Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[don_johnson]

vote: springlullaby

for active lurking. get in here.

[TonyMontana]

Vote Count

Post two, page three, the third VC
The scum will see, they cannot flee
But as we count, there's worth to note
more change in voters, than in votes

Budja

(2) RedCoyote, Ice9

springlullaby

(2) magisterrain, don_johnson

don_johnson

(1) Azhrei

fhqwhgads

(1) Goatrevolt

Ice9

(1) Spolium

magisterrain

(1) WolfBlitzer

RedCoyote

(1) fhqwhgads

WolfBlitzer

(1) Budja

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

springlullaby prodded

[springlullaby]

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

Content in sitting back and waiting for someone to slip up so you can pounce on a mistake. This is not townie behavior. More like scum not trying to get their hands dirty.

Vote:Springlullaby

I am however, willing to accept Budja's retraction. I just get this funny feeling that he's being the scapegoat here...

...speaking of which, if he IS the scapegoat, I find it interesting that Goatrevolt is pushing him the hardest. It by no means is a scumtell, but if Budja just made a mistake (and taking Spolium's word for it, not for the first time), your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum.

I think the ones we should be looking at, are the lurkers. If we are just townies fighting among ourselves, the ones winning is scum lurking and waiting for us to string up one of our own.

How is Budja the scapegoat at all? Turning this into a lurker hunt only gets us distracted from our current discussion which is very informational.

FOS: Fhqwhgads

[Goatrevolt]

vote: springlullaby

for active lurking. get in here.

Got anything to say about the rest of the game?

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

How pro-town of you...

Lurking, and testing the patience of others are generally the first two virtues I look for when identifying townies, and I'm glad to see springlullaby is willing to unashamedly display both early on. My only disappointment is the lack of a bandwagon vote with weak or nonexistant reasoning. Then she would have been practically confirmed town.

In all seriousness, though, you literally have no opinions on anything that's happened so far? I'm having a hard time buying that. What's keeping you from promoting a different line of discussion?

FoS Springlullaby

[Budja]

Look at all the comments and suspicions flying on the previous page Springlullaby, if you have no opinion you are either have to be lying or haven't read the thread properly.

[RedCoyote]

For post 77,

FoS: springlullaby

If she can explain how her "sitting back and watching" helps this town at all, I'll gladly remove my suspicions of her.

[Azhrei]

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

So you admit to lurking? You admit to sitting here, watching the discussion and not contributing? Come on. How is that pro-town in any way? I don't see it to be.

Vote: springlullaby

As to the whole budja thing... Jesus christ. I'm not sure what's really happened with it all, I got lost somewhere, and I'm gonna have to reread before I comment, and that's not happening tonight.

That said, I find it odd how you all jumped on fhq, but I'm not quite sure what happened there either, so I can't comment till I reread. (Still not happening tonight)

[Ice9]

I didn't think that it was a terribly productive way to ascertain the reasoning behind Budja's actions, for reasons which I've stated already.

So instead of oh, I don't know, trying to find a more productive way of ascertaining Budja's reasoning, you tried to shoot down Goat's attempt to do so? What, are you allergic to scum hunting?

I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.

Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Budja.

Scum actively try to avoid appearing anti-town - I've found this to be universal. To say my comment is "a WIFOM

mess

" is something of an exaggeration.

You're using your opinion - and yes its an opinion, not a fact - as this general brain sink to avoid actually analyzing Budja's actions. Saying "its anti-town but not scummy" explains absolutely zero. And yes, it is WIFOM, and I'll call it a mess if I want to.

Not quite. My point was that he couldn't answer the question in a meaningful way

Every answer to every question is meaningful in some way, and trying to get someone to

not

answer a question is only stifling the flow of information.

so the only way he could expand upon this would be to guess how a group of individuals (most of whom he hasn't played with before) would react to either of these. He would basically be guessing, and be open to criticism not in the sense that he would be implicated, but in that there would be no "right" answer to give.

The way in which he speculated could have been helpful in diagnosing whether he is pro or anti-town, but now it won't be since you gave him such an overt in thread warning to stay the hell away from the topic because its a minefield.

