Snake's WWE Invasion 'Royal Mafia Rumble'

[Ron Simmons]

Something I am noticing looking at the post counts... Family Guy is the 5th most active poster... yet I can't honestly remember a single thing he's said. I may need to have a re-read of his posts just to see whether he's posting things that are relevant, or whether they're just fluff posts to look like he's posting a lot (Same goes for Chris B, Carbomb, and brownie for that matter, though Chris B to a lesser extent. While with Carbomb I've only truly noticed his questions about things).

As far as Family Guy goes in my mind he's certainly with scum potential. He's said a few things that were overshadowed by Dan's meltdown that have me suspecting him majorly. He also made what I felt was quite an irrational/narrow focussed play against me, which doesn't strike me as normal for what I've seen in his general town play. Other people should look at this though, it's probably harder to form an objective opinion on someone when they're saying you should be lynched. Maybe I'm reading more into it than is merited, but as it stands I don't think so.

 

And I agree that we need to hear from the lower posters. There must be a few people there who are absolutely begging to be mod-killed. Even if you're scum and trying to "coast through" it kind of defeats the point of the game if you're not playing it, and if you win it'll be a hollow victory if you only got it through posting the minimum required number of posts and no more. Vacuous posts at that.

[FLips]

Can't we just replace Corey and Mesacret?. If there's one thing about this game that winds me up it's people who just join up and don't make an effort. It's not only a waste of our time, but there's people on the forum that legit want to get involved and will post more than 2 times over the space of a week.

 

Mod - Can you please replace Corey, Mesacret and anyone else who doesn't have an average of at least 1 post per real day?. They're wasting everyone's time and it's ruining the game.

[Mike Castle]

TripleA, I don't know about 1 post per real day, because the rules state 1 per 48 hours, but even then, prods are needed now I think on those guys. While I admit it's a legitimate tactic by scum players to survive as well, it's also an annoying one because they're not actively playing, which means even winning like it isn't so much winning by being any good, it's winning by avoiding playing.

[FLips]

TripleA, I don't know about 1 post per real day, because the rules state 1 per 48 hours, but even then, prods are needed now I think on those guys. While I admit it's a legitimate tactic by scum players to survive as well, it's also an annoying one because they're not actively playing, which means even winning like it isn't so much winning by being any good, it's winning by avoiding playing.

 

Tbh I think 48 hours is way too lenient unless V/LA'd or whatever. I asked the Mod to prod them ages ago and nothing was mentioned of it. I think sometimes rules should be stretched and replaced by common sense.

[Lawz]

I'll tell you what we do need to see more of Ron... action from the bottom posters.

 

Corey, Mesacret, Bugsey and Lawz all have under 10 posts (Corey has 2 total, and Mesacret just 3), so I will be expecting both of those to be posting much, much more this day phase. Otherwise I'll have to assume they are deliberately staying quiet to try and hide under the radar.

 

Nexus is still likely scum in my mind, Dan I'm sure is (but as has been mentioned, it is easy to get him lynched because of his play, so it does make me somewhat doubt myself because of that. I'd like to see him do more than attack the main posters this day phase).

 

Something I am noticing looking at the post counts... Family Guy is the 5th most active poster... yet I can't honestly remember a single thing he's said. I may need to have a re-read of his posts just to see whether he's posting things that are relevant, or whether they're just fluff posts to look like he's posting a lot (Same goes for Chris B, Carbomb, and brownie for that matter, though Chris B to a lesser extent. While with Carbomb I've only truly noticed his questions about things).

 

I am reading the thread as much as I possibly can and post my thoughts when I think they are deemed necessary. If I upped my post count just so it would appear I'm more active I'd probably be mentioned with family guy about not remembering my posts.

 

Also I think alot of the game thread is clogged up with useless posts and arguments that go around in circles and distract from the game. When I've been out for a few hours and come back and theres 7 pages of stuff to read with only 10 or less posts of any value that hurts the game I think.

[Teedy Kay]

I'll tell you what we do need to see more of Ron... action from the bottom posters.

 

Corey, Mesacret, Bugsey and Lawz all have under 10 posts (Corey has 2 total, and Mesacret just 3), so I will be expecting both of those to be posting much, much more this day phase. Otherwise I'll have to assume they are deliberately staying quiet to try and hide under the radar.

 

Nexus is still likely scum in my mind, Dan I'm sure is (but as has been mentioned, it is easy to get him lynched because of his play, so it does make me somewhat doubt myself because of that. I'd like to see him do more than attack the main posters this day phase).

