Imran Ehsan

Welcome Preston!

do you have any other reasons for voting him? cause a tantrum is hardly a reason to vote Seems like he has given up on the game. Unless there is a replacement incoming he is just deadweight. My first preference is still to lynch the Ovidsidios who is pretty scummy but trimming dead wight is also good for the town.

do you have any other reasons for voting him? cause a tantrum is hardly a reason to vote I'm sure the more reasonable motivations for his votes are those ambiguous assertions he will claim to have, but... Try again.

So here's the breakdown: "A" for ambiguity (unintentional). It will probably help your case if you explain those other qualities than lurking and post content and form you are referencing above. There is nothing ambiguous in that statement. Read this post to find out how you fit the scum criteria. "B" for lurking. Now this one is easy to explain, as many of you may do the same, I leave certain tabs open. You actually think I'm reading and not posting, when in truth I'm not even living. "Well close your tabs then," you might say. "Shutup, you don't live my life". But in all honesty, if we claim ourselves logicians than we must give credence to the validity of this statement. The onus of proof would have technically fallen on you to prove what is in fact lurking. Which isn't the standing idle in a thread per se, but idling in intervals. If you find that my activity is in blocks, than it is certainly possible that I was simply idling, not lurking. Right. You happen to leave your tab open and not post for 5 days. Thats a very townie behavior. If that's not lurking please do explain how you define lurking. I am interested to hear your definition. Now if you had come and said, "look, I see you lurking, but I thought maybe I could check and see statistically (provided it is possible) your activity. When I did, I found you only showed up in spikes as though you just read and logged off. Therefore, I found it sufficient to conclude that you just punched in to see what was being said (if anything) about you, and seeing yourself clear from danger, would leave (ergo scummy)." Then maybe "this" point would have some merit. But brother, if it deserves credence, then it must be given its due. Now you may not like the response, but that's not what a logical person would concern themselves with. And until you show me the "lurk" (which bears with it all the negative stigma within that onus of proof), then you're just wanting to zealously lynch me (mind you this is the same behavior you exhibited on day 1; which was why I mentioned in my previous post my trouble with coping with this largely baseless passion). Which hands down is very scum behavior. You did not post for 5 days straight until I voted for you. Thats lurking. Walls of texts doesnt change that meaning. "C" is for posts/content/medium of expression. Now I've gathered, from most of your gripping, that this is where the largest crux of your issues with me lies (until you clarify what "A" represents). I could understand if this were the tip of the icing, but it's not. You're trying to lynch me because of my poetry/posting/content. Which seems like the worst reason to lynch someone. You may have determined it, but saying so doesnt make it so. You trying to change my accusation from my other criteria to modes of posting is noted. I have stated clearly that was not my reason for voting you, in fact my vote was before you posted your poetry and the assorted fluff thatyou think is very intelligent but is just plain annoying. But let's play a little thought experiement (if this were a tl;dr, this would be it) 1). You have wanted since day 1 to lynch me. We can all understand day 1, so nothing personal. Mind you, nothing reasonable can ever be truly discovered unless someone truly ups and gives themselves away. Again completely false statement. I did not vote for you on Day 1. Neither even commented on your posting style. Dont lie when it is very easy to go back pages and see that you are lying. Its a sign of scum. 2). Now day 2, you are not only forcing my lynch, but you're doing so because... Ambiguous reasons. I'm gonna relate block texts about how I have more reasons to vote for you, but I'm only gonna mention your posting style. It's not like I have anything to hide...Lurking- Because it is abundantly apparent that you are just logging on and keeping to yourself until danger arrives.Poetry. "Because nothing good could possibly come from poetry, and everyone who writes poems is a scum" said Count OlafAlready explained above. 3). Yet, if my posting style were so inconvenient, why would your immediate reaction be to lynch me? Do not the sith deal in absolutes? Do not siths begin with the same letter as scum? Would this be ridiculous reasoning? Yet, a maphia/alien/zombies do not wish to see peaceful resolution. If amidst the chaos collateral occurs, than a maphia player has done their job well. 4). You say my poetry is worthless, but you are just one perspective (and a terrible one at that). And who are you to judge? In a game where every little detail matters, you're very quick to throw my contribution away. It's as if you don't have the patience...dare I say....content to see me go. Again trying to twist the argument to something that I have clearly said was not my reason for voting. Trying to get sympathy from potery lovers to save your hide. Noted. "No, no, no" you will probably claim, "this is exactly what I wanted from you..." but at what cost? Shall you save face, remove your vote, and expect me not to remember this? You came in too hard, and too fast. Now I'm not a gambling man, and maybe you've done good covering your tracks, little demon, but, "You will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name's sake and not according to your evil ways and your corrupt practices..." Because I am bound to the truth, and the truth has set me free. But you sir are on the road to perdition, and delude yourself in power when you are but a slave. Opening your mouth to condemn me, You have cut yourself with your own sword. Bleeding, you will strike at me again, Piercing your foot with ignorance, and impaling your own self with pride. Who continues to lunge but the desparate? Who struggles against the impossible, But the frightful? FLUFF My reasoning behooves me to consider you heartfully, while deeper regions of me which to send you to the hangman's noose. I am conflicted because voting for you would surely raise the awareness of those townsmen (and women) who would find my actions suspect. Yet, allowing you to live (provided you were scum), would be a negligence of the highest order. I feel like I am the priest in Alfred Hitchcock's "Confession". FLUFF And if you manage to convince them otherwise of my innocence, what then? Will not my death reveal the darkness of your plans? Will not the light bring revelation to your true form? Has it not been said, "...for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." FLUFF The problem with speaking, my child, is the danger of being misconstrued. This is especially dangerous for scum who are hung by the very webbing of their own lies. I will not consider your desire to withdraw your accusations of me suspect, but continuation is futile as the "absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". FLUFF The more you post the more scummy you look.

