Mini 729 - WaTR Mafia - Game Over!

[Occam]

I still think this bandwagon is providing information. Unfortunately for you, I think it is telling me that you are trying to defend your scumbuddy?

Again - defending someone is not a scumtell.

Maybe this should be the time and place where you give us a reason for your zealous defense of another player?

For the same reason I've stated all along - I see no reason to think he's scum from the "case" provided, nor from posts of his I've read. There is nothing wrong with defending someone.

I am truly considring moving my vote either onto you or onto the bandwagon for LT, as it seems to have gotten a reaction out of you. I cant help but think that LT is playing the silent lurker scum while you are playing the more vocal of the group trying to convince everyone else that others within the group are worth more attnetion than your scummate?

OK. It's your vote. But moving it onto LT right now will look bad if LT flips town, fyi.

Oh and isnt all that ABCD crap WIFOM? I mean an actual reason might help. The only thing you are telling me is that the 2 of you are linked somehow. Lovers? Scummates? Help yourself out here.

A. is WIFOM, of course, but it's just to make a point, not to stand as evidence or defense.
B. is not WIFOM.
C. is not WIFOM.
D. does not exist.

Thats quite bad wifom, considering that scum often argue against a townie mislynch to prove their good townie judgment.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. It's a valid point.

I'm not asking you to prove anything... but surely you must have some reason, or some information, that makes you think LT would be a mislynch, as opposed to simply a bad lynch at a bad time.

Mislynch = bad lynch. That's what I mean to say. The terms are interchangeable for me, but I suppose I should work on that.

---

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-5

Lunar Tick - 5 (Rhinox, MonkeyMan, Rogue Shenanigans, Korts, Kiro)
BSG - 1 (Prom King)
Rogue Shenanigans - 1 (freeko)
MonkeyMan - 1 (BSG)
Rhinox - 1 (Occam)

Not Voting - Syplus, Lunar_Tick, Raider

With 12 left, 7 to lynch.

[freeko]

Ok, you still did not answer my question. Are you and LT linked in this game somehow?

[Occam]

Are you and LT linked in this game somehow?

Oh. No.

[Sipylus]

I find it really annoying that you guys are making so much of a fuss about a clearly random, at least for now, choice. Even though it is day one, surely we can find something better to talk about.

This seems to have prompted almost all the of the rest of the discussion to date. So I might as well stick it up the top of my first real post.

You said we like you had something better to talk about yet you didnt mention it in your post. The clearly random choice is causing disscussion which is good. Why try to stop it?

I fail to see the connection between 'we' and 'you had something better to talk about'. This is pretty weak no? The rest I agree with though so carry on.

Unvote:

Vote: LunarTick

He seems to be admitting that he made his choice knowingly without consulting anyone else. It's one thing to say you didn't know that his vote would be final, it's another to say that you know and deliberatly left others out of the discussion.

What? Who are you talking about here, and why didn't you vote for him?

@Monkeyman: You seem to be confusing me with Rogue Shenanigans. Maybe.

I'm sorry I mispoke. Defending the move is just as bad as doing it, if not more so. Like Prom King said, it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early, but having someone defend the tactics worries me.

What?

Allow me to paraphrase :

*On an Internet forum where I can read and re-read my posts to make sure they say what I mean, I said something I didn't mean.
*Now I'm going to defend what I did say, even though right now I could just say oops.
*Defending other peoples actions is at least as bad as those actions. Maybe worse.
*I'm going to stick with voting this guy who is defending someone I don't even think is scummy anymore because the defense of a random choice as a means of kicking the thread off is in and of itself scummy.

Your whole post and vote assumes that the choice has any kind of bearing on the game. You are very far from being sure of your claims, at least not close enough to make any kind of conclusion and subsequently vote on it. And if you are sure of your claims (and it seems that you are), then you are highly suspicious.

Also I don't like the way you use the word "tactics" in your post, when there was clearly no under-hand mafia scheme but rather a random choice.

