Open 131 - Nightless Vanilla (Over) before 767

[Wall-E]

/confirmitude

[Wall-E]

Post 44 is a great post.

I'll vote Lowell when we're ready to end the day.

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote Lowell

yay

[Wall-E]

I've... I've already said why.

Is anyone in this town paying attention at all?

[Wall-E]

Post 51 was Lowell, not me. Your question strikes me as anti-town because an answer leads down a dark path. Suppose I answer "Lowell could have said X". In Lowell's next post he says X. I could keep my vote on him or unvote. I think either option looks bad. (Either I let him off too easy or I didn't keep my word). All that said, it is hard to come up with cases and defend them early in the game.

White Castle why are you so worried about looking bad? It's page 4 of D1 the game isn't about you it's about the town. I don't like the fact that you're so hesitant to take action, seems like you're a little bit more skiddish about doing something to attract attention to yourself. Neither option would look bad if you properly explain yourself.

This is a bad post. You've taken White Castle's words and twisted them to make it sound like he's scared of attention. I see no such indication here.

[Wall-E]

I suppose I can see that angle, but I still think it's a weak attack at best. There is such a thing as fence-sitting town.

[Wall-E]

Touche. I guess I just disagree with you then.

[Wall-E]

Touche. I guess I just disagree with you then.

And that's fine, I guess I just encourage throwing yourself out there for the town's benefit over your own personal safety. I would much rather appreciate town not holding back instead of holding it in.

I believe that it's more pro-town NOT to voice my opinion on some issues.

[Wall-E]

I went back and checked how you signed up. You signed up as you said.

/in for anything

No, I didn't know what I was signing up for. I went to the queue and wrote "/in" like most people do.

This is a marginal, and wrong, tell. Try harder.

However, you have presented no evidence to support your claim that “most people just write /in” I am not willing to take anyone's supposition as fact.

I disagree that this tell is “marginal and wrong.” In the context of what you wrote, marginal means “barely within a lower standard or limit of quality”. This tell works some of the time, so I agree that it is marginal. However, to make a blanket statement that this tell is wrong strikes me as scummy. The only way your statement makes sense is if you applied it to your specific situation, but the context indicates you are attacking the tell itself and not applying it to your situation.

this argument was stupid and i'm giving WC scum points for it

[Wall-E]

upon review, i retract my previous statement. i misread something. upon a third read i'm all sorted out now, and i agree with white castle

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote Lowell

on the basis of the following:

"to make a blanket statement that this tell is wrong strikes me as scummy. The only way your statement makes sense is if you applied it to your specific situation, but the context indicates you are attacking the tell itself and not applying it to your situation."

[Wall-E]

@hewitt: I'm sorry, but I want to revisit an issue. The scenario we just discussed didn't go as I'd have liked it to. Here's what I should have done:

First, White Castle said words: "I can see two options (if I didn't do what I did), A and B."

What I read was this: "I can see three options. A, B and the unstated option C, which is the one I actually took. A and B are bad options, and so I will not do them."

Hewitt: "You are not choosing between A or B, the only two options."

Me: "Something isn't right about what you just said, hewitt." - brain turns off and doesn't quite figure out what the wrong thing is until now

Me: "Let me try this again." - this post happens - "There are three options,

and

it is possible to be in a situation where both of the only two options are poor ones. Do you wish to restate yourself in regards to the post by WC?

[Wall-E]

Post 51 was Lowell, not me. Your question strikes me as anti-town because an answer leads down a dark path. Suppose I answer "Lowell could have said X". In Lowell's next post he says X. I could keep my vote on him or unvote. I think either option looks bad. (Either I let him off too easy or I didn't keep my word). All that said, it is hard to come up with cases and defend them early in the game.

I don't understand your analogy Wall-E. White Castle has laid out two options and it looks like he is skiddish to do either because in his opinion he'll look bad either way. So either he unvotes and he "let's him off easy" or he keeps his vote and "doesn't keep his word". My advice was to do what you feel necessary if you feel he's scummy then keep your vote on him and continue your case but if you don't feel he's scummy anymore then unvote. I don't think it would look bad at all as long as you explain your actions accordingly and thus there should be nothing skiddish about.

