Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[JackALope2323]

@ Post 147:

THIS! THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN! I don't understand why Cruelty is the only one who understands it!

@ Cruelty:

Everything needs to be in Black and White because anything else is ambiguous, and AMBIGUITY IS ANTI-TOWN.

@ Ice:

Well, if half the town disagrees with my logic, that must mean the other half agrees.

And, once again, quality. Other people may be disagreeing with me, but the fact that Cruelty is disagreeing with me THE MOST means something.

(Of course, I'm not saying OMGUS or anything. I'm just saying, the reason I'm in at it with Cruelty is because of the fact that he's the one disagreeing with me the most.)

It doesn't matter if lately it has been the case. What I was, and still am getting on Cruelty for, is the fact that, in those five pages, he couldn't find one thing to comment on. He called everything, let me quote here, "not of particular importance".

Go through the first five pages and tell me there's nothing of particular importance.

The ONLY time Cruelty finally started making content-full posts was when we started pressuring him about it. And even then, he STILL made the comment that there really wasn't anything to talk about. To me, that just sounds like Scum trying to find an excuse to lurk.

Of course, now that the pressure is on him, he's trying to CYA and do whatever it is the town wants him to do, in order to get suspicion off him.

In my humble opinion, at least.

[JackALope2323]

I meant Charter in the last post at the top, by the way. Typo.

[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.

[JackALope2323]

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.

[wolframnhart]

Vote Count #5

Iceninja - TheGeckoJ
AGM - Cruelty
Jack - Scott Brosius, Havingfitz
Havingfitz - Iceninja, Espeonage
TheGekoJ - Saint Kerrigan, AGM
Scott Brosius - Charter, Magna
Charter - SAMP
Cruelty - Jack

Not Voting: No one

Deadline is May 12th at 12 pm PDT
With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Prodding AGM and Scott Brosius

[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?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ SK – What are your thoughts on SAMP? You seem to have touched on just about everyone else in your posts.

His reasoning for the vote on Charter was a little quirky, and that he's stuck with it is of some concern. He's since taken the side that says two of Scott's remarks (the Ice and L-3 ones) weren't ambiguous. I happen to agree with him. I also liked how he called out Charter for agreeing with me that Gecko's vote was bad and calling it debating. Still, I don't see much on Charter other than that initial reason which I dislike.

All in all, a neutral in my eyes.

you unvoted at L3, this is worthy of scrutiny. it's that simple, and this is all i'm saying.

You brought it up in order to "instigate another angle" and "stir up the pot," but you've surprisingly haven't pursued this angle very much, beyond your one comment when you brought it up. If you consider this worthy of scrutiny, shouldn't you be scrutinizing it.

[cruelty]

unvote, vote sk

you're completely and persistently misrepresenting me. this is scummy.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that.

my issue isn't with your unvote, it's with charter taking exception to scott's comment. this is pretty fucking clear.

i haven't been talking about

my

desire to scrutinize your unvote, i'm talking about it

not being scummy for scott to look at it in a negative light

. i don't really have an issue with the unvote on a personal level, i have an issue with a valid response to it by a 3rd party (scott) being unfairly attacked by a 4th party (charter). at this point, it's really nothing to do with you.

in fact, i even said something to this effect (in the same post that you quoted from):

(to answer the question though, i don't really care about your responses, they're reasonable).

You brought it up in order to "instigate another angle" and "stir up the pot,

yep. seems to have worked.

[SaintKerrigan]

my issue isn't with your unvote, it's with charter taking exception to scott's comment. this is pretty fucking clear.

Then let's look at the comment the way I see it.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that.

i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

First part of the red section agrees with Scott that there's not really a need to unvote at L-3. The second part of the red section then says you can't attack me for that because you've played the cautious card in the past yourself.

The first sentence of the orange section notes that it's odd that I'd unvote and then note that I'm intrigued by a comment from Jack. Second sentence illustrates with "L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character." Third sentence says how you feel about this ("rings hollow").

Now, please explain how all of this could mean anything else, because it is

not

"pretty fucking clear" to me that your issue is actually with Charter taking exception to Scott's comment. Yes, you do talk about that, but the first evidence I see of it is in a later post (Post 119, to be exact).

I am

not

trying to misrepresent you. I'm trying to sort out what you've been doing. Now you're shouting at me and voting me because I seem to be "misunderstanding" what you're talking about. So please, do me a favor and clear it up.

[cruelty]

seriously?

red: i think you're being unnecessarily cautious.

orange: i think the unvote followed by the comment that implies lingering suspicion of jack is odd (hollow) but not really worth following up (as evidenced by my lack of, well, following up). i may have looked at it a bit harder had you not assuaged my doubts with your subsequent explanations.


moving on from that post, i haven't directed the inquisition your way at all. as stated, my problem isn't (

wasn't

) you, your unvote or really anything to do with you, it's the way that what you said was a) interpreted by scott and b) how (a) was interpreted by charter.

now, of course, i think you're deliberately misrepping me. this i don't like.

