fhq 231 wrote:Directly after her post, my feelings toward her were much more positive. But I didn't study her post thoroughly and only focused on the things she accentuated. This is exactly what I think she tried to do with that post. Reading back the responses about the amount of mistakes she made, it seems to me these 'notes' weren't made during the game, but rather after the fact.
I'm certainly not going to deny it's a possibility,
my whole point is it just seems so unlikely for scum to draw that much attention to themselves, especially a more seasoned player like spring.
Wait, what? Haven't you been criticising various cases on Spring primarily because you believe that they're rooted in WIFOM?
RedCoyote wrote:Let me ask you something fhq, can you think of a valid strategy behind what she did if she were scum?
I can't think of anything reasonable outside of the complete WIFOM argument
that, "she anticpated we would get upset at her inactivity but then write her off completely once she posted some notes".
RedCoyote wrote:
I don't think one player here has given a decent reason to look at spring that isn't completely derived in WIFOM
(e.g. only scumspring would post "notes" like that).
My goodness, you have!
Your "whole point",
in your own words
, amounts to a great big steaming pile of WIFOM. One can only wonder, then, why the focus of your defence of Spring is based on WIFOM.
FHQ wrote:My point, and someone already made it, i forget who, is that she first tried to brashly not take part in the game. When that strategy started to fail, she obviously reread the thread and threw together that post, selling it to us as her 'notes she made during the game'.
QFT this was my thinking exactly and I wrote something similiar to it in the post that I lost. I think If Spring is scum with her play she thought she could either
a)Fly under the radar if no one pressed her for deliberately lurking. Allowing no one to get a read on her.
b)play it off as a townie trying to generate info if the gambit failed.
Either way there was a play
Since course A failed her only option was to take the second route. So she created a long player analysis(which comes very seemingly pro-town)
after
she got called out, not while the events transpired. Now I don't agree that the post is ripe with misrepresentations, though I do agree it is somewhat vague(considering many players are classified the same way). But a post of that magnitude is going to be vague from scum and town alike I'd think.
Coyote, I think not buying a case is one thing, but to go this much out of your way to stand up for Spring is a little much.
No, I have admitted that I had made 2 factual errors/misreads, which we clarified when you pointed them out.
sorry, more than two. reread.
Sorry, I think you are wrong. Reread.
Plus I will say clearly here that I find your points of contention in which you found me in error to be pretty feeble on their own right. Because, frankly my dear, I don't give much of a damn whether your "clarifications" were justified or not, and you certainly don't get town points from making them. I think it is just to hand "nulltell" to you upon clarification as you seem to be contending, but it doesn't invalidate my reason to think you scum much. Because nulltell + nulltell doesn't a town make. See paragraph below.
SL wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "effort shows intent".
you intended your posts to have an effect on this game, no? by putting forth the amount of effort it takes to concieve the amount of notes you posted, it proves that you intended some sort of outcome. maybe not the outcome i am intepreting, but you didn't post, just to post.
Yes, I intended to share my views. And again, as I already explained, what I found incriminating in your play is not all the little elements. It is the fact that when viewed in its entirety, you certainly haven't done anything outstanding in the scumhunting department. Your most spirited post to date is one about game play in general. That is, before I started picking on you.
SL wrote:My question may be wifom, but I'm not particularly afraid of wifom:
the theory you suggest here is that I purposely made easily identifiable mistakes in order to misrepresent you. This is flimsy because I'm just not that bad scum, which you should have an idea of because you have seen scum me before, hence my question.
what "easily identifiable mistakes? you purposely bolded sections of your notes and drew attention to the fact that you did. it was like you were encouraging people to "skim".
That's just a crappy argument. A really crappy and scummy one. My bold were a formatting courtesy and that's pretty much it. To suggest them to be a ploy to "encourage people to 'skim'" is reaching and drawing on thin air.
SL wrote:1) I think there is still possibility of backtracking on your part in here because you say that you voted me for active lurking: what at the point of your unvote did I do to change your opinion on that?
dj wrote:you responded. it was all i asked when i voted.
I'm considering this, and I think it is quite the pointless move.
you are entitled to your opinion, but "pressure" is what got you involved in this game. do you disagree?[/quote]
I already know that I'm entitled to my opinion, thank you, your reminder here sounds scummy though. But no, pressure is not what got me involved in this game. I simply never planned to lurk all day because that would be pointless.
springd wrote:
I have asked that question because what I see there is a contradiction in terms and possibly a scumslip.
Yes you have explained how you felt about "dangerous play", but you have described it as a *townie* behavior.
As such, you being suspicious of it doesn't make sense.
do not put words in my mouth. i described it as much more then possible townie behavior. you are strawmanning this one.
I don't think I am, from your own mouth - in answer to my comment in which I said Ice reads town:
dj wrote:
how does ice "read town"? in my experience, aggressive play is dangerous and should be reserved for experienced players. causing a commotion and getting people riled up can be productive, but an aggressive, inexperienced townie can have the same effect as aggressive scum. i.e. if i jump into a car parked on a steep hill and take it out of gear, i will be the cause of what happens next, but it may not be beneficial for the town. my suspicion of aggression is waranted to say the least.
