Quick to jump on Fitz over something silly. We were only in, like, a few hours into the game, and it seems rather over-eager to place suspicion on someone.
In post 56, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 53, MooseyGoosey wrote:That's in all honesty not a good way to start at all.
Gen, out of interest. What would your preffered method this game be to go about hunting the mafia members?
I'm not Gen, but I play a very gut/process of elimination (PoE) based game. Typically if I have time I'll do a reread and create some town/scum reads based on gut. Then I look through my non-town reads (null, scum reads) and go through their ISOs and decide which is most likely to be the scum.
ISOs are your friend. Don't ignore them.
You should always be looking out for things that don't make a lot of sense. When reading a post, think "What motivation does town have to post this? What about scum?" Most of the time, you'll find that both town and scum would have motivation. Think about which has more.
Gen feel free to add more. :3
@Arugula: That doesn't really answer the question.
This is a post that seems to meet his standards for 'long,' yet all it is game theory and irrelevant to the game, not to mention that the question wasn't even directed at him. He also responds to SOMETHING ELSE that wasn't directed at him. What was the point of this post?
In post 71, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 63, Gen_Wolf wrote:On a serious need, why did you feel the need to answer this question? Almost as if you are trying to get in front and lead town?
I was bored. :3
In post 65, Fitz wrote:That sounds like you're mafia looking for any excuse at all to vote for a townie. I could have said anything and you would have voted for me, it seems. Why are you so haste, or since this is a newbie game, could you enlighten me as to what would the correct response have been in your eyes? (FoS: Lastsurvivor)
I'll UNVOTE: Harisk because I was only doing it as a prod, but I'm keeping my eye on him since he voted for me without reason, almost as if he were following Lastsurvivor's vote, who I'm suspicious of.
I’ll be honest; I was probably going to vote you unless you flat out said no. Call it a reaction test.
You reacted well. Someone else did not.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Harisk
Harisk, why are you voting Fitz?
@Moosey: My reread where I determine my gut reads does involve going off things people say and finding scum slips. I only use my gut to find town, not to find scum. If that makes sense.
Explains away the prior Fitz vote as a reaction tes. I can buy that. He's suspicious of HaRisk/Rach for that vote, and I can't blame him. He asks HaRisk about the vote... Oh look, that's similar to what I did in 177 in regards to getting people's opinions and analyses of my vote! Imagine that. Oh, and more game theory to round out the post. Nice.
In post 81, Lastsurvivor wrote:I saw Sigma's "maybe" too but didn't really feel like commenting on it. Really, it's WIFOM to think about the true motives behind it. Fitz's wordy explanation is really why anyone who plays stupid games like that should just be ignored. It's gonna confuse the town.
Short post to re-iterate what others have said and adds nothing to the conversation whatsoever. What is even the point of posting to parrot other people?
Fluff post talking about lack of activity yet not trying to CAUSE activity. Again, is there any point to this at all other than to say that you posted?
In post 85, Lastsurvivor wrote:I've been waiting on HaRisk but he hasn't posted since Tuesday. He's due for a prod in an hour or so.
So...I'll just bring my point to the town while we wait. What do you all think of HaRisk just
jumping on the crappy HaRisk wagon I made? Personally, I think it's a scummy vote since Fitz's response wasn't really scummy nor had he done anything scummy really.
Now he's repeating what he's said earlier, asking other people what THEY think, and adding nothing new. Though, I will give him credit for trying to spur activity, because God knows we needed it.
Another fluff post. Once more, nothing is added and it just takes up room in the thread.
In post 92, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 90, Pulcher wrote:I like these guys. Also, what do you see about LastSurvivor, Fitz? LastSurvivor, why do you think Fitz sees you as scummy (if you can answer before Fitz does)?
Fitz has basically already said why he thinks I'm scummy. I think he dislikes
this post mostly.
Okay, this one doesn't have much, but it was in response to a stupid question of mine. At least he was actually bothering to answer me at this point in time, and I'd say I'm to blame this post being redundant.
In post 93, Lastsurvivor wrote:If there's a scum that's lurking/coasting in our lull of discussion, I think it'd be MooseyGoosey...
Anyone agree?
