Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I'll just have to muddle through somehow.Thesp wrote:Sorry, Farkshinsoup, that you inherited an already-caught scum role.
Re-read done. Jeez, you guys can post.
To me, though, the most important post in this game is this one:
Can't believe we were not going to lynch the guy who suggested lynching a claimed cop. A claimed cop with no counter-claim.Netlava wrote: I think had is scum, judging by the way he claimed. Maybe we should lynch him today anyway. Besides, the worst case scenario is losing an unknown sanity cop, which isn't that bad, is it? I'm sure my excellent scum hunting abilities will make up for it.
I'm happy to drop the hammer. But first:
Thesp: could you give us a little more info (flavour, anything) about Had's, now your, cop claim?-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Come off it, I don't buy the whole "poor me" attitude of this post. There is a very good reason why suggesting the lynch of the cop is a scum tell. Whether you believe his claim or not, you move on to find the other scum, because if he is telling the truth, you don't waste a lynch on him.Netlava wrote:
I was questioning to general tendency to for cop claims to be off-limits for lynches D1. In retrospect, yes that was a bad post, but I guess that's the price for free thinking.Farkshinsoup wrote:Can't believe we were not going to lynch the guy who suggested lynching a claimed cop.
You have every right to be a "free thinker", and I have every right to think that you are lying scum who's trying to get a possible cop lynched.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
So you're saying that the reason that you suggested lynching Had even though he'd claimed cop was because you were trying to be deliberately provocative, in order to get conversation going?Netlava wrote:Quit trying to make my post seem as if it's something it's not.
My post was actually a resolution not to post deliberately controversial posts in the future unless discussion is seriously lagging. (Discussion was lagging a bit at that point, since everyone and their mother was putting hadhfang on the top of their LOS)
I don't believe you. There were other issues being discussed at the time, specifically BB's semi-role claim.
Had's roleclaim certainly seemed suspicious. He wasn't very believable. I think you were trying to capitalize on that and the fact that he had an unknown sanity to see if you couldn't get him lynched.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I really don't want to argue with you about this, charter. I feel that there were too many arguments that did not really illuminate anything on Day 1, I would rather not go there again today.
I just don't like it when players try to tell others what or what not to post, even if it's not likely going to be helpful.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
How can it help? It's all WIFOM. He could have been killed by one of you, or by someone else to put suspicion on you.Tinsley wrote: I agree with CF Riot’s argument on the NK speculation, how can it hurt? While Batt might not have been the likely lynch, he was suspected by myself, camn, ShadowGirl, charter, and Mac. While that may not have been enough for a lynch, it would have helped to draw suspicion away from scum.
I think it's more worthwhile to forget about the NK and concentrate on things that we do know.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
So Thesp has no useful investigations from last night.Mod, if a cop investigates someone who is then NK'd will they still get a result on that person?
This is the post where Had claimed. Notice that he said "unknown sanity". If this was a fake claim, it's a good move because 1) if there was a sane cop in the game, they would not counter claim, and 2) the unknown sanity part keeps him from being lynched. If he had said that he thought he was paranoid, he'd have probably been strung up.Had wrote:Woah, that's 5 on me isn't it?
My comments initially were based on a quick skim read of everything, the next post was after I had time to read through it all and reflect. THe first comment on the SK thing meant I thought that the speculation on teh SK was weird, but I didn't think Charter's assumption mix up had much in it at the time. Re-reading it, Charter was the one that made a comment on teh SK speculation first, which in turn began more open speculation about it.
Charter seems to be pushing for a lynch quite eagerly at the moment and it's only page 3.
Also, I'm a cop with an unknown sanity. Of course its up to you as to what you think of that.
So then why would Thesp further clarify the claim to say that it's most likely paranoid? If he was scum, what would he have to gain by that, especially considering he suspiciously investigated Batt? Thesp, could you elaborate at all about how you came to the conclusion that you are paranoid and not simply of unknown sanity?
For now,FoS Thesp.
QFT, though.Thesp wrote:It's difficult to get to the useful stuff when it's buried in crap that doesn't pertain to the town's interests. (Even if Jonathan Coulton is hysterical.) Scum do this to weigh down re-reads and make it hard to wade through to find the useful stuff. Town unwittingly do it thinking ti gets them somewhere. There is a point of diminishing returns to posting. At some point, the useful information begins to be drowned out amongst the garbage.
