Mini 753 - Really Deep South (Game over!)

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote: Korts

Leave Volkan alone, he has done you no harm.

I fail to see how this is a random vote.

Joke comment + vote = random vote. Its not because someone has not harmed you personally that they aren't scum.

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB are you telling me people don't ask for claims at L-1? I'm just saying if somoene was at L-1 and was asked to claim and claimed miller I would beat it was scum. I can't imagine a town person being that dumb.

I will rephrase.

What are the benefits for scum to claim Miller when at L-1?

*** People! Help me! Is that not a simple question? Why is it that I can't get farside to understand this simple question??? Can someone else try to ask it differently or something? I can't get through.***

Are you kidding? If someone hammered without (1) waiting for a claim (2) having a good reason. I would be looking at that person tomorrow for lynch. Great way to catch scum. I doubt in this group there is dumb town or dumb scum, however.

What if the hammer came from a townie that didn't realize there was a wagon at L-1 on page 5?

[farside22]

DGB are you telling me people don't ask for claims at L-1? I'm just saying if somoene was at L-1 and was asked to claim and claimed miller I would beat it was scum. I can't imagine a town person being that dumb.

I will rephrase.

What are the benefits for scum to claim Miller when at L-1?

*** People! Help me! Is that not a simple question? Why is it that I can't get farside to understand this simple question??? Can someone else try to ask it differently or something? I can't get through.***

Are you kidding? If someone hammered without (1) waiting for a claim (2) having a good reason. I would be looking at that person tomorrow for lynch. Great way to catch scum. I doubt in this group there is dumb town or dumb scum, however.

What if the hammer came from a townie that didn't realize there was a wagon at L-1 on page 5?

There is no bennifit!! Why do you act like I was saying someone would do it. I'm saying examples of who I would think is scum when Skander asked me about timing of claims!! GEEZ!

With this group are you kidding? Seriously? EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS HE IS AT L-1. IF THEY HAMMER THEY ARE SCUM.
Okay.
God girl find a hobby.

[DrippingGoofball]

...i ...give ...up ....

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't get your line of thinking either ^^^

[farside22]

I don't get your line of thinking either ^^^

I don't either. I have player commenting about the whole miller claim with questions and comment and I have another talking to be about a question a player asked me about what timing would I consider somoene scum who claimed miller. I feel like I'm being completely misread.

[DrippingGoofball]

I don't get your line of thinking either ^^^

She says that if a player claimed miller at lynch minus one, she would bet that the player is scum.

Why would a cornered scum, at L-1, claim miller???

A cornered scum might claim miller after an infavorable investigation. But a scum wagonned to lynch minus 1 (no investigation) would be really stupid to claim miller, no?

Would that stop the lynch? No.

Would the scum out 'the real miller'? That is absurd, the scum wants to out useful power roles if they're going to go down, or, if not counterclaimed, appropriate the power role for themselves.

If a player claimed miller at L-1, they'd be hammered in the next post. I can't imagine why scum (or town, for that matter) would want to do that.

[farside22]

I don't get your line of thinking either ^^^

She says that if a player claimed miller at lynch minus one, she would bet that the player is scum.

Why would a cornered scum, at L-1, claim miller???

A cornered scum might claim miller after an infavorable investigation. But a scum wagonned to lynch minus 1 (no investigation) would be really stupid to claim miller, no?

Would that stop the lynch? No.

Would the scum out 'the real miller'? That is absurd, the scum wants to out useful power roles if they're going to go down, or, if not counterclaimed, appropriate the power role for themselves.

If a player claimed miller at L-1, they'd be hammered in the next post. I can't imagine why scum (or town, for that matter) would want to do that.

Did you even read the link you gave me. Perfect example of dumb scum. He claims vanilla and then claims miller when pressured. No it doesn't out anyone. I'm saying I would bet someone was scum if they did that because no town person would do that in their right mind.
It would surprise me to see someone fumble when pressured. It happens all the time. Why are you acting like it's a big deal. It was a comment to a question. Why are you acting like it a big tado or something?
Basically I want to understand why you are making a molehill into a mountain. Please explain.

[DrippingGoofball]

It would surprise me to see someone fumble when pressured. It happens all the time.

If it happens all the time, why would it surprise you?

Are you, by any chance, fumbling under pressure?

[elvis_knits]

DGB, do you think claimed millers should be policy lynched?

[farside22]

It would surprise me to see someone fumble when pressured. It happens all the time.

If it happens all the time, why would it surprise you?

Are you, by any chance, fumbling under pressure?

That should say wouldn't with the surprise.
No. I think you are grasping at straws.
Now please explain how you are getting that my one comment to a question asked means so much to you.

[farside22]

Plus I feel you are misrepresting the initail conversation and blowing out of poportion for no real good reason I can find thus far.

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB, do you think claimed millers should be policy lynched?

Eventually, yes, unless they're vig'ed earlier. Because you know they're not getting NK'd, ever. Only the town will eliminate a claimed miller. Do you disagree with this reasoning?

[DrippingGoofball]

Plus I feel you are misrepresting the initail conversation and blowing out of poportion for no real good reason I can find thus far.

That's because you're not understanding/answering the question. If you had answered it the first time I asked, you would have spared everyone the tiresome twenty follow up questions.

[elvis_knits]

DGB, do you think claimed millers should be policy lynched?

Eventually, yes, unless they're vig'ed earlier. Because you know they're not getting NK'd, ever. Only the town will eliminate a claimed miller. Do you disagree with this reasoning?

I guess I agree when you put it that way. But I don't feel like lynching abr for his miller claim alone, when so many others are dripping with scum. As the game moves forward I would look at abr and make sure he got a lot of scrutiny, to better judge his scumminess. And also, think about lynching him before lylo.

[DrippingGoofball]

I guess I agree when you put it that way. But I don't feel like lynching abr for his miller claim alone, when so many others are dripping with scum.

Oh yeah. We've got lots to work with already.

[farside22]

Plus I feel you are misrepresting the initail conversation and blowing out of poportion for no real good reason I can find thus far.

That's because you're not understanding/answering the question. If you had answered it the first time I asked, you would have spared everyone the tiresome twenty follow up questions.

If you stopped asking a misleading question I would answer it properly. As it was when you asked it looked to me like you were implying something I said had anything to do with anything. I answered a question about who I would suspect as scum with a miller claim based on time. That was the question I answered and did not understand why you found this a subject in which answering what scum gain by doing so is really something that needs any focus in my book. One had nothing to do with the other except both talked about miller vs scum claim.

[roflcopter]

why is there a discussion going on about what would happen were someone to claim miller at lynch -1?

[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.

[elvis_knits]

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 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.

[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.

[elvis_knits]

Now you love vollkan?

[Korts]

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

[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.