Mini 956: The Quayside (Game Over)

[McGriddle]

I have a rainbow list of my own, but its a scummy to town list, and hot to cold

As you may or may not know, I happen to like posts like this. Some players (I think Ecto was the only one, there may have been someone else), have stated that you shouldn't "reveal your hand", as it were, by posting all your townreads too flagrantly. I think that's nonsense, personally, but it's more a political disagreement than anything else.

Anyways, the point I'm driving at is that I like you putting yourself out there. I have to say though, I just don't really get some of the positioning here. I

know

you thought this out, McGriddle. Either you thought it out because you were honestly trying to gauge us, or you thought it out because you think this will get you the most sympathy from the town. You have to explain the NabNab and iamausername's positons, I think. I don't think you've done a good enough job of that. In fact, I think I asked you (either you or SC) earlier to explain why iamausername was high on your townlist, given his limited posting (this was before his last 2-3 posts).

I have some free time today, I will do a little bit of work and show everyone my cases and reasons behind things.

Another thing that kind of sticks out is how Pops/Jahudo are next to each other.

I gauged them in order from most scummy to least scummy. It has nothing to do with the possibility of scum pairing. My philosophy is it is much better to try to find scum rather than scum and buddy at the same time. You take your attention off of other possibilities strictly because they don't align with who you think is scum.

One more thing, it has to do more with my inability to distinguish colors as clearly I'd like to, is the group of Pat through SC all the same color (Yellow)? If so, is there any significance between the different colors?

Yes they are all the same color. They are a neutral read.

That took like 30 seconds because I am not a noob.

Quotes like this really have me worried that you have tunnelvision. This strikes me as more emotional than it is objective.

Well it's a little annoying when people question my workload/ability.

[Ectomancer]

Ectomancer, are you angry that dimes are smaller than nickels? I am.

Jw.

...well...I can only guess what you might be getting at.
If I were to hazard a guess at its meaning and formulate an answer, I would say that there is a vast difference between confronting your accusers head on and taking ineffective shots at their own "contribution".

I have a rainbow list of my own, but its a scummy to town list, and hot to cold

As you may or may not know, I happen to like posts like this. Some players (I think Ecto was the only one, there may have been someone else), have stated that you shouldn't "reveal your hand", as it were, by posting all your townreads too flagrantly. I think that's nonsense, personally, but it's more a political disagreement than anything else..

Individually it isn't an issue, but for the group it is. One person posting a list is useful, a 2nd and 3rd and 4th is detrimental. But yes, it is yet another view that is more like a guideline than an actual rule and subject to the vagaries of opinion.
But, since McGriddle felt the need to do it anyhow, I support his decision to go whole hog and put it in colors, putting more differentiation than a plain list would include. That's why Nab's criticism fell flat. The effort actually contributed information, not just adding pretty colors.

Your critique of the list contains a better, valid point and analysis. If it isn't clear where he arrived at his opinions, it would be useful for him to tell how he did so.
Something does stand out for me though. I don't recall such a a direct inquiry into where Patrick and Goat got their opinions for their lists. Can those who are pursuing McGriddle with that line of thinking explain why McGriddle is unique in that respect? Why didn't you depose Patrick and/or Goat on some of the unexplained opinions in their lists?

[iamausername]

Let's talk brass tacks. We need an alternative lynch. I think the wagon against you is little more than group of arbitrary names, most of them have had more to say about other people than they have their own vote (SC, Goat, Elmo), and none of them, from what I can tell, are actively engaging you. It's like they're talking to one another about you, rather than talking to you directly.

Regardless what anyone thinks about NabNab, we really should bring someone else under fire at this point. NabNab should not be allowed to coast into the noose, especially if he flips town. Who is a reasonable alternative? I've said Elmo or McGriddle, but I think I'd now be supportive of pops as well.

pops. pops is the reasonable alternative.

