1116 - Literally Anything uPick

[VasudeVa]

Vote Count 1.2.

Players still alive and voting!

AurorousVox [L-6] AntB
PowerRox93 [L-6] -Zang
Zodiark13 [L-7]
Chronopie [L-6] - Plum
AntB [L-7] -
Ghostlin [L-5] - Framm 18, Leo
Plum [L-7]
Zang [L-6] - AurorusVox,
Framm 18 [L-7] -
StrangerCoug [L-6] - PowerRox93
Cogito Ergo Sum [L-7] -
Doombunny9 [L-7] -

Leo [L-3]- Chronopie, Cogito Ergo Sum, StrangerCoug, Zodiark13

Not Voting: No one.

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to Lynch

D1's Deadline is at Feb 21, 2010. The countdown can be viewed here

[AurorusVox]

@Everyone who still has their RVS on someone- What do you think of Ghost? Leo? Do you have any strong reads on anyone yet?

I don't see the Ghost hate, but then again I don't see the CES hate either. They both strike me as people engaging in a discussion that really boils down to theory - how much value you place on reasons with your votes vs bandwagonning for pressure. Since Leo hasn't reacted much to his wagon, I'm not sure the wagon is having its desired effect - CES, what do you make of that?

The fact that Leo has continued to deflect away from providing reasons is a little suspect but not enough for me to find him that scummy, especially considering he's provided evidence that he doesn't like reasoning with his votes. Leo > Ghost in scumminess by a little, but its so early on and some people have only posted once, so I don't really have any "strong" reads.

I'm happy with my RVS until Zang comes back and posts something else.

Zang's posts look good.

Unvote

The reason Plum gives for her vote is odd. As far as I can see, Zodiark's concern does have some legitimacy (and has since been answered afaict). Ghost spotted where the real concern should have lain - in the hypocrisy of accusing someone of throwing votes around too easily and then plumping a vote on Leo. Plum mentioned this in passing, but she moved on to a more theoretical reason about RVS-or-not to finally justify the vote. It feels a little off. /pokes Plum with a stick

Vote: Plum

[Powerrox93]

@Everyone who still has their RVS on someone- What do you think of Ghost? Leo? Do you have any strong reads on anyone yet?

Leo: His vote in post 55 was bad, and so was the explanation of it in post 64 and 67. However, I'm not ready to call him scum yet because making

a few

bad posts and explanations =/= you're scum. However if he continues to do this kind of things, then I might think that he's scum

Ghost: Neutral read.

Strongest read: Leo (see above)

[Leo]

Leo makes a note of the fact that Powerrocks is not active lurking any more.
Leo

unvotes

and

votes Chronopie

.

[Ghostlin]

The reason Plum gives for her vote is odd. As far as I can see, Zodiark's concern does have some legitimacy (and has since been answered afaict). Ghost spotted where the real concern should have lain - in the hypocrisy of accusing someone of throwing votes around too easily and then plumping a vote on Leo. Plum mentioned this in passing, but she moved on to a more theoretical reason about RVS-or-not to finally justify the vote. It feels a little off. /pokes Plum with a stick

Vote: Plum

I quoted this because I agree with it so much.

That's my dislike of the Plum vote. It's not that I'm a huge fan of the Leo wagon, but it makes sense to put pressure there when someone's doing something odd. Plum had a legitimate case: the Zodiark vote was a bit hypocritical when you consider accusing someone throwing votes on someone and then joining the biggest wagon.

However, to vote on the basis that we're not out of RVS and placing a 'serious vote' during RVS is somewhat taboo, particularly when other players have done it, seems like a stalling tactic to me. Who decides when we're out of RVS? Probably each individual player in turn. I could understand if it was whipping into scum team go, over there, but L-3 is far from, and if we got three votes in a row immediatedly on Leo, it'd be an easy conclusion to make.

I should of done this on my last post, but I will do it now.