 

Something I am noticing looking at the post counts... Family Guy is the 5th most active poster... yet I can't honestly remember a single thing he's said. I may need to have a re-read of his posts just to see whether he's posting things that are relevant, or whether they're just fluff posts to look like he's posting a lot (Same goes for Chris B, Carbomb, and brownie for that matter, though Chris B to a lesser extent. While with Carbomb I've only truly noticed his questions about things).

 

I am reading the thread as much as I possibly can and post my thoughts when I think they are deemed necessary. If I upped my post count just so it would appear I'm more active I'd probably be mentioned with family guy about not remembering my posts.

 

Also I think alot of the game thread is clogged up with useless posts and arguments that go around in circles and distract from the game. When I've been out for a few hours and come back and theres 7 pages of stuff to read with only 10 or less posts of any value that hurts the game I think.

 

This!

 

So far this game has gone so far around the houses with nothing actually being achieved it's quite laughable.

 

Then when you finally do come in here to post you seem to get jumped on (mainly by a frenzied TripleA) that you're scum.

 

I'm sticking with my exact same feelings toward the end of Day 1, I feel his actions across the day were scummy, I couldn't be swayed into voting for SMS, and I don't think so far I'll be swayed into voting elsewhere, so;

 

Vote: Ron Simmons

[Chris B]

In the last few games, I've been on the defensive from the start, which has made me very high in everyone's attention. I'm trying to pay attention in this game and seeing what information I can find that could be useful. I don't know if I'm going to be aiming right, but I'm looking for players consistently backing each other up. I can't see how I'm blending into the background. But, let's see if this one sticks in your memory, shall we, Mike?

 

Here's you defending Triple A.

 

To be fair Dan, TripleA never really seemed eager for a no lynch, and more seemed to think it was a good idea if we couldn't really decide on a mutual lynch, and was unsure as to why it was a bad idea when I first said as much (not sure if he realizes why it's not a good idea or not yet though).

 

So I don't really think chastising TripleA for even having a no lynch as a consideration is a worthwhile direction.

 

Here's you defending Triple A again.

 

 

First off, I liked SMS' big post, and he's right... TripleA didn't actively give anything away on retrospect, I think it was a knee jerk glance over and "that seems right" thing that we all did. So he shouldn't be thought of as definite town. However to the same end, I've not found him to be scummy either, so thus far I see no reason to suspect him.

 

Regards the vote count, first, the doublevoter could easily be scum. There's also roles where the scum can steal a vote from a player and place it elsewhere (I think it's called Politician), and thus if they've taken the vote from someone not currently voting, we wouldn't necessarily know about it.

 

Also, if it's a scum power, it means SMS is town, if it's a town power, it means SMS is town or scum.

 

Plus, I'm not a fan of your idea TripleA, scum could easily play it to get whatever result we want (If it's a scum role of course), if they swing their extra vote onto you, for instance, then we wont know if one of those players is a double voter or whether someone can steal votes, or whether there's another double voter out there.

 

Then there's the fact that the person in question may not even know they are a double voter. So they could be a town unknown double voter, or even a scum unknown double voter.

 

I'd say the best thing we can do is be extra careful about things instead.

 

Now... regards TripleA's earlier post about how SMS and Dan seem very eager to get Ron lynched... I'm not happy with anyone who's eager to lynch Ron at the moment. I'm pretty sure from what I saw earlier (regarding what I told him to shut up about) he's town, which leads me to believe scum also saw what I did, and are trying to get him lynched.

 

Here's you defending Triple A again

 

 

The thing is now though, we've seen aggressive play from Dan and Ron, and SMS has been backed into a corner for ages. If any of them get to L-1 then it's blindingly obvious they'll hammer me home to save themselves.

Depends, if they believe you to be town, then they wont, because while a known town lynch isn't as good as an unknown town lynch. (and if you're town, letting yourself be lynched is allowing known town to be lynched), if most people suspect someone else (let's say for arguments sake Dan), and he just throws his vote on you to save himself, everyone will want to lynch him tomorrow anyway, thus wasting a day for town. The best play for them if town, if they're at L-1, is to accept being lynched to save wasting the town's time the next day.

 

Also, while I don't agree with Snake putting you at L-1. The other option was to basically modkill you for it, so you still got off light even with being placed at L-1. As I don't have stuff in my rules that leads to putting people at L-1 etc. and instead is only "modkilled or replaced", with the quoting of the role PM stuff I'd have had no choice but to modkill the slot.

 

I'd say take this as a lesson in future, if the rules say "don't quote the role PM"... don't quote any part of said role PM except for the role, and character name (which you're allowed to quote).