[Incognito]

@SerialClergyman:

It wasn't really your thoughts I wanted expanding on. I was asking for Ectomancer's thoughts because I didn't understand his position on you. The impression that I got from his posts was that he was giving you flak over the past few pages, but then he ended up voting Elmo. I just wasn't following his thought process there.

@Ectomancer:

Since Elmo's already responded to your accusation, I'd just like to mention that I really didn't see Elmo's post count thing as an attempt to look busy at all, especially after he explained its purpose here:

I'm mostly checking my perception of how much people are posting. It was useful, I was quite off on some people - I figure it helps if everyone can use that.

And actually, I ended up thinking along the same lines as the above too - before Elmo posted those numbers, I definitely thought certain people like you and pops were lower in post count and I thought others like Patrick and RedCoyote were a bit higher. I also thought Jahudo would be the lowest but it turned out that iamausername held that spot. Everyone else was about where I expected. For me, I think it's probably a good indicator of how high a person's sig:noise ratio might be.

@Nabakov:

I could see Jahudo as scum completely independently of you. Also, I think I responded to a similar question as yours already, so I'll just quote that:

Prior to that post, Jahudo was giving McGriddle a bit of flak and stating that he basically agreed with the case that NabakovNabakov put together against him (McG), and he questioned me about why I disagreed. I stated why I disagreed and then asked McGriddle to link to the game he had been referring to all along. If Jahudo's scum, I could see him trying to ignore the game in question so that he could continue to push the case against McG. I don't think that would be able to happen any longer once the game came to the forefront though.

Unless there was something else you wanted me to elaborate on.

-~-~

Other thoughts: I don't understand why Jahudo didn't really bother to defend himself from my vote and only seemed to do so only after receiving another vote from pops.

Also just taking Jahudo's suspicions one by one:

- If I'm understanding your Patrick suspicions correctly, you're basically stating that since Patrick hasn't placed a non-random vote yet, he's allowed himself to be removed from accountability and that he's been offering off-wagon support to the NabNab wagon. Considering the fact that the wagon reached L-2 rather quickly, do you still think Patrick should have placed his vote on Nab anyway? Do you often find it scummy for people to hold off for awhile on voting?
- The Goatrevolt stuff doesn't make much sense to me either. Namely, I don't understand why your Goatrevolt suspicions don't apply to people like SerialClergyman or Elmo who also didn't really delve into their reasoning right away and also began looking for possible ties back to NabNab too instead of fully elaborating on the NabNab case. Explain?

[Incognito]

Also, McGriddle, I just checked back and I noticed you didn't respond to a question I asked before. Could ya respond:

I never thought pops was too scummy to begin with, but it being the beginning of the game I like to have my vote places for pressure.

Didn't you say he was your strongest read when you placed your vote on him though? Also, if you like having your vote places just for pressure, why exactly did you feel the need to remove it when you were planning on doing this iso read of NabNab? You said you felt pops was still scummy in your book; I don't get why the pressure would need to be removed then.

[Patrick]

Let's just be as clear as possible then. You're on the NabNab wagon in spirit, but you're waiting for the deadline to draw closer.

I thought I'd been completely clear about that, but apparently not. I'm now rather annoyed by the apparent bloodthirstyness/laziness/whatever it is that I've been seeing from some people. I think over the past few years people have become alot more conscious of the health and pace of games, which is a good thing. I don't see nearly as many situations where days drag on endlessly for a month or more and don't even have posts made for days on end. That's cool, but in this game I just don't get what the rush is. We've had pretty good posting apart from that one Sunday that everyone had off, and I'm still able to read stuff into what people are posting. If that's a dull process then I'm not sure what it is we're playing mafia for at all. Maybe I've just been out of the loop for too long. The point about bankable deadlines is more valid, and might be worth saving a few days now for use later.

Btw, did goat do this whole scumpair projection thing when he was scum against you? So far from what I've read his play here is more consistent with his town play, though I'm a little spooked that I'm following his self-meta there, lol.