In the quote above, the motive you impart to Ice's "dangerous play" is that of a "inexperienced townie" whose play may "have the same effect as aggressive scum" in causing town harm. At no point do you seem to suspect him of being an aggressive scum himself. So no, if you think he is a dangerous townie, then your suspicions are not warranted. This is were I see the possible scumslip.
SL wrote:Ok. By curiosity, were you not aware that I frequently used this line of argument in our previous game?
no, actually, you were the least of my worries, i thought you were bad town and was ignoring you. my hope was to carry you into lylo and then filet you.
I'm not sure about the abrupt shift to levity as indicated by the emoticon, but nitpicky maybe I think.
In any case, my question was actually meant to be business. I orginally pressed this point on you because you sound remarkably like scumME as of right now which is 'hostile defense hinting at possible town tunnel", a comfortable role for scum I find, plus the use of the line "this is your opinion". I didn't like the way you answered, because there are a sea of possible reasons why you could have been using that phrase and you could have pointed that out, but instead your reply was to say that you didn't pay attention to my play in that other game. I think this is overkill because here you seem to want to annihilate the possibility of suspicion, instead of simply pointing out the fact that my argument wasn't very strong in the first place.
But here I will say that this point is difficult to judge, it is possible that you just wanted to indicate disdain and 'one-up' me as town.
Well, I think that if 'clarification' is a minor subset of the making of case. Also I dislike your sudden use of 'we' here, but I fear I might be starting to get very nitpicky.
yes, you are being nitpicky. "we" refers to town at large.
Of course it would.
SL wrote:Are you missing the point on purpose? Why do you insist that "I have a gut feeling" on you? I never claimed such thing. Where am I reaching exactly? Right now you appear to be the one misrepresenting me.
Here I see the possibility that you may be under the assumption that I regard that post as a definite scumtell, I'll clarify again that it is not the case. I made an observation to the effect that I detected towntell from the post in question, but were wary of it for the reason described. And it was just that, a remark.
oh. it was "just a remark"? so i guess i should just let you make remarks that insinuate certain players are scum because their posts look "town"? not sure what your point is on this one. you can be wary of it, but if you publicize your wariness of "townie" posts with no evidence to the contrary and suggest someones lynch, i will find you scummy whether you are targetting me or not. sorry, but that's how i roll. you need to be accountable for your suggestions.
I am very accountable for what I write and I did not insinuate anything: my remark clearly states that IMO the post in question is town looking, but it is easy to fake as it is general consideration about gameplay.
What you seem to be saying here in your defense, strawmanning me in the process, is that I imply causation between the two clauses. This is not the case: I am not arguing that your post is scummy *because* it looks town. I'm saying that it is a post about general gameplay considerations, *and* that if it sounds town, it doesn't impress me much as it is in these post that town tell is the easiest to fake.
SL wrote:
dj wrote:i believe three other players have pointed to issues with your notes as well. three plus one makes four, hence plurality.
And you agree with each and all of these "issues"?
can't say right now, but i haven't seen anything i disagree with. for your benefit i can reread them. my point still stands, unless we are looking at a strongly united four player scum team, you seem to be intent on screwing somebody.
This kind of sentence is just pointless.
1. It shows how much you are not paying attention as my suspect are now down to three persons.
2. It is not 'for my benefit', it is your job to reread everything. The fact that you would agree with something and not know what you are approving of is scummy.
3. "Intent on screwing somebody" is terrible argument, and a somewhat crass emotional statement. For one, how do you know that my suspects aren't scum? Should I take this as you believing Budja and Gads to be town?
SL wrote:
dj wrote:as opposed to whose contributions? yours?
Well, yes, I think I'm stepping it up quite a bit.
and why is that?
Why what? I'm posting what I post because I'm intent to find scum. This is an inane question to ask.
i think my play has been pretty pro town. i actually cast one of the first "serious" votes, accomplishing what budja claimed he was trying to do with his random/bandwagon vote. i admittedly lost some interest when the poetry died. i think the fact that i am now center stage with you speaks for itself.
One serious vote doesn't make for protown play in my books. The fact that you are center stage count very little from where I sit because someone who is content to backsit untill the moment they are attacked in earnest doesn't look protown to me.
SL wrote:
This is not what I asked for, I'm asking for who your others suspects are, plus your reasons why you think them to be scummy. And why you think I'm scummier than them.
you obviously didn't notice the list i posted. top to bottom, scummiest to least. you are scummier because you are more obvious scum. i.e. you are intentionally misrepresenting other players. you are continuing to do so even after being called on it.
No, it is you who missed the fact that I asked for *reasons*. An empty list is useless and scummy.
SL wrote:
1. Your first attack is unfair, you shouldn't be concerned over whether my suspects are "among some of the most supected at the moment", but whether you think I'm justified in thinking them scummy.
I'm just observing that you, in your original post, gave vague reasons on all three people being pursued by the majority without really putting your money where your mouth is.
