Mini 773- Welcome to Lynchville! Perfection! (Over)

[Archaist]

/Confirm

[Archaist]

Vote: ppp973

for making a useless "vote" that seems to be sucking up to the town.

[Archaist]

You said that you were scared, only mafia are scared to be lynched when the lynched targeted.

What makes you think that only mafia should be afraid to be lynched? If anything townies should be more nervous about a lynch, as they don't know if the person will turn up mafia or town.

[Archaist]

This game has gotten aggressive pretty soon... Let's all remember we are practically in RVS with not much content. Let's soften the accusations a little because town players wouldn't know for certain that someone is scum for 1 post. Investigate, but be smart. Don't get emotional so soon.

Hard questions are a way to get solid reactions from players. If everyone goes easy on each other nothing will get done. Now who would that benefit most? The mafia. It's precisely because we don't know who's town and who's not that repeated questions are asked. You don't seem comfortable with that though.

Unvote
Vote: alexhans

[Archaist]

The Alexhans' case is over rated.

Over rated? There were a whole

two

posts about it when you said this, and you only commented on it after ChiefSkye4 did, not in your post right after I voted.

Also, you keep using your "percentage" system. How high of a percent do you say is required for you to feel comfortable lynching someone? How do you assign these percentage points? Are they based on something concrete like X number of scummy posts or is it abstract and based on your "gut feeling?" If it's concrete please share the details, they would be useful to the whole town. If it's abstract it's a useless way to "quantify" some gut feeling you have. Since you say "100%=proven scum," I assume that some lesser percent only means there is less proof, but still proof and not just a feeling. Please share the proof you have and how you quantify it.

[Archaist]

The Alexhans' case is over rated.

Over rated? There were a whole

two

posts about it when you said this, and you only commented on it after ChiefSkye4 did, not in your post right after I voted.

Also, you keep using your "percentage" system. How high of a percent do you say is required for you to feel comfortable lynching someone? How do you assign these percentage points? Are they based on something concrete like X number of scummy posts or is it abstract and based on your "gut feeling?" If it's concrete please share the details, they would be useful to the whole town. If it's abstract it's a useless way to "quantify" some gut feeling you have. Since you say "100%=proven scum," I assume that some lesser percent only means there is less proof, but still proof and not just a feeling. Please share the proof you have and how you quantify it.

Proof would just be reiterated. Also, 100% does equal proven scum, but people, just by playing, typically stay in a range of 20%-50%. (The boundaries are like asymptotes and have yet to be accomplished by anybody outside of cop reports/ logical deduction of irrefutable events.)

I also fail to see how my opinion of Alexhans is any less valid. Less information was available but anything since then hasn't alter my opinion.

I see you ignored most of my questions. Here they are again, numbered nice and easy for you:
1. How high of a percent do you say is required for you to feel comfortable lynching someone?
2. How do you assign these percentage points?
3. Are they based on something concrete like X number of scummy posts or is it abstract and based on your "gut feeling?"

Also I never said your opinion of alexhans was less valid. In fact I never commented on your opinion at all. All I did was point out that you didn't comment until after ChiefSkye4 did.

For evading questions and implying I said something I didn't:

Unvote
Vote: Light-kun

[Archaist]

Light-kun ignored my questions again. And three people posted after him and no one else called him out on that? Come on guys, when a someone blatantly ignores clear questions

and

a vote, something is up. The rest of you three (RedCoyote, LesterGroans, ppp973) are either not paying attention (anti-town) or letting it slide purposely (anti-town, suggesting scum team).

[Archaist]

Just to clarify, I don't see how any of those questions are relevant to my scumminess.

They're not. I had those questions before I voted for you. What's scummy is you ignoring the questions completely and then excusing yourself by saying you're lazy.

[Archaist]

Forget ppp973. Archon makes a much, much better policy lynch.

I don't like this statement. If you're serious then you're scummy for wanting to lynch a player before they even really post anything. Of course, you could always hide behind your statement by saying you were just joking. Either way, it's not pro-town.

Unvote
Vote: Kubli Khan

[Archaist]

Great job, chef Archaist.

Thank you.

[Archaist]

I agree with KK about your vote on him and I think it deserves an answer.

I wanted to avoid the following because it's a "yes it is... no it isn't... yes it is... etc" debate, but here it is.