This is not a game for the thin skinned. And throwing tantrums because someone voted for them is childish. I will vote for r2v when I get to computer.

This is a completely false statement which conveniently ignores the reasoning I posted here. And yes that post was made when you havent posted for 5 days and before you posted your poetry. You were lurking and then posted something that has nothing to do with the game. The poetry is annoying because it has nothing to do with this game, however that is not my reason for suspecting you.

ps: I have also posted my thoughts on robert's claim. So no, I dont see any merit in your accusation that I am not doing things that I am asking others to do.

When I see anything in the form of poetry I automatically skip over it. Its an-inbuilt function that cant be adjusted. Now, explain what you posted in clear concise sentences, identifying (i) your list of scummy players, (ii) why do you think these players are scummy and (iii) what do you think of robert's claim. Why don't you do that first? Lead before you ask others to follow. I have already posted my vote on who I think the scum is along with my reasoning, unlike ovidsidios, who would rather lurk for days on end until a vote was placed on him and then responding with poetry.

When I see anything in the form of poetry I automatically skip over it. Its an-inbuilt function that cant be adjusted. Now, explain what you posted in clear concise sentences, identifying (i) your list of scummy players, (ii) why do you think these players are scummy and (iii) what do you think of robert's claim.

+townie points to Big Ego for being active and contributing and posting his thoughts on other players. So for the moment Unvote However, I am still sticking with my argument that there is a scum amongst one of the 2 new FTW guys. So I will move on to my 2nd suspect. Vote: Ovidsidious He fits the criteria as well as Big Ego + he is lurking. His last post was on 9 March and I have seen him read the thread since then but make no post. His posts are also unrelated to the game and he has made no effort as of yet to post his thoughts on who the scum may be or how to proceed in identifying the scum. I everyone to put pressure on this guy and lynch him today as the other wagons are nearly not as good. Re: robert's claim. I noticed he claimed to have had an action on EM, but since he made no other info known, I disregarded it. His info so far is pointless and helps the town in no way. I guess he had his reasons to reveal that he has a night action but since he is not willing to reveal it there is no point trying to push him to do so. Personally I dont see any positive to that reveal except putting up an X mark on him as a target for scum action on him. Unless he is a scum himself and is tryng to get night protective actions to be drawn his way so that his scum buddies can make a kill unimpeded.

yo

Since you have said this a couple of times, I will clarify. I wont say I am upset, more in the range of dissatisfied. The reason is when I paid some attention to this game to decide who I will vote for on Day 2, I saw that there are 8 people in a row who voted no lynch while others who voted for lynch well all random. I like to analyze things and vote based on my analysis and no lynching on day 1 gave me no info whatsoever. Now we have 2 townies dead and we are back to voting randomly again to lynch someone this day.

You don't see why any older players would target him? How about to throw people off the trail by using that exact story you just gave? You claim voting patterns are worthless unless someone is lynched, like you can't derive ANY information without a complete lynch.. but of course now that Master Samus is dead it's oh so obvious, one of the new guys must've done it! Like it's really likely we'd be assigned that role.. I think you are realizing I'm not scum, and I'm a threat to those who are scum. Those who defend the interest of scum are scum. Vote Imran 1. No. I dont see the experienced players targetting a new player in his first game. You target the leaders who drive discussions, or you target very experienced players. I have seen players like EM, Kevin or Kazio completely turn a game around on their own. Of course the problem with these guys is that they are likely to draw protective abilities as well, so a smart scum will go for the 2nd tier of guys, guys who have played a few games but not known to drive discussions, say robert, isocialism, lyner or TBR (he played well last game). That would make sense. What doesnt make sense is scum targetting a brand new player who could easily be persuaded to mislynch or not grasp the finer aspects of the game at first. 2. No. I claimed voting pattern of Day 1 (without lynch) is worthless. Because there are too many random votes in those wagons and some just voting for the heck of it and not removing their votes. voting patterns for days after that even if they dont result in a lynch are useful because normally ppl have to argue why they are voting for that particular person. 3. How would I realize you are not scum? Since we have hardly any info from Day 1, I am basing my vote on something that makes sense to me. It can really be you or Ovid but I wont know until i put my pressure on you and see what happens. Define how I am "on edge". Broad statements with nothing to backup that claim is pretty edgy itself.

