Mini 1042 - Skillville - GAME OVER!

[q21]

/confirm

[q21]

Vote Espeonage

For no reason whatsoever... wheee....

[q21]

Lets make this a real bandwagon!

Unvote, Vote Aldusskel

[q21]

uhh no.

Unvote:

5 votes is more than enough for the reason I voted for him. The reason however is not lynch worthy this early in the game.

You had reasons? Reasons that were/are genuinely worth 5 votes...? I think I'd quite like to here this.

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Woo real vote time!

Unvote
Vote: Socrates

Yay! Reasons?

FoS: Socrates

He's obviously looking for a reaction. You should know better, I think the pressure caught up to you.

I'm a little confused... in this post, who are you saying is looking for reactions? Socrates or Scott?

[q21]

I want to see your reasoning now and I fail to see any good reason why you would need to wait for Alduskkel to post any more.

[q21]

1. Alduskkel's contribution to the game so far is non-existent - hence my interest in what reason you think you've drawn from his play.
2. I can guarantee that whatever you're trying to accomplish with your Alduskkel vote is going to fail since you're voting for Demonhybrid.
3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Unvote, Vote Zachrulez

[q21]

1. Alduskkel's contribution to the game so far is non-existent - hence my interest in what reason you think you've drawn from his play.
2. I can guarantee that whatever you're trying to accomplish with your Alduskkel vote is going to fail since you're voting for Demonhybrid.
3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Unvote, Vote Zachrulez

I know full well where my vote is. You're inquiring about my FIRST vote... misrepping my intentions (Claiming I was fine with him at 5 votes for a non stated reason when I actually said it was more than enough.)

The turn of phrase 'more than enough' would indicate that that level (of anything, in this case vote) is one that you would be happy with. Would you have unvoted Alduskkel if Socrates had not voted for him? I postulate not, given the speed of your unvote I'd say it was a specific reaction to Socrates vote. I'd don't think I've misrepresented anything at all.

And then we go from me answering your inquiries about that now inactive vote to you claiming I forgot where my vote was? What?

You can hardly complain when you make post like this:

Besides if you read Alduskkel's contribution to the game to this point, you can probably make a good guess to why I'm voting him without me actually explaining.

You're writing in the present tense here, this indicates that what you stated here is what you currently believe as of the time of writing.

It apparently hasn't occurred to anyone that I wanted a reaction from my target before my reasoning was explained. (This has been undercut by q21's attack on me, the initial demand for an explanation I find to be a scummy threat, and also by the fact that I was left the wagon when it hit lynch -1 because I didn't want to actually risk a lynch over the reasoning I had for voting him.)

Oh, it occurred to me, I simply decided that it would be more interesting to push you. The fact that you were seemingly hoping for a reaction from someone whom you were no longer willing to commit to a vote for (for whatever reason) was more interesting to me that any reaction I imagine you'd have gotten. And since when is demanding explanations scummy?

[q21]

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Did you think I was serious? Did you think a hammer would actually happen?

That's not the point at all. If somebody is at L-1 it is trivially easy for a player to accidentally hammer through forgetfulness, cross-posting and not seeing that it is L-1 (even with the shiny new preview thing) - and it's likewise trivially easy for scum to exploit that. Second, if it doesn't go to a lynch, a L-1 RVS wagon is invariably going to break down because people will jump off it like a sinking ship.

+4

Your last sentence raises an interesting point here: Could Socrates' vote here have been made for the express purpose of getting the wagon to break down? It's a possibility that would make Al and Socrates scum together - worth pointing out, but not worth pursuing at this moment.

3. Forgetting where your vote is, is scummy.

Why?

(And if you say "Scum don't pay attention" or any variation thereon I am going to headdesk)

In the end scum don't actually care which townie is lynched, just that a townie is lynched. As such a scum is always willing to change back to a previous vote on a townie, simply because they know that person is a townie. This leads to a blurring of the distinction between votes because exactly who you're voting becomes less important. I know as scum I have to pay special attention to where I'm voting or I tend to fall prey to this.

