Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

confirmed!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Vote: JackALope2323

Who do you think you're fooling?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Vote: JackALope2323

Who do you think you're fooling?

I don't get it.

I'm asking him who he thinks he's fooling.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Who do you think he is trying to fool and what is he fooling them about?

He's trying to fool everyone into thinking he's town!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

ICEninja already knows, but for everyone else's sake:

Central
I've finished two games on this account, I've also played two elsewhere a long time ago but flaked out of them both fairly quickly.
I usually post at least once a day, more or less (usually more) depending on the general activity level.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

JackALope: Why do you feel the need to re-random vote?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Unvote, Vote: charter

for undermining gecko's vote and then calling out Scott for the same thing.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

How are they different?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

And SAMP, they are very different. Charter deliberately came out and called B.S. on Gecko's vote. Scott is lurking, and coming up to slyly suggest the idea of B.S. on Kerrigan's unvote and Gecko's vote, without coming straight out and saying it. He's not being straightforward. Being anything but straightforward is ambiguous, possibly confusing, and therefore scummy.

Why do you say Scott is being sly and unambiguous? His opinions are clear to me.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Why do you think it was only a FoS.

Why is it suspicious if he has a reason to switch votes?

If you have an opinion state it. For example: "Gecko, I think your vote on Ice is wrong, and it's because I know Ice makes long posts, so this shouldn't be considered scummy behavior, but rather simply normal behavior on his part."

Now you're just being silly. If he knows ICE normally makes long posts, then obviously he thinks it's not a scumtell.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

I inferred that you did since you voted me for saying his reasons for voting Ice were bad. If you don't think his reasons are good, voting me for thinking the same thing doesn't make any sense.

I didn't vote you for that. I voted you because you attacked Scott for undermining gecko's vote while also undermining gecko's vote.

How are they different?

I'm saying I disagree with his reasoning. Scott isn't saying one way or the other whether he agrees or disagrees with what was said, but just throws his little comments in. They don't tell anyone where he stands on anything.

That's not true. Gecko said ICE's chattiness was scummy, Scott said he knew from experience that ICE is naturally verbose, that shows he disagrees with gecko.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

@ SAMP: It doesn't SHOW Scott disagrees with Gecko. The only thing it shows is that Scott remembers Ice as being naturally talkative. Scott does not, for one second, say what this means or implies.

Okay, tell me, what else could Scott have POSSIBLY meant by that post, other than to disagree with Gecko's point about ICE? Because I honestly cannot see any other reason for him to say that.

And SAMP, there's more than one way to undermine a vote. There's a logical, reasonable way (I.E. Charter) then there's a quick, sly, not really reasonable way (I.E. Scott) Charter and Scott may have done the same thing, but the quality of their actions differs tremendously.

I don't think Scott's way is unreasonable. I've played with ICE before, and my reaction to Gecko's attack on ICE was pretty much the same as Scott's.

@SAMP, Jack beat me to it, but the answers are pretty obvious. I don't know how much longer you plan on ignoring everything else to cling to a terrible vote on me, but much longer, and you're going to get bumped up to scum.

I'm not ignoring everything else. I think you're scummier than everything else. Threatening me certainly won't change that.

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

I didn't claim to know where he stands on people, I claimed to know where he stands on positions.

I said I disagree with Gecko's vote, and gave my reasons for disagreeing. I'm trying to debate Gecko's vote to try and figure out if he's scum or not, aka, scumhunt. Scott isn't doing that.

When exactly did you debate Gecko's vote? All you really did was say you agreed with Kerrigan that it was bad, that's hardly debating.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

SAMP: I don't know. But, if Scott was scum, he could say it meant something completely different, since he never specifically said what he meant, if we bring it up later.

I doubt it. I can't think of anything else scum-Scott could say he meant that wouldn't look like obvious backpedaling, or any motive to say he had a different reason.

And just because you see one person being really scummy doesn't mean you should ignore the other people who are being scummy to lesser degrees.

I'm not ignoring everyone else. It helps me to focus my suspicion, particularly early D1, but I am looking at everything else that's going on.

We don't talk about possibilities in Mafia. That'd be WIFOM. We only talk about the evidence currently presented in front of us.

