Snake's WWE Invasion 'Royal Mafia Rumble'

[Retro Red]

There is a pattern of play developing here that is sidetracking a lot of arguments. People are putting a lot of behaviour down to the person's attitude, rather than their role.

 

"Such and such is acting scummy but I think that's just their posting demeanour". Can we allow us to get caught up in trying to work out who are playing the game badly, as well as who the scum are?

 

We need to try and come to a decision, Dan and Nexus have both got fairly damning cases against them.

[FLips]

That "if i'm caught i'll go trolling" post has done it for me. I'd not noticed that before, and now you've pointed out that in fact all of his posts have just been trolling and being a massive prick, coupled with the need to not have a no-lynch tonight.

 

Unvote

 

Vote Nexus

[Ron Simmons]

"Such and such is acting scummy but I think that's just their posting demeanour". Can we allow us to get caught up in trying to work out who are playing the game badly, as well as who the scum are?

 

We need to try and come to a decision, Dan and Nexus have both got fairly damning cases against them.

Is it really beneficial to get rid of someone because they're playing badly if we think they're town? I'm not so sure.

 

However.

 

I'm pretty convinced Family Guy is scum, but I'm realistic. I don't think he's going to be lynched today. I don't think Dan Williams is scum, and to be quite honest I'm less

convinced that Nexus is scum than others. But less convinced is better than "don't think" so:

 

unvote

 

Vote Nexus

 

Dan, if you get saved tonight don't let the town down. If you think someone's scum explain why, but please don't try to get caught up in a tangle of "he voted for me so he's scum." You have been prone to it, and you might not realize it. There may be cases where someone is accusing you and you genuinely do think they're scum, but try and look at the posters overall play before you go with that.

[Nexus]

I haven't been trolling.

 

You go back to the cowboy game, and have a look at my posts after being caught out. I didn't even try to defend myself.

 

I'm abrasive as town or scum, that's the way it's always been. If you go through any game on the UKFF, this is the case. I'm playing the same as I always play when I'm town, albeit slightly quieter. I could, if I really wanted, go through each of your posts, Simmons, and show that you are abusive as well. I was being honest, most of the things I've picked up on have been incredibly thick.

 

Triple A changes wagons more often than he changes socks. He's convinced one person is scum, but then changes tack. The town thing to do is to stay on one wagon, and get a lynch. It's scummy to hop wagons, because it makes you seem opportunistic. Of course, you get away with this, since you were basically modconfirmed as town.

 

Ron, you have been fairly selective with your posts, and it's sort of misrepping me. Out of the sheer volume of posts others have made, I can guarantee they don't totally have relevance or helpfulness towards the town, so that accusation can be levelled at anyone. You can throw so much shit, eventually some of it will stick; posting tens of posts a day doesn't make you town. Generally, it makes you as scummy because people have to wade through white noise that is distracting.

 

We've got 64 pages, and we're pretty much as stuck as we were. We've got Mike playing like he always does, everyone jumping on me for the perceived change in playstyle, when in fact there's been none except lack of postage, for which I have an actual reason for, we've got Dan Williams playing like he usually does, which is quite scummy anyway, we've got Wolfy saying he finds four or five people scummy, but won't say, and also all those who haven't been posting at all.

 

So, really, how much better are we off for 64 pages of posts?

[Nexus]

EBWOP: Whereas here, I am defending myself, since if I get lynched, it'll be a bad thing, giving the scum more of a chance to win. I'm not scum.

[Ron Simmons]

Ron, you have been fairly selective with your posts, and it's sort of misrepping me. Out of the sheer volume of posts others have made, I can guarantee they don't totally have relevance or helpfulness towards the town, so that accusation can be levelled at anyone. You can throw so much shit, eventually some of it will stick; posting tens of posts a day doesn't make you town. Generally, it makes you as scummy because people have to wade through white noise that is distracting.

I've already said, I posted your first few posts and I've posted your last few. I might not have posted your introduction to the thread, I don't know. There might be shining lights of wisdom from you in the middle of this thread, but there are 64 pages to trawl through. I'd hazard a guess that I've posted nearly everything you've contributed here. If I'm wrong feel free to drag out the non-aggressive, calm and collected stuff yourself. I'd say the honus is on you at this stage.

