[Kessobahn]

Here is where Liosan was catching up and voted for me. The important thing to notice is he agrees with my post and says self preservation for innos is a bad way to think, yet he votes for me. Its not a joke vote on me. Notice please the time he posted.

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

Omtose, on Dec 3 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Ok, so we've established that no one has time right now to post. And since I do have time and have no one interesting(Korlat isn't interesting) enough to talk to I spam. So, what now? Game mechanics? Not a merc game, right? or was it not a cult game, might be a merc game, cant remember. But I assume ghosts(scum) vs. Ghost busters(no idea , maybe mercs?) with innos(town) in between. Anyone got any ideas?

looks like someone is trying to boost there post count

Better than pulling a Silencer and posting once a day and getting the win for team evil. And that was actually what i consider a contribution post. Not a post padding post.

Hey! I object to that!

Omtose, on Dec 3 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

Omtose, on Dec 3 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Ok, so we've established that no one has time right now to post. And since I do have time and have no one interesting(Korlat isn't interesting) enough to talk to I spam. So, what now? Game mechanics? Not a merc game, right? or was it not a cult game, might be a merc game, cant remember. But I assume ghosts(scum) vs. Ghost busters(no idea , maybe mercs?) with innos(town) in between. Anyone got any ideas?

looks like someone is trying to boost there post count

Better than pulling a Silencer and posting once a day and getting the win for team evil. And that was actually what i consider a contribution post. Not a post padding post.

So you are saying that posting about strippers and dirty stripper poles is better than only posting when you have something helpful about the game to say?
thumbdown.gif

You, sir, win one internet!

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

After the last game I mus admit, I am tired of non posters skating to day 5 while those of us that actually play the game and enjoy it get picked off. Not advocating lynching lowest posters(yet), but if you cant at least type a few sentences(yes even if they mean nothing (see also Ments non-agressive playstyle last game)) then why sign up. Its not whoever survives to the end, its find the scum and kill them. Kill them and win. Really, it is a disease that self preservation is more important than team victory, thats wrong and something that team evil feeds and feeds off of. If we are going to find scummy behavior, we need info, even 100 posts with nothing in them gives us some info. but hiding and hoping to make it to the final 5 or 6 players, even if you lose gives us nothing.

~End mini rant.

Self-preservation is not good on inno team. It is PURE UNADULTERATED WIN on the evil team. As you all found out last game, no?

:biggrin:

But, for the moment, Kesso must get my vote.

Remove Vote
Vote Kessobahn

Notice now the time I posted, its a cross post. And now read the post. I used several examples of non contributers and included his ONLY post to date. Again this was a cross post so the one above was his second post of the game. Notice that I only mention his post to show how he hadn't posted in six hours. I never mentioned the vote on Omtose. Bold is mine.

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Emurlahn, on Dec 3 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

End of story, end of rant.

First, glad you responded and this is a debate, no hard feelings cool? cool. My response. Bullshit. I am not attacking low posters(said that 3 times now). I am attacking those who post this shit

"sorry, posting to avoid modkill, maybe more tomorrow"(RL issues are good but if it continues for longet than day 2 its not helpful at all to your team if you are inno)
or
"nothing happening, back later" (again if you repeatedly do this you are not helping)
or

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 03:16 AM, said:

Vote Omtose for voting an account for a previous game. ^^

which is Liosans only post and this was 6 hours ago.

So no, I am not against low posters, I am against people who refuse to contribute out of a self preservation mode, that only helps the fuking killers.

Next I'll show his"defensiveness and total misreading of that post

[Hood's Path]

hahaadf, youfs fualq!

[Gamelon]

Rashan, on Dec 4 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:46 AM, said:

Both Kessobahn and Liosan seem, in my honest opinion, to most likely be confused innocents.
But if we need a lynch, I ain't shying away from providing y'all with the required hammer, on either of them.

WTF? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? I smell scum!

Either you think they might be scum, and then you vote for them, or you don't think they're scum, and don't vote for them. You don't vote for someone you think is likely inno! WTF!
And you want to hammer them?

And what do you mean if we need a lynch?

Well, it's simple. I ain't voting for either of them right at this moment. However, if it looks like we need to get rid of one of them simply cus there ain't no other option, I ain't averse to it. There's the possibility that I'm wrong about them being inno, firstly. The big possibility.
And secondly, ya get info from a lynch. Whether its from the train or from the CF. I'm prepared to do my bit, and I'd hope y'all would hammer me if it came down to it. If they get to a point where it's eight votes on one of em, they're gonna get lynched by someone. I'd rather take part in the train and actively play instead of sitting down at the dang sidelines. But until then, unless I see more unusual behaviour of either of them, I ain't voting. Not just yet, no how.