* PATRICK:
I don't know if its his style, but Patrick kept his random vote on Goatrevolt for most of today without finding him suspicious. It looks like he calls Goat town in Post 146 but he doesn't unvote until 258. This non-vote has allowed him to push cases without taking ownership or possible backlash that might come from a vote with holes in it. By that I mostly mean the Nabakov wagon, which he started to agree with when it was at L-6, in Post 146, but he doesn't say he'd vote or not until Nab's at L-2 and Patrick wouldn't want to be the L-1 vote. It could be stalling if Patrick didn't have more reasoning to be on the wagon since 146. And that's what I'm trying to read into with his posts and the evolution of the wagon.
@Patrick: What about the Nab wagon looked better by 196 that wasn't around by post 146.

That is my style, and I'm pretty fed up of similar accusations against me / others in what feels like nearly every game I play. As for Nabakov, I would argue that I've actually made more points about him than anyone voting him, so I don't think the idea that I'm trying to avoid backlash is fair at all. I've also said when I see a point that I disagree with. The only reason I didn't vote him in 196 was because I didn't see any point putting him at lynch-1, as I've talked about already.

As to your bottom line, when I made 146 I didn't like Nabakov's case against McGriddle and asked him about the first point, since that struck me more than others as the kind of thing scum would come up with to try and cobble together a case, and something town would be less likely to miss if they were reading to discern someone's alignment. In post 196 I pointed out another thing he'd said that I disliked. There were a few minor things playing on my mind too, such as his very mild reaction to what I saw as pretty opportunistic behaviour from you, but at this point it seems I'm in a minority in disliking that (I think only Incognito got the same feeling as me).

Based on your Goat section, I am curious what Goat thinks of SC individually rather than conditional on Nabakov flipping scum.

[Goatrevolt]

@Jahudo

Really? Yet another person decides to jump on Serial's "I don't like Goat pointing out connections" point?

Detrimental behavior? How could this possibly be considered detrimental. As I've said numerous times, at worst case it's unimportant information, but to say it's actually being a detriment to us is quite a ridiculous notion.

How can you say I'm setting up conditional suspicions to be independent ones? That's pure speculation on how I would play tomorrow in the chance that Nabakov isn't scum. Calling me suspicious because of how you believe I'm going to act if a conditional scenario is reached is pretty poor. You've got a lot of ground to cover if you want to convince me that you actually believe this to be true.

You don't seem to find Nabakov particularly scummy, but yet you're hesitant about me because it hinges on Nabakov's alignment? Tell me how that makes any sense.

As for Nabakov, it's half gut, half logic. I play a lot with my gut and then back it up with logic, at least early on. I thought Nabakov was scummy from the get-go when he tried to tear apart my pops case by attacking a small part of it he found wrong, but yet also agreeing that pops was suspicious and pushing different reasons on pops. It's just weird for someone to push suspicion on a player and yet try to refute arguments someone else is bringing up against the same player. Since then he did no scum hunting period until the McGriddle case, which wasn't scum hunting at all. That's when the wagon on him picked up, which he ignored, and as town I would expect him to be like "No guys, you're wrong, it's McGriddle not me" but instead he was more apologetic for his bad McGriddle case. I've still yet to see something from him that at all suggests he's legitimately looking for scum.

As for my pairing players and the way I handled the Nabakov case, here is my thought process. I thought there was a good chance Nabakov was scum from the moment I dropped a FoS on him way back when. I thought SerialClergyman was somewhat more likely, but then SC made a few posts in his defense that essentially changed my mind. I decided to go back to voting pops instead of Nabakov, because I didn't really have anything strong against Nab and I didn't want to try to push him based on just his odd stance on pops and my case against pops. I wanted to see how Nabakov would act and how others would act in relation to him without knowing I suspected him that strongly. I was not disappointed. The McGriddle case strengthened my notion that Nab was scum, and Elmo's reaction makes me believe fairly strongly that Elmo is town.

