Weak vote.Mr Stoofer wrote:I've just done a read through on everyone and one thing leaped out at me that I hadn't spotted before, namely the fact that hasdgfas is posting regularly elsewhere on the site but hasn't posted here for 3 days. In my book that is more than enough to warrantunvote; vote:hasdgfas.
I still think thevampireofdussledorf has to die, though (if he is not scum he doesn't deserve to live).
thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:lord_hur why are you supporting Mr Stoofer?
If he wishes to just lynch someone for being anti town without actually hunting for scum then that is plain ole scummy behaviour to me.
This is also a weak vote. Not a whole lot of reasoning behind it from what I can see. It appears to just be a bandwagon.Musher333 wrote:I don't see where tVoD has actually hurt town that much, i know at the start he was throwing FoS's around like there was no tomorrow but to me that isn't a reason to lynch town. Lynching town because they have a bad start is a realy scummish response.Mr Stoofer wrote:Well, I just wanted to make sure you knew, and that you weren't voting for me under a misapprehension. (Although to be honest I'd rather you weren't voting for me at all.)
@SlySly: you have understood my post about tvod correctly. But it is not anti-Town to want to kill a player who is hurting the town regardless of their alignment. Click here for a thread where lots of people express the view that killing players who are hurting the Town is a good idea regardless of their alignment. See posts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 21 -- all of which agree with me that sometime you have to have a lynch of the player that is not helping the Town. See especially 20 and 21, made by me before I got my role PM in this game.Vote Mr Stoofer
"Early game style" should not be an excuse for anti-town behavior. I've seen it used to explain away mega lurking and a bunch of other things. Sometimes the people using that were town, but sometimes they were scum. It's a null tell, but it still shouldn't be excused.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:I happily admit some of my early FoSes were rather flippant and may have come across as a little bit scummish but that was an early game style thing I explained. Is my early play and different from lord_hurs early speculation?
From Post 204 you seem to have done a) with lord_hur and b) with me. And I dont believe any is more vote worthy. Rather in context either can be worthy of a vote.
This looks like you're just posting to post. I hate that.Singing Librarian wrote:Every time I read through this game, or any part of it, it makes my head hurt. I'm beginning to wonder whether I find tvod scummy partly because it takes me so long to even begin to fathom what he's talking about.
tvod, please please please edit and re-read your posts. It would really help us all.
I don't really agree that stubbornness is a scumtell, but if your point is really that it is vote-worth on day one, then I won't disagree.Mr Stoofer wrote: What I meant was this: there is a big difference between (a) making a point about another player, listening to the guy's defence, thinking about it, and then saying "OK, I don't think my point was a good one"; and (b) making a point about another player and sticking to your guns even when it becomes clear that you are wrong.
Case (b) is well worth a vote (even a lynch on Day 1) while case (a) is much less lynch-worthy. So I wanted to make sure you realised my point about lord_hur falls into case (a).
I at least tried to contribute something as opposed to showing up and saying "Hi guys, I'm here." Even though my contributions haven't been as often as I'd like, I'm only going to post if there's something I notice and can respond to that somewhat moves the game forward. Sometimes that means I get prodded, but then that gives me something to respond to, at least.HackerHuck wrote:hasdgfas - how is your posting in response to a prod any better than "posting just to post"? You made it sound like you didn't need to be prodded, yet you show up just after a prod.
Nothing moves the game forward at all. I feel that if you have the time to post in the game, you should have the time to find something to comment on.PyroDwarf wrote:I'm still here ya'll. I've been busy at work, and come home too tired to think. I have tomorrow off, so I'll do a re-read.
Except there's nothing in the opening post saying to expect a prod after 4 days. If I was expecting to get prodded after 3-4 days, it'd be ok.Mr Stoofer wrote:I should hope so. You'd get replaced for not posting for 4 days in one of my games.And seriously, 4 days to a prod?
To me, this sounds like another way of saying, "I don't have a good reason so I am going to take a shot in the dark."Guardian wrote: I'm playing by sense of smell at this point.
It seems to me that you are saying that you know you don't have a good reason for your action and you have the sense that your action is going to draw a negative response from the town.Guardian wrote: I feel like this is going to come back and bite me in the but later, and people are gonna be like "well if you were really town why weren't you trying so hard to be really townie and good and stuff?" and I don't have a good answer for that.