Now, onwards. Charter, I think you are scum.
Here was your response to Had's claim:
farside rightly called you out on this. Why are you not advocating that he be lynched today, since he is still alive?charter wrote: Don't lynch him today and if he lives through the night lynch him tomorrow. Of course the mafia could always not NK him, but I see that as much more unlikely than him actually being mafia (if he lives).
In response to farside's calling him on it:
"You are scummy - Hey everyone, don't you think she's scummy?" It's OMGUS, and an appeal to the majority to back you up.charter wrote: I think you trying to pin this on me is scummy. What does everyone else think?
When I asked for a "quick summary" of your case against Walnut, you choked me with a requote of your old posts. It's almost as if you wanted to show all of the work you had done to get to this point, rather than make a cogent argument.charter wrote:If you now say that I'm further directing people, I'm going to explode. I'm not telling anyone to do anything, just explaining what I assumed obvious and that everyone thought.
A lot of your play this game seems to be a mix of fake aggressiveness (looking at every little thing that everyone does as a possible scum tell) and defensiveness when you are questioned. You seem like you are scumhunting, but I think that you are just flinging accusations around and trying to appear active.
Vote: charter-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Not today. If you are scum there are others out there, and I think that there is enough there to believe that you may be town, and possibly be a useful cop as well. I feel good with a Charter lynch, but I still owe Walnut a thorough reread.Thesp wrote:I'd also like to hear if anyone seriously wants to lynch me today.
Tomorrow may be your day, though.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
That's nearly 2 weeks. Are you expecting to not have any internet access during that time?ShadowGirl wrote:I shall be on vacation from the 27th to the 8th.
Just want to know what to expect, because we could possibly have lynched someone by then and be through the next night and into Day 3 by the time you get back.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I asked you for that summary because I was curious to see what you would say, how you would summarize it. I'm not sure that it's a scum tell that you just pasted all those quotes in, but I think that your posts in general have had a lot of quantity, and not so much quality. Let me say this, that post did not convince me that Walnut is scum.charter wrote:I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be helping you with that post. In fact I don't see the point of needing to do it all. I would have assumed Fark did a reread when he replaced and he would have seen my posts. I could have summed up the reason to vote Walnut in one sentence, but that's not going to convince anyone if I don't cite examples, which I did in the quoted posts.
I acknowledge that the case I laid out against you was on the thin side. I'm not going to win any scummies for my scum hunting. If there was a case on anyone (including Walnut) that I thought was really airtight, I'd be on that wagon right now.
That having been said, the speed with which the wagon on you grew after my vote has me somewhat alarmed. I'm keeping my eye on it.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Ok, so after doing a reread of the Walnut case I'm going toUnvote
I still don't see the case against Walnut. I read his posts from the trainwrecked game, (where he was town) and his play style here seems the same to me. And since the main knock against him is that his style of play seems scummy, I won't lynch him unless something else comes up.
Back on Day 1, Thesp replaces in and says this:
Then a few posts later, he votes netlava. As it turns out, the vote did not count because he had not unvoted. (I think it's safe to say that we all thought that this vote put Netlava at L-1)Thesp wrote:Netlava, Tinsley & farside22 are scum. My apologies to the rest of you for ruining this game by discovering the scum already, I'm sure you would have had loads of fun figuring it out for yourselves while they picked you off one by one.
Tinsley's next post is what caught my eye. If you entertain the idea that he is scum, imagine what's going through his head. A guy has just replaced into the game who has "Paragon of Mafia Hunters" next to his name. This guy has accused him of being scum. Also, it seems that the innocent townie is about to be lynched, with or without his vote. So here's what he posts:
He votes Walnut, a vote that looks pretty useless at that point, put there more so that he can not be on the erroneous Netlava wagon. Also notice how sure he is that Net is town, and how he's willing to lynch Batt instead (there was no way that was going to happen either)Tinsley wrote:
Exactly. Walnut you continue to post useless content. I understand you defending yourself, but overall your posts have done little to help find scum. In regards to setup speculation, I don't believe you were directly asked questions, and instead of ignoring the questions, you answered them, distracting the town further.charter wrote:You not living past night one has NOTHING to do with this game. Period. There's no reason to throw that out there.