[FLips]

Triple A changes wagons more often than he changes socks. He's convinced one person is scum, but then changes tack. The town thing to do is to stay on one wagon, and get a lynch. It's scummy to hop wagons, because it makes you seem opportunistic. Of course, you get away with this, since you were basically modconfirmed as town.

 

I'm still wary that Dan, Mike, Wolfvinson and one of Chris B, Brownie and Family Guy could be scum. That's a total of 4. Sure i've FoS'd people, and voted others, but they've explained themselves and i've trusted them.

You say i've jumped wagons loads when if you actually look back, a lot of the wagons are started by me, and usually for reasons I beleive in, and others sometimes beleive in.

If you think the way to play as Town is to stay focused on one person and tunnell them, then maybe you should have a good think about it and look at where you are in the game right now. You barely post, yet when you do it seems to just be offending people, calling names, trolling, and not really doing a whole lot. You moan that there's been 60+ pages and we're no better off, yet what exactly have you been doing?. A whole load of nothing as far as I can see.

 

Ron Simmons' case against you is really strong, and if we have to vote anyone right now my choice is you.

[Snake Plissken]

Lion of the Midlands has requested replacement. Anyone interested please PM me

[Nexus]

Could we get a replacement for Corey also?

 

And a vote count.

 

And y'know, you actually moderating?

 

But anyway, I agree, I've been fairly quiet, and I've explained my reasons for that. Ron's case hinges on me being abrasive; that's my entire playstyle, it always has been. As town or scum. It got me lynched as town, it got me lynched as scum. If I'd change it, you'd call me out on that too, which you did, because I posted less than normal. Yet, my posting is similar to normal, in my opinion anyway.

 

Right, honestly, I think the scumbags are those who tried to quicklynch Mike when he went away. As far as I can tell, it's the same set up as most ukff games, which means the mafia can daytalk. So, it's possible that it was orchestrated. People focussed on it for a couple of pages, and then forgot about it, being more concerned with Dan. Now, Dan is quite scummy, so if that's one scumbag down, we need to find his mates. I'd hazard a guess that most, if not all of the rest of the scum are or were on the Castle wagon when he left. So, we need to focus on them.

 

I'm not scum. I'm not acting any different to usual.

[The Icon]

FamilyGuy - Dubious behaviour after TripleA's point about possible scum voting for Mike Castle. Rather than admit it was a perfectly valid point, seemed to try and convince the town that it's not worth considering.

 

Well you see that would be a totally valid argument if -

 

1. It wasn't such a massive WIFOM. What's to say i'm not scum?, what's to say I am?. I didn't ask you all to trust my claim. It's true, but I didn't try and use it as some sort of mad confirmation, that was everyone else who just took my word.

 

Right, I'm going to do something hideously noobish and ask: WTF is the whole deal with WIFOM? Why is it all of a sudden such an invalid form of logic? Why is it if I ask a WIFOM question, it's unfair to expect you to explain yourself?

 

2. The fact 3 people all voting for Mike one after the other, and the refusal by Family Guy to admit how scummy it might look, is really scummy. Vote for Mike if you all want to, but he's not even here to defend himself so what's the point?. He can't make a case back (not that any of the people who voted even made a good case), he can't roleclaim when he's L-1, and if he has any roles and is town, he can't tell us what to do next day phase to counter on his flip.

For example if he's a doctor, and he's on L-1, he can tell us who he protected. Same if he's a cop, or a hider, or whatever. All we get right now by lynching Mike is a whole bunch of nothing.

 

That's as may be, but what's to stop any of us in future from simply V/LA-ing until or past the official end of Day Phase, at any point we feel we're potentially on course for a lynch? How do we know if it isn't a simple case of Mike realising he's been rumbled by bristep and has decided to V/LA until everything calms down, the next Day Phase begins and he's given an opportunity to talk everyone down when everyone's had a break from posting?

 

 

 

1. It's not that you're asking me to explain myself that's the problem (I've explained myself a few times regarding Mike so why you didn't just read one of those ones I don't know. The WIFOM is the fact you said "how are we to know you're not scum?" when the most obvious answer is you don't know, only I do. People are scummy for trusting me, people are scummy for not. It's not really relevent.

