This post will be addressing iam's #1259, with some of my thoughts thrown in when appropriate:
DGB section: nothing to comment on
ekiM section: nothing to comment on
elli section:
Post #458: This is both true and not something scumElli would have a lot of motivation to point out.
Zorblag actually pointed out the MME lack of reading first,
in this post, so I don't think this is really a point in favor for elli, and in fact should be listed as a point in favor for troll.
mostly agree with the rest of your points.
kmd section: no comments
mith section: no comments
MME section:
Post #451: I really don't see scum making this post. If this is feigned ignorance, then I have to say that MME is an impressive actor.
Agree and forgot all about this until this post bumping MME up to leaning town.
ooba section: no comments for now.
Plume section:
Post #834: The particular wording of "Vig shoots Elmo tonight is obv the best plan." seems highly unlikely to come from scum, who would know that Elmo was vig.
This is not just about plume, but with the possibility of a second vig in play, this is not necessarily something scum would avoid suggesting.
Rhinox section:
Post #293: Pretty damn horrible. Both the idea in itself and the wording of this post are super scummy to me. "I'm just going to tunnel on you until one of us is dead
based on the idea
that this was a scum gambit designed to influence which roles the town gave to scum." That's not the way that someone who actually believed in what he was saying would word that post, I don't think.
This accusation is pretty damn horrible. A) this was just me expressing a bit of rage at the turn of events that led to the hammer of a role I felt was not optimal based on bad information, and B) that's not how I acted at all in the game, so...? and C) which is an extension of B), if it sounded like I didn't believe what I was saing in that post, it would be because
I didn't actually intend to act on what I was saying in that post
, as evidenced by completely ignoring it happened ever since, and not actually acting how I said I was going to.
all the stuff about tajo and lists
I thought I was done trying to explain this, but I'll give it one more go. Forget about the statistic and the random list part, that was bad explaining on my part. The issue I had with it was that tajo's list was not selected in a "completeness" way, it was selected in a "lazy" way. The list of players proded is/was not one in the same with the list of players lurking, ergo it does not follow that the list of players prodded is likely to contain scum because lurkers are likely to be scum. There may have been (and in fact were) players included in that list that did not fit the lurker title, and there may have been (and probably were) players who fit the lurking title that were not prodded at that particular point of the game. It does not mean that I didn't think there was scum in that group, I just felt he was using bad and lazy logic. In fact, town-tajo would likely hit a scum in that group by raw statistics, but I felt that because of the way tajo made his list, if he were town, he might as well of picked 6 random names. Scum-tajo on the other hand would have had any number of possible motives for choosing his list as he did.
This issue has really been moot for a while now, and tajo is dead and town, but if this is going to be held against me, these are the points that need to be proven true:
1) All the players on tajo's list were lurkers.
2) There were no other lurkers outside of tajo's list.
3) At least 1 scum is/was likely to be lurking.
The core of the issue is/was that I did not believe any of those 3 points were accurate. I asked for evidence of the players on tajo's list lurking and got none. I asked if any other lurker was deserving to be on the list (TM) but get left out, and was ignored. When I asked spyrex why the list was better than 6 random names, here's the response I got:
spyrex wrote:Now, why is that list better than a random list? Seriously?
The simple fact that calling out six people for being behind activity levels at that point is telling. When I get some more time I'll go ahead and parse activity D0, D1 before that and after and see what shakes out because I guarantee you you'll see some patterns.
This is not only not an answer, but he never did what he said he was going to do in this post.
"I'm not seeing why zoraster is earning votes, but maybe I've missed that part of the thread." - Wouldn't your first instinct as a townie, faced with someone receiving a significant number of votes that you don't understand, be to maybe try to find out a reason for those votes? Maybe read the part of the thread that you somehow missed, maybe ask the voters for their reasons? Not so Rhinox, he seems to be content to just let it be.
I can see why you think what you do, but you're making a faulty assumption. You're assuming that I did not indeed go read zoraster in iso, and go read all the players who voted zoraster on the D1 wagon looking for reasons, and then read it all a couple more times, and try to determine why there were votes on zoraster. I could not find a reason, and thus my statement you quoted was my (aparently bad) way of trying to provoke anyone supporting the D1 zoraster wagon to give me some reasons he was getting votes. Actually, I'm a bit suspicious of this point of attack you made against me - I would think a townie who suspected me of not reading parts of the thread to ask me a question like "Hey Rhinox, why are there parts of the thread you're missing", or "Why didn't you read back and try to figure that out" before automatically assuming the answer, where as scum looking to attack a townie would assume an answer to twist an innoculous statement into something scummy.
