Because you quoted you got pissed off and quoted your role PM in Mini 495
Open 60: The New C9 - Game over!
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
"Strange" is an appropriate word then.Jesse wrote:
I think this is what he means. Not sure who that is, but I don't see their name in the playing list.kab wrote: Vote: Unrighteousout Quitdirty.
Flavour speculation is bad. Mafia can manically stab, and a SK can drown people. SKs can manically stab, and mafia can drown people. The flavour as we have it really doesn't say anything significant either way.kab wrote: @Oman: The flavor of the kill makes it more likely that Timmy was the SK kill though.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well, let's look at what he has said:kab wrote: I don't care that he is voting me. A random vote is all well and good. But he can't seem to get his facts straight. First he says it's a random vote. Then he says it's not, in the same post. Then he says it was a random vote again, and then once more he says he had a reason behind it. So he's either lying or confusing his story.
This isn't a "random" vote, contrary to the label. "Random" votes are for comical meta reasons (or to get rid of Oman early on ).Wesaq wrote:Random Vote: kabenon007
Because his vote is a little strange.
At this point, my question to Wesaq is this: What made you think that Kab's random vote being strange merited a vote? Was Kab's random vote suspicious?
So...you picked someone to vote and then contrived a reason?Wesaq wrote: I phrased it not as clearly as i thought. I selected you as a random target. And after that i found a reason to choose you.
Why do you make this sound like you don't have a choice?Wesaq wrote:@kabenon
I've seen, what that was a parody of a name, but like many others was too lazy to figure out.
But i still see no other choice, so the Vote is still with you.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Posted as I run through the latest stuff:
Because the last thing we would want is to have good analysis on D1.Jesse wrote: FOS: Justin Playfair
For being extremely analytical on day 1.
If random votes are not meant to be analysed, we wouldn't have the random voting stage. Justin's analysis is lengthy, but it is hardly excessive or "grasping at straws".Jesse wrote: Yes, but he was over-analyzing events that were just stupid. At this point, we really don't know anything and it just looked like he was trying to grasp at anything to try and make someone look like scum. If that makes me look bad for pointing it out, then so be it.
What's worse? Over-analyzing an obviously joke-vote... or criticizing the analysis.
Oh, and I'm keeping my vote on Six Aces, because it's not random.
Actually, the only time people tend to find me scummy at all is when I am town. When I am scum, the only argument that usually gets run against me is: "Why haven't you been NKed yet?" - but I also get hit with that chestnut as town, so it fails.Kab wrote: A word of warning Phate, vollkan always gives off town vibes...
You see that little button in the top-left of your screen with the arrow pointing left on it?Jesse wrote: Damn you suspended site page! Had a whole response typed up, and lost it.
If you press that it will take you "back" to the last page you were on, complete with your post all typed up and pretty (at least firefox does it).
*headdesk*Jesse wrote: Oh well, I'll just say this. I'm not going to roleclaim on day 1, but I will if it's a choice between mafia and something else. But, I'm voting Six Aces because he's scum. If you don't believe me then lynch me, but you'll be sorry.
However, if you want to take a chance on taking out a mafia then let's all look into Six Aces. I realize I probably screwed my chances of making it past tonight, but I'll chalk it up to my inexperience at this site.
D1 newb soft claim.
Unvote, Vote: Six AcesAnything to say?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It isn't a stretch, actually.Phate wrote:
"Why are you still alive? Didn't you claim cop? I might have this confused with another game." != "You are scummy because you're still alive and you claimed cop." Kind of a stretch, actually.Fonz wrote: Trying to suggest the survival of a cop is scummy when the strong possibility exists of one or more docs- scummy.
You expressed some level of surprise at the fact that Jesse was still alive. It's reasonable to infer that you were suggesting that his claim was rendered more doubtful because of his survival.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't think it can reliably be taken to mean anything.SSF wrote:
Does this mean that two killers targetted the same person? I ask as it may provide some insight into the "Doc protection" speculation.flavour wrote:Police are seeking witnesses in the killing of Peers, Vanilla Townie, who was found dead of two gunshot wounds in a dumpster this morning by Holiday Inn staff.
