I actually think RVS is useful. Scum sometimes slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.
Mini 1009 ÔÇô Popularity mafia (Game over - Mafia wins)
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
vote: Iron Manfor voting second!
I actually think RVS is useful. Scum sometimes slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Ectomancer wrote:Cuetlachtli made me chuckle.
I did?
eh?Ectomancer wrote:"You wouldn't lynch someone this excited!"
No.Ectomancer wrote:. Listen, if scum sometimes make suspicious remarks, and you know the general ratio of scum to town is about 1 to 3, and 4 players posted above you,did you not do that math and look for anything?
Ectomancer wrote:Iron Man had a possible slip that I pointed out above.Are you just talking to be talking, ordid you actually intend to follow up your insight?
At the time I didn't put much thought in my RVS vote. Why? Because it was an RVS vote. So if you want to know if I was just talking to be talking, I will reply "yes, kinda sorta."
Did you actually intend to follow up your insight?What insight? My post consisted of two parts.- Part 1: RVS vote. Nothing too deep.
Part 2: My personal default response to your typical pre-game RVS hatee (usually 1 or 2 per game). Again nothing too deep.
Bring it.Ectomancer wrote:You would make a good vote as well, you just came along second.
unvotefor now. Will park my vote somewhere else tomorrow.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
OMG, your Crap-Logic™ is nauseating. Where to begin...Ectomancer wrote:
Do not discuss ongoing games. You will also have to prove that either or both were "pretending".Thief wrote:Ecto's jump is noted. He is in the ongoing game in which scum was lynched D1 for "pretending" not to have seen a second page. Him not mirroring my read and keeping his vote on Iron Man is suspicious.
Did you forget the "scum sometimes makes slips in the rvs" insight? But you already said you were just talking to be talking, so its not surprising that the one actionable thing you said is the one you forgot you even brought up. Funny how you forgot and couldn't even type it up into your little list there. You had 2 frickin sentences.Cuetlachtli wrote:Did you actually intend to follow up your insight?What insight? My post consisted of two parts.- Part 1: RVS vote. Nothing too deep.
Part 2: My personal default response to your typical pre-game RVS hatee (usually 1 or 2 per game). Again nothing too deep.
So you tell us "here's how scum can be caught in the RVS", but doCuetlachtli wrote:vote: Iron Manfor voting second!
I actually think RVS is useful. Scum sometimes slip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.nothingand then seemingly forget all about being able to catch scum in this manner, in fact, your response to me has you acting as though we should have ignored what you said because it was a "default" response.
Scum like to talk to be talking.
unvote, vote Cuetlachtli
I think the main point at issue is whether or not I made an "insight." This is mainly a disagreement concerning the English Language. In my opinion, I didn't make an insight. Rather, given the context of the situation and BB's opening comments, I made a stance on RVS and subsequently gave my reasons for advocating RVS in a concise manner.
Another issue you brought up is whether or not Iforgotabout the alleged "insight." This is reaching for straws in my opinion. I never mentioned anything about forgetting what I said.
Thirdly, you bring up the point about me just "talking to be talking." Given the context of the situation, you know, it being RVS and all. I believe I was justified in my actions. Allow me to retort. It was the RANDOM Voting Stage. If I had put much thought into my vote and talked with a "purpose," it would have been contradictory to what RVS is all about.
And again, more reaching for straws. You argue that "...'how scum can be caught in the RVS', but do nothing" to try and apply my previous statement to the game. Again this is more Crap-Logic™. You are wrongly assuming that scum ALWAYS slip in the RVS, and that I should always be able to properly identify said slips. No that is not how it works, sorry.
And then you go on to further miss represent my previous comments. Earlier, I used the words "personal default response" when describing my comments on RVS. You seem to believe this is some sort of disclaimer on my part. No it wasn't a disclaimer. There are various incidences in my Meta where scum have slipped in RVS and subsequently got burned for it. Thus, previous experiences have solidified my stance on RVS and I always make a point to share this stance with RVS haters to some extent. Hence, the choice of words: personal default response.
What else...or yea this:
This series of questions are inherently primed for failure. As I already mentioned, players typically don't talk with purpose during RVS. If they did talk with purpose, then it wouldn't be random! Thus, I have to respond to that question by saying I was just talking to be talking, which I was--if you disregard my comments on RVS. But lets say I lie and say I was talking with a purpose. Then you say LYNCH ALL LIARS because only scum would talk with a purpose during RVS!Are you just talking to be talking, or did you actually intend to follow up your insight?
And what about your second question. The one about following up with my insight. What was there to follow up on? For one I didn't give any insights. Two, there was nothing to follow up on because no one questioned or commented on my RVS statement. And I didn't identify any slips or suspicious statements either. Given the circumstances, I think your expectation for me to follow up was unfair.
You know what. Lets talk more about unfair expectations.
This is an unfair expectation. Ecto is implying that the 1:3 scum to town ratio is universal in every situation. In other words, it would be inconceivable for 8 townies to arrive on seen first and the 3 scum to linger in the rear. I believe this is a false assumption and it is unfair to expect me to applying this ratio in respect to post sequence.if scum sometimes make suspicious remarks, and you know the general ratio of scum to town is about 1 to 3, and 4 players posted above you, did you not do that math and look for anything
Here Ecto expects scum to slip in the RVS and me to identify those slips. Unfair. Since I didn't identify any slips, Ecto accuses me of not applying my arguments to the game. Unfair.I don't like Cuet's or Iron Man's method of kicking off the game. Blackberry's post was an excellent game starter, these two commented about RVS and its usefulness, but neither actually tried to apply that to this game. ie,No Scum Hunting. Cuet's is the worse of the two because he actually says that Scum slips occur in the RVS, but apparently doesn't consider applying it to the game?
Ok with all that said. I want to highlight where Ecto reached for straws.
and Ecto reaching for straws:Cuetlachtli wrote:vote: Iron Manfor voting second!
I actually think RVS is useful. Scumslip or make suspicious remarks at this stage in the game.sometimes
Why did Ecto fail to mention that I said that scum SOMETIMES slip during RVS?Ectomancer wrote:Cuet's is the worse of the two because he actually says that Scum slips occur in the RVS, but apparently doesn't consider applying it to the game?
Ectomancer wrote:Are you just talking to be talking?
And the icing on the cake...Cuetlachtli wrote:At the time I didn't put much thought in my RVS vote. Why? Because it was an RVS vote. So if you want to know if I was just talking to be talking, I will reply "yes, kinda sorta."
Ectomancer wrote:Scum like to talk to be talking.
unvote, vote Cuetlachtli-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.Simenon wrote:I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.
