Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[Zdenek]

So let's see.

No willy-nilly hurting, even though it's annoying. Scum also accumulates rage when town mis-kills, and in past games by being in on the kill.

We should keep a pseudo-vote count, for who we are to kill.

We should probably also keep a townie vote count and only let people at the top hurt to try to limit scum gaining rage that way.

I still have to think about what to do about townie rage, but my thoughts are that it should generally be kept secret because of it's potential usefulness in the end game. I'll have to think about this, but it seems to me that town should probably only be using rage early to accelerate lynches.

[Zdenek]

Also, if we assume everyone has ~11 HP, as the sample role PM does, then it will take at least 48 hours to lynch anyone at the beginning of the game. If we lynch incorrectly, assuming scum is using their Rage effectively, Town players will be missing much more health than scum players. We need to publicly announce when we use rage. Anyone who uses rage in secret is anti-town and will be treated as such.

Well, with the use of rage, we can get it done faster.

Basically, the strategy should be, vote, get a majority, and then kill the person as fast as possible once it's decided he should die to avoid the person as scum picking up more rage/using his rage. Unless people are being killed, they should be at full health, so town should not be using rage except for this purpose. I'd actually be happy if scum used their rage to help lynches along. Since this is the only acceptable town use of rage, I don't see the benefit in announcing it because (almost?) any other use of rage should be regarded as scum motivated.

We should expect that scum will try to kill people all at once with their rage (at least early in the game, later on it might not be possible because of diminished rage capacity for the whole team) because otherwise that person will be very likely town and it would make sense for us to heal him to keep him alive.

No. Absolutely not! This is a terrible idea. If we keep it secret only the scum win because they can better hide their plays.

What do you think will stop them from lying? What scenario do you have in mind?

When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.

If a "secret rage" happens we can force our biggest scumreads to heal the player and basically drag out the rager since the rager would not be able to heal. If scum are going to rage it's going to be the more suspected scum because they're more likely to go soon and therefore it's more useful to use up their rage. So if we forced our four or five biggest scumreads to heal we would have definitely found a scum and it would have been a nifty one-time trick.

Scum being aware that this might happen does not stop us from trying it - if someone is injured by rage, we force the scum reads to heal. I guess there is one problem with this, but there might be ways around it. I'll bring it up later when it's relevant.

That said, I doubt that the game is designed so that it can be broken in this way, but it's worth a shot.

FOr example, assume that most townspeople would have accrued 3 rage at a certain point in the game and a ton of rage just got dumped. forcing proof that everyone has the amount of rage they should have (3 minus whatever they claimed to use before) then scum are either caught here or must spend 3 less rage for scum purposes than they otherwise would be able to. this may or may not be possible but theoretically i like it as an idea.

I can sort of see how this could be a scum-hunting tool, but with scum lying and town's people accumulating rage at different rates, I really question whether it will be helpful.

I think the best solution might be to, at certain points in the game (let's say every 3 days?) have everyone announce who they want to hurt (without actually hurting them), and then we apply 1 hurt point to the people chosen per every 1 nomination they get above one. (I.E: if Quadz had 3 people who wanted to hurt him, 2 people would put hurts onto him).

No. Everyone needs to be at full health, unless they are being lynched. It drastically reduces the power of scum rage. If a bunch of town are at low health, scum can pick them off. It forces scum to use more of their accumulated rage to get a kill that they want to go through. Also, because scum may get more rage for being in on a townie kill, we should limit those people who we allow to hurt at all.

[Zdenek]

I'm still thinking about mass-claiming in general.

[Zdenek]

Zdenek, there is no pro-town reason not to claim that you're using rage to put a lynch through.

That is false. In endgame, it will benefit scum to kill of people with the most accumulated rage, for them to not know who has spent the most rage benefits town because they will be able to kill off scum faster.

Frankly, this concern about announcing rage use in the thread looks contrived to me, but so it goes. I really don't see what benefit this information has to town. So far the best people have said is that the knowledge will help the town but I don't actually see how town can put it to practical use at this point.

[Zdenek]

This is true. However, it is also of significantly lesser consequence than allowing scum to be able to secretly kill someone, especially if we're letting town players get away with doing the same thing. I don't remember which past WiH it was (I think it was the completed large theme), but in mid-game, the scum basically went on a killing spree using rage, because there were so many town players who were at middling health, because town had been hurting each other willy-nilly. The same situation will occur here if we allow people to rage willy-nilly.

I've absolutely said that town should not use rage willy-nilly. I don't have a problem with town using rage to accelerate lynches. Here is what I am missing: how does publicly announcing rage use for this purpose in the thread stop scum from secretly hurting people?

[Zdenek]

when somebody who we did not target to be lynched

is suddenly shown as missing health

we will know that scum has targeted them

we then follow the plan listed earlier of forcing scummyfolk to heal the person who's been targeted

anyone who cannot do so (because cooldowns) gets immediately lynched to death

Leaving aside the problems with this for now. Did you intend this to be an explanation for why we should announce rage use in the thread? Because I'm not seeing it.

We should assume that rage used for anything other than accelerating a chosen lynch is coming from scum.

[Zdenek]

It doesn't make sense to discuss the problems with it for now because if possible, I'd like to actually try it. If you are talking about something other than the implementation of the plan, what are you talking about? Also, you are welcome to explain the benefit that you see in town knowing how rage is being used. Do you think that town should use rage for anything other than accelerating lynches?

[Zdenek]

It doesn't make sense to discuss the problems with it for now because if possible, I'd like to actually try it. If you are talking about something other than the implementation of the plan, what are you talking about? Also, you are welcome to explain the benefit that you see in town knowing how rage is being used. Do you think that town should use rage for anything other than accelerating lynches?

I think right now, no matter what plan is eventually chosen, that rage uses MUST be claimed. Unclaimed usage is scummy, and should be reason for the town to HEAL that person. I'm not taking a stance on anything else right now because the game is different enough from WiH3 that I want to think through everything else first.

Okay. So this is something that is far from being clear to me. Why do you think this?

[Zdenek]

theres also the question of whether or not we want to publicly claim rage expenditures to discern between scum and town rage. im leaning in favor of as it could force scum to save/publicly use an amount of rage equal to what a townie would have

I think this could be a good idea. If we force scummy people to expend their rage by helping along lynches, we can limit the total amount of rage controlled by scum. However, I don't really see how we need to mass-claim rage for it to work. Plus, if it's not claimed, scum won't know how much rage they should actually claim to have used (at least early on), so that when we do eventually mass-claim, this could be a useful scum hunting tool.

The more information that is open and honest, the less room we allow for the scum to manipulate the chaos. That is what killed us in WiH3

Is there something specific that you are referring to?

Zdenek's quicklynch to prevent scum from using all their rage idea is pretty unlikely to work.

It not that I think we should quicklynch. It's that once we've decided who to kill off, we should do it fairly quickly.

That was in WiH3, the thing was, the scum DIDNT KILL ANYONE, and yet the town REFUSED to heal the sudden dramatic and random damage. That needs to not happen here.

Who wasn't healed? I remember SpringLullaby being hurt, but not killed, but if I remember correctly, she was healed after.

[Zdenek]

Specific?

I meant in WiH3.

However, I was one of the first couple lynches in WiH 3 and rage was used on me, but it didn't kill me, only nearly killed me, and the town refused to heal me. Even though I was teetering on 1-2 life, long enough that another scum came and finished me off.

Who is your alt?

[Zdenek]

Looking at the first post of that game, the only two people killed by rage were Kublai Khan and inHim, and they were both killed in one shot, weren't they? Was there someone else killed by rage where it wasn't noted in the opening post?

[Zdenek]

This whole healing scheme is ridiculous, and Tierce is putting no thought into it at all. Just look at her first two suggestions.

At most we can have about half the people at +1, where 6 people heal six others to +1 and then wait to go back to full health when they accumulate rage. Othewise we are just going around in circles, which is what Tierce's suggestion accomplishes. I'm happy setting us all back to 0, but was that really meant to be the point?

[Zdenek]

Huh? We all started at 0. Here's what's happened:

Kinetic healed quadz
Quadz healed mattp
Mattp healed KKB
KKB healed Tierce
Tierce healed LLD
PeregrineV healed Kinetic
Yosarian Healed Charter
kdowns healed zdenek


Kinetic -1
Kinetic +1
Mattp +1
Mattp -1
Quadz +1
quadz -1
KKB +1
KKB -1
Tierce +1
Tierce -1
LLD +1
PeregrineV -1
Yos -1
Charter +1
Kdowns -1
Zdenek +!

Putting us at:
Kinetic, MattP, quadz, KKB tierce at normal health
LLD, Charter, Zd at +1
Peregrine, Yos, Kdowns at -1

If we do what you suggested, we'll all be at zero.

And then rage will accumulate and nothing will happen.

What am I missing?

[Zdenek]

Mr. Flay, can the hit point we gain at rage accumulation take us over our original health?

[Zdenek]

Just in case yes.
HEAL: Yosarian

[Zdenek]

Zd, really. /face palm.

I'm not sure if that is a bad scum play to try and mess up and easy town plan or just poor play.

Why do you think that the rage accumulation will be able to take us over our original health.

I'd also still love to know to what practical use you think town can put claiming all use of rage that couldn't be achieved without claiming all of it.

[Zdenek]

Your suggestion that there are scum/3rd party in this game who could outed by this healing business is laughable.

Reading the sample role pm, it says that a hit point is subtracted when you heal and you get it back when rage accumulates. There is no discussion of whether you will still get it back if you've already gotten it back in some other way. The point isn't that it's impossible for this to work. The point is why is it so obvious that this is the way that it works that Kinetic would be suspicious of me for not thinking that.

[Zdenek]

Are you dense? The healing is to make it harder for scum or retarded town to rage kill someone in one shot. No one has claimed nor holds that it will catch scum.

How do you interpret this?

unless your role PM doesn't include the +1 health clause like the sample one does.

As to your nonsensical inability to understand that claiming rage use is town, the basic premise is town. And tips or tricks that we might use to catch scum who don't claim though would be useless if they were fully explained. And I am not going to clue in you or your scum buddies about how to avoid any missteps. Frankly, all you need to understand ins that failing to claim rage is scummy. You're free to accumulate rage all you want or not use it, but if you use, you claim.

This response is completely unacceptable considering how certain you are that us claiming all uses of rage is beneficial for the town.

I think that the only town use of rage is to speed up lynches. Otherwise it should not be used. There is absolutely no reason for town to claim the use under these circumstances. It benefits town for the scum to not know who has accumulated rage.

this is starting to get beyond the point where it can be excused. His lack of understanding seems to be to try and get information on how to avoid suspicious behavior, when all a townie needs to know is claim rage and everyone else in the game understands that.

If it was so obvious that the rage accumulation health point that we get can raise us over the the base amount, you would have explained here.

Kinetic has tried twice now to paint me as scummy. The first time is over the disagreement about whether or not to claim all uses of rage. Personally, I don't see this as necessary at all, I think that doing it will out town power roles and I think that it benefit town to have scum not know who has accumulated rage. In response to this, Kinetic has simply repeated his belief that it's a positive thing for town to claim and suggested that it might be helpful in scum hunting, but has given absolutely no concrete reason for why he holds this belief. The second time is over what may or may not be a misunderstanding about how the health point for rage accumulation works. Here he's given no reason for why it's so obvious that his interpretation should be the correct one. It could be, but that's not the point. The point is that if it's not obvious, then he has no reason to suspect me over a difference in understanding about mechanics.

Vote: Kinetic

[Zdenek]

Very simple why it's obvious. Everyone else in the game agrees its a good plan and it's obvious. You don't. Your OMGUS vote is noted. Please die scum.

It's not obvious. I've pointed out a few possible negatives. You have not addressed any of them, but instead chosen to posture as being pro-town, while repeating that it's a good idea.