I don't really understand where you're going with this third option thing Wall-E. White Castle doesn't state a third option.

ok, i'm caught up now. disregard.

[Wall-E]

White Castle in Post 75: You make 2 wiki uses in 8 posts sound like nothing.

I may use it once, but usually never in a game.

Bolded part is what I don't like.

How does this slip indicate he is scum? How would scum benefit from lying about this? I think you're up the wrong tree here, logically speaking. However, if you feel the pressure may be causing a slip of grammar here, you may be onto something (?) I have a hard time reading such tells.

I need to a re-read of this thread and get some game notes going, which I will do over the weekend.

Regards,
Jazz

Expecting those notes to appear soon.

Wall-E in Post 100: Why? I definitely agree with hewitt here: saying all you've got is better for town rather than holding stuff back.

It's an ambushing thing: Suddenly popping up with a huge amount of carefully collected evidence... I've seen it win games for the town.

If, on the other hand, I said, "Oh, I've got my eye on you, Wall-E" then Wall-E is going to stop providing me with evidence against him. Feedback is a tool the scum use in this manner.

No feedback for the scum is my motto. That's also why I don't discuss who's town-looking without a good reason.

Uh, I don't like to discuss my meta unless it's relevant, so try to keep it relevant, ok? I don't have a good judgement of such things which is what gets me into trouble sometimes with moderators, so help me help you help me, if you please, kiss.

[Wall-E]

i can respect that opinion

[Wall-E]

wow, that's slick

i suddenly don't suspect millar13 as much

stupid psychology

[Wall-E]

This thread is derailing fast. I'd help save it but I'm worn out from huge quotewar. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.

[Wall-E]

Using the wiki is a scumtell now?

[Wall-E]

You can't have it both ways. It's either significant and therefore a scumtell or it isn't. Which is it?

[Wall-E]

In this context, I meant "significant" to mean "vital to finding scum." If you think WC's use of the wiki means something about his or anyone else's alignment, I'd like to hear what/how. Don't take this to be an attack, merely asking for clarification.

[Wall-E]

I'm going to go along with hewitt here. It's clearly a slip.

Unvote: Vote: White Castle

[Wall-E]

I'm going to go along with hewitt here. It's clearly a slip.

Unvote: Vote: White Castle

Wall-E, you've misread things I've said before. This is another instance.

10 people in this game have voted. It means that

at least 6

town players have voted. That means that 6, 7, or 8 of the players that have voted are town because there are 4 scum out of 12 players.

Would a scum slip have included the phrase

at least

? A scum could make an absolute statement like "X town players have already voted" because they would know for certain.

...you admit it's awkward, though.

[Wall-E]

...you admit it's awkward, though.

Why do you say that? White Castle pointed this out almost a week ago, back in post 145:

I've got news for you: 10 of us have already voted. At most, 4 out of those 10 are scum meaning that at least 6 town have already voted.

Regards,
Jazz

What is your point?

[Wall-E]

Okay I'm sold on white castle being town. And no prod needed.

Unvote: Vote: Lowell

FINALLY! A GOOD LEAD!

PS don't clear people for the scum to kill thanks

[Wall-E]

Jazzmyn also used the wiki in this game, and it was an appeal to authority (Tarlhandur's debunked tells), which is a logical fallacy. He did append the reference by saying that he disagreed with the specific tell, but the fact that he used it at all is still AtA.

[Wall-E]

Lowell's 247 is biased. He lists votes by me without stating my reasons while simultaneously extending the courtesy to other players, calls my arguments staged (how can anyone prove/disprove that?) and is trying generally to paint me scummy without justification.

He initially states his interest in voting me, but is cautious to do so in fear of looking too eager.

Quote or you're lying.

Do you deny that you were clearing people for the scum?

You're right that my heart hasn't been in any of my votes yet. So? Is bandwagoning a scumtell all of a sudden?

[Wall-E]

Equating people jumping on your badwagon with idiocy is ad hominem. Man, your post is just full of nonsense.

[Wall-E]

I do not understand the point you are making in 251. Can you please elaborate?