VOTE: Plum

[StrangerCoug]

Leo makes a note of the fact that Powerrocks is not active lurking any more.
Leo

unvotes

and

votes Chronopie

.

Again, is that all?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

The case against Plum sucks.

Dayprotect: Plum

[Doombunny9]

I can agree with most of what has been said about Plum. The only thing that makes me hesitate to vote her is that other than the vote, she hasn't done too much other than the vote on Zodiark which again, is somewhat understandable seeing as how it was still early. I'd like for Plum to explain herself before I come to a conclusion.

stranger continues to make noise without really saying much at all (Yes, we know that's all and we know that he's going to post. He even backed it up with past games)

Here's a fun fact for you all. Ant has been posting in other games but not this one.

[Doombunny9]

Yes, we know that's all and we know that its all he's going to post about chrono.

Fix'd

[StrangerCoug]

stranger continues to make noise without really saying much at all (Yes, we know that's all and we know that he's going to post. He even backed it up with past games)

I don't really care about his meta. He's going to be hard to read if he doesn't back up his vote reasoning.

[AurorusVox]

He's going to be hard to read if he doesn't back up his vote reasoning.

Here's a fun fact for you all. Ant has been posting in other games but not this one.

SC:

Do you think Leo is going to be harder to read than a lurker like AntB?

[Plum]

For all you interested, I will try to make a better deal of explaining my Zodiark vote, mkay?

Leo's vote is thrown far too easily, considering there are already several other votes on Ghost, even more so since there is no reason given, and even more so than that seeing as how it's no longer RVS.

Unvote
Vote: Leo

At this point there were already three votes on Leo.
Zodiark votes Leo who has several other votes on him. This is hypocritical.
'It's no longer RVS' may be a pet peeve of mine of sorts, but here's the thing: it's used almost as an excuse by Zodiark. Nudging someone to post more content because 'it's not longer RVS' is generally something I don't have a major problem with, but using it in this way, justifying a weak reason to vote someone who has a big bandwagon on him (the phrase 'even more so' I find particularly jarring) seems scummilicious. My wording was less clear about this, but the way in which Zodiark invoked the end of the RVS was scummy.
Plus several other votes on Ghost = 2 votes? Hm?

Just reeks of a scummy approach to a bandwagon.

What I dislike is the general tone that Zodiark isn't capable to determine the end of RVS (for them, really) or not, and make a vote that seems serious to them at this point.

No, he's perfectly qualified to determine a time to place a serious vote. He's not qualified to make a bad, scummy accusation against someone and back it up with his interpretation of the RVS in this game. It's too subjective to be anything but a bad justification, as opposed to an honest reason. Saying "It's srs-ness time everybody!" is different, precisely because it's a general call to action and not a specific justification for a bad vote. As far as I can see, anyway.

Lolno. That's not how this game works. You don't drop a vote without reason, then, over 12 hours later, point to a page, and expect that to pass as valid reasoning. I myself don't actually want to see a reason as much as I want to see a reason for there being no reason in the first place. I still want to see a reasoning, but reason-for-there-being-no-reason-to-begin-with is a higher priority. And if you want to drop a vote without any reasoning, expect to play 'verbal charades'. Lastly, no, I am committed to this, elsewise I wouldn't be up at 1am in the morning making this post.

Did you bother to read the page Leo indicated or not?

Hey, AV. You're voting me because why? Hmmm. Do you have better thing to do with your vote than poke me with a stick, or . . . ?
Ghostling, what changed between your first post directed at me after my Zodiark vote and the one right after AV's vote on me? In which you quoted him and then voted me? I didn't post between those two posts and you expressed pretty similar views about my behavior in both. So what was new?

Who decides when we're out of RVS? Probably each individual player in turn.

Exactly. And justifying a vote on a player based on

one's own judgment

of when the RVS ended - a judgment which, as you acknowledge, doesn't necessarily apply perfectly to him - is bad and can be done in a scummy way. As here.

