So on page 31 VP goes from no votes to L-1. I don't have any problem with any of the votes except Elvis for jumping off pretty sharpish and giving waffly reasons in 786.
VP's AtE in 780 and unrequested vanilla claim don't impress me much.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM today writes wrote:When you give a reason [regarding finding iam scummy yesterday], the only thing you seem to have is that he was supported a BAB claim without voting for him immediately, which seems utterly innocuous to me. Supporting a claim is obviously support the wagon/lynch, too.
ekiM yesterday wrote wrote:IAUN supports B&B wagon and claim. No idea why he votes roflcopter.
Not sure on the need to mention it if it's so innocuous to you. I gave a reason awhile back why a hypo-scum IAAUN might do that, but that was of course stupid and not scumhunting in your eyes.
I don't know why he voted rofl, but it's inconsequential. Asking for a claim is clearly supporting a wagon, and pretending otherwise is perverse.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:He voted me for making a facetious comment towards the start of the day, and left that vote there for the entire day. He was happy to leave his vote there until I "answered his questions". Well, his one question: Explain how that facetious comment was funny. He left the vote there because that comment was "seriously scummy".
Translation: Not moving your vote around is scummy. Response: I disagree.
Huge misrep. Not moving your vote around at all on day 1 for a terrible reason is scummy. Doubly so when those suspicions you put across apart from your vote are terrible.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:Contra the above, VP has totally failed to explain at any point how that comment was scummy, and is now not interested in discussing it. It is, after all, insignificant bullshit.
Throwing out blanket suspicion and then later saying it was a joke when called out is scummy to me.
So what's the hypo-scum thought process here? "I better make it look like I'm scumhunting, so I'll name some lurkers, even though it's only 24 hours into the game"? That's just plain DUMB.
VP Baltar wrote:The reason I pointed out your
serious
vote on Xyl is that I don't see how you expect people to interpret one part as a joke and another as serious when you give no real indication of that in the post.
I still don't understand why you have trouble interpreting it that way. It's not at all difficult.
VP Baltar wrote:You seem quite capable of being sarcastic when you want, so I don't see that particular post in that way.
How is that a "so"?
Vp Baltar wrote:The reason I said it's insignificant now is that I pointed out several more important reasons why you are scummy, but you seem to be trying to strawman my case into this one point. That's what I don't like about it.
This is part of
my
case against
you
. It might be insignificant to your current case on me, but that's irrelevant to whether it was bad of you to keep your vote on me all day one for a ridiculous reason.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:With his vote safely planted on a V/LAer, his commitments to suspicions yesterday were distinctly underwhelming. See post 765.
I don't agree, but whatever. I can't change your mind if that's your opinion. I think I was plenty clear on where I stood even if I was being lazy and not scumhunting hard
So you agree you weren't scumhunting hard yesterday.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.
I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it
You voted for him
the second time around
, when he had been claimed for ages and people were clamoring for his hammer. You put him at L-1 when he was 100% guaranteed to be the lynch, right at the end of the day. That is NOT involvement in the wagon. Don't try and elide that and make it sound like you were on it earlirer.
I'm talking about before that vote, obviously. You're pretending not to understand that. Up until the L-1 vote when BAB was already a dead man walking you were super wishy washy on his wagon. "I'm a bit confused but I guess it's an OK wagon". etc.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:Accusing anyone who defends me of chainsawing.
I believe iam was the only person I actually accused of this. Still believe it's true
And Ojanen. Had to walk that back when you realized how absurd it was though, eh?
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:My scum hunting when I was V/LA was non-existant, yes. Well done. When I came back and decided BAB was scum, I based the rest of my suspicions on that, yes. How gauche. Now, how is either of those scummy?
You know very well I wasn't referring to you being V/LA. I implore people to look at your posts in iso. You vote BaB on like page six as his wagon is gaining significant backing. Then when you come back the only scumhunting you really do is to say that anyone trying to stop his wagon is his buddy. Like I said before, my play wasn't exactly great yesterday, but you saying it's bad is the height of hypocrisy.
