Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[ClockworkRuse]

Vote: urielzyx

OMGUS.

[ClockworkRuse]

## Vote: ThAdmiral

because I voted him in another game also and I like to be consistent

There was just an extremely lengthy theory discussion in another game I am playing based on self-voting. It was agreed, as Ramus said, that it's subjective and there's nothing inherently scummy about self-voting. It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

Why do you use the ## too?

[ClockworkRuse]

## Vote: ThAdmiral

because I voted him in another game also and I like to be consistent

There was just an extremely lengthy theory discussion in another game I am playing based on self-voting. It was agreed, as Ramus said, that it's subjective and there's nothing inherently scummy about self-voting. It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

Why do you use the ## too?

Asking again, this was a serious question.

[ClockworkRuse]

## Vote: ThAdmiral

because I voted him in another game also and I like to be consistent

There was just an extremely lengthy theory discussion in another game I am playing based on self-voting. It was agreed, as Ramus said, that it's subjective and there's nothing inherently scummy about self-voting. It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

Why do you use the ## too?

Asking again, this was a serious question.

It could have something to do with this

Ah, I see. I hadn't heard of that and I thought it was role oriented. Sorry for the inactiveness so far, I've been a tad bit busy in other games. I'll start paying attention more right now.

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him, but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

Vote: ortolan

Why were you defending Ramus?

[ClockworkRuse]

This was two different experiments I tried to pull off. One being ending the random voting phase early, which was successful I guess. The second being Fong's gambit. I hoped to catch some scum off guard, didn't work though. However, I did find townie looking people.

Exactly. I was trying to get a wagon going on you (my vote was the second, after yours), to see how readily others would follow. My intent when I said "I'm going to call his bluff" was to throw some suspicion and see if anyone would quickly jump on that.
I'm kind of disappointed that you've decided to end this already, since there is still a player that hasn't really checked in yet (i.e., Puta Puta).
I personally find Clockwork's false excuse to not vote you as more suspicious than Batt's "Pressure good" comment, so

Unvote: Ramus
Vote: ClockworkRuse

Oh oh! Rhymes! Do another!

Maybe later.

So, you think because I'm not going to focus on someone that more than two or three people are focusing on is scummy? The rhectoric of 'false' excuse is also unnecessary, it's not even an excuse.

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

I'm more interested in why someone is defending him right now than his defense, what reason would ort have defending Ramus? Ramus is perfectly capable of responding to the questions and suspicions that are being thrown at him right now, so one would hope at least.

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

[ClockworkRuse]

So, you think because I'm not going to focus on someone that more than two or three people are focusing on is scummy? The rhectoric of 'false' excuse is also unnecessary, it's not even an excuse.

Your reason for not voting ("there is adequate pressure") doesn't work well in light of Ramus' statement "I'm not feeling the pressure" (said before you voted). That leads me to think you are afraid to be seen taking an aggressive stance on someone this early, especially if that person ends up town. So you had to give some reason for not voting, even though he was acting quite suspiciously, and you figured you could get away with the "but I don't want to put someone at L-3 on page 3" excuse or something.

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

What's wrong with that?

So I'm trying to not to appear aggressive... As I'm going after someone else, which is most likely going to grow a little more intense on my part soon.

And I wouldn't mind putting someone at L-3 on page three. I just think it would be better to open the town to more than just one scummy play in a day. Tunneling kills townies, I can show you more that enough references for that.

[ClockworkRuse]

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

I'm more interested in why someone is defending him right now than his defense, what reason would ort have defending Ramus? Ramus is perfectly capable of responding to the questions and suspicions that are being thrown at him right now, so one would hope at least.

But you can still address your concerns with other players and possibly using FOSes, IGMEOYs, etc while voting for Ramus. You are depicting a possible Ramus-vote in the worst light by suggesting tunneling.

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

Ramus wasn't my primary interest, that's just how you are reading into it. I agree that his responses to fairly simple questions have been scummy, but at the time I felt that the amount of people concentrating on him was adequate, I didn't need to jump on that wagon. And you're telling me that I'm scummy because I didn't bother to FoS him or tell him I was going to keep my eye one him?

Do you think I did need to jump on that wagon? Why? What benefit would it be for scum to concentrate on someone else when someone is under heavy scrutiny?

Alright Battousai, I'm alright with you voting me. But I'll tell everyone now, I don't really feel that much pressure from votes. If you are going to vote me, ask me questions.