[Wall-E]

You are saying that millar has been playing follow-the-Wall-E.

I suppose I can't refute that (or even think of a reason why I'd want to) but I'm curious what conclusion you've drawn from this data.

[Wall-E]

Good point! I bet Millar agrees with you!

I've shown you the courtesy of addressing each of your points against me and you've responded to criticism of your own plays with deflective rhetoric. I'm beginning to dislike this course of actions from you.

[Wall-E]

Post 44 is a great post.

I'll vote Lowell when we're ready to end the day.

This is post 55.

[Wall-E]

Great a nightless with a billion scum...

vote white castel

OMGUS aside, this reminds me of something I read here:

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... dard_Tells

At the bottom of the page is the "Well, That Sucks" Tell.

You signed up for this game knowing the ratio of town to scum, and that it was nightless.

unvote, vote Lowell

And this is post 44.

[Wall-E]

I see nobody exhibiting fear in either post. The fact that you gave a good reason for the lack of knowledge mollified me, if that's what you mean, but I don't go around advertising when someone looks town to me. Saavy?

[Wall-E]

Yeaaaah, you're reaching on me. Sorry. If anyone else takes you seriously at all I'll go through and properly explain my actions in regards to you, but I think it's pretty clear you're pulling this out of your rump.

[Wall-E]

Who, in your opinion, has had my back in this game?

[Wall-E]

It seems I was on another page when I posted that and now I can't find the post I was referencing nor the name of the person I was talking to.

[Wall-E]

How would it be confusion? I thought it was directed at me. Do you honestly think I'm the type of person who would be baited into responding to the word "scumbuddies" like that? I have a bit better of a poker-face than that!

[Wall-E]

Explain why you voted WC for a "slip", then left white castle to vote me when I said it wasn't a slip. Not only that, you said that by declaring WC town I was "clearing a path for scum" or something.

Did I convince you WC was town? If not, why aren't you voting him? If I did and you're worried scum will kill him (in a nightless, somehow), why are you voting me?

False dilemma.

[Wall-E]

I thought it was directed at me.

Um, what? Then why did you say that you didn't know what it was about and that you didn't even know what post you were referencing?

Do you honestly think I'm the type of person who would be baited into responding to the word "scumbuddies" like that?

It is quite apparent that you did, in fact, respond to it (no baiting required), and it is also apparent that you later claimed not to know what you were responding to, nor why. So, please explain that.

I have a bit better of a poker-face than that!

Really? In whose opinion? Aren't you the same guy who claims to be the longest-running newbie ever, and who claims to be useless at the game when it suits you to say so? Was that in this game or some other recent game?

Regards,
Jazz

I lost the post, you found it and pointed out that it wasn't directed at me. Thanks!

[Wall-E]

I suppose, Jazzmyn, that my point is this: I would never respond to a post that called the addressee scum unless my name was attached to the post. Ever.

[Wall-E]

An honest mistake. I now see your point, but who would really feel baited into responding to something like that as scum? I guess I just feel like that's insulting.

The theory you are presenting is this:

Bob: Johnny is the scum.

Scum-Mike: Am

not

the scum!

Bob: I was addressing Johnny.

Right?

The situation was this:

Bob: Johnny is scum.

Mike: Are you talking to me? Why do you say that?

Bob: I was talking to Johnny.

Mike: Oh. My bad. I misread something.

[Wall-E]

Fishing for roleclaims?

[Wall-E]

EBWOP: Now I don't know what you meant. I thought you were inferring lovers. What do you mean by 285?

[Wall-E]

How helpful of you.

[Wall-E]

Lowell, who is the first and second most scummiest player in this game and why, in ten words or less per player?

[Wall-E]

wall-e for looking for reasons stated,
millar for buddying up to wall-e and emp

Can you give a quoted example of each of these? I would appreciate it.

[Wall-E]

Okay I'm sold on white castle being town. And no prod needed.

Unvote: Vote: Lowell

FINALLY! A GOOD LEAD!

PS don't clear people for the scum to kill thanks

My first real vote on Lowell. It was predicated upon a misunderstanding on my part, and I officially retract it if I have not done so already.

