Mini 753 - Really Deep South (Game over!)

[vollkan]

vote: vollkan

He was scum in Adel's deep south; this is a deep south setup; therefor he is scum in this game as well QED.

Come on
Obviously this is a different game.
Perhaps this will change your mind:

Vote: Korts

[vollkan]

OMGUS, OMGUS

Ahem...

I am scum.

Also, vote korts DIE!

vollkan-elvis pair, gogogo

At least when I make a OMGUS, I have the guts to vote.

also, you're obviously scared about my vote. Did I hit a nerve, scum?

I am terrified about your vote. Since you are scum, I know that your vote is only going to be used to advance your sinister agenda.

She's either scum or lying. Either way...

Weird, I can't read the end of that sentence. All I can see is an ellipsis. Maybe you could try again - "either way" what?

Vote: vollkan

for modding AA mafia, which was a great game!

So, you not only make NO comment about EK claiming scum, but you also join a lame alternative wagon. Why? Are you frightened of wagoning Korts?

[vollkan]

elvis is a good wagon and I'd join if vollkan hadn't made an obvious scumreaction in his first post.

This is actually really true. I hadn't actually read the other random votes before laying the perfect trap.

unvote, vote vollkan

Charter-Korts = obv scumteam

[vollkan]

Your OMGUS is showing.

Oh well, it's much bigger than yours.

Ever heard of Chainsaw defense?

Yeah. I remember a few games where I ranted about how I think the whole Chainsaw thing is a load of crap invented by the "standardise scumtells, screw context" crowd.

This is the initial post, Skander. See how he threatens me with his vote to help me "change my mind"? The obviously false evidence I presented should be no immediate threat to him, yet he defends himself like being scum in a previous game is a serious case against him.

So, pray tell, why is your attack on me "obviously false" but my defense axiomatically serious?

I now understand the Volkan argument

So, you agree with Korts?

I dislike how fast the volkan wagon grew.

Huh? What was so bad about the wagon on me growing quickly?

Vollkan's initial response to Korts seemed mostly joking/sarcastic at first, but the more defensive he gets, the less I'm sure.

I'M NOT SCUM DAMMIT!

Unvote, Vote: Neko

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

EK is also treating me as serious.

[vollkan]

vollkan, you

conveniently

ignored this question:

BTW I see you did the same to charter as I did to elvis. If you think my action was scummy, what is your justification?

On the bolded: Nice to see that we are sticking to objective language.

Anyway, look again at what I said in relation to you doing likewise on Elvis:

OMGUS, OMGUS

Ahem...

I am scum.

Also, vote korts DIE!

vollkan-elvis pair, gogogo

At least when I make a OMGUS, I have the guts to vote.

It's pretty obvious, but I didn't anywhere attack you labelling a voll-EK scumpair. What I was making a fuss about (with a level of seriousness which I will leave it to your good will to judge) was that you didn't vote with your OMGUS attack.

So, vollkan, are you saying you like the wagon on you? And you liked the speed?

I was saying neither of those things. I was simply asking skander to explain why he claims to

not

like the speed of the wagon.

Just making sure that I'm right about you approving of this wagon.

Well, to state it now, "YES, I APPROVE OF THE WAGON ON ME"

vollkan, is there anything besides omgus behind your vote on me?

My own desire to be amused by casting an ironic "OMGUS-explosion" vote in response to you saying I was being too "defensive" (which, as some of you may know, is a word which sets my scumdar pinging)

Can I claim Miller? I claim Miller. I am not bulletproof so please refrain from shooting me on the spot. I will not name anyone so foolish and reckless as to shoot unprovoked, but you know who you are. I'm looking at you DGB. And you too, volkan. Although we are friends now, there is no telling if you still secretly want revenge for Peril in Panama.

I'd forgotten all about Panama...until now :Evil:

On the other hand, I am firmly of the view that Millers should claim as early as possible (and this is early enough).

Okay, now explain why you have a crush on vollkan.

It's not really a crush so much as requited love.

I was in a game where vollkan was a miller. Omod mini.

Vollkan, I know you've been a miller. What do you think of ABR's claim?

As I intimated above, I approve of early miller claims (which is exactly what I did in Omod).

My reasoning, if you want it, is basically that a Miller claim is not a viable strategy for scum - it prevents them from keeping their fake-claim options open and is guaranteed to place them under heightened scrutiny. Moreover, it ensures that the scenario doesn't arise of cop. claiming a guilty, only to be met with a truthful miller claim.

