Newbie 1116 -- Game Over

The Fonz · Post Post #607 (isolation #0) » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:58 pm

Right, first thing, Cymru needs to change his avatar. SOTV.

Grimmjow's reaction to Al's vote for Cymru is the first kinda scummy thing I see: if you say 'Not random' it's pretty clear you've got a serious reason, which you're withholding for tactical reasons.

Grimmjow wrote:He also implies that he's town, but not to be sucked in, which the goal of all that is 1) to make people think he's town and 2) to make people think he's even more town by saying "But don't believe it just because I tell you I'm town," which frankly I think is bullshit.

That's standard IC procedure, it's not scummy. You will assert that you are town, but say why 'Follow-the-IC' is a bad strategy in general.

VisceraEyes' entry is very good, and surprisingly nuanced from a non-SE newbie:

@Viscera,

have you come from MTGS or something?

Ooh, REALLY do not like Grimmjow removing his vote as soon as he's criticised for it.

Grimmjow wrote:However, as I stated, my vote on Yonzy wasn't random. I think his reasoning for the vote was bullshit, and so I called him out on it.

Well, of course it was bullshit, it was a first post random vote...

Yonzy is really pinging my scumdar, but hard to put a specific reason on it.

Zihark entry = bad.

Cymru didn't slip, badargument is bad.

Workdawg is scummy, lot of IIOA in post 99.

Unvote, Vote Workdawg

One IIOAish post without any real suspicions is scummy enough. Two absolutely begs to be voted. Come on, six pages in and he's asking what everyone's level of experience is?

I don't really like much anything Grimmjow says, but his workrate is very atypical of a scum newbie.

Seriously, Workdawg is noncommittal scum, guys.

OK, on blue. He's clearly a child. Doesn't mean he's not scum, but doesn't mean he IS either. I don't see anything there that particularly seems like a scum tactic. He's just a derp.

cymru96 wrote:My question is. Who is scum between wordawg and TommieUzmaki?

Why is it one or other, not neither or both?

Workdawg's point about 'Too town' is NOT a good point. Scum want to LOOK like they're helping town, but they sure as hell don't actually want to HELP town. Usually, it's easier to slide in with the mid-range players than to go balls out to do as a really good town player would. Too townie is a fallacy. What's not fallacious is finding people scummy for doing things that LOOK town, but on deeper reflection wouldn't cause the player any difficulties if he's scum.

Anyway, to end p17. Not been able to do this all in one go.

The Fonz · Post Post #613 (isolation #1) » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:35 am

Grimmjow wrote:
The Fonz wrote:Ooh, REALLY do not like Grimmjow removing his vote as soon as he's criticised for it.

Yeah, no. Don't really see where that was the case. I kept my vote on him for... 28 posts. And in that amount of time a few people actually said that it was a bad decision.

Miss JJ voted you. You unvoted in your next post. Point stands.

[quote="GJ"And, on top of that, it was and RVS that yonzi had placed on him, which, at the time, I didn't really see as an RVS. But after having thought about it, it did seem more like an RVS because, I was hoping, no one would really be

that

foolish as to have placed a vote on someone for that reasoning.[/quote]

Well, yeah, it was really obviously an RVS vote. Really really obvious. What perturbed me is that you seemed to be aware of the concept of the RVS, but attacked an RVS vote as if it were a serious one.

Grimmjow wrote:Also, here's a question for you: if you seem to think I"m soooooo scummy, why not vote me instead of Workdawg?

Why vote anyone, ever? Because Workdawg's scummier. I don't think you're soooooo scummy, anyway. I think pretty much everything you've said in this game that I've read has been wrong. That's not the same thing as 'You're scum.' You looked like scum early on.

The Fonz · Post Post #618 (isolation #2) » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:12 am

Grimmjow wrote:
The Fonz wrote:Miss JJ voted you. You unvoted in your next post. Point stands.

Mis JJ voted me for RVS and because she knew me from our last game. Point doesn't stand...

Miss JJ placed a real vote on you because your 'FOS' suspicion was a better argument than the (apparently) RVS-y reason why you were voting Yonzy. Point does stand, and your attempt to misrepresent her is noted.

Miss JJ wrote:@ Viscera - Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was not an extension of my "attempted" RVS vote. It was due to his FoSing of Big Al which seemed stronger than his reason for keeping his RVS vote on Yonzy.

The Fonz · Post Post #619 (isolation #3) » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:15 am

Grimmjow wrote:Oh, sorry, didn't read her next post. You're right, she did say that my FoS was stronger than my vote and that's why she was voting me. She didn't "criticize" my vote, however.

Oh sorry, replied before getting to your next post.

Looked pretty critical to me.

The Fonz · Post Post #621 (isolation #4) » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:54 am

Because I know enough Seals in real life, I don't want to have to put up with that bloody badge every time I check this game.

Shit on the Villa, shit on the Villa tonight etc etc

The Fonz · Post Post #628 (isolation #5) » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:38 pm

VisceraEyes wrote:Okay, back everyone!

@Fonz
I play on the Team Liquid forums...I'm a SC2 nerd. There are some HARDCORE vets there, so I got to learn from the best, fast. This is literally my 2nd or 3rd game ever...just picked up some good habits I guess ^^

I agree that Workdawg appears questionable, but just so you know, I've been pushing for a blue vs cymru lynch today. My reasoning is thus: blue AND cymru have been posting in a very erratic and scummy in their own ways. Yes, it's obvious that blue is young. Yes, it's obvious that cymru is new. But that doesn't lessen the chances of either one of them being scum. But your thoughts on Workdawg intrigue me. I just did an ISO of Workdawg's contributions. They're pretty sporadic, and hit or miss, but they at least sound town. It's the intensity of his defense that rubs me the wrong way.

Ooh, wasn't teamliquid where Furcolow came from?

I'd agree they're playing

erratically.

I don't as of yet see anything that comes across as obviously scum-motivated. My read on Cymru to date is certainly that he feels like that newbie you get in every game whose playstyle can basically be described as 'Waving a big flag saying "Lynch Me" over his head.'

Workdawg concerns me because in addition to the thread padding, he's voted you- who I think is pretty obvtown - plus the two 'playstyle' wagons. That doesn't overly suggest to me a player who's really making an effort to identify town and scum. I think his partner is probably CF or Tomie, although BigAl is creeping up in my suspicions lately. I'll explain why when I get back from the

36 hrs V/LA

which begins as of now.

The Fonz · Post Post #712 (isolation #6) » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:56 am

OK. Fully caught up to where I replaced in. I'm now very confident Blue is town, and Viscera. Workdawg is still pe #1 in my eyes. Cymru could be scum, but I still think on balance it's a playstyle wagon and therefore bad. I'm tempted to support Grimm's bigAl wagon if nothing can be gotten on WD- he seems to be doing a fair amount of IC advising, but very little in the way of original or incisive scumhunting, and gives the feeling of hedging his bets. I will post a more detailed rebuttal to Workdawg's defence against the IIoA charges with my next post.

Spoiler: How I got there

The Fonz · Post Post #715 (isolation #7) » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:24 am

Before i forget, taking positions without giving reasons is not a scumtell at all, either. The converse, however, is.

The Fonz · Post Post #717 (isolation #8) » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:34 am

No, taking positions while giving reasons is a perfectly acceptable style of play. The converse of voting without laying out your reasoning is giving your reasoning without committing to a vote - IE, not putting your money where your mouth is, a form of active lurking.