It could be just flavour, or it could mean he was targeted twice.
Adding to what farside just said,Kab wrote: My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.
He was responding to Fonz, whose post implied a similar line of thought (ie. that the survival was not surprising given the likelihood of a doc protection).Shteven wrote:
Agreed. I'd say it's most likely that he was doctor protected, and that mafia chose other targets instead of taking the chance on there being a doctor protection.Fonz wrote: Trying to suggest the survival of a cop is scummy when the strong possibility exists of one or more docs- scummy.
Also, I really dispute the suggestion that this isn't something a townie should be thinking about. This sort of speculation is very important - to rationalise why Jesse would be alive so as to not cast undue suspicion on his claim.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
:goodposting:MadCrawdad wrote:
Not really wanting to beat a dead horse here, but saying you didn't fully explain it is an understatement. Here's your follow-up where you specifically say that he was scummy for even thinking it... Totally impossible to misinterpret, wouldn't you agree?kabenon007 wrote:I already said, I was more suspicious of the way he worded it, not the fact that he was thinking it. I didn't really explain it in my first post, but oh well. My mistake.
kabenon007 wrote:My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.
Kab, your first post seemed pretty unambiguous that it iswhathe wast hinking that was the problem - nothowhe said it.
@kab - Can you elaborate on what was suspicious about the way he worded it?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I disagree.Kab wrote: For instance, would a townie have to deliberate about whether or not the cop is going to be protected? No, we have no reason to, whether we think about it or not has no bearing on whether the cop survives the night.
Let's remember the context first of all: Phate had expressed surprise that Jesse was alive. Whether or not it was Phate's intention to do so, Phate's comments appeared to express doubts regarding the likelihood of Jesse's survival. Fonz was the first to respond to this, by raising the fact that the possibility for multiple docs render Jesse's survival perfectly plausible.
Shteven followed this up by agreeing with Fonz and saying that the high objective likelihood of doc protection would very likely have prompted scum to target elsewhere.
I really fail to see how, in such a context, Shteven's comments can be construed as scummy.
Absolutely true. Scum will obviously consider such matters in making a NK decision.Kab wrote: For a scum, he has to sit and think and mull over the fact that there is probably a doctor, so should he take the chance and try to kill the doc, or should he just kill someone else.
However, it's also perfectly feasible that a townie, on seeing a cop surviving the night, would try to rationalise that cop's survival. In fact, as I have already said, such considerations are of the utmost importance in assuring that the claim is not treated with undue skepticism.
Fonz has already commented on the fact that you seem to take the less scummy meaning to be the scummier.Kab wrote: But it was the wording that tipped me off to this fact. He doesn't say the mafia thought that he would be doctor protected, he just said, it's probable that he would have been, or something along those lines. So I took that to mean that he was deliberating about whether or not the cop was going to be protected enough, deliberating enough to post that fact.
If he had said "The mafia thought...." that would be a real cause for some concern.
Saying "It's probable..." is, as I have already stressed, something that is perfectly likely to come from a townie - particularly in the context already outlined.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It can, particularly in relation to very broad playstyle issues.Spacecase wrote: i hate to ask, but does bringing up past games have any relevance?
As an example, I often get attacked or questioned for being aggressive against people. I then just need to point out how I do this consistently and it takes the steam out of the argument.
