Open 10 -- C9: Game Over! - before 400

[spectrumvoid]

I buy CDB's claim, because it's testable, and he wasn't under a lot of pressure when he claimed.

What's the case for me?

[IH]

I think I'll look into doing a pbpa of Ripley myself. Some of his logic has been off today (as I have already expressed). I also like how Ripley is very accepting of this claim... but still hasn't responded to my 152, and the resulting 154.

[Ripley]

I also like how Ripley is very accepting of this claim... but still hasn't responded to my 152, and the resulting 154.

What has the first part of this sentence got to do with the second part? Nothing whatsoever that I can see. And I explained why I tend to accept the claim. It leaves the 2 people as scum I thought most likely to be scum anyway.

What do

you

think of the claim?

Anyway - in the parts of these posts (152 and 154) I understood, there wasn't anything to respond to where I wouldn't just have been repeating what I already said at some length in 147 and 150.

Sigh, All right. One more time.

My point was not simply that you were lazy, but that a person who

genuinely

wanted to know the answer to something would probably look, when the answer was just a scroll and a click away. Therefore I was left with a feeling that the point of asking the question was, at least partly, for effect. Which gave it the air of insincerity.

ChannelDelibird is correct however when he says that my main issue with you is your vote on me yesterday. About which you had this to say:

Look, people get away with voting for all sorts of dumb reasons so when a vote attracts as much negative attention as yours did it has to be especially weak. It's not just my opinion, it got you a vote and a FOS from other people:

My vote got negative attention, so it must have been weak. If you don't believe that it got negative attention, look at this, where some people said so!

I haven't the slightest idea what the point you're trying to make is here. Paraphrasing me, mocking me? I'm afraid you'll have to be clearer if you want a response, though what more can I say? I thought it was a weak vote and several other people agreed sufficiently to comment on it. You see - there really isn't anything more to say without repeating myself.

I think I'll look into doing a pbpa of Ripley myself. Some of his logic has been off today (as I have already expressed).

Well, I missed that altogether. I just don't see where you've said anything about my logic, but as I said already, I found it hard to tell what the point of your posts 152 and 154 actually was. Try again; if I understand what you're saying I'll respond willingly.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Spectrumvoid, please state your case against IH and Ripley, as presumably you think they're the scum group.

[spectrumvoid]

I don't think IH and Ripley are a scum group.

The only thing I've said about IH is I didn't understand his posts. The only thing I said about Ripley is that meta-gaming = bad. Where did you get this idea from?

[spectrumvoid]

Oh. I know... I forgot CDB's claim and your innocence.

I need to go do a read then.

[Ripley]

Really, if spectrumvoid were innocent I think she would have seen instantly that if she accepted the claim the scum group would have to be me and IH. That is the way you think, when the only question facing you is "who are the scum in this game?" Certainly my first thought when CDB claimed was - so, IH and SV as scum? Yes, I can see that, they were my first choices anyway.

As scum, however, you have other pressing questions facing you, like, "How damaging is this claim to our cause?" "Should I pretend to disbelieve it?" "Should I be considering a counterclaim?" Which maybe distract you from the obvious.

So, the IH/SV pairing looks better to me all the time.

Incidentally, SV has painted herself into quite an awkward corner here. She's either going to have to backtrack on accepting the claim, or backtrack on not seeing me and IH as a scum pair. And really, IH and I make a most unlikely scum pair given his bad vote and attempt to make a case out of nothing against me yesterday, and my starting off today attacking him. Oh, and him accusing me of poor logic today (he's yet to clarify what he meant by that so I haven't been able to respond).

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Really, if spectrumvoid were innocent I think she would have seen instantly that if she accepted the claim the scum group would have to be me and IH. That is the way you think, when the only question facing you is "who are the scum in this game?" Certainly my first thought when CDB claimed was - so, IH and SV as scum? Yes, I can see that, they were my first choices anyway.

I very much agree on this point. Spectrumvoid is not displaying a pro-town mindset.

[spectrumvoid]

Nope, I still buy the claim. Testable claims = good. Contrary to what Ripley said, I've never doubted it. The confusion arose because I thought CES was saying I'd presented a case for an IH/Ripley scum group (178), so I clarified to say I hadn't. My posts were also only a minute apart because I skimmed through the previous pages to refresh my memory.

