Oh you knew that one was coming!
Pre-emptively
Vote count and actual votes show you have 1 vote. Are you planning to get your facts wrong this entire game? I need to establish early whether you have this tendency, as it could contribute unfairly to your lynch later. As I don't see this statement being inherently scummy, it could mean you do it as either town or scum (to the detriment of the town, unfortunately), and so I don't think I'll be lynching you over sloppy play.Tamuz wrote:why do I have 2 votes?
As I had assumed that you would be bright enough to peruse the votes and see that Rosso Carne did indeed have 2 votes made on him, and the mod simply neglected to add the 2nd name, it made more sense to me that you simply read the vote count in reverse. Otherwise, anyone who can count can see that your 1 vote doesn't count for 2, simply that the mod made a mistake.Tamuz wrote:Hey Mr. Aggressive. I wasn't saying that I have two votes on me, I was saying that I have the power of 2 votes. Hence the "Why do I have two votes?"
Maybe I'm hallucinating, but there is a little 2 by RC's vote count, but only one person there. I think it would be good to establish why I have that little power, or if its a mod mistake.
So how about you get your head out of your arse and stop spinning my words. My fact are right, the only potential is that my eyes are wrong.
Clearly you have me pegged. There is absolutely no reason to ever move beyond the random stage of votingthenextepisode wrote:ectomancer's quick accusation of tamuz reeks of scum to me
his logic doesnt make any sense and i get the feeling he was trying to start a quick day 1 bandwagon for no reason
fos:ectomancer
The word you are looking for is sarcastic.Blackberry wrote:Very defensive... >_<Ectomancer wrote:Clearly you have me pegged. There is absolutely no reason to ever move beyond the random stage of votingthenextepisode wrote:ectomancer's quick accusation of tamuz reeks of scum to me
his logic doesnt make any sense and i get the feeling he was trying to start a quick day 1 bandwagon for no reason
fos:ectomancer
It's exactly like that. Where are you going with this other than to pad your post count?SlySly wrote:Is calling thenextepisode Clearly anything like picking the wrong week to stop sniffin glue?Ectomancer wrote: I was calling thenextepisode Clearly.
What's this line all about? No danger of lynch yet? Isn't that rather the whole point of a vote, to lynch someone? Why do you need to reassure us that he is in no actual danger?Earwig wrote:
Vote: Blackberry
Yes, I realize that puts Blackberry at 3 votes - no danger of lynch yet.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
Ectomancer wrote:Blackberry, the behavior they are talking about is one I've heard described as "lurking in plain sight". It is scummy behavior to me.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
I'm quoting it because I don't believe my Blackberry has responded to that last line.SlySly wrote:Are you quoting yourself to cause confusion?Ectomancer wrote:Ectomancer wrote:Blackberry, the behavior they are talking about is one I've heard described as "lurking in plain sight". It is scummy behavior to me.
This is just semantics. I believe you know what they are talking about. Why split hairs with an argument over "active" and "content"? What do you think about Jester's comments concerning Rosso's posts 26, 28, and 33?I still argue there is no such thing as "looking active," you are either active or not action. Posting content or not posting content. Being active and posting content are two unrelated concepts that do not intertwine.
Ordinarily I think not really, but I've never had it tracked in the vote count before. It might be interesting to see, but I don't know how significant it will really become.Tamuz wrote:Does anyone feel that the FoS count is significant?
Earwig, I'm happy because you are scum and my vote is on you. berry is suspect though.
Might I recommend reading Rule 6a again? - Tar
Well hello! You must have forgotten to login as BlackBerryRosso Carne wrote:its his own theory, and although i think it might be helpful, its just metagaming. and metagaming does not win games.
Yep.Blackberry wrote:I have hope that one day my theory will have signifigance in something. But I do not wish to reveal my theory as I do not wish people to adapt to it or analyze it before me.Ectomancer wrote:Ordinarily I think not really, but I've never had it tracked in the vote count before. It might be interesting to see, but I don't know how significant it will really become.Tamuz wrote:Does anyone feel that the FoS count is significant?
Earwig, I'm happy because you are scum and my vote is on you. berry is suspect though.
Might I recommend reading Rule 6a again? - Tar
BlackBerry, it is odd that you would mention a theory, but not want expound upon it, even if it turned out to be false. Is there still some portion of the theory you are hoping to be born out that revealing would render invalid? Otherwise I'm not quite following your reasoning.
Satisfied?
