Open 131 - Nightless Vanilla (Over) before 767

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all

I am replacing bookworm. Game on.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Vote: Adam Smith

Because it's first alphabetically and because it also sounds like an alias.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

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

I disagree with Tarhalindur's specific "Well, That Sucks Tell" as written in his wiki, actually, but I agree with your take on Lowell's odd post. Why would anyone who signed up for a specific set up in a specific game then feel the need to whine about it in their opening post unless they were scum trying to post something - anything - that they think makes them look sympathetic to the town?

Vote: Lowell

I think you may very well have caught scum on Day 1, page 2 here.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Unvote: White Castle
Vote: Lowell

If White Castle is right, awesome. If not, I'm keeping my eye on him--something seems weird about him quoting the wiki all the time, like he's searching for ways to cover his ass.

^This is scummy. If you are confident enough to vote to lynch Lowell, why are you simultaneously saying that it will be White Castle's fault if Lowell flips town? It takes 7 votes to lynch, after all. If you are not confident in your vote, don't vote. If you are confident in your vote, then take responsibility for it.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

No, I didn't know what I was signing up for.

Well, there goes that theory, then. I sign up for specific games and always check out the flavour/blurb/setup/whichever before I join, so my bad for assuming that others do the same.

Unvote: Lowell

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Well I really didn't see what the big deal was on Lowell.

Pretty simple really: signing up for an open setup game that is nightless and has 4 scum and then posting in his first post, "Great a nightless with a billion scum..."

Looked pretty suspicious to me until he said that he didn't know what he'd signed up for, and it appears that he really didn't. I, for one, always know what I'm signing up for so it hadn't occurred to me that anyone else wouldn't but it appears that he signed up for 'whatever' and therefore may not have known.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn in Post 63: This looks like a hop off a bandwagon to keep you safe. Not to my likeage.

Perhaps you should read the reasons for my vote and the reasons for my unvote, then.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

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

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

EBWOP: Ugh, that should say, "I need to

do

a re-read..."

[Jazzmyn]

Farside is seriously lurking. She hasn't posted since April 1 on this thread but she's posted 50+ posts on other threads since then. Seems fishy.

Adam hasn't posted in almost a week, but he hasn't posted elsewhere on the site in the interim.

@Mod: please prod Farside and Adam.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Just a quick head's up - I will have little to no access until Tuesday night.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

At present, my top choice for scum is Skitzer. I have other suspicions but Skitzer takes number one spot, for several reasons:

In his very first post, he did the following:
- put Empking on his “Townie list”. Town shouldn't make townie lists and in Skitzer's first post, it was wayyyy too soon to come to any such conclusion anyway.
- commented to farside saying, “Sadly…” re FS's campaign to have Empking policy lynched. What's "sad" about it?
- accuses White Castle of “constant linkage” to the wiki, when WC had only referred to it twice (while Skitzer simultaneously makes no mention of FS linking to it).

In his second post, he commented negatively on my post #63 in which I unvoted Lowell, without noticing that I gave reasons for my vote and gave reasons for my unvote. It's as though he was just skimming and trying to come up with something to say to try to avoid looking like lurking scum.

In his third post, he reasserts his odd allegation that it is somehow suspicious for WC to have referred to the wiki twice, but says that he might do so himself once. Strange.

In his fourth post, he continues to cling, albeit very weakly, to his poor allegation against me from his second post (while still ignoring the fact that I gave reasons both for my vote and my unvote), and goes on to 'agree' with hewitt that "saying all you've got is better for town rather than holding stuff back" - which is (a) not true, as there are many circumstances in which doing so would harm, not help, town; and (b) I find that it is often scum who make such claims and such requests in the guise of trying to appear to be pro-town, while actually trying to get info that they can use for their own scum purposes.

He also admits in this post to exaggerating his claim against WC re “constantly” referring to the wiki when he had done so only twice; claims to have been "joking" in a prior post to FS, and admits to "exaggerating", "incoherent", and "inconsistent" posts cited by Netlava.

Yet, bizarrely, in his fifth post, he re-asserts his claim that there is some kind of major difference between farside using the wiki once and WC using it twice, and he again exaggerates WC's wiki use, saying that he “seems to be taking it whole hog and applying it to anything and everything in this game”. This is particularly strange since he had just admitted in his fourth post that he had exaggerated the same point previously.

And... that's it. He has all of five posts all game and he's managed to make specious allegations, contradict himself, be incoherent and inconsistent, as well as skimmy and lurky, all of which adds up to scummy.