I can agree with most of what has been said about Plum. The only thing that makes me hesitate to vote her is that other than the vote, she hasn't done too much other than the vote on Zodiark which again, is somewhat understandable seeing as how it was still early. I'd like for Plum to explain herself before I come to a conclusion.

stranger continues to make noise without really saying much at all (Yes, we know that's all and we know that he's going to post. He even backed it up with past games)

Here's a fun fact for you all. Ant has been posting in other games but not this one.

I am irritated by your lack of votes altogether (assuming the Vote Count was incorrect and you're the only one not voting, yes?). However if you're consistent it's null, and you get a boost for the fun fact. I found it fun.

[AurorusVox]

Hey, AV. You're voting me because why? Hmmm. Do you have better thing to do with your vote than poke me with a stick, or . . . ?

Best place for my vote as your own vote was the most interesting thing I've seen. It got you to explain in a bit more detail so it had the desired effect. And it was placed (and still is placed) on you because you had a legitimate concern with the post - it's hypocrisy - but clothed your vote in something that was less easy to defend against - your pet peeve. It felt dishonest.

[Plum]

Okay. Now that you've read my follow-up post . . . ?

[StrangerCoug]

He's going to be hard to read if he doesn't back up his vote reasoning.

Here's a fun fact for you all. Ant has been posting in other games but not this one.

SC:

Do you think Leo is going to be harder to read than a lurker like AntB?

No. Neither are going to be of any help to us.

[Doombunny9]

Zodiark votes Leo who has several other votes on him. This is hypocritical.

How is this hypocritical? Zodiark seems to be voting Leo for

purposefully

bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning and even backs up this statement by saying Lero isn't providing reasoning.

Did you bother to read the page Leo indicated or not?

Did you bother to read the time signatures? Zodiark made that post before Leo linked that page (The posts are even sorted according to time, this shouldn't be a problem)

Ghostling, what changed between your first post directed at me after my Zodiark vote and the one right after AV's vote on me? In which you quoted him and then voted me? I didn't post between those two posts and you expressed pretty similar views about my behavior in both. So what was new?

"I should of done this on my last post, but I will do it now."

If this doesn't answer your question I don't know what will.

I am irritated by your lack of votes altogether

I haven't found anyone particuarly scummy up until this point (Other than ghost previously but as you can see, I changed my mind about that)

No. Neither are going to be of any help to us.

Then why vote Leo over Ant? I for one would think that someone who at least does something should deserve to live longer than someone who ignores the game completely.

In this last post, Plum twists three situations around to put people in a scummy light. Plums reasoning for voting Zodiark is particularly weak as well and to me just looks more like Plum disagrees with Zodiark's playstyle rather than thinks he's really scummy.

[Ghostlin]

Ghostlin, what changed between your first post directed at me after my Zodiark vote and the one right after AV's vote on me? In which you quoted him and then voted me? I didn't post between those two posts and you expressed pretty similar views about my behavior in both. So what was new?

Nothing changed, I wanted to get you to talk, defend yourself and apply pressure. It occured to me if I was going to level that accusation, I might as well have the vote to back it up, seeing that's it's Day 1. That's not being critical, I should of done it to

anyone

that I accused point blank of hypocracy. Like I said, Plum, it's not really the fact you voted Zodiark due to reasons of hypocracy, I wasn't wild with you declaring seemingly arbitarly that we weren't out of RVS.

I don't dislike your reasoning now, it was just incomplete when I read it, and the emphasis was different than when you just first posted the vote on Zodiark. Personally, I don't find the accusations against Leo to be all that horrible, it certainly has us all talking about it.

Unvote

The case against Plum sucks.

Dayprotect: Plum

Huh. She had two votes tops on her, and you felt a Dayprotect was in order? That's a little kneejerk and almost like you wanted to stifle commentary on that wagon.

Why? I can't say I find this scummy, just overeactionary.

[Ghostlin]

VOTE: AurousVox lemony makes me eat my face...

Would you like to join us in this game, AntB? This is the only post you've made so far. Let's dash some water in your face.

