EBWOP: Fixed tags.
Final post to catch up:
1.) Thoroughly read over xRx's case on Lobster, and Lobster's response when it comes.
- I do find is unvote after NHT calls him out about it interesting. He had his vote on Wicked, FOS'd, then got called on it, then unvoted without placing a vote. Seems like a hint of fencesitting and reactionary voting.
- He supports his eventual vote of CB, and at least he lays a case (sure, most of it is rehash but there IS a decent case).
- His so called "plan" and use of FOS he says is different than most peoples. However, as a point in the case against him? Not so much. See this as more game-theory.
- Group consensus on certain terms is unnecessary, and would seize game day discussion. Anti-town in nature.
- Sudden change in opinion seems like it came from your response about who your trap ensnared. He even quotes your post. At least to me it seems obvious.
-
XrX, what do you find odd about that exchange between him and Qax
- Of all the things, I find his vote of Coco to be the most suspicious thing, for reasons XrX stated.
- Reading Wicked's PBPA of Lobster doesn't really change my mind either way about XrX's case and logic/reasonings.
- THOUGHTS on CASE: Some of XrX's points are solid, where others are fairly weak. Overall, I find the case to be OK - again some good points by XrX, and some that aren't merited.
- THOUGHTS ON RESPONSE: Lobster responds. I agree with XrX, and find many of his responses lackluster. Sure, lobster defends himself against the points I find as weak in XrX's arguments, but is extremely lacking in his responses to the solid points in XrX's case. He doesn't even really defend himself half the time, and instead tries to strawman some of the points ("Let's see where it goes" response). I do agree with Lobster though on his take of Wicked's PBPA. Actually makes Wicked seem scummier.
2.) Thoroughly read over CoCo's case on DRK, and DRK's response that has already come.
- The whole L-2, L-1 pressure debate is a null tell in my opinion. Each person has their own opinion. I, personally, don't really believe much in the concept of a pressure vote. Either a person deserves a vote, or they do not, based on scummy behavior. The only time I sense a need for a pressure vote is when someone isn't talking, and needs to. With regards to L-2 and L-1 points, I think placing a person at those places is dependant on the number of people, the content, the current game-state, etc. I find them to be fairly arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. Putting people at L-1 is a common tactic and a great way to not only catch hammerings scum, opportunistic scum wanting to not hammer (be the L-2 -> L-1 vote), and get maybe some last minute tells from the person at question. Either way, I think the logic behind this point by Coco goes down to game-theory, not scum-tells.
- I really don't see how DRK got the answer to your question from another player - I don't even see where you asked him a question, and subsequently don't see where he answered a question. I just see a discussion /dialogue on CB's responses.
-
Coco, why do you find his 3 FoS post to be "interesting?"
I am intrigued by the answer: I played in a game and made a huge post over a few pages of content on a Day 1, and FoS'd 3 people in the same post, and got called scummy for it. Do you think FoSing 3 people is scummy? Why? I've done it before, and I don't think it is scummy, but again, this seems to come down to personal game-theory as well. Like lobster sees an FoS as (last chance before a vote), I use an FOS like an open suspicion - it merely shows to the other players in open and easy to understand writing that I find that person suspicious. I am intrigued to your answer though.
- Definitely don't like DRK's role speculation.
- I do think you have a good point about DRK's not finding your posts scummy, then finding them scummy, only 27 posts later. He does respond, but it seems CoCo was away, and didn't really have time to respond, and the topic changed subjects. I find this to be much better evidence of scummy behavior than the whole pressure situation, which I have already discussed, however, you seem to be going back to the pressure thing more. Any reason why?
-
Coco, why did his response make you feel uneasy about Qax?
As an aside, Coco, you seem to make a lot of statements "weird, suspicious, interesting" without really explaining why.
-
THOUGHTS on CASE: Decent. DRK has indeed contradicted himself, and did speculate about the cop. Think the whole pressure reasoning/argument is lackluster, though.
-
THOUGHTS on RESPONSE: Meh. DRK then responds. His response his fairly brief, but he responds to everything, and says some of the same things I was thinking. Either way, his explanation is OK, but what is really off is that he says he didn't contradict himself. Some of his responses aren't even against the actual argument, either. It does seem that CoCo is misconstruing a few of the posts, though.