The Fonz · Post Post #759 (isolation #9) » Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:40 am

OK, on Workdawg's rebuttal to Tomie:

Workdawg wrote:

I did read every post before 99 when I made that post, and since I read every post ON MY PHONE, it was all a jumble of WTF. Try reading the thread without looking at player names and let me know how that works out for you. Cause that's practically what I had to do reading it on my phone. That's why I didn't have any real thoughts on people at that point. I commented on a few specific things I found interesting, but outside of that, I really hadn't had a chance to form opinions on anyone because no one else really stood out enough to look into further. I suppose it's easy to come in here 275 posts after it starts and act all high and mighty because you can jump right in and give reads on people.

You're exaggerating the difficulty of reading on a phone. I've done it before, and it's certainly harder than on a normal computer, but it's not 'impossible to see who posted what.' That 'a couple tips for the newbies' paragraph screamed 'helpful advice' to me- as I said with Cobbler, 'helpful advice' I often see as a way of generating the illusion of usefulness for scum. I see you actually agree with that, since your clarification on VE appears to be that you were accusing him of 'trying to look town.'

And it's not that post alone. The following three or four seem fluffy to me. Taking fencesitty positions on issues, without talking about who's scum, and asking an RQS question (and RQS is generally somewhat scummy) outside of the early part of the game (indicates desire to keep the fluffing going). Your posts up to 185 do not include a solid 'this is my top suspect' or vote. It all looks VERY active lurky. When I post from my phone, it tends to be short, to the point, and talks about who my top suspect is. IE, I'm more worried about taking positions and exerting pressure than 'being seen to contribute.' You seem to me to be doing the opposite.

In addition, I've read your previous scum game, and that looks pretty similar. Empty posts for a while, then a jump on a town wagon (and no, I am not insiniuating that I have inside knowledge of anyone's alignment here, so you can forget that line of argument).

Your response to Tomie about high horses etc felt uncalled for. He voted you for IIoA posting, which is legitimately scummy. If you're town, and it's not impossible, then learn that things aren't bad scumhunting just because

you

think you have an excuse. Likewise your 'I would expect better from an SE slot.' LOL. Your problem with my vote isn't that it's poorly reasoned, or newbish. It's that it's on you.

That said:

WD wrote:Now you seem to be twisting my words. I never said information was bad for town or that people shouldn't give there reads. I said that it is scummy to ask for everyone to give their reads and not give his own.

This is a decent point. One might even call it scummy. However your points on VE were votehopping (not a scumtell) and 'flipping his shit' which I thought looked PARTICULARLY town. Then you jump the playstyle wagon on cymru. And then, with deadline pending:

Workdawg wrote:
Blue has made a few suspicious moves, but he definitely seems more newb than scum to me (not ruling out newb scum, of course). I would be on-board with a his lynch IF it avoids a no-lynch. Otherwise I'd prefer to keep up the discussion as long as possible to see if we can't find someone better.

Distance from the wagon, unnecessary 'looking town' - saying you don't want a no lynch' and wanting to 'see if

we

can do something better, without making any really significant effort to rally people to a new wagon.

This is a good wagon. Join us. Failing that, the Cobbler wagon is better than the cymru one and I would support the former over the latter if it came to it. Al, Grimm, will you come into the light?

Basiscally, I'm extremely confident that VE and Zach are town. (Claiming scum should be auto-replace and blacklist, btw). I'm pretty confident on Cymru (his last bit about Miss JJ/me

screams

townie confirmation bias. Like, he knows his suspicion is irrational, but the omgus instinct just won't let it go). Also leaning town on Grimm (his confrontational style does not seem likely to come from scum -they'd be afraid of making enemies- and made good, original scumhunting points vs CF just when I was getting worried about him).

So I think there's a damn good chance both scum are in WD, Al, Cobbler, Tomie. WD is still the individually scummiest.

The Fonz · Post Post #783 (isolation #10) » Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:23 pm

Workdawg wrote:
The difficulty is compounded by the fact that it was the beginning of the game and being unfamiliar with peoples styles and avatars. My "helpful tips" was helpful advice, but there's a difference between giving a few tips and making numerous statements IN ALL CAPS ZOMG. Not to mention the fact that my tips were general gameplay advice not specific to our game. I think that's an important distinction as well.

I think you're

The Fonz wrote:And it's not that post alone. The following three or four seem fluffy to me. Taking fencesitty positions on issues, without talking about who's scum, and asking an RQS question (and RQS is generally somewhat scummy) outside of the early part of the game (indicates desire to keep the fluffing going). Your posts up to 185 do not include a solid 'this is my top suspect' or vote. It all looks VERY active lurky. When I post from my phone, it tends to be short, to the point, and talks about who my top suspect is. IE, I'm more worried about taking positions and exerting pressure than 'being seen to contribute.' You seem to me to be doing the opposite.

I disagree that the "three or four" after #99 look like fluff. I provided my basic thoughts and posed a handful of questions to people. Just because you choose to be direct and short when you post from your phone doesn't mean that it's scummy not to. Post #99 was actually the last post from my phone anyway. [/quote]

No, but it speaks to a difference of motivation. When I don't have a lot of time to post, I try to make my stances as clear as possible. 99 contained a lot of words, but absolutely nothing about who the scum are, just a couple of hedgy 'I don't think this is that important' comments and some 'helpful advice.' That speaks to me of a different motivation - to be seen contributing. That's primarily a scum motivation.

Workdawg wrote:
I told you both why my contributions were lacking at the beginning of the game and I'm sick of trying to defend myself over that. If you don't want to believe it, then fine.

But it's not the lack of contribution, it's the type of contribution. It's almost like you're saying that because you're being a hero and staying in the game in difficult situations, we shouldn't be able to attack the posts you do make. Sorry, no dice.

Workdawg wrote: Your points against me can be summarized as follows (up until now):

1. IIOA from post 99 (607)
2. Non-commital (607)
--- You claim to have only read up to page 17 by this point...
3. Thread padding (628)
4. Voting for someone YOU THINK is town (628)
5. Two "playstyle wagons" (628).

1. ... yeah
2. I made a case against a person and voted for them. I don't think that's non-commital.
3. Simply not the case, and everyone else I've seen comment on this agrees with me.
4. lolplz
5. My votes against cym and blue were both intended to try and pressure them into posting, but obviously that didn't really work on either one of them. I suppose my vote against cym is based on his playstyle. However my vote on blue was based almost entirely on his slip in which he pretty much says he's only claiming to be a newb.

So yeah... my problem with your vote against me IS that it's poorly reasoned.

No, it's well reasoned, because you're probably scum.

1. Dealt with this in depth.
2. Eventually.
3. Oh, appeal to majority, is it? Asking RQS questions in general, and especially when there are real issues to be discussed, is thread padding and is scummy. It doesn't help find scum, it does help you look active. Your thoughts on Grimm, you basically

describe

him, but you do not ANALYZE him. 160 is a brilliant example. You say that someone else said something, but you didn't see it, you ask an asinine question and make a comment that doesn't seem to do anything in terms of helping find scum.
4. Well, scum want to lynch town. It's the most basic scumtell there is. If I see something and think 'Damn that's townish' and someone else claims to read it another way, there's always the possibility that it's because they're looking at it from a different (ie scum) perspective to me. Genuine frustration like that really looks town. Scum wouldn't care less if a game is stagnating.
5. Yeah, yeah, excuse excuse. Fact is, you put your vote in a place where I would expect scum to put it.