No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?

Well when you call somebody

wishy-washy and vague

or at least liken him to somebody who's play you characterize in such a way, I just assume that like the rest of us you find wishy-washy and vague to be indicative of trying to cover something up, like for instance an alignment which is anti-town.

My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.

But you are providing a totally uncalled for meta defense. Got it.

I

really

don't like this. Your flagrant misrepresentation of my arguments

How have a misrepresented your arguments. Please, demonstrate this to me. Because it seems to me that all that has happened here is, you bolded what you perceived to be the weakest part of my points and responded to these (I believe thats called... strawmanning, is it?... and responded to these by simply restating your same points in more words

(not to mention loaded language - see the bold text in the above quotes) concerns me a great deal.

If you'd like to try and prove that my

writing style

somehow makes me scum, I'm all ears.

Aggressive play is one thing, but it looks like you're just casting suspicion around in the hopes that something will stick

Oh no no no, now you're the one making misrepresentations. I am casting suspicion in very specific directions, and not simply "hoping that something will stick," I am driving home the point to make sure that it does. Nobody will be able to miss this post.

(not to mention throwing your vote at an existing case without contributing anything of substance).

Ok, did you not see the part where I spoke of my agreement with the case already in place against Budja? If every single person voting for someone had to bring some new, unique piece of data forward we would very likely never get anywhere at all. We can't all be the shepherd, my friend. On a bandwagon, somebody has to play sheep.

This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), and

he hasn't posted elsewhere since then

, even in his other active game.

This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.

Talk about loaded language. Well, excuse me for not checking site wide player logs before making a comment. My point that he is dropping, and has dropped, off of the communal radar is still valid.

WHOOPS I GUESS I'M PROTECTING WOLFBITZER NOW TOO, RIGHT?

WHOOPS I GUESS WHEN YOU SARCASTICALLY REFERENCE YOUR FIRST MISTAKE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IT ACTS AS DAMAGE CONTROL, RIGHT?

---

Spring really needs to step it up, however I can't help but feel that she's just an easy scapegoat for people who are otherwise unwilling to participate in the larger debate going on around them. Primarily don_johnson and Azhrei seem to be guilty of this.

And how can we forget good old Budja, who offered up this deliciously hypocritical critique of Spring:

Look at all the comments and suspicions flying on the previous page Springlullaby, if you have no opinion you are either have to be lying or haven't read the thread properly.

Why, my good fellow, you obviously gave all of the "comments and suspicions flying" at least a cursory glance, so why, when you don't seem to have an opinion or any comment yourself, do you feel it is necessary to go out of your way to take a potshot at Springlullaby for the exact same thing?

[Goatrevolt]

Spring really needs to step it up, however I can't help but feel that she's just an easy scapegoat for people who are otherwise unwilling to participate in the larger debate going on around them. Primarily don_johnson and Azhrei seem to be guilty of this.

Based on the number of people coming out of the woodworks to vote/fos springlullaby for something they are equally as guilty of (but not willing to openly admit) I'd have to agree here. I'm bothered by the people willing to jump on Spring's post, but yet unwilling to soil their hands with the other discussion.

So you admit to lurking? You admit to sitting here, watching the discussion and not contributing? Come on. How is that pro-town in any way? I don't see it to be.

You've lurked through the entirety of the discussion as well. How is SL's play scummier than your own simply by virtue of her admitting it willingly?

Look at all the comments and suspicions flying on the previous page Springlullaby, if you have no opinion you are either have to be lying or haven't read the thread properly.

Ice nailed the hypocrisy here.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually, it looks like Azhrei hadn't posted at all on mafiascum between his two posts in this thread, which makes his post less hypocritical.

At any rate, I'd like to see him take a more solid stance on Budja/fhq.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

I feel more weighed towards Ice's arguments. I feel most of his points are valid, excluding the statement that since Wolf hasn't been talking it increases the suspicion of him. But overall, I feel Ice is giving off a strong pro-town vibe. The reason for this is because he's really not holding back in his distribution of suspicions. He's called out numerous people on their contradictions. My opinion, not fact, is that scum tend to limit their focus as to avoid drawing attention from multiple townies. Though this could be the aggressive playstyle of a new player, I still buy it for now.

