Open 38 - Jester Mafia 12p (Game Over!) - before 484

[ryan]

Wow. ryan and Jex have both said "wow" about my PBPA, and Jimmy R seems almost convinced. This is making me a little nervous.

It's solid evidence Numernorean and when the evidence is right there, it's tough to argue right? I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on him being scum but it has given me something to think about

[distad]

I had questioned d3 a couple of pages ago and Num sums it all up very well.

My concern is that d3 is the jester, but as it has been said earlier, we're going to have to go with someone eventually. At the very least, his play has been shaky and it certainly has been questionable.

Unvote, Vote: d3sisted

[Atticus]

Wow. ryan and Jex have both said "wow" about my PBPA, and Jimmy R seems almost convinced. This is making me a little nervous.

Jex's wow wasn't necessarily about your post.

[d3sisted]

Ok, I'm going to need some time to respond to that.

But before I do, I'd just like to say: Wow. 4 of you flew onto the fucking bandwagon and none of you are even flinching about it? Am I the only one here who's doing some actual scumhunting?

[distad]

Um... most of us have... and from as early as the 2nd or 3rd page, also...

[Blue Zebra]

Vote Count

d3sisted (4): Kerplunk, Numenorean7, Atticus, distad
Atticus (3): somestrangeflea, PookyTheMagicalBear, d3sisted
PookyTheMagicalBear (1): ryan
ryan (1): JDodge

Not Voting: Nightfall, Jimmy R, Jex

With 12 alive, it's 7 votes to lynch.

[d3sisted]

Uh, no, jumping onto wagons (actual or potential) does not constitute scum hunting.

[distad]

Just cause we're hot for this "wagon" doesn't mean that we haven't been scumhunting. Go back and reread to refresh your memory.

[d3sisted]

117: d3sisted replaces SV. He attacks ben for numerous scumtells, and puts ben at L-2 as a "pressure vote"

I presented a complete case on Ben. The only logical thing to do after that is vote him.

119: unvotes because of the Jester factor which SSF brought up.

Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote. Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.

152: agrees that Jimmy's "he must be the Cop" sounded like rolefishing (ridiculous, IMO), and attacks fleaboy for his reductio ad absurdum.

That's your opinion. In mine, he's rolefishing. And yes, if he's trying to use reductio ad absurdum, I'm not going to hesitate to point the finger.

He also attacks and votes Jex for trying to start a bandwagon on ryan. This is a baseless accusation, and I feel her vote was sound. Being overdefensive is generally a valid scumtell.

I see a scum-tell, I vote him. It is this poking around that constitutes real scumhunting. Overdefensiveness- ok, so whenever someone's getting attacked, you expect them to just take it while you shove it down their throats and say nothing in response? Who are you to draw the line between defending and overdefending?

Ryan might collect a bandwagon? That's another way of saying he's acting scummy.

Never said that. Either you're illiterate, or you misconstrued.

Post 152 strikes me as pushing the Jimmy "wagon" and defending ryan, without coming down clearly on the issue. In addition, I think he is trying to do with Jex the very thing he accuses Jex of doing.

You call one vote on Jimmy a wagon? Also, I defend whoever I think is town. My stance on the issue was very clear: ryan town, Jex scum.

158: backs off his statements on Jimmy and fleaboy. Subtly encouraging people to vote them, but denying it the moment it is questioned.

Jimmy was rolefishing, fleaboy taking quoting out of context. I haven't backed off at all, I still stand behind those assertions.

165: Now does a complete 180, says the vote on Jex wasn't good (maybe because no one else followed suit), and then starts the bandwagon which he accused Jex of trying to start earlier.

Whatever you say princess. I gave you my reason for doing a 180, take it or leave it.

168: "No, I looked over ryan's posts again and I realized his defenses were very insubstantial." Defenses against what? Ryan wasn't under attack except from SSF for taking things out of context, and for Jex for being overdefensive. Now d3sisted attacks him for "insubstantial defenses".

Yes, those are the exact defenses I was referring to.

171: Makes another stupid case against ryan based on his FoS of d3sisted and JDodge, calling it "vote-hopping". I see this as an OMGUS case, trying to deflect suspicion from a scummy voting pattern.

He was vote hopping, and I find that scummy. Didn't OMGUS for shit, my vote was already on him.