If HaRisk is replaced my vote goes to Moosey until we see what his replacement's like. ATM though I think a HaRisk/Moosey team is possible...but a lot of things are possible due to the inactivity and lack of info. We've actually been playing for almost a week. :/
All he does here is point a finger at somebody for lurking and comment on lack of activity without really doing much.
In post 98, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 94, Gen_Wolf wrote: In post 72, SigmaEXE003 wrote:
8. What are your stances on lurking and lying?
I don't mind lurking if the lurker contributes when they are here. Lying, well, you won't really know if it's a lie until it's too late, if at all. No use lingering on the past when you do find out. Of course, unless you're using to catch a scumbuddy, but don't make it a personal thing.
What about Stigma, he's only had two posts and one of them was a "/confirm". The other was when he answered the questions:
The one above stood out. I was thinking, maybe he doesn't mind lurking this game because he is involved in the scum fraction of this game? It's quite hard to get a read on someone who hasn't posted at all but him and HaRisk are the two who have posted least :/
Any thoughts?
I excluded Sigma because he had already been prodded (and has been prodded again). Doesn't seem like scum coasting, because usually they pay attention and make sure they avoid prods.
My theory might be bust though since MooseyGoosey just got prodded. I expected him to react to my post before his prod.
Still adds nothing. Says his last 'lead' is probably a bust, but doesn't bother to provide any alternatives. At all.
In post 99, Lastsurvivor wrote:That said, there are a lot of people who look like they could be coasting just because of their low post counts. I don't think we can search for lulling scum yet...
Goes in to say people could be scum for low post count, without doing anything productive. Could've fit nicely into that last contentless post to save some room in the thread, hmm?
In post 113, Lastsurvivor wrote:Hmm...
Rach does anything from the game stick out? So far not much has happened but... :/
Asks Rach to find something to analyze/discuss, instead of, you know, trying to do something himself. Pull your own weight, it's not everyone else's job to bring these things to you on a silver platter.
In post 117, Lastsurvivor wrote:Excellent.
I was mostly referring to your lazy posting throughout the week, not your inactivity during the weekend. You posted enough to avoid prods, but not enough to stand out.
Again, he repeats what he said earlier without bringing anything new to the table. What is the point of all these posts? Did you eviscerate a teddy bear and needed a way to dispose of the fluff?
Just a quick comment about how his opinion on Moosey changed, and a question for Arugula. A relevant post, finally.
Asks Rach to find something to analyze/discuss, instead of, you know, trying to do something himself. Pull your own weight, it's not everyone else's job to bring these things to you on a silver platter.
An afterthought to the last post, wasn't really necessary.
In post 129, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 128, RachMarie wrote:@LS I don't think you will get away with being lazy in this game (yes a poke at meta but its a null point he is lazy whether he is town or scum), we really DO need more activity we are down to 12 days and some change, and have how many posts? And no, I have not yet figured out who the scum are.
I
do
have the second highest post count here (excluding NS)...
UNVOTE:
Okay, he seems to equate posting with content here. Uh, guy, most of your posts aren't worth much, don't think having a lot of posts absolves you from suspicion. May have just been a joke, but since there was nothing else there it's just wasting space.
In post 130, Lastsurvivor wrote:And...
VOTE: Arugula
I agree with Rach that he doesn't really done much other than post RQS. I also don't like how he voted for Sigma who most likely isn't coming back. It looks like he's avoiding conflict but still trying to look like he's participating.
This one is directly after his last post, could've very easily been part of it, and just sheeps Rach's lead. Seeing a pattern here?
In post 132, Lastsurvivor wrote:Because Sigma's not going to be able to reply to your vote. Nor will his successor.
These two are just one line posts, but it's clarification on the whole Arugula thing, so it at least has some content to it.
Asks about Sigma without ever giving any opinions/thoughts/analysis of his own.
In post 152, Lastsurvivor wrote:I didn't read real carefully (was focusing on another game earlier today). Pulcher makes an excellent point about Gen's 144.
I see we're evolving into a wall based game, which is good. I think we're getting somewhere.
Moosey, what do you think of Arugula and Sigma?
This one stands out for me. He admits to not reading posts carefully, in this case Gen's (and by his later posts, mine too). It should probably be obvious that someone who quickly skims through posts like that won't be of any help to town. There's also the matter of him stating that walls are good (I'll address this in a moment), which is still raising a lot of flags for me right now.