Gah - I don't like this post. I only really agree with the part about MM being suspicious and also the use of the word 'tactics'. The rest seems really a) very defensive and b) is full of the same sort of assumptions you are accusing MM of making. At this stage in the game we are all assuming and accusing to get a read on people.

You're not in a position to say what I'm able to come to a conclusion on and vote for. All I need to vote is to think that you are more guilty than anyone else. And I clearly do. The only way you could know if there was a scheme or if it was random choice is if you were scum, a townie would not know the difference.

I agree with the first part of this, and think the whole random choice v scheme thing is being overstated. Nobody seems to think RS is scum, or that he acted in a scummy way. We just don't know yet. LT seems to just be stating opinions to me.

And finally :

Or maybe the mod told me.

How is this last sentence worth a bandwagon? RS jumps on LT immediately after this post, and it all starts going from there. This was a joke no?

There is more later in the thread, but up to this point MM is the one who seems scummy to me. I'm going through the rest now, but in the mean time

Vote:MonkeyMan576

for being the person that I think is more guilty than anyone else atm.

[Korts]

False dilemma? Neither, actually, just trying to prevent a mislynch.

And how can you state with such certainty that it would be a mislynch?

unvote, vote: Occam

Anyways, thanks for finally explaining - but it seems you're actually voting him because he used the word tactics... not because he has inside information. How is that a valid reason? Reread the quote you posted and get back to me on that.

Here's the quote again, with fixed tags:

Defending the move is just as bad as doing it, if not more so. Like Prom King said, it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early, but having someone defend the tactics worries me.

Your whole post and vote assumes that the choice has any kind of bearing on the game. You are very far from being sure of your claims, at least not close enough to make any kind of conclusion and subsequently vote on it. And if you are sure of your claims (and it seems that you are), then you are highly suspicious.

Also I don't like the way you use the word "tactics" in your post, when there was clearly no under-hand mafia scheme but rather a random choice.

You're not in a position to say what I'm able to come to a conclusion on and vote for. All I need to vote is to think that you are more guilty than anyone else. And I clearly do. The only way you could know if there was a scheme or if it was random choice is if you were scum, a townie would not know the difference.

I went back and reread what they were actually saying, and the quote tags are now correct. So no, I'm not attacking LT for the use of the word "tactics", I am attacking him for stating with seemingly absolute certainty that the choice was clearly random and in no possible way an "under-hand mafia scheme". Defending Rogue with something only Rogue or mafia would know is, IMO, scumlicious.

I like how I'm being called scummy for defending someone - defending someone is NOT a scumtell

Defending someone for no clear reason is, on the other hand. Why do you assume LT wouldn't want to defend

himself

?

A. I I were scum the LAST THING I would be trying to do would be steering the town AWAY from a mislynch.

Easy on the wine there, fella. As a friendly point of advice, let me tell you this: steer clear from "if I were scum" arguments.

B. I'm not sure it's a mislynch. I just see no evidence that it will be a good lynch.

BACKTRACK ALERT

MAN YOUR STATIONS

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

no seriously, I quoted you a little further up. You said, very clearly, that the LT lynch would be a mislynch.

C. Asking me to PROVE that LT is town is the same as asking someone to PROVE that they aren't scum (then using the fact that they CAN'T as evidence that they ARE scum, or in this case, the fact that I CAN'T prove that he's town as evidence that he's scum):

Oh yes; but while the wiki article shows how it's a fallacy to assume someone's scum if they can't be proven to be town, here no-one assumed such a thing; if you state that someone would be a mislynch, it's a sound logical conclusion to ask why you think that.

freeko is scummy for giving words into Occam's mouth. Possible scumbuddy offering a believable claim.

[freeko]

Korts, I am no more or less scummy for looking at Occam and having the same reaction to it as you do. I just have not gone so far as to vote for him yet. Though you seem to have missed his last response where he made the clarification to his using mislynch instead of bad lynch. Maybe you did not see this. Or are you just trying to make everyone else look bad so you somehow avoid suscpicion?

