Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

[EriktheRed]

@Symbol: Regarding our "should Suave claim at deadline" bit, I just noticed that in this ruleset he won't be lynched without a full majority/hammer. Do you agree that with this clarification he shouldn't claim when he is not in danger of being lynched?

Unvote; Vote: julienvonwolfe

Did my isoread, don't like it, don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

[MrSuave]

wait... if there's no hammer it's No Lynch? if that's true, forget me claiming at the deadline ^_^ my baaad

[EriktheRed]

# A non-majority vote count results in a "no lynch" occurring.
# With vote counts posted regularly, everyone should know when the majority has been reached.
# Once a majority vote occurs, the game is in twilight until I post the death scene and night begins. The lynchee may not post during twilight.

Yep. L-1 with someone's explicit (or scum's silent) intent to hammer would probably still be a good idea.

[julienvonwolfe]

don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

You, sir, need a good slap over the head. Kindly note the timeline of events:

Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case. I responded to it quite early, though I think Suave ignored me.

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

[Torqez]

# A non-majority vote count results in a "no lynch" occurring.
# With vote counts posted regularly, everyone should know when the majority has been reached.
# Once a majority vote occurs, the game is in twilight until I post the death scene and night begins. The lynchee may not post during twilight.

Yep. L-1 with someone's explicit (or scum's silent) intent to hammer would probably still be a good idea.

Wow okay, I overlooked this part too. Is it different for this game as opposed to usually? I just assumed it was majority at lynch deadline time - hence me questioning tubby's reasoning to not wait the extra days to lynch deadline.

[tubby216]

so can we just get some more suave votes pls thankx

...this makes me want to vote Tubby. Tubs, have you ever ONCE provided a case/stated reasons for wanting to lynch Suave?

nope and i don't have to. he has done enough to warrant a lynch

tic toc people.

[iamausername]

Hoopla, why are you voting Torqez right now?
Nuwen, why are you voting no one right now?

It's 3 days from deadline, we've got two plausible lynch candidates right now, you either need to pick one or do a much better job of persuading people of a better choice if you think there is one.

[EriktheRed]

nope and i don't have to. he has done enough to warrant a lynch

You do recognize the blatant hypocrisy in this post, right?

[xRECKONERx]

I think you mean irony, Erik.

Anyway, I'm really down for any number of lynches. Julian, Suave, or Tubby are my top candidates though.

[EriktheRed]

Nope, I do mean hypocrisy, since saying "he has done scummy things" plus saying "I have no reasons to lynch him" (implying there's no way to) contradicts each other. Hypocrisy.

Irony wouldn't be scummy.

[tubby216]

Nope, I do mean hypocrisy, since saying "he has done scummy things" plus saying "I have no reasons to lynch him" (implying there's no way to) contradicts each other. Hypocrisy.

Irony wouldn't be scummy.

stop being slow.

i said that because others have made good cases and pointed out his scummness, therefore i do not need to sheesh stop trying so hard

[xRECKONERx]

Tubby, just a blanket statement as to why you're voting him to prove you're not talking out of your ass. Come on.

[Torqez]

Mod: Isn't xRECKONERx voting for Julienvonwolfe?

Just reviewed the voting last couple pages. I make this to be true too.

Mod: Can we get an accurate votecount please?

My unofficial count makes:

MrSuave (4) -- julienvonwolfe, MacavityLock, ekiM, tubby216
julienvonwolfe (5) -- iamausername, Symbol, Torqez, xRECKONERx, ErictheRed

@MrSuave - I just checked your vote on Hoopla, you realise you voted Hoopla nearly a month ago, here? And from that post it seems like a jokingly wagon post. Have you not thought anyone else to be scum? Why have you not updated your vote yet, or do you think Hoopla to be scummy now and why? Could you summarise please and make a committment?

@Nuwen - Just like Symbol said, why havn't you voted again? You had somewhat of a policy vote on Zazier here and then removed it once he got replaced by myself. But since then, you havn't made a vote. Why's this?

@Hoopla - You too had a 'policy' vote on Zazier. And unlike Nuwen, you havn't even bothered to unvote yet. Are you going to vote and make a decision or leave your vote on me as you think I'm scummy?

[Symbol]

Unvote.

Rereading some isos, especially Suave's.

In the meantime: Erik, do you think Geekalicious was scummy? If you do, to what degree, and why? If you don't do you think he's been misconstrued?

[Symbol]

EriktheRed

, answer my question.

[EriktheRed]

Symbol, it has been two hours between your posts. I'm assuming you noticed that I responded in another game and decided I was lurking, but I had already typed out two-thirds of my response to this less-pressing game when my quadmates decided to go to dinner early. Two hours is not lurking.

Anyway, yes, to a small degree. Scummier than Suave, in the sense that Suave has given off more towntells than Geek did while maybe about the same amount of scumtells, if you'd like a comparison of my stances. That said, many of the scumtells that comprised his wagon reeked of newb-town behavior to me, even ignoring the fact that I know his alignment to be town. There are legitimate scum candidates around, such as tubby or Julien.

Torqez' point about Suave's ancient RVS vote is something I hadn't noticed at all, and I'm very interested in Suave's answer.

[HowardRoark]

Vote Count (D1)

Hoopla (1) -- MrSuave
MrSuave (5) -- julienvonwolfe, MacavityLock,

ekiM

, xRECKONERx, tubby216
julienvonwolfe (3) -- iamausername, Torqez, ErictheRed
Torqez (1) -- Hoopla

Not Voting (2) -- Nuwen, Symbol

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline: 12 NOV 2009 at 5:15 pm UTC (Countdown)

Still seeking a replacement for ekiM.

