Snake's WWE Invasion 'Royal Mafia Rumble'

[Carbomb]

brownie, where are you getting "lynch the lower posters" from?

 

You just voted for Corey, and you got TripleA to change his vote from one low poster to another. It's easy to construe that you're advocating it. I'm not saying Corey should be allowed to keep coasting, but it's not unreasonable to make the assumption that you ARE saying "lynch the lower posters" from your (and TripleA's) actions.

[Lawz]

Right I've been reading over this thread a little since I got back from having wild sex birthday celebrations (I wish) and the next few days I should be around but on Saturday I'll definitely be out, maybe the same with sunday so I'm going to set my stance here now.

 

This day phase has been pretty dry, from the certainty of the SMS lynch we've been left with scraps on who could possibly be scum, the death of therandysavage added more confusion as he was a hider but still managed to die. I think all the arguing may of been distracting from the game coupled with low posters (that includes me which I apologise for but part of it is being busy and my general style of posting, not just in the game but on the UKFF as a whole)

 

Ron was my main concern, however I have been re-reading his posts and seeing what he has to stay and whilst he is still one of my suspects because of the idea of third parties when it was not even established his play since then has seemed less scummy and for now (at least this day phase I won't be voting for him)

 

Nexus whilst eager and probably a bit stupid has calmed and hasn't alerted me as alarmingly as others have (which I'm getting onto)

 

Snake - definite scum, but he's the mod. DAMN.

 

That brings me to Dan, and the biggest tell from him has been "I hope scum win". Too forcefull for my liking and could be a double bluff with him appearing to be disgruntled town and actually being scum or could be a genuinly frustrated townie angry that he's not controlling things. I honestly don't like the feel I get from him though after reading through once again and for this day phase thats where my vote is going to land. There is time to change this of course as the deadline is still a few days away, but with week and weekend of extended 25th birthday partying to do, I want to get this in now.

 

Therefore:

 

Vote: Dan Williams

[Jaffa]

brownie, where are you getting "lynch the lower posters" from? The only one that currently requires replacing has been replaced. The only other player who may wind up replaced is bristep, and he's mid-range on the postings.

 

Your cases that you posted on the previous page involved the 2 lowest posting players and someone who hasn't posted this day phase, despite being online for hours. This has led to 2 votes on someone who has given us nothing and could be crucial to us.

 

We also can't just say "right, replace X" it doesn't work that way, they're only replaced if they stop posting entirely, or they themselves request it. So just not targetting them does us no good.

 

I know it doesn't work like that, but a certain level of commitment is required otherwise this is pointless.

 

So... brownie, questions:

 

Why should we let Corey continue to post nothing each time?

 

We shouldn't. He should either start getting involved with the game (he's had over a week to get started) or he should be replaced.

 

Why are you saying we're trying to lynch the lower posters when only one of the main suspects of myself and Chris (the two recent people stating who we suspect) are low posters?

Because Corey has 2 votes based on very little (as far as his content). And you know as well as I do the mob mentality and following that can happen on this forum (you've been victim of it!) and i can see him being lynched very soon, which I think is a waste.

[Mike Castle]

Your cases that you posted on the previous page involved the 2 lowest posting players and someone who hasn't posted this day phase, despite being online for hours. This has led to 2 votes on someone who has given us nothing and could be crucial to us.

He has given us something though, he's given us the knowledge that he's avoided actually taking any kind of stance on anything so far in the game. Does that not strike you as odd?

 

As for bristep (the guy who's yet to post this day phase) I only noticed that after my case on him, as I only checked who had posted this day phase once I had got to that point in the re-read. Should I ignore my case on him because he hasn't posted this day? If he got replaced, should that erase my current read on that slot? If so, why?

 

I know it doesn't work like that, but a certain level of commitment is required otherwise this is pointless.

Maybe, but it's a common scum tactic to only post the bare minimum to fly under the radar, those people wont be replaced, so the only way to remove them is to lynch them or let scum kill them. Scum are unlikely to kill them (unless they believe a power role to be hidden there) because it allows potential mislynches. Lynching them is bad if you have nothing to go on. However, in the case of Corey, so far we have something to go on, and he's in no fear of being replaced. Do we leave him alive until the last day before pulling him up?

 

We shouldn't. He should either start getting involved with the game (he's had over a week to get started) or he should be replaced.

If he doesn't get involved more, yet continues posting the bare minimum, how do we expect him to be replaced?

 

Because Corey has 2 votes based on very little (as far as his content). And you know as well as I do the mob mentality and following that can happen on this forum (you've been victim of it!) and i can see him being lynched very soon, which I think is a waste.