BTW...your quote kinda reminds me of this excerpt fromCurb Your Enthusiasm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyGlGgX ... re=related-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
It looks like you mostly have a problem with my play-style. I will continue to incorporate sarcastic verbiage in my walls of text. That said, allow me to reiterate one of my points in a concise manner.Simenon wrote:
Flailing: defending yourself with disproportionate emotion and verbiage. Statements like "OMG your Crap-Logic is nauseating" and your repeated use of "unfair" seem desperate. That post is too long.cuet wrote:Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.
In my first post, I took a stance on RVS and gave a reason on how it could be useful. My intent was to persuade other players to participate in RVS if they were on the fence after BB's comments.
Ecto then began to criticize my play. His expectation was for me to act upon my reason for advocating RVS. In other words, he wanted me to identify scum slips made during RVS, regardless if scum slips were made or not! Do you see how this is illogical and thus, anunfairexpectation for me?-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
I was responding to all of Ecto's Crap-Logic™ in full. If you read Ecto ISO 0, Cuet ISO 1, Ecto ISO 7 in order, then Cuet ISO 2 makes sense.Simenon wrote:You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand).Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on?
In Cuet ISO 2 (the one with the huge "wall of text"), I elaborated on all my points made in Cuet ISO 1. I don't get why you are still confused. Unless you are trying to soft sell a Cuet lynch...Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand)-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
I got a couple of questions for you Korts:Korts wrote:I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.
1. If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?
2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think I over reacted.
3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell my lynch. Is this true or not?-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Alright, well I dunno if any of you have noticed or not, but Korts has concurred with every wagon and FOS thus far (BB, Monthrax, Iron Man, Thief, and me). In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch:Cuetlachtli wrote:Alrightvote: Kortsforsoft-selling and wagon-hopping. I will give details upon request.
Korts wrote:Thief's first two votes don't seem to be serving any scumhunting purpose. His lash out against Ecto is stupid as well. I could see myself supporting this wagon.
Looks like Korts is eager to lynch.Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.
And one other thing. Korts case against me is that I was overreacting to Ecto's attack. He basically qualifies an emotional response as scum behavior. He then goes on to contradict himself by replying to my questions with a emotional outburst of his own:
Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me.Korts wrote:
The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.Cuetlachtli wrote:If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?
I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.
And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.
One last point. Korts said that my "response [to Ecto] was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post." Umm...I responded to everyone of Ecto's points against me, therefore the size of the post was justified and sufficient. It was also detailed, which is good for the town. And yes it was emotional, but every player plays with emotion.
Any more questions folks?-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Reads
Town
Cuetlachtli
Scummy Part 1
Korts
Simenon
scotmany12
Scummy Part 2
mothrax
Blackberry
Null Tell
Iron Man
tumescence
eljcko
Thief
drmyshottyizsik(Ectomancer)
ChannelDelibird
Explanations
I think my reaction to Ecto's argument or case against me was sufficient because I answered all of his points against me. The folks mentioned inScummy Part 1don't have a problem with my argument, yet they seem to think that I overreacted, which doesn't make sense to me. All three of them go on to "soft-sell" my lynch:
Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.Simenon wrote:I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.scotmany12 wrote:drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.Scummy Part 2is mainly based off this:
If Mothrax or BB flip scum, I wouldn't be surprised if the other flipped scum.mothrax wrote:I feel like my being defensive of BB is going to cause trouble later in the game, especially if by some weird chance he flips scum
Null Tellsare because either the player hasn't posted enough or I don't buy the case against them.
Alternative Theory's
My scum team theory's posted above may be wrong. Since half the players participating in this game haven't posted an adequate amount of content, it is likely that a combination of 3 or less of myNull Tellsare scum.
I encourage everyone else to post their reads. Since the game has slowed down a bit, this could help facilitate discussion.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Soft-Selling:
Trying to sale a lynch in a subtle manner. Soft-sellers typically talk about how horrible the victim's play is without elaborating on why they actually think this is true. The intent is to take advantage of mafia players' tendency to sheep, creating an artificial perceived attitude that the victim is in fact "scummy." If the general consensus among the town is that the victim is "scummy," then the victim is likely to get bandwagoned and lynched. In short, soft-selling is a tool scum use to manipulate the town and empower them to lynch their own.
Examples:
"Billy's play is odd, I wouldn't mind lynching him today." "I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows."
Here are the alleged soft-sells regarding my lynch again:
Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.Simenon wrote:I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.
All three of these dudes don't elaborate on why they think I am scummy, or at least qualify the terms "overreacting" and "flail" as either scummy, town, or null. Furthermore, they don't explain how I am overreacting or flailing and what a proper reaction would look like. This could work to make an artificial perception that I did overreact or flail, therefore I am scum.scotmany12 wrote:drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.See addendum for more information.
In respect to me soft-selling everyone I listed as scummy in ISO 14, this assertion is wrong. Rather, I amtheorizingscum teams. In other words, if Korts flips scum, then Simenon and Scotmany12 are likely his scum partners. While if Mothrax flips scum, BB is likely his partner.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Addendum/Wall of Text
Here is a summary of my interaction with Korts, Simenon, Scotmany12 regarding my apparent overreaction to Ecto:
Page 4, Post 83Simenon wrote:I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.Sim says that my play thus far had been justified, but contradicts himself by saying that I was "flailing badly."
Page 4, Post 86
Page 4, Post 95Cuetlachtli wrote:Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.
BTW...your quote kinda reminds me of this excerpt fromCurb Your Enthusiasm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyGlGgX ... re=relatedSimenon wrote:Flailing: defending yourself with disproportionate emotion and verbiage. Statements like "OMG your Crap-Logic is nauseating" and your repeated use of "unfair" seem desperate. That post is too long.Nit-picks sarcastic remarks I made to Ecto. Claims "[my] post [was] too long." This looks like Sim is feigning ignorance. Like since the post was too long, he didn't read the details clearly.
Page 5, Post 101
Page 5, Post 110Cuetlachtli wrote:It looks like you mostly have a problem with my play-style. I will continue to incorporate sarcastic verbiage in my walls of text. That said, allow me to reiterate one of my points in a concise manner.
In my first post, I took a stance on RVS and gave a reason on how it could be useful. My intent was to persuade other players to participate in RVS if they were on the fence after BB's comments.
Ecto then began to criticize my play. His expectation was for me to act upon my reason for advocating RVS. In other words, he wanted me to identify scum slips made during RVS, regardless if scum slips were made or not! Do you see how this is illogical and thus, anunfairexpectation for me?Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.Korts' first soft-sell of my lynch. By exclaiming that he was surprised that no one jumped on my "overreaction," he is challenging the other players to consider my lynch.
Page 5, Post 112Simenon wrote:You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand). Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on?Sim continues to feign ignorance. Attempts to suggest that the use of a "wall of text" is bad.
Page 5, Post 114
Page 5, Post 115Cuetlachtli wrote:
I was responding to all of Ecto's Crap-Logic™ in full. If you read Ecto ISO 0, Cuet ISO 1, Ecto ISO 7 in order, then Cuet ISO 2 makes sense.Simenon wrote:You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand).Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on?