And as I have explained to Goat, it seemed to me that my stating my lynch target was, if not stronger, as strong a statement. I still think it is, giving the fact that at the time a number of vote where lame "pressure" votes. In any case, I have accepted the criticism that with the danger of no-lynch, my vote was needed.
SL wrote:
2. What IS significant and in which way? The second accusation is rather vague, what my being arrogant or not has to do with anything?
What IS significant to me, is the fact that I interpreted that these are your notes you have made during the game (feel free to correct me). Your 'lurker' posts continually spewed things like "There's nothing for me to say, so I'm not saying anything", yet your notes DO contain content during these periods. Again, I feel these 'notes' were made after the fact, which is evident in the number of 'minor' mistakes you made, some of which now should alter your view on some people, which leads me to the next question:
Who are your top subjects NOW? and why?
You are incorrect, what I said when I posted previously to my notes in this game was that I had nothing very strong to say, so I wouldn't be saying anything. I also distinctly recall stating clearly in a post prior that I had an opinion all right, but just chose not to post anything yet because it wasn't well formed.
I will add here that in actuality, the fact that I didn't have a strong feeling for this game participated in my decision to post my notes. Because in a way, I wanted to provoke something strong to gain a better read from this game.
SL wrote:
3. Well, it is difficult only if you are lazy enough. Lynching me because you feel to lazy to verify my say is pretty crappy I think.
Ok, fine, I am lazy because I don't have the time to cross reference every telegram style comment you've made with all the posts you mentioned. I'll concede to that if you concede that your post is needlessly difficult to analyse. Lazy or not, the size of that post alone makes it easier for things to slip by in the sheer volume of it all.
How is it good for town to make your arguments difficult to verify?
I'm sorry I have no sympathy for you. And the point here is that you shouldn't be lazy. Plus other people seem to be doing all right.
I didn't make my argument difficult to verify on purpose. And actually, I don't think it is that difficult to verify, it just take an effort, one you seem proud to not be furnishing. So how is it good for town to be lazy?
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
QFT this was my thinking exactly and I wrote something similiar to it in the post that I lost. I think If Spring is scum with her play she thought she could either
a)Fly under the radar if no one pressed her for deliberately lurking. Allowing no one to get a read on her.
b)play it off as a townie trying to generate info if the gambit failed.
Either way there was a play
Since course A failed her only option was to take the second route. So she created a long player analysis(which comes very seemingly pro-town)
after
she got called out, not while the events transpired. Now I don't agree that the post is ripe with misrepresentations, though I do agree it is somewhat vague(considering many players are classified the same way). But a post of that magnitude is going to be vague from scum and town alike I'd think.
Coyote, I think not buying a case is one thing, but to go this much out of your way to stand up for Spring is a little much.
FOS:RedCoyote
a) This is fairly weak. It seems evident to me that it is impossible to impugn on me the intention of "flying under the radar", given that the first post I addressed about my lurking was to say that I was indeed "lurking lurking". Do you seriously think that with a statement like that that it was my intent to fly under the radar?
b) Or it is also possible that I made this play consciously as town and never planned to lurk all day.
Here I think your accusation, which is speculative in nature and is treading into conspiracy territory, is very feeble because you describe advantages to a play like mine for scum that doesn't exist in reality, and ignore the townie reason which far supersede possible scum motive for my play. I do think discussion generated here is good for a morose town. It is no custard discussion, and my play demands strong positions. And when/if I am cardflipped, it will be relevant to look at.
Now, addressing a couple of point directed at me in no particular order:
1. I took these notes progressively. About around each time I posted in thread.
2. A recurring reproach to my observations is that I describe many people with the same adjective "milky". My reply to that is that it is my honest assessment: there haven't been very driven cases or outstanding play in this town. Again, if you opinion differs, please describe where and why.
3. Someone said that my "everything is flower is sunshine" describing Budja's 105 is misrepresentation. I maintain my interpretation.
----------------------
Now, what I think of everyone right now.
Azhrei: Nothing to say about. Downgraded for now to low danger because of impending replacement.
Budja: Still very suspect. It is very unlikely that I would change my vote today. However, I find it also suspect that some people seem to be deliberatly avoiding this wagon: I want for them to state clearly what they think of Budja and why they are not voting him.
don_johnson: This one is a hard call at the moment and it is somewhat my fault. I do believe his reply to me has been scummy in its high emotional inflexion and low quality perspective on the game - unexplained suspects list, plus the fact that unvoting me now if he think I'm scum doesn't make sense: townDon wouldn't care if there are lurker votes on my wagon if he think he is lynching scum. But there is also the possibility that he is ego town. More observation needed. Need to make his position on Budja clear.
fhqwhgads: Don't like at all. Sucky play and sucky arguments to vote me. Also need to make position on Budja clear. But I also think that of the people on my wagon, he has the highest chance of being lazy town.
Goatrevolt: I'm ok with his criticism as of right now. Low danger.
Ice9: I'm willing to leave alone atm based on early town read. Need to re enter the game. Low danger
Jebus: Need to post as promised. Low danger for now.
Lynx The Antithesis: Crappy argument against me. Need to clarify position on Budja. Upgrade to high danger. High frequency of QFT'ing. Upgraded to high danger.
