Absolute scumtell? I guess, statistically, you're bound to catch Kortsscum this way, sure...curiouskarmadog wrote:vote Korts...too many games with you
Those sunglasses on the pimpcat--scary.
You know what, never mind.Battle Mage wrote:What do you mean?Korts wrote:How solid a read do you have at this point?Battle Mage wrote:I'm pretty sure you're town at this point.curiouskarmadog wrote:Ah, BM, you make me giggle inside, of course, so does midget porn.
Lolwut? Midgets are obvious pro-town.BM wrote:That isnt conclusive unless somebody claims midget, and/or you can prove that midgets are scum.
Nah. I wanted to ask whether you were joking when you said CKD was town or you did have an actual town read on him, but I realized that a) that's rolefishing to some extent, and b) you were probably joking anyway.Battle Mage wrote:Can't have that!Korts wrote:I just realized I was potentially rolefishing.BM wrote:right... :S
Go on- if you have a question, shoot.
He only said something about enjoying midget porn. I don't think that's abuse. Heck, they're probably enjoying themselves.BM wrote:I believe it was CKD.Korts wrote:Who's talking about abusing them?BM wrote:So how is defending them more scummy than abusing them?
BM
Quick, everyone start spamming! My goal is page forty by the time BM returnsBattle Mage wrote:sorry, i'm gonna be V/LA for the next 17 hours.
BM
What do you mean? Scum don't randomvote?des wrote:If ckd is scum, is his vote still random?
He implied reasoning ("vote is boring... and I think lacking"). Are you implying I should be suspicious of CKD for that unvote?des wrote:He didn't say why he voted for rofl either, so why say that was a better place for his vote?
I like my questions answered. Avoidance of them, however minor or pointless they seem to be, is a scumtell and is done for a reason, therefore the more they're avoided, the more I want them answered.des wrote:I can understand asking rofl that question the first time. I don't see as much merit in persisting for an answer like you have, though. I'm not convinced that your play so far is pro-town, so I wonder about ckd leaving your wagon.
I still don't see how that's particularly scummy, placing multiple random votes.des wrote:Korts, If ckd is scum he's going to be conscious of whether or not he's voting for someone who's on his team. He unvoted you and moved to rofl without giving much more reason than his first vote.
Sorry, I checked and I did say vote. I meant hisdes wrote:You've said his vote is OMGUS, but he voted rofl before they started their exchange. ckd can't justify his vote retrospectively and you're ignoring this.
I agree that we should keep as far away from deadline as possible, but let's not just quicklynch. Informed decisions and such.roflcopter wrote:i think its in our best interest to reach a lynch in this game before deadline (well before deadline, ideally) to give scum less time to make an optimal kill or possibly catch them off guard and deprive them of a kill altogether.
It's just that that's been rofl's random vote justification (that I'm always scum if we play together) for the past two games, maybe, and he always leaves one game out where I was the doc (although he had to replace out). Not really important.BM wrote:what? :SKorts wrote:rofl, the only thing you're leaving out is the new C9. Flipped doc. You just didn't stay all the way through. Will I always have to tell you this?
I'm after lunch, and I'm digesting, so it's hard to think for me. But this vote and justification seems off. I don't see a glaring contradiction. I'll be coming back to this later to see if I can put my finger on what's bothering me.Kison wrote:He's so town that it's blindingly obvious, yet it's also unexplainable because it's a gut read?
Unvote
Vote: roflcoptor
That's a BS reason for voting. Not realizing something is a joke or not appreciating jokes about who your scumbuddy is is in no way a scummy thing.Battle Mage wrote:I dont really see your issue here. Certainly nothing that would warrant a 'hardcore FoS' (damn, dont see those words together often enough!)
Ftr, i was responding to a joke by DGB, in a similarly jokey fashion. I fail to see how you could be suspicious on me because i claimed scum in a really WIFOMy way.
Unvote, Vote: Destructor
űBattle Mage wrote:How the hell could he not realise it was a joke? You have to be kidding me!Korts wrote:Well, if he didn't realize it was a joke in the first place, I don't see how it's BS.Battle Mage wrote: He tried to place suspicion on me because of something that didnt warrant it. If my reason is BS, it's because it's a direct response to the original BS-which was his, btw.
