pacman wrote:Who in world would openly claim SK? Poro's guess looks like a lucky shot or possibly meta
Possibly meta? On page two from a couple random Xtoxm posts? I feel like you're pulling for reasons after the fact and we have no way to gauge how you actually felt day 1. I'm not convinced you're scum though, because of the meta I think I have on you.
Zorblag wrote:The only reason that I'll raise anything close to an objection is that he is moving to one of the players with more suspicion. If LlamaFluff were scum with Dukes and Wolframnhart were town that move would be the right one to make as the Wolframnhart attack didn't seem to be gaining any momentum and it has helped to draw more attention away from Dukes. On the other hand, as I said, pacman281292 would be on my short list of people to fucus on as well so a town LlamaFluff would probably make the same move.
I can see what you're thinking here but I don't know what kind of objection you're raising. A player that moves to a wagon with supported reasoning tends to look more town than a player that moves to a wagon with inflated reasoning. You seem to think pacman is someone to look at, so why are you concerned that people are doing that?
Jahudo wrote:I can see what you're thinking here but I don't know what kind of objection you're raising. A player that moves to a wagon with supported reasoning tends to look more town than a player that moves to a wagon with inflated reasoning. You seem to think pacman is someone to look at, so why are you concerned that people are doing that?
It's the move to pacman281292 over Dukes (who also has a wagon) when Dukes has been on LlamaFluff's list since day one. It's biased by the fact that I don't trust Dukes and I'm seeing a move that arguably helps him. This, as I said, is largely mitigated by the fact that LlamaFluff is not just waggoning. He's giving a number of reasons for his move and clearly not just casting the vote because other people have as well. I'm not raising an actual objection to LlamaFluff's new vote; I am saying that it's something noteworthy.
I guess that's worth pointing out in case at some point llama were to flip scum. If he does, we can remember this if Dukes is still alive at that point. I don't think it's a big deal right now though.
KMD is the coolest dude who ever lost a bet to me - vonflare
Kmd4390 wrote:Anyone not voting: Who do you find most suspicious and why aren't you voting them?
I find Dukes most suspicious but I am not ready to put him to L-2 because we're not close to the deadline and there are several people I have weak or neutral reads on: you, wolf, and poro.
Wow -- so Llama casts a vote on someone who already has suspicion but isn't the person you want to vote for... and you think it's noteworthy? You think somehow that raises the possibility we're in league together? Rather a strange way to think about it. It seems you're too hung up on me right now. Let me ask: is KMD equally suspicious because of his vote on pacman?
FoS: Zorblag
for steering everything back to me. The last thing we need is blinders.
Kmd4390 wrote:Anyone not voting: Who do you find most suspicious and why aren't you voting them?
I find Dukes most suspicious but I am not ready to put him to L-2 because we're not close to the deadline and there are several people I have weak or neutral reads on: you, wolf, and poro.
Fair enough.
KMD is the coolest dude who ever lost a bet to me - vonflare
@Dukes: No, KMD4390 doesn't get the same level of noteworthiness for his vote for pacman281292. The difference is that LlamaFluff has had Dukes on his list of potential scum for quite some time and KMD4390 hasn't. The fact that I do suspect Dukes does help this stand out to me more so there is perhaps a bit of something to be said for the blinders that you're talking about but my point for bringing this up now was that it was a connection that seemed worth mentioning that others hadn't brought up yet. If I can count on everyone to play a good game then it's the connections between people that I need to look for that will bear more fruit in terms of information as we progress and learn the alignment of various players as they leave the game.
I thought pacmans behaivour might have something to do with him not understanding family guy (a it of confusion for myself), he has now confirmed that he has an understanding thereore I
vote pacman
, I haven't liked many of your posts in this games so far.
On a related topic, purely for conversational value, I think I cried for the first time watching a cartoon during Jurassic Bark, if you havent watched it, it is in my opinion the best episode ever.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
His first discussion with me and his defence against Llama are prime examples, however very little of his posts have caused me to think he's town. I did mean Futurama, sorry.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
Porochaz wrote:I thought pacmans behaivour might have something to do with him not understanding family guy (a it of confusion for myself), he has now confirmed that he has an understanding thereore I
vote pacman
, I haven't liked many of your posts in this games so far.
On a related topic, purely for conversational value, I think I cried for the first time watching a cartoon during Jurassic Bark, if you havent watched it, it is in my opinion the best episode ever.
?!?!?!?
waitwaitwait... what does flavor have to do with my case?! nothing, till when I know!
WHAT'S THE MEANING OF THAT VOTE?!?!?!
Porochaz wrote:His first discussion with me and his defence against Llama are prime examples, however very little of his posts have caused me to think he's town. I did mean Futurama, sorry.