[ICEninja]

Jack, you did a good job of explaining your point. I like your case a lot better now.

And whoa there, cruelty. You're jumping on Kerrigan there for just trying to defend himself when feeling attacked. You've not been particularly clear, as I was very confused when you put everything together as you did. It didn't seem to represent the tone you've previously had. I got the impression that you found Kerrigan's unvote fishy, but weren't following up on it much. I think accusations of misrepresentation are thrown out way too frequently, as most of them aren't misrepresentation. A lot of the time it is confusion, a lot of the time it is a different spin on the same thing, sometimes we get differences of opinion, then once in a while it really is scum trying to misrepresent what was actually said.

That being said, I feel that Kerrigan is being excessively jumpy at anything directed towards him. I've found that people who get highly reactive to neutral-ish reads, and we have both done, are often much more concerned with how people think about them than a town should.

Right now I'm leaning towards cruelty being scummy, but at the same time I think Kerrigan needs some pressure, and I still really need Scott to come out and comment on all the activity about him. I also need more opinions from fitz and Almaster.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Cruelty: Okay, I think I follow you now. Now I'd like for you to explain how you think I'm deliberately misrepresenting you.

@ Ice: How am I being excessively jumpy at stuff people throw at me? What do you define as "being much more concerned with [how they look] than a town should," and do you find it scummy? If so, why?

[Espeonage]

Someone ask me something. I'm bored and have gotten bored trying to read the long posts. Might do it if someone thinks I should.

[SaintKerrigan]

What are your opinions on people, Espeonage?

[Espeonage]

Out of all the questions you could ask. Ok I will have a read through so I can get some.

[Scott Brosius]

I am back, apologies.

Welcome. Looking forward to your promised big post.
I will make an exception to my never reading a post that is over 10 lines rule due to the circumstances.

This rubs me the wrong way. Why even say this? Lazy does not = scum, but it sure doesn't help if you are town.

Vote Jack

For voting gecko for being "over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them" and then voting cruelty and casting suspicions my way...which IMO is acting the same way in which he voted for gecko earlier.

Why even mention having suspicions on yourself as a reason for voting. reeks of OMGUS covered up by the first reason.

Scott is still topping my scumlist. Still posting them one liners, still lurking his pants off, still scummy.

Well you'll have to get used to me being straight to the point. I say what I need to in as few words as possible.

Ultimately, if I understand your read of me correctly, some of my actions thus far give you a town impression, but my playstyle's resemblance to the other game is giving you pause and drawing me back down to neutral. I like it when people think I'm town; I get lynched less often that way, and people like me better.

So finding out what's troubling folks about me and then attempting to convince them why they shouldn't be worried about it is a helpful thing for me to do.

Well this is the point of the game. Everyone is trying to appear town to some extent. I agree with Ice about your questioning of his neutral read seems like you care a bit too much what he thinks of you.

Someone ask me something. I'm bored and have gotten bored trying to read the long posts. Might do it if someone thinks I should.

Sigh. You need questions to participate?

I tend to agree that Jack is probably eager town. My second choice for scum at the moment would be fitz.

As for the stupid ambiguity argument, as someone said, I have not seen anyone provide an alternate meaning for what I said. So I still fail to see where this argument is coming from.

Unvote
Vote: Espeonage

[AlmasterGM]

prod picked up, will post today.

[Espeonage]

My little list of isos. Half now half later. It is after 2:30am and I have to go house hunting tommorrow.
AGM - Goodposting for now. Looking forward to seeing his catch up post. Inactivity is a bit iffy though.
charter - Started the 'undermining' debate. In the not scumtell camp on that one.
cruelty - Early Lurking - points. Everything else + points.
Geko - I can see where he was coming from. However my FoS stands.
fitz - Scummy. Places a vote after too long and then disappears.
ICE - WoT hurts mine eyes. Seems ok but hard to get a read on him. To my just seems like a talkative townie.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Scott: Please explain your vote on Espeonage.

[ICEninja]

Kerrigan, my commenting on how you seem jumpy at every statement directed towards you is backed up by you requesting me to point it out.

You've asked me multiple questions about my opinion on you. I stated that "I'm not sure how I feel about you", and you questioned that. I then told you that I couldn't really put it in to words, and you questioned me further despite me telling you that I will never vote based on gut reads. I flat out told you that I have a neutral read on you, and yet you've still tried to nit pick and pinpoint exactly why I don't view you as obvtown. Town really shouldn't be doing this.

Also, it hasn't just been me. You've jumped at cruelty who had a neutral read on your unvote on multiple occasions, and have demonstrated to me that you are more worried about looking town than actually finding scum.

Someone ask me something. I'm bored and have gotten bored trying to read the long posts. Might do it if someone thinks I should.