Because Netlava is so close to a lynch:
Vote: Walnut
camn wrote:Netlava and Hadfanhg seem suspect to me, but I am getting the strong read off them that they just play Suspect. But I will watch them.
camn - We still have over a week before the deadline, why do you feel the need to vote now? If you're not certain on Netlava, I don't think you should vote him yet. I agree that Battousai is scummier, and would be willing to vote him if we can get enough people to choose him over Netlava.camn wrote:I think Batt is scummier....
Thesp - Welcome to the game. I'll admit that I don't post nearly as frequently as others do here, but I've also been busy, and as I believe farside said, the frequency of posts in this game is high and difficult to keep up with. Can you provide examples of me popping up when my name is called? Can you also give us reasons why you're voting Netlava?Thesp wrote:Tinsley pops up when his name is called, and rarely otherwise.
I don't buy it. Your vote put Walnut at L-3 at a time that Netlava appeared to be at L-1. There was no way that things were going to get "evened out" and you knew it. I also don't believe that Walnut was the scummier of the 2 at that time to someone who was trying to choose between the 2.Tinsley wrote:
Seeing as you and Netlava were the two leading candidates, and I felt you were scummier, I voted you in hopes of evening things up. Unfortunately it looks like my vote won't make a difference.Walnut wrote:
That is a truly weird reason for voting.Tinsley wrote:Because Netlava is so close to a lynch:
Vote: Walnut
Comes right out of N1 with this big pile of WIFOM speculation. Also, here he does something that I've seen in other posts, namely putting questions out to everyone, which looks like it's supposed to spark discussion, but is mostly just useless. This question is particularly useless, as it concerns speculation on who would want to kill Batt last night.Tinsley wrote:Wow, I'm surprised to see Batt killed as he was one of my top suspects. However, I think there's a legitimate reason to suspect nearly anyone right now (I'm hoping to list those reasons later when I have more time to post.)
Does anyone have any ideas on why Batt was chosen last night?
Tinsley is the lynch today, not Walnut and not Charter.
Vote: Tinsley-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Just to be clear, charter, you are still number 2 on my scum list, but I saw this case against Tinsley and it seemed stronger to me. My whole reason for unvoting you is my case against him. That seemed clear to me. Why don't you comment on the case I made against him instead of just dismissing me as scum?
We can lynch you tomorrow if that makes you feel better.
And I'm sorry - what contradiction do i use as evidence against Tinsley? I don't understand this point.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Did you read my post, charter? It's totallly disingenuous to characterize my case against him as "Tinsley puts forth stuff that's mostly useless." Most of my case has to do with his highly suspicious voting on D1. You've conveniently ignored that. I also point out some very useless stuff he said off the top of D2, but that is a minor point in my suspicion of him.
As for the timing of my case, I only now had the time to get back and do the reread. You accused Had of this same thing on D1, not making the case fast enough after comments were made. Sometimes, when I do a reread with a different emphasis on posts, things become apparent that were not before. I don't see how this is scummy.
That's pretty convenient. What are THOSE reasons again?charter wrote:I don't need to comment on your case against Tinsley, you're scum for reasons other than poor cases against people.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
This is a thinly veiled OMGUS vote. You even conceded that I made some good points in your last post, but now the reason I attacked you was because I decided that you were the easy lynch today?Tinsley wrote:I think Fark decided he didn't quite have enough votes to lynch charter, so he decided to start a Tinsley bandwagon to appeal to Thesp. If he could get Thesp to vote with him, then he just needed two more non-scumbuddy votes.
Vote: Farkshinsoup
Yes, what a good play. I decided to get Thesp on my side, despite the fact that he's got me pegged as his top scum candidate, and so I took my vote off of the guy with 4 votes already and parked on the guy with no votes. After Thesp, and my 2 scum buddies, who will, of course follow me slavishly, I just need to convince 2 more innocent townies! Simplicity itself! Also, I craftily used compelling arguments.
The reason I switched my vote is that to me, you are clearly the most scummy player here.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Just so that we're clear here, aside from Thesp, who were my 2 scum buddies that would jump on your wagon? And who is the other townie (aside from charter) that I was counting on winning over?Tinsley wrote:Here's the key to my argument. While charter had four votes on him, you thought you couldn't secure the final two votes necessary to lynch him, so you decided to make a case on someone who could. charter was tempted to vote me at the beginning of D2, so I think you thought it was possible to sway him.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Yes, charter, you've caught me. Damn, how did I think that I would ever have a chance of pulling off my scum plans with you and Tinsley around?:roll:charter wrote:Looking for someone to kill off tonight?
