Open 131 - Nightless Vanilla (Over) before 767

[White Castle]

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.

There may be additional merit to the ambush in a nightless game, since you don't have to worry about the NK.

This also leads me to believe that being an aggressive townie is the best strategy. You've got nothing to lose at night. I believe that anyone that has been passive (especially non-voters, low count posters, and low content posters) is more likely to be scum.

What do you think about each of us putting together a list of their top four suspects in order? At a minimum, we should get this from everyone before they are lynched (a town lynch would give us an un-scum-biased list, I won't comment on what a scum lynch would tell us because, as you say, don't give the scum feedback).

[hewitt]

YOU are saying that we should be aggressive townies?! Of ALL people you are White Castle?! Right after you just attacked me for saying we have nothing to lose my throwing ourselves out there? Wooooooooooooow, hypocrisy at its finest.

[skitzer]

White Castle in Post 143: I think I am scumhunting, and I haven't been joking very much in this game. I believe farside merely used it as a reference to show, you seem to be taking it whole hog and applying it to anything and everything in this game. For the others on the Lowell bandwagon, I believe they were merely just following your case and have little reasoning for their own votes. And I don't feel any case so far has pushed me to the lead that I feel the need to lynch them. That is what a vote represents.

White Castle in Post 145: You are taking not voting as though it were a scum tell. That is certainly not the case.

[millar13]

Although White-Castle and Far-Side are on my back...and have votes on me I think they are doing so with the best interests of the town at heart in what they are saying. If they were talking about anyone else...I might actually believe their argument.

[Wall-E]

wow, that's slick

i suddenly don't suspect millar13 as much

stupid psychology

[millar13]

Is that sarcasm...because if it is I will dust it off my shoulders.
All I am saying is that, both them actually seem to be treating this game in the right manner. Sometimes pro-town players should be commended. If they are doing things in the right way, it deserves a thumbs up even if they are actually wrong in their choice of victim.

[Lowell]

154 is a dumb response to 153. millar looks worse in my eyes as a result of 153.

[millar13]

Maybe my style of play is unconventional...too much so for this forum. However, even when people are calling the wrong person, if they are playing in the right way you have to commend them.

[hewitt]

Yeah, that would be pretty and all millar but those players who are playing "the right way" sometimes turn up as scum.

[millar13]

well maybe they are scum....and they are playing me to a tier

but i think the liklehood is that they could just be good town players. How often, do i see someone claim someone is scum because they are "too" pro-town

[Adam Smith]

Yeah, that would be pretty and all millar but those players who are playing "the right way" sometimes turn up as scum.

I know that all too well. Sometimes someone just sucks at the game and you think that means they're a bad liar, while the person who's a really good liar slips through undetected.

Sorry, I was town the last game I played, and it came down to a final round between me, another townie, and the serial killer, and I lynched the townie because they seemed like a bad liar, when really, they were just bad at presenting any sort of argument against the other player.

[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.

[Rishi]

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.

Would try to save the thread, but apparently I'm not allowed to prod people in this game. Sorry.

[White Castle]

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.

Would try to save the thread, but apparently I'm not allowed to prod people in this game. Sorry.

I'll get to outstanding business later today - I had to respond to this now.

Rishi - was this a jab at me? I'm not the one who wrote the rules. I merely expect you to follow what you set up.

Since the thread is going downhill, then I suggest a mass prod to all players informing us that we can/will be prodded after X days of inactivity. X would be < 7 and chosen by you. You should then also update the rules to reflect the new policy. Hopefully this would also prevent a deadline.

[Rishi]

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.

Would try to save the thread, but apparently I'm not allowed to prod people in this game. Sorry.

I'll get to outstanding business later today - I had to respond to this now.

Rishi - was this a jab at me? I'm not the one who wrote the rules. I merely expect you to follow what you set up.

Since the thread is going downhill, then I suggest a mass prod to all players informing us that we can/will be prodded after X days of inactivity. X would be < 7 and chosen by you. You should then also update the rules to reflect the new policy. Hopefully this would also prevent a deadline.

Sorry - was a joke. Not a good one, I'm afraid.

I actually was planning to do just this. I will lower the amount of time necessary for a prod. Let me think on this for the exact amount of time, but some prods will go out over the weekend.

[Rishi]

Vote Count – Page 7

Lowell – 4 (Adam Smith, millar13, Wall-E, Empking)
millar13 – 3 (farside22, White Castle, lixyl)
White Castle – 1 (Lowell)
skitzer – 1 (Netlava)

Not voting: skitzer, hewitt, Jazzmyn

With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

I’ve thought about it, and I am going to amend the rules to prod after 96 hours (4 days) of inactivity. That should be plenty of time for people to post regularly. So, based on that, I am prodding Jazzmyn and lixyl.

[hewitt]

White Castle, are you going to answer my questions???

[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

[White Castle]

White Castle, are you going to answer my questions???

Please see post 163 where I said I'd get to this later today.

hewitt is the other non-voter.

I don't like the people who are hopping on and off the bandwagon. They hop on for a pretty silly reason and then hop right back off once it seems people are questioning the wagon.