 

(Though again, this is why I suggest all mods in future post an example Vanilla Role PM at the start of each game below the rules, so things like this never happen anyway, it's actually a requirement on Mafia Scum itself, even if your game doesn't have any Vanillas, purely because it gives the win condition and prevents town winning just by everyone going "what is the 9th letter in the win condition?" etc. (And I wont even entertain us winning through that means in this game, as it's against the spirit of the game)).

 

And Randy, my point is the lynch on TripleA would be because ONE person decided to lynch him, not the majority (another reason I don't like putting people at L-1 or whatever, because it changes the game), and it would mean someone is attempting to take full control of the lynch with their own vote. That is not something that is done for pro-town reasons.

 

Even if he flipped scum, it's not a pro-town reason for voting him, and is more likely than not would be fellow scum voting him to gain bonus points from town. Lynching TripleA with a single vote is an anti-town thing, hence why if there's a vig, they should take out anyone who attempts it, because it would be something they did for their own agenda, not for the town's.

 

And again.

 

It also defeats the point of the game, doesn't it?

 

Mike - does this line of questioning happen on the Mafia Scum website?

Never from what I've seen, because it isn't really in the spirit of the game.

 

And TripleA, by you, yourself, posting a line that states exactly what was in the PM means you broke the rules, people were trying to get you to cut off that line of questioning, but you put yourself in that position.

 

On the plus side, your earlier actions show you to be town, and I think even that shows that you're naive town at least, so anyone who throws a vote on you at this stage should be lynched tomorrow (or if we have a vig, taken out tonight).

 

Then, I point out that Family Guy or Triple A become potential suspects because of how therandysavage posted (after you'd said there was nothing there at all), you suddenly accuse Family Guy of posting fluff. You were very, very quick to point out that it would be anti-town to lynch Triple A in the last day-phase. Meanwhile, if anyone pushes in a direction you're not happy with, you appear to accuse them of not scum hunting. This is stinking to high heaven.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Dan - here's the scummiest thing I've seen from you. You said, in the last day, while you were grandstanding, that you'd change your vote if a consensus appeared to be agreed. You then spectacularly failed to do so. Considering the way you played yesterday, did you have any intentions of following through with that?

 

Nexus - you only answered part of the question. As I said, what do you think of yesterday's lynch now? And why did you ignore that part of the question?

[Mike Castle]

TripleA, I don't know about 1 post per real day, because the rules state 1 per 48 hours, but even then, prods are needed now I think on those guys. While I admit it's a legitimate tactic by scum players to survive as well, it's also an annoying one because they're not actively playing, which means even winning like it isn't so much winning by being any good, it's winning by avoiding playing.

 

Tbh I think 48 hours is way too lenient unless V/LA'd or whatever. I asked the Mod to prod them ages ago and nothing was mentioned of it. I think sometimes rules should be stretched and replaced by common sense.

48 hours is fine, if it's dropped to 24 then you have the issue that someone who has something planned one night after work can wind up with warnings/replacement just because of it. It is a game, and so should be secondary to anything in real life. So 48 hours is fine to that end.

 

And the above posts are correct in that often arguments in these games go round in circles, or can easily degenerate into "no u!" type of arguments which don't lead anywhere and just become pointless squabbling. The tough bit is realizing that's what's happening when you're in the middle of one of those arguments, if you're trying to make your point heard it's not always possible to just back down and leave it. However I think some people (and I will definitely count myself in this) need to stop trying to argue a point to the person you feel is scummy. For instance, I feel Dan is scum, it's all well and good to question him on things that I feel make him scummy, but it would be a waste of posts to get into an argument with him about whether he's scum or not, because whether he's scum or town, he isn't about to back down, and if I feel he's scummy, arguing with him wont change my opinion of him anyway. It's everyone else we should be pointing out the case to, rather than the person the case is on.

 

Now Chris... your post is interesting if it wasn't for the fact that I've said similar things about other players if I'm not feeling a case on them. To say that I don't find someone scummy isn't defending them, it's being honest.

 

The first bit was explaining to Dan that his statement that TripleA was pushing a no lynch was false (Which it was, that much is fact).

 

The second one is me simply saying that while TripleA didn't give away anything in the role PM stuff (and it was suggested he had), I also don't find him scummy. I fail to see how I'm "defending" him.

 

The third one is quite obviously pointing out that it's anti-town to lynch TripleA at that point because it would not be a majority lynch. Are you suggesting it would be in town's best interests for a SINGLE person to decide the lynch that day?

 

The fourth one is the same as the above.

