Mini 424 - Game Over

[Elias_the_thief]

you should add names of players who posted them...and reasons why the things said are scummy.

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

i disagree with you on posts 54. 29 and 158.

[Nocmen]

Hmm... Comments on the posts you listed:

9 - seems like normal omg to me
10- 404 Scummy not found. He just went and pointed out that we may have overlooked the cop dying.
17- He was pressuring omg in order to bring up conversation, happens many times in mafia
32- I said many times before this looked scummy, as if Ancala was trying to protect omg
46- He asks elias about his voting patterns. How is asking someone for reasoning scummy?
91-You post almost nothing after being criticized for lurking. That makes you look scummy
94-Kilmenator has a point, she is being criticized for lurking when you are guilty of lurking even more.
113-Vote w/o reason. I agree this looks scummy
129-Ancala goes after MeMe for vote hopping, but it does seem overly defensive over one vote
133-I agree with you on how 129 looks scummy, and you accuse yourself of being scummy when you have a vote with logic behind it, unlike a decent amount of other votes in this game?
142-this could be scummy, but I really cant take a side on a vote regarding the aftermath of the data crash
161-Scummy a bit because how Ancalagon pesters over being unvoted against.
163-Barro picks up on aforementioned possible scummy in post 161
188-spectrum announces he will leave temporarily due to personal problems and accuses omg for what seems to be just poor grammar
203-elias just comments on how omg is talking out of his ass
26-Why did you pick this vote with no reason when you had some on the less scummy list?
34-Barro wants to get out of random voting stage and put possible pressure. And thats scummy?
54-omg calls BS on kilmenator's post, very hypocritical, and says he is after Javert for "no reason aside from bugging the hell out of me"
59-Barro is going after elias for vote hopping
76-omg randomly calls for an kilmenator lynch and pretends that elias is his mason buddy
97-I also agree with you here, of how Barro says he is voting for kilmenator until he finds "another bad guy to vote for"
111-You agree with why omg could be scum because of post 76. Where is this scum?
181-Spectrumvoid points out what he found while reading over the thread. I can only see this scummy if you know that he was wrong, which most likely means you were scum
195-You point out again that omg overreacted to kil.

From what I got while reading the posts:
-Many of the posts lack scumminess that you pointed out.
-I find it funny when you say "everyone but MeMe has said something scummy", when you actually have more posts in your list by MeMe than me as well as The Shadow(who doesnt really count because he hasnt been able to say anything)


You also have many posts where you labeled as scummy when the post was defending omg, more than anyone else in this game. Enough that either omg and Ancala are scum defending each other, or you are trying to make people going after omg look scum, while at the same time distancing yourself from fellow scum omg.

Because of that, omg seems to be a part of either possible scum pair. Note I am not saying Ancalagon is guaranteed not scum, just omg has seemingly been defended severely by both ac and Ancalagon, as if both would have reason to help a scum buddy.

Unvote:omg, Vote:ac1983fan

[Elias_the_thief]

man, I dont have the energy to go back and look at all those posts right now. ill reread tomorrow, stopping at those posts along the way.

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 3) ac1983fan
    • Barromán
    • Javert
    • Nocmen
  • 1) Ancalagon
    • MeMe
  • 1) MeMe
    • Ancalagon
  • 1) omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • kilmenator
  • 5)
    not voting
    • ac1983fan
    • Elias_the_thief
    • omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • spectrumvoid
    • The Shadow
• Lynch:
  6 votes
  
• Deadline:
  MON 05/07/07 09:00 GMT

[Nocmen]

Wow...i feel really f-ing stupid, I just reread my post, and that should have been

Unvote:,Vote:omg

[Ancalagon]

I never defended omg. I don't see how anyone could draw that conclusion, since I said that I

did

want an answer from him.

[spectrumvoid]

I ended up doing Meme next because of the connection with Javert::

- First person to point out elias created a competing wagon. Neutral post. Says good point: barroman is trying to make elias look more suspicious. Waits for reply.

^ Meme never responds to barro's reply.

