Newbie 888 - Game Over!

[Lastsurvivor]

It's not OMGUS on my part. Just Random voting.

Yup. Two sentences. So defensive.

[pablito]

Vote Count

Kyiv (2): PatriotsDynasty09, Magic Trainer
Medix (2): MichelSableheart, Kyiv
Lastsurvivor (1): kunkstar7
RandomMaster (1): Medix
not voting: walrus helmet, RandomMaster, Lastsurvivor

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch!

[kunkstar7]

@Lastsurvivor: It wasn't that initial response that makes it seem defensive, it has been your reaction to people questioning your misinterpretation.

The reason I said I wanted to change it was I would have felt it would have been better to question/vote for a player who was not being questioned at the time. Such as Walrus right now, I feel like he's just lurking so I would prefer to change my vote to him but I believe my vote for the time being is good enough unless something turns up that can change my mind. I made a vote because I wanted to be part of the discussion and voice my opinion, and possibly contribute to lynching a scum, but that's why everyone votes isn't it?

So you feel that a random vote based on the fact that it was the person posting above you is better than voting someone because they were, as you believe, "lurking". Assume for this situation that the lurking is a viable reason. In a situation where someone is truly lurking, they are harming the town by not posting, searching for information and scumtells, or trying to hide from suspicion. So do you believe that is not a good enough reason to turn away from a random vote for something with a logical reason behind it?

[PatriotsDynasty09]

So you feel that a random vote based on the fact that it was the person posting above you is better than voting someone because they were, as you believe, "lurking". Assume for this situation that the lurking is a viable reason. In a situation where someone is truly lurking, they are harming the town by not posting, searching for information and scumtells, or trying to hide from suspicion. So do you believe that is not a good enough reason to turn away from a random vote for something with a logical reason behind it?

But walrus wasn't lurking. It was New Years yesterday and some people can't get on then.

Michel pretty much summed it all up so I don't wanna repeat anything but walrus was just inactive he was not lurking.

[kunkstar7]

I know walrus wasn't lurking. But Magic Trainer stated that he felt like he was. So if he believed that he was lurking, regardless if in actuality walrus was not, isn't that a better vote than a random vote?

[PatriotsDynasty09]

I know walrus wasn't lurking. But Magic Trainer stated that he felt like he was. So if he believed that he was lurking, regardless if in actuality walrus was not, isn't that a better vote than a random vote?

I'll let Magic answer that one. Sorry for interrupting.

[Lastsurvivor]

@Lastsurvivor: It wasn't that initial response that makes it seem defensive, it has been your reaction to people questioning your misinterpretation.

Because I felt that it was just a misinterpretation, it really didn't require questioning. But whatever you say.

[Magic Trainer]

So you feel that a random vote based on the fact that it was the person posting above you is better than voting someone because they were, as you believe, "lurking". Assume for this situation that the lurking is a viable reason. In a situation where someone is truly lurking, they are harming the town by not posting, searching for information and scumtells, or trying to hide from suspicion. So do you believe that is not a good enough reason to turn away from a random vote for something with a logical reason behind it?

Ff you've read my post I said I

felt

like he was lurking not that I was 100% sure. The game itself started only a few hours (I might have this wrong) before but everyone other than Walrus had posted which leads me to believe that there is a possibility of him lurking. I have also said I wanted to hear Walrus's defense before I changed my vote which was why I chose not to change my vote right away. Now that I he posted I know that he wasn't lurking, I prefer to be sure about this things and find more about the current situation instead of changing my mind every few posts. The answer to your question would be a "Yes" However my thougts about Walrus lurking were incorrect and as I just said I wanted to be sure before I changed my vote.

-----

Reading over this thread again I believe Lastsurviver is our best bet as to who the scum are.

First off his very early misinterpretation seems odd. It's the first round and those were the very first posts of the game, he says he's played two games on this site so he would know that in the random voting round people would just joke around. Instead he already got defensive.

Post 31

It's not OMGUS on my part. Just Random voting

Now when he's being questioned about it I feel like he's just saying "yeah yeah whatever." Well first off I think it's safe to assume he's getting irritated by being asked this but why? We haven't asked him too many times for him to get angry so soon, I think he's feel pressured by these questions and just wants to take the attention away from himself.

Post 81

Because I felt that it was just a misinterpretation, it really didn't require questioning. But whatever you say.

I've read his reasoning as to why he misinterpreted but I don't trust his reply. Overall his defense/misinterpretation early on makes me suspicous. Now that he's posting sarcastic comments and his posts seem like he's irritated so soon make me even more suspicous.

Unvote

Vote: Lastsurviver

[Lastsurvivor]

Reading over this thread again I believe Lastsurvivor is our best bet as to who the scum are.