[Goatrevolt]

- The Goatrevolt stuff doesn't make much sense to me either. Namely, I don't understand why your Goatrevolt suspicions don't apply to people like SerialClergyman or Elmo who also didn't really delve into their reasoning right away and also began looking for possible ties back to NabNab too instead of fully elaborating on the NabNab case. Explain?

My take is that he saw a few other people jump on me for this same point and decided to get on it himself. Nobody has yet to provide any kind of reasoning as to why it's suspicious I act like this, only that it is. I think RedCoyote and Incognito both have town interactions with me in this regard while Jahudo and SerialClergyman don't. Incog says it's bad play but wonders why it's scummy. I disagree about bad play, but like that you are examining things beyond the surface. RedCoyote is expressing reasonable doubt, at least explained why he thinks it's anti-town, and I believe has biased read on me based on a previous game where I was scum (he has never seen me as town). Jahudo is suspicious because he went so far as to call it detrimental, as though me playing like this is actually hurting the town, which is laughable. Serial Clergyman is odd because completely out of the blue with no prompting he decided to just post his opinion of my play. I asked him to explain it and he didn't, so I've asked him again and I'm sure he will respond this time. I want to know his thought process behind writing that post.

I think there's a strong chance Jahudo is scum as well. And if I'm going to pick a 3rd right now, which I am, it's pops with an honorable mention to SerialClergyman.

@Patrick: I'm kind of undecided on SerialClergyman, regardless of how Nab ends up. There have been a few things he's done I've found town, and some things that have struck me as awkward/maybe scummy. I found his doubt on Nabakov based on McGriddle's vote to be genuine. I found him asking you for a solid stance to be good scum hunting. But then I have also found his early interactions with Nab to be scummy as well as I want to know what his thought process was behind randomly dissecting my playstyle.

I think Patrick and RedCoyote are both making genuine reads of my play. I am not playing anything like how I played in the invitational 5 game where I was scum, and I like how Patrick has acknowledged that. In the game I was scum with RedCoyote, we spent a lot of time in frustrating back and forth arguments where I felt like he was constantly misrepresenting me. Even though I was scum, he was attributing behavior or thoughts to my actions that weren't true, and I feel like a lot of the same thing has happened in this game. Our early game interaction is a prime example where he wrong attributed paranoia and "overdefensive" to a post I made, when in reality it was me trying to get a feel for RedCoyote. At any rate, we are interacting in a similar fashion this game, so I don't think it's odd for RedCoyote to feel the way he does.

RC: As for your take on my playstyle being anti-town, I disagree and I also think that you don't actually understand how I play. Me looking into the future and saying that I think X makes sense as scum with Y doesn't mean that I'm so sold to that idea and can never change my mind, just like you voting someone right now doesn't mean you're necessarily going to want to lynch them 5 pages from now. However, I like to make what I call "dynamic" reads, where I read players both on their own merits and how they fit into the game based on the big picture.

I draw the line when scum/townreads become dependant on certain flips to go in your favor.

I don't see how this is weird at all. Ties to dead scum is a huge, huge tool to use in finding townies and identifying scum. For example, I don't think my judgment that Elmo is town if Nabakov is scum is weird at all. Elmo was the first to jump on Nabakov with a vote directly after Nabakov made a post I found extremely suspicious. It's rare that a scum buddy is going to be the first to jump on something like that, and much more likely that a scum-Elmo would wait and see how others perceived scum-Nab's McGriddle vote before making a move.

My playstyle has been very successful for me. I've successfully avoided lynching town players who have been scummy simply because I've noticed that they are unlikely to be scum with someone I find even more suspicious, etc. I think evaluating players purely in a vacuum without respect to the game as a whole or their interactions with everyone as a whole is sub-optimal.

[Jahudo]

I don't understand why Jahudo didn't really bother to defend himself from my vote and only seemed to do so only after receiving another vote from pops.