Plonky: Terrible. Need to post something. Upgrade to high danger.
RedCoyote: I do not know what to make of the extensive defence of me exactly, but I'm not complaining. I don't think he has been particularly scummy. Low danger.
Spolium: Ok with atm. Low danger.
A note on Spolium and Goat, I have them at low danger but in actuality, if they do look good comparatively, I haven't been a fan of their play before my notes. It was long winded and nitpicky from both of them, and they have been very shy of making strong statements. Right now I'm explaining this with the fact that this is a difficult town with what I sense to be high error margin, and that they have been on the reserve, but frankly, I expect better.
----> Please heed request of making your position on Budja clear.
These players currently are the ones I am most interested in at the moment.
springlullaby- Lurked then posted many walls of text. Agressive behaviour- not a scumtell.
Not so keen on initial summary as I have already said. Conclusions did not always come readily from points IMO and seem a bit contrived.
Recently have answered questions well and is definantly actively scumhunting which has reduced a lot of my suspicion.
don_johnson- Most notable for his back and forth with spring.
I think that some of springs points against him, eg. Theft of haiku, were reaching a bit too far. His over-reaction to at least an initially mild attack, however seems slightly out of character with his play so far and moderatly scummy to me.
RedCoyote - Spolium pointed out very recently that he has been over-supportive of Spring and I agree with this. This does seem a bit suspect to me. I don't have anything to add to this and his play earlier showed nothing to give me suspicion. I am interesting in seeing his responce.
Plonky needs to post. Keeps saying he will, never does. I know the walls of text are discouraging but we need to see something.
Goat 257 wrote:Her post called about 50% of the game "milky" and she listed 1/3 of the game as players she would be willing to lynch but made no effort to do so.
I think we have an honest disagreement here. Personally I think spring was attempting to let people know that she had been following the game and was telling us where she stood currently. I do not contend that she
specifically
shyed away from voting a player because she didn't have a solid stance but rather because she was prepared to deal with the rush of responses that rightfully followed.
I don't know the reason why she didn't place a vote. I'd argue it's because she wanted to wait and see what developed before making a decision. I wanted to know specifically who she thought was most likely to be scum right then, before waiting and see what transpired first.
RedCoyote wrote:She made it clear who she wanted to vote, and nothing indicated that she wasn't going to cast a vote in a reasonable time after that (which she did).
She didn't make it clear who she
wanted
to vote. She made it clear who she was
willing
to vote. And your statement about her placing a vote in a reasonable time is kind of funny, considering my pressure was what led to that. Top of Post 241.
RedCoyote wrote:
Goat 257 wrote:You had no problem when I did that to the other 3, but you find it suspicious when I attack spring in much the same fashion. What's the difference?
fhq and Budja hadn't made a solid stance since the beginning of this game, much moreso in the case of Budja than fhq, but a majority of their posts are defensively oriented, so I agree with you there and there's no sense in arguing the point.
I disgaree with the same suggestions as they apply to spring.
Really? How is it different? Spring hadn't made a solid stance (read: vote) since the beginning of the game either. Just because she lurked throughout and then dropped a huge post, whereas they kept along but didn't make a stance doesn't mean hers is somehow more acceptable.
RedCoyote wrote:What frustrates me is that spring's post came off as anticipatory and rightfully so. She knew she was going to get several responses from everyone after she made it, and so for her to say who her top suspects were gave us the opportunity to say, "Ok, I think this one is good, but not this one" in order to persuade her. It was more or less a formality that she vote Budja, given the fact that Budja hasn't been particularly interested in scumhunting or helping the town. If she had voted Budja a few posts before she did, I don't see how it would've made much of a difference in this case. She made it clear that she suspected him, she made it clear that her vote would likely go that way on account of the deadline, everything she did was indicative of where the vote was going.
I had no idea where her vote was going until she placed it. I could have seen her vote for don, Budja, or Fhq and it would not have surprised me. There are two issues with waiting it out. First of all, if everyone sits back and waits to see how things develop, then we'll never actually arrive at a lynch. For example: Fhq. Plenty of players expressed willingness to lynch him. I was the only one on his wagon. His wagon never even got any momentum towards a lynch, whatsoever, despite there being at least 5 people willing to lynch him. If those people had backed up their suspicion with a vote, then things would have moved along. Secondly, by sitting back and waiting, scum get a chance to pick and choose where they want to vote based on current discussion and what would be the best for them.
RedCoyote wrote:So it frustrates me that you would challenge her on this point, knowing the position she was in with, like I said, an anticipatory post like hers.
I'm sorry, am I supposed to give her a free pass to do whatever she wants because she dropped a big post on us? You're getting ridiculous here in your defense of her. You expected people to challenge her on her post (anticipatory), but then you have a problem when they do?
RedCoyote wrote:
Goat 257 wrote:I've said this before, but there is a huge difference between expressing willingness to lynch and actually doing something to achieve that.
You don't think by puting "Note: so and so would be a good lynch candidate" in her notes is doing something to achieve a lynch when she posts it for everyone to see?