Says ancalagon is worth watching because ancalagon overweights his points. Stays with lurking shadow. Says kil is appealing to emotion.
Votes ac1983fan, clarifies it's a pressure vote to get him to contribute.

^ hesitancy to vote ancalagon/kil , choosing to vote lurkers and non-contributers.

Votes ancalagon for saying he'll post and going on vacation, not contributing. Will vote either ancalagon, shafow, javert or ac1983fan.

Javert/Meme interaction: consists of J accusing meme of her voting, for expecting Anacalagon to remember something that he can't, meme clarifying ancalgon, saying J appealed to emotion. J wants more reasoning from Meme regarding voting. Meme clarifies she didn't want the day to end.

I maintain the same slightly pro-townish read of Javert from the J/Meme interaction, because of the careful reading. Yes, I do realise he could be scum nitpicking, but from the town in which he questioned Meme, I'm leaning towards town. I also don't think there is any bussing going on.

I have a slightly scummy vibe from Meme here, mainly based on her voting pattern, and the way she said she'll vote for lurkers. I missed the 'lost back-and-forth', but it's pretty weird the way she pretty much ignored barrorman-elias, and the other players (like omg), choosing to focus on lurkers/non-contributers.

Ancalagon:
No read. Massive lurker. Till he finally says something other than asking someone else to say something. Slightly scummy purely due to non-contributiveness.

I'm dropping kil from her previous slightly pro-townish place, to neutral. No particular reason, just that I reconsidered why I thought earlier that he was pro-town and I don't think the reasons I listed were strong.

[spectrumvoid]

Elias, barrorman, ac1983fan tomorrow.

I am not going to comment on the posts ac1983fan felt were scummy till I get some analysis of exactly why he felt they were scummy. Hypothetical scenario: scum want to frame someone, knows some people think some others are scummy, lists some posts down, and waits for other people to supply him with reasons. (This is NOT representative of what I feel about ac1983fan, this is just something I've seen happen.)

I'm sorry if I misworded my earlier post, but I did NOT say that I thought OMG was scummy. What I said was: OMG exhibited some classic scum-tells + scum might not be this obvious + too scummy to be scum fallacy. Then I ended by saying I was 'non-commital.'

[MeMe]

^ Meme never responds to barro's reply.

I never said I would, only that I was looking forward to hearing it. Not sure why you'd imply I had some obligation to do so.

Says ancalagon is worth watching because ancalagon overweights his points. Stays with lurking shadow. Says kil is appealing to emotion.
Votes ac1983fan, clarifies it's a pressure vote to get him to contribute.

^ hesitancy to vote ancalagon/kil , choosing to vote lurkers and non-contributers.

"Worth watching" is not the same as "worth voting" -- especially when I'm unfamiliar with a certain player's style. This point was actually covered in the missing posts: I understand that someone who overweights points can be (usually inexperienced) town overly sure he's nailed scum kind of waving his arms to get people to see what he sees OR scum trying hard to get a bandwagon rolling with confidence rather than evidence. So...worth watching, not worth drawing a conclusion on without seeing more.

And, with the kilmenator point, when read in context it's clear that I'm explaining to kilmenator what an appeal to emotion

is

. I'm wasn't saying that I find her scummy because of it, but that, since she accused omg_ based on a wiki scum tell, she should know that her behavior actually fit it better.

You "hesitancy to vote" comment doesn't make much sense to me when I'd not, to that point, expressed any

desire

to vote either of them based on the comments I made -- the first of which was in response to a direct question from Javert and the second, as noted, an explanation.

Think of this way: at this point, I could call your lack of vote on either myself or Ancalagon as a "hesitancy to vote" more fairly than you can label either of the above examples as such. After all, you've actually gone so far as to say say we, respectively, have a "slightly scummy vibe" and is "slightly scummy."

[Javert]

Nocmen, please clarify so that I am sure on what you are proposing. You are saying that you currently think the scum-group consists of {ac1983fan, Ancalagon, omg_im_innocent_wtf}, and of those three, you most want to vote for omg_im_innocent_wtf largely because he has been defended by ac9183fan and Ancalagon?