Post #842: Wooow, this reaction to Hero's "I saw Hoop's breadcrumb" post is just awful. Like seriously, "I think you're town for now, but thats what scum you wants me to think, right?" Why would you ever say this as town?
Well, the answer is, thats what I said as town, so... idk. Thats what I was feeling. That my first instinct was that scum-hero would claim to have seen the breadcrumb to "prove" he was town, but for the time being I was going to believe he was actually townie who saw the breadcrumb due to the evidence he provided. With that statement, I obviously wasn't trying to distance from hero-scumpartner, and I never used that to actually try to build a case on hero or get him mislynched - in fact, pretty consistent all of D2 that I felt hero was town - so I'm not too sure what I'm actually being attacked for here. So now its my turn to ask you - what about my reaction was awful? Why was it not something I should say as town?
Post #880: Imagine for a moment that you are Rhinox, and you are scum with DGB and Vas. Would you be able to resist making this post?
Sry, I was already inb4. Also, circular logic is circular.
Post #929: Given that the answer to "what changed?" is both obvious, and stated clearly in the post where ooba voted Vas, this is a pretty horrible excuse for a wagon.
Now that zoraster has flipped town, this issue with ooba is not as big of a deal for me as it was yesterday. I was working the angle that ooba leapfrogged his zoraster suspicion for VV to avoid voting for a scumbuddy. I was wrong, and now it seems more likely that ooba genuine felt VV became scummier than zoraster.
Post #1000: Is that an "ooba is scum no matter what Vas flips" post? I think it is. Oh boy.
Sure was. What's your point? Some people want to see certain flips to determine other players' allignments. I was trying to find scum in a way that doesn't involve some other scenario being true. The whole point behind that post was that people were trying to find other scum based on how they felt VV would flip, so I went looking for scum that "fit" regardless of VV's allignment. Its not exclusively how I play though, as evidenced above by admitting my suspicion of ooba has lessened by the zoraster flip.
Post #1046: This 'circumstantial evidence' business gives me the shivers. It's real "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" stuff, he's downplaying the importance of the argument a lot, trying to put it beyond scrutiny by saying that it's just a curiosity that he'll be "interested to see if it's valid in the postgame", but he never actually gets to the point of saying that it's not valid.
You're basically selectively quoting me here, by not linking to
this post where I gave the answer that I decided it wasn't valid after asked for clarification by hero.
Summary of thoughts of iam's list of points against me: It feels as if iam created this list by starting with a goal of proving I was scum and manipulating some of my quotes into supporting that conclusion, rather than reading me and coming to the conclusion that I am scum afterwards. But of course, I'm biased, and I'm going to have a negative reaction to what I know is a bad attack against me. I'll hold off judgement until I hear some more interaction on an issue I'm not biased.
Seraph section:
Post #692: This post gives me a bad feeling. Overexplaining yourself in this way is a symptom of scum being overly concerned about appearing consistent.
I find it odd that you bring up overexplaining here, but don't mention anything of mith's responses to the accusations against him at the end of the day yesterday. Specifically, the abcd... logic train list, as well as the extended football metaphor fall well in the realm of "way overexplaining", although in a different context, I admit.
Post #938: Seraph finally stops tunneling on Vas for a second to discuss other scum. What exactly makes the idea of a DGB/Vas/Rhinox team ridiculous? The fact that they're being too obvious about it? I invite you to take a look at the scum play in
/in-vitational 4.
Now this is interesting... using a game in which none of us are even involved in as meta-evidence to support your idea of a scum group? Thats pretty scummy.
I disagree with pretty much all the points you brought up against seraph here. The points feel manipulated and contrived.
Spyrex section: I completely disagree with you. I've said before that hoopla and VV are not the type of targets I generally see town-spyrex go after. The add-on to that, that I have left off until now, is "...especially if he genuinely thinks a player like me or hero are scum".
VV section: Against my better judgement, I'm going to let you guys in on a little bit of my thinking with VV here. In some recent games, I've joined wagons of some VI-type players I've really thought were town, but I voted to lynch anyways because the case was convincing enough and I didn't have a good reason not to vote the player, nor a more convincing case elsewhere. So, I've regretted making those decisions, and decided that the next time I was in a position where I really felt strongly that a VI-type player was town, I would not support the lynch and try harder to find better lynches. VV is that player in this game. I admit there are solid reasons to lynch him, but I do not think he is scum, and will not support his lynch.
Troll section: A couple of interesting points there, that I have not really considered until now.
Do you think any of troll's D0 play is indicative of his allignment?
Well, I think this is a long enough post for now. Hope it's legible.