Open 171- Carbon 14, Part 2!! Over!!

[dramonic]

You're just grasping at straws here. Be a dear and get lynched.

[Khamisa]

Scigatt: so your saying dramonic purposely used incorrect information? That's not clicking in my synapses.

[Scigatt]

Scigatt: so your saying dramonic purposely used incorrect information? That's not clicking in my synapses.

I'm saying he either purposely used wrong information or(more likely) didn't care enough about the facts to make sure they were correct in the first place. Either of those indicate his scumminess.

[Scigatt]

You're just grasping at straws here. Be a dear and get lynched.

Do you have anything useful to to say or are you going to keep spouting ill wishes at me?

[dramonic]

heh, I don't consider your case on me any better than my ill wishes ^_^

[Alduskkel]

I do.

[dramonic]

obviously, since you're still voting me.

[afatchic]

VoteCount

dramonic-(2)- Alduskkel, Scigatt
Scigatt-(2)- dramonic, Snow_Bunny
Khamisa-(2)- Cass, semioldguy

Not voting-(1)-Khamisa

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

It appears i made a slight error when calculating the deadline, and put Friday, October 1st, which October 1st is actually Thursday. So to correct this, i will push the deadline back to Friday October 2nd, at 2:30 p.m. rather than moving it up to thursday.


Also, Cass is being prodded.

[dramonic]

Semioldguy is voting Khamisa

[Scigatt]

heh, I don't consider your case on me any better than my ill wishes ^_^

Okay, then, I'll hold you to that claim.
What makes you think that a player using a piece of evidence as support for their case without taking care and a few seconds to verify that evidence(especially something as basic and important as votes-away-from-lynch) is not a rather revealing scum tell, or indicative of scum at all?

[Snow_Bunny]

Right. People have to stop being overdramatic about putting someone at L-2. It is not a big deal, period. L-1 deserves scrutiny, and people not paying attention to votecounts certainly does too. But if everyone gets too scared to vote because more than one vote on a person is ohso evil, the game stagnates like whoa.

Here's me putting dramonic at L-2.

Vote:dramonic

(Remember that Khamisa was already at L-2, and my potential post 72 would have put her at L-1)

Why would you vote for him? Before this post you made no prior accusation or case against him. So, why the sudden vote? Votes without reason are bad, and specially in a game so small.

See post 75, which I wrote as an echo to dramonic's post in the first game(I couldn't resist). It was an implicit case and I assumed it was obvious what I was doing and I also assumed your vote was the one he missed. I also stated(indirectly) in the post you quoted that dramonic was wrong in his post 74.

Oh, I'll be away for the computer for most of Friday. In case there's a lynch and I don't make it to D2, I'd just like to say that if we lynch scum or get a guilty investigation result, the 'useless' investigator should claim, so we can narrow down lynch options.

There's something about this post I don't like. I'm not sure, but there's definitively something I don't like.

I can understand where your discomfort comes from, but was just thinking that just in case something happens on Friday, I would get a chance to detail plans for roleclaiming, which we will probably need to do D2. I don't see anything in my plan which would hurt town, though.

I also don't like the over paranoid reaction towards L-2. I mean, this is a small game. It's only natural to put a player to L-2 and L-1. The problem would be lynching it. If we were in a larger game, a L-2 would mean much, and a L-1 even more. But at such small game, I don't think that's the case. I'm not saying that we should just put someone at L-1 without thinking, but that doesn't mean you should avoid putting someone if you think that person is scum. Otherwise, it seems as if you're trying to cover up a partner.

L-2, maybe, but not L-1, When someone's at L-1 anyone not on the 'wagon could, in a moment of misjudgment, end the day prematurely with a bad lynch. In every other game I've been in, large or small, L-1 has always been a big deal, and often worthy of votes. L-2, I admit, is not that a big deal, and I was worried L-2 the first time because it happened really fast on random votes, and the second time it was my head on the line(so I had to deal with it) and the FoS on Alduskkel was almost an afterthought.

UnFoS Alduskkel and sog

, by the way. Also, when you say that you think I was covering for a partner, do you mean yourself? If I recall correctly, the only L-2s I reacted negatively to were yours and mine. (When I backed off voting for Khamisa my vote would have put her at L-1, so that doesn't count. I even approved that bandwagon at L-2(posts 64 and 72).)

I don't find Scigatt's case on dramonic that strong.