Yeah, I'm still very much in favor of this. Just to make it unofficially official:

VOTE: Zdenek

Please tell me how you think that town claiming uses of rage is going to stop scum from using it secretly.

Soooo another game of Zdenek tunneling on someone?

Hooray. This is my joyous face.

We're on page 6, Jesus Christ.

I'm still thinking about mass-claiming in general.

So?

There are some circumstances where I can imagine us catching one scum with a mass-claim, but I think that we would probably end up with our power roles outed an a lynch pool containing the scum and most of the players. So, I am not leaning towards it being a good idea.

[Zdenek]

Hey Zdenek, read on Tierce, go

I'm giving this read time to develop because of events in on going games that I can't discuss. Her immediate accusation that I'm tunneling is annoying, but I can understand why she would say it.

[Zdenek]

What is BoPing?

I'm pretty indifferent to Tierce's case on Matt. Yeah, it's clear that Matt's play in this game is less than optimal compared to what he regards as good play. However, he could have in some sense lived up to his ideal by shutting up, which would have made him immune to this attack, and if anyone called him on it, he could have pointed to this as an excuse. I guess I just don't see suboptimal play as scummy play.

LLD's point about Matt's AtE is fair.

I still think that we may want to force scummy people to use their rage to injure people who we've chosen to kill off, since this will hopefully reduce the amount of rage that scum have available to use for themselves.

On the other hand, Kinetic is being really obviously scum. There's clearly stuff that's happened in the thread that's worth talking about, but he's content to continue to talk about voting/hurting and healing.

[Zdenek]

Hey Quadz,

Please tell me how you think that town claiming uses of rage is going to stop scum from using it secretly.

[Zdenek]

and in what way am I wrong about Kinetic. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just ignored MattP, Tierce and LLD.

[Zdenek]

Hey Quadz,

Please tell me how you think that town claiming uses of rage is going to stop scum from using it secretly.

It's not, except to let them know that it's easier to catch them when they do.

In endgame, it will benefit scum to kill of people with the most accumulated rage, for them to not know who has spent the most rage benefits town because they will be able to kill off scum faster.

This is true. However, it is also of significantly lesser consequence than

allowing scum to be able to secretly kill someone

, especially if we're letting town players get away with doing the same thing.

All I can say is that I seriously doubt that this plan has any chance of working.

and in what way am I wrong about Kinetic. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just ignored MattP, Tierce and LLD.

I read him as town. We agree on almost everything without sheeping one another, his setup spec posts come from a town frame of mind. I admit he hasn't necessarily made as much commentary on other players as one probably should in a typical game, but this isn't a typical game. Especially with the history of scum winning every WiH game previously due in large part to town being disorganized with their hurts/heals, it's

extremely important

that we get our shit together in that regard.

Agreeing with someone about mechanics issues is not a reason to think they are town. I think his setup spec is posturing as town, and he's given no reason for us to actually think that it's anything more than that.

Except, I've been using my iPad to read the thread/post, and I can barely do anything in the thread because I'm nearly 100 miles away from my computer. But I'm still trying to be here and participating. Oh, and I also had only one short line post since any of that happened. O wait, there are obvious, clear explanations as to why Kinetic has only had a little bit of participation in the last couple days, like a major holiday? And he even posted he'd have Limited Access, even though most didn't? I better disregard all that and stick to calling him scum, because its the only way to maybe get him off my back.

You're suggesting that I am scum for not cutting you slack because your posting from an iPad. How in God's name am I supposed to know that? That is such a bullshit and garbage attack. Eat rope.

if Tierce's timing on his attack was just a little too convenient and he is using that to chainsaw the obviously strong case against you.

What is this noise? Tierce is attacking Matt, who's calling me town, to chainsaw the case against me. What chainsaw is this?

Either way, calling someone out for not commenting on an issue during Thanksgiving (and the day after), when more than half the thread is currently in lurk mode is pretty fucking retarded ignorant at best, and obviously trying make it seem like I'm the scum somehow.

Right, because Thanksgiving makes people blind to events in the game and since everyone else is lurking, it's fine for you to float by.

[Zdenek]

I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being.

I'm pretty sure I've not been hypocritical and certainly not in way that you telling me your posting from an iPad is some how going to demonstrate, so this is just rhetorical nonsense.

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense". See here. The normal version would be if someone attacked me directly. That person would be extremely scummy. The version that Tierce might be using is a variant where you distract the town/wagon that was beginning to form on a scum buddy by instead attacking someone else in the town in an attempt to distract.

That is lulzy. Trying to tie people together before flips works rarely and on day one is just foolish. The stronger version of this tell is even questionable, so you are really grasping at straws with this, especially since you don't seem to have an independent read on either Tierce or Matt yet.

Is that what I said? No, what I said was that I haven't been able to comment as much as I would like to because of MAJOR FUCKING HOLIDAY. Yet, I'm still trying to contribute. The fact that I literally cannot comment on every. single. thing. in the thread is ludicrous. And it also predisposes the fact that maybe I didn't want to comment yet. I've told you I'm not sure, and why I'm not sure, maybe, idk, maybe I wanted to have more to say before I commented? O wait, no, that can't be. That is so obviously a town reason, that it can't possibly be what Kinetic is doing.

The issue is what you are choosing to comment on, you picked something soft and easy. When I pointed out that is what you did, your reaction was to go over the top - explaining that you're on an iPad, 100 miles away from a computer, but still trying to post, and to pull out that ridiculous attack on Tierce for possibly chainsaw defending me, by distracting town's attention on to Matt.

You've already decided that the best way to defend yourself is by just calling everything I do as scummy.

I can't help that you're scum and everything you do is imbued with your scum nature.

Tierce,

what's your read on Kinetic?

[Zdenek]

Likely Town. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking him to back down somewhat.

So you wouldn't tell him to back off if you thought he was scum?

Which arguments that I've made against him do you disagree with?

Agreeing with someone about mechanics issues is not a reason to think they are town. I think his setup spec is posturing as town, and he's given no reason for us to actually think that it's anything more than that.

A) I don't only agree with him on mechanics, I agree with him on reads too.
B) I think his setup speculation comes from a town mindset. Scum doesn't present things the same way he does. See my aforementioned townread on Kanye; it's pretty much the same reason.
C) I don't think his setup spec is posturing as town, I think it

is

town.

Your responses to Kinetic have been very OMGUSy and generally fairly terrible. I'd like to see you step back from the game for a day or two, then re-read the arguments put forth to you. See what responses you can come up with when it's not fresh and you aren't frustrated.

b) Comparing Kinetic with Kanye on this point is a joke. Kinetic has blindly stated that he thinks that declaring all rage is a good idea, he's given no concrete reason for why he holds this belief and has attempted to muscle his idea through by declaring me scummy for disagreeing with him, while never addressing even one of the concerns that I've raised. On the other hand, Kanye, has given a specific way in which claiming rage might be used to scum hunt:

FOr example, assume that most townspeople would have accrued 3 rage at a certain point in the game and a ton of rage just got dumped. forcing proof that everyone has the amount of rage they should have (3 minus whatever they claimed to use before) then scum are either caught here or must spend 3 less rage for scum purposes than they otherwise would be able to. this may or may not be possible but theoretically i like it as an idea.

I'm not voting Kinetic because he is voting me, so the accusation of OMGUS is out of line. Telling me that you think my responses are fairly terrible, providing no examples and reasons is bullshit, and I'm not going away because I've caught scum, and want them dead.

You suggesting that you think that I'm frustrated while you're voting me doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

[Zdenek]

AND HERE WE GO! And here is EXACTLY that point. I'm choosing to comment on YOU. To attack YOU. How fucking dare I. Your entire "case" is OMGUS. You are attacking me because I would DARE point out how scummy you are being and the fact that you're scum.

This is a misrep. I am not talking about your case on me, which should have been clear to you, considering that you've already responded to me on this topic today. I'm talking about your decision to talk about the voting plan rather than MattP/Tierce/LLD.

b) Comparing Kinetic with Kanye on this point is a joke. Kinetic has blindly stated that he thinks that declaring all rage is a good idea, he's given no concrete reason for why he holds this belief and has attempted to muscle his idea through by declaring me scummy for disagreeing with him, while never addressing even one of the concerns that I've raised. On the other hand, Kanye, has given a specific way in which claiming rage might be used to scum hunt:

It's like you aren't even reading.

It's like you aren't addressing anything useful.

[Zdenek]

We definitely don't want to wait too long to lynch, but arbitrarily reducing the lynch threshold to 5 is a horrible idea because it will significantly reduce the value of vote count analysis and somewhat player's accountability for their votes (a la, I was voting for pressure and a couple of people piled on or i was V/LA and people piled on, and things of that ilk). We should aim to get majorities, and only consider reduced thresholds when it seems necessary, for instance we probably don't have to go faster than every two weeks.

Also, there is a very, very good reason for town to claim rage; if town claims whenever they use rage, then it makes it a lot harder for scum to dump rage for surprise daykills, and easier to catch them if they try.

People keep repeating this. I still have no clue why people think it, but evidently we can't have a reasonable discussion about it because then the scum might figure out what's going on, so I'm just going to say that later on, you're going to have to explain it.

What makes you think the scum don't have a more powerful version, don't get it much more often, or have another new ability that is even more powerful? We're playing in a nightless game, that already weakens scum. Rage was supposed to be the equalizer. Now the whole town has rage? There has to be a catch. The fact that you're marginalizing that risk and pushing toward stalling even further is starting to get suspicious. You're not winning this argument.

Kinetic is continuing his approach of calling everyone who disagrees with him on strategy scummy. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I wish Peregrine would talk about some other stuff, but so it goes.

[Zdenek]

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage, and then claim when we use rage, then scum probably have to lie in order to rage-dump. If scum lie in order to rage-dump, then we might be able to test them by making people we suspect use their rage when we want to lynch someone. If someone claims to never have used rage, and yet they don't have any when we tell them to use it, and the whole scum group just dumped rage to daykill someone, and all the town people have accumulated a fair amount of rage, then they're probably lying scum.

It's obviously not foolproof, but at least it makes it harder for the scum.

I've kind of figured that we can just do this whether we all claim everything about rage or not, and then work out after the fact whether or not whoever gets caught is lying.

We don't claim anything, then we decide that we want to kill someone, so we get someone scummy to use their all their accumulated rage.

At least for the first time, this person, if scum, does not know how much rage town would have accumulated, and would be forced to make a decision. Town can then use that information to decide if it's scummy, if we should all claim in order to decide if that person is lying, or if that person should full claim to see if there is another explanation for why they had a different amount of rage than generally expected of them.

If we've all claimed, then scum know roughly what they need to do in order to lie.

[Zdenek]

So... set a giant time-bomb stall tactic for later in the game, which probably won't catch scum, instead of just simply having everyone claim rage if they use it... which would accomplish the same thing.

If it accomplishes the same thing, then why risk outing power roles now to do it?

And what is this time-bomb stall tactic?

We aren't claiming when we ACCUMULATE rage. We don't even know if everyone accumulates at the same rate. It could be town accumulate at different rates just to throw us off.

I was replying to this.

If we all claim how much rage we have, and claim when we get rage,

So Kinetic's not even reading.

I really think you just don't understand exactly how simple of a rule we are asking the town to follow, and you are fighting something you think is a lot more encompassing than it is.

I understand that it's a simple rule, but that in no way implies that it is a good idea.

Like I said,

evidently we can't have a reasonable discussion about it because then the scum might figure out what's going on, so I'm just going to say that later on, you're going to have to explain it.

[Zdenek]

Even if we don't claim when we accumulate rage, as town uses it and claims their use of it, that will let scum know roughly how much rage town has at different points in the game, facilitating their lies.