[ClockworkRuse]

What benefit would it be for scum to concentrate on someone else when someone is under heavy scrutiny?

That no one thinks you are scum?

Elaborate.

[ClockworkRuse]

Well, if scum doesn't gain anything by focusing on somebody else , but does gain a lot by focusing on the same guy, then focusing on somebody else will make it so that no one thinks you are scum.
I know that up until here it looks stupid, but once you give an excuse as to why you are doing the non scummy thing(as you did) then people will start thinking you are scum...

So I'm scummy... for doing something that is not scummy, if I understand what you are saying.

[ClockworkRuse]

See the above post.

Are you trying to say that I took the path of least resistance?

[ClockworkRuse]

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

Actually, he never voted Ramus, but he gave some (tenuous) reasons for not doing so, which is why he is the leading wagon ATM.
Basically, read the thread.

Then please, follow through with your wagon. If you want to put pressure on me, do it. Ask questions and actually do something about it. The worst thing that can happen from votes is that I can be lynched, confirmed, and you'll have a new list of suspects from who voted me.

So you find it scummy that I choose Ort over Ramus, because of the way I did it, correct? Is that the only reason you find me scummy right now?

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted. Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself. The fact that you defended him detracts from any reactions that we might get from him and at this point in the game, reactions are very important.

The same goes for TheAdmiral, defending someone else detracts from the answers we can get from your reactions. These aren't "unmerited", these are my beliefs about the game. Defending someone else makes it too easy for scum to get away from questions and pressure.

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

[ClockworkRuse]

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

My apologies. Ironically I actually did re-read the entire thread before making my previous post, but I must have mixed you up with CarnCarn. In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted.

According to the last votecount, he only has 1 vote. It's strange you seem to be at least partially appealing to argument from the majority here. I find this odd because not only is it a bad argument, but you have four votes to his 1 at the moment (I'm not one of them either). What reason do you think people have for voting for you? Is it because of who you've voted/not voted for, or the *way* you've justified your actions?

Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself.

The point is that he *doesn't* have a case to answer to based purely on his null-tell self-vote. If you want to pick out something that he's done *after* that, then by all means, go ahead. I'll give you one: Post 60. Here I feel he conceded his gambit too readily and then directed suspicion at four different people based on a fairly slim, one-line justification for each. If that's what you were referring to then we're at least partially in agreement, but I still don't see what about his initial self-vote he's obliged to defend.

How is your case strengthened by the fact that I felt there was adequate pressure on Ramus? Even if I felt like his pressure was lacking, I wasn't going to go after him over you. As I've already said, in my eyes defending someone before they can give a response is scummy.

At this point, there isn't much I can say without repeating myself.

As to my votes, I would account it to both. But you'll also notice something, no one jumped up to defend me. So the wagon is welcome, because it's based on my reactions.

[ClockworkRuse]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

^Copout.

No, it was a shot at me that I wasn't going to respond to.

And I love how everyone ignores destructor for doing... pretty much the same thing I did? I don't find this scummy, but I'm going to call the wagon on it if they don't attack it consistently. What about this quote;

I think there is/are scum on the CR wagon. I think Batt may fit the description. I'd vote for Batt right now, but Caboose is on his wagon already.[/b]

qualifies a passing glance when mine is almost exactly the same?

You'll also notice that I'm not going to call destructor on defending anyone, Admiral, because I've already had the chance to speak for myself.

[ClockworkRuse]

You'll also notice that I'm not going to call destructor on defending anyone, Admiral, because I've already had the chance to speak for myself.

Replace destructor with Admiral and Admiral with CarnCarn, and you get my basic message.

I don't care about defending

after

someone has responded to what's been asked, in fact that kind of defending give us a lot of info.

But defending someone before they've had a chance to respond detracts from hunting and that is scummy/anti-town. I won't support that kind of behavior.

[ClockworkRuse]

My bad, that is still a remnant of my initial random vote.

I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse.

Obviously I am biased due to his vote on me,

but I feel his case was genuinely without merit.

Not only do I still believe I was defending a null-tell by Ramus and thus was in the right (objections aside), but CR's vote on me still seems to amount to voting-by-proxy.

Unvote

Vote: ClockworkRuse

So you openly admit that this vote is an OMGUS?

What about my vote on you has ANY affect in how you vote? I get your second point about the "voting-by-proxy", which is a ridiculous point in itself as I was going after who I felt scummy, but how does that make you biased?

Would you be comfortable lynching CR right now?

