Newbie 694 (over)

[urielzyx]

Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

Actually, I do not think it is scummy enough to be a reason for putting a guy at L-2(certainly not L-1, witch is one of the two reasons I didn't vote for militant), I was just explaining why someone else might find it scummy, I do think that a guy that doesn't stand behind his opinion has a problem, but not that he is automatically scum.

Also, I would not vote for him because I still find inf's behavior scummier...

[GIEFF]

But this isn't a case of militant not standing behind his opinion - there WAS no opinion. It was a random vote.

I agree with you on infamous, uri. I find it odd that I posted 152 just 10 minutes after one of infamous' posts, and two days later he still hasn't responded.

infamous, I am going to quote my post 152 here again, to be sure you don't miss it.

Let's go through the timeline, inf:

137:

How much info can you really get on the first day before the first lynch?

Yea...we can discuss all day...people will claim whatever...and we still won't lynch anyone...but just for the sake of speeding up the game...I'll unvote...lol

Unvote: Xtoxm

139:

I see a conflict here. You claim that you are unvoting Xtoxm to "speed the game up," but that doesn't make any sense. How does UN-voting speed up the game?

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

You ignored this question, until I asked again in 149:

@infamous:

Can you please explain why you feel that unvoting Xtoxm "speeds the game up?"

And your reply was:

lol...it was sarcasm

Doesn't seem much like sarcasm to me, but if it really is sarcasm then the question in post 139 still stands; why did you unvote Xtoxm?

And a secondary question has now arisen; why is it so difficult for you to provide your reasoning for unvoting Xtoxm?

[hambargarz]

Unvoting to make someone happy?

Backpedaling like that is a bit scummy looking.

Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

This strikes me as very scummy. He's defending GIEFF which implies a scum buddy relationship. But moreso he is saying guy's attacking him look scummy, why do they look scummy? is it simply on the basis that they are attacking militant? why is militant the innocent one in your eyes considering his scummy behaviour?

FOS: GIEFF

[GIEFF]

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

[urielzyx]

the opinion wasn't that gieff is guilty, it was that you shouldn't change your RV until something better comes along...

[infamousace2]

It was because everyone else took away their random votes...so I did it when I got on...

[urielzyx]

It was because everyone else took away their random votes...so I did it when I got on...

no one unvoted between your unvote and your previous vote, also, I still do not see why you said it was to speed things up, and it still doesn't look like sarcasm to me...

[militant]

Unvoting to make someone happy?

Backpedaling like that is a bit scummy looking.

I am simple, would you mind explaining this to me please.

[urielzyx]

If you change your opinion just to please someone it either means that you don't want to get lynched or that it's not really your opinion...

[militant]

If you change your opinion just to please someone it either means that you don't want to get lynched or that it's not really your opinion...

Thanks for the explanation. It was only a random vote though, opinion did not come into it because I choose GIEFF's name at

random

at the beginning of the game during the random voting stage. There was no opinion behind my vote, if I remember correctly I choose him because his name is all capitals, something totally irrelevant to the game.

Would an IC please answer this question:

I asked the question a few posts back - is it typical to leave random votes "on" this late in the game? If one of the IC's can confirm that it is not scummy to leave random votes on this late, I would be happy to remove my FoS.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

[hambargarz]

In reply to this post...

Thanks for the explanation. It was only a random vote though, opinion did not come into it because I choose GIEFF's name at

random

at the beginning of the game during the random voting stage. There was no opinion behind my vote, if I remember correctly I choose him because his name is all capitals, something totally irrelevant to the game.

I think you may have misunderstood the explanation. I think what uriel was saying is that either you are scared of being lynched, or you're original opinion regarding keeping your random vote on was not really you're opinion. He's not referring to your random vote, rather you're reasoning to leave it on, and then later change that opinion. I'll quote the original opinion to clear things up.

I disagree, I prefer to just leave it there unvote someone who actually warrants my vote comes along.

You later went against this, by unvoting when asked to. This is a contradiction and therefore is suspicious.



The other possibility is that you felt pressured or are scared of being lynched. This is scummy looking because it was only 1 player and you changed your opinion just because he didn't like it. Here's some further quotes that imply this.

Why exactly is unvoting to appease someone scummy?

Fine Unvote

Happy now?

That is why this is also suspicious

This post is also answering GIEFF's post 178. So in short, no I don't think the logic is faulty/scummy.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?

The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy

[militant]

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?

The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

[ClockworkRuse]

I asked the question a few posts back - is it typical to leave random votes "on" this late in the game? If one of the IC's can confirm that it is not scummy to leave random votes on this late, I would be happy to remove my FoS.

