio because of supposed inactiveness at other times in mafia and on the site as a whole. With that as the predecessor, I saw no reason to not pressure jonty into a claim since we were basically just pressuring for no reason anyway.

I would suggest there is a difference between voting the inactive and vvoting for someone with no reasoning. Active and no scumtells is a good reason to keep someone. Inactive and no other scum tells is at least grounds to say the person is unlikely to contribute.

About my day one thoughts:

I do believe that we should have a lynch today. It is most likely a day 1 lynch will result in a townie being taken down (that's just odds). However, the town has to make lynches, otherwise there is zero chance of scum being killed. This is my reasoning to say that anyone who doesn't want a lynch is scummy. If I were scum, I would love to have not lynch.

and your vote was still stuck on despite this.

About my activity:

After Vio and jonty, I asked PCM where he was because he appeared to be inactive to me. A little while later, saf decided to vote Tails for the same thing, so I went along with it, because inactivity is all the same, so it didn't matter to me which inactive was pressured. How is this scummy? It isn't.

I didn't view Victor as being scummy. So, when Tails tries to say something about Victor for having his usual behavior and pointing out the obvious (which isn't a bad thing), I called Tails out and said that if he wanted to call Vic out, he might as well call himself out because he hadn't done anything. I don't think anything I did there was scummy.

This is a little bit clearer. When you called out Tails earlier about that your reasoning seemed a bit skewed to me but this is at least followable.

I think that Tails jumped back at me in an OMGUS type of way. I don't condone that, but it wasn't inherently scummy. However, when strike, went along with and even voted me for nothing more that voting inactives and calling Tails out, that seems a little strange. It seems to me like strike is trying to get the ball rolling on lynching me. In addition, strike seemed to side with saf previously about the fact that it is dangerous to lynch people in a game this small. He didn't right out say that he agreed with saf, but almost. And I have seen him post in numerous other games that a day 1 lynch is almost always necessary unless you get many claims (3 or so). This behavior seems quite out of character for strike.

First of all, get the facts straight. I have not voted you I FOSed you and my initial FOS was before Tails had said anything about you. Secondly it was MeDeFe who initially suggested a no lynch. This then received a reply from Pancake right before I made my post. Safari at this point was still voting tailgunn3r I believe. As far as advertising a lynch, I do but when push comes to shove I can also be the one to definitively say it's time to no lynch. Look at Firefly Mafia if you do not believe me. Next, you've also taken that out of context. What I said was along the lines of I advertise pretty much no more than two power role claim or 3 vanilla claims in a game DEPENDING on size and discussion. This game is 5 people smaller than the mafia where I said that and when it gets down to 11 people that's a significant difference. We have one power role claimed already and as was pointed out this game is likely non-vanilla. It is a good time to limit claims only to very pressing cases. Finally you note tails as being omgus considering the situation your reaction towards me is fairly OMGus. How pressing is the fact it's OMGus? About the same as it is for Tails only you in my eyes have put forward less solid reasoning to your votes and have dropped more scumtells.

[/quote="chapcrap"]About VioIet:

Give it a rest with her. She has proven her ability. While she could be a mafia double voter, it seems unlikely. Either way, it's not like any more information will be gained from her without a lynch and that seems like a bad idea.

FASTPOSTED by edoc.[/quote]

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I don't desire to call it OMGUS.

So, about the 5 points you think I'm scummy:

1
• Skimming: I didn't skim, I just forgot...perceived as the same and I can't really prove any different.
  2
• Rationalization: Umm, since when is it bad to be rational?
  3
• Redirecting whilst under fire: Redirecting? All I did was talk about the actions of myself and those surrounding me. If my doing that brought to light someone who is acting out of character, then good for me and good for the town. Should I stop trying to find other cases just because you think I have acted scummy? I don't think so.
  4
• You still have a vote on me, even when your reasons have been debunked: Fixed
  5
• Inconsistent behavior: What have I done that is inconsistent? I have been changing my story around. I have been very consistent actually.

So, other than a little mixup on strike's vote (which didn't happen until my last post), I don't really see that I've done anything wrong.

I think that Tails jumped back at me in an OMGUS type of way.

1) Happens. Fine.
2)

rationalization
[rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz]  
ra·tion·al·ize
   [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA verb, -ized, -iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

3) No, you shouldn't necessarily cease scum-hunting, but if you're on the chopping block, trying to point out others' faults can be construed as a desperate move.
4) N/A
5) Again, your inconsistency lies in your opposition to the no lynch. You said:

I agree with Vic that we need a lynch. Anyone who says we don't is scummy, IMO. I'm not taking my vote off of Tails.

Generally we vote people whom we think are scummy, i.e. you should be voting MeDeFe. Not to mention the non sequitur of why you chose to associate my name with a no lynch.

-Tails

[jonty125]

About jonty:

I already explained this before. We were pressuring Vio because of supposed inactiveness at other times in mafia and on the site as a whole. With that as the predecessor, I saw no reason to not pressure jonty into a claim since we were basically just pressuring for no reason anyway.

The reason why we pressure an inactive is because they are no help to town because a) harder to get a lynch and b) don't hear their view and can't get scumtells

I thought you would have known this and are dropping scumtells left and right unvote vote chapcrap

[VioIet]

My vote is still on jonty because he failed to vote MeDeFe.

I have not yet removed my ??? vote from Jonty. I will do so before the Wednesday deadline.

I read through the dialogue between Tails and Jonty, but I need to re-read it again. In the meantime, this did catch my attention.

Safari, please clarify. Is the following a contradiction or a mis-statement? They seem to contradict, so you may need to elaborate on what you mean.

I'm not a fan of too many roleclaims on Day 1, especially since we don't have a large number of players to begin with.

As I've said, usually I'm fine with more than 1 roleclaims in Day 1 assuming the cases are semi justified.