First off his very early misinterpretation seems odd. It's the first round and those were the very first posts of the game, he says he's played two games on this site so he would know that in the random voting round people would just joke around. Instead he already got defensive.

Post 31

It's not OMGUS on my part. Just Random voting

Now when he's being questioned about it I feel like he's just saying "yeah yeah whatever." Well first off I think it's safe to assume he's getting irritated by being asked this but why? We haven't asked him too many times for him to get angry so soon, I think he's feel pressured by these questions and just wants to take the attention away from himself.

Post 81

Because I felt that it was just a misinterpretation, it really didn't require questioning. But whatever you say.

I've read his reasoning as to why he misinterpreted but I don't trust his reply. Overall his defense/misinterpretation early on makes me suspicous. Now that he's posting sarcastic comments and his posts seem like he's irritated so soon make me even more suspicous.

Unvote

Vote: Lastsurviver

[/quote]

What's wrong with my reasoning?

I'm not angry at all, just sort of annoyed. I gave the same answer each time I was asked. It's not that incriminating.

As for the first part of your post, it was just a misinterpretation. I thought he was being serious in saying something that he didn't, so I responded seriously.

[Lastsurvivor]

Oh, I was just messing with the quotes tags. That's why the quotes are all messed up, if anyone's wondering.

[Magic Trainer]

[quote=Lastsurviver]What's wrong with my reasoning?

I'm not angry at all, just sort of annoyed. I gave the same answer each time I was asked. It's not that incriminating.

As for the first part of your post, it was just a misinterpretation. I thought he was being serious in saying something that he didn't, so I responded seriously.[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning, it's just that I don't trust it.

Isn't it a little early to be annoyed? Everyone who asked asked a simple question and you responded with sarcastic comments (and an answer of course) I think you were just under some pressure so you were in a hurry to take the attention away from yourself.

Yes I realize it was a misinterpretaion, I'm pretty sure I said it was too but I'm more concerned about the real reason behind it.

How come my quote tags in the last post aren't working?

[Lastsurvivor]

What's wrong with my reasoning?

I'm not angry at all, just sort of annoyed. I gave the same answer each time I was asked. It's not that incriminating.

As for the first part of your post, it was just a misinterpretation. I thought he was being serious in saying something that he didn't, so I responded seriously.

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning, it's just that I don't trust it.

Isn't it a little early to be annoyed? Everyone who asked asked a simple question and you responded with sarcastic comments (and an answer of course) I think you were just under some pressure so you were in a hurry to take the attention away from yourself.

Yes I realize it was a misinterpretaion, I'm pretty sure I said it was too but I'm more concerned about the real reason behind it.

How come my quote tags in the last post aren't working?

I don't think annoyance is relative to what point the game is at. Sure it may be a 'simple question' but I've been asked it multiple times. Wouldn't it bother you if I asked you why you're name was Magic Trainer a lot of times?

I haven't answered sarcastically every time I was asked either. If you look at the first couple times, I didn't answer with much annoyance.

Oh and I have no clue why they aren't working. I got rid of the names in it, and now they work....so that might be it.

[Magic Trainer]

Yes I would be annoyed but If I'm remembering correctly you've only been asked twice? (If I'm wrong please correct me, but I don't you've been asked as many times as you say)

I'm just saying that it's odd you would have gotten annoyed so fast, perhaps you were just annoyed that people already found a hint that would lead them to you being scum and you were annoyed or worried that you'd have a hard time covering it up?

You're right, you haven't been sarcastic every time (Post 75 just stood out to me) but you already know what I think of your reaction.

[Lastsurvivor]

Yes I would be annoyed but If I'm remembering correctly you've only been asked twice? (If I'm wrong please correct me, but I don't you've been asked as many times as you say)

I'm just saying that it's odd you would have gotten annoyed so fast, perhaps you were just annoyed that people already found a hint that would lead them to you being scum and you were annoyed or worried that you'd have a hard time covering it up?

You're right, you haven't been sarcastic every time (Post 75 just stood out to me) but you already know what I think of your reaction.

I've had to either answer questions or defend myself more than twice.

Your case against me is pretty poorly thrown together, Magic. Why are you ready to vote me already?

[Magic Trainer]

I skimmed the thread again, I only saw Walrus asking you. Please point out the posts were everyone seems to be asking you over and over.

I voted for you because I had a real suspicion and you seemed liked the logical choice for the person to lynche. It's better than my random vote and since you haven't lowered my suspicions I'm keeping my vote.

[kunkstar7]

So you feel that a random vote based on the fact that it was the person posting above you is better than voting someone because they were, as you believe, "lurking". Assume for this situation that the lurking is a viable reason. In a situation where someone is truly lurking, they are harming the town by not posting, searching for information and scumtells, or trying to hide from suspicion. So do you believe that is not a good enough reason to turn away from a random vote for something with a logical reason behind it?