 

I fail to see your point, at all, in any of that. What you are claiming as defending someone, is quite clearly nothing of the sort.

 

And show me an example of where I've said someone isn't scum hunting because they're pushing in a direction I'm not comfortable with. You can't just say something is true and show no evidence.

 

As for Family Guy... I note you are misquoting me (is that deliberate?) I said I need to look at his posts to SEE if it was fluff. I haven't said he IS posting fluff. There's a massive difference there, and you know it.

 

So why are you trying to twist what I'm saying Chris?

[Ron Simmons]

Also I think alot of the game thread is clogged up with useless posts and arguments that go around in circles and distract from the game. When I've been out for a few hours and come back and theres 7 pages of stuff to read with only 10 or less posts of any value that hurts the game I think.

To be fair any post is potentially of value in this thread.

 

However, I don't think it's completely fair to name you with TMS and co, your posts have generally been insightful as opposed to others who have just kind of turned up and said "I agree!" etc.

[Ron Simmons]

So far this game has gone so far around the houses with nothing actually being achieved it's quite laughable.

 

Then when you finally do come in here to post you seem to get jumped on (mainly by a frenzied TripleA) that you're scum.

 

I'm sticking with my exact same feelings toward the end of Day 1, I feel his actions across the day were scummy, I couldn't be swayed into voting for SMS, and I don't think so far I'll be swayed into voting elsewhere, so;

 

Vote: Ron Simmons

What exactly do you expect to be achieved within a day? It's a text based game, so it's not as if there's likely to be a bundle of clues from the get go.

 

If you feel my actions across the day were scummy tell me how? Although I wound up voting for SMS throughout the day if you look I was actually against it. I didn't rush to vote for him by any means. I've also been pretty balanced in regards to each posters role, for instance I could quite easily fire on after Dan Williams right now, but I haven't as I don't think he's scum.

 

Plus, how can you justify voting for someone at the start of a day? You haven't asked any questions, you haven't given me any points to which I can respond in terms of why you think I'm scum...if we all aimlessly vote then there's no point in playing, you know? There's got to be some element of hunting.

[CoreyVandal]

Hi all, I'm really sorry about my lack of participation, had some personal stuff going on. I will try and make up for it, but I understand if people would rather have me replaced.

 

Oh, any the laptops showing the weird view of the UKFF, how do you change it back again? Thanks

[Burchill's Buddy]

Also I think alot of the game thread is clogged up with useless posts and arguments that go around in circles and distract from the game. When I've been out for a few hours and come back and theres 7 pages of stuff to read with only 10 or less posts of any value that hurts the game I think.

To be fair any post is potentially of value in this thread.

 

However, I don't think it's completely fair to name you with TMS and co, your posts have generally been insightful as opposed to others who have just kind of turned up and said "I agree!" etc.

I have to agree with Ron here, a lot of what people post is fluff, but sometimes that is just as telling as someone who posts constantly, or not at all. It's noticing the patterns of certain players and when they deviate that I find interesting about these games.

[Mike Castle]

Hi all, I'm really sorry about my lack of participation, had some personal stuff going on. I will try and make up for it, but I understand if people would rather have me replaced.

 

Oh, any the laptops showing the weird view of the UKFF, how do you change it back again? Thanks

Click on option on the top right of the thread, (I think that's where it still is for your current view) then choose standard.

 

And I don't want you replaced, just want activity is all. Rather than posting a "sorry I've had other stuff" post, I'd suggest just getting involved right off the bat, otherwise you'll be accused of fluff posting

 

/advice post.

[Chris B]

Now Chris... your post is interesting if it wasn't for the fact that I've said similar things about other players if I'm not feeling a case on them. To say that I don't find someone scummy isn't defending them, it's being honest.

 

Really? Who? Because I've gone back, and I can't find you consistently saying how town you think someone is in the way you have with Triple A. It's not about the separate posts. It's about the overall pattern. And that's not a pattern you've done for anyone else. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll be able to find other players you've consistently pointed out how town you think they are.

 

And show me an example of where I've said someone isn't scum hunting because they're pushing in a direction I'm not comfortable with. You can't just say something is true and show no evidence.

 

I already have. It must have been in one of those posts you don't remember. I pointed out that you got yourself involved in Ron and Dan's back and forth, on the basis that it wasn't scum hunting. You also had a go at me for insinuating that Bristep was potentially distancing himself - when I asked you whether you thought that was worth my time looking into, you fell very quiet again.

 

As for Family Guy... I note you are misquoting me (is that deliberate?) I said I need to look at his posts to SEE if it was fluff. I haven't said he IS posting fluff. There's a massive difference there, and you know it.