Jazzmyn also used the wiki in this game, and it was an appeal to authority (Tarlhandur's debunked tells), which is a logical fallacy. He did append the reference by saying that he disagreed with the specific tell, but the fact that he used it at all is still AtA.

Do you deny this, Jazzmyn? In case I'm being unclear, what I mean is that Tarhalindur's opinions on the tell do not equate to fact, nor are they even relevant to this game, as all tells are case-by-case. Given that, they cannot be used to support OR denounce any argument in this game. They are merely there to look pretty, argumentatively speaking.

Lowell's 247 is biased. He lists votes by me without stating my reasons while simultaneously extending the courtesy to other players, calls my arguments staged (how can anyone prove/disprove that?) and is trying generally to paint me scummy without justification.

He initially states his interest in voting me, but is cautious to do so in fear of looking too eager.

Quote or you're lying.

Do you deny that you were clearing people for the scum?

You're right that my heart hasn't been in any of my votes yet. So? Is bandwagoning a scumtell all of a sudden?

Lowell still hasn't addressed this. The part that has been crossed out was retracted by me.

Equating people jumping on your badwagon with idiocy is ad hominem. Man, your post is just full of nonsense.

Lowell still hasn't addressed this. Fallacies muddy the thread with irrelevant words that distract from razor-sharp scumhunting.

You are saying that millar has been playing follow-the-Wall-E.

I suppose I can't refute that (or even think of a reason why I'd want to) but I'm curious what conclusion you've drawn from this data.

Lowell still hasn't answered this.

Good point! I bet Millar agrees with you!

I've shown you the courtesy of addressing each of your points against me and you've responded to criticism of your own plays with deflective rhetoric. I'm beginning to dislike this course of actions from you.

This is still true. Rather than talk about the meat of my case, he is quibbling over the dessert fork.

Post 44 is a great post.

I'll vote Lowell when we're ready to end the day.

This is post 55.

Great a nightless with a billion scum...

vote white castel

OMGUS aside, this reminds me of something I read here:

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... dard_Tells

At the bottom of the page is the "Well, That Sucks" Tell.

You signed up for this game knowing the ratio of town to scum, and that it was nightless.

unvote, vote Lowell

And this is post 44.

I see nobody exhibiting fear in either post. The fact that you gave a good reason for the lack of knowledge mollified me, if that's what you mean,

but I don't go around advertising when someone looks town to me. Saavy?

Again, this crossed out segment has been retracted. Regardless, where is this 'fear'?

Yeaaaah, you're reaching on me. Sorry. If anyone else takes you seriously at all I'll go through and properly explain my actions in regards to you, but I think it's pretty clear you're pulling this out of your rump.

I decided to go ahead and compile my case against my #1 suspect. I'd like Lowell to address it first, but others are welcome to comment after he's done. One more thing:

Explain why you voted WC for a "slip", then left white castle to vote me when I said it wasn't a slip. Not only that, you said that by declaring WC town I was "clearing a path for scum" or something.

Did I convince you WC was town? If not, why aren't you voting him? If I did and you're worried scum will kill him (in a nightless, somehow), why are you voting me?

False dilemma.

Another fallacy.

[Wall-E]

An honest mistake. I now see your point, but who would really feel baited into responding to something like that as scum? I guess I just feel like that's insulting.

But nobody ever said that you were baited into anything. Rather, you raised the "baiting" issue yourself. It's weird, though, that you said that you would never EVER respond to a post referencing scum if it did not name you specifically (even though you did precisely that).

Ah. I see our problem.

I thought I saw my name on the post.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E Wrote:

Jazzmyn also used the wiki in this game, and it was an appeal to authority (Tarlhandur's debunked tells), which is a logical fallacy. He did append the reference by saying that he disagreed with the specific tell, but the fact that he used it at all is still AtA.

Jazzmyn Wrote:

No, I didn't, and no it wasn't any sort of appeal to authority on my part. I just responded to someone who referred to it to say that I disagreed with it, as I was aware from previous games what it said.