In Cuet ISO 2 (the one with the huge "wall of text"), I elaborated on all my points made in Cuet ISO 1. I don't get why you are still confused. Unless you are trying to soft sell a Cuet lynch...Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand)
Page 5, Post 116Cuetlachtli wrote:
I got a couple of questions for you Korts:Korts wrote:I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.
1. If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?
2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think I over reacted.
3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell my lynch. Is this true or not?Korts wrote:
The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.Cuetlachtli wrote:If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?
I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.
And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.Ironically, reacts to my questions with emotional furor, something he later accuses me of doing. Korts also dodges my request for details in favor of my overreacting and ignores my earlier conversation with Sim, which addressed the issue of my "overreaction."
Page 5, Post 124Korts wrote:
For fuckssake learn to read. I answered those, insofar as such stupid questions can be answered.drmyshottyizsik wrote:I got a couple of questions for you Korts:
Ok I will re asked cuet's questions maybe you will answer them when I ask.
1. If you thought his response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch him?
2. Why do you even think it was a overreaction? Explain in detail why you think he over reacted.
3. It looks to me like you are trying to soft sell his lynch. Is this true or not?More emotion and slander. You would think Korts would avoid this kind of behavior when accusing other players of overreacting.
Page 6, Post 133scotmany12 wrote:drmyshottyizsik needs to start contributing. Also, I was never impressed with ecto at all, and I really did not like his vote on iron man, or his vote on cuet. Though cuet's reaction was horrible.Scot ignores the entire conversation above and soft-sells my lynch.
Page 7, Post 155
Page 7, Post 156Cuetlachtli wrote:Alrightvote: Kortsfor soft-selling and wagon-hopping. I will give details upon request.Simenon wrote:
Request.Cuet wrote:I will give details upon request.Sim is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.
Page 7, Post 160Korts wrote:So Cuet, you completely ignored my last reply to you; your attack on me is basically for me having noted your overreaction; and you have contributed nothing of value other than being outraged first at Ecto, then at me for taking a closer look at you. Can you explain to me how any of this is helpful to the pro-town cause?I ignored this post in order to avoid talking around in circles. Continues to soft-sell my lynch by stating I have not contributed anything of value.
Page 7, Post 161scotmany12 wrote:Cuet, explain your vote on korts.Scot is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.
Page 7, Post 163
Page 7, Post 170Cuetlachtli wrote:
Alright, well I dunno if any of you have noticed or not, but Korts has concurred with every wagon and FOS thus far (BB, Monthrax, Iron Man, Thief, and me). In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch:Cuetlachtli wrote:Alrightvote: Kortsforsoft-selling and wagon-hopping. I will give details upon request.
Korts wrote:Thief's first two votes don't seem to be serving any scumhunting purpose. His lash out against Ecto is stupid as well. I could see myself supporting this wagon.
Looks like Korts is eager to lynch.Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.
And one other thing. Korts case against me is that I was overreacting to Ecto's attack. He basically qualifies an emotional response as scum behavior. He then goes on to contradict himself by replying to my questions with a emotional outburst of his own:
Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me.Korts wrote:
The fact that you're a low priority doesn't mean that you're not on the radar. Fuck off with the stupid questions, the world doesn't revolve around you.Cuetlachtli wrote:If you thought my response to Ecto was a overreaction, why didn't you vote to lynch me?
I am not going to explain in detail anything, because I don't want to get into walls of text. I am going to give clear, concise responses. Why I think it was an overreaction is simple: your response was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post.
And what the fuck do you mean by soft selling a lynch? I am not a salesperson, I just have multiple suspects.
One last point. Korts said that my "response [to Ecto] was disproportionately large, detailed and emotional in comparison to Ecto's post." Umm...I responded to everyone of Ecto's points against me, therefore the size of the post was justified and sufficient. It was also detailed, which is good for the town. And yes it was emotional, but every player plays with emotion.
Any more questions folks?scotmany12 wrote:I'll be home tomorrow, so I'll be able to focus more, but I just want to say I disagree with cuet's vote on korts.More soft-selling. Why does Scot disagree with my vote on Korts?
Page 7, Post 172Korts wrote:
Well I don't know about strawmanning, but the questions that those replies were in answer to seemed to be terribly loaded ones.Cuet wrote:Classic scum strawman tactics if you ask me
Nor am I claiming that emotions are scummy. They are just another point of reference in analysis, and your reaction to Ecto didn't seem appropriate. I do find it interesting that you lash out at Ecto when he makes a case on you, and when I first make a comment about your overreaction, you immediately start building a case against me. This, really, is the sum of your contributions to the thread.
As far as me supporting most wagons that emerged, that's entirely true. but my motives weren't what you make them out to be. This game needs a catalyst of some kind, and I'm trying to find something that I can stick to. I'm not particularly suspicious of any of the people I've voted or expressed willingness to vote so far, just more suspicious of them than the rest.Continues to soft-sell without elaborating on his points. In other words, he continues to support his point that I overreacted to Ecto, but fails to explain why in detail and with examples. Korts keeps soft-selling my lynch by stating that my contribution has been inadequate.
Page 8, Post 177Simenon wrote:What you call "soft-selling" was a mixed opinion on a player. I certainly was floating the possibility of your wagon, but I can't see how this in itself was scummy. I've stated my argument about the overreaction post already; you can respond to that if you have an issue with it.
Are you "soft-selling" scotmany, BB, mothrax and me in post 174?
Also, there are only two scum in this game (it's an open setup). I find BB and mothrax to be an unlikely scumpair, since they had drawn undue attention to themselves, something which doesn't have much benefit on page 2.
This is a good point, although I still don't like the term "soft-selling." It does seem as if Korts would like to be on any wagon that will stick.Cuet wrote:In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynchDistances from Korts at the end. Presumably dislikes the term "soft-selling" because it could tie him to Korts if Korts is lynched and flips scum.
Page 8, Post 181scotmany12 wrote:How am I "soft-selling" your lynch cuet? How is me saying your reaction to ecto's was horrible and indicative that I want you lynched?Sigh...hopefully I answered this question in these past two posts.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
If you agree with my argument, then you should agree with my diction and tone, or at least not have issue with it. Wouldn't you act the same way if someone used Crap-Logic™ on you?Simenon wrote:I didn't care about the details of your argument, since I agreed with them already. I cared about the details of your diction and your tone, which were way off.
Also, earlier you claimed to have had trouble understanding both of the posts in question (Cuet ISO 1 & 2). Yet NOW you understand my arguments and agree with them?Cuet wrote:Sim is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.