What's there to defend? The actual vote post didn't have anything to comment on or defend against. I responded to your Post 225 and I don't think you asked for further explanation on that point. And with your Post 269, all I can say is that I try to post about once a day on things that seem important to me.

...Considering the fact that the wagon reached L-2 rather quickly, do you still think Patrick should have placed his vote on Nab anyway? Do you often find it scummy for people to hold off for awhile on voting?

You're right on the premise of my concern, however I thought he showed some indication of liking the Nabakov wagon when it only had 1 vote on it.

I don't understand why your Goatrevolt suspicions don't apply to people like SerialClergyman or Elmo who also didn't really delve into their reasoning right away and also began looking for possible ties back to NabNab too instead of fully elaborating on the NabNab case. Explain?

I didn't call the lack of reasoning questionable by itself, because I already knew several people had done that for the Nab wagon and since they can't all be scum it must not be a reliable tell. I'm fairly certain Elmo did not start calling people scum with Nab except for post 153, which doesn't look like he's actually arguing it as much as making a joke.

But I do see where SC paired Nab with me as if he was caught scum, and it does look contradictory now that he's calling Goat out for the same thing.

----------------------

When Jahudo posts discrediting the town read on Ecto and sounding like a Nab buddy with his disagreeing with the case but zero opinion on Nab, I felt the two really looked like scumbuddies. Elmo got in first, but I agreed absolutely.

I disagree with Goat on almost all of his methods, including constantly looking for a buddy of Nab before Nab's flip and the upcoming case, which will be done primarily to look like Goat has some substance rather than do anything convincing regarding Nab.

I'd lynch any one of Jahudo, Red and Nab, at least.

His suspicion on me rests entirely on my connection to Nab, so it looks like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

I really like this vote.

unvote
Vote: SerialClergyman

[McGriddle]

Also, McGriddle, I just checked back and I noticed you didn't respond to a question I asked before. Could ya respond:

I never thought pops was too scummy to begin with, but it being the beginning of the game I like to have my vote places for pressure.

Didn't you say he was your strongest read when you placed your vote on him though? Also, if you like having your vote places just for pressure, why exactly did you feel the need to remove it when you were planning on doing this iso read of NabNab? You said you felt pops was still scummy in your book; I don't get why the pressure would need to be removed then.

Right sorry, missed this.

Pops WAS my strongest read, until it changed to nab. I never said the case against him was strong. I was holding it because I planned on doing a cluster post about nab in which I voted. I had a plan and things didn't work out as I had planned so I /sigh voted. I planned on doing it immediately, but I didn't want to take pressure for voting before I posted my case so I held my vote and was placing it during the ISO.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not buying that push against SC.

[Jahudo]

Responding to Patrick and Goat now...

As for Nabakov, I would argue that I've actually made more points about him than anyone voting him, so I don't think the idea that I'm trying to avoid backlash is fair at all.

Well, since some of the votes on him don't have as much reasoning, they'd be the people to get backlash IMO.

As to your bottom line, when I made 146 I didn't like Nabakov's case against McGriddle and asked him about the first point, since that struck me more than others as the kind of thing scum would come up with to try and cobble together a case, and something town would be less likely to miss if they were reading to discern someone's alignment.

Is that about the "bad scum card" comment? That was the only thing you mentioned, so you're saying it wasn't strong enough for a vote at that point?

In post 196 I pointed out another thing he'd said that I disliked.

I can't find this, so I'm not sure what changed from 146 that made Nabakov worth voting (if he wasn't already at L-2)?

There were a few minor things playing on my mind too, such as his very mild reaction to what I saw as pretty opportunistic behaviour from you, but at this point it seems I'm in a minority in disliking that (I think only Incognito got the same feeling as me).

The minor things were feelings he was trying to turn away attention from Red or pops? And then the part about me in that post makes me think you'd rather lynch me first to find out Nab's alignment, rather than adding suspicion onto Nab.