Workdawg wrote:

My vote against VE was not for votehopping, it was because he seemed to be votehopping based on the reaction he was getting from everyone else (trying to please the masses, rather than sticking to his case)... non-committal, as you called it. We disagree on his freakout, and I don't think disagreeing with you on that is scummy.

But I DO think attacking town is inherently scummy.

As for my thoughts on blue... I stand by that. Would you prefer a no-lynch? I'd vote for pretty much anyone who's even mildly suspicious to avoid a no-lynch scenario on D1. As for not making a case against any else, I intend to do that today/tonight. I was busy at work last friday... and then also busy most of the weekend. I just haven't had a chance to go back through the thread.

No, my problem is not that what you are stating is WRONG, it's that it's again stating the obvious in an attempt to look town. No-one wants a no-lynch. However you stated you were hoping for something better, but you didn't go do a re-read or produce a forceful case on someone else and try to get people on board, and that tells me your statement was dishonest- what you want is not a better wagon, but the excuse that there were none to lynch Cy or Blue without looking scummy.

@Cobbler: I don't have a time for a full rebuttal, but don't you think saying why I think the other four players are town constitutes explaining why I think Al, you, or Tomie is the buddy? Don't think for a second it's escaped my notice how you've blown with the wind w/r/t me and Workdawg. I make a case, I've convinced you I'm town and he's scum. He makes a rebuttal, you vote for me.

The Fonz · Post Post #788 (isolation #11) » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:18 am

Cobblerfone wrote:
You said you would explain. You didn't. You didn't merely forget either as your second returning post clearly indicates.

This is simply untrue. I DID explain. In 712, I pointed out that you used 'Too defensive' which is a scum argument, and called you trying to direct the town power scummy, and that you were going with the 'commenting on everything but not taking a firm stance on anything' type of behaviour. And in particular, I pointed out that you made the very strong scumtell of asking 'Does anyone else think this is scummy?' That's scummy because it indicates you care too much about what other people think, rather than just getting on with saying what YOU think. This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, giving reason to suspect you.

On BigAl, I said this:

I wrote:
BigAl wrote:UNVOTE: Grimmjow, VOTE: Cymru for not contributing any suspicions for pages and pages, and then finally contributing illogical ones.

This is scummy. Whether someone's suspicions are logical or illogical, especially in a newbie game, isn't often that relevant a consideration. Some people are just dumb.

This is a reason to suspect BigAl. As shown by the fact I said 'this is scummy.' Some of it is gut as well, of course. I didn't specifically comment on Tomie, but then, my suspicion of him is largely process of elimination. Which is fine. He's less scummy than any of the other three, though he needs to stop lurking. (Or she, i'm not sure).

I then expanded on my townreads, which were several, and left only you, Workdawg, BigAl and Tomie on the outside. This is also a perfectly good explanation of why I think those players are the most likely scum- take out the town reads, and obviously everyone who is left is more likely scum.

So either you have a weird definition of 'explain,' you're not reading properly, or you're misrepresenting scum. Which is it?

The Fonz · Post Post #817 (isolation #12) » Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:36 am

Grimmjow wrote:

The Fonz wrote:Al, Grimm, will you come into the light?

...original scumhunting points vs CF just when I was getting worried about him

Fonz, I'm not changing my stance. Sorry, buddy.

Grimm, that part of the post was in response to the fact that you seemed to have some suspicion of WD, and yet were voting for the bad playstyle wagon. I'm perfectly happy with your Cobblerfone vote, both because he's really scummy (Workdawg and he are really close, and I'm not entirely sure which way I'm going to jump just yet) and because it was original scumhunting. Both of these are good wagons.

The Fonz · Post Post #819 (isolation #13) » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:21 am

Cobblerfone wrote:
By the way, here's some posts I dug up:

VE wrote:Any hit to town is a big hit, especially in a game with 9 players. Do you realize that with 8 players, it STILL takes 5 votes to lynch someone? Those are BIG percentages my guy. Lynching a townie is NOT an option...especially since we're on Majority Vote mode with THREE WEEKS to make a final decision. The fact that you think of losing me as an acceptable loss is...telling.

An appeal to emotion when he wasn't even in danger. (and wrong as the only way we get 8 players is if we vote no-lynch which was what he was doing at the time.)

1) It's not an appeal to emotion.
2) Saying that someone is 'an acceptable loss' to justify the possibility of voting them is genuinely scummy.

Cobbler wrote:He didn't hold up to this. (Heck blue scumclaimed!)

Changing your mind isn't a scumtell.

The Fonz · Post Post #822 (isolation #14) » Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:29 am

He already tried that, WD. It didn't work.

Zach, your predecessor didn't roleclaim effectively or otherwise. I also think he was very likely town.

The Fonz · Post Post #858 (isolation #15) » Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:18 am

VisceraEyes wrote: ^^

UNVOTE: Workdawg
VOTE: Cobblerfone

There...was that less scummy than asking permission first?

Not really. It looks like a player who's worried he might be the target of a counterwagon trying to rush through the leading wagon to stop his own building.

I thought Zach's points were decent, and Viscera's reaction is OMGUS. However, pretty much every argument he made can be better applied to Cobblerfone than Visc.

The Fonz · Post Post #860 (isolation #16) » Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:28 am

VisceraEyes wrote: What that would have done was open the door for whomever WANTS to end the day without you giving an opinion to DO SO. Thanks...you caught me trying to lay a scum trap...and said it was scummy. WTG. I was asking town's permission not because I'm wishywashy, but because it was a bold move and I didn't want it to be mistaken (unsuccessful, apparently) for a scum-switch.

Also 'Not wanting to be [mistaken/accurately seen] as a scum switch' is a scum motivation. Town don't care nearly as much about how things are SEEN. IF you thought it were the right thing to do for town, you'd just do it and explain later.

The Fonz · Post Post #882 (isolation #17) » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:36 pm

Cobblerfone wrote:

My last defense would be: I'm not scum. I'm just an ordinary Townie. I have no idea why people think giving my opinion on what the power roles should do in a newbie game is scummy. I kind of forget why everyone thinks I'm scummy actually. The only reason that I could see as being okay is Fonz's "giving a stance without voting" which I don't think applied to the situation since I was waiting for people to respond and he isn't even voting me. (I think)

I'm not voting you, but I've got you and Workdawg in pretty close to a virtual tie. You're neglecting to include 'attacking people for things that aren't scummy' and 'flip-flopping between me and Workdawg based on whoever'd posted last.'

The Fonz · Post Post #889 (isolation #18) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:33 am

*sigh*

You'd think there'd be a limit on the number of 'Scummy or horrifically newbish' things one player can do in a game. There, you've just stated the obvious, pleaded your innocence before anyone even had the chance to accuse you, pointed at the finger at two players other people were suspicious of yesterday, and voted one of them with a complete non-sequitur of an OMGUS vote (

someone

is trying to frame me, therefore VOTE: Viscera).

Workdawg looks pretty bad. The other player this raises my suspicion of is BigAl. Neither the IC nor the most experienced player died last night. That alone suggests a higher likelihood Al or I is scum, and it ain't me. Still got Zach as town. I'll have to go back and see if Tomie dropped any breadcrumbs.

The Fonz · Post Post #893 (isolation #19) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:04 am

Actually, that's not quite right. If you pay no attention at all to NKs, it's easy for the scum to just kill whoever suspects them.