[Korts]

I'm not really sure I believe the explanation of mislynch=bad lynch in his vocabulary. Mis- is associated with missing (i.e. not scum), IMO.

And by the way, freeko, I just noticed this:

Ok, you still did not answer my question. Are you and LT linked in this game somehow?

Nice fishing for masons here. Noted. You're right, actually; Occam isn't half as scummy as you just know became.

unvote, vote: freeko

[Korts]

EBWOP:

you just now became

[Occam]

And how can you state with such certainty that it would be a mislynch?

Did you read the part where I explained my use of the word, or no?

I went back and reread what they were actually saying, and the quote tags are now correct. So no, I'm not attacking LT for the use of the word "tactics", I am attacking him for stating with seemingly absolute certainty that the choice was clearly random and in no possible way an "under-hand mafia scheme". Defending Rogue with something only Rogue or mafia would know is, IMO, scumlicious.

Not to be a dick but this is really just stupid. As is assuming that because I said mislynch, I KNOW that it's going to be a mislynch. God, you people are really being thick.

Defending someone for no clear reason is, on the other hand. Why do you assume LT wouldn't want to defend himself?

Has he posted since he was attacked? No. And what do you mean NO CLEAR REASON TO DEFEND HIM? THERE'S NO CLEAR REASON TO ATTACK HIM!

BACKTRACK ALERT

MAN YOUR STATIONS

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

no seriously, I quoted you a little further up. You said, very clearly, that the LT lynch would be a mislynch.

OK - here's the deal. When someone says "trying to prevent a mislynh", that doesn't mean they KNOW it's going to be a mislynch. It means they think chances are better than not, based entirely on the random distribution of roles and the fact that there are more town than scum in a typical mafia game, that a person is town if they haven't done something scummy. So no, it isn't a backtrack.

OK, an example. Say we're all avocado ranchers (yes, avocados are ranched, not farmed, and Tom Selleck is an avocado rancher so you know it's cool). We've all got outdoor ranches, and one day I watch the weather channel, which says a frost is coming. So I harvest my avocados - but none of the other farmers watch the weather channel, so they don't know the frost is coming. Then the other farmers ask "Why'd you harvest your crops early?" And I say "because I want to prevent them from being ruined by a frost". Well, my saying that doesn't mean that I KNOW a frost is coming, just like the weather channel is often wrong (in this case, the frost does come and it ruins all your avocados. Sorry.) - but without any evidence to believe a frost ISN'T coming, and the probability of the weather channel being correct because they DO have evidence, I'm gonna bank on them being right and save my crops.

In the above example, the weather channel is the setup, where there are almost certainly more town than scum - and I have no reason to believe that LT is scum at the moment, so by probability I'm going to assume he is town - just as I assume everyone is town, because of that same probability, until they do something that is actually scummy. Additionally, just because I SAID I want to prevent my crops from being ruined by a frost DOES NOT mean that I know it's going to happen, just like my saying that I want to prevent a mislynch DOES NOT mean I know that it will be a mislynch. However, I henceforth pledge to attempt not to use the words "mislynch" and "bad lynch" interchangeably.

Now that that's cleared up I'm going to go make some guacamole.

[raider8169]

False dilemma? Neither, actually, just trying to prevent a mislynch.

What makes you so sure the lynching LT would be a mislynch? What evidence is there that LT is town?

If there was proof this would be much easier. There is not going to be solid proof otherwise everyone would be voting or not voting the person depending on what proof is known.

Not removing your vote is not a bad thing it causes discussions and that is always good. I am a reserved voter as in I normaly do not vote unless I have reason too. However I have learned its the people that toss their votes around that get people talking and in the end figure out the best people to lynch.

[Korts]

Did you read the part where I explained my use of the word, or no?

I read it after freeko pointed it out, and I'm not sure I believe it. It does change my perspective a little, though.