--------------------------

How can you say I'm setting up conditional suspicions to be independent ones? That's pure speculation on how I would play tomorrow in the chance that Nabakov isn't scum. Calling me suspicious because of how you believe I'm going to act if a conditional scenario is reached is pretty poor. You've got a lot of ground to cover if you want to convince me that you actually believe this to be true.

I was speculating, that's why it started out as an unexplained "bad feeling" on my part. I used detrimental because I was projecting into tomorrow and how your playstyle could affect the game then, but you're right that it doesn't matter now. I'm not trying to pursue this feeling, to be clear. It was something I was asked to elaborate on.

[Hoopla]

Day 1, Vote Count #13

With twelve alive, it takes

7

votes to lynch. Deadline is schedueled for 7:00AM GMT, April 26th <Countdown>.

NabakovNabakov

-

5

(Elmo, Goatrevolt, SerialClergyman, iamausername, McGriddle)

Jahudo

-

2

(Incognito, popsofctown)

McGriddle

-

2

(NabakovNabakov, RedCoyote)

Elmo

-

1

(Ectomancer)

SerialClergyman

-

1

(Jahudo)

Not Voting

-

1

(Patrick)

[NabakovNabakov]

Just pulling this out of recent posts.

As for Nabakov, it's half gut, half logic. I play a lot with my gut and then back it up with logic, at least early on. I thought Nabakov was scummy from the get-go when he tried to tear apart my pops case by attacking a small part of it he found wrong, but yet also agreeing that pops was suspicious and pushing different reasons on pops. It's just weird for someone to push suspicion on a player and yet try to refute arguments someone else is bringing up against the same player. Since then he did no scum hunting period until the McGriddle case, which wasn't scum hunting at all. That's when the wagon on him picked up, which he ignored, and as town I would expect him to be like "No guys, you're wrong, it's McGriddle not me" but instead he was more apologetic for his bad McGriddle case. I've still yet to see something from him that at all suggests he's legitimately looking for scum.

Pops:
This is something we've been over before, but my position bears repeating. I just don't know how it is so implausible to you that I could disagree with some points you made about pops while also advancing my own. Goat says: A and B. NabNab says: Not A, yes B, new C. I was thinking at the "point" level. Can that sort of behavior be contradictory at the "case" level? Yes, but let's think for a second about what case level thinking implies. Case level thinking puts results over truth. It demands that I ask "Will advancing this point help or hurt the pops case?"

before

I ask "Is this point true?" When I went both ways on pops, I was examining the individual truths of individual points rather than working for the good (or ill) of the case as a whole.

This isn't to say that case level thinking is inherently scummy. Especially in RVS, starting a case for the sake of a case (which was certainly an aspect of your early posting) can be helpful, but we cannot advance beyond that if nobody is willing to get down to point level analysis.

Since then he did no scum hunting period until the McGriddle case, which wasn't scum hunting at all.
<snip>
I've still yet to see something from him that at all suggests he's legitimately looking for scum.

This requires justification. My clash with you over pops came on Monday, the very first day of the game. I posted light on Tuesday, but I don't feel it lacked insight. My very next post (Wednesday) was the McGriddle case. Whether you think that case was good or bad, I really don't know where you come off saying that it isn't scumhunting. I will admit, however, if you cut out all the work I've done building a case on McGriddle (you know, the guy I've thought was scum for over half the game), then my scumhunting is indeed a bit sparse. I, like others, have limited time, and recently, most of it has been spent on damage control.

"No guys, you're wrong, it's McGriddle not me":
Take a look at my 140, 149, and 156. Each one syncs up pretty nicely with each of the first three votes on my wagon, and that isn't an accident. Following each of the votes on me with a continuation of my McGriddle case

was

my way of saying "Yeah, whatever. I'mma go scumhunt." Obviously, my mistake was thinking that this message would get through clearly.

[Patrick]

@Jahudo, even from memory I know that SerialClergyman gave a reason against you that's completely seperate from a Nabakov connection, and it didn't take long to find it in iso. Did you read his posts?

