[...]Occult wrote: Zane gave me a wink and handed me I note written in blood that said....
*opens note*
YOUR ASS IS DEAD.
thats all the incentive I need to take him out.
he doesn't explain what preatorian supposed reasons are, and why they don't make sense. Again, scummy.)Occult wrote: After reading back I'm going toFoS: preatorianhe seems to have the only real vote, and his reasons don't make any sense.
. Here he encourages idiotic voting! this is super anti-productivity.Occult wrote: [...]
That is a very idiotic reason to vote for someone, now I don't mind Idiotic voting, in fact, I encourage it [...]
What I meant was that he can generate conversations. That means that if he is pro-townie, he will discuss very well. If he isn't, we should be able to see him not be as productive as an IC should be.Occult wrote:BridgesAndBaloons wrote: he is IC, and he can generate more productive conversations than we can if he is pro-town.
This part I didn't like, my being an IC shouldn't be lynch-repellent.
[/b]backinblack167 wrote: Anyway. My thoughts.
BaB's entrance: Does a bit of reaching, but that's okay. I'm a little curious about how this:
The more I look into his posts, the scummier he seems.
I had a really scummy feeling about Occult in the beginning. My "random" vote was against him because I thought I could learn more, which I did. I wanted to phrase the post so that he seemed as scummy as possible.I'm not the only one who thought Occult was scummy. He has three votes right now.However, right now, I'm getting a good vibe from him. Mafia is a very fluid game, and something he could say may make me think he's a scum (can I say a "scum?") again. My point being, it was stupid attempt to build a case against him when I didn't have as much evidence as I thought.
Re-read what I've responded afterwards to find out more about why I came on so strong.
so easily becomes this:
But apparently it was a random vote? Considering there had already been two pages of action (albeit rather slow and pointless), this vote being "random" doesn't make much sense to me, especially after you were able to substantiate some evidence for it.So, here's a reason Occult may be good to keep around: he is IC, and he can generate more productive conversations than we can if he is pro-town.
I made up evidence, AFTER I voted for him. Not a good tactic for writting essays, but makes interesting results for this game. That's why my evidence was so week. In my oppinion, I'm pretty ashamed of my second post. It was fairly week evidence, and I wanted to make a strong entrance. I'm embarrassed.
Then Occult and WLC follow up with stating that BaB is the least scummy at the time. I, personally, am thinking more along the lines of Amor here though:
I'm honestly not sure how to take BAB's posts. He came out very focused on getting Occult, to the extent of flagging obvious joke posts as scummy, and then quickly backed off. This could be scumminess or it could just be newbness.
Newbness, as I said I'm ashamed of it. The evidence is pretty week. Not up to my usual standards in debating and in essays.
Then comes the Boggzie debacle with JimSauce, and there really isn't much there besides an argument over lurking. Occult's post that follows is jumped on by Boggzie, which I DO think is justified. Occult gave no content and then continued to give zero content. That said, Boggzie's response was blatant OMGUS and had little content behind it as well.
Then BaB jumps in with this gem:
This doesn't make sense. If you're town, you SHOULD defend yourself at every opportunity. If you just sit idly by and let yourself get strung up, that's definitely not pro-town.I looked at all his posts and for the first two pages he pretty much does nothing. Then he spends all of this page defending himself. In my opinion, Boggzie (spelling?) has not done anything helpful for the town, only helpful for himself. This makes me a little worried of him. Not enough to warrant a true vote, imo, especially since it wouldn't be the first. (I'm learning you guys!) I think too prove that he is pro-town, Boggzie should focus on figuring out who is mafia with us, instead of just defending himself, or accusing Occult again.
Yes, but YOU NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE!!! For instance, what you are doing is very helpful to the town. Me defending myself does help the town too, but attacking other scums is much more helpful and productive, in my oppinion.
This post actually looks even stranger considering that Occult's earlier defense against you made you stop attacking him and caused you to feel that he'd be good to keep around.
Because my post was really weak. I realized this and backed off. I didn't say anything about Occult being very pro-town. I'm still a little bit weary of him, but I think right now heappearsto be helping the town.
I'm also curious as to why RI looks "too town," BaB.
From there, there really isn't much besides Boggzie requesting a replacement. (hope you decide to stay, by the way.)
At the moment, I'm thinking BaB looks a bit flip-floppish and contradictory, so I'd like to hear from him and what his thoughts are at the moment.
What I mean here is that IFF he is mafia, then he is doing a wonderful job. I want to make sure thatBridgesAndBaloons wrote:
I'm actually really scared of radio_interference. I feel that he is playing a near perfect game right now. His posts are very insightful and helpful. He seems to be hanging out in the background.
I think that every person deserves to be scrutinized at (at least once during the game.) I want to make sure that we don't forget. However, like I said before, right now he seems to be very pro-town (not "too town" using that expression was a mistake) and we need to keep him around. Just watch out later on for any symptoms of mafia-itus.BridgesAndBaloons wrote: people do not forget that he could be mafia.
You have no idea how happy that (bolded) made me. To tell you the truth, I jumped in the game, in my opinion, like an eager newbie. I was kind of bandwagoning, and I didn't realize I was putting him (occult) at L-2. Again, I wish I could take that post back, I feel like my other posts have been more careful and helpful.WeyounsLastClone wrote:I do get mixed feelings by BaB. Somehow BaB comes across more experienced (posts are well-written, and with clear reasoning, and clear thoughts,which lot of eager newbies don't really do) than he says.
My spring break has started, so I have time to check this. I look here often to see if someone posts something that I can respond to. When I saw Amor was there, I waited for him to say something. When he didn't post something the entire day, I was a little surprised.curiouskarmadog wrote:
I find BAB’s questioning of Armor time in the newbie forum odd (98).
I'm a little weary posting these, because I know that if it's not what most people consider scum tells, you will look down on me, and most importantly, the mafia members can avoid doing these if I'm still in the game later on.curiouskarmadog wrote: BAB, name three things you think are scum tells.
) is something I want to settle. In my initial posts, I attacked him, he defended, I responded and retracted my vote. Then he said he thought i was pro-townie. I felt this response was a little sudden, and maybe perhaps a bit scummy. If he thinks he can bully me into changing my vote, maybe he thinks he could by my loyalty by saying I'm pro-town. He is just as likely to be mafia as everyone else, and don't want to be anyone's pawn. I don't want to be very connected to anyone right now. It's a measure of safety. You might start feel connected with someone that is mafia. That could lose you the game. I am being cautious.Radio_Interference wrote: In my mind Occult and BaB are connected relativly strongly, and I can't see both of them being scum.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote: if I phrase this differently, wemightget a good hint on who is mafia. Give me a day or two to figure out the best way to present this.
Ok so I read a couple other threads and found out that most people lynched the first day. I just spat out that information in my first post (53). I was also spitting out information about the deadline thing. In the beginging I was merely a puppet to what I read.Amor wrote: And then comes his case against Occult, in which he includes the following as evidence: joke posts during the joke phase, an addendum to a post, and making a sarcastic comment about dumb posts Newbie or not, nobody could look at a page where everyone was posting joke votes and single out one post as being scummy for not being serious. He also says that the deadline is suspicious without providing his own reasoning, instead (presumably) relying on past arguments for it.
(that's the embarassment smiley right? it looks kind of strange.)Another misunderstanding...Amor wrote:
BAB has since said that this evidence was weak, but the question remains, why post it in the first place? By knowingly posting weak evidence you're at best wasting time and at worst convincing people of something you don't believe in. This doesn't help the town at all.
Notice the bolded part. I had no good reasoning behind my vote, and I now decided to see if my vote had "grounding" behind it. So I "picked" "apart" Occult's quotes to see if he was "scummy." Of course i did all this picking apart with the incorrect assumption that the initial part of the game was completely serious. I have since discovered a serious error in my judgement.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:when JimSauce asked me to explain, I decided to see if there was any grounding behind the vote.I looked at your posts and picked them apart and wrote what seemed skummy.
[. . .]
I'm trying to generate discussion, and maybe by attacking someone so personally was a strange way of doing it, it elicited a response from you, which is a good direction.
[. . .]
My vote wasn't random in the fact that you seemed to be actively involved in this thread and I knewyouwould reply somehow.)
I haven't been using the fact of newbness to protect myself. My first posts were aweful. I wanted people to know it wasn't because I was stupid, it was because I had very little understanding for how this game works.Amor wrote: It's sort of like the way BAB keeps using the fact that he's a newbie to try and protect himself from suspicion.