Of course, ABR could still be scum. And I don't think Miller claims are a towntell. But I am nonetheless of the view that millers should claim early.

Where IS vollkan?

Since when does one day of not posting warrant this sort of question?

[vollkan]

Given your opinion, which is (surprising to me) shared by many others, how is the bolded part of your statement true? In particular, what kind of scrutiny are we speaking of here, if a player follows the 'rule' of claiming very early?

As I have argued elsewhere, anybody who claims Miller, because of the potential for such a claim to be made by scum fearing investigation (regardless of how viable a strategy may be), is going to draw more attention than your average player.

In short, the player is placed in the limelight.

In fact, some players are suggesting that placing ABR under scrutiny for his claim is to distract from your wagon. Korts, for example, is actively trying to silence me. Your opinion?

Objectively speaking, I think it's a valid argument.

Wait so was it serious or not? Did you vote neko since you didn't like the word 'defensive' or was it to amuse yourself?

I don't like the word 'defensive', and my suspicion of Neko has increased because of its use, but it was not the basis for my vote.

And whilst I was amused by my vote, the purpose of my vote was not self-amusement.

My reasoning, if you want it, is basically that a Miller claim

is not a viable strategy for scum

- it prevents them from keeping their fake-claim options open and is guaranteed to place them under heightened scrutiny. Moreover, it ensures that the scenario doesn't arise of cop. claiming a guilty, only to be met with a truthful miller claim.

Of course, ABR could still be scum.

And I don't think Miller claims are a towntell.

But I am nonetheless of the view that millers should claim early.

Bold mine. If they are not a viable strategy for scum why isn't it a town tell?

We all should understand that the plausible advantgae for scum in a miller claim is that it innoculates them against cop investigation.

I don't think that it is a net positive for scum, however, because of the disadvantages I identified. I am not suggesting that smart scum will not miller claim. What I am saying is that it is basically a null-tell; that there is no objective advantage for scum in claiming miller.

I'm still interested in this, vollkan:

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

EK is also treating me as serious.

I can tell some of it's joking, but all of it? You're not at all serious about anything you're saying? You are not taking the wagon seriously when you are at L-2?

Were you saying you weren't taking the wagon on you seriously, even though you got to L-2?

Some time has passed and you're still at L-2. Do you take it seriously now?

Oh, Vollkan, you're L-1 now. Taking it seriously?

I deny the premise of your question - that I have never been serious.

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

Some of you may know that in recent times I flirted with being a start-of-game-self-voter. Self-voting was getting stale and leading to the same inevitable debates and dividing lines, so I decided I would experiment with a playstyle variation (surely some of you must have notice that I haven't been myself this game? )

To go back and review with absolute seriousness:

OMGUS, OMGUS

also, you're obviously scared about my vote. Did I hit a nerve, scum?

Reaction to my initial vote. Looks/ed to me like standard random-stage behaviour from Korts. I'm assuming here that Korts would not be dumb enough to consider an OMGUS random-vote actually suspect

Then we get post 24:

elvis is a good wagon and I'd join if vollkan hadn't made an obvious scumreaction in his first post.

And, again, my assumption was that "obvious scumreaction" was typical hyperbole.

Things became more interesting for me on the receipt of Charter's 29:

elvis is a good wagon and I'd join if vollkan hadn't made an obvious scumreaction in his first post.

This is actually really true. I hadn't actually read the other random votes before laying the perfect trap.

unvote, vote vollkan

It's ambiguous. Is he playing the random game, or really trying to wagon?

I respond in 31 with:

Charter-Korts = obv scumteam

Essentially, my attempt to see where this leads: if hyperbole from Charter, I would have expected something silly in reply.

Then ROFL joins the wagon, eloquent and informative as ever.

39 makes things more interesting yet: Korts seems to making an actual argument for my OMGUS being scummy, based on reading in a defensiveness

44: ABR steps in to defend me. Buddying in potentia.

52&56: What's interesting to me here is, firstly, that in 52 Neko seems to be admitting the prospect of me just being silly, but by 56, after EK has argued that some defensiveness would be understandbale, he says that " I just think vollkan's reactions are a bit much, especially following a random vote with joke reasons". He seems to be capable of recognising that Korts' vote is an obvious joke, so obvious that I am faulted for *apparently* not picking up on that fact. And, yet, he dismisses, with no basis, the prospect that maybe I am also just being random - which, in the circumstances, reeks of opportunism. Add to this my general suspicion of people who attack others for defensiveness, and the basis for my Neko vote is more fully fleshed out.