[Zdenek]

How does claiming simply when you use rage out power roles?

So you've expressed suspicion of me over our disagreement over strategy, and it turns out that you've been ignoring my posts on the matter. Colour me surprised.

When making the decision about claiming rage, we should keep in mind the possibility of power roles like the ophans of last game, which may noit accumulate rage at the same rate as others, or stronger roles that accumulate it faster. If there are these roles in the game, they could be outed quickly if we start mass-claiming rage.

Ophans additionally could be outed because of, for instance, a reluctance to use rage.

The case on Matt, while it had reasonable beginnings, has become somewhat unbelievable. For purely wifom reasons, I think he's probably town, so I guess I don't care if you want to kill him, but I'm looking elsewhere.

I don't understand the town reads on Kinetic at all, but there's more scum in the game.

Vote: PeregrineV

There's a reason . . . .

[Zdenek]

The case on Matt, while it had reasonable beginnings, has become somewhat unbelievable.

When, where and how?

Seriously? I'd love it if you could do the same for Kinetic

Well, here's what I find weak:

- The contradiction that you pointed out probably not related to alignment, and in context isn't much of a contradition. Matt first attacks your use of his MD post against him, and then when you explain what you are seeing more specifically, he attacks that.

- The argument that he was trying to bait you into a spiraling conversation doesn't make much sense to me. I can see why this is a scum tell, but attempting to actually discern that as Matt's intention is something that I am unable to do. Considering his later posts, that really doesn't seem to me to be what he was trying to do.

- The attack on him for disappearing was unwarranted.

- The attack on him for skimming when he said Kinetic rather than PV is poor because people get names wrong all the time.

- I disagree with the "setup to vote LLD" as being scummy. LLD's attack was reaching and him wanting her to explain herself makes sense.

- The logic of his attacks makes sense to me.

Here's what I agree with:

- I regard the points relating to him not playing to his post in Mafia Discussion as fairly weak. That argument seems to be something more along the line of a he's not playing what he believes is an optimal strategy argument as opposed to a he's scum argument. It's not an unreasonable point; I just don't think that it's good case for him being scum.

- the OMGUS happened, but I believe this is a bad scum-tell.

- the AtE, this has come up a lot, and it's the thing that I would actually be surprised if he did it as scum, but that's wifom so I like I said, if you want to lynch him for it, I don't care.

- I think that it's true that he didn't push PV, but I'm pretty reluctant to lynch him over that, mainly because this game was really slow last week, and getting started has involved a lot of non-scum hunting discussion.

[Zdenek]

My issue isn't the possibility, but... you seem to KNOW this. And I don't know HOW you could KNOW this. Everything Flay has said has been rather cryptic.

Of course I don't fucking know it. It's a guess.

The only way I can get these two opposing view points to fit together is thus: You are worried that power roles MIGHT be outed if we claim rage usage, but under your plan Power Roles must CLAIM in order to determine if someone's rage usage is scummy.

Not necessarily. I don't know yet, for sure, what we'll need to do to catch scum with this idea. It might be that power-roles will end up claiming, but I don't see how that will necessarily be avoided if we are all claiming all uses of rage either, but I guess that depends on how we end up trying to do it. I had something like Yos' idea in mind and it seems to me that would actually work better if we hadn't all claimed because then we might catch scum with too little rage, and enough people might agree that the amount of rage doesn't make sense with whatever the claims, that no pr actually needs to claim for us to get a lynch.

[Zdenek]

I'm pretty iffy on the first part of Matt's case on Xalxe, since the scum game that he provided as an example is a micro, so I'm not sure if it's a good comparison. On the other hand, his comparison of Xalxe different reactions to Tierce seems fair. Xalxe's comment about Matt's use of meta was pretty much just reactionary. Looking at the game Matt quoted, Xalxe didn't appear to put so little thought into things as town. Further investigation into this is probably warranted.

I'll just sit here like a good fucking scum, speak only when spoken to and quietly die.

Do you think this is how scum play?

cus the latter at least he does p much as both town and scum

links?

Tierce, you asked me to explain about what I think of the case against Matt. No comment? I mean, when I see this

Scum-LLD is much more likely to go over the top with ridiculous pushes.

I get the impression that you aren't really paying attention to LLD's push against Matt, which is over the top.

Also, why is Xalxe an easy target?

[Zdenek]

unvote: PV

I have to read, and don't want him dead before then.

[Zdenek]

Tierce paints a pretty good picture of PeregrineV inventing things.

Yes, you gave no reasons, so I don't agree with any of them. Pretty simple logic when you look at it that way.

I really hate this reply. It looks like a really feeble excuse for making up garbage.

I also really hate that Peregrine shot back.

Peregrine, can you quote where you claimed because I missed it too.

________________________________
Other stuff:

I'd really like us to only start hurting at 7 if we reach that number within two weeks (or so). If we start taking longer then reducing the number makes sense. For Peregrine, it looks like there is more than enough support, and since he's hurting back I don't really care about getting to 7, since we have at least 6 anyway. Having more votes can only be positive.

Not tonight; I'll answer you later when I actually feel like reading stuff in depth. The short version is that (obviously) I disagree with you.

Tierce, you've not read in depth and you've not commented on what I've had to say about either Kinetic or LLD.

And I don't think MattP's comparison is actually fair. Have you looked through the rest of D2 in Newbie 1289? Xalxe didn't question my Townieness there, and only thought to bring it to question on D3 (hilariously, I died overnight, so that was cut short). Here, he decided that a few posts against him and in support of me merit a massive scumread. That is nonsensical, especially when Xalxe claims to have been following an could already have formed reads. Coming into the game with his decision made is NOT scummy in any manner.

What Matt had to say had nothing to do with whether he questioned your townieness on D2. It was about how he entered into the game. In the Newbie game, as town, he buddied with you, but remained reasonable, and as scum he basically just sucked up to you, which is what he did here. It's about the forming of reads, it's about the sort of relationship he's establishing.

I am concerned that Yosarian has had very little to say about anyone other than MattP (and FOS'ed me for OMGUS), and now a bit about Peregrine.

The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points.

Which ones did you disagree with?

Secondly, I don't see how my point about his setting up a vote on me is stretching, over the top or anything of that sort. I called him on flip flopping his reads like a mad man, like a scum who is trying to find a vote that will gain some traction to save himself. I saw his posting about me and immediately recognized it as a setup for a future vote. You'll notice that I was not incorrect and that he has followed up on what I said he would. So I'll need an explanation on how that's a misrep too.

You're really conflating a lot of stuff in this post. You accused him of disappearing from the thread, he said that he'd posted in the last five hours, you said that he hadn't responded to the points raised against him, and he calls you out on these two things being different. I would not expect most players to do anything different than him in this situation as either alignment. On the other hand, I think that your reply to him,

First off, you've posted null pertaining to the points being brought against you by myself and Yos to my satisfaction.

Really wasn't adequate. It probably should have come with an "oops I was wrong" or something. So no, it's not surprising that he's doing what you said he would, but it's also null.

I have more of a problem with LLD changing the rationale for why she accused Matt of vanishing from what I quoted above to

I don't see how I was misrepresenting Matt's disappearance from the game. When he was pushing for Charter to answer his questions, and fighting with Tierce, his activity was off the charts. He had an entire page that was nothing but him and Quadz posting back and forth. I don't think that him suddenly dropping his content level to a place where it was noticeably different and in my opinion trying to lay low, immediately after pressure started to mount on him.

I'm curious how Zdenek can claim that Matt simply wants me to "explain myself" and then ignore the fact that Matt has LITERALLY explained NOTHING this game. He's answered NO questions posed of him, not about his town or scum reads. So I'd like you to explain firstly how I didn't explain myself and 2) explain how it's ok for Matt to demand explanations but not for Tierce or I to do so (it would appear you conveniently ignored this).

This is just ridiculous. First of all Matt is welcome to want you to explain yourself even when he hasn't. See that fact that Tierce asked me to explain my view of the case on Matt, but she's not addressed certain things that I have asked her to do.

I didn't ask you to explain yourself, but what certainly needed explanation was why you accused Matt of vanishing, because your use of the word vanishing does not seem to be standard.

As for your last point, it's not okay and he should answer.

Why don't you have a problem with Tierce not addressing the things I've asked her about?

Regarding Yos (Since Quadz asked), I still feel somewhat fine about my townread on him. I like that he was scumhunting and being aggresive in solidifying his read on Matt, and his theory work is relatively decent. Not a sold townread, but he's still town.

This is really shocking to me. Do you think you would have seen something different as town?

When Matt dies, his alignment (town or scum) sheds light, at the very least, on myself and Tierce offhand.

How does it work if he flips town?

PV needs to die NOW. The longer we wait the more hurts on town he can commit with impunity. Anyone delaying at this point is going to get a strong look from my book (I'm looking at you Zd with your "convenient" unvote).

Fuck off.

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Now this?

I'd really like everyone to notice the cognitive dissonance in Kinetic's posting here: he goes from attacking me for unvoting to casting doubt on people not sticking their necks out.

The auto-killing people who hurt outside of the rules is a terrible idea and will only cause problems.

No, I think this is part of the accountability clause. If you're going to be on the wagon to hurt someone you're fairgame for retaliation. Now, whether that retaliation is townie or scummy is entirely distinct and separate, but this should 100% be the rule. I'm calling it the 1v1 accountability clause and it WILL be implemented.

Except that the pro-town thing to do, is to argue your case, and not hurt back.

[Zdenek]

How does it work if he flips town?

We know that his intent wasn't to get things off of him, and that he believed what he was saying and can proceed accordingly.

Would you say that you usually use lynched townie's reads to inform your own?

[Zdenek]

In fact, if you pop a look at me on D2 of Matt's favorite game of mine to refer to (Newbie 1289), I spend a decent amount of time figuring out fuck-all based on the nightkill and why a random newbie was killed.

Well, there is a difference between NK analysis, and lynched townie analysis, but whatever.

[Zdenek]

This is hella scummy bro.

Which of my points did you disagree with?

[Zdenek]

How's that for cognitive dissonance. You don't agree with yourself in the same post? Also, where is your hurt on PV? Or vote for that matter?

What are you talking about?

I'm not voting or hurting him because apparently he's claimed, and I couldn't find his claim in his posts, and there's no way that I am going to vote or hurt him until I've seen it.

[Zdenek]

Which of my points did you disagree with?

The part where you're like "this case started good". It's day one and with no additional info, if someone is scummy it sticks to them, forever. It's not like you claw your way out of a bad spot. You post scummy things, people attack you for it, that's the normal way of things, and even if people invent bad extra reasons that you're scum, that doesn't cancel the original reasons people had for suspecting you.

There are piles of cases that get made at the beginnings of games that are reasonable. That doesn't mean that as the game goes on those cases remain good cases to base a lynch on.

[Zdenek]

In theory, that's true, but it's enough to suspect. And in Matt's case I think he's the best candidate for lynch today.

So which of my points did you disagree with?

Also, I'll go as far to say that I don't really care if we start shooting at 5 votes or at 7; so long as a plurality of people seem to be in favor of lynching someone, then I think you're free to use your judgement.

In past games, slow lynches have been very hard on scum, at least in part because of the fact that they picked up rage when they were in on hurting townies, while we can't take too long because of rage accumulation with time, we don't necessarily have to work very quickly, and getting a majority would be better than not.

LLD,

why don't you have a problem with Tierce not answering the things that I've asked her about?

Voided,

why do you think that Yosarian wouldn't play this way as town?

Kinetic,

which of my points about MattP do you disagree with?

[Zdenek]

Kinetic,

which of my points about MattP do you disagree with?

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

As for ZD, I liked the post, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points.

So when you said that said that you didn't sign on to every single one of the points, you meant that you you signed on to none of them?