However, something very specific like: "Well in Mini 123 I voted xyz who had claimed doc and I was town. Thus, my vote for the claimed doc here shows it is not scummy." is less valid.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
To be frank, I don't believe that scum are any more likely to vote before the hammer than after. A guilty investigation is a death sentence, so it seems most sensible to me that scum would willingly join the wagon, in the hopes of blending in. SSF's vote is basically a nulltell.LTG wrote: While we're waiting for an official vote count, I'd like to figure out a few things from the vote of ysterday. I have something I'd like to address about the voting yesterday that I just figured out. Intially I thought, unless my count was inncorrect, that players piled on after Six Aces already had enough votes to be lynched. This was Shteven and SSF. Would anyone find it below the mafia to pile on after a scum buddy's fate has already been sealed in order to blend in with the town? I thought so. However, I was wrong. I thought Peers had hammered Six Aces and I made a comment about his advatar being appropriate. I was mistaken, as everyone knows that Peers voted for Jess. Oops. SO Shteven cast the deciding vote, hence my count is wrong int that regard. That does leave SSF casting a meaningless 11th vote, but it's within a reasonable time of Shteven's post. More importantly, he could have miscounted like I did. So that leaves me in the same place I was talking baout scumtells and metadefenses.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I agree.Shteven wrote:
It seems like Jesse's dominating the thread; there isn't much other hunting going on at all. I'm not saying I'm blameless in this either, and a lot of it is due to the shortness of day 1, but there isn't exactly much going on that we need a reminder to not forget Jesse.kabenon007 wrote:I think we should keep the idea that Jesse might be scum in the back of our minds, just as a last thought kind of thing. We can scum hunt without worrying about it too much. If we can't figure it out, we can always go back and examine him thoroughly later.
The main problem I am seeing in this game is that, given the events of D1, we've missed out on the sort of snowballing discussion that is usually generated on D1.
For now, I am going toVote: Kabenon. I didn't like his stance on shteven, and that's the best lead I have right now.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't think it is inconceivable that Shteven might have forgotten about that. Off the top of my head, I can't recall what roles may or may not be in this game. That said, the proper thing to do would be to check to verify what he was saying.Rigel wrote: It is stated at the beginning of the thread that there is no vigilante. The only killing roles that are in this game are the Mafia, and the Serial Killer. Which makes this comment about the Vig uninformed at best, and deliberately confusing at worst. I would assume that the roles would be known by all players, although I could be wrong, so this is more scummy than accidental in my eyes.
Justin wrote: The fact that you have made the following two posts so early in our proceedings is of interest to me:
And then later, giving an example:Kabenon007 wrote:A word of warning Phate, vollkan always gives off town vibes...
All right, so you have warned us twice that Vollkan may be scum however town he may seem. Do you have any reasons for suspecting Vollkan beyond his usually seeming town that would warrant two warnings about him in the first nine pages?Kabenon007 wrote:I agree that a particular scumtell, or even town tell, cannot be placed on everyone. Take vollkan for instance. His large posts, contentful, appear pro-town. But he also does them when he is scum. I want to wait for a recent vote count before I vote, mostly because I don't have time to check myself. (I'm lazy and busy, sue me!)
Anyone that has played with me before knows how much IKabenon wrote:
Well, my first game was with vollkan here on MS. I was town, he was scum. He did exactly what he is doing now: long posts, responding to everything thrown at him with long posts. He was scum in that game and I knew it, but no one else believed me. AndI can't help feelingthat this is exactly how he acted that first game... and I know I said it was how he plays everytime... but something just seems different. But yes, it was vollkan I was considering putting my vote on. I believe my vote could do better on someone other than Shteven.detestplay by "feeling". It's an unchallengable assertion. Kab, my play here is precisely the same as my play in all my other games. True, I appear protown regardless of alignment (which, as Justin notes, you have stressed on two previous occasions) but that is at most a recent to hold me to higher scrutiny - it doesn't, on its own, form a basis for suspicion. If you feel something is amiss in my play here, then go back and find out if there is any substantive basis to this 'feeling'.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Sure, kab, I agree that some "words" and "turns of phrases" can be concerning. If you have found any said by me, then by all means bring them to the table of discussion and see whether there is any serious grounds for suspicion.
All you have presented so far is a declaration that you feel I am scummy. The fact that you are now 'appearing' more specific by referring to ambiguous words and phrases makes your suspicion of me no less baseless.
Yeah, but back in Newbie 358 you actually had a case against me. It wasn't just "feeling".Kab wrote: I was right last time.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'll try and give a recount of the case.shteven wrote: I'm just not really seeing the case, honestly.
Kab's first post D2 is this:
Then, Shteven in #150 responds:kabenon007 in #142 wrote:vote:Shteven
Take a look at his first line. Okay, it's the second line, but I don't count agreed as a line.