OK, I have looked at my iso from day 1. Look at the timeframe of my posts. Post 2 is a random vote in the RVS. Post 3 is the Xyl bandwagon as we leave RVS. Post 4-5 I vote for B&B and scumhunt. Then I am V/LA. When I'm back, I only have time to respond to people in post 8, then catch up in 9-11. Then the day is over. I was barely caught up at this point and post 11 is my first thoughts during my read through. Maybe it's not the best scumhunting ever, but I had 13 pages to catch up on.
I don't see, at all, how my scumhunting was "non-existant".
You were active all of yesterday and your scumhunting was terrible, and your main suspicions were ludicrous. Accusing me of hypocrisy doesn't help that.
VP Baltar wrote:ekiM wrote:How strange that the biggest event of yesterday should inform my suspicions for today. Seriously, what is the point of compalining about that?
It's the way you are doing it that is scummy. He flipped town and now you are arguing that the people who weren't as gung-ho about his lynch as you are the most scummy for that. If anything, your fixation on him yesterday and all things related looks scummy to me
No, I'm saying if people were convinced he was town they should have been derailing the wagon, not unvoting then mostly ignoring it. Misrep again.
Don't respond to a quote by pasting bold stuff inside of the quote. It's impossible to read, and even harder to respond to.
elvis_knits wrote:VP Baltar wrote:[*]Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.
I put him at L-1. If that's not involvement I don't know what is. I was clear in why I voted him as well. I never claimed that I was contributing heavily to the case, just that I agreed with some of the points people were making. If you dont' like it, so be it
I think that VP could be accused of not using his vote enough yesterday, but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't comment. Also, I didn't remember VP put BaB at L-1, which makes him seem a little better in my eyes, since he did eventually start using his vote. Mike doesn't seem to mention this, which is a bad ommision.
Overall, I like VP's answers in his last post and it brought some things to my attention, like that he put BaB at L-1, which I didn't remember. That makes him more proactive than I remember him, and more proactive than ekiM is saying he was.
vote ekiM
since he has the most votes of the people I suspect, and I think that he was unfair in some of his points on VP.
He put him at L-1
the second time around
, when BAB had already been claimed for ages and people were asking for him to be hammered. BAB was dead meat. It's hardly putting yourself out there to make that vote. What I was referring to was him not commenting seriously on wagons whilst they were ongoing. The omission here is VP's, by making it sound like he put BAB at L-1 pre-claim. He was NOT being proactive wrt the BAB wagon. Putting BAB at L-1 right at the end of the day doesn't mean squat, and VP pretending it does is bad.
For an example, here's a wishy washy comment from VP about the BAB wagon earlier that I find troublesome
"Some of this BnB stuff is becoming a bit muddled for me as I'm going along here. This is the usual setback I find with larger games and lots of competent players, a million lines of questioning happening that lose focus. I can already tell this is going to be a long game.
...
Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions."
Kmd4390 wrote:ekiM wrote:KMD
Please explain:
- Which claims would NOT have prompted an unvote from you yesterday.
- Why you barely tried to detail the BAB wagon after unvoting.
- At what point you became suspicious of me.
- Why you are voting for me.
-I don't know. I've already explained over and over again why scum wouldn't have claimed vanilla.
-V/LA
-first couple of pages
-I think you are scum.
-You must have thought about this in some detail, so you should be able to tell me which claims scum might make; and which ones don't merit an unvote.
-k.
-And that's been persistant, or piqued by something else recently?
-Why?
Charter you said my wagon was clearly scum-driven. You seem to think VP is town. You've barely mentioned or suspected KMD, or Ojanen, or Tajo. Who did you have in mind?
I seriously do not understand rofl saying that anyone voting for Yos is scummy. This requires explanation.