BM
Sure. It's just that we had a lot of fun in previous games with the super-sized quote pyramids.BM wrote:Also, would you mind not selectively quoting? It's not necessary atm, and makes me do more reading than i want to.
BM
I see what my beef with this is. a) rofl's "blindingly obvious" comment was a very clear hyperbole, and b) "blindingly obvious" doesn't even come close to contradicting the statement that it was a gut read on des. This is pure, unadulterated BS.Kison wrote:He's so town that it's blindingly obvious, yet it's also unexplainable because it's a gut read?
Unvote
Vote: roflcoptor
Otherwise I feel DGB has been fairly pro-town, but this statement is openly buddying up to rofl.DrippingGoofball wrote:Kison is scum for casting aspersions on roflcopter's unblemished record as townie town town in this game.
After trying to discredit CKD case, and a reply from rofl, he quickly retreats and basically allows rofl to follow the lead on CKD. I think he's trying too hard to stay uncommitted to any particular side.Guardian wrote:Reading over the thread again, there are two quick things I'd like to say.
If, after considering whether you truly think the case on CKD is good, you still think it is, keep going for it. I do not want us to waste time, but I just remembered the plethora of reasons I refuse to defend people -- I am not going to defend him by saying why I think the points against him are weak, that is up to him.
Especially this is so very true.DGB wrote:HEY! That's what you just did.Guardian wrote:Please cut out the garbage -- it is unhelpful and suspcious. Posting a lot of nothing can make you look like you are scum hunting, being active, thinking about the game, etc. when you aren't.
des wrote:The Korts-ckd connection became more evident when Korts talked about ckd's motives with so much confidence
Is this me talking about motives "with so much confidence"? Cos it was you that implied that CKD's second vote was pretty much another vote without real reason (i.e. a second random vote). I don't know why CKD decided his vote on me was lacking. The fact that I didn't do much constructive posting up 'til then does make his unvote raise my eyebrow, looking at it now, but I fail to see that as an associative tell (I would say that, though, wouldn't I).Korts, in referenced post wrote:I still don't see how that's particularly scummy, placing multiple random votes.des wrote:Korts, If ckd is scum he's going to be conscious of whether or not he's voting for someone who's on his team. He unvoted you and moved to rofl without giving much more reason than his first vote.
des wrote: He describes ckd's case on rofl as OMGUS, ignoring the fact that ckd voted rofl before this could have been a factor.
...des, a bit before that wrote:I think that ckd was threatened by rofl's vote and his following case against him seemed almost knee-jerk.
Because "gut" is an acceptable though not very helpful reason for an early game state, while BS is always invalid.des wrote:Why isn't Korts questioning the legitimacy of ckd's reasoning prior to his exchange with rofl?
More on the fence.Guardian wrote:I also want to point out that discussion on who and what is scummy is usually never a bad thing. I find the case on ckd unconvincing, and I find it a waste of space, but nevertheless it could lead to good things. I was wrong to say to stop it earlier.
I don't know if Guardian genuinely doesn't realize that DGB is joking or he's really intent on refuting every single paragraph of DGB's post in a desperate attempt to defend himself.Guardian wrote:So does it indicate nothing or does it indicate that he is SK?DGB wrote:This is just silly. Self-voting is indicative of nothing at all, and vollkan did it to bus himself, as he is the SK
One way it is helpful is that it outs the opportunistic players who are all too eager to jump on an anti-town thell saying it's a scumtell. Remember, kids, anti-town=/=scummy. There may be overlaps, but it's a false conclusion to paintGuardian wrote:I disagree. Mafia has an implicit social contract where we all put our thoughts about other people to be analyzed. When you don't self vote, you don't do that. It is like lurking. It robs the town of discussion and moves the discussion in a bad direction. At worst it can bring suspicion to yourself -- because it IS unhelpful to the town.
Whoa, misrep! DGB is refusing to list those players she sees asGuardian wrote:Why refuse to state who you are suspicious of and why? Why refuse to list the players and make comments? I want a firm stand from you on the players because right now you are my first (second if you count me misreading Korts) real suspect. I will explain further after you procure such a list or again explicitly refuse to.
Pardon. I just find an inherent contradiction between you not believing the CKD case and letting others pursue it when it is to your mind a dead end. I used the wrong term, possibly.Guardian wrote:Uncommitted? My stance on the CKD case has not wavered, why are you saying it has?