My point was that only you and Scoty requested more details. Coincidentally, both of you soft-sold my lynch earler.Sim wrote:Well, since we're not being generous anymore, it is pretty stupid to say "I'll provide details upon request" and then not expect a request. Especially if the game is lagging. Especially if you are using terms that are meaningless to justify your post.Cuet wrote:Distances from Korts at the end. Presumably dislikes the term "soft-selling" because it could tie him to Korts if Korts is lynched and flips scum.
Your attempt to soft-sell my lynch failed since nobody jumped on that wagon, therefore you are moving to distance yourself from Korts, who I implicated as your scumbuddy.Sim wrote:How could a "term" tie me to another player? Why would I distance myself from Korts before your lynch, if the point of "soft-selling" was to lynch you? And why would I have distanced from Korts half a page after "protecting" him, in your words?
Its cuz you never explained WHY you thought I was flailing at the time, thus you were soft-selling my lynch, seeing if anybody would buy the straw that you were reaching for.Sim wrote:As far as post 174 goes, I guess I don't grasp the difference between terms like "flailing" and "soft-selling." As far as I'm concerned, my analysis is as valid as yours (or even more so, since mine is correct and yours isn't.)-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
I signed up for a Mini Normal game, not an Open game. In fact, this game is listed in the Mini Normal sign-up thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462
I am going to treat Sim and Scoty's assertion that we are in a 10:2 setup as a massive scum slip. There is no way for townies to know how many peeps are on each side at this point in the game.
unvote, vote: scotmany12-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Because it seemed like you took Sim's word for it.scotmany12 wrote:Though this is interesting. If you think it is a slip, why did you vote for me over the person (sim) who originally said it?
unvotefor now
Here is the link to what Scot is talking about: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462&start=2900-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
edit: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9462&start=2700
Johoohno's comment is found towards the middle of the page.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Even if I was scum and didn't get a town role PM, I could still read this:Thief wrote:original "slip" it should read. Obviously the set-up was open and not a slip.
The REAL slip is the fact that Cuetlachi did not himself know it was a mountainous set-up as should be quite obvious from his town role PM if he got one.
Page 1, Post 2
Where does it state that we are in a 10:2 mountainous setup, Thief? It doesn't does it? Your point about me slipping is moot.Johoohno wrote:[/size]Townie role PMMod wrote:Townie:
You are a townie, trying to make a living and survive this insanity.- Your voice and vote are powerful weapons in their own right. Use them to your best advantage!
- At no time may you privately communicate with any other player.
- In this game you are allowed to nominate a single person during each night. The person with most nominations will be night kill immune that night (in case of a tie nobodyis immune). Nominations and immunity will not be publicly announced. Only nominations sent in during NIGHT CYCLE via PM to the mod (formatted like this:Nominate: Johoohno) will be counted. If you send in more than one only the last one sent in before deadline will be counted.
- You win when all the Mafia players are gone, whether you survive or not.
Before I accused Scot and Sim of slipping, I had looked everywhere for clues left by Johoohno about what kind of setup we are in. The reason I didn't see any reference to a "mountainous setup" was because it was hidden on page 109 of the Mini Normal queue!-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
I already established that I thought Sim and Scot were scum buddies. They strengthened my argument by agreeing that we are in a 10:2 setup (before proof was shown). Thus, choosing which one to lynch would not have effected the overall outcome, FMPOV.Thief wrote:Wait what? How is him taking Simenon's word for it scummier than the original slip itself?
Thief wrote:Calling all attempts at lynching you "scummy soft-selling" is an interesting strategy.
I didn't call every attempt to lynch me as soft-selling. Did I accuse Ecto's slot of soft-selling? Nope.
Given the new information on the setup, I am rethinking my position on people at the moment. My analyze of this:Thief wrote:Tell me, what do you think of Korts?
Page 5, Post 110Korts wrote:I also tend to agree with Simenon about Iron Man and Cuetlachtli. I'm surprised Cuetlachtli's overreaction to Ecto didn't raise more eyebrows.Korts' first soft-sell of my lynch. By exclaiming that he was surprised that no one jumped on my "overreaction," he is challenging the other players to consider my lynch.
May still be accurate. Going to sleep on it.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Well since we are most likely in a 10:2 setup, I think scum would take a conservative approach on the first day. You know, keep a low profile...
vote: ChannelDelibird
About Korts: So I was thinking, since we are in a mountainous setup, I find it hard to believe that scum-Korts would act so recklessly on Day 1. That is why I am going to drop my FOS of him for now.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Hey Nopoint, thx for replacing in.nopointinactingup wrote:Cuet: His #72 is terrible. I'd expect a town to play on either side of OGMUS-ing or responding lazily. Instead, he retorted with an emotional outburst. His arguments are okay, but the unnecessary amount of derision and makes me think there's also scum harboring hatred towards his attackers in his reply. His #175 is basically calling everyone scum, which I do not think a scum would really do. However, it could be a gambit and Cuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.
Cuet is unlikely connected to Ecto.
You characterized #72 as an emotional outburst with an unnecessary amount of derision. Can you please highlight moments of derision and emotional outbursts in said post for us?
In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.
One last question. What is your opinion on active players putting pressure on inactive players?-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
You really need to elaborate on these reads. Especially since you think Thief is town, yet you have your vote camped on him.Blackberry wrote:Cuethlachtli - MAFIA (check)
mothrax - TOWN
Tazaro (Iron Man) - MAFIA (check)
tumescence - TOWN
eljcko - TOWN
Thief - TOWN
Korashk (Korts) - TOWN
nopointinactingup (drmyshottyizsik ) (Ectomancer) - TOWN
ChannelDelibird - MAFIA
Simenon - MAFIA - TOWN
scotmany12 - TOWN
----
I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people. I can reexamine this when I am sober and see if I make any sense or am just dumb when sober.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
So you are still happy with a Thief lynch?Blackberry wrote:Cuet -did you even read what I said?
I have no idea what this means. This is my intuitive read upon seeing people.
^--- That
I remember reading posts and eventually I got to a point where when I skimmed through the page someone's screenname and image popped up to me as SCUM or was faded indicated townie. I have no idea what I am talking about. Regardless, I was drunk. I clearly stated that it was intuitive read, what part needs elaborating? I also said I don't think I'll pay much attention to my drunkness thoughts.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
So Page 10, Post 254 is yet another Cuet overreaction?Blackberry wrote:The way you are reacting to my drunk post makes me think you're taking it too serious (maybe I hit you and one or both of your partners and now you're paranoid about it?).
For example, the statement + the eyeroll feels to me like you're getting defensive about my post.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Ok I asked you to highlight moments of derision and emotional outburst. Here is what you came up with...nopointinactingup wrote: + Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.
+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
+ Lurkers are terrible and the major source of my pain in previous games. So I'm totally for putting pressure on them to produce content.
