So what you're suggesting is that because charter is scummy as town, he should be lynched regardless of his actual alignment?camn wrote:Thanks Patrick.
And you wonder why you were the scummy one.
I think it is obvious that IVote: Charter.
He is too scummy when he is town to possibly ever be caught as scum.
Also, I am listening to John Askew, which I was listening to last time I thought charter was scum.
Looking up your first vote reasons, here's what I found:Green Crayons wrote:I'm fatigued at night and was merely establishing myself in the thread. Also, I take exception to the label of a "joke vote." I don't joke around with my votes, but they are necessary in the early stages of the game. End of the list is a common target of my first vote simply to put it somewhere. Coupled with the fact that Yos had not (and still hasn't) made himself known in the thread, and I would say my vote is more "faintly useful random" than "joke." /egobruise
Why do you consider the observation that "we seem to be taking things seriously now" something that makes your vote useless?DizzyIzzyB13 wrote:Unvote, Since we seem to be taking things seriously now. Green makes a persuasive argument. Camn, if you're going to try and make a case against someone based on a metaread, you need to be able to justify it when challenged. It is your case. Don't expect other poeople to make it for you.
Yet you have a stated tendency to always use the same reason for a first vote. Don't you think those two things are contradictory?Green Crayons wrote:Yes. I hate, hate, hate the random voting stage. It's a waste of life. I make an attempt to at least have some reason to vote someone
You gave no reason, and it was your first post, so it's a natural assumption that the vote was arbitrarily placed.Yosarian2 wrote:Randomally? Of course not, what gave you that idea?Korts wrote: I don't like Yos' wishy-washy post 39. He's "meh" on both semi-serious points of discussion, and votes randomly, apparently.
I only referenced information that is accessible by anyone. I don't think that is an infraction of site rules or any discussion guidelines.OGML wrote:This seems like a horribly concocted way to attack Green Crayons. Also, hey, thats my ongoing game you just referenced, and there's a reason why ongoing games should be kept out of the discussion.
I just found it strange that the story keeps changing--either his reason for random voting is always the same, or he tries generating discussion from it; both at the same time are not really plausible, since a fixed randomvote reason is a cop-out from having to fish for reactions.OGML wrote:Again with the cockamamie semi-attack. I do not see what possible use you could find for this line of questioning.
Your claim stood out to me, and I had time on my hands. I was interested to see whether your claim will hold in the face of further inspection.GC wrote:while I appreciate your thoroughness, I'm curious as to what end?
And did you consider my point on camn any more serious than camn's initial randomvote reason?Incog, post 86 wrote:First, I don't think the point made there by Korts was valid at all -- it seemed pretty obvious to me that camn's first post was a joke so to me the vote lacked a lot of luster.
This interpretation is the most forced you can possibly get. my orignal question was something like "do you consider Incog confirming late scummy?" (I'm on a train without access, so I have no way to dig up the original), and while yes, I suspected there was an answer to that, you dismiss the fact that there was not much else in the way of discussion at that point.Incog, post 86 wrote:The stuff he wrote about Ether just gave me a (deep breath) "I'm poss-scum who doesn't quite know what to say yet so I'll ask a silly question that I probably already know the answer to in an effort to make myself seem active" vibe.
I don't like Xdaamno's defense of Izzy, especially because charter had a very good point--Izzy, in 90, denies the accusation of lack of scumhunting, but admits to having done close to nothing to form her opinions. Also, page arguments are lame, especially considering the amount of text this game has already generated by this point.Xdaamno, post 93 wrote:This is page 4 - you think not scumhunting yet is unusual? She hardly talked about it "at length", anyway, and that wouldn't be a scum tell if so - it was the very start of the game, so it's not unnatural to talk about things like that.charter wrote:unvote, vote Dizzy
You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?
I am not planning on doing any more meta research on GC, his reply satisfied me.OGML wrote:Re: Korts' post 78 - this explanation is fair, but I think you're spending too much time on your meta fishing trip with GC and I worry that you might be trying to hide behind it.
I don't like this at all. The statement of her willingness to vote Xdaamno/me and the subsequent question of Izzy's opinion on us seems like a clear attempt at directing suspicions, either Izzy's or in the case of an Ether-Izzy scumpair the majority's.Ether wrote:I could flip to Xdaamno or Korts. I'm all for Xdaamno accepting Patrick's defense--except that he's still voting him. Which is it? (For the record, Patrick's starting to feel better now, though I don't get why he interpretted my 76 as support.After starting this aside with "for the record" I was half-tempted to load it with more qualifiers but I won't.)
Camn, what do you think of Izzy? (And you still haven't answered my questions about patterns you're used to from Charter, but whatever.)
Izzy, what do you think of Xdaamno, Korts and Yosarian2?
I really don't like this; GC has a valid theory, and Xdaamno evades it by attacking the form in which the point is made rather than its contents.Xdaamno wrote:I know it's a major part of your arguing style, but can you avoid being intellectually dishonest? I try and not make claims such as "...all this crap you're spewing" until I actually feel I have already proven why I believe that. You put those kind of things at the start of your argument, which is just annoying to read.
Dosen't need responding to, as I noted above.Green Crayons wrote:I read this as: "Here's a bunch of BS to explain why I didn't remove the vote because I made up the reason for the vote after the fact." I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way.X wrote:Perhaps the vote is obsolete. I haven't done the mental legwork to decide if I think it is or not. Therefore, the 'expected value' of pressure from this vote is still above 0 (and would be even if we all believed otherwise, because we could all potentially be wrong.) If there is no negative to keeping my vote here, I'm drawing a net positive and so it's not worth removing.
If you're comfortable having me constantly behind by a growing number of pages, I can read everything. Otherwise, a rough outline with links to important posts should be enough.camn wrote:You do need to.Korts wrote:Actually, I won't read everything if I don't need to.
I am now nine pages behind. First time I fell behind it was only one and a half pages. I didn't read up with the same speed that others kept posting. Like I said, I don't want to be constantly behind, so unless there are specifics which you want me to read, I won't toil my way through nine pages.Patrick wrote:Yos claimed miller out of nowhere. It's surely your responsibility to decide for yourself what was notable about the reactions. How many pages behind are you? Your first post back implies only a couple of pages, but then on this page you're acting like you don't have a chance of catching up unless people link you to highlights.
I have madeIncog wrote:I'm curious as to why you want me specifically to respond to your questions when you previously mentioned that you were receiving a scummy vibe off of me. Now you want me to bring forth the points I find notable? Why would you trust the opinion of someone you consider scummy? I don't think you're being sincere here, and I think you're beginning to look a lot like lazy scum.
My issue was when in the beginning of the game you attacked me you seemed to piggyback on Patrick's case. I didn't "manufacture suspicion" because I had hopes then of catching up soon.Incog wrote: I'm still waiting on these "issues" that both Korts and skitzer supposedly had about my play. Or does it take the both of you this long to manufacture suspicion?
What are those good reasons you seem to be talking about? That I lagged behind and opted for a quick summary instead of toiling for another week or so? Please consider the fact that there are three week deadlines with no extension and we're at the end of the second week--after all this, which do you think is more unhelpful, if I keep lagging behind, or if I skip nine pages and try to interact?DizzyIzzyB13 wrote:It's inaccurate to say I don't believe in pressure votes, but I don't necessarily use them as a lot of people would. At the moment, though, I'm willing to lynch Korts. I believe there's enough of a reason for it to be a good lynch for now, though I'm open to changing my mind if the evidence points that way.
Baseless. I fell behind through no fault of my own.Izzy wrote:You deliberately avoided the game and lurked.
That's your interpretation. Then again, I've decided, after failing to catch up, to ask for a few pointers and opinions on the game from everyone. Your interpretation would only hold water if I had actually shown inclination to piggyback on anything stated.Izzy wrote:You've attempted to find other people's opinions to latch on to to avoid the accountability of having your own.
Please. What you're ignoring in this point, but don't fail to exploit in another point, is that I was reading material from nine pages ago before, while now I've decided to read only recent posts.Izzy wrote:When you get enough votes that you have a bandwagon, suddenly you're all over this game like crabs on Paris Hilton. That's scummy.
OMGUS is such an empty accusation. You promptly fail to recognize the validity of my reasoning why I came back from living in nine pages ago, which is that deadline is only a week from now; and your failure to recognize this is scummy. That is not the same as voting you for voting me.DizzyIzzyB13 wrote:EBWOP: I also forgot that your vote for me is based solely on OMGUS. Which, y'know, at this stage of the game is also scummy.
My activity has gone up since I stated that I won't bother trying to read nine pages before posting. The fact that I have a wagon on me is irrelevant and clearly not the cause of my increased activity as you're trying to depict.Izzy wrote:So you say. Yet the fact remains that your activity has gone way up now that you have three votes and thus a bandwagon, and attention is on you. You cannot dispute this.
The fact that I have more reason than "OMG YOU ARE VOTING ME I VOTE YOU" is enough to make the vote something more than OMGUS. Also, your appeal to authority/majority is noted.Izzy wrote:You voted for me because I voted for you. You have said this. Then you posted some self-justification for your scummy behaviour that fails to hold water and fails to form even a vaguely convincing case as to why my decision to vote for you because of your scummy behaviour should be considered scummy. It's total OMGUS, and since GC has spotted it too, I'm not the only one who sees this.
