Moderator: Community Team
.... hmm, I think it should be quite obvious which you preferred. Don't try to claim indifference to the outcome.Fircoal wrote:
An odd turn around? You do realize we were a couple days away from the end of the day with only one weak lead. Honestly at that point it didn't really matter what the case was for it just mattered that we got some information out of it. We all know I stress the need to lynch and this is no different. No I don't think Sax's case was a good case but I do believe that we needed a lynch, or really at that point something from Sax. Just getting nothing would be a waste even more of what was already a big waste.the next and last post by fircoal shows him once again not directly involved as per his "non-voter" play, but insinuating the need to speedlynch gilligan.
I feel fir seems just a bit too enthusiastic of cheering on lynches he "doesn't support".Fircoal wrote:Then what do you suggest we do. the only two options I see is speed lynch Gilligan or give up and no lynchnagerous wrote:In light of what Haggis said unvote.
Unfortunately, time is of an essence now and I fear a speed lynch on Gilligan will bring us bad results in light of his most recent comments.
Vote fircoal
I never said that. I said those were my only two options, never said which I preferred. I mean do you see any other options at the time? I wasn't even the first to bring up either of them. You case is really weak.

Again, I'm taking the sarcasm route and saying you're reading way too much into the speedlynch comment./ wrote:.... hmm, I think it should be quite obvious which you preferred. Don't try to claim indifference to the outcome.
I still see some contradiction, you stress the importance of getting things done, but refuse to attach your name or effort into said task, the reason why this seems like a scummy move is because it insinuates one who doesn't want the suspicion of the outcome to fall upon their own heads, but does want a player lynched.
I have played enough games with you to realize that you are indeed rarely a voter, however in this case I see you actively pointing out the actions others should take, and as you blatantly claim to point out as a defense, you claim to have been trying to
A. Point out the obvious
B. Repeat popular opinion
C. Express no new information, presumably just to seem active
As you say it's not a very strong case, but as with anything at this stage it's a work in progress...
Read: Shameless bandwagon.freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
pancakemix wrote:Read: Shameless bandwagon.freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
Vote Freezie

Acting differently can mean different motivation playing. Different motivation playing could mean alternate win condition.Metsfanmax wrote:I still don't understand how Fircoal acting differently than he normally does gives us any clues as to his alignment.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
And? It's a piss-poor case and / admitted it. I'd rather point that out than jump on board because I think no one agrees with me.freezie wrote:Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
This was said not long after Haggis asked for a cop to check him. Knowing the cop already had a person to consider, could this be a bluff?Gilligan wrote:The best I can say at this point is have a cop check me, but you don't want to lynch me.
Gilligan wrote:Also, it seems I'm still being targeted. I have no issue giving away my info.
One post claims no issue giving away info, yet the posts before and after are intentionally vague. This strikes me as odd.Gilligan wrote:As far as why you should keep me, I'll chalk it up to a better late-game role.