I think you could check just about any of my games for that answer. Lazy scum.thenextepisode wrote:blackberry, if you were so keen on keeping this theory to yourself, then why couldnt you have just kept it to yourself entirely?
and i dont know if its just ecto's playstyle, but he seems overly aggressive and it feels scummy to me
and 3 votes on earwig is making me uneasy
unvote
Actually, I was content with his explanation for not revealing it yet and was willing to let him ride. It will be something interesting to bring back out when he's had more time with it.SlySly wrote:I think it is the consensus of the town that a full explanation of your theory would be satisfactory.Blackberry wrote: Satisfied?
I agree he could have kept that he was researching a theory to himself until he found evidence to support it. Having responded to me that he is still riding on it for awhile, I'm willing to accept why he wouldn't want to reveal it just yet, though I dont know about the style of response to the first people who asked him about it, could be his usual playstyle.ryan wrote:Blackberry: Coming out with some "theory" (when you could have easily kept it to yourself) and than jumping on people and being very defense on legit questions what said "theory" was isn't helpful to the town (it's distracting) Now we've got players who find you hiding something (which to me seems a stretch) It's not worth a vote but I have to admit I don't understand your intentions for doing this and keeping it up.
FoS: Blackberry
On what point are you being OMGUS'd? I didn't see a reason for your vote. Earwig's vote seems to be a prod for an answer from you. He did provide 2 more reasons for his vote than you did for yours after all.Tamuz wrote:Delayed OMGUS, interesting.Earwig wrote:Vote: Tamuzfor not responding, and for not explaining.
Tagalong query, but you neglect to address Tamuz's unexplained vote as well? Are you really curious about why people are voting for Earwig? (Yes, I realize Nyktorian did not address it either, but I'm interested in your response.) What stood out for me was that you came to Tamuz' defense in post 37 by tossing an fos on me for attacking him early (and moving us out of the random stage), and now you are omitting him from a query involving unexplained votes on Earwig. Oversight?thenextepisode wrote:i agree with nyktorion, RC, why did you vote for earwig?
Hmm, I may have missed that. If so, it makes sense not to bother him over it. I think it makes Rosso's vote without reason even more suspect. It makes little sense to add pressure to someone without explaining what they are supposed to be feeling pressured about.thenextepisode wrote:ecto- i wasnt so much defending Tamuz as I was suspecting your overly aggressive play. regardless of the player, that would have been my response.
I was under the impression that Tamuz's vote was during the random phase of hte game, but Ill have to go back and reread.
He said it was obvious metagaming, not that the theory was obvious. You two quit muddying the waters by being too dim to understand each other.ryan wrote:Does insulting people make you feel like a better player? I asked why him reading Earwig's game was an obvious reason for his theory (he could have thought he found a tell and was looking to see if it was done earlier) if you don't have an intelligent answer to my question, don't answer.Rosso Carne wrote:he said "i have to read earwigs other games"ryan wrote:How do you know what Blackberry's theory is?
thats the definition of metagaming.
it didnt mesh.
are you a dumbass or just on drugs?
You're lurking with fluff posts, but that's semantics. Are you going to avoid justifying your vote on Earwig again? How about that re-read?Rosso Carne wrote:ok dont fluff it, im not semi-lurking
im just plain lurking.
truth is this game is nowhere because all ive seen is people going after homo because of his untold (and obvious metagame) theory.
I went back and looked, his vote was after what I would consider the random stage. It appeared to be in direct response to Earwig's previous post though, so I think his reasoning was implied, rather than expressly stated. Your response still looks good.Ectomancer wrote:Hmm, I may have missed that. If so, it makes sense not to bother him over it. I think it makes Rosso's vote without reason even more suspect. It makes little sense to add pressure to someone without explaining what they are supposed to be feeling pressured about.thenextepisode wrote:ecto- i wasnt so much defending Tamuz as I was suspecting your overly aggressive play. regardless of the player, that would have been my response.
I was under the impression that Tamuz's vote was during the random phase of hte game, but Ill have to go back and reread.
Me either and my name isn't on it like yours is.Blackberry wrote:I do not like this post. O_oJohoohno wrote:Sounds to me as a lot of old arguments are only spinning in circles right now. Seems as if the town has five lynch candidates:
Rosso - The condescending and uninformative poster
Blackberry - The flamboyant poster
Earwig - The amnesiac poster
Tamuz - The lurking non-poster
thenextepisode - The (theory) inquisitive poster
Which one of these gentlemen do you all feel okay to lynch today? I can’t say I have a strong case against anyone of them, but I’m willing to swing my vote to almost anyone of them to increase some pressure. (Though, as of now, I would prefer either Earwig or Tamuz (and possibly a dark horse: slysly) to be the lynch of the day.)