VisceraEyes: Have you heard of a term called 'congratulating the doc?'

The Fonz · Post Post #897 (isolation #20) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:44 am

It's what you just did. Commenting on how good/bad the results of the night were for town. It's something newbie scum often do to try to look town. It's such a well-publicized tell that it's lost any value in ordinary games, but I have seen a few times where newbie scum who weren't aware of the existence of the tell were caught on it. I wanted to know if you knew it, rather than telling you, because that would tell me if it were a scum indicator on your part or not.

The Fonz · Post Post #900 (isolation #21) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:04 am

cymru96 wrote:VisceraEyes post #890-
"I know my alignment, I do not know theirs."
I think that he's saying that because he obviously knows his alignment but also that he knows who the other scum is. How? BECAUSE HE'S SCUM.

The question is... who's his scumbuddy, Zach or Wordawg?

Anwers on a postcard.

Jesus Christ. I'm this close to wanting to policy lynch you.

He's not saying he's scum. If he were scum, he certainly wouldn't say it. He's saying he's town. Town people don't know anyone's alignment but their own.

The Fonz · Post Post #901 (isolation #22) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:17 am

Evidence of a Workdawg/VisceraEyes connection:

Nobody Special wrote:
Votecount 1.18

Cobblerfone - 3 - Grimmjow, Workdawg, bigAl
Workdawg - 3 - The Fonz, VisceraEyes, cymru96

Nobody Special wrote:
Votecount 1.19

L-1 Cobblerfone - 4 - Grimmjow, Workdawg, bigAl, VisceraEyes
Workdawg - 2 - The Fonz, cymru96

Visc jumped off Workdawg to put Cobbler at L-1. That's the crucial vote (the one that he scummily asked permission for) that swings the presumptive lynch, because at 3-3 with Workdawg on Cobbler and Cobbler not on Workdawg, you would expect Cobbler to switch his vote to put Workdawg ahead of himself. At 4-2, there's clear blue water there for the Cobbler lynch. Add in the fact that Tomie suspected both of them, and that makes a pretty good NK target.

The Fonz · Post Post #905 (isolation #23) » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:25 am

Well, I read it. I was there. There's the clear possibility of a 'Save Workdawg' motive there. Of course, it's also possible he's just opportunistic scum who saw the chance to get rid of town-cobbler and took it.

The Fonz · Post Post #930 (isolation #24) » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:40 am

Vote: BigAl

The Fonz · Post Post #933 (isolation #25) » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:31 am

A question, Mr. Vile fan, do you think I am incapable of expanding on my vote?

The Fonz · Post Post #944 (isolation #26) » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:29 am

cymru96 wrote:Valid points but seriously... Fonz... I don't think you are incapable of expanding your vote I just want to know why you havent stated your reason.

Very suspicious.

Vote: The Fonz

You state you 'just want to know' why I didn't explain, and then vote me before I had the chance to explain? My point of asking you if you thought I didn't have reasons was that, since it could reasonably be assumed I had them, the obvious explanation for withholding them was I was trying to do something particular by withholding them. The point of which would have been completely defeated by me explaining immediately just because you asked me to, so why ask?

It's simple. I thought I'd get more interesting and useful responses by not explaining it until after everyone had reacted to the vote in isolation.

Basically, whilst VisceraEyes and Workdawg are both scummy, I don't get the feeling they're partners. Look at VE's vote for Workdawg. It's pretty scummy, because it seems like an attempt to save Viscera's own ass by jumping the most popular suspect. He will argue that he suspected Workdawg yesterday, perhaps even more then Cobbler (though why he thinks that makes his involvement with that wagon less suspicious, idk). But the important thing about this is that the way VE promotes WD as the alternative to him doesn't look like a bus to me.

The thing that kept me from voting Al yesterday was that, although he didn't seem to be doing anything that was particularly difficult for scum to fake, his suspicions did basically align with mine. Well, of those suspicions, he chose to wagon the town one over the one of unknown alignment, and today he seems to have dropped workdawg suspicion pretty much entirely for reasons I can't entirely fathom, and quietly returned to pushing the horrendously newbish Cymru along with Grimmjow. His posts as a whole kind of give me the feel that he's just filling up space and not working particularly hard on catching scum. What arguments he does make (Cymru for being illogical) don't seem like real scumhunting (being bad at logic is not scummy).

So what all that says to me is that Al is the most likely partner for

either

Workdawg or Viscera. Also, I kind of get a 'Knows VE is town' vibe from the whole 'You may know you're town' thing. At the same time, that rings slightly townish on VE for me... people who get frustrated that the town can't see that they're obvtown (in their own eyes) are usually town. It's not something the scum have the chutzpah to fake. I can recall a few times when I thought it painfully obvious I was town, and was frustrated and thrown off my game by the fact that other players didn't seem to see it.

The Fonz · Post Post #953 (isolation #27) » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:02 am

cymru96 wrote:
cymru96 wrote:care to expand on your vote Mr. Fonz?

The Fonz wrote:A question, Mr. Vile fan, do you think I am incapable of expanding on my vote?

The Fonz wrote:You state you 'just want to know' why I didn't explain, and then vote me before I had the chance to explain?

I asked you to explain, which you didn't and then you say that I voted without letting you give reason. You refused to give reason... Suspicious Much?

No, not at all. I obviously decided I'd get more information out of other people by not giving reasons straight away. You basically seemed to be trying to prevent me using this scumhunting tool by immediately asking for reasons (which itself is an interesting and noteworthy reaction). In turn, please explain WHY you think it is scummy to temporarily withhold reasoning in order to gauge reactions.

Sheepshagging Scum fan wrote:(Also the reason you gave sucks.)

You suck. 'X is the most likely partner for either Y or Z, who are the two other scummiest' is good reasoning.

Workdawg wrote:
@The Fonz
- You didn't vote for bigAl yesterday because his suspicions aligned with yours? Back in post 628, you said I "concerned" you because I voted for VE, who you felt was obvtown. I'm a bit concerned that your voting seems to be based on who agrees (or doesn't agree) with you.

I didn't vote BigAl yesterday because I thought you were scummier. You were scummy because you appeared to be attacking weaker players with what I saw as manufactured, trumped-up reasons that didn't actually correspond in my eyes to actual scumminess, as well as seeming to be making more effort to 'look town' than 'help town.'

Therefore, you looked like scum. BigAl, I got a bad vibe off of him, but that had to be countered by the fact that he appeared to be using decent arguments to go after people that I thought were scum. At the most base level, attacking town and defending scum are always scum tells. This doesn't mean that town won't do them. Of course, the fact that BigAl ended up on the town-cobblerfone lynch is a bad sign. In newbie games, there's almost always one scum on a day one town lynch, and as often as not both.

Also, the below quote rubs me the wrong way.

The Fonz wrote:
The thing that kept me from voting Al yesterday was that, although he didn't seem to be doing anything that was particularly difficult for scum to fake, his suspicions did basically align with mine. Well, of those suspicions,
he chose to wagon the town one over the one of unknown alignment
, and today he seems to have dropped workdawg suspicion pretty much entirely for reasons I can't entirely fathom, and quietly returned to pushing the horrendously newbish Cymru along with Grimmjow.

Workdawg wrote:It seems a bit, devious (for lack of a better term, I guess) to imply that bigAl knew his choice of wagons would be on "the town one." At the time, no one (except scum, of course) knew the alignment of either. Subtly implying that bigAl is scum, are we?

