Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[StrangerCoug]

You seem awfully willing to give up your case for being convinced I am scum KortS.

Why the capital S every time? There is no capital S. It annoys me. Please stop.

It's better than someone constantly adding an H at the end of your name, let me tell you xD

armlx is still obvscum.

I should have brought this up earlier, but I object to the term "obvscum" because it's an excuse to accuse somebody without giving a real reason. You don't need it to make a good case.

The same applies to "obvtown" re: clearing somebody.

[Greasy Spot]

And, by the by, I certainly won't argue that I asked some leading questions, but I disagree that my final pair of questions was presenting Greasy with a view that he never directly said he had. I could have just asked those questions immediately, without all the preamble, but I thought that Greasy Spot might slip up and implicate himself further if I approached from another angle. I don't think he did, but I still find the initial post extremely suspicious.

If he'd just said "How can we possibly decide right now?", that would be fine, if he'd just said "There is no case against Strife", that would be fine, but the combination of the two creates a clear inconsistency. Either he thought armlx was scummier than Strife, in which case I'd like to know why he didn't just say so, or he didn't, in which case I'd like to know why he specified that there was no case against Strife. One of those is clearly a view that he had, unless you think he actually thought Strife was scummier than armlx, in which case his initial post makes even less sense.

At the time there were some attacks towards armix and none towards strife and that is why I said there was no case against strife, not because the case building against armix was good. How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

vote: iamausername

[forbiddanlight]

This is completely unrelated to the actual game, but I think that Greasy Spot needs to make "vote: iamausername" his signature. Just a suggestion

[silence]

StrangerCoug never answered about the meaning of his FoSing roflcopter after the mason claim, which I still find strange. Scum fakeclaiming masons is hugely unlikely especially as they claimed only after it was suggested, how did they guess that someone will suggest masons coming out...

So far, I haven't found anyone doing anything that I would find clearly scummy (especially if there is a reasonable explanation for StrangerCougs FoS). Anyway, I don't know if it is even possible to obtain a better-than-random lynch D1. Therefore, at this point, I would go for forbiddanlight who is a claimed vanilla. Another candidates are BlakAdder who wants to rely on unexplained intuition and Vamparific who seems to have disappeared.

[forbiddanlight]

FoS silence

. That post reeks of such horrid non committalness I don't even know WHAT to say. Are you even reading the thread? There is scumminess all over the place! I mean, you have no opinion about the current Korts/armix debate? Or maybe the Greasy Spot/username thing? Or basically ANY of the discussion going on thus far? I wasn't leaning anyway on you before since you barely posted. In one post though, I lean scum on you.

[iamausername]

How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

Maybe you could read their posts and make a case yourself? But I guess scumhunting's a lot easier when all you have to do is look for the first Vote: Greasy Spot and never stop OMGUSing.

---

Wow, silence. Are you really suggesting we should lynch fl just because she isn't a power role, or do you actually think she's done anything suspicious?

fl, you have a vote, use it.

[forbiddanlight]

I already did. It's on Stranger Coug. I like that one better because he's shown himself to be relatively scummy too. That could change quickly if silence keeps that act up.

[StrangerCoug]

I already did. It's on Stranger Coug. I like that one better because he's shown himself to be relatively scummy too. That could change quickly if silence keeps that act up.

Who are you talking to?

[forbiddanlight]

fl, you have a vote, use it.

[iamausername]

I do apologise. I remember asking you about another FoS you'd made earlier and evidently got the idea in my head that you were throwing FoSes around without actually voting. SC is an entirely acceptable vote.

[strife220]

This game moves entirely too fast. Players are posting that I never even knew were in this game.

Greasy Spot would make an excellent vig kill.

This post is scummy because:
a) Trying to control the Vig's kill-choice is anti-town
b) Greasy Spot actually provided a bit of a case against AIUN
c) Like 4 people have already said Vamp would be an excellent vig
d) You suggesting otherwise is defending Vamp (see b)



Hrm... that's all to comment on tonight. Vote on Korts stands.

