Mini 803 - Pale Moon Risin' (Over!)

[Zilla]

Wow, look what that made me miss!

This changes things slightly: namely my accusations between KMD and Llama. I'm going to search for any relevence afatchic had and what people said about her.

Porkens claims dayvig? Awesome job anyhow! (ducks incoming votes for commenting on what just happened).

[charter]

I don't think mykonian is scum, because his reason for voting Zilla was crap, and it would be dumb to vote your partner like that if you were scum.

You admit that mykonian's reason for voting Zilla was crap and yet you still come to the conclusion that he's likely not scum? Like

seriously?

Yes. Call it the 'too dumb to be scum' fallacy or whatever, but it's just too sloppy and careless for a scumbag to make, I believe.

Zilla, I really don't see what your problem with Kmd is. It looks to me like it's mostly OMGUS. I don't see where he has backpedaled at all.

Also, your VP points don't make any sense. Once again, it all stems from WIFOM.

the rest are apparently angry at me for voting Porkens on a weak premise (when we were transitioning, thanks to me, out of RVS, I should remind you, with a 75% joke vote)

...and my vote is parked for the day. Zilla is going way too far with all this chest pounding with getting us out of the RVS. Whoopdie freaking doo. It's not a towntell in the slightest, and yet Zilla is trying to make it out like she's town for doing a scummy action to transition out of the RVS using all this "I did it for reactions" bs.

[Zilla]

B) I DID understand he charter-lurker comment. But if he will vote CHARTER for lurking, why wouldn't he vote AFATCHIC for the same?
Especially considering that with charter, being scummy is practically a way of life, and someone pointed that out?

I had assumed at the time it was because Mykonian was making that comment based on Charter's meta. This needs more explanation by Mykonian, who dodged this completely.

Judo-speculation: Is camn's interest in afatchic solely based on lurking?

I think it is, personally.

Aaaaaand, that's all I found of other players relating to Afatchic.

But now that that has gotten my attention, where is Plum?

[Zilla]

Edit: *crams foot into mouth* Plum just unvoted me.

More participation please?

[Zilla]

I don't think mykonian is scum, because his reason for voting Zilla was crap, and it would be dumb to vote your partner like that if you were scum.

You admit that mykonian's reason for voting Zilla was crap and yet you still come to the conclusion that he's likely not scum? Like

seriously?

Yes. Call it the 'too dumb to be scum' fallacy or whatever, but it's just too sloppy and careless for a scumbag to make, I believe.

You're giving Mykonian a clear because I MUST be scum, right? Where does he sit if I'm town?

Zilla, I really don't see what your problem with Kmd is. It looks to me like it's mostly OMGUS. I don't see where he has backpedaled at all.

Backpedalled regarding his suspicion on Mykonian, and I did a poor job of getting to the point with that.

Also, your VP points don't make any sense. Once again, it all stems from WIFOM.

Elaborate please?

the rest are apparently angry at me for voting Porkens on a weak premise (when we were transitioning, thanks to me, out of RVS, I should remind you, with a 75% joke vote)

...and my vote is parked for the day. Zilla is going way too far with all this chest pounding with getting us out of the RVS. Whoopdie freaking doo. It's not a towntell in the slightest, and yet Zilla is trying to make it out like she's town for doing a scummy action to transition out of the RVS using all this "I did it for reactions" bs.

First, I'm not saying I'm town for getting us out of RVS. I'm saying that my vote on Porkens wasn't all that serious. Second, "all this chest pounding?" Not only does that put a disturbing image in my head, but I haven't been saying that I deserve any town-points for being the one to stir up serious discussion. Third, I never claimed to vote Porkens for reactions. Yes, I wanted to see where plum was going with her "is that serious?" but that had nothing to do with transitioning out of RVS. Fourth, this ignores the actual point, that people are suspecting me for a weak vote.

This is why I hate Charter.

[charter]

I don't think mykonian is scum, because his reason for voting Zilla was crap, and it would be dumb to vote your partner like that if you were scum.

You admit that mykonian's reason for voting Zilla was crap and yet you still come to the conclusion that he's likely not scum? Like

seriously?

Yes. Call it the 'too dumb to be scum' fallacy or whatever, but it's just too sloppy and careless for a scumbag to make, I believe.

You're giving Mykonian a clear because I MUST be scum, right? Where does he sit if I'm town?

No, I just find it too hard to believe he would make such an obviously poor vote if scum. He's in the same spot if you're town.

