Mini 584: Sudo_Nym Presents- Over!

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Vote icemanE.

The even-more-blatant fishing, plus the "mafiassk was very scummy" bit (because he wasn't very scummy), plus the poorly thought out case on me, means iceman is my new favorite lynch target.

[Lowell]

I don't see the case on iceman, he seems pretty authentic to me. His posts don't look like role-fishing as much as just a wide net of stuff he's willing to talk about. It might not be USEFUL, but unless someone does something dumb in response, it shouldn't cause any great harm either.

[CaptainCake]

What I mean is that he's so solidly fixed in my mind as being suspicious because of his inactivity and downright crapiness.

Wait... So because he's been a poor player so far he's scum, but substituting in a better player won't possibly be able to change your mind on him? Honestly that sounds like one of the worst reasons I've heard to suggest a lynch before a replacement is found.

unvote vote: icemanE

[Sudo_Nym]

mafiaSSK 2

-

Johoohno, icemanE

icemanE 2-

TheSweatpantsNinja, CaptainCake

ZeekLTK 1-

Nanosauromo

Greasy Spot 1-

Lowell

Lowell 1-

Greasy Spot

With 12 alive, 7 votes will lynch.

[icemanE]

What I mean is that he's so solidly fixed in my mind as being suspicious because of his inactivity and downright crapiness.

Wait... So because he's been a poor player so far he's scum, but substituting in a better player won't possibly be able to change your mind on him? Honestly that sounds like one of the worst reasons I've heard to suggest a lynch before a replacement is found.

unvote vote: icemanE

Yeah, its just that with a swap in player, the role is kept the same, so he's got a bad image in my mind, is what im saying.

[icemanE]

But here, let me make sure. I've voted for, this game (very succinct reasons being given):
Cake, for his strange reaction to the vote.
You, for not scumhunting.
MafiaSSK, for his strange reaction to my vote on you.
Faerielord, for fishing.
MafiaSSK, for lurking.

If those votes weren't scumhunting (you could contest mafiassk and cake, I suppose, but the other three), you're going to have to redefine the term for me.

I checked out your reasons for voting. You admit in your next paragraph that the votes you placed on mafia and cake could be contested for their validity. I say the same goes for the other two, as well. Voting someone for not scumhunting? I would assume the idea behind such a vote would be to motivate said person to scum hunt, which actually has nothing to do with FINDING scum in and of itself. You aren't voting, in that situation, because you think someone's scum, you're voting to get them moving. So that isn't scum hunting, you're wrong. A by-product of that vote is scum hunting, since whoever you target for it might START scum hunting, but the vote itself does not count as scum hunting.

As for voting someone for role-fishing... well, that's not really scum hunting either. It's more like saying "I think you're scum because you're trying to convince someone to do something that would benefit scum". Once again its not direct scum hunting, based on looking into arguments, but voting for someone based on your own theories on what their motivations are. Yes, it would benefit the scum if he were to claim and it turned out he were a power role, but he would do it on his own anyway, if he were a power role, when he was at L-1, so there is no difference.

Your most recent vote, which was for me:

The even-more-blatant fishing, plus the "mafiassk was very scummy" bit (because he wasn't very scummy), plus the poorly thought out case on me, means iceman is my new favorite lynch target.

If you read my posts you'll see that I wasn't role-fishing, simply saying that I think his reluctance to claim means he must be either a power role or scum, which has NO EFFECT AT ALL on what his role actually is. Do you think me saying that would cause him to claim? No, obviously not, I didn't even ask him to. Voting for someone based on a "poorly thought out case" is also illogical, especially if that poorly thought out case finds you as its target (which in this case, it does), since it has nothing to do with whether or not a person is scum or not - making a poor argument is equally possible from both town and scum, so that makes no sense.

I am almost convinced TSPN is scum, and Cake could be his partner. I'll get into that later, have to go for now.

[icemanE]

Also, TSPN, you're the guy who argued VEHEMENTLY that it was OK to lynch Mafia if it came to that. Now you've tried to pull a 180.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

We are operating under very different definitions of scumhunting. So radically different, I'm not sure what would constitute scumhunting in your book, since apparently both scumtells and theories on motivations are out.

Almost everything in 305-306 is incorrect. I'll take it case by case:

I checked out your reasons for voting. You admit in your next paragraph that the votes you placed on mafia and cake could be contested for their validity.

Validity? That's not what I said. I don't think my cake/mafia votes were particularly likely to find scum. But they had perfectly valid objectives, which in both cases were accomplished.