If you don't find it scummy, then why are you telling us that you don't like it? You said you don't random vote. Fine. What are you waiting for? We're close to 150 posts now. 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. You are the outlier, not those of us who have voted. Skitzer hasn't voted, but was on V/LA. You have been around, and your lack of voting is astounding.

Well in my opinion wasn't even an attack Wall-E. I wanted to point out that I didn't think he needed to be so skiddish about looking bad. I don't think I phrased it as an attack at all I was merely voicing my opinion.

We're not mindreaders. If it wasn't an attack, then what point did it serve?

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.

So we should "thow ourselves out there", huh? Wouldn't voting be a prime way to do that? Between this post and 90, I see a lot of hypocrisy.

All answer them in order.

1. White Castle...we don't have a deadline yet. 150 posts? That must be a joke right? I don't think I've ever played in a game when there was a D1 lynch earlier than page 20 which we are not even close to yet. Just because most of the town has voted does not mean they are right does it? I don't vote until I find someone vote-worthy, I don't see what is so hard to fathom about that. And there's a big difference between not liking something and calling it scummy. At this point I don't think I like you very much but that doesn't make you scummy.

2. If it wasn't an attack, then what purpose did it serve? Again, are you joking? Are you expecting every post someone makes to be an attack on someone? I wasn't aware opinions were not allowed in this game White Castle. My opinion being voiced is thrown out there so everybody knows where I stand on an issue, doesn't have to be an attack to be helpful to town.

3. How is voting more of throwing yourself out there than posting your opinions? There have been many unexplained votes out there and so you are saying that those unexplained votes are more important than voiced opinions that do not contain a vote? Voting can be throwing yourself out there but only if you back it up and no it's not hypocrisy. You're totally trying to twist my non-voting around into making it a scumtell.

White Castle you are making absolutely no sense to me right now. It's almost like you are trying to persuade me to play illogically.

I don't understand any of what you're getting at.

Oh and I also love the attempt to try and separate me from the rest of the town by calling me the outlier and not "one of us". What is that supposed to mean?

Answer all my questions please.

I've gone ahead and used bold, italic, underlined font to get to the root of the problem.

1. Where did I say lynch? Nowhere. I said vote. It is unusual that you haven't voted yet. You could vote for anyone, and they wouldn't get lynched right now because they wouldn't have enough votes. As I showed in your post 90, you were getting on people for voting. I wanted to turn the tables on you. I'd rather have voting records to help in the scumhunt.

2. Where did I say every post has to be an attack? I said being aggressive was a good strategy since there is no NK.

3. Voting is additional information that is very useful. There was only one unexplained vote that I saw, and it came from millar. What votes do you think are unexplained?

4. From post 151 - you aren't making sense. Yes, I attacked you. Yes, I think we should be aggressive. Where is my hypocrisy? I have already stated your hypocrisy (which you never defended) is in saying "we should throw ourselves out there" while you haven't voted after 150 posts.

5. I asked for your take on Empking in 146. Where is that?

And as for you and skitzer both - stop being whimps and vote. Voting also puts pressure on people, and could cause scum to crack.

As for me making non-voting a scumtell, the jury is still out. I'm trying to figure out if you're indecisive town or something more sinister.

[Netlava]

Hello, checking in...

My thoughts are that millar's play is confusing, but for some reason it feels genuine, so he's not on my suspect list atm.

Hmm... that's about it. Till next time! (hopefully soon)

[hewitt]

White Castle, I vote to lynch. When I vote, it is with the intent to lynch and everybody who's played with me before has learned that and knows that and now so do you. So my vote is never misinterpreted as something that it isn't. And your hypocrisy comes right here...

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.

You just admitted how nervous you were about doing something because you didn't want it to "look bad". Wow, that's such aggressive play...

As for Empking I don't like him, never have, probably never will. I think he's unhelpful and it sucks playing with him.

Oh and as for non-voting being a choice between indecisive town or something more sinister? That's a little silly. You can't honestly believe that. I don't vote until an intent to lynch because I don't like mistakes in this game. I like for us to win and I like for us to win as cleanly as possible. Does it ever happen? No, but I can try.

[Empking]

I don't understand why people think Millar is scummy. Can someone explain?

[skitzer]

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, but looking at empking's past play, it almost loooked like a good idea. 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.

Second post: 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.

Third post: 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.

Fourth post: Of course, if you are a power role, than don't reveal anything, but if you are a townie, then you should speak openly. The only thing I can think of is a trap (which rarely works and is WIFOMy). Also, I'm sorry if I joke, but I play this game for more than just win/loss record. If you were to look at mine (which you'd have to find yourself, because I don't really care about wins or losses) It'd be way more losses, but at least I'm having fun and trying to win.

Finally, I'm tired of people basing how active a player is on posts. I'm not a back-and-forth discusser most of time, I like to take one or two pages and look at them in retrospect and analyze. I'm not skimmy, I read every post and analyze if I can, and I'm not lurky, at least not in my own terms.

White Castle: I'd rather be smart with my vote than throw it around constantly (OR) keep it on one person for the duration of the day. When I feel someone is suspicious enough, I'll vote them.

[Wall-E]

Using the wiki is a scumtell now?

[skitzer]

Actually, I don't think I've ever said that. Originally, I said WC's use of the wiki was bothering me because he used it more frequently then I've seen before.