I am not "comfortable" lynching him so to speak. I would prefer more discussion first. But I certainly think his play so far is worthy of a vote, even if it puts him at L-2.

And what do you mean by "voting-by-proxy"?

I can only reiterate what CarnCarn told me earlier- read the thread (I know you replaced, but as you say, the thread's only 6 pages long...).

I will quote what I said previously for your benefit:

In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

For reference; Machiavellian-Mafia and Battousai talk about the same idea (that CR deliberately chose to vote for me for defending Ramus instead of Ramus himself) in posts 115, 118 and 124.

So, you aren't comfortable lynching me, you'd like more discussion, but you are going to put me two votes away from a lynch. Oh and I'd like to point out, and keep this in mind this quote is literally two posts before this, that Ort said this; "I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse." This contradiction seems kind of important.

Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.

Not only has Ort practically admitted to voting me as an OMGUS jesture and then the case that others have been pushing, he's contradicting himself to give destructor an answer he thinks sounds town.


So, anyone can tell me how am I scummy for thinking that defending someone before they give a response is anti-town/scummy? Explain how that benefits scum.

I would like to know how comfortable everyone would be in lynching me today.

[ClockworkRuse]

Not only has Ort practically admitted to voting me as an OMGUS jesture and then the case that others have been pushing, he's contradicting himself to give destructor an answer he thinks sounds town.

So you openly admit that this vote is an OMGUS?

What about my vote on you has ANY affect in how you vote? I get your second point about the "voting-by-proxy", which is a ridiculous point in itself as I was going after who I felt scummy, but how does that make you biased?

Here you're just taking a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Saying "obviously I am biased" was not "admitting I was OMGUSing" at all. In fact it was to pre-empt people accusing me of OMGUSing. It was saying "obviously this looks like an OMGUS, but here are my reasons". EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Secondly, you can hardly say my "voting-by-proxy" point is ridiculous- both Battousai and TheAdmiral said exactly the same thing- you voted for me to avoid visibly adding to the Ramus wagon.

So, you aren't comfortable lynching me, you'd like more discussion, but you are going to put me two votes away from a lynch. Oh and I'd like to point out, and keep this in mind this quote is literally two posts before this, that Ort said this; "I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse." This contradiction seems kind of important.

Wow, you're really clutching at straws now. Firstly, putting you "two votes away from a lynch" means absolutely nothing. Saying the "n-1" or "n-2" vote on a bandwagon is somehow dangerous or scummy is just not true, unless it's an obvious attempt at a quicklynch, which mine clearly wasn't. If anyone hammers without good reason they will come under heavy suspicion. So your first point has no merit.

On your second, point, Congratulations! You caught me using the term "comfortable" in two completely different contexts and now cite this as an inconsistency. I firstly said "I would feel most comfortable lynching ClockworkRuse"- meaning: you are my prime suspect. destructor then took this out of context and said "would you be comfortable lynching CR right now?" and I replied "I am not 'comfortable' lynching him so to speak". NOTE THE INVERTED COMMAS AND THE FACT THE FIRST USAGE WAS QUALIFIED WITH "most". As such you can interpret my position as being "he is whom I find most suspicious but I would like more discussion first".

Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.

This is so ridiculously untrue it's not funny. Reread the thread- I have been attacking you since post 70 (Page 3!) In fact EVERY one of my posts since then has been in reference to you. You may be referring to the fact that the first time I *voted* for you was Post 136. I think if anything you should be thanking me for holding out for that long- I certainly see no reason to unvote you now.

I would like to know how comfortable everyone would be in lynching me today.

Even more comfortable than I was before, after your latest completely meritless attempt to attack me.

I'm interested in, if my attack is so unmerited, why you got so worked up over it.

[ClockworkRuse]

Oh, and I'd like to ask if when using Fong's Gambit, should you ask for more pressure? Doesn't that hinder with the gambit?

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm interested in, if my attack is so unmerited, why you got so worked up over it.

Oh, sorry, next time you make bad arguments I'll just let them stand.

That's not what I said. You have every right to defend yourself. But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

[ClockworkRuse]

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

And what would that feeling be?

And I'd like to note, last game you got this feeling I was just attacking a claimed doctor and lurking. Am I doing either at the moment?

[ClockworkRuse]

That's not what I said. You have every right to defend yourself. But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

When did I say I consider being attacked by you insignificant? I think you're scum and I'm not going to sit back and let you construct ground-less cases against me. I consider that I thoroughly refuted every single one of the points in your last post and in response it seems you've resorted to suggesting I got "worked up", as though I am "paniccing scum".