-
Coco, can you please respond to the whole plan thing with regards to how Wicked fit in there? Did you really find him scummy or was he just a smokescreen? I don't really see what you meant by your "plan."
canadianbovine wrote:unvote
i honestly don't care who we lynch anymore, seems like we've fished out the power roles. i just want this day to end.
seriously? Is this a serious comment?
Wickedestjr wrote:
Yes. I made a mistake and I apologized and unvoted for it. What's wrong with that?
This doesn't make it any less scummy.
Wickedestjr wrote:
What huge point did xRx notice? The quote of mine that you quoted afterwards had nothing to do with xRx. It was a response to NHT. Please explain this once more.
When you contradicted yourself. He makes a post with two quotes, both from you, both very contradictory. The post speaks for itself.
Wickedestjr wrote:
Well, most of your points have been in agreement with the majority of the town. Are there any things that you disagree with that most of the town agrees about?
Isn't it pretty obvious? If you agree with one side of the argument, you tend to disagree with the other. Thus, if NHT and CDB are in argument, and I agree with CDB, I disagree with NHT. Not that hard.
Wickedestjr wrote:
So would you not find it scummy if somebody gave a vote to somebody without saying why other than "see his reasons" ?
I really depends. Often times, if the case is extremely weak, and some tags a vote along with it, then yes - usually I would say bring something new to the table. But when it is a long, thought out argument that has clear intentions and is formulated well, and someone votes in accordance with that argument within a few posts, than no. Normally, when someone makes a very good case, some players agree, and vote with, and others withhold, waiting for a response. Now, it all depends on the speed, and how many people agree with no further supplementation and the response by the player. There are so many variables it's not a black and white scenario.
Wickedestjr wrote:
Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.
I know a decent number of people do this, but making scumbuddies and scumpairings on D1, in my opinion, is a strictly anti-town thing to do. Not only is it D1, but scum have the opportunity to buss, defend, attack whomever they want, and have inside knowledge on who is scum and who is town. I also see it to be a form of tunnelling, because many people get hooked on those scumbuddies, and if Lobster turns up as town then that person is biased towards the other two players because of the flip of another, which should never happen D1.
Wickedestjr wrote:
@ryan - What did you think about wolf's play? What do you think about lobster? (If you haven't answered this already, please direct me to where you answered this.)
Answered about XrX's case on Lobster.
As for Wolf. Although I will not be able to adequately explain his posts, I will shed light on what I saw from his posts. He makes a good point about Lobster's FOS, and subsequent unvote. He then further delves into it with Lobster, almost to the point of tunnelling if he were posting more frequently. He then makes a pro-town post discussing/questioning Lobster's vote and DRK's voting. He then makes the Lobster lurker post, which makes me go "WTF?" His responses to CDB are less than convincing, in my opinion. Although I think people were getting hung up on word choice, the initial post about Lobster lurking by Wolf still confuses me. It seemed like a fairly unnecessary post and a way to get more people to look a lobster, albeit in a confusing manner. He then goes into hiding and the limelight gets switched to CDB et al. He then comes back in, using NHT's post about grasping at straws. IIoA, in a way. Someone then asks for his opinion on XrX and he never shows. I appear out of thin air. Thus, I found his play slightly disheartening, and slightly suspicious, but not in as much as I did other players at that point in the game (pages 1-17).
Personally, DRK, I don't know who I feel may be lying about their claims. Both have made adequate responses. Both used flavour from their role PMs. Initially it was gut that one of them was lying, but the more I think about it the more I feel as though both are telling the truth. It's an interesting predicament we are in with two PR claims so far. Suffice to say, although I feel neither of them are worthy of a vote at this stage, doesn't mean I don't find them off the hook, so to speak.
NHT - Mentioning insane cop? In a mini? And you are using it as a possible reason to still be voting CoCo? REALLY? What of Coco's didn't makes sense? Your post where you vote Coco is WAY too vague to be construed as anything of a logical argument. Why do you find Qax scummy again?
What are you trying to prove from Wicked's meta thing? That he is playing to his meta? What was his role in the other games?
DeathRowKitty wrote:
Ryan seems a bit eager to accuse people. I don't exactly have an unbiased opinion of him since wolfram never answered to our accusations, but I do find Ryan a bit scummy. I want to see his take on the most recent developments.
