ekiM ~ L-4 (Locke Lamora, ortolan, Vi)
flinter ~ L-5 (Percy, Zachrulez)
hohum ~ L-6 (Sotty7)
Sotty7 ~ L-6 (xRECKONERx)
Not Voting: flinter
Do you think she's aware of her scum meta? Could she be playing against it?xRECKONERx wrote:@ekiM: I've seen Vi play as both, and I think she tends to be a bit more cautious/reserved when scum. She's kinda just letting it fly here without any thought of "Oh shit, will this get me flak/get my lynched?" Basically, when I've seen Vi-scum, she flies under the radar, something Vi is not doing here.
Based on what you said in 92 I guess.xReckonerx wrote:As far as actual suspicions, I'd have to sayVote: Sotty7. Thanks for reminding me.
Yeah I meant your question. Although if you want to wait until others answer or chose not to answer I'd be fine with that.flinter Post 99 wrote:you mean I missed one? I did say what I thought about reck.
Or did you mean my own question?
Are you talking just about this game, or about other games as well?hohum 45 wrote:I've noted the fact that you [Vi] would sooner play to maintain your status than to catch scum.
Sure, it doesn'tflinter wrote:I find xreck to be inproductive. Voting for votehopping is not so great, asking for games and then saying the person clearly is concious about his scumplay, is almost setting someone up. But this doesn't have to be done by scum, and I think it is "bad" play.
Depends on whether I'm scumhunting too (multiscum games), but I'd probably avoid explaining and letting the evidence speak for itself (with a link or some such). Overdefensiveness is a scumtell that has worked for me in the past, and I try to avoid it myself.flinter 88 wrote:if you are scum, and someone makes a point against you that is quite ridiculous, what do you do:
A calmly explain why it is ridiculous.
B call that person a moron, etc.
C something else (please explain what you would do)
Strong agree, also lolz.ekiM 93 wrote:The thing with Reckoner is he made his first non-arbitrary vote with a no-good reason and even when corrected keeps trying to insinuate Zach's up to no good based on... nothing. Not great.
ortolan 86 wrote:Vote: Reckoner
VP Baltar 100 wrote:ekiM ~ L-4 (Locke Lamora, ortolan, Vi)
WHAT A SCOOP!VP Baltar 1 wrote:Unvotes are required.
Much as I wouldn't mind a vote on hohum, right now I'm looking at someone else. Again, multiple suspects, one vote. Hold me accountable to the hohum suspicion when I'm done exploring.Sotty7 87 wrote:Not liking Vi's vote on ekiM. I'm not following the logic here, seems to be actively avoiding hohum.
Define please.L. Lamora 104 wrote:I thought it wasinterestingthat Vi noted Flutter is posting to type so far - it didn't seem to be a statement that indicated any specific thoughts about alignment but left room for defending Flutter later should the need arise.
I disagree with your apparent policy attitude to post restrictions. I don't see any particular reason why bringing up the topic of post restrictions when they are apparently present is scummy. In many games scum themselves are given post restrictions. Conversely, faking post restrictions for whatever reason if one is a townie can also lead to getting mislynched down the track. I think it's generally inevitable that they get discussed and don't see any obvious benefit in leaving them as the "elephant in the room". Also, how would you have preferred I acted in response to hohum's post if you apparently found my reaction scummy?Percy wrote:I don't like ortolan's agreeing with hohum about your "post restriction", as much as I don't like hohum asking about it.
Any other suspects kyle?kyle99 (106) wrote:I'm gonnaunvotemy RV, andFoS: Zack. His vote seems to be going every which way, but I don't think it warrants a vote yet.
I don't know why you concluded that it was a post restriction. Some reasoning and/or conclusions based on this stance of yours would have been nice.ortolan 109 wrote:Also, how would you have preferred I acted in response to hohum's post if you apparently found my reaction scummy?