I am interested to see ac1983fan's explanations for why he thinks those particular posts are scummy - especially since for much of the game, he did not find anything worth discussing (which seems rather contradictory with finding so many of he early posts 'scummy').

[Nocmen]

No, I am not saying that those three are the scum group, but it could be likely. I just find it coincidental that both ac1983fan and Ancalagon have defended omg as well as counter-attacked people going after omg. I can't tell if both are scum directly, as one could be coincidence, but two i find hard to belive. That is why I am voting for omg right now, because I dont think that it is coincidental of what both Ancalagon and ac1983fan are doing with regards to omg. I think that omg is scum, along with at least one of the other two.

[spectrumvoid]

Meme: Because there is currently >1 person I find slightly scummy, I can't vote all of them, and I haven't finished all the players.

I'm pretty much satisfied with Meme's response. Obviously, I wasn't here during the crash so I probably missed a few major arguments. Also, I checked up on Meme a little, and this going after lurkers/non-contributiveness is consistent. *shifts to neutral*

I'll have another try at the too scummy to be scum argument . Nocmen: do you think scum would be this obvious at defending his scum buddy?

[Barromán]

I'll be out untill sunday!!!

[kilmenator]

SV- I dont think speculating on whether or not scum would be so obvious in defending their partner, being that it will just lead to a bunch of WIFOM arguments. Speculating on whether or not someone as scum would do something, sometimes works, but generally just leads to WIFOM...

Also, I do not buy the too scummy to be scum argument. If someone plays scummy, they are not helpful to the town, so they are just a liability, and it is smart to be done with them IMO.

[Javert]

Mod

: We absolutely need a replacement for The Shadow. In four more days, he will have no posts in this game for a month (although he posted once or twice in the server move, if I recall correctly). Also, Barroman apparently will not be able to post until the day before deadline, so that we cannot question him. With 2/11 players unable to respond to us, I would like to

request a deadline extension

.

Deadline is currently on Monday, so regardless whether or not we receive an extension I think we ought to be picking up the pace.

As it is, I'm currently trying to figure out exactly how the Ancalagon-wagon went from a full-fledged five votes (twice in the same game, as he also reached five votes during the server move) to one vote – it seems like it happened through a number of silent unvotes. Elias_the_thief was the first, and ac1983fan was the second (though this came with some explanation). The third was a forced unvote when spectrumvoid replaced shadowdeath [replacements automatically must unvote in this game, it appears], and the fourth came from Nocmen switching his vote [ultimately] to omg_im_innocent_wtf. I haven't decided what this indicates – if anything – as of yet, but I feel there may be information to be had here.

Kilmenator, please answer the questions I asked you here:

Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.

I am tempted to vote Kilmenator, for a few reasons, but I also feel that unvoting ac1983fan before he even explains how the posts he cites are scummy would make my action more ineffective than useful. Instead, I'll list the reasons I'm considering switching my vote below, wait for her response, and then decide.

There is firstly the "umm... dang" comment at the beginning of the game for when the town was informed we had lost a Cop, which from what I understand, is a slight scumtell. Townspeople should just buck up and deal with it, whereas scum will likely think they will be able to feign sadness or shock when they are inwardly very pleased.

As I mentioned before [actually, these comment appear to have been lost in the server move – bah], kilmenator's interaction with Elias_the_thief struck me as very Nurse-like (to use the analogy I employed before). I'll demonstrate again:

actually, no, I did not miss that part, to me it seems like an afterthought, like, "oh wait... that was a stupid reason for a vote, crap, what can I say now.... ummm.... he is gone, yeah, he IS gone, so that will work... Not anything to be overly anxious about, I havent even moved my vote to you yet, I just found it interesting the way things played out.

And your vote generated discussion which is very good for the town, the only people who are scared of discussion are generally non-pro-town players.

Portion highlighted. This just seems like trying to comfort somebody when you are actually planning to stick them with a needle. I just keep getting this same feel whenever I read this particular post.

