Mini 792 - Tofu Mafia. Game over!

[Zorblag]

The relevant following question be: Now that s-lully has responded, be Troll satisfied with her and be Troll ready to vote elsewhere?

Vi no really sure what to make of Troll's ideas about scumpairings, but Vi dislike making pairs before anyone actually flips.

Actually Troll plans to leave Troll's vote where it be for now. Troll finds her to be as likely scum as any just now and would like to see what springlullaby has to say about people's responses to what she has said. For the scumpairings (which be a stronger term than Troll would have used), Troll thinks that connections that be of interest between players be a part of the reason to vote. Them no will always indicate scum or town but them be part of the process. Noting them has the benefit of getting them public earlier so that more people have a chance to think about them and it can get reactions.

populartajo, Troll sees that you have looked through the game at this point though the path from your observations to your conclusions be a bit murky in some cases. Troll wonders if you could explain what it is that makes Herodotus your clear first choice for a vote at this time?

Adel, does it be time to talk about your vote for SpyreX yet or do you still be waiting to see what people will do?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Artem]

Alright, I took a day away from the game to cool off. Let's try this again, hopefully with less emotion.

Which, get this, follows what I've been saying about your voting patterns.

1.) Ectomancer says porkens didn't "stick to his vote".
- You repeat said sentiment and vote.

2.) Adel votes for Herod
- You then build your "case" (and dont vote until Herod goes wtf)

3.) I vote for you, give reasons.
- You then rebut. At this point you say I'm 'twisting' your words and bastardizing your statements.
- Adel votes for me
- You THEN vote for me

This would have been a good point, if my vote hopping had been opportunistic, but it wasn't:
1) I liked Ecto's sentiment and decided that Porkens would be a good place to start the first bandwagon because, you guessed it, bandwagons are good. I explicitly stated that I had no intention of seeing Proken's lynched over the said sentiment.
2) As I said many times, Hero did not deserve a vote, but he was asking for one. It is part of my personality to do what I did (i.e., stick my tongue out and vote him). Since I voted him, I decided to bring up the other things I have been mulling over at the time. Adel's vote on Hero had nothing to do with anything, and I certainly wasn't going to pursue a Hero lynch with my vote/case.
3) Here's the way I see it. You're either a) a dense townie, who doesn't see my point of view, but who nevertheless is pursuing a lead (as somebody said), or b) a scum, who is purposedly closing his ears to my PoV because you need somebody to "sink your teeth in". Currently, I'm leaning towards b). Yes, I unvoted Hero and voted you after Adel posted his vote. However, I was still going to do it on Tuesday morning, because I've decided to bring the Hero thing to a closure.

Which brings up a question: Hero, why are you still voting me? You said your reasons are different. I would like to hear them, because I've explained to you how I can both see you as more scum than town and see you as not deserving a vote, which is what I understand your main reason for voting me is. Currently, it feels like you've parked your vote.

I'll raise that with "too wishy-washy to be town"

I'm not being wishy-washy. Quite the opposite, I've been saying the same things over and over for pages now:
-Porken's consideration of voting Spring, but not doing so is mildly scummy;
-Wagons are good;
-I struggle with not letting townie reads go;
-Hero's meta does not make Hero deserve a vote;
-When Hero asked for a vote, I brought up all the other things I was thinking about that related to him;
-SpyreX is being stubborn in not wanting to consider my PoV;

Checking the list.... yep, still stand by every single one of those. Not wishy-washy.

The meta is also off. I contributed much more unprompted in both games we were in.

I don't think the meta was off when I made that post. Yes, now that you've avoided posting content for pages, the meta is off, but who's to say you didn't do it on purpose so that you can make this argument?

I also think his defence face Spyrex's case is not good, it is overly exasperated at some point, and make emotional 'I'm intimidated' appeal at other.

The only place I've said "I'm intimidated with the cast" was when I was explaining to Vi why my posts are concise and unsure. Can you please quote where I used "I'm intimidated" appeal in my defense against SpyreX?

Incidentally, rereading the game, I saw Herodotus 32. You know, the post where he votes with the popular wagon.