For the record, I think DGB can be analyzed, but her statement that vollkan is self-bussing as an SK is an obvious joke because it doesn't make sense as either a scum, town or SK gambit and doesn't further any agenda other than an opposing faction's. Therefore you taking it (DGB's statement) seriously and thinking that there areGuardian wrote:I don't know whether you generally believe we cannot analyze DGB because she is "joking" or whether you are spewing a line of bullshit. "DESPERATE" attempt to defend myself? Because DGB is attacking me for not posting content when I have posted content, and I have one vote?? And this makes me DESPERATE? I was trying to illustrate how bad DGB's attack was -- and now I find you agreeing with it .
Yeah, I know that (the Venn-diagram). My point was that the gist of your tirade against self-votingGuardian wrote:I fundamentally agree that self-voting is not scummy, as I spent a whole post explaining. Not every anti-town action is scummy, but it is pretty damn close. I made this pic to help you understand:
<Venn-diagram>
Now that may have been just a turn of phrase, but it doesn't change the fact that you did, in fact, say that.Guardian wrote:Self voting is scummy -- it robs town of information
She has made it clear that her suspects are the following: Guardian, Kison, CKD; vollkan as SK particularly.Guardian wrote:That's exactly the thing -- she has not made it pretty clear who she thinks is scum; she's said at least 5 players I can recall are definitely scum. I want to hear her actual stance on everyone with reasons. If she doesn't want to give reasons for who is town, fine, but everyone she thinks is scummy I want reasons for.
I digress. I think that every person DGB pinned as scum she did suspect, excluding the first couple which were obvious random jokes (Kison/Guardian/BM circle-bussing on page 2 or something). I support Guardian's stance on this (although I have faith enough in this particular town to say the hypothetical situation of DGB being unreadable and yet unlynchable won't happen).BM wrote:Right. So you're saying DGB genuinely believes that the people she has named as scum are scum, and those she has named as town are town? I think not. She lies constantly, and unless she starts playing the game honestly, she is completely unreadable, because we cant use interactions or lies as scumtells, because they are all tongue in cheek. You cannot apply normal scumtells to DGB.
The fact that she actively pursues her suspicions.RR wrote:What makes you read DGB as pro town?
The "staying on the fence about CKD" tell was the one thing that made me cast my vote; I turned out to be mistaken somewhat, and what I called being on the fence was actually a conflict of motives from Guardian's two statements, which isn't nearly as scummy. If my vote weren't already on him, I probably wouldn't vote, but I don't see any particular reason to unvote, either.RR wrote:You make some good points about Guardian, but none of them seem like a good justification for a vote other than "staying on the fence about CKD", which I don't think is accurate. Do you consider any of the other points you're discussing with Guardian a scumtell?
I'M a little curious to know how Elmo madeBattle Mage wrote:If i'm a Jester, i'm not scum. But yes, i am a little curious as to how Elmo knows that me and Guardian are town.roflcopter wrote:literally minutes ago you gave BM an X on my scum list, as in "you are incorrect about BM being scum."Elmo wrote:BM, stop living up to your title.
BM
You want me to try and put a basically gut feel into any more words and my head will burst.Battle Mage wrote:the alternative being? You think as scum, DGB would claim a list of scumbags and not pursue them?Korts wrote:Let me clarify, then, BM. DGB's actions (other than the slight but very obvious buddying up to rofl and des) have been pro-town because she actively pursued her suspicions, which is something that I'd expect at this game state from a pro-town player trying to get a rise out of scum.
BM
This is so much BS. Why would it be a preconception to think you have already behaved in a scummy fashion? For that matter, I don't gather how you decided rofl was assuming you were gonna be scummy instead of having already seen you be scummy.Battle Mage wrote:It wouldnt. You're tunnel-visioning me in the sense that you have the aforementioned preconception that i will behave (and have already behaved) in a scummy fashion. It smells like you are planning to set me up at a later stage. Either that, or you are tunnel-visioning me now.roflcopter wrote:wouldn't that require me to be voting you and not voicing my suspicions of a number of other players concurrently? do you think before you accuse me of things?bm wrote:Tunnel vision much?
