Mini 753 - Really Deep South (Game over!)

[Korts]

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.

[Korts]

OMGUS, OMGUS

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

[Korts]

vollkan-elvis pair, gogogo

Skander is a possible third.

[Korts]

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

[Korts]

Do you think there are more serious reasons to vote on? If so, I'd love some examples.

[Korts]

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

I am serious when I say that malthusis made a scum tell by joining a bandwagon while giving a random vote reason.

In my mind, malthusis is the only person who has done anything concretely scummy.

If you think voting on a "random vote reason" is scummy, it follows that you also think there are better reasons than joke ones for voting. My question was whether this reflects your thoughts, and if so, examples would be dandy.

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

elvis didn't give reason to vote me other than "DIE", so I assumed I was on the right track about you. Ever heard of Chainsaw defense?

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?

[Korts]

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

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.

[Korts]

@EK: I have this thing about reading newbs too well sometimes. :S

Do you think skander is newb scum? (with vollkan buddy?)

I see merit in this theory, with Skander understanding the argument against vollkan but quite noticeably refusing to take a stance on it.

The malthusis vote on vollkan is questionable now that you pointed it out play by play, elvis. My vote may give him a visit later.

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?

[Korts]

@DGB: Every game thus far except 1 all miller claims have been town. Can you link games where millers are scum?

Are you serious? You need to be shown games with fake miller claims?

I have never seen a fake miller claim. I have seen a truthful miller claim, if I remember correctly, twice. That's a 2 out of 2 in the other direction than you're suggesting. I have been around for more than a year so I have to ask: how many miller claims, fake or not, (approximately even) have you seen altogether?

[Korts]

No, DGB, I never said that a miller claim=confirmed town. To me it makes no immediate difference regarding alignment. I don't "trust millers with my money" but neither do I trust anyone else in this game with it.

So get on with actually relevant scumhunting instead of going off on tangential policy lynches.

[Korts]

unvote

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

Well, it was a better starting point than what I usually get; your reaction to the initial vote, if we ignore the sarcasm, could be taken as genuine anxiety. As a transition between random and serious discussion, this case was very good.

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

Huh, I never saw that post. I agree with your conclusion.

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.

elvis, I think you're trying to push a bullshit point. What vollkan refers to as not being serious is the starting point of the case against him i.e. the initial OMGUS vote on me and my reactions, as far as I can understand.

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.

Do you really want a claim at this point? Because I don't. The vollkan wagon has served its cause and has been driven too far considering the meager case on him.

vote: malthusis

I sense an under the radar-type play. His three posts were all short and two of them were completely joking. I don't see him having tried to contribute at all, and elvis made a good point about his initial vote.

[Korts]

I think malth is scum too, so I like that vote, but...

The vollkan wagon has served its cause

What do you think the vollkan wagon accomplished?

It got some reactions, namely a lot of potentially scummy opportunism although I haven't yet analysed the wagon's participants properly yet, and some good and bad counterarguments to the case which drove him to L-1, bad being ABR and better being Skander. vollkan has addressed everything he needed to adequately, I thought, and there is no good argument against him.

Like elvis said, knowing vollkan's or one of the interacting players' (on the wagon or against it) alignment would help more in divining what the wagon accomplished--but a good analysis of it can still imply connections or opportunism.

[Korts]

EBWOP: second paragraph, it's DGB who said what I was referencing, not elvis of course.

[Korts]

elvis is looking scum for the insistence regarding vollkan's claim, more precisely the lack of it. You have to consider the context as well, not to mention the fact that he isn't at L-1 anymore.

Meanwhile, I'll be taking a look at the vollkan wagon's development within the afternoon.

[Korts]

No, but why do you want him to claim unnecessarily?

[Korts]

unvote, vote: ABR

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

ORLY?

unvote:
vote: ABR

Why the ORLY? If you are asking for rofl's reasons, why follow his vote?

[Korts]

BTW that's L-2.

[Korts]

Wait, I don't know if I believe rofl

Is this just gut instinct or what? We don't want to waste a lynch here.

Have you read Skander's post yet?

[Korts]

It doesn't matter what rofl said

Blasphemy! How can you of all people say that?

[Korts]

I don't like the charter fake hammer, and the vollkan "messed up tags" hammer. Both seem like "ooh I wannawanna hammer tehscum" without the vote turning up in a vote count.

[Korts]

Korts, I saw that he was hammered, but have you ever heard of voteless people or something like that? I even said "just in case".

I think DGB might be on to something about you.

Ah, nice OMGUS. Do you have any reason to assume that any voteless role is in play? I don't; a quick scan of the vote counts shows to me that everyone's votes have showed up.

And even if, for some reason, one of the votes didn't count, why not hammer after it's clear that it didn't?

I don't like the charter fake hammer, and the vollkan "messed up tags" hammer. Both seem like "ooh I wannawanna hammer tehscum" without the vote turning up in a vote count.

Can you explain this in detail? It's all so intriguing.

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.

[Korts]

vote: vollkan

[Korts]

Korts, why just me and vollkan? Why not CarnCarn in your scum triangle? He voted ABR but wasnt in the votecount.

Hmm. I don't really understand. Since it was stated in the first vote count that it was 7 to lynch, someone seems to be a double-voter.

CarnCarn would only have been the seventh vote, thus being the hammer-vote. Why would he be in my "scum triangle"?

Also, I'm not making a link between you and vollkan, I'm saying that both of your votes seemed strange--with vollkan's also being scummy.

[Korts]

DX

I'd completely forgotten about elvis being dead when taking into consideration the number of votes needed to lynch... So I had

reason

to believe there are double voters.

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.

[Korts]

Regarding which part?

[Korts]

I apologize for this, but I have no time whatsoever for mafia right now. I am replacing out of all my games, and I am deeply sorry for the trouble I'm causing with this.

mod: please replace me.

[Korts]

thanks pop!