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.

Also waiting for an answer to #155.

Strong FoS: Mizzy

for this post. To your first point: if you've done debating you'll know about the technique of "even if"- "even if so and so a point of yours is right, then...". Me saying "even apart from this" was an example of this. I firstly denied that my vote on ClockworkRuse amounted to an OMGUS. I then said even if it was, it's not a scumtell. You suggested that OMGUS may in fact be a scumtell, but did not address the fact that I intentionally denied my vote amounted to an OMGUS in the first place. This is not my reason for voting you however- it is your second claim, that I was "waiting around for others to make cases for me". This is just a parrot of the point ClockworkRuse already made and ignores the fact I already thoroughly refuted that this was the case (see my posts 70 and onwards). Either you haven't been reading and took ClockworkRuse's word for gospel or you had been reading and deliberately ignored the fact this point was blatantly untrue. Neither is forgivable at this point in the game.

The way you worded the post, it didn't sound like you were denying it was an OMGUS. It read like you were attempting to acknowledge and dismiss it. So it isn't my fault you are being called on an OMGUS.

And since when did I start preaching? I've been applying pressure to you, surely, and I've been doing so since the beginning of the game. Tell me, should I not find the reactions you've produced so far scummy?

To answer TheAdmiral, I am beginning to suspect that Ort is being overly defensive. Just see the above.

Mizzy merely disagreed with Ort on one point and agreed with me on another didn't place any suspicion into as far as I could tell. Ort takes that post and makes it a strong FoS.

Not only does Ort make a very aggressive/defensive FoS, he also berates slightly.

And Ort, if I go back and look at your posts from 70 on, will I see you repeating whats already been said? It's not about amount of time, it's about content and I haven't seen much from you toward the wagon on me. I also find the timing of your vote out of place. If you were sure enough to follow the wagon on me since post 70, why wait until so much later to vote? Especially, if as you say, you've been posting meaningful content against me.

To reiterate what Mizzy said, in simple terms; mafia is a game of deceit. Even though you say that it wasn't an OMGUS, we can't be sure. Everyone lies, so it goes.

I'd also like to know what you thought of my post 159 regarding your diction and caps lock.

Seconding an answer to post 155;

Oh, and I'd like to ask if when using Fong's Gambit, should you ask for more pressure? Doesn't that hinder with the gambit?

[ClockworkRuse]

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

I'd also like to point out that this is almost the exact same situation as the first Newbie game I played with you.

How does my play here add up to my play there?

[ClockworkRuse]

Before I go through the posts, the Fong's Gambit question wasn't just to you, Ort. It was to the entire town.

Fong's gambit is what Ramus said he was attempting to try out, after stalling for some time and not being very cooperative. It basically boils down to self-voting in the RVS then attacking anyone who joins the wagon.

From what I saw, Ramus ASKED for more pressure and never followed through with the gambit, which makes me question it.

[ClockworkRuse]

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

And what would that feeling be?

What are you expecting here? I already said I felt you were scum.

And I'd like to note, last game you got this feeling I was just attacking a claimed doctor and lurking. Am I doing either at the moment?

You can't do the exact same thing every game....

ortolan's response to me (and Mizzy, I guess) is... more OMGUS?

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

So... how has your vote changed the dynamics of his play?

That's like asking what would have happened if you went to the mall instead of the movies. You can only speculate on how he would act.

What have you learnt through your "pressure" vote on him?

From what has been said, I don't think CR has done anything worth being lynched yet. But maybe being at L-2 he has kept up being active.

"I'm just getting the same feeling" means gut?

Yes, that's why I haven't really listed it as a reason for the vote, since you can't defend against gut.

How is his play similar as a game where he was scum? Do you know that he hasn't played the same as town?

I get the same feeling I had as the game I was in when he was scum.

And I don't buy into this whole idea that you can call something a "pressure" vote and it will automatically mean anything. Your vote on CR is doing nothing but increasing the chances of him being lynched, not because it's outing him as scum, but because of cold and impartial game mechanics. You haven't made a case on CR and I see your reasoning - "pressure" - as an excuse to jump onto his wagon.

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

I'd also like to point out that this is almost the exact same situation as the first Newbie game I played with you.

How does my play here add up to my play there?

Honestly, I haven't looked back at that game at all

To me, this says that you voted me with little reasoning besides what's already been said by the others.