I say the same goes for the other two, as well. Voting someone for not scumhunting? I would assume the idea behind such a vote would be to motivate said person to scum hunt, which actually has nothing to do with FINDING scum in and of itself. You aren't voting, in that situation, because you think someone's scum, you're voting to get them moving. So that isn't scum hunting, you're wrong. A by-product of that vote is scum hunting, since whoever you target for it might START scum hunting, but the vote itself does not count as scum hunting.

Nope. Not scumhunting is a scumtell, because its harder for scum to hunt when they know who the scum are, hence I voted you for it. I didn't care that you started scumhunting from then on (if you did, I don't even remember), but I was satisfied with your reaction, so I moved on.

As for voting someone for role-fishing... well, that's not really scum hunting either. It's more like saying "I think you're scum because you're trying to convince someone to do something that would benefit scum". Once again its not direct scum hunting, based on looking into arguments, but voting for someone based on your own theories on what their motivations are.

Isn't any argument in mafia based on theories on people's motivations?

Yes, it would benefit the scum if he were to claim and it turned out he were a power role, but he would do it on his own anyway, if he were a power role, when he was at L-1, so there is no difference.

Ah, but zeek never made it to L-1, and as such, has not had to claim. Let's say faerielord, as scum, had convinced zeek to claim at L-2, and zeek was a power role. A power role would be outed, and there is the difference.

If you read my posts you'll see that I wasn't role-fishing, simply saying that I think his reluctance to claim means he must be either a power role or scum, which has NO EFFECT AT ALL on what his role actually is.

Nope, and luckily, its a tremendous stretch of an assertion. But if it wasn't, and zeek wasn't scum, don't you sort of maybe think the scum might think "hmm, iceman, that's a good point, guess we'd better nk the obvious power role." So its better not to talk about it. Also, scum are more likely to be concerned about power roles than town are, so simply bringing it up is a small tell in and of itself.

Do you think me saying that would cause him to claim? No, obviously not, I didn't even ask him to. Voting for someone based on a "poorly thought out case" is also illogical, especially if that poorly thought out case finds you as its target (which in this case, it does), since it has nothing to do with whether or not a person is scum or not - making a poor argument is equally possible from both town and scum, so that makes no sense.

It may be equally possible, but it isn't equally likely. Scum are, by nature, forced to make poor arguments, since they have to make arguments they know are false.

Also, TSPN, you're the guy who argued VEHEMENTLY that it was OK to lynch Mafia if it came to that. Now you've tried to pull a 180.

And he's being replaced, so it hasn't come to that. So, I'm sorry, has mafia pulled his way out your scum gutter yet?

In other news, iceman, probable scum. He's

so

disappointed that mafiassk isn't still the prime candidate, but as soon as people said "why is he scummy," he didn't even bother to explain why he changed his mind, but apparently me and cake are scumbuddies now, even though just a couple days ago, "mafiaSSK has been so useless thus far that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into."

[FaerieLord]

Wait... So because he's been a poor player so far he's scum, but substituting in a better player won't possibly be able to change your mind on him? Honestly that sounds like one of the worst reasons I've heard to suggest a lynch before a replacement is found.

unvote vote: icemanE

That post struck me the wrong way.

@Iceman. It won't change anything, but outing him will help scum not town.

As for voting someone for role-fishing... well, that's not really scum hunting either.

It is scum hunting. Role fishing = something scummy.

Outing someone because of it = something scummy hunting

Lots of something scummy hunting = Scum hunting

Maybe not direct, yet still scum hunting.

I think his reluctance to claim means he must be either a power role or scum, which has NO EFFECT AT ALL on what his role actually is.

If he isn't scum, scum will know this.

If scum follow your line of thinking, they might kill a power role.

So, your line of thinking helped scum not us. Catch the drift?

Had you not said anything, scum might have not noticed. But now they might rethink tonight's kill.

[icemanE]

Had you not said anything, scum might have not noticed. But now they might rethink tonight's kill.

Yes, OK, I see what you're saying now.

[TDC]

Wait... So because he's been a poor player so far he's scum, but substituting in a better player won't possibly be able to change your mind on him? Honestly that sounds like one of the worst reasons I've heard to suggest a lynch before a replacement is found.

unvote vote: icemanE

That post struck me the wrong way.

Which way?

[FaerieLord]

The barning way. It doesn't sound sincere at all.

[ZeekLTK]

So what is the deal with Nano? Obviously he is going to get replaced, but does no one else find his bandwagoning scummy?