Then why are you talking about the possibility of Scott saying his post meant something different?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

And, once again: The actions may have been similar in intent, but radically different in quality. Scott's undermining of Gecko's vote was sly, subtle, and didn't really tie him down to an opinion. Ergo, ambiguous, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON HIM FOR.

Yeah, I don't really get why this is so hard for SAMP or Cruelty or anyone else to understand.

I asked for examples of anything Scott could have meant, other than ICE's longevity not being a scumtell. Nobody has provided even one example. If there is nothing else he could have meant, then it is by definition not ambiguous.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

It could have been meant as a simple statement of fact, rather than saying the fact means anything like ICE's longevity not being a scumtell.

But what MOTIVE would he have to post that fact?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I think JackALope is town. The last few posts it seems like he genuinely believes his cases on SK and havingfitz.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I think JackALope is town. The last few posts it seems like he genuinely believes his cases on SK and havingfitz.

That's because JackALope2323 is tunneling on me. It does not make him town or scum.

How is he tunneling on you? He's not even voting you!

Yes, he could be town or scum, but he's acting more like he truly believes in his case than like he's posting a case he knows is wrong. That's why I think he's town.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

@ SAMP: You don't have to vote to tunnel. Tunneling is when you hyperfocus on someone as scummy and can't look at anything from an alternate point of view, which is what Jack is doing.

That's not what he's doing. See this:

I am inconsistent because new evidence keeps coming out. What, am I supposed to find one person to go after and go after them no matter how much is-town evidence comes out about then? Or do I remain fluid, changing my target as people grow more and less suspicious?

I'm sorry that I'm not as stubborn as a mule.

I really don't see where you're getting the idea that he's tunneling from.

SAMP, you're using the same logical fallacy that we used in the last game, and you got called out on it during the last game too. Just because someone believes in their case doesn't mean anything. A good scum player is going to really look convinced that the person they're attacking is scum, even if they know they aren't. When analyzing a brand new player, you might be able to pick out people who don't truly believe in their cases, but that argument isn't going to fly here.

You really shouldn't mention the last game since it's still ongoing.

And yes, scum do try to look convinced in their arguments, but even in forum mafia where you can take all the time you want to compose a post, it's not easy to get right. I think it's a lot more likely that Jack is town than that he's scum and managed to get it right.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

@ SAMP: I fail to see how the provided Jack quote means that he isn't tunneling on me. Do you think that because he

said

he isn't stubborn as a mule that he'll

never

be stubborn as a mule, or that his actions can't be described as such? If not, please explain how the Jack post means he isn't tunneling on me.

I think it shows that he's making an effort to look at things from all sides, he just thinks the "you are scum" side is most likely.

To everyone who isn't voting for Kerrigan:
Are you voting for someone else because you feel the case on Kerrigan is weak, or because you feel the case on your preferred lynch is stronger? Please explain why.

I think it's weak. I've seen townies care about self-preservation before.

I think JackALope is town. The last few posts it seems like he genuinely believes his cases on SK and havingfitz.

ice already addressed this, but somehow SAMP has slipped under my radar, so i decided to check out his iso and stumbled across this (which is probably his most standout moment).

the obvious problem is twofold.

first; "it seems like". a good scum player will be trying to get you to believe in his pure motivations. it concerns me that you said this, i'd think (hope) you'd be looking a bit deeper into these posts rather than blindly accepting what's being said on the face of things.

I'm not blindly accepting what he's saying. I accept what he says because he's acting a lot more like town than most players are capable of as scum.

second; "genuinely believes his cases". this is as the above, but genuinely believing in a case isn't a) town (there could be a third party in play) and b) relevant criteria for judging the merits of someone as town.

a) is a fair point, but obviously it's a lot more likely he's town than serial killer.

b) is completely wrong. Scum cannot genuinely believe cases against players they know are town, therefore it is a good way to find town.

I also feel like SAMP hasn't commented on much that has happened on the current situation. His vote was made in his ISO 6 for a weak early game tell, and hasn't changed it since. I haven't seen SAMP add anything to this weak case, and should either move his vote or make a stronger case. I need to see a new post from SAMP that discusses things that have happened in the past week that don't involve charter.

Charter pushed Scott using paranoia, suggesting Scott could change his post however he liked. I said that there was nothing Scott could feasibly change it to. Rather than either a) pointing out something Scott could in fact change it to or b) accepting that his point against Scott was invalid, he kept pushing Scott on paranoia until the Espeonage wagon came along. See post 147, which looks a lot like he's trying to scare cruelty into joining the Scott wagon.