Zilla, I really don't see what your problem with Kmd is. It looks to me like it's mostly OMGUS. I don't see where he has backpedaled at all.

Backpedalled regarding his suspicion on Mykonian, and I did a poor job of getting to the point with that.

I don't see any backpedal.

Also, your VP points don't make any sense. Once again, it all stems from WIFOM.

Elaborate please?

Stuff like "you don't really believe it, but you believe you can sell it" coupled with the fact that your 'read' on Porkens doesn't say anything, and the only thing we're left with is he accused you of not reponding to a question (which you didn't) and you somehow spin it back on him.

the rest are apparently angry at me for voting Porkens on a weak premise (when we were transitioning, thanks to me, out of RVS, I should remind you, with a 75% joke vote)

...and my vote is parked for the day. Zilla is going way too far with all this chest pounding with getting us out of the RVS. Whoopdie freaking doo. It's not a towntell in the slightest, and yet Zilla is trying to make it out like she's town for doing a scummy action to transition out of the RVS using all this "I did it for reactions" bs.

First, I'm not saying I'm town for getting us out of RVS. I'm saying that my vote on Porkens wasn't all that serious. Second, "all this chest pounding?" Not only does that put a disturbing image in my head, but I haven't been saying that I deserve any town-points for being the one to stir up serious discussion. Third, I never claimed to vote Porkens for reactions. Yes, I wanted to see where plum was going with her "is that serious?" but that had nothing to do with transitioning out of RVS. Fourth, this ignores the actual point, that people are suspecting me for a weak vote.

You've mentioned how your actions lead out of the RVS multiple times. Why, if not to try and gain some subliminal townpoints?
What do you mean you never claimed to vote Porkens for reactions? What is this then?

I'm not claiming doublevoter. It was a mechanism to draw discussion, which it did. Porkens then asked if I was a doublevoter. That was the reaction I was looking for, and that's why I voted him.

Why did you vote him then?

Fourth, this ignores the actual point, that people are suspecting me for a weak vote.

I'm not voting you because you voted Porkens. I'm voting you because since you did it, you've been horribly inconsistant with your reasoning for voting him. I feel like every post it changes. On top of that there's this 75% not serious nonsense.

This is why I hate Charter.

...thanks. I don't see where I'm being unreasonable at all, seeing as how you have many more votes than just mine.

[Plum]

Guess what time it is? Yes - reread and analysis post time.

Mykonian

Has gotten a lot of attention recently, and in any case even in my brief look-through yesterday gave me stuff to raise my eyebrows at. In fact, I'm going to go through the game (it's still short enough and not too dense) and note any unusual things about him, yeah? Also early cases made etc.

Myk, why didn't you place a random vote?

@ All: Is not casting a random vote more or less suspect than casting a random vote without jokey reasoning provided? Also, does anyone know if Myk has a history of avoiding voting in the random stage at all?

Actually, Myk, I've learned that not voting can be a pretty decent scumtell, and, all things considered, Zilla's Page 4 case and vote on you were not bunk. Reluctance to commit to a vote is a legit scumtell, and Zilla's extrapolated reasons for why scum-Myk would do that are reasonable.

Then you have no dispute with me and my argument is completely valid.

you think so? Random votes don't say a lot, and are "flushed away" by all the other votes.

You say I'm scared to vote.

I say a vote isn't much use now.

I can't be scared, as votes aren't very much checked in the RVS. They don't say a lot. But if they don't say a lot, why would you vote?

Please show me, how you think your argument could be valid...

I have seen scum reluctant to commit to votes when they had even very minor suspicions (or in the RVS . . . damn, I'm going to check your stupid meta myself. Happy now??? All right, I've seen you do the normal random vote stuff and the voting when things got modestly serious stuff.

Why did you not in this game???

).

Mykonian, you're claiming two things at once. You're saying you don't want to random vote, and that your vote is "worthless" now, and you alternate between the two, and neither make any sense.

The first makes no sense because it's only random voting if you're doing it for random reasons. If you have a serious reason, it's not a random vote. The second also makes no sense because it shouldn't matter who looks at your vote. It's paranoid scum who worry about how their vote looks.

or town that likes to see what the reaction of scum on a vote is. That won't help if they don't think it is serious

btw, it would be nice if I had a town game of you I could read. Would you have a link?