 

2. Mike wasn't "on course for a lynch" though, that's what my problem is. As far as I know, nobody had a vote in on Mike until he left. The arguments provided by the 3 of them were all a mix of "I was going to anyway" and "he's being a bully".

The one part of the wording though that sticks out to me is "i've been thinking about it" which was said by both Chris B and Brownie. It reads very oddly that they took all this time to "think about it" and then decided the best time to vote is when Mike went away. The excuses they used were things Mike had been doing all game, yet it took them until the day after he left to decide they'd though about it enough. Nothing on the day they actually voted actually happened, as Mike was away. Surely they'd vote the minute he did it, not "have a think" and then do it a day later?.

Then there's Family Guy's refusal to acknowledge how bad it might look for 3 people to suddenly decide to vote for Mike the day he buggers off. He might have all good reasons for voting and may deep down beleive it's the right thing to do, but to not realise it looks bad?. Not buying it.

 

 

Regardless of those 3, i'm more concerned now with Wolfvinson who's "I suspect these 4 people but i'm not telling you until the next day phase for no reason" is the worst play I think i've seen so far in the game. It also doesn't help he came in and called me a "hot-head" all smugly. In this game sometimes you need to lose your cool and attack from all angles. Coming in and refusing to say anything though is just scum from back to front.

It's so blindingly obvious Wolfvinson has no cases to make at all, and is hoping we all think "well let's wait until the next phase to see what he has to say". I'm not buying that at all. I say he tells us or we vote him, simple as.

 

What's also very odd, is how after I said it's scummy you three voted him back to back, you all made a case to defend yourselves, yet none of you admitted to how scummy it looks. It's glaringly obvious that at least one of you has to be a wagon jumper.

 

 

Family Guy : TripleA didn't condemn anyone specifically, he said that it was convenient that three people all decided to vote for Mike once he's unable to reply. And he's right, there's every chance that one of those three votes was a scum trying to push along a wagon.

 

My concern is that you're very defensive of a very valid point, and very quick to say so as well.

 

Glad i'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

Well, how very cosy. If only I'd just admitted it looked scummy that 3 people had voted at the same time, if only I'd seen some validity in TripleA and bristep's argument. Oh wait...

 

Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5.

[FLips]

Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5.

 

Yeah and when asked what the "flaws" were, you replied with this -

 

Just because 3 people agree with an opinion, and can see why someone is scum, doesn't mean they're all scum. In the last game the scum cell barely voted on the lynch, because they didn't need to. Right now there's a high enough town to scum ratio that they don't need to bandwagon a lynch. If anything I'd be more occupied by who defends Mike if he flips scum.

 

That isn't naming any flaws at all.

For one you word it as if I said all three were scum, which is a flat out lie. So that point is invalid.

For two, just because it happened last game doesn't mean it will this game.

For three, you word it as though you're convinced Mike will be the one to die, which doesn't look like the case either.

 

It's all well and good saying "ok I see your point", but if you can't back it up with a solid counterargument then it's a bit hollow isn't it?.

[Retro Red]

FamilyGuy - Dubious behaviour after TripleA's point about possible scum voting for Mike Castle. Rather than admit it was a perfectly valid point, seemed to try and convince the town that it's not worth considering.

 

Well you see that would be a totally valid argument if -

 

1. It wasn't such a massive WIFOM. What's to say i'm not scum?, what's to say I am?. I didn't ask you all to trust my claim. It's true, but I didn't try and use it as some sort of mad confirmation, that was everyone else who just took my word.

 

Right, I'm going to do something hideously noobish and ask: WTF is the whole deal with WIFOM? Why is it all of a sudden such an invalid form of logic? Why is it if I ask a WIFOM question, it's unfair to expect you to explain yourself?

 

2. The fact 3 people all voting for Mike one after the other, and the refusal by Family Guy to admit how scummy it might look, is really scummy. Vote for Mike if you all want to, but he's not even here to defend himself so what's the point?. He can't make a case back (not that any of the people who voted even made a good case), he can't roleclaim when he's L-1, and if he has any roles and is town, he can't tell us what to do next day phase to counter on his flip.