Not to be a dick but this is really just stupid. As is assuming that because I said mislynch, I KNOW that it's going to be a mislynch. God, you people are really being thick

Hum. Really, let's take this point by point. Do you, or do you not agree that what LT seemed to be absolutely certain about isn't something that is public knowledge? If you do: do you agree that knowing something not publicly known, especially about the setup, implies scum knowledge? If so: doesn't knowing something scum would know imply that HE IS SCUM? No offense, but you're being the thick one here.

Has he posted since he was attacked? No. And what do you mean NO CLEAR REASON TO DEFEND HIM? THERE'S NO CLEAR REASON TO ATTACK HIM!

That is BS plain and clear. There was no

stated

reason to attack him. Unexplained bandwagons are a very good tool for finding implications of connections, like when you jumped to LT's aid.

Also, why not wait until he posts? If he hasn't posted since he was attacked, he hasn't had a chance to defend himself, which he surely would want to give a shot. By defending him, you're both putting words in his mouth and intimidating people off his wagon; the most likely reason I see for this is that you are scum either trying to buddy up to LTtown, tying yourself to LTtown for later purposes, or simply defending a scumbuddy.

I'll lay off the mislynch thing, because there's nothing new in that discussion, but I don't know if your defense should be believed.

[Occam]

Do you, or do you not agree that what LT seemed to be absolutely certain about isn't something that is public knowledge?

Sure, he seemed to think that it wasn't a "scheme" - but guess what? So do I! Do YOU think it was a scheme? That it wasn't a random choice? Will LT coming back and saying he wasn't certain, but that that is the most obviously reasonable thing to assume given the information that we have, change anything in your thinking?

What I find HILARIOUS about this is that LT's post that's generated all this is actually

an attack on MM for seeming to be certain about something!!!

Why aren't you attacking MM for this:

Like Prom King said, it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early, but having someone defend the tactics worries me.

Isn't MM expressing a level of "certainty" in calling it a tactic? LT seems to think so - I do not. But the point is, you're attacking LT for the same thing he attacked MM for - and if you think his attack is unreasonable, you should be able to figure out that yours is too.

If you do: do you agree that knowing something not publicly known, especially about the setup, implies scum knowledge? If so: doesn't knowing something scum would know imply that HE IS SCUM? No offense, but you're being the thick one here.

WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM. And no, it's still you being thick. Thing is, even within your WIFOM, he's "certain" that it's NOT something scum did - so you can WIFOM that whatever way you want to and it still sucks as a point.

That is BS plain and clear. There was no stated reason to attack him. Unexplained bandwagons are a very good tool for finding implications of connections, like when you jumped to LT's aid.

No. That's something that I wish there was a solid experienced player here to explain to you why your thinking is massively flawed, but it's almost entirely noobs in this game. Basically, you cannot assume people are "connected" because one is defending the other. That's noob.

Also, why not wait until he posts? If he hasn't posted since he was attacked, he hasn't had a chance to defend himself, which he surely would want to give a shot. By defending him, you're both putting words in his mouth and intimidating people off his wagon; the most likely reason I see for this is that you are scum either trying to buddy up to LTtown, tying yourself to LTtown for later purposes, or simply defending a scumbuddy.

No. I would sit here and wait for him to defend himself IF I didn't think the attackers were scummy for their attacks - if it was a reasonable point you were bringing against him I'd certainly allow him or any other player to defend themselves instead of speaking for them. But that's not what I'm doing here - I'm actually attacking YOU and Rhinox and MM via and because of your bogus play. It's more an act of scumhunting than it is a defense, if you read closely.

Honestly, given what we know right now, I really think you'd have to be either scum or dumb to assume RS's choice was anything but random, and that's why I can't even imagine you seriously trying to press an attack on LT for stating what's obvious. Hey, keep it up though.

[Korts]

Occam--here's the thing. What LT said, basically, is that there is no chance at all that it

wasn't

a random choice. Sure, chances are that it was, but there is no reason to exclude the possibility of scum motives. And MM specifically said

unlikely

whereas LT excluded a scenario that is entirely possible. Yes it's a minor point, but looking around before that post of LT's there really wasn't anything better to push.

And shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is stupid and won't get you anywhere. Just because something looks like circular logic, there may be clear differences in town and scum motivation if you look closer. So please shut the fuck up for a moment and consider things not just for what they are, but what they could be and how they would make sense. IMO scum are more probably going to slip up on something like LT did.

[Occam]

And shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is stupid and won't get you anywhere.

You did the same thing when I used WIFOM. It's not stupid, it;s what you do when there is WIFOM.

I see what you're saying about the difference in MM's and LT's posts - but you're reading the wrong part of MM's post. Here is what you read:

it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early

Yes, he used unlikely there.

having someone defend the tactics worries me.

Here he uses "tactic", which implies that he thinks it was a "tactic", which is the same as LT saying he thinks it wasn't a "scheme". Then MM says:

The only way you could know if there was a scheme or if it was random choice is if you were scum, a townie would not know the difference.

As long as we can agree that "scheme" and "tactic" are essentially the same thing in this context (because they are), MM just contradicted his own thinking.

Plus, as I have stated multiple times, I don't buy that argument anyways.

So please shut the fuck up for a moment and consider things not just for what they are, but what they could be and how they would make sense. IMO scum are more probably going to slip up on something like LT did.

I would if I thought anything you have said is valid, but I obviously don't.

[Rhinox]

I'm actually attacking... Rhinox ...via and because of your bogus play. It's more an act of scumhunting than it is a defense, if you read closely.

I've been trying to wait for LT to post something before I do this, but whatever...

Unexplained bandwagons DO serve a purpose Occam, especially on D1. Lots of purposes actually. You can see what type of response you get from the person being bandwagoned, you can see who jumps on the wagon and why, you can see who ignores the wagon all together, you can see or supports the wagon but doesn't vote, you can see who is vocally opposed to the wagon and why, etc... All of this is valuable information to keep tucked away until later in the game when concrete information is known about players roles, and then logical conclusions can be made.

That being said, lets talk about why you suspect me... first, it was because I didn't justify the case for the wagon on LT. Well, seeing as my vote was random and the first vote on LT, I'm not really part of the wagon. My vote should be analyzed separately from the rest of the bandwagon votes.

Ok, so then it was because I didn't remove my vote from LT after the wagon started, so it must mean I agree with it and support it. Well think about it... leaving my vote on LT during the wagon gives us the opportunity to get answers to the questions I posted in the first paragraph in this post. Removing my vote... does nothing. It removes pressure from LT, preventing any type of a reaction. It might stop others (possibly scum) from jumping on the wagon, and possibly stalls the game. Yes, LT might have possibly been lynched - He could be town, or he could be scum. But even if he were town, the information gained from the quick, unjustified lynch of a townie would be worth the loss of a townie on day 1 (which I believe I've been told that site wide, day 1 ends with a townie lynch something like 60-80% of the time anyways).

What you've done by defending LT is choke the town of valuable information. Because of you, LT hasn't had to respond to the bandwagon, and probably doesn't view it as a threat. What we do learn is that you're furiosly opposed to the wagon on LT. That might mean you and LT are scum partners, that might might mean that you're scum trying to earn "good townie" points by defending a town player -or- it might mean you're town that thinks there is scum on LT's wagon, or you're newbie town that doesn't understand the utility of D1 bandwagons, or you're just a townie making a stupid move by not letting LT speak for himself and possibly make a mistake. Afterall, if you're town, for all you know LT could be scum so you might as well use this bandwagon (even if you feel its unjustified) as a way to get a read on LT before assuming the wagon is bad, right? Because if you're town, you don't know whether LT is scum or not, right?

Here's another way to consider this. Think of it as analogous to the chicken or the egg dilemna - if we all had to have definitive evidence before we voted someone, then we would never vote anyone. If nobody ever voted, then scum would never give us any tells we could use as evidence.