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

As with her remarks on defensiveness above, EK is also taking everything as serious

He keeps his cool? Please, he's barely posting.

*sigh* Keep in mind I live on the other side of the globe from most of you.

Posting times, in my time:
Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:32 am
Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:09 pm
Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:11 pm
Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:49 pm
Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:17 am

I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?

[vollkan]

As with her remarks on defensiveness above, EK is also taking everything as serious.

You say she takes everything serious.

She herself started the game by 'jokingly' claiming scum.

What do you make of this, and what are your insights on the psychology of claiming scum early in the game?

Complet null-tell.

Town can do it to play the stirring the pot game. Scum might do it to appear casual.

Vollkan is dancing around my questions to him.

Vollkan is dancing around my questions to him.

I'm still interested in this, vollkan:

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

EK is also treating me as serious.

I can tell some of it's joking, but all of it? You're not at all serious about anything you're saying? You are not taking the wagon seriously when you are at L-2?

Were you saying you weren't taking the wagon on you seriously, even though you got to L-2?

Some time has passed and you're still at L-2. Do you take it seriously now?

Oh, Vollkan, you're L-1 now. Taking it seriously?

I deny the premise of your question - that I have never been serious.

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

As with her remarks on defensiveness above, EK is also taking everything as serious

Your answers to these two questions seem like you're deliberately trying to be difficult and to hide your true feelings. First you tell me I'm taking you too seriously. Then you tell me you have been serious at some times (but won't specify when). Then you tell me I am taking you too seriously again.

And the whole time, never giving a genuine reaction to being at L-1. Mostly what you are doing is responding to questions without giving actual answers.

I smell deception.

ALSO:

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

What? I saw you spill no beans.

Well done on snipping what I said [bolded]:

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

Some of you may know that in recent times I flirted with being a start-of-game-self-voter. Self-voting was getting stale and leading to the same inevitable debates and dividing lines, so I decided I would experiment with a playstyle variation (surely some of you must have notice that I haven't been myself this game? )

On the first question thing. You accused me of not being serious. In fact, as the bolded explains, I was making a deliberate effort to temporarily embrace a "WTF" playstyle, as an alternative to self-voting. See, I began with an overdrawn reaction to Korts, and he retaliated also. What was interesting to me was how the wagon built up seriously, as reflected in the analysis at the end of my last post.


On the second point, what I mean is that you seemed to be taking everything I said at face value.

Volkan: Are you purposely not claiming or was it just an oversight? It sounded like you were going to claim but when I got to the end there was no claim.

Nothing I said was at all meant to intimate an intention to claim.

52&56: What's interesting to me here is, firstly, that in 52 Neko seems to be admitting the prospect of me just being silly, but by 56, after EK has argued that some defensiveness would be understandbale, he says that " I just think vollkan's reactions are a bit much, especially following a random vote with joke reasons". He seems to be capable of recognising that Korts' vote is an obvious joke, so obvious that I am faulted for *apparently* not picking up on that fact. And, yet, he dismisses, with no basis, the prospect that maybe I am also just being random - which, in the circumstances, reeks of opportunism. Add to this my general suspicion of people who attack others for defensiveness, and the basis for my Neko vote is more fully fleshed out.

This might be a good point, but you're interpreting neko's posts in the worst possible way--to me those two posts implied indecisiveness more than opportunism in the making.

I agree that there is some necessity for interpretation here, but I don't think I am being unreasonable in my reading of Neko's play. He demonstrates clearly that he is capable of recognising random jokiness, for the purposes of indicting me for *apparently* failing to realise that you were being jokey. He even acknowledges the prospect that I might be silly, but this just drops off his radar.

[vollkan]

As with her remarks on defensiveness above, EK is also taking everything as serious.

You say she takes everything serious.

She herself started the game by 'jokingly' claiming scum.

What do you make of this, and what are your insights on the psychology of claiming scum early in the game?

Complet null-tell.

Town can do it to play the stirring the pot game. Scum might do it to appear casual.

Vollkan is dancing around my questions to him.

Vollkan is dancing around my questions to him.

I'm still interested in this, vollkan:

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

EK is also treating me as serious.

I can tell some of it's joking, but all of it? You're not at all serious about anything you're saying? You are not taking the wagon seriously when you are at L-2?

Were you saying you weren't taking the wagon on you seriously, even though you got to L-2?

Some time has passed and you're still at L-2. Do you take it seriously now?