He says it's likely Jesse was doctor protected, he didn't say that the scum thought that Jesse was doctor protected. This means he was thinking about Jesse being protected. This makes me think he is scum who made what I believe is called a Freudian slip.Shteven wrote:Agreed. I'd say it's most likely that he was doctor protected, and that mafia chose other targets instead of taking the chance on there being a doctor protection.
Then:Shteven 150 wrote: I have a hard time seeing how this makes a case at all. I realize what you're trying to get at, but I'm capable of thinking that Jesse got doctor protection as a pro-town. It's not only scum who may have thought that. If only scum could ever think about doctor protections, everyone should be lynching Jesse now because there would be no reason for him to be alive.
Farside then makes the point that she and Phate had already made comments similar to those of Shteven and they hadn't been attacked by Kab at all. Then I also pointed out that Shteven was responding to a post by Fonz that implied a similar line of thought and, moreover, that this sort of thing is something that the town, in fact,Kab #151 wrote: My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.needsto think about.
Then we have #156 by Kab:
Now it has shifting to "word choice" - but he also stresses that it is grounded in 'feeling' (there's my favourite word again ). It's basically just becoming very vague.Kab #156 wrote: I think it is good to figure it out as well. I was more concerned with the word choicing and placement. It struck me as scummy, and it is kinda hard to explain. It's a feeling more than anything, and I tried to explain it, apparently not very well.
Then we get #169:
I tore this down myself in #171 in some detail. Probably the most important point against Kab that comes from this post is that the last paragraph has Kab characterising what Shteven said as being of the type which most people would say was much less scummy (Kab, without explanation, seems to take a contrary view).Kab #169 wrote: Okay... I think I found a better way to explain it. For instance, would a townie have to deliberate about whether or not the cop is going to be protected? No, we have no reason to, whether we think about it or not has no bearing on whether the cop survives the night.
For a scum, he has to sit and think and mull over the fact that there is probably a doctor, so should he take the chance and try to kill the doc, or should he just kill someone else.
But it was the wording that tipped me off to this fact. He doesn't say the mafia thought that he would be doctor protected, he just said, it's probable that he would have been, or something along those lines. So I took that to mean that he was deliberating about whether or not the cop was going to be protected enough, deliberating enough to post that fact.
And, of course, now we have his baseless insinuations against me.
The case on Kab is not "mostly just tone" by any means. He attacked you individually for what was not only a bad reason, but was also something that other people had done also. Then he shifts and tries to justify his position on the basis of your word choices, but ends up characterising your actions as being not scummy (though, he doesn't seem aware of this).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
And, by shooting myself, I won the gameOman wrote: I myself have versed Vollkan as scum (he shot himself).
(Stargate SG1 Mafia. Endgame with me - scum but claimed mason, Oman - town busdriver, and DGB - town doc. I knew DGB would protect Oman and I figured Oman would be the type to use his power. Thus, I targeted myself, but it killed DGB)-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'm not expecting him to come up with his own completely revolutionary case, but I want a decent summation of why he thinks you are scummy. If he really is casting a proper vote, that shouldn't be difficult to articulate.Kabenon wrote: He can't. Not without using the same data that he could just pick up from any of the other posts attacking me.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
We've only played inMC wrote: A question I have, is how many other times have you played with Vollkan? In your first post quoted above you mentioned that you played your first game against him. In the second quote you mention that you were right about Vollkan being scum 'last time'. Are you possibly saying that you only played 1 other game with Vollkan?onecompleted game together: Newbie 358. I was scum, and he was town. He suspected me throughout the game, but I managed to throw it off and the scum ended up winning.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'll quote you:
I reiterate my question: In that game I was scum. Thus, I demand to know what you are referring to. If you have read other games of mine, then cite them and either justify yourself or relinquish this.Kab wrote:
Well, my first game was with vollkan here on MS. I was town, he was scum. He did exactly what he is doing now: long posts, responding to everything thrown at him with long posts. He was scum in that game and I knew it, but no one else believed me. And I can't help feeling that this is exactly how he acted that first game... and I know I said it was how he plays everytime... but something just seems different.