You have posted more than 20 times since you last mentioned, hasdgfas. Are you talking about the extremely flimsy case you presented in post 92?Guardian wrote: Nevertheless,
unvote; vote: hasdgfas
I just have a strong intuition he's scum, I still like my case I proposed (and if you don't you can just eat it), and I don't particularly want to lynch my previous top suspects.
Hang on, what about this post makes you feel he is scum? A quotation of where about in the post might help.Mr Stoofer wrote:I really hate SlySly's post 235 - it just screams scum at me (except I agree that Guardian's case against hasdgfas was weak). I'd be on for a SlySly lynch if none of the other bandwagons are going anywhere.
NOTE: I will be away from now until Monday 14th April
It's day 1. What else do have to go on but hunches and such-like? What Guardian said is perfectly reasonable. It applies to me too.SlySly wrote:To me, this sounds like another way of saying, "I don't have a good reason so I am going to take a shot in the dark."Guardian wrote: I'm playing by sense of smell at this point.
Again, a perfectly reasonable thing for Guardian to say; I don't even understand what SlySly's complaint is about it.SlySly wrote:It seems to me that you are saying that you know you don't have a good reason for your action and you have the sense that your action is going to draw a negative response from the town.Guardian wrote: I feel like this is going to come back and bite me in the but later, and people are gonna be like "well if you were really town why weren't you trying so hard to be really townie and good and stuff?" and I don't have a good answer for that.
Well, imo, if you are going to do something that will cast you in a negative light to the town, you better have a good reason and be able to answer when called on for it. If you don't do the reasonless act of negativity in the first place, the town would not have been forced to confront you for it.
I don't have a problem with the above; although it misses the point that Guardian thinks hasdgfas is scum on instinct. SlySly's argumentSlySly wrote:You have posted more than 20 times since you last mentioned, hasdgfas. Are you talking about the extremely flimsy case you presented in post 92?Guardian wrote: Nevertheless,
unvote; vote: hasdgfas
I just have a strong intuition he's scum, I still like my case I proposed (and if you don't you can just eat it), and I don't particularly want to lynch my previous top suspects.
That case basically said hasdgfas was scum because he used pronouns in the random stage and answered a question that was addressed for someone else and that he supposedly lead tVoD.
Well, the first 2 parts of your 'case' are a joke, at best. The 3rd part of your 'case' is an opinion that I don't share. I don't see how hasdgfas was leading at tVoD at all. Maybe I missed a post, though I doubt it. If you are not pro-town enough to quote it, you could be pro-town enough to point out the exact post number you are referring to, when making claims about others questionable play, so it is easy for the town to understand what you are talking about.
You have popped in and placed a vote on a person that I believe to have contributed many pro-town posts throughout the game, using a very old case against him, that you have not mentioned in a long time, while knowing that you are going to be V\LA for some time.
I think this is way over the top. "VERY scummy action"!?! "you go and pull this"?!? I just don't see what is so scummy about what Guardian has said.SlySly wrote:
This to me is a VERY scummy action. You had almost cleared yourself of any suspicion in my mind and then you go and pull this. Mr. Stoofer's consistent scumminess is the only thing keeping my vote off of you.
FoS:Guardian
Trying to save Guardian much? I can't remember who it was that gave hasfardas (sorry i couldnt remember your name) a hard time for doing this in the first few pages but you have just done the exact same which adding to the case in my last post brings about quite a scummy feel about you.Mr Stoofer wrote:OK, here goes:
It's day 1. What else do have to go on but hunches and such-like? What Guardian said is perfectly reasonable. It applies to me too.SlySly wrote:To me, this sounds like another way of saying, "I don't have a good reason so I am going to take a shot in the dark."Guardian wrote: I'm playing by sense of smell at this point.
Again, a perfectly reasonable thing for Guardian to say; I don't even understand what SlySly's complaint is about it.SlySly wrote:It seems to me that you are saying that you know you don't have a good reason for your action and you have the sense that your action is going to draw a negative response from the town.Guardian wrote: I feel like this is going to come back and bite me in the but later, and people are gonna be like "well if you were really town why weren't you trying so hard to be really townie and good and stuff?" and I don't have a good answer for that.