This post has been edited by Gamelon: 04 December 2008 - 03:00 AM

[Ruse]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

Rashan, on Dec 4 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:46 AM, said:

Both Kessobahn and Liosan seem, in my honest opinion, to most likely be confused innocents.
But if we need a lynch, I ain't shying away from providing y'all with the required hammer, on either of them.

WTF? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? I smell scum!

Either you think they might be scum, and then you vote for them, or you don't think they're scum, and don't vote for them. You don't vote for someone you think is likely inno! WTF!
And you want to hammer them?

And what do you mean if we need a lynch?

Well, it's simple. I ain't voting for either of them right at this moment. However, if it looks like we need to get rid of one of them simply cus there ain't no other option, I ain't averse to it. There's the possibility that I'm wrong about them being inno, firstly. The big possibility.
And secondly, ya get info from a lynch. Whether its from the train or from the CF. I'm prepared to do my bit, and I'd hope y'all would hammer me if it came down to it. If they get to a point where it's eight votes on one of em, they're gonna get lynched by someone. I'd rather take part in the train and actively play instead of sitting down at the dang sidelines. But until then, unless I see more unusual behaviour of either of them, I ain't voting. Not just yet, no how.

I've never quite understood the logic behind this kind of reasoning - whether or not the player in question is actually lynched, the train still exists, and information can be gleaned from it in the same way. If you don't think the player is scum, don't vote for him until you see evidence that he is.

[Rashan]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:58 AM, said:

Well, it's simple. I ain't voting for either of them right at this moment. However, if it looks like we need to get rid of one of them simply cus there ain't no other option, I ain't averse to it. There's the possibility that I'm wrong about them being inno, firstly. The big possibility.
And secondly, ya get info from a lynch. Whether its from the train or from the CF. I'm prepared to do my bit, and I'd hope y'all would hammer me if it came down to it. If they get to a point where it's eight votes on one of em, they're gonna get lynched by someone. I'd rather take part in the train and actively play instead of sitting down at the dang sidelines. But until then, unless I see more unusual behaviour of either of them, I ain't voting. Not just yet, no how.

It wasn't so much what you said, but how you said it, everything you say is pretty obvious, and you're making too much of a deal of it. You're jumping ahead of yourself. I don't like this at all. When and if that situation arises that you have to contemplate lynching for info, you deal with that then. But jumping ahead and showing the kind of eagerness you just showed, looks really suspicious. It's like you're saying "I'm not scum at all, no no, I am willing to hammer the innos for info, just watch me." Get it? Looks really suspicious.


Edit: added 'to'

This post has been edited by Rashan: 04 December 2008 - 03:07 AM

[Kessobahn]

Here is where I noticed he cross post. Notice that I say he wants to lynch the vocal guy for no apparent reason. All I want is a reason.

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 02:35 PM, said:

Oh look, Liosans on and hes voting the vocal guy, for no apparent reason, you my frend may be scum.

And here he flips (maybe to harsh but it is a stern response), and misrepresents what I said. Not that he voted me because I was vocal, but without a reason. I say stern because of the use of FUCKING VOCAL remark. Then he goes on to trash me because I brought up his vote on Omtose. I never did this, again a misrepresentation of what I said.

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

Oh, really, Kesso? Out of my post, you decided that I'd voted you for being fucking VOCAL? Dude, I'm voting for you for your attitude, and the shit you're giving people for their play-style.

OK, sure, you've since clarified that that was not the area you were picking on. Fine. I was reading up and made my vote as I went!

My first vote. Day one. Spam-day. What do you care if it's random, meaningless? Omtose's own vote was for someone using an account in the previous game that was a symp FFS!

SO to me, he got overly defensive. I try to explain.

Here is were I point out that he didn't give a reason and tell Game that he never commented on my arttitude in his original vote post. You seemy curiosity was peaked. But not enough to move on, so I prodded a bit.

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Lio- Show me where you gave a reason. You didn't. Therefore I assume its because I am a vocal player, you even agree with me that self-preservation is bad.

Game- look, if you think I am ATTACKING then fine, but its a reasonable argument. Lio didn't post for 6 hours after a joke vote, then comes on and votes me, without an explanation. He gets defensive and says its my attitude, yet he never commented on it. So I really don't see the aggressiveness, could you point out why I am getting on your nervs. I was simply stating a point. If there was some crassness there, well, nothing to do bout that, when I see this stuff, I tend to be a bit crass. Again, please tell me why I am getting on your nerves, is it the tone?