If you've read my post I said I

felt

like he was lurking not that I was 100% sure. The game itself started only a few hours (I might have this wrong) before but everyone other than Walrus had posted which leads me to believe that there is a possibility of him lurking. I have also said I wanted to hear Walrus's defense before I changed my vote which was why I chose not to change my vote right away. Now that I he posted I know that he wasn't lurking, I prefer to be sure about this things and find more about the current situation instead of changing my mind every few posts. The answer to your question would be a "Yes" However my thougts about Walrus lurking were incorrect and as I just said I wanted to be sure before I changed my vote.

Clarification please!

The question was:

So do you believe that is not a good enough reason to turn away from a random vote for something with a logical reason behind it?

Your answer was:

The answer to your question would be a "Yes"

Is "Yes" your answer to the specified question?

Secondly, I spy contradiction in your Post 81.

First off in reply to me you state:

If you've read my post I said I felt like he was lurking not that I was 100% sure

So if not being 100% sure and feeling something isn't qualified enough for a change from a random vote, then why is your Lastsurvivor vote good enough?

The beginning of your statement on Lastsurvivor goes as:

Reading over this thread again I believe Lastsurviver is our best bet as to who the scum are.

Are you 100% sure? Basically your reasoning against Lastsurvivor is he seems annoyed and irritated and is posting sarcastically (although I agree with the sarcasm not being good.) This once again boils down to just feelings.

I was curious at to if you were scum there could have been a possibility that you were the scum and you just wanted to take your accusation then slap on my vote to make me look guilty. Then you might have thought as you said my defense was good and others would not agree with you so you decided to change your vote and try to lynche someone else.[.quote]

This is just WIFOM (I think I used it in the right context). Kyiv mentioned something about this earlier in regards to Medix, but I think it applies here as well:

Another baseless accusation. This is not something you can either prove or disprove, it's just WIFOM, which is something dangerous especially in Day 1.

Right now I believe Random has a chance to be good, the scum however I don't a clue on hower I do suspect Walrus has a chance of being scum. I want to wait and see his defense before/if I change my vote.

Why do you believe Random has a chance to be good?

Honestly my feelings about Magic Trainer right now sum up as:

Unvote, Vote: Magic Trainer

[Lastsurvivor]

I skimmed the thread again, I only saw Walrus asking you. Please point out the posts were everyone seems to be asking you over and over.

I voted for you because I had a real suspicion and you seemed liked the logical choice for the person to lynche. It's better than my random vote and since you haven't lowered my suspicions I'm keeping my vote.

Answered questions

or defended myself.

It was pointed out to me by Kyiv, RandomMaster, Michel, and you of course. [/u]

[RandomMaster]

I'm actually growing suspicious of Medix. He seems to be avoiding any questions that we ask him. Let me explain:

Post 60:

I feel like I have nothing to hide, what do you wanna ask?

I invite him to ask any questions since he has suspicions of me, and as of yet, he hasn't responded. I don't believe inactivity to be the reason, since he posts later on to defend himself (I'll explain later on in the post).

Post 61: Magic Trainer asks him to be more specific about his post, when he accuses Magic to, if he were scum, that his friend looks suspicious. As of yet, no response.

For me, there might be two reasons why he hasn't posted a reply to these. One, he didn't see them, or two, he didn't read the thread because he might be scum and the Day time is not important to him.

In addition, he seems to be defending himself already when Michel placed a vote on him.

Post 70:

MichelSableheart wrote:
Similary, I think a bit of pressure on medix is warranted. He has not yet produced any original content.

Unvote: Kyiv

Vote: Medix

Do you accuse me as a scum because I'm not throwing arguments yet? It's a very weak reason to accuse someone.

I feel like he's defending himself already when one vote flew his way, and his defense is that it's a very weak reason? So, a random vote that you implied was random on post 57 by looking at the playerlist is fine, but yet one with reasonning, even if it's weak, is not? I don't believe that.

For me, it sounds like you don't care who leaves, as long as it's not you. That sounds like scum to me.

Right now, I'll simply

FoS: Medix

and I'll leave a chance to reply to hear his side.

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm actually growing suspicious of Medix. He seems to be avoiding any questions that we ask him. Let me explain:

Post 60:

I feel like I have nothing to hide, what do you wanna ask?

I invite him to ask any questions since he has suspicions of me, and as of yet, he hasn't responded. I don't believe inactivity to be the reason, since he posts later on to defend himself (I'll explain later on in the post).

Post 61: Magic Trainer asks him to be more specific about his post, when he accuses Magic to, if he were scum, that his friend looks suspicious. As of yet, no response.