I never claimed indifference either. You're the one who claiming me to pick something./ wrote:.... hmm, I think it should be quite obvious which you preferred. Don't try to claim indifference to the outcome.Fircoal wrote:
An odd turn around? You do realize we were a couple days away from the end of the day with only one weak lead. Honestly at that point it didn't really matter what the case was for it just mattered that we got some information out of it. We all know I stress the need to lynch and this is no different. No I don't think Sax's case was a good case but I do believe that we needed a lynch, or really at that point something from Sax. Just getting nothing would be a waste even more of what was already a big waste.the next and last post by fircoal shows him once again not directly involved as per his "non-voter" play, but insinuating the need to speedlynch gilligan.
I feel fir seems just a bit too enthusiastic of cheering on lynches he "doesn't support".Fircoal wrote:Then what do you suggest we do. the only two options I see is speed lynch Gilligan or give up and no lynchnagerous wrote:In light of what Haggis said unvote.
Unfortunately, time is of an essence now and I fear a speed lynch on Gilligan will bring us bad results in light of his most recent comments.
Vote fircoal
I never said that. I said those were my only two options, never said which I preferred. I mean do you see any other options at the time? I wasn't even the first to bring up either of them. You case is really weak.
I still see some contradiction, you stress the importance of getting things done, but refuse to attach your name or effort into said task, the reason why this seems like a scummy move is because it insinuates one who doesn't want the suspicion of the outcome to fall upon their own heads, but does want a player lynched.
I have played enough games with you to realize that you are indeed rarely a voter, however in this case I see you actively pointing out the actions others should take, and as you blatantly claim to point out as a defense, you claim to have been trying to
A. Point out the obvious
B. Repeat popular opinion
C. Express no new information, presumably just to seem active
As you say it's not a very strong case, but as with anything at this stage it's a work in progress...
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
Tuesday, July 19th - freezie wrote:Well, screw this..I would like to replace him over this, but with a deadline in less than 2 days..
Vote: Sax
Wednesday, July 20th - freezie wrote:Gilligan wrote:I spent 2 days at my friend's beach house.nagerous wrote:It's been 72 hours since this post. Do you have any more to add or are you purposely submarining trying to kill the day?Gilligan wrote:Back from vacation...Reading up on the 7 or so pages that happened whilst I was gone.
Anyway, I guess I could lynch Sax, but as others said I'd like at least a role claim to be sure we don't kill a nice power role the first day. That'd damn suck.
ON behalf of this post, and Haggis's post:
Unvote
Vote: Gilligan
I doubt haggis would place himself in such a situation if Sax was not town. Gilligan, however, is still ready to lynch Sax, along with a lot of submarinning ( He explained it, but still...).
At this point Gilligan is a better choice, however I doubt we'll get a lynch tonight....But I wont be re-voting Sax since Haggis' post.
Sunday, July 24th - freezie wrote:Alright, outside of the speculation ( which I most agree with ) am going to vote: gilligan
His '' don't kill me I am important'' feels scummish to me, and without a sane cop here ( if you're an insane/naive/para cop, you'll know your usefulness starting from next time, depending on what result you get and how you can interpret it ) might as well start something.
Thursday, July 28th - freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
freezie wrote:pancakemix wrote:Read: Shameless bandwagon.freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
Vote Freezie
Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
drunkmonkey wrote:Freezie may be willing to let the case die, but I'm not sold that he's clean yet. I came in as a replacement, so I had 10+ full pages to catch up on. I made sure to read every one completely before thinking of voicing my opinion, let alone casting a vote. To think you had read enough and continue to vote for a lynch, knowing you did not have all the information from the thread, seems very scummy.
This was said not long after Haggis asked for a cop to check him. Knowing the cop already had a person to consider, could this be a bluff?Gilligan wrote:The best I can say at this point is have a cop check me, but you don't want to lynch me.
What's wrong with the cop having two people to consider? He can check whoever he thinks is scummier, the end.
Gilligan wrote:Also, it seems I'm still being targeted. I have no issue giving away my info.One post claims no issue giving away info, yet the posts before and after are intentionally vague. This strikes me as odd.Gilligan wrote:As far as why you should keep me, I'll chalk it up to a better late-game role.
No one has asked for any info. Spilling the beans just cause is silly.



Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
What he said. Been somewhat busy this weekend and really didn't have enough time to post a coherent analysis.strike wolf wrote:Yeah sorry I've been around but just a bit too busy and tired to post anything intelligent sounding. I'm not sure if I buy the case on freezie or not...still rereading.
naxus wrote:How about we pressure Kwan?Commander9 wrote:Deadline is 11 days, guys.. We do need to start some sort of activity here if we don't want a very rushed lynched which may bring rather unwanted results.
Unvote, Vote Kwan
Honestly I had thought this was a joke when he first mentioned it (a sarcastic reply to Comm asking for more activity) but he seems to be suggesting that we go for a completely random target without even suggesting any possible inactivity reasons. This really makes me think he does not care about what the reason, he just wants a target. This does not seem like a townie train of thought to me.naxus wrote:Why not? Need activity, usually means that we need to pressure someone to get infoCommander9 wrote:Reasons behind it?naxus wrote:How about we pressure Kwan?
Unvote, Vote Kwan
Just jumping on the inactive bandwagon not much real reasoning needed to do it, so doesn't really require much reasoning to defend it.naxus wrote:Unvote, vote TSL
Might as well pressure him until he shows up
naxus wrote:I agree with com9 here. He's around, keep the pressure up.
@ Safari, what happens at deadline?
This reasoning is just weak. Commander at least had reason to say he believed Sax was active, that he saw a post in a private forum (I still say one post isn't enough to proclaim activity but I'm not getting into the com9 situation right now) and a couple of PMs, but Naxus had nothing to go on but an assumption that saxlad is on every day because he is a mod. This isn't necessarily true and the facts show that even if sax was on every day he wasn't on the public forums every day and he definitely wasn't any more active in any of his other mafia games so these statements were based on fallacious reasoning. Either naxus wanted the sax wagon to look stronger than it was or he didn't bother checking to see if the claim that sax was active was true. So why state it like it was matter of fact?naxus wrote:Weekends ok for being lax on activity. But TSL is a mod and I can assume he's on at least once a day. That and why waste a few pages trying to change targets when we can just leave the pressure on till we get some sort of answer
While I do agree that at this point a lynch needs to be reached, at the point in the day this happened it was no longer realistic and a rushed lynch with that little time left would have quite likely been worse. Most likely lynched town with probable power role dying and with how quick it would have had to have been there wouldn't me much to gather from the lynch itself. Naxus here doesn't even suggest who we should lynch it just seems like he wants to suggest that we do lynch someone without directly connecting himself to making the decision on the quick lynch.naxus wrote:Either way we need to get a lynch here or we will be just waiting for a cop to investigate tomorrow. Which if the cop investigates haggis or TSL and comes up Innocent then we will waste another day
I'm not gonna make this into him defending andy because basing it on this one post would be extremely weak. but I will say it's a continuation on Naxus' apparent lack of putting himself directly in front of the gun while trying to appear active and attentive.naxus wrote:But thats andy, he does that anywhere he postsstrike wolf wrote:FOS Andy. The majority of his posts are like this. Fairly non-commital and expressing little opinion on the actual scum tells. He appears to just be going with the flow.AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
Let's just jump on the newest case. I don't really want to discuss if it actually seems scummy beyond comparing it to a one time incident in another thread but i will jump on the case.naxus wrote:Having been a victim of Fir relentless cases, this seems strange.
Unvote(If needed) Vote Fircoal
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
One problem with this Andy: Yesterday was day 1 and scum can't talk to each other or coordinate like that before day 1 unless theres a night 0 usually. But it is a good train of thought and something we should keep an eye on for future days.AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone have any insight on strategies the mafia may be employing? I was thinking about this yesterday, and wondering if a part of them agreed to be the 'lay-low' type, and the other part agreed to be the 'active townie' sort of player, or if they put all their bananas in on basket.
--Andy

I know very well who I am dealing with. Naxus playing style is a bit against the norm which is the only reason he doesn't already have my vote. I do find it relevant though for two reasons.Fircoal wrote:I like the naxus case. I would like to hear more from it. However I will state it may be a bit of a false lead. In other games Naxus has said scummy statement after scummy statement and yet was town. So I think we have to be extra careful considering who it is.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
I'm all for andy or whoever else bringing up a case if they think there's real suspicion. Even though there was a pretty big logical flaw in andy's case, it can still provide us with reads. In fact, as far as I'm concerned people's cases on other's are far more useful for me for getting tells than the cases themselves. In other words, I will analyze the way people pursue their leads to find scum so it doesn't matter how strong the lead is. And let's not forget andy also brought up the case against freezie which is one of the better ones so far this game after the case on naxus.strike wolf wrote:That being said I would rather you focus your efforts on cases and analysis andy. To come in here not even comment on the current cases and then present an argument that will naturally be full of wifom seems at best a distraction from legitimate arguments taking place within the thread.