Vote: AntB

[Plum]

Zodiark votes Leo who has several other votes on him. This is hypocritical.

How is this hypocritical? Zodiark seems to be voting Leo for

purposefully

bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning and even backs up this statement by saying Lero isn't providing reasoning.

Leo's vote is thrown far too easily, considering there are already several other votes on Ghost

The 'no reasoning' thing was worded as a supporting point/icing. I think it's hypocritical to call someone out for throwing out votes too easily on someone who already has votes on in the course of voting someone with more votes on him. I see nothing about " bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning" in Zodiark's statements here.

Leo indicated that if anyone was wondering about his reasoning they ought to have read/read Page 2 of the game. No linkage was needed. But in any case, when prompted by that, Zodiark responded "You don't drop a vote without reason, then, over 12 hours later, point to a page, and expect that to pass as valid reasoning". I want to know if he even looked at the page that he acknowledged was being pointed at at the time he made that statement.

"I should of done this on my last post, but I will do it now."

If this doesn't answer your question I don't know what will.

I'd rather WHO answer it. That is, I want to hear what Ghost has to say about it and discuss it. Regardless of that line in Ghost's post, I think there's reason to ask

Ghost

about it. Your two cents are appreciated . . . probably not in the way you intended them to be, but well.

In this last post, Plum twists three situations around to put people in a scummy light. Plums reasoning for voting Zodiark is particularly weak as well and to me just looks more like Plum disagrees with Zodiark's playstyle rather than thinks he's really scummy.

Did you read the multiple times I referred to Zodairk's scummy approaches to justifying his Leo bandwagon vote through his RVS statement, rather than is just being a general statement in my last post?

In this last post, Plum twists three situations around to put people in a scummy light. Plums reasoning for voting Zodiark is particularly weak as well and to me just looks more like Plum disagrees with Zodiark's playstyle rather than thinks he's really scummy.

Am I particularly scummy yet, then?

PREVIEW EDIT: Thanks, Ghost, that pretty much makes sense (and makes a lot more sense than Doombunny's excuse for you as well, because if it was only 'I forgot' I'd have expected something more like 'Ah, AV makes sense just like I was saying . . . damn I forgot to vote her well no time like the present' instead of a longer rehash post. Probably).

[Doombunny9]

The 'no reasoning' thing was worded as a supporting point/icing. I think it's hypocritical to call someone out for throwing out votes too easily on someone who already has votes on in the course of voting someone with more votes on him. I see nothing about " bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning" in Zodiark's statements here.

Can you show me where he's being hypocritical? For it to be hypocritical he'd have to be throwing around votes too easily. Seeing as how he only voted one person (Not including his RVS vote) and he provided reasoning for it, I can't really see that.

The "bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning" part was me misunderstanding Zodiak's post

I want to know if he even looked at the page that he acknowledged was being pointed at at the time he made that statement.

What does this have to do with anything? If someones reasoning for voting someone (Leo gets a bye since this seems to be his meta) is "Go look at him in iso. It's obvious he's scum." I'd think that would be pretty fishy regardless of whether or not I looked or not.

Did you read the multiple times I referred to Zodairk's scummy approaches to justifying his Leo bandwagon vote through his RVS statement, rather than is just being a general statement in my last post?

The only things you've said about Zodiark's RVS comment was "[this part cut out for bring unimportant in this case] justifying a weak reason to vote someone who has a big bandwagon on him (the phrase 'even more so' I find particularly jarring) seems scummilicious. My wording was less clear about this, but the way in which Zodiark invoked the end of the RVS was scummy.", "He's not qualified to make a bad, scummy accusation against someone and back it up with his interpretation of the RVS in this game. It's too subjective to be anything but a bad justification, as opposed to an honest reason.", and "And justifying a vote on a player based on one's own judgment of when the RVS ended - a judgment which, as you acknowledge, doesn't necessarily apply perfectly to him - is bad and can be done in a scummy way. As here."