You start with a hefty cut of hypothetical ("If you're serious...")

Of course I do. I don't know what you're thinking. It would be stranger if I didn't phrase it that way.

mix it with equal parts WIFOM logic ("...you could always hide...")

It's true, you could. No sense denying it.

Flavor it with a dose of false dichtomy ("Either way...").

There are only two options: (1) you were serious, (2) you were joking (unless you can think of any more). Your comment is scummy in either context. No false dichotomy here.

Bake it at a temperature that ignores any of my previous posts or positions on policy lynches (shows he doesn't read the game).

It doesn't matter what you said before, a scummy comment is a scummy comment. Going by your method if a player started out without any scummy posts he should be safe for the entire game because people attacking him would be ignoring his previous posts.

And serve quickly with a pre-emptive vote within the same post (shows he's close-minded).

Pre-emptive? Do I need your permission to vote or something? The only thing it shows is that I think you're scummy. If I was closed minded I wouldn't have unvoted Light-kun.

[Archaist]

Of course, you could always hide behind your statement by saying you were just joking.

That's not the two options you presented. You said that I was either (1) serious or (2) pretending to be joking.

Please tell me where I said "pretended." I said you

could

hide behind it, not that you

were

.

True scum-hunting involves detecting long-term anti-town planning within an individual's play. Fake scum-hunting involves playing "gotcha!".

That's your opinion. Either method could work in the right situation. First of all I never said "gotcha!" if that's what you're implying. Even if I did say that, if it got a suitable reaction from someone it would be ok. Not every scum is going to plan out long term anti-town procedures.

No, you don't need my permission, but you didn't wait or even ask me to explain my comment.

If I feel you explain it well enough I'll remove the vote. My statement obviously had more impact with the vote however.

You saw ppp973 and LesterGroans make "WTF? This sounds scummy" comments, so you lept in with a vote hoping to start a bandwagon.

Nice assumption. Care to prove what I was hoping?

You put up a case & vote against alexhans, then abandoned it without any follow-up because you couldn't get anyone to join you. You put up a case & vote against Light_kun, but then abandoned it without a follow-up because nobody was joining you. Now you put up a case & vote against me.

Obviously. My goal is to lynch the people I find scummy. It's kinda hard to do that when I'm the only one that sees something wrong with what they post. All three of you are suspicious to me, so I would gladly lynch any.

Oh, and nice OMGUS vote.

[Archaist]

How does that make a difference? Your post 186 that (1) I'm either serious or (2) I could say I was joking (implying that I am not joking).

See, you're assuming that I was implying something. I meant what I said (you could), nothing more. By stating your assumed interpretations of my words as fact, you are the one who is attempting to frame me.

Sure. In the following quoted paragraph you say you want to lynch people. Or are you saying that you voted me with no hope of starting a bandwagon?

My hopes are irrelevant, what matters it that you assumed (again) and put words in my mouth

before

I said the paragraph you quoted.

So, are you saying that Light_kun superseded alexhans is scumminess? Then I superseded Light_kun? Is your scum order list currently 1) Kublai Khan, 2) Light_kun, 3) alexhans?

You're tied with Light-kun for 1st, then alexhans is next.

I ask because you've posted nothing that suggests that either alexhans or Light_kun have satisfactorily answered your questions. In fact you only abandon your votes after expressing frustration that nobody is going along with you.

I'm not stopping them from answering anything if they want to. I can't force them to either, hence why I switch my votes after some time. There's no point keeping a vote on someone who isn't going to react sufficiently to it. You're reacting quite sufficiently however.

It just sounds like you're less upset that alexhans or Light_kun aren't addressing your case, and more upset with the town for failing to jump on your bandwagon du jour. You're trying to direct traffic.

I'm displeased with both. Wouldn't you be displeased if you thought you found something of interest and everyone else ignored it? It would be suspicious wouldn't it?

{sarcasm}Yeah, my vote is pure retaliation and I haven't provided any solid evidence to back it up.{/sarcasm}

You don't have solid evidence. You assume too much in my actions that you quote and I have easily explained each one of them. Your vote is an OMGUS thinly veiled by evidence derived from your own assumptions.

[Archaist]

If you thought my vote switching with alexhans and Light-kun was scummy, why didn't you comment on it until I voted for you? This shows that your vote on me is an OMGUS and you're just looking for "evidence" retroactively to veil it.