Addressing the bolded: Not justification. I make random votes and votes on minor points early in the game and I make serious votes too. I look for reactions on all and try to take advantage of all the votes I make in that way, but believe me, when I'm making a serious vote it's clear I'm making a serious vote. I don't need to do away with less serious votes to get that to happen. Regardless, in my brief glance at your meta I haven't seen you shying away from less-than-serious votes.

This fails the "if everybody did this, would it help town?" test miserably.

Does it matter if a case is weak at this point in the game? A weak case is better than a joke case or no case at all.

SO TRUE.

These too.

I wasn't talking about you... but about charter.

see, I can have this little problem. That I post too much to make the town function. In that game, there was another one that did the same. I think charter enjoyed the show. I didn't like it, and it is not going to happen again.

I'm glad, but you're not helping the town function by not voting or attempting to formulate accusations and cases. By page five you've not done any of this.

SCREW IT; MYKONIAN BECAME MY CLEAR TOP SUSPECT BY POST 116

First you refuse to vote, don't put together much case, etc. as elaborated above. THEN you ask for some Zilla-town meta, then you make a vote based on your view of her town meta vs. her scum meta.

I have seen scum ask for meta (mith's meta!) only to take that and try to twist it into a case.

You're out of luck here, Myk. Wishy-washyness, reluctance to commit to a vote or case, and then

this

vote for this reason . . . my scumdar has made a decisive

bleeeep!

Vote: Mykonian

While I agree with parts of Baltar's case (basically the ones arguing that Myk's reluctance to put a vote on his top suspect, however weak his case on Zilla was, is suspect) I don't see strong enough indication to link them much in my mind - and the fact that you're implying such strong connections before any players have flipped scum (or anything, for that matter) makes gut twitch, and his Post 118 was basically predicated on arguing for this connection.

FOS: VP Baltar

I don't see the appeal for VP Baltar's "Zilla being bussed by mykonian-scum" theory. The fact that he built a complete case against mykonian under the premonition that Zilla is scum is creepy. VP Baltar, do you see mykonian as scummy independent of his interactions of Zilla? Your case only seems to work under the assumption that Zilla is definitely scum here, and we haven't had an alignment flip yet sooo, yeah.

^^ See that.

I move that the bolded is a giant scumslip. If he thought I was scum, he wouldn't say that the point of my case is that "I seriously thought Porkens was rolefishing." If he thought I was scum, it would have been "I was trying to frame Porkens for rolefishing."

Hm. I note this well.

@ Plum

Serious? And what put me on this "list'?

You were my only lead, having done the only really out-of-place, potentially scummy thing to that point, so yes, you got a serious vote. What do you think, I write up unamusing, business-tone sentences backing my point on a vote because I have nothing better to do and no sense of humor to boot? Please . Also, I just meant that my subconscious seems to think you're cool for a reason I don't really know. Consider it a compliment, if you will.

I wanted to see what Plum's reaction was to me saying my Porkens vote wasn't serious, but then a page went by with no plum and tons of people basically making my question lose impact.

Yeah, I was out then. Probably I would have said that your first vote had an arguably decent reason behind it, but a sudden switch to voting someone for a not-serious reason wasn't good, and the fact that the vote looked very much like a serious vote on a baseless accusation was worse.

Porkens then asked if I was a doublevoter. That was the reaction I was looking for, and that's why I voted him.

hmm, I guess I'll have to wait for the votecount to see if you're just being silly or not...

I see no asking it you're a doublevoter; I see him noting something he's interested in seeing the conclusion of. That is my problem; the thing you were pouncing on wasn't rolefishing. I don't care whether or not you intended your vote on him to lead to a lynch, because your basis for making that fairly serious accusation was nonexistent.

"Is that a REAL doublevote?" strikes me as worse than, "Are you claiming doublevoter?" The first has a bit of "oh shit" in it.

See the actual Porkens quote I put in above. It's arguably closer to the second phrase you listed, though it's not really either.

3.

Plum

You can't have "lots-o-fun" unless you post more! You are ALSO on Zilla from post 0. hmm.
No read.

I've been busy: parading on Sunday, school play yesterday, etc. Rest assured that I'm having plenty of fun putting together this fairly long post, yar?

@Llama:

When he confirmed that Zilla was his top pick before I made it known who my top pick was, it made me more comfortable with him.

What about the fact that he hadn't voted all game - not even your mutual top pick for scum?

Zazie, show up soon .

