Open 172 - Mini Love - GAME OVER!

[dramonic]

I don't think trying to continue RVS is always scummy. I mean, come on, RVS is girly kiddish fun. Who doesn't love that?

The RVS is fine. Continuing it when its over is not

The "<3 Activity" VOTE COUNT

Khamisa (3): Netlava, dramonic, Head_Honcho
Yankee (2): Locke Lamora, Nikanor
animorpherv1 (1): Looker
dramonic (1): Snow_Bunny
Locke Lamora (1): Slepz
Nikanor (1): Yankee
Slepz (1): Vino
Snow_Bunny (1): animorpherv1
Vino (1): Khamisa

Not Voting (0)

With 12 Alive, 7 is needed to lynch.

[Vino]

I am in two games, one with a Snow Bunny and one with a Snow White and both with Locke Lamora, and I am definitely getting them confused in my head.

The RVS is fine. Continuing it when its over is not

I assume that was in response to my question. My response to you and to everybody in general:

* Why is continuing the RVS scummy? What motivation does scum have to keep the game in RVS? I don't see the argument there.
* What did Khamisa do to extend the RVS? She is short on content, all I can really see from her is this post where she says she doesn't think continuing the RVS isn't scummy, but I don't see her ever actually trying to do it.
* I am lost on who it was that originally started this "trying to prolong the RVS stage" deal. I think it was this post by Yankee, although that doesn't make sense to me because all votes up until that point were random. But still if it was him and not Khamisa, why are you voting Khamisa?

I would say the RVS ended when Locke voted Yankee, and to me, anybody who was acting as if it ended before that is reaching. I don't see Yankee's vote as anything but random, given it was his second post and first vote of the game.

[dramonic]

By definition, RVS ends when someone enonciates a case. If you keep RVing, it's because you're ignoring the case/it's response, AKA you aren't scumhunting when you should be.

[Vino]

Then show me: Who made any cases before this post? Honcho mentions some quirky behavior from Looker but nobody else makes any game content before that post. Doesn't that mean it's still RVS by your definition?

[dramonic]

How oes that relate to my vote? I'm attacking a stance, not a behaviour.

[Vino]

I afraid I don't understand the fine differentiation between a "stance" and a "behavior." I still don't get what you think Khamisa did that deserved your vote.

[Netlava]

Khamisa quote is lynchworthy, imo.

[Nikanor]

Stance = What you put your support behind (I'm anti-RVS)
Behaviour = What you actually do (I try to end the RVS)
These definitions allow for independence between the two. Basically, this is where 'saying one thing but doing another' would come in.

[dramonic]

thank you Nik. ^_^

[Nikanor]

You're welcome, dram!

[Vino]

Then dramonic, do you think that Yankee's vote was extending the RVS or not? Either you think Yankee did it and Khamisa was defending him, or you think Yankee didn't do it but Khamisa was defending him anyway, which is it?

Also I don't understand what Netlava said at all.

[Netlava]

What I said was that, at the moment, the scumminess of Khamisa's comment is enough to make me support a Khamisa lynch.

I don't think trying to continue RVS is always scummy. I mean, come on, RVS is girly kiddish fun. Who doesn't love that?

I find Khamisa's quote scummy because:

• - It subtly defends Yankee
  • - Subtly defending anyone makes me suspicious
  - Yankee may or may not have been trying to prolong the RVS, but Khamisa was defending the fact that yankee was trying to prolong the RVS
  • - She may be assuming guilt on Yankee's behalf
    • - Which would contradict her defense of yankee
      - Scum sometimes assume guilt of their scumpartners
  - Tries to be secretive about it
  • - Doesn't mention yankee and no quotes
  - Unusually keen on the accusation of Yankee
  • - I didn't even notice the yankee accusation at first
    - Some time had elapsed after the yankee accusation when she posted
    - Essentially, the attention given to the yankee accusation seems out of place
  - She says "
  not always scummy
  "
  • - The alternative is to simply say, "not scummy"
    - Scum sometimes assume guilt of their scumpartners
    - Implies that trying to prolong the RVS is sometimes scummy
    • - Which may evince a belief on her part that the RVS is sometimes scummy
      • - Which makes her defense of yankee even more puzzling
  - Town are more likely to look forward to the RVS ending
  • - After all, scum are not actually scumhunting
  - Tries to prolong the RVS

[Head_Honcho]

I thought it was moderately scummy that she first made a noncomment when the RVS stage was obviously over and we were actually playing. What I found hopelessly scummy was that I asked her a somewhat serious game related question about it and she brushed it off without making an effort to contribute in any other way.

