Mini 387: Suicide Bombers, GAME OVER (at last)!

[Twito]

Me feels happy about success yesterday and stays inactive for xmas and new year.

[Kelly Chen]

I'll also

FoS:Kelly Chan

for making a really long argument that I disagreed with.

If you disagreed with it, could you summarize what it was about?

This question is for anybody.

[Jack]

I'll also

FoS:Kelly Chan

for making a really long argument that I disagreed with.

If you disagreed with it, could you summarize what it was about?

This question is for anybody.

You were going after c_d for an argument which was an attempt to get some discussion going--you thought the argument was poor and this indicated c_d was scum, I think it's much more likely that scum would have let things go with no talking. I've done the same thing when discussion is waning.

[mikeburnfire]

VOTE COUNT - 6 to lynch

1 pablito (Jack)

Not Voting: molestargazer, The Central Scrutinizer, Save The Dragons, Twito, Masterchief, pablito, Dead Rikimaru, Kelly Chen, neongrey, chaotic_diablo

[Kelly Chen]

Ok.

When I go back and read posts 85 and 89 I can see it now that it wasn't thought to be a great case. I was under the impression that the "meant to be shoddy" explanation was concocted afterwards, which if true would have been ridiculously scummy. So scummy, in fact, that I didn't go back to check if it seemed possible.

unFOS: chaotic diablo.

I still need to think through what went down yesterday, but let us

vote: TCS

for the moment. (Also, anyone who posts "why him?" and nothing else will be suspected by me of being lazy scum eager to get a post in. View all his posts, that's what I did.)

[Masterchief]

Hello everyone. I'm posting on my BRAND NEW LAPTOP!!

[pablito]

Just for that,

vote: masterchief

Then

unvote, vote: the central scrutinizer

[Jack]

Why the central scrutinizer?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ok.

When I go back and read posts 85 and 89 I can see it now that it wasn't thought to be a great case. I was under the impression that the "meant to be shoddy" explanation was concocted afterwards, which if true would have been ridiculously scummy. So scummy, in fact, that I didn't go back to check if it seemed possible.

unFOS: chaotic diablo.

I still need to think through what went down yesterday, but let us

vote: TCS

for the moment. (Also, anyone who posts "why him?" and nothing else will be suspected by me of being lazy scum eager to get a post in. View all his posts, that's what I did.)

I suppose it can't really hurt, so, why him? er... me?

[molestargazer]

Well, I'm gonna take your advice and actually read TCS's previous posts. I now may be accused of simply voting because of the past, but of course I will take your reasons into account.

I have noticed that he didn't post much at all earlier on apart from when he was accused. To me, lurking springs to mind, however I know that I have been using this tactic as well - so I won't take it into account. Just food for thought.

There was another slightly fishy quote that I had planned to go here, but I can't find it again whilst trawling through the thread. Damn.

I kinda want to vote TCS for his paranoid vote of cardboardbox.

Creamy.

Paranoid? I voted him because he voted for me, and because his logic was crap. Why not vote Tamuz, then? I always find it suspicious when someone votes for a person for a particular reason without even

mentioning

another player who did the exact same thing.

Finally I think I have someone worth voting for.

unvote, vote: Save The Dragons

I find this kind of odd - to me it sorta seems like OMGUS - this happened shortly after I was accused of the same thing. Seems odd to me.

However, I still don't see a crystal clear reason for a vote. Kelly Chen - as I said I took your advice and went to re-read, but surely you could just give us a general reason why you voted?

FoS: Kelly Chen

for refusing to explain her vote - and I can't find any reason in particular why.

Also, throwing a bit of suspicion around: I found a lot of Pablito's posts slightly odd and a little scummy - and one of his latest posts was explaining all of his good ones when no-one commented on it anyway. This was followed by a reply to Dead Rik's comments, almost as an afterthought. Then he jumps on Kelly Chen's vote - looks sorta wagon-hopping-y to me.

FoS: pablito

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My apologies if I have been lurking too much... RL is a bitch sometimes, but I refuse to ask for replacements as a general rule. I hate it when other people get replaced, as it can screw up my reads. Might as well not be hypocritical, no?

So anyway, a listing of all living players from least to most scummy on my radar.

Twito

began the Ubertimmy bandwagon, and never jumped off of it. I would call this a coptell; however, we began with Day, so there's no way that he could have known from the beginning that Timmy was scum. Still, I would bet a dimebag that he was the one protected from last night's mafia hit.

Save The Dragons

: Has had pretty good reasons for voting for people. His original vote on me, I thought was questionable, but his posts since then have given me no cause for concern.