Here is his reason for voting me. Goback and read that. where is there reason for the vote?

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

The quotes. Where I quote you, and say "I object to that!", and where I tell you how you are wrong when it comes to being evil.

Did it ever occur to you that during those 6 hours, I was ASLEEP? Some people have to do that, you know!

I still try to show him where I was confused

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

The quotes. Where I quote you, and say "I object to that!", and where I tell you how you are wrong when it comes to being evil.

Did it ever occur to you that during those 6 hours, I was ASLEEP? Some people have to do that, you know!

Fine you were sleeping, cool, but you didn't explain the vote. Hey, I object to that and YOU AGREED WITH ME that self preservation was a bad inno move. No where did you disagree, not once.

You see he said he said that he said I was wrong about self-preservation. Thats a slip. He agreed that innos playing for self preservation was BAD!

[Gamelon]

Ruse, on Dec 4 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

Rashan, on Dec 4 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:46 AM, said:

Both Kessobahn and Liosan seem, in my honest opinion, to most likely be confused innocents.
But if we need a lynch, I ain't shying away from providing y'all with the required hammer, on either of them.

WTF? What kind of stupid reasoning is that? I smell scum!

Either you think they might be scum, and then you vote for them, or you don't think they're scum, and don't vote for them. You don't vote for someone you think is likely inno! WTF!
And you want to hammer them?

And what do you mean if we need a lynch?

Well, it's simple. I ain't voting for either of them right at this moment. However, if it looks like we need to get rid of one of them simply cus there ain't no other option, I ain't averse to it. There's the possibility that I'm wrong about them being inno, firstly. The big possibility.
And secondly, ya get info from a lynch. Whether its from the train or from the CF. I'm prepared to do my bit, and I'd hope y'all would hammer me if it came down to it. If they get to a point where it's eight votes on one of em, they're gonna get lynched by someone. I'd rather take part in the train and actively play instead of sitting down at the dang sidelines. But until then, unless I see more unusual behaviour of either of them, I ain't voting. Not just yet, no how.

I've never quite understood the logic behind this kind of reasoning - whether or not the player in question is actually lynched, the train still exists, and information can be gleaned from it in the same way. If you don't think the player is scum, don't vote for him until you see evidence that he is.

Most of the time we tend to forget bout trains unless they lead to a lynch. But they usually do, let's face it. And then if there was a train beforehand, its more or less buried under the rush of people analysing the lynching train.

And for Rashan: someone needs to state the obvious. I'm commenting on yer comment, answering your question. You can glean whatever meaninging from it that suits ya.

[Rashan]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:53 AM, said:

I agree with ya. No one is that ornery right from the start. He's playing at something, and I don't know what, but like I said, I'll eat my Stetson if he turns out to be scum.

Oh, I found another contradiction on your posts.

You agree that Kesso is over playing, but you'll eat your Stetson if he turns out to be scum? WTF?!

To me it seems like you do know what Kesso is playing at, but you want us to back off for some reason.

Symp much?


Edit:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

And for Rashan: someone needs to state the obvious. I'm commenting on yer comment, answering your question. You can glean whatever meaninging from it that suits ya.

No, there's no need to state the obvious, unless you have a hidden agenda. And I wasn't talking about your answer, I was talking about the first post of yours that I commented on.

This post has been edited by Rashan: 04 December 2008 - 03:14 AM

[Gamelon]

Rashan, on Dec 4 2008, 03:13 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:53 AM, said:

I agree with ya. No one is that ornery right from the start. He's playing at something, and I don't know what, but like I said, I'll eat my Stetson if he turns out to be scum.

Oh, I found another contradiction on your posts.

You agree that Kesso is over playing, but you'll eat your Stetson if he turns out to be scum? WTF?!

To me it seems like you do know what Kesso is playing at, but you want us to back off for some reason.

Symp much?

Possible he's role playing. Possible he's just a symp. I don't think he's an actual killer.

[Ruse]

@Kess: I plan to wait until I've heard all of your case to comment...have you more, or is that what you wanted to say?

[Rashan]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

Possible he's role playing. Possible he's just a symp. I don't think he's an actual killer.

Why? Because you had a vision in a dream? You can't know that.

Argh, I can't stay. We'll talk about this more tomorrow. See you all later.

[Ruse]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Most of the time we tend to forget bout trains unless they lead to a lynch. But they usually do, let's face it. And then if there was a train beforehand, its more or less buried under the rush of people analysing the lynching train.

Oh, I'm not disputing that people forget about the non-lynch trains, but rather that they shouldn't. Agreeing to put the hammer on even though you're not convinced of someone's evilness seems a bit unnecessary, that's all.