Wow this is scummy. Obviously, he knew if he was scum and didn't if he was town. That quote does not at all, in any way, however, say that he chose to wagon a player who he knew was town. He may or may not have known who was town at the time, however that's not at all the implication of that post. It says that when faced with a choice between a player the whole town now knows to be town, and a player who may yet be scum, he went for the one who is known town. If he'd gone for you and you'd flipped town, same deal. If he'd gone for you and you'd flipped scum, he'd be much more townish for being a direct cause of a scum lynch. It's simply true to state that 'Al chose the town one over the one of still-unknown alignment.'

Workdawg wrote:At the end of the above quote, you also attack bigAl for "dropping" his suspicion of me. I have to say, I find your vote suspicious for the same reason. At the end of the day, you had cobbler and I at "a virtual tie", and yet now you are going after bigAl? Tomie was suspicious of me, and he got NKed. I would think that would have focused a bit more attention on me, but I'm sliding out for bigAl to take my place?

W. T. F? It's not like my read on you disappeared. I mean, my justification for voting al was:

asically, whilst VisceraEyes and Workdawg are both scummy, I don't get the feeling they're partners.

So what all that says to me is that Al is the most likely partner for either Workdawg or Viscera.

How do you go from 'Fonz thinks Viscera and Workdawg are individually scummy, but are unlikely partners, and therefore bigAl who is also individually pretty scummy and the most likely partner for either of them is the best vote' to 'Fonz has dropped his suspicion of Workdawg?' I have a hard time seeing how anyone honestly draws that inference. The attack on me for attacking BigAl is very much noted.

VisceraEyes wrote:
My only grievance with your vote is that clearly you think that there's scum between Workdawg and myself, and bigAl's flip won't give you any information, by definition. You're saying that he's the most likely partner for myself or Workdawg...great. So if he flips red, we're down a mafia...but then who was his partner? You're in the same position tomorrow that you're in today. And what if he flips green? Not only were you wrong about him and we're down ANOTHER townie, but you STILL don't have any further information to help you decide between Workdawg and myself.

Why would I care about that? I want to lynch the most likely scumbag. If we lynch him and he flips scum, then we have the ability lynch both of you and Workdawg if we so choose. 'Lynching for information' is scummy. You lynch who you think is scum. Period. Besides, there will be reactions to a wagon on him which can be analysed. For instance, you actually being willing to come out outright and say you think al is town, as compared with Workdawg's attempt to make out that I am scummy for attacking Al, makes you a less likely al partner I think.

As for your read, sounding reasonable but sitting on the fence seems like a great way for a scum IC to 'look town' rather than 'help town.' Where's the drive? Where's the leadership? Where's any attempt to set the agenda? These are things i expect from town ICs. He's playing a very reactive game, and that says scum to me.

The Fonz · Post Post #969 (isolation #28) » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:38 am

Workdawg wrote:
Go back and read the bolded part there from my previous post (which you quoted). You said HE CHOSE TO WAGON THE TOWN ONE. If he's scum, then he did knowingly choose a town wagon. If he's not scum though, he chose an unknown wagon. I don't know if bigAl is scum or not (though I admit I'm leaning town), but I'm not defending him either. I'm attacking your comments as they are very clearly intended to make bigAl look scummy by skewing the situation, and that IS scummy. .

No, you're being dishonest.

I said 'He chose to wagon the town one over the one of unknown alignment.' That is true, it is the situation as we can see it. In neither case (town or scum) was it a choice at the time between a known town player and a player of unknown alignment. If he's town, it's a choice between two players of unknown alignment, and if he's scum, two players of known. Therefore,

I could not possibly have been implying anything about what he knew then,

because stating that he was deciding at the time between a player he knew was town and a player he didn't know the alignment of

does not make any sense.

cymru96 wrote:wow...disrespecting my country is pretty lame...

Lighten the fuck up, taffy boy.

You want to know why I think your act was scummy- You come back on day two with a vote without resoning which is suspicious in itself. You would have been questioned so you decided to make a vote and then stall for time to think of a reason.

1) Voting without a reason is not at all, ever, scummy in itself. I explained this on day one, I'm not going to do it again.

2)

cymru96 wrote:Valid points but seriously... Fonz... I don't think you are incapable of expanding your vote I just want to know why you havent stated your reason.

This post appears to convey the belief that I do have a reason. Then later you turn around and say you think I didn't have one and made one up later. You have contradicted yourself.

The Fonz · Post Post #972 (isolation #29) » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:19 am

Oh, for fuck's sake. I called him a sheepshagger in a quote tag, which is a common colloquial term for 'Welshman' same as 'Yank' for American, 'Canuck' for Canadian, or 'Limey' for Englishman. It'd be like an Irishman being offended at being called a paddy. Fans of Welsh football teams sing 'One nil to the sheepshaggers' when they're winning ffs.

And I know what tense chose is in, you patronising ass. If you cannot see that 'He chose to wagon the town player' means 'he chose to wagon the player that we now know is town' and not 'he chose to wagon the player he knew at the time was town,' you're an idiot. You're trying to twist my words in order to misrepresent my intentions, and this is hella scummy.

It's like the Oedipus example. Oedipus chose to sleep with his mother. He didn't know she was his mother at the time, but he took a decision to sleep with a woman who, in fact,

was

his mother, so the statement is true.

The Fonz · Post Post #977 (isolation #30) » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:17 am

Grimmjow wrote:
The Fonz wrote:It's like the Oedipus example. Oedipus chose to sleep with his mother. He didn't know she was his mother at the time, but he took a decision to sleep with a woman who, in fact,
was
his mother, so the statement is true.

Yes, the statement is true in the sense that he did sleep with his mother, and Al did wagon a townie, but the indication here is that Oedipus chose specifically to sleep with his mother and that Al chose specifically to wagon a townie, not that the choice was made and it just so happened to turn out that it was Oedipus' mother or that Cobbler was town.

I do not agree with your analogy here. Oedipus did not choose to sleep with his mother. He chose to sleep with a woman. Saying he chose to sleep with his mother, or that Al chose the town wagon, indicates forethought into the act. Choosing to sleep with a woman, or choosing to jump on a wagon is completely different.

She was his mother.
He chose to sleep with her.
Therefore, he chose to sleep with his mother.
This is a logically valid argument.

Cobblerfone flipped town. Workdawg is of unknown alignment.
Al chose to wagon Cobblerfone over Workdawg.
Al chose to wagon someone who flipped (

was

)town over someone who is of unknown alignment.

Both of these are logically true statements. Likewise, it would make perfect sense to say 'we would be better off if the scum had chosen to kill someone other than the cop' last night, because the person they killed was the cop, without implying that they knew he was the cop. I've made it quite clear that any suggestion that he knew Cobbler's alignment but not Workdawg's ('over a player of unknown alignment') wouldn't make any sense, therefore the comment could not have been meant in that way. Even if you were to assume that the targeting of town players were deliberate from the 'he chose to wagon town' part of the sentence in isolation, that interpretation doesn't work when you include the second half of the sentence, 'Over a player of unknown alignment,' because if he knew the alignment of one, he knew the alignment of the other.

Workdawg's argument is untrue (that was not my intent) it is craplogic (his interpretation doesn't make sense) and it's scummy.