[Zdenek]

Kinetic,

which of my points about MattP do you disagree with?

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

As for ZD, I liked the post, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points.

So when you said that said that you didn't sign on to every single one of the points, you meant that you you signed on to none of them?

I said, and I continue to say, that the case against Matt was NOT what I was commenting on when I read your post. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

So what were you talking about?

[Zdenek]

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

Well, when you said

As for ZD, I liked the post, not quite all the points.

You may not be commenting on any point in particular, but you certainly indicated some sort of agreement with some of them.

The fact that you said it in response to this:

I don't understand why you thought Zdenek's points were good and it looks not like weird flipflopping because of this new post. I don't understand how you thought Zdenek's points were good (and I would like you to explain how they were good) and then fencesat here and then through out crappy weird opportunistic reads on three lurkers and said without knowing anything about them that there are 1-2 scum there. It's very sloppy

Makes me think that you were exaggerating to justify your unvote of me.

In 595 he said he neither agreed nor disagreed with Zdenek's points. Looking at 378, I guess I can see where you can the implication that he agreed with at least one point with the "I didn't sign on to every single [point]", but it's also likely it's just a semi-hyperbolic statement that basically means that he doesn't have anything to say (or doesn't care) about the points in the post itself.

Semi-hyperbolic? It's pretty clear exaggeration.

You need to look at what happened.

He goes from calling me scum to calling me town because of one post, it seems.

He was called out on it, and said that he liked the post, but not quite all the points. This is an understandable reason to change your read on someone early in the game.

Further prodding now reveals that he doesn't actually agree with any of the points, but just that the post seems townish. This is a much weaker reason to think that someone is town, and by taking this stance he avoids having to take a stance on MattP.

The last thing that he had to say about Matt, I think was,

I'll admit, I'm not 100% sold on the Matt case, but I'm having trouble with his targets as well. Xalve I can see. I would even put PV above Xalve, but I'm not seeing LLD and I'm not sure why he's 100% on Zd as well (although, granted, I've moved Zd to scummy neutral on my list away from solid scum). If anything, that is selling me more on the MattP case then on Tierce's attacks. I agree on his quadz town read though, and although I'm not 100% on his play, I do agree on Tierce though so he's not completely out of it.

which is pretty much meaningless.

Vote: Kinetic

I'd prefer it no one new hurts Peregrine, since we there's a pretty good chance that scum pick up rage by being in on townie lynches, so limiting the number of people who actually do the hurting would be positive.

[Zdenek]

I'd prefer it no one new hurts Peregrine, since we there's a pretty good chance that scum pick up rage by being in on townie lynches, so limiting the number of people who actually do the hurting would be positive.

This seems pretty random. Why?

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. At least in WiH2, scum got rage by hurting townies who were eventually killed. That could be the case in this game too. It makes sense to keep the total number of people dealing out hurts limited to make it harder for scum to pick up rage in this way.

[Zdenek]

Yosarian's pattern of votes and his reasons for them is really bothering me now.

His first stated suspicion was on me of OMGUS after Kinetic, Quadz and kdowns had stated their suspicions of me.

His second was on MattP, also for OMGUS, after Tierce, LLD and kdowns had stated their suspicions of him.

Next he votes ABR for not posting.

Next voted PeregrineV, for shooting back at Kinetic because shooting back is a pretty solid scum tell, this was after several people had suggested their suspicions of Peregrine.

Most recently he's been going after Voided for chainsaw defending Peregrine.

His votes on Me, MattP and Peregrine were votes on popular wagons.

His reasons for his votes on me and Matt and for his suspicion on Voided are all weak/boilerplate scum tells.

I also read Voided's concern about Yosarian showing up, putting the fifth vote on Peregrine and then hurting him as quite natural in the context of his earlier comments about wanting to raise the number of votes required to start hurting.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

[Zdenek]

I'm suspicious of you because of the cognitive dissonance between your position (you thought PV was scum/scummy enough to support killing him), but then when push came to shove, the three of you backed off and didn't hurt him at all.

I thought he was suspicious enough to vote, but I thought there was someone else who should have died first.

Now Xalve is not being voted, and wasn't my strongest read "just because he hurt". Again, this is a strawman and its easy to prove so.

If you read my post you'd see that I know this and even talked about it.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

Oh you did read it and you even quoted it. Now, who is strawmanning?

First you find PV scummy, although you never state a reason despite claiming you had one.

Well, I did, so there's that:

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense,

Then, you back off him as SOON as it becomes clear that PV is going to die. You still never stated the reason for your original vote. And then you never pursued PV again.

I did give my opinion on Peregrine, so the first point is false. Now, I didn't say that was the reason for my original suspicion. It was, and I also don't see how that matters.

Tierce paints a pretty good picture of PeregrineV inventing things.

Yes, you gave no reasons, so I don't agree with any of them. Pretty simple logic when you look at it that way.

I really hate this reply. It looks like a really feeble excuse for making up garbage.

I also really hate that Peregrine shot back.

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Next, despite you harping that scum might benefit from being on a lynch, when I point out that Xalve is acting like opportunistic scum if that is the case with his hurt, instead of agreeing, AGAIN you are backing off. Makes me think that either A) you and Xalve are scum buddies and your own argument just caught your scum buddy in a lie and now you're trying to discredit YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, or B) You're scum, and you are trying to get your hands off another townie lynch again just when I start to look at someone who isn't you.

No Kinetic, I have reservations about my argument, I don't think that it's wrong, but I also don't think that on it's own it's good enough to warrant lynching someone.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

If there is anything else in Kinetic's post that anyone wants me to address I will.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town.

Fair enough.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

Yawn.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.
[\quote]
In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.
[\quote]
Considering your ignoring the point above, this is quite ironic.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.
[\quote]
I gave them pre-flip too. Go look. I even quoted them for you.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE [did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.
And yawn.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:
In post 488, Kinetic wrote:
Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

First, the post you quote of mine is taken out of context. When I was saying I didn't expected PV's

scumbuddies

to protect him, I expected him to be scum and HAVE scumbuddies. Since then, PV has flipped town.

Fair enough.

I assume you scumslipped and meant to say "hurting PV".

Yawn.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

Therefore, the ONLY possible reason that you can have for thinking my vote on Xalxe is scummy has to not be because of that. It MUST be something else. There are two possibilities: 1) No matter what I say you'll just disagree and find it scummy, therefore, you're scum, or 2) you must have found that because I was attacking him just for hurting was scummy when I was also attacking you for not-hurting. But as I showed above, the reason for the vote had nothing to do with that. That's not a strawman, that's breaking down your argument into its component parts and disproving each and every one of them individually. I still addressed your entire argument, I just did it in pieces. A straw man is when you pick JUST one part of the argument, don't address anything else, and attempt to make that appear to be the only argument, and then attack if for a lack of being able to stand on its own.

Considering your ignoring the point above, this is quite ironic.

My point is you gave those reasons POST flip, when they are frankly useless, instead of PRE flip when they could have been useful. You stating your reasons POST flip leaves you open to changing history.

I gave them pre-flip too. Go look. I even quoted them for you.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

Pushing a lynch I believe in is not anti-town.
And also, yawn.

At best it takes 5 votes to lynch. My vote was the first and intended to illicit reactions from Xalxe and attempt to determine if it was worth it to consider pursuing him further. You, despite AGREEING WITH THE REASONS I VOTED HIM, undermined those reasons. Basically, you stopped me from putting pressure on someone you AGREE [did something scummy. Why? Are you afraid of what Xalxe might reveal?

We should actually get majorities to lynch, but that's another story.
And I found your vote on Xalxe really weird.
And yawn.

The fact that you are repeatedly trying to tie me together with people before flips is ridiculous.

[Zdenek]

Apologies, I didn't see this. I will rescind the fact that you gave no reasons. That being said, you reasons don't follow your actions, and in a way it ties even further into my argument as to WHY didn't you hurt him then. Allow me to rephrase my argument. You gave reasons why you thought he was scum post-hurting, pre-flipping, even commented that his actions after being hurt were scummy and yet... you did nothing. You followed an anti-town motive by letting him continue attacking me. So, basically, you pretty much used a hurt on me through PV by refusing to stop him.

I could understand why people found PV scummy. That does not imply that I think that he was the correct person to be killing off.

The idea that this should be the case is incredibly counter-productive. A lot of the time in normal mafia game people get run up, and their reactions under pressure are useful, and people's reads reads or their desire for a person to be lynched change for all sorts of reasons. Your idea that it is scummy for me to at once understand why someone is found scummy by some people, but to still not want to kill that person off, is wrong-headed.

Why do you find it weird?

Let's go through your posts:

Apologies, my attention is not 100% here right now. Also, Zd is scum.

You indicate that you think that I am scum.

I'm going to assume the reason I wasn't hurt was because of someone intervening, thank you. And if that's the case, I think I found scum. If there is another reason, well, I still think I found scum. Stay tuned.

You indicate that you think that you found scum and that it has something to do with someone intervening on your behalf.

Then you vote Xalxe using reasoning that I have suggested.

You're using reasoning that I suggested and you are not following through on your previous comment about someone intervening on your behalf.

EBWOP: Forgot this part.

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy. I read your post, I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot both attack my reason for voting some as scummy, and then agree that it is a viable reason to believe someone is scummy.

In the context of your attacks on me of course I can.

But that is what I'm pointing out. This reasoning and my attacks on you were separate until you conflated them. I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported. You then attacked that reasoning. I attacked YOU for attacking a reasoning you previously supported, therefore undermining my arguments against Xalxe. That is the scummy thing YOU did.

You can't have it both ways.

You either approve of the reasoning, and therefore approve my attack on Xalxe. In this case, there is no attack on you at all, so there is no way it can be in the "context of my attacks on you", or;

You disapprove of my reasoning, and therefore disapprove or my attack on Xaxle.

You can't approve of my reasoning, and then disapprove of my using it as a basis of an attack on Xalxe.

I don't disapprove of it. What I said was,

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

It has merit, I approve of it, I don't think that it's a strong reason. In particular, considering how you have been attacking me, your vote on Xalxe because of it, doesn't make much sense. I can't believe that this isn't clear.

[Zdenek]

Welp, looks like accumlated Rage is publicly announced in-thread. At least, that's what I'm gathering from the fact that everyone but Xalxe's now full HP+1.

Not entirely sure about my feelings on Kinetic vs. Zdenek. Need a lil' more.

P-EDIT: Well, there's a little more. I like Kinetic a lot more based on how the argument's gone so far.

unvote

Vote on zde pending a response.

Which of his points do you agree with?

[Zdenek]

Which of his points do you agree with?

Really, the points that neither of you haven't conceded yet.

That's not an acceptable answer.

Oh, I thought you were saying I had a contradiction in my statement about you.

Also, wtf, I can't find it anymore. 0.o Maybe it was someone else and I'm just an idiot.

I believe you are talking about:

As for ZD, I liked the post, not quite all the points. The post seemed like a very good town post hence why I backed off of Zd, but I didn't sign on to every single one of his points. I think that is your issue.

I don't agree or disagree with any of your points. I haven't examined them in depth, I commented that the post was townish, I wasn't commenting on the points themselves.

In post 654, Zdenek wrote:
Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

It has merit, I approve of it, I don't think that it's a strong reason.

In particular, considering how you have been attacking me, your vote on Xalxe because of it, doesn't make much sense.

I can't believe that this isn't clear.

It is "clear", except it doesn't make sense. Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

You are conflating two different things though. My attacks on you are completely independent of my attacks on Xalxe. You muddling these two separate issues is what is making things unclear.