Complete wifoming here, but scum would probably have unloaded the heavy guns on either IH or Ripley, since the 3 of us are on the hot seat.

I'll do a PBPA on the 2 sometime tomorrow.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I don't think IH and Ripley are a scum group.

This makes it very clear that you hadn't yet realized the full impact of Channel's claim.

Vote: spectrumvoid

[IH]

That claim isn't too testable SV. We're at lynch or lose. If we "test it" we lose...

I'm feeling an SV lynch at the moment.

And really, IH and I make a most unlikely scum pair given his bad vote and attempt to make a case out of nothing against me yesterday, and my starting off today attacking him. Oh, and him accusing me of poor logic today (he's yet to clarify what he meant by that so I haven't been able to respond).

Err.... This is a stupid reason to give. I've already clarified what I was talking about Ripley. I'm not going to repeat myself. You seem to be blowing that vote on you out of proportion from yesterday. It's like you're saying I made some giant case about it. It was essentially something that was a little more than a random vote since discussion was so low.

[Ripley]

Nope, I still buy the claim. Testable claims = good. Contrary to what Ripley said, I've never doubted it.

Misrepresentation. I said nothing of the kind. Either you are innocent, in which case you were speaking the truth when you said you believed it, or you are scum, in which case you most definitely believed it.

Complete wifoming here, but scum would probably have unloaded the heavy guns on either IH or Ripley, since the 3 of us are on the hot seat.

No, an

innocent

would, while not necessarily wheeling out the rocket launcher on the spot, immediately have known the other 2 (in your case, me and IH) were scum. You did not see this, even when prompted.

What I did say was that you were now obliged to backtrack on one of two statements you had made: that you believed the claim, and that you didn't see me and IH as a scum group.

I think spectrumvoid has simply made a basic scum mistake.

Actually, I'm not sure IH immediately grasped the situation either. His reaction has been a bit more dithery. It's harder to tell with him because he never actually said he believed the claim (I asked him what he thought of it but got no reply), but equally, there's no sign of "spectrumvoid and Ripley must be the scum then". I think he's just playing it by ear and avoiding committing to anything.

I'm about 90% sure the scum are IH and spectrumvoid. I've maybe even been slightly generous in allocating 10% to the other possibilities, which are that CES and CDB are scum together, or that CDB is scum who has correctly identified CES as innocent. The timing and logic of CDB's claim are completely believable (he was on 1 vote, which he knew to be from an innocent, and was therefore afraid of a quick lynch by scum).

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey guys, vote for spectrumvoid, ok?

[spectrumvoid]

It's an innocent townie mistake.

I don't think IH and Ripley are a scum group.

The only thing I've said about IH is I didn't understand his posts. The only thing I said about Ripley is that meta-gaming = bad. Where did you get this idea from?

1.34 am

Oh. I know... I forgot CDB's claim and your innocence.

I need to go do a read then.

1.35 am.

Again, I reiterate that the posts were only 1 min apart. I took a reread of the thread since we're in lyol. I still buy the claim.

Note that Ripley's 90% 10% assessment is rather obviously heavily weighted in his favour. Since I've stated believe the claim, he'll have a hard time convincing me to disbelieve it (I believe that's where he's 'backtracking' bit comes from.) So he has no choice but to go after SV/IH scumpair.

I'll go do a PBPA on IH then since CDB and IH have already promised a PBPA on Ripley and have yet to deliver.

[Ripley]

Again, I reiterate that the posts were only 1 min apart.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not the 1 minute interval between those posts that's significant, it's the 17 hour interval between post 175, where you accept the claim, and Post 179, where you still haven't realised that in that case the scum would have to be me and IH. I still maintain that an innocent would realise that straightaway, and the reason you didn't is that you are scum who just didn't see the implications of accepting the claim.

Note that Ripley's 90% 10% assessment is rather obviously heavily weighted in his favour.

Huh? You seriously expect me to allocate a percentage to the probability that I'm scum myself??? If not I can't see what you're saying here.

he'll have a hard time convincing me to disbelieve it (I believe that's where he's 'backtracking' bit comes from.)

On the contrary, I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything at all, since I think you're scum. The backtracking I expect you do is from your statement that you don't believe IH and I are a scum pair.

So he has no choice but to go after SV/IH scumpair.

