/in-Vitational Game 4 (Game Over!)

[Xylthixlm]

I dont remember Thesp avoiding discussion day 1. IMO, Thesp day 1 is pretty solid. Can you quote what gives you that impression? And considering your vote history, why havent you voted him then?

This question bugs me. "Your case on Thesp is weak, and why didn't you vote him for it?" Why did you need to ask that?

[populartajo]

I dont remember Thesp avoiding discussion day 1. IMO, Thesp day 1 is pretty solid. Can you quote what gives you that impression? And considering your vote history, why havent you voted him then?

This question bugs me. "Your case on Thesp is weak, and why didn't you vote him for it?" Why did you need to ask that?

I dont need to answer for

your

cases, Xyl. Me saying your case on Thesp is weak is a total different thing than me calling you out in discrepancies in your voting history.

You voted Yos for a weak read (according to what you said before rolf convinced you to unvote him). You IGMEOed Thesp based on a case I still dont understand. (I assume you had a weak read on him too, right?). Where do you draw the line?

Still waiting for what gave you the impression Thesp wasnt collaborating day 1.

Answering 899 after lunch. Edit preview: dont like it.

[VP Baltar]

Out of the Yos and Xyl in the last pages, I find myself agreeing with Yos more (here come the buddying accusations). Xyl repeating that he wants my lynch while voting for someone else doesn't exactly make me think he's town, and his ridiculous "I'm xyl so I don't have to do any work in this game" is a terrible excuse for everyone to label him as town.

I also fail to understand how the main case against me is that my scumhunting yesterday wasn't satisfactory while Xyl gets away with that garbage labeled as town.

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

Of course I was frustrated. There were shitty points being made imo and I was practically lynched before I even had a chance to respond. That's just utterly ridiculous to me. Also, wtf is scummy or bad about claiming at L-1? Especially when it takes a page for me to get there. I didn't know there were protocals in place that said I had to wait until I was prompted to claim.

I don't know why he voted rofl, but it's inconsequential. Asking for a claim is clearly supporting a wagon, and pretending otherwise is perverse.

And yet, you didn't address what I said. Why would you even bring it up yesterday if it was so inconsequential to you?

Huge misrep. Not moving your vote around at all on day 1 for a terrible reason is scummy. Doubly so when those suspicions you put across apart from your vote are terrible.

Oh, so now the case has expanded into all of my suspicions were "terrible". I guess I was indeed misrepping your

gross exaggeration

case.

So you agree you weren't scumhunting hard yesterday.

I've said several times today that I didn't think my play was that great. I don't think that it was as awful as you are trying to paint it to be because I was indeed questioning and made some accusations, but would I call it anything close to the best I can play? certainly not.

And Ojanen. Had to walk that back when you realized how absurd it was though, eh?

Even if you believe I said she was chainsawing (which I did not make any serious accusation of), you stated that I was "accusing anyone who defends [you] of chainsawing", which is once again an example of the blatant exaggeration you have been taking in your entire "case" against me.

You can call my attacks bad if you'd like, but at least I'm not going out of my way to blatantly pad my arguments with inaccurate crap. You may be too full of yourself to admit when you're wrong, but I am not.

I don't see, at all, how my scumhunting was "non-existant".

So, accusing tons of people on the unproven premise that BaB was scum is actually scumhunting to you?

I don't understand your point that you had to catch up on 13 pages and that is why your scumhunting was bad. I would think that having tons of material plus the hindsight of where the game was at during that time would give you plenty of opportunity for scumhunting. Personally, some of the best scumhunting I ever do is when I replace into games because I have time to look over things carefully and assess my accusations outside of the moment when they are happening.

Look at your catch-up post in hindsight. Pretty much all of it is written with the pre-conceived notion that BaB is scum. It doesn't even look like you are actually catching up so much as a "let me do a iioa for a BaB lynch" mega post.

Don't respond to a quote by pasting bold stuff inside of the quote. It's impossible to read, and even harder to respond to.