Yes, I missed that post when I was drawing up the theory. When Hero first mentioned it, I went back and checked. Yes, it was the fourth vote on SpyreX, which undermines the theory. But you'll note that I'm not pushing the theory any further. As I've said many times already, it was one of the things I was mulling over that I decided to bring up since Hero asked for a vote.

[Artem]

Missed this:

I'm having a hard time reconciling some arguments here. So, bandwagoning early D1 is a good thing... but it's easy to catch scum because they pile onto the early wagon? And if bandwagoning is pro-Town, why hasn't Artem been doing it in any effective way? Motions, meet spirit.

Let me give you a concrete example. Mini 727: the first wagon is on me. I get brought up to L-1 and asked to claim. I claim, the wagon on me dies and forms on another townie, who again gets brought up to L-1 and asked to claim. Guess what? One of the two people who are pushing the claims is a scum. SpyreX mentioned that it's any scums wet dream to do that. But it's not just some fantasy, it really does happen, but the only way for it to happen is for there to be a bandwagon. You can't exactly ask somebody to claim when they are sitting at L-4.

Regarding the second question: first, I'm only a single player. I can't make a bandwagon happen all by myself. Second, there are people who disagree with your sentiment. Check out SpyreX's and Porkens's arguments: I'm voting for whoever is more popular at the time. So which is it? Am I happily jumping on every wagon that comes along or am I completely abstinent while promoting bandwagons from the sidelines?

[Vi]

I'm really not seeing the Herodotus hate...

Let me give you a concrete example. Mini 727: the first wagon is on me.

That wasn't really Early Day 1, at least not as early as the wagon on Porkens.
Rather than put words in your mouth, could you tell me what your strategem was for early D1?

Regarding the second point, the key word is "effective". I wouldn't consider your presence on Porkens to be that effective; similarly with your vote on SpyreX. "Bandwagoning" IMO either involves at least three people, or fewer people that make enough noise to count for three.

[Artem]

@Vi: I don't think there's a formula for identifying scum on bandwagon, because if there were, scum wouldn't do what the formula says.

Wagons do accomplish several things though:
-They split the town into two categories: those on wagon and those off. This is useful for later analysis when the person wagoned has been cardflipped. If the cardflip is a mafia, you can ask questions like "Was player X bussing here?". If the cardflip is a townie, you can ask "Was this a parked vote?" In my opinion, both are valuable to scum-hunting;
-They identify the people who are eager to go after the wagoners, especially those that put the wagonee at L-1 and L-2. This is useful in the future also, because you can identify players that are a little over-eager to "catch scum", so they pile in on the first opportunity;
-They identify players who like to ask for claims when a person reaches L-1 without any good reason, they may even be the people who placed the L-1. This may be useful in identifying role-fishers in the future (i.e., a player who is consistently looking for ways to get people to claim).

In short, wagons are useful in generating content that can be analyzed in hindsight. The actual details pertain to any particular game/bandwagon. I know it sounds cliche to say "I just wanted to make a bandwagon and see what happens", but I'm afraid that's how it goes most of the time early in D1. Is it effective? Well, depends on the wagon. Look at my vote for SpyreX. SpyreX is already gloating that I've sprang some sort of a trap? How does he know it was a trap? Adel has been quite mysterious throughout most of the game. I see a couple of potential outcomes from me "following" his vote. Adel could come out, explain the trap, then vote me. Adel could also come out and bring out some meta that show SpyreX being a lot less stubborn when playing town and side with me, confirming his vote on SpyreX. In either case, the game is going to progress along some avenue, which I argue is quite a bit more "effective" than all these "Player A doing action B makes my stomach C and player D does nothing but lurk. Lynch E, Kthnxbai, see you tomorrow when I'm going to make another post like this" posts we've been seeing.

[Artem]

EBWOP:

time early in D1.

paragraph break

Is it effective?

[SpyreX]

@Ecto:

That is not an easy situation and I wish you all the best. However, I would personally strongly suggest asking for a replacement and staying away from mafia games until you have it sorted out: a game based on subtle (and not so subtle) emotional and mental manipulation probably isn't the best place with so much real word things going on.