Dead Rikimaru

: A lot of his discussion has seemed to veer off the point at hand... says nothing at all, generally.

chaotic_diablo

: I don't think that his early attack on MSG was 'shoddy' at all, just working with what he had. I generally get a protown vibe from him; however, there have been some inconsistencies in his posts, as Kelly Chen pointed out--he both argued that his MSG attack was "meant to be bad" and wondered "what was contrived" about it. Semantically, I can see how the two might be different, but it merits discussion.

The Central Scrutinizer

: I can see why someone would vote for me under the warcry of "lynch all lurkers." What I can't understand is why someone would want to vote for me under the context of what I have actually posted. I OMGUS'd once, against cardboard, because I missed the post where he said he was joking. My vote against StD was for a good reason: I thought

his

reasons were poor.

Jack & Masterchief

: Replacements, haven't done much scummy, and their predecessors were pretty much lurkers with nothing to say. I'd watch them at this point. They seem particularly happy to let the MSG/pablito thing continue on rather than explore new avenues of discussion... and that seems pretty scummy.

molestargazer & neongrey

: I am unsure what to do with these two. I find it highly unlikely that both scum signed onto the Page 1 Twomz (StD) bandwagon, as Ubertimmy was the 3rd vote in post number 11. I think it's more likely that the other scum was waiting in the wings to lay down the Hammah, or at least the second to last vote. However, MSG's generally poor reasoning and pleading of memory lapses seems scummy to me. Neongrey loved to ask for reasons for the vote on Ubertimmy, but has been suspisciously useless since.

Kelly Chen

: I just think "scummy" when I think Kelly Chen. She decided I was not very suspicious in Post 155, but now I'm where it's at, for no reason. And in Post 163 she voted C_D for what? Copying her? Posting a post devoid of content? That's fishy logic, I would say, considering the sheer number of worthless posts this thread has seen. Moreover, in her argument with C_D she makes the claim that scum try to make "contrived arguments" that seem valid. I think her argument against Sherlock/pablito because asking for a replacement at such a time would be "something Sherlock would do" is just such an argument. She also voted for Ubertimmy, which matters to me.

pablito

: Well, for one, his predecessor Sherlock was acting pretty scummy. For seconds, he votes chaotic_diablo in Post 100 for no reason whatsoever. It's a tick in his favor that he voted for Timmy a few posts later... however! By Post 117 he's voting for Kelly Chen. Pablito just seems to be hopping all over the map in this thread... I wonder why this is. He has the worst reasons for voting that I have ever seen. He voted for Timmy in the end, so this is a factor. However, he did so at the beginning of the ending wagon, not the tail end, like Kelly did. Pablito has been hopping and jumping madly ever since he got into this game, which combined with the actions of his predecessor seems super scummy to me.

At this point in time I think pablito is our best bet. He's been acting like the scummiest scum all game. He'll accuse one person and then four posts later vote for someone else. He's acting so scummy at this point that I wonder if he's a Jester. But anyway, I'm going to wait for more discussion before settling on a vote.

[pablito]

Again, has it not been clear that I've been jumping wagons? And why is this suddenly big news?

Although, thank you very much TCS for that latest post. You put effort into it and it's very much appreciated.

[Dead Rikimaru]

Ok.

When I go back and read posts 85 and 89 I can see it now that it wasn't thought to be a great case. I was under the impression that the "meant to be shoddy" explanation was concocted afterwards, which if true would have been ridiculously scummy. So scummy, in fact, that I didn't go back to check if it seemed possible.

unFOS: chaotic diablo.

And what's your opinion about c_d's really important action of yesterday, the hammer vote?

[Kelly Chen]

Wow, two votes gets us all this?

What do you want to discuss before deciding whether to vote pablito?

Kelly Chen

: I just think "scummy" when I think Kelly Chen. She decided I was not very suspicious in Post 155,

I said your

vote

wasn't.

but now I'm where it's at, for no reason.

There's reason. I just came up with it from a cursory reading of your posts. I'm saying read those posts and decide for yourself whether you think this guy is helping the town. I'm saying don't ask me to summarize what you can see yourself with two mouse clicks.

And in Post 163 she voted C_D for what? Copying her? Posting a post devoid of content?

No, I confirmed my vote in that post, and it was because of Twito's possibly catching CD skimming and/or "just finding something to say."

Moreover, in her argument with C_D she makes the claim that scum try to make "contrived arguments" that seem valid.

I make the claim that scum arguments are contrived in that they know they are wrong, and of course they're supposed to seem valid.