QFT. As I've stated, I still think charter is scum, and I would be happy to lynch him today if my diabolical plan to get Tinsley lynched doesn't pan out for some unfathomable reason.Walnut wrote:Angry and aggressive is just another form of manipulation. If he makes talking with him unpleasant, and you stop voting for him, he has manipulated you. It seems to be working, as right now people seem to be saying that Charter is playing too badly to be scum.
So I'd like to point out that Shadowgirl has started her vacation and will be gone for 2 weeks, without voting for anyone or contributing any opinions. We may have to take her out of the equation for Day 2. We'll see how long it lasts. It's possible that we won't have gotten around to lynching Tinsley by the time she gets back.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
But your vote did go to waste. That's the whole point of my argument. Clearly you knew that it wasn't going to get Walnut lynched, so the only reason to put it there was to be able to point at it on Day 2.Tinsley wrote:
This is all your opinion here. I voted for who I thought was scummier of the two. I didn't want to let my vote go to waste.Farkshinsoup wrote:I don't buy it. Your vote put Walnut at L-3 at a time that Netlava appeared to be at L-1. There was no way that things were going to get "evened out" and you knew it. I also don't believe that Walnut was the scummier of the 2 at that time to someone who was trying to choose between the 2.
The fact that you made a point of calling out everyone who voted Netlava in post 477 only bolsters my argument:
Tinsley wrote:I really think it was the mafia’s plan all along to make Netlava the target on D1 because of his play style. While all members of the scum team may not have voted Netlava, I feel confident that one or two did.
Voted Netlava - CFR, Walnut, LG, Batt, camn, Farkshinsoup, Netlava (Thesp did, but forgot to unvote, Macavenger was willing to)-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I'm well aware of your sharpitude. Part of my suspicion of you is based on your play in Cop Central. You don't seem as sharp here in this game. You are much more defensive and sarcastic.charter wrote:I'm pretty sharp. You need to get up earlier than that to pull a fast one on me Fark.
I haven't forgotten how you won that game for town. So I promise that when we lynch you, I'll make it quick.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Tinsley, I'd like to invoke Occam's Razor here: The simplest explanation is the most probable. (I know that this is an oversimplification of this concept, but you know what I mean)
Which is more likely, that I came up with this risky plan, hoping to swing all of these people over, some of whom think that I'm scum, also potentially outing my scum buddies, who would all have to silently agree with me and move their votes - OR - I did a reread, saw some suspicious things, and changed my vote?
This argument is weak, and you should acknowledge that before you dig yourself into a deeper hole.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I never suggested that you should have. You could have not voted at all. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?Tinsley wrote:You're right, I'm sorry, I should have voted for someone I didn't find scummy.
Yes, but the first sentence of that post specifically called out everyone who voted for Netlava, who was the correct lynch for Day 1. He was acting very scummy. I'm not saying that scum weren't in on that lynch, it was a great place to put their vote, but there were also clearly townies who thought he was the guy on Day 1.Tinsley wrote: Uh...I called out nearly everyone in that post. I was trying to keep an open mind, and generate some discussion.
Also, calling out "nearly everyone" is a move that appears pro-town on the surface, but is actually a way of calling out no one.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
The timing of his vote. As I said, he had just been called out as scum by Thesp, and he believed (as did we all, I think) that Net was about to get the hammer. You and charter had your votes on Walnut for the second half of Day 1. So it's not the same. In regards to SG's vote on Batt, I'll have to go back and look at that.Tinsley wrote:Why are you only picking on Tinsley for this?
Further to my point about Thesp, since I was one of the people that he pegged as scum, I can tell you that I thought to myself, "This is trouble. This guy has Paragon of Mafia Hunters under his name." If I had been scum, I would really have been worried.
I think that Tinsley wanted to make sure he had a verifiable vote on the opposite side of that lynch so that he could defend himself on Day 2. Have you noticed how he keeps asking Thesp why he thinks he's scummy? Not aggressive, but insistent. I think Thesp has him worried.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Yes, correct is subjective. I don't mean that he was the only correct lynch, obviously there were others as well, since there is more than one scum. So let me re-phrase that: Netlava was not the wrong lynch on D1. There were a lot of good reasons to lynch him. At least you and charter had been making the case for Walnut for most of the day, but Tinsley came in, and chose Walnut after it was pretty clear that he would not be lynched.Tinsley wrote:Correct is subjective. I feel Walnut was the correct lynch yesterday. Netlava was not a bad D1 lynch, but Walnut was a better choice.