Why is it a waste? It's only a waste if you believe him to be town. If you're completely unsure, it cannot be a waste because you don't know his alignment (from what little he has posted, it's scummy because of the continual fence sitting). If you believe he's scum, it's a hit anyway.

 

So, if people believe he is scum... how would it be a waste to lynch him? Surely it's more of a waste to lynch a high poster that you're unsure of, than a low poster you're unsure of, because the high poster is more likely to slip if they're scum, and if they're town, they're more likely to be involved and active.

[Jaffa]

Your cases that you posted on the previous page involved the 2 lowest posting players and someone who hasn't posted this day phase, despite being online for hours. This has led to 2 votes on someone who has given us nothing and could be crucial to us.

He has given us something though, he's given us the knowledge that he's avoided actually taking any kind of stance on anything so far in the game. Does that not strike you as odd?

 

I definately want to know why he's only posted 4 times and if he's got any opinions or theories, but I don't think voting for him is the best way to do it. He could be nervous about his role (Nexus or WWE), he could be struggling to reach the internet, he might not be bothered, he might be struggling to keep up - we don't know and we need him to respond. If he doesn't respond with anything of substance or a valid explaination of any kind then the mod should assess whether he's contributing to the game. The thing is Mike, with 18 alive, i'm worried we are going to lose a member of the WWE.

 

As for bristep (the guy who's yet to post this day phase) I only noticed that after my case on him, as I only checked who had posted this day phase once I had got to that point in the re-read. Should I ignore my case on him because he hasn't posted this day? If he got replaced, should that erase my current read on that slot? If so, why?

 

I have no issue with the Bristep case. He's contributed already and i'm sure he'll answer your case. If he doesn't return and were to be replaced, then of course you keep the opinions you've already formed on the slot. But ultimately, we want to lynch The Nexus and I don't think Bristep is Nexus at the moment. Hopefully your questions will be answered and give us a further insight.

 

I know it doesn't work like that, but a certain level of commitment is required otherwise this is pointless.

Maybe, but it's a common scum tactic to only post the bare minimum to fly under the radar, those people wont be replaced, so the only way to remove them is to lynch them or let scum kill them. Scum are unlikely to kill them (unless they believe a power role to be hidden there) because it allows potential mislynches. Lynching them is bad if you have nothing to go on. However, in the case of Corey, so far we have something to go on, and he's in no fear of being replaced. Do we leave him alive until the last day before pulling him up?

 

It's also a common tactic for the scum to be vocal and to be active (at least on this board, it may be different on MS. We don't leave Corey alive until the last day, but it's only day 2 and I think we can afford slightly more patience.

 

We shouldn't. He should either start getting involved with the game (he's had over a week to get started) or he should be replaced.

If he doesn't get involved more, yet continues posting the bare minimum, how do we expect him to be replaced?

 

Mod discretion (if they have any). This is a game afterall and it's simply not fair on people like you, Tripper, Chris, Ron and others to potentially lose because some people can't be bothered.

 

Because Corey has 2 votes based on very little (as far as his content). And you know as well as I do the mob mentality and following that can happen on this forum (you've been victim of it!) and i can see him being lynched very soon, which I think is a waste.

Why is it a waste? It's only a waste if you believe him to be town. If you're completely unsure, it cannot be a waste because you don't know his alignment (from what little he has posted, it's scummy because of the continual fence sitting). If you believe he's scum, it's a hit anyway.

 

So, if people believe he is scum... how would it be a waste to lynch him? Surely it's more of a waste to lynch a high poster that you're unsure of, than a low poster you're unsure of, because the high poster is more likely to slip if they're scum, and if they're town, they're more likely to be involved and active.

 

Right now, i've no reason to believe that he's scum. And I disagree that if i'm completely unsure it's not a waste. For example, what if he's the WWE Trainer (doctor, but with flavour)? In no way does it benefit us as WWE (and i'm still willing to accept you are WWE). Surely we go for informed decisions, isn't that the point. If he won't play ball in that regard, get someone else who will.

 

Mike, hopefully your vote and case will encourage those named to come forward and contribute. I'm sure that is the main reason you've voted - to get them to speak up, but i'm worried that it will turn into a lynch as it's an issue that is winding many people up.

 

Questioning is the biggest weapon we have as WWE, let's ensure we exhaust that option to make informed lynches.