See my previous post which explains that these three seperate reasons or really just one phrased differently. The first "reason" isn't the entire truth, and the second and third reasons are restatements of eachother. My previous post hopefully clears this up.Amor wrote:That's a good enough transition to my next thing: BAB has been very inconsistent about why he came out attacking Occult.
YES! This is completely true. It's because I was playing other people's games. Now I realize I have to play how I think, not how other people think.Amor wrote: He also says that the deadline is suspicious without providing his own reasoning, instead (presumably) relying on past arguments for it.
I didn't realize that the posts in the beginign were jokes. After I realized this grave mistake, I explained that it happeneded since I was a "newb." this is my way of saying that I'm not an idiot, I just didn't understand the very first part of the game.Amor wrote: BAB has since said that this evidence was weak, but the question remains, why post it in the first place?
Ah... here we go! Ok this must be the misunderstanding. I backed off because i did realize that my evidence was bad. When I said my vote was random, I didn't really mean random in the way that I just rolled a dice. I explain in later in the post if you look closer.Amor again wrote:(Notice the contradictions here. BAB says that he hasn't learned much from Occult's post, but somehow the little he learned is enough to convince him to reverse his opinion. Also, he now says that his vote was random, despite saying that earlier it was for scummy actions.)BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Obviously, (and unfortunately) I wasn't able to learn too much from your response. The only thing I learned is that you're able to defend yourself well. To tell you the truth, I was randomly voting for you. Then when JimSauce asked me to explain, I decided to see if there was any grounding behind the vote. I looked at your posts and picked them apart and wrote what seemed skummy.
...
You are right, random votes produce conversation. That's what I did, that's what you did.
...
You defended yourself valiantly and persuaded me very well. I would be shocked if someone attacked me so strongly.
I don't want you to get lynched without enough evidence. I'm only trying to find more evidence whether you are pro-town or not.
I feel bad for saying so much against you.
So why did you leave this part out!? I never claimed my vote was random, i was using the term to simplify things, and I explain it later in the post (which you happended to omit!)BridgesAndBaloons wrote: The difference between our"random votes" is that I have now revealed my reasons (to get a response). I'm sure you have stated your reasons somewhere here, but I seemed to have missed them. Was there some back reason behind your "random votes" or were they simply random people? (Again I'm sure you have mentioned this somewhere.My vote wasn't randomin the fact that you seemed to be actively involved in this thread and I knewyouwould reply somehow.)
As I explained before, it was just eagerness and a bit of newbness. I hate to use that term again but its the only thing that fits...Amor wrote:Huh? Occult had made some comments in his earlier rebuttal that suggested that BAB was being scummy (finding any little reason to vote for someone.) Now he's the most townie because he backed down once he saw his case was unsupportable. This looks a bit like reverse OMGUS -- he unvoted me so he must be town. I'm really curious as to why Occult (and JimSauce and maybe some others) thought that post made BAB look like town.Occult wrote:I feel pretty good about BnB, he is the least scummy in my book for now.
BAB later offered athird explanation(it was a third attempt to explain one reason.)for his accusation and withdrawal:
The only reason to want to start with action, even if it's a weak action, is a concious effort to look town. Now, townies do sometimes have to make an effort to look town, but to be primarily concerned with this is scummy.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Also, to clarify, this is what I did:
1) I saw that Occult was a little scummy
2) I wanted to start with action,
3) I random voted Occult
4) Someone ( i forget who) asked me to defend my choice. I didn't really have reasons, but I wanted to start with action, so I pick apart his posts for a very bias and week post.
5) He shows me (and I realize) how terrible my post was,
6) I back off because I realize I don't have enough evidence.
re-read my explanations. I didn't have a good case, and so I PICKED APART HIS QUOTES TO SEE WHAT WAS SCUMMY. Does that phrase sound famliar? Only because I've quoted myself saying it a hundred times. Let's do it again!Who else? It's Amor of course! wrote: So BAB either pretended that he had a case when he knew he didn't, or he made a sincere case and later claimed it wasn't to cover his own tracks. We may be moving into LAL territory here.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote: when JimSauce asked me to explain, I decided to see if there was any grounding behind the vote. I looked at your posts and picked them apart and wrote what seemed skummy.
Wrong... I wasn't accusing you. If I did I would straight up do it. I don't have evidence for you being mafia except for (ironically) your post here. Anyway, I wanted to make sure that people didn't read RI's quote looking for evidence against you, because it really isn't. I don't know why you got this reaction, but at least this caused some more conversation!It's my love. (I mean Amor) wrote: More recently exchange interesting:
BridgesAndBaloons wrote: 2) RI: I need to see your post by post case against Amor. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it is entirely necessary imo.Radio_Interference wrote:and now, just for BaB-
[examples of me fence-sitting]
[Happy now?]It's just a weak pattern in his messages. It's just really dry. He makes a statement, then makes a maybe statement, or states why its okay something or another is scummy. This interests me because most people tend to change it up more then that, and include ideas and opinions in a diffrent order between messages. Tehy taught us that in psychology, a class that I took last semester. Calling it a post by post "case" was a little much. I dont see his posts as presenting a new opinion on subjects and he doesnt have any connections in my book, and that to me is a much bigger deal then the "pattern" thing. Next time I say I have weak reasoning, think you'll believe meThis looks to me like BAB is trying to accuse me, but doesn't want to do so directly, so he's getting RI to make the case for him and then praising it. This just seems a little weird, as he probably could have found his own examples, but it would draw him attention and possibly criticism. At the risk of OMGUS, I must say this is a bit scummy.BridgesAndBaloons wrote: Also RI: I wasn't asking you for a case-by-case scum essay against Amor, I was just curious how you said his posts were wishy-washy.Everyone should read your post (121) looking for how Amor is extremely neutral. Then, it is a very strong and direct case.
So, with all that said:
vote BridgesAndBaloons
...wow, that ended up much longer than I thought it would.
I joined half-way into the game, although, thinking about it, I did join after the random voting phrase, so maybe my posts did have more to do with the actual game. I was actually delighted to have been mentioned so many times. I posted this because you wanted to know my opinions, and that's what they were. Maybe I'm not aware of how involved I am in this game, or maybe I just noticed all the mentions of myself in your summary more since they're aboutcuriouskarmadog wrote:BridgesAndBaloons wrote: 5) CKD: I don't think i have been super involved in this game, maybe I have. Anyway it seemed like you talked about me more than I would have if I was summarizing the game up till now. You asked for my oppinions about your summary. That's what they were.
On the contrary. I am trying to be very involved in the whole scum-hunting part of this game. I have posted every day (almost every day?). Again, I was not saying you shouldn't comment on me. I just assumed that the summary would be based on how big of a role a person played in the game so far. Have I been more involved in this game than I think?CKD wrote: Another strange comment. So you feel that your lack of involvement means I shouldn’t comment on you? [. . .] This sounds like you are purposefully keeping your involvement low.
Excellent. Hopefully you'll get a case soon.CKD wrote:Commenting on something someone does and even implying that it could be scummy is not the same as presenting a case. Also, when I present a case on someone I think is scummy, I will include a vote with it.BridgesAndBaloons wrote: 6) Also to CKD: For some reason, re-reading it just now, it seemed like you were attacking Occult a lot less. Everytime I re-read someone's comments, i get something completely different from it.
Let me tell you what I think (again:) ). I think that Amor has been doing a form of lurking.(see RI's post ) He writes an attack on someone, than defends them. It looks like he's bringing progress, but he negates it by defending the person. This isn't being careful. This is trying to look like he is making progress while preventing it.curiouskaramdog wrote:curiouskarmadog wrote:Questions questions…
Amor, why on page 2 did you agree with Occult and Fos WLC then say on page 3 that Occult looks suspicious because of his OMGUS vote on WLC? Why didn’t you mention that when you agreed with him on page 2?
Amor wrote: Yeah, my bad. I didn't really think about Occult's vote before making that post. The silly reasoning for his vote made me think it was something of a joke vote. On further inspection (and, admittedly, some other people pointing it out) I took another look at it and realized it was suspicious. I still think WLC's vote was unwarranted, though.
Radio_Interference: I'm trying to be careful and not accuse anyone without being fairly sure about things. I just want to consider other explanations for things before automatically saying someone is scum.