That's no reason to ignore what I said, nor do I care that you don't like it. Now respond.

[Xylthixlm]

tajo: would you be happier if I had said "I don't have any actual evidence to say Thesp is scum, but I think I should be paying closer attention to him" rather than "IGMEO Thesp"?

[Xylthixlm]

VP: how do you feel about Pooky?

[mith]

Vote Count:

8 to lynch.

ekiM: 5 (elvis_knits, Kmd4390, populartajo, VP Baltar, zu_Faul)
VP Baltar: 5 (ekiM, iamausername, Ojanen, SerialClergyman, Thesp)
Xylthixlm: 3 (charter, roflcopter, Yosarian2)
Yosarian2: 1 (Xylthixlm)

Not Voting: 1 (PookyTheMagicalBear)

[ekiM]

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

Of course I was frustrated. There were shitty points being made imo and I was practically lynched before I even had a chance to respond. That's just utterly ridiculous to me. Also, wtf is scummy or bad about claiming at L-1? Especially when it takes a page for me to get there. I didn't know there were protocals in place that said I had to wait until I was prompted to claim.

Which bit don't you understand? Why unnecessary claims are anti-town, or why nobody was going to quickhammer you without asking for a claim?

Unnecessary claims are anti-town because they allow scum to find power roles more easily.

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

I don't know why he voted rofl, but it's inconsequential. Asking for a claim is clearly supporting a wagon, and pretending otherwise is perverse.

And yet, you didn't address what I said. Why would you even bring it up yesterday if it was so inconsequential to you?

I noted it because I didn't know why he made the vote. It's irrelevant to your argument that he was somehow equivocating on whether he supported the BAB wagon. He wasn't.

Note that I said "IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim." ...

Huge misrep. Not moving your vote around at all on day 1 for a terrible reason is scummy. Doubly so when those suspicions you put across apart from your vote are terrible.

Oh, so now the case has expanded into all of my suspicions were "terrible". I guess I was indeed misrepping your

gross exaggeration

case.

And yet, you didn't address what I said. Transalting "keeping your vote on someone for an

entire day one

for something from the end of the RVS" as "not moving your vote around" is dishonest.

And, yes, I do think that all of the suspicions you gave yesterday were weakly suppoted. Your response was "that's your opinion". So that's an impasse.

And Ojanen. Had to walk that back when you realized how absurd it was though, eh?

Even if you believe I said she was chainsawing (which I did not make any serious accusation of), you stated that I was "accusing anyone who defends [you] of chainsawing", which is once again an example of the blatant exaggeration you have been taking in your entire "case" against me.

Oh?

Also, if I'm sensing tides, why detract from Mike wagon now.

Maybe you're his buddy. For how much you talk about him being scummy (a considerable amount more than me), you seem at ease with slipping off that wagon after it has now gained some steam.

So this wasn't a serious accusation?

You can call my attacks bad if you'd like, but at least I'm not going out of my way to blatantly pad my arguments with inaccurate crap. You may be too full of yourself to admit when you're wrong, but I am not.

When you say that my scumhunting was non-existant, that's exaggeration and inaccurate.

When you "translate" a complaint about leaving your vote on one person for an entire day one as "not moving your vote is scummy", that's inaccurate. When you respond to me pointing that out with something irrelevant, that's refusing to admit that you're wrong.

When you accuse me of exaggerating when I'm not, that's inaccurate.

When you pretend you didn't accuse Ojanen of being scummy for detracting from my wagon, that's refusing to admit you're wrong.

...

Yeah.

I don't see, at all, how my scumhunting was "non-existant".

So, accusing tons of people on the unproven premise that BaB was scum is actually scumhunting to you?

Since when does using an assumption mean something is not scumhunting? Do you actually believe this or are you just being as contrary as possible?

I don't understand your point that you had to catch up on 13 pages and that is why your scumhunting was bad. I would think that having tons of material plus the hindsight of where the game was at during that time would give you plenty of opportunity for scumhunting. Personally, some of the best scumhunting I ever do is when I replace into games because I have time to look over things carefully and assess my accusations outside of the moment when they are happening.