179: defends the ryan wagon because it wasn't a lynch wagon. Oh, please!

4/7 is not a lynch wagon.

182: claims he wasn't bandwagoning, simply voting him for scummy behavior. He really thought ryan was scummy enough to warrant 4 votes? The best case against ryan was posted by Jex, which was only four sentences long. And he says that his wagon is baseless!

Why should i care what Jex said? I'm voting ryan for my own reasons.

188: desperate deflecting post. Kerplunk has a vote on d3sisted, and clarifies how strongly he supports the case against d3.

Well none of you guys were scumhunting, so I had to do it myself.

191: tries to get me to join the ryan wagon.

No indication here whatsoever that I want you to join.

192: "I'm also going to unvote now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him." The "sarcastic" post. He hopes to weasel his way out of suspicion by removing the offending vote. But the damage has already been done.

Again, just thinking about the Jester role.

195: claims he unvoted ryan because he suddenly looks a lot more town. No concrete explanation of what prompted the suspicions in the first place, nor of why these reasons no longer apply.

Scumhunting 101: Find someone scummy, pressure him, evaluate the response. Comes out scummy, keep the vote. Otherwise, take it off.

198: "Who said I'm trying to get out of a situation?" The two votes on you, and the suspicions expressed by a couple others are the situation. Your behavior is obviously trying to get out of it.

Still haven't answered my question. Give me some irrefutable evidence that I am "trying to get out of a situation".

202: Claims his post 192 was sarcastic

It was. You just didn't pick up on it.

210: Votes Atticus basically because he misused the word "smarmy". OMGUS.

Not OMGUS. He eventually admitted the smarmy statement was false reasoning, and I'm not about to tolerate someone who uses false reasoning to justify a bandwagon vote.

216: Claims that ryan's post being non-smarmy makes Atticus's case boil down to nothing. Atticus's reason to vote was d3sisted's voting pattern, not the smarminess of ryan's comments

He tried to fake evidence to exaggerate his claim, which also means he's trying to hurl whatever is within reaching distance at me, relevant or not.

Also accuses Kerplunk of setting himself up to vote d3sisted, then jumping on the bandwagon when he gets back. Ignoring the fact that Kerplunk had a vote on him before the "I'd be happy to lynch him" comment.

Then he's trying to rally votes into a bandwagon. Just as scummy, if not more.

[Numenorean7]

I presented a complete case on Ben. The only logical thing to do after that is vote him.

Not true. Presenting a case on Ben could end in a vote, or you could simply FoS him and give reasons you don't want to vote (e.g. Jester factor, enough votes already, etc.)

Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote.

Then why did you vote Ben in the first place?

Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.

I call ad hominem, as well as BS. The only vote I've placed this game is the one on you, and it was anything but random. You are also implicitly defending yourself because you could be the Jester, which is not smart.

That's your opinion. In mine, he's rolefishing.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how bizzare.

And yes, if he's trying to use reductio ad absurdum, I'm not going to hesitate to point the finger.

Reductio ad absurdum is a completely valid form of reasoning, and attacking SSF because of it is completely uncalled for. In fact, his argument puts the burden of proof on you to show how the analogy doesn't apply.

I see a scum-tell, I vote him. It is this poking around that constitutes real scumhunting. Overdefensiveness- ok, so whenever someone's getting attacked, you expect them to just take it while you shove it down their throats and say nothing in response? Who are you to draw the line between defending and overdefending?

I personally think that the scumminess of overdefensiveness is determined by the playstyle of the person under pressure. Ryan tends to overdefend and get emotional under pressure, so I don't agree with Jex's case, but I don't blame Jex. Using overdefensiveness as a scumtell is very common and definitely not scummy.

Ryan might collect a bandwagon? That's another way of saying he's acting scummy.

Never said that. Either you're illiterate, or you misconstrued.

I beg to differ. You said, "As soon as you see

ryan is in a spot to easily collect a wagon

, you threw one on him with baseless arguments."

You call one vote on Jimmy a wagon?

That's why I put the word "wagon" in quotes. It wasn't a wagon, but a number of people had expressed suspicions, and you were encouraging people to think him scummy.

Also, I defend whoever I think is town. My stance on the issue was very clear: ryan town, Jex scum.