I think the reason that my actions don't make sense to you is because you feel, wrongly, that if you think someone is scum that nothing that they do can be correct. That just isn't true. Just because I think you're scum, and I do, doesn't mean that some things you say, or possible setup speculation you make might have value. Hell, your setup speculation may be even MORE valuable BECAUSE I think you're scum. However, I can understand how it wouldn't make sense if somehow you believed everything that a person who you believe is scum does is scummy. You're basically following the traditional "poisoning the well" fallacy, and my actions "don't make sense" to you because I am not.

Kinetic is trying to sweep things under the rug by ignoring part of the reason that I found his Xalxe vote strange. Namely,

You indicate that you think that you found scum and that it has something to do with someone intervening on your behalf.

which he doesn't address at all.

So Kinetic, what were you thinking when you wrote that?

Also,

LLD, why don't you have a problem with Tierce not answering the things that I've asked her about?

[Zdenek]

Why do you think that Kinetic is town?

[Zdenek]

You think that is part of the reason you thought the vote on Xalxe was strange? I didn't realize that.

You realize that you asked me why I thought it was weird, and I answered, and that was part of the reason. My life would be much easier if you would read.

Anyway, I agree with Yos being scummy and I could go that way. MattP could easily be scum, but I have reservations about that.

[Zdenek]

For the rest I felt the arguments were going in his direction rather than yours.

Which ones?

[Zdenek]

I would love to not respond to this Kinetic, but since you keep misrepresenting me I have to.

The issue is that Zd is both agreeing and disagreeing with me now. He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

The argument is not logical because we are unaware of the setup. It's speculative, but I think that it's reasonable.

He is backing off his own logical argument though, and saying that while Xalxe is suspicious, and the logic is sound, he now believes that it is less an indicator of scum than he did previously.

Quote where I said that I think that it is less of an indicator of scum than I thought previously or what is making you think that my mind has changed on this matter.

We aren't in agreement exactly, and it is frustrating me because we should be and that actually strengthens my scum read in him because something he SAID was scummy, that I caught someone doing else, he is now backing off of that scummy tactic. He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote.

The fact that after all we have discussed you are still trying to suggest that my issue with your vote on Xalxe was that you voted him because of this is insane, and I have no idea why you are continuing to do it.

I'd have been more inclined to think he was town if he didn't do that, but his attack on me going after Xalxe is frankly baseless, and it is at odds with his own previously mentioned, pre-PV views. To me, what Zd is doing is poisoning the well, a logical fallacy where no matter what the argument is, you disagree with it on principal based on who proposed it, even if you would have supported that same argument if someone else presented it. I, further feel, that is a position scum who have decided on a target to pursue to make them look town and look like they're scum hunting will take, when in fact it isn't scum hunting at all.

I am not attacking you for going after Xalxe because of this case. My problem was with your vote on Xalxe in relation to the things that you were saying about me and the fact that you said that you thought you found scum somehow because of being protected. The vote seemed very out of place. More importantly, what I said was

Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

In particular, I was not attacking your reasons for your vote.

Next, that is not what poisoning the well is, so fuck off with the rhetorical garbage. Poisoning the well is presenting information in a manner to produce a biased result.

[Zdenek]

And that post was not me representing you at all. What it was, was MY perception of our argument/issues. It was MY argument for what you're doing. You may not agree with it, but your disagreeing with what I am arguing doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you. That is why your response was unnecessary. The post was also not targeted or addressed to you.

That is such bullshit. If you say that someone is doing something, and they say that they didn't, you can't claim that somehow that's irrelevant because it's YOUR perception or YOUR argument.

Kinetic got caught making false claims, and he's now trying to justify it with a crazy argument.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, you are clearly misrepresenting things that I've said. You saying that your post was not directed at me doesn't change that. Attacking my intelligence over this is pathetic.

Not voting Kinetic at this point is a scum tell.

Voided, I have no idea what you are asking me.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says, Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

[Zdenek]

I'll respond to Kinetic's post when I get to a computer.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

If you have reservations about it, then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

I've been clear about my issues with your vote on Xalxe, and they weren't only to do with this argument.

Quadz, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself. What issue have I sidestepped?

[Zdenek]

I'm not sidestepping that issue at all. I don't think that having reservations about the argument against Xalxe is attacking it. I think it's just common sense. Kinetic said that this is attacking the argument. If he also has reservations about it, then it makes no sense for him to be goddamned concerned with trying to paint me as scummy over this issue.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says,

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum

, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

Bolded is bullshit. What you said was:

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit,

but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

The bolded is an attack against my reasoning for voting Xalxe.

I don't think that pointing out an obvious problem with an argument is attacking it, but whatever, if you think it is, fine, but if you also have reservations about it, then the fact that you're arguing with me over it makes no sense.

And I have repeatedly...

Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

I completely disagree with this stance. It's important to decide which reasons are weak and which are strong and the outcome of this decision is important. I really wish I knew what your point was.

stated...

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy.

I did not find your attack scummy because you used this argument. If thought it was strange in the context of your attack on me and in your previous comments about finding scum based on you being protected.

that you...

I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight.

That seems like it might be true, but again, I'm not sure what your point is.

supported...

I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported.

or that...

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

Yeah, and I said that the argument has merit, and it seems that we disagree on the strength of the argument, and again, I don't know what your point is. This just looks like unnecessary padding.

you agree or believe the argument has merit. Over and fucking over again. The issue with you saying that is a misrepresentation is because YOU HAVE DONE BOTH of the things in your example.

If you also have reservations about the argument, then what the fuck is your problem?

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit.

You have both attacked my reasoning for voting Xalxe AND said it has merit. That is the issue. You can't say "attacking my reasoning for voting Xalxe" is misrepresenting your position because you are attacking me for voting Xalxe. Yes, you've also said my reasoning has merit, but you have said, basically, it is not enough merit to warrant a vote.

I did not attack you for voting Xalxe because of this argument. I think that had someone else said it or had you said it in a different context, that it could have been fine, but you did so after calling me scum, saying that you'd caught scum using the protections on you, and your vote on Xalxe made little sense at that moment.

My issue is you saying that it is a:

it's a weak reason for a vote

Now, what I said was this:

He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote.

I have said you've attacked me for the vote. Which you have done. That is not a misrepresentation. This IS getting ridiculous. I've gone out of my way to avoid calling you an idiot (despite you doing so to me just in your last post), and I've seriously tried to not insult your intelligence, but this is it. You are fucking wrong. Period.

When you have had nothing else to say about Xalxe all game and you've been pushing a case on me consistently, it's a weak reason for a vote.

[Zdenek]

In post 739, Kinetic wrote:
In post 738, Zdenek wrote:
Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.


I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

If you have reservations about it, then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

I've been clear about my issues with your vote on Xalxe, and they weren't only to do with this argument.

Quadz, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself. What issue have I sidestepped?

Remember this post:

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

Remember how you attacked me and basically chainsawed me off of pursuing my Xalxe case and called me voting him scummy. You said in the same post, "a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe", but you didn't do that, you gave him room to breath. If you were town, maybe the right play would have been to back the fuck off and let me explore. I wasn't 100% on Xalxe, but you basically coming to his defense before he even made a RESPONSE to my vote (save a few weird posts, and lurking since) basically derailed any pressure before it started. Why wouldn't you take your own damn advice and WATCH what was going on instead of basically coming in, calling me scummy for the vote, and questioning the motivations

DESPITE AGREEING WITH THE LOGIC THAT XALXE ACTED SCUMMY

.

No? It's also because of things like this:

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

You promoting an anti-town agenda.

That's why we're arguing. That's why I'm voting you. You have taken the position that everything I do is wrong and I cannot do any other scum hunting until apparently one of us is dead.

I felt you were acting scummy, but some people who I felt were town asked me to look for other people because they felt you were town. I backed off, you didn't. And then as soon as I start looking to make a case against someone else, you stepped in and blocked it. So, you got my attention again. Now you're not losing it. You're scum and I'm tired of you.

P-Edit: Zd, why am I not able to go after Xalxe? Because you won't fucking get out of my way. So while you keep obstructing me I will keep pointing out how scummy you're being. I'm already voting you, I've tried to follow other people's reads that you're town, I've tried to avoid you, but you keep stepping in my way.

1. quote where I said that you voting Xalxe was scummy.
2. You are the person who thought that Xalxe was scum, wanted to pressure him and then immediately took the pressure off of him, as soon as I posted.
3. Xalxe has hardly posted since then, so there hasn't been much to pay attention to, and the argument that I am not paying attention to him is stupid. I'm reading his posts, if I see something bothers me I'll point it out.
4. I didn't stop you from exploring. It was your decision to focus on me.
5. If my scum read does something that makes no sense, I am going to point it out.
6. Me trying to get my top scum read lynched is protown.
7. It's not my fucking job to create an environment that is conducive to my scum reads putting pressure on people.

Vote: Zdenek

He is very clearly the loser in this argument on all current fronts. Quadz gets some townpoints for pointing out the sidestepping Zde did.

Voided, specifically which points do you agree with and why, and why do you disagree with my responses.

[Zdenek]

I've quoted it like five fucking times. I'm tired of this back and forth, look at my ten other posts which point it out.

I've just ISO'd myself, and I've never said that. I said that your vote on Xalxe seems incongruent with your attacks on me and that it's weird in the context of your attacks on me and your post about trying to find scum using the fact that you were protected.

Can you not see how I would think these things?

then attacking the very notion that going after Xalxe was scummy

That is nonsense. Please tell me what you are talking about.

And you effectively gave me no choice. Hell, one of your points was "the mention of finding someone else scummy, is in itself scummy, because of the things he said about me."

That is such garbage. Of course you had a choice.

for many of the things you consider scummy, multiple people have said that those very things are town traits.

Which things are these?

You've failed to do so at every turn. You haven't even made a case about me. Make one.

Maybe later.

This seems like more fun.

Vote: Yosarian

[Zdenek]

ABR, I'm tired. No one's reading my posts. I'm going to do something else and see what comes of it.

[Zdenek]

Just to get this all in one place. Here is why Kinetic is scum.

1. The AtE - iPad post. He attacks me for attacking him over the things that he chose to comment on. I no longer care about that, but the way he defends himself is the problem. He acts as though I am scum for not taking into account the fact that he is posting from an iPad and is 100 miles from a computer. This sort of attack is completely insane. I am not in a position to know anything about his personal situation.

2. Rhetorical garbage:

I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being.

There is nothing that I have said where him explaining that he posting from an iPad is going to demonstrate its hypocrisy.

Suggesting that I am using logically fallacies that I am not using.

3. Use of weak/boilerplate scum-tells

Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense"

Here he was using a version of a scum-tell where he was suggesting that Tierce is scum with me for attacking MattP in an attempt to distract town from Kinetic's case on me. Even the strong version of this "tell" (which would have occurred if Tierce had attacked Kinetic) is highly questionable, so this version is most likely irrelevant to people's alignments.

He calls people scum for disagreeing with him over mechanics/strategy issues. These are usually alignment neutral things.

He suggests that I was chainsaw defending Xalxe when I pointed out that I have doubts about the reason to think that he is scum on account of the setup being closed. This is a completely reasonable point, I think, and Kinetic doesn't seem to disagree, and on top of that, the "tell" is discredited.

4. Taking things out of context: Kinetic 203. I attack Kinetic over the things that he chose to comment on - he was talking about mechanics rather than talking about the case on MattP. I point this out, and he tries to suggest that my issue was with him attacking me. I'd never said anything of the sort.

5. Lying and backtracking. Regarding my post 300. He says its a good post and unvotes me, he gets called out on his unvote and says the doesn't agree with every single one of the points (not quite all the points) then later says that in fact he agrees with none of them. He exaggerated to justify his change of read on me and then backtracked on that when he was called out.

6. Exaggeration: post 428, he suggested that Peregrine scumslipped when he said that he wanted us to use seven rather than five votes to secure a lynch.

He suggests that me accidentally saying Kinetic rather that PV is a scum slip.