Now that I've explained all this, the utility of my vote on the LT wagon has run its course. I don't see anything scummy about how LT has acted so far, but I was hoping this wagon would give us something to get a better read on him. I've taken note of who jumped on the wagon, and who ignored the wagon, for later when we know more about all the players invloved. I find Occam scummy for defending LT. Yes, Occam, defending LT in the manner you did is scummy, because instead of trying to determine which, if any, of the 5 players voting for LT might be scum, you put out a blanket statement "The wagon is bad and everyone voting for LT is scummy" when clearly all 5 players can't be scum in a mini. However, I find freeko scummier.

unvote, vote: freeko

[Occam]

Unexplained bandwagons DO serve a purpose Occam, especially on D1. Lots of purposes actually. You can see what type of response you get from the person being bandwagoned, you can see who jumps on the wagon and why, you can see who ignores the wagon all together, you can see or supports the wagon but doesn't vote, you can see who is vocally opposed to the wagon and why, etc... All of this is valuable information to keep tucked away until later in the game when concrete information is known about players roles, and then logical conclusions can be made.

100% agree - and the information I am getting from this bandwagon is:

there is scum on LT's wagon

So yes, it was productive in that manner. As far as carrying it out to a lynch, that would be nonsensical without evidence.

[quote="Rhinox]
Yes, Occam, defending LT in the manner you did is scummy, because instead of trying to determine which, if any, of the 5 players voting for LT might be scum, you put out a blanket statement "The wagon is bad and everyone voting for LT is scummy" when clearly all 5 players can't be scum in a mini.
[/quote]

Don't agree. There are probably somewhere between 2 and 3 scum. MM, Korts, and Kiro are the scummiest of the 5 on the wagon. Does that mean the other 2 aren't suspicious? No. Does it mean any of those 5 are automatically scum? Also no. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to hold back a vote on something I consider scummy.

Here - I can see what you're saying about why you'd want to leave a vote on someone, for pressure. It makes sense, most of the time - but it makes a lot more sense if the person you leave your vote on has done something scummy. Rhinox - do YOU think what LT did was scummy?

I see leaving a vote on someone being bandwagoned as an easy way for scum to justify being on a bandwagon. It's very convenient for you, if you're scum, that the bandwagon formed on the person who you had a random vote on. Does that make you scum? No, but I still find it suspicious.

However, you've moved your vote. Can I ask why you think freek is scum? You've laid out a page long summary of why you think I'm scummy, and not mentioned freek, but then said he's scummier. I agree that freek's question about me and LT being "connected" is suspicious - but is that the reason you're voting him? Anything else to add on that?

[MonkeyMan576]

As long as we can agree that "scheme" and "tactic" are essentially the same thing in this context (because they are), MM just contradicted his own thinking.

I didn't contradict myself. What I said was it worries me that someone would defend choosing a path without majority consensus, but from a logical standpoint it's unlikely a scum would do that. It doesn't mean it's impossible, or that it's not worth concern.

At any rate. I think it would be a good idea to try pushing some new people for info. Role fishing is scummy.

Unvote
Vote: Freeko

[Rhinox]

Rhinox - do YOU think what LT did was scummy?

Now that I've explained all this, the utility of my vote on the LT wagon has run its course.

I don't see anything scummy about how LT has acted so far, but I was hoping this wagon would give us something to get a better read on him.

I've taken note of who jumped on the wagon, and who ignored the wagon, for later when we know more about all the players invloved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see leaving a vote on someone being bandwagoned as an easy way for scum to justify being on a bandwagon. It's very convenient for you, if you're scum, that the bandwagon formed on the person who you had a random vote on. Does that make you scum? No, but I still find it suspicious.