Oh, Vollkan, you're L-1 now. Taking it seriously?

I deny the premise of your question - that I have never been serious.

As far as I can tell, the only reason vollkan thinks korts is scum, is because korts is voting vollkan. And that's no a good reason to be that sure.

As with her remarks on defensiveness above, EK is also taking everything as serious

Your answers to these two questions seem like you're deliberately trying to be difficult and to hide your true feelings. First you tell me I'm taking you too seriously. Then you tell me you have been serious at some times (but won't specify when). Then you tell me I am taking you too seriously again.

And the whole time, never giving a genuine reaction to being at L-1. Mostly what you are doing is responding to questions without giving actual answers.

I smell deception.

ALSO:

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

What? I saw you spill no beans.

Well done on snipping what I said [bolded]:

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

Some of you may know that in recent times I flirted with being a start-of-game-self-voter. Self-voting was getting stale and leading to the same inevitable debates and dividing lines, so I decided I would experiment with a playstyle variation (surely some of you must have notice that I haven't been myself this game? )

On the first question thing. You accused me of not being serious. In fact, as the bolded explains, I was making a deliberate effort to temporarily embrace a "WTF" playstyle, as an alternative to self-voting. See, I began with an overdrawn reaction to Korts, and he retaliated also. What was interesting to me was how the wagon built up seriously, as reflected in the analysis at the end of my last post.


On the second point, what I mean is that you seemed to be taking everything I said at face value.

Volkan: Are you purposely not claiming or was it just an oversight? It sounded like you were going to claim but when I got to the end there was no claim.

Nothing I said was at all meant to intimate an intention to claim.

52&56: What's interesting to me here is, firstly, that in 52 Neko seems to be admitting the prospect of me just being silly, but by 56, after EK has argued that some defensiveness would be understandbale, he says that " I just think vollkan's reactions are a bit much, especially following a random vote with joke reasons". He seems to be capable of recognising that Korts' vote is an obvious joke, so obvious that I am faulted for *apparently* not picking up on that fact. And, yet, he dismisses, with no basis, the prospect that maybe I am also just being random - which, in the circumstances, reeks of opportunism. Add to this my general suspicion of people who attack others for defensiveness, and the basis for my Neko vote is more fully fleshed out.

This might be a good point, but you're interpreting neko's posts in the worst possible way--to me those two posts implied indecisiveness more than opportunism in the making.

I agree that there is some necessity for interpretation here, but I don't think I am being unreasonable in my reading of Neko's play. He demonstrates clearly that he is capable of recognising random jokiness, for the purposes of indicting me for *apparently* failing to realise that you were being jokey. He even acknowledges the prospect that I might be silly, but this just drops off his radar.

[vollkan]

Well done on snipping what I said [bolded]:

Since I am at L-1, however, I shall spill the beans (or, 99% of the beans)

Some of you may know that in recent times I flirted with being a start-of-game-self-voter. Self-voting was getting stale and leading to the same inevitable debates and dividing lines, so I decided I would experiment with a playstyle variation (surely some of you must have notice that I haven't been myself this game? )

On the first question thing. You accused me of not being serious. In fact, as the bolded explains, I was making a deliberate effort to temporarily embrace a "WTF" playstyle, as an alternative to self-voting. See, I began with an overdrawn reaction to Korts, and he retaliated also. What was interesting to me was how the wagon built up seriously, as reflected in the analysis at the end of my last post.

Vollkan... I read that bolded statement the first time and I don't see how it's very interesting, or crazy, or informative. It doesn't seem like some big secret. I cannot comprehend how that's "spilling the beans."

It's important because the underlying assumption upon which the arguments of the wagoners were based was that some or all of my behaviour (be it my "defensive" response to Korts, or my OMGUSing) was serious (or, more accurately, "not deliberate shit-stirring").

In that sense, I was "spilling the beans". It wasn't a big secret - or, rather, it shouldn't have been - but the very fact of the wagon proved that it was something that certain people hadn't factored into their actions.

It seems natural that people might expect you to claim when you're L-1, people have asked for a claim, and you say something about spilling the beans. The explanation you provided is a gimme explanation and even if you weren't planning to claim, I would have expected something more earth-shattering. Some type of plan you concocted... or theory of the game or theory of who is scum. Merely saying how you decided not to self-vote this game... is not wild and crazy.

It wasn't a mere absence of a self-vote. It was that, instead of self-voting, I went down the path of the responses you saw.

