Newbie 864 - Game Over.

[RayFrost]

RayFrost:
slightly scummy. have not gone through a lot of his posts because he posts too much. wishy-washy behavior. srsly, please stop posting just for posting's sake. makes sorting through this stuff so much harder.

1. I don't post for posting's sake (except for like... my first three posts, which were banter), considering that my posts were either in response to somebody or for something else that is of value.

2. What part of my posts are "wishy-washy" in your mind?

[Col.Cathart]

CC:
Chasing after some weak arguments in order to "promote discussion" and stuff. Slightly scummy.

Weak argument is still better than no arguments at all.

Fortunately, I don't have much courses tomorrow, so the promised re-read should be done today in the evening.

[Evilgorrilaz]

1. I don't post for posting's sake (except for like... my first three posts, which were banter), considering that my posts were either in response to somebody or for something else that is of value.

2. What part of my posts are "wishy-washy" in your mind?

1. Quite a few of your posts are banter or simply stating the lack of activity. I'm not saying it's scummy right now, I'm saying that sorting through all this stuff is a lot easier without too much banter (although i suppose it can't be helped at this stage of the game)

2. Pardon my mistake. I was tired last night. Did not mean to say wishy-washy. I mean that quite a few of your posts have confusing logic to me. Do not get certain things, like second bandwagon, the weird overreaction to Bach's first accusation, and some others.

Weak argument is still better than no arguments at all.

Perhaps.[/quote]

[imkingdavid]

btw, I haven't flaked. I've been really busy. I'll try and have a post up tonight.

[rewq455]

Weak argument is still better than no arguments at all.

No argument can't backfire like a weak one can.

[RayFrost]

Weak argument is still better than no arguments at all.

No argument can't backfire like a weak one can.

No argument can't give details of your thoughts to solidify reads like a weak one can.

[RayFrost]

2. Pardon my mistake. I was tired last night. Did not mean to say wishy-washy. I mean that quite a few of your posts have confusing logic to me. Do not get certain things, like second bandwagon, the weird overreaction to Bach's first accusation, and some others.

Second bandwagon cuz 2 is better than 1 in getting reactions, imo. If you bandwagon two players, there are two possible BWs to choose from, meaning it might provoke more throught from people as they decide which they like more...

I defend myself as thoroughly as possible for the following reasons:

1. If I can explain what is considered scummy, then I should do so to give people a chance to get a firmer read on me or determine the validity of argument/defense

2. If I shrug it off, it'd get fewer reactions, less conversation, and less information.

[Col.Cathart]

No argument can't backfire like a weak one can.

Making the weak argument, and discussing it --> More conversation --> More potential slips --> Stronger arguments --> Town is moving forward --> Good thing.

Making no argument at all --> Stalling the discussion --> Silence in the thread --> No good scum candidate --> Bad thing.

Yep, I still think making weak arguments is better than not making them at all.

And besides, what kind of strong argument you want to make at the beginning of the game? There's just not enough info to make it right of the bat.

Promised re-read in progress.

[Col.Cathart]

Ok, re-read done. Opinion on players:

Bach: I like his play so far. One of the most active players around, has some attempts on scumhunting, I can already see that he played this game before, and he's doing it quite well. His unvoting Ray without moving toward any other target seems weird, but I don't think it's a really strong tell. Not scummy.

Drizzt/Evilgorillaz: Drizzt did giant nothing, EG just replaced in. His first two posts are quite decent though. Null with slightly lean on the pro-town side.

Marcosh/Imkingdavid - Marcosh was my primary target, and since he left without answering my last question, that one will go to the scum tells for the rest of the game. About IKD - I see, that you changed much since our first game Anyway, I don't like that PbPa. It's IMO useless as it mostly neutral comment about every post. You should stay with those few words of summary at the end + point out the things that bugs you. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to create a mess. Scummy read.

I'll wait patiently for the rest of you analysis though.

Pablo Molinero - He's not very active, but I cannot really blame him, since I have the exams on my back as well No read currently, because most of his posts are fluff/excuses for inactivity. I hope, he'll be more active in the future. Null read.

Parts - Well, he's certainly doing something for the discussion, but he has some of his share of useless posts, that are bringing nothing, and they are just 'there' to exist (like iso 6, 10, second point in iso 11, and the follow up in iso 12), which kinda weakens my town read on him. Not completely thought. Slightly town ATM.

RayFrost - If you'll take a correction at his usual playstyle, you'll find quite active, pro-acting player, who actually IS scumhunting. Not scummy.

Selecao/Rewq - No read so far. He seems to be more interested in me, than any other player ATM, but it's too early to tell right now. I'm waiting for some serious contribution. Null read.

Sweep - He's not very active himself, and yet he refuses to say anything more, and wants other to speak. Ho hum. He unvotes Ray, while he's still saying, he's slightly scummy. If he had some other suspect, then sure, but in that case... Ho hum. Scummy read.

tl;dr version:

I think that IKD and Sweep are the most scummy people here ATM. My vote stays on IKD for now, but I don't have a problem with changing it to Sweep in any moment. I can even change it very soon, depending on promised next part of IKD analysis, and Sweep's promised re-read.