I don't think that the choice between Tinsley and Walnut is necessarily mutually exclusive, by the way. While I don't agree with a lot of the case against Walnut, I wouldn't clear him yet, and it is certainly conceivable that Tinsley was bussing his partner. For me, that's speculation for another day, after Tinsley gets lynched.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Because it makes you look more town by taking a stand, all be it on a lost cause. If Walnut is town, then you can push for his lynch on D2, with the added legitimacy of being on the right side of the Netlava lynch. At the end of Day 2, you've got 2 mislynches on the first 2 days.Tinsley wrote:What did I have to gain from voting Walnut rather than just not voting at all?
If Walnut is scum, then you get to actively bus your partner safely without having to lynch him. If he's the Day 2 lynch, you come out looking very pro-town.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Don't put words in my mouth, CF. I was not trying to argue for some universally "correct" pro-town way of acting in all situations. I'm arguing about this specific situation, with this specific player.CF Riot wrote:Also, are you really saying the correct move in that situation for a townsperson is to not vote? Why would not taking a stance be more protown than taking any sort of stance?
I think the question you need to ask yourself is, why did Tinsley not put the hammer (well it wasn't actually the hammer, but we thought it was) on Netlava. Either you think he was town, and he had it figured that all of the scum tells that Net was throwing off weren't for real, or he is scum, and he didn't want to be hammering an innocent townie. Clearly I believe the latter.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
CF, let's look at the whole quote that I was responding to:CF Riot wrote:I wasn't arguing all situations either. But you can't look at the situation as "scum would do what he did, so he is scum." You have to look at it from both angles.
You're saying the way he voted for Walnut is scummy, so I took this bolded statement to mean you think not voting would be more townish. I said townsperson rather than Tinsley because if you're justifying the tell itself it shouldn't matter who it is, unless you want to argue meta. (Which I don't see as being a factor for this particular instance.) So answer my question, would not voting have been the more correct action in that situation?Farkshinsoup wrote:I never suggested that you should have.You could have not voted at all.Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?
Tinsley was portraying this situation as if he had only two choices: voting for walnut, who he found scummy, or for Net who he did not. This is disingenuous. He also had a third option, which was not to vote at all.Farkshinsoup wrote:
I never suggested that you should have. You could have not voted at all. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?Tinsley wrote:You're right, I'm sorry, I should have voted for someone I didn't find scummy.
In my response, which you have bolded above, I was pointing out this inconsistency, I was not trying to say that this was the only pro-town option in this situation.
So in answer to your question, no, in my opinion not voting would not have been the best course of action for a townie in that situation. Voting for Netlava would have been.
As you point out, I have to look at this situation from all angles. Can his behaviour be explained with town motivations? Sure. Do I think that his behaviour is better explained by scum motivations? Yes. You're welcome to disagree with me.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Bad for townies, perfectly acceptable for scum.Macavenger wrote:
So you're suggesting it's good for townies to vote for people they don't find scummy?Farkshinsoup wrote:So in answer to your question, no, in my opinion not voting would not have been the best course of action for a townie in that situation. Voting for Netlava would have been.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I considered it and rejected it. Please refer to my post 566 for my reasons.Macavenger wrote:So how is the explanation that Tinsley is a townie that found Netlava to be not scummy enough to lynch an impossible explanation for the situation? You don't seem to consider it at all.
I have a question for you: How is the explanation that Walnut is a townie that just has an irritating and unhelpful play style an impossible explanation for that situation? You don't seem to consider it at all.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Yeah, you make a good point.Macavenger wrote:Seriously though, the big thing with Walnut is the utter lack of scumhunting for most of the game. That's different than a lot of tells in that there is no motivation for a townie to not scumhunt, but there is motivation for scum to do that. The other stuff Walnut has done is really just icing on the cake to that central fact. Tinsley's behavior has a valid town explanation. You may reject it, but it exists. There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.