For example if he's a doctor, and he's on L-1, he can tell us who he protected. Same if he's a cop, or a hider, or whatever. All we get right now by lynching Mike is a whole bunch of nothing.

 

That's as may be, but what's to stop any of us in future from simply V/LA-ing until or past the official end of Day Phase, at any point we feel we're potentially on course for a lynch? How do we know if it isn't a simple case of Mike realising he's been rumbled by bristep and has decided to V/LA until everything calms down, the next Day Phase begins and he's given an opportunity to talk everyone down when everyone's had a break from posting?

 

 

 

1. It's not that you're asking me to explain myself that's the problem (I've explained myself a few times regarding Mike so why you didn't just read one of those ones I don't know. The WIFOM is the fact you said "how are we to know you're not scum?" when the most obvious answer is you don't know, only I do. People are scummy for trusting me, people are scummy for not. It's not really relevent.

 

2. Mike wasn't "on course for a lynch" though, that's what my problem is. As far as I know, nobody had a vote in on Mike until he left. The arguments provided by the 3 of them were all a mix of "I was going to anyway" and "he's being a bully".

The one part of the wording though that sticks out to me is "i've been thinking about it" which was said by both Chris B and Brownie. It reads very oddly that they took all this time to "think about it" and then decided the best time to vote is when Mike went away. The excuses they used were things Mike had been doing all game, yet it took them until the day after he left to decide they'd though about it enough. Nothing on the day they actually voted actually happened, as Mike was away. Surely they'd vote the minute he did it, not "have a think" and then do it a day later?.

Then there's Family Guy's refusal to acknowledge how bad it might look for 3 people to suddenly decide to vote for Mike the day he buggers off. He might have all good reasons for voting and may deep down beleive it's the right thing to do, but to not realise it looks bad?. Not buying it.

 

 

Regardless of those 3, i'm more concerned now with Wolfvinson who's "I suspect these 4 people but i'm not telling you until the next day phase for no reason" is the worst play I think i've seen so far in the game. It also doesn't help he came in and called me a "hot-head" all smugly. In this game sometimes you need to lose your cool and attack from all angles. Coming in and refusing to say anything though is just scum from back to front.

It's so blindingly obvious Wolfvinson has no cases to make at all, and is hoping we all think "well let's wait until the next phase to see what he has to say". I'm not buying that at all. I say he tells us or we vote him, simple as.

 

What's also very odd, is how after I said it's scummy you three voted him back to back, you all made a case to defend yourselves, yet none of you admitted to how scummy it looks. It's glaringly obvious that at least one of you has to be a wagon jumper.

 

 

Family Guy : TripleA didn't condemn anyone specifically, he said that it was convenient that three people all decided to vote for Mike once he's unable to reply. And he's right, there's every chance that one of those three votes was a scum trying to push along a wagon.

 

My concern is that you're very defensive of a very valid point, and very quick to say so as well.

 

Glad i'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

Well, how very cosy. If only I'd just admitted it looked scummy that 3 people had voted at the same time, if only I'd seen some validity in TripleA and bristep's argument. Oh wait...

 

Whilst I see the validity of the point, I see it's flaws as well. Whether Mike was here or not, I feel he's done the damage required to earn my vote. The fact he's not here saves me a long cyclical argument where whatever I say gets twisted out of context and I'm spoken to like I'm 5.

 

Not really the same thing in my opinion. You did indeed say that it had validity, but then followed on to say that it was flawed. To discredit it and try to sweep suspiscion away perhaps? It's certainly possible. Even if that's not the case it was not your immediate reaction. All TripleA was pointing out was that it was awfully coincidental that 3 people voted for Mike (who at that point had no votes against him) once he left. You tried to turn it around on TripleA and say that his statement was damaging to gameplay, while the others tried to validate their votes and say they weren't scum (when nobody had directly been accused).

 

I still consider you a suspect, and while I don't support Ron's case for lynching you yet I think you need to be scrutinised next phase.

 

However, this is sidetracking. We are 3 hours from the end of the day phase.