[Iron Man]

I agree with strife that this game moves extremely quickly. I'm still trying to catch up and form an intelligent analysis. I've kinda skimmed over the last few pages, but I currently have nothing to comment on as of yet. Maybe later.

[iamausername]

Greasy Spot would make an excellent vig kill.

This post is scummy because:
a) Trying to control the Vig's kill-choice is anti-town
b) Greasy Spot actually provided a bit of a case against AIUN
c) Like 4 people have already said Vamp would be an excellent vig
d) You suggesting otherwise is defending Vamp (see b)

Wait, so it's OK for people to direct the vig to kill Vamp, but not Greasy Spot? GS/strife connection is starting to look as significant as Korts/SC.

By the way, I'm absolutely in favour of a Vamp vidging too, and have never said otherwise.

[Korts]

Greasy Spot would make an excellent vig kill.

This post is scummy because:
a) Trying to control the Vig's kill-choice is anti-town
b) Greasy Spot actually provided a bit of a case against AIUN
c) Like 4 people have already said Vamp would be an excellent vig
d) You suggesting otherwise is defending Vamp (see b)

Wait, so it's OK for people to direct the vig to kill Vamp, but not Greasy Spot? GS/strife connection is starting to look as significant as Korts/SC.

By the way, I'm absolutely in favour of a Vamp vidging too, and have never said otherwise.

For once, I agree with iamausername. Not once did strife shout at people for directing the vig kill to Vamp. According to point c) this is because four people were doing it, which obviously means it's a good thing, as opposed to when only one person does it. Double standard's a nice thing.

Still, iamausername, vig directing isn't pro-town, no matter who does it, for whatever reason. So shame on you.

[strife220]

Ugh... should be: d) You suggesting otherwise is defending Vamp (see

c

)



I point c) out as a scum-tell mainly because if you want to think of Vig's kills as an extra lynch, then IAUN is trying to undermine the majority, which is scummy. It's also closely related to d - I suppose those two points could be considered one.

I didn't shout at the people who directed towards Vamp mostly because I agreed with it.
However, IAUN's vig-direct is much scummier than the previous. He has 4 (or 3, if c/d are the same) strikes against him, while those directing towards Vamp are only guilty of a).


Comparing IAUN's vig-direct towards GS to everyone elses vig direct towards Vamp is apples to oranges. I'll elaborate more long-windedly if people still don't see it.

[roflcopter]

unvote, vote: iamausername

should have been more careful, i told you i had my eye on you.

[iamausername]

Point b) is total crap, since Greasy Spot has never presented any case against me besides "too stupid to be a townie", which is in fact not a case at all.

Point c/d) is also crap, because as I said, I'm in favour of a Vamp vig as well.

Point a) is also wrong, for the record.

Also, "trying to undermine the majority" is not a scum tell. Anything else?

[Korts]

Also, "trying to undermine the majority" is not a scum tell. Anything else?

Hey what? Trying to undermine the majority is not a scumtell how? The town operates by majority decisions, therefore if you attempt to take matters into your own hands, you go against the majority, i.e. the town. Going against the town isn't on any pro-town role's agenda.

[Sun Tzu]

Actually, going along with the town is a scum tell. The town is often wrong. If you think the majority is making a mistake, presenting a different view is definitely pro-town.

I find silence's post very odd. Not just for being wishy-washy and non-committal, but also because the statement that no one is better than a random lynch is absurd. It seems like half the people in the game are scummy.

vote silence

[Korts]

Actually, going along with the town is a scum tell. The town is often wrong. If you think the majority is making a mistake, presenting a different view is definitely pro-town

Yes, but we're not talking about

presenting

a different view, we're talking about forcing that view on the whole town, without the consent of the majority.

[Greasy Spot]

How could I decide which case to go with when one of them didn't even have a case.

Maybe you could read their posts and make a case yourself? But I guess scumhunting's a lot easier when all you have to do is look for the first Vote: Greasy Spot and never stop OMGUSing.

The question didn't ask if I had a case against either one of them. It asked me which one I thought was scummier which translates into, "Based on the cases already shown in this game, which of these two players do you find scummier?". Why do you insist on twisting my words into something I haven't said or implied.