I'm going after IH/SV scumpair because I tend to accept the claim, which I've said consistently, and if I accept the claim there is no other scum possibility.

I'll go do a PBPA on IH then since CDB and IH have already promised a PBPA on Ripley and have yet to deliver.

I'm not a great fan of PBPAs myself. In my experience they tend to be massive posts 90% of which are unedited quotes, all too often wrongly tagged, and in which any point of interest is so buried within the whole mass of words as to be virtually impossible to find. I've never seen a PBPA that wouldn't have benefited massively from the writer simply picking out the very few of a player's posts they actually found significant, quoting the significant section rather than the whole post, and then stating their observation concisely. I also think that these posts can be used by scum as a way of giving the impression that they're really working hard at the game, since it's easy to be so overwhelmed by the sheer length of the thing that you don't even notice how much of it is actually quotes and how much of the rest amounts to vague insinuations rather than precise argument.

In this game relatively little happened on Day 1, with the result that everything that did happen - CDB's no lynch thing, IH's vote on me, my suggestion when a deadline was imposed that we should lynch the inactive player, CES's lynch vote -has already been discussed. If anybody has anything new to say about these matters or any other, then fine. I'm happy to answer any questions about my play.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Why aren't you voting for spectrumvoid?

[Ripley]

Why aren't you voting for spectrumvoid?

Because of the 10% of me that doubts the claim and is quaking in fear of the thought of a cackling Delibird (who has been spookily silent since claiming) descending to lynch her.

The 10% has gone up maybe to about 12% because of you pressing people to vote

now

(why?), and also because, reading back, I couldn't help but be a bit worried by the thinness of your reasons for voting CDB (a vote based mainly on gut feeling, in lylo, early in the day and therefore with no deadline pressure). If the whole thing

was

a stunt, this is the weak link. But as I said, I think it's far, far more likely that IH and SC are scum. I'm just not ready to vote yet, and you pushing it is actually making me more reluctant, not less.

[ChannelDelibird]

Ripley PBPA:

Post 21: Nonchalantly comments on the fact that Patrick and CES voted for him and votes Lazarusmoth to see if he's playing. (this post seems fine to me)

Post 61: Half-heartedly asks if CES is doing anything other than bandwagoning for fun. (been there, done that...waste of time. Everyone does this at some point)

Post 71: Rightfully questions my No Lynch vote (wrongfully referencing an ongoing newbie game). Perhaps should have noted the difference between a newbie game (what he is referencing) and a non-newbie game (what we are playing in), but I wouldn't call that scummy.

Post 74: Apologises for using ongoing games as evidence, fair enough.

Post 81: Asks a couple of intelligent questions about my No Lynch vote, questions that I don't have great answers to, to be fair. It wasn't a great play, but it was at least a play, which is more than we had.

Post 84: Rightly questions IH's vote on him. I find it

a little

strange that Ripley doesn't vote IH here...

Post 87: Explains the lack of IH vote. I don't agree, because just letting someone get away with scummy behaviour is a bad thing. Promotes the Fritzler vote.

Post 91: Good posting, basically.

Post 107: Reiterates his Fritzler position.

Post 113: Now here's where I start to not like things with hindsight. Quotes Fritzler's four admittedly frustrating posts but then proposes what is essentially a random lynch for a null tell.

Post 115: Responds to my concerns about Fritzler being a bad lynch by saying that Fritzler not posting content allows him to drift through to Day 2. Yeah, but it's not scum behaviour for him. It's normal, every game behaviour. It makes him no more likely scum.

Post 117: Translation - meh, we could probably lynch Fritz before he claims. (That turned out well, didn't it... >_>)

Post 147: Goes down the ol' "this game has disheartened me...lynch me if you must" route. Then says it's worth lynching all docs, something that I disagree with (but another player I know to be pro-town, CES, does, so that doesn't really accomplish anything). Calls IH out on laziness (is that really worth a FoS? Seriously?) Then FoSes voidybins for getting the time to deadline wrong. I don't think that's FoS-worthy, either, simply because I don't think the time to deadline made an awful lot of difference in the situation.

Post 150: Continues making too much out of IH's perceived laziness. Points out to IH the worthwhile case about his Ripley vote on Day 1.

Post 173: Says he believes my claim because IH/SV were his picks for the day. Fair enough, I guess.

