Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[Papa Zito]

I've only made like one substantive post all game so far so I would feel awful if it was left out.

Interesting. So if that big post was a case, why aren't you voting Foilist13?

Also, while I'm here, who else is scum?

---

@MordyS, I found the Peanut one, and I swear I had it marked before and just completely forgot about it, but I can't find the others. Can you give me links or post numbers for those?

@Everyone else, if I missed one of yours let me know so I can recompile the list. Also, holy crap 10+ cases on day 1.

[Sanjay]

Two reasons. One because I'm not fully caught up and two because I wasn't interested in pressuring him when I made that case.

I'm more interested in seeing if foilist13 can put my mind at ease than I am in pushing him and seeing if he cracks.

Ultimately, he's probably going to be my lynch recommendation because I'm not really comfortable having a player that I would allow this much scumminess as town hanging around.

[peanutman]

Guys, I'm not very active lately given my that I have a few essays to write and some board meetings. I hope to read through and post something substantive tomorrow evening.

[Sanjay]

Two reasons. One because I'm not fully caught up and two because I wasn't interested in pressuring him when I made that case.

I'm more interested in seeing if foilist13 can put my mind at ease than I am in pushing him and seeing if he cracks.

Ultimately, he's probably going to be my lynch recommendation because I'm not really comfortable having a player that I would allow this much scumminess as town hanging around.

That is, of course, unless I find someone scummier.

[MordyS]

Papa, my case on foilist is in my iso 10-15, my case on AlmasterGM is in my iso 32.

[Sanjay]

I've been dragging my feet getting out of the gate a lot more than I would have liked to. Sorry.

There are a couple of things about the AlmasterGM is scum case that don't really move me at all. Let's talk about it:

The idea that AlmasterGM's Pikachu case against Gammagooey is scummy (from all over the thread)

: The case is based on the assumptions that Gammagooey researched AlmasterGM before the game, and that scum are more likely to do such research? Are those assumptions justified? Probably not. But does that make the case scummy? I fail to see how.

Maybe I'm more sympathetic to the case because I can see where it is coming from. The only time I ever look up a player before they even post anything is when I am scum (I usually check out my scumpartners). I don't see it as a great argument that Gammagooey is scum, but I can imagine how it could come from town.

Could someone that feels it is scummy care to explain?

The idea that dropping the Gammagooey case is scummy (I forget who brought this up)

: This one I'm only partially not moved by. There's nothing wrong with dropping a case if you don't think it is valid anymore. The only people that wouldn't are scum (who want to appear consistent) and stubborn people (who are stupid). It is a little scummy though for AlmasterGM to allow himself to be so easily swayed by the town.

The idea that AlmasterGM is scum for attacking people for bad logic despite having made a dumb argument (by MordyS, post 237)

: This point is ridiculous and bad. Making a bad argument does not disqualify you from attacking bad arguments for the rest of the game.

Not to say MordyS's original point that AlmasterGM attacked as badlogic is bad logic. I'm just saying that attacking people for bad logic isn't scummy no matter how many stupid arguments you come up with. I assume MordyS should have something to say about this given how triumphant he was about the argument to begin with.

-----

So what's left? As I see it, we have a player whose suspicions seem rather OMGUSish and a player that is using a lot of bad reasoning. This is definitely scummy but I don't see how it is the slam dunk case some people are saying it is.

There's also the softclaiming stuff but I'd really rather not comment on that unless he fullclaims.

[Sanjay]

Here are my thoughts on the AlmasterGM wagon:

Could it be a wagon on scum? Yes. But it seems to have formed up rather easily and I think the biggest problem with it is that people have discounted everything AlmasterGM has to say because people see him as scum.

Like take AlmasterGM's attack on archaebob and Gammagooey's response to it. Not everything AlmasterGM said there was bogus. archaebob actually was kind of late to the AlmasterGM wagon. He never expressed any problem with AlmasterGM's argument until after other people jumped on it. This is a point that you all completely ignored.

[SocioPath]

I hope you people aren't anxiously waiting on me.

I'm over halfway done, although its taken me a lot longer to get through this than I expected.
(For one, brevity in this game is almost nonexistent, a pleasant surprise.)
(For two, I've never actually replaced into a game before.)
(For three, I replaced in about 2 minutes after being asked.)
(For four, I already have a massive plateful of games I'm occupied with currently.)

But I've got many opinions, suspicions, details, and insights so far.
Which would be premature to state at this point lest they've already been resolved.

[foilist13]

@Sanjay - Can you give us a general idea of your suspicions? You've posted a list of general cases, and pretty much denied all of them, so who do you find most scummy other than me apparently?

[MordyS]

Not to say MordyS's original point that AlmasterGM attacked as badlogic is bad logic. I'm just saying that attacking people for bad logic isn't scummy no matter how many stupid arguments you come up with. I assume MordyS should have something to say about this given how triumphant he was about the argument to begin with.