Zilla, how do you define the term 'rolefishing'?

Gah, I am getting a stupid null-read on Charter.

Also gah: Why am I still getting a strong scumvibe from Llama's Post 105, specifically the fact that he's arguing for the biggest wagon thus far but seems to have believed that the doublevoter fakeclaim looked serious and that Porkens attacked it?

Kmd: How do you see Mykonian and the case on him. Please, feel your freest to elaborate.

Charter:

No, I just find it too hard to believe he would make such an obviously poor vote if scum. He's in the same spot if you're town.

I don't like the too dumb to be scum argument .

FOS Plum

Oh hi, I've missed you, too

I was on the verge of making better on my FOS when I saw this, but events of tonight have made me rethink that a bit .

[Zilla]

No, I just find it too hard to believe he would make such an obviously poor vote if scum. He's in the same spot if you're town.

What do you know of Mykonian that allows you to make this call on what he would do?

I don't see any backpedal.

If you think I'm backpedaling on my stance on Porkens, apply that same logic to KMD regarding Mykonian. He DID suspect Mykonian.

b: yes top pick, but

I want to look longer.

Why? (to the bolded)

c: no, just that if I were to accuse him, the case would be ridiculously weak.

Does it matter if a case is weak at this point in the game? A weak case is better than a joke case or no case at all.

I say a vote isn't much use now.

I can't be scared, as votes aren't very much checked in the RVS. They don't say a lot. But if they don't say a lot, why would you vote?

This fails the "if everybody did this, would it help town?" test miserably.

KMD, till now I have not had any problems with games not starting. And I see no reason to make a mess here. I would also like to know how far we are with Zilla, because I've seen a lot of votes on her.

and a weak case is or an excuse for a vote, or something that shows the unvote will come. I'm not interested in that.

O yes, thank you for pointing at charters meta I will vote you on the moment I have the idea you are lurking Smile

I'm just saying that if nobody voted until there was a real reason to, we'd never lynch anyone.

and then, we have:

KMD totally forgetting he was suspecting Mykonian.

Um. I haven't been suspicious of Myko at all in this game.

And then there's how he didn't like Mykonian's response to the Zilla/Mykonian bussing theory. Either he's coaching Mykonian, or he suspects him.

I won't debate with you about my consistency on Porkens because I know it's totally futile. You can have your misguided point there. If you do ever want to get out of your tunnel, take a look at what I've said about my porkens vote again.

Why, if not to try and gain some subliminal townpoints?

Show me in context, and tell me if you can't see why I bring it up, if and when I do.

Stuff like "you don't really believe it, but you believe you can sell it" coupled with the fact that your 'read' on Porkens doesn't say anything, and the only thing we're left with is he accused you of not reponding to a question (which you didn't) and you somehow spin it back on him.

First, let's address that "somehow."

I posted this:

I don't see the appeal for VP Baltar's "Zilla being bussed by mykonian-scum" theory. The fact that he built a complete case against mykonian under the premonition that Zilla is scum is creepy. VP Baltar, do you see mykonian as scummy independent of his interactions of Zilla? Your case only seems to work under the assumption that Zilla is definitely scum here, and we haven't had an alignment flip yet sooo, yeah.

I too, am severely unnerved by the groundwork of his case. What he's said about me thus far:

I'm pretty sure it's the timeframe in which you did it in. You could have been simply testing the waters to see what stuck. I'm of the belief that this is definitely what your Porkens vote was.

Note things like "I'm pretty sure" and "you could have been simply."

....

Aww, I had a quote block prepared and everything.

He didn't say anything else other than "I support the Zilla case."

HUGE FOS: VP Baltar

Then VP posted:

Aww, I had a quote block prepared and everything.

He didn't say anything else other than "I support the Zilla case."

Well, I guess you got me there....oh, wait, you completely ignored the questions that were put to you in my last post:

Then I posted:

I was talking about the context of before your case for a Mykonian/Zilla pair, talking about how you assumed I must be scum in order to build your case on Mykonian. I was specifically looking for what you said about me that made me look like obvscum to the point that you built a case on Mykonian from the standpoint that I must be bussing him.

That "somehow" is justified.

Second, What about his slip?

This is a scum semantics argument, and it looks like you're trying to back out of your commitment to it now.

The point is that at least some part of you thought Porkens was seriously rolefishing.

Due to it only being 25% serious, do you think it should be disregarded as a point against you?