He suggests that not wanting to kill Peregrine yesterday is a scum slip.


7. He attacks me for unvoting Peregrine in 464 and then later suggests that Peregrine's buddies wouldn't stick their necks out to save him. He was falling over himself trying to throw suspicion around.

8. He attacks Xalxe for hurting Kinetic because of my setup spec - that scum will want to hurt town because it might help them pick up rage, and attacks me for not hurting Peregrine because I didn't want blood on my hands. If scum really do pick up rage for hurting townies there was no reason for me to stick my neck out and not hurt Peregrine, and if he buys the argument against Xalxe, he should not be attacking me over this.

9. This is the real kicker. He's attacking me for saying that I have reservations about the Xalxe argument. When I ask him about it, he dodges the question, by saying that he didn't say that he didn't have reservations about them, but this seems to imply that he understands why I would have reservations about it, and the fact that he is attacking me over this is contrived.

Points for the future:

Kinetic has claimed that he has plans to use town claiming rage to find scum, and believed in them enough to suggest that I am for doubting him. If these plans don't pan out, he needs to be forced to explain them in detail, and then lynched if they don't make any sense.

[Zdenek]

he diiiiiiies

I'd love to know what you find scummy about this.

[Zdenek]

hey kinetic im gonna be honest i didnt read any of your guys idiot wall can u please sum up for me why zd is scum.

Continues to not scum hunt, has simply focused solely on me to the exclusion of the whole game.

False. I'm not even voting you.

Tierce seems convinced that's a town tell for Zd, but even if it is it's indicitive of absolutely useless town play. He actively disrupts other scum hunting efforts (both PV and Xalxe).

PV was town, so that's lulzy and you don't even appear to disagree with my reservations about the case on Xalxe, so that's a silly too.

His actions are disruptive on purpose. He has performed Anti-Town actions because it would benefit him and him alone, without regard for the town (For instance, claiming "majority should be needed to hurt, well after the issue was thought to be resolved, when HE is on the chopping block now; but being completely OK with PV hurting me with no votes on me simply because it was targeting me. It was like he was hurting me himself).

I have thought that we should need a majority to hurt from the start of the game. I was not ok with Peregrine hurting you, but I also didn't think it was such a great scum tell.

Ironically, I'm not 100% on him being scum anymore, for a couple reasons that I'm keeping close for right now, but I'm starting to think at BEST he is highly uncooperative and useless town. Seeing as the last WiH game I played I was killed and the town lost because of players like that (see roflcopter in WiH2) I'm starting to believe that even if he ends up being town upon death I won't feel bad about it at all.

I'd love to know why you think you are so much better than me at this point.

This is a game where the town MUST cooperate with each other and follow the rules we set forth. Anarchy, even in Hell, will lead to a scum win, and he is quickly becoming more trouble than he is worth.

I have done absolutely nothing to cause disorder in the game. I just happen to think that you are scum. I don't see why you would expect me to co-operate with you, but that said, I have been co-operative - I've moved on from the arguing with your rage claiming scheme and see what happens, but, that doesn't mean that I won't hold you accountable for your ideas later.

[Zdenek]

I have reasons.

V/LA until Monday

[Zdenek]

1000 points to anyone who can find where I said anything about having a problem with the amount Yos is posting.

[Zdenek]

Quadz, me moving on from Kinetic makes a ton of sense: people are not reading our back and forth, it's clearly becoming a distraction, I've made my case and it doesn't seem like continuing that argument is going to get us anywhere, and there are more scum in the game.

Right now, I am voting Yos, who's response to my vote was to lie about the reason that I am voting him.

[Zdenek]

Right now, I am voting Yos, who's response to my vote was to

lie

about the reason that I am voting him.

You keep using words like this. "Lie", "Misrepresentation", but I don't think you know what they mean. It takes a LOT to call someone lying about something you did. As in, how can you say Yos is lying about "why YOU voted for him". Maybe he misunderstands, maybe he misinterpreted, but for him to have lied, it implies both he has a perfect knowledge of what you know AND he purposefully said something contrary to that perfect knowledge. I'm sorry, but you've been less than clear very often that believing ANYONE has perfect knowledge of what you're thinking is quite a leap. And then to take another leap and to say Yos then

lied

about it, is quite frankly, over-reaching.

If you really think Yos "lied about the reason that YOU voted HIM", meaning all of the above I just stated, than at best you're stretching. At worst, you're overreaching on purpose to make it seem scummier than it really is. I'd like Yos to post more, and I'll admit, his play has been reminiscent of a game that I remember him being scum in previously... but at the same time, there isn't a need to make something like that up.

First of all, maybe Yos did misunderstand something. If that's the case, he an explain himself. Since there's a record of everything I've said, I don't see why it would be hard for him to get it right. What I see now is someone who is maybe fourth on my wagon (you, voided, Quadz, Yos) who is voting me for a bullshit reason.

I also find it very amusing that Kinetic spent so much time complaining that I hindered his scum hunting efforts by pointing out an issue with his case on Xalxe, but was very quick to attack mine on Yosarian, and in the same post said that Yosarian is playing as he has before as scum. I can't believe people are failing to see how full of shit Kinetic is.

[Zdenek]

Psst. Scooby.

You're not that town.

Here's your reality check. You're welcome.

Zde: A.) I've been reading them (why else would I even be able to say that I think Kinetic's winning otherwise), B.) If you want to admit that your push failed, just SAY SO.

A) then prove it. Explain why you think I am scum, specifically.
B) I hope it works in the long run.

[Zdenek]

In fact it would have made NO sense for you to call me out on that the way you did unless you thought it was a scumslip or you were trying to incriminate me, so I want to you explicitly state why it was a scumslip.

SCUM

UNVOTE VOTE MATTP

Why?

Vote: MattP

That ABR interaction is the last straw. I'm not changing this vote. He's scum and he dies.

Same question.

if I'm scum then they wouldn't gain rage from killing me

That said, technically I wouldn't mind some plan like that other than for the time the process would take. Definitely want Zdenek Hurting.

What changed?

Matt why do you think that Yos is town?

Tierce, do you have a read on Kinetic yet?

[Zdenek]

Vote: Scooby

[Zdenek]

Tierce you can stop being worthless and discuss things with me anytime.

I voted Scooby without saying anything mostly to see what Yosarian would do because I think his reasons for thinking that I am scum are ridiculous and it looked to me like his case on Scooby was a heck of a lot better, so it seemed like he could have been voting a townie while FoS'ing a buddy. I think his vote on Sccoby makes sense. I think that the case on Scooby is fine, and the fact that Scooby's decided to third-party hunt means he's pretty likely scum.

[Zdenek]

Why do you think ABR is bussing?

[Zdenek]

A lot from Quadz is rubbing me the wrong way.

He's suggested that even if I am town that he would be okay with lynching me. If that was the only time he'd done that, I'd just be annoyed by it, but now it's started to become a pattern. He says the same thing about ABR - that's he's willing to lynch him for anti-townness. In the same post, he suggests that ABR is scum with MattP. He also says that Scooby is no value to the town at all, and says that Scooby is scummy.

In his most recent post he completely misinterprets what I had to say about my Scooby vote to make it seem scummy, and then turns around to say that he is less sure of me being scum.

Then there's

ABR+Matt would actually not surprise me at all, and if one of them flips scum, I am 100% willing to lynch the other.

I am being paranoid and tinfoil-hat with that theory. I'm by no means convinced.

I'm finding it very difficult to follow any of his thought processes.

[Zdenek]

How in god's name is my vote on Yos scummy as hell?

[Zdenek]

Why did you link to the Dresden files game?

[Zdenek]

(Oh, and zdenek, it was already explained by someone; Quadz, I think. Go look back at when you voted Yos and then search the posts afterwards and you'll find it.)

Voided, I want to get a read on you, so I want you to actually explain some of the the things I've asked you to.

[Zdenek]

Why did you link to the Dresden files game?

Because you had a REALLY AWESOME scumread on our slot (Sixty) by the time you died. After we lynched GreyICE-scum with accurate meta that you (as always as with something not done by you) decided to discard as a bad case. Yes, Zdenek--your meta methods are crap. Sorry, but you need to learn how to do actual meta analysis.

We pinned strong scum (as a player and as a role) on meta on D1, lynched him through a wagon stall that promised to let him skate due to V/LA stuff, and you called us scum in the dead QT. What seriously

come on now

.

I mean, seriously. :/ Get your scumdar checked. I'm not here to lecture you (even though I just did but bear with me here there is a lot of pent-up frustration

feel free to lash back but let's keep this minimally brief this is about playstyle not alignment

), I'm here explaining why I am so irritated with you after literally MONTHS of the same bullshit and why I was so annoyed to see a tunnel start on page SIX in this game and the pages of walls that followed. I'm explaining why having a Townread on you does nothing for my desire of keeping you alive other than the fact that we can't kill everyone and win.

Okay I'm done. Back to ignore mode.

Well, I might have had a scum read on your slot, but I was also voting for Thor, who was scum, and that was before Klick faked the guilty on him. You lynched GreyICE with every scum in the game on the wagon, so the idea that it was your meta-case that did it is fucking stupid.

As far as my meta-methods go, I don't know, but they at least worked in ADWD to figure out the Regfan's defense of Feysal didn't make a lot of sense, and pegged Feysal as scum trying to over-correct for something he was called out for in his previous scum game.

Tierce you should stop wasting time lecturing me because it's obnoxious and actually read the game. It's not as though I set out to tunnel on people.

[Zdenek]

It would be somewhat funny if sixty turned out to be scum who killed me off because they were afraid of being accused of bussing GreyICE, who wasn't even their buddy

I mean COME ON. Me and Vi. Afraid of YOU. After I outlived TWO REAL LIFE MONTHS of tunneling from you, I would be hydraing with

Vi

and be afraid of

you

.

Whatever. Done rambling because this isn't going anywhere in

this

game and it's just me venting and talons and scarlet feathers everywhere now. I just wish you'd learn how to read people in general and particular.

That was after MoI commented that he thought my reads were good, and I first sent in my investigation on you before changing it, so I thought he was referring to that.

[Zdenek]

Tierce you should stop wasting time lecturing me because it's obnoxious and actually read the game. It's not as though I set out to tunnel on people.

My point is that you should learn from your mistakes, is all. If you are brought into D9 of a game, it's not because you're doing everything right and can just shift the blinders from Person A to Person B. That is what you did on ADwD and that is the impression I get from other games of yours. Being brought to LyLo is generally a bad sign, and should entice you to not only review your present game, but your method in general.

As I said, this was venting, and I'm not interested in your lynch. But please try to actually analyze your play once in a while, especially when your previous results are not satisfactory. Either way, I'm done.

Where the fuck did I say that I did everything right? What the fuck is wrong with you? In this game, I've tried to move on from tunneling on Kinetic. Jesus Christ.

[Zdenek]

Why did you choose to bring this up here, rather than in the post-game discussion for ADWD, where it would have been appropriate? I mean, I can understand you linking the game to explain where you are getting your meta from, but the rest of your complaints hardly belong here.

[Zdenek]

Yosarian was also scum in WiHII, so he should know this.

[Zdenek]

fwiw, my 3 votes are Kanye, VM, and Tierce.

What makes you think that Tierce is town?

it just felt like defense for the sake of defense, not defense to prove that you were actually town or defense to really try and prove kinetic's attacks as baseless, false, and at the core scummy.

What makes you think this?

I'm still happy with killing off scooby.

[Zdenek]

I'm not on Yos' list of people who have been voted.

[Zdenek]

I don't really see why we shouldn't just kill him off with rage dumps. Four of us dumping all our rage (minus one point for quadz' hurt) should do it. This should limit the amount of rage that scum has control over which is our main point.

I'm also fine with Kinetic not doing it, since he's just said something that makes me think that he is likely to be town.