If you felt Occult’s vote was a “joke” vote, why did you agree with him and FoS Clone?So now I am confused, was Occult’s vote silly or was Clone’s vote unwarranted, you are playing both sides of the fence here.
Also, I don’t think you are trying to be “careful” at all when accusing anyone. Please explain how you are being careful.Post 125 does not look like you are being careful AT ALL.
CKD wrote: Reading the BAB and Amor exchange with much interested.
Noting BAB’s read on WLC…will meta to see.
As soon as you get attacked you have finals!? A little suspicious. Nah I'm just kidding. Good luck with them, study hard and do well.Amor wrote:Okay, I've been a bit swamped so I didn't have time to put together a full response until now. I may not be posting frequently for the next week or two due to finals, but tonight
Amor wrote:Nobody was discussing a no-lynch, and the wording "go ahead and lynch someone" suggests that you want it to happen soon. I don't really buy that you were just talking about a lynch over no lynch.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Ok so I read a couple other threads and found out that most people lynched the first day. I just spat out that information in my first post (53). I was also spitting out information about the deadline thing. In the beginging I was merely a puppet to what I read. Now, after experiencing the game a while, and comparing how long the game was taking, I don't consider this particular example scummy enough to merit a vote.
Bab, myself, says this: Think what you want. I read a section of a game right before (i didn't pay attention to the random voting part) where a no-lynch was discussed, and I kind of ass-u-med that the same went on in every game. Mistake.
As for wanting a lynch, the last I checked, I'm not the one who is voting right now. If I wanted a lynch to happen right away, I wouldn't have taken my vote off of Occult ever. I want to lynch the right person, and I'm only taking in evidence. I think you were very quick to vote me, but play you want to play. Maybe this is just to get a reaction.
But then why didn't you mention all of the other random votes there? Or look at the context of the quotes you made?BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Also, I didn't understand the whole random voting part of the game. I even posted in this thread that was purely about about random voting (http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7829) before I joined this game. I still didn't get the random voting part into recently I looked at several threads and I now sort of understand it.
Anyway, the point being, is that at the time of my first and second post, I thought all the random voting was for real.
You've caught me in a trap here. If I say it was newbness you'll claim that I am hiding behind it. The truth is, I wasn't really paying attention to anyone other than Occult. I've re-read the entire game several times, since, and now I kind of understand random voting. It still kind of boggles my mind that all evidence we are gathering is a response to random votes in the beginning
Why in particular did you want a response? I'm just curious about this...Me, Bab wrote this, not Occult. Please quote correctly wrote:In addition, I wanted a response from someone, and Occult was being fairly active, so after me
1) misunderstanding the joking part of the game (and the L-2 thing)
2) being completely convinced by things other people said and not thinking on my own
3) wanting a response (wanting to generate discussion)
I voted for Occult. Only the third reason is ok, the other two are horrible and I have since improved my game.
This whole game is built on responses. Without a response, there is no chance for mafia to mess up or act scummy. That's why discussion is so key in this game. I'm a little confused why you're asking this. How else can we find mafia without responses?
I think I see what you're getting at. You made a bandwagon vote, and then wanted to make it look better so you went back and looked for all the support you could, even if it didn't entirely make sense.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Notice the bolded part. I had no good reasoning behind my vote, and I now decided to see if my vote had "grounding" behind it. So I "picked" "apart" Occult's quotes to see if he was "scummy." Of course i did all this picking apart with the incorrect assumption that the initial part of the game was completely serious. I have since discovered a serious error in my judgement.
NO! NO! NO!
That is not what I was saying at all. I voted for him initially for a couple reasons: (which I have discussed over and over again in other posts. I guess I have to try to re-phrase is even a fifth time...)
Basically (and over simplified): I made the vote because of the deadline thing. I didn't know what bandwagonning or L-2 or any of that stuff meant at the momment.
Then when I was questioned on why I voted, I decided to see if there were extra reasons* I could find. So yadda yadda I ended up with a lame argument which we don't need to restate here.
I looked for "all the support [that i ] could" for anything that was scummy not to make it look better, but to see if there was an even deeper (*subconscious) reason behind it.
But still, in your first post you implied that you had reasons to believe that Occult was scummy. Also, this part about not understanding random voting is new, you've never mentioned it before -- this just further shows how you're being inconsistent.
I'm only mentioning it now, because I just very recently noticed how the random voting section of the game works! I'm not sure what I thought the beginning was before, but I was far less knowledgeable than now. I have looked through a couple of entire games, so I have a better, but not excellent, understanding of the random voting. I hope next game, I won't have to replace, and I'll be able to experience the random voting stage first hand.
How could I mention it before when I didn't realize I misunderstood it!
Analogy: A four year old doesn't mention that he was wrong when he said the world was flat until he learns that the world isn't.
While I have mentioned this before, it really hasn't been discussed a lot, likely due to Boggzie exploding right afterwards. I also brought up how you were being inconsistent in your explanations, which was (I believe) new.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Now I have a question for you, Amor:
Why is that after an entire game of people's evidence, you decide to attack the first and second post someone has made in mafia ever? I think that you are re-hashing old arguments. We have had this conversation over and over. You are not bringing up anything new.
Your post here is an attempt to break RI's idea that post things the same way (attack and defend). You claim it's your attempt to "be careful" yet suddenly you OMGUS vote me? I think you just proved yourself far scummier than before. Good job attacking someone; however, do the town (and yourself) a favor and bring up new ideas.
Also, my vote wasn't OMGUS. Like I mentioned, I've been suspicious of you in my posts before, and you weren't the main person saying they were suspicious of me.
Yeah, you have. You continually bring up the fact that you're a newbie as an excuse for scummy actions. Hell, in this rebuttal alone:BridgesAndBaloons wrote:I haven't been using the fact of newbness to protect myself. My first posts were aweful. I wanted people to know it wasn't because I was stupid, it was because I had very little understanding for how this game works.
All Bridges wrote:I have come a long way in this short thread.Only the third reason is ok, the other two are horrible and I have since improved my game.You're clearly using the fact that you're new to protect yourself from these accusations, and I really don't think it entirely explains it.Why is that after an entire game of people's evidence, you decide to attackthe first and second post someone has made in mafia ever?
Ok let's try it this way. Replace newbness with stupidity. In the beginning of the game, I made some stupid errors. I realize the world isn't flat now (read above analogy). Do you expect me not to tell people I have seen what was wrong my posts? Do you want me to make everyone think I'm just as bad as I was in the third page? I'm not going to do that.
Not letting people know that Inowrealize my logical fallacies is even stupider than my first two posts.
First off, I left that part of the post out because I was only including what I thought were the relevant parts of the post. I'm doing it a bit here too, so if I missed a point you wanted me to respond to just let me know.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Ah... here we go! Ok this must be the misunderstanding. I backed off because i did realize that my evidence was bad. When I said my vote was random, I didn't really mean random in the way that I just rolled a dice. I explain in later in the post if you look closer.
However, you conveniently leave this part out!
So why did you leave this part out!? I never claimed my vote was random, i was using the term to simplify things, and I explain it later in the post (which you happended to omit!)BridgesAndBaloons wrote:
The difference between our "random votes" is that I have now revealed my reasons (to get a response). I'm sure you have stated your reasons somewhere here, but I seemed to have missed them. Was there some back reason behind your "random votes" or were they simply random people? (Again I'm sure you have mentioned this somewhere. My vote wasn't random in the fact that you seemed to be actively involved in this thread and I knew you would reply somehow.)
By definition a random vote doesn't have (real) reasons behind it. It's not a serious vote, which your seemed to be. This may not be the definition of random you were using here, but I really can't think of a way that post would be described as random.
I didn't understand too much exactly why I wanted to vote for him. I know I did but not exactly why. (again, you might call it your gut, i call it my subconscious*) I thought on it and discovered some basic reasons, but I didn't understand completely why I wanted to. Thus, it was a little random. (Random is only used to describe things you don't understand the meaning behind imo. There is no random process that humans can replicate. Dices have physics that rule how they land, random counters on computers are based on time, ect.)
Later on, when I was questioned, I looked for more reasons why my gut may have been leaning towards Occult. That's what my second post is.
Do you understand my motive now? Please let me know if you are still confused.