---

Espeonage and Scott are right. SK is town. Literally

every time

I've seen someone play the martyr card they were town. I would lynch anyone else over SK.

I don't have a read on either havingfitz or Espeonage so I'd be okay with either of their lynches.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

SAMP hasn’t done anything to raise suspicion with me but I find a willingness to lynch persons you don’t have a read on to be very suspect. Not enough to move you up my list much but if you are going to be willing to lynch someone it would be nice if you would put some thought into it and at least have a stance one way or the other based on actual opinion from the information available. Not...don’t know whether they are town or scum so sure...I’ll lynch one of them. <shaking head> Don’t understand this sentiment.

If the lynches come down to someone I have no read on and someone I have a town read on, obviously I will lynch the person I have no read on. I say this because it looks very much like it may come down to SK vs you or Espeonage today.

How many games have you played then? Because I've certainly seen and been fooled by scum self voting.

There haven't been any self-votes in any game I've played in, only in games I've read. I've read roughly six games where it happened.

Have you seen them care to the point that they don’t bother to do any significant scum-hunting? Because despite the fact that I pointed SK in that direction several pages ago she instead chose to self-vote.

No, I haven't seen that. That's not what happened here, though. SK made clear his suspicion of Gecko, Jack, and Espeonage, and I wouldn't call those cases insignificant.

Bullshit. Only poorly playing scum can’t muster up any passion for their arguments.

Of course they can fake passion for their arguments, but it's possible to distinguish it from real passion (and attempting to do so is kind of the entire point of the game y'know). I don't see any signs of fake passion in either Jack's or SK's play.

Then your sample size too small. I’ve seen it done on this very site.

Link please?

(This goes for anyone else who's seen it as scum.)

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I can't remember every game I've been in where scum self voted, but I do remember these ones.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10062
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13694

Neither of those self-votes are really similar to Kerrigan's. They are unemotional and clearly thought out, signifying gambits, whereas Kerrigan's is emotional and hasty, signifying frustration.

He made those cases in a paragraph with no support quotes or ISO numbers for reference. Then he immediately went back to defending and then moved to self-voting. So your statement is clearly wrong. Also, you found this as significant scum-hunting?

You mean the paragraph in 226? That wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about these posts:

I don't like Gecko's first "content" post. Suggesting Ice's chattiness will lead to over-aggression, and then equating that with scum-bullying, is just flat-out baseless speculation. It may be grounds for suspicion, but it should never be used to justify a vote. Also, the cheap shot near the end ("id like to see why you are so whipped up so early in the game, strategy or possibly anger that you are already getting ferretted out?") doesn't sit right with me.

Vote: Thegeckoj.

frankly i havent seen anything to make me move my vote at this pointl.

So, you admit your reason for voting Ice wasn't very good, and then you claim that you haven't seen anything to make you move your vote. Are you implying that all cases thus far presented are inferior to the one you put on Ice? Because I would strongly beg to differ.

Admitting your reasoning was bad doesn't excuse the fact that the reasoning you used was bad. Nor does claiming that you were voting for pressure. And you claim you can't find anything more suspicious than this bad case you made for Ice. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me to move my vote yet.

You're defending yourself by making everybody attack you seem like bad people who nobody should listen to.

I'm going to flat-out call this a lie. This is not what I'm doing. I'm asking questions about what they say, not attacking them. At no point at all am I trying to make people look bad, or say no one should listen to them. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying, and I don't appreciate that at all.

Unvote: Thegeckoj. Vote: JackALope2323.

Unvote: JackALope2323. Vote: Espeonage.

Fencesitting is a popular pastime in Scumtown.

And yes I consider these significant scumhunting.

Have any links to support your assertion or is this basically a gut instinct on your part? And your condescending add-on fluff is noted.

It's not just a gut read. Kerrigan's self-vote is a frustrated reaction, not a tactical gambit. And while scum do get frustrated, it usually strengthens their resolve to get out of the lynch, not eliminates it entirely.

The only link I recall that supports this is Mini 617. In that game kuribo was town and self-voted as a frustrated reaction to a terrible case on him. Kerrigan's unvote resembles this one much more than either of the self-votes in the games charter linked to.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Neither of those self-votes are really similar to Kerrigan's. They are unemotional and clearly thought out, signifying gambits, whereas Kerrigan's is emotional and hasty, signifying frustration.