Point taken. Unless the mod is willing to relax the strict posting requirements, I'll have to take this possible motivation into account. I believe his vote moved his actions beyond a simple post, however. If, as you say, it was simply an effort to stay off the posting radar, he could have chosen a better method, especially if he really had no other reason behind the vote. You will notice that he has yet to answer to his reasoning for the vote, and has not mentioned his "re-read" again. I hate to use bully tactics to get an answer, but he has provided additional reasoning for suspecting his motives in this game, with an additional meta on top of it all to spur him to re-evaluate his use of labels.Jester wrote:Take out the word "contribution" and replace it with the word "post". After that, QFT. Then mutter something darkly about Rosso just trying to stay off the "72 hours between posts" radar.Ectomancer wrote:It makes it look like you voted him simply to make a contribution, but had no plan beyond the vote.
If you are going to straw man my vote, sign up for another game. You'll have an opening soon.Rosso Carne wrote:
if youre going to vote me because me and berry make fun of one another, please calm down.
Good posting, except for number 4, which is just WIFOMy, yet makes the point in its own way, as Johoohno's entire assumption is WIFOMy. As a followup to his "lynch list", I would give this a D-Tamuz wrote:I think thats a dangerous meta for multiple reasonsJohoohno wrote:@ RangeroftheNorth:
1.Scummy not reading posts and rules?I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that it is especially important for townies to read other players posts thoroughly to find gaps in logic and reasoning in order to find scum - I, for instance try to take notes during the game, and I believe other to do that as well. If you are scum you can perhaps get away without taking notes. Then when you find a person that you want to throw suspicion on you can just go back and find appropriate quotes and put them together in a way that fits your plan. I don't say that as a way how all scum play, but it surely is one way. I believe that those mentioned did just that. (I would like to get some comments on this, am I on the right track or in the blue.)
1. Provable?
2. Detectable?
3. You can't case study how others play, and nobody will let you see their stack of notes in a game you both are in EXCEPT scum(buddies)
4. I doubt many scum play that way.
This post gives me the creeps. I hate scum pairings this early. The last sentence just makes it worse. "Im going to vote, but watch that someone else doesn't vote or I will jump right off!"thenextepisode wrote:Rosso Carne has been jumping to defend or agree with blackberry this whole game, the latest example being post 229.
i believe this is a likely scum pair.
Lynching one or the other, IMO, are one and the same.
so i will beunvoteing blackberry and placing myvoteonRosso Carne
i believe this puts him at L -2.
If anyone puts him at L-1 i WILL unvote until the case is stronger, because we dont want to quicklynch anyone.
This was supposed to be contribution?Earwig wrote:I just got poked by Tarhalindur.
Johoohno - you're focusing way too much on setup. Just play the game.
I've yet to play in a game with one, also there seems to be a distaste for the role in a significant segment of the population here that makes its use uncommon. (in my experience) If you believe there to be one, you must have a specific player in mind. As a posting restriction is reputed to accompany a Jester role, why don't you try testing that theory by pressing them until you are satisfied that they most likely do not have a post restriction, and as a corollary are also probably not a Jester?Johoohno wrote:I'm still speculating about a possible setup (perhaps that is unwise(?), but I've only been in games with an open setup and am under the impression that thoughts and information is helpful) and some actions in this game so far are leading me to think that we might have a jester in the crew.
What do you think? Is it possible that we have a jester or am I only seeing things (I was jester in a game that just ended - see my signature - and it might have affected my beliefs)?
It's an assumption. As is yours.Tamuz wrote:Thats a fallacy.thenextepisode wrote: if Blackberry were active he would have jumped on my wagon too.
He looks fine to me. Why would you vote him?Tamuz wrote:Are you just trying to stir the pot jester? Or are you trying to get voted?
I don't believe you are all that interested in avoiding a no lynch, but it sure makes good propaganda doesnt it? Where have you been for a week if not on vacation?Johoohno wrote:Perhaps it's time for each of us to present our top three scum list?
I really don't want to end this day with a no-lynch so, in my opinion, we need to reach an agreement. Nobody's been close to the 7 players needed (except for thenextepisode with five votes, and that built up quite quickly and disappeared the same way).
I have the flu right now and so am a bit sluggish, but I'm not following the logic behind this (and I have not tried to find out why Ryan was banned). Do you mean Jester, not Joker? And what would a ban of a player have to do with alignments of players in this game? Or did you mean something different by 'undercuts'? I'm assuming you mean it undercuts Jester's argument that RyanTamuz wrote:Ryan was banned...
I'm still too hazy this morning to explain why, but I feel this undercuts Joker.
I pre-emptively fos'd Earwig because he generally lurks and puts no convinction behind what he says. That was to alert everyone else that he plays like that all the time. That being said, his posts aren't what I normally see (though his activity is still low). I haven't played with him in awhile though, so I dont know if this is ScumWig, or his latest attempt at appearing "active".RangeroftheNorth wrote: I'm also suspicious of Earwig. He seems to have contributed very little actual content to the game, but has often seemed to follow the flow and has shifted his vote numerous times.