You've said my play here is "different" and that it causes a "scummy sensation in the pit of my stomach" - nothing more specific than that.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Actually, nothing transpired at ALL between those two posts.MC wrote: In the first post above you mention that you'd be okay with kabenon's lynch at some point, yet in your second it looks like you're backing off. While not much had transpired regarding kab between your 1st and 2nd posts above, what may have changed your mind?
I would like to know why, with nothing intervening, Phate's position changes from:
toPhate wrote: I don't like kab's recent behaviour, but I wouldn't call it scummy enough for a vote.
Anyway, kab is now at L-1.Phate wrote: This is where I would vote kab, except that it would put him at L-1
I call for a claim from kab (and the ever-elusive compilation of comparisons).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
So, ultimately, this was all just a wild goose chase I can't say I am surprised...My vote stands. His attack on Shteven was just dreadful and his feeling-based swipes at me were just as bad.Kab wrote: I'm actually having a little more trouble than I originally thought I would in coming up with a solid comparison. I thought that by perusing your games I would find some kind of difference. I've got to hand it to you, vollkan, your play in most of your games is similar all around. However, I am very much a feel player, and perhaps, in viewing it again, I had more of the same feel of the posts in this game and the first. Which, though I regard feel and tone of posts important, it is not enough for a vote.
And, though I wish I were more, I am but a simple townie. No powers at all.
Given his
Why? At this stage, any reasons you have against a lynchLTG wrote: I should just hammer him and end this day, but strangely I believe he's a townieto be considered.need
Yup. This is important. Kab, if you are town, the best thing you can do is to give as many thoughts as possible.LTG wrote: Is there anything else you want to share about volkan before someone hammers you? Any other pearls of wisdom?
(And I won't be hammering Kab. I was the first to vote him)-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I admit that my posting has suffered somewhat this game due to the lack of stuff to analyse. The thing is that I usually play to the formula of "review" (usually with a PBPA) then "argue" (about my findings). This gets messed up when, as has happened here, D1 was so scant of anything meaningful. My ability to generate the snow-balling content I usually rely on has been castrated somewhat.Shteven wrote: 2) I haven't liked Vollkan's style of postings. He seems to be moderating the discussion rather than participating it. I don't know if this is a consistent play style, but most of his posts are just explaining things that have gone on between other players, sometimes including himself, but not always. He hasn't really hunted scum much. (That's some grade A hypocrisy right there!) This may seem contradictory, but I actually feel a bit of an SK vibe from him. The contradiction being that the SK has nothing to lose and much to gain from hunting mafia. Hey, I never said I was certain.
Kab has been the best firm lead I have been able to find thus far. I do think he is the scummiest thus far, and that he is a decent lynch. The global absence of readable behaviour, however, makes this somewhat concerning.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
No.Spacecase wrote:
Is this inferring that we should lynch him and get it over with?vollkan wrote:Kab has been the best firm lead I have been able to find thus far. I do think he is the scummiest thus far, and that he is a decent lynch.
I meant exactly what I said: Kab is the scummiest I have been able to find thus far and he is a decent lynch. By that, I mean that he is the scummiest relative to everyone else here, and that the case against him is decently lynch-worthy in a non-relative sense.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Yes, the lynch was reasonable. I don't for a second think that affords anybody a defense. People are judged based on their own individual play, not on the overall merit of a wagon.Shteven wrote: In any case, kab, one of the problems with using the wagon for information is sheer numbers. If 8, now 9 people have voted for you - well, they're mostly town. Sorting them out is hard. There's scum on there, sure...But the scum have an automatic useful defense. There was town on there also. You can't lynch without town, so the lynch was reasonable, and so was there participation.
Anyway, the first thing that needs to be done is to hear results from Jesse.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
And acting honourably is a scumtell now? That's news to me. I suppose you meta'd him and checked whether or not this is something kab does.Spacecase wrote: I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't think that a lynch is justified based on the fact Justin questioned people. First off, I ask myself "Wouldn't Justin have claimed asap if he had a guilty?" If I suspend judgment and say "Maybe not." then I encounter serious doubts about the reliability of his questioning as a scumtell for his questionees. For those that have not player with Justin before, he's as pedantic as I am about reasoning etc. and he questions very readily.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
That's what I was thinking in response myself, but I wasn't too sure of how correct that argument was. So, I "suspended judgment". The crux of my point was the latter part anyway - that, having played with Justin before, him questioning people doesn't suggest much to me.Oman wrote:
NO! There was already a claimed cop and no guarentee of a doc. Why would ANOTHER cop claim be benefical when then likely 1 or no docs would have to protect them BOTH.Vollkan wrote:First off, I ask myself "Wouldn't Justin have claimed asap if he had a guilty?"