I see it as a null-tell. Although it could be taken as not being careful with your vote. But that's just my opinion, if you can logically back up a reason it is scummy then you should follow what you think over what someone else says.

[militant]

I am doing a quick re read rather than a slow one. I have a unexpected visit to a unwell relative this evening which I was not anticipating.

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

Oh the irony... Votes me because I am lurking. You had not posted in 5 days when you posted the above message. You was the one that was lurking. I was trying to keep up at least, you was just not posting.

Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

This strikes me as very scummy. He's defending GIEFF which implies a scum buddy relationship. But moreso he is saying guy's attacking him look scummy, why do they look scummy? is it simply on the basis that they are attacking militant?

why is militant the innocent one in your eyes considering his scummy behaviour?

FOS: GIEFF

If you are referring to me in your second sentence then I don't recall ever defending GIEFF, I could be mistaken though, I have no time to re read and my memory is not that great. I don't like the bolded question. It is a "leading question" (I think that is the right expression). My supposed scummy behaviour is subjective, just because yourself and Xtoxm think I am scummy that does not mean everybody else shares your views.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?

The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy

Again examples of the leading questions you use. Regarding the first sentence, I had found something I did not like, you of course did not know this at the time of your post, you presumed I had not found anything, you subsequently went on to presume that I was re reading with a "preset bias" towards you and my motivations were OMGUS. Something about it all just doesn't sit right with me...

I will do a more extensive re read tommorow, I just didn't want to forget this.

[GIEFF]

the opinion wasn't that gieff is guilty, it was that you shouldn't change your RV until something better comes along...

Good point - I know see why you questioned militant about this. It does seem scummy to claim that you don't unvote out of principle, but then to do so pretty quickly anyway, militant. My FoS will remain on you.

It was because everyone else took away their random votes...so I did it when I got on...

Is this meant to be your answer to my questions? Again, the first reason you gave for unvoting Xtoxm was to speed the game up, which makes little sense. I said this:

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

Then you said it was sarcasm. And now, when pressed, you wait three days, and then say that my suspicions in the above quote were correct. If my above quote was actually correct, why not just say that from the start? Why did it take two different answers (read: lies) and almost a week for you to give this answer?

As I said earlier, I think the best way to find scum is to find people who are not using logic to make their decisions. Scum do not need to use logic as they already know which side everybody is on - they simply need to "fake" logic so their decisions aren't questioned.

vote: infamousace2

[Elennaro]

Militant, I wonder why you keep saying you noticed something scummy, yet can't seem to manage just posting it. This looks scummy to me.

FoS: militant.

I'd vote but that would mean L-1, and I don't want to do that.

Damn, my space bar is being stubborn.

[GIEFF]

Votes by Chronology

Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

Vote: infamousace2

Votes by Poster

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS. Post 41
Vote: RealityFan Post 97
Unvote Post 157

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm Post 137

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177

militant

Vote: GIEFF Post 28
Unvote Post 169

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro Post 30
Unvote Post 57
Vote: infamousace2 Post 121

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff Post 43

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
Vote infamousace Post 189






Clockwork - based on the above, it looks like you never unvoted hambargaz before voting Militant.
MOD EDIT:

unvotes not required

[militant]

Militant, I wonder why you keep saying you noticed something scummy, yet can't seem to manage just posting it. This looks scummy to me.

FoS: militant.

I'd vote but that would mean L-1, and I don't want to do that.

Damn, my space bar is being stubborn.

Skimming are we?

I am doing a quick re read rather than a slow one. I have a unexpected visit to a unwell relative this evening which I was not anticipating.

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

Oh the irony... Votes me because I am lurking. You had not posted in 5 days when you posted the above message. You was the one that was lurking. I was trying to keep up at least, you was just not posting.

Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

This strikes me as very scummy. He's defending GIEFF which implies a scum buddy relationship. But moreso he is saying guy's attacking him look scummy, why do they look scummy? is it simply on the basis that they are attacking militant?

why is militant the innocent one in your eyes considering his scummy behaviour?

FOS: GIEFF

If you are referring to me in your second sentence then I don't recall ever defending GIEFF, I could be mistaken though, I have no time to re read and my memory is not that great. I don't like the bolded question. It is a "leading question" (I think that is the right expression). My supposed scummy behaviour is subjective, just because yourself and Xtoxm think I am scummy that does not mean everybody else shares your views.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?

The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy

Again examples of the leading questions you use. Regarding the first sentence, I had found something I did not like, you of course did not know this at the time of your post, you presumed I had not found anything, you subsequently went on to presume that I was re reading with a "preset bias" towards you and my motivations were OMGUS. Something about it all just doesn't sit right with me...

I will do a more extensive re read tommorow, I just didn't want to forget this.