You asked RI to make a case against me, and when he did you praised it. Now, I can't say for certain that your intent was to accuse me indirectly, but it does seem suspicious. Again, it's not the fact that it was against me that bothered me, but the indirectness of it.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Wrong... I wasn't accusing you. If I did I would straight up do it. I don't have evidence for you being mafia except for (ironically) your post here. Anyway, I wanted to make sure that people didn't read RI's quote looking for evidence against you, because it really isn't. I don't know why you got this reaction, but at least this caused some more conversation!
If you haven't noticed, I like to ask questions to people. This was one case. Let me tell you something. I was definitely not targeting you. I even posted afterwards to let people know that it doesn't link you too scumminess. SEE POST 124
If I wanted to indirectly attack you, post 124 would not have been made, or it would have been radically different.
[...skipping a section here to get to the meat of your post.]
I'm not going to lie, post 125 was a concious attempt to be more agressive and make a case against who I thought was scummiest. This was because RI pointed out that my posting style wasn't helping out the town, so I thought I would try and change it.
I like this very much. Keep up the good work.
In my previous posts I tried not to jump to a conclusion that someone was mafia, and present all of the possible reasons for an action. That was what I was referring to by being "careful". As it turns out, this actually didn't help anyone, so I presented a stronger opinion. There's a chance I may have swung too far the other way, but I think that I have decent enough reasoning behind my vote.There's definitely a fine line. I appreciate you attacking people individually. I think a great way to generate conversation and help the town is to attack people individually and directly. Let me know if you still think my reasons are inconsistant, because they have all been seperate attempts to inform people of my motives. I think I did the best with this post here. Hopefully.
Thank you for explaining yourself here. It makes me feel a bit better about you, but for now I'm not going to take my eye off of you.
About the connections thing, is this the way you generally think in life? I mean do you see the connections between groups of people? After this game is over, I would like to have a more in-depth discussion about the "connection method."
cerebus3 wrote: Sure, [Bab] could be seen as ignorant, but that doesn't excuse how inconsistent he is being.
It also wasn't random in the way that I was following my gut feeling, but (like I wrote in post 145) If I mentioned following my subconscious, people would not value my ideas as much.BridgesAndBaloons wrote: When JimSauce asked me to explain, I decided to see if there was any grounding behind the vote. I looked at your posts and picked them apart and wrote what seemed skummy.
[...]
My vote wasn't random in the fact that you seemed to be actively involved in this thread andI knew you would reply somehow.(reaction)
subtly mentioning my gut feeling, but still not wanting to all out say it.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:
I had a really scummy feeling about Occult in the beginning
Now post 126:BridgesAndBaloons wrote:My "random" vote was against him because I thought I could learn more, which I did.REACTIONI wanted to phrase the post so that he seemed as scummy as possible.TUNNEL VISSION
[...]
I decided to back off of Occult, because I didn't have enough evidence yet. I feel that I need to make up for my bad post earlier.
Also, to clarify, this is what I did:
1) I saw that Occult was a little scummy]GUT FEELING
2) I wanted to start with action,BANG
3) I random voted Occult[ random because i didn't understand it=GUT FEELING
4) Someone ( i forget who) asked me to defend my choice. I didn't really have reasons, but I wanted to start with action, so I pick apart his posts fora very biased and weak postTUNNEL VISION
5) He shows me (and I realize) how terrible my post was,
6) I back off becauseI realize I don't have enough evidenceMISUNDERSTANDING
Post 145 in response to AmorBridgesAndBaloons wrote:You misunderstand. All separate "three" reasons have been me unsuccesfully trying to explain my one reason. I've phrased it differently to make people understand, so I guess I'll have to phrase a fourth way!?
[...]
that at the time of my first and second post, I thought all the random voting was for real.MISUNDERSTANDING
In addition, I wanted a response from someone, and Occult was being fairly active, so after me
1) misunderstanding the joking part of the game (and the L-2 thing)MISUNDERSTANDING
2) being completely convinced by things other people said and not thinking on my ownNOT THINKING ON MY OWN
3) wanting a response (wanting to generate discussion)REACTION
I voted for Occult. Only the third reason is ok, the other two are horrible and I have since improved my game.REALIZATIONS
[...]
I had nogoodreasoning behind my vote, and I now decided to see if my vote had "grounding" behind it.So I "picked" "apart" Occult's quotes to see if he was "scummy."TUNNEL VISIONOf course i did all this picking apart with the incorrect assumption that the initial part of the game was completely serious.MISUNDERSTANDING
[...]
These "three separate reasons" have been actually one. I've been unsuccesfully trying to relate them.
I hope you now understand that the vote was because I initially had a GUT FEELING, I was NOT THINKING ON MY OWN, and I wanted to start with a BANG. I'm not doing this anymore, so it's not really inconsitancy as it is gaining experience and knowlege.BridgesAndBaloons wrote: Bab, myself, says this: Think what you want. I read a section of a game right before (i didn't pay attention to the random voting part) where a no-lynch was discussed, andI kind of ass-u-med that the same went on in every game. Mistake.NOT THINKING ON MY OWN
[. . .]
[concerning not noticing all the other random votes-not noticing them is part of aMISUNDERSTANDING]
The truth is, I wasn't really paying attention to anyone other than Occult.TUNNEL VISIONI've re-read the entire game several times, since, and now I kind of understand random voting.REALIZATIONS
[. . .]
I voted for him [Occult] initially for a couple reasons: (which I have discussed over and over again in other posts. I guess I have to try to re-phrase is even a fifth time...)
Basically (and over simplified):I made the vote because of the deadline thing.I didn't know what bandwagonning or L-2 or any of that stuff meant at the moment.NOT THINKING ON MY OWN
Then when I was questioned on why I voted, I decided to see if there were extra reasons* I could find. So yadda yadda I ended up with a lame argument which we don't need to restate here.
,
I looked for "all the support [that i ] could" for anything that was scummynotto make it look betterTUNNEL VISIONbut to see if there was an even deeper (*subconscious) reason behindGUT FEELING
I'm only mentioning it [misunderstanding random voting] now, because I just very recently noticed how the random voting section of the game works!
How could I mention it before when I didn't realize I misunderstood it!?
Analogy: A four year old doesn't mention that he was wrong when he said the world was flat until he learns that the world isn't.REALIZATIONS
[. . .]
I didn't understand too much exactly why I wanted to vote for him. I know I did [want to vote for Occult] but not exactly why. (again, you might call it your gut, i call it my subconscious*)GUT FEELINGI thought on it and discovered some basic reasons, but I didn't understand completely why I wanted to. Thus, it was a little random. (Random is only used to describe things you don't understand the meaning behind imo. There is no random process that humans can replicate. Dices have physics that rule how they land, random counters on computers are based on time, ect.)
Later on, when I was questioned,I looked for more reasons why my gut may have been leaning towards Occult./TUNNEL VISIONThat's what my second post is.GUT FEELING
[...]
* Read "Impro" if you're curious.
. Quite an assumption there. What makes you think I'm a girl?WLC wrote: BaB [. . .] lists ‘not unvoting a random vote’ as one ofherscumtells
Bingo!JS wrote:most "inconsistencies" originated from his growing level of understanding and several attempts to explain a point.
Point taken. I only did this because I was awaiting a response from you (at this point I thought you might write the summary.) I did this one other time when I was also waiting for a post.cerebus3 wrote:I hope you don't do this every time you enter the forums. I will often look at the thread and not post anything. I will say something when I want to, not beforeBab wrote:Oh and cerb, I see you browsing the Road to Rome forum. I hope you post something.
Radio_Interference wrote:quote="BAB"
I also have to disagree with your reasoning. If you think someone is mafia, they have to be lynched. Lynching a mafia Day one dramatically increases our odds.
I don't intend to use gut instincts as reasons for voting again, but I do take them into account.Amor wrote: Also, what's with voting BiB for lurking when you'd previously criticized me for being quick to vote?
[. . .]
Also, I'm not fond of using gut instincts either (this would also apply to Occult.)
backinblack167 wrote:Hello everyone!
Vote: Xpom Telofor having a very curious name.
backinblack167 wrote:Unfortunately, this is very true.Radio_Interference wrote:[Reasoning Statement]St. Anger was a failure in music.
And Zane wants to kill townies? Someone's getting a bit presumptuous =)
backinblack167 wrote:Although praetorian didn't really make much sense, voting for someone who makes a real vote seems to make even less to me.
backinblack167 wrote:My Thoughts: Occult's agreement on the topic of the game needing a deadline isn't inherently scummy, but it isn't exactly the most helpful thing to town at the moment. I DO agree with JimSauce's assertion that it was kind of OMGUS. I would like to know this, though, Occult: Are you serious about WLC's page 2/page 3 "lie" being reason to lynch him?