Vote: Skitzer

More later.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

The "townie list" empking was more or less a joke, in relation to the policy-lynch scenario. I said sadly because obviously farside was joking,

What makes you think farside was "obviously" joking? Here's a hint: she wasn't.

And there is a difference between farside's link and wc's link: farside's was merely for reference, to clarify a term used, both of wc's are used in correlation with the gameplay.

I think that is both inaccurate, and a distinction without a difference, frankly. Farside linked to the wiki regarding metagaming, which is a method that many players utilize in playing the game. WC linked to the definition of 'utility lynch' which, if anything, is far less detailed that farside's link and actually just provides a definition of a term. WC also linked to a list of (alleged) tells, which lots of people link to in lots of games, by the way, in response to a specific post by Lowell in which one of the tells on the list is closely related to what WC perceived Lowell's post to be. How can you fault him for pointing out what might be a scum tell, just because he links to a source that backs up his suspicion?

And why do you

continue

to insist that WC linking to the wiki twice is somehow a big deal, while maintaining that linking to it once is perfectly acceptable? This is ludicrous. You know, it seems to me that a townie would have just conceded that you over-reacted if that was the case, but scum doesn't want to admit that they made too big a stretch in an effort to present a false case on someone they know to be a townie.

Your reason for unvoting is awful; to me it looks like someone found a hole in WC's case against Lowell, so you jumped off the wagon to save yourself.

Lol - save myself from what, exactly? My reason for unvoting is simple, straightforward, and articulated in the post in which I unvoted, and had nothing to do with someone finding a "hole" in WC's case against Lowell; rather, it was because Lowell's explanation made sense, was backed up by reference to the signup thread, and thus the theory was no longer valid. See, when townies are shown evidence that allays a specific suspicion, they acknowledge it and move on. Unlike, well, you for instance, who just can't seem to back off of your baseless accusations...even after you purport to.

I honestly don't see what is wrong with this. If it helps, here's what I think. White Castle just went too gung ho on the wiki, and that's what I felt. So what if I use the wiki once in a game? That is not in any way similar to White Castle's use of it twice. On day 1.

Again! This is just silly, and the fact that you keep insisting that there is something sinister about WC's legitimate use of the wiki is ridiculous.

My vote is staying.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

...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

[Jazzmyn]

What is your point?

The point is that it obviously wasn't a "slip" and it wasn't "awkward".

Notice what I'm doing and follow along.

unvote, vote farside

Something about her play so far makes me think a "oh, sorry I've been out, vote X" bandwagon vote is about to happen. It's not that she's ignoring the thread so much as when she is on the thread, her posts are weak and vague.

While I agree that farside's participation in this game is abysmal, I'm not going to "follow along". She is currently V/LA until Monday so there is little point in voting her up at present. (I recognize that she wasn't V/LA when you posted that, for the record.)

Also @Lowell - your "magic" declaration of skitzer as town remains highly suspicious.

My top suspect is still skitzer. Hopefully he can respond to my suspicions soon. His comment about how farside was joking is strange. <snipped for brevity>
That's three non-joking posts.

Indeed. He is still my top suspect, too, for reasons already stated.

If she was serious, she would still have her vote on Empking.

Why do you continue to assert that farside wasn't serious, when it seems patently obvious that she was?

Hewitt's freaking out over his messed up quote and his unintentional vote for Lowell and his subsequent refusal to unvote was just ridiculous. Sheesh. Would it have killed you to just unvote rather than risk someone being unintentionally lynched? While you were busy whining about not wanting to unvote when the game mod made it clear that you should do so, the guy could have been lynched.

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.

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.

This would have been a lot funnier if Lowell was already at L-1 when you did it.

That's a pretty scummy thing to say.

The point I'm making is that millar follows you [Wall-e]around agreeing with you.

What conclusions, if any, do you draw from that? It's a bit early to be drawing conclusions about scum-pairs, don't you think?

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.

Now, this is interesting, and it might just be a slip. Here, it appears that Wall-e was reacting to White Castle's post #262 (just a few posts above), which White Castle directed to Lowell, saying:

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?

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

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

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

[Jazzmyn]

No I was just pissed about the bitchy response I got back was all.

Who and/or what post are you responding to with this?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

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

[Jazzmyn]

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

[Jazzmyn]

You two married?

Please, I'd slit my wrists first.

I'm sorry rishi I'm trying to catch up in this game but I had a few things come up. If I can't get to this by Wednesday I may have to replace out just so the town isn't hurt by my performance.

You'll do a greater disservice to the town by replacing out and leaving it up to someone else to catch up who won't be able to explain your posts or your actions, as few and as poor as they are. So, please do your best to catch up rather than replace out.