No, it's not. I gave an example above. Numerous people "noted" that they were willing to lynch Fhq. Nothing came of it. If everyone notes that they are willing to do something, but nobody actually bothers to carry through, then nothing happens.
RedCoyote wrote:
Goat 257 wrote:Secondly, I have pressured many of those same players for the exact same thing, which is not placing a vote or making any effort to achieve a lynch before deadline.
Absolutely, but what makes spring worse to you than the others seems ingenuine to me.
Um...what? I never said Spring was worse. I'm voting for Budja right now, not her. I've attacked others on that same point (not having a vote).
Why are you so afraid of pressure on spring? Don't think she can handle it herself? I mean, seriously, you're going so far as to misrepresent me and amplify my pressure as much more than it actually was.
RedCoyote wrote:
Goat 257 wrote:Where have I generalized any of your points?
When you said this,
Goat 253 wrote:Also, I thought [RC was] "interested in seeing how my pressure on spring turned out."
knowing that the context of that statement was not as positive as you made it appear.
First of all, I did not "know" that. I didn't go back and check, I just remembered that you had posted something along the lines of "I'll wait and see what results from this." Secondly, even after going back and reading it, I don't think I "generalized" it at all. Yes, your context was more negative than I remembered, but you still asserted that you wanted to see what resulted from the discussion, which is obviously not the case, since you went on to attack me for it.
RedCoyote wrote:Additionally, you're trying to frame me in such a way that I would have an equal level of suspicions of spring that I would have of Budja/fhq/don, which has not been the case.
I'm not trying to frame this on you at all. Stop misrepresenting me. I never said your suspicions were equal or that they should be. Go back and point out exactly where I said this.
What I've said is that you're suspicious of
me
for pressuring spring on a lack of a vote, but you were not suspicious of
me
pressuring budja/dj/fhq on a lack of a vote. The situations are no different. None of them had a vote on near deadline, and all had avoided taking solid stances throughout the game (via lurking or active lurking). I want to know specifically why you went out of your way to defend spring, but have not done so for the other 3, when my attacks on them were for
the exact same point
. It seems entirely inconsistent.
RedCoyote wrote:I do not retract my argument from earlier, don is still in the group with Goat and fhq.
Did you miss post 258, or are you willfully ignoring it?
RC: You continue to misrep me regarding my pressure on Spring. You are so adamant about defending spring that you are unable to reasonably assess the situation. The fact that you are accusing me of saying "spring is more in the wrong than Budja/fhq/don" despite my vote being on Budja and me never saying that at all is proof. So what is it? Why are you afraid of pressure on Spring?
RedCoyote wrote:I disagree with that interpretation (that she made it up after the fact) because that interpretation necessarily means that she hasn't been paying attention which is, arguably, one of the surest signs of scum (i.e. scum don't have to hunt/pay close attention).
In other words, you disagree with this argument purely because it leads to the assumption that Spring is scum, and not based on the merits of it in and of itself. Why are you letting your opinion on spring skew your interpretation of the information?
I directly questioned spring on that point. She did not give a response.
Spring: Again, did you compile those notes throughout the course of the game, or did you decide to simply go back and read the game and make a summary after the fact?
springlullaby wrote:A note on Spolium and Goat, I have them at low danger but in actuality, if they do look good comparatively, I haven't been a fan of their play before my notes. It was long winded and nitpicky from both of them, and they have been very shy of making strong statements. Right now I'm explaining this with the fact that this is a difficult town with what I sense to be high error margin, and that they have been on the reserve, but frankly, I expect better.
What? I'll give you long winded, but that's how I always play. All of my long winded posts were in response to long winded Spolium attacks on my scumhunting, at any rate. Shying away from making strong statements? How so? My early pressure on Budja wasn't shy. My attack on Fhq wasn't shy. I didn't shy away from pressuring you. So where are you getting this notion?
"Been on the reserve" is relative. I'm limited in what I can attack based on what has been given to me. If 60% of the game is lurking, there's definitively less information for me to generate opinions on. What you might call "nitpicking" I call the best lead based on available information. If you thought my leads were nitpicking or poor, you could have stepped out and said so. I find it intensely hypocritical that you are calling me out for this when you are a source of the problem.
springlullaby wrote: Because nulltell + nulltell doesn't a town make. See paragraph below.
but it makes scum?
SL wrote:That's just a crappy argument. A really crappy and scummy one. My bold were a formatting courtesy and that's pretty much it. To suggest them to be a ploy to "encourage people to 'skim'" is reaching and drawing on thin air.
how is your bold formatting an editing courtesy? if you expect people to read your entire post, why do you need to bold anything? i think i understand what you mean, but my take on it is far from "reaching"? by bolding your conclusions you draw attention to them and away from your notes. why would you do that? sorry, but i find this a valid line of reasoning.
springd wrote:
I have asked that question because what I see there is a contradiction in terms and possibly a scumslip.
Yes you have explained how you felt about "dangerous play", but you have described it as a *townie* behavior.
As such, you being suspicious of it doesn't make sense.
dj wrote:do not put words in my mouth. i described it as much more then possible townie behavior. you are strawmanning this one.