My one grief with Spolium is the fact that by getting into the large argument about semantics with Goat, you basically spoke on behalf of Budja. This really spared Budja from true inspection. I do agree that some of his points came off as more defensive than from an unbiased townie's perspective such as the meta analysis.

[springlullaby]

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

So you admit to lurking? You admit to sitting here, watching the discussion and not contributing? Come on. How is that pro-town in any way? I don't see it to be.

Vote: springlullaby

As to the whole budja thing... Jesus christ. I'm not sure what's really happened with it all, I got lost somewhere, and I'm gonna have to reread before I comment, and that's not happening tonight.

That said, I find it odd how you all jumped on fhq, but I'm not quite sure what happened there either, so I can't comment till I reread. (Still not happening tonight)

Surely, if you had something better to discuss, you wouldn't be voting for a lurker. Or is your vote simply a convenient one?

I have an opinion alright, but nothing I feel strongly about, so I'm not wasting my breath. For the time being, I'm happy to watch. What you makes of it doesn't concerns me.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

Thought you weren't an active lurker? Well now you are. It's such a convenient excuse that you're happy to watch. The next end game I'm in I'll have to be sure to use it.

[springlullaby]

Nope, an active lurker create the deception of contribution by posting no-content.

I never claimed I was contributing in the first place.

[Spolium]

So instead of oh, I don't know, trying to find a more productive way of ascertaining Budja's reasoning, you tried to shoot down Goat's attempt to do so?

I've already stated what I thought would've been more productive, and the reason for which that strategy would be ineffective at this point should be resoundingly clear.

It hardly seems surprising that you selectively edited that part of my post out of your reply.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the two, since townies can easily and unintentionally do things which are anti-town.

Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Budja.

This comment had nothing to do with making excuses for Budja; you questioned my position, and I tried to clarify it.

You're using your opinion - and yes its an opinion, not a fact - as this general brain sink to avoid actually analyzing Budja's actions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - that townies never do things which are interpreted as (or actually

are

) anti-town? That scum don't actively avoid to appear anti-town?

Your claim that I'm avoiding analysis of Budja's actions is unwarranted. Just because I don't analyse a player in the same manner that you do does

not

mean that I've avoided analysing them.

Saying "its anti-town but not scummy" explains absolutely zero. And yes, it is WIFOM, and I'll call it a mess if I want to.

To say something can be anti-town but not scummy might not explain much in and of itself, but the point of saying it in the first place was to explain my position. You can consider his actions scummy all you wish, but I would prefer to reserve my judgement in this case.

As for WIFOM, spare me. Even if it is, that hardly invalidates my point completely; I'm considering what both scum

and

town would do in this situation, as I do anything which appears anti-town. If anything, I find myself wondering why you're so quick to call out WIFOM.

Every answer to every question is meaningful in some way, and trying to get someone to

not

answer a question is only stifling the flow of information.

I wouldn't have criticised the question if I didn't think it stifled information in and of itself.

The way in which he speculated could have been helpful in diagnosing whether he is pro or anti-town, but now it won't be since you gave him such an overt in thread warning to stay the hell away from the topic because its a minefield.

Budja's lack of in-depth answer is currently revealing information through the reactions of other players. The way in others are deviating from his case is giving us further information. This arguably tells us more than a direct answer from Budja would.

As I said before, I don't think this excuses Budja from elaborating further, and I'm still waiting to see what else he has to say about it. At this point his lack of further defence is piquing my interest far more than his initial actions.

No, I don't think he looks particularly scummy. Where did you get that idea?

Well when you call somebody

wishy-washy and vague

or at least liken him to somebody who's play you characterize in such a way, I just assume that like the rest of us you find wishy-washy and vague to be indicative of trying to cover something up, like for instance an alignment which is anti-town.