However, if this is some game move (which I'd hate to be true but I do have some cynic in me). Stop. Now. This is an area to not mess around with.

----------------

That said, Porken's statement firmly cements him as town in my eyes. No way in hell would scum take that stance considering the probable negative repercussions from it. So, thats something.

Now, to the real work:

This would have been a good point, if my vote hopping had been opportunistic, but it wasn't:
1) I liked Ecto's sentiment and decided that Porkens would be a good place to start the first bandwagon because, you guessed it, bandwagons are good. I explicitly stated that I had no intention of seeing Proken's lynched over the said sentiment.
2) As I said many times, Hero did not deserve a vote, but he was asking for one. It is part of my personality to do what I did (i.e., stick my tongue out and vote him). Since I voted him, I decided to bring up the other things I have been mulling over at the time. Adel's vote on Hero had nothing to do with anything, and I certainly wasn't going to pursue a Hero lynch with my vote/case.
3) Here's the way I see it. You're either a) a dense townie, who doesn't see my point of view, but who nevertheless is pursuing a lead (as somebody said), or b) a scum, who is purposedly closing his ears to my PoV because you need somebody to "sink your teeth in". Currently, I'm leaning towards b). Yes, I unvoted Hero and voted you after Adel posted his vote. However, I was still going to do it on Tuesday morning, because I've decided to bring the Hero thing to a closure.

Which brings up a question: Hero, why are you still voting me? You said your reasons are different. I would like to hear them, because I've explained to you how I can both see you as more scum than town and see you as not deserving a vote, which is what I understand your main reason for voting me is. Currently, it feels like you've parked your vote.

See, you say not opportunistic yet alas.

1.) You can keep thinking shameless bandwagons are good. Thats fine. Scummy, but fine. However, if your vote isn't to push a lynch, what is it for? To see who jumps on? If thats the case then is Porkens scum because no one jumped on?

Further, if "bandwagons are good" and there's another vote on you are you going to jump on yourself? Of course not. That would be retarded. As is the generalization that bandwagons are good.

2.) If he didn't deserve a vote then

why the hell would you give him one ever

? Further, you say above that "you can see him as more scum than town" and STILL don't vote? AND again you say you've built a case that isn't designed to peruse a lynch. Really?

3.) I'm not dense. Far from it. Listening to what you're saying and parsing it out as bullshit is NOT going "lalala I can't hear you". If thats the case then you're being just as dense going "Ohh, but I am town and therefore pristine and incapable of doing something scummy"

I'm not being wishy-washy. Quite the opposite, I've been saying the same things over and over for pages now:

Sorry, I guess I didn't spell it out enough: wishy-washy with your

vote

. Yes, you're adhereing to what your saying but your actions, especially the most quantifiable and useful one a town has, speaks otherwise.

1.) You voted for Porkens "to get a wagon" that you yourself said you didn't want to see get lynched.
2.) You then voted for Hero

after making a case

then said, get this, you didn't want to see him lynched.
3.) You're now voting me for being "stubborn townie or a scum closing my eyes to your PoV".

a.) All three of these are after other votes or sentiment expressed thereof.
b.) Two of the three you never even said they were scum. Or even scummy. The third, the one attacking you, you STILL are holding to the caveat I may just be "stubborn town" in preparation that if you got your way and when my flip came out "gee welp".

These actions bespeak no actual stance on, well, anything. A reed blowin' in the wind is useless. You dont want to be on book with anything hard. Nor do you want to stand out and make a case on your own without backing.

These are scummy things. Hence my "you are scum" vote. Not "you may be" or "if" this is "you are scum and I want you lynched for it."

A vote with a purpose.

[Vi]

@Artem: I don't think my question was clear. Did you have a general plan for approaching Early Day One^TM?

-----

2.) If he didn't deserve a vote then

why the hell would you give him one ever

? Further, you say above that "you can see him as more scum than town" and STILL don't vote? AND again you say you've built a case that isn't designed to peruse a lynch. Really?