Noted.

Now, back to Ort.

As I already said, you can interpret it either way and you still don't have a case against me. If voting for someone voting for you was an automatic scumtell just think about what it would mean for the dynamics of the game (hell, read the wiki entry on OMGUS, nowhere does it suggest it's an automatic scumtell). Anyhow I had further reasons for voting for you- it started with the manner of your attack on me and the implied attack on Ramus (note: the "manner" rather than the mere "fact" of your attack). Also, you've subsequently given me even more reasons to vote for you.

I'm not going to bother to go read the wiki. The wiki is FILLED with information, but that doesn't mean I have to trust or believe in all of it.

I agree that an OMGUS isn't an automatic scum tell. The way you tried to excuse it is scummy. It read to me as; "I know this is an OMGUS, but I have reasoning behind it, I swear!" [And yes, I already know that you've "been looking at me since post seventy" and I am going to look into that fact.]

Please post your more reasons to vote. I would love to see a case summary from you.

[ClockworkRuse]

Before I go through the posts, the Fong's Gambit question wasn't just to you, Ort. It was to the entire town.

That's not what Mizzy seems to think. You both reiterated it as though it was addressed to me, and as though I was somehow to have already known that. But this is a fairly pointless train of discussion.

Please post your more reasons to vote. I would love to see a case summary from you.

I have already done so, I have little of substance to add at this point.

Then please reiterate your suspicions into one post.

[ClockworkRuse]

I've done enough of your work for you. If you have any further problems with my attack or vote on you please bring them to my attention.

This is noted.

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm going to wait for the post listing all of the suspicions against me by Ort.

What pro-town reason is there for not answering a question?

[ClockworkRuse]

I don't really see any reason not to put your suspicions all in one post, ort, so are you just not doing it to be belligerent to CR or do you have a real reason to refuse?

I'm not trying to be particularly belligerent but it is irritating that in the past when I tried to construct a case against him or respond to him rather than engaging in debate he makes smug, basically irrelevant remarks like

I'm interested in, if my attack is so unmerited, why you got so worked up over it.

Also he and Mizzy have blatantly tried to spread a mistruth that I was opportunistic in regards to attacking him solely because my *vote* came after everyone else's, and I'd somehow "parasited" off everyone else's cases.

Anyhow clearly town has interest in hearing my reasons for voting for CR again, and my refusal to reiterate has apparently been interpreted as scummy by some, so here it is, together with some new points (by a re-read of the game):

And you blame me for misinterpreting?

Firstly, I never denied you had been

following my wagon since the beginning.

Secondly, putting someone at lynch-1, which I believe you did, without much of a case before hand, is opportunistic. And it seemed like you were making it an OMGUS.

Firstly he asks me about my use of ##, which implies he has his attention on me from the start.

Actually, this was more me wondering if there was some kind of post restriction with-in your role. I had just come out of day one of Scum O' the Seas and we had a post restriction in that game. I was in that kind of mind set.

In Post 54 he votes for me with a question, not a case: "Why are you defending Ramus?" A common theme of his are "pressure votes"- which he openly acknowledges as such. Seems more like an excuse for voting without giving good reasons to me. Also basically acknowledging they're "pressure votes" at the time basically diminishes their effect.

In Post 70 I reply:

ClockworkRuse your reason for voting for me is horrible. It's almost become a fashion recently to self-vote- doing so and defending people who do so hardly seems scummy to me.

Thus

FoS: ClockworkRuse

Anyone accusing me of either OMGUSing or joining his bandwagon late should just read this post again. Not only do I express suspicion at an early point in the game (but didn't want to put him on L-3 so early), but I clearly state my suspicions derive from the *reason* for his vote for me, rather than the mere fact.

My original reason for voting you was pressure with reason. I saw you doing something I considered anti-town/scummy and attacked. Now then, just because you FoS'ed me doesn't mean you are cleared of the OMGUS. Why do you think it does?

I also note at this point that Mizzy at this point says "she doesn't see the wagon on ClockworkRuse". No reasons though. She also continues to attack Ramus (but manages to avoid diverting her attentions from Ramus to me for the time being.)

This is for Mizzy to reply to, not me.

In post 79 CR says:

So I'm trying to not to appear aggressive... As I'm going after someone else, which is most likely going to grow a little more intense on my part soon.

And I wouldn't mind putting someone at L-3 on page three. I just think it would be better to open the town to more than just one scummy play in a day. Tunneling kills townies, I can show you more that enough references for that.