Here's what I was trying to get across:

Dramonic used incorrect information to make a case against me with the correct information within easy reach. Not only is this information easy to find, but this information is something any pro-town player should know, especially when using it to strengthen their case, and especially given the activity level of dramonic and the circumstances of the game.

If that isn't a scum tell, I don't know what is.

Hmm... Response to my accusation noted. Well, you still look scummy, but not enough to vote for you.

Unvote.

I'll be checking dramonic after this. I still don't find the Scigatt's case that strong, but it's the biggest lead we have.

[semioldguy]

I really do not buy into dramonic's case at all. Between the two of them dramonic both looks more scummy and scigatt's case makes more sense. I can't shake the feeling that scigatt's play this time around feels different than last time. dramonic's insistence that the two games are similar puzzles me, as I don't think he has sufficiently pointed out why hey are similar to each other or what makes them similar. It does seem like misrepresentation to me. dramonic, I would like a better explanation/analysis of your case and why you think scigatt's scum tells from last game are apparent in this one as well, because I just don't see them.

@Khamisa
You still haven't committed to much, which I find a little suspicious. I don't have a case other than that per se, but there isn't a whole lot of content from you to develop an opinion one way or the other. Your refused to answer as to who you are suspicious of is noted and slightly scummy as well. What is your opinion of Cass?

@Cass
See my comments above toward Khamisa. Most of that applies to you too, as there is little you have taken a stand on in this game. Which players/cases do you agree with (if any) and which players/cases do you disagree with? Your vote on Khamisa is hypocritical at best, and scummy at worst. Do you still like your vote where it is?

[dramonic]

The psyche is the same, point for point.

Scigatt's case on me is something along the line of "I made mistake as scum last time, dram made the same mistake this time, therefore he is scum". First, this is hasty supposition, second I'm not being selective about my bandwagon analysis, unlike scum-gatt last game.

[Scigatt]

The psyche is the same, point for point.

Two things about that:
1.What are these points and what are they based on? If you have these points, why did you refrain from posting them, when someone asked? In fact, I've noticed that in your recent posts you have consistently refrained from stating any solid evidence for your claims. (The last time you did that was post l

Scigatt's case on me is something along the line of "I made mistake as scum last time, dram made the same mistake this time, therefore he is scum". First, this is hasty supposition, second I'm not being selective about my bandwagon analysis, unlike scum-gatt last game.

[Scigatt]

The psyche is the same, point for point.

Two things about that:
1.What are these points and what are they based on? If you have these points, why did you refrain from posting them, when someone asked? In fact, I've noticed that in your recent posts you have consistently refrained from stating any solid evidence for your claims. (The last time you did that was post l

Scigatt's case on me is something along the line of "I made mistake as scum last time, dram made the same mistake this time, therefore he is scum". First, this is hasty supposition, second I'm not being selective about my bandwagon analysis, unlike scum-gatt last game.

EBWOP:(accidently pressed Submit intead of Preview)
1.What are these points and what are they based on? If you have these points, why did you refrain from posting them, when someone asked? In fact, I've noticed that in your recent posts you have consistently refrained from stating any solid evidence for your claims. (The last time you did that was post 74, and we all know how well that turned out).

I'll cover the second part in the next post.

[Scigatt]

The psyche is the same, point for point.

Two things about that:
1.What are these points and what are they based on? If you have these points, why did you refrain from posting them, when someone asked? In fact, I've noticed that in your recent posts you have consistently refrained from stating any solid evidence for your claims. (The last time you did that was post l

Scigatt's case on me is something along the line of "I made mistake as scum last time, dram made the same mistake this time, therefore he is scum". First, this is hasty supposition, second I'm not being selective about my bandwagon analysis, unlike scum-gatt last game.

EBWOP:(accidently pressed Submit intead of Preview)
1.What are these points and what are they based on? If you have these points, why did you refrain from posting them, when someone asked? In fact, I've noticed that in your recent posts you have consistently refrained from stating any solid evidence for your claims. (The last time you did that was post 74, and we all know how well that turned out).

I'll cover the second part in the next post.

Continuing right where I left off(I'm a bit unhappy with what I accidentally posted, but it will have to do)...
2.Even if you do have evidence of a similar state of mind between the two iterations of this game, how do you know if that's due to me being scum or me being myself?

Scigatt's case on me is something along the line of "I made mistake as scum last time, dram made the same mistake this time, therefore he is scum". First, this is hasty supposition, second I'm not being selective about my bandwagon analysis, unlike scum-gatt last game.

