Your name's too long.
For those new to the game, welcome to the random vote stage.
You can't create pressure by saying "let's pressure him." You create pressure through pointed questions and votes. The fact that you say "there is not reals reasons to put in danger anybody" makes this post basically white noise.falkomagno wrote:ok...let put some pressure right now...since it's early and there is not real reasons to put in danger anybody...but, the explanation of qwints doesn't be enought...unvote, Fos qwints
You're clearly misrepresenting me. My first vote choice switch was a joking response to falkomango. I made it clear (upon Phily_EC's) request that I was not being seroius. I stated that itGadgetArcrep wrote:I'm Going to Retract My Vote.Unvote
Things arent going nowhere here at the moment, and I need a lead here, there doesnt seem to be one at the moment, then again,I vote qwintsHe flip flopped too quickly by saying, and I quote.ok, my vote is serious now.
He says it like he had a reason even though he said it was random.
Note that he explains falko's post for him. He's giving an excuse for falko's scummy sounding post instead of letting falko do so. That's scummy for two possible reasons:PhilyEc wrote:He just said he wasn't going to make a random vote. He can still participate if he finds something scummy. Its up to town to agree or disagree so I dont see where you're going with this one.qwints wrote:but you don't get to say "I'm going to sit out of the game until we find actual suspects." That's basically announcing your intention to actively lurk and it made me say that my vote was now serious
I said I was voting to discourage active lurking. I never said not liking the RVS was scummy. Note that Phily_EC had explicitly responded to the reason for my vote in post 45. His misrepresentation in this post must, therefore, be intentional.PhilyEc wrote:Votes are for scum, not for people uninterested in RVS. Gotta stop digging yourself a hole here...qwints wrote:1. It's page two, there's no particular need to be reasonable.
2. I wasn't pushing for a lynch.
3. It did deserve a vote because active lurking is to be discouraged.
4. Defending players (as opposed to attacking players for dumb votes) is scummy. You tried to explain falkomango's actions in 46. Let him speak for himself.
PhilyEC wrote: I ... go down on those in the wrong.
I'm not sure if you're just talking about soulshift (where I sucked), but I'm just trying to keep the game moving. I attacked Falko over a misunderstanding, when he corrected me and showed me he was going to participate my vote shifted away from him. The only reason I had for voting him was I thought he was going to active lurk and he didn't. So I moved my vote.PhilyEc wrote: Your suspicion is floating around now, I've not seen you play like this before (you're more aggresive). Why is that?
Papa Zito wrote:I'm not going to interject into the Gadget/Cyren conversation here since Cyren doesn't need my help, but I am going to say that the above solidifies Gadget as my #2.
All - keep in mind that we have a deadline a week from today, so we'll need to start moving to a consensus soon. At this point I'm fine with either a Shotty or Gadget lynch.
What we have here is Papa not only defending Cyren, but putting words in his mouth. That's quite scummy.Papa Zito wrote:No? Hmm. I'll explain then. Sorry Cyren, wasn't trying to interfere.PhilyEc wrote:I dont think it was that concrete a result. Thats a bit of a stretch Zito.
Cyren's basically saying "I'm scumhunting, please don't answer for him so he can wriggle away." ... Second point - I haven't seen Cyren push for a lynch yet. ... Cyren's just saying to pay attention to other conversations, even if you aren't involved in them. Your post is a blatant misrepresentation.
This post is deeply scummy.Papa Zito wrote:First, a quick observation: The two players applying pressure to Shotty are both high on his scum list. Coincidence?
lulzShotty to the Body wrote:Papa Zito - This is where things get interesting, and sticky.
I laid out several reasons why going after lurkers early on Day 1 is a bad idea in that post. You've failed to address any of them here. This is an obvious attempt to deflect.Shotty to the Body wrote:I have to concede Corn did flake and some of his inactivity can be prescribed to that, but Zito still feels the need to defend lurking (post 186), why so up in arms about it if your predecessor flaked the whole time instead of lurking like you claim?
lolwut? You haven't refuted anything. Here, let me recap for you:Shotty to the Body wrote:Reason 2 refuted above about his defending lurking and predecessor history.
1. Lurking, in and of itself, isn't a scumtell.
2. You need to see a pattern of lurking before going after lurkers with pressure votes. Early Day 1 is not enough time to establish a pattern.
3. Statistics make it more likely that you'll hit town instead of scum.
My last there was a parting shot that you failed to even address.
My list is useful. Unless you know all of them, I guess. Regardless, you've completely missed (intentionally?) the point - useful advice doesn't help us find scum. And useful advice, unfortunately, is all you've offered.Shotty to the Body wrote:Reason 3 I gave useful advice not a list of acronyms, they aren't the same thing.
A read is strong or it's not. I don't see how it can be relative. Also, here's what was said:Shotty to the Body wrote:Reason 5 is just twisting my words, a strong read at this point is relative, not absolute.
Shotty to the Body wrote:I haven't made any strong accusations because I don't have a strong read on everyone, especially with two replaces.Again, you (intentionally?) missed the point - You haven't taken a stand on anyone until you were forced to. Even with this post you haven't fully committed to anything, because even after all this analysis you still aren't voting one of your chief suspects. To me it seems like you're throwing up a huge cloud of smoke, throwing out a couple names and hoping something sticks. If someone does bite then I'm guessing you'll happily hop onboard.Papa Zito wrote:5. It's Day 1, I'd be amazed if you had a strong read on someone yet. The only way you'd have a strong read on someone at this stage is if they posted just tons and tons of content or if they majorly screwed up. You have to work with what's available and come to some kind of conclusion.
Classic scum post. You completely fail to refute what's being said (probably because you can't) and instead try to attack the person. It doesn't matter if I joined first or fifth. What matters if what I say makes logical sense.Shotty to the Body wrote:Cyren's posts about Gadget have much more meat however and they didn't opportunistically take advantage of a case being made against the person bringing their scummy intentions to the front of everyone's mind, like say Corp's case towards me. Also Zito has been encouraging Cyren's case towards Gadget as well. The fact that he joined second gave him the opportunity to piggy back his opener with Cyren's and mark Gadget as a suspect so he has 'reasons' to agree with Cyren.
Logical fallacy. What someone flips doesn't determine anyone else's alignment. The intent of the voter does. Townies mislynch all the time.Shotty to the Body wrote:I'm convinced that if Gadget or myself is lynched (which seems likely at this point) and the lynchee flips town that one of the two replaces is scum, most likely Zito.
This is a fantastic paragraph and deserves more breakdown.Shotty to the Body wrote:I could be wrong about Zito, but I don't think so. [1]He showed up as town on my radar until [2]he proved his willingness to defend lurking [3]and conjured a case out of the air against [4]his biggest attacker rather then [5]defending himself with reason, [6]counting on the innocence halo of a replace to carry him through this day where he hopes I will be silenced.
1. Translation: He was fine until he started targeting me.
2. Refuted this 'point' above
3. Out of thin air? I examined what you said and found numerous scummy things, none of which you've refuted.
4. I had no idea you were even attacking me. When was this? PhilyEc has been applying the only pressure I've felt so far.
5. lolwut
6. bzzzt
Papa Zito wrote:So I agree that you can't just ignore what our predecessors did. Part of the burden of being a replacement is that you have to account for the actions of the one you replace. Cyren and I shouldn't be considered "innocent" just because we replaced in, so if you have an issue with something our previous selves said, feel free to question it.
I'll throw another acronym out there: FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Shotty is trying to spread to the town by making a bunch of baseless accusations and ignoring cases against him. Shotty really needs more votes.