I hate playing with people like you. If you don't want to play the game, then just replace out. If you can't handle the thought of reading through a game that's only 7 pages, then I shudder to think of what the quality your contributions and analysis are going to be once we hit page 20 and you'll need to sift through a very large number of posts in order to actually make a solid case on someone. I'm not saying you're scummy, I'm just concerned that you're going to drag the quality of the game down. Honestly, if you aren't willing to tolerate that this post right here is going to be the average size of my posts all game, then I don't want to tolerate a player who isn't reading my posts.

Ok now to fitz. You don't really seem to understand Jack's case against gecko all that well, and part of your case against him is OMGUS. Your lurking added to that compels me to leave my vote where it is. I don't know what any of your opinions on players are besides Jack, and your only serious vote is garbage.

[Scott Brosius]

@ Scott: Please explain your vote on Espeonage.

Not willing to read, needs people to ask him questions to participate. Just shows that he is not coming up with original ideas and is distracting and anti-town.

[SaintKerrigan]

You've asked me multiple questions about my opinion on you. I stated that "I'm not sure how I feel about you", and you questioned that. I then told you that I couldn't really put it in to words, and you questioned me further despite me telling you that I will never vote based on gut reads. I flat out told you that I have a neutral read on you, and yet you've still tried to nit pick and pinpoint exactly why I don't view you as obvtown. Town really shouldn't be doing this.

I questioned why you felt unsure about me because I wanted to know why you were "unsure" instead of leaning towards one side or the other. You then said that the thing that worried you most was my playstyle and its similarity to F&I, so I further inquired to try and figure out what specifically you found troubling about my playstyle. You then said you couldn't explain it, and then asked me why I was questioning your neutral read of me, which I answered. How is all of this in any way "jumpy"?

Incidentally, could you point me in the direction of the post where you said you'd never vote based on gut reads, because I wasn't able to find it.

Also, it hasn't just been me. You've jumped at cruelty who had a neutral read on your unvote on multiple occasions, and have demonstrated to me that you are more worried about looking town than actually finding scum.

The whole Cruelty thing was me thinking Cruelty was ignoring a point he brought up against me while not understanding what Cruelty was actually arguing. Once he showed me clearly where he was coming from, I let it go. Again, how is this "jumpy"?

[havingfitz]

Ok now to fitz. You don't really seem to understand Jack's case against gecko all that well, and part of your case against him is OMGUS. Your lurking added to that compels me to leave my vote where it is. I don't know what any of your opinions on players are besides Jack, and your only serious vote is garbage.

I'm not voting Jack because of his vote on gecko or his reasoning for that vote....which he gave as gecko being "over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them." I'm voting Jack because he thought enough of his reasoning towards gecko to vote him and then turned around and voted cruelty and called me out which IMO was displaying the exact same behavior. And my vote on him has nothing to do with OMGUS. I disagree that voicing suspicions towards someone (ie Jack towards me) makes them (Jack) safe from any suspicions coming back at them (from me). It's not like Jack voted me and I said...oh yeah...well I vote you. I gave my reasoning and anyone throwing out OMGUS is grasping at straws for negatives in my direction.

And speaking of negatives...I realize I have not posted as much as I should but RL has been taking a precedence. That coupled with my tendency to observe more in the early stages of games. I'll try to increase the input.

[havingfitz]

fitz - Scummy. Places a vote after too long and then disappears.

I haven't disappeared. I have not been prodded and I have not been active lurking. Only in one other game and have been equally active in it.
The only comment given when you provided your vote on me was essentially that you wanted more comment from me. Now you back that pressure vote with "I took too long to vote." That's a crap justification which can not be defended against. similar to voting out the person with the fewest posts or least word count. can you give a valid reason for your vote on me because IMO you really haven't provided much to the game either.

[JackALope2323]

Unvote

My Scumometer is really screwed up right now. Everybody I was having scumtells on I'm having towntells on now, and everybody I was having towntells on I'm having scumtells on now.

I'll need a few to sort out exactly who I want to vote. I'm leaning a bit towards Kerrigan and Fitz, though.

I've realized that Scott's posting is just the way he is: Simple, without too much fluff. The exact opposite of Ice, really. Neither of these are scumtells. They're just the way the players are, and I can respect that.

Kerrigan does seem extremely jumpy. Every time someone puts pressure on him, he practically jumps out of his skin in response, interrogating the interrogator worse than the interrogator previously had him. He seems to be looking for any way to discredit those who are pressuring him. Very anti-town, to say the least.

I agree with Ice on Espeonage. Whether you're scum or town, you really need to be more of an independent poster.

Fitz, your vote is still basically OMGUS.

[quote=Fitz] I'm not voting Jack because of his vote on gecko or his reasoning for that vote....which he gave as gecko being "over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them." I'm voting Jack because he thought enough of his reasoning towards gecko to vote him and then turned around and voted cruelty and called me out which IMO was displaying the exact same behavior. [/quote]

Please, tell me how this is displaying the exact same behavior. I said Gecko was being over-aggressive with little solid evidence. My aggression against Cruelty was not without solid evidence.

I also fail to see how calling you out is scummy. It's just pressuring you. This is just through-and-through OMGUS.