[Elmo]

For me, I think it's

{post count}

probably a good indicator of how high a person's sig:noise ratio might be.

I think you can make an argument for that. Personally, I think it's important on it's own - I think that, for the same amount of 'content' (however you define it) it helps a townie to post more frequently, and they're more likely to do so. Should be fairly obvious why.

Coyote:

But I don't mind showing my work:

So this looks really similar to "not posting reasoning until asked to" (i.e. dragging it out of him, ZOMG) to me. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Did you read his posts?

lol.

[Patrick]

Is that about the "bad scum card" comment? That was the only thing you mentioned, so you're saying it wasn't strong enough for a vote at that point?

Yes. I went for question rather than vote.

I can't find this, so I'm not sure what changed from 146 that made Nabakov worth voting (if he wasn't already at L-2)?

I said in that post that his newest attack on McGriddle looked contrived. I quoted it in the post. I've had that feeling several times about the way he's attacked McGriddle, actually.

The minor things were feelings he was trying to turn away attention from Red or pops? And then the part about me in that post makes me think you'd rather lynch me first to find out Nab's alignment, rather than adding suspicion onto Nab.

I said that the way he reacted to your attack on him looked odd. I also thought he pushed the point about McGriddle's meta on pops rather a long way, trying to make McGriddle's lack of an in depth analysis of the differences between here and the other game look like he was being inconsistent between two posts in this game. Those are more minor gut things. I also pointed out something I found scummy from you in isolation. I brought up busing because it struck me as plausible and I found it odd that Goatrevolt seemed to think it was unlikely, and that someone else had said you were town shortly after. That doesn't mean that yours and Nabakov's alignments hinge on each other. I could easily imagine one of you being town and the other being scum.

[Jahudo]

Patrick looks okay to me now.

@Jahudo, even from memory I know that SerialClergyman gave a reason against you that's completely seperate from a Nabakov connection, and it didn't take long to find it in iso. Did you read his posts?

All I can find is how "Nab and I were undermining his Ecto town read in a scummy way", which I still don't understand because I never said Ecto wasn't town or anything close to that. So even his pairing scumtell is misrep.

So this looks really similar to "not posting reasoning until asked to" (i.e. dragging it out of him, ZOMG) to me. Do you see where I'm going with this?

No I do not see where you are going with this. I have never said this was bad on you. All I did was agree with Nab that it was there, and that I wasn't sure if this was normal for you. IE: If its normal, then we don't have any problem. And I learned it was normal. So I don't have any problem.

[Elmo]

This is because I was talking to RedCoyote.

[Incognito]

Jahudo, maybe defend is the wrong word there then. I just was surprised that you didn't seem to react to my vote at all. Like pops said in his interpretive post, you just seemed to ignore it completely.

You're right on the premise of my concern, however I thought he showed some indication of liking the Nabakov wagon when it only had 1 vote on it.

I looked back, and I couldn't find this. The first post Patrick made after NabNab got one vote on him was post #146 where he doesn't seem to give any kind of strong reads for who he thinks is scum; he only gives town reads there. Was there a section you had in mind?

@McGriddle:

Fair enough, I guess.

-~-~

I'm gonna go ahead and do this:

unvote
vote: NabNab

It doesn't seem likely that a wagon will switch to Jahudo before deadline, and I've mentioned that I agree with the wagon on NabNab anyway.

NabNab, since you've mentioned that nobody seems to be giving reasons for their vote, I'll state that my reasons are as follows: 1) a lack of curiosity about the wagon on you namely early on (you responded to this by stating that you've done this before when you've considered the wagon absurd, but I don't think this wagon could have ever been considered that especially when it accumulated a few votes somewhat quickly, and I still don't think you've done much scum-hunting off of it), 2) misrepping a few of McGriddle's position (the point about him joining the largest wagon, which wasn't true, and the point about him playing the invitational card when I'd argue that he didn't really do that are two positions that come to mind from memory), and 3) a contradiction that I noticed earlier (calling Elmo's play "bad form" but then later on stating that Elmo "knows what he's doing"). Also, I do agree that your level of scum-hunting has been lower than I would expect to come from you, and I think some of the points you've tried to bring up look like you're stretching them to make them seem like a bigger deal than they actually are.