Jesus Vollkan, you're smarter than that.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
But so far as I can see, he doesn't.Oman wrote: It does that he focused on three people like that.
Just doing a cursory read: He questions wesaq, spacecase and Peers early on. Then he questions Jesse. Then later he questions Farside, kab, LTG and Shteven. Of course, kab, phate and farside are the first come the new day (in that order)-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
SpaceCase is yet to answer this question of mine.vollkan wrote:
And acting honourably is a scumtell now? That's news to me. I suppose you meta'd him and checked whether or not this is something kab does.Spacecase wrote: I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.
The important thing here is that the reason he finds for hammering is something very dodgy. Yes, he's a newbie, but that makes his apparent confidence on "acting honourably being scummy" all the more interesting to me.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Your views did a complete 180, and you made no mention of wanting to avert a No Lynch (not that that is necessarily a justification anyway). The fact that no lynch is usually better than lynch does not mean that you can backflip and jump on the largest wagon and then find yourself being held culpable unreasonable.Spacecase wrote: Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all. And yes i did change my views 15 posts later.
No. Each wagonee is as responsible for their vote as the hammerer. The way I see it, every time a person makes a post, if they keep their vote where it is they are reaffirming it. The mere act of hammering has no special significance - unless the vote is done too quickly, in which case it has the unique effect of severing discussion. But, aside from that, a crap hammer vote is as blameworthy as a crap first vote.Spacecase wrote: But the person to throw down the hammer is always going to look suspicious.
As Fonz has already pointed out, I never said it was a bad lynch. I fail to see how my thoughts on this are relevant at all to your actions.Spacecase wrote: And adding to my point is (correct me if im wrong) that volkan even said he was a decent lynch.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'm wary of a repeat of yesterday, but spacecase is acting oddly (as you say) and I am going to question that as much as is necessary.LTG wrote: Ok I'll bite. Spacecase is acting bizareluy and I don't like it; however, Volkan and Oman are making me nervous with this tunnelvision on Spacecase. Not necessarily scummy, but isn't that how Kab got lynched?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Welcome dahill.
Could you clarify why you quote me here?somestrangeflea wrote:
I don't think there was an imminent deadline No-Lynch.Spacecase wrote:Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all.
The lynch was, indeed, better than no-lynch.
But did you genuinely believe no-lynch was a possibility?
this.vollkan wrote:Your views did a complete 180, and you made no mention of wanting to avert a No Lynch (not that that is necessarily a justification anyway). The fact that no lynch is usually better than lynch does not mean that you can backflip and jump on the largest wagon and then find yourself being held culpable unreasonable.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
This really boils down to a whole load of WIFOM.Cipher wrote: Hmmm... I've found a couple of players on re-read that I think might be good suspects, but I'm thinking that I might keep their names to myself at this point unless someone else talks about them. My theory is that if I say their names in the thread then there's a good chance that the scum will kill one of them tonight if they're a townie, which means I get no use from my investigation.
Ie: If scum know you suspect someone (because you say so), and they know that you think they are likely to kill your suspect, it follows that they then have a good reason not to kill your suspect. In which case that gives you a good reason to investigate the suspect. In which case...etc.etc. round and round we go.
Short story: If you suspect someone, raise arguments and play as normal.
This is a good idea.Cipher wrote: The other thing that I'm thinking is that we've probably got a doctor protecting me, so I won't give out innocent results in the thread any more unless the doctor dies or the player I investigated is in danger of being lynched. I figure that the less the scum know about who's confirmed town the better.