For me, there might be two reasons why he hasn't posted a reply to these. One, he didn't see them, or two, he didn't read the thread because he might be scum and the Day time is not important to him.

In addition, he seems to be defending himself already when Michel placed a vote on him.

Post 70:

MichelSableheart wrote:
Similary, I think a bit of pressure on medix is warranted. He has not yet produced any original content.

Unvote: Kyiv

Vote: Medix

Do you accuse me as a scum because I'm not throwing arguments yet? It's a very weak reason to accuse someone.

I feel like he's defending himself already when one vote flew his way, and his defense is that it's a very weak reason? So, a random vote that you implied was random on post 57 by looking at the playerlist is fine, but yet one with reasonning, even if it's weak, is not? I don't believe that.

For me, it sounds like you don't care who leaves, as long as it's not you. That sounds like scum to me.

Right now, I'll simply

FoS: Medix

and I'll leave a chance to reply to hear his side.

Or option 3: He read it, but doesn't want to reply to them because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself. I've personally never thought lurking as scummy (just hindering the town), but a reply defending himself would be lovely.

[PatriotsDynasty09]

Or option 3: He read it, but doesn't want to reply to them because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself. I've personally never thought lurking as scummy (just hindering the town), but a reply defending himself would be lovely.

I think lurking is scummy because let's just say player A is scum and 3 or 4 people are going back and forth accusing each other in a game like this. In order to keep the arguing going and so player A doesn't draw suspicion he will stay back which is lurking.

[Lastsurvivor]

Or option 3: He read it, but doesn't want to reply to them because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself. I've personally never thought lurking as scummy (just hindering the town), but a reply defending himself would be lovely.

I think lurking is scummy because let's just say player A is scum and 3 or 4 people are going back and forth accusing each other in a game like this. In order to keep the arguing going and so player A doesn't draw suspicion he will stay back which is lurking.

That's very true, but I think the fact that a townie could just be trying to avoid being in the spotlight because he's too afraid makes lurking a bit of an unreliable scumtell. I'm not defending Medix though, since I think that my scenario might not be the case for him, and I want to hear what he has to say.

[PatriotsDynasty09]

Or option 3: He read it, but doesn't want to reply to them because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself. I've personally never thought lurking as scummy (just hindering the town), but a reply defending himself would be lovely.

I think lurking is scummy because let's just say player A is scum and 3 or 4 people are going back and forth accusing each other in a game like this. In order to keep the arguing going and so player A doesn't draw suspicion he will stay back which is lurking.

That's very true, but I think the fact that a townie could just be trying to avoid being in the spotlight because he's too afraid makes lurking a bit of an unreliable scumtell. I'm not defending Medix though, since I think that my scenario might not be the case for him, and I want to hear what he has to say.

A townie should not be afraid of getting lynched for the good of the town

[PatriotsDynasty09]

Or option 3: He read it, but doesn't want to reply to them because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself. I've personally never thought lurking as scummy (just hindering the town), but a reply defending himself would be lovely.

I think lurking is scummy because let's just say player A is scum and 3 or 4 people are going back and forth accusing each other in a game like this. In order to keep the arguing going and so player A doesn't draw suspicion he will stay back which is lurking.

That's very true, but I think the fact that a townie could just be trying to avoid being in the spotlight because he's too afraid makes lurking a bit of an unreliable scumtell. I'm not defending Medix though, since I think that my scenario might not be the case for him, and I want to hear what he has to say.

A townie should not be afraid of getting lynched for the good of the town

[MichelSableheart]

Do you accuse me as a scum because I'm not throwing arguments yet? It's a very weak reason to accuse someone.

I claimed it was likely you are scum because everything you did was either irrelevant, answering others, or copying the opinion of others. You didn't actually add anything new.

@Kyiv: the accusation wasn't that he didn't produce much, the accusation was that he didn't produce anything original.

@Magic trainer: you forgot to put the name of the player you are quoting between "". A quote shows up correctly if you you put it this way:

Code: Select all

[quote="Magic trainer"]What Magic trainer said.[/quote]

I like the pressure on Magic Trainer, and was surprised to see that he had no votes on him at the top of this page. Walrushelmet, why did you FoS instead of vote him in post #67?

The accusation that Lastsurvivor responded defensive in his second post of the game seems to be much ado about nothing. There are far better tells around.

IMO (in my opinion) lurking is a valid scumtell that is unfortunately greatly overused and far too often misused.

[Medix]

@Random: I think random, baseless vote is better than weak-based vote since the random vote is a bridge to make a base to a better vote.

@Patriots: ANYONE can lurk as a strategy, either scum or town can use it.

@Michel: Okay, I'm still in learning session, so most thing I can do is either supporting any attacks or make a defense for myself.