Your stance on ryan and Jex was abundantly clear. Of course, it didn't last...

158: backs off his statements on Jimmy and fleaboy. Subtly encouraging people to vote them, but denying it the moment it is questioned.

Jimmy was rolefishing, fleaboy taking quoting out of context. I haven't backed off at all, I still stand behind those assertions.

Wait a minute. You're saying that Jimmy was rolefishing and fleaboy was making terrible cases, but neither of them are suspicious for it?

Whatever you say princess. I gave you my reason for doing a 180, take it or leave it.

I love the ad hominem.

168: "No, I looked over ryan's posts again and I realized his defenses were very insubstantial." Defenses against what? Ryan wasn't under attack except from SSF for taking things out of context, and for Jex for being overdefensive. Now d3sisted attacks him for "insubstantial defenses".

Yes, those are the exact defenses I was referring to.

Let me get this straight: you are attacking ryan for flimsy defenses against a non-case by fleaboy which you have attacked repeatedly, immediately after voting Jex for finding ryan overdefensive. How convoluted is that? It makes absolutely no sense.

He was vote hopping, and I find that scummy. Didn't OMGUS for shit, my vote was already on him.

You attacked him for attacking you, and there is nothing wrong with the way he did it. That's OMGUS. He was not vote-hopping at all. His vote never moved. In case you never noticed, you can be suspicious of more than one person. That's what an FoS is for.

179: defends the ryan wagon because it wasn't a lynch wagon. Oh, please!

4/7 is not a lynch wagon.

Just because it isn't a lynch wagon doesn't mean it's innocuous.

Why should i care what Jex said? I'm voting ryan for my own reasons.

You have never given "your own reasons", other than saying his defenses (to cases you have pronounced null and void) were insubstantial.

No indication here whatsoever that I want you to join.

You said, "...clearly there are other people who you deem are scummier than I am. What I'd like to know is, why aren't you voting them?" When questioned, you said, "ryan comes to mind." You never said you wanted me to join in so many words, but you certainly implied it.

192: "I'm also going to unvote now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him." The "sarcastic" post. He hopes to weasel his way out of suspicion by removing the offending vote. But the damage has already been done.

Again, just thinking about the Jester role.

Yet another explanation for your infamous ryan unvote!

Scumhunting 101: Find someone scummy, pressure him, evaluate the response. Comes out scummy, keep the vote. Otherwise, take it off.

You never "evaluated the response", at least not in the thread. If you do all your reasoning in your head, you're going to get called on it.

Still haven't answered my question. Give me some irrefutable evidence that I am "trying to get out of a situation".

We can demand evidence all day long. I could demand irrefutable evidence that you

weren't

trying to get out of a situation. But I think it's fairly obvious you

were

in a situation, and it sure seems like you were trying to get out of it by your unvote.

It was [sarcastic]. You just didn't pick up on it.

So you say. Now.

Not OMGUS. He eventually admitted the smarmy statement was false reasoning, and I'm not about to tolerate someone who uses false reasoning to justify a bandwagon vote.

He said smarmy was the wrong word. He never said it was false reasoning. On the contrary. This is what he said:

It's scarcely smarmy at all. In fact, I don't even see how it makes sense with what he quoted in that post.

But that doesn't make it a good reason to decide your vote.

He tried to fake evidence to exaggerate his claim, which also means he's trying to hurl whatever is within reaching distance at me, relevant or not.

The evidence stands: it's the word choice that was bad.

Then he's trying to rally votes into a bandwagon. Just as scummy, if not more.

Since when is trying to rally votes into a bandwagon scummy? Isn't that a basic part of scumhunting: getting the scum lynched?

Well, this is the first time someone has actually responded to my PBPAs point by point. I'm looking forward to it.

[Jimmy R]

Unvote, Vote D3sisted

Wasn't confident enough to vote yesterday but after sifting through again, it's definitely the best case we've got. I don't feel the need to go through it all again here as I'd mostly just be repeating what has been said by others.

And for the last time, I wasn't rolefishing. I really can't believe anyone could take that joke as a rolefish, I mean seriously, we weren't even talking about the game at the time.

Like we've said, it's always gonna be a risk to lynch, however, D3 is taking a lot of time and effort to mount a defence, which doesn't seem like a Jester play to me. It's a little WIFOM but the Jester would probably let things ride and barely defend himself, so I think we're safe on that count.