In my mind, WLC's immediate jumping on him to put Occult to L-2 seems a little stranger in my book, but both of these posts could simply have been meant as catalysts for activity.
backinblack167 wrote:It's only been two days =/and its been like a week with backinblack unless I missed something.
Anyway. My thoughts.
BaB's entrance: Does a bit of reaching, but that's okay. I'm a little curious about how this:
so easily becomes this:The more I look into his posts, the scummier he seems.
But apparently it was a random vote? Considering there had already been two pages of action (albeit rather slow and pointless), this vote being "random" doesn't make much sense to me, especially after you were able to substantiate some evidence for it.So, here's a reason Occult may be good to keep around: he is IC, and he can generate more productive conversations than we can if he is pro-town.
Then Occult and WLC follow up with stating that BaB is the least scummy at the time. I, personally, am thinking more along the lines of Amor here though:
Then comes the Boggzie debacle with JimSauce, and there really isn't much there besides an argument over lurking. Occult's post that follows is jumped on by Boggzie, which I DO think is justified. Occult gave no content and then continued to give zero content. That said, Boggzie's response was blatant OMGUS and had little content behind it as well.I'm honestly not sure how to take BAB's posts. He came out very focused on getting Occult, to the extent of flagging obvious joke posts as scummy, and then quickly backed off. This could be scumminess or it could just be newbness.
Then BaB jumps in with this gem:
This doesn't make sense. If you're town, you SHOULD defend yourself at every opportunity. If you just sit idly by and let yourself get strung up, that's definitely not pro-town.I looked at all his posts and for the first two pages he pretty much does nothing. Then he spends all of this page defending himself. In my opinion, Boggzie (spelling?) has not done anything helpful for the town, only helpful for himself. This makes me a little worried of him. Not enough to warrant a true vote, imo, especially since it wouldn't be the first. (I'm learning you guys!) I think too prove that he is pro-town, Boggzie should focus on figuring out who is mafia with us, instead of just defending himself, or accusing Occult again.
This post actually looks even stranger considering that Occult's earlier defense against you made you stop attacking him and caused you to feel that he'd be good to keep around.
I'm also curious as to why RI looks "too town," BaB.
From there, there really isn't much besides Boggzie requesting a replacement. (hope you decide to stay, by the way.)
At the moment, I'm thinking BaB looks a bit flip-floppish and contradictory, so I'd like to hear from him and what his thoughts are at the moment.
backinblack167 wrote:It's awfully difficult to analyze posts that are attacking you without defending yourself, and that's what a lot of the posts made while Boggzie was active were.
That his entire game. All of his posts fit into one post the size of one of RI's. I'm calling him out, and although this doesn't neccesary mean scummy, I think it's really anti-town.backinblack167 wrote:I'm here - I've been a bit busy lately, sorry. Content coming up in a short while after I catch up.
Two things to say about this:curiouskarmadog, in post 151 wrote:RI, I didnt understand what BAB said, that is why I said "what" and "strange comment" and "this sounds like". I wanted him to clarify. what is reaching about wanting him to clarify?
[...] The jury is still out on BAB right now...I am leaning town,but that might change.
I wish I could've phrased it this well.JimSauce wrote: as most "inconsistencies" originated from his [Bab's] growing level of understanding and several attempts to explain a point.
I disagree. You posted that: "EVERYTHING CAN BE A SCUM TELL IN CONTEXT AND GIVEN A PLAYER. One trait that might not be a scum tell for one, could be for another." To me this is doing exactly what Amor was doing before. You are writting, all of these scum signs really don't mean anything, because you never know if it's just the player's style.curiouskarmadog wrote:How was my answer vague? I was VERY specific with my examples MORE SO than you even. And you havent really answered my last question...you continually misread (or completely miss) posts...at first I thought maybe you are excitable, but now I am wondering again. The more I ask you questions or wonder why, the more you try to OMGUS and try to spin a case against me. you are trying to take everything I say and spin it scum..problem is you are really NOT READING my post and have to backtrack a lot.
If I'm right, random votes are used to produce reactions. Once the reactions happen, the random vote isn't exactly helping town, right? Maybe I'm wrong about what random votes mean.backinblack167 wrote: Post 111 (BaB):
I concur with CKD'sfinding of BaB's questioning of Amor's time spent in the forum odd, and I'm also curious about why not unvoting a random vote is a scummy action(inaction?).
This is the same point CKD has been making for a while. I've replied to him numerous times that I am trying to be as involved as possible in this game. "I have a habit of under-estimating myself," especially in my involvement in things (163).Bib wrote: Post 116 (BaB):
BaB sort of seems to be attempting to downplay his involvement/deflect attention in this post
I would like to mention that you didn't discount the boggzie/Occult scumpair.bib wrote: Post 117 (RI):I agree with a lot of this, but I wouldn't count out a BaB/Occult scumpair because of a strong connection alone.In my mind Occult and BaB are connected relativly strongly, and I can't see both of them being scum. I feel a relative connection to and from Occult, I also see Occult conveying a small connection to Boggzie (Aka CKD) These I think are all relativly strong connections.
Where the %*#@ was that in the post. Seems like you are, as CKD would say, "spinning."BIB wrote: Post 120 (BaB):I know Lynch All Liars is a common philosophy, but do you really think whether he is lying about playing before would cause him to change from pro-town to scum? It just seems sort of irrelevant to me.My "possible clue" is destroyed. I saw RI make a post ( i guess this is called meta-ing?) that implied he had played mafia online again. I wanted to trap him in that lie, but he answered honestly. This gives me very pro-town feelings towards RI. I feel that his recent post is something I needed to see from him.
Another instance of BaB attempting to deflect attention, and this time, seems to want to avoid being connected with others.
Woh woh woh! Don't use quotation marks if you're not directly quoting someone, please. That was a paraphrase.bib wrote: Post 122 (Amor):
States that the "pattern in his posting is a result of unwillingness to falsely accuse someone. I can buy that, as his posts do come off with that sort of feel IMO.
Very true.Bib wrote:
Post 126 (BaB):
BaB defends himself. Newbie card is played.
Despite your first two posts being your first ever, they're still part of the game and need to be analyzed. We can't just disregard them.
That is one way I phrased it. I think the best way I phrased it is on post 154, which has a lot of pretty colors in it. But if you understand it here, that's fine.bib wrote:
Your one reason that you attacked Occult is essentially this:
Correct?Also, to clarify, this is what I did:
1) I saw that Occult was a little scummy
2) I wanted to start with action,
3) I random voted Occult
4) Someone ( i forget who) asked me to defend my choice. I didn't really have reasons, but I wanted to start with action, so I pick apart his posts for a very bias and week post.
5) He shows me (and I realize) how terrible my post was,
6) I back off because I realize I don't have enough evidence.
I would like everyone to ignore my meta'ing until someone else does it. I feel that I probably didn't do it very well, and I agree that meta'ing is a poor way to decide.Bib wrote: Post 128 (BaB): Comments on WLC kind of out of nowhere. I'm not really a fan of metaing to determine alignment, but the analysis has merit.
I'm sure CKD agrees with you. You're both wrong, though.Bib wrote: Post 132 (BaB):
Your earlier posts didn't really come off that way.I was actually delighted to have been mentioned so many times.
I re-read his posts and changed my mind:Bib wrote: Post 145 (BaB): Backs off Amor. Not entirely sure on what to make of this.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Amor: First of all, I have looked back at some of your posts I realized you haven't been as predictable the entire game. [...]
You have been more helpful for the town than Ioriginally thought you werewhen I was going to write this.
How is my involvement in this game? Too much, just right, or not enough?Bib wrote: Post 150 (RI): Believes that CKD was reaching on BaB's desire to keep involvement low. To me it seems more like he doesn't want people to think he's overly involved than purposely keeping involvement low.
I've been trying to state the same thing in different ways. Apparently you understand most of the posts. I worked really hard to make that one post really clear, and I hope everyone else now understands.Bib wrote: Post 154 (BaB): Restates essentially everything he's been saying thus far except with new words to replace "i was new." Kind of a pointless post, IMO.
I didn't flip-flop. I'm still kind of level with him. I want to encourage him to continue making stronger posts.Bib wrote: Post 158 (BaB): Definitely flipflops on Amor here, though he already began that in an earlier post.I disagree with CKD being a flagrant liar.