[Retro Red]

(Split into two parts since UKFF won't allow so much quotable blocks)

 

Case on bristep123

 

(As a note, these aren't all of his posts, so I just noted the post they were, however I only began doing that from post 116, and so I wasn't going to go back to find the actual post number for the first one).

 

This concerns me:

TripleA's wording is fairly accurate to the town text that I was sent also, so I would ask why Mike and Nexus are calling him out unless they hadn't seen that particular text?

Coming quite quickly after TripleA's terrible role claim, not only does it show he's skimming the thread (claiming I'm calling TripleA out on it), but it shows that he is more interested in buying town points than being honest. It's since been stated by plenty that the role claim of TripleA gave nothing away and didn't really say anything that wouldn't have been able to have been worked out if he was scum anyway.

 

So why is bristep trying to make out that it's fairly accurate?

 

post 116:

It's also possible that TripleA lied about his role, after all the win condition wasn't exactly a big reach.

 

Does not compute with what was said earlier. In fact it's a direct contradiction.

 

Yes, he says it's only "possible", but how is it possible if said claim was "fairly accurate", surely that would have been a bloody good guess based on his previous post.

 

It reads to me like he hopped on the trusting TripleA wagon when it began, and when it was shown that TripleA didn't reveal anything, he hopped right back off it.

 

post 122:

No, no other suspicion I just hadn't unvoted him.

 

You're right too about Nexus. His only actions thus far have been to tell Randy that his sig was too big, and to vote for TripleA.

 

The more I think about it, the more I

 

UNVOTE TheRandySavage VOTE Nexus

Either a weak vote hop, or a weak bussing (depends on whether Nexus is scum or not, and I'm still pretty sure he is after his "Invite a NK" post just before this), but it's a damned weak vote.

 

post 184:

I was tired, and he talked to me like a prick, that's all it was. I can't really do much other than refute it.

 

Seems quite a time between the statement and the question though, were you holding onto that until such time as the FOS starts to point to one of the scum (i.e Nexus or SMS) to muddy the water? Maybe to distract people slightly?

Not a fan of this post either, while I don't like Chris accusing bristep of distancing from me (based on that, anyone who disagrees could be distancing), bristep is trying to make out it's trying to distract people when it's not. If something looks fishy, you should question it, or pull people up on it. It doesn't instantly mean the person doing the questioning is scummy (more often than not, that's not the case... unless their name is swiftstrike of course, in which case they could well be).

 

post 187:

It's still worth making every point, so just so that it can be documented then explained/refuted.

Still no clue what he meant, but Carbomb further down suggests it means all points should be brought up... so why did he attack Chris B for doing just that? (bristep also confirms Carbomb's thinking of what it means later on)

 

 

"Hi, I'm Mike Castle and I'll take snippets from posts and present them out of context to fit my argument". That is my initial thought reading this post.

 

First off, I'm sorry that I haven't posted yet this day phase. This is my first game, and generally I am trying to take in as much as I can. Coupled with the ridiculous hours I'm working just now because of the weather it makes for a low post count. I realise that this has led to Mike's stubby dubious finger of doom pointing in my direction but I guess I've brought it on myself.

 

HOWEVER, be wary rumble participants of being misdirected by potential scum. There are those here who have accused Mike of twisting words and avoiding questions so far in this game, and his gameplay of 'wall 'o text' coupled with his apparent self imposed leader status can let him influence the game if he wants to (i.e if he is scum).

 

To respond to his points, first and again I'll make note that he has taken snippets out of my (albeit sparse) posts and thrown them up out of context, to make them fit his case.

 

POINT THE FIRST

 

Mike's accusation that I flip-flopped on my opinion of TripleA/bandwagon hopped :

 

in post #74 I said that TripleA's roleclaim wording was similar to the one I received, my point there was to say that I felt Mike and Nexus had reacted in a scummy way to it (And I conceeded later that I misread Mike's post, rather than just skimming the thread. Mike failed to mention that, a lie by omisson?)

 

in post #116 I did say that it was possible that TripleA lied about his roleclaim, but this was posted out of context. Firstly Mike has taken the two sentences and presented them side by side which makes them look bad. He doesn't however state that there were 32 POSTS between the statements and a lot of conversation. Second, Mike also plucked this sentence out of a longer post, and again without the rest of the context of the post it looks worse than it is. Here is the original post IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

 

Mike Castle, unless I missed it, you haven't posted who you are.

 

Who are you?

 

Having had a quick look back it appears that Mike has indeed not told us who he is. With Mike's penchant for text walls and the fact that he does everything for a reason, it does look a little suspicious.