I understand that. What I'm asking is why you've dismissed the case on xRx, even though it's more than just "voting for votehopping", which in and of itself you seem to suggest is "not great" and potentially "setting someone up".flinter 113 wrote:Percy: I would have voted if I thought that action made Reck more likely scum.
Wrong. It's a piece of information which may or may not be useful to the town and it isn't up to you to decide that for us.Percy wrote:Regarding post restrictions: I'm not convinced it's a post restriction. I think people who are jumping on Vi anddemandingthat sheexplain herselfseem to be both (1) opportunistic and (2) paranoid.
It's my vote. The vote belongs to me, not you. I'll use it in accordance with my ownership of it. If you have a problem with that, then too bad.percy wrote:I don't like hohum's play so far. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, excused with belligerent "I'll pressure who I want!". I find it scummy. If he has played like this before as town, I'd appreciate a link.
flinter is obviously a calmposter. I've seen this from her in MD, and it's pretty obvious just from her overall posting tone. Which is why when I looked at flinter's scum - or Town - or something - game, I was surprised to see that she was acting more or less NOT like what I've seen ITT. Given that (apparently) she was trying to be Town in the linked game, and here she's acting much more cautiously (to the point of being almost entirely noncommittal), I had to balk. Plus I think she likes antagonizing me, so I'm more or less done liking her on a personal level.Locke Lamora 112 wrote:I see you've now somewhat revised your view of flinter based on a previous game, so where did the rationale for your previous flinter statement come from if not meta?
But is it scummy?Percy 114 wrote:Regarding post restrictions: I'm not convinced it's a post restriction. I think people who are jumping on Vi and demanding that she explain herself seem to be both (1) opportunistic and (2) paranoid.
"Subject Not Trying To Scumhunt Yet Perfectly Fine With That", end quote.kyle99 118 wrote:I just don't have any other leads.
I hope you aren't serious here If you were, I would like you to know I didn't intent to. Sorry.Vi wrote:Plus I think she likes antagonizing me, so I'm more or less done liking her on a personal level.
that is a startI do agree with her opinion on xRx at least; it's just a shame that that's half of her stances from post one.
So me not bandwagoning and defending a baseless bandwagon is scummy? I'm simply saying that xReck's current playstyle fits his meta quite well, not that I'm completely assured of his towness. Your post basically reads, "Kyle is taking a stand, something I've never seen him do, so I think he's scum." No offense, but that's some pretty weak reasoning.flinter wrote:I hope you aren't serious here If you were, I would like you to know I didn't intent to. Sorry.Vi wrote:Plus I think she likes antagonizing me, so I'm more or less done liking her on a personal level.
that is a startI do agree with her opinion on xRx at least; it's just a shame that that's half of her stances from post one.
Now, the promised post about Kyle, seen that he has made another post that has as only point the meta-defense of Reck.
I have never seen Kyle do that before. As I know kyle, he is not a leader in town, and you'll generally see kyle agreeing with one or the other. Taking a stance against a bandwagon is not something kyle does often. I have never seen him do it, and if he did it, I would expect him to follow someone else who would have a good reasoning. There is no good reasoning in his defense. "I will admit some of his playing so far this game is quite scummy" would normally be all kyle would need to get on that bandwagon.
Further, the kyle I know, gets into trouble in the early game quite often (bandwagonning is one of the things he gets into trouble with, and also the weak explanation of his votes), as he plays "risky". Nothing of that here. I think this is because kyle is scum:
vote kyle(I have nothing against your playstyle btw, if this would make it seem so)
Well, that's certainly how I read this:hohum 117 wrote:I don't remember demanding an answer from Vi. I remember asking a simple question and your reaction to that is far more telling than her non-answer. Strawman much?
(emphasis mine)hohum 110 wrote:It's a fair question and if he is under a post restrictionwe have the right to know about it.
My personal take on theme games is that the scumVi 107 wrote:This is not a post restriction (certainly not an objective one), and I don't think hohum asking about it is pro-Town when there are certainly better things he could be asking about.