Open 131 - Nightless Vanilla (Over) before 767

[Empking]

Since everybody is having SUCH a hard time understanding me, who was I trying to campaign a policy lynch lynch on then? I don't believe for a second that you actually do not understand what I was saying, but that you are refusing to understand what I was saying. Because I'm pretty sure by now I've made my point. Go back, reread, then come back and post.

The fact that you just want a policy lynch without caring who it's on is one of the things that makes your point of view so anti-town.

[hewitt]

Empking...

I DO NOT WANT A POLICY LYNCH.

Hopefully that is clear enough to understand. Go look at what was posted right before I posted. I posted in response to that discussion, I was not in any way, shape, or form promoting a policy lynch of any player in this game right now. Dayum man.

[StrangerCoug]

Let me guess, hewitt: This policy lynch argument started at your post #306? Because I'm reading it basically as "I'll policy lynch Empking if I have a good reason, but I don't".

[hewitt]

It actually started in 305 when farside asked me if I agreed with the meta on Empking to which I responded in 306. Then a little while later there was talk about whether policy lynching on D1 was a good idea or not, to which I responded and then Empking started arguing with me about. The whole debate thing started after post 317.

It's not that I need a good reason to policy lynch Empking, but if other players find him unhelpful and I find him unhelpful as well and a policy lynch wagon is started I would not oppose it.

[Rishi]

Mastin replaces Adam Smith, effective immediately.

[Mastin]

Yup, that's me.

*starts reading*

16 pages...heh. This'll be easy. Even if every post in them has a word count over ten-thousand, I'll still be able to catch up. See you soon.

[White Castle]

Finally, some replacements! Thanks fellas.

[Mastin]

Page three, counting.

The early-on Lowell-wagon looks scum-driven.

...But I also think at that stage in the game that Lowell would be scum.

Hence, very probable bussing, especially in the "I'll vote Lowell later, 'kay?"-type posts.

[Lowell]

No you were right the first time. Scum-driven.

[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)?

[Mastin]

Finished page four, and might I say this?

Almost every player here has done at least something pro-town.

Yet I can safely say every player has also done scummy things.

You're not making this easy for me--when all players are scummy, it comes down to who's the most scummy, and who has done the most non-scummy things. (Which are far and few, as most actions, not knowing a players' alignment, at this stage are possible scum tells as well. Only when we have some confirmed dead alignments do these things take on one, or the other, meaning)

[StrangerCoug]

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.

#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.

#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?[/quote]

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.

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.

#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.

This is also a mountainous or vanilla game. That's what I was trying to bring to your attention.

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

Posting to post.

What about this is scummy?

It's fluff. I thought that was clear.

#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!

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)?

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

[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

[millar13]

Walle-E did you vote for yourself in post 384?

[Wall-E]

No, it was a quote tag error.

[hewitt]

Wall-E are you going to re-vote for me? If so, why (since you didn't really explain it in the first place) and if you don't, why not?

[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.

[hewitt]

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

HAHA That's hilarious.

Err, ignore my last. Wrong game.

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

What do you mean?

[Wall-E]

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

[hewitt]

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

If you're voting with the intent to lynch scum then I would say no, you should not vote for me.

[StrangerCoug]

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.

I call the RVS over when serious discussion starts. The last thing I want to do is argue with you over trivia, so I will not pursue this further.

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?

No. I'm explaining my reasoning behind what I said.

[White Castle]

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?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. A good player would keep himself informed as to the game mechanics from the beginning. Further, each mod is different and you could get yourself modkilled. Tell me, have you ever been modkilled and, if so, how many times?

It's laughable that it's taken almost 400 posts for you to realize that this game is nightless. I've tried to tell you this before, yet it apparantly went over your head. You're not a "good player" if you are oblivious to the setup or random vote all of Day 1.

Earlier in this game you also responded to a conversation about scumbuddies that wasn't even directed at you.

You've become a liability. It seems everything you do that could be seen as scummy you've defended with either "I'm not that dumb" or now "I'm a good player".

unvote, vote Wall-E

[hewitt]

So just to get this straight you're voting Wall-E as a policy lynch because he's a liability?