The first two statements read like a no-win inquisition tbqh. The latter part is interesting, but I think from what I've seen of Artem it's not necessarily scummy.

[SpyreX]

Keep in mind we're past the inquisition. They're questions because questions catch the eye.

I'm not wasting time convincing scum they are scum.

[Porkens]

Tajo:

I don't like your description of me as "either ... town or ... scum." Fence-sit much? And then I show up as Prob Town. You've also got Ecto on your "prob town" list but mention him

nowhere

in the preceding analysis. I'm getting "out-of-left-field" vibes from your vote on Hero.

Artem:

, if you declair that you have no intention of lynching someone you're voting for...maybe I'm missing the point? What good do your bandwagons tdo if you don't intend for them to end in lynches?

SpyreX:

Since you've made it part of the game;

[quote="spyreX"That said, Porken's statement firmly cements him as town in my eyes. No way in hell would scum take that stance considering the probable negative repercussions from it. So, thats something.[/quote]

Is the opposite true? Should we be looking at folks who were kind and receptive as more possibly scum than me or those who made no comment?

[SpyreX]

Is the opposite true? Should we be looking at folks who were kind and receptive as more possibly scum than me or those who made no comment?

No. Results that are "normal" are, really, null. Its the fact you were outside a normal response in such a way that wouldn't fit scum modus operandi that made me make my statement.

[Adel]

Adel, does it be time to talk about your vote for SpyreX yet or do you still be waiting to see what people will do?

I'll give other players a couple of additional days before I start pushing his wagon again.

[springlullaby]

Elmo, bizarrely your posts are not succinct at all, they are also vague in their intent. I'd like to ask who you think is scummiest at the moment.

Apart from 175 (which I explained), which of my posts seem vague or verbose to you? And "KILL HERODOTUS PLZ K THX" combined with voting Herod seems pretty unambiguous to me. (It's him. We need to kill Herodotus post-haste. With death.)

I did not actually conceived your "KILL HERODOTUS PLZ K THX" as serious. In fact I have read all your posts so far as stray commentaries without a strong vote. I will give you are reread with this info.

[springlullaby]

According to you, I'm scum because...I have not posted during 5 days?
What do you think I would accomplish as scum by 'stalling'?
As for the 164 post, which is a repeat of Porkens' argument, see my previous post.

And if I'm scum Artem and Ectomancer would be my buddy because they defended me? And Porkens because he voted me?

Well, Troll no be at all sure that springlullaby be scum and she has been posting so that no be it. It be the posting without contributing to the information pool. Stalling through the start of the game allows one to assess the mood of the game and then voice ones suspicions accordingly. It gives us less to compare to when we look at your actions. Your current vote on Artem be an example of how this could be beneficial for scum. It be a vote that Troll no objects to on it's own as Troll does find Artem suspicious (even for some of the reasons you give) but the fact that it comes when many others have already expressed unease with Artem's play be convenient. We no had any prior reads from you on Artem to compare it to.

This is a justification of your vote, and what you are justifying is a vote on someone who has not posted during 5 days, 3 of which were weekend absence. Your complaints about my vote on Artem having no precedence is especially weak and actually quite the unfair argument, were I town and truthful in my motives, there is nothing that I could do about it.

The bottom line on this is that no matter how you candy wrap it, your reason here amounts to lurkerhunt, and this to the disregard of 1)my being VLA during the weekend 2)the content I posted afterward.

A quick question before posting my thoughts,

MOD:

were scum allowed to talk before the game?

Troll can certainly think of a couple reasons why this might be worth asking and if springlullaby would like to give particular interactions that she saw that be fine (if springlullaby would prefer not to Troll can accept that reluctance as well) but it would surprise Troll if there were no reactions at all that springlullaby could have given that would not compromise the information that might be gained by having the question answered. Putting off all contributions until this question be answered be troublesome. Further, Troll no cares for the the implication that you no know the answer to the question. It could easily be true but the way it be asked that strikes Troll as a large part of the motivation to make the post at all.