EDITTED for clarity.

This post has been edited by Ruse: 04 December 2008 - 03:19 AM

[Gamelon]

Rashan, on Dec 4 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 04:15 AM, said:

Possible he's role playing. Possible he's just a symp. I don't think he's an actual killer.

Why? Because you had a vision in a dream? You can't know that.

Argh, I can't stay. We'll talk about this more tomorrow. See you all later.

Because if he's a killer he'd have to be a ridiculously bad or unorthodox player to stick his neck out so far. And I can't see that being the case. He's gonna get lynched at some point, because someone will bring up his posts as being scummy in light of Day One or some such. First opinions stick in this game.

[Kessobahn]

Here again is were I say look you slipped its cool but not lynch worthy. Bold is important. He's hung up on the Omtose vote.

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

I said that it was actually a good thing for evils. Not a direct disagreement, but it's still a defence of a play-style choice, Kess.

The vote didn't need explaining, surely? Everybody does those crappy joke-votes for no good reason on day one! As I said later, Omtose's vote should have been worse in your eyes - mine was quite obviously a joke-reaction.

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, post=, said:

Right, you said self preservation was bad for innos, good for evils. I said that. We agree. Its not a survival game unless you are evil. We agree right? The joke vote doesn't need an explanation and isn't really valid, its the vote,disappear,appear 6 hours later and vote without explanation. that is the reason for my suspicion. I am trying to be very clear here lio.I just do not see an explanation for you vote on me, in the post in which you voted. After I assumed it was because I was vocal, you explained, but not in the post you voted for me in. You simply objected to a statement and then agreed that self-preservation is good for team evil, as in last game, then voted me. It was a serious vote on me, it deserved an explantion in that post. Not after I pointed it out and then you go on the defensive. Just seems odd. Not vote worthy, but note worthy, for future referance.

I add to my case

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

Emurlahn, on Dec 3 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

Also, the scumlist Kesso presents is as good as 'no scumlist'... why did you even mention it in the first place when you basically lack a scumlist?
Also, why is a vote on you, with or without explanation, any more scummy than a vote on anyone else?

I presented the scum list as a joke, I put Lio on that scum list for reasons already stated.

A serious vote without an explanation after a six hour absense(when there was already heat on me thus adding to it, trying to start a train maybe, just a guess mind) appears scummy to me.

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

I can see this being a lynch-less day one, atm.

But there isn't anyone who's done anything worthy of notice! Except the Kess shit. Still, I can't see a symp or killer trying to waste themselves on day one like this, though.

He tries to dismiss it, but he's stumbling. He can't defend and ouldn't remove the vote. I ignore the self vote. Really he was on my list. Not lynch worthy, but then after that self vote he posts this, which is IMO lynchworthy.

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

So, you don't really want to lynch scum? Weird...

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

Oh look, Liosans on and hes voting the vocal guy, for no apparent reason, you my frend may be scum.

^This, to me, reads: "He's voting for me for being vocal". Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I read it at the time.

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

Emurlahn, on Dec 3 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

End of story, end of rant.

First, glad you responded and this is a debate, no hard feelings cool? cool. My response. Bullshit. I am not attacking low posters(said that 3 times now). I am attacking those who post this shit

"sorry, posting to avoid modkill, maybe more tomorrow"(RL issues are good but if it continues for longet than day 2 its not helpful at all to your team if you are inno)
or
"nothing happening, back later" (again if you repeatedly do this you are not helping)
or

Liosan, on Dec 3 2008, 03:16 AM, said:

Vote Omtose for voting an account for a previous game. ^^

which is Liosans only post and this was 6 hours ago.

So no, I am not against low posters, I am against people who refuse to contribute out of a self preservation mode, that only helps the fuking killers.

And here you specifically mention that my Omtose vote was bad. For some reason, probably because it's a typical day one spam vote.

Now, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I was asking him why he picked my Omtose vote, and not Omtose's own vote for Silanah for no reason other than the history of that alt.

Read the bold. the last bold there said lynch. I explained several times his Omtose vote was his ONLY post( I didn't pick it.) And even in the post he quoted explained my reasoning.(In the green). It made me say, this is as pitiful a defense as it gets, I must lynch him. My gut screams lynch him. I know I have been a pain. Like a skipping CD, but ITS ALL THERE. I have to go no. think about it. I won't try anymore, if its not the best day 1 case, well, I don't know what is. That is why I am so ceratain. At first I wasn't but that last post sealed it for me.