In post 163, Lastsurvivor wrote:@Arug: I don't see the case against Sigma, to answer your question.
Any thoughts on who's scummy now?
I like how you're accusing me of not taking a stance when you yourself spend more time asking opinions than giving them.
In post 165, Lastsurvivor wrote:Ah, yes...that post from Gen does seem to be popular.
I actually don't like Pulcher. In his
post 151 he says that he dislikes Arugula's Sigma vote...and then goes on to vote Sigma?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Pulcher
@Rach: Don't Pulcher's post by post summaries look...familiar? AKA, what I do when I'm scum (see: N1206)?
Doesn't give any opinions on the Gen post he references here, and this is when he starts his case on me. The problem here being, he waited until Arugula brought it up first, which is either him being opportunistic here or he really wasn't reading very well. One is scummy, one is anti-town, and both are bad news.
He also makes a vague reference to something that only Rach could know and, by his own admission, doesn't even exist on the site anymore! And this isn't cryptic? I don't like that you're going to vaguely refer to something, ask another player to explain, and then jump in and use their explanation as your main argument while claiming to have pointed out exactly what she said, when that is a straight up lie. I also don't like that the player happens to be Rach, because you seem to be sheeping her and using her as a crutch when you don't have anything to say. I can see this one instance being the intent, but you've already gone to her twice to ask her to start discussing, and it looks bad.
In post 167, Lastsurvivor wrote:Pulcher kinda vanished for a few days though. I'd hypothesize that during our lull there was one scum posting and one scum lurking. Partner scum tend to do that.
Next post being about my disappearance for two days. This is a fair argument, I can see why that is suspicious. (For the record, I had a lot of homework and too little time, but I didn't want to have to keep giving excuses. However, I won't blame anyone if they don't buy that, it can't really be proven and has come after the fact.)
In post 179, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 177, Pulcher wrote:@LastSurvivor, Post 165: Why did you wait so long to address my vote? It was eleven whole posts after it (not counting NS posts), and two in-between were yours! And what is the point of trying to apply your scum-meta onto me, someone you've never played with before? I wanted to get a GIF to show how incredibly ludicrous that is, but apparently even the internet is surprised by how ridiculous that was.
I didn't notice it until Arugula brought it up.
Also, I pointed out an aspect of my scum meta that is a huge scum tell. Posting only huge walls like you do is a great scum strategy because it looks like you're doing something productive and no one is going to read your walls. All of the scummy stuff you do is hidden. The length = town fallacy is one that plagues townies constantly and is so easy to take advantage of as scum, and I'm pretty sure you're taking advantage of it.
In post 177, Pulcher wrote:I have ~reasons~ for my vote, but I'm not going to explain just yet, there's something I need to see first.
Please stop being cryptic.
This is the post where things got interesting, and where I started to lose my temper. Okay, you state that you didn't see my vote, but as I said before, that's not exactly absolving you of anything.
This is where you state you pointed out a huge scum tell, and you're quick to say I'm taking advantage of it. However, you never once say when or where I took advantage of it. You can't give any proof that I have, yet you're making plenty of accusations. I still haven't seen you back any of that up.
In post 181, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 171, Gen_Wolf wrote:Can you explain this for the rest of us please, the part addressed to Rach?
Basically in N1206 (my first ever scum game) I never made concise posts. Instead, I would link to posts and write commentary, ask questions, etc. In general I looked like I was busy while not really doing anything. A lot like what Pulcher is doing.
In post 180, Arugula wrote:LastSurvivor bringing up meta from a previous game is pure WIFOM and it wasn't townie.
It was mostly an aside to Rach, who actually played N1206 with me. I don't really expect everyone else to take my word for me, especially since my part in the game was lost in the crash.
Again, he makes accusations against me, yet either can't or doesn't bother to point out any times where I was actually 'not doing anything'. Claims that the meta, which as Arugula pointed out was WIFOM, was an aside to Rach. And yet you still continue to base your argument on it. If you don't find it strong, and it was just 'an aside', why have you based your entire argument on it?
Pointless post. Gen had already linked to the wiki, which has a prominent link to that very video. Not to mention that it's completely irrelevant.
In post 184, Lastsurvivor wrote:Oooo this is getting good.
@Pulcher:
1) Oh, I think it's less cryptic. Rach knew I was referring to my post by post summaries which were huge walls. A little bit bigger than yours, but just as unreadable.