Exemptions / Already underlined in stock post
forgot and No Scum Hunting
What NoPoint Underlined as "Derisive or an Emotional Outburst":
My Responses are in Italics
1. OMG, your Crap-Logic™ is nauseating.
This is my thesis. Maybe I could have said "Your logic is flawed, here is why" and been less dramatic, but that is my play-style. Regardless, this is probably the most "emotional" part of my post.
2. Reaching for straws.
This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.
3. And again, more reaching for straws.
See above.
4. Again this is more Crap-Logic™.
See above.
5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.
This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.
And that is it! I asked you to highlight moments of derision and outbursts of emotion and you came up with ONE borderline emotional statement! Therefore, your point about me being "emotional, contemptuous, or derisive" is moot. You and other players are welcome to try again.
Now to answer some of your other points. (Which are in italics)
+ Isn't this just full of exagerated emotion or what? You could just have said his argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3> ... I'm just noting how strongly affected you are by his accusation.
I did say Ecto's argument was flawed because 1> 2> 3>. Please reread my post carefully. Actually, before you reread my post, read Ecto's ISO 0, 7, and 8 so you know what I am refuting.
+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
Your backpedaling and straw man fallacies are noted. There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...
1. You accused me of this:Calling every player scum.
2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.
Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.
Last edited by Johoohno on Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
I thought I did simply reply and tell Ecto why his case was bad? Fill free to highlight or underline what you think was over the top and emotional in the post in question.scotmany12 wrote:Cuet's reaction to Ecto was scummy due to the over the top emotional part of it rather than just simply replying and telling ecto why his case was bad.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
More logical fallacies and back pedaling.nopointinactingup wrote:*roll eyes*I hate to argue with you if it's emotional or not because obviously you will just argue on and on. But to me, the repition and wordings do look like an emotional outburst.( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
And as for your scum reads. Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?! I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town. You are freaking over your head being paranoid if you are town and are digging your own grave if you are scum.
There is a reason that no one can prove that the post in question was an emotional outburst. The reason is because it wasn't. Let me map it out logically for you:
Cuet has position X.
Ecto presents position Y (a distorted version of position X).
Ecto attacks position Y.
Therefore, position X is flawed/false/incorrect/scummy.
Cuet asks for prove of position Y.
Nopoint/Ecto isn't able to prove position Y, therefore position Y is false/flawed/incorrect.
Since you can't prove that the post in question was an emotional outburst (because it wasn't), you are now appealing to popularity with:
Most people approve of position Y (have favorable emotions towards Y).nopoint wrote:( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
Therefore, Y is true.
The fact remains, position Y never occurred because there is no proof.
In respect to your ambiguous read on me, you are backpedaling hardcore. Allow me to show you the progression of the backpedaling:
Nopoint ISO 1
Nopoint accuses Cuet of premise A (underlined), but premise B says that scum sometimes won't do premise A (Italicized).Nopoint wrote:His #175is basically calling everyone scum,which I do not think a scum would really do.However, it could be a gambit andCuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.
However, Nopoint gives position Y (bold) that Cuet is scum because of premise A could be a gambit [premise C].
Cuet ISO 26
Cuet states premise A is wrong because it didn't occur in post #175.Cuet wrote:In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.
Since premise A didn't occur, it is inferred that premise C is invalidated.
Therefore, position Y is false.
Nopoint ISO 6
Nopoint adds premise D, a distorted version of premise A, to position Y.Nopoint wrote:+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
Presumably, Nopoint still thinks Cuet is scum.
Cuet ISO 31
Cuet refutes premise D.Cuet wrote:There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...
1. You accused me of this:Calling every player scum.
2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.
Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.
Nopoint ISO 8
Nopoint gives position Z in bold (a distorted version of position Y).Nopoint wrote:And as for your scum reads.Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?!I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town.
Position Z includes premise B (italics), but lacks premises A, C, and D.
Position Z states that Nopoint never used Cuet's reads as evidence that Cuet is scum, which is contradictory to position Y.
Position Z makes Nopoint's stance on Cuet ambiguous.
unvote, vote: Nopoint
Charges:
1. Attempting to push lynch of Cuet using the straw man and appeal to popularity fallicies.
2. Backpedaling when pressured by Cuet.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Since ChannelDeliBird lives in the UK, presumably, he is most likely asleep right now. Thus, I am going to assume that he isn't going to post anything of value before the deadline, which is tomorrow. While I would rather lynch Nopoint today, CDB is seemingly our only viable lynch option, and since the cost-benefit of him being lynched is fair given his content (or lack of), I am going to vote to lynch him.
unvote, vote: ChannelDeliBird
Disclaimer: The deadline is set for around noon, my time, tomorrow. Since I work full-time, it will be unlikely for me to read any new posts of CDB, no matter how brilliant they may be (see CDB iso 2, 3, 6 & 7), tomorrow morning.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Let me redefine the Strawman Fallacy for you:nopointinactingup wrote:2. Reaching for straws.
This is part of my argument on why Ecto's logic was bad. There is nothing derisive or emotional about it.
OH Yes there is.
--> If you think Ecto's logic was bad, it doesn't mean it IS bad so accusing others of reaching for straw is completely disregarding the opinion of others = derisive. You COULD HAVE just said you disagreed with Ecto's flawed logic.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Ecto was badly misrepresenting position and had unfair expectations for me. Seeing this bad logic, I proceeded to shred it apart in full. Though I guess you can say I ridiculed his logic by calling it crap, I would say the rest is a thorough refutation.
The initial statement is that, a statement. It would have been derisive if I had said something like "This series of question are inherently primed for failure because Ecto is a f***ing idiot who probably dropped out of high school, thus he lacks the mental power to ask questions that are primed for success."Nopoint wrote:5. This series of questions are inherently primed for failure.
This is a statement in my argument that is supported by the subsequent text. Nothing derisive or emotional in this statement.
--> You don't call someone's post a failure when you don't mean to deride someone.
Yea you, Sim, and Ecto have all used the repetition argument. Ecto misrepresented my entire argument, saying that I was whining about him being unfair. You, Nopoint, think repetition = emotion. An idea that doesn't make sense to me. Sim said that repeating the word "unfair" made me look desperate. How could I be desperate when I didn't even have a vote on me at the time? This is an example of flailing and desperation:Nopoint wrote:It depends on each person's viewpoint Cuet. Obviously you are too stubbornheaded to admit that you acted all emotional so you try to explain it as it sees fit for you. It is not just your wording that made me think you were emotional but also your repitition of those phrases.
Billy has 6 votes on him and it takes 7 to lynch. Timmy found a way to break the game via mass claim, and the claims implicate Billy as the last scum. "OMG why are you guys voting me? I haven't done anything wrong. Its so unfair. I have been nothing, but be pro-town all game. Its unfair I tell you. This is f***ing stupid."
There is a big difference between what I did and what Billy did. Billy thinks the circumstances surrounding him are unfair. I thought Ecto's expectations of me were unfair.