[q21]

I don't think votes without a reason are ever good. I'm the kind of player who thinks that some kind of explanation is always good. It doesn't have to be honest, but I really don't like just smacking a couple votes around without any kind of decent explanation why. If you don't give an explanation, then the town doesn't have any way to judge your actions later in the game and it just looks like you want to be able to vote without recourse or review. Sorry, that's not how the game works. Also, I don't think you should be telling us “how you scumhunt effectively”. Trying to look the expert is smarmy and a good scum tactic to look “too valuable to lynch”, which is the other reason why I really dislike the “I have my secret reasons!” vote.

Are you actually implying that a dishonest reason for a vote can be a decent reason for a vote... because so far as I'm concerned a dishonest reason for voting is, well, scummy.

[q21]

Are you actually implying that a dishonest reason for a vote can be a decent reason for a vote... because so far as I'm concerned a dishonest reason for voting is, well, scummy.

No. Let's say for example, I wanted to vote for DH (I don't), but I was doing so for his reaction, or because I had a secret cop read on him or something. If I just posted "vote DH", then people will say "...why are you voting for DH?". Then I'd have to back it up with something, which kind of defeats the purpose. If I said "vote DH, because I think that x thing that he did is scummy", but my real reason for doing so was because I wanted to see what he said, then I'm not really voting for my real reason, but I should give a decent reason for the vote so that people won't ask for my motivation for it, so that if I have a hidden motivation I can get the reaction I wanted. Does that make more sense?

It does, I guess. But only if the x in "vote DH, because I think that x thing that he did is scummy" is actually valid - otherwise you're better off not giving any reason at all.



And on another note... DH, stop writing you're responses inside other people's posts please. It makes your points hard to follow and respond to.

[q21]

Unvote Zach

I've lost interest in my Zach vote.

]Like I said before, look at the context. Al's wagon was RVS, my vote was without a reason (I wanted it to be assumed that it was RVS, and it wasn't; Zach took it too seriously to my liking). I know that RVS ends at different times for everyone, but at that point, there clearly really wasn't any solid information to be that serious over a single vote. Hence my scum read on Zach.

Fine. I still don't like you vote-hopping.

Was a little distracted by the dishonest = decent point earlier, but noticed this on rereading the page this morning. The accusation of vote hopping here is wrong, I think. Excluding DH's first vote (which was quite obviously random) he's only changed his vote once this game. How does that constitute vote hopping?

Any reason you're still voting Espeonage?

Unvote: Reckamonic

.

But you're voting Socrates...

[q21]

I do have a question. Have we been playing with xrx or dram thus for.

And how exactly does this make any difference to the price of cheese?
It doesn't matter which one we're playing with.

[q21]

What timezone. We aren't all americans you know.

@HD: how many games have you played since the one we were in together. I want to know if that meta is applicable here. This will greatly help me get my bearing with my conclusions from reading the game thus far.

You know, you haven't made a meaningful post all game. All you've done is mention that you have meta... goodie for you. Past games and performances are wonderful, but this game is the important one. Meta that you claim you have is useless until you start being able to apply it to the current game - and even then, it is only valid as a supplement to arguments based on the actual thread.

Vote Espeonage

Participate please.

[q21]

What timezone. We aren't all americans you know.

@HD: how many games have you played since the one we were in together. I want to know if that meta is applicable here. This will greatly help me get my bearing with my conclusions from reading the game thus far.

You know, you haven't made a meaningful post all game. All you've done is mention that you have meta... goodie for you. Past games and performances are wonderful, but this game is the important one. Meta that you claim you have is useless until you start being able to apply it to the current game - and even then, it is only valid as a supplement to arguments based on the actual thread.

Vote Espeonage

Participate please.

Dude. Have made any indication I have finished my read through?

This. Hold your horses.

I'm still piecing together stuff myself.

You're two situations are different. You, DH, have been active, you've been V/LA - which you announced - and now that you're back you should be taking some time to piece things back together again, I expect the same level of contribution to continue. Espeonage, on the other hand, has done nothing all game but make inane posts that don't achieve anything.