Which are basically all one and the same. Basically, its a weak support (I'd agree with this but he does have more on Leo which together makes it a solid case considering the time he made it), and because he shouldn't have assumed that Leo didn't think the RVS was over. If this is the meat of your case its pretty damn weak and while I agree that he shouldn't have naturally assumed tat Leo was "out of the RVS", people were getting into serious discussion, making serious votes, and from the point of view of Zodiark, it would make sense to say someone is scummy for not posting any content at that point.

Am I particularly scummy yet, then?

Yes, and normally I'd be voting you but I have no reason to disbelieve CES (And even if I did, it would be pretty risky). But since you want I vote so bad (And to be honest, I probably am putting it off too much) I'll

Vote: stranger

Including what I've said before about him, even if he just wants to policy lynch Leo/Ant, he should still be scumhunting.

[Powerrox93]

@Mod:

Prod on AntB

[AntB]

I've been updating my system and I lost the bookmark for this, Surprised I didn't get poked.
As for the water, it buuuuurnnssssseseses....

RVS

UNVOTE: AurorusVox[/vote]

Anyhoo, its 5am so this will be brief.
Leo: Justify your votes.
CES: Why the day protect?

P-Edit: And there it is.

[AntB]

failtag

RVS

UNVOTE: AurorusVox

[AurorusVox]

Okay. Now that you've read my follow-up post . . . ?

I'm still suspicious because these reasons weren't mentioned in the vote post. They seem like they were generated more fully in response to the /poke, retroactively rather than because you necessarily believed them at the time. But the dayprotect, if it's legit, is a compelling reason to

unvote

for now, at least.

Debating where my vote belongs between AntB and SC. I'll give AntB a chance to provide some more content before I judge him. If he's been posting elsewhere, does that mean his bookmarks didn't really disappear? Eh...we'll see.

Vote: StrangerCoug

I think AntB makes more sense as a vote than Leo for the reasons you've provided. You say they're as bad as each other - so was it a 50:50 chance you'd vote for Leo over AntB, or was there another reason for it?

[Zodiark13]

As my understanding of it is, Plum's arguement against me is as follows;

1) I 'wildly voted' for Leo, based of the fact that Leo was wildly voting, making me a hypocrite.
2) Part of my reasoning was the state of RVS, which, as Plum reasons, I am not allowed to determine.

I did not 'wildly vote', nor was him my reason for voting. Saying 'wildly voting' was another way of saying 'voting without reason' which, if Plum had read any of my posts since, was what I was pushing against Leo for. And RVS is difficult to define as it is. Plums reckoning of where it starts and ends will vary as much as anyones, as will my own. My comment was my thinking that Leo WASN'T RVS voting, not that RVS was over.

But I digress. There is a much more important issue at hand, more so than Leo vote-hopping without reasoning, yet again.

@Everyone who still has their RVS on someone- What do you think of Ghost? Leo? Do you have any strong reads on anyone yet?

Leo: His vote in post 55 was bad, and so was the explanation of it in post 64 and 67. However, I'm not ready to call him scum yet because making

a few

bad posts and explanations =/= you're scum. However if he continues to do this kind of things, then I might think that he's scum

Ghost: Neutral read.

Strongest read: Leo (see above)

I've been turning this over in my head for the last several days, and the conclusion I've come up with is this. This isn't something town would say. For town, their vote is all they have, short of town aligned PR's. The only reason town has to not place their vote is if they feel someone is more scummy, or they person in question is either at L-1, or in danger of being otherwise quickhammered. As of the time of Powers vote, Leo was at L-3, and, as one can plainly see, Leo is his highest scumread, so neither of the above limit him so. I read his post and I see: "I feel Leo is worthy of suspicion, but don't want to be seen as responsible when/if Leo flips town". Only scum, or a noob townie, would think as such.

Therefore;

Unvote
Vote:Powerrox93

PS: Sorry if my posting sounds odd, I've been playing FFT: War of the Lions, and Ivalician English is backwards.