[Zorblag]

Vote Count 1.6

The numbers by the voters indicate the order in which the vote was cast. If two or more players are tied for the most votes to lynch at the deadline the tiebreaker will be the player who has the earliest active vote.

Sweep: 3: Parts (16), imkingdavid (17), RayFrost (19)
imkingdavid: 2: Col.Cathart (12), Bach (18)
Pablo Molinero: 1: Evilgorrilaz (7)
RayFrost: 1: rewq455 (10)

Not Voting: Pablo Molinero, Sweep

With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch. Currently Sweep would be lynched at Deadline. Deadline is 4:00 PM EST/1:00 PM PST on Tuesday, November 24th.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Parts]

@mod I will be V/LA until Monday the 16th

[Evilgorrilaz]

I will be away until tuesday. Midterms, sorry.

[Bach]

Apologies for my absence the past few days. No excuses.

I won't respond to every statement about me/thrown my way. Suffice to say I'm happy with everyone's opinion of me right now. If I missed any specific questions put my way, I missed them, and I'd be glad to answer them if they are pointed out to me.

I let up on Ray becuase he answered my attacks to my satisfaction. It was poor form for me to not refocus in the same post, granted. imkingdavid gave me a substabtive post (indeed, more than I wanted, lol) - all I wanted from him.

Sweep seems the scummiest option at the moment. I will cite Ray's post; I don't have anything significant to add to it aside from my agreement with it.

Unvote
Vote: Sweep

Yes, I know I am putting him at L -1.

[Pablo Molinero]

So, yeah, the flood let up and I survived the week. Huzzah. Some tidbits from me from what I remember from the game/rereading the last 4 pages:

- I never really bought the Ray case early on. It was far too easy, far too obvious, and people who jumped on it look like lazy town or scum trying for an easy opportunity. Ray's responses have been flippant and odd, but I'm more willing to write that off as playstyle so far.

- Sweep... I dunno, he's played very minimally and sorta shut down when under fire. His vote post against Ray was underwhelming (and suspicious, I agree), but this backlash coming so quick is concerning, too. I want to hear him respond before we go any further (NO HAMMERS!)

- To everyone: remember that lists of who you find scummy and who you find townish are great and all for full-disclosure reasons BUT

you are also giving scum that information, too

. Many, many times, I've seen scum keep alive a suspicious townie to the very end for an easy win. Remember this, and in my opinion, you should try to mentioning only 1-3 people (at very most) at a time in your analysis.

- To the town: do we want a role-claim from Sweep?

EDIT: JEEEEUS! I almost put the hammer down on Sweep (due to a same-time post with Bach. I'm notoriously bad at refreshing my browser.)

I think I'm more or less up to date, so if there are any questions my way, feel free.

[Col.Cathart]

- To the town: do we want a role-claim from Sweep?

Well, since you almost voted him, and I find him suspicious as well, I think... Yes.

[rewq455]

I want one to.

[rewq455]

Apologies for my absence the past few days. No excuses.

I won't respond to every statement about me/thrown my way. Suffice to say I'm happy with everyone's opinion of me right now. If I missed any specific questions put my way, I missed them, and I'd be glad to answer them if they are pointed out to me.

I let up on Ray becuase he answered my attacks to my satisfaction. It was poor form for me to not refocus in the same post, granted. imkingdavid gave me a substabtive post (indeed, more than I wanted, lol) - all I wanted from him.

Sweep seems the scummiest option at the moment. I will cite Ray's post; I don't have anything significant to add to it aside from my agreement with it.

Unvote
Vote: Sweep

Yes, I know I am putting him at L -1.

I don't see anything that seems to make Sweep seem scummy enough to deserve a vote.... What are you seeing that I am not?

[imkingdavid]

Sorry, I was unable to post last night as I had promised. Here you go.

Since Col.C seems to disagree with my method of analyzing each post publicly, I'll only point out what I find interesting and then post my thoughts.

Although, @Col.C in newb 802, those were large walls of text, whereas these aren't very long and don't really take up that much space.

RayFrost

(any post numbers are ISO unless otherwise specified)
Well, he starts off the game pretty normal, with RVS and such, just like everyone else. What I don't like is his whole coaching thing. The fact that he brought it up at all shows that it was on his mind. As I believe I have already said, it didn't even occur to me that it could be coaching, and most likely would not have, until he pointed it out in his post 12. It seems like you were expecting someone to see it like that and were trying to play it off as nothing later so that anyone who thought to mention it would not be taken seriously. That there is scummy, imb (in my book).
After that he posts a lot, seemingly just to be posting (see his post 16). And then--I know this has already been addressed, but for the sake of analysis, I'm pointing it out--he gets very defensive about Bach hinting that he might have ended RVS.
He then asks people to post and even ends up voting Pablo in his next post for not posting as much as Ray felt he should, forgetting that he was on V/LA at the time (although I sort of agree that we should all be posting a bit more as well).
So he moves his vote on to drizzt. Seems to want to have his vote somewhere as much as possible. Decides he's probably a less obvious target because he is more likely to defend himself. Then a post direted at me about remembering newbie 816, which can be dismissed for the sake of this analysis. After that, he asks for more info from sweep, followed by the same request from me. Agrees with pablo on the question about the frequency of replacements on the site. Then some fluff. Then he responds that he mostly agrees with my long post of analyses.
Moving on, he votes sweep and then responds to evilgorrilaz's opinion of him. And then more discussion with evilgorrilaz and that's where we leave off.
So overall, not too much scummy to see besides possibly all the stuff I talked about at the beginning.