I don't find this to be the case, necessarily (and certainly not in the context of the meta-argument which I was making). I would consider "wishy-washy and vague" to be

odd/noteworthy

behaviour, but townies can act this way as well. If, for example, they're testing strategies for pinpointing scum and are called out by someone who feels their play is 'off', their answer tends to be dissatisfactory.

My argument was that in my experience Budja has played like this as town, and to say that he's proven himself perceptive and capable where necessary is a far cry from claiming he's the best player we have.

But you are providing a totally uncalled for meta defense. Got it.

How exactly is meta "uncalled for" in this case? It's entirely relevant to the argument which people are making against Budja.

Your hypocrisy in arguing that I shouldn't "stifle questions" while telling me meta arguments should not be used is duly noted.

I

really

don't like this. Your flagrant misrepresentation of my arguments

How have a misrepresented your arguments. Please, demonstrate this to me. Because it seems to me that all that has happened here is, you bolded what you perceived to be the weakest part of my points and responded to these (I believe thats called... strawmanning, is it?... and responded to these by simply restating your same points in more words

I've already demonstrated where you misrepresented my arguments. Asking me to do it again is a redundant exercise, and smacks of an attempt to pull this around in circles.

Strawman arguments are indeed attacks on

perversions

of the opponent's argument. You know - like when you said that I think "

budja looks scummy but he's actually secretly the best player we have

" in an attempt to invalidate my meta-argument, or where you state that the emboldened sections in my last post comprised what I was responding to (where their actual purpose was clearly highlighted towards the end of my post).

(not to mention loaded language - see the bold text in the above quotes) concerns me a great deal.

If you'd like to try and prove that my

writing style

somehow makes me scum, I'm all ears.

Now

this

is a strawman argument.

The fact that you use manipulative loaded language to create the impression of scumminess on my part would not be so relevant if it was the

only

reason for my suspicion - you would have a point, were this the case - but as it happens, this serves to support my suspicions. It is not scummy in and of itself any more than being wishy-washy is scummy in and of itself.

I am casting suspicion in very specific directions, and not simply "hoping that something will stick," I am driving home the point to make sure that it does.

Okay, you have a point here - consider this retracted. I thought you'd placed FoS on more than a couple of people, but a reread suggests I was mistaken.

Ok, did you not see the part where I spoke of my agreement with the case already in place against Budja? If every single person voting for someone had to bring some new, unique piece of data forward we would very likely never get anywhere at all. We can't all be the shepherd, my friend. On a bandwagon, somebody has to play sheep.

Okay, bandwagoning noted.

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

This was the last game in which WolfBlitzer posted (on 31/01/09), and

he hasn't posted elsewhere since then

, even in his other active game.

This is a ridiculously insidious way to drum up suspicion against someone.

Talk about loaded language.

What's loaded about it? Calling someone out on inactivity during a general state of inactivity is an underhanded and manipulative way to cast further suspicion.

Well, excuse me for not checking site wide player logs before making a comment.

Step 1: Click "profile" on a WolfBlitzer post
Step 2: Click "Find all posts by WolfBlitzer"

That's all it would take. This is a standard feature for forums, with which it seems you are highly likely to be familiar. Why brush this off as something minor? Evidently you are not considering the possibilities, which implies either tunnel vision or an agenda on your part.

My point that he is dropping, and has dropped, off of the communal radar is still valid.

Until WolfBlitzer returns (assuming he is not replaced, which seems increasingly likely) there is not a great deal we can do about it. Personally I'd be more concerned about Springlullaby's lurking - although I find her comments in #77 interesting - as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play - RC's comment in #81 reflects my own feelings.

That said, I am against a lurker hunt at this point and find myself a great deal more curious about Ice9 and Goat's agreement about suspicion on FHQ, and their respective FoS/vote based on #67. Between posts 83 and 84, they agree that they "

can't help but feel that she's just an easy scapegoat for people who are otherwise unwilling to participate in the larger debate going on around them

". Goat more or less parrots this with the statement "

I'm bothered by the people willing to jump on Spring's post, but yet unwilling to soil their hands with the other discussion.

".

What's basically being argued by each party is this:

FHQ:

I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat:

We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is giving potential scum an easy ride.