Oh, I missed where you said it had to done in frustration, probably because you just added that after you saw my examples so you can keep saying 'well Kerrigan's actions must be town'. I also missed the part where scum never get frustrated.

I didn't say scum never get frustrated, I said they don't give up out of frustration.

Also, forgot to mention this in my first post, by Super Awesome Mega Pimp! is scummy as hell for defending SK. There is no defense agains that move. Flip doesn't even matter either - it's either defending the buddy or a lame attempt to look good tomorrow.

Almaster is acting like it's utterly impossible to have a town read on SK, while

completely

ignoring my logic for doing so. That's how scum chain mislynches.

Vote: AlmasterGM

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

MOD: I voted AGM in my last post

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up

Wow, OMGUS much? The fact is SK was scummy as hell and I don't blame anyone for lynching him over his gambit crap. The fact that you magically thought to defend him is absurdly sketch.

I explained my rationale for SK being town in great detail. Why are you acting like I just said "nope, he's town"?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Why would my defending StK count as a scum point. Wouldn't jumping on the easy target be better. At least i tried to save a town when everyone was too stupid to see it was a townie in distress and not a scummy gambit.

How did you try to save Kerrigan? Looking through your iso, I don't see it. And who exactly are you calling "stupid" here, everyone who voted Kerrigan before you did?

When I said StK was town I backed it up with evidence.

I

definitely

don't see any evidence in your Kerrigan-defending posts.

Everyone should comment on the 3 wagons at the moment if they haven't already.

I have a neutral read on you, a scummy read on Espeonage based on his two most recent posts, and a scummy read on AGM based on his reaction to my defense of Kerrigan.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I mean where I pointed out that I have never seen a scum Self-vote. And how I said that because of that I didn't think StK was scum. I was right but self preservation kicked in.

You put barely any effort into arguing for Kerrigan, before hammering him. I think a townie who had done that would realize how poorly they'd defended him, and not try to argue that scum wouldn't do it. Esp making that argument is a sign that he only defended Kerrigan for townie points.

And he should go ahead and claim. He's at L-2 and it's not going to get any further away than that any time soon.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I agree with this plan.

And he should go ahead and claim. He's at L-2 and it's not going to get any further away than that any time soon.

Minor role fishing, there really wasn't a need for a claim at this point

What's the point in delaying his claim? It was gonna happen sooner or later, and I'd rather it was sooner.

Charter, I don't know, I can just see Hider being something that fits with the set-up.

Do you know something about the setup we don't?

Why are you rolefishing now?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Ice says he can’t “catch SAMP on anything.” This is because SAMP isn’t posting.

I most definitely am posting. The only time I didn't post was between the 15th and the 17th.

SAMP makes another useless “hay guyz I’m here, focus on AGMs inactivity instead” post.

Not true. My case on you has never been about your inactivity, it's about your attack on me.

And how do you get "focus on AGM" from a post that focuses on Espeonage? Here's the post in question:

Why would my defending StK count as a scum point. Wouldn't jumping on the easy target be better. At least i tried to save a town when everyone was too stupid to see it was a townie in distress and not a scummy gambit.

How did you try to save Kerrigan? Looking through your iso, I don't see it. And who exactly are you calling "stupid" here, everyone who voted Kerrigan before you did?

When I said StK was town I backed it up with evidence.

I

definitely

don't see any evidence in your Kerrigan-defending posts.

Everyone should comment on the 3 wagons at the moment if they haven't already.

I have a neutral read on you, a scummy read on Espeonage based on his two most recent posts, and a scummy read on AGM based on his reaction to my defense of Kerrigan.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

I read through SAMP in ISO as promised. I'll get to other players later. The overall thing I noticed is that SAMP has been uncharacteristically lurky and with his massive ego in check. Either he's calmed down some lately, or he's playing his game differently.

Actually I usually play with my ego in check. Admittedly my posting has slowed down a little lately (and this is across the site) but I really don't think it's fair to say I've been lurky.

In terms of specific things that I noticed, he forced Espeonage's L-2 claim with his vote on Almaster, which is strange. If he really wanted to force a claim he would have switched his vote to Espeonage or waited until Espeonage was at L-1 then threatened a hammer. It seems like he doesn't really want an Espeonage lynch, and never has, yet he wanted the claim to come out. I'll definitely be watching SAMP, especially after seeing what Espeonage flips.