Walnut, do you have anything else to contribute that doesn't have to do with responding to accusations? How about my fight with Tinsley?-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I don't know Tinsley. I'm having some doubts. I went back through your posts and I found these from earlier on D1, before you voted for Walnut:
Tinsley wrote:A few here have already mentioned our tendencies from our last game. That's the reason why I'm hesitant to lynch Netlava right now. Sure, he's been contradicting himself, but if I remember correctly he did that in the last game in addition to twisting other's words, and yet he still wasn't scum.
So at least this proves that your desire not to lynch Netlava was evident from earlier on. You also posted suspicions of Walnut earlier, so your vote is certainly consistent with town behaviour.Tinsley wrote: I said in post 285 that I don't think Netlava is unlynchable, but I don't think we should lynch him today.
That having been said, it's also consistent with scum behaviour. As Netlava started drawing fire, you could have decided that you would come out against his lynch, and wait for any competing wagons to jump on.
I also don't like the way you OMGUS'd me with that weak argument that I couldn't get charter lynched so I was coming after you. I noticed you dropped it for now. That argument is scummier than anything else you've done, IMO.
I'm leaving my vote on you for now, but I'm going to keep looking.
As for Walnut, what bothers me is that if you are town, then you must realize what a massive distraction you are to finding the actual scum. What possible motive could you have for doing this?-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Wow, LG, that was a huge over-reaction to my vote.
Explain to me why I'm not allowed to vote for reactions on Day 2? Where is that in the general rules on Page 1?
I think your OMGUS vote (just because you point it out and say that it's not, does not make it so) has shown me that my pressure vote was a sensible move.
As for your assertion that I contradicted myself, I'm sure you are quite aware that Mac and I were discussing the specific situation of the hammer vote on Day 1. My vote for you here is completely justifiable, whether I think you are scum or not.
Also, my vote hopping is certainly not going to distract anyone from finding me scummy. It's ridiculous for you to assert that.
I'll leave my vote where it is for now, thank you very much, and I'll try to get around to a reread on you when I return.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I'm back from vacation, but something's come up in meatspace and I can't devote to much time until tomorrow night. (I also have another game with a deadline, I have to give that some attention).
Ever since I attacked him, Tinsley's been looking to get rid of me somehow. And I still can't forget that lousy argument he pushed my way when I put my vote on him.
LG's response to my vote was also interesting. If we manage to lynch Tinsley today, I'll be looking at LG hard tomorrow.
Time to fish or cut bait.Unvote Vote:Tinsley-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
I've done a lot of vote hopping today, no doubt about that. And yes, I want to run a wagon on whichever scummy player I have the best chance of getting lynched. Many people have admitted to the same thing in this game. There's nothing scummy about being strategic with your vote to make sure that scum gets lynched (especially since we haven't even lynched one of them yet)-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
It comes down to this:Tinsley wrote:Fark – In post 632 you said you were going to keep looking at me. Did you find something that made you want to change your vote back to me? You think that both I and LG OMGUS’d you, what made you decide I was more lynch worthy?
This crappy argument + OMGUS + Day 1 voting = my vote for you.Tinsley wrote:I think Fark decided he didn't quite have enough votes to lynch charter, so he decided to start a Tinsley bandwagon to appeal to Thesp. If he could get Thesp to vote with him, then he just needed two more non-scumbuddy votes.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
And I'm back down again.
charter, please read Tinsley's post 715. What part of my master plan do you not understand? After your re-read, you were supposed to vote for Tinsley. Tinsley! If you switch right away, I'll spare you later.
Tinsley, your logic is flawed - I really like the way that you've set it up so that the more people find you scummy, the more it's a result of my scummy plans. There are valid reasons why people are voting for you, and just because they are, that is not proof that I orchestrated this bandwagon in advance.
The fact that you keep floating this hare-brained idea tells me that my vote is in the right place.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Yeah, I got that charter, I was using you to make a sarcastic point to Tinsley. I should not use sarcasm - so easily misinterpreted. (Please do not interpret that last statement sarcastically.)charter wrote:Me not suspecting Tinsley has not much to do with you Fark. It's largely because I am positive LG is scum.
No.camn wrote: @Fark
DID you orchestrate this wagon in advance?