Here he clearly states his intentions to "up the ferocity in his attack on me". Does anyone honestly think I did something scummy enough in the first 3 pages to warrant that sort of attention? It seems to me even if my vote for him did amount to OMGUS it seems fairly justified when someone is being as single-minded as he (I will not be pleased if you deliberately misinterpret this point again, CR). Immediately after this he tells us "tunneling kills townies". Priceless.

So you can justify an OMGUS because I was "tunneling"? And this is not a deliberate misinterpretation, if you don't want me to take what you are saying at face value be clearer in what you are attempting to say.

Tunneling does kill townies. But at the same time, I've yet to see a reason to unvote you.

Post 89:

Do you think I did need to jump on that wagon? Why? What benefit would it be for scum to concentrate on someone else when someone is under heavy scrutiny?

There are many actually, including distancing self from townie misslynch or garnering favour with townies.

Ramus was no where near being lynched and obviously I didn't gain any favour with the rest of the town. So once again, why did I need to jump on that wagon and how does it make me scum for looking somewhere else?

Alright Battousai, I'm alright with you voting me. But I'll tell everyone now, I don't really feel that much pressure from votes. If you are going to vote me, ask me questions.

This is clearly not true, you've made a big deal out of my vote for you (although you were trying to make a big deal out of everything I did before then).

You were saying something about misinterpretations? You're vote is a bigger deal to me than Batts, although Batts is inherently scummy. [And I'm getting to that.] You not only tried to push aside the OMGUS factor of your vote, I watched you feed off of the points of everyone else on my wagon, you were willing to put me at L-1 but "not comfortable with lynching me" and you were becoming overly aggressive/defensive.

Post 110:

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted. Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself. The fact that you defended him detracts from any reactions that we might get from him and at this point in the game, reactions are very important.

This isn't really a valid point because me defending him was based on the act of his self-vote in the first place, not the way he played having done so. Perhaps I should have allowed pressure to be applied to him but the fact was that the exact same act of self-voting had just occurred in another game I'm still playing in and it ultimately led to a large theory discussion which wasted time and got nowhere. I did not really want a repeat. And the arguments against self-voting themselves are pretty weak so I felt it best to pre-empt them. However, they way you've expressed it in this post amounts to a post-hoc justification for voting for me- the first actual justification you've given I think.

I've given plenty of justification for keeping my vote on you. A larger scale post is on it's way, actually. But for now; this was a valid point. The initial suspicion started with the self-vote, which you defended. The votes stayed there because of his refusal to answer questions after you gave him a defense. Which was part of his supposed gambit, I believe.

Post 131:

But defending someone before they've had a chance to respond detracts from hunting and that is scummy/anti-town. I won't support that kind of behavior.

Again, you reiterate your sole reason for voting for me- policy. You think defending another is inherently scummy. This is not at all consistent with your acknowledged tunnel vision in attacking me.

It's not my sole reason. It was my initial reason to

pressure.

Then we have post 152 in response to his vote on me which I've already responded to and shown to be rubbish. Then we have crapposts 154 and 159, which both make the same point:

But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

Here he is criticising me for making convincing arguments. And suggesting I got worked up over something I consider "insignificant" (I don't see where either the idea that I got worked up or that I don't consider his attack on me as significant comes from).

Diction is not insignificant. The way you handled yourself in those posts were extremely defensive and aggravated. It's not because you were making "convincing arguments" [which must not be so convincing as my wagon breaks off]. When SOMEONE starts talking LIKE THIS I take it as a sign on anger. Netiquette dictates that it is shouting.

170: again says I am being defensive and this is a scumtell. He also continues to fixate on his and Mizzy's OMGUS tangent (despite me having expressly denied this and it being a crap argument anyway). Also contributes this:

I'd also like to know what you thought of my post 159 regarding your diction and caps lock.

ThIS DoES NoT MeRiT A RePLY!

Smart-ass. See the above. It does merit a reply and dodging the question does not make you look better in my eyes.

Then there's this bizarre question from CR about Fong's gambit which Mizzy seemed to think was addressed to me even if CR himself apparently didn't know. I honestly don't know what they were trying to pull there.

It was for the entire town. I was questioning the intent of Ramus' self-vote, as it seemed he was flawing the gambit by asking for pressure. Then again, he stated it was his first time attempting the gambit so I am willing to chalk that up to inexperience with the gambit.

Anyhow for both bad play and scummy motives CR still tops my suