Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Wall-E]

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote

.

Nothing to add for now.

[Idiotking]

unvote

just in case, and

vote Wall-E

What are you trying to do, get yourself killed?

[yellowbunny]

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote.

Nothing to add for now.

Why?

And did not respond to the two questions I asked you in 193 (which I'd like an answer to despite the fact that you unvoted), and you did not respond to IK's 195, either.

yellowbunny wrote:
Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy?
Sure. Burfy asked for a vote count early on to "see who the targets were." That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Intersting...Burfy..what do you have to say on this issue?

[burfy]

yellowbunny wrote:
Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy?
Sure. Burfy asked for a vote count early on to "see who the targets were." That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Intersting...Burfy..what do you have to say on this issue?

Plenty. Ok, step by step. I asked for a vote count and probably said 'to see who the targets were' because i hadn't been paying enough attention to the game and it had completely missed me how a couple of cases had sprung up. By seeing who had votes it makes it clearer where the cases are and easier to find while rereading.

Next part, i unvoted in reaction to the vote count because i was past the stage of random voting. my random vote was on someone but i felt there was a case arising which might be worth voting so to signal my intentions to take it more serious, i unvoted.

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon.

Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes.

Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Flaws in logic aside, the part X fails to mention everytime he mentions his case against me but which i point out everytime anyway, is that between my requesting a vote count and unvoting i make 2 posts where i first mention and then reveal suspicions of Wall-E with regards to the non-confirming thing. X purposely ignores this and says he can't see how i could think that was a case and i could be unvoting based on that. While i say, it is a case, still going now and stronger than his against me, and it was the reason i unvoted.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved. For this reason, forgive me if in the future i don't type out this much again and instead refer inquirers to past copies of this.

[Wall-E]

I disagree that you've caught X doing something significant here, burfy.

[yellowbunny]

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

X wrote:
That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.


Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved.

Do you find this behavior scummy? Or do you think X is misinterpreting your actions?

[Wall-E]

Oh, I see I'm being an idiot in this game. Let's stop that now.

Next, some damage control:

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?

1) No.
2) I think that you are right. What about it would you like to discuss?

IK: No idea why I voted for you. I'm reading again to see, but I think it was the way you refused to random vote.

Now, for some more content:

In 83 Lleu claims he will provide some meta-read on IK to see if he REALLY hates RVS or just made that up to cover himself. Where's that read, Lleu?

After re-reading the thread prior to my reappearance I have nothing to say that will help the town (only townie suspects).

To be totally fair, I screwed up bad by not participating to now, but the town screwed the pooch by talking mostly about ME for the first nine pages, making it hard for me to find usable content. I think the way everyone piled on me was well done as town, and had I been here I'd probably have hammered me. The only other thing I can do is apologize.

I'm sorry.

[Wall-E]

Whatever. I'm a very analytical guy, so I can't see your standpoint (getting vibes), but I understand where you're coming from.

Hi X.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

I am unable to read subtlety or reactions for the most part. All of my sucessful scumhunting has been by deconstructing logic and never by being idescriminate. There is a medical reason for this, but I'd rather not discuss it. I bring this up to make a point:

Feely-gamers (DGB and zwets come to mind): I always think they're scum and want to lynch them. It's been the hardest part of learning to play mafia, but also a very good way to learn about things like reactions and emotions.

So what I see here are two different types of claim:

In the first, you claim to be less feely-gamer and more logic-gamer. In the second, you claim to be judging reactions. Which would you say you are?

You're baiting X just as much as he's baiting you. So I think everything you said about him in this quote applies equally to you.

I think most of us are trying to be fair and not hold your inactivity against you (at least too much), but you don't seem overly interested in scum hunting. More people than just X have commented on this. Can you please post YOUR list of impressions of everyone in the game?

QFT.

I acknowledge this post's existence.

Wall-E, if you had done these attacks in Mini 761, you would have been modkilled. Just so you know.

Hopefully a warning would've preceeded that modkill! I only do what people let me get away with! Also, your (you're) fat.

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-e

yellowbunny wrote:
Wall-e wrote:

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King



Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?


1) No.
2) I think that you are right. What about it would you like to discuss?