Wall-E Wrote:

It is, in fact, not an appeal to authority to disagree with an authority, but it is an appeal to authority to call Tarhalindur's categorization of that tell into the game as reference material

IN ANY WAY AT ALL

. That's what I'm saying. The other person also used AtA, but I wasn't attempting to look over his shoulder at that time, so to speak.

[Wall-E]

Sorry for the long post. I wanted to get all the Wall-E - Jazz all in one place.

I really appreciate you helping us clear this misunderstanding up.

Lowell - "Some things that strike me now that I'm actually paying attention" - nice that you've been at L-2 three times and are now just taking this game seriously. Maybe you don't have to worry since your scumbuddies have your back?

The characters in the following: Lowell -

When scanning quickly, my brain saw this: Wall-e

Who, in your opinion, has had my back in this game?

...Who was that question directed at Wall-E?

It seems I was on another page when I posted that and now I can't find the post I was referencing nor the name of the person I was talking to.

I can't find the post now, because I'm looking for this: Wall-e - something something about people having your back?

It doesn't exist, so I assumed it was on another page.

WC note – Wall-E wasn’t on another page, this is all still on page 11. Jazz summarizes these posts in 271 and poses the question:

Things get worse because I'm not fully cognizant of the type of misunderstanding I'm dealing with.

Hmm. Wall-e, did you get confused and respond to the "scumbuddies" bit by accident?

Regards,
Jazz

NO! I was responding to my name!

How would it be confusion? I thought it was directed at me. Do you honestly think I'm the type of person who would be baited into responding to the word "scumbuddies" like that? I have a bit better of a poker-face than that!

But I don't understand Jazzmyn's confusion, because I already said that I thought it was directed at me, meaning I thought WC wrote Wall-e in his post. This breakdown in communication is my own fault for not thinking about it deeply enough.

WC note - Wall-E

was

confused because he thought my 262 was directed at him. He might have slipped up and is using the excuse that it would be below him to make such a mistake. Nobody is perfect, so I don't buy the defense so far. Further, Wall-E has also been giving me the impression that he is unaware this is a nightless game ("clearing townies for the scum to kill" and the like), so I contend that he is capable of this slip. Finally, he voted me for my "slip" so by his own yardstick we should vote him for what is a possible legitimate slip.

Why would you rely on the scumhunting standards of someone you thought was scum?

I thought it was directed at me.

Um, what? Then why did you say that you didn't know what it was about and that you didn't even know what post you were referencing?

Do you honestly think I'm the type of person who would be baited into responding to the word "scumbuddies" like that?

It is quite apparent that you did, in fact, respond to it (no baiting required), and it is also apparent that you later claimed not to know what you were responding to, nor why. So, please explain that.

I have a bit better of a poker-face than that!

Really? In whose opinion? Aren't you the same guy who claims to be the longest-running newbie ever, and who claims to be useless at the game when it suits you to say so? Was that in this game or some other recent game?

Regards,
Jazz

WC note - does Wall-E respond to "longest-running newbie ever, and who claims to be useless at the game when it suits you to say so"?

He's quoting me in another game.

I thought it was directed at me.

Um, what? Then why did you say that you didn't know what it was about and that you didn't even know what post you were referencing?

Do you honestly think I'm the type of person who would be baited into responding to the word "scumbuddies" like that?

It is quite apparent that you did, in fact, respond to it (no baiting required), and it is also apparent that you later claimed not to know what you were responding to, nor why. So, please explain that.

I have a bit better of a poker-face than that!

Really? In whose opinion? Aren't you the same guy who claims to be the longest-running newbie ever, and who claims to be useless at the game when it suits you to say so? Was that in this game or some other recent game?

Regards,
Jazz

I lost the post, you found it and pointed out that it wasn't directed at me. Thanks!

I suppose, Jazzmyn, that my point is this: I would never respond to a post that called the addressee scum unless my name was attached to the post. Ever.

WC note - Wall-E denies the existence of his own post 267, I'm glad Jazz asks about it next.

I suppose, Jazzmyn, that my point is this: I would never respond to a post that called the addressee scum unless my name was attached to the post. Ever.

And yet, you responded to a post calling Lowell scum in which he was asked if his scumbuddies had his back, by posting, "Who, in your opinion, has had my back in this game?" How do you explain that?