 

So why are you trying to twist what I'm saying Chris?

 

Am I balls.

 

Something I am noticing looking at the post counts... Family Guy is the 5th most active poster... yet I can't honestly remember a single thing he's said. I may need to have a re-read of his posts just to see whether he's posting things that are relevant, or whether they're just fluff posts to look like he's posting a lot

 

How is that twisting your words? What else could you POSSIBLY be saying there? You're blatantly pointing it out, and suggesting that you may need to have a re-read to confirm. You're not pointing out that you need to look at his posts.

 

There's no twisting there. It's not misquoting. With the part I've bolded, it's a completely fair summation. If it isn't, please explain what you were actually saying, and how you feel I've twisted it.

[Mike Castle]

Okay, I'll hit your points one at a time, and I'll try not to be condesending in it, because to be quite honest, it would be extremely easy to be.

 

Now Chris... your post is interesting if it wasn't for the fact that I've said similar things about other players if I'm not feeling a case on them. To say that I don't find someone scummy isn't defending them, it's being honest.

 

Really? Who? Because I've gone back, and I can't find you consistently saying how town you think someone is in the way you have with Triple A.

Ron for a start (I initially attacked him, then noticed something, and I am pretty confident he's town, have you noticed how I've kept well away from his wagon, and stated that voting him is a bad choice?)

 

And show me an example of where I've said someone isn't scum hunting because they're pushing in a direction I'm not comfortable with. You can't just say something is true and show no evidence.

 

I already have. It must have been in one of those posts you don't remember. I pointed out that you got yourself involved in Ron and Dan's back and forth, on the basis that it wasn't scum hunting. You also had a go at me for insinuating that Bristep was potentially distancing himself - when I asked you whether you thought that was worth my time looking into, you fell very quiet again.

You mean that back and forth that was going nowhere at the time except for a "no u" argument... the same type I've recently pointed out is utterly pointless because you're trying to convince the guy you are saying is scum... that he is scum?

 

As for Bristep, what are you expecting me to say to such a comment? I know I'm town, so why would I want you to waste time looking into something that I know wont lead anywhere? However if I say as much you would just claim I had something to hide, it was a question that, whatever the answer, you could have claimed I was scum because of it. It was pointless and a waste of time, if you want to look into something, get off your keister and go look. Don't go asking my permission for it.

 

As for Family Guy... I note you are misquoting me (is that deliberate?) I said I need to look at his posts to SEE if it was fluff. I haven't said he IS posting fluff. There's a massive difference there, and you know it.

 

So why are you trying to twist what I'm saying Chris?

 

Am I balls.

 

Something I am noticing looking at the post counts... Family Guy is the 5th most active poster... yet I can't honestly remember a single thing he's said. I may need to have a re-read of his posts just to see whether he's posting things that are relevant, or whether they're just fluff posts to look like he's posting a lot

 

How is that twisting your words? What else could you POSSIBLY be saying there? You're blatantly pointing it out, and suggesting that you may need to have a re-read to confirm. You're not pointing out that you need to look at his posts.

 

There's no twisting there. It's not misquoting. With the part I've bolded, it's a completely fair summation. If it isn't, please explain what you were actually saying, and how you feel I've twisted it.

I've fixed the bolding for you. It's easy to claim something when you try and ignore the rest of the sentence isn't it? The bit I've bolded there states I need to have a re-read to find out whether it's fluff or not. So yes, you did misquote me claiming that Family Guy was only posting fluff. Because as shown above, I have yet to read all of his posts to find that out.

 

I also note you've chosen to ignore my responses on what you claimed was buddying with TripleA, instead deciding to brush the actual cases of what you call buddying under the carpet in favour of a catch all statement of buddying.

 

So, either you are twisting my words, or you are legitimately misreading what I am saying, but may I suggest you calm it before we again get into another pointless debate over what amounts to nothing.

 

Saying you agree with someone's points, or pointing out that potentially ending day 1 with a lynch comprised of a single person (You still haven't told me how a single person lynching TripleA would be pro-town yet, which I expect you to do if you intend to argue that point as well) is not scummy. Deliberately buddying is. There's a huge difference, in fact if you wanted to call me on something, you could have suggested somewhat of a chainsaw defence on TripleA if anything (attacking someone for attacking him), but buddying it is not.

 

Just as it's not scummy to point out that you intend to go and look something over, and it's not scummy to notice that an argument will lead to nothing more than a mass of pages of back and forth bickering and pointing it out in an attempt to prevent it degenerating into nothingness, leading to being a complete bastard to re-read later on.