Well, what do you expect me to answer you. I posted that question because it crossed my mind after catching up, and did it independently of game analysis because it was a short question and took no time at all. I hadn't gotten around to write my thoughts down at that point yet, in fact I wouldn't have the time to do it before 1 day afterward. I'm sure my use of tenses is a mess here but I can't be bummed to figure it out.

Here again what you write is a justification of your vote describing a plausible scummy explanation of my action whereas disregarding the fact that it is not the likeliest. The fact that you took 1 serious big paragraph to write it is nothing positive in my book. The following: "Troll no cares for the the implication that you no know the answer to the question" is particularly inane and unfair, were I town, don't you think that I would indeed not know the answer to the question?

As for why Porkens likely be town if you be scum, it be more than just the vote him has cast on you. It be the way the two of you have approached eachother all game. Porken's first post did draw attention to you. Your first post draws attention to him. Porkens, more than most in the game has come back to you. If you both be scum this be much more than distancing would require. If you do flip scum Troll no will rule Porkens out as a partner but him will certainly be lower on the list because of what Troll has seen from both of you.

And what would you say Porkens be if I be town?

It is interesting to me that the reasons you uses to justify reading Porkens and I being from different alignment are arguments that I personally would find to be in favour of there being possible distancing. Early non-game related name dropping + barely justified and lasting vote.

For Artem and Ectomancer, it be more than just a defense of you. It be the idea that it be OK for you to lurk. Neither one be saying that you be town. Both be giving reasons not to make a read on you yet which be noteworthy. Again, should you turn up scum Troll no will simply assume that one or both of them must be your partner but them will be looking at more closely.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

Firstly this is technically false, Artem gave me a town read. Secondly, asking me to be accountable for Artem and Ectomancer's actions is both unfair and scummy.

Zorblag, I'm noting with interest here that you say you agree with some of the reasons indicting Artem's guilt, that you say "you could even vote him", and that you even suspect him of being 'my buddy', all this while voting for me. This strikes me as doubly strange because, beyond the fact that it is unusual, I judge there to be better and stronger reasons to be voting Artem than your vote on me which amounts to 5 days lurkerhunt and a second point which is quite inane.

So here is the question for you. How would you judge my scumminess in comparison to Artem's? Why?

Now now, you are not allowed to turn into saying that I'm blame shifting. I'm asking this because in the event of Artem flipping scum, which I think is going to happen more and more, I see your post here to be soft distancing from Artem by saying that you find him scummy while not voting for him, and at the same time setting a mislynch by implicating me as Artem's scumbuddy. And if Artem flips scum, I want your written words here on why you are not voting him despite saying that he is scummy, and why you are pushing me on what I see as a weaker case.

[springlullaby]

Spring: The reason I asked about "trying to hard" was I couldn't find any post in which anyone actually said that, yet you put it in quotes, as if someone had. It's not a trick question.

Alright, but you lumped it in with your reason to vote me, hence my asking you if it was a point of contention at all.

As for you following Ecto's vote; as you say you were following his reasons but they were

bad

reasons. The "sticking to" or "keeping" terms were being missused. Sure, you don't have to always have origional reasoing, but you shouldn't follow BAD reasoning.

I disagree with this. I stand by the fact that Ecto's reasons of suspecting you at that point in the game were fine. Your post came across as someone who's intent was to mock people being suspect of a third vote on a wagon - implying that a third vote on a wagon is nothing to be worried about, which I would agree with - the fact that you did not keep your vote there seem to be in contradiction with the intended meaning. But I can actually see the whole 'the vote was part of the joke' now. Personally I would have kept my vote there.

Troll brought up a good point;

why

did you ask the question? Pretend you had gotten a "yes" answer and tell us what that would have meant to you. Which interactions are you talking about?

I dislike the fact that you are using 'us' here, what 'us' are you talking about? Furthermore, are you serious that asking me 'why' did not cross your mind? It seems to me that it is the only valid question to ask in this whole affair. And to answer, I have wondered about a number of plays, including, Adel, Ectomancer, Vi/Adel, and Spyrex/Artem.

By '''stalling''' you could be hoping to avoid notice altogether, let alone suspicion. If you say

nothing

, no one can hold anythign you say against you.