The stated argument of the latter party seems to be a more reserved version of that presented by the former, but the implication of both arguments is essentially the same - that the case on the "scapegoat" is likely mistaken, that it is potentially aiding scum, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis. The only substantial difference I see is that FHQ was more explicit about the "

what if you're mistaken

" aspect. Goat and Ice9 attacked FHQ for this, then presented what is essentially the same argument in regard to Spring.

Goat also called FHQ out on "

If we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" (except, of course, with the "if" removed... taking the statement entirely out of context). Ice9 apparently agrees.

Suspicious hypocrisy - check.
Possible buddying - check.

FoS Goat

- check.

[Ice9]

Continuing to butt heads with Spolium isn't going to get us anywhere today, as its not him I even want lynched.

So lets try a different tack:

@

don_johnson

: Why did you unvote Budja when you did? Why haven't you mentioned him since then?

@

Springlullaby

: Who do you think is the most likely to be

town

based solely on reactions to your contributions, specifically.

@

Lynx The Antithesis

: On a scale of one to ten, where one is surely town and ten is surely scum, please give me a number quantifying your level of suspicion of Goatrevolt.

@

Azhrei

: Could you please explain this comment:

That said, I find it odd how you all jumped on fhq

Who is "you all," and why is it odd? And once you have reread, I'd like to know whether you think the things fhq was being jumped on

because of

make him more likely to be scum, or to be town, in your opinion.

@

RedCoyote

: If you had to choose right now, totally by yourself, who the lynch would be today, who would you choose?

[don_johnson]

@

don_johnson

: Why did you unvote Budja when you did? Why haven't you mentioned him since then?

i don't think a poetic slip was worth the continued pressure. had we continued in poetry form it is hard to say whether or not my vote would have stuck, but what good would it do for me to push budja? i have made the mistake before of harping on a players early game mistakes. one scum tell does not a scum make.

personally, i think your attack on spolium is a bit over the top. it is always good to question players when they are defending someone, but i think you are making more out of spolium's defense of budja than need be(at this point). patterns are one thing, but i appreciate it when players point out flaws in others arguments.

SL: your posting is eerily reminiscent of your last game with me, however, incomplete meta is a terrible reason to vote someone.

unvote

i am going to reread this thread and post more at the end of the weekend. i will be v/la for a bit as i have some rl to catch up on.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

@

Lynx The Antithesis

: On a scale of one to ten, where one is surely town and ten is surely scum, please give me a number quantifying your level of suspicion of Goatrevolt.

I feel like it's somewhat a estimation after only four pages, but I'd place goat at about a 4. His debate with Spolium was more over semantics and mafia in general. I agreed with his assessment of FHQ and springlullaby. I didn't mind him pushing Budja either because I believe it was the best course of action to bring the game to a serious level .So considering he's pointed out similar things to myself, and I know myself to be town, then I'd say I'm not too suspicious of him at the moment.

Things do change in mafia though. On a similar note, I don't really agree with the change of direction you've tried to create by your recent line of questioning. By shifting your focus you've evaded Spolium's response. You say that butting heads with him isn't helpful, which can be true if other players use at to shy away from participating, but it's still necessary to address points against yourself even if you don't want Spolium to be lynched.

[Ice9]

Things do change in mafia though. On a similar note, I don't really agree with the change of direction you've tried to create by your recent line of questioning. By shifting your focus you've evaded Spolium's response. You say that butting heads with him isn't helpful, which can be true if other players use at to shy away from participating, but it's still necessary to address points against yourself even if you don't want Spolium to be lynched.

I say it isn't helpful because our dialog has hardly even gotten a response from anyone else in the game. Spolium has a clear case of the OMGUSes, even if I wasn't actually voting him, and I can tell that no amount of back and forth with him is going to get him out of either the mindset that I must be scum for so vehemently attacking his position, if he's town, or the strategic use of tunnel vision to avoid other incriminating uses of his vote, if he's scum.