Post 177: Continues pushing the laziness thing...yada yada. Correctly questions IH's response to post 150. Claims he hasn't seen where IH questions his logic but is responding to IH's questioning of his laziness logic in the same post.

Post 181: Good posting about Le Void.

Post 186: Continues on the theme from the previous post, to good effect.

Post 189 & 191: Nothing to say on this really.

After doing this I'm still not sure on Ripley, but I'm prepared to leave that until tomorrow. Rereading while compiling this PBPA has convinced me that voidhat's probably scum.

Obviously I am not going to be alive tomorrow, so I would like to decide before we lynch specs whether I feel IH or Ripley is more likely scum. No vote from me yet until I've decided that.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Ripley, dude, 90 is like way more than 10. I'm wondering why you're not voting.

Also, I'm impatient. I've placed my vote now and I'm fairly sure it is a good vote, but you guys don't want to commit.

Hey Channel, I'll be alive tomorrow and I've pretty much made up my mind. Just vote with me, 'kay?

[Ripley]

CDB, are you intending to write PBPA's on anybody else or are you done? I'm getting conflicting messages from you and CES, one wanting to go ahead and lynch SV right now, the other wanting to take more time and decide about tomorrow.

[ChannelDelibird]

CDB, are you intending to write PBPA's on anybody else or are you done? I'm getting conflicting messages from you and CES, one wanting to go ahead and lynch SV right now, the other wanting to take more time and decide about tomorrow.

I don't know if I'll do PBPAs on the other two. Your conflicting-messages thing is correct.

CES, while I appreciate that you will be alive tomorrow I would like to be sure that I've done everything I can to win us this game. I will vote for spectrumvoid in 24 hours, give or take. By that time I expect to have decided one way or the other.

[Ripley]

Okay. I'm much more reassured by CDB's posts than by CES's last few posts, and have reached a level of confidence where I would normally vote for spectrumvoid. However, since CDB wishes to have another day or so to cogitate before the game day ends, I'll hold off voting until after he's said anything he wants to say. This prevents IH from getting in a third vote on spectrumvoid that would silence CDB.

[IH]

Actually, I'm not sure IH immediately grasped the situation either. His reaction has been a bit more dithery. It's harder to tell with him because he never actually said he believed the claim (I asked him what he thought of it but got no reply), but equally, there's no sign of "spectrumvoid and Ripley must be the scum then". I think he's just playing it by ear and avoiding committing to anything.

Don't be stupid Ripley. At the moment I'm pretty confident of you and SV being scum, but when CDB claimed, whether he realized it or not, he drew the lines if we make it to day 3. If ChannelDelibird is scum, then he's risked being counterclaimed and lynched. You seem to ignore the possiblity that CDB could be scum claiming cop....

If him and CES are scum, well played. Doubt it.

Ripley seems to be trying to define the lines to early, forcing the choice of choosing a scumteam. I don't like this at all. Notice how it's either CDB and CES are scum, or me and SV are scum (His original call of course). There is no possibility apparently that CDB and SV could be scum together...

At the moment, I believe it's Ripley and Spectrumvoid.

vote:Spectrumvoid

[Ripley]

You seem to ignore the possiblity that CDB could be scum claiming cop

Notice how it's either CDB and CES are scum, or me and SV are scum (His original call of course). There is no possibility apparently that CDB and SV could be scum together...

Lies. I have clearly acknowledged

both

these possibilities:

I've maybe even been slightly generous in allocating 10% to the other possibilities, which are that CES and CDB are scum together, or that CDB is scum who has correctly identified CES as innocent.

... and in any case your second statement flatly contradicts your first.

when CDB claimed, whether he realized it or not, he drew the lines if we make it to day 3.

Ripley seems to be trying to define the lines to early, forcing the choice of choosing a scumteam.

Make your mind up. If the lines were already drawn by CDB when he claimed, it's nonsense to say that I am trying to define them now.

IH's post is a woolly mess of muddled thinking. He seems, as scum, to be completely lacking the ability to feign a townie mindset. My guess is that we've heard little from him since the claim while he figured out what to do, and he has gradually accepted that his only real option is to turn on spectrumvoid.

[IH]

Ripley. Too early. Day 3. Wording makes a difference. That's why I use it.