Do you think X's choice to move his vote from IK to you was logical? If you were in his position, would you have done the same?

To be totally fair, I screwed up bad by not participating to now, but the town screwed the pooch by talking mostly about ME for the first nine pages, making it hard for me to find usable content. I think the way everyone piled on me was well done as town, and had I been here I'd probably have hammered me. The only other thing I can do is apologize.

Normally I would call BS on you, but I have gone through and read some of your previous posts in other games...and based on that, I think what you are saying is within the realm of possibility. I do not intend to remove my vote from you atm...but of course it makes sense to continue to scum hunt elsewhere. If you are town...well...hopefully that will become apparent. And if you are scum...well, you are not scum alone...so hunting other scum def. doesn't hurt town.

[burfy]

I disagree that you've caught X doing something significant here, burfy.

I agree with you. Never said, or at least never meant to say i thought there was anything scummy about this from X. Merely annoying

[burfy]

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

X wrote:
That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.


Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved.

Do you find this behavior scummy? Or do you think X is misinterpreting your actions?

First part, fair enough, makes sense but if i was scum how does unvoting help me? In theory i unvoted because i was afraid of starting a wagon? I had voted said person during the RVS, no one could honestly claim i was the creator of that wagon. Would work better for me to sit there quietly and hope i slip by unnoticed as the votes pile up. By unvoting i have to revote and everytime you revote you need to provide reasons. Each set of reasons is more potential evidence against you.


Anyway, the fact is i unvoted and didn't vote again. If i was either looking for a wagon or trying to start one, unvoting acheives neither. So i don't get what he's on about.


Second bit, no I don't find it scummy. I'm not going use the words misinterpreting because everything had two sides to it. In this game you have to look at both sides and see which one makes more sense. I think X has seen the mafia side of it and likes it but is ignoring other possibilities. Tunneling i guess but i don't think it has true mal-intent behind it.

[hambargarz]

VOTE COUNT

(1) qwints (World No.1 Noob)

(3) Wall-E (X, yellowbunny, Idiotking)

(2) CUBAREY (Jase, Kreriov)
(1) X (CUBAREY)

Not voting
Lleu, burfy, qwints, Ojanen, Wall-E

Currently looking for replacements

[Kreriov]

Wall-E, I would like to point out that, while it might feel that way, there has been alot going on that does not involve you in the first 9 pages. I have laid off your trigger happy role claim and will continue to give you opportunity on my part to, as you put it, 'take some undoing'. The continued persecution complex does not help you. Its day 1. Any lynch will be done off of gut feelings and circumstantial evidence. Despite your adherence to logic, there really isn't all that much concrete data to use logic on until the first lynch and NK actions occur.

Anyway, I wanted to see what people thought of Cubarey not posting. It has been two days and there are questions asked and 2 votes on him. I do not like that he has not answered yet. In particular it really looks to me that he was trying to fabricate a case against X. A few people had mentioned they thought X was a bit scummy and all of a sudden Cubarey is making this weird case against X.

[yellowbunny]

Anyway, I wanted to see what people thought of Cubarey not posting. It has been two days and there are questions asked and 2 votes on him. I do not like that he has not answered yet.

It is weird that he has not posted in a couple of days, especially as he is currently under suspicion. I still tend to agree with Noob's assessment of Cubarey though -- which is that he is newbie town. I tend to think its more strange when people go silent when they are not under pressure than when they are. It does not help you achieve your win condition (if you are town or scum) to go silent when you are under attack. So, I read that more as a noob move. (However if you are silent when not under attack, that makes more sense if you're scum.)

@Krev...since you are concerned with Cubarey not posting, what do you think of Qwints going silent? His last post was on April 5, when he says he's going to do a re-read and post his impressions (which we are still waiting for). Also Ojanen asks Qwints some questions in 194 which I would really like to see answered...and nada.

[Kreriov]

I know and it is a concern. Since we do not have a deadline as yet and no one is in danger of getting lynched, I am willing to take my time. Documenting it and remembering it via these posts seems sufficient to me.

[X]

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

This.

Burfy, I can now understand your explanation. And although it's possible, I think it's more likely that you're scum making up an explanation retroactively.