[Gamelon]

Ruse, on Dec 4 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Most of the time we tend to forget bout trains unless they lead to a lynch. But they usually do, let's face it. And then if there was a train beforehand, its more or less buried under the rush of people analysing the lynching train.

Oh, I'm not disputing that people forget about the non-lynch trains, but rather that they shouldn't. Agreeing to put the hammer on even though you're not convinced of someone's evilness seems a bit unnecessary, that's all.


EDITTED for clarity.

I just ain't shy bout lynching someone if it needs to be done. I'd hope that if there's a case on me and I'm the centre of attention too, you'd hammer me. Cus otherwise it'll just drag on and rear its darn ugly head another day, or something equally as bad for us. It's Mafia, people. No need to be sentimental. We're not playing to survive, I don't walk into every game expecting to survive, but I do intend to win.

[Kessobahn]

I'll hang and wait for a response for a minute. But its really late here. Anyway, I apreciate that more people are talking. That was my goal beginning of the day. And no motives, just got nothing to lose if I get lynched.

[Kessobahn]

Alright I am out. cant hold my eyes open. Night. See you in 8 or 9 hours.

[Ruse]

OK, thanks for responding to my post Kess, your arguments have made things a bit clearer for me.

I can see what you are saying and to a certain extent why you find it suspicious. The thing about self-preservation, well Lio's response doesn't really work all that well. Personally I would put that down to an inability to admit being in the wrong more than anything else, but you're right it doesn't quite ring true and is food for thought.

However, the other point that your case hinges upon, which essentially boils down to his interpretation of what you were accusing him of regarding his first post of the game being different to what you intentionally intended, is not one I think is valid. Forgive me for saying this, but the one time you really emphasized that you were more annoyed about the drive-by vote and leave followed by another drive-byish vote switch, ie. this post:

Kessobahn, on Dec 3 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Right, you said self preservation was bad for innos, good for evils. I said that. We agree. Its not a survival game unless you are evil. We agree right? The joke vote doesn't need an explanation and isn't really valid, its the vote,disappear,appear 6 hours later and vote without explanation. that is the reason for my suspicion. I am trying to be very clear here lio.I just do not see an explanation for you vote on me, in the post in which you voted. After I assumed it was because I was vocal, you explained, but not in the post you voted for me in. You simply objected to a statement and then agreed that self-preservation is good for team evil, as in last game, then voted me. It was a serious vote on me, it deserved an explantion in that post. Not after I pointed it out and then you go on the defensive. Just seems odd. Not vote worthy, but note worthy, for future referance.

is not particularly clear to me, despite the fact that you said you were in fact trying to be clear. I can understand Liosan not quite being able to see the angle you were coming from. And besides, his point that he was asleep is to a certain extent valid (although for a first post back I would have expected a little more substance, 'tis true). So the second half of your case doesn't really work for me.

It does help me understand why you felt he was scum, however. I know how when you make a statement yourself, the meaning is a lot more obvious than it would be to others, and from that the case and certainty follows. Still don't feel it's worth betting your card on, but I can forgive a little hyperbole here and there.

So overall, I suspect you a little less than I did before, but you haven't convinced me that Liosan warrants any more suspicion than I already have.


EDIT: Crosspost with Kess calling it a night. Sorry I couldn't reply in time, Kess.

This post has been edited by Ruse: 04 December 2008 - 03:48 AM

[Ruse]

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:25 AM, said:

Ruse, on Dec 4 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

Gamelon, on Dec 4 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Most of the time we tend to forget bout trains unless they lead to a lynch. But they usually do, let's face it. And then if there was a train beforehand, its more or less buried under the rush of people analysing the lynching train.

Oh, I'm not disputing that people forget about the non-lynch trains, but rather that they shouldn't. Agreeing to put the hammer on even though you're not convinced of someone's evilness seems a bit unnecessary, that's all.


EDITTED for clarity.

I just ain't shy bout lynching someone if it needs to be done. I'd hope that if there's a case on me and I'm the centre of attention too, you'd hammer me. Cus otherwise it'll just drag on and rear its darn ugly head another day, or something equally as bad for us. It's Mafia, people. No need to be sentimental. We're not playing to survive, I don't walk into every game expecting to survive, but I do intend to win.

I don't think there's any sentimentality involved, it's plain numbers. While you don't get a CF if there's no lynch, if you think the guy in question is probably inno then lynching him is in fact a great help to the killers - one less inno means they're one step closer to achieving victory. Depends on how you balance the two, I guess, and how likely you think the player in question is to be inno.

[Ruse]

Right, I'm going to have an earlyish night - I have a pretty early start tomorrow, and went to bed later than usual last night. See you all tomorrow, probably in about 10 hours or so.