Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

Valk, if you're not a girl - correct me please.

I see the potential for incrimination, but to explain it, I'd have to answer your question aimed at Valk regarding option 2. (Although, I think you'll find that his argument of "incrimination" is, actually, his answer to your question...)

But perhaps it would help for me to explain it from an outsider's perspective? I think he's already explained what he means.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, and didn't put my post in the right tense.
With that 2nd part of my post I tried to explain what I wanted to hear from her

back in my #63

.
She included the incrimination story only after, in #64 and made questions about my #63 which I then explain in #71.

I understand her point of incrimination. The problem is that I'm not seeing it as she does.
And if I understood her right - her explanation about Michel's original avoidance of commenting her is this:
-He scolds Aurorus (you), but not Valk - knowing that some douche (Guybrush) will notice it and accuse both of them, and then innocent Valk would be in danger, and his partner would "slip in with the town".
The problem with his diabolical plan would be that he (Michel) would be in trouble as well.
So, is that right? Is that what Valk is saying?
Don't you think it's a bit stretched?

Feel free to jump in at any time, no need to be that cautious with that rule.

[AurorusVox]

Yeah I think that's what she's saying, and I definitely think its stretching it (it's why I said potential). I mean, it could be happening, as a fallback plan - should Michael flip scum, we might scrutinise Valk closer. But I don't think it's what's happening here.

However, thinking about it, I can definitely see why Valk would make that argument as town; blinkered by knowing she's town, she would assume it was "obviously" what was happening. This behaviour is further legitimised by her saying its "abundantly clear" she's town. Do you think that Valk would be able to effectively play the "blinkered townie" character if she were scum?

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: That's not to say I condone the "I'm obvtown" sentiment, because I don't. But, now that I've given it more consideration, I would say its more likely to be symptomatic of a new player who is certain that everyone must see that they are town. I think I was overly harsh before to say it looked like scum trying to get people to reveal their reads :\

[2003041]

@AV: So basically, you want me to start asking questions and take suspicion off myself, even though I have started questions. Why is it that you don't think I'm asking questions to scum-hunt? You of all people should know this.

FoS: AurorusVox

PS: Please, Haylen, can you just use 2k3? Everyone on the other forums I'm on use this and it just seems very strange to read. (I know, strange request.)

Okies. Might get a bit confused though. ~ Hayl

[Guybrush]

However, thinking about it, I can definitely see why Valk would make that argument as town; blinkered by knowing she's town, she would assume it was "obviously" what was happening. This behaviour is further legitimised by her saying its "abundantly clear" she's town. Do you think that Valk would be able to effectively play the "blinkered townie" character if she were scum?

Well, there is a more obvious explanation I was expecting her to use, where she could have accused Michel without using very unlikely scenarios.
And that is 2nd option from my perspective as well. I didn't want to comment it because I was waiting to see if Valk will use it:

[Scenario with Michel = scum without the incrimination story]
Michel is scum, and needs to find scum where there is none.
He needs to make up stories and reasons.
He notices something considered fishy (stifling discussion).
He accuses you, but not Valk.
Why? Because he's not searching for objectivity, he's searching for anything so he could say he did his share of scumhunting.

When you have double standards - that could mean that you're not that committed and haven't put that much thought into it.
So that's another option I'm considering, which Valk obviously is not.

When she introduced incrimination, I felt like she's trying to force pieces of puzzle together.
She said "oh yeah, he's fishy but not that much" hoping for me to drop it.
And then after I didn't drop it, she introduced the incrimination story.
As if she felt I wasn't satisfied, went back to read through the thread, found the first thing and said "there. he's incriminating me. is that good enough?"
I find it weird she didn't mention the incrimination in her #62.

[AurorusVox]

You've been asking questions to scum hunt? I'm sorry, go back and read your posts. The only thing you've written

prior to my vote

that ended in a question mark was "Why are we trying to stay away from this?" (the "this" being RVS - and thus your question is unrelated to scumhunting). After my vote, the only questions you have asked are "Why are you voting for me?" Please point me to a post of yours that has involved scumhunting.

[AurorusVox]

When she introduced incrimination, I felt like she's trying to force pieces of puzzle together.
She said "oh yeah, he's fishy but not that much" hoping for me to drop it.
And then after I didn't drop it, she introduced the incrimination story.
As if she felt I wasn't satisfied, went back to read through the thread, found the first thing and said "there. he's incriminating me. is that good enough?"
I find it weird she didn't mention the incrimination in her #62.

I do see your point. Blinkered townie vs retroactive scum...it's a tough one to call. Your point about #62 is the biggest thing in favour of the latter.

However, I think that the "he's trying to incriminate me" is a more likely reason for new player to use than the one that you suggested, because I think yours, though it is less far-fetched, is a little more complex than simply saying "He must be trying to make you think I'm scum."