The new guy is just going to come in and say "sorry, I don't know what he was thinking by bandwagoning, I guess he just thought Zeek was scummy at the time" or something to try to get a free pass out of it.

[ZeekLTK]

Also

unvote; vote iceman

[Johoohno]

ZeekLTK, who did you think you were voting since you felt the need to unvote before voting IcemanE?

Also:

FoS: IcemenE

. I don't like the role fishing stated before. I still sense that you sway between a newbie making newbie mistakes and just shrewdly playing newbie.

[ZeekLTK]

The rule says

3. Post an Unvote in bold before changing your vote. E.g. Unvote Vote: Someone Else

I didn't remember whether I had revoted since unvoting mafiassk so I figured I might as well throw an unvote in front just to make sure I was abiding by the rules...

[icemanE]

I still sense that you sway between a newbie making newbie mistakes and just shrewdly playing newbie.
_________________

Ha, well this is my second game, so I'm not sure how to debate that...

[icemanE]

Nope, and luckily, its a tremendous stretch of an assertion. But if it wasn't, and zeek wasn't scum, don't you sort of maybe think the scum might think "hmm, iceman, that's a good point, guess we'd better nk the obvious power role." So its better not to talk about it. Also, scum are more likely to be concerned about power roles than town are, so simply bringing it up is a small tell in and of itself.

The reason I'm thinking that way about claims is there was a claim in my first game, which is still going on, which had a huge impact on the game. I don't think that's much of a tell, if I understood initially why it was a bad idea to speculate on power roles I obviously wouldn't have done it. Still seems niggly to me though.

[Johoohno]

Mod: bump for replacements in the replacement thread

[FaerieLord]

What exactly is the iceman case again?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

He was way too eager about lynching mafiassk, disappointed that we weren't lynching, even. But as soon as that wagon dissipated, rather than continuing to go after the person so deep in his scum gutter, he jumped away from ssk like he had never been there.

The rolefishing I'll accept as anti-town as opposed to scummy, but its not points in his favor either.

[Sudo_Nym]

Mod Note

: I'm now fairly close to replacing MafiaSSK. However, I will need to keep looking for a Nano-replacement.

[icemanE]

He was way too eager about lynching mafiassk, disappointed that we weren't lynching, even. But as soon as that wagon dissipated, rather than continuing to go after the person so deep in his scum gutter, he jumped away from ssk like he had never been there.

The rolefishing I'll accept as anti-town as opposed to scummy, but its not points in his favor either.

Ha, if you could find some posts to demonstrate that I'm "disappointed" that we weren't lynching Mafia I'd appreciate it, because that's not true. I do remember saying we should lynch someone by the end of the page, that was page 12. I said:

Alright, this board is REALLLLLY starting to get boring, so I think we ought to lynch someone, even if its me, by the end of this page. I nominate mafia, he's useless anyways, and it seems like this is the only way people are going to get back into this friggin game!

That was during an extreme dearth of posts. I wanted to get the game moving. Other than saying that I think he's really scummy that's pretty much all I've said about mafia. You (TSPN) on the other hand spent a great deal of time rationalizing with people about why it was OK to lynch him, and then you turn around and say it's not when I start thinking along the same lines.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

As for whoever replaces mafiaSSK, I'd like to hear a good bit from there rather quick to prevent a lynch - mafiaSSK has been so useless thus far that it's difficult to imagine anyone pulling him out of the scum gutter he's fallen into. I still think its an OK idea to get rid of him unless the replacement gets active quick.

This, followed by repeatedly criticizing me for no longer being interested in lynching him, smells like disappointment to me. In any case, you do seem set on mafiassk, and I'm not sure why that would be, other than being scum who thought they had an easy lynch.

You (TSPN) on the other hand spent a great deal of time rationalizing with people about why it was OK to lynch him, and then you turn around and say it's not when I start thinking along the same lines.

And some misrepresentation for the loss.

If mafiassk is town, with this level of pressure, he needs to play, or get replaced, or I am willing to lynch him.

Later:

I agree, but if mafiassk continues to post without playing, then I want lynching him to be an option. I'd just as soon have him replaced, though.

I pretty clearly state lynching mafiassk is a worst-case scenario, and that having him replaced is preferable.

[icemanE]

I agree, but if mafiassk continues to post without playing, then I want lynching him to be an option. I'd just as soon have him replaced, though.


I pretty clearly state lynching mafiassk is a worst-case scenario, and that having him replaced is preferable.

The way that actually reads is, we should lynch him if he keeps this up, BUT, it would be OK to replace him, too.