Everyone else is taking there time. I'm going to do the same. I don't want to come out with a half-baked case again.bib wrote:I'm here. Let's hear it.Bab wrote:This post was going to be a long post against Backinblack, but he might be replaced, so I decided I didn't want to bother until I knew he was coming back.
I'm sure this is sarcasm (the part about not living up to my standards). In the future I would like to know how often you might post. If you don't know, that's ok. Also let us know if you will be absent for over 72 hours again.Bib wrote: Very sorry for my play not living up to your standards, but your votes aren't really going to get my attention if I don't have time to check the thread or post.
PART 2Bib wrote: As for player by player:
CKD/Boggzie: Boggzie kind of overreacted butI don't think he was really scummy or suspicious like everyone said he was. CKD has made some good analysis IMO.
I think that responses are utterly necessary to this gamebackinblack167 wrote:
Okay. Just because I didn't directly respond to your response does not mean I didn't listen to/read it, though.
Good point. Still, one sentence? And we have seen recently that you are more than able to write a long post.Bib wrote:2 days later you justdefend boggziewith one sentence, not really contributing anything.
That was one of the main topics of discussion at that point, and I kind of disagree that leaving your thoughts on one of the main topics is a lack of contribution. That's just my thoughts, of course.
Everytime I've re-read the game (and CKD: I'm willing to bet I've done it many more times than you have, so stop this bullshit about me not reading posts.) I have written down who comes off as scummy and who comes off as pro-town. Everytime, CKD has given off scumy vibes. I'm going to wait longer before I make a case against him or you.Bib wrote: I'm still curious about how CKD is so scummy.
QFTcerebus3 wrote: Black's post didn't do much for me. He made an enormous post that essentially just repeated what other players had posted earlier.
Side comment? did you miss post 121? In that post RI shows that Amor isn't doing anything in reality. He would say something and then take it back, which is really just lurking verbosely. Not only that, but he was beginning to get some pressure from players other than just RI. If Amor did not do anything, I feel that he would seem more scummy for continuing to do nothing. Besides, if he continued the way he was, it would be much more difficult to get a read on him.BackInBlack wrote:I don't really think that he needed to attack someone to avoid being cast as scum. Which is why his post IS kind of strange. Seems like a major overreaction to what was kind of a side comment by RI.
I strongly disagree. It's other people who have been attacking my posts. For example CKD asking me to explain the same thing over and over. According to the wiki it means I "habitually say the wrong things." Please point out where I have "said the wrong things." I think that labeling me as VI is completely inappropriate. Again it's not my fault people have been examining me, I'm just posting my thoughts, and many people disagree, some agree.Cerb wrote: On the subject of Bab, I am wondering if we don't have a case of VI on our hands. Ever since Bab replaced into the game, it has ground to a halt because players are spending so much time trying to figure out how genuine his posts are. A majority of the discussion has either been about Bab's behavior or in response to said behavior.
Ouch. Is there a reason you want to take all my credibility away?Cerb wrote: At this point, I believe he is unreadable and we should focus on examining other players right now. Yes, I know VI is a harsh term, and I wouldn't be using it if I didn't think it was warranted.
I'm not voting because I don't have a big enough case just yet.curiouskarmadog wrote:Cere, I agree BAB is the VI....or scum. I dont think I am leaning town as much as I once was, but his posts are so unorganized, blatantly apparent he is not reading the thread thoroughly,I am not reading the thread thoroughly? Are kidding me!? Of all things to accuse me of doing, this is absolutely unfounded and ridiculous. I have read this thread so many times.and demostrates huge jumps in assumption,
way to go. Making another complete lie without any evidence.I cant imagine scum would be so obvious. Of course, if anyone has ever played with DGB, then you know scum could be. If he is scum or if he is town, it is obvious that he is new.
BAB, you have yet to show my contradiction...My post was meant to goad you into slipping up. It was a post to get a reaction
--it is common knowledge that your posts are hard to follow.Common knowledge? You are the only one who has said my posts are hard to follow, and you just said it right now. Cerb says I'm a VI but he doesn't say my posts are hard to follow.STOP SPINNING
Anyway, I have commented in many of my posts that if you're confused, let me know. You have done this, but as I noted before, you are only trying to emphasize a ridiculously wrong point about me trying to avoid involvement in this game. You are making horrible statements about my gameplay and saying everything I do is spinning. STOP SPINNING.
--you have yet to put forth a case against me.As I said before, I'm going to wait till I have mor evidence
--I provided specific examples of what I deem scummy, that is not vague....I however, also believe anything can be scummy depending on the player and context...please explain how this belief is scummy again?I think that you basically cancelled out your examples by saying they might not be scum tells. I also think you ruined the chance for us toSTOP SPINNING.
paraphrase quote: 'know where you are coming from for my re-reads and future reads"the fact that you mention this so many times in this post clearly makes me think you are spinning the facts against me. STOP SAYING STOP SPINNING!
--I havent been "working" on a case...I have been waiting for lurkers to post, Black just did and I am watching interactions right now...Where have I said I have been WORKING on my case? I am not putting a case out there, until I feel like I have a strong canidate for scum. Why are you pressuring me for a case that I dont have yet? STOP SPINNINGwhat about this is spinning? You are so . . . silly.
--Why are you trying so hard to spin everything I say scummy?I'm not. You have definitely done some pro-town things. I even agreed with you about the list thing.
---you say you need to be more "conservative in my accusations" yet you write mountians of text to say I am scummy without a case, organized thought, or real "facts".mountains of text!? sounds like someone is exagerating. STOP SPINNING. See isn't that annoying?
Also Bab, I find it odd that everytime you post something you say "I think this is scummy, but I could be wrong", "I think your scummy, but that doesnt mean mafia", or my favorite "I am calling you out, that doesnt mean you are scummy, just anti town".
I think that you could be trying to cover your ass when you add these statements to the end of your posts. If we hang someone that you have said that about, you always can fall back on, "well, I said, I wasnt sure"..mark my words. When we hang someone that I voted for AND made a case against, if it was mafia, I will gloat like there's no tomorrow. But if I lead a case against someone who turned out to be town, I will take full responsibality for my actions. If someone in the future is meta'ing me right now, you will see that I do this.
anyway, if you think I am scum, why arent you voting me?I don't have a big enough case yet, and I was able to get a huge reaction out of you without votingTo me, it feels like you are waiting to get a couple other town backers before having to place your vote.wrong.[You have dedicated most of your time in this game to me and trying to spin me scummyI have spent 2 posts doing this (185 and 170. Maybe another post I'm missing.) the point is you are COMPLETELY TWISTING WHAT I AM DOING!!!. I ("but maybe not mafia")...now back it up with a vote...or a case even...because right now, you are not helping us AT ALL.
Cerb:cerebus3 wrote: This is the definition of a VI. For one reason or another, a VI has such a wildly different view on the game that actions that to others would indicate scummyness do not to the VI. To deal with such a player, you have to figure out whether said scummy behavior was in fact scummy orif it was due to this different perspective,which is an endless labyrinth of WIFOM from which there is no escape. Due to this, all actions with said player become null-tells.
My own opinion is that if someone is not helping the town, they should be lynched. Do you truly think I haven't helped the town at all?cerb wrote: I believe we have two options to deal with this:
Just say fuck it and lynch him. [. . .]
Just say fuck it and leave him be. Moving on and examining other players will undoubtedly be more productive than what we are doing now.
I think the right plan of action is to leave him until day 2 or 3, and if nothing changes, we lynch him then.
CKD is pissed becauseAmor wrote:Man, this BaB/CKD argument is confusing. What are you two fighting about again?
2)I'm also not getting a lot from BiB's post. Not scummy, per se, but most of it is summarizing and repetition.
CKD (post 190):I don't like this idea of "sitting back and seeing what happens." You mentioned this before when me and BaB were arguing. This seems to me like an excuse not to contribute until there's a consensus that you can jump on.curiouskarmadog wrote:I havent been "working" on a case...I have been waiting for lurkers to post, Black just did and I am watching interactions right now
You're doing anything you can to discredit me, CKD.curiouskarmadog wrote:Cere, I dont want to lynch BAB because he is the VI,Bab says: "Or rather, you can kill me in the night because you are scum"and a suggestion to do so is scummy...I am more interested in his actions, not the fact he distracting the town..