[Archaist]

You found him irrefutably scummy based on what has been explained as a joke

Where did I say irrefutably? Did I ever say I was sure he was scum? He's tied for 1st place on my list, that doesn't mean I'm sure. Also, why do you believe Kublai Khan?

So now, having seen that it was just a joke, explain to me how you still think it's scummy?

You assume Kublai Khan was telling the truth. How it is proven that it was just a joke? There is no proof, so you assuming that there is is misleading.

If you don't, why isn't KK's defense reasonable?

I already said why I don't think his defense is good. His defense basically consists of saying he was only joking (no proof for this) and attacking me with a variety of assumptions about my intentions (no proof for this either).

[Archaist]

I can see these wall-o-text posts are going to get old fast, but alas...

No. You suggest that he is either scummy for believing in that policy lynch or scummy for hiding behing a joke. You never asked him what was the reason.

He

would

be scummy

if

he was hiding behind the joke. And I didn't ask him the reason? Isn't my post and vote reason enough to respond?

You give him 2 options scummy or scummy.

Or I offer for him to come up with a third option. There is nothing incorrect about my first post against KK. It

is

scummy for wanting to lynch someone before they really post and you

could

hind behind a statement saying it was a joke. Someone please tell me how that is incorrect.

Again, you only raised one point against me and say you would like to lynch me? Light-kun for ignoring questions based on his system (for some time)? and KK for his supposed call for a policy lynch? And you would gladly lynch any of us now? wow.

I would lynch you only after KK and Light-kun. Yes, my suspicions on Light-kun are about his ignoring my questions for some time, and yes, my suspicions on KK are about his supposed call for a policy lynch, and yes, I would lynch any of you, but only in the order I stated before.

You're tied with Light-kun for 1st, then alexhans is next.

Why?

Because Light-kun's ignoring of my questions and KK's over reaction to my

true

statement are equally scummy in my opinion. You are less so, and are not far from the other players.

did you even read this and this? You never addressed them again. So I don't know why you put me with light-kun when you say you can't make us answer... I've answered.

I did read them, and I did not think I could make any worthwhile response. They seemed to me like an end to the discussion, not a means to continue. Yes, you did answer, hence why you are below Light-kun on my list of suspects.

Talking about ignoring cases The very same reason why you found Light Kun scummy. And you were asking questions about his percentage system... not so relevant as if you were accusing him.

KK complimented me so I thanked him. Again, my original statement is

true

, so I didn't see any further need to explain it at the time. I originally asked Light-kun the questions out of curiosity about his system. My suspicions started when he ignored them, leading me to believe he was just making up percentages and using them to quantify his abstract gut feelings.

again. You make little points and care to much that everyone should agree with them. What exactly are you saying in that question?

Did I say I think everyone should agree? No, I said I don't think everyone should ignore them.

Do you have solid evidence? You easily explained but we didnt?

My original evidence was in the post when I voted, and no, you didn't explain well. You both ignored the fact that my original post was completely true!

If you're serious then you're scummy for wanting to lynch a player before they even really post anything.

How is this false?

Of course, you

could

always hide behind your statement by saying you were just joking. Either way, it's not pro-town.

How is this false? You could hide behind a statement and if you did it would be scummy.

So... your first choice is scummy for saying he is lazy.

It's for using a terrible excuse to pardon himself from failing to answer my questions.

[Archaist]

Here's the answer to your question: you seeing KK's post as scummy is a matter of opinion, not fact. There is a difference. The fact that you so vehemently defend your overreaction is bad form.

I think you missed the point of my argument. I was saying that there is nothing logically untrue about my post. It is not a matter of opinion. Since KK and alexhans seemed to be missing that I felt the need to point it out extensively, or else I don't think they'd respond to it. You also failed falsify my post and instead just attacked me by saying I was being too adamant.

[Archaist]

It's important because showing that my original statement is logical is the crux of my argument. But it's not just the original issue that's important anymore (he certainly

could

have been joking, but you seem to be

sure

he was), it's also the discussion and reactions that were generated from it. That said, I think this is starting to get discussed more than it's worth, but I'm sure the other players will weigh in on it soon enough.

[Archaist]

You realize that your fourth sentence in post 186 was: "Either way, it's not pro-town." How in the world are you arguing that you weren't implying something?