How is saying "#175 is basically calling every player scum" not accusing me of calling every player scum?Nopoint wrote:Backpedalling my ass. Calling every player a scum = has no town read. AND AGAIN, I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF CALLING EVERY PLAYER SCUM, get that in to your stubborn head.
You are misrepresenting what I said. My gut scum reads were five players, but I recognized that I could be wrong and some of the lurkers could be scum. I didn't explicitly say that all 11 players were scum. This is another example of you reaching for straws (Strawman Fallacy).Nopoint wrote:2> You forgot to mention that you were saying the nulls are likely to be scum
In the previous quote in Cuet ISO 35, I did keep your ISO 8 intact. However, I left it out of the second quote in order to be more concise and precise in my argumentation.Nopoint wrote:And as to your argument about me being a popularity guy:
I have my own opinion too sir. And you conveniently left out that sentence in your ISO to blindly pursue your point. So I'd say your entire case is flawed, very flawed . I'd say your arguments are inherently primed for failure, pun intended.nopointinactingup wrote:*roll eyes*I hate to argue with you if it's emotional or not because obviously you will just argue on and on.But to me, the repition and wordings do look like an emotional outburst.( as it looks for anybody else besides you)
And as for your scum reads. Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?! I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town. You are freaking over your head being paranoid if you are town and are digging your own grave if you are scum.
You see Nopoint, you keep misrepresenting my arguments to try and make me look bad, while purposefully ignoring my valid points refuting your arguments. You never responded to my justification for having no town reads at the time. Instead, you keep repeating that "all scum reads + null reads = NO TOWN READS." No shit sherlock. But does doing so make me town or scum, or does it have no implications at all?
I can make the same argument on repetition. Did repetition occur? Yes! Was it scummy? Well not from my point of view. I was pointing out that Ecto's logic was bad, and I wanted to make sure that even the stupidest player could understand this. But, as it turns out, the stupid players, presumably, didn't read my post because it was, ironically, too long.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Nopoint, is this logic map valid or not? If not, explain why it isn't valid in detail.
Cuetlachtli wrote: In respect to your ambiguous read on me, you are backpedaling hardcore. Allow me to show you the progression of the backpedaling:
Nopoint ISO 1
Nopoint accuses Cuet of premise A (underlined), but premise B says that scum sometimes won't do premise A (Italicized).Nopoint wrote:His #175is basically calling everyone scum,which I do not think a scum would really do.However, it could be a gambit andCuet stays 2nd on my suspect list.
However, Nopoint gives position Y (bold) that Cuet is scum because of premise A could be a gambit [premise C].
Cuet ISO 26
Cuet states premise A is wrong because it didn't occur in post #175.Cuet wrote:In response to your description of #175, notably where you say "basically calling everyone scum." Actually, I only called 5 out of the 12 players scum, explicitly. Half, as you know, is significantly less than all.
Since premise A didn't occur, it is inferred that premise C is invalidated.
Therefore, position Y is false.
Nopoint ISO 6
Nopoint adds premise D, a distorted version of premise A, to position Y.Nopoint wrote:+And #175, what I meant was that you don't seem to see anyone as a townread.
Presumably, Nopoint still thinks Cuet is scum.
Cuet ISO 31
Cuet refutes premise D.Cuet wrote:There is a big difference from what I actually did in post #175 (or Cuet ISO 14) and what you accused me of doing. In other words...
1. You accused me of this:Calling every player scum.
2. On the other hand, this is what I actually did:Call five players scum, and give null reads on the rest.
Now you are saying that post #175 was fishy because I didn't give any town reads?! Since when should a town player be required to give town reads? At the time of that post, half the players in the game had posted little to no content. I think my null reads were justified because of that.
Nopoint ISO 8
Nopoint gives position Z in bold (a distorted version of position Y).Nopoint wrote:And as for your scum reads.Did you even notice I'm not accusing you of it?!I even said the fact that you have no town read implies that you are town.
Position Z includes premise B (italics), but lacks premises A, C, and D.
Position Z states that Nopoint never used Cuet's reads as evidence that Cuet is scum, which is contradictory to position Y.
Position Z makes Nopoint's stance on Cuet ambiguous.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Umm, why do you want to hear from me in particular?Tazaro wrote:lynching the lurker CDB is making me draw a blank right now. I'd like to hear from Cuet in particular about his thoughts for day two.
My suggestion for Day 2, vote who you think is scummy.
I still think Nopoint is scummy. Therefore....
vote: nopointinactingup-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
So from what I gather, the case on Mothrax is...
1. He had a potential scum slip with his comments about BB's alignment.
2. He lurked during the latter part of Day 1.
Here are some points in Mothrax's favor:
Assuming that if Moth is scum, then BB is scum and vice-versa.
1. Moth didn't buy the emotional overreaction argument on me. You would think scum-Moth would have road that wagon.
2. BB had a potential town slip by reading Cuet ISO 36 as a scum buss. Scum-BB could have been acting and anticipating town cred for his bad read. Or scum-BB could have been trying to get me quick lynched on Day 1 and keep the fail lurker, CDB, around for Day 2 or later. IMO, I think BB was being sincere when he accused me of bussing.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
^ That post, #329, reads to me like Nopoint can't convince anyone to lynch me, so he is fishing for other lynches. If he really thinks I am scum, then he wouldn't give up on pushing for my lynch since there are likely only 2 scum bags.nopointinactingup wrote:What do you know. My two/ three scum reads suddenly OGMUSing me...(TEXT SHORTENED)...Vote:Tazaro
That being said....
In Nopoint ISO 1, Nopoint said this about Iron Man:
As you all know, Tazaro replaced Iron Man, so it would fit logically that town-Nopoint would be suspicious of that slot.nopointinactingup wrote:Ironman: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.Unvote.Vote:Ironman
If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.
What I want from you, Nopoint, is to elaborate on why you think Iron Man is scum.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Nopoint quit being a diva. You case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot is vague and you need to clarify it. Regardless of whether you like me or not, clarification would be the PRO-TOWN thing to do. Let me map out your case of that slot to assist you in your expected response:nopointinactingup wrote:@Cuet: a very likely story.
I elaborated on why IronMan was scum on the post you quoted me on.
This guy is hopeless. Part of me is now saying Cuet is scum because he's obviously pretending not to have paid attention to the game as well as blatantly misrepping and tunneling on me. But I'm more willing on a Tazaro lynch today. Cuet's constant tunneling should be to drive people off Tazaro and Mothrax's ( potential scumbuddies) back.
1.Nopoint wrote:Ironman: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.Unvote.Vote:Ironman
If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum.This is too vague. How do scum usually play?
2.And he's been lurking recently.On the contrary, maybe Iron Man was inactive since he ended up getting replaced. In my opinion, inactive players get replaced while lurkers get prodded.
3.nopointinactingup wrote:On a further note, I have vested interest in the way Mothrax's wagon was formulated with 3 unexplained votes.