I don't think I am, from your own mouth - in answer to my comment in which I said Ice reads town:
dj wrote:
how does ice "read town"? in my experience, aggressive play is dangerous and should be reserved for experienced players. causing a commotion and getting people riled up can be productive, but an aggressive, inexperienced townie can have the same effect as aggressive scum. i.e. if i jump into a car parked on a steep hill and take it out of gear, i will be the cause of what happens next, but it may not be beneficial for the town. my suspicion of aggression is waranted to say the least.
In the quote above, the motive you impart to Ice's "dangerous play" is that of a "inexperienced townie" whose play may "have the same effect as aggressive scum" in causing town harm. At no point do you seem to suspect him of being an aggressive scum himself. So no, if you think he is a dangerous townie, then your suspicions are not warranted. This is were I see the possible scumslip.
^^^^^^ STRAWMAN. sorry, but no. you take this out of context and dice it up, but this was part of a conversation on why i am suspicious of "dangerous play". i am not attributing ice's play to any alignment, simply explaining how "dangerous" play can affect a game regardless of a players alignment and why we should be wary of it.
SL wrote:What you seem to be saying here in your defense, strawmanning me in the process, is that I imply causation between the two clauses. This is not the case: I am not arguing that your post is scummy *because* it looks town. I'm saying that it is a post about general gameplay considerations, *and* that if it sounds town, it doesn't impress me much as it is in these post that town tell is the easiest to fake.
your initial comment does not imply scumminess, you are correct. however, your conclusion is that you are comfortable lynching me. therefore, you are implying that i am scum from my gameplay, which includes the aforementioned post. no strawman, nothing in your notes was indicative of scumdj, yet you place me on your lynch list.
SL wrote:One serious vote doesn't make for protown play in my books. The fact that you are center stage count very little from where I sit because someone who is content to backsit untill the moment they are attacked in earnest doesn't look protown to me.
QFT. funny, you hadn't even made one serious vote before you were attacked. hey pot, i've got this kettle here, can you see what color it is?
SL wrote:
No, it is you who missed the fact that I asked for *reasons*. An empty list is useless and scummy.
list wasn't empty. redcoyote and yourself are sitting atop my list for reasons already laid out. budja? wheres the case on budja? can someone list his scumtells? other than his original "slip" in the poetry phase i haven't found a whole lot "scummy" from him. "suspicious", yes, but there are a good number on non contributors in this game right now and that seems to be the biggest mark against him. i have seen alot of votes for budja, but i haven't seen much of a case. sorry, but that is my opinion. i have no problem voting to lynch before deadline, but i see no reason to hastily string up a player who could just be "bad town". both you and rc seem to be laying out deliberatly crafted misinformation. i'd rather see one of the two of you swing.
springlullaby wrote:
a) This is fairly weak. It seems evident to me that it is impossible to impugn on me the intention of "flying under the radar", given that the first post I addressed about my lurking was to say that I was indeed "lurking lurking". Do you seriously think that with a statement like that that it was my intent to fly under the radar?
b) Or it is also possible that I made this play consciously as town and never planned to lurk all day.
Here I think your accusation, which is speculative in nature and is treading into conspiracy territory, is very feeble because you describe advantages to a play like mine for scum that doesn't exist in reality, and ignore the townie reason which far supersede possible scum motive for my play. I do think discussion generated here is good for a morose town. It is no custard discussion, and my play demands strong positions. And when/if I am cardflipped, it will be relevant to look at.
Simply put I don't believe it was a pro-town course of action to deliberately lurk throughout the earlier part of the game. If you're town all it serves to do is muddy the read on you and confuse the rest of the town(at least for me). I've realized that my main point against you is largely grounded in WIFOM and isn't the greatest way to pinpoint suspicion. Mafia in general is widely speculative and I just felt your strategy could've been pursued as scum just as easily. I have no way of knowing if you planned to lurk all day or if you jumped in the game soley because of the amounting pressure. Save for your lack of a strong stance upon your true entrance into the game, nothing else has stuck out to me since you became active. I've decided to put the lurking part in the back of my mind and not work off a case surrounding it. Instead I'll examine you more after the lurking fact.
Unvote
Spring wrote:Lynx The Antithesis: Crappy argument against me. Need to clarify position on Budja. Upgrade to high danger. High frequency of QFT'ing. Upgraded to high danger.
I've already conceded that my argument isn't worth pursuing earlier in this post. Your defense is equally as WIFOMY. So I'm just gonna leave the lurking business behind for now. Umm I'm pretty sure I've only used QFT on like one post. So using "high frequency" is a pretty large reach there.
As for Budja I stated my feelings very clearly here:
Lynx wrote:Budja has done the same thing. He just recently removed his "random vote." And speaking of random vote, I do find it very peculiar that he deemed his vote "random." I really lost suspicion for his initial vote earlier in this game. However, his defense of said vote has really made up for that. First he said it was to escape the RVS. Then, he classifies it as bad play since he declared that the vote was pretty much useless when he applied it. A little after that he said he was trying to spark discussion and scum tells. And now, he just deems it another random vote. Don't think that we've forgotten that vote Budja because we haven't. I just don't know whether to place it as poor play or a genuine backpeddaling. You have moved back up on my scumlist nonetheless
Not sure if I want to lay my vote down just yet especially with him at L-2. His latest post is fine and all giving his suspects, but he still has done little in the the way to address the points presented against him.