Well, imo, if you are going to do something that will cast you in a negative light to the town, you better have a good reason and be able to answer when called on for it. If you don't do the reasonless act of negativity in the first place, the town would not have been forced to confront you for it.
I don't have a problem with the above; although it misses the point that Guardian thinks hasdgfas is scum on instinct. SlySly's argumentSlySly wrote:You have posted more than 20 times since you last mentioned, hasdgfas. Are you talking about the extremely flimsy case you presented in post 92?Guardian wrote: Nevertheless,
unvote; vote: hasdgfas
I just have a strong intuition he's scum, I still like my case I proposed (and if you don't you can just eat it), and I don't particularly want to lynch my previous top suspects.
That case basically said hasdgfas was scum because he used pronouns in the random stage and answered a question that was addressed for someone else and that he supposedly lead tVoD.
Well, the first 2 parts of your 'case' are a joke, at best. The 3rd part of your 'case' is an opinion that I don't share. I don't see how hasdgfas was leading at tVoD at all. Maybe I missed a post, though I doubt it. If you are not pro-town enough to quote it, you could be pro-town enough to point out the exact post number you are referring to, when making claims about others questionable play, so it is easy for the town to understand what you are talking about.
You have popped in and placed a vote on a person that I believe to have contributed many pro-town posts throughout the game, using a very old case against him, that you have not mentioned in a long time, while knowing that you are going to be V\LA for some time.
rather approaches the matter as though Guardian is putting forward cast-iron evidence, when he has said the opposite.
I think this is way over the top. "VERY scummy action"!?! "you go and pull this"?!? I just don't see what is so scummy about what Guardian has said.SlySly wrote:
This to me is a VERY scummy action. You had almost cleared yourself of any suspicion in my mind and then you go and pull this. Mr. Stoofer's consistent scumminess is the only thing keeping my vote off of you.
FoS:Guardian
I voted VOD because I didn't like the way he thrwe FoS's around without any good reason, and maintained it later mainly because I have no real lead and VOD never was in danger of being lynched (or the hammering would have looked VERY scummy...).Guardian wrote:I still don't understand why people want to kill TVOD, could someone summarize??
seems like really awkward logic. Scum know who is not scum. Town do not. This is the difference. When town votes then can very rarely truly *know* the alignment of who they are voting for, but they can spot things that lead them to believe that someone is scum. Scum, on the other hand, know (at least) that the person they are voting for is not allied with them, and have to make up reasons which they know are false. Town are genuinely looking for scum, scum are pretending to. What about that don't you get? To me, this looks like it could be an attempt to twist what Mr Stoofer said rather than a misunderstanding.Musher333 wrote:So how does this differ if you are the scum? Like you said scum voting for people know that the person they vote for isn't scum. Unless you are scum you don't know who the scum are so your reasoning could apply to any vote that is being cast at the moment.Mr Stoofer wrote: That is a strong scum tell, because whenever scum FoS/vote someone, they know that the person they are voting is not scum.)
Where did i say sense of smell is a scum tell? i can't remember saying that, what i was saying is that stoofer seems to be defending guardian alot.Singing Librarian wrote: Musher333 is beginning to worry me a bit. I don't see Guardian's admission that he's playing by sense of smell to be a big scum tell, and I feel it's at least honest - do we really have that much more to go on than instinct and feelings at this point? Also, I don't see Mr Stoofer as trying to save Guardian. In fact, I don't get the Stoofer bandwagon, which Musher has joined quite wholeheartedly, at all.
Here:Musher333 wrote:Where did i say sense of smell is a scum tell? i can't remember saying that, what i was saying is that stoofer seems to be defending guardian alot.
If could use similar reasoning to yours and say that you're defending SlySly, but that's not what seems to be happening here.Musher333 wrote:Hang on, what about this post makes you feel he is scum? A quotation of where about in the post might help.Mr Stoofer wrote:I really hate SlySly's post 235 - it just screams scum at me (except I agree that Guardian's case against hasdgfas was weak). I'd be on for a SlySly lynch if none of the other bandwagons are going anywhere.
NOTE: I will be away from now until Monday 14th April
To me this post is clearly well written and shows out Guardian's (to me) clear scum tell then if you are saying it seems scummish to you is that because he FoS's someone as scum who quite clearly deserves it?