If I voted him it would've been L-1. L-1 votes have a risk of quicklynch, and are rarely necessary to force a claim.

SAMP, you said you "agree" with the plan of having Espeonage hide behind a scummy looking player. Who do you suggest he hides behind? Do you believe his claim? Do you find it fishy that he claimed a PR that probably won't be NKed?

My preference for Esp's hide target is charter. Failing that I'm okay with Scott. Esp's claim doesn't affect my read on him, I just think that the EV for leaving a suspicious hider claim alive a day is higher than the EV for lynching right away.

Can you also give us your top 3 scum reads and why?

1. AlmasterGM. His D1 post attacking me for defending Kerrigan is a textbook example of scum setting up a mislynch. He never shows how my defense is scummy, he just vaguely suggests that there's no way town would do it. I've been questioning him on this all day and he's been avoiding 'em.
2. Espeonage. Tried to get town cred in a really dodgy way.
3. charter. His Scott vote makes more sense as scum scaring the town over nothing than as town thinking their vote out through.

Alright, some things I saw about SAMP.
Literally half of his game posts are exclusively arguing with myself and Jack about ambiguity and undermining votes and other fairly trivial stuff like that all stemming from my vote on Scott very early in the day.

He kept his vote on me for almost the entire day, though he didn't mention anything I did as scummy after his initial single reason. It looks to me like he didn't mind that he was wasting his vote because no one was calling him out on anything, so he was content with not doing anything.

The Scott vote was literally the only thing I had against you.

How exactly was I not doing anything? I definitely tried to push a wagon on you.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

If I voted him it would've been L-1. L-1 votes have a risk of quicklynch, and are rarely necessary to force a claim.

L-1 is good for placing a scummy player under pressure. It's good to put someone at L-1 to force a claim, because otherwise there may not actually enough momentum for the lynch to happen anyway. If someone just threw down a hammer before waiting for a claim, that pretty much assures us scum dies somewhere either that day or the next.

That would be true if townies never quickhammered townies. But they do. In fact, I just finished a game where it happened

twice

.

My preference for Esp's hide target is charter. Failing that I'm okay with Scott.

Why? Charter is your 3rd scummiest read, and only because he put a vote you found sketchy. You're saying you're "fine with Scott", but you don't even seem to have any scum read on him at all.

He shouldn't hide with Almaster and he can't hide with himself. Charter is next, followed by any of my neutral reads (Scott, you, cruelty). Since the consensus appears to be hide with Scott, I went with that.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

How is saying you think someone is scummy and that they should be lynched "textbook setting up a mislynch?"

You say that my defense of Kerrigan is scummy regardless of flip. You never explain why, even when questioned. Your argument is nothing more than "he disagreed with us and was right, so he must be SCUM!" That's not scum hunting, scum hunting involves reason and passion, which you use none of, instead you use paranoia and disregard.

AFA the questions go, requote please and I'll answer?

These:

Wow, OMGUS much? The fact is SK was scummy as hell and I don't blame anyone for lynching him over his gambit crap. The fact that you magically thought to defend him is absurdly sketch.

I explained my rationale for SK being town in great detail. Why are you acting like I just said "nope, he's town"?

SAMP makes another useless “hay guyz I’m here, focus on AGMs inactivity instead” post.

Not true. My case on you has never been about your inactivity, it's about your attack on me.

And how do you get "focus on AGM" from a post that focuses on Espeonage? Here's the post in question:

Why would my defending StK count as a scum point. Wouldn't jumping on the easy target be better. At least i tried to save a town when everyone was too stupid to see it was a townie in distress and not a scummy gambit.

How did you try to save Kerrigan? Looking through your iso, I don't see it. And who exactly are you calling "stupid" here, everyone who voted Kerrigan before you did?

When I said StK was town I backed it up with evidence.

I

definitely

don't see any evidence in your Kerrigan-defending posts.

Everyone should comment on the 3 wagons at the moment if they haven't already.

I have a neutral read on you, a scummy read on Espeonage based on his two most recent posts, and a scummy read on AGM based on his reaction to my defense of Kerrigan.

Why should he not hide with me? Because you don't want to NK me hmm?