Feel free to read my ongoing games, or even my overall contribution on-site. I posted wherever I didn't have much backstory to read; check my newbie, I fell behind at approximately the same time I fell behind here.Izzy wrote:you had time to waste elsewhere. You had opportuinities to catch up yet you chose not to and to fall behind. That is most ceertainly unwilling.
I checked the thread and saw a call for a prod on me. I responded. And it was Izzy's request that prompted me to check the deadline rules and make the decision to contribute based on interactions rather than reading the backlog.GC wrote:Maybe I'm missing something. Tell me how his understanding is incorrect.
You post on April 8th - the bottom of page 11 (post 274).
You don't pay attention to the thread for a few days.
You come back April 12th - the middle of page 15 (post 362).
Your "come back" post is immediately (as in, 3 minutes) following Dizzy's request for you to be prodded. This makes it look like you were keeping up with the thread.
This is unless you assume that in that time I checked the deadline rules and saw that I didn't have the time to properly catch up.GC wrote:I find it hard to think that the one hour and ten posts that it took for you to shift your position somehow made you believe you couldn't catch up.
This is a blatant misrep. If you have been following the game at all, I fell behind on page 4 approximately, andGC wrote:And then only 12 hours later you claim that you are now nine pages behind (post 386)! And that you originally were only a page and a half behind. If you came back on page 15 and were only behind a page and a half, but when you get to page 16 and now claim that you're nine pages behind I have to call bullshit.
I have other responsibilities beside mafia. The fact that I am on scumchat and am able to reply to posts that don't require a read of nine pages worth of materal does not mean that I am not occupied with studying.DizzyIzzyB13 wrote:Also, GC if you look at his posting history, you'll see that during his periods of inactivity here, he was clearly posting in other games quite happily. He had ample opportunity to catch up/stay up to date, and he's steadfastly refused to do so. His alleged nine pages isn't even all that much to read. Unless he's a really slow reader, which I doubt based on his interactions in Scumchat, I can't see how it could take more than, like, an hour.
Essentially, yes. And the semantic argument about the meaning of "couple" is pointless--it doesn't just mean two, it also means (as far as I am aware) "a few". Whether or not nine pages is few is a completely different argument, but I never claimed to be only two pages behind, and that is an idiotic assumption to make.GC wrote:So you're saying you lurked/fell behind because you mismanaged your time (scumchat over ongoing game) and/or over-extended yourself (not enough time in the day to oblige your commitments)?
I am leaning towards agreeing with skitzer's comment regarding this post. This does seem like a conscious attempt at emphasising that you are scumhunting, as in a pre-emptive defense of sorts. Especially since the next post of yours is a snipe at OGML's fairly reasonable question instead of anything resembling an analysis of scum vs. town motives.Xdaamno wrote:I came in here to find some scumtells, so that's what I'm doing now.
I feel comfortable because and her push on my wagon, by analysis of her reasoning, seems more policy-based than anything--why didn't she vote me while I wasn't posting? A week from deadline, and more than a week since I started trying to catch up, and she wants me to go back to reading and consecutively having to avoid most interactions--which are the best way for me to gauge players' motives. And I am reactionary by nature, it is a good way for me to scumhunt--unless I misunderstand the meaning of the word?Xdaamno wrote:P.S. If you're so far behind in your reading, why do you feel so comfortable placing your vote on DizzyIzzy? Wouldn't you want to catch up first and then decide where to place your vote after gathering more information about the players and the game in general instead of being so reactionary?
I don't see your motivations, I see your actions. You can't expect me to assume that your question was made simply because you didn't know. My point that you declared that you would scumhunt (scummy) and then promptly failed to perform anything resembling it (scummy) is still valid.Xdaamno wrote:Your use of the world 'snipe' is completely dishonest. Did you actually look at my question? I truly did not know the answer, which I wanted to help me scumhunt.
The fact I forgot to go back and see his answer is irrelevant to the point at hand ¬.¬
How can you infer OGML's alignment from a question about his call for pressure on his suspects? That is a whole new level of scumhunting to me.Xdaamno wrote:Now you're making a pedantic objection. I treat 'asking questions which you can infer alignment from' to be scumhunting. I assume you either think this is not scumhunting, or that you could infer nothing about his alignment from my question?
It wouldn't have been much less suspicious, since the scumtell is the fact that you bring attention to the fact that you intend to scumhunt; but either way the fact that there was nothing afterwards that would've been the bottom slice of bread is an indicator that it was just fluffposting for town cred.Xdaamno wrote:Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it?
Xdaamno wrote:OK, I agree.Korts wrote:It wouldn't have been much less suspicious, since the scumtell is the fact that you bring attention to the fact that you intend to scumhunt; but either way the fact that there was nothing afterwards that would've been the bottom slice of bread is an indicator that it was just fluffposting for town cred.Xdaamno wrote:Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it?