Claim plz.

[popsofctown]

Maybe Patrick didn't vote because it would have holes in it. I know this is foreign to some people, but some people think that you don't have to vote just because your suspicion on someone is >0. It's symbolic of "I would not lynch this person if it were hammer time".

[popsofctown]

Oh there's a page 13? Geez leweez.

[Elmo]

And there's a lot of it!

[Jahudo]

@Incognito:

You're right on the premise of my concern, however I thought he showed some indication of liking the Nabakov wagon when it only had 1 vote on it.

I looked back, and I couldn't find this. The first post Patrick made after NabNab got one vote on him was post #146 where he doesn't seem to give any kind of strong reads for who he thinks is scum; he only gives town reads there. Was there a section you had in mind?

This paragraph:

Reading over Nabakov's case against McGriddle, I found it unconvincing. I thought McGriddle's bad scum card read fairly naturally and not like something put in to try and lull people into a false sense of security (also, based on a small snapshot, I think it's true). The first point has a bit of a cooked up feel to it.

Specifically the wording of "cooked up feel to it", and Patrick has since acknowledged that Nab was doing something more scummish than townish:

when I made 146 I didn't like Nabakov's case against McGriddle and asked him about the first point, since that struck me more than others as the kind of thing scum would come up with to try and cobble together a case, and something town would be less likely to miss if they were reading to discern someone's alignment

But I don't think this matters now. He's explained to me that the Nab case grew from that point to when Nab was at L-2, and he wasn't ready to vote or online at the right time to vote before the wagon got to L-2.

[popsofctown]

Did you combine a few posts? Because I hadn't noticed that post before, but it is definitely something to look in to.

He's altering Jahudo's post to make it look like that is what he "really" means. I don't like that either. In fact, I think it's pretty darn unnecessary and needlessly frustrating to make a post like that. pops is doing just about everything he can to completely reverse my earlier townread of him. Moreover, I don't even get the immediate swap to Jahudo, right after he got through telling us he was still comfortable with his SC case.

It was no different in function than quoting the post and explaining why it was scummy. It's just a more sarcastic method. How about you discuss whether or not my arguments are valid, rather than suggest I'm "meanie scum who uses sarcasm".

OH MY GOSH I DID IT AGAIN!!!!

Totally am comfortable with the case on Jahudo, but have become more comfortable with the case on Jahudo. I pressured SC, and he responded with a defense. Jahudo is under a little pressure and still refuses to take a defensive stance. Clearly he needs motivation.
[This bit is out of order. It was sitting on the clipboard, I forgot to add it to the other post]

Ectomancer, are you angry that dimes are smaller than nickels? I am.

Jw.

...well...I can only guess what you might be getting at.
If I were to hazard a guess at its meaning and formulate an answer, I would say that there is a vast difference between confronting your accusers head on and taking ineffective shots at their own "contribution".

What? Getting at?

I was seriously asking whether you are angry that dimes are smaller than nickels. It just doesn't make sense. Why would the US do that? It makes a serious difference when I'm fishing for change out of my wallet. The dimes get me closer to the hershey bar but the nickels are more prominent. It's rather infuriating.

Lol, next time I get attacked for posting fluff I'll say it makes other people post content so my karma is good.

I don't understand why Jahudo didn't really bother to defend himself from my vote and only seemed to do so only after receiving another vote from pops.

What's there to defend? The actual vote post didn't have anything to comment on or defend against.

Then at least say so

Without people sending the swat team. And you know I was talking about you too.

Coyote:

But I don't mind showing my work:

So this looks really similar to "not posting reasoning until asked to" (i.e. dragging it out of him, ZOMG) to me. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I do! I do! I do!