elvis_knits wrote: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.
1) I'm not hiding behind Yos. You went ballistic at me describing it as bad, so I pointed out Yos holds the same position. Unless you think Yos and Xyl are both lying about this theoretical point?
2) I haven't backpedalled.
elvis_knits wrote: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?
How is that a contradiction? A weak scum tell is still a scum tell. And, according to you
"if you think VP is scum, you should be assuming that all his anti-town actions are motivated by his allignment, and scummy."
So you're unhappy when Yos did use it as a point, and unhappy when I didn't. Huh?
VP Baltar wrote: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.
VP's decision to claim for no good reason was his own.
If someone puts someone to L-1 it's presumably because they think that person would be a good lynch. What other reasons might they give?
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote: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?
Because you are not objectively looking to find who is scummy. How the hell can you determine when you are 13 pages behind if your initial read of BaB is accurate?
I would like those people on my wagon to tell me if you think the above behavior is more likely to come from town or scum.
I'm struggling to believe you're serious here. You're talking like I literally started reading from page 8 without looking at anything else, which is just silly. First of all I skimmed what I missed, saw that BAB was real scummy and had claimed vanilla,so when I started to look back in more depth I worked from the assumption that he was scum, because
that's what I thought
.
VP Baltr wrote:re: I don't care what Yos, Xyl and ekiM believe the "town" play is in that situation, if I'm at L-1 and it looks like I am highly likely to head for a lynch I am going to claim whether someone asks me or not. It's best to have that information out there and the argument that it is scummy is flat out BS.
Well, you're just wrong. Sorry. It is absolutely NOT best to have that information out there.
Kmd4390 wrote:ekiM wrote:-You must have thought about this in some detail, so you should be able to tell me which claims scum might make; and which ones don't merit an unvote.
-k.
-And that's been persistant, or piqued by something else recently?
-Why?
-Actually, I didn't.
----
-persistent.
-Mostly gut.
-So you don't have any idea what PRs scum might claim, but you were sure they wouldn't claim vanilla?
-So I'm your number one suspect, but you've not made a comment on my play or asked me a question since very early day 1? The reason for your suspicion is 'gut'?
charter wrote:Xylthixlm wrote:Fine, I guess I've made my point
unvote, vote VP Baltar
Don't forget that Yos is scum
If this isn't a confession of Xyl being scum, I don't know what is. He just gives up on Yos (he hasn't made any point either, by the way) to hop back on VP.
How does that point to Xyl being scum?
charter wrote:VP is clearly town. I think I was wrong about ekiM before. Everyone I am suspicious of is voting for VP for terrible or nonexistent reasons and isn't even looking at ekiM. At all.
Charter you said then that my wagon was clearly scum-driven. You think VP is town. You've barely mentioned or suspected KMD, or Ojanen, or Tajo. Who did you have in mind when you said that? Why did you not pursue them?
charter wrote: As for the ekiM, too many people are preferring VP (and at times for terrible reasons) over ekiM, I really don't see a reason so many people are ignoring ekiM either, so it looks to me like they are trying to save him.
Could you summarise which points against me you think are valid? You haven't really commented on my play whatsoever, yet you've gone from thinking my wagon is scum driven, to me being part of your hypo-scumteam. This strikes me as odd.
elvis_knits wrote:Serial shows he is scum:
SerialClergyman wrote:In fact, while I'm rummaging around.. Replace BAB with VP and see if it's the same thought process
elvis_knits wrote:Claus, I'd like a scum list too but I'm not going to beg for it and I'm not going to wait 12 days for it. I also think there's no reason why BAB shouldn't be kept close to a lynch in meantime. A vanilla claim from a scummy person should cement their lynch, honestly. I mean, if you're not lynching a vanilla, who would you go through with the lynch on? Keep the claimed vanilla, kill the claimed doc? Because we think scum would fake a power role? That is backwards thinking.
This should be our thinking:
1)BAB is scummy
2)BAB claimed vanilla
3)BAB is either vanilla or scum.
4)If we lynch BAB, we either lynch scum or vanilla, therefore little damage to town, or huge advantage. As a bonus, no power roles have to claim today.
Elvis' philosophy seems to have changed dramatically on D2.
elvis wrote:I agree that a vanilla claim should not save a person. That is not why the VP wagon is bad. It's because it almost lynched him in one page, and because all the other top suspects are on the lynch!