[Korts]

Heh. You forgot to vote iamausername again at the end of that post, GS.

[StrangerCoug]

a) Trying to control the Vig's kill-choice is anti-town
b) Greasy Spot actually provided a bit of a case against AIUN
c) Like 4 people have already said Vamp would be an excellent vig
d) You suggesting otherwise is defending Vamp (see c)

Point b) is total crap, since Greasy Spot has never presented any case against me besides "too stupid to be a townie", which is in fact not a case at all.

Point c/d) is also crap, because as I said, I'm in favour of a Vamp vig as well.

Point a) is also wrong, for the record.

iamausername, why is point a wrong? I actually agree with strife220 here. Yes, lurkers make good vigilante targets, and yes, the vig should pick somebody who he or she thinks is scummy, but the vig can kill whoever he or she wants as long as those two are kept in mind. I'm pretty sure whoever the vig is is reading your posts and mine, because the vig might completely throw GS and Vamp out the window and pick someone else, if only for the moment.

The vig kill N0 was obviously not based on somebody looking scummy, but I'm pretty sure there was a reason for it, as bad of a reason it may be.

I agree with iamausername on point b, though. Idiocy is not a legitimate reason for a vote.

I'm split on point c, but point d makes sense. In fact, iamausername, your response to point d implies that you approve of both Greasy Spot and Vamparific vigged. What's up with that?

[Korts]

Fairly long post with no serious content and obviously weak/false points. Play by play.

I'm pretty sure whoever the vig is is reading your posts and mine, because the vig might completely throw GS and Vamp out the window and pick someone else, if only for the moment.

Pointless comment.

The vig kill N0 was obviously not based on somebody looking scummy, but I'm pretty sure there was a reason for it, as bad of a reason it may be.

Completely irrelevant point. Why do you bring up the N0 kill and on such an irrelevant and subjective scale, when neither of the quotes in your post address the N0 kill?

I agree with iamausername on point b, though. Idiocy is not a legitimate reason for a vote.

Calling others' arguments "idiocy" and not commenting further isn't just rude. That's also not a valid refutation of the argument.

In fact, iamausername, your response to point d implies that you approve of both Greasy Spot and Vamparific vigged. What's up with that?

Considering multiple (scummy/lurking) players for vigging is just not, as I see it, scummy. What's up with your question? Want to be looking like you're contributing, but don't know how?

[iamausername]

Yes, but we're not talking about presenting a different view, we're talking about forcing that view on the whole town, without the consent of the majority.

This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know how to respond to it.

---

I'm pretty sure whoever the vig is is reading your posts and mine, because the vig might completely throw GS and Vamp out the window and pick someone else, if only for the moment.

Well, exactly, the only opinion about who the vig should kill is that of the vig him/herself. If they disagree with the reasoning behind people's suggestions, then they can make their own choice and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. If it's good reasoning, hopefully they won't disagree with it.

I think the reasoning for vidging Vamp or Greasy Spot (and it is the same reasoning) is good. Both these players are totally useless if they're on the side of town, and if they're not, it will be hard for us to detect this, because they're not making any attempt to actually play the game. It's much better to vig these kind of players than lynch them, because the voting records on these lynches will give us far less information than those on a player who is actually participating because, as armlx said in his original vig-directing post, their lynches are not likely to be polarising.

In fact, iamausername, your response to point d implies that you approve of both Greasy Spot and Vamparific vigged. What's up with that?

See above. Obviously, this would take more than one night. That's fine by me.

Calling others' arguments "idiocy" and not commenting further isn't just rude. That's also not a valid refutation of the argument.

He wasn't saying Greasy Spot's argument was based on idiocy, he's saying Greasy Spot's reason for voting me was "idiocy". As in, I am the idiot. You can't really make a more valid refutation of that argument than "that's not a legitimate reason to vote".

Considering multiple (scummy/lurking) players for vigging is just not, as I see it, scummy.

Weren't you arguing the exact opposite like, three posts earlier?