2) Most people read the text in this game. Not walls though.
3)
In post 165, Lastsurvivor wrote:I actually don't like Pulcher. In his post 151 he says that he dislikes Arugula's Sigma vote...and then goes on to vote Sigma?
I mean, you're saying it was a reaction vote...which is interesting. Was saying that you disliked Arugula's Sigma vote part of the test?
4) By wall based, I meant content based. AKA, we're actually getting shit done. You've always posted only walls, so I wasn't really referring to you.
5) I mean, you can if you want. It doesn't make much of a difference to me.
Okay, here, he's addressing only a handful of my points from my last post. He says he wasn't cryptic because Rach knew what it was, but he sure as hell wasn't clear, either. 1 out of 8 other players understanding a vague comment does mean it wasn't cryptic. He also says people don't read 'walls', which again is just laziness and anti-town as hell.
Now, he goes back and says 'When I said wall in 152, I meant content.' I don't buy that. These past few posts have been using the word 'wall' as a negative term, and it's really easy for someone to go back when they make a mistake and say 'oh I meant this word, not that.' It seems to me that you've been caught in a contradiction and are just trying to cover your tracks so you're current argument doesn't fall apart.
It is also interesting to note that this is the first time you ignored my question about 'all the scummy things' you say I've done yet don't point out.
In post 186, Lastsurvivor wrote:I'm just gonna cut through this angry defense and address the points that matter.
In post 185, Pulcher wrote:3) No. I ALREADY SAID that it was because it was based on WIFOM.
What in the world do you mean by this?
About point 4: When people are posting walls it means that there's thorough, in depth interaction going on. Content is being produced. Sure, it could be produced without walls, but it's a newbie game.
You, on the other hand, post post by post summaries which don't say as much compared to their length. Stop twisting my words. There is a difference between post by post summaries and walls. All post by post summaries are walls, but not all walls are post by post summaries. ETC.
Okay, he admits to not even bothering with most of my last post. That's swell, isn't it? Now he's accusing me of twisting his words, but the thing is, I haven't; he repeatedly calls my posts walls, treats them as bad things, and said that people don't read walls. And yet, here, he says walls are good things that means content is being produced. This is contradicting your argument against my walls being contentless. He introduces a new term, 'post-by-post summaries', in order to 'clarify.' I don't like how he never brought up this term before, instead just calling them walls until I pointed out how he can't keep his story straight. And then in this same post, he goes on to say that all post0by-post summaries are walls, even though he just said that walls produce content. Get your story straight. This is also the second time he refused to give any scumtells other than his flimsy argument that he even he doesn't seem able to keep straight.
In post 191, Lastsurvivor wrote: In post 187, Pulcher wrote:READ MY DAMN POSTS. HIS VOTE ON SIGMA WAS MADE ON SOMETHING WE ALREADY ADDRESSED AS WIFOM. Do I have to be keep being shouty and cussing out you to get you to read, or do you expect me to repeat myself 4 times every time I say something?
FTR you could answer calmly. I don't apply to the aggressive = town school of thought.
Anyway...I'm dense. It
wasn't
part of your reaction test then? I.E, you were being legitimate when you said you didn't like Arugula's vote? I understood the WIFOM part, but you didn't really answer the question.
And how are these post by post summaries?
You go post by post and just spout out irrelevant stuff or ask questions that aren't really important. You haven't really taken a stance on a player except Sigma, which is apparently a reaction test.
If you really want me to define a good wall, I think it'd be one that occurs when a player is making an argument or defending against one.
Gen's 140/141 perhaps?
All you've done is the exact same things, except that you spread it out over more posts than necessary and clutter the thread.
Oh, that's a big statement without any facts to back it up there Pulcher.
-----
Fitz, when you say "opposite sides," are you saying that this is a town/scum argument?
Answers some questions, finally, but answers them with more accusations, refuses to cite examples from my posts, and for the third time ignores my question about my supposed scumminess. This time, the question was bolded and italicised, so if he didn't see it, then he's blind, or otherwise he refuses to back up his accusations. This means they either baseless or shaky, and yet he's pushing a lynch. This is scummy as hell. He then proceeds to ask me to explain why I think he's not contributing much, so here it is, I put my money where my mouth is. Your turn.