His response (as you've quoted) also seems a bit off to me: One guy puts a pressure vote on you to participate, you don't bitch about it, you participate - especially if that's what you were intending to do anyway, as he seems to have inferred in that response. It seems like slightly too sensitive a reaction to the criticism.

[q21]

I'm quite happy with my Esp vote as, in the day and a half since I was last on he still hasn't make any significant contribution to the game - despite the giving the impression that he intended to - neither has he shown any real commitment to a viewpoint.

Nice, then you're just parroting others, I suppose.

I suppose I'm going to get a "OH MY GOD UR TWISTING MEH ARGUMENTZ AND IM NUT PEROTING" but unless you -actually explain- your actions with reasoning, you just sound like you want to find people scummy just to find people scummy, and that's it.

the point of the game is to find the scum, of course I'm looking for scummy people in order to lynch them. Im not going to spoon feed you why you are scum. If you are curious look at your own ISO, I don't do pbpa except when strongly irritated by an idiotic town. Don't worry, were getting there and you'll get lynched soon enough.

Correction. The point of the game is to find scum and convince the rest of the town to help you lynch them. You are failing at this second part.

[q21]

@Espeonage voters: Why Espeonage and not Reckamonic?

Because at the time that I voted it was a push for him to participate more and at that point reckamonic had only shown the very beginnings of the non-contributory style he's now fallen into. Since then Espeonage's post rate has gone up, but his post content hasn't - given that he was doing a "read through" and that his posts inferred that some sort of analysis was coming from him in the near future, which hasn't materialised, I'm happy to be voting for the active lurker.

When I brought up all of these in my post against him, he strawmanned me by completely ignoring them and only focusing on the flip-flop portion of the argument. All of those things scream scum to me, and so we should lynch Zach.

While he is guilty of not responding directly to every point you made he is not guilty of strawmanning. He did not attribute to you argument you didn't make and then attack that argument instead of your own actual arguments. You're throwing in a buzzzword here in order to make your case seems stronger than it actually is.

[q21]

Sidenote, q21's vote on Zachrulez reeks of scum attempting to start an alternate wagon. It just comes in out of the blue and doesn't make sense in context.

-snip-

ANOTHER ANOTHER SIDENOTE. q21 is definitely scum for that attempted shift of attention. Again.

Starting an alternate wagon and attempting to shift direction? Yep, guilty of both. If the path I'm currently on doesn't seem to be leading where I want then I change. The Ald wagon was already derailing, it was unlikely to pick up momentum again, therefore it wasn't going give anymore info, so I changed my vote. Zach's play seemed a little scummy when I voted for him, it improved over time until I was no longer interested in voting him, so I unvoted. Espeonage was the definition of an active lurker, but now its seems that he's flaked which makes his previous behavious null instead of scummy, so...

unvote

.

There is nothing scummy in these actions.

DH's jump onto us is just bad. He's whining about not giving reasoning for voting, which is COMPLETELY FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL.

Cool, well, by this part, I had given reasons for all of my actions. You flat out refused to ever do. And here you are, giving reasons.

You aren't consistent. Stop being anti-town.

Wait... did you honestly just attack him for finally providing the reasoning we've all been asking for? Seriously? I have no issue with you countering the actual reasons, but attacking the fact that he supplied them reeks of desperation.

Vote DH

Because so far as I'm concerned that is the scummiest thing anyone's done all game.

[q21]

Mod: I think vollkan should be voting Demon Hybrid. He made that vote in #308.

And I still AM pretty confident of my Zach case, but if you'll notice that I said

screw this... Zach can wait. (Although I would still like him to respond to my points, instead of ignoring them)

That means that while I still have Zach on my scumlist, I have someone that I found worse. Make sense?

It made sense when you actually voted esp, but now that he's been replaces, why is shotty a better vote than someone you have made a rather more substantial case on?

Unvote
Vote:drshotty

Solves policy, and Esp was scummy anyway.