 

However, it could also be an honest oversight. Worth remembering though.

 

I agree that statistically at least one of the people who vocally stated that they believe TripleA is town must be scum. With that said though, I don't think it's for the reason TripleA has stated. While I think it's possible that it could have been organised, I just don't think that it was.

 

It's also possible that TripleA lied about his role, after all the win condition wasn't exactly a big reach. He might have taken a gamble and had it pay off. He might have been in on the plan with Nexus and A.N.OTHER if you extend it

 

1) TripleA lies about his role

2) Nexus condemns it

3) someone defends TripleA, which while pointing FOS at Nexus all but confirms (wrongly) that TripleA is town letting him work under the radar for the rest of the game.

 

Again, not that I think that this is likely, but much like TripleA's theory it IS a possibility.

 

Right now the strongest case for being scum is Nexus, he should really speak up soon and defend his actions as I think the lynch will end up in his direction otherwise.

 

Slightly more to go on there, I'd say. It's also worth noting that I mentioned my thoughts on Nexus, which leads nicely onto

 

POINT THE SECOND

 

That I weakly votehopped onto Nexus. Firstly, my vote on RandySavage to begin with was only there because of start game bollocks. He posted NSFW pics of Vickie and incited a bad rap from R-Truth so I put a vote in. I changed it to Nexus because at that time he hadn't defended his vote on TripleA yet. He actually did so while I was posting that, but it was still unsatisfactory in most eyes including mine.

 

Again, since the rest of post #116 made mention of Nexus, did Mike leave it out because it harmed this argument?

 

POINT THE THIRD

 

That I made the argument that "Every possibility should be raised, so that it can be put in the public eye to be considered/accepted/refuted" (I'm paraphrasing, but Mike didn't get it the first time so there's a chance others might not too) Then I 'attacked' ChrisB for doing the same.

 

See I don't see that there's a point to answer here. I answered ChrisB's question, then RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE HELD ONTO THE QUESTION TO MISDIRECT IF NEEDED. If anything I validated my point that I think every point should be raised. We'll come back to that at the end.

[Retro Red]

Part Two...

 

post 212:

I think that his questioning of why mike and triplea are wwe in your opinion is more suspect than knowing about scum boards. I mean I know about them from following the cluedo game which led to me signing up for this one.

(In regards to bugsey commenting on Dan trusting me and TripleA at that stage).

 

No reason as to why questioning why someone feels someone else is town is suspect. It's perfectly fine to question why you trust someone (though sometimes you can go too far in trying to demand information), so it feels like trying to make bugsey look scummy.

 

Post 399:

I have been getting more and more convinced of exactly this with each of Dan's posts.

 

UNVOTE Nexus VOTE Dan Williams

More wagon hopping.

 

Post 584:

Desperation plea for survival. A complete flip-flop in 33 minutes, and to me seems like odd behaviour given the grudging acceptance of the first post. I'm close to changing my vote from Dan (although I still think he's scum too), however given that we still have 24hrs before day phase ends I'll leave it for now since SMS is so close to a lynch at this point.

He is now pushing the lynch on SMS without voting himself. So after all the vote hopping, when it gets to the point where town is about to be lynched, he pushes the wagon but keeps off it himself? Not buying that.

 

POINT THE FORTH

 

That I tried to make Buggsy look scummy.

 

This again was a valid point worth raising (I thought) at the time. AGAIN it's out of context though, the point was that Dan said he trusted you and TripleA and suspected Ron and Nexus. Buggsy chose to ask why he supported the two of you, rather than asking why he suspected Ron and Nexus. I felt that it was a pertinent point worth raising.

 

POINT THE FIFTH

 

That I votehopped from Nexus onto Dan.

 

Yes, I moved my vote from Nexus, and onto Dan. And all in the space of 277 POSTS!

 

Again, posted with no context or sequence. This time he failed to alude to what I was responding to, that being a very well structured post from TripleA which mirrorred my own thoughts. Since TripleA is all but confirmed town in most people's minds, was this left out so as not to dilute his argument?

 

POINT THE SIXTH (Jesus christ, talk about wall of text)

 

That I pushed the SMS wagon, but didn't vote on it.

 

I thought the post was fairly clear, again you're looking for hidden meaning where there isn't any. I felt that his plea was in direct contridiction with his post from 30 minutes previous and seemed like he was scum floundering in the face of a lynch. (Boy was I wrong) With that said, we were still 24 hours away from a lynch, and he was L-2. I felt that there was more dialogue needed, before the lynch was committed. Since the name of the game is j'accuse, I guess it looks worse that I refused to hang an innocent man than I would have done had I joined the lynch.

