Newbie 864 - Game Over.

[RayFrost]

It was Bach who gave the L-1

Mind explaining how that gives viable reason to suspect me?

[Evilgorrilaz]

@Rayfrost
Bach quoted your post about the bandwagon as his reasons for the L-1 vote. Me and rewq find that very scummy. We aren't accusing you when we quote that, we are accusing Bach.

[imkingdavid]

ikd, on the other hand, has come in and put up big "re-read analysis" blocks of text up. This is a halmark of some scum players, to come in, look important and busy, and get absolutely nothing out of these blocks of text. He also jumped in on the popular lynch and has been riding it ever since.

It also can be the hallmark of lazy town players. btw, there hasn't been a lynch yet. So I haven't been riding any "popular lynch". Maybe a popular bandwagon of sorts, but not a lynch. But that's besides the point. Yes, I guess I have been riding it thus far. Since deadline is approaching rather quickly, I'll do a bit of a reread as soon as I am able to and try to get some intelligent thoughts out. Sorry for being less than active thus far in this game. My mind has been elsewhere. Besides, I find that I get the most work done when deadlines are looming. Procrastination ftw.

btw, I only posted one post that I can remember that had blocks of text. Are you still going on about that? Yes, walls of text can have a negative affect, but they can also help when you're trying to present your ideas. Just having every post as a wall of text isn't always the best thing.

IKD I would like to hear your personal take on my case

as I said, I am going to re-evaluate my thoughts and post when I can.

[rewq455]

It was Bach who gave the L-1

Mind explaining how that gives viable reason to suspect me?

I never said I suspected you.

[Evilgorrilaz]

EBWOP:
@Rayfrost
The quote of you is something that Bach referred to when he placed his vote. He said the reasons for his L-1 were summed up in your post. I used your quote because it was appropriate to do so. Your quote is the reason's for Bach's L-1, which I find to be a terrible reason for a L-1.

[RayFrost]

EBWOP:
@Rayfrost
The quote of you is something that Bach referred to when he placed his vote. He said the reasons for his L-1 were summed up in your post. I used your quote because it was appropriate to do so. Your quote is the reason's for Bach's L-1, which I find to be a terrible reason for a L-1.

Would that not also make it a terrible reason to vote, and thus make my vote terrible?

[Evilgorrilaz]

EBWOP:
@Rayfrost
The quote of you is something that Bach referred to when he placed his vote. He said the reasons for his L-1 were summed up in your post. I used your quote because it was appropriate to do so. Your quote is the reason's for Bach's L-1, which I find to be a terrible reason for a L-1.

Would that not also make it a terrible reason to vote, and thus make my vote terrible?

I'm not saying that is is necessarily a bad reason to vote. What Sweep did was slightly scummy. What I'm saying is that it is a terrible reason to put someone at L-1.

[RayFrost]

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

[Sweep]

Firstly I am still waiting on IKD for a response.

I have to agree with Pablo about CC's logic in his post.

Bach, I honestly don't buy "I did it to see what would happen". Anyone can say that about any vote they place and in my view is a complete cop out. It may be true in this case and people are going to say you are taking this stance because you want to lynch Bach but I would like more substantial reasoning if you choose to vote me again.

Wouldn't scum want to stay out of the spotlight though?

Classic WIFOM as others have mentioned.

Sweep was scummy because he bandwagoned and realized that bandwagoning is scummy. As is, it is a slight scum tell. I find your L-1 much more scummier. Your later justification seems much more appropriate (the inconsistent logic and such), but I cannot forgive you for your L-1 play.

I never "realised" that voting Ray was scummy and that is why I removed my vote. I did it because I didn't think that Ray was most likely to be scum at that point.

I would like to hear more from Parts as well as IKD.

[RayFrost]

I'm going to quote sweep's vote post and his subsequent unvotings~

Okay, if your feeling lazy we should let this slide.

I don't understand how any of your posts are pro-town. Your just trying to get a senseless wagon started at first and then post some uncontructive short posts and now saying, I'm lazy so I can't be scum.

Example:

I foresee somebody calling that coaching my scum buddy. It will be hilarious to see who does it first.

Vote: RayFrost

I would also like to hear more from Marcosh and other people.

I would also have to agree that I think the transition between RVS and normal play is irrelevant due to the insignificance of RVS.

Ray is such an obvious target currently due to his activity and prominence in the game, I still think he is slightly scummy but at this stage he is the only one who has said anything.

So,
Unvote

and let's hear what other people have to say.