I think her argument against Sherlock/pablito because asking for a replacement at such a time would be "something Sherlock would do" is just such an argument.

If I were scum, then by my definition it would be just such an argument.


@DR: I think it says nothing.

[Masterchief]

Jack & Masterchief: Replacements, haven't done much scummy, and their predecessors were pretty much lurkers with nothing to say. I'd watch them at this point. They seem particularly happy to let the MSG/pablito thing continue on rather than explore new avenues of discussion... and that seems pretty scummy.

I'm just waiting for something scummy to happen. So far, I see nothing wrong.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Jack & Masterchief: Replacements, haven't done much scummy, and their predecessors were pretty much lurkers with nothing to say. I'd watch them at this point. They seem particularly happy to let the MSG/pablito thing continue on rather than explore new avenues of discussion... and that seems pretty scummy.

I'm just waiting for something scummy to happen. So far, I see nothing wrong.

See, that's why I ranked Kelly Chen so high on my list. I think for this whole game she's been making mountains out of molehills and that just plain stinks to me.

[pablito]

So who wants to bash TCS for using that phrase - since you know, you guys made a fuss about it before?

Also I'll bother to defend KC. The original time when C_D and KC got into it, there was relatively no pertinent discussions happening. They both got into something, but at least it was something - which is more than I or the rest of us can say. And this healthy discussion, even "makes mountains out of molehills" is accurate, is pressuring people into talking about something rather than nothing.

Therefore, no matter KC's alignment, she's at least helping the town by bothering to talk about something especially when there is no true worthwhile discussion happening otherwise.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So who wants to bash TCS for using that phrase - since you know, you guys made a fuss about it before?

Also I'll bother to defend KC. The original time when C_D and KC got into it, there was relatively no pertinent discussions happening. They both got into something, but at least it was something - which is more than I or the rest of us can say. And this healthy discussion, even "makes mountains out of molehills" is accurate, is pressuring people into talking about something rather than nothing.

Therefore, no matter KC's alignment, she's at least helping the town by bothering to talk about something especially when there is no true worthwhile discussion happening otherwise.

That's a fair point. And this last time, she voted for me purely because I was someone to vote for, and for no other reason. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, and we should be lynching the people who are talking the least?

[pablito]

good idea.

unvote, vote: Masterchief

[Dead Rikimaru]

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, and we should be lynching the people who are talking the least?

No.
We should be trying to lynch scum, regardless of participation level.
If we say players a, b and c should not be lynched because they are talking a lot we would be handing them the game if they are scum.
If this was the rule all scum would need to do would be saying nonsense (like the KC vs c_d discussion) and they would survive o endgame.
What you really need to do is try to read into other players' participation (or lack of) and try to figure their true intentions.
If you read my post 219 about ubertimmy carefully you will see that there was more to see about him than simple lack of participation.

[molestargazer]

TCS, that was an excellent post. I also liked the way you put yourself in and saw yourself from other points of view - you weren't trying to avoid suspicion.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, and we should be lynching the people who are talking the least?

You've got a point, but I think currently we've got more than enough evidence to go off.

good idea.

unvote, vote: Masterchief

Is there any particular reason for that other than you want to lynch an inactive? I don't think you're doing what's best to try and get us a good lynch.

FoS - Pablito

However..

I'm just waiting for something scummy to happen. So far, I see nothing wrong.

I personally think you've got plenty to go off right now, especially if you read back a page. There's even been things happening since you were here.
With that and also your completely useless posts - I've not seen a single one of value - I think I've found my vote.

Vote - Masterchief

[molestargazer]

With that and also your completely useless posts - I've not seen a single one of value - I think I've found my vote.

Vote - Masterchief

Just to clarify.
I've not seen any useful posts since Page 8 of the thread - if you were in before then, my apologies, but I think it's still lynchworthy.

[Masterchief]

Your voting me because I see nothing worth mentioning so far. Great voting plan.

[molestargazer]

No offence meant here, but if you can't see anything at least worth talking about, such as TCS's very good post recently, or Kelly Chen's ideas, then you need to make the font bigger.

If there's no suspicion that you can find - post what you think about people's ideas - anything to help out.

That simply reinforces my vote.

[pablito]

Honestly, I'm not really voting Masterchief because I find him completely scummy yet. But I find his lack of motivation to find something to comment on...as...lacklustre and annoying. And that can be found scummy. My vote is more of a pressure to make him to say something worthwhile so that he's forced to play this game.

I mean seriously, when you have two votes placed on you and you STILL bother to not even say anything worthwhile about the fact that you're getting votes, then I have to worry about how much you're going to help the town.