Counterpoint: How does seeing Porkens as rolefishing equate to being scum?

I move that the bolded is a giant scumslip. If he thought I was scum, he wouldn't say that the point of my case is that "I seriously thought Porkens was rolefishing." If he thought I was scum, it would have been "I was trying to frame Porkens for rolefishing."

What do you mean you never claimed to vote Porkens for reactions? What is this then?

I voted Porkens BASED ON his reaction. I said it wasn't serious and wanted Plum's response.

I'm not voting you because you voted Porkens. I'm voting you because since you did it, you've been horribly inconsistant with your reasoning for voting him. I feel like every post it changes. On top of that there's this 75% not serious nonsense.

There's your problem. You don't seem to understand where I stood on Porkens. Show me inconsistency? I said I wasn't entirely truthful to say it wasn't serious, and that it was only 25% serious. It hasn't changed from that.

I voted Porkens weakly because I didn't like his reaction, I thought it looked like scum trying to confirm a double-voter. Maybe the best way to say it is that I had 25% confidence in the vote. But again, this won't be good enough for you and I'm pretty sure you're the only one who doesn't get it, so I'm not bringing it up with you again.

thanks. I don't see where I'm being unreasonable at all, seeing as how you have many more votes than just mine.

I don't think mykonian is scum, because his reason for voting Zilla was crap, and it would be dumb to vote your partner like that if you were scum.
You admit that mykonian's reason for voting Zilla was crap and yet you still come to the conclusion that he's likely not scum? Like seriously?

Yes. Call it the 'too dumb to be scum' fallacy or whatever, but it's just too sloppy and careless for a scumbag to make, I believe.

^ This defense is completely based on subjectivity, yet you call my case on VP "WIFOM." If this is legitimate, why discount my points on VP? This is unreasonable.

...and my vote is parked for the day.

Totally unreasonable, especially because it's based on the ridiculous slant that I'm trying to gain town points by claiming to be responsible for the death of RVS. If I played like you, all I'd have to say is "This all stems from WIFOM."

Specifically, the hate on you is the stupid left-field arguments where you assume totally wrong things and they serve as undying conviction, and no matter how many times you're wrong, you just go into the next game and do the same thing. It comes off as very conceited, and most times, it's harmful to your own alignment.

[camn]

A) Porkens.. I love you. More than ever.

B)

O yes, thank you for pointing at charters meta

I will vote you on the moment I have the idea you are lurking

Explain this for me one more time....cuz I still don't get it.
You would vote CHARTER for lurking... but your buddy afatchic gets a free pass? Is that what you are saying here?

I ctrl+f'd your posts.... not even a MENTION. Not a whisper. Not a head nod. You completely ignored the uber-lurker, and waited for a real man to handle biz.

Whats the deal?

[Zilla]

@ All: Is not casting a random vote more or less suspect than casting a random vote without jokey reasoning provided?

Less, I often will hold back on casting a random vote myself if I feel the game can advance out of RVS quickly. I absolutely hate no reasoning provided with a vote in RVS, there's little potential for discussion based on that aside from "Why didn't you give a reason?"

I think I've just learned that I always work to end RVS ASAP.

I just meant that my subconscious seems to think you're cool for a reason I don't really know. Consider it a compliment, if you will.

Mostly, I wanted to know where you knew me from to get that opinion of me. I was surprised someone had me on a list of people to play with when I didn't know that person.

I wanted to see what Plum's reaction was to me saying my Porkens vote wasn't serious, but then a page went by with no plum and tons of people basically making my question lose impact.

Porkens then asked if I was a doublevoter. That was the reaction I was looking for, and that's why I voted him.

hmm, I guess I'll have to wait for the votecount to see if you're just being silly or not...

I see no asking it you're a doublevoter; I see him noting something he's interested in seeing the conclusion of. That is my problem; the thing you were pouncing on wasn't rolefishing. I don't care whether or not you intended your vote on him to lead to a lynch, because your basis for making that fairly serious accusation was nonexistent.

"Is that a REAL doublevote?" strikes me as worse than, "Are you claiming doublevoter?" The first has a bit of "oh shit" in it.

See the actual Porkens quote I put in above. It's arguably closer to the second phrase you listed, though it's not really either.

Wrong post. This is the post I was suspicious of Porkens for:

is that a REAL doublevote?

vote VP Baltar

for the 'we' in "we are all screwed.