You cannot defend yourself, so you agree with me to appease me? You've admitted both to intentional credfishing and lack of following up on your stated intent to scumhunt, with this unconditional agreement with my argument. Why are there no buts? You could've tried buddying up less blatantly.Xdaamno wrote:Korts wrote:Xdaamno wrote:OK, I agree.Korts wrote:It wouldn't have been much less suspicious, since the scumtell is the fact that you bring attention to the fact that you intend to scumhunt; but either way the fact that there was nothing afterwards that would've been the bottom slice of bread is an indicator that it was just fluffposting for town cred.Xdaamno wrote:Secondly, though, would you have thought my short post would have been less suspiscious if it was merged with my other posts sandwiching it?unvote, vote: XdaamnoWhat?
Actually I put myself at L-1 as scum in a run of Bird C9 just to see what would happen--I didn't expect to be hammered on second page though. The fact that it was a pretty stupid gambit in itself does not invalidate the argument that self-voting in general can be an appeal to emotion.Incog wrote:I think self-hammering is generally an action that I'd think is more likely to come from scum players than town players but in my experience, I can't recall a single instance where a player who self-voted closer to L-1 happened to be a scum player. You're completely welcome to provide me with examples that display otherwise.
Those are individual suspicions, and I have not said that all of you have to be scum. The fact that you immediately try to knock yourself off my list with this question is suspicious--I don't see why you couldn't be bussing, anyway.charter wrote:So you think I'm trying to bus Izzy then?
You can add me to that list. I don't like his recent posting, nor his defense of me that he managed to tie to OGML's suspicion on him--it looks like he's trying to leave links in case he's lynched. Also, Incognito has a very good point on charter's reasoning in SPQR vs. Incog's reasoning in this game.Incog wrote:I'm counting at least 6 people who seem willing to lynch him (OGML, you, Patrick, Yosarian2 seemed to voice some recent concern, camn probably would, and I'd be completely willing to lynch him too especially after this last post of his).
I don't see how this sentence makes sense. As a mason recruiter, you target one person and make them neighbours with you. As a mafia recruiter, you target one person and make them mafia with you. Either way your role ability would be confirmed by the player you recruit--and it wouldn't make you confirmed pro-town like you have implied.charter wrote:FOS. If I was a recruiter than there would only be one person I could target and it would do anything.
Like I said, charter is confirmed as a masonizer, where masonizer is obviously a pro-town role considering that Izzy turned up "+ Mason" and not "+ Cult" or "+ Mafia" or anything. I'd rather go for a confirmed role over a softclaimed one.Incognito wrote:Why not OGML? Seemed pretty obvious that he was soft-claiming an investigative role.
No reference to any reason you might have previously stated, which is what I'd expect. Granted, in post 517, 121 posts prior to your vote, you mention how both of my votes (Izzy, Xdaamno) made you uncomfortable, in particular the Izzy one; but like I said, there is no reference to this, nor is it clearly seperated from the expression of your feeling of Xdaamno-townness and suspicion on charter.Patrick wrote:Back to this then.Vote: Korts. We can test charter's claim today before even lynching anyone, though it needs to be done quickly because we've only got a couple of days left.
I have no real opinion of him at this point; his posting has been more frequent and longer than I have come to expect of him through cursory knowledge of his meta, and he's made some valid points. Other than the fact that he's making an effort this time, I don't see anything unusual or scummy.Patrick wrote:I don't think it was that hard to tell why I'd returned to you, and it was only about 3 days after I'd explained it.
What's your opinion of skitzer?
No.Ether wrote:Yo, Korts. Did you ever read that stuff you fell behind on?
Are you saying that I should've gambled and gone for the percieved softlcaim instead of a confirmed role's protection?Ether wrote:(Having said that, the deaths of two investigative roles makes a Kortslynch a lot more tempting to me. There's something else I'm thinking on this note, but I'm holding off.)
Well, you people mentioned OGML's softclaim, and I assumed that you meant his reaction to my claim. I had a slight power role read on him based on that. Was there something more than that?Ether wrote:Your 705 reads to me like you were aware of the softclaim. When did you catch it? (And yes, I do think you should have been more concerned with OGML than with Charter.)
I like the very direct statement, no ifs or buts, that it is a fact that there are 9 town players. It's not as bad as assuming a certain number of scum, but it's the same kind of slip.Yos wrote:Out of 9 town
In addition to the fact that you haven't quite made a single point about why my claim would be convenient for scum, this statement has an inherent flaw; millers are lynched or vigged precisely because they are such a convenient claim.Yos wrote:(miller is NOT a role that is "convienent" for scum to claim, considering the high odds of any claimed miller being lynched or vigged; bodyguard, on the other hand)