In the first, you claim to be less feely-gamer and more logic-gamer. In the second, you claim to be judging reactions. Which would you say you are?

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

I know and it is a concern. Since we do not have a deadline as yet and no one is in danger of getting lynched, I am willing to take my time. Documenting it and remembering it via these posts seems sufficient to me.

I think you missed the point of YB's question. Why are you singling out one lurker?

[Kreriov]

Oh, well, because there is actual actions other than lurking to discuss when it comes to Cubarey. I generally do not consider lurking in and off itself scummy, especially day 1. Also, given that I cannot vote for more than one person, about the only real pressure you can put on a lurker is actually pointing out the lurking.

[yellowbunny]

Oh, well, because there is actual actions other than lurking to discuss when it comes to Cubarey. I generally do not consider lurking in and off itself scummy, especially day 1.

This can be applied to Qwints as well. He has done odd things in addition to lurking. Specifically...

@the rather silent qwints
qwints wrote:
The clear implication of Wall-E's post was that he had had the opportunity to press the button to watch the topic, i.e., he was in the thread. It would be a reasonable explanation if had confirmed in thread and not posted again until he was prodded. It would also be a reasonable explanation if he had arrived at the thread and the thread had been locked because the mod was taking pm confirmations. Neither applies in this case. I'm interested to see where this leads:

unvote, vote Wall-E


qwints wrote:
On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)


I'm just a little curious here reading your latter post. What did you think Wall-E was gonna say? You clearly had thought this thing through in your head as evidenced by the former post. I thought Wall-E's answer was quite the expected one (only obvious simple logical one) despite of mismatch to initial post and thus your word "solved" jumped to me.

That is questionable behavior. As Ojanen points out, Wall-e's explanation upon his return was the expected one. So it makes me wonder if Qwints was jumping off a dead wagon.

So...there are other actions which Qwints has done aside from lurking...just like Cubarey. That said, I still don't see why you are calling out one and not the other.

[Kreriov]

Well, what am I supposed to do, point out again that qwints is lurking, though you already have? Should I reiterate Ojanen's argument? I agree, qwints lurking is concerning. I would also like to see some answers to Ojanen's question as well as your request to have qwints post his thoughts on who he sees as scummy/town/neutral. Until he does or until I actually have something new to add, what more can I do to encourage qwints to post other then say, yup. what those guys said? Seems a bit of a waste of a post to me. I am not focusing on Cubarey to the exclusion of others. I simply have no idea what more I could add about qwints that hasn't already been said.

[Kreriov]

Oh, and I am about to head out. As usual, I doubt I will have much time to post or do anything substantial over the weekend. I would like to request that in the very unexpected circumstance that someone starts piling up enough votes to be at risk of a lynch that we hold off until sometime Monday for a hammer.

[qwints]

Apologies for the lack of posting, but I'm not seeing a lot that I find scummy. I know I still need to due a re-read.

I like Wall-E's latest set of defenses. @yellowbunny, I don't think Wall-E's defense was that obvious because I hadn't thought of it.

[Jase]

I'm starting to get some suspicions of YB. At times it's seemed like she was kind of stretching some of the points against Wall-E. On the other hand I'm now more suspicious of Wall-E...before I didn't think there was much merit to the case against him, but his vote for IK struck me as susbicious, and now with his recent apology/explanation I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a clear read on him now.

[Wall-E]

I'm starting to get some suspicions of YB. At times it's seemed like she was kind of stretching some of the points against Wall-E. On the other hand I'm now more suspicious of Wall-E...before I didn't think there was much merit to the case against him, but his vote for IK struck me as susbicious, and now with his recent apology/explanation I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a clear read on him now.

Can you give even one example of yellowbunny stretching? I didn't notice it, but I was a bit close to the subject to be objective.

[yellowbunny]

I'm starting to get some suspicions of YB. At times it's seemed like she was kind of stretching some of the points against Wall-E.

How so? I was trying to get answers to questions, and I did not feel that Wall-E was providing them. I don't think that it makes sense to simply drop a topic because someone is being difficult, do you?

[yellowbunny]

@Wall-E: my comment on you being "difficult" isn't meant to be insulting, btw, so please don't take it as such...just trying to explain to Jase how I saw things.