Now on to your response to my question. Why is four pages not enough to have an opinion you can stand behind without calling it "an estimation"? Does a higher page number really make someone's posts more valuable for determining their alignment? I'd say Goat can stake a claim to a reasonably large proportion of the activity in this game, only four pages though it may be. You really seem to have tried hard not to take a divisive stance on this question. And your answer had to tie into you overtly reminding us of your own supposed alignment why, exactly?

And lets just single out one thing which I find particularly interesting:

I didn't mind him pushing Budja either because I believe it was the best course of action to bring the game to a serious level

So, he brought the game to a serious level by pushing Budja and thats all well and good. What do you think of the content that this generated? Do you think Budja responded well to the pressure? Do you think Budja's response makes him more likely to be scum?

---

OK, don, you answered the first part of my question, if somewhat vaguely, but you totally ignored the second part. Why are you now choosing not to mention Budja at all unless prompted to do so, when earlier he caught your attention enough to earn your vote?

[don_johnson]

OK, don, you answered the first part of my question, if somewhat vaguely, but you totally ignored the second part. Why are you now choosing not to mention Budja at all unless prompted to do so, when earlier he caught your attention enough to earn your vote?

read their posts since then. there is not much to comment on. like i said, what good does it do to push someone around over one issue? am i going to forget about budja? of course not, but there are several other players involved in discussions now. i think it would be better for me to reread instead of tunneling on one person for one post.

[Spolium]

Things do change in mafia though. On a similar note, I don't really agree with the change of direction you've tried to create by your recent line of questioning. By shifting your focus you've evaded Spolium's response. You say that butting heads with him isn't helpful, which can be true if other players use at to shy away from participating, but it's still necessary to address points against yourself even if you don't want Spolium to be lynched.

I don't really need to see any further response from Ice9 to the argument which was carried on from my exchange with Goat. We really were butting our heads together there, since we're each likely to stand our ground on those points whether either of us are town or scum.

What I want to know is what he thinks of the post-Budja/mafia/semantics/et al. portion of the post - I consider the lack of acknowledgment of this a more telling sign of barely concealed evasion than the rest of the post.

Something else which has come to mind is the fact that his questions - in my opinion - are notably generic, with the possible exception of the one to don_johnson.

@Spring seems little more than an oddly dressed up "who do you think most likely to be mafia". @Lynx is weird also, in that it requests quantification yet no explanation. @Azhrei involves two questions - one concerning the bloody obvious (

who does "you all" refer to in the context of Az's statement that it was "odd how you all jumped on FHQ"

), the other being the fairly generic "

given [perceived actions], do you think [player] is scum

". @RedCoyote is "

who do you want to see lynched

", RC's answer to which I imagine would be something like "the guy I'm voting for".

Not that there's anything wrong with generic questions per se, but the very fact that they're so generic (and in at least two cases, of questionable usefulness) might be a further indication of an attempt to shift the conversation away as

rapidly

as possible. This seems especially strange when one considers the stated intention to "

try a different tack

" - he could've taken time and care with them, yet they seem to have been thrown together quickly (implied by the 21mins between our posts). If they were thrown together quickly, then it was most likely to get his new direction "out there" as quickly as possible.

Why the urgency in doing so, unless he wanted to draw focus from my post?

Preview Edit: I see Ice9 has managed to call OMGUS on me, refuse to address new arguments against him and demand

better

answers from those who answered his questions, all at the same time. Quelle surprise.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm considering what both scum and town would do in this situation, as I do anything which appears anti-town. If anything, I find myself wondering why you're so quick to call out WIFOM.

On a side/theory note I agree. WIFOM is highly overrated.

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy. Huge difference. I'll break it down even further:

1. We both considered the attacked in question to be a scapegoat. Check
2. We both raised suspicion against those attacking the "scapegoat". Check

Up to this point you're right. The flaw comes after this, though:

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy. This is completely different than the situation with SL. In the case of SL, I attack people jumping on SL,

not because they could be wrong about SL and lead to SL getting wrongly lynched

but because they jumped on SL but subsequently ignored other nearby discussion. Do you see the distinction? My idea that SL is a scapegoat comes after this fact, based on my interpretation that the votes on her are scummy, thus she is less likely to be scum.