No, because you should be a-hangin'!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

You say that my defense of Kerrigan is scummy regardless of flip. You never explain why, even when questioned. Your argument is nothing more than "he disagreed with us and was right, so he must be SCUM!"

No, my argument is "he disagreed with us and was right when he had no reason to do so." You keep leaving out the KEY PART which is that your defnese of SK, while correct, was just too miraculous of a brainwave.

Nope, completely wrong. There was nothing "miraculous" about my defense of Kerrigan, I presented evidence that he was posting from a pro-town mindset based on similar incidents I've seen from townies. That is a reason to disagree.

I explained my rationale for SK being town in great detail. Why are you acting like I just said "nope, he's town"?

I don't care what your justification was. what SK did was scummy, end of story. You thinking to come up with this elaborate defense is really random and uncalled for from someone who has no additional knowledge of the situation.

You don't care what my justification was, because

you can't show how it was unjustified

. Instead you act like I had none, which there's no reason at all for you to do if you're town.

And how do you get "focus on AGM" from a post that focuses on Espeonage? Here's the post in question:

My point isn't that you said that explicitly. It's that your posts are designed to make it appear as though you are here without actually talking. Combined with the fact that I was inactive, you fell totally off the radar becuase if people were going to go after an inactive player, they would go after me, and if they were going to go after someone saying stuff, it wouldn't be you becuase you weren't saying anything.

Yeah, I was. I attacked you and pressured Espeonage. How is that not saying anything?

No, because you should be a-hangin'!

obv dodge is obv. Presuming I live through the night, why shouldn't he hide with me?

Investigations are best put to use on weak reads.

The Scott vote was literally the only thing I had against you.

How exactly was I not doing anything? I definitely tried to push a wagon on you.

I brought this up yesterday, pretty sure you didn't answer, but how are you still clinging to my Scott vote as your sole evidence to support I'm scum?

Because you never disproved my qualms with them.

My last few posts have highlighted his scumminess, 491 in particular. Like I said before, it's hard to make a "case" when a large part of why he's suspicious is his lack of content and scumhunting. Short of quoting all his posts with the caption of 'not scumhunting' I don't know what else I can do.

Show how they're not scumhunting then. Because I just looked through my iso and I don't see any after the RVS that aren't.

Something I'd like for you to explain, is how SAMP's voting day one isn't scummy. He was voting me for almost the entire day, and I'm pretty sure no one else did at any point in the day. His vote was the epitome of useless. That makes a whole lot of sense if he's scum, his vote is just sitting comfortably not ruffling anyone's feathers for the entire day. A whole day of very little commitment with virtually no accountability. I don't see how his not voting Kerrigan can earn him any town points when his voting was pretty bad.

No I didn't let my vote sit comfortably. I spent most of the day arguing for it.

I would like everyone's (besides Magna's, obviously) opinion of Hoopla. Does my case and Magna's case on her make any sense to anyone? It definitely isn't getting much attention. I'll drop the case against her in the interest of the approaching deadline if the case continues to get ignored, but I'm definitely feeling like Hoopla is a good lynch candidate for today.

Based on her reaction to Esp's claim I think she's probably town.

This is also getting too close to the deadline for my taste. Everyone give top 3 lynch and hider target picks.

Lynch: AGM, charter, Scott
Hide: charter, Scott, cruelty

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Because you never disproved my qualms with them.

What are you "qualms" then.

The fact that you were arguing that Scott was ambiguous, while never showing what else he could have meant.

Show how they're not scumhunting then. Because I just looked through my iso and I don't see any after the RVS that aren't.

I'm not quoting all your posts and doing this, that's dumb. People have to look at your posts and they will easily see you're not scumhunting.

No, they won't see that. Why is it dumb to show evidence of your claims?

No I didn't let my vote sit comfortably. I spent most of the day arguing for it.

No. You did very little arguing for my lynch. You argued with me but that's not the same thing as arguing for my lynch. You spent virtually no time saying why you think I was scummy. The rest of the time your vote was just sitting there.

[/quote]
The only time I argued with you without arguing for your lynch was with regards to Kerrigan. Here is me arguing why I think you are scummy:

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Unvote, Vote: charter

for undermining gecko's vote and then calling out Scott for the same thing.