BM
Ok, let me elaborate on that gut feel after all. DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit while she mimes scumhunting. DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her. Why are you trying to dig any deeper when what we're discussing is aBattle Mage wrote:please continue.Korts wrote:It's all about motives.Battle Mage wrote:2 words. NULL. TELL.Korts wrote:The fact that she actively pursues her suspicions.RR wrote:What makes you read DGB as pro town?
BM
BM
What is your point here saying "suspicion came without a suspicion attached"? Are you implying that suspicion should always draw your vote? If so, do you think that's a valid method of scumhunting?Battle Mage, post 277 for ref. wrote:Apparently the suspicion came without a suspicion attached. lolroflcopter wrote:you seem to be the one who is panicking, chainsaw defending sens against a suspicion that didn't even come with a vote attached.Battle Mage wrote:<snip>
Votes are over-rated.
Unvote, Vote: Roflcopter
I didn't get the feel Elmo was giving BM leeway for scummyposting here with the implication that he's town, rather giving BM leeway regardless of alignment.roflcopter wrote:literally minutes ago you gave BM an X on my scum list, as in "you are incorrect about BM being scum."Elmo wrote:BM, stop living up to your title.
You are making your connection to Guardian more obvious. Please, continue.BM wrote:If i'm a Jester, i'm not scum. But yes, i am a little curious as to how Elmo knows that me and Guardian are town.
Do you agree that there are certain actions that inherently are inherently pro-town in the sense that they further the game towards the town win condition? If you do agree with this, don't you agree that people who consecutively perform these actions are less likely than average to be scum?vollkan wrote:(I'm coming from a perspective which is very skeptical of "town tells" in general. Basically, scum has every motivation to appear protown, such that it shouldn't be at all surprising that scum do a good job at "scumhunting". Town, in contrast, has no motivation to appear scummy (subject to my "optimum, non-zero point above"), which makes scumtells (however much we may debate what is a scumtell and what is not) on more solid a footing.)
If a) is probably true, as you concede, and des being "blindingly obvious" town is a hyperbole that, in fact, probably means that "I think that des is town", then I don't see how there is a contradiction. The gut feel cannot be proven, but since "obvious" was presumably a hyperbole, your point to b) is, for practical matters, invalid.vollkan wrote:a) Probably true.Korts wrote:I see what my beef with this is. a) rofl's "blindingly obvious" comment was a very clear hyperbole, and b) "blindingly obvious" doesn't even come close to contradicting the statement that it was a gut read on des. This is pure, unadulterated BS.Kison wrote:He's so town that it's blindingly obvious, yet it's also unexplainable because it's a gut read?
Unvote
Vote: roflcoptor
b) Not true. If something is obvious"it means that it is readily apparent. If something is based on gut then, by definition, the player cannot point to a basis for their assertion. Thus, it isn't obvious.
Yes. I concede the point that he's not fence-sitting as I first saw it. But if he disagrees with the CKD-case, he obviously has a problem with the points against him, and if that's the case I don't see why he doesn't raise these problems with the case. The conflict of projected motives is evident.vollkan wrote:That's not correct. Guardian begins to defend CKD, and then stops (not "retreats") because he has an objection to defending (which I suspect I disagree with, but now is not the place for that argument). He doesn't say anything which could be construed as expressing a neutral opinion - he just refuses to involve himself in CKD's defence. The implicit point here is that he disagrees with the case (is committed to disagreement, you might say) but doesn't want to involve himself in the debate.
This makes me sad. rofl had explained what scummy thing SensFan didvollkan wrote:Calling it "mischaracterising" is a bit rich.rofl wrote:because he wasn't just criticising it, he was mischaracterizing it as a lurkerhunt, which makes it sound like it doesn't have any basis in sens' actions. but if you'll do as i suggested with the quote right above this you'll see that it does in fact have a basis in sens' actions, and i was on his case when they were happening.vollkan wrote:How is BM criticising an attack scummy?
You said:Nothing you say there at all exlpains why you suspect Sens, other than your mention of inactivity (which is not a legitimiate basis for suspicion)rofl wrote: oh, also add
sensfan?
to the bottom of that list. i almost forgot he was even in the game he's added so little
This still irks me. Nowhere was future scumminess implied in the following quote, only present:Battle Mage wrote:i should also point out that you appear to have the preconception that i am going to do scummy things. I find it hard to believe that an open minded townie would have that approach.