I said that in the same post where I switched my vote back to Tinsley from LG. As you can tell from my post, I wanted Tinsley lynched. At that point, yeah I was hoping that Thesp would switch his vote over to Tinsley, because, again, I wanted him lynched. So "we" means you, me, hopefully Thesp, and anyone else that wanted to lynch him.camn wrote:you wrote this:
What does that mean?If we manage to lynch Tinsley today, I'll be looking at LG hard tomorrow
Remember Tinsley is saying that this was my plan from the START, that I've been manipulating everyone to lynch him.
Let me ask you this:Do YOU think I orchestrated this wagon? If you do, then vote me. If not, then don't.
(again, zero sarcasm in the above statements. No appropriate emoticon.)-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
LG wrote:I'm asking for a deadline because discussion is becoming petty and pointless. If you're honestly pinning asking for a deadline as a scum tell then I bow to your almighty framing abilities.
So you think that the discussion has become petty and pointless. I don't entirely agree with that, but I can see your point, the day has dragged on a while. So how does it help to request that a deadline be imposed on us by the moderator? Wanting the day to be artificially shortened is beneficial to scum, especially scum who would like to force town to choose between someone other than themselves.
You can dismiss my suggestion that this is a scummy move with snide comments, that does not make it any less scummy.
Screw it, I'm switching my vote again.
Unvote. Vote: Lord Gurgi.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
There are two different issues that you are trying to make one issue. First: deadlines imposed by moderators and whether they are good for town. Second: requests for deadlines from scummy players in order to corral the town into lynching a townie.Lord Gurgi wrote:I have never seen a deadline placed on a town be detrimental to a town, because it makes the town cut the garbage out, and move onto actually scum hunting, the fact that you're voting me for asking for a deadline is ridiculous.
I'll concede that on the first issue, I pretty much agree with you, it does tend to cut out the garbage. The second issue seems pretty clear to me, and my voting you for it is in no way ridiculous.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Please don't put words in my mouth, LG. What I'm saying is that deadlines imposed by the moderator, of their own volition, are a different matter. The reason that I am voting for you is that you very recently were under fire for your scummy play, so the timing of YOUR REQUEST to cut debate short seems highly suspicious.LG wrote:You're saying it's a scummy move because I'm scummy, but if a towny player did it, it would be a towny move?
Nice try, though.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
No. Straw man.LG wrote:Yes, exactly. You're making a none-scummy action scummy, because I'm doing it.
LG wrote:So help me, if anyone uses the 'YOU WOULD SAY THAT SCUM' logic on me again I will explode.
LG wrote: It is rather hard to defend against someone who everyone views as 'scummy town'. Vote me or don't I'm tired of people talking about it.
You keep trying to make this argument, that people label you as scum first, and then decide to interpret your actions as scummy. That is a very convenient defense, since it allows you to avoid addressing any of the actual scumtells that you are throwing out. It also is a way of saying "poor me, I'm being persecuted unfairly" when in fact that isn't the case.
Who, exactly, were you referring to here? Please elaborate.LG wrote:I have NOT read the other thread, nor do I intend to, however I think that many people (particularly scum) are accusing the same people as last time to make it easier to build a case.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Interesting that you asked for a deadline to be imposed 1 day before Shadowgirl was scheduled to return. Why not wait for her, see what she had to contribute, and then decide whether to ask for the deadline? Why are you so sure that she wouldn't have anything interesting to contribute? At the very least she has a vote that isn't on anyone at the moment.LG wrote:I would say we should wait for ShadowGirl, but I don't think she would contribute anything to break us out of the petty arguments.
Also, why not ask the town whether any of us wanted a deadline imposed before you unilaterally decided to request it?
I'm not implying that these are necessarily scum moves, I'd just like to hear your answers.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan
Honestly, considering how many people find me scummy, I'm starting to think that the only reason I'm still alive is for entertainment value. From now on, Thesp, I want you to call me Farkle, or failing that, THADmiral!Thesp wrote:I'll vote for either of Tinsley or farkshinsoup (my vote is currently on farkshinsoup, even though I've enjoyed his presence in this game).
Seriously, though, I can't believe that LG hasn't set off your scumdar. You have a serious case of tunnel vision in this game. You still aren't cleared yet, but your posts don't read like scum to me.
I'm pretty good with my vote on LG. In fact, I'd be tickled pink if we could put him at L-1 and see what his reaction is. I could also vote for a Tinsley lynch.-
-
Farkshinsoup Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 913
- Joined: April 10, 2008
- Location: The Big Smoke, Canuckistan