[ryan]

Jimmy R: I'm interested in your idea that a Jester would not defend himself (or herself) isn't it also possible that a Jester would respond with terrible comebacks as to implicate himself even more to get lynched?

[Jimmy R]

Jimmy R: I'm interested in your idea that a Jester would not defend himself (or herself) isn't it also possible that a Jester would respond with terrible comebacks as to implicate himself even more to get lynched?

Yeah that's definitely possible, which is why I mentioned it was pretty WIFOM. But I'm also just not getting the Jester vibe from D3.

[Numenorean7]

I agree with Jimmy: he does seem to be honestly trying to defend himself. Also, look at this:

119: unvotes because of the Jester factor which SSF brought up.

Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote. Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.

He seems to be implying that my vote on him is bad becasue he (d3sisted) could be the Jester. I see this as a big non-Jester tell.

[d3sisted]

Unvote, Vote D3sisted

Wasn't confident enough to vote yesterday but after sifting through again, it's definitely the best case we've got. I don't feel the need to go through it all again here as I'd mostly just be repeating what has been said by others.

And for the last time, I wasn't rolefishing. I really can't believe anyone could take that joke as a rolefish, I mean seriously, we weren't even talking about the game at the time.

Like we've said, it's always gonna be a risk to lynch, however, D3 is taking a lot of time and effort to mount a defence, which doesn't seem like a Jester play to me. It's a little WIFOM but the Jester would probably let things ride and barely defend himself, so I think we're safe on that count.

That was the worst bandwagon I have ever seen. "it's definitely the best case we got"? Why don't you get off your ass and do some of your own hunting? Riding on others' reasons to justify the fact that

you've now put me at L-2?

Bullshit. Unvote; FoS: Jimmy

[Atticus]

Ok, I'm going to need some time to respond to that.

But before I do, I'd just like to say: Wow. 4 of you flew onto the fucking bandwagon and none of you are even flinching about it? Am I the only one here who's doing some actual scumhunting?

Which 4 people? There are only four people voting you. For you to say this, at least two people would have to be voting for you before the people "flew" to it for it to constitute a wagon.

But that seems rather off the current point.
Right now, you're at L-2. I'm tempted to ask for a claim.

[d3sisted]

ryan, Jex, Jimmy, distad; though the former three didn't actually place a vote, they're pretty damn close.

Claiming townie role.

[ryan]

ryan, Jex, Jimmy, distad; though the former three didn't actually place a vote, they're pretty damn close.

Claiming townie role.

I have placed no vote d3sisted but you do seem very shady in this game (kinda like a game we just finished together)

[distad]

I'm not fond of claiming without actually having been asked. It's too pre-emptive.

And to claim not liking a wagon and only pointing out one person who has actually VOTED for you doesn't compute. How is that a wagon? Just because the others have accused you of being suspicious, is that really a wagon? I'd wager it is more of an investigation.

[d3sisted]

@distad: Atticus prompted for a claim.

[d3sisted]

I have placed no vote d3sisted but you do seem very shady in this game (kinda like a game we just finished together)

Ok, so point out how I seem shady. Up until now, you haven't shown much suspicion of me, so I take it you're just going along with stuff that's already been said. Otherwise, I'll just be forced to conclude that we have another opportunistic wagoner on our hands.

[ryan]

@distad: Atticus prompted for a claim.

Isn't -2 a little early to be asking for claims?

[d3sisted]

You've completely avoided my question.

[ryan]

You've completely avoided my question.

No I just didn't notice the claim that was asked for on -2, I found that strange and wanted to comment.

[ryan]

I have placed no vote d3sisted but you do seem very shady in this game (kinda like a game we just finished together)

Ok, so point out how I seem shady. Up until now, you haven't shown much suspicion of me, so I take it you're just going along with stuff that's already been said. Otherwise, I'll just be forced to conclude that we have another opportunistic wagoner on our hands.

Its the entire way you carry yourself around bandwagons. It seems when one gets close you are very quick to throw a little suspicion on the person who's got the bandwagon and hop on. I don't feel it's enough to throw a vote on you but I'm not gonna deny that Num and your exchange was a good one and some points (from both parties) were good and thought provoking.