[vollkan]

The case against vollkan was rubbish, with such a quick wagon I'm thinking 'mega-bus' and I was thinking that elvis was in the driver's seat.

Um...didn't Elvis just flip town?

Kort's spinned a 180 on the wagon so fast his tires caught fire. This needs to be elucidated.

He abandoned it when I explained the basis of my behaviour was early-game pot-stirring. Frankly, I think it's a null reaction.

The case against vollkan was rubbish, with such a quick wagon I'm thinking 'mega-bus' and I was thinking that elvis was in the driver's seat.

IIRC, Korts was the first person to push the case, and it was right out of the opening posts on D1. That makes vollkan and Korts more likely to be mutually exclusive as scum, to me, because that's not something I would expect scum to do. However, either one could still be scum.

Except, when I read Korts' early posts, it doesn't look like he is pushing a serious case.

miller has no need to talk to the mod and get annoyed at him.

Good catch.

Unvote, Vote: ABR"]

[vollkan]

What's there to explain? It's pretty much already in the original quote. charter's post-hammer vote is just that, a clear-cut attempt at pushing the wagon to overkill; and vollkan's vote I don't like because, unless his keyboard layout is radically different than the one I have come to know over the years, I don't see any likely scenario in which he tries to close a bold tag with a quotation mark.

I typed "] instead of [/b]. I can guess that I typed " instead of /, given the proximity of the keys. Frankly, I can't explain why I missed the

ns arise from your remarks, though:
1) What is the motivation for deliberately messing up the tags?
2) How likely do you think that motivation is, versus just a typo?

But my point against vollkan isn't that he was willing to vote him--it's that the format of his "broken tags" suggests a deliberate stunt at showing support without actually voting.

Maybe if ABR was town that argument would be semi-valid, but he flipped scum.

Oh-oh, vollkan distances from ABR? "It's not really a crush so much as requited love." Scum Point!

Hmm? I was just making a jokey remark there. What's your reasoning?

[vollkan]

Are we waiting for anything in particular? I don't understand why neko isn't lynched yet.

At the point of your writing this, D2 had been going for just 2 days and Neko had yet to even post on D2, yet alone claim. I'm curious...why would it make sense for town to lynch in such a situation?

I call bs. No one would target ABR and he had no night action. So much BS. The only acceptable reason for targetting ABR was you didn't believe him to be miller and thought he would submit a scum kill. You said way too much more than that.

The other reasons are legitimate. Sure, suspicion of ABR is clearly the most important thing, but I don't see why you can so bluntly dismiss the rest of it as "bs".

[vollkan]

At the point of your writing this, D2 had been going for just 2 days and Neko had yet to even post on D2, yet alone claim. I'm curious...why would it make sense for town to lynch in such a situation?

DGB answered this in 280, why must you ask after it has already been answered? Time is an important factor in this game. Giving a suspect more time gives him and his scumbuddies more time to come up with a more convincing fakeclaim than ABR's.

For starters, I was asking you and not DGB. When I want her reasoning, I will ask for it.

Secondly, and more importantly, DGB in no way "answered" the question I asked you. Consider what she said

Mod: can neko be temporarily replaced?

We need a claim, we can't hold off lynching the scummiest candidate for VLA reasons, in a speed game

(bolding mine)

And, yes, I agree with the bolded. We can't be stuck with a VLA L-1 in this game. Having said that, there is an enormous distinction between what DGB said and what you said, which I quote again:

Are we waiting for anything in particular? I don't understand why neko isn't lynched yet.

DGB wants to hurry things alone, by having a temp replacement so that the proper processes can be duly carried out.

You, in contrast, want a quick lynch.

And yes, delaying in time does give scum more time to plan a fakeclaim. But, I would argue, that said cost (which is actually fairly minor, given that scum can and do plan in advance and that it isn't exactly something which requires real-time days of contemplation) is more than offset by the cost of jumping into a lynch too quickly.

The other reasons are legitimate. Sure, suspicion of ABR is clearly the most important thing, but I don't see why you can so bluntly dismiss the rest of it as "bs".

Explain to me how the other reasons are legitimate.

Thankyou for ignoring me and instead simply asking me the obverse of my point. It does wonders for my opinion of you to see that whilst you won't explain your reasons, you are prepared to ask me mine.

To go through Neko's reasons:

1. The target will be protected (good if town, bad if scum)

Makes perfect sense. Sure, it doesn't count for much at all, since scum is very very unlikely to target a claimed miller, but it's legit, if not very powerful.