Goat also called FHQ out on "If we are just townies fighting among ourselves" (except, of course, with the "if" removed... taking the statement entirely out of context). Ice9 apparently agrees.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

I also want to add to my suspicion of Fhq the fact that his post prior to the one I jumped on was him first saying that the "biggest thing for him was Budja's 3rd vote" and following it up by basically coaching Budja in what he should do next. Biggest thing for him is Budja's 3rd vote implies suspicion. Coaching does not imply suspicion, as why would you ever want to coach someone you think is scum? I consider this to be a pretty big point.

Suspicious hypocrisy - check.

Addressed above.

Possible buddying - check.

I assume you mean my agreement with Ice's take on the SL situation means we are buddying? Since when is simple agreement buddying, and is buddying a legitimate tell prior to knowing the alignment of either of the players in question?

@Ice: Why do you want to know who SL thinks is town? I disagree with Spolium on the idea that this is a veiled attempt at asking her who she thinks is scum, however I don't see how SL throwing out someone she thinks is town is useful information at all.

[RedCoyote]

I'm trying to follow Spolium v Goat v Ice9 as best as I can, but I'll tell you right now Spolium looks to be the worst of the bunch. I find myself agreeing with most of what Ice9 is saying, specifically this,

[Budja, spring] obviously gave all of the "comments and suspicions flying" at least a cursory glance, so why, when you don't seem to have an opinion or any comment yourself, do you feel it is necessary to go out of your way to take a potshot at Springlullaby for the exact same thing?

---

I'd have to agree here. I'm bothered by the people willing to jump on Spring's post, but yet unwilling to soil their hands with the other discussion.

I'll be happy to acknowledge this, especially in the case of don and Azhei, but I am not willing to write off spring.

Opportunistic or not, spring's comment was unacceptable.

---

My one grief with Spolium is the fact that by getting into the large argument about semantics with Goat, you basically spoke on behalf of Budja. This really spared Budja from true inspection. I do agree that some of his points came off as more defensive than from an unbiased townie's perspective such as the meta analysis.

I agree with this and most of Lynx's post here. Spoilum has the right to call a Budja wagon foul, but I don't like the way he's going about providing us with alternative scum.

---

I never claimed I was contributing in the first place.

Does/Should this make you more town-looking?

I ask you again spring, please explain how "sitting back and watching" helps the town.

---

Budja's lack of in-depth answer is currently revealing information through the reactions of other players. The way in others are deviating from his case is giving us further information. This arguably tells us more than a direct answer from Budja would.

Good answer.

That said, I am against a lurker hunt at this point and find myself a great deal more curious about Ice9 and Goat's agreement about suspicion on FHQ, and their respective FoS/vote based on #67. Between posts 83 and 84, they agree [on questioning suspicions on spring].

I expected it to come up from someone. Usually when two or three people jump on someone for saying something anti-town, another player chimes in and says, "Wait, why is everyone jumping all of a sudden?"

I never thought to compare it against fhq though. I'd really like to hear more of Ic9, Goat, and fhq's takes on this theory.

---

@

RedCoyote

: If you had to choose right now, totally by yourself, who the lynch would be today, who would you choose?

If I had to choose, by myself, who the lynch would be at this moment then it would be Budja. Mostly from reasons I've stated before, but his attempts to try and shift the discussion toward other players without adequately defending himself has sort of compounded suspicions to me.

---

personally, i think [Ice9's] attack on spolium is a bit over the top. it is always good to question players when they are defending someone, but i think you are making more out of spolium's defense of budja than need be

But Ice9 said that he wanted to stop talking about it, that doesn't give you any comfort?

[don_johnson]

---

personally, i think [Ice9's] attack on spolium is a bit over the top. it is always good to question players when they are defending someone, but i think you are making more out of spolium's defense of budja than need be

But Ice9 said that he wanted to stop talking about it, that doesn't give you any comfort?

no. escpecially considering he came out of the gates guns blazing and then shut down the attack after a well explained response and an FoS from spolium. no comfort at all.