Look at your catch-up post in hindsight. Pretty much all of it is written with the pre-conceived notion that BaB is scum. It doesn't even look like you are actually catching up so much as a "let me do a iioa for a BaB lynch" mega post.

I have acknowledged a bunch of times that that post was my first notes, written mostly assuming BAB is scum. If I had more time before day ended I would've done more. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you like.

Don't respond to a quote by pasting bold stuff inside of the quote. It's impossible to read, and even harder to respond to.

That's no reason to ignore what I said, nor do I care that you don't like it. Now respond.

I haven't ignored what you've said... you've just quoted and responded to my response! Which took me a long time to write because I had to extract what I was quoting. I'm just asking you not to use an incredibly annoying way of posting that makes a lot of work for anyone who wants to quote you. You don't have to comply, but it would be nice.

[elvis_knits]

VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.

Of course I was frustrated. There were shitty points being made imo and I was practically lynched before I even had a chance to respond. That's just utterly ridiculous to me. Also, wtf is scummy or bad about claiming at L-1? Especially when it takes a page for me to get there. I didn't know there were protocals in place that said I had to wait until I was prompted to claim.

Which bit don't you understand? Why unnecessary claims are anti-town, or why nobody was going to quickhammer you without asking for a claim?

Unnecessary claims are anti-town because they allow scum to find power roles more easily.

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

Claiming at L-1 is not scummy. End of story.

I stopped reading the post after this. I don't see how ekiM can be anything other than scum if he's trying to say VP is scum for claiming at L-1.

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

[ekiM]

Vp had his wagon grow dramatically yet he lived despite claiming vanilla,

...

he claimed what?

(re-reads)

When I flip vanilla

You're right, I missed that.

VP, why the hell would you do that? You do realize claiming vanilla is just an inherently anti-town act, right?

Also.

[ekiM]

[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.

I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it

I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.

Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.

vote ekiM

since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.

Hey Elvis, when you wrote this were you aware VP made that vote in the third last post in the game, when BAB's lynch was inevitable (not earlier, pre-claim)? If so, how was that proactive?

[ekiM]

game

day

[elvis_knits]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary? And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

[VP Baltar]

VP: how do you feel about Pooky?

I wish he would post. Kind of hard to form much of an opinion from nothing.

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

Well that is some nice WIFOM, but a wagon that goes from practically nothing to L-1 that quickly doesn't give me much confidence that people are being reasonable and are going to wait for a claim before lynching me.

I noted it because I didn't know why he made the vote. It's irrelevant to your argument that he was somehow equivocating on whether he supported the BAB wagon. He wasn't.

I pointed it out not to support my point, which is independent from your comments, but rather to show that your confirmation bias against me is so strong that you are willing to ignore your own noting of it yesterday. You may not see it in the same light as I do, but it must have at least registered to you for it to be noted. However, when I say I think it could potentially have scummy motivation you are basically saying that I'm being irrational. Those stances don't agree for me.

So this wasn't a serious accusation?

I admitted to being emotional in my response after I had some time to sleep and approach it in a more reasonable way. Oj and I were having a heated debate and it wasn't a fair accusation for me to make. I did not "chainsaw anyone who defended you", as I am quite certain there are others who didn't agree with me. That is why I am saying it is an exaggeration.

Since when does using an assumption mean something is not scumhunting? Do you actually believe this or are you just being as contrary as possible?

You weren't looking for any scummy behaviour at all. That's not scumhunting. All you were saying was 'this person attempts to stop BaB wagon. That is bad.'

How is that actually scumhunting, but me questioning people on their statements and independent behavior is not?

I have acknowledged a bunch of times that that post was my first notes, written mostly assuming BAB is scum. If I had more time before day ended I would've done more. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you like.

So, even though you hadn't read the 13 pages you went into it "assuming BaB is scum"? That's what I'm saying, that's not scumhunting, that's looking for the convenient lynch.