You are putting words into Amor's mouth. Amor called it like it is, and you are deflecting what he is saying about you by asking him what he is doing.CKD wrote: Amor, you want people to believe I am "sitting back"..please describe exactly what you are doing.
I'm sure you won't read it. I'm guessing you will write about how I still don't make sense, ignore the parts of my post that attack you, and direct attention away from my arguments (or lower my credibility some more.)CKD wrote: BAB, jesus, and mountain of text? Will get to it when I can.
First of all, your post on 186 is evidence-less attack against me. You ask loaded questions ("Why are you trying so hard to spin everything I say scummy?") claim that I am "spinning everything you say" multiple times. Being lynched today versus later doesn't matter. I'm trying to do the best thing for the town, which is, in my oppinion, to unearth your scumminess. I think you have been over-defensive. You're digging yourself a hole here. I can't wait for your response to my post, it's going to be riddled with hundreds of scum tells. I don't care if you are defending me, I want you gone since you're scum. Period. And I'm reading the thread, not "skimming" like you are.curiouskarmadog wrote:omgI skimmed over BAB's posts.....couple quick notes...do you not see that I am actually defending you by saying you are not the lynch today????...ARE YOU REALLY READING THE THREAD?
CKD wrote: it is going to take me hours to reply and pull quotes for BABcrap...and yes,80% of it appears to be crap, but I think the majority of the town can see that...and the format you did it in (half bold response and half pulling quotes and replying normally)will also be a pain to reply to....so it might look something like a post pyramid, but hopefully I can organize it to something that is easy to read and respond too....I will try to hit it this weekend, no promises though.
[/quote]backinblack167 wrote: I wouldn't say that, but instead of fishing for reactions and hoping he'll slip, I'd much rather see something more concrete.
If you could take time later (maybe after the game) to discuss posts that "demonstrate a lack of understanding of a concept" I wouldcerebus3 wrote: If I took the time and actually went through Bab's posts and pointed out each inconsistency, each scummy argument, and each post that demonstrated a lack of understanding of a concept, it would probably take me hours.
Yeah Like I mention in this post right here, I made a mistake about the contradiction. I didn't say something earlier because it is all part of my plan to get CKD to react.JimSauce wrote:
-BaB lies to get a reaction from CKD (where BaB said CKD had been contradicting himself).
All of the rest of my post is based on this:JS wrote: By the way, how did you expect CKD to react to that comment? What, in your opinion, would have been a scummy reaction? What would have been a pro-town reaction?
Bib wrote: I don't see deciding to take action as scummy, what I thought was curious was a seeminglygigantic change in his thoughts on others, BaB in particular,(he had expressed some doubts about him in the past but not to the degree in that post) as well asthe posting style change.Really, it's just a matter of the timing that makes it look suspicious to me. If the change had occurred at another time, I would have thought nothing of it. However, since it happened as seemingly a direct response to feeling pressure, it piqued my curiosity.
Radio_Interference wrote: I was surprised by how strongly CKD reacted to BaB's posts against him. I also didn't think he'd useshort poststo reply.I didn't predict much emotion at all, and certainly not enough to incite any kind of anger/frustration to show through in his posts. GROW EMOTIONAL
JimSauce wrote: -The obnoxiousness of many of his comments. I'm surprised at how he is handling the issue.
-He speaks as if the entire town thinks the same way about BaB. It's not "common knowledge that [BaB's] posts are hard to follow." He has a rather messy post occasionally, but calling this common knowledge as if BaB is some unorganized primate seems likeyou're trying to discredit him.
Yes, normally I'd be against such thoughts. It's bad for a town to automatically lynch one player the next day without discussing other options. It's also a great logical fallacy. Just because we aren't scum together doesn't mean than one of uscuriouskarmadog wrote: also noted is Jim Sauce's stance that BAB and I are the best two scum suspects right now (if I misread your post, please feel free to correct me). This is a classic set up of, if one turns out to me town, the other MUST be scum.....now if BAB and myself are two townies bumping heads (as I think is the case), this is a great set up isnt it? BAB your thoughts on this?
To be 100% honest, I would write a post full of embarrassed smiley faces and a overly apologetic tone. In the end I would write (well he could be scum still) just to cover my bases. I would do the same if you happened to be lynched/NKed and turn up innocent. I wouldn't defend myself that much, I would admit that I seriously screwed up and apologize.CKD wrote: If for some odd reason I hang today and when you discover that I am indeed town, how will you defend yourself from this attack?
This is a very interesting idea. VERY interesting. I don't think this is a perfect idea (stupid WIFOM), but I think it does have some merit. There is definitely people who are fitting the bill, and I do have some ideas. Unfortunately this argument conforms (to that one scientific principle I can't remember the name of, where something changes when it is observed or it is aware of being observed) so I can't state names until I actually research it.CKD wrote: This is why (one reason) I think you are probably just a misguided townie (or a VI).I dont think scum would attack this hard and clearly tunnel vision this much on someone they know is town. Most likely they would sit back and comment on how such and such are acting scummy(but so is thier attacker is some ways) but not vote or do anything until they see how the BW starts to form....I wonder if anybody here is fitting such a bill.
I feel that many people were doing the same thing between me and amor as well.CKD wrote: now I plan on responding to your attack..but really it is going to come down to "you are jumping to conclusions based on your misassumptions of actions"...you are clearly tunnel visioning on me, it is not helpful. Now I am not telling you stop attacking me (if you truly think I am scum), but I am saying look for a moment at others..who is waiting for what? Why are they waiting? Why arent they scum hunting? There are some who are asking questions, which is good, there are others who are just sitting back to see who has the better argument between us.
Cerb's post on 162 showed a contradiction thatJimSauce wrote:
I don't like how your explanation for this changed from "I wanted to get a reaction" to "I mixed him up with someone else." I'm inclined to believe that you mentioned this excuseBridges wrote:To everyone: There was no contradiction that CKD made. I was mixing him up with someone else, and that contradiction got resolved.nowbecause I stated that I found it scummy. (I think Amor did as well.) So, may I ask who you confused CKD with, and can you point out the contradiction?
I hope you (or him) could point out questions that I missed. I probably saw them and answered them, but I didn't directly address I was answering the questions.JS wrote:There were a few times on Page 8 where CKD would attack or ask a question, and you would respond with an entirely different attack.Bridges wrote:2)Amor (201): I'm not sure what you mean when you say I have been
"ignoring a lot of what CKD is saying." I missed only one of his posts, and then I wrote a change. This was a couple of pages ago.
During this game I think I've been not really caring/noticing how scummy I've been coming off. My goal this game has been to try unearthing the scum using a bunch of different tactics to see which one works. I'm sure that the best thing to do would have been to admit my mistake immediately, but I figured it would get a bigger reaction from CKD. Come to think of it (I've learned that), blatant lying is a poor way of getting a reaction from someone. It'll only come back to bite you.JimSauce wrote:Oh,Bridges wrote: Cerb's post on 162 showed a contradiction that you made. It's been resolved by now, and I had just mixed it people. I left it there because I decided hey, it'll get a bigger reaction. I feel that you are resurrecting, but maybe that's good right now.that. I don't think I'm following the logic behind delaying the excuse. Wouldn't that only make you look scummier, if you let people believe that you lied about an accusation and then bringing up an excuse when called out? (I don't have much reason to believe you're lying, I just wanted to throw that out there.)
"BAB wrote: Also, CKD, I think its in your best interest (and the town's) to respond to previous posts rather than recent ones. I agree that the points you are making need to be said, but please, respond to what has happened earlier soon.
Ok so this is the definition of spinning: stating my opinion about your motivations as fact?curiouskarmadog wrote: Problem with both of these is that the person who stated the “spin” does not know Person A’s true motivation behind his action and instead of asking questions, simply states his opinion as fact.
BAB, has been doing a lot of this.
Please read posts 234 and 243. But wait, if you have been responding to recent posts, it means you must have read those posts. Which leads me to believe that either you are highlighting a weak part in my argument or not reading the thread.CKD wrote: You have not demonstrated yet what my contradiction was/is.
I had to ask you three separate times for you to answer my question. Vague was the wrong word, please read post 185 in the middle, after the third quote. Again vague was the wrong word.CKD wrote: I did not refuse to answer your “what are your top scum tells” questions, not only did I answer, but I gave specific examples of what I deemed as scummy. You then said I was being vague because I said almost anything could be a scum tell.