[Zdenek]

why not 4?

[Zdenek]

why not 4?

Who dumps last?

I don't care, but maybe the least scummy of the four. After all whoever it is will be left with less rage, which is good if they are scum. I don't really see why not necessarily having a perfect way to pick who goes last means that we shouldn't have four people rage dumping.

[Zdenek]

2nd. Xalxe
3rd. Tierce
1st. Quadz
4th LLD

[Zdenek]

Sorry that should be

1st Xalxe
2nd Tierce
3rd Quadz
4th LLD

[Zdenek]

I'd ask you why you've changed your mind on KKB.

Preview edit. I'll have to go back and look.

[Zdenek]

KKB is suspicious of LLD.
Xalxe has had little to say about her.

[Zdenek]

LLD, I've sort of thought that you've been the most vocal critic of the system. Am I wrong?

[Zdenek]

What is your point?

[Zdenek]

Anyway voided has basically shattered the town read on him that I had earlier. He's clinging to the crazy idea that Kinetic was better than me on every point and in order to avoid having to rationalize his argument he's gone from arguing that Kinetic won the argument to saying that his opinion of the arguments isn't based to logic and that it's some sort of gut read - that it's based on how the arguments feel, which is fine, but that has nothing to do with winning the argument. He says that at the core my arguments felt scummy, but there's literally no mention of anything that he actually disagreed with or thought had scum motivation. It's all vague accusations that seem to me to be designed so that he doesn't have to backtrack on his earlier claim that Kinetic was better on every point.

Also I can't see any town reason for his comment to me that he's preeeeetty sure that MattP was joking about changing his KKB read. Considering that it doesn't look like that's the case at all. So to me this just looks like unnecessary mudflinging.

[Zdenek]

Also, LLD, why do you think that Tierce is town?

[Zdenek]

1.) He did win the argument and was better than you.

Your welcome to this opinion.

2.) It's hasn't been a gut read and I don't remember saying my opinion wasn't entirely not based on logic.

I suppose on an almost purely logical front with what I recall you may have been even with Kinetic--but it just felt like defense for the sake of defense, not defense to prove that you were actually town or defense to really try and prove kinetic's attacks as baseless, false, and at the core scummy.

On a logical front, we may have been even, the rest is about how you feel, with no actual reference to how anything that I did was scummy. It's just vague nonsense.

3.) I SAID Kinetic won the argument on every current point at the time I last posted on it, which should clearly meant I agreed with kinetic entirely. If you really want me to walk over the entire thing again, that's fine, but if I basically said I entirely agreed with Kinetic we're no longer arguing point-by-point but by the entire thing.

First of all, I don't believe that you could possibly have arrived at this decision legitimately, but that aside, I've given you plenty of opportunities to justify it is some way, and you've just restated over and over again that you agree with Kinetic on every point and have given no examples to justify this stance.

4.) Well, explain how Matt's post ISN'T possibly a joke then. Matt's switch on KKB is pending on what KKB actually does, so it's not in any way true.

...actually, start explaining how the fuck that's mudslinging in the first place.

Why do you think it's a joke because to me it's pretty fucking clear that it wasn't. I mean just read Matt's posts.

Let me try to organize my thoughts about kanye, but regardless of how I feel about him this is already a won town game as long as we agree that Zdenek, Yos, myself, Kinetic, ABR, and VM are never touched. I'm starting to really warm up to LLD town too, lemme go over her

Because you've been quiet as fuck and completely ignorant of all of the pushing of my townread I've been doing to you and asking for you to back me up when you claim you have me as a townread and if you were town you would be my bro

[Zdenek]

Can we please go with the plan to limit the number of people hurting him? I still think it's a good idea, and with the rage dumps it won't be slow at all. He'll probably be dead before 24 hours are up. I'll rage dump after the next vc.

[Zdenek]

Here's the thing voided, the fact that you still believe that MattP was joking means that you're either scum trying to stick to a previously stated opinion or that you're town who can't be taken seriously, and either way I no longer really care what you think of my argument with Kinetic.

[Zdenek]

So should i rage dump or hurt fate or just wait?

Personally, I don't see the reason to wait, whatever amount of rage scum gets, they know that at at least some town's people have three, so of course any scum who rages won't use more than that, unless they are planning to claim some sort of pr. i know that Kinetic might have some feelings about this, so I'll at least wait for him to post before I do anything.

[Zdenek]

Hurt Fate with a blade.

This attack is unnecessary and unspent, as Fate is already deceased.

[Zdenek]

HEAL: quadz

[Zdenek]

Hurt: Tierce

This action comes too soon after your last one.

[Zdenek]

Traditionally, Flay has announced whether or not the hurts or heals used in the thread have been spent or not.

[Zdenek]

I have found incredibly obv scum. When are e allowed to start talking?

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, how come you decided to out the amount of rage that you picked up?

[Zdenek]

LLD's last visited time, Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:07 pm, with what Kanye is saying (I'm in east).

Kinetic, I'd like you to answer my questions, especially the one about you talking about rage.

[Zdenek]

That should have said EST, not east.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic,

I'm ok with Albert/Matt/Yos doing that though. Its a smaller group, that would be 9 damage which should all be used up without us worrying about someone getting any refunded rage and throwing things off too.

You guessed that ABR, Matt and Yos would have combined 9 rage, implying that you received 3. I'm wondering why you did this because if you are town, it let scum know how much rage town had, and it's odd that you would have done it considering your current demand that we all remain silent.

At the time, I thought it pretty townie, because I was surprised when I got to 3 rage rather than 2, and sort figured that scum probably wouldn't divulge that number because it may have been different for town; however, after what's been happening with these current plans, it seems really strange that you would have made that post.

[Zdenek]

Vote: Yos

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, isn't your case on Matt stronger since he's lied about cooldown times?

[Zdenek]

Let's see:

Rage can be used while we are in rage cooldown, and there's no way Flay would arrange things so that we could win by raging in a circle after someone dies and killing off the people who don't have rage, which is what Yos is proposing.

A possible alternative to the double rage theory is that scum also have factional rage. This would allow scumYos to know roughly how much rage town had accumulated when he posted about it.

I kind of buy MattP's excuse. It's a pretty crazy thing to lie about, plus he doesn't really make sense as scum with any two of Yos, LLD or Xalxe.

Anyway, I'm at the airport, and will have spottier Internet access for the next two weeks, but I should still be able to get on everyday or two.

Right now, I want to use my rage on LLD to hurt her and prove that I 've still got rage, even though I'm not convinced that it matters all that much, it might end up being useful information in the long run.

[Zdenek]

Vote LLD

[Zdenek]

So Tierce, with Vi as sixty, caught GreyICE in Dresden Files mafia at least party because he used over the arguments to try to get someone lynched. In this game when I saw that happening with LLD's case on GreyICE, I pointed it out, but Tierce refused to comment on it except to say that she thinks LLD is town. At the time this bothered me, but after LLD's flip it's more worrying because she should have thought it was scummy.

I'm not voting Matt. LLD's flip means he's unlikely to be scum. Bussings a possibility, but I'm leaving that alone for now.

I'm leaning towards voting Tierce or Xalxe.

[Zdenek]

I'm here, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time these days, and there's stuff I want to read over before I do anything.

[Zdenek]

KKB is town.

MattP is fairly likely town after the way LLD pushed for his lynch.

Tierce is probably town because of the way LLD was buddying her.

Quadz is probably town because of the way his read on LLD changed. It's not impossible for him to be scum with her, but it's unlikely enough that it's not worth pursuing.

LLD's posts about ABR make me doubt that Quilford is scum with her.

Kinetic: I thought he was town after thinking that it was he who dropped that he got 3 rage points, but it wasn't. The fact that he pushed for Yos' lynch over LLD's is bad, so he is probably scum.

Xalxe is probably scum by PoE, making sure to throw the hit in Peregrine, and what MattP said.

Vote: Xalxe

[Zdenek]

Prodded. Nothing to add. Still wish people would read Kinetic more closely. Still okay with lynching Xalxe. Still think that quadz is not too likely to be scum.

[Zdenek]

Traveling home today, will be back to usual tomorrow.

[Zdenek]

I'd lynch Tierce, but LLD buddying her makes me think that she's town.

[Zdenek]

Me too.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic stop being coy and explain why Xalxe is town.

[Zdenek]

Votes on Xalxe please.

[Zdenek]

No, I just think you're full of shit and I assumed that this was based on another of your "theories."

[Zdenek]

Vote: Quilford

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, if you're town, it's time for you to start actually paying attention to your own play. You wanted to lynch Yos over LLD, despite KKB soft-claiming role information incriminating her, and attacked KKB over his soft-claim. Now, you are soft-claiming role information that may clear Xalxe. In the context of what you had to say about KKB when he was soft-claiming information, and the fact that you were protecting scum, and directly chainsaw defending flipped scum, this shift in stance over whether soft-claiming is appropriate looks like scum motivated cognitive dissonance. The fact that you are now soft-claiming role information means that this probably isn't worth pursuing now, but you're fucking crazy if you think that I'm going to trust you at this point.

[Zdenek]

That is a misrepresentation. (See I'm using it right because you're arguing that it is a FACT what I was doing, when it was in FACT the opposite) I had LLD in my list of scum, I just had Yos higher if you remember. LLD was going to die with my plan, I just had a stronger case for Yos.

It's like you've never played mafia before, see vote townie, fos buddy.

I'm not answering this. Stop rolefishing.

I said I wasn't going to pursue it. Are you that fucking dense?

[Zdenek]

If I remember correctly, you were in fact voting for Yos over LLD as well.

Until KKB soft claimed a result, then I moved my vote.

[Zdenek]

That certainly looks like you not pursuing it.

I've moved my vote and I'm not asking you to justify your opinion anymore, so yes, it is.

[Zdenek]

Moving right along

Vote: Quadz

[Zdenek]

So Kinetic insinuated that he had role information when he accused me of role fishing. He said that the reason that he thinks that Xalxe is town is not based on a theory, so he needs to explain where this opinion is coming from now.

[Zdenek]

I moved my vote because Quilford seemed townish and onto Quadz because of gut, PoE and a desire to cooperate.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic because we don't know the mechanics your theories are stupid.

[Zdenek]

How does that work exactly?

[Zdenek]

No Kinetic. I just accept that it's a possibility.

[Zdenek]

I can hardly believe that Kinetic actually believes the things he is posting.

[Zdenek]

It in no way implies that I have inside knowledge.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic moving the goal posts there is scummy as hell.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic you went from arguing that for me to be voting Quadz I'd have to have inside information to just saying the you ind me scummier than Quadz. It's clearly moving the goal posts.

[Zdenek]

Vote: Kinetic

This is not coming from town. Especially town who pushed Yos' lynch based on incorrect assumptions.

[Zdenek]

You are so full of shit.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic you're full of shit because as I've already pointed out, we don't know the mechanics, so me being town does not imply that Quadz is town.

[Zdenek]

And I'm getting tired of Zd being in this game. Look at both the PV and Fate lynches. Hell, even look at the Yos lynch. Every time Zd has been on the early wagon, then as SOON as it picks up steam and leads to the hurting to begin, he jumps the fuck off, and blames everyone else on the wagon. He has done this to me three times now. He thinks I'm he scummiest person in this game, despite basically his only town cred coming from an OMGUS move against me, and mechanic discussion that he

doesn't agree or approve of

giving him some confirmation. Well fine, no one wants me to discuss mechanics, lets look at the scummiest person in this game then and remove him from it.

I was fine with the Scooby/Fate lynch the whole way through. Peregrine's reaction to being attacked was townish, even though he was being anti-town when he attacked you. LLD was a better kill than Yos, so my vote moved. So your claim that I changed my stance three times is false.