Except for an irrelevant allusion to that last game in post 75 and post 122 explaining that, I have refrained from relating to the last game at the time when I was pushing my case on you. However, if you insist, I will try to take care of your concerns. You state that my argument is flawed because you weren't being selective in your criticisms. The fact that I was being selective does strengthen the case against me in that game, but that doesn't mean that a lack of selectivity hurts my case. The reason for this is that while in the previous game there was more than one L-1(what I was criticizing), in this game there was only one situation(post 72) where a player explicitly avoided voting to stay away from L-1(what you were referencing) when you made your case against that. It's kinda hard to be selective when there is only one option to select. I will agree that there is similarity between the two cases: A carelessness and almost willful ignorance of key facts in the pursuit of our interests. This tendency is neither optimal or desired town play. This is also reflected in your dearth of supporting evidence in your case against me in this game.

As to your hasty supposition claim, as I implied above, that post 74 was merely the most striking part of that aspect of your game and thus I focused on this for my argument. Also, consider this is D1 in a Day Start game. All we have to go on is what we say and all we can do is go for the best lead. I think what I have is the best lead, and I'm not the only one who thinks so(Alduskkel, post 76, 130, etc. S_B, post 135).

[Khamisa]

Scigatt: Not caring =/= scumminess. If you believe what you are saying, what do you think of me accusing semioldguy of lying about random votes?

semioldguy: I don't see much in isolation that makes Cass noteworthy. I agree with his statemenets bout random voting and the difference between L2 and L1.

[Alduskkel]

Scigatt: Not caring =/= scumminess.

I'm pretty sure Scigatt has already explained why he disagrees with this. Would you care to point out any flaws in his explanation?

[dramonic]

Scigatt, you're missing my point completely.

Selective attempts to stop specific quickwagons while ignoring others = scummy
Trying to stop all quickwagons (or in this case, calling people out on what I incorrectly perceived as wagon paranoia) =/= scummy

The fact there was only one wagon doesn't change that.

[Scigatt]

Scigatt: Not caring =/= scumminess. If you believe what you are saying, what do you think of me accusing semioldguy of lying about random votes?

semioldguy: I don't see much in isolation that makes Cass noteworthy. I agree with his statemenets bout random voting and the difference between L2 and L1.

Look at what I said more carefully:"A carelessness and

almost willful ignorance

of key facts in the pursuit of our interests." By almost willful I mean that it almost seems like he purposely ignored the evidence, given the number of times he's been exposed to it as indicated by his activity level. You, on the other hand, have been extremely inactive, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were posts you haven't read yet in this game.

[Scigatt]

Scigatt, you're missing my point completely.

Selective attempts to stop specific quickwagons while ignoring others = scummy
Trying to stop all quickwagons (or in this case, calling people out on what I incorrectly perceived as wagon paranoia) =/= scummy

The fact there was only one wagon doesn't change that.

Okay...you say that stopping a quickwagon(or quick bandwagon) is not a scummy thing. Well, the closest we ever got to a fast, premature L-1 in this game so far is those two-votes-in-a-row L-2's on the second page. I was opposed to both of those 'wagons, as you can recall seeing as you the first voter on both of those bandwagons. Selective attempts to stop quickwagons may be suspicious, but nobody in this game, as far as I can tell, had done that, and my arguments haven't been based on it nor have I brought up(rather than responded to) the last game in a relevant way. The only reason I even talked about that is that you mentioned it and I wanted to address that concern.

Also, as a side comment: You say that it is not scummy to try and stop quick bandwagons. However, as I said above, of the only two dangerous bandwagons, I was opposed to both of them. However, it is my impression that it was my act of opposition to those bandwagons that is the greater part of your case. If that is the case, why are you still voting for me, if you changed you mind?

[dramonic]

I haven't changed my mind. I never considered you as scummy as you were in the first game. However, I think you have higher odds than most of the others at being scum, thus my vote on you. It's not that complicated.

[dramonic]

let's force some participation

Unvote
Vote: Khamisa

Get over here and take a stance dear.

[afatchic]

Two VoteCounts on one page!?

Khamisa-(3)- Cass, semioldguy, dramonic
dramonic-(2)- Alduskkel, Scigatt

Not voting-(7)-Khamisa, Snow_Bunny

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

Deadline is October 2nd. at 2:30 P.m.

[Snow_Bunny]

I'm really sick, I'll read and post something after I feel better.