[The Icon]

Next up in the 'Who's trying to fit up Family Guy parade, we've got Ron 'All you did in Day One is tunnel me' Simmons. Lets have a quick skim over Ron's posts this day phase shall we:

 

We start on Thursday, with Ron laying down the marker on FGPMSL

 

Don't get me wrong, I have strong suspicions against Family Guy, but I wouldn't want to accuse him based on the wording there. It might have been a subtle attempt to create an impression, but the terminology doesn't bother me.

 

Then, all goes quiet for a couple of days, before votes start flying in elsewhere, and Ron realises there's only the one wheel on his wagon. He pops a vote in on me, appealing to the town to get that scummy Family Guy into the noose because he has the audacity to accuse someone who isn't Ron Simmons.

 

 

I'm sticking with my Family Guy vote. As I've said I'm pretty certain Dan - as erratic as he's been - isn't scum. I'm putting my neck out for him here, but I think we'll end up disposing of another townie if we go ahead with this lynch. As it stands I'd be shocked if FG flipped town. He's the one I feel most certain about. I'd be happy with either a Nexus or FG lynch myself though. Don't know what others are thinking?

 

Again - absolutely putting my neck on the line - but I'm not going to vote for Dan.

 

Dan isn't scum isn't he? You changed your tune since your last failed wagon against Dan in day 1. Later in the day, Ron, realising no-one's listening to him, tries to steer discussion back towards me again.

 

How many are we at now, 18? I do think we have a few floating voters and quite possibly a few low posting scum members. That said, I still think there are a few players who maybe don't stick out like a sore thumb, but their actions are incredibly suspect. I know I've said this before, but Family Guy PMSL has played a very different game than he normally does. His initial attack on me (because of what Dan said - the person he's now voting for...) was followed by what seemed like a very opportunistic move on Mike. A "let's see if we can get rid of the vocal player when he's not around" kind of move. Testing the water. Now he's voting for Dan, and while opinions can change I feel that recently he's been very opportunistic.

 

Quite a damning attack, surely now the town will get on board? Well, actually, no, we've got considerably more scummy players in the game. So, later, Ron gives it another stab.

 

I still think Family Guy is a better lynch, because Nexus might just be acting arsish for the hell of it. But his behavious is more scummy to me than Dan's as it seems like calculated, provacative posting as opposed to "all over the place" erratic posting.

 

Well, we were talking about Nexus, but if the word 'lynch' was mentioned, surely you need to get your feelings across Ron.

 

And still nobody joins in. Damn!

 

What to do, what to do?

 

I'm pretty convinced Family Guy is scum, but I'm realistic. I don't think he's going to be lynched today.

 

Yes Ron, I get it. You think I'm scum. You're way wrong, you haven't backed your thoughts up with any reasoning other than 'you don't normally play like, you're being irrational', despite the fact my points have been backed up with actual reasoning and debate, rather than throwing some shit and hoping it sticks. All this comes off the back of when you had the bare-arsed cheek to tell me I'm tunnelling in Day 1, when all I did was answer your bullshit points. You're either doing this for two reasons:

 

1. You're bloody minded town who is so desperate for people to back your hunch, you have to hammer your point into the ground, or

 

2. You're scum.

[Retro Red]

Snake, I know you've been busy this weekend but really you could have delegated someone to do a vote count.

 

As it stands we are 3 hours away from the end of the phase, we desperately need the count to know where we are.

 

MOD request vote count

[The Icon]

Yeah and when asked what the "flaws" were, you replied with this -

 

Just because 3 people agree with an opinion, and can see why someone is scum, doesn't mean they're all scum. In the last game the scum cell barely voted on the lynch, because they didn't need to. Right now there's a high enough town to scum ratio that they don't need to bandwagon a lynch. If anything I'd be more occupied by who defends Mike if he flips scum.

 

That isn't naming any flaws at all.

For one you word it as if I said all three were scum, which is a flat out lie. So that point is invalid.

For two, just because it happened last game doesn't mean it will this game.

For three, you word it as though you're convinced Mike will be the one to die, which doesn't look like the case either.

 

It's all well and good saying "ok I see your point", but if you can't back it up with a solid counterargument then it's a bit hollow isn't it?.

 

Yes it is. I merely stated why I disagreed with your argument, I'd say the assumption that 3 out of 18 people voting in a game means one of them is scum is a flaw, you stated it like it was solid fact, and it isn't, it's your opinion.