In his above post where he says he never "realized" voting me was scummy, he said I wasn't the most likely to be scum, yet he doesn't vote anybody else or show any suspicions elsewhere.

Thus, I would be "most likely" to be scum.

I unvoted Ray because he was the most obvious target so to speak and my vote on him was for mainly this reason I realised. Sure that joke could be interpreted as a tell but after reconsidering I am going to take it as a joke.

I'm going to do an iso of a few players later and post my thoughts then.

Here I feel he contradicts himself. He says I'm the "obvious target" for being active. He then basically says he doesn't consider me scummy at all anymore (backtracking, perhaps?).

The great mystery to me is why I seem so scummy. I'm just here saying what I believe to be correct but in other people's eyes it is not. The simple fact is that I am a newbie town player who constantly gets bombarded with scum accusations when the probabilities that I am every game are very slim.

People are getting all worked up about how I placed vote and then took it off as people do all the time and if I was scum how am I ever going to win by not voting for anyone. In fact I was not the only player to do this as Bach removed his vote but everyone was satisfied with his reason.

My feelings at this point would be that Bach is most likely scum due to the jumping around on different players. Each post is isolated, after the vote there is no expansion on reasoning and instead is focused on defence.

Vote: Bach

I feel the first bit is an appeal to ignorance and appeal to (in)experience.

Second bit is deflection and straw manning, imo. He focused on a single point against him rather than the entirety while also saying "look! bach did the same thing!"

Third bit is piggy backing rewq's reasoning.

[RayFrost]

EBWOP:

forgot to mention...

Despite having said he'd iso a few players, he hasn't really given his thoughts on anybody.

He piggy backed rewq's reasoning, did some appeals, deflection, and straw manning, but hasn't really given any

reads

of the players (excluding the "bach is scum for doing something I did, oh and what rewq said" stuff).

This attempt to avoid giving any reads or similar is scummy to me, since (newb and general) scum don't like giving reads for fear of what tells may be gained from it...

[Zorblag]

Vote Count 1.10

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), Col.Cathart (24)
Bach: 3: rewq455 (21), Sweep (22), Evilgorrilaz (23)

Not Voting: Bach, Pablo Molinero, RayFrost

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

[Col.Cathart]

EG and Pablo: I disagree with both of you. As I said, my past experience so far are giving me a clear conclusion, that people scared of lynch, are more likely scum than town. Mostly because scum has much more to lose with every lost member than town. That, and this is psychological effect - if you're the bad guy, every accusation at you makes you much more nervous, than if you're good guy, because the good guy knows he's innocent.

But that's only my point of view. IMO this IS scumtell, and after adding other things he had done (quick follow up on Bach counterwagon, lurking etc.) seals him as a scum in my book.

[rewq455]

EG and Pablo: I disagree with both of you. As I said, my past experience so far are giving me a clear conclusion, that people scared of lynch, are more likely scum than town. Mostly because scum has much more to lose with every lost member than town. That, and this is psychological effect - if you're the bad guy, every accusation at you makes you much more nervous, than if you're good guy, because the good guy knows he's innocent.

But that's only my point of view. IMO this IS scumtell, and after adding other things he had done (quick follow up on Bach counterwagon, lurking etc.) seals him as a scum in my book.

But the town member may feel that they have just as much to lose as a scum member. Being lynched is bad no matter which side you are on.

[Pablo Molinero]

EG and Pablo: I disagree with both of you. As I said, my past experience so far are giving me a clear conclusion, that people scared of lynch, are more likely scum than town. Mostly because scum has much more to lose with every lost member than town. That, and this is psychological effect - if you're the bad guy, every accusation at you makes you much more nervous, than if you're good guy, because the good guy knows he's innocent.

But that's only my point of view. IMO this IS scumtell, and after adding other things he had done (quick follow up on Bach counterwagon, lurking etc.) seals him as a scum in my book.

But the town member may feel that they have just as much to lose as a scum member. Being lynched is bad no matter which side you are on.

This. If you're town and you get lynched, you're putting your team one step closer to a loss, so I've seen town fight just as hard to not get lynched by town. You may have certain experiences, but your point simply is not valid for the whole mafia-playing community.

I will be placing my vote later tonight. As I've said, I'm not happy with a sweep lynch and only a little happier with a Bach lynch.

[RayFrost]

I will be placing my vote later tonight. As I've said, I'm not happy with a sweep lynch and only a little happier with a Bach lynch.

Reasoning please.

What exactly about the case I put forth is not compelling?

Who do you think is scum, then?

[Parts]

@MOD V/LA Until wednesday the 25th for a family emergency.