FOS: Earwig
Well, that sounded honest at least, whether because you figure you've got nothing to lose anyhow or not is worth a different look down the road.thenextepisode wrote:they probably would have had an adverse reaction too, or not have known how to deal with it. it was a bad play all in all and im lucky i havent been lynched.
my finger is still pointed at RC and fat tony because he used to be blackberry.
But not scummy enough to back with a vote? Or is Johoohno that much more scummy?Tamuz wrote:As 'honest' as you think it could sound ecto... it still sounds scummier than high hell.
Its a blatant statement that TNE is fingerpointing and not using logic for his cases.
Yay. Now pick somebody to vote for.....Earwig wrote:/prodded
As much as I dislike bringing outside life into my in-game statements, I've got an MRI and a Nerve Conduction Test scheduled for Thursday to find out why I began experiencing acute chronic pain over the last couple weeks (actually its been going on for months, but got seriously intense the last 2 weeks). Might be tied to 1 of 3 spinal injuries I've had over the years. To top it off, yesterday, on my way to the Dr's appt, my brake hose collapsed, causing the calipers to lock on my front left brake while I was on the Interstate. I pulled over to see what was wrong, and noticed flames licking out of the front wheel well. The fire went out, and Im getting my vehicle repaired, but I missed my appt yesterday, and had to go back today.Jester wrote:Ectomancer. You've been a really solid player. In particular, I like your 156, 166, 181, 184, and 276. Has the courage of his convictions, which in my experience is a strong townie trait; scum have a hard time pulling it off. But those convictions (and his posting rate) have been dropping off as we approach a lynch, which is a mild scum-tell. Still, I'm pretty sure you're a townie.
Catch up? You've gotta be fucking kidding me. He was prodded for being a useless lurker. He's been in this game since Day 1. There is no "catching up" for him to do. The only thing for him to do is participate or request a replacement.Fat_Tony wrote:Easy, Chewie. Let's let him catch up and make a REASONED accusation, rather than pushing him into doing what TNE does. I don't like this post, for that reason.Ectomancer, in 392 wrote: Yay. Now pick somebody to vote for.....
While I appreciate the sentiment, by your own words, do not convince yourself that you would do it for town. You apparently have a meta-problem with him and would be doing it for your own ends. That sucks for town, because now we have to take everything you say with that thought in the back of our mind("Is he really thinking Battousai is scum, or is this personal?")Tamuz wrote:The Battousai thing only SlySly and battousai should understand. I'm still unhappy about a game we were in with Battousai, and I had more than half a mind to quit this game when I saw Battousai replacing in. And lord knows that if I was a vig I would kill Battousai right now for the town's sake.
Ditto for you too. This is crap.Battousai wrote:WtF, kill an unknown, take the chance of killing a pro-town power role, vanilla townie, or scum. It's like an additional lynch, but with only past game as evidence and with out me defending myself. I do find this stupid, and suspicious. Since I see no way you will be lynched today, I will feel comfortable giving you aTamuz wrote:The Battousai thing only SlySly and battousai should understand. I'm still unhappy about a game we were in with Battousai, and I had more than half a mind to quit this game when I saw Battousai replacing in.And lord knows that if I was a vig I would kill Battousai right now for the town's sake.
FOS: Tamuz
Your bias makes you a worse player, not the fact that it is in the open. What has changed is that the rest of us are aware of it now.Tamuz wrote:How bout you read and respond to 423 and your '''case'''.
Ecto. so your saying that now that my bias is open, I immediately become a worse player?
Poor analogy or not, you should try to play this game objectively. If you cannot, I really would prefer you replaced out.Tamuz wrote:Yes, and I feel you are making a poor analogy, I'll explain later.
Dont lie to me. You said you have a meta problem with him, and that you would lynch him "for the good of the town". You indicate that would be regardless of alignment. We don't win by lynching town. You dont exactly inspire confidence by your continued pursuit of "permission" to lynch a townie. I dont care how he plays if he is town. He still counts towards a majority by being in game, andTamuz wrote:Ecto here is the problem with your reasoning. I'm saying I would vig Bfor the good of the townbecause he has shown me that he would be a detriment to the town if he survives to endgame. Note For the town. My actions would be motivated by my win condition. Town. Win. You then have the gall to insinuate that I would attack B for a vendetta. This is just plain wrong. I act in accordance to my win condition, for the town to win. Nothing I have said is against that. (and on top of that most of this is based on a conditional that I have stated will not come to be).
FixtTamuz wrote:I cant defend myself, I quit.