[2003041]

I thank you for making me re-read. Go back to #67. When did I ever say "i want to vote for someone"? I have never said anything of the sort and my questioning for you was trying to get something from you. I said earlier I'd rather vote someone after scum-hunting rather than RVS and lose a townie right off the bat.

Vote: AurorusVox

[AurorusVox]

1) Early on you say you want to RV:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

This changes, when later, you say you want to lynch someone who looks suspicious:

I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.

But until I voted for you, you never really tried to look for that suspicious person. Since then, you have only focused your attention on me and my reasons for voting you. What about the other players?


2) I asked you to point me to a place where you were scumhunting prior to my vote. If you think I'm voting you for the wrong reason, please prove me wrong.


3) Actually, on that point: earlier on when I said you had only asked one question prior to my vote, I missed a question out by accident. I was half expecting your reply to pick up on it, but I'm somewhat surprised that it didn't.

You also asked ooBAZZoo for clarification of why he said you were trying to cover ground. Ironically enough, this is something I picked up on too. Do you think that it was a point worth pushing harder? It didn't really look like you were trying to use your question ("can you explain why this would be?") to scumhunt, but instead to clarify something that you didn't quite understand. If it was the start of scumhunting, were you satisfied with BAZZ's response to your question?

[2003041]

1) The other players are interrogating each other and I have no questions to add. This may be because of my poor interrogation skills, but I don't see anything that I can add to their questioning. Plus if I did start an RVS with everyone else thinking I'm scummy because of that. No one wanted to RVS, so I was talkd out of it.
2) I could always claim, but it's really too soon to try that route. To be honest, weekends are tricky for me since I'm swamped with work. I also actually had laundry to do, so I was just trying to keep up on other's interrogations. Plus I just suck with questions.
3) I think I just went on a rant and just totally forgot myself. I can be openminded at times and just space out when typing. And my rason for probably not continuing to question him? --->(To be honest, I can't understand what he's saying half the time. [No Offense])

[Guybrush]

Please, no claiming until you're

1 vote away from being lynched

. (4 in this case)
There are some other pointers about claiming, but we'll get to it when the time comes.

I have couple of comments about what's going on, but I'll wait to see how this Aurorus VS 2003 unfolds first.

@2003

You said this is your 3rd game. Could you link me to your previous 2 games, if it's not a problem?

@AurorusVox

(RE: #81)
Yes, you might be right.
But then again I might be right too.
I'll wait for her comments now.

[2003041]

1st game was live, lynched as townie D1. 2nd is on another site (scorehero.com) and I was a replacement as of N2. I can link that if you want. This is my first game on this site and 3rd game overall.

[Guybrush]

1st game was live, lynched as townie D1. 2nd is on another site (scorehero.com) and I was a replacement as of N2. I can link that if you want. This is my first game on this site and 3rd game overall.

No need.
What was your role in 2nd game, and how did it end for you?
What was the reason you got lynched in the first one?

[2003041]

2nd hasn't ended yet. 1st one I was lynched because of my social awkwardness.

[AurorusVox]

1) The other players are interrogating each other and

I have no questions to add.

This may be because of my poor interrogation skills, but

I don't see anything that I can add to their questioning.

Plus if I did start an RVS with everyone else thinking I'm scummy because of that. No one wanted to RVS, so I was talkd out of it.

2k3, please understand; at all of these points, you have agreed with me that you

haven't been scumhunting or questioning others.

I've bolded the parts that for me, made my vote a good one to place.

2) I could always claim, but it's really too soon to try that route. To be honest, weekends are tricky for me since I'm swamped with work. I also actually had laundry to do, so

I was just trying to keep up on other's interrogations.

Plus I just suck with questions.

I didn't ask you to claim - I asked you to point out to me where you had scumhunted. In this response, you admit that you haven't been doing that.

3)

I think I just went on a rant

and just totally forgot myself. I can be openminded at times and just space out when typing. And my rason for probably not continuing to question him? --->(To be honest, I can't understand what he's saying half the time. [No Offense])

Even when

I

try to find examples of scumhunting that you've been doing, you tell me that it was just a rant.

So, you're voting for me, because you think that my reasons for voting for you are not right. But, in your response to my questions, you seem to be agreeing with me that you've been doing exactly what I've voted you for. Not having questions to add, keeping up with others' investigations -- it looks like you're just letting all of the others do the work, rather than going out there and doing it yourself.

[zauper]

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox. 2k3 hasn't been scumhunting after indicating that he preferred a random question stage to try and reveal who the scum are. He seemed to indicate that he would participate and then did not until prompted to by a vote, in spite of several comments about it.

Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

[Akira]

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

[2003041]

Why don't you guys understand that I work all weekend? That's part of the problem. The other part is that I just don't know what kind of questions to ask people. I still am behind my stance because I feel I have been scumhunting, even if you don't see it that way.
@Zauper: I never said

anything

about an RQS. Is this the reason you feel I haven't been scumhunting anyone?
@Akira: Where did I have a breakdown of AV's vote? I was trying to get something from him that would lead me to believe that he is scum, and I feel I succeeded in that.