Everyone has posted at least once in the past 3 days (counting posts from Midday, Oct 1st Onwards). No prods are needed. Good job!

[animorpherv1]

1st of all,

unvote

because we left the RVS.

Next, over all this When did the RVS end crap, is that really so important? I don't think so.

[Yankee]

I dont think Khasima was trying to defend me, it seems to me she was just trying to make some sort of joke and everyone has taken it the wrong way. But i do find it odd that she hasnt tried to defend herself since all of these accusations. I also find Netlava's detailed analysis of the situation rather.... out of character. I am going to

Unvote, Vote: Netlava

I have played with Netlava before and he is never this well thought out or insightful, especially on such limited information.

[Vino]

I don't think the "RVS stage ending" stuff was that big of a deal either, I do think it's strange that certain persons are making a big deal out of it. Netlava's points on Khamisa could be seen as valid in isolation, but put them all together and you have what I think is a gross misrepresentation of what really happened. Either he's reading into it way too much, or he's trying to frame someone.

Still wanting to hear from dramonic, though.

[Nikanor]

I have played with Netlava before and he is never this well thought out or insightful, especially on such limited information.

I have experience with Netlava as well, and I agree with you here.
However, a change in playstyle is not a scumtell, unless that same change in playstyle would be somehow beneficial to scum, which it is not, in this case, unless you have experience with his scum meta.
Yankee, do you have experience with Netlava as town, Netlava as scum, or both?

[Head_Honcho]

Vino, the thing with scum is that they are incapable of legitimate scumhunting in a game like this when they are a completely informed minority. It is always a farce and it always feels illegitimate so scum like to put off trying to appear to scumhunt for as long as possible.

Netlava's points on Khamisa could be seen as valid in isolation, but put them all together and you have what I think is a gross misrepresentation of what really happened

What the hell does this mean? They are valid points except for when you put them together? Could he have made any two of these points and you would not have had a problem with it?

[Nikanor]

ani, who do you think is scummiest? Do you think it is scummy to unvote after the RVS while lurking and with no actual scumhunting content?

[animorpherv1]

ani, who do you think is scummiest (1)? Do you think it is scummy to unvote after the RVS while lurking and with no actual scumhunting content(2)?

(1) At this point, either Netlava is framing someone or really badly misinterpereting it. That's all I can pick up.

(2) Well, it takes after another game, and it's polite to do, just in case. Also, everyone is posting while I'm sleeping.

[Nikanor]

(1) At this point, either Netlava is framing someone or really badly misinterpereting it. That's all I can pick up.

Any particular reason why you say this? Point refution would be nice.

(2) Well, it takes after another game, and it's polite to do, just in case. Also, everyone is posting while I'm sleeping.

I'm posting when you're awake.
And that's the beauty of forum games - the person you're asking the question of doesn't have to be online or present to answer. So, question away!

[animorpherv1]

I see a lot of accusations,guesses and what town are/should be doing in Netlava's post for one.

Like :

- It subtly defends Yankee

- Subtly defending anyone makes me suspicious

After reading the first line, I went "So, he thinks Yankee is also scummy, or is what I'm thinking wrong?"

[Netlava]

Yeah, I see links between yankee & khamisa. But when someone does something that causes such a link to be made, the suspicion falls on the linker, and not the linkee.

[Nikanor]

But when someone does something that causes such a link to be made, the suspicion falls on the linker, and not the linkee.

Agreed. We should probably be more careful with declaring links in this game, however.

[Yankee]

I have played with Netlava before and he is never this well thought out or insightful, especially on such limited information.

I have experience with Netlava as well, and I agree with you here.
However, a change in playstyle is not a scumtell, unless that same change in playstyle would be somehow beneficial to scum, which it is not, in this case, unless you have experience with his scum meta.
Yankee, do you have experience with Netlava as town, Netlava as scum, or both?

I have experience with him as town.

Yeah, I see links between yankee & khamisa. But when someone does something that causes such a link to be made, the suspicion falls on the linker, and not the linkee.

And what link do you see other then what you perceive as a subtle defense of me? Also, links in this type of gameplay are not always bad as it could just be 2 town lovers trying to protect themselves. We have to be careful lynching on just a "link" between two players...