Here Tazaro talks about something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax ( looks like to create an illusion of content). So I'm going to settle with the replacement of my best suspicion. The others (Zone, Scott) should do well to speak up.Tazaro wrote:cuet, I wanted to hear from you cuz urr good on content.
Vote: mothrax
Vote:TazaroHere Tazaro talks about something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax ( looks like to create an illusion of content).True, Tazaro did do post something unrelated to his vote for Mothrax. Whether he posted to create an illusion of content or not can be disputed. His reasoning for voting Mothrax is posted later...
This post is a null tell for me. I have seen scummies and townies vote to lynch players based off other people's arguments before.Tazaro wrote:I looked at the suspicions of other people on you, mothrax. You are rightfully suspicious.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
1. Wait a min., now you are accusing me of posting fluff and being equivocal? You are welcome to provide evidence supporting your argument, but I know you are going to fail since I have been unequivocal for the entire game.nopointinactingup wrote:
Perhaps you haven't played with me before but know that though my cases are known to be very concise and generalized, it has been catching scum on a very effective streak.Cuetlachtli wrote: Nopoint quit being a diva. You case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot is vague and you need to clarify it. Regardless of whether you like me or not, clarification would be the PRO-TOWN thing to do.. Though you have more details to work on, you are way more prone to confirmation bias.1.That's why I so dislike your fluff and equivocation on trivial mattersdon't expect me to lay it out for you. For now my case against Tazaro is solely:2.Now if you want some clarification from my post, ask where you are confused at,
1> Ironman's post gives me a feeling that he's being measured and unnatural on what to post and very often taking the middle road, not a strong one-side perspective.
2> Tazaro has been posting fluffs and has done nothing to change my mind about that slot.
2. I did ask you for clarification on a specific part of your case on the Iron Man / Tazaro slot, you just suck at reading. Evidence:
Cuetlachtli wrote:In Nopoint ISO 1, Nopoint said this about Iron Man:
As you all know, Tazaro replaced Iron Man, so it would fit logically that town-Nopoint would be suspicious of that slot.nopointinactingup wrote:Ironman: This guy has a measured playstyle that is typical of scum. And he's been lurking recently. Ironman is likely scum.Unvote.Vote:Ironman
If he was scum, he's unlikely partner with Mothrax.
What I want from you, Nopoint, is to elaborate on why you think Iron Man is scum.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
This point against Mothrax is inaccurate. Moth has consistently been an advocate for a Ecto / Dr / Nopoint lynch. He has even articulated why he thinks that slot is scummy. Isn't that scumhunting? What Moth hasn't done is try very hard to sell Nopoint's lynch to the village. In summary, Moth is scumhunting, but his approach to the game is very passive.scotmany12 wrote:And you are generalizing my suspicion of Mothrax. That slip is the starting point, buthe has not scumhunted, his only concern so far has been defending himself. He only cares if he stays alive, not if we catch scum or not.
Last edited by Johoohno on Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Blackberry wrote:The only people Iron Man did not attack/address conflict with: tumescene, Cuet, myself1
...
TAZARO'S INTERACTIONS
Cuethlachtli ~ Interacts with Cuet, although asking for Cuet to post and saying he is good on content and Cuet's questioning of why him seems... odd2The majority of Iron Man's post were from July 20th to July 23rd. In contrast, I started posting on July 22nd on. If Iron Man intended on befriending or attacking me, he didn't get an opportunity because he went inactive after July 23rd. Therefore, your point about Iron Man not interacting with me is weak.1.
Care to explain why it was odd? What would you have done different if you were in my shoes?2.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Blackberry wrote:Cuethlachtli ~ Very interesting interactions... Tazaro asks Cuet his opinions, Cuet plays it off and says do your own hunting (avoiding buddying?)...3ALSO Cuet's vote on Tazaro is different than his other accusations. When Cuet attacked nopoint, he made large arguments, when he votes Tazaro, he makes it short and simple, and it's different than his other votes and accusations4
With all that, I am leaning towards Zoneace, or Cuet as the scum partner (although Tazaro commenting that Cuet got the NK immunity would be very odd, unless, he was trying to suggest Cuet is innocent via that way, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless they got to talk at night and Cuet told Tazaro he thought he'd get immunity - or Tazaro took the idea from someone else's post and exxagerated it to make it look like Cuet got immunity).5You are reaching here. What would you have done different?3.
My other arguments were larger because I was addressing more content. Do you have a problem with the actual content presented in my case against Taz?4.
Maybe Taz deduced this after I suggested that people vote for who they think is scummy and no one voted for me.5.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Nopoint, did you just represent Mothrax's post as one ofnopointinactingup wrote::right: :right: mothrax :left: :left: wrote:Can we get a hammer please?He expresses that he's very eager to lynch Taz despite the fact that Taz's main pushers are his scum read. I can't see a coherent town mindset in his posts.Vote:Cuetmyposts? By all means, keep strengthening my argument that you suck at reading.
I promise that I will address the rest of your case against me later. I have a function this afternoon so it might have to wait until tomorrow.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
nopointinactingup wrote:[Shortened]...One of them is especially noticeable and out-of-character:1.Cuetlachtli wrote:unvote, vote: Tazaro
[Shortened]Now Cuet hasn't been talking a lot about Taz and2.he was very suspicious of me and Sim ( even tunneling on me hardcore ).3.Then suddenly he switches his vote to Taz partly because of my argument ( the person whom he thinks is scum ) and4.the other part generalized comments very atypical of his elaborate self.5.See Cuet ISO 49, Item 41.
On the contrary, I requested your extended case on Taz in Cuet ISO 42and Cuet ISO 43. Getting you to elaborate on your case on Taz was like pulling teeth since you have tunnel vision half the time. But I did get you to elaborate, some what, on why you thought Taz was scum. I looked over his ISO and noticed that you had derived most of your case on Taz from Sim ISO 5. I found the case plausible, but since Iron Man and Taz hadn't posted much content, I wasn't completely convinced. Especially since you, Nopoint, kept bombarding me with fail logic; something I think scum tend to do more than town.2.
Since Day 1, I have speculated on a Nopoint / Sim scum connection. Your slot, Nopoint, has always been anti-Cuet and I have always gotten the feeling from Sim that he would be willing to jump on a Cuet wagon on an instant. Thus, I was justifiably skeptical when I noticed that you had gotten parts of your case on Taz from Sim.3.
Since I didn't want to lynch Moth and no one seemingly wanted to lynch you, I decided that Taz was measurably scummy and would be worth lynching. I purposely wrote4."Nopoint and Sim's case on Iron Man"in Cuet ISO 46 because if Taz flipped town, I was going to push hard today on the Nopoint / Sim scum theory.