RedCoyote wrote:RedCoyote: I do not know what to make of the extensive defence of me exactly, but I'm not complaining. I don't think he has been particularly scummy. Low danger.
Or maybe he's scum buddying up to a townie... might want to keep that in mind if you're town.
Also this quote battle between Don and Spring has grown extremely convoluted to me. If either of you want to clarify it, It'd be greatly appreciated.
Goatrevolt wrote:
In other words, you disagree with this argument purely because it leads to the assumption that Spring is scum, and not based on the merits of it in and of itself. Why are you letting your opinion on spring skew your interpretation of the information?
I directly questioned spring on that point. She did not give a response.
Spring: Again, did you compile those notes throughout the course of the game, or did you decide to simply go back and read the game and make a summary after the fact?
I have answered this, in my last post, above the paragraph you criticize below.
springlullaby wrote:A note on Spolium and Goat, I have them at low danger but in actuality, if they do look good comparatively, I haven't been a fan of their play before my notes. It was long winded and nitpicky from both of them, and they have been very shy of making strong statements. Right now I'm explaining this with the fact that this is a difficult town with what I sense to be high error margin, and that they have been on the reserve, but frankly, I expect better.
What? I'll give you long winded, but that's how I always play. All of my long winded posts were in response to long winded Spolium attacks on my scumhunting, at any rate. Shying away from making strong statements? How so? My early pressure on Budja wasn't shy. My attack on Fhq wasn't shy. I didn't shy away from pressuring you. So where are you getting this notion?
"Been on the reserve" is relative. I'm limited in what I can attack based on what has been given to me. If 60% of the game is lurking, there's definitively less information for me to generate opinions on. What you might call "nitpicking" I call the best lead based on available information. If you thought my leads were nitpicking or poor, you could have stepped out and said so. I find it intensely hypocritical that you are calling me out for this when you are a source of the problem.
I can accept that for now, this is why I have you at low danger. Regardless, I do think that yours and Spolium's play has been shy of making waves, and I did step out to say so.
springlullaby wrote:Nice, a deadline. I'll call my shots before that.
Why'd you have to wait till a deadline came up to be useful?
Lynx @ spring wrote:When you deliberately chose to be quiet it was suspicious to me.
QFT, but either way, spring's posted some good stuff.
To Spring: Why'd you wait so long to be useful?
Don post 200 - I disagree with almost all of this, but leave it null at best.
Lynx wrote:Jebus you unvoted Spring. Now are you back to looking at Coyote and Spolium? Or has anyone else caught your eye?
I've been looking at most everyone, 'cause as I said before, I really didn't have too much, I just accentuated what I had.
Coyote hasn't pinged my scumdar thus far, same for Spolium. Other than that, Don's been placed in my eye by SL, and one of them (if not both) is throwing bull around, I just can't tell who.
Lynx wrote:A policy lynch should not even be considered at this point. I think we definitely have enough info to pick out a proper lynch candidate.
QFT
RedCoyote wrote:
don 228 wrote:i feel that at this point in the game, anyone pushing for a policy lynch is aiming to avoid accountability.
Do you think post 184 is me "pushing" for a policy lynch in order to "avoid accountability" on this game?
Don says something about RC pushing for a policy lynch in the quote (though RC cut that out)
@Don: Did I miss something here?
Post 231 Fhq - Noted vote on spring with little backup that I saw. Dependent tell (?)
Fhq wrote:Reading back the responses about the amount of mistakes she made, it seems to me these 'notes' weren't made during the game, but rather after the fact.
How so?
Spolium wrote:SPRING
- lurking for seven and a half pages highly anti-town
- wallpost ambiguous enough to explain away "misinterpretations" if necessary
- "I'm happy to vote players x, y and z" with no vote
The first one is the only major thing I hold against Spring at the moment. The second is possibly a dependent tell, and the third is bizarre enough, imo, to not really be taken anywhere (I mean the lack of vote, not your point).
Spring wrote:I'm asking for an extension because I do not want to be lynched by a deadline vote rush. Which given the fact that there are 2 dead votes from lurkers hanging on me is likely to happen.
Dependent tell, maybe (?)
Post 241 Spring - I'm unsatisfied with this explanation for not putting a vote out there originally.
Plonky wrote:I'm sorry, I am here, I just was writing a huge post but then my computer crashed and I lost everything. I am, suffice to say, a bit upset about this. Will post later.
Null but noted. Very dependent on the promised post, with large chance of not being anything.
RedCoyote wrote:
Almost perfect scale model of a giant wall, though there's a bit more to it than that. Though imo just a lot of dirt back and forth.
don wrote:
seems uneccessary. how is questioning a player on a questionable post "pushing an issue needlessly"? i would think determining whether ort not SL's post was genuine would be an extremely important issue as opposed to needless. also note, he states that don, goat, and lynx are doing the pushing, yet he quotes fhq. i don't think any one of the three players he mentions are piggybacking at all on what fhq wrote. in fact, it seems as though those three players all have separate and solid issues they are trying to settle regarding SL's post. so, for now,
vote: RedCoyote your play has been puzzling to say the least.