BM
roflcopter wrote:define meta-townish. because it sounds mostly like an excuse for you to ignore whatever scummy things bm does.elmo wrote:BM seems meta-townish.
This post is ignoring in its entirety what rofl wrote in reply to BM's accusation.Battle Mage wrote:then why have you assumed that i will behave in a scummy way? Tunnel vision much?roflcopter wrote:you are really good at framing your statements in such a way that they sound really damning without having actually proven anything.Battle Mage wrote:i should also point out that you appear to have the preconception that i am going to do scummy things. I find it hard to believe that an open minded townie would have that approach.
BM
i had no preconceptions about you or anyone else coming into this game. i am observing in the process of doing scummy things here.
BM
See? What's DGB if not pro-town?DrippingGoofball wrote:What???? BM is still alive?
I think you may have disproved your point there...BM wrote:The reason im criticising your town read of DGB, is that i'm trying to use my meta experience with DGB in order to assess what is protown and scummy for her. She does this alot (although i cant recall a game as mafia to use as a balance example).
Firstly, I didn't know how else to phrase it. Secondly, it was you who were implying you knew Guardian was town. Since there are no pro-town linked roles on the front page, this doesn't sit well with me, particularly because you didn't outright state that you thought Guardian was town, but tried to plant the thought of Guardiantown with a passing comment. I'd have had no problem with you stating that you have a town read on Guardian, what I do have a problem with is you trying to pass it as almost a suggestion.BM wrote:Firstly, stop trying to be like DGB. 1 is more than enough. Secondly, tying players to each other is not only scummy in itself, but if done by a townie, is easily exploitable by scum.
Fair enough. Your native language, not mine.BM wrote:In an instant, the future can become the present. 'Does' can be used in the future tense.
It was your damn signature at the end of the quote, probably... I dunno.BM wrote:Why are you talking in the 3rd person? It wouldnt be because, rather than talk to me, you've already made your mind up, and want to seek support, would it?
Nice comeback I'd give a 3.8 out of 5.BM wrote:Your mom?Korts wrote:See? What's DGB if not pro-town?DrippingGoofball wrote:What???? BM is still alive?
Fair enough.Elmo wrote:This is a fairly obviously bad post. Yos hadn't posted yet, so it's rather difficult to believe rofl is suggesting that. You're assigning suspicion that wasn't there in Des's post, too; this looks like you're trying to slide in-between two townies, playing them off against each other. I don't mind reaching in the random stage generally, but this looks the scummy kind. Town wants to find something kinda suspicious as a springboard, but hopefully accurate.. this just looks scummy. The fact that you're basically feeding off someone else's reasoning instead of contributing your own, that you've ignored all rofl's other behaviour in terms of coming up with a read, and that you seem more inclined to push Des into a lynch than prod at rofl and actually read his reactions are, y'know, scummy.Korts wrote:Nice catch. rofl, are you suggesting that Yos is particularly pro-town? Buddying up much?destructor wrote:Why is it more interesting that Yos was on the list?
I don't really understand the distinction between town-scummy and scum-scummy here. Any reason for being wishy-washy?Elmo wrote: BM is scummy. But it seems slightly closer to the scummy where he was actually town before. BM is always scummy. Unless he moves back towards scum-scummy, then I don't really want to lynch him today. Obviously, I don't have a strong read on him.
Again, why so wishy-washy? What do you hope to achieve by a direct question?Elmo wrote:Kison is kind of scummy. But I don't know if that's just him. Kison, are you scum?
While I understand what you're saying, I still think there's a conflict between the two motives that Guardian was projecting. I think I did acknowledge that it's nowhere near as solid a scumtell as the initial accusation of fence-sitting was (although I realized that to be invalid).vollkan wrote:This shouldn't be taken to give endorsement to the view that people should not defend others, but I do think that one can legitimately refuse to defend somebody if one thinks that their will be an information-gain from requiring them to respond personally.Korts wrote:Yes. I concede the point that he's not fence-sitting as I first saw it. But if he disagrees with the CKD-case, he obviously has a problem with the points against him, and if that's the case I don't see why he doesn't raise these problems with the case. The conflict of projected motives is evident.
Fair enough. I remembered the exchange between SensFan and rofl, but I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. I thought rofl had more to it than that.vollkan wrote:Rofl explained absolutely nothing! <quotes>
What's the reasoning behind this vote?Kison wrote:Vote: Zazier temporary placeholder while I find a better home for my vote. Zazier, where art thou?