Regards,
Jazz

An honest mistake. I now see your point, but who would really feel baited into responding to something like that as scum? I guess I just feel like that's insulting.

The theory you are presenting is this:

Bob: Johnny is the scum.

Scum-Mike: Am

not

the scum!

Bob: I was addressing Johnny.

Right?

The situation was this:

Bob: Johnny is scum.

Mike: Are you talking to me? Why do you say that?

Bob: I was talking to Johnny.

Mike: Oh. My bad. I misread something.

WC note - Wall-E's feelings are not relevant, and are an appeal to emotion ("I'm insulted").

An honest mistake. I now see your point, but who would really feel baited into responding to something like that as scum? I guess I just feel like that's insulting.

But nobody ever said that you were baited into anything. Rather, you raised the "baiting" issue yourself. It's weird, though, that you said that you would never EVER respond to a post referencing scum if it did not name you specifically (even though you did precisely that).

The theory you are presenting is this:
Bob: Johnny is the scum.
Scum-Mike: Am

not

the scum!
Bob: I was addressing Johnny.
Right?

Wrong. I didn't present a theory. I noticed and commented on the fact that you responded to a "scumbuddies" comment by White Castle, which was directed to Lowell, in a manner that shows that you thought it was referencing you. Your explanation for it has been less than satisfactory.

The situation was this:
Bob: Johnny is scum.
Mike: Are you talking to me? Why do you say that?
Bob: I was talking to Johnny.
Mike: Oh. My bad. I misread something.

No, the situation was more like this:
WC: Lowell is scum and so are his scumbuddies.
Wall: No, I'm not.
Hewitt: Who are you talking to, Wall?
Wall: I dunno. Can't find the post or the person that I was referencing.
Jazz: The post is right there, and it didn't mention you at all. Did you get confused and respond to the scumbuddies comment by accident?
Wall: I thought it was directed to me.
Jazz: But you just said you didn't know what it was you were responding to.
Wall: I have too good a poker face to respond to something like that.
Jazz: But you just did respond to it, and then said you didn't know what you were responding to, and then said you thought it was directed to you.
Wall: I would never - ever - respond to a post that referred to the addressee as scum unless it had my name attached to it.
Jazz: And yet, you just did.
Wall: Oh, oops, yeah, I guess I see your point. Honest mistake. But I would never, ever be baited into responding to the post I actually responded to, no really, that's insulting.

Bizarro.

Regards,
Jazz

WC note - I agree with most of Jazz's summary, an exception being that the beginning the discussion was about scumbuddies having each other's backs.

An honest mistake. I now see your point, but who would really feel baited into responding to something like that as scum? I guess I just feel like that's insulting.

But nobody ever said that you were baited into anything. Rather, you raised the "baiting" issue yourself. It's weird, though, that you said that you would never EVER respond to a post referencing scum if it did not name you specifically (even though you did precisely that).

Ah. I see our problem.

I thought I saw my name on the post.

Sorry for the confusion.

WC note - Wall-E's total defense is that it is insulting and below him to make that slip. Wall-E hasn't yet responded to "longest-running newbie ever, and who claims to be useless at the game when it suits you to say so"? Overall, his defense has made him look scummier.

Lowell didn't respond to my post 262 either, and I'd like him to.

Jazz did a good job of following up on this.[/quote]

You both did. Thanks for fixing my perception of this chain of events.

[Wall-E]

Netlava: Because I'm insane, and I suppose it doesn't.

[Wall-E]

Posting to post.

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: hewitt

for being scum.

Thanks Empking! Great reasoning!

[Wall-E]

Some people sometimes lynch Empking.

I like to do whatever he does sometimes.

How do you feel about having two votes on you like that?

[Wall-E]

A D1 lynch of an anti-town person doesn't give information that is correct. But keeping an anti-town person throughout the length of the game until it becomes hurtful to the town is not good. At what day would you agree with a policy lynch if not D1 and D1 alone?

This 100% sounds like a person campaigning for a policy lynch. Just so you know, hewitt. It's also a bit pandering.

[Wall-E]

OK, these are just notes that I've taken on my first read. Still trying to get the situation straight.