Why are people not voting ekiM?

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

[elvis_knits]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

So what are you saying he was supposed to have done? Wait until someone ask for a claim and then claim? What is the point of that? Everyone knows that when they get close to a lynch, that is their chance to claim. I see nothing wrong with a player taking it into their own hands to claim without being asked if they are close to a lynch.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

First of all, I think that anti-town and scummy are more or less the same thing. The only difference is if you're town and playing scummy, you're being anti-town. I don't see how a scummy person could be anti-town but not scummy, like their anti-town behavior has nothing to do with their allignment when it happens to be scum?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy.

Did I explain that well enough?

[ekiM]

Nobody was going to quickhammer you because it's very anti-town to quickhammer without hearing a claim.

Well that is some nice WIFOM, but a wagon that goes from practically nothing to L-1 that quickly doesn't give me much confidence that people are being reasonable and are going to wait for a claim before lynching me.

Nobody was going to hammer you without asking for a claim. Nobody in this game is a zwet.

Also, what's the relevence of WIFOM?

I noted it because I didn't know why he made the vote. It's irrelevant to your argument that he was somehow equivocating on whether he supported the BAB wagon. He wasn't.

I pointed it out not to support my point, which is independent from your comments, but rather to show that your confirmation bias against me is so strong that you are willing to ignore your own noting of it yesterday. You may not see it in the same light as I do, but it must have at least registered to you for it to be noted. However, when I say I think it could potentially have scummy motivation you are basically saying that I'm being irrational. Those stances don't agree for me.

Again, you claimed that he was equivocating on whether he would support the BAB wagon or not. He wasn't. The rofl vote was kind of useless but irrelevant to that point.

And you can't pretend I agreed with you. I noted:

"IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim. No idea why he votes roflcopter."

I explicitly noted that he supported the wagon. So saying that I somehow agreed with you that he was equivocating is just perverse.

Why cut that from what you quote, btw?

So this wasn't a serious accusation?

I admitted to being emotional in my response after I had some time to sleep and approach it in a more reasonable way. Oj and I were having a heated debate and it wasn't a fair accusation for me to make. I did not "chainsaw anyone who defended you", as I am quite certain there are others who didn't agree with me. That is why I am saying it is an exaggeration.

So it was a serious accusation. So don't pretend otherwise.

Name those other people defending me then. I don't remember any. You accused both IAUN and Ojanen of being scum for defending me.

]Since when does using an assumption mean something is not scumhunting? Do you actually believe this or are you just being as contrary as possible?

You weren't looking for any scummy behaviour at all. That's not scumhunting. All you were saying was 'this person attempts to stop BaB wagon. That is bad.'

How is that actually scumhunting, but me questioning people on their statements and independent behavior is not?

So you never try and see who is working to derail a wagon until the lynch has gone through? I literally don't know what your point is here or if you think anyone should take it seriously.

I have acknowledged a bunch of times that that post was my first notes, written mostly assuming BAB is scum. If I had more time before day ended I would've done more. Keep repeating yourself endlessly if you like.

So, even though you hadn't read the 13 pages you went into it "assuming BaB is scum"? That's what I'm saying, that's not scumhunting, that's looking for the convenient lynch.

BAB was scummy and had claimed vanilla. I decided I wasn't going to support any other lynch that day. How is making that decision then re-reading based upon it scummy?

[Xylthixlm]

his ridiculous "I'm xyl so I don't have to do any work in this game" is a terrible excuse for everyone to label him as town.

VP: how do you feel about Pooky?

I wish he would post. Kind of hard to form much of an opinion from nothing.

Who do you find scummier, me or Pooky? Why?

[ekiM]

I didn't say that, though. I said unnecessary claims are anti-town.

And how was claiming at L-1 unneccesary?

Nobody was going to hammer him without asking for a claim. Throwing out a claim the second you get to L-1 is just bad play.