Either of my two scenarios is anti-town, but as I've been pointing out this whole time, the second one is a "could" scenario.

[Archaist]

I've already explained all I can, more pressure on me won't do anything as there is nothing else I can say. If I am lynched I suggest everyone take a close look at those who jumped on me without much else than an "I agree."

[Archaist]

This doesn't feel right, Archaist, to me, feels as though he's just a townie digging himself into a hole about the whole policy lynch comment.

You're exactly right.

Unvote.

This has gone too far and the defense of my comment being logically correct doesn't seem to be helping me. quints brings up some interesting points, but I think that KK responds well to them.

I will claim, because the deadline is approaching and my lynch will not help the town; I am a tracker.

[Archaist]

Archaist, which of the following best describes your role:

A) You select a player, and then you learn who that player targeted.
or
B) You select a player, and then you learn who targeted that player.

This is very important.

A is a tracker, B is a watcher. I am a tracker. Why is this so important and what do you intend to do with that information?

[Archaist]

Mod

: I

unvoted

in my post 271, you still had me on KK in the vote count on 279.

---

...okay. Looks like KK hasn't answered enough today.

He answered quite a bit. He has consistently replied to posts throughout the game. You, on the other hand, have not been so consistent.

However, since someone just completely shot down my thoughts on Looker, I moved my attack back to you.

Looker isn't in this game.

Looker:...Do you just go through games and look to see if your mentioned, wtf?

This was not the reaction I would expect. I would think someone would say "oops, I got this game confused with another," or something along those lines. This just makes it seem like Light-kun's angry Looker called him on it. Why would he get angry unless it was something he didn't want brought up?

[Archaist]

Or perhaps there's a simple explanation such as Looker happened to be following this game or someone in this game PMed him when Light-kun mentioned him. It's not something to start cursing over.

[Archaist]

I'm here. I wanted to wait until Light-Kun posted his full analysis to comment, as I didn't get much out of the whole hohum/qwints back-and-forth multi-posting.

In the same post:

I'm fine with it for now. I don't really feel any pressure for it, and so I will react when I find it necessary to do so.

Now registering the fact I'm at L-1, I'm going to make a grand case against all players. Expect super long post in approx. 3 hours.

So you don't feel any pressure, yet in the same post you decide to make a huge analysis of the entire game?

While KK has claimed to have not supported policy lynches, he seems almost awkwardly clingy to the RVS, which is a scum point in my book.)

Lester backs down on KK, but I disagree I still see no scum motive for wanting the RVS to end quickly.

You contradict yourself. Being clingy to RVS is a scum point, but you see no scum motive for wanting to do so?

You also ignore several requests for you to claim. With the level of detail you put into your recent post, I would be surprised if you actually missed those posts when you get to the second half of your analysis.

alexhans also makes a nice post summarizing the scummy points of Light-kun.

[Archaist]

Now that Light-kun has claimed Doc, it's simply too risky to lynch him. The town can not afford to lynch the Doctor day 1, and I need him alive to increase my chances of survival tonight. If he is the Doc and is lynched, I will probably be killed tonight, and the town would lose two power roles before day 2.

Kublai Khan seems to brazenly ignore this possibility.

Vote: Kublai Khan

[Archaist]

No PR would wait until that close to deadline to claim.

LK... YOU SHOULD'VE REALLY CLAIMED EARLIER DUDE.

Not necessarily. When someone claims Doc, they are pretty much guaranteed to be night killed the next night if they are town. We can see that he has been hesitant to claim, which would make sense. Of course, the hesitation could come from him being mafia and not wanting to risk a counterclaim, but if he is mafia claiming Doc the real Doc won't counterclaim since it would get him killed. Doc is the safest claim for mafia, but I think that if Light-kun were mafia he would have made such a safe claim at an earlier time when he was first at L-1.

[Archaist]

In that case, I will

Unvote, Vote: Cateraction

, now 3 votes on him.
For reasons I've already stated, Light-kun is a terrible choice for a lynch today. Others who are currently voting for him need to quickly re-evaluate their decisions and weigh the possible risks.

[Archaist]

The KK case may be better, but we're running out of time. You should vote for whoever is at least somewhat scummy and could move the lynch off of yourself, you claim to be the doc after all.