Possible distancing?
Don: Support the 'puzzling play' thing?
budja wrote:RedCoyote - Spolium pointed out very recently that he has been over-supportive of Spring and I agree with this. This does seem a bit suspect to me. I don't have anything to add to this and his play earlier showed nothing to give me suspicion. I am interesting in seeing his responce.
In what weight do you hold this?
Thoughts on Spring and Don (maybe~) seem okay
My general scumlist revised:
Jebus wrote:Azhrei - ~replacement guy talk plz D:
Budja - ~scum
don_johnson - ~scum
fhqwhgads - ~town, though slightly scumming
Goatrevolt - ~town
Ice9 - ~town - come back plox? D:
Lynx - ~town
Plonky - ~hello who are you
RedCoyote - ~scum - look into
Spolium - ~town?
springlullaby - ~town?
Imo, our scum is Budja, don johnson, and RC. Again, to be put away till later.
Overall, the quote-wars and walls of text are excruciatingly painful to read. I'm aware of the hippocracy, but if we could avoid making every post something that makes China's Great Wall look tiny...
So ordering it up:
Budja
- pretty much what everyone's said, plus dependent tells made independent/null based on how he flips (aka info to be gained)
don johnson
- I think he's the bull side of the spring/don arguement.
Spring
- lurking through the beginning of the game, keeping notes private till page 9. Also the spring/don arguement, though that bit weighted lightly.
RedCoyote
- still just a feeling and a bunch of dependent scum tell (mostly on how others flip). I really want to look into this.
fhq
- Was scummy, made a strong recovery in 131, and is starting to scum up (general vibes).
As a semi-opportunistic vote (possible info gained from wagon),
Vote: RC
Other: We've gotten our extension, so we don't really need to worry about the deadline for a bit.
Especially for Octopus, who do you guys have as your top three scum at this moment?
I'm reading the game and just getting a huge headache - I honestly find this game hugely difficult to read.
I also
support the extension of the deadline.
I'd really like it if people could point to specific areas as to where they'd like me to express my opinion. At the moment, I'm at a bit of a loss as to where to start.
(Yes, I do realise that this is disappointing but I promise that if I have a lower amount of things to look at, I will be able to post tomorrow.)
As to why I unvoted - I don't see reason to keep on my vote for spring since as far as I'm aware it was left by the person I replaced.
don_johnson wrote:
just to clarify... is this list ordered from who you find most suspicious to whom you find least suspicious? i.e. is budja #1, dj #2, and so on?
Yes, though note that it's all relative, eg on a graph of scumminess, it would be far from linear.
New on the scene, cards to my chest
Am i towny or do i wear a bullet proof vest
Just through the door, so myself remains unknown
So give me you hand, so I will not be thrown.
Nu to this game...but hey, I wont going pointing my finger just yet. Or Will I?
millar13 wrote:New on the scene, cards to my chest
Am i towny or do i wear a bullet proof vest
Just through the door, so myself remains unknown
So give me you hand, so I will not be thrown.
Nu to this game...but hey, I wont going pointing my finger just yet. Or Will I?
For a second I took the bullet proof vest bit and almost thought it was a claim xD
Welcome. In your recap post, do me a favor and say who your top three scum are (and more if you've got it ;D)
@Jebus, I find the case on Redcoyote has potential. As I said, his earlier behaviour was pretty townie to me. The case is not as strong as the other two I suspect IMO, but is probably one of the more interesting things to come out of the spring interactions (along with don_johnson).
@Lynx, sorry for not clarifying this earlier. I didn't notice your question.
Calling my earlier vote random was silly. The vote was fairly useless virtually as soon as I had placed it, by my own fault.
I was mixing random with casual/generally unimportant as random votes generally are.
In short, I muddled my words up.
jebus: i am at a loss to describe "puzzling". RC just seems to be defending spring by casting accusations that don't stick to anyone. they lumped several players together trying to create the impression that all the arguments against spring were one and the same when in fact, people had different issues with different areas of SL's play. he also stated his opinion as though it were fact. he asked both SL and myself to "represent" our cases on each other. not a difficult task, but i see it as a scumplay. a townie should be reading and following cases. both spring and myself brought up valid points in our argument, yet he dismisses them. i don't see why he's going to the lengths he is in order to defend someone whose alignment he does not know from attacks that are actually valid. spring did lurk. spring's analysis post was ambiguous in alot of ways. was it scummy? that's up for discussion, but to seemingly deny that these things happened seems off. i urge you to reread our exchange. i present evidence. the only evidence RC produces is in regards to "fringe" type issues. i.e. he produces quotes to show that he is right in calling out players on whether or not they think SL's post was fabricated or "genuine". he focuses on that instead of the REAL ISSUE which was(is) the content of SL's post. good redirect, but not helpful in the least.