The back-off in your quoted post bugged me as well, like he didn't want to press the matter any, but he didn't want to offer an opinion about how I didn't say anything about it.

Zilla, how do you define the term 'rolefishing'?

Pressuring for role-related information, i.e. "fishing" for role-info. Usually a scumtell from scum who want the information to better 1) control the town, 2) decide on nightkills, and 3) prepare for contingencies.

Gah, I am getting a stupid null-read on Charter.

Can you elaborate please? What is the cause of this null-read?

[Zilla]

And yes, ZazieR needs to post. Mykonian is due as well.

[LlamaFluff]

unvote

Need to read and see what this changes, but today was a long day in the field so im too tired (and have damn posion oak) to get a good opinion down.

[mykonian]

A) Porkens.. I love you. More than ever.

B)

O yes, thank you for pointing at charters meta

I will vote you on the moment I have the idea you are lurking

Explain this for me one more time....cuz I still don't get it.
You would vote CHARTER for lurking... but your buddy afatchic gets a free pass? Is that what you are saying here?

I ctrl+f'd your posts.... not even a MENTION. Not a whisper. Not a head nod. You completely ignored the uber-lurker, and waited for a real man to handle biz.

Whats the deal?

I have no experience with AFC scum. I have with Charter-scum, and he lurked in that game, and I don't want that to happen again. It is a threat, to make him play.

[mykonian]

@VP Baltar. Yes, on page three, I already saw similarity with the game I played with zilla. The flood of cases that don't really make sense.

Yes, my vote on Mykonian is WIFOM because it's based on my own alignment and reading into what he's thinking about it, but that option is available to me. It's really sound reasoning from my point of view. I can see that it's a lot weaker for people who don't know my alignment, and while my reason works for me, it only works for me.

eh, this sounds a lot like OMGUS...

@Incog: I'm becoming more a meta lover when I have played before with people. In polygamist 2 (not in one, there I was scum) I tried to use it too. But it is no use to try it on most people, because: a. if I don't know them, things in their play will not remind me. b. if they are quite unreadable for me, there will be little things to remind me off.

zilla, I have seen closely as scum, and her play was a bit typical. So when she repeats that, I'm going to remember.

To be sure: AFC was scum, right? (scum governer???)



@plum. I didn't place a random vote because I saw no need to. Do you want a meta defence? I often place my first vote late. And very little as a "random" vote.

In some games I start with a more or less senseless first case, just to get reactions. But I don't think I often voted someone for his avatar.
In newby 746, I waited till I could make a case on Fishy (a useless one, true, but I didn't vote right away.). A difference here was that I tried to vote for meta. In any way, you will also see that as scum I'm not scared in the start to make a vote.

And now I've been voted for reluctance to make a case on zilla: ok, here it is, in short.

zilla makes a lot of cases that don't really make sense.
when attacked, she goes back (or says it wasn't serious), and start another attack.
continiously finds other people suspicious, and points out that she is. Often without clear reasons, but just doubt.

this could be eager town, or scum with a particular way of playing. Seen my game with her, it is the last.

And yes, ZazieR needs to post. Mykonian is due as well.

Can I sleep please??? Completely insane...

[mykonian]

Am I really understanding well that the case on me mainly is my delayed vote? Seriously people, that is not something to lynch someone for.

Or is it my not that direct defence against VP Baltars linking?

Further I have trouble to make up things that you could trow at me, and I have trouble to see that I should be lynched for that. The defence against baltar was needed, and the delayed vote is not really a tell, as I'm not scared to vote when I'm scum.

[ZazieR]

And yes, ZazieR needs to post. Mykonian is due as well.

I already told it, I've got Little Brother issues. Due to him, I have less time to update games in which I need to get caught up with.
And it also seems I'll be having boyfriend issues as well as he'll be working more often.
The good news is that I have my last final today, so I'll be having more time soon.

Oh, and a point of interest for you perhaps, I sleep when most of you discuss >.<


(Just a post to say that I'll be updating now, and will post today my thoughts.)

[ZazieR]

Ok, before posting my thoughts about each post that I have missed:
Porkens, did you kill AFC? And if so, why?

[ZazieR]

Post 78, Zilla

In this post, you state that your Porkens vote was for a bit serious, but not completely. So, for clarification, did one or both of these quotes make you suspicious of him, or not:

is that a REAL doublevote?

vote VP Baltar

for the 'we' in "we are all screwed.

vote: LlamaFluff

for not posting anything but a vote. Even a bad justification is better than none.