Lol. What is with this "anyone who says anything I disagree with proves they are scum" line? Do you really believe that? Cause you seem to have pulled it out quite often.
VP Baltar wrote:IAAUN wrote:How [is giving claim information useful]?
So if people are going to follow through with my lynch they at least know I'm not a power role. I really don't understand the argument 'don't claim unless prompted'. What would you have proposed should have happened, I kept quiet while people followed through with lynching me and then have me potentially come up a power role? How is that benefiting the town?
If someone hammers without asking for a claim they are very, very likely to be scum (or zwet). You should ABSOLUTELY be happy to trade your vanilla self for revealing someone to be scum.
VP Baltar wrote:SC wrote:A good part of why I have a townread on Xyl is that his behaviour is actually very similar to a game I just played with him as town here.
So most of your reason for thinking him town is because of a one game meta? Have you ever seen him as scum? How do you know his play isn't similar regardless of alignment?
Huh?
People: X is scum for acting in ABC ways.
SC: But X acted in ABC ways in another game as town, so how does that make him scum?
VP: Maybe he acts that way as scum and as town.
*Bzzt*.
elvis_knits wrote:ekiM 910 wrote:elvis_knits wrote:VP Baltar wrote:
[*]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?
I wasn't aware of that exactly when I made that post. But I don't feel like doing a whole reread of VP at this point when it's obvious that his wagon is bad. The 1-page almost lynch is not normal. Xyl giving no reason for putting VP L-1 is not normal. ekiM and serial and username, all top suspects for me being on the lynch and staying on the lynch... all these things make me think the wagon is BAD. So I don't feel like wasting my time doing a reread of VP at this point.
You voted me for being unfair to VP in that argument, but actually I was right and VP misleadingly cited his end-of-day L-1 vote to try and show he was proactively involved in the BAB wagon, when he really was not. It doesn't bother you at all that he pretty much flat-out misled you? Hmm.
"
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.
" -
At the very end of the day! This is not practive involvement in the wagon! He is citing it like it was!
"
Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.
" -
I don't mention it because it was right at the end of the day---it was NOT proactive involvement. It's NOT a bad omission by me --- it 's a bad omission by HIM when he cites it as if it were in the middle of the day when it was right at the very end.
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.
-
No it doesn't! It was in no way proactive! Him citing it as if it was is dishonest!
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.
-
The "unfair point" you keep referring to is saying he wasn't proactive at all on the BAB wagon --- and I wasn't being unfair at all there!
None of this bothers you at all??? Really?
elvis_knits wrote:iamausername wrote:P.S.
iamausername wrote:Ojanen wrote:elvis. I want you to stop ignoring the thing presented directly to you in at least 910, 792, 799 and say why you would think Baltar was anyhow townishly involved with the BAB vote.
ELVIS. DO THIS.
I WAS.
Yes, it's annoying to have people keep asking you to do something you're already working on. I hear that.
elvis_knits wrote:I want to ask you serial, and everyone else still on the VP wagon:
Didn't the speed of the wagon worry you?
Do you often see a wagon build on scum that fast?
The speed doesn't bother me because I think everyone who joined is likely town.
I don't often see wagons on
anyone
build that fast. In fact I've never seen a wagon build that fast, on town or scum. So why am I supposed to conclude that fast wagons are inevitably scum driven? Saying that a fast wagon exonerates the wagonee just seems like a massive fallacy to me.
VP Baltar wrote:What is annoying me slightly in this game is that people seem so resigned to my lynch that they are not even listening to the arguments I'm making, especially when it comes to ekiM.
AtE. Like, woah. Maybe they've listened to your arguments and found them wanting? Is that conceivable?
VP Baltar wrote:Do you think I'm being honestly unreasonable when I pointed out that him approaching the game yesterday with the preconceived notion of BaB being scum is in itself scummy?
It's a bad point. That's all. I came back, I skimmed the thread, I decided BAB was scum. How is that scummy?
VP Baltar wrote:Xyl wrote:Oh? It negates any "but he wouldn't play this way as town" arguments.
No, it does not if you play the same way as scum. A one game meta where you were town does nothing to counteract that fact.
What the fuck? Read what you just wrote again, please.