Do you seriously believe the words coming out of your mouth?
Let's pretend that anyone can 'avoid notice altogether' I'll refer you to the following:
1. During 3 days, I was VLA.
2. I made 3 post saying that I would post presently in the span of 2 days upon my return. I can objectively say that I could have not posted during that span of time without any of you noticing/or finding it overly scummy: so what interest had I to post what I posted if my intention was to go unnoticed?

[springlullaby]

So, your vote is pretty sloppy here, which I wouldn't have minded given the early stage of the game at the time, but your last comment by which you seem to justify your continued vote on me is weak also.

Voting for people whose content is mostly "rereading, will catch up" is weak? This is news.

1.Nowhere do I find in Porkens's original vote concern over my not posting.
2.My content is mostly 'rereading, will catch up' true, but you are dismissing the fact that I have not lurked for any duration of time, and that the posts in question where made in the span of two days. This is making me roll my eyes because I posted these "catching up" posts only because I felt vaguely guilty about not warning people of my VLA, and only because this is a nomination game. Under normal circumstances I would not even have bothered, scum or town.

Is that a serious point of contention? If so, I'd like you to explain why you think town would not have asked this question puclicly because I see not.

ftr, I've tried something similar as scum. It didn't go over well. Thus I don't think Porkens is necessarily on the wrong track, and I agree with Troll's comments on it in 238.

In case it's not obvious I disagree with your assessment of Porkens.

You were no doubt rookie scum then, because the manipulation is as unrefined as can be. In any case the argument is weak (see my previous posts) and I judge it to be no fit as sufficient for a continuation vote in the present state of the game whereas load has happened.

What do you think I would accomplish as scum by 'stalling'?

Skipping Early Day One^TM sounds good to me. That's when precedents are set and first impressions formed, and in my experience skipping all that is quite liberating. Plus you're very likely not going to be subject of the first "serious wagon".

Nice recitation of standard theory. What are your arguments in favour of my not just being VLA, and too busy to write my catch up post the two days afterwards?

[springlullaby]

The meta is also off. I contributed much more unprompted in both games we were in.

I don't think the meta was off when I made that post. Yes, now that you've avoided posting content for pages, the meta is off, but who's to say you didn't do it on purpose so that you can make this argument?

I was kinda waiting you around the corner on this one, and you sort of exceed expectations.
1. Your meta was off at the time of your post for the simple reason that my absence which you read as town was caused by VLA, as was mentioned in thread before your post. I think this should have nullified any read in the mind of a honest townie since no purpose can be read into my absence under these circumstances. Agree/disagree?
2. So, you think 'I threw off' my meta for the purpose of...framing you? Are you serious? Lol. I think that's quite the scummy counter here.

I also think his defence face Spyrex's case is not good, it is overly exasperated at some point, and make emotional 'I'm intimidated' appeal at other.

The only place I've said "I'm intimidated with the cast" was when I was explaining to Vi why my posts are concise and unsure. Can you please quote where I used "I'm intimidated" appeal in my defense against SpyreX?[/quote]

Well, this is actually true. What struck me was the dissonance between you making such a post alluding at being intimidated with overtone of shyness, of 'relative newbie card', and your later defence face Spyrex in which you did not read intimidated at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Right now I like my Artem vote.
Zorblag is looking scummy because his case on me is a lot of words, weak reasoning, and warped arguments. The strangeness about his relation to Artem's in the post supposedly addressing my guiltiness may be relevant later.

I need to reread everyone else.

[springlullaby]

Is the opposite true? Should we be looking at folks who were kind and receptive as more possibly scum than me or those who made no comment?

No. Results that are "normal" are, really, null. Its the fact you were outside a normal response in such a way that wouldn't fit scum modus operandi that made me make my statement.

Btw, I disagree with this evaluation of Porkens' comment on Ectomancer.