I said this is "one strike" not the first strike. As in, 'this is "one strike" of many others.'CKD wrote:this is strike one?BridgesAndBaloons wrote:
Also, before I forget, one strike against you, CKD, is that you have been claiming to work on a "case" for a while. And waiting for a couple of things to pan out. (118, 137).
You've been talking about your case for 3 days, and to me it seems like you are postponing posting it for some reason? Maybe I'm completely wrong, which is what you're going to say, of course.
Anyway, Again I'm going to ask how far along you are.
.
Stop putting words in some one's mouth. This is not the first time you have done this.CKD wrote:
I then ask you where I have posted that I was going to post a case and you come back with.
So you gave me a strike for not posting a case. You want people to think I am scummy for not posting a case when I said I would.BridgesAndBaloons wrote:1) You neversaidwere building a case, but you implied that you were working on something on posts 118 and 137. I guess I was kind of hoping you were making a case,
according to your own definition, this isn't scummy. I am not guessing what your motivation was at all. I apologized later. I was very hopeful because having you come up with a case would have provided the town with great evidence. Please re-read my posts. "I guess I was hoping [you were building a case]" (Post 200).CKD wrote: But then you back track and admit I never said I was going to submit a case. Do I still have a strike? So you were hoping I was going to put a case forward, but since I didn’t you wanted to imply I did, when I never really said I was going to. So you either misread or you were trying to spin an action to make it scummy, even though you have no fact to back it up.
Again, I never based anything on your motivations, only what you did. Motivations are horrible arguments in mafia, because of WIFOM.CKD wrote: +++
The following is replying to the part of the post that BAB bolded when he replied to me. I will try to make this easy to follow.
“Me: and demostrates huge jumps in assumption,
BAB: way to go. Making another complete lie without any evidence.”
This is not a lie. When you say someone is scummy because of an action and you are assuming their motivation,
This isCKD wrote: it is a huge jump based on faulty assumptions. Recent Example: You stated I was scummy because I stated I would post a case and hadn’t.
I never assume intentions. I assumed you were going to post a case and I have cleared this upCKD wrote: So, you ASSUME that I have scummy intentions because I didn’t post a case and you JUMP to the conclusion I am scum, when the truth is, you have no clue my motivations. Please explain how this is not spinning an action to push your case?
I'm sorry, wtf?CKD wrote:
“Me: BAB, you have yet to show my contradiction...
BAB: My post was meant to goad you into slipping up. It was a post to get a reaction”
AGAIN, a form of spinning. This is twice that you have stated that I did something that was scummy, when you had either misread or were lying to “goad” me.
I explained it as clear as I can in post 185, again, vague was the wrong word. Please let me know if you read post 185 and are still confused.CKD wrote:“Me --I provided specific examples of what I deem scummy, that is not vague....I however, also believe anything can be scummy depending on the player and context...please explain how this belief is scummy again? STOP SPINNING.
Again, this is you restating the same point over and over and over. read post 185, and if you are still confused, write me back.CKD wrote: But lets say I was being vague, you never explained how that was scummy either? You just make statements without much thought or backing.
Did that just happen? Did you just admit to being scum? I mean you said that "knew i was town" but later in the post you said you "turned scum."CKD wrote: This is a bold statement. This is why I think that BAB is town and really stupid scum. If BAB was scum and knew I was town, a statement like this would fry himDay 2 after I was lynched and turned scum.I am officially noting this post{NOTE}When I posts my thoughts on other’s players, I think this particular post will be noted because of the timing (will explain more later).
[joking]You must be scum! You admitted it![/joking] QFT.Amor wrote:
Also, "I can't imagine scum would be so obvious" is total WIFOM.
When I said that you were damaging BAB's credibility, I wasn't talking about whether you thouht he was mafia or not. Suggesting someone is mafia is what the game's all about, it's not scummy. Here "damaging his credibility" refers to you calling his posts crap and implying that he's not worth listening to. I really don't think ignoring someone helps the town at all.
I think that there is a lot of things wrong that idea. You can't tunnel vision me as mafia so hard that anyone who can't be a mafia pair with me is not mafia. For instance, if Occult (who strongly attacked CKD before) starts acting really scummy, I will have no problem thinking that he is scum. You have no idea who is what alignment until the die or if you are mafia.Amor wrote: Of course, the basis of this suspicion assumes BAB being town, which I really don't think he is. I can't see scum attacking each other in such a manner. So I'm a bit hesitant in calling CKD mafia, but I will point out that his actions aren't helping at all.
woh. I consider this a little scummy. I disagree: I believe that the conversation has been becoming more and more helpful.Amor wrote: Anyway, I think people should either start putting down votes or start discussing other suspects. The current discussion is becoming increasingly circular.
I disagree extremely strongly with this. Sure, I did this once with Occult, but if you read the game again, you'll see I didn't do it again.Muerrto wrote:
BnB backing off Occult too easily, could be newbie, claiming his vote was 'random' is disturbing and BS, IMO, that doesn't say newbie to me as much
BaB seems to back off anytime he's attacked,
I agree. I was being too careful with my votes from before. I've realized that votes can be used for many other things besides lynching someone. Your vote for instance, sparks discussion.Muerto wrote: also, why is everyone being so careful? BaB says he's being careful and not voting Amor and calls Amor for voting him
wrong wrong. CKD was definitely not an OMGUS vote.Muerto wrote: Bab getting ticked now, votes CKD b/c he's insulted, really heated discussions here ppl, let's breathe and chill
Muerto wrote: So since my current suspiscions lie on BaB I have to assume CKD is simply pissed at BaB's posting, which is understandable.
huh? I totally agree with all of those. I think that asking for a deadline while our discussion is getting better is scummy. Why stop if if we're going somewhere? Maybe because he's afraid we'll get on to him? That's why it's scummy. You have totally misread me. I agree with all three of those points and never disagreed. Where's the contradiction?JimSauce wrote: 1) Votes can easily stimulate conversation. You stated this in your last post.
2) No votes have been put down for weeks (more or less, I didn't bother check.)
3) Amor also suggested that we discuss other suspects.
[...]
I'm noting the slight contradiction with the quote above and your last post.
It wasn't a change. You're probably misreading me (but you may be trying to emphasize this?). I thought the discussion was getting more and and more helpful, mostly thanks to Cerb, but then CKD responded with post 259, and the exact same stuff was brought up. I thought it would help the conversation, but he has been bringing up the same points against me. Thus the conversation between CKD and I was cyclcal, though overall, the discussion was improving.Amor wrote:BaB, you say that you think the discussion was getting better, but in 263 (two posts before where I said we should move on), you said this:Why the change?Bab wrote: [conversation is circular]
There is acuriouskarmadog wrote:BAB---
1.)Please explain to me why you have an issue with my statement? You want people to have more evidence that I am scum, right? So how is that any different than “you want people to think I am scummy”?BridgesAndBaloons wrote:
Stop putting words in some one's mouth. This is not the first time you have done this.You have no right telling me what I want.I don't want the town to think you're scummy. I want the town to have more evidence to see who the scum is.I want them to decide for themselves.Since i so strongly believe you are the scum, I want the town to have more evidence about you.
. You did hint that you had a case (I'm not the only one to think this someone else posted this recently). Anyway, not coming through with a case is not pro-town, and thus scummy. Don't bother saying here that you weren't hinting, because I'm not the only one to think you did.CKD wrote: You want people to think I am scum given the “evidence” that I had not posted a case yet. How is this evidence that I am scummy? if you have answered why this is scum evidence please repost.
Did you read post 261? I'm guessing not. Basically, vague was the wrong word. Your statements weren't vague. Again, you're hammering me for using the wrong word again. Trying to de-credit me?CKD wrote: 2.)you avoided this question, while playing the semantics of the word “vague” But please answer the question (if you have answered it before, please repost it if you could). Why were my specific examples (even though I included the statement that almost anything could be considered scummy) evidence that I am scum.curiouskarmadog wrote: If you still want to push that my DIRECT examples were vague, please explain how my vagues examples are scummy.
This is an original point in this post. (Points 3 and 4 can be answered my reading my posts) I have some things to say, but it will take a while and I barely have enough time to respond to the current discussion right now.CKD wrote: 5.) I know you think I am scummy, but I still don’t really know why. Please explain to me why you think I am scum. Give me 3-5 “points of evidence” why I must be scum. FI you could, please put it in a separate post, than the answer to the above questions, I want to make sure I don’t miss them.