I'm still happy with my vote on sweep.

As Pablo mentioned, doing a pbpa on every person only tells the scum who is or is not in the other players' radars, they know who to or not to push for a lynch, and also who to nightkill (if they are going for night killing to most pro town player, as many scum teams do).

Anyway, sorry for not posting sooner and not posting that much now.

[rewq455]

sorry guys.... i realized i contradicted my self and was not focusing when i wrote that I want Sweep to claim. I take back my request for the claim.

[rewq455]

Here is my opinion on Bach, who I think is acting scummy. He seems to be voting based off of very loose logic, as shown in the following quotes.

RayFrost wrote: Parts wrote: RayFrost wrote: I foresee somebody calling that coaching my scum buddy. It will be hilarious to see who does it first. I would hope that most people could see the difference between scum buddy coaching and just helping a new player improve their game play. It was a joke. Besides, if I WAS coaching you, I'd obviously be far more subtle... I'm a seriously bad town but seriously decent scum player imo I am going to unvote and Vote: Ray Frost. It's a newbie game, so I'd expect more experienced players to be giving out pointers. But what's with this "I'm a bad townie but a good scum player"? Are you insinuating you're playing poorly this game, thus you're town? Or simply trying to garner sympathy through self-deprecation?

Then he unvoted with the following quote:

Ray's response in post 81 is a good enough answer for me to unvote him. We have been the only two who have been very active, so I can't very well criticize him for not going after anyone else. He IS getting downgraded to FoS status; he was quite defensive even before I started on him - even preemptively so. I could still come back to him.

Unvote FoS: Ray Frost

I'm waiting for more people to post. I may have another vote soon. Nice to see some convo again.

This is post 81.

So, then: if I don't have much of a case on you, why have you spent every single one of your posts for the past two plus days defending yourself? Shouldn't you be out scum hunting?

Not enough posts by others to really try scum hunting with. Thus, I focus on defending myself, which makes sure this topic is, in essence, bumped repeatedly in their watched topics list, ensuring they will, eventually, post.

There have been many people other than Bach and Rayfrost posting, enough for a bandwagon to be created, analyzed and criticized.

So Bach voted for Rayfrost because he interpreted Rayfrosts post as a plea for sympathy. Then he unvoted him because he was told he and Rayfrost were the only ones posting, so there was no one else for Bach to hit. The original vote was made because he did not like what he interpreted as a playing style, and then he took back the vote because of a false logic. After this, he voted Iamkingdavid he wanted a more substantial post?!! That is NOT a reason to place a potentially game changing vote on someone!!! After he got the post he wanted (and a bit more), he decided to vote Sweep, down to being L-1 for unstated reasons. I think my reasons for voting him are apparent, due to his use of votes, and all around scummy behavior.

Unvote

Vote: Bach

[RayFrost]

Unvote

Hell nah to the lynching.

Bach:

Why did you put the L-1 vote on sweep before any kind of defense/reasoning/etc was put forth by Sweep?

Sweep should, at minimum, have a chance to defend 'imself before being put at

high

risk of being lynched.

[Bach]

@rewq: I've explained my attacks on Ray elsewhere, but I'll do it again for you. My goal was to provoke reactions from him. Ultimately, my attacks on him revealed (imo) over defensiveness. However, he also made a sound point that he is drawing heat primarily from his post volume. This, coupled with the state of the game at the time (many absences, incoming replacements) made me feel I had little more to gain by attacking him right then. There's room for your opinion on how appropriate that is, but that was my reasoning.

However, I will definitely say that my vote for imkingdavid was entirely appropriate. I wanted some pressure on him to immidiately produce a sounder argument than "Sweep seems scummy." I got more than I asked for. My vote is my weapon, and I will use it to provoke reactions. It's worked for me...and it just worked for you.

@Ray: Yes, I know I just did something dangerous, but I was really curious what type of reaction it would provoke. Yours is pretty telling.

[RayFrost]

@Ray: Yes, I know I just did something dangerous, but I was really curious what type of reaction it would provoke. Yours is pretty telling.

Oh do tell~

What has my reaction informed you regarding myself oh great and powerful Bach?

[Bach]

That's OZ to you.

I think it's a strong town tell for you to unvote there...unless Sweep is scum.

[RayFrost]

That's OZ to you.

I think it's a strong town tell for you to unvote there...unless Sweep is scum.

OZ? Old Zombie?

Eh, if sweep is scum it becomes a null tell, as both scum and town have incentive to unvote here (scum to stall the lynch, town to stall the lynch)