This is horrible. Policy? He's just proved that he doesn't deserve a policy lynch, #327 may not be the most mindblowing post of the game, but it certainly makes arguments for policy lynching him ridiculous. And the second bit... Esp was scummy because he wasn't contributing, then he flaked... which kinda nullifies the not contributing part. All in all, this vote is opportunistic and scummy.

[q21]

Interesting point, Reck, and on investigation a somewhat valid one. Horror, all your initial attacks on reckamonic were for not explaining their reads - which was fair enough. Since Reckamonic's post explaining many of their reads you still suspect them, why?

[q21]

And I still AM pretty confident of my Zach case, but if you'll notice that I said

screw this... Zach can wait. (Although I would still like him to respond to my points, instead of ignoring them)

That means that while I still have Zach on my scumlist, I have someone that I found worse. Make sense?

It made sense when you actually voted esp, but now that he's been replaces, why is shotty a better vote than someone you have made a rather more substantial case on?

Because shotty is still incredibly scummy, and added to Esp's scumminess it makes them scummier and Zach for the moment. (Voll explains quite a bit in his 339)

So, why was Espeonage scummy? He lurked for out of game reasons.

Actually he lurked because he wasn't "in" to the game. I can understand that as I have done it before in the past, but I personally found him to be scummy for other reasons.

Please explain "Esp's scumminess", what other reasons are you talking about?

[q21]

My ISO 7 is my entire case. To sum it up: He was a lurker and he was buddying up to me, hard. Both things I found scummy, so I voted him for it.

Claiming that he was buddying up to you is borderline. Claiming that he was buddying up to you hard is ridiculous. And if you entire case is in ISO 7 and buddying is part of that case... why did you not mention buddying in your ISO 7?

[q21]

Okay, there are 3 days until deadline and the biggest wagon at the moment is L-4. We need to get our asses in gear here. I think it starts with the non-voters (of which there are two) getting of the fence so we can see a little more clearly where we stand then we need to work out who we want to lynch.

[q21]

WAIT... I fail at Maths.

THERE ARE TWO DAYS UNTIL DEADLINE!

[q21]

This is horrible. Policy? He's just proved that he doesn't deserve a policy lynch, #327 may not be the most mindblowing post of the game, but it certainly makes arguments for policy lynching him ridiculous. And the second bit... Esp was scummy because he wasn't contributing, then he flaked... which kinda nullifies the not contributing part. All in all, this vote is opportunistic and scummy.

Have you played with him before? This is someone who fake claimed doctor as VT and is generally VI. Noted that you call this "horrible" and "scummy" yet you don't put a vote down.

Because I'm happy with my vote where it is - though your lynch is one I'd support quite happily come deadline.

[q21]

Looking through vollkan's points and considering my own conversation with him I'm happy to change to horror. Especially since that seems to be where the momentum is at the moment.

Unvote, Vote horrordude

[q21]

Socrates does blatant BW in his 385.

Which is genuinely not scummy the day before deadline.

[q21]

This post in blatant pushing of a HD lynch.

More Horrordude votes please.

[q21]

Its getting to the point where its quickhammer or no hammer.

[q21]

Because game wise its better to have the full compliment of players commit to the lynch rather than have the mod do it for you. Even if the last vote is due to the looming deadline, its still more useful than the cop-out that is a mod completed lynch.

[q21]

Because I don't see Horror having any potential worhtwhile information to wait for. The only thing worth listening to would be a role claim... but even then there may not be enough people around to change votes an save him.

[q21]

Seriously? *sigh* I hate timezones.

[q21]

Because I don't see Horror having any potential worhtwhile information to wait for. The only thing worth listening to would be a role claim... but even then there may not be enough people around to change votes an save him.

You don't want to hear his last words? His read list? Reactions to various votes?

As a townie he shouldn't be waiting until his "last words" to provide his reads. As scum (which I view as more likely at the moment) I don't particularly care what else might say.

[q21]

For once it turns out that I'm actually kinda glad that I died night 1...