On August 22 2011 21:13 chaos13 wrote:So Foolishness.
Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 11:14 Foolishness wrote:On August 22 2011 11:10 Jackal58 wrote:On August 22 2011 11:03 Foolishness wrote:
I was roleblocked last night.
I also took a hit last night.
I'm not sure I'm buying what you're selling.
Chaplain (Veteran) - as a consecrated priest and spiritual minister you are especially well equipped to handle the attacks of the unholy cultists, your time as a chaplain in the Liquidian militia doesn’t hurt a bit either . You have an extra night life which can absorb a single KP. You will be notified if it is expended, a roleblock divests you of your extra life.
I know...you could not believe how much my eyes widen when I got notified.
First, you claim a RB and hit. Then Jackal points out the role description in which it clearly states that a RB + hit on a veteran will kill them. Then you softclaim veteran by the nature of your response to him.
Then you absolutely refuse to confirm this soft claim, but shortly after have no problem confirming that it was actually a medic save rather than a vet's extra life.
This whole hesitation just says scum to me, but maybe I'm the only one thinking it.
Shortly after this we get into an interesting exchange with chaoser, Mig, and Foolishness.
Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:02 chaoser wrote:There is only conjecture as to who would hit you and also block you at the same time.
This only matters, of course, if you're telling the truth. I've seen mafia claim to be roleblocked when they really haven't been, I really wouldn't put it pass mafia to claim they were also hit, especially if it's you who is claiming to be blocked. I'll have to sleep on this.
That being said, mig, I have a question:
Your meta argument is null at best, you say I don't post with attitude as town yet you provide no examples of me doing it as mafia.
you said that to foolishness about him using meta to place suspicions against you but then you turn around and post this:
chaoser is playing completely out of character for his town play and is contributing nothing when he is a very strong player.
and yet have not provided examples of me acting the way I did as mafia. A bit hypocritical don't you think? What's with the flip flopping on stances? On one hand, you don't accept meta when it's against you, but on the other you use it freely against others?
And to foolishness, mig seems like the one you are most suspicious of, and yet instead of voting for him and pushing hard, you backed off with a "I wouldn't
mind lynching mig" followed by a "rayzorflash is an outstanding issue as well" When I was mafia in XXXVII I basically posted just that about a teammate and this was noted by Ver as something that mafia would do. Why aren't you pushing harder on mig?
This is really a rather empty post. Look at it. What information does he actually bring to the table? He questions Foolishness' claim, points out a contradiction in Mig's posts, and questions Foolishness again. All of this ends with a vote on Mig that happens a few posts later, but...it's not an analysis on Mig. The majority of it is pushing Foolishness rather than Mig.
Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:40 Foolishness wrote:
It's because I'm not sure what to make of the night events. I got roleblocked and shot. That's not something most people would do. Either way you got some pretty damning evidence against Mig there.
##Vote Mig
And then holy shit did this just happen? His "damning evidence" was Mig having a different approach to analyzing a different situation. That's real scummy right there, Mig must be mafia for sure. In other words, I would expect waaay more from you Foolish.
Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 17:51 Mig wrote:
Chaoser you are technically correct but really you are twisting my words around to try and make me appear scummy. Not all meta arguments are the same, you didn't see me disagreeing with other meta arguments foolish had made in the thread. But his meta argument about how my "attitude" was different and therefore mafia was incorrect. He provided no examples of me acting that way as mafia and that attitude hadn't done anything to hurt the town. My meta argument against you was completely different. As town I have seen you dominate and put a ton of effort into scum hunting. This game I see you writing complete fluff posts and providing no analysis while making an excuse for being busy. Anyone can look at your play in mafia 39 and see how different it is compared to this game. Foolishness' meta argument didn't show one way or the other whether I was town and it didn't show how I was harming the town with my play however your play style is a complete 180 from your normal town play and is considerably worse than normal for you.
So instead of providing any real analysis this game you started off with A) writing fluff posts B) voted for me basically just saying yea I agree with foolish then disappeared before the lynch and now C) you are twisting my words around to make me appear scummy when it should be obvious how different my argument was from the one foolish made.
#Vote: chaoser
Here we've got an OMGUS from Mig, although what I feel is a justified one. His defense, just like chaoser's original accusation, feels false to me. I'm really not seeing anything genuine here. Mig as a player has a tendency to become very involved in the game, actively scumhunting, leading people, and basically taking control. This is such a passive defense, and is weak for such a strong player. I don't see much substance to it. This isn't an accusation of Mig, I just want to see if anyone else felt the same way about this post as I did.
In summary:
Foolish makes scummy half-claim
chaoser votes for Mig based on a post that accused Foolish more than Mig
Foolish votes Mig on chaoser's "damning evidence"
Mig votes chaoser
This whole sequence of events is weird. All three of these guys are
good players. Why are so many strange posts coming from all three of them within such a short time?
Right now, these three (and Palmar, but I'll leave you alone for today I think) are my biggest suspects, and I think Foolishness is most likely to be scum out of them.
##Vote: FoolishnessAnd then something I feel needs to be tagged on the end here:
Oh look, it's Palmar! Was this a useful post? No. Was it necessary? No. So unless you're actually going to contribute something, please keep your posts to yourself.
EPT
rayzor ]