The key reason why I think you are scum at this point is that you chose to want to kill off Yos when your case against MattP was stronger, and defended LLD when KKB soft-claimed a result on her.


Preview edit: what the hell,

Vote: Quadz

[Zdenek]

Tierce, it's not the only reason I think he's scum.

[Zdenek]

Honestly, I don't care at this point. I can't get anyone to think that Kinetic is scum and it's driving me crazy because it's so obvious to me. After him, Quadz is a good bet for scum as far as I am concerned, so I'm happy voting him.

[Zdenek]

Honestly, I don't care at this point.

what

That was very selective quoting.

[Zdenek]

Do you not see that I am trying to push a Kinetic lynch and failing miserably?
I didn't care if MattP was joking, that should be clear from the context.

[Zdenek]

Why do you think that LLD was bussing?

[Zdenek]

So why are you pushing for MattP's lynch now? Don't you think that the fact that LLD was pushing his lynch hard is relevant to his alignment?

[Zdenek]

Quadz, what made you think that MattP was faking a result?

Unvote

I don't want the hurting to start just yet. We should probably also organize rage dumps, on the off chance that it's useful, for the next kill.

[Zdenek]

Tierce, why do you think LLD scum wouldn't buddy a scum buddy?

[Zdenek]

Problem is--I'm running out of people who can be scum. quadz isn't scum. Quilford isn't scum. Zdenek and Kinetic are not scum, and I don't think kanye is scum unless he bussed unnecessarily (I have to look at LLD and check).

I'm assuming we're talking about these townreads, in which case I would point out that Zdenek is probably scum. Matt, however, is also probably scum.

Why do you think that I'm scum?

[Zdenek]

I am absolutely not playing in an anti-town way. I think Kinetic is scum - guess what there's nothing scummy in trying to get people to think that too, so that reason for thinking that I'm scum is garbage. As far as my vote switches go, I can maybe understand why you don't like them, I guess, but the idea that they they are somehow scummy is silly.

[Zdenek]

Do you still think that Tierce is town?

[Zdenek]

That was meant for quadz.

[Zdenek]

So Quadz is being useless, there's no counterwagon that anyone is pushing vigorously and I don't think that if he's scum that he's being bussed, so either he's going to flip town or his buddy is staying out of things hoping that somehow he doesn't get killed. I could go either way on this, but I'm sure that I don't want to keep him alive at this point because his giving up sucks, so let's get this over with.

HURT: Quadz

Why are we not raging?

[Zdenek]

Tierce, I still want you to answer my question.

[Zdenek]

Oh yay someone is giving up let's take the chance and Hurt him because giving up sucks

never mind that we don't have the people to spare

. You're an idiot.

Why do you think he's town?

[Zdenek]

Tierce, why do you think LLD scum wouldn't buddy a scum buddy?

[Zdenek]

Actually, I see why you think Quadz is town.

Who do you think is scum other than MattP?

[Zdenek]

Xalxe I guess.

Actually Tierce is more interested trying to undermine people than lynch someone she thinks is scum . . .
which is great.

[Zdenek]

Actaully can we heal Quadz and kill Tierce instead because holy fuck she's going out of her way to be worthless.

[Zdenek]

I think LLD is perfectly capable of distancing from her buddies, especially if she actually doesn't like them outside the context of the game. It makes things all the more easy on her, because THAT emotion is real.

So why did you defend yourself by pointing out that LLD buddied you?

[Zdenek]

And check out Tierce defending her scum read Xalxe by calling him a weak player.

[Zdenek]

Tierce, is Mattp"s the only lynch you'd support?

[Zdenek]

Tell me, Zdenek, which "people" are these that I'm "trying to undermine"?

Is this serious? Me for sure - from the get go, with your tunneling business. Kinetic, when he started proposing his theories, Mattp by calling all of his scum reads, even ones you agree with, weak.

I have no idea what to say here. It's not like I think that there's some sort of master plan to distract lynches from scum onto town with this, it's just that your priorities seem to be fucked up.

[Zdenek]

This is pretty town meta for Albert. And quite frankly, although Matt is now acting somewhat more like he was last game I played with him in, he wasn't always like this. He is reacting very similarly to how I acted in WiH2 up against a similar issue. If either of them is scum, I'd put it on Matt, but I'm not sure about that to vote on it right now. I'd go out on a ledge and say Albert were being town in this case. (Yes, even him attacking me... I think he still holds a grudge over 24 mafia, and that was my first game on the site )

Can I convince anyone to kill Zd with me?

Matt: Compare Albert's player here to Name of the Wind, as you were in that game too. In that game he was scum, you weren't. I think you'll find, Albert is actually acting more like his town self here than how he normally acts as scum.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is still scum - no for contradicting himself on using meta.

I have no faith in the MattP wagon; although his vote on Quilford is weird.

Xalxe not voting Matt here is strange.

[Zdenek]

Sorry, that should be ... - now for ...

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is full of shit. He's refusing to investigate MattP's meta on the grounds that he has never and will never use meta, which is obviously bullshit. He used it on Albert and he asked others to go and check out MattP's meta. That does not sound like someone who thinks that meta is at best null.

On top of that, he's now saying that he thinks that using your town meta as a defense is scummy as fuck, but he didn't complain when Tierce did it.

Kinetic, what is the evidence that you are town?

[Zdenek]

- You're ignoring all the evidence that I am town.
- What evidence?
- I'm not telling.

Vote: Kinetic

He's scum. You need not look further than him pushing the Yos lynch over Matt's and LLD's when his case on Matt was better and LLD was scum.

[Zdenek]

Also the fact that he's suggesting that being suspicious of him is a scum tell boggles the mind.

[Zdenek]

[quote:]
He's scum. You need not look further than him pushing the Yos lynch over Matt's and LLD's when his case on Matt was better and LLD was scum.[/quote]
Ok Kinetic, how is being suspicious of you over this forced?

[Zdenek]

O hai MattP is still scum why are you all affluter over Kinetic's and ignore MattP's, Zdenek?

huh? I've not ignored MattP.

I'm starting to think Zd is trying to derail it. I'm not moving my vote off Matt.

I asked you a question Kinetic.

he's just that bad and creates those tunnels that will inevitably end up in the wrong person being lynched over and over and over.

So why do you think that Kinetic is town?

Maybe, and that's certainly reason for you to stay away from him, but at the same time he's hurting the town. In that game he just had a vote, in this one he can do real damage if he is left to his own devices in end game. I don't want a won game to be lost because he decides to go rogue, and I want it dealt with sooner rather than later.

I have never indicated that I would go rogue, so this is baseless fear mongering.

[Zdenek]

Basically the only person who can be Matt's buddy is Quilford/ABR, which means that both ABR and LLD were bussing, which isn't too likely in a game that (very likely) punishes bussing severely.

[Zdenek]

And Kinetic is Town because the way he keeps trying to break the game and having a healthy dose of paranoia is hard to fake as scum for a long period of time. He's coming across as very natural in all those reactions, and has definitely been proactive.

I still think that his decision to attack Yos over Matt makes no sense (the cases were the same plus the fact that he thought that MattP lied about when he submitted rage.) The fact that he thinks that I am scum is not natural in the least. He has to disregard one of his theories. He has to think that I as scum would argue against a theory that would clear me.

He at least develops plans to break games through mass-claiming as both alignments.

Zdenek, why don't you think Xalxe-charter can be Matt's buddy?

I don't think that they are mutually bussing each other.

[Zdenek]

The point about MattP changing his opinions of buddying is fine.

[Zdenek]

One thing yo've done that is townish is wanting to make sure that there's no willy-nilly hurting or raging.

Now answer my question.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic's whole post was essentially meaningless garbage. I can't believe people are falling for his shit.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, summarize why you think that MattP is scum.

[Zdenek]

Mod:Replace me

[Zdenek]

I've spoken with flay and I'm staying in.

Quadz, why as scum do you think I would have derailed your lynch.

[Zdenek]

So you think that I'm scum who decided to stop pushing for your death to attack kinetic who everyone else has a town read on? Why would I have done this?

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is officially scum or too stupid to play mafia, so I'm going to do my best to ignore him from now on. As a latest illustration of this fact we've got:

Except... that isn't what happened. Matt derailed the Quadz push on his own through his actions.

btw when quadz flips scum we have this in the bag

Also I bet scum are super boring in their QT and totally demoralized. LOL at them using a rage drainage at like the slowest and least beneficial part of the game

THIS IS ME POKING FUN AT THE SCUMS

btw when quadz flips scum we have this in the bag

Also I bet scum are super boring in their QT and totally demoralized. LOL at them using a rage drainage at like the slowest and least beneficial part of the game

THIS IS ME POKING FUN AT THE SCUMS

If quadz is actually town then scum laughed at me b/c of this post

but fuck u if so u cheeky scumfuckers

Actaully can we heal Quadz and kill Tierce instead because holy fuck she's going out of her way to be worthless.

If you want my current opinion, it's that the three scum are 100% in Quadz, Quilford and Xalxe. IDGAF what order we kill them

And check out Tierce defending her scum read Xalxe by calling him a weak player.

I LITERALLY DONT GIVE A FUCK JUST I NEED A FUCKING LYNCH TO HAPPEN FROM MY SCUMREADS FOR GODS FUCKING SAKE

PEDIT: QUILFORD STAY OUT OF THIS

Quilford buddying the shit out of me is scummy as fuck and OMG someone backtracking out of previous townreads is SUCH A SCUMTELL

The fact that I'm not auto-glorifying that slot til endgame stricly goes against my meta

Ask any fucker from always on reckoning, once I call someone town I glorify them and never backtrack on that read when I'm scum

Hey go look at Name of the Wind where I backtracked on townreads every fucking second

I AM TOWN

FOR THE QUEEN OF META YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY META

YOU ARE PLAYING A SLOPPY GAME AND ARE USELESS NOISE

EVERYONE SHOULD IGNORE YOU

OMG IM SILENCING A TOWN PLAYER BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE NOISE

HOLY SHIT SO MANY SCUMTELLS FROM MATT

seriously

fucking

spare

me

VOTE: Quilford

I've thought long and hard about this super important vote

Next up, everytime Kinetic criticizes me for attacking him because it's a move made in comfort because I've been on him all game, consider the fact that he's been attacking me all game.

Also, Kinetic has accused me of having no other scum reads. This is also false. Just look at the above posts.

Finally, I'm obviously town because of interactions with LLD
- I was working against her early on the MattP lynch.
- I tried to get Tierce, and indeed everyone, to pay attention to her bullshit case on Matt.
- I moved to vote for her when it was clear that she should be lynched over Yosarian.

Actually, this reminds me, just before that point in the game, I was trying to co-operate with Kinetic - on the Scooby/Fate lynch and at first when he was pushing Yosarian, so his claim that I've been on him all game is somewhat questionable. Although, fair enough, that time was short-lived.

Anyway, Kinetic is lying/obvscum, but I'm going to try to ignore him for the time being.

I'll get onto other business later today.

Preview edit. yeah, Xalxe is a really solid bet for scum at this point. He's basically just keeping his head down and sniping.

[Zdenek]

Vote: Xalxe

Mr Flay, can you prod KKB

[Zdenek]

The sentiment of Tierce's recent posts regarding her stance on Matt is coming very close to that of LLD's, and it's giving me the heebeegeebees.

[Zdenek]

4-4, claim time. Matt, Xalxe - go.

[Zdenek]

Tierce, name claim.

[Zdenek]

I'd also like Kinetic to explain how Xalxe is town is related to his role.

[Zdenek]

Maybe not. Why did you think he was an ophan?

[Zdenek]

You don't have a title?

[Zdenek]

Maybe not. Why did you think he was an ophan?

[Zdenek]

I didn't touch your claim at all

If anything, I supported it.

What are you talking about here?