Quick to accuse people? How so? Can I see some examples? Also, you do need to take into account I am catching up on 35 some pages, and taking it in chronological order. So when other people's accusations are spread across multiple pages and multiple posts, mine have been condensed into a few posts because I am pretty much playing catch up. So pretty much I read the pages, state my feelings as I read. It is spread over a very large amount of reading. Weak argument, especially without support.
Wickedestjr wrote: Oh and just warning you, that is an ongoing game so you shouldn't be talking about it.
Well that answers my question, and makes NHT even more scummier. Using an ongoing game, where you don't know someone's alignment, and saying he is posting similar to that game DOES us absolutely no good and it null-information, not to mention it's an ongoing game.
Wickedestjr wrote:
Question to everybody: Other than my contradiction earlier, what exactly have I done that has seemed scummy, because I've notieced at least a few of you are suspicious of me.
WICKED:
You said you had evidence of NHT being scummy, then dropped it, essentially proving you were concocting an argument.
Your petty attack on my accordance with other people's posts, and saying it's a scumtell.
Your attempt in 624 to strawman my responses and make them seem petty and that I simply think "See his reasons" is relevant in all cases.
Your rolefishing.
Your insistence that apologizing for bad play and/or acknowledging it post factum makes it less scummy.
You use something as a case against lobster, then say that it isn't scummy.
You agree with someone in their PBPA, but vote them.
I find the cases on CB to be extremely weak (because he was absent? RVS bs? Really?)CB's most recent response (743) gives a very pro-town vibe - no hostility, just straight response.
canadianbovine wrote:
I havent posted a lot because i was V/LA and since then the game is kind of wishy washy in content. we're almost at page 30.
This can't be a serious statement. This game has more content than a lot of the games I have played on this site. You must just be blind. I've been in games with 50pages D1's. It happens.
Also, I am again disheartened by all this linking stuff this early in D1. It really does seem like vicious tunnelling by multiple individuals, since they are stuck on these "links" based off "these three people voted together." Utter crap. In essence, I agree with CDB. Not only that, CoCo has jumped into the ship saying "If NHT/Wicked is scum, the other isn't." A bigtime anti-town thing to do, because you are tunnelling and allowing others to be tunnelled, and thus, possibly losing another lynch based on your relationships/scumpairings, especially on D1.
CoCo wrote:Hungover memory:
I keep forgetting to mention that CDB did have a vote on me. I was mistaken. DRK did not, I think. I still don't understand why he was hanging around and fighting to lynch me, even after I came clean with me plan.
I'm starting to get a vibe off DRK insomuch that perhaps Reckoner was correct in his assumption that DRK is town. I'm not convinced, but recent developments are suggesting I drop my case on him and concentrate on more likely candidates for the time being. Namely, NHT, Wicked, and Lobster.
What do you mean by recent developments?
DeathRowKitty wrote:He didn't think your long post was true and liberally used his vote to vote you. From my perspective, it's a bad decision, but from his, it's not.
So now you know what NHT thinks are good decisions?
NHT and CoCo, calm down.
As of right now, I would choose Wicked/DRK as most suspicious. Lobster, although the case is OK, his response was extremely lackluster, I feel he is alynch candidate at a deadline if the baove two don't get pushed.
However, my next order of business, now that I am caught up, is to do a PBPA of NHT. He hasn't sit well with me all game (even before this CoCo NHT shenanigans), and I find him quite scummy. I am fairly spent again, but now that I am caught up, will post more frequently.
I am still going to do a PBPA of NHT, but for now:
Vote:Wicked
Reasons again below:
You said you had evidence of NHT being scummy, then dropped it, essentially proving you were concocting an argument.
Your petty attack on my accordance with other people's posts, and saying it's a scumtell.
Your attempt in 624 to strawman my responses and make them seem petty and that I simply think "See his reasons" is relevant in all cases.
Your rolefishing.
Your insistence that apologizing for bad play and/or acknowledging it post factum makes it less scummy.
You use something as a case against lobster, then say that it isn't scummy.
You agree with someone in their PBPA, but vote them.
You OMGUS vote C_O for not being around, when you were gone for three days.
You say XrX's defense is no good, but never even FOS him.
Well I am officially caught up. Expect more frequent posting (save my PBPA of NHT).
DRK, since your did the vote analysis, I will look at that for any possible leads.
Now that I am officially caught up page wise:
1.) PBPA NHT
2.) Analyze wagons.
3.) Post more frequently, so you all don't have to deal with my walls of text.[/quote]