The unvote and vote elsewhere wasn't suspicious in particular.des wrote:You're calling his second vote (for rofl) random now, but you didn't at the time. I was calling into question the fact that you seemed to think the best of his votes. You didn't consider that ckd could be scum.
Can you do this (assuming you didn't earlier?)des wrote:Korts is more active now, but I'm still not convinced that he's really trying to catch scum. I'm finding a lot of his argument's reachy. I can point to them later.
I understand your sentiment, but I gotta ask: why now? If you weren't comfortable with CKD at L-1, why were you content to have him at L-2 before, when basically that was the same thing?destructor wrote:Hmm.
Unvote
Vote: Korts
ckd, I still want to see you responding to the posts I mentioned.
I think that you weren't the first to point it out, actually. And I "changed tact" because I realized that I had mislabelled Guardian's action as something far scummier. Not defending CKD when he doesn't agree with the case is only mildly scummy, as I think I expressed.vollkan wrote:As I said at the time, I didn't like his Guardian vote. Accusing Guardian of being "non-committal" when it clearly wasn't the case that Guardian was shirking from having an opinion - he was simply letting CKD fight his own battles. "Non-committal" is just like "WIFOM" - it carries powerful implications, but is open to abuse. Later on, when I pointed this out, he then changed tact and argued that Guardian should be arguing in CKD's defence - leaving a silence as to what was scummy about this
Yes. That was a false start at scumhunting.vollkan wrote:His accusation that Rofl was buddying up by asking why Yos was on a list also seems a bit of a stretch.
This post almost made me give CKD slight town points, but then again, there's no motivation for town either to bring attention to the fact that he does it as scum, too. The "(though I don't think in Day 1)" corollary seems a bit fabricated and seems to want to imply that he wouldn't do such a thing Day 1 and he's therefore town for doing so now.CKD wrote:though it should be noted, that I have also self voted as scum too (though I dont think in Day 1)..so the self vote from me, should be taking at the most as a null tell.
I thought I clarified it enough times that I meantCKD wrote:Not sure how my vote on rofl was OMGUS when I voted him first (which started this whole mess).
How was I saying "I agree with X"? At most I was saying that I don't find a change of vote particularly suspicious. I don't especially like how now that your wagon seems to have died down you start pushing the one that was the second biggest.CKD wrote:You make good observations/theories here. My reaction to rofl wasn’t a knee jerk, but I can see maybe how one might think that. I was mostly angered how rofl refused to answer my question and only through out more crap…then I was upset that no one else really seemed to see what I was seeing (at the time) I agree with your thoughts here though…it is easy for people to say “I agree with X” if someone knows that X is town and is getting ready to get hung…it might by the town creds later…is that what Korts is doing?..I don’t know…but like I have said, those who scream X is town the most, is probably scum…
That much was clear. But what purpose did it serve in your opinion if it was admittedly temporary and in no way expressive of an intent to lynch or pressure?Kison wrote:I had been away from the game for a few days and hadn't had a better place in mind to stash it, as I said in the block you quoted.
Where have I even mentioned you?Yosarian2 wrote:Also, I find it odd that Korts, Volkan, and Destuctor are all all attacking for my vote on CKD and yet not one has shown the slightest bit of curiosity for why I am voting him.
Scumkill and vigkill are both likely possibilities. Scumkill because Guardian was basically uncovering a plan that could ensure a quicklynch, and vigkill because the same, which was a clear attempt to stop any more votes on CKD, implied a heavy connection between Guardian and CKD. Why do you think this question will help in any way?Elmo wrote: I would like people speculate as to why Guardian was killed. No, really.
This question is based on an assumption that isn't really based on any evidence. Why are you assuming the Guardian kill was a scumkill unless you took part in deciding it?Raging Rabbit wrote:]In addition to my strong gut feeling that he's scum here, Korts isn't doing any real scumhunting - case on Guardian was based on a missrep and Korts fizzled it out, now he's attacking BM who's always a comfortable target, for bad reasons - would BM off Guardian after buddying up to him?
You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.Raging Rabbit wrote:Where are you seeing DGB elbows deep in shit? Are we even reading the same game? She's under no pressure at all...
Shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is idiocy and a way to be acting like you're scumhunting. Again, looking at the motivations for her actions, I have the impression that she has slightly more motivation to be stirring up shit the way she's doing as town than as scum. Ignoring the motivations and running around screaming WIFOM isn't exactly a logical reply.Raging Rabbit wrote:The second sentence is a circular argument, and doesn't actually say anything.
This comment carries heavy implications without you having provided any proof. Where was I doing that? Quotes plz.Raging Rabbit wrote:Most importantly, your own case on BM is trying to dig deeper into his town read on Guardian. I find this inconsistency is very scummy.
I don't see how Guardian shouldn't make sense as a vig kill. You have to at least acknowledge that there were multiple players suspicious of him; and his attempt at stalling the CKD wagon at L-2 could've been taken as either buddying-up/opting for brownie points or derailing a scumbuddy-wagon as well as pro-town apprehension.Raging Rabbit wrote:Because Guardian makes no sense as a vig kill, and we're not even sure we have a vig. I can't completely rule it out, but I'm willing to assume the far, far liklier option.Korts wrote:This question is based on an assumption that isn't really based on any evidence. Why are you assuming the Guardian kill was a scumkill unless you took part in deciding it?
That's true, to an extent. It's basically intuition that I tried to explain.Raging Rabbit wrote:Why can't that be a scum move? It carries no real bad implications for her and gives the appearance that she's actually scumhunting.Korts wrote:You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.
If you take the first half of the sentence as granted, the second half is evident as conclusion. And the first half isn't circular logic/WIFOM in itself. Therefore I don't see what you're implying could be WIFOM here.Raging Rabbit wrote:I just realized I meant third sentence, which is:Korts wrote:Shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is idiocy and a way to be acting like you're scumhunting. Again, looking at the motivations for her actions, I have the impression that she has slightly more motivation to be stirring up shit the way she's doing as town than as scum. Ignoring the motivations and running around screaming WIFOM isn't exactly a logical reply.
Korts wrote:DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her.
First off, wait a second. Circular logic is the same as WIFOM, unless you're misusing the term. Please give your definitions to those two terms. My understanding of WIFOM is derived from the Princess Bride, and deciding whether the Wine In Front of Me or the Wine In Front Of You is poisoned is a very clear circular argument.Raging Rabbit wrote:Circular argument, says nothing. Wasn't talking about WIFOM here. The BM-Guardian link that was part of your attack on BM is a WIFOM trap in light of his kill, I'm surprised you didn't comment on the kill in relation to BM before.
See bolded. My beef was with the very subtleRaging Rabbit wrote:Korts wrote:This comment carries heavy implications without you having provided any proof. Where was I doing that? Quotes plz.Right here.Korts wrote:Firstly, I didn't know how else to phrase it. Secondly, it was you who were implying you knew Guardian was town. Since there are no pro-town linked roles on the front page, this doesn't sit well with me, particularly because you didn't outright state that you thought Guardian was town, but tried to plant the thought of Guardiantown with a passing comment.I'd have had no problem with you stating that you have a town read on Guardian, what I do have a problem with is you trying to pass it as almost a suggestion.
[/quote]Raging Rabbit wrote:What good does this threat do you?Korts wrote:If you can't explain why you made the assumption of Guardian being a scumkill, why you think it's WIFOM to explore the motivations for certain ways of behaviour, and how I was attacking BM for his town read on Guardian, my vote will be more than happy to visit you for an extended stay.
What did those posts look to you like, then?Yos, regarding suspicion based on his at the time unexplained vote on CKD wrote:Normally one would think so, but that's not how the posts looked to me, at all.
Do you discount a vig kill as unlikely?Yos, re: Guardian kill wrote:It's a wierd situation. On the one hand, the fact that Guardian was defending CKD and then died might be a good sign for CKD. But on the other hand; if the scum wanted CKD to be lynched, why not wait until he was at lynch -1 and THEN kill someone off the wagon, making him suddenly be instant lynched? Doing it at lynch -2 makes no sense, if that was their goal.
I donno...best guess is, it's probably something totally unrelated. Perhaps he dropped some kind of power-role tell or something.
That's a stance that I can understand. I still hold that town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions. I guess it comes down to a difference in ideology.vollkan wrote:Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?
I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors. Town can do it also, of course, so it's ultimately a nulltell.