[zauper]

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it, honestly.

@2k3: I think it has less to do with you being gone over the weekend, and more to do with your behavior between post #33 and now. Post #33 seems to indicate that what you're looking for is proof that someone is scum before voting, but it doesn't seem (and perhaps I'm wrong -- if so, please enlighten me) as to what you've done since then.

[2003041]

@Zauper: If you re-read posts 66-67, 78, 80, and 82, I'm trying to hunt. Yes, it's with one person, but as I also stated in 84 I haven't seen anything I can add to others' interrogations and decided to try and have my own that others could follow.You could also just look at the post above you and see I'm trying to scum-hunt. I honestly just don't know what kind of questions are good to ask for scum-hunting, so I'm asking anything that might make someone slip. I really don't understand your vote for me in this regards and I think that you're just trying to cover up for AurorusVox by voting for me, making the two of you both scum. I need some concrete evidence from you as to why you're actually voting for me.

FoS: zauper

[AurorusVox]

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

What are my suspicions based on? They were initially based on his propensity for talking about scumhunting, but his lack of real scumhunting action. This has continued, which is why my vote has remained in place. Yes, I'm not swayed by his reaction to my vote, but my reasons were around long before he started defending himself.

Also, I wouldn't say I intensely suspected 2k3 when I made my vote. I've made no bones that my mind was split between a 2k3 and a BAZZ vote, but I placed my vote with 2k3 because I was waiting for BAZZ's response.

I would also say that I feel my behaviour is different from 2k3, because I feel I've been asking questions to try to get a read on players (two in particular at the moment). Whereas 2k3 hasn't really done any of that. Also, I've approached more than one player with questions. Whereas 2k3 has only focussed on me.

----

Incidentally, ooBAZZoo, I'm still waiting for your response to my questions.

[AurorusVox]

@Zauper: If you re-read posts 66-67, 78, 80, and 82, I'm trying to hunt. Yes, it's with one person, but as I also stated in 84 I haven't seen anything I can add to others' interrogations and decided to try and have my own that others could follow.You could also just look at the post above you and see I'm trying to scum-hunt. I honestly just don't know what kind of questions are good to ask for scum-hunting, so I'm asking anything that might make someone slip. I really don't understand your vote for me in this regards and I think that you're just trying to cover up for AurorusVox by voting for me, making the two of you both scum. I need some concrete evidence from you as to why you're actually voting for me.

FoS: zauper

This is better. I like this. It proves me wrong about you not being willing to scumhunt. Words and actions eventually match up. So I'm going to keep my word and go ahead and

unvote

.

And now, I'll

vote: ooBAZZoo

while I wait for a response to my questions.

[2003041]

Unvote

It's only to honor your unvote. I still have an FoS on you, AV.

[MichelSableheart]

#50 and #53 by Aurorus are pretty good scumhunting. Appearantly, he wasn't trying to stifle discussion after all.

Unvote

Valkyrie, I have two questions for you:

1. Is english your native language?
   
2. Why were you so concerned about my vote for Aurorus? I voted Aurorus in post #30. Aurorus first post after that was #50. I didn't post since then. Why did you feel the need to state in post #64 that I should retract my vote?

Why is it that you don't think I'm asking questions to scum-hunt? You of all people should know this.

Can you please explain what you meant here? I'm especially having significant trouble why Aurorus is being adressed with "you of all people". What exactly is "this" that Aurorus should know, and why should he know it better then someone else? Also, can you please explain why Aurorus vote for you is more likely to come from scum then from town? Same question for your FoS on zauper.

[SNIP Michel = scum assumption]
He notices something considered fishy (stifling discussion).
He accuses you, but not Valk.
Why? Because he's not searching for objectivity, he's searching for anything so he could say he did his share of scumhunting.

When you have double standards - that could mean that you're not that committed and haven't put that much thought into it.
So that's another option I'm considering, which Valk obviously is not.

It may be relevant to mention here that early in the game I look for anything that can be turned into an accusation. As I said before, I prefer to get discussion started with actual accusations, but early in the game those are difficult to come by because there isn't much to go on. The result is that I'll usually make a pretty weak accusation to which I'm not very commited, and in which I haven't put a great deal of thought. The part I quoted looks like it's describing my town play pretty well.

[2003041]

@Michel:
1) When I said "You of all people should know this" at AV, I was saying that I was trying to scum-hunt him. He should've realized that fact because I tried asking him several questions.
2) Again, I could claim, but it's way too early to start that. I know my role and I think he is scum, even though post 96 is making it seem like he's on the town side. I still do have my suspicions on AV.
3) Re-read post 94. I clearly give the reason on why zauper is on my FoS list along with AV.
Also, Michel, you clearly haven't posted as much as the others here. Is there a reason to why you've been lurking in this game?