At the very least, please address the point about whether you were serious or not about policy lynching Empking, as skitzer keeps insisting that he knows your true motives and insists that you were not serious, despite your posts that indicate that you were, in fact, serious.

Do you deny this, Jazzmyn?

Asked and answered, Wall. How about reading the posts? I already addressed this in 271.

Jazzmyn, farside wasn't completely serious about it though. I can't believe you are arguing this much into it.

Lol. You're the one who claims to know what farside isn't serious about, despite her absence and despite her posts that indicate the contrary. I can't believe you're still drawing oxygen in this game.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazz: post 63 Lowell said that comment before you voted why did you just notice it then?

Not true. I voted for him in post 47 around midnight; he made his explanatory comment in post 49 the next morning; I unvoted him for the reasons noted in my next post when I got back on that night, #63.

Why don't we just ask farside? farside, were you serious about policy-lynching Empking?

I am a little surprised you failed to notice that I asked her to answer this back in my post 299.

Interesting that she didn't answer my post but she did answer yours. I get a bad feeling from both of you. I am happy with my vote at present. Wall-e and Empking are also giving me bad vibes, but it seems they always do, regardless of alignment.

That said, I agree that nobody should be lynched before the replacement players have had the opportunity to get into the game and offer their insights.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Upon re-reading, although I still think that Skitzer is probable scum, there are four of them, and Wall-e looks like another, so:

Unvote; Vote: Wall-e

That's L-2, for the record.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I've never flaked from a game ever, so I don't understand the rationale behind it.

So, I don't understand why farside is flaking from this game while simultaneously signing up for other games. Does anyone have any theories on this?

It's bloody annoying, that's for sure.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Prodded. Sorry about falling behind, folks. I will catch up as soon as I can.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all

I just wanted to let you know that I have very limited access at the moment and that is going to continue until at least Wednesday night, and depending on how things go tomorrow morning, possibly until Friday night.

It is work related and, unfortunately, I have no control over it but just wanted to let you know, and to apologize for the inconvenience.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

There's something very odd about this:

Well I got a closeish reread done. Scum are WallE, Empking, Skitzer and WC. I am pretty confident in Lowell being town, a little less so but still like hewitt and SC as town. Everyone else is in that nice little grey area.

Tomorrow with luck I will have reasoning as to why we should be finishing off WallE. I wont vote untill I get a case up though, but for all practical purposes he is at L-1.

Then in Furry's next substantive post, he voted Wall-E, and says that
"the fact that someone as scummy as he is still has not gotten lynched is practically another point to him being scum" with the inference being that the scum are not voting for him, thereby stopping him from being lynched.

But:

Vote Count – Page 23

Wall-E – 6 (Lowell, skitzer, White Castle, Jazzmyn, Empking, Furry)
White Castle – 3 (Wall-E, StrangerCoug, hewitt)
Lowell – 1 (Mastin)
skitzer – 1 (Netlava)
Furry – 1 (Guybrush Threepwood)

Contrary to Furry's reasoning above, and according to Furry's purported scum list,

every single one of the scum

is voting for Wall-E.
So, his reasoning and his purported scum list run counter to each other.

Furry, if you think that Wall-E, Empking, Skitzer and WhiteCastle are the four scum, why would you join a wagon against Wall-E that has all three of your other purported scum suspects on it? Do you think that all three of Wall-E’s scum partners would be on his wagon in this fashion in the circumstances of this game? I.e., it's Day 1, there is no overt need for the scum to ALL bus one of their own, etc.

FoS: Furry

According to you, if you believe your own scum suspect list, that means that the only townies on the Wall-E wagon are Lowell, you and me, while five other townies are voting for others. I just can't see all of the scum being on scum-WallE's wagon like this. One, perhaps. All of them? No way.

And as town, I would never join a wagon that had every single one of my scum suspects on it as you have just done.

So, it looks like you're fudging your scum suspect list and, by extension, also your town list. Which looks pretty suspicious in my eyes.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all

My apologies for my absence. I had work matters that rendered me V/LA until Wednesday night, and then just when I thought that I would be able to get caught up, a medical emergency struck and my daughter had to have emergency surgery on Thursday morning, so I have been completely without access since then as a result. She is now recuperating at home, but she is going to require additional surgery in the next 2-3 weeks.

As a result, I am going to have to ask to be replaced rather than having to go V/LA again on short notice, and further disrupting the flow of the game.

Again, my sincere apologies. I hope to play with all of you again some time in the near future.

Regards,
Jazz