Why?

accountability.

hmm, I guess I'll have to wait for the votecount to see if you're just being silly or not...

When answering, can you quote which is/are suspicious to you with reasons?
I'll get back to this part when answered as this question might be of importance for two other posts.

I think I only modded a marathon game with ZazieR. And I can't remember if she was the one who was replaced before the game started or not.

No, that wasn't me. Because I was the one who suffered from it

[ZazieR]

Ugh, I'll go over the discussion between Zilla and Myko some other time. If I'm correct, it continues even after this page, so this way, I'll have at least my thoughts about it organised.

and I'm already 16. So don't treat me like a child

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are already ...
Saying that you are younger, doesn't make you younger

[ZazieR]

I'm not claiming doublevoter. It was a mechanism to draw discussion, which it did. Porkens then asked if I was a doublevoter. That was the reaction I was looking for, and that's why I voted him. Llama, I assume you see the bad logic in saying:

If that vote was at all serious, thats just a very bad vote. Its a very obvious ability, and easily could lynch someone when someone just wanted a claim out of them. These are very double edged blades.

Firstly, nobody else was voting Porkens and I fully didn't expect it to be a lynch. Secondly, I already implied I was a doublevoter before voting Porkens. Nobody would put him at L-1 without questioning if I counted twice. Thirdly, you're arguing that, in the event I was a doublevoter and serious, that voting at all is apparently bad, and this has nothing to do with voting Porkens.

I'll get back to this quote later after I've looked more closely at Zilla.

[ZazieR]

Post 95, Kevin

There's one post which has my attention. But I'm not planning to comment on it soon though.

Um, what?

There was a post that set off my gut. But if I'd comment on it at that point, the player could possibly change his/her approach in this game. If his/her play stays the same, I'll get back to that post.

Also, you posted some quotes in this post from Zilla. Could you state which of them are scummy to you and why?

[ZazieR]

I have to go soon, so I start at post 103 when I get back. But I'll answer Incog's question first:

@ZazieR: I reasonless voted in this game once, and I happen to know that you dislike reasonless votes. Why did you not call me out about it?

Do you want the long version, or the short, which is that Glork showed me the light ?
Also, I didn't comment on it as you stated a reason for voting Myko. Besides, I know now what response you'll get when you ask why a player voted another without stating his reasons as some players have asked me when I did do this.

[charter]

@ All: Is not casting a random vote more or less suspect than casting a random vote without jokey reasoning provided? Also, does anyone know if Myk has a history of avoiding voting in the random stage at all?

Don't know about myk's history, but whether you vote in the RVS or not and the reason for voting aren't tells.

What do you know of Mykonian that allows you to make this call on what he would do?

That he isn't a newbie.

If you think I'm backpedaling on my stance on Porkens, apply that same logic to KMD regarding Mykonian. He DID suspect Mykonian.

No. None of what you quoted suggest Kmd suspecting myk, you're just interpreting it your own (wrong) way.

Respond to the rest of Zilla's post later. sigh.

[VP Baltar]

Post before work, so I dont' have time to address everything now. I will try to later today. However, I wanted to follow up on this while it's still fresh:

@VP Baltar. Yes, on page three, I already saw similarity with the game I played with zilla. The flood of cases that don't really make sense.

Ok, so what changed between page 3 and when you voted? You said at one point that you were suspicious of Zilla, but needed to see more before voting her. In you vote for her the only additional reason you stated was meta, but you were apparently already suspicious of her for that reason, so I would like to know what was the proverbial 'straw that broke the camel's back'? What was the thing that made you finally decide the case on Zilla was serious enough to vote her?

[mykonian]

VP, like I said before, who is going to vote on page 3, based on the fact that you think her scummy cases can't be explained, like she said, that she always does that?

Indeed, I wanted to see how she continued. I was going to vote her, but what harm could waiting do? If I point out what she was doing wrong, what made me think she was scum, she could alter her play. If I acted too soon, maybe my case would look worse, and seen that there was no harm in waiting, why wouldn't I?

Plus that this way, my vote got some attention, and was viewed as a serious one, I thought this to be a good idea.

What I don't understand is how waiting with voting, when you are talking, is a scumtell. It is not that I haven't played until I voted. Sure, if someone doesn't do a thing, then looks who is scummiest and votes, that could be a scumtactic. But that is not what happened here.