The Fonz · Post Post #981 (isolation #31) » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:34 am

cymru96 wrote:You say that Al chose someone who was town over someone who is of unknown alignment. Thing is, cobbler was an unknown alignment. He could've been scum, but he wasn't. Al made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong, doesn't make him scum. (He could be scum, but don't base it on that.).

It makes him MORE likely to be scum, since an Al who is scum with workdawg has obvious reason to prefer workdawg's survival to Cobbler's. If WD is town, it's all moot, but since WD might be scum, it's a scumtell.

Saying 'he made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong' sounds like you KNOW he's town. It's only his opinion, and indeed only wrong, if he's town.

@Grimm: you're again only looking at half of the sentence. "Over a player of unknown alignment." I cannot have been saying he chose to go for a player he knew was town over a player whose alignment he did not know, because there is no role in the game for which that statement could have been true on D1. The sentence DOES make sense from the perspective of what is known now to everyone: BigAl chose to go for a player who we know is town over a player whose alignment is still unknown to town players.

What I was saying was

[BigAl chose to vote for] [a player] [who was town].

What Workdawg's claiming I said was:

[BigAl chose to vote for] [a player who was town].

IE, I actually said he voted for Cobbler AND Cobbler was town, Workdawg/Grimm are saying that I said 'He voted for Cobbler BECAUSE' Cobbler was town. Cherrypicking part of a sentence to change its meaning so that it looks scummy is a scum move.

The Fonz · Post Post #985 (isolation #32) » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:14 am

Grimmjow wrote:I'm quite interested in the fact that you are probably one of the most experienced players in this game, yet you are throwing around suspicions as though it was everyone vs. you.

I'm really not.

Cymru wrote:Thing is, cobbler was an unknown alignment. He could've been scum, but he wasn't. Al made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong, doesn't make him scum.

This is true only if BigAl is town, right? Cobbler 'was an unknown alignment' only to town players. I'm not imputing scum motivation to Cymru, I'm pointing out that he might have let slip that he has scum

knowledge.

Of course, this only applies if Al is not scum, and I think he is, but it's worth noting nontheless.

The point I'm trying to make, which Cymru keeps missing, is that the player he chose to wagon WAS town. The player he chose not to might yet be scum. That's relevant information, which he shouldn't be dismissing. As for 'he might be scum, but not because of that' well, if my scum read on Al was based solely on that, I'd be voting workdawg. But it isn't, that's only a small part of why I suspect BigAl.

Workdawg further cements the BigAl-Workdawg link that was the point of the sentence which started this furore by responding to an attack on BigAl by attacking BigAl's attacker, but not directly defending BigAl. Note that this is scummy of Workdawg regardless of Al's alignment: if Al is his buddy, he's protecting him, if Al is town, then Workdawg is using my attack on Al as an excuse to attack me, but leaving the door open to lynch Al later. Contrast VisceraEyes' response: he said he thought Al was town.

Also, the attack itself is a misrepresentation, for reasons I've explained repeatedly. It's one thing to misread something: it's another to keep pressing the point after it's been explained that the way he has 'interpreted' the statement doesn't make any logical sense, so can't have been what I actually meant. I'm not saying you're scum, Grimmjow, but the fact remains that for the sake of accuracy, if I am calling the attack scummy, and I am, I should note that you have also done the scummy action. There's almost certainly one scum in (Workdawg, Cymru, you). I don't think both scum are in that group, and I think Workdawg is scummier than either of the other two.

Shining the light on bigAl, we've learned that he 'Doesn't necessarily' think my point is bad, but he's also neglected to call anyone else's part in this scummy. So this big argument is raging in thread, and there's no indication that Al has gleaned anything about anyone's alignment from it. This goes back to the basis of my Al suspicion: he's not scumhunting. But because he's not pissed anyone off, people think he's town. Look at Cymru's attitude toward me and Al: he seems pretty favourably disposed to Al, who's voted for him on multiple occasions, and hostile to me, despite the fact that I've actively defended him, because I think he's dumb town. Al doesn't want to make enemies.

The Fonz · Post Post #987 (isolation #33) » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:01 am

cymru96 wrote:you make a good point that he may have made a slip. He may be an IC but is he a newbie scum?

It was you who I said might have slipped

I know that the player that he wagoned was town but I'm saying that he did not neciserilly know that he was town.

And what I'm saying is I never said he did.

The Fonz · Post Post #990 (isolation #34) » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:41 am

Workdawg wrote:
The Fonz wrote:

This is true only if BigAl is town, right? Cobbler 'was an unknown alignment' only to town players. I'm not imputing scum motivation to Cymru, I'm pointing out that he might have let slip that he has scum
knowledge.
Of course, this only applies if Al is not scum, and I think he is, but it's worth noting nontheless.

But this applies to the 4 other people on cobbler's wagon as well. I suppose not me though, since I wouldn't vote myself... so 3 others.

Yes and no. There's a distinction there. Grimmjow was on Cobbler pretty much all day. He was on Cobbler whilst everyone else was on the Cymru/Pokemon wagons. (This is another reason I feel Grimmjow is likely town, and you are the scum attacking me: it would have been pretty easy for scum Grimm to justify hopping on one of those wagons). He didn't decide between Cobbler and Workdawg wagons, because he was wagoning Cobbler long before there was a wagon on you. Al's vote came at a point when you were tied, and the only players with multiple votes. It's much more accurate to say that Al chose between the wagons.

VE's swinging the vote to Cobbler over you has already been covered in some detail, and similarly to Al it indicates a possible scum connection to you. However, the somewhat-desperate seeming way that VE seemed to vote you because you were the other person being talked of as a scum candidate seems to indicate to me that you're not partners, like I said.

BigAl wrote:Okay, so we're at two for workdawg and two for cobblerfone and six days to go. I'm going to be all indecisively-scummy here for a sec and say that either way, I like this choice far better than a blue vs. cy lynch.

OK, Al spent a large part of day one voting Cymru, and then in the very previous post had said 'I feel better about Workdawg, who to lynch instead?' then comes out with this. Without anything else really happening, he goes from 'I like Workdawg, who else to lynch?' to 'Workdawg and Cobbler are both decent options and I'm not making a decision between them right now.' Based on the analyses he'd just done, this should have been a no-brainer.

Workdawg wrote:
You said something scummy and I called you out on it. We can go back and forth all day with you breaking it down word by word and stuff, but you won't convince me that the specific wording wasn't intended to make him look scummy. I noticed in your more recent post that you actually changed the wording this time to "... the player he chose to wagon was town."

'THE PLAYER HE CHOSE TO WAGON WAS TOWN' AND 'HE CHOSE TO WAGON A TOWN PLAYER' MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING! HE CHOSE TO WAGON A PLAYER, WHO WAS TOWN!

I didn't say something scummy. You twisted what I said to make it mean something other than what I was saying, and then said that was scummy.

The Fonz · Post Post #994 (isolation #35) » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:37 am

Workdawg wrote:EBWOP:

The first implies that he chose a player of unknown alignment.

The second implies he knew the alignment of the player.

Except that if you're going to go down that road, you have to at least have the decency to accept that the full sentence read your way would also imply that he didn't know your alignment. Which is impossible, because he can't have known one and not known the other, therefore that clearly can't be the right way to read it.

Bottom line. The way I am saying I said it makes sense. What you are claiming I said doesn't. Your refusal to admit you simply misinterpreted it is not the action of a player trying to honestly ascertain what I was really saying.