If Ectomancer is town, the chances of his absence being a gambit are null. If Ectomancer is scum, there exists a possibility of it being a gambit. To this follow:
1. If Porkens is town -> Porkens doesn't know Ectomancer's alignment -> Porkens is willing to risk being a jerk in the event of Ectomancer being truthful, this willingness means that he is being a jerk
2. If Porkens is scum and knows Ectomancer's alignment to be town -> Porkens is purposefully being a jerk
3. If Porkens is scum and knows Ectomancer to be scum -> Porkens is being scum

My conclusion about this is that, judging on this specific event alone, Porkens has 66,66% of being a jerk, and 33,33% of being scum knowing that Ectomancer is gambitting. Given that I believe the chance of Ectomancer gambitting about this to be null independently of alignment, the result can be corrected to Porkens being 100% a jerk. No kidding.

[Herodotus]

2) As I said many times, Hero did not deserve a vote, but he was asking for one. It is part of my personality to do what I did (i.e., stick my tongue out and vote him). Since I voted him, I decided to bring up the other things I have been mulling over at the time. Adel's vote on Hero had nothing to do with anything, and I certainly wasn't going to pursue a Hero lynch with my vote/case.

...

Which brings up a question: Hero, why are you still voting me? You said your reasons are different. I would like to hear them, because I've explained to you how I can both see you as more scum than town and see you as not deserving a vote, which is what I understand your main reason for voting me is. Currently, it feels like you've parked your vote.

I think you've said this about seven separate times, so let me correct you again. I wasn't "asking for a vote," I was trying to say that I found it suspicious that you were not voting me, given what you had said.
I said my vote for Adel was "for different reasons." Is my vote parked on you? Sure, but given that I have a somewhat scummy read on you, I don't see that as a bad thing. You're at three votes, and you consider wagons to be pro-town, so you should be happy; again your response looks inconsistent with a town alignment.

[Korts]

I don't see a case on SpyreX, however hard Adel makes me look. I suspect he has other motives for pushing this than the apparent one. I do, however, hope that he'll participate more than just checking in from time to time for an update on SpyreX's lynch. (Sorry in advance, Adel, if I alternate between male and female pronouns from time to time. Might be a while before you being a guy is ingrained in my subconscious. The name doesn't help much, either )

On a review of Herod/Artem I agree with Herodotus that Artem's vote was not consistent with his earlier stance on Herod. However I can see how Artem's evaluation of scum vs. town can incorrectly be phrased "more likely scum than town" while in actuality meaning "you're more likely scum than random", and the argument against him should not be mistaken for this point.

I dislike Artem's SpyreX vote as well. The twisting words point is not particularly strong; SpyreX's interpretation was acceptable, if not the most likely true. And the "You said that scums use wagons, so you wanting a wagon must mean you're scum. DURRR!" point is not only weak, but it is also highly hypocritical considering the previous "twisting words" point--it is another twist, this time of SpyreX's words.

My vote on Troll is outdated. His stance on early game seems an integral part of his playstyle, even if it is borderline anti-town. I'll be watching you closely though.

unvote

For the sake of comparison, what does Korts think of Elmo's thoughts on Ectomancer, Porkens and SpyreX in post 175?

Early game needs much bigger contrasts for the town to be able to make reasonable progress in scumhunting, which is why I didn't like your neutral stance toward everything. Elmo's analysis is after the events had blown over and the main points of discussion had already been established. Do you see my point?

You what else? Korts has expressed interest in reiterating his points against you. Wish he'd hurry up and voted you.

WAGON FISHING ALERT

MAN YOUR STATIONS

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

you're way too stubborn to be town (especially in this group)

The bullshit, it hurts so much. And aren't you just as stubborn, anyway?

I find myself agreeing more and more with SpyreX. Artem is scum.

vote: Artem

Sooooo... is Artem scummy, or null, or what for doing basically that?

This was entirely referencing my own method of choosing targets and not letting up until we have material. As far as te 3 go, Spyrex is a null, Porkens is +1 scum and Tajo is +2 scum.

I realize you're on meds (hope you get better, by the way) but why no mention of Artem, even though it is him the original question was about?

Meanwhile the Adel wagon is crap, and I particularly don't like Vi on it.

eh wot
Please explain.