I did post what I found scummy.

[Elennaro]

I thought you had something else to say, outside the leading questions. This made me think so:

Regarding the first sentence, I had found something I did not like,

[Xtoxm]

Owe this game a bit of time. Will do so tonight/tomorrow.

[hasdgfas]

VOTE COUNT:

militant(3): Xtoxm, hambargarz, ClockworkRuse
infamousace2(2): urielzyx, GIEFF
GIEFF(1): RealityFan

Not Voting: infamousace2, militant, Elennaro

9 alive, 5 to lynch

Searching for a replacement for RealityFan

[GIEFF]

I don't want to take the heat off of infamousace2, who I find very scummy, and I would still very much like to hear both further explanation on his part, and what everyone else thinks about his inability to be honest about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm.

But because militant is now at L-2 with 2 FoS's on him, I feel a summary of the case against militant is in order.

Xtoxm was the first to vote militant

Post 88

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

The "last post" being referenced is Post 85:

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Discuss.

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

I don't see the forcing here, Xtoxm; as far as I can tell, ClockworkRuse asked for discussion, and militant obliged. Could you elaborate on what makes you think militant's reply was "forced," Xtoxm?

hambargaz voted for militant soon after:

Post 95

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

The reason given was "active lurking," which is based off Xtoxm's suggestion in post 88 that militant's reply was forced, and not adding anything of benefit to the town.

ClockworkRuse immediately voted hambargaz for this post, questioning why hambargaz focused on militant when there were other lurkers, and hambargaz OMGUS-FOS'd Clockwork Ruse in Post 110.

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to

FoS militant

, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

ClockworkRuse was the third to vote militant, in Post 171

Yes, I thought there were 7 people, not 9. My point still stands, I think. I notice you STILL haven't unvoted.

I am more interested in my questions to infamous in post 152, though, and we're getting sidetracked from that.

Fine

Unvote

Happy now?

Unvoting to make someone happy? XD

Vote: Militant

That is pretty much two accounts of appeasement.

Clockwork, what was the first account of appeasement?

And Elennaro recently FoS'd militant in Post 190

Militant, I wonder why you keep saying you noticed something scummy, yet can't seem to manage just posting it. This looks scummy to me.

FoS: militant.

I'd vote but that would mean L-1, and I don't want to do that.

So this seems odd to me - there are 5 people suspicious of Militant, but for 4 different reasons. In summary:

1. Xtoxm & hambargaz - Sensed active lurking
2. GIEFF - Felt militant left random vote on for too long
3. ClockworkRuse - Felt militant was appeasing me by taking his random vote off of me after I FoS'd him
4. Elennaro - Thinks that militant is claiming to find hambargaz' behavior scummy without stating why.

Please let me know if I have mis-characterized your reasoning. As this wagon is close to lynching, I would like to get EVERYONE's thoughts on the above 4 reasons. I will start:

1 - Active lurking.

I disagree with this; could hambargaz or Xtoxm please explain further? Militant was just responding to Clockwork's request for discussion, as far as I can tell.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

I agree with this.

3 - Appeasement.

I agree. At first I thought the "opinion" referenced was militant's opinion about why he voted for me, but I now see that it refers to militant's opinion about not removing random votes until a better target presents itself. However, I feel that appeasement with regards to policy (i.e. metagame) is less scummy than appeasement with regards to the reasons behind a lynch (which is what I thought was initially meant by the appeasement charge). Do you agree with this, Clockwork and uri?

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I disagree. I believe militant is referring to his accusation that hambargaz was himself lurking when he accused militant of active-lurking. Your quote of militant in post 193 was referring to hambargaz' accusations that militant was reading his posts with bias.

[ClockworkRuse]

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

And I think you need to explain your question a little more, I'm not exactly following.

[Elennaro]

I personally don't think militant was showing a lot of active lurking (but that may be because I'm not good at spotting it) and I think leaving the random vote on doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't bring the subject close to a lynch. I wouldn't say the appeasement was scummy per se, but it meant passing up on a nice opportunity to create more debate, which is kind of suspicious to me.

Regarding point 4, my quote came from militant's own defense. I'm not removing my FoS, I think there's good reasons to keep it where it is, it's not going to get him lynched yet anyway.

However, we shouldn't be forgetting about other players. Clockworkruse, in particular. His reasons for voting militant seem thin at best, and putting someone at L-2 is a bad thing to do for no reason. I'm waiting for an explanation from him.

I'll be back at my own computer in a few hours, and, depending on how tired I'll be, I'm going to give my own analysis of all players then or tomorrow, when my access isn't so limited anymore.

[hasdgfas]

CarnCarn replaces RealityFan. Thanks CarnCarn!