The Fonz · Post Post #1002 (isolation #36) » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:05 am

VisceraEyes wrote:I'm not, but I feel confident he'll pick up the pace with a little pressure. Your votes are well placed.

I'm not voting him because I want to pressure him into taking positions.

I'm voting him because I feel his not taking positions or offering any kind of leadership is indicative of him being scum.

The Fonz · Post Post #1026 (isolation #37) » Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:29 am

bigAl wrote:Damn it, I'm having trouble making any kind of decisions here. (I may be considered the IC, but I never claimed to be any good at this game...)

You must have at least known that town players were expected to scumhunt, no?

Al wrote:I'm going to look at voting patterns here for a sec and see if that leads to anything. Particularly for cymru96, Grimmjow, Workdawg and The Fonz (top suspects).

OK, so you've got four top suspects out of six players that aren't you. This says to me that VisceraEyes is one of your stronger townreads. He was coming under strong fire earlier today, why didn't you go to bat for him?

Al wrote:Some of the major cases among these people:
Fonz->Workdawg
Grimmjow->cy
Workdawg->(cy)
cy->JJ (aka Fonz), Workdawg, Fonz again

So Grimm is the only one who hasn't been voted for by these four. Of all the possible combinations, the only ones that remotely make sense are:

WD + Grimm
Fonz + Grimm
(WD + Cy)?

The problem for you here is, I'm not scum, and while Grimmjow is the weakest of my town reads, i find both Al-Workdawg and Al-Grimmjow more likely than Grimmjow-Workdawg.

BigAl wrote:Looking at Grimm's contributions today - his most significant post is a case against cy - the easy newb target?

Grimm covered this, but if Cy really is the easy newb target, then the person most guilty of pressing on his newbish rather than scummy acts is you.

Al wrote: Most of his points are old ones too. Also the whole thing about whether Fonz was intentionally misleading everyone about how scummy I was - I don't like his support of Workdawg there, further increasing the chances of a WD+Grimm scum team.

At least he had a fucking opinion. I don't think a scumpair would support each other that blatantly there.

The Fonz · Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:52 pm

Workdawg, where do you stand on big al vs cymru?

The Fonz · Post Post #1045 (isolation #39) » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:29 am

bigAl wrote:]I was never for supporting his lynch. True, my vote was there for most of the day but I later discouraged the blue/cy choice for a lynch because I didn't think they were overly scummy. I spent a while pushing him to contribute with better reasoned posts, but not pushing to lynch him.

Meh, I'm always leery of 'I didn't really mean it' defences. You were voting him most of the day - that means he was the guy you most wanted to lynch. If someone else was scummier, then vote them. To spend most of a day voting someone and then say you didn't really suspect them just makes my scumdar scream.

Al wrote:O I think he's pretty town from early play, neutral from later on. It's mostly been Zachrulez who's been pushing for VE (if I recall correctly), who I also have pegged as town (mostly from blue's play). I'm guessing it's probably town vs. town here then, so expanding that argument further means that scum can sit back and let the town fight it out. Not good.

Well, no. 'Sitting back' is exactly what you did do. The time it makes MOST sense to argue with someone is when you think they're town and wrong. You're not going to convince scum that they're scum. If one of your top two town reads (although you have actually described me as being town or townish more times than VE, I think, which is another reason I think your 'top suspects' list is disengenuous) is attacking the other, a town player should be trying to convince him to look elsewhere.

On Grimm, bear in mind that 'If you flip town' is a significant caveat. I really don't think you will. Workdawg's last couple posts have been better, and that pretty much leaves you head and shoulders ahead as pe no 1. If you would, I don't see really see Viscera as scum with Cym or Workdawg. I'm not sure grimmjow/cymru makes that much sense either. The thing is, that two-man wagon on Cymru put him in serious danger - assuming that Al would be willing to vote anyone else rather than get lynched himself, then if Workdawg had come out and said he preferred a cym lynch, then despite Al being at L-1, it would have been Cymru and not Al who was the presumptive lynch. That's why I didn't think you needed to claim before, but now I think it's a good idea. So I think we're looking at either Viscera/Grimmjow, Workdawg/Grimmjow, or Workdawg/Cymru inthat scenario. I'm pretty confident Zach is town in all scenarios. Workdawg is the individually scummiest, and in two of those three combos, then it's a question of whether Grimm's possibilities of being in more scum combinations is stronger than VE's greater individual scumminess in terms of who is second suspect.

Do we have to jump to a claim the second someone gets to L-1? I'll claim tomorrow if everyone still wants me to.

No, but now we know WD would vote for you, you are the presumptive deadline lynch. So I'd appreciate a claim.

The Fonz · Post Post #1057 (isolation #40) » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:12 am

bigAl wrote:
Fonz wrote:Meh, I'm always leery of 'I didn't really mean it' defences. You were voting him most of the day - that means he was the guy you most wanted to lynch. If someone else was scummier, then vote them. To spend most of a day voting someone and then say you didn't really suspect them just makes my scumdar scream.
I voted him to prod some activity, and then failed to find any strong suspects so I never bothered to change my vote. Anyone can look back and see that it wasn't like I was harping on his lynch the whole time my vote was there.

No, but I attach much more significance to votes than words. To say that you didn't particularly suspect the guy you were voting most of the day just says to me that you were doing even less scumhunting than I thought.

Lots of excuses but no scumhunting says scum to me.

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:49 am

VE, the problem with 'Because he's free of suspicion' is that that is EXACTLY the kind of player scum are most likely to shoot AT.

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:03 am

Irrelevant. You did protect me.

Jailkeeper is usually thought of as a protective rather than roleblocking role. Town JKs will normally protect the player most likely to be nightkilled. That's me or Zach. You have to assume I would be aware of that if I were scum.

Although, for the record, obviously if we mislynch today, you SHOULD use it as a blocking role.

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:07 am

And I'm sorry... Al makes his last post at 5am my time, you hammer him at 7am, and it's at all surprising I'm not around to comment on it?

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:11 am

Workdawg wrote:

WOAH now... The Fonz get's on the train that this happened, attempting to confirm VE's role as jailkeeper? I smell scumteam all up in here.

Shit just got real.

Idiot town or flailing scumbag? Hmmmmm.

VE is confirmed unless someone counterclaims.

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:20 am

That. I'm not voting Zach, so I guess what i'll do is cast a spotlight on the Cymru/WD/Grimm mutual interactions, because that's where the scum is.

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:56 am

Workdawg: your attempts to pressure VE are at best, wasted effort. Please desist.

Cy: Why is Grimmjow not a serious candidate?

The Fonz · Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:59 pm

Zachrulez wrote:
Granted I'm not very experienced at actually playing this setup, but as far as I can tell, it's still possible the "2nd power role" can be a vanilla townie, so no, he wouldn't be confirmed.

Except that my reading of the role PMs are that scum nightkills are compulsory (one of you MUST, rather than one of you MAY submit the NK) and the only thing that could stop them is a jailkeeping.

The Fonz · Post Post #1093 (isolation #48) » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:40 am

They never used to be, but I'm pretty sure they are now. At least, that's my interpretation as a newbie mod.

The Fonz · Post Post #1097 (isolation #49) » Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:53 am

Not really, even if they are not, it is incredibly unlikely scum chooses not to kill with a possible cop still out there.

Seems like every newbie game where there's a missed kill there's this massive hoo-ha about whether scum might have deliberately nokilled as part of some dastardly gambit, and it's nearly always a protection, occasionally a very newbish pair completely forgets.