So what are you saying he was supposed to have done? Wait until someone ask for a claim and then claim? What is the point of that? Everyone knows that when they get close to a lynch, that is their chance to claim. I see nothing wrong with a player taking it into their own hands to claim without being asked if they are close to a lynch.

He should've answered the points against him. You would still have unvoted if he hadn't have claimed, I'm guessing. Unless an eighth person decided they were ready for a lynch and asked for a claim, he wasn't in immediate danger of being lynched and shouldn't have claimed.

It's just not good play to claim as soon as possible. Claiming should be the last resort when someone is seriously threatening to hammer.

And are you trying to tell me that you were saying VP was anti town but not scummy for that? Useless semantics! Why would you even bring it up if you don't think it's scummy, since you are voting the guy as scum?

It's not useless semantics. Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing. It's possible to make an anti-town move like that if you're ignorant of why it's bad. He asked why it was bad. I told him.

First of all, I think that anti-town and scummy are more or less the same thing. The only difference is if you're town and playing scummy, you're being anti-town.

No. Anti-town is things that damage the town's chances of winning. Scummy is things that a player is more likely or motivated to do if they're scum.

I don't see how a scummy person could be anti-town but not scummy, like their anti-town behavior has nothing to do with their allignment when it happens to be scum?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy.

Shrug. I described his claim as unnecessary when I said it didn't impress me. He asked what was wrong with it. I explained what's wrong with it. Enough people don't know this theory that it's not a strong point. Obviously if there was some strong reason to believe he was feigning ignorance that would be something worth raising, but I got nothing along those lines.

[Xylthixlm]

The correct answer to the "should he have claimed" debate is "never spontaneously claim vanilla".

[Yosarian2]

Yos, you speak often about OMGUS but I'm sorry, you sometimes come across as quick to judge others for suspecting you too.

...

I'm not really seeing it as an OMGUS based on the order of the dialogue from his part, and it seemed to make you suspect him a lot more.

I explained my problem with Xyl, Ojanen. It has nothing to do with OMGUS. In fact, I stated my problem with his votes, and then HE voted ME in response to my suspicion on him. His reaction to me attacking him was to vote me, and to then refuse to give any reasons at all for his vote. Was I supposed to back off because he was voting me?

Anyway, this is really a distraction. My problem with Xyl is a constant pattern of voting that seems completely devoid of any real scum hunting on his part, or any reasons of his own for any of his votes, and especially for the way he seems to not actually KNOW why he's voting anyone. Everything he's done today just looks like scummy opportunism

His unvotes have not been groupthink and have been one thing that has made me feel better about him, and I have been imagining to be able to see the townhunting through the lines. I don't have time to really iso him right now, but you left out an independent vote on me D1 out at least.

As I mentioned, that was just a list of his day 2 votes.

[Yosarian2]

As for the VP claim debate, no vanilla town should ever claim vanilla town, except possibly in a mass-claim; claiming vanilla town in response to pressure is just an anti-town thing to do. It's not a very reliable scumtell, because it is a mistake pro-town people do make fairly often (B&B did it in this very game), but it certainly is another point against VP.

[Xylthixlm]

"refused to give any reasons"? Quote please.

[elvis_knits]

The correct answer to the "should he have claimed" debate is "never spontaneously claim vanilla".

IT WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS!

He was L-1.

I really do not like ekiM 1)Hiding behind Yos arguments in 909; or 2)Backpedaling and making semantical arguments that what VP did was anti-town but not scummy.

I do not like Yos piling on here. He admits himself that this is not a reliable scum tell but is using it as a point against VP. Contradiction much?

I do not like Xyl forcing the situation that led to claim by putting VP L-1 without giving any reason for doing so, and now saying how horrible VP's claim was. Xyl, I blame you for VP's claim (not entirely, but more than average), and I think it's scummy for you to moan how horrible his claim was.

[Xylthixlm]

Elvis: a vanilla townie should just go to the gallows without claiming, unless there's a mass claim or "claim or die" ultimatum. They certainly shouldn't claim just because they're at L-1.