Then there is the entire "emotional appeal" post, which kilmenator still gets a few negative points for. Post [94], as I believe I also mentioned in the server move, reads to me like somebody trying to slip back into obscurity for a short while due to people beginning to pay attention to her. Granted she returns by [105], so that seems to undermine that theory, but at the same time she goes out of her way to emphasize that she hasn't been paying much attention to the game (which has basically become her all-purpose comment), and that she is becoming "easily frustrated", which is more than understandable on its face, but I can't help but wonder if it is more like a peremptory maneuver such that if anybody tries to call her emotional again, she will simply refer them back to that comment.

So you are not voting anyone else until spectrum is dead, but then hop back on me? (BTW- you still did not use a colon after your vote) But then offer no reasons? Is it because no one else seems to be putting heat on SV and you need to get your vote on someone that you think can be lynched?

This particular comment seems a little bit like an attempt at entrapment. omg_im_innocent_wtf indeed voted spectrumvoid along with the comment "I don't care about his role. I am not putting up with this bs any more" – but this is not equivalent to saying "he won't vote anybody else until spectrumvoid is dead". But even if that

were

the case, there would only be two things he could do:

1.) Stubbornly keep his vote on spectrumvoid, which I am fairly confident would have been greeted by such things as "not considering changing your vote is not helpful to the town, so it is scummy"; or
2.) Change his vote (or agree to unvote), which Kilmenator in this post tries to characterize as being inconsistent and scummy.

I would personally prefer somebody to still be willing to change their vote (ala option 2) if they actually did say they would "not be changing their vote". And seeing as omg_im_innocent_wtf was not that extreme in the first place, Kilmenator's post here strikes me as off.

While I'm on the subject however:

1. i never actually voted for spectrum.

This does not, however, change the fact that you tried to vote for spectrumvoid. A technicality in how votes are counted in this game in no way absolves you for your action (if your action even requires absolution in the first place).

Also, I do not buy the too scummy to be scum argument.

If someone plays scummy, they are not helpful to the town, so they are just a liability, and it is smart to be done with them IMO.

Portion highlighted. Although I agree with this on one level, I disagree on another. This reads to me like somebody who is support of policy lynches – i.e. "you are always either unhelpful or scummy-looking, so I will lynch you every time I play with you". I think this type of attitude just as likely to hurt the town as it is to help it. I might as well just ask: are you in favor of policy lynches?

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 2) ac1983fan
    • Barromán
    • Javert
  • 2) omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • kilmenator
    • Nocmen
  • 1) Ancalagon
    • MeMe
  • 1) MeMe
    • Ancalagon
  • 5)
    not voting
    • ac1983fan
    • Elias_the_thief
    • omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • spectrumvoid
    • The Shadow
• Lynch:
  6 votes
  
• Deadline:
  MON 05/07/07 09:00 GMT

[Javert]

We need 8 players in agreement in order to have a deadline extension? Considering there are only 9 active players, that seems rather unreasonable. Nevertheless, I am now sending you a PM.

[Ancalagon]

Sending a PM.

Anyway, good post, Javert. I really hadn't seen kil as very scummy until your post.

If someone plays scummy, they are not helpful to the town, so they are just a liability, and it is smart to be done with them IMO.

But at what cost? To lose a bad townie is a good idea? Lynching a townie is a good idea, even if they aren't good? Doesn't make sense to me, but it seems more of a policy discussion than an ingame discussion.

ac1983fan and Ancalagon have defended omg

I never defended him directly. I said that losing a townie is bad, if he is a townie, which I am completely unsure of, but I never defended his actions.

[Elias_the_thief]

I will also send a PM. I tried to print this thread and do a reread on a hardcopy as opposed to reading ti directly off the computer, but my printer is acting funny. I am dreading doing a reread in front of my computer screen, but I will do it soon, I promise.

[Nocmen]

ac1983fan and Ancalagon have defended omg

I never defended him directly. I said that losing a townie is bad, if he is a townie, which I am completely unsure of, but I never defended his actions.