See Cuet ISO 49, Item 4. Also, in Cuet ISO 46, I noted that5."Taz [said] he disliked Nopoint's suspicion of Moth and subsequently [contradicted] himself by voting for him [yesterday]", which was, off the top of my head, something that no one had accused Taz of before. If anyone can contest this, by all means go ahead.
Lastly:
You know, I was one of the only players to stick up for Moth yesterday. On Day 1, I had mentioned that I felt like there was a Moth / BB scum connection. It would have fit logically for scum-Cuet to jump on the Moth wagon and receive little scrutiny for it. Instead, I put in considerable efforts to defend Moth. Yes I know its WIFOM, but I think you all should take it into account when analyzing my posts.
Disclaimer: I am experimenting with adding "links" to my posts rather than quoting them. Hopefully I didn't f_ck up any of the links.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Ok, just an update on my reads:
From Scummiest to Scummy-least
Thief
1. Has kept a low profile.
2. WIFOMed Day 1 with his Iron Man vote
3. Did not vote Taz. With 2 ML left, I don't think there was much incentive for scum to buss.
ZONEACE
1. Eljcko Chainsaw Defended Iron Man. LINK 1 and LINK 2.
2. In Zone ISO 2, Zone effectively votes / fos's/ soft-sells three of the most controversial players of the game in one post. But these are only slightly scummy actions IMO.
3. Zone ISO 3 is slightly town to me. The reason this post could be scummy is that scum-Zone might have wanted to keep the fail players (lurkers) around in order to increase his chances of a scum victory.
4. Zone ISO 9 contains awkward wording:
I REALLY don't want to unvote mothrax because I'm convinced he's scum and should have been lynched on page five of the game, but you're giving me no choice with the way you're playing...
- Is this an example of the False Dilemma fallacy?
...you're giving me no choice with the way you're playing...
- This could be scum trying to coach scum.
...nothing you have done could be even remotely seen as pro-town...
- Again more possible coaching.
5. The rest of Zone's ISO is meh to me. Looks slightly town.
6. Taz's jump on Zone is WIFOM to me. Null tell.
Simenon
If Thief or ZONEACE don't flip scum, I wouldn't be surprised if Sim was that last scum / evil genius. o_O-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
Apparently Scot said it first here.Cuetlachtli wrote:See Cuet ISO 49, Item 4. Also, in Cuet ISO 46, I noted that5."Taz [said] he disliked Nopoint's suspicion of Moth and subsequently [contradicted] himself by voting for him [yesterday]", which was, off the top of my head, something that no one had accused Taz of before. If anyone can contest this, by all means go ahead.-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
True he did my bad.scotmany12 wrote:
he did respond. This is antitown.Cuetlachtli wrote:Nopoint, I have you on ignore right now.
You can regain your talking privileges once you respond to this post.
I'm drunk. Tomorrow or sunday i'll reread and vote for someoen-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
1. I am not a bigot, I have big and small posts.nopointinactingup wrote:1> Yes I do have a whole lot of problem with it and I've pointed out why ( "out-of-character", ring any bells in your thick head? ).
2> That's because I do not do extended verbose cases like you do. You were trying to pull the teeth that was never there. My case was not by any means based on Sim's, it's based on myself because I would have noticed the same thing he did if I was in the game since the beginning. And look who's talking? Bombasting you with fail logic? Please, I wouldn't waste my breath. Your scum tactic seems to be running all over anyone who's suspecting you until everyone becomes afraid to.
3> Again, scum mentality of being overcautious only when your reputation is being put on the line.
4> Trying real hard to earn so town cred there Cuet. But Fail.
5> I don't care if you think you are more of a debater than anyone really because "logic" more often than not fails at these types of game.
Now if you have a problem with the actual content of the post in question, explain your reasoning to the town. This would be the pro-town thing to do.
2.My case was not by any means based on Sim's...
So when you first started reading the game when you replaced in, did you close your eyes when ever you saw a post authored by Sim?
Your scum tactic seems to be running all over anyone who's suspecting you until everyone becomes afraid to.
Why would a villager be afraid to vote someone who they think is scum?
3. I haven't been cautious all game. Actually, I would characterize my play as aggressive.
5."logic" more often than not fails at these types of game.
What?! lol-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
1. Hey Nopoint do you want to talk in circles?nopointinactingup wrote:@Cuet:
1> I did.
2> Is asking irrelevant questions the only thing you're good at? How many times have I explained why your post is scummy?
3> Never said you were cautious the entire game. Only "when your reputation is put on the line".
5> Epithany isn't it? Mafia is not a Debate Contest mind you. Logic fails because in mafia, we are not dealing with a homogenous mass of smart-ass who thinks they are on top of the world.
2. Hey guys, lets talk in circles!
3. Oh boy talking circles is soooo fun!
5. Logic helps to disprove dumb cases on you. Your case on me is built on this notion that I had an emotional outburst in reply to Ecto's crap-logic. Of course, I used logic to disprove this false claim, yet you carry on, spinning every single thing I say to be "scummy" in order to fulfill your agenda, which is lynch Cuet at all costs.
nopointactingup wrote:Your case against Thief is again mostly other people's analysis.1.
Even worse, your case against Zone consist some of his being ""slightly town"?2.
Even worse than worse, you case against Sim consists of .. Nothing.3.
4.Conclusion: I have a feeling you don't have a real case at all. You're just bluffing.
5.Tum and Thief need to speak up and get their analysis in before I brand them as Cuet's scumbuddy.Wrong1.
a.This is obvious and a valid point. To add to this point, Taz laid low too and he flipped scum. Given the supposed 10:2 setup, it is a reasonable assumption that scum would try to lay low in order to avoid scrutiny.Has kept a low profile.
b.People have mentioned this, but have not taken a strong stance on it. You got a slight scum tell from it. BB got a town tell from it? I think it is a strong scum tell.WIFOMed Day 1 with his Iron Man vote.
c.You, Nopoint, claimed that scum would buss in this situation. I am taking the opposite argument. If we are in a 10:2 setup, it will be hard for the scum to survive 2 ML's.Did not vote Taz. With 2 ML left, I don't think there was much incentive for scum to buss.
Thus why I am not voting for him at the moment. BTW, do you think my Chainsaw Defense allegation is valid? Isn't that brand new analysis that no one has mentioned yet? Huh Nopoint?2.
True, thus if Sim is scum, he would be an evil genius for distancing from Iron Man on Day 1 and bussing him on Day 2.3.
Well we have already established that you read "selectively"1, 2 and that you have an agenda. Therefore, I can see how you would think that I don't have a case at all when, in fact, I do...4.
Hmm, do you think we are in a 9:3 setup rather than a 10:2? I have never played in a mountainous setup before so I am not very familiar with its specifics. Does a 9:3 mountainous setup even exist? Can you or anyone else cite a game that was a 9:3 mountainous setup?5.
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009
-
-
Cuetlachtli Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 411
- Joined: October 20, 2009