Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Netlava]

The whole "hounding riot" theory isn't a legitimate concern, as it was invented by LG to throw out my accusations

[Macavenger]

I thought Netlava was talking mostly about that post where you said you would wait till he responded to the attack. Then when he responds mostly to you saying that you vote him. I thought your action was odd too. Why say oh that is a good point then say the person needs to respond or will get your vote. I'm seen many a scum do that tactic so I don't think Netlava pointing the finger at you for doing that is OMGUS.

I'm not seeing how Gurgi's action there is odd. I went back and reread that exchange carefully. Gurgi wants to see a defense for the case CF Riot just put together. Instead of responding to that, Netlava interprets Gurgi's post as an attack and jumps down his throat. This is also where I'm getting the OMGUS from. Gurgi indicates suspicion and Netlava attacks.

As a clarification, particularly for camn who brought this up, I don't see Netlava's case on CF Riot to be OMGUS at all. I find it bad for other reasons which I've outlined. I do find his thoughts on Lord Gurgi and myself to be mainly OMGUS.

But on D1, thin is all we get, right? Better a thin case than no case at all!

This isn't an excuse for just attacking randomly for weak reasons though, which is what I'm seeing from Netlava. His cases are well beyond normal D1 thin.

The whole "hounding riot" theory isn't a legitimate concern, as it was invented by LG to throw out my accusations

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate. You are being very aggressive towards Riot for reasons that several people think are quite poor.

[camn]

Thank you for your clarification, Mac..
I concur. However, regarding the LORD.....It's not gurgi's action THERE that is odd, I think.. but Gurgi later claiming that he was actually DEFENDING netlava. That is beyond me right now. But also beside the point. I am not worried about Lord Gurgi right NOW. (thats for later....)

For now.. Netlava... I noticed you were/are after CF pretty hard, independent of LG's words. Is there no explanation? Are you saying that you are NOT, in fact, aggressively pursuing CF Riot?

[farside22]

This is the post we are talking about?

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I think just for that, you get the honor of being on the second spot on my scum list. It appears that you've already made up your mind, and your attempt to cast off the suspicion as a personal vendetta is an indirect way of protecting CF Riot. Furthermore, last game doesn't have anything to do with this game. If you check the last game, you'll notice that I did change opinions on CF Riot, which means that I do try to keep an open mind.

Looking back through the thread, I also noticed that you never actually answered the question what are your reasons for bringing up the possibility of SK. Also, the way you've voted is suspicious. You voted Charter for one particular issue way back while ignoring the wealth of new info. Instead, you've been affirming your suspicions with comments such as:

My vote has been on him for a while because he keeps doing it.

without actually pushing his bandwagon.

Before that post by LG he never had a real problem with netlava. Like I said I've seen many a scum bounce using someone else's idea to place a vote. That is the only reason I find LG's comment odd. He didn't add really anything to what was being discussed, but states he wants netlava to defend himself. As for CFRiot OMGUS I will agree that netlava was in deed OMGUS, but not with LG. I think when you have someone just saying yeah what he said you tend to attack them thinking them scum for not adding anything.

[Netlava]

For now.. Netlava... I noticed you were/are after CF pretty hard, independent of LG's words. Is there no explanation? Are you saying that you are NOT, in fact, aggressively pursuing CF Riot?

Well, the explanation would be that I think Riot is scum.

[camn]

So you concede you are, in fact, aggressively pursuing CF. Some would say "hounding", correct?

Why then, would you dismiss this characterization.. stating..

The whole "hounding riot" theory isn't a legitimate concern, as it was invented by LG to throw out my accusations

If you are, in fact, pursuing CF.. why would you say it isn't a legit concern? Why not say.. "damn straight, He's scum!" Why act like LG made this up? You are being aggressive.. and if you have good reason.. then stick with it! But don't deny it, right?!

[Netlava]

Nope, hounding refers to the possibility that my suspicion of Riot is a carry-over from last game, which isn't true.

[Netlava]

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.

Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?

[Walnut]

Just because you think he's scum doesn't make everything he says illegitimate.

Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?

Netlava- if you caught him out on that one, you are a legend! I am startlingly unconvinced, as you are going to get him either way here. Either he takes you at face value and you accuse him of knowing you are town (as you did) or he doubts you in which case you attack him for baselessly doubting you.

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I think I would have felt clearer about this post if Lord Gurgi had left it after the first sentence and if so inclined had written a separate post about people carrying on suspicions from the last game. It ends up being a poisoned chalice: "Netlava, here is a defence- it makes you look like an idiot if you choose to take it though".

[camn]

Here Mac drops another clue that he knows I'm town. How do you know that I think LG is scum? What if my accusation of LG was completely fabricated?

Don't play games. LG was on your list.

Do you actually think LG is scum? Or are your accusations fabricated?

[charter]

I will be interested in seeing who the next person to vote for Had is (assuming someone does.

Why is this? What information would it have given you?

It wouldn't have given me any more than everyone else. I simply would have found it interesting.

Don't lynch him today and if he lives through the night lynch him tomorrow. Of course the mafia could always not NK him, but I see that as much more unlikely than him actually being mafia (if he lives). Saying this, there's no point in lynching him today, as there are probably two others, so I'll go ahead and
unvote had

How come you spent so long to unvote? You didn't like how I waited to vote you, so why did you wait to unvote me?

You were still very suspicious (and still are).

Well with Charter's statement did was exactly this: Now it will be WIFOM. If Had is NK, If Had is scum, If, if, if. It's really too soon to say any of that and I think talking about it gives the scum ideas (if Had isn't scum) what to do about the situation. The worse part about Had's claim is he doesn't know if he is sane or not.

I think you trying to pin this on me is scummy. What does everyone else think?

how is it scummy? he isn't really trying to pin anything on you Charter, He's just pointing out what you did.

Way to come up with something original. It's not that scummy, I was wrong before.

Your post here seems like a desperation attempt to save yourself. I don't know why you're not in much danger of being lynched today.

[Battousai]

Vote: Netlava

I've had my eye on you for awhile now. But post 222 is just beyond me. I believe EVERYONE thought, that you thought LG was scum. So Mac must be scum because he stated it outright?

[charter]

Post 222 isn't even by Netlava...

[Battousai]

Oops, 232.

[Macavenger]

I think a couple of you are missing Netlava's point in 232 (not that his actual point is worthwhile, either). He's claiming that, because I'm talking to him as if he's a townie (as only townies have opinions on who scum are, scum know), this means I know he's a townie. Which is total bullshit, because it's very common to talk to players under the assumption that they're town, because it's implied that they are claiming to be town, and thus honest. I do it frequently, and see others do it frequently. This is very similar to his claim about the word "tempted" - I've seen that used in tons of places. He's basically just making up tells at this point that aren't valid.

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Netlava 4 (CF Riot, Lord Gurgi, Macavenger, Battousai)
charter 2 (farside22, ShadowGirl)
Walnut 1 (Hadhfang)
camn 1 (charter)
CF Riot 1 (Netlava)
Battousai 1 (camn)

Not Voting:

charter, Walnut

12 alive = 7 to lynch!

[camn]

unvote

For focus.

[Tinsley]

Just to let everyone know, I've recovered from the long weekend and am working on a reread. I'm hoping to post some updated thoughts later today or tomorrow.

[CF Riot]

Ok I'm really sorry for the long inactivity. I've been really busy lately, but today and tomorrow are my days off from work so hopefully I'll catch up. Addressing things in the order in which I see them.

Netlava's response to LG after my PbPa screams scum to me. One for the extreme attitude of it and two for the weak reasons he gives for suspecting LG. He also completely ignores my post at first. Now, he does respond to it later and claims he wasn't going to ignore it. My question is why it took twelve hours from the time he read it to the time he responded to it? Netlava, I can understand time constraints because I've had some myself lately, but you had enough time to give your new theory on why LG is scum and look back on his play from earlier in the game as an example. You went all the way back to the SK discussion from the beginning of the game. If you had time for that, why not even a mention of what I said in your first post?