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

I inferred that you did since you voted me for saying his reasons for voting Ice were bad. If you don't think his reasons are good, voting me for thinking the same thing doesn't make any sense.

I didn't vote you for that. I voted you because you attacked Scott for undermining gecko's vote while also undermining gecko's vote.

How are they different?

I'm saying I disagree with his reasoning. Scott isn't saying one way or the other whether he agrees or disagrees with what was said, but just throws his little comments in. They don't tell anyone where he stands on anything.

That's not true. Gecko said ICE's chattiness was scummy, Scott said he knew from experience that ICE is naturally verbose, that shows he disagrees with gecko.

@SAMP, Jack beat me to it, but the answers are pretty obvious. I don't know how much longer you plan on ignoring everything else to cling to a terrible vote on me, but much longer, and you're going to get bumped up to scum.

I'm not ignoring everything else. I think you're scummier than everything else. Threatening me certainly won't change that.

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

I didn't claim to know where he stands on people, I claimed to know where he stands on positions.

I said I disagree with Gecko's vote, and gave my reasons for disagreeing. I'm trying to debate Gecko's vote to try and figure out if he's scum or not, aka, scumhunt. Scott isn't doing that.

When exactly did you debate Gecko's vote? All you really did was say you agreed with Kerrigan that it was bad, that's hardly debating.

Charter pushed Scott using paranoia, suggesting Scott could change his post however he liked. I said that there was nothing Scott could feasibly change it to. Rather than either a) pointing out something Scott could in fact change it to or b) accepting that his point against Scott was invalid, he kept pushing Scott on paranoia until the Espeonage wagon came along. See post 147, which looks a lot like he's trying to scare cruelty into joining the Scott wagon.

SAMP 495- Disagree with L-1 quicklynches happening. It doesn't happen nearly as often as people think in my experience. Seems like a lame reason to defend the request for a claim at L-2

I'm aware quicklynches aren't common, but they do happen, and the risk really wasn't necessary unless Esp refused to claim at L-2.

Aside from some minor RVS mentions this is the first time in your ISO that AGM is even mentioned. You don’t question him and held you vote on Charter all of Day 1. How is this vote not simple OMGUS against AGM for attacking your Day 1 play?

I provided reasons why AGM attacking my day 1 play is scummy. Other than that I don't know how to prove it's not OMGUS v:(v

Furthermore after voting you drop mentioning AGM again until he starts questioning your play. No supporting reasons why he is scummy other than his opinion on your SK position.

I didn't mention him because I had nothing new to add during his inactivity. I presented supporting reasons after he returned.

Also, your Day 1 vote for Charter was predicated on his ‘undermining’ of gecko (now Hoopla’s) vote on Ice while voting for Scott for the exact same thing. You spend the rest of the Day 1 making arguments regarding semantics and motivations. You respond without pressuring people. Why did you not continue to pursue Charter as a lynch via pointing out scummy behavior?

I DID pursue him! See the quotes above!

Lastly I note you have ZERO direct interactions with Gecko / Hoopla. You interact / respond to everone else still alive at least in some fashion. Given my thoughts on Hoopla this looks suspicious to me.

What exactly do I need to respond to?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Then SAMP votes charter for a ridiculous reason, claiming that charter putting Scott on blast and voting for him was the same thing as "subtly undermining others' votes". Not scum hunting.

Yes it's scumhunting! It forces charter to explain his vote for Scott, and the difference between Scott's reaction to gecko's vote and his own, how is that not scumhunting?

The whole quick lynch thing, well, forcing someone to prematurely claim can be more damaging than is worth mitigating the slight risk that an idiot town quick hammers someone.

Do you think forcing Esp to claim was premature? Considering that you, Jack, cruelty, Magna and charter were all on his wagon, and myself, Scott, and even Hoopla had expressed interest in drawing a claim from him, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that there was any possible benefit in holding off on it. Look at it this way, you're complaining about there not being enough time to discuss our plans, but if we'd delayed his claim we'd have even less time!

Your reasons sucked, you can't really prove that it wasn't OMGUS. Granted, I didn't like AGM's day 1 (or 2) play much either, but there were better cases flying around for sure.

My reasons were basically the same as yours when you were voting him, how do they suck all of a sudden? Obviously I don't agree that there were better cases!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

http://www.quicktopic.com/44/H/iwjxC2tCPT8FB

Don't read it all in one sitting.