What about page two where you told Elias to "die scum" for switching from a random vote to omg? That looks a lot like a counter attack defending a scumbuddy.

Also sending a PM.

[kilmenator]

Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.

First of all, you misrepresented my argument, I never said you over reacted to someone being at lynch -1, I said you over reacted to meme's joke. I just looked back and noticed that meme's joke must have been lost, therefore, I would venture to say that your reaction was as well, leaving me nothing to comment on.

But, I do find this interesting...

I do agree that putting people closer to a lynch often ups the discussion.

My problem here stems from the fact that I have just seen and been in too many games as of late where somebody is put at Lynch -1

, and the day ends with a premature hammer - whether it is done accidentally or purposefully is not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether or not that person turns up to be scum, Day Two often starts with people in the "so what now?" attitude. I try to avoid situations where premature hammers are possible in general.

The problem is that, rarely in a game have I ever seen a premature hammer on someone, especially this early in the game. It is unlikely that scum you hammer so early on day one.

From what I understand of your position, you are willing to vote for noncontributors and such for the

purposes of discussion

– correct me if I am wrong – as gathered from your insistence of "see, the thread dies when Ancalagon isn't at Lynch -1!". I

can

understand that much, though as we have gone over, I don't necessarily agree with that tactic myself in comparison to others.

In other words, our common goal seems to be discussion. But the problem is, a lynch

halts

discussion.

Being willing to

lynch

noncontributors, especially when there are a number of them (i.e. the others are unlikely to have commented on the one lynched) strikes me as unintuitive.

I tend to make sure there is sufficient discussion before I push for a lynch, even in cases where I am very positive somebody is scum.

Furthermore, as I believe I mentioned in the lost data, I think continually pushing on noncontributors instead of focusing on things you find scummy is a good way to stop from taking stances on players.
I, in fact, simply

could not remember

if there had been an additional case against Ancalagon besides which has already been mentioned. I did not personally recall one – but the impression of your posts (and others' posts) seemed to imply that there had been one, so I too was interested in seeing it.

As I have said, and others have said, it is not likely that a hammer will happen this early on day one, it did spark discussion, therefore it was not a bad move, and you reacting to it and making it look "scummish", (which it could be, we dont know of anyone's alignments except ourselves) and continually pointing it out even after the unvotes makes it seem like you are overreacting a bit.

Also [in accordance with what I assume will be most players in this game], I believe that things such as 'overreactions', 'hyperdefensiveness', 'being overly emotional' etc. should all be taken with a grain of salt. You need to consider the context. Being emotional neither makes one town nor does it make one scum. It may, however, be a slight indicator on alignment for

particular players

. I am getting the feeling that omg_im_innocent_wtf's tone and yelling does not make him scum... but it certainly does not make him any more likely to be

town

simply because he has acted similarly in other games.

This just struck me as a way to discredit the argument for overdefensiveness, and the fact that it came after what you percieved as someone calling you over defensive, just gives me scum vibes.

There is firstly the "umm... dang" comment at the beginning of the game for when the town was informed we had lost a Cop, which from what I understand, is a slight scumtell. Townspeople should just buck up and deal with it, whereas scum will likely think they will be able to feign sadness or shock when they are inwardly very pleased.

First of all, you have no idea what the dang comment was... I do not remember exactly, but I think it might have been along the lines of, "Dang, I forgot I was in this game too" and I should vote... Also, being upset that a power role was lynched is not a scum tell. It is a stupid idea that only peopel feigning sympathy use it, and that is simply not true. At this point, I find it interesting that you mentioned the fact that I said something about the cop being dead, but you fail to mention Barroman, who directly says about the cop, and whodid so like two posts before me mentioned it.

[bAs I mentioned before [actually, these comment appear to have been lost in the server move – bah], kilmenator's interaction with Elias_the_thief struck me as very Nurse-like (to use the analogy I employed before). I'll demonstrate again:

actually, no, I did not miss that part, to me it seems like an afterthought, like, "oh wait... that was a stupid reason for a vote, crap, what can I say now.... ummm.... he is gone, yeah, he IS gone, so that will work... Not anything to be overly anxious about, I havent even moved my vote to you yet, I just found it interesting the way things played out.