You misunderstood my argument against him. I'm going to rephrase it here, but I recommend you go back and reread it. Essentially, he called me scummy for calling him scummy for making a badlogic argument. But he made his own badlogic arguments. Which means that his attack on me for attacking him was unjustified. (Yes, this becomes convoluted, which is why I recommend reading the original post.) I wasn't attacking him for being a hypocrite. I was attacking him for calling my attack scummy when in fact he would otherwise agree that my attack was legitimate. Does that make sense?

[PhaerieM]

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

It's called a hypothetical - you should be familiar with the concept seeing as you were just talking about it. In any case, you've ignored the actual point -

Why does it matter if the logic is applied retroactively?

It doesn't make it any less true. All you seem to be doing here is trying to make legitimate scumhunting go away based on some technicality. This isn't a criminal trial where the evidence needs to pass a bunch of rules and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it's a game of mafia.

Almaster, were you or were you not "applying the logic retroactively"? This is just a bunch of hopping around avoiding the question.

[AlmasterGM]

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

It's called a hypothetical - you should be familiar with the concept seeing as you were just talking about it. In any case, you've ignored the actual point -

Why does it matter if the logic is applied retroactively?

It doesn't make it any less true. All you seem to be doing here is trying to make legitimate scumhunting go away based on some technicality. This isn't a criminal trial where the evidence needs to pass a bunch of rules and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it's a game of mafia.

Almaster, were you or were you not "applying the logic retroactively"? This is just a bunch of hopping around avoiding the question.

I was not.

[PhaerieM]

Two reasons. One because I'm not fully caught up and two because I wasn't interested in pressuring him when I made that case.

I'm more interested in seeing if foilist13 can put my mind at ease than I am in pushing him and seeing if he cracks.

Ultimately, he's probably going to be my lynch recommendation because I'm not really comfortable having a player that I would allow this much scumminess as town hanging around.

That is, of course, unless I find someone scummier.

Like Muffin? Archaebob, why did you leave muffin out of the list that mordy referenced as all possibly being connected as scum? It was foilist, muffin, peanut, and almaster. You mentioned this as good, but in asking people to say who they thought was the least likely/least costly as a mslynch you left out muffin from that list.

[Sanjay]

@Sanjay - Can you give us a general idea of your suspicions? You've posted a list of general cases, and pretty much denied all of them, so who do you find most scummy other than me apparently?

foilist13, I'm a lot more interested in your respnse to post 476 than I am in your babysitting.

[Gammagooey]

Mostly at Sanjay, but for anyone else who might have been wondering.

Why I think Almaster is scum, and the best lynch for today.

Let's start by going way back to the beginning with his accusation of me.
The initial post could have easily been a townie going after someone he thought was scummy, but in the post after it he attacks Mordy for disagreeing with him on whether early bandwagons are good are not.
It is made very clear that Mordy believes what he said about this, and is not a scumbag changing his opinion to suit his win condition.

He then disappears for 6 pages (it was Halloween weekend). In the first post with actual content, he accuses archaebob with a case that I think was at least 75% bullshit, and attacks Mordy again for for his opinion on early bandwagoning. He also states:

I just derailed the bandwagon on me

by ignoring it

The fact that he's using it in his case shows that he's somewhat proud of this, but the biggest problem is in italics. You can't ignore something if you don't know it exists, and he is saying that he

did something

. If he wasn't intentionally lurking to get the votes off him, why is he saying that it went away because he ignored it instead of saying something like "The bandwagon disappeared while I was away"? To me his stating that he has done something to cause this indicates that he was aware of what was going on in the thread while all this was happening, and CHOSE not to post, in order to get votes and attention away from him.

When I call him out on his case, he does the following:
Post 1)Say I'm scummy for doing so
Post 2) Refuse to respond to my rebuttal, reiterate that I'm scummy, invoke WIFOM with

If I actually wanted to lurk the wagon away, do you really think I would've said so to everyone's face?

Post 3)Ask if I'm joking, among a bunch of other responses to people.

Yet, you end your own post with, "Unexcused badlogic is scummy." THE EXACT CASE I HIT YOU WITH. If attacking someone for apparent badlogic is scummy, then my case on your was excellent! Even if you felt your case wasn't badlogic, you admit in the beginning of your post:

CAPS PLEASE!! The key term is "excused." My initial argument was based on my observations of how I thought people would approach and play the game. After an unofficial poll was taken, I let the argument go because it was clear that my opinion was wrong. I don't see how I can be held accountable for this given that, unless I had done research prior to the game, there would be no other way for me to know whether the argument was wrong or not.

I don't think this is nearly as damning as the earlier stuff, but he states that he can't be held accountable for his actions, even though he could have asked me how I knew what his avatar was instead of jumping to conclusions.

So if you admit the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell, and that general consensus is enough to get you to drop the case (OH MY GOD, BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS ABOUT TO BE AMAZING), then you admit that to a normal member of the general consensus, your case on Gammagooey was bad. If to a normal person (SAY ME, OMG, I HOPE YOU'RE HOLDING ONTO YOUR SOCKS), that case is bad, and as you yourself wrote, "badlogic is scummy," that means (HERE'S THE PITCH) that I was totally justified and validated in your own words for holding you as scummy and voting for you. By your own calculations, my vote on you was completely justified and you deserved it.