This is a good example of why lynching is a good idea on Day 1. You can get loads of info and get reads on people by the voting pattern. When someone starts a No Lynch bandwagon everyone, including scum, trundles into it because it is the safest option and 0 info is gained. You go into day 2 with no info whatsoever instead of some info probably at the cost of a townie. But with a large pool of players like in this game, no lynching is the worst possible option. You have to make a random vote in the early parts of the game so you can use that info for the next days. You do it as early as possible and not wait for Day 2 when the number of townies is already low. As for kevin's argument, that someone knows something. Thats just over-reliance on the cop. He is assuming the cop (if there is one) has some info pertaining to the alignment of a player and will vote accordingly. But no one knows who the cop is and the cop is not likely to reveal his results so early in the game (or he may even get killed in the night). So basically you just wasted one day's voting pattern Hoping someone has found some useful info. Other roles like trackers and watchers will also be useful only in the highly unlikely probability that they watched the victim that night etc. In any case, I am sticking with my assumption that the Vig killed Rafay and the scum targetted Samoos. I dont see why any older players will target him. So that leaves the nooby players and specifically those who dont know much about the IRON guys playing this game. My theory is they targetted the one they know..and we can all say Samoos is pretty notorious over CN. Therefore, I would say there is a scum is one of the 2 new FTW guys who are playing their first game here. Vote: Big Ego

@@Kaziocore, I was just wondering what this is.

Its the beginning of a trend of votes. By itself its not much info (but still better than no lynch) but taken together with the following days' voting wagons you can find trends on who is voting who and who is trying to avoid voting who. Now we have no info from Day 1. And by your logic, we have no need to lynch anyone on Day 2 as well. Why lynch today too? We may kill a townie god forbid (yes i am looking at you kevin). Why even lynch on Day 3 for that matter? We cant take the risk of killing another townie can we? No lynching is pointless and boring.

Random wagons on Day 1 that results in not lynching is worse than useless. People base their votes on fluff and keep switching wagons. The only thing of worth on Day 1 is the actual lynch where someone actually gets killed.

I did vote to Lynch on Day 1. I will vote to lynch on day 2 as well. The reason for my last post was because of the lame No Lynch wagon on Day 1, I have nothing to go on to vote for anyone now. I guess I will throw out a random vote sometime, as there is nothing else to base my vote on.

This is why No Lynch on Day 1 is stoopid. No wagons, no nothing. We have nothing to go on but make random guesses and random votes. I hope all of you who voted No Lynch are ashamed of yourselves.

Rafay got killed probably because of his performance in the last few games. He never does much analysis and looks scummy even when he is actually not scum. Its a problem for the town because when ppl start concentrating on his suspicious posts, the real scum get a pass and get an easy townie lynch. Thats my theory anyway.

Zombies cant be killed by duns guns i cant type <_<

They are going by the movie where Patrolman Larry is the cop. While going through the story alos found an interesting tidbit. Zombies cant be killed by duns so the people in the movie use clubs to kill the zombies. Clubs = bunt force trauma -> Vigilante or at least a group who are trying to kill the zombies. Also interesting tidbit was that the Old Man was killed early in the movie and later returned as a Zombie. And here we have Samoose disappearing. We are assuming he is dead but will we see him return? if he returns he will return as a zombie. I am not sure how that fits in with the game mechanics though.

I would say its a Vigilante and not a SK because of the nature of the killing. SK seems like someone who will use knives or something more sinister. Blunt trauma force seems like a crime of passion pointing towards a Vig. I would say the Vig targetted Rafay and the scum targetted Samus. Agreed with EM as well that i dont see why scum would take out a noob instead of one of the experienced players. So that points towards another noob as the scum who decided on targetting Samus. I will take a look at Rafay's and Samus' day 1 postings later to see if there was anything they said that resulted in them being targetted,

it's not common sense it's plain cowardice.but whatever floats your boat Votes No lynch. Calls out kevin for advocating No lynch. I will have my eyes on you. too many past tense words in one sentence. my grammar nazi senses are tingling.

Your squirming with votes piling up on you says scum to me.