The fact that it isn't WIFOM was the point I was trying to make. RR was trying to pin a "circular logic" (i.e. WIFOM) tag on something that isn't. The fact that you deem it a nulltell is beside the point.vollkan wrote:This isn't WIFOM, so much as the fact that stirring up reactions is something which benefits any alignment and, thus, it is neither a towntell nor a scumtell
I'd said this before, right before the vote. I thought I was clear enough; I don't feel RR's case has any good points, and the ones that aren't reaching (my town read on DGB) are misreps or due to less thorough reading (accusing me of WIFOM, accusing me of questioning BM's town read of Guardian). Basically my impression is that RR made a case on me solely because he had previously expressed a general "bad feeling" about me, and tried to follow up on that.vollkan wrote:@Korts: In a few brief sentences, why are you voting RR? I ask because it wasn't clear from your last post
To what?Battle Mage wrote:i still await a response from the DrippingLurkerBall
The bolded part is BS. Me not having a reason to suspect her doesn't meant she's been pro-town specifically, just that she hasn't been scummy. Her being pro-town does, however, mean that I don't have a reason to suspect her.Raging Rabbit wrote:I never said it was WIFOM, I said circular logic.DGB's been pro town because you've no reason to suspect her, and you've no reason to suspect her because she's been pro town. This sentence doesn't actually say anything and is only there to make your read appear more justified.
I think what you're describing is begging the question. Nonetheless, I get your point, and see the above quote and reply.RR wrote:I don't have the patience to really go into exact definitions right now, but WIFOM is basically trying to form a set of assumptions that goes on an infinite loop and is therefore useless, while circular logic is an argument that depends upon itself as proof - X is bad because god said so, god said so because X is bad - and therefore in effect doesn't say anything new.
I did later concede that point, but at the time of my vote, it wasn't clear whether BM was just being boneheaded about it or purposefully misrepping. And purposeful misrepping I see as a valid premise for a vote.RR wrote:I just don't think a disagreement on the use of tenses - to which you later conceded - is cause for a vote, so I assumed the more important point was BM's connection to Guardain.
What? That's BS. You're completely missing the point. I wasn't "digging deeper into the town read"--there wasn't a stated town read. I was accusing BM of subtly implying the notion that Guardian is town. I never asked BM to clarify on his read.RR wrote:Subtle definitions aside, what you're basically doing here is trying to dig deeper into a town read - the same thing you accused BM of doing with your read on DGB.
Obviously you don't have much option other than accuse me of OMGUS or back down. And you're conveniently ignoring what I said in 452 in the last paragraph, just so you can make another jab at me.RR wrote:Yes, my case stems from my inital strong gut feeling. How does that prove to you I'm scum exactly? I don't see any reasoning for your vote other than pure OMGUS.
If this was the case, you are being inconsistent. Previously, you said that your vote was basically based on gut, and you had a hard time explaining it; now you're implying that you did have a solid reason after all?Yos wrote:Do you really have a problem with me voting for someone and not explaining all the reason why I did so right away? Because that's a common tactic I use to get the most useful reactions. Usually, I wait for the person I voted for to respond to the initial vote, and then I go into more details. And as of the time of your attack on me, he had not yet responded to my initial vote. (Unless you count "voting for himself" as a response.)
What's the length of the game got to do with the fact that you cast an L-X vote (where X is either 1 or 2, I don't recall) without justification per se?Yos wrote:"Paving the way to disaster"? WTF? It's day 1. Town is supposed to just lynch someone who looks scummy then move on to day 2. If town is REALLY good, we might even have a 45%-50% chance of getting it right. Why are people so afraid to even come close to a lynch these days that a guy putting himself at lynch -1 makes everyone jump off of the bandwagon? Games don't HAVE to last a year and a half, you know.
And I don't think people should speculate on Guardian being a scumkill when pro-town killing roles may be in the game too.Yos, re: Guardian, vigkill? wrote:I don't think that's the a question people should be answering, Korts.
The tactic you described in the part I quoted requires undisclosed reasons and not just a difficult-to-explain gut feel, therefore the implication that you were using the tactic you described was also an implication that you do have such undisclosed reasons.Yos wrote:Huh? CKD's posts feel somewhat scummy and weird to me. I was willing to explain why they did as much as I could, and did so as soon as someone asked me to. What inconsistancy are you talking about?