OMG MORE CAPS PLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Your vote for me and my vote for Gamma are not the same. My vote: There was no way for me to know the truth or falsity of the matter at hand without making the argument in the first place. After the results came in, I let it go. Your vote: 13 pages later, you're clinging to a statement I made on page 1. You have no other arguments against me. LOL.

As in the last post, he defends himself by attacking Mordy's use of capital letters, attacks the argument being late despite that he hadn't been there for half of the pages mentioned, and implies that that the argument is hilarious, keeping in line with suggesting mine was a joke.

In the interests of fairness, in between that and the next quoted he makes a few not-completely-terrible posts.

This game is too complicated. I might go back and re-read, but this thread is more muddled than the original text of Beowulf, so I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not.

States his intention to stop scumhunting and just vote based on whoever else is being voted. Already got called out on this by others.

I love when people actually take it seriously and are like OMG U R SO SCUMMY IM VOTING 4 U.

More saying that other peoples accusations of him are funny and not to be taken seriously.

There's some more stuff about applying logic retroactively, which he should have had logic for to begin with, but my mind has been made up on him for long enough now that I'm pretty much disregarding it.

He has made terrible, bullshit cases, he lurked the attention away from himself, and stated that accusations against him are jokes, and not to be taken seriously.
He has claimed that he can't be held accountable for his actions.
I disagree.

[cruelty]

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

It's called a hypothetical - you should be familiar with the concept seeing as you were just talking about it. In any case, you've ignored the actual point -

Why does it matter if the logic is applied retroactively?

It doesn't make it any less true. All you seem to be doing here is trying to make legitimate scumhunting go away based on some technicality. This isn't a criminal trial where the evidence needs to pass a bunch of rules and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it's a game of mafia.

I don't believe your claim that it was deliberate baiting. With this in mind, your motives at the time of the post come into question? If, as I believe, it wasn't legitimate scumhunting, then what was it? The logic is, quite simply, ridiculous. You make a stupid post and those that comment on it are scum?it's laughable. It is not a valid point, there is no logic being applied, all you're doing is trying to retroactively justify your own error. The fact that you're backing it up with claims that I'm trying to get you lynched when I'm clearly not further degrades your case.

As for trying to make your "legitimate scumhunting" go away, doesn't the fact that I am attacking you for a poor case and in doing so keeping it in the spotlight completely invalidate that claim?

[Sanjay]

Gammagooey: Thanks. There are a few things I'd like to respond to in that, but I think AlmasterGM should probably do so first.

MordyS: could you explain why you feel like AlmasterGM's case against Gammagooey is more likely to come from scum than town? Also, could you explain why AlmasterGM's reaction to you questioning the case is more likely to come from scum than town.

[SpyreX]

I'm tired of the feet dragging.

I want a GM lynch. I'm kinda floored by Sanjay's defense at this point in the game, but hey drawin lines is awesome regardless.

We're rehasing old ground and need a flip to keep on pluggin on. I'm absolutely not buying the "VT gambit" and thus I don't even care about a claim :O

Lets get this party started.

[MordyS]

You know, I've written more words on AlmasterGM this game than I've written about anyone else, but if you'd like a couple more:

I believe AlmasterGM's case against Gammagooey is more likely to come scum than town because it's inane badlogic designed to incriminate someone early in the game. Town generally looks for good cases to pursue. Scum doesn't have good cases, so good scum invent plausible cases and bad scum force bad cases. AlmasterGM is somewhere in between, and when he first stated his case, I thought - huh, this is the scummiest thing to happen this game. (With the caveat, as I've said numerous times, that he could easily have been over-anxious Town.) What made made him seem obvscum was the way he responded to my case -- by arguing over whether early bandwagons are good or not, whether I'm scummy for attacking him for badlogic, and for his general bad attitude and anger at being questioned. It seems to me that Town, who want Town to win, would have dealt with my case calmy and intelligent. Possibly they would have said, "If you really believe that Gammagooey didn't do anything scummy, I can see why you'd be disturbed by attacks on that," and then go onto scum hunting. If that was what had happened, I would've probably forgot about that early attack. But instead AlmasterGM escalated his scumminess with every response.

For more details please read my iso where I can into all of this in expansive detail.

[MordyS]

What's the "VT Gambit?"

[SpyreX]

If I'm reading the dense words right there has been insinuation that the vanilla claim was not in fact an ACTUAL claim but instead designed to ???

Which is woooosh

[MordyS]

Oh, VT = Vanilla Townie. Yeah, I gotcha. Dude has had a lot of

gambits

this game that have been

designed

to illuminate who scum are.

[SpyreX]

Hey, they've worked.

[Sanjay]

On my part, SpyreX?

That's actually not what I planned on saying about the VT stuff.

[Sanjay]

That's in response to this:

If I'm reading the dense words right there has been insinuation that the vanilla claim was not in fact an ACTUAL claim but instead designed to ???

Which is woooosh