 

IN CLOSING

 

I think I've answered Mike's case fairly well, however others may debate that. I think that his points were skewed, and that he took my words out of their context to support them.

 

The only person right now that I'm certain about is myself. I know that I'm town (and I know that this means nothing in the long run) but because I know that, I'm led to think 1 of two things

 

a) Mike is town and scum hunting. If that's the case then we need to be wary, as ChrisB described his case against me as "Compelling", so Mike is definitely capable of leading the game in the wrong direction.

 

or

 

b) Mike is scum, and trying to misdirect the town. Twisted context, omissions, there's definitely enough evidence to make a case for this.

 

Mike care to respond?

 

(On a side note, I see that a prod was requested for me. I haven't had one and am responding off my own back rather than because I was prompted to by the mod. Snake can you confirm this?)

[Retro Red]

And for the record, so as not to incite another J'ACCUSE for contradiction, I think that Mike was right to raise these points IF he's town, everything should be considered as a possibility.

[Snake Plissken]

Right first off let me clear something up. The Wade Barrett txt in the closing of the previous days play does indeed refer to my chastising of TripleA. It's just part of the flavour. For anyone who knows anything about wrestling nothing is clear cut just because some tries to cost someone their match doesn't mean they are not double bluffing. So I will say this, the flavour (Which BTW Mike if you hadn't have brought up no one else would ahve read anything into and for someone who doesn't like flavour txt you seem to take a lot of that in) is just that flavour. It does NOT confirm or not confirm anyones alignment. As it says in the rules if you wish to waste your time worrying about the hidden secrets in the flavour (Of which there are none) then so be it, but your just waisting your own time on nothing. SO I would suggest that should be the end of it. Again I don't want to start dishing out warnings so drop it.

 

Right on a better note:

 

Mesacret < wolfvinson

 

Welcome wolfvinson as he takes over Rey Mysterio.

[Snake Plissken]

Bristep. Yes I can confirm that you didn't recieve a prod

[wolfvinson]

Hi guys. Hoping to last longer than 5 minutes this time.

 

I've no cast iron suspicions yet, other than aggressive playing styles. Those are what I'll be looking at as I have a read through.

[Snake Plissken]

The finally got around to it Votecount

 

2. (The Miz) Top Man Shopper

3. (Kane) Lion of the Midlands

4. (Dolph Ziggler) Brownie

5. (Randy Orton) Family Guy PMSL (L-9) Family Guy PMSL

6. (CM Punk) Dan Williams (L-8) Chris B, Lawz

7. (Cody Rhodes) Ron Simmons (L-8) Dan Williams, Top Man Shopper

8. (Big Show) Nexus

9. (HHH) Bugsey713

11. (Santino Mariella) bristep123

12. (R-Truth) insert_name_here

13. (Kofi Kingston) Carbomb

14. (Sheamus) Mike Castle

15. (Bryan Danielson) TripleA

16. (Edge) Burchill's Buddy

17. (Rey Mysterio) Mesacret

18. (MVP) Lawz

19. (Jack Swagger) Chris B

20. (Christian) CoreyVandal (L-8) Mike Castle, TripleA

 

Part 2 ends Sunday 12th September at 23:00. With 18 in the ring, it takes 10 to throw someone over the top rope

[Nexus]

I think the only thing you should do with low posters is keep pressuring them, without voting for them. Let the mod deal with it.

 

I think Mike is causing too much trouble with his argument over flavour. It's really distracting. Distraction is a great scum tactic it makes it look like you're contributing, when you're really not. Ditto TripleA, but he's basically been confirmed as town, so he's clearly not scum. Family Guy voting himself is ridiculous.

 

I'd like to hear more from bristep, bugsey and inh. Please.

 

Dan is by far and away the scummiest poster, though, closely followed by Ron. I'd rather vote for Dan atm, but would vote for Ron too.

 

vote: dan williams

[Chris B]

Serves me right for not reading verifying Mike's post too much. I had rather assumed that Mike had given context and quoted entire posts. I hadn't realised he was taking single sentences out of context.

 

That's pretty bad right there. Bristep, very well defended there. Mike made a strong case, but your context helps a lot. The point on post #116 is especially bad, particularly since he did follow it up with 'not that I think this is likely'.

[FLips]

Very well defended there Bristep. It makes me wonder, why would a town have to lie and clip bits of other people's sentences?. Surely that's a scum move to wrong accuse people?

 

FoS Mike Castle