2. The target will be roleblocked (bad if town, good if scum)

This is the clearest advantage for the action if ABR is scum, so no problem here.

3. Anyone targeting the target will be blocked (the ramifications of this depend on who is targeting whom and what their intentions are--lots of variables)

Neko isn't making a judgment here

1. No investigative role is going to waste their time with ABR. I get to avoid blocking results

Yup, completely true. Sure, the odds of blocking a result role are low, but it doesn't render this BS.

2. If he was scum, obviously, he might have sent in the NK and be blocked (this is partially why I was resistant to the lynch, though he probably wasn't going to send in the kill anyway even if he did live)

I don't think it justifies being resistant to the lynch, but it is valid that he may block a kill.

[vollkan]

I gave a reason too. Prevent fakeclaiming fabrication.

I've already addressed that reason.

And yes, delaying in time does give scum more time to plan a fakeclaim. But, I would argue, that said cost (which is actually fairly minor, given that scum can and do plan in advance and that it isn't exactly something which requires real-time days of contemplation) is more than offset by the cost of jumping into a lynch too quickly.

Simply presenting one positive aspect of a course of action in no way serves to justify it - because you also need to look at countervailing factors.

I argue that the increased credibility of a fakeclaim is worse than a quicklynch.

You didn't argue that. You have asserted it. How about explaining it?

Scum will never target a miller. Find me even one case where it has happened. No town protective role is wisely spent on a miller. There are virtually no roles worse than a miller. No other town power is well used on a miller.

I agree, and I don't think protecting him played a big role in neko's reasons, going by what he has said.

2. The target will be roleblocked (bad if town, good if scum)
Yeah, what are the chances that a scumgroup is going to have their fake miller carry out a kill on Day 1, when there's a chance of a tracker roaming around?

Well, there is a line of scum logic which would say that it would be better to have a fake miller who is already marked as hypo-scum commit the kill than have a relatively "clean" member of the scumteam commit a kill and be caught.

All I get from copter was this:

ok guys, abr is lying about his roleclaim, time for a lynch

I took this statement to mean he looked into ABR that night. Interesting enough if he see's ABR doesn't that mean that Neko didn't lock him up?

Goes to look up reporter.

Good find; it seems my defending of the claim was misplaced.

Easily believes without question the miller claim.

Not true. The position I took here concerning miller claims was entirely consistent with my meta-position on such claims. I treat them as complete nulltells.

Anyway, hammer time.

Vote: Neko

[vollkan]

Ah, page 2: vollkan gets to 5 votes pretty quickly (L-2). ABR joins the game and votes Korts, which puts him at 3 votes. I think this is a plus point for Korts/tajo because I don't see a scummate jumping into the game and dropping a third vote on a buddy. Not necessarily a minus for vollkan, though, but probably is (since ABR didn't vote the popular, path of least resistance choice). Although... he does specifically mention vollkan and appears to be buddying. I'm not sure scum would leave something like that, but I guess it's WIFOM.

So, to be clear, do you think the ABR point is wifom?

page 5: charter says the discussion of millers is distracting from lynching vollkan, and ABR pops in again to agree in 110 (given ABRs limited posting, this looks like scum trying to manufacture a link or use a townie's ideas). This is a positive for charter, IMO. vollkan comes back to defend ABR's miller claim as "not scum", which Skander picks up on as contradicting a statement made by vollkan. Townie point for Skander, and again, it's likely that they are not both scum together.

1) Rightly or wrongly, my position on miller claiming is meta-consistent.
2) Which post does Skander apparently catch me out for contradicting myself in?

vollkan check back in - pretends like he's gonna claim, then doesn't. Not sure why a townie would do that at L-1.

*facepalm* I've been over this. My play up until that point was deliberate pot-stirring. At least several of the wagoners, however, appeared to have been taking me at face value.

As such, my reasoning for not claiming was simple: the revelation of the above material fact which, in my view, fundamentally affects the validity of the wagon (or, at least, requires a re-examination of it)

[vollkan]

Claim: Vanilla townie

[vollkan]

1) Rightly or wrongly, my position on miller claiming is meta-consistent.

Hiding behind meta much?

I defended ABR's claim which naturally lends itself to an accusation of a scum-link.

In that context, I think it is crucially relevant that my defence of ABR's claim was entirely in accordance with my meta position.

I don't like the insinuation that I am "hiding" behind my meta. Meta is a perfectly legitimate (I'd even say vitally important) consideration in this game.