Unvote: millar13

.

#66 Wall-E: Same deal with millar13 plus the opportunism.

Vote: Wall-E.

Unvote: Vote Lowell

yay

Really? A random voting stage vote? Please.

#100 Wall-E: I'd yell at your line of thinking, but an example of an opinion that you should keep to yourself that came to mind (which obviously doesn't apply here) is whom you want vigged.

Noted. Is that scummy of me?

#154 Wall-E: Why the sudden change of opinion?

#221 Wall-E: I hate this post. Not only is this a nightless, which means no NK, but I don't think clearing somebody warrants a vote per se.

That's nice to hear, but I don't play this game the same way you do. How boring it would be if I did!

Normally, I would vote for someone for clearing townies. I think it's a great way to establish a precident. I retracted this specific attack and line of reasoning when it was pointed out to me that the game was nightless. The majority of your problems with me seem to be that I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the game's setup.

I would counter that a good player doesn't need to know the setup to catch scum, provided he pays attention to the posts and looks for logical inconsistencies. If the fact that the game is nightless or has no power roles escapes my logic once and again, is that scummy?

#249 Wall-E: "Quote or you're lying" comes off to me as a tad harsh, especially given I remember the post of yours Lowell is attacking.

Back this up with some quotes, please. I understand that you disliked my response, but what about Lowell's post makes you think I was being harsh?

Also, I don't like the words "my heart hasn't been in any of my votes yet"—it means you don't care who gets lynched, which is scummy.

"My heart hasn't been in any of these lynches yet" does not mean I don't care who gets lynched. Misrep.

#286 Wall-E: Are you even awake, darn you? There are no power roles here!

I am now aware that this is a nightless game.

#331 Wall-E: Same response as #324.

Posting to post.

What about this is scummy?

#340 Wall-E: Congratulations, you've proven your statement about yourself at #249 and bankrupted any seriousness to your votes.

Unvote: Vote: hewitt

for being scum.

Thanks Empking! Great reasoning!

Lowell's 247 is biased. He lists votes by me without stating my reasons while simultaneously extending the courtesy to other players, calls my arguments staged (how can anyone prove/disprove that?) and is trying generally to paint me scummy without justification.

He initially states his interest in voting me, but is cautious to do so in fear of looking too eager.

Quote or you're lying.

Do you deny that you were clearing people for the scum?

You're right that my heart hasn't been in any of my votes yet. So? Is bandwagoning a scumtell all of a sudden?

All your points are predicated on my inattention to the details of the setup and the fact that I voted once without stating reasons (actually, three or so times), but my question to you is this: If I'm not using my vote for scumhunting, and it looks like someone else is, why not use my vote to back the person who is scumhunting (or appears to be)?

[Wall-E]

First off, since you messed up your first quote box, you're now self-voting if the mod's consistent with his rules. Not scummy in this case, just an FYI from what I've seen.

Unvote: Vote Lowell

yay

Really? A random voting stage vote? Please.

I interpreted the random voting stage as over at that point.

And I say you're wrong. My random voting stage sometimes doesn't end until D1 does.

#100 Wall-E: I'd yell at your line of thinking, but an example of an opinion that you should keep to yourself that came to mind (which obviously doesn't apply here) is whom you want vigged.

Noted. Is that scummy of me?

No. I just thought about it for a moment, and I figured that there are some situations where you want your opinion kept to yourself. Having drawn Open 81 where I was the vig instead of winning it (because I kept announcing my intended vig target), I should know the example I gave to be good.

Yes, I see what you mean. I was thinking of the case when you think someone's town, don't say that.

#249 Wall-E: "Quote or you're lying" comes off to me as a tad harsh, especially given I remember the post of yours Lowell is attacking.

Back this up with some quotes, please. I understand that you disliked my response, but what about Lowell's post makes you think I was being harsh?

That he's referring to this (post #55):

Post 44 is a great post.

I'll vote Lowell when we're ready to end the day.

At the time, I thought 44 was a great post.

Also, I don't like the words "my heart hasn't been in any of my votes yet"—it means you don't care who gets lynched, which is scummy.