[julienvonwolfe]

Erik, I would appreciate a reply to my 528, since I think your vote is unjustified.

[EriktheRed]

I'm sorry, Julien, I did miss this post. I was soon going to ask why you hadn't commented on my vote, too.

don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

You, sir, need a good slap over the head. Kindly note the timeline of events:

Starting point: Mr Suave's stupid Hoopla case. I responded to it quite early, though I think Suave ignored me.

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

You're implying that the fact that you can see similarities (which is really an exaggeration, since you've only pointed out ONE similarity -- more on this after the jump) means Suave can't see differences. And then you ask an unrelated question asking for a scumlist. I don't see how this post is calling Suave's case stupid.

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

By calling the case against Hoopla BS without doing any real work to show HOW it's BS. In 522, you showed one single piece of meta information from that game to refute Suave's entire case. But you can find any single piece of information between two games of any player and be able to mash it in place to suit your needs, as long as you're willing to ignore all the information to the contrary. You need more than just one single event to make a meta case. Suave has more than one event, he has patterns of behavior, an entirely different playstyle. It's not a perfect case, but it's definitely less BS than what you're trying to use to dismiss it.

[Symbol]

Vote: Torqez.

I like him and RECK as scum; I don't feel like outing my other scum reads, though, because I have something like six total, so it'd be accomplishing nothing while outing my town reads by omission.

More on Torq later.

[xRECKONERx]

Naaah I'm not scum.

I'm offended, Symbol. Did Less Flavor Than English Food Not Teach You Anything?

[Torqez]

Vote: Torqez.

I like him and RECK as scum; I don't feel like outing my other scum reads, though, because I have something like six total, so it'd be accomplishing nothing while outing my town reads by omission.

More on Torq later.

Pray thee, do tell.

[Symbol]

Naaah I'm not scum.

I'm offended, Symbol. Did Less Flavor Than English Food Not Teach You Anything?

Your posts had substance. Here they do not.

[julienvonwolfe]

I was just persuing Hoopla because her town play seemed VERY different from the game I played with her previously.

I see similarities between her play there and here. Who else do you think is suspicious, now?

You're implying that the fact that you can see similarities (which is really an exaggeration, since you've only pointed out ONE similarity -- more on this after the jump) means Suave can't see differences. And then you ask an unrelated question asking for a scumlist. I don't see how this post is calling Suave's case stupid.

Well, to be fair, I didn't call it stupid. If Mr. Suave truly believed what he was saying, though, why didn't he try to argue his case?

Later on, in 502, ML asks me to recap my Suave case. In 519 I mention Suave's BS case on Hoopla. Suave proceeds to repeat said BS case. In 522, I rebut it by showing how she played in a manner that could be considered similar to this game.

How do you read that as a defense of Hoopla over and above the purpose it serves as a means of attacking Mr. Suave?

By calling the case against Hoopla BS without doing any real work to show HOW it's BS. In 522, you showed one single piece of meta information from that game to refute Suave's entire case. But you can find any single piece of information between two games of any player and be able to mash it in place to suit your needs, as long as you're willing to ignore all the information to the contrary. You need more than just one single event to make a meta case. Suave has more than one event, he has patterns of behavior, an entirely different playstyle. It's not a perfect case, but it's definitely less BS than what you're trying to use to dismiss it.

Erik, way to shift the boundaries! Now you're completely on Mr. Suave's side, supporting his case, and putting the burden of proof on me to prove that Hoopla's play is the same - why isn't it upon Mr. Suave to show that it is different, since he's the one trying to use it as an attack on her?

Not to mention that you didn't seem to register my post as an attack on Mr. Suave's argument in your initial post:

Did my isoread, don't like it, don't like how he's defending Hoopla in the last post 522, don't like how his case on Suave doesn't have any merit ("Oh, he's attacking the person I'm defending, ergo he is scum").

Yet in reading your reply to my post explaining the intent of my post regarding Hoopla, you would never guess that you had missed the whole point of the argument in your previous post - it was not a chainsaw defense at all. Back to your original read: why didn't you like my defense of Hoopla?

Fuck it, I'm going to go through that game and find stuff now. This pisses me off.

[Symbol]

Also, RECK, you've been going with the flow too much. I know you like day 1 bandwagons (who doesn't?) but this is just zombie-like. You vacillated over Hoopla's random lynch plan, taking sides with whichever argument was better. Your pressure on Tubby and Suave has been lackluster, and going for the illogical lurker and the village idiot don't cut it when I know you can produce much better cases. Lastly, voiced

zero

suspicion of JVW before you voted for him and labeled your number three lynch choice was preceded when his bandwagon got hot.

All in all, disconcerting play. You've been peeing yourself over Tubby's absurdity, but what you've been doing isn't much different, if different at all.

Oh yeah, and I also find all your dialogues with Tubby insanely fishy bordering on eerie, but that's his fault as much as yours.

Torqez I'm mostly suspicious of because (a) Toro's self-vote sucked, (b) some of Zazie's points sucked (nothing to do with the posting style), (c) Torqez never posted any analysis, not even on top suspect Hoopla, (d) Torqez pulled a bit of an OMGUS (plus he piggybacked) by voting for Nuwen, and (e) Torqez wagoned it up on JVW.

Anyway, now I think RECK is safer than Torq, though a Torq lynch might squeeze out a little more info about other players.