And your vote generated discussion which is very good for the town, the only people who are scared of discussion are generally non-pro-town players.

Portion highlighted. This just seems like trying to comfort somebody when you are actually planning to stick them with a needle. I just keep getting this same feel whenever I read this particular post.

I already explained this post once before, check it out...There was nothing wrong with stating that it created discussion, discussion IS good for the town, you of all people who keep saying that, should agree not find it scummy. Plus, if I were comforting him before I was goign to stick him, why then did I NEVER VOTE him?

Then there is the entire "emotional appeal" post, which kilmenator still gets a few negative points for. Post [94], as I believe I also mentioned in the server move, reads to me like somebody trying to slip back into obscurity for a short while due to people beginning to pay attention to her. Granted she returns by [105], so that seems to undermine that theory, but at the same time she goes out of her way to emphasize that she hasn't been paying much attention to the game (which has basically become her all-purpose comment), and that she is becoming "easily frustrated", which is more than understandable on its face,

but I can't help but wonder if it is more like a peremptory maneuver such that if anybody tries to call her emotional again, she will simply refer them back to that comment.

The appeal to emotion thing was no big deal, I also resent the fact that you say that my all purpose comment has been that "I have not been paying enough attention to this game. And I do become easily frustrated. And the underlined part is complete WIFOM. I have never referred back to the comment, nor did I intend to.

This particular comment seems a little bit like an attempt at entrapment. omg_im_innocent_wtf indeed voted spectrumvoid along with the comment "I don't care about his role. I am not putting up with this bs any more" – but this is not equivalent to saying "

he won't vote anybody else until spectrumvoid is dead

". But even if that

were

the case, there would only be two things he could do:

1.) Stubbornly keep his vote on spectrumvoid, which I am fairly confident would have been greeted by such things as "not considering changing your vote is not helpful to the town, so it is scummy"; or
2.) Change his vote (or agree to unvote), which Kilmenator in this post tries to characterize as being inconsistent and scummy.

I would personally prefer somebody to still be willing to change their vote (ala option 2) if they actually did say they would "not be changing their vote". And seeing as omg_im_innocent_wtf was not that extreme in the first place, Kilmenator's post here strikes me as off.

First of all, OMG actually did say that he would ntot vote anyone else until SV was dead, and secondly it was inconsistent and scummy, he shouldnt have said something that he did not intend to do.
And no, I am not in favor of policy lynches, but I do think that if people play scummy, then they should be treated as scum. We should not throw out the argument, that "if they were scum they wouldnt have done that" because 1. it is pure BS and 2. it creates an environment that people can use WIFOM out the wazoo. I vote for people who I find scummy and who act scummy, I do not just go in and vote IH everytime, because he is always scum

Sorry for the long post, it took me about 1 and 1/2 hours to construct this stupid thing, but I saw no other way to discuss and refute arguments.

[MeMe]

I've sent a PM but, as Javert pointed out, it's unlikely there are going to be eight of us doing so.

Since the deadline rules specify a full count necessary for a lynch to occur, I suggest that we find a player we're willing to lose and pile on him/her before the deadline hits.

Is anyone interested in just voting The Shadow? Even if he's a pro-town power role, it's an ability that's not going to be used if no one's filling it out (according to the rules, no choice is made if no choice is submitted). If anyone else has a deadline-lynch suggestion or thinks a no-lynch works better, please let us hear it.

[MeMe]

What the heck. Two people posting in the last 24 hours

under deadline

.

This is pretty pathetic.

[Elias_the_thief]

It really is. ok, I dont agree with your plan to just lynch the shadow based on his lurking. What if we end up lynching the doc , or possibly a roleblocker? then we'd be screwed. Im sure a replacement would be possible. I just dont think we can lynch a random person, when we've already lost a cop. Im not confortable with it.