Unvote

since I won't be able to change my vote before the deadline. Sorry guys.

[Bach]

Hopefully Parts will be back - his absence may get a townie (me) lynched.

If your reasons for voting for me are simply because I put Sweep at L-1, consider two things: I am taking chances to provoke reactions from the town. I have been agressive in scum hunting. I have been clear about my reasons for doing what I have done. Lynching me does a disservice from the town - paticularly since I can now see there are misguided townies voting for me.

Ask yourselves this: if you are voting for me, and are prepared to lynch me for putting Sweep at L-1...will you lynch Pablo tomorrow for attempting to do the same thing, only to be beaten to the punch by seconds? Does this sound rational?

I will post more in the morning - omw to work atm. I still believe Sweep is the best choice - he hasn't given me a reason otherwise yet.

[Bach]

Sorry, those are not two things. I can't count.

[Pablo Molinero]

As promised:

Vote: iamkingdavid

As I said before: Big "reread" texts are the hallmark of scum trying to look active, but then there's no elaboration on it and he ends up following the popular bandwagon without a whole lot of critical thinking or great reasons.

I mean, hell, this was his vote-post:

Right now, I'm going to reinstate my Vote: Sweep. Can't put a finger on it at the moment, but something just seems off. And I'd like to hear more from him on the current discussion as well.

To respond to his last post:

btw, I only posted one post that I can remember that had blocks of text. Are you still going on about that? Yes, walls of text can have a negative affect, but they can also help when you're trying to present your ideas. Just having every post as a wall of text isn't always the best thing.

"Walls" of text meaning walls of text in general, not your quantity. You had one big one in your ISO 4 and a smaller one in your ISO 11. Walls are only good when presenting a definitive case against someone and presenting a comprehensive defense. Yours is neither. Instead, it's a smattering of ideas that merely looks busy.

You even went on and agreed with me that large, sweeping analysis is a bad thing because scum gains more info on who to pursue and NK... and yet that's what you've done. Scum don't have to worry about that; lack of true focus is something only scum can afford.

[RayFrost]

I will be placing my vote later tonight. As I've said, I'm not happy with a sweep lynch and only a little happier with a Bach lynch.

Reasoning please.

What exactly about the case I put forth is not compelling?

Who do you think is scum, then?

Ignore the second question, your vote has answered that one.

[Pablo Molinero]

I'm still reading the case against sweep as him going after the obvious target and then stepping back and changing his mind (OMG!). I hate

hate HATE

the word "backtracking" when improperly used, like I think it is here. It should be used when someone holding a deep-seated belief suddenly changes later in the game. But here it was a relatively short period of time between sweep's vote-unvote and I think sweep adequately analyzed and explained himself.

His jump on the Bach-vote isn't exactly great, but I can't blame a guy, particularly a new player, for taking the only out he's got. That part reads neutral newbie to me instead of scum/townie.

And as I've said, a townie doesn't have to give reads on EVERYONE EVAR unless specifically asked for a read on someone. Concentrating on 1-2 (maybe 3?) people is the way to go, IMO.

[RayFrost]

I'm still reading the case against sweep as him going after the obvious target and then stepping back and changing his mind (OMG!). I hate

hate HATE

the word "backtracking" when improperly used, like I think it is here. It should be used when someone holding a deep-seated belief suddenly changes later in the game. But here it was a relatively short period of time between sweep's vote-unvote and I think sweep adequately analyzed and explained himself.

His jump on the Bach-vote isn't exactly great, but I can't blame a guy, particularly a new player, for taking the only out he's got. That part reads neutral newbie to me instead of scum/townie.

And as I've said, a townie doesn't have to give reads on EVERYONE EVAR unless specifically asked for a read on someone. Concentrating on 1-2 (maybe 3?) people is the way to go, IMO.

If a person promises to give their reads on everybody, is it appropriate for them to then

not

do so and instead just jump on "the only out he's got" instead?

[imkingdavid]

Alright, hey guys. I came to this site in hopes of typing up a response 3 times, but I have had things come up and have not been able to. With Parts' unvote, though, it doesn't look like there will be a sweep lynch unless two more people vote him or someone unvotes Bach. So the matter isn't as pressing as it could be. In any case, I'll see if I can get something up after school today.

@Pablo: so how many words does it take to make it a wall? I could consider your post 269 a wall.

Anyway, yeah, I'll be back after school.

[rewq455]

I will not be able to post until after deadline tomorrow because of school. Bach you have the rest of today to convince me to unvote.