The Fonz · Post Post #1098 (isolation #50) » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:10 am

@Cym: Everyone has posted since the claim. Everyone has had the chance to counter, no-one has.

Note also that Visc claimed quickly, before everyone had posted. That's a town sign. If he were scum wanting to gambit, he was taking a risk by not waiting to see if anyone else claimed power first.

Basically, it just seems really, really, unlikely that VE is faking, and it feels like this is a desperate scum attempt to discredit him.

The Fonz · Post Post #1101 (isolation #51) » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:51 am

No. It's milo, not LyLo. I'd rather lynch though, because at least we have a shot at blocking the kill.

The Fonz · Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:08 am

Not so, Grimmjow - that's why I said 'use it as a blocking role.' It's possible VE could target the scum doing the kill and thus roleblock him.

The Fonz · Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:54 pm

Grimmjow wrote:
The Fonz wrote:Not so, Grimmjow - that's why I said 'use it as a blocking role.' It's possible VE could target the scum doing the kill and thus roleblock him.

Did I not already state this?

Grimmjow wrote:Lynch scum, we still have D4. No lynch, we have D4.
The only possibility with VE being JK and surviving the night is if he manages to target the scum that submits the NK.
So unless we figure out who the scumteam is and VE happens to make the correct guess as to who will submit the NK, VE-JK is dead.

Owait, I did.

In which case, you have contradicted yourself, since you said:

Grimmjow wrote:Thing is, if we mislynch and VE is the JK, then all they have to do is target him. There's no protection on him. So we would lose. Period.

We lose. Period. That's what you said. There's no protection on him, so all the have to do is target him. But we don't definitely lose, because he could roleblock the scum performing the kill. However you slice this, your statement is false.

Workdawg wrote:.

If we no-lynch do we not get a night phase to still have a chance of blocking the NK? How would the scum get an NK if town can't use their roles? The Fonz seems to be implying we don't in 1101.

That's not what I was implying at all. If we no-lynch, presumably the scum would kill. If the scum won't kill, there's no point in no-lynching. In that scenario, we would have to lynch the following day, and mislynch would lose us the game. If we mislynch today, there is some chance that VE could block the kill tomorrow.

If the scum do kill, they will presumably kill the town's strongest asset, whoever they deem that to be.

The Fonz · Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:26 am

So yeah, two of the three people i most think are scum are V/LA. Almost tempted to say see y'all next weekend, as i'm not sure how much we can do without them. Should have some kind of votecount thing up soon.

The Fonz · Post Post #1138 (isolation #55) » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:30 am

Meh. Prod dodge then. Nothing new to say right now, other than VE's gambit defence is flawed - if it doesn't involve you, it's not a gambit in the first place.

The Fonz · Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:18 am

The Fonz · Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:19 am

I'm still here, NS. I've been unavailable for a couple of days because my time's been taken up by stuff connected to the riots.

The Fonz · Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:31 am

Anyway, it really kinda worries me to have my top two town reads voting for me.

I still think Workdawg is the play. I really don't see Cymru's vote as a scum one. It seems naively town to me. I think it's most likely workdawg/grimmjow, but there's also the possibility of Cymru as a buddy since WD pretty much held the balance of power on Al vs Cymru, and swung it toward Al, despite the fact that he'd voted Cym day one, and attacked me for attacking BigAl.

Vote: Workdawg

The Fonz · Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:36 am

If people want details, incidentally, I started a Facebook page about the riots in my city, and it got 200,000 likes and a lot of people have been relying on it for news, so that was kinda my priority.

The Fonz · Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:00 am

Yeah, I managed to get a train out of New Street on Monday just before it all kicked off.

What's your view of Grimmjow, Cymru?

The Fonz · Post Post #1188 (isolation #61) » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:38 am

JESUS CHRIST CYMRU! NO L-1s yet!

unvote

The Fonz · Post Post #1194 (isolation #62) » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:31 am

Workdawg wrote:
The Fonz wrote:..
I think it's most likely workdawg/grimmjow, but there's also the possibility of Cymru as a buddy since WD pretty much held the balance of power on Al vs Cymru, and swung it toward Al, despite the fact that he'd voted Cym day one, and attacked me for attacking BigAl.
...

Uhh, what? I've maintained a fairly solid town read on Al the whole game. When asked if I HAD to choose between them, I said I would choose big al, only because his play had become less consistant...

Right. You chose the one who 'You'd had a solid town read on all game' over the one you had attacked quite a bit.

but I also said that I wasn't sure who scum was.

This is relevant why? Anyone can SAY they don't know who the scum is.

I made a case right after that for lynching VE instead. Don't you think if Cym and I were scumbuddies, I would have hopped on bigAl's wagon with vigor?

WIFOM argument "I wouldn't have done that if I were scum." It makes perfect sense for you as scum to distance from the wagon before putting it over the top. Plus, you know, I think VE's almost certainly town.

Interesting that it's YOU who asked me who I would pick between the two, and now you are calling me out on having some sort of power because of it.

Dishonesty and mudslinging. I asked you precisely because you DID have the power. You were in a position where Al was at L-1, and Cym was at L-2 with Al not voting for him. Al would presumably have preferred to lynch Cymru than himself, so if you'd said you preferred a Cymru lynch, then Cymru would be dead.

@Zachrulez: From my perspective, me not being hammered changes nothing: i still think both of those voting for me were town. Grimmjow was essentially absent the entire time I was at L-1 (he made an 'I can't post right now' post, but it's likely he didn't get the chance to read the thread, and I think he's scum) and there are no Workdawg or Cymru posts within an hour of each other, which makes it likely they were never visibly online at the same time.

The Fonz · Post Post #1195 (isolation #63) » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:32 am

I also need to look over Grimmjow/Cymru interactions.

The Fonz · Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:34 am

Zachrulez wrote:Process of elimination really comes into play here, Cymru/workdawg, workdawg/Grimm, Grimm/Cymru are all pairings I am having a hard time seeing. In my mind, Fonz pretty much has to be scum.

Those three strike me as the MOST likely scumteams.

The Fonz · Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:41 am

In particular, neither of Workdawg and Grimmjow has ever voted the other, they were both on Cobblerfone, and Grimmjow supported Workdawg's bullshit attack on me yesterday. What have you seen that makes that an unlikely scumteam?

The Fonz · Post Post #1252 (isolation #66) » Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:29 pm

VisceraEyes wrote:That was NOT a gambit.

Cymru didn't send in the kill. I couldn't because of the fear of a Jailkeeper and my early d2 hammer. -.- If you get a look at the QT, you'll see that our PLAN for d3 was....very different from what happened.

I was going to say... if it were a gambit, it were incredibly ballsy, and incredibly dangerous considering there would be at least two players out there they couldn't have rolecopped. But it makes a ton of sense as a save tactic, since Viscera was pretty much number one on the likely to be lynched list as a result of him throwing everything under the sun at Zach for hammering Cobbler 'prematurely' then doing the same to BigAl. But man... you just don't expect scum to be that incompetent.

The Fonz · Post Post #1254 (isolation #67) » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:09 pm

Having read it, actually, VE, your plan completely sucked balls. There is no way, like literally none, that anyone would have believed that a cop got a guilty n1 and then not only didn't announce it, but voted for the wagon pushed by the supposed guilty. That plan was beyond stupid. Pretty much the only way it could have worked is if people assumed that it was so dumb, it must be a bus or something.