"My heart hasn't been in any of these lynches yet" does not mean I don't care who gets lynched. Misrep.

Feeling unsure about one or two lynches I can buy. This, however, is constant and not giving me a good impression. Hence why I'm accusing you of not caring.

Is that a retraction?

I have no problem with that if you have original input, but unfortunately I only see that from you every once in awhile.

There's not always something useful for me to do in these games. I'm more about finding scum myself and harassing them with their own mistakes than constantly refreshing the content of the thread in every post I make.

[Wall-E]

Unvote

[Wall-E]

No, it was a quote tag error.

[Wall-E]

I'll answer that if you stay in the game.

[Wall-E]

Err, ignore my last. Wrong game.

I'm not revoting you for the moment because of your reaction to my prior vote.

[Wall-E]

That's about all I feel comfortable saying. Do you think I SHOULD vote for you again?

[Wall-E]

giggle

[Wall-E]

Wall-E: Scummiest player?

Mmm. WC. I didn't like his policy lynch comment, and the flip-out is telling.

Unvote: Vote: White Castle

[Wall-E]

Ooh, what's he going to do? Vote me?

While I agreed with your refusal to talk to hewitt until he votes (It's pro-town to force other players to take sides) I think this post sounds like false bravado and is disrespectful in tone. He's daring hewitt to vote for him, which can't be a good sign.

[Wall-E]

I could easily be misreading things here. I rely on other people to tell me when sarcasm is sarcasm, a joke is a joke, and spite is spite. This looks like spitefulness in the face of a bit of late-day attention.

I could not even begin to choose four scum. I'm only really good at finding them one at a time and then working back to find the rest, sorry.

[Wall-E]

I hope this is not one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

Who would you vote for right now if you were forced to decide, SC?

[Wall-E]

Uh no White Castle actually you're not posting reasons for voting, you're just telling us that we should be voting for either Lowell or Wall-E since they're the top vote getters and you aren't providing much reasoning at all. I don't see a case on either that makes sense so far so of course I'm not going to vote for either of them at the moment.

White Castle who are your #1-4 suspects and give an in-depth answer as to why.

I'm tired of you again. I refuse to respond to you until you vote.

I've tried my best to keep this game going.

Mod - please impose a deadline.

This contradiction is perhaps the most telling I've seen in a while. It's unquestionable that WC has taken steps to end this day sooner rather than later, meaning his words don't match his actions. A dual-minded person (one who must think like an innocent AND a wolf) displays these kind of traits sometimes.

You are handicapping other players from using said technique.

Have you ever tried using voting analysis before?

He's not handicapping anything for the same reason you can't force him to do what he does not wish to do.

We all know we can make any specific player VERY uncomfortable if they are refusing to do something helpful with votes. In this case, I don't see how hewitt voting for WC could be helpful to WC unless WC is a wolf.

Three votes on WC in a page, I'm not going to vote him yet. I'd likely hammer, but not before we get this canary to sing a little. If he's still off-key I say we truss him up.

WC: Are you willing to quantify the source of the discrepancy between your words and actions? If so, please do.

[Wall-E]

After double-checking, WC: Who did you want hewitt to vote FOR? I originally thought you were trying to get him to vote FOR YOU and I was racking my brain trying to figure out what the frick you were doing, but I see now that you merely want him to bold someone's name?

I'd hazard to guess that WC puts more stock in his own actual votes than his reasoning, and hewitt is the opposite way. Nothing wrong with either, really, but this could have been sparked by a simple cultural misunderstanding.

This does not change the dual-mindedness that WC has exhibited, however.

[Wall-E]

While I'm waiting for WC to come back, does anyone want to rehash the points against me? I'd really like someone to compile a huge case-post that I can address line-by-line. I think it would be helpful for the town if that happened.

[Wall-E]

More votes for WC people, obvscum over there.

[Wall-E]

While I'm waiting for WC to come back, does anyone want to rehash the points against me? I'd really like someone to compile a huge case-post that I can address line-by-line. I think it would be helpful for the town if that happened.

This would still be nice.

Unvote: Vote: WC

Not a hammer yet.

[Wall-E]

(L-4)