Its not convenient for me at all, if I'm scum, or if I'm town. By calling me scummy for leaving my vote on LT, you're assuming 2 things - that I'm scum, and LT is town. There are 3 other scenarios. Consider this... I leave my vote on LT, and he's quick lynched and scum. What does that mean? What if I remove my vote because of the bandwagon, and LT is scum? What if we're both town? There are just too many possibilities, and too many WIFOM angles, based on too many assumptions you can't possibly know are accurate, for me leaving my vote on LT to be anything more than a null tell. Using certain assumptions, you could come to the conclusion that I'm scummy regardless of whether or not I immediately removed my vote. But instead of worrying about which decision would make me look scummier, I made my decision based on what choice would provide the most information to the town - and keeping my vote and allowing the bandwagon to continue provided more information than removing my vote and playing the WIFOM game of who's scummy for bandwagoning LT.

There are probably somewhere between 2 and 3 scum. MM, Korts, and Kiro are the scummiest of the 5 on the wagon. Does that mean the other 2 aren't suspicious? No. Does it mean any of those 5 are automatically scum? Also no. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to hold back a vote on something I consider scummy.

Strange that you can come to that conclusion without even knowing whether LT is town or scum... Do you think 2 or 3 scum are on LT's wagon if LT is scum? In either case, I find it unlikely that there would be so many scum out of just 5 votes on LT's wagon. I would be suprised if there were 2 scum out of the 4 other players (besides myself), probably either 1 or none.

However, you've moved your vote. Can I ask why you think freek is scum? You've laid out a page long summary of why you think I'm scummy, and not mentioned freek, but then said he's scummier. I agree that freek's question about me and LT being "connected" is suspicious - but is that the reason you're voting him? Anything else to add on that?

Freeko was fishing. Hard, and obviously. He used an invalid assumption that you and LT are scum mates (based on nothing more than you defending LT) to try to pry more information out of you about your role.

Aside from that, freeko hasn't really done much. He hasn't been scumhunting, and he's thrown out Japanese proverbs that seem like nothing more than a charade to try to make himself look smart. But the biggest thing is that in his 7th post (looking in isolation), he viewied the LT bandwagon as nothing more than "a play to get some information from the player that is bandwagoned", but came to the conclusion that you and LT are BOTH scum based on nothing more than your defense of the LT wagon, and used that to attempt to fish out more information about your role. I mean, what was he expecting you to say? "Oh you're right, freeko, LT and I ARE scum partners... you got us!" Not likely...

[Occam]

OK - Rhinox has cleared up my issues concerning him. Thanks.

I've said enough for awhile and I'd like to hear what the recent replacement makes of all this.

[freeko]

Rhinox, where do you get the idea that I had them pegged as scum-mates? For all I know they could be lovers. I love how you make this attempt at turning my questioning completely sideways here.

First you say..

"there is scum on LT's wagon" .. i suck at quoting, so meh.

Then you say I am the one thats fishing?

Which one is it? Is there scum on LT's wagon? Or am I scum now, because I was exploring the possibility of a link between LT and Occam? If you missed a MINOR little detail, I do not have my vote on Occam. Nor did my vote ever get placed on Occam at any point.

[MonkeyMan576]

Rhinox, where do you get the idea that I had them pegged as scum-mates? For all I know they could be lovers. I love how you make this attempt at turning my questioning completely sideways here.

First you say..

"there is scum on LT's wagon" .. i suck at quoting, so meh.

Then you say I am the one thats fishing?

Which one is it? Is there scum on LT's wagon? Or am I scum now, because I was exploring the possibility of a link between LT and Occam? If you missed a MINOR little detail, I do not have my vote on Occam. Nor did my vote ever get placed on Occam at any point.

Either scummates or lovers, it's still rolefishing, and still scummy on your part.

[Sipylus]

I'm just going to try and post once every RL day I think, plus any quick responses or questions I think are urgent.

To paraphrase the activity in the thread since my last post -

* Squabble squabble about semantics. (Often valid, in this case not productive afaic so far.)
* The LT wagon produced no response from LT, but lots of responses from others. (File for later.)
* WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM - would you like some whine with your WIFOM? (Get over it, its not cool to just say 'WIFOM' all the time, nor is it meaningful. Its like swearing all the time, when you mean it, its all just a little hollow.)
* Occam has a go at several peeps, asks questions and gets answers. Go Occam. Go Questions. Go Answers. Go Team!
* Since LT wagon is now effectively broken, let's wagon someone else. Like freeko, for fishing (I'm not condoning fishing with this point.)