Of course, if a townie is put to L-1 and you happen to have an innocent on them, you should obviously raise that.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
QFTMadCrawdad wrote:
What I was hoping to get was a little more explanation as to exactly what about Kab's statement seemed scummy enough for you to hammer. Just saying that his statement seemed scummy doesn't explain much...Spacecase wrote:I actually did state my purpose in why i wanted to lynch Kab. You just never really looked at it. I thought that it was scummy of what he started saying towards the end of the day. Plus i have been trying to answer all the questions you have asked such as the death threats and what not.
You said a couple of different things like:
- Kab was trying to be honorable, which looked scummy.
- Even Vollkan thought Kab was a good lynch candidate.
The fact that you would have Kabenon so low on your scumdar that you would caution the town against lynching him, and then shortly thereafter consider him scummy enough to hammer is of interest to me.
I'd really be interested in hearing in detail greater than 'oh, Kab's statement seemed scummy,' as to how everything played into your decision, and made you change your mind so quickly.
Space, the point here is that you were expressly against the lynch, but then you turned round based on the "honourable" thing and you seem to somehow rely on my behaviour. Moreover, you then appeal to hammer "always" being scummy
This raises the following questions:
1) Why was the honourable thing scummy? The last time you mentioned it was:Space wrote:
Kab, watch you said is scummy to me becasue you are trying to be "honorable", I guess you could say and just offering yourself up which I'm thinking is a last ditch effort to sway the vote away from you. vote Kabenon007
You haven't explained how it is scummy. You've given an interpretation of his behaviour...and that swings your whole opinion round?!? Don't get me wrong, the honourable stuff is relevant and you should have brought it up, but it is hardly damning.space wrote: I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.
2) Reference to me. Explain the relevance of my behaviour to yours.
3) Hammer
I am talking about this post:
The first on the wagon is no less responsible than the hammerer. The fact you hammered is not the problem here - it's the fact that your hammer involved a last minute reversal (smacks of opportunism) and that your subsequent explanations have been scummy.Space wrote: Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all. And yes i did change my views 15 posts later. But the person to throw down the hammer is always going to look suspicious.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
"Didn't sit right" with you? Does that make it strong enough to prompt your 180?Space wrote: Alright think about it, Kab starts refuting the claim that he isn't scummy and then he kinda turns around and says lynch me now. That didn't sit right with me when i heard it.
No offense taken ...space wrote: Also, sorry for quoting you volkan.
Now, explain why you did it.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
We're building up a picture of space's mind...slowlySpacecase wrote: Alright maybe I try to explain better why I voted to kill Kab. When the first post happened I thought that the wagon was a scum driven wagon. I didn't think that he was scum at all. But, what Kab said 15 posts later changed my opinion. You can't tell me that you have never changed your opinion 10 to 20 posts later.
I hope that this gives you a better understanding of my thought process.
1) Why did you think it was a scum wagon?
2) Who did you think were scum on the wagon?
3) Why was Kab's post enough to change you from not thinking he "was scum at all" to being lynch-worthy? I've changed my opinion many-a-time as well, but I can't recall ever not explaining why. I want you to explain to me what wasso scummyabout Kab's posts that it was enough to prompt a complete turnabout for you.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Pointless, wishy washy and contradictory are all valid scumtells in most cirumcstances...but lurking? It is easy to lurk and it can help scum, but lurking is not itselffarside22 wrote:
Pointless comments, wishy washy and contraditory or also how I evaluate scum. Lurkers go on there because it's easy not to say much and vote out town as scum then trying to be involved in the conversation.MadCrawdad wrote:farside22 wrote:@MCD: I know I'm not around as much, but I did state the following that still hasn't been answered or commented on. <snip>@ farside
Here's a quote where you mention that most of the time, lurkers are scum. As we've got several of them in this game, do you stand by your comment that most lurkers are scum?
farside22 wrote:
It was also his lack of reasoning when he voted. Lurkers can sometimes be scum (most times). Depends on the person and if they know how to bluff well in these games.Shteven wrote:P.S. Didn't like the case on melody man day 2, still don't. Seems to basically be "he's lurking". Probably right on that, doesn't sell me as him being scum though.scummy. Anti-town, sure, but not scummy.