Nyeh. The Adel wagon seems to be based on the fact that he's not helping right here and now--I have confidence in his sitewide meta database yielding valuable information later on in the game, and if she is occupied with this instead of Day 1 witchhunting, I don't particularly fault her other than us not being able to get a read on her alignment. I can't recall why I didn't like you specifically, since I'm writing this post on a train without internet access, but I seem to remember your vote being opportunistic-like.

Hm. Troll's 229 seems awfully careful not to interpret anything other than lack of contribution as scummy. Artem's vote being put down as a "frustration vote" seems a bit of a reach to me; note that the vote came in 220 and the expression of frustration only in 223, after another SpyreX post debunking most of the material Artem had.

Elmo 230 effectively calling SpyreX/Artem a town-town debate. Noted.

Up to 238, will read further later.

[SpyreX]

I'd like more Korts activity like this. I approve.

@Spring:

If Porkens is a "jerk" does that make him town or scum? My statement says that being a "jerk" of that nature IS a towntell considering. I can't decide if you're saying he's null or what from your statement.

[Porkens]

I'll be in transit for the rest of today. I expect that I'll be able to post again tomorrow morning-ish.

[Artem]

@Vi:
Analyze the reasons for votes on first wagon and the players who begin attacking those reasons.

@Porkens:
-Have you never seen an early wagon where everybody knows that the person won't get lynched? (I have examples if you haven't). I simply stated the fact/sentiment explicitly.
-For two posts in a row, you've basically echoed what SpyreX said towards me. I think you're being hypocritical here when you say I don't do anything on my own.

@SpyreX:
-Why would I vote for Porkens or Hero with a desire to see them lynched? They haven't done anything scummy enough to lynch them?
-You're saying that you're wasting your time with me. I don't see you pursuing anything else.

@SL:
-How was I supposed to know you were V/LA when you never warned us about it? Besides, my meta was based on your (low) frequency of posting, not your lack of posting. In both previous games you posts have been scarce compared to the majority of other players. (you yourself told Kair that quantity != quality). This is what I remembered and this is what I noticed here.
-I don't know if you purposely avoided posting content to implicate that my meta was off, but the thought crossed my mind. Simply dismissing it with a "lol, scummy" strikes me as odd and not pro-town though.

@Hero:
-Asking for vote reasons is not anti-wagon and hence not inconsistent. Now if I get lynched, there's you saying you parked your vote in writing, which can be analyzed later.

"Player A doing action B makes my stomach C and player D does nothing but lurk. Lynch E, Kthnxbai, see you tomorrow when I'm going to make another post like this"

Porken's, Tajo's, and Korts's posts fall under this, in my opinion.

Mmm.....

Unvote; Vote: Porkens

. I think the contribution is lacking and I dislike him sniping at me from under SpyreX's wing, while saying that I'm unable to vote/unvote on my own. Look, ma, I voted all by myself!

[Porkens]

Oh very well, one more before I get on the plane.

@Porkens:
-For two posts in a row, you've basically echoed what SpyreX said towards me. I think you're being hypocritical here when you say I don't do anything on my own.

Which part of SpyreX's posts did I echo with this (the ONLY think I said about you in my last real post):

Artem:

, if you declair that you have no intention of lynching someone you're voting for...maybe I'm missing the point? What good do your bandwagons tdo if you don't intend for them to end in lynches?

I think you kinda missed the point with this question anyway, but that's fine.

Oh what the hell;

Unvote. Vote: Artem

(L-2?)

See y'all in a few more hours.

[Artem]

@Porkens:

Post 225: SpyreX talks about me following other people in my votes;
Post 226: You tell me that I haven't voted or unvoted on my own;

Post 256: SpyreX talks about my voting and not wanting to see a lynch;
Post 257: You ask me what the point of a wagon/vote is if you don't want to see a lynch;

Now you tell me that I missed the point. If your point is the obvious one: you don't know what wagons are useful for, then I gave you three things that can come out of them in 254. The second thing requires a cardflip, the first and the third doesn't.

The only other point I see is a sideways cast of suspicion on me, because SpyreX finds my votes scummy, so you want to fan the flame.