Freeko was fishing. Hard, and obviously. He used an invalid assumption that you and LT are scum mates (based on nothing more than you defending LT) to try to pry more information out of you about your role.

Aside from that, freeko hasn't really done much. He hasn't been scumhunting, and he's thrown out Japanese proverbs that seem like nothing more than a charade to try to make himself look smart.

Forget the fishing for a moment. This second part is scummy. Lurking, cruising, posting with no real output or production. This is the important part. I'm going to

Vote:freeko

. I'm still not cool with MM, but I guess I'm on the wagon.

OK - Rhinox has cleared up my issues concerning him. Thanks.

Occam

- So uh, did you unvote somewhere and I just missed it? If RX has cleared his issues, why are you still voting for him? Is he still scummy for other reasons you haven't raised with us yet?

vote : rogue shenanigans

for choosing a path without asking anyone else. Maybe it is you who hangs from the lynching tree?

Korts, I am no more or less scummy for looking at Occam and having the same reaction to it as you do. I just have not gone so far as to vote for him yet. Though you seem to have missed his last response where he made the clarification to his using mislynch instead of bad lynch. Maybe you did not see this. Or are you just trying to make everyone else look bad so you somehow avoid suscpicion?

freeko

- You don't seem to have found anyone better to vote for, and your vote on RS seems jokish? Why didn't you vote for Occam? Or is your vote on RS serious?

[Sipylus]

EBWOP: I forgot

4> All votes must be unvoted before the next vote is counted. Votes reset each day.

Apologies -

Unvote, Vote:freeko

[Occam]

Mmm. Yeah, I guess I should have unvoted there.

unvote - vote: freeko

The freeko wagon actually seems like it will produce something worthwhile. He' done something scummy, in asking me a loaded question about being connected to LT, and then trying to justify it by saying he thought we might be lovers... how is knowing that going to help the town?

[Rhinox]

"there is scum on LT's wagon" .. i suck at quoting, so meh.

You do suck at quoting, because thats not what I said... Here is what I did say:

I would be suprised if there were 2 scum out of the 4 other players (besides myself), probably either 1 or none.

...and the implication is that we need more information before we can come to any sort of conclusions about who was on the LT wagon.

What you did, was selectively quote what Occam selectively quoted from this statement:

it might mean you're town that thinks there is scum on LT's wagon

which was 1 of my 5 given possible explanations for why Occam might be defending LT, other than that they are connected.

In other, simpler words... this is a scummy misrep.

Rhinox, where do you get the idea that I had them pegged as scum-mates? For all I know they could be lovers. I love how you make this attempt at turning my questioning completely sideways here.

Actually, I got the idea that you had them pegged as connected, by numerous statements like this one:

The only thing you are telling me is that the 2 of you are linked somehow. Lovers? Scummates? Help yourself out here.

It wouldn't have been quite as scummy if you did say you thought they were scummates - then, its only using false assumptions to come to a possibly incorrect conclusion. However, you just openly stated you don't necessarily think they are scum mates and you just think they are connected in some other way, by role. Way to openly confess to role fishing...

If you missed a MINOR little detail, I do not have my vote on Occam. Nor did my vote ever get placed on Occam at any point.

ok... so I guess that means I can add fence-sitting to your list of scummy offenses. You did say this:

I am truly considring moving my vote either onto you or onto the bandwagon for LT, as it seems to have gotten a reaction out of you. I cant help but think that LT is playing the silent lurker scum while you are playing the more vocal of the group trying to convince everyone else that others within the group are worth more attnetion than your scummate?

Definate fence-sitting, while giving yourself an opportunity to jump on whichever wagon you felt like later, based on, again, the assumption that Occam and LT are scum partners. So maybe this was the post that gave me that idea

Any other straws you want to grasp at, scum?