Explain. My discussion on you was just because your first posts looked weird to me by some weirder reason (but now when I think on it, it looks like Xtoxm screwed me...). Why do you think that my deffense on llama is bad and voteworthy?
pacman281292 wrote:Explain. My discussion on you was just because your first posts looked weird to me by some weirder reason (but now when I think on it, it looks like Xtoxm screwed me...). Why do you think that my deffense on llama is bad and voteworthy?
What do you mean Xtoxm screwed you? Xtoxm never talked about you at all. I don't see any way for you to argue that the suspicion about you now is Xtoxm's fault? Do you mean that your reaction to Xtoxm's play has put you in a more precarious situation? How is that his fault more than yours?
Well the second post you quoted answers the first.
Also politeness is a virtue. Demanding me to explain is something not noteworthy to success in getting me to talk politely to you.
Your first posts to me confused me, I initially thought it was just some problem in the way one of us worded something, on my reread of your posts after the defence I felt it was something more. Every single post(with content) has been kind of fishy to me. I would like to explain more which I hopefully will do tomorrow. I want to have a look at your long defensive post in more detail tomorrow.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
pacman281292 wrote:Explain. My discussion on you was just because your first posts looked weird to me by some weirder reason (but now when I think on it, it looks like Xtoxm screwed me...). Why do you think that my deffense on llama is bad and voteworthy?
What do you mean Xtoxm screwed you? Xtoxm never talked about you at all. I don't see any way for you to argue that the suspicion about you now is Xtoxm's fault? Do you mean that your reaction to Xtoxm's play has put you in a more precarious situation? How is that his fault more than yours?
-Zorblag R`Lyeh
His posts confused me, and made me get a little overeager on Poro. Xtoxm's post confused me, and made me misinterprete Porochaz...
You can be confused by Xtoxm's play -- heaven knows we all thought it odd -- but honestly, your play didn't get much stronger as the game went on. While I hate to use a superficial reason on top of all the others I've noted, SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO QUESTION YOU DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD. It doesn't help the conversation and makes people more likely to dismiss your point as a ranting. (Yeah, I know, I know -- I'm one to give advice.)
To me, it's not your defense on Llama -- who is not in my line of sight yet -- but rather the angry tone of your posts, plus the terse evaluation of people's arguments (in the "nine points" post) that put me off the most. It seems to come across as you being appalled anyone could possibly think you're anything but a saint -- and unless you're the mayor of a Mafia game, you're a suspect. (Maybe even then, for all we know.)
Dukes wrote: While I hate to use a superficial reason on top of all the others I've noted, SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO QUESTION YOU DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD.
This. It didn't seem a large enough point and does not make you scummy.
Yeah, just to be clear, it's not the condemning factor, but I still wanted to bring it up because unless it's a "gimmick-post", there's no need for it.
Dukes wrote:You can be confused by Xtoxm's play -- heaven knows we all thought it odd -- but honestly, your play didn't get much stronger as the game went on. While I hate to use a superficial reason on top of all the others I've noted, SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO QUESTION YOU DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD. It doesn't help the conversation and makes people more likely to dismiss your point as a ranting. (Yeah, I know, I know -- I'm one to give advice.)
To me, it's not your defense on Llama -- who is not in my line of sight yet -- but rather the angry tone of your posts, plus the terse evaluation of people's arguments (in the "nine points" post) that put me off the most. It seems to come across as you being appalled anyone could possibly think you're anything but a saint -- and unless you're the mayor of a Mafia game, you're a suspect. (Maybe even then, for all we know.)
Good point.
Yeah, I admit that I've been a little overeager, but it was overmost because your pretty weak case on me made me get angry. I recognise that I must calm down.
Dukes wrote: While I hate to use a superficial reason on top of all the others I've noted, SHOUTING AT PEOPLE WHO QUESTION YOU DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD.
This. It didn't seem a large enough point and does not make you scummy.
QFT. Being abrasive does not equate to being scummy, but at the same time continuing to do so is not helpful either, as you have pointed out, Dukes. Level-headed responses will help avoid mass frustration, allowing us to not become sidetracked from scumhunting due to emotion, and also makes the game more enjoyable.
Kmd4390 wrote:Pacman, show us how the case on you is weak if you think it is.
Agreed. You may have already done so, but I do not recall any defenses being that thorough (feel free to show me to posts that say otherwise). You providing a rebuttal would be helpful.
Kmd4390 wrote:Pacman, show us how the case on you is weak if you think it is.
I mean Dukes'. He started attacking me due to a supposed OMGUS vote D1 that never happened; my only two votes D1 were on the same post. He also accused me of a OMGUS FoS D1; my FoS on Porochaz was not OMGUS. I answered on a little eager way to it, and Dukes kept accusing me from the same thing.
His basis for accusing me are not enough good, and (imo) he didn't answer well to me while we were "bickering".
However, in his last posts he is having some good points; I've been very overeager.