Walnut 177: You seemed suspicious to me for a few things, so just because BB is gone now don't think I'll stop watching you. However, (and I'm jumping ahead of myself now) you haven't given Camn any undue heat yet so I will say that has been noted.

It has been asked why I don't see Netlava's actions as possibly town by several people. (Batt 178, Netlava 193, others too I think.) I don't know if I was unclear in my post or if some of you just misread it but I said the two possibilities I see are Netlava is scum

OR

has severe tunnel vision, and by that I meant tunnel visioned town, not tunnel visioned scum. The just the fact that he has, but the

way

he has singled me out along with his other actions make me think it's far more likely he is scum.

Netlava 193: If you can disprove the things I'm calling you out on, why not do it? You can't just say, "well what you say isn't true but I'm not going to show you why."

Re: post 46, I know you think he meant that, but WHY? He didn't mention me anywhere, so were you just trying to suggest the idea that I was involved or were you so focused on me that you connected me to what everyone said regardless of what they were talking about?

You're theory on scum breadcrumbing is terrible. Saying you dropped a crumb earlier in the game doesn't make the actual claim later in the game any stronger, and scum cannot just shrug something like that off as a joke. My post wasn't even meant to be a crumb and you won't let it go, so how could a scum say "just kidding" and dodge the heat on a real one?

I didn't say pushing my lynch is scummy, I said I think you are scum and you are pushing my lynch. And I

did

say you could be town pushing my lynch. That's what tunnel vision is.

Netlava 195: I personally think you have 0 case against LG. Your reasons for Mac being added to the list are terrible too, also looks OMGUS to me. What is the Riot-batt pairing? What are you talking about there?

Batt 202: I was bothered by the fact that you were intentionally lurking at first too. Seeing how things have played out since then I can't see scum motive for it so it doesn't really bother me anymore. But I will say if you are town, don't try scum tactics to help town. That just doesn't make sense, and its likely to get you lynched.


Will continue soon. I've read everything to page 10, post 242, but I'm going back and posting as I read so I don't forget anything or ignore anyone's questions. I should have all my thoughts up-to-date by the end of the day.

[Netlava]

- Mac says accusation of LG was omgus and votes me for it
- Mac says I think LG is scum
Anyone notice the inconsistency here?

---

If you had time for that, why not even a mention of what I said in your first post?

To throw a hitch onto LG's evil plans

The just the fact that he has, but the way he has singled me out along with his other actions make me think it's far more likely he is scum.

Please explain

I personally think you have 0 case against LG. Your reasons for Mac being added to the list are terrible too, also looks OMGUS to me.

Explain

What is the Riot-batt pairing? What are you talking about there?

Earlier, I speculated on the possibility of a riot-batt scum team, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

---

List update:
CF Riot moves down the ladder, whereas walnut moves up:
1. LG
2. macavenger
3. walnut

[Macavenger]

Why is walnut moving up?

[camn]

And Why is CF suddenly OFF the list?

[Battousai]

- Mac says accusation of LG was OMGUS and votes me for it
- Mac says I think LG is scum
Anyone notice the inconsistency here?

No. You voted for LG, which means you are saying he is scum, but Mac thinks your REASONING is OMGUS.

I find it interesting you are trying to discredit Mac any way you can. First in 232 where you basically say "Mac is scum because he knows I'm town for thinking I think LG is scum." Then when you get a vote and some heat from other players for that comment, you go back and try and find something else to call him out on without addressing the heat you got from post 232.

Then you suspect Walnut, from what I can tell post 233 as that is the only post walnut has made since the last time you posted. I would like to know what Walnut did that was scummy, because that post was just an "attack" on your post 232 and then somewhat agreeing with you on LG's post. Agreeing with you shouldn't be scummy, so it must be the attack on you and if that's the case, I see it as OMGUS.

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

[farside22]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

While I increasingly think it may be justified, as I said earlier (in post #218), it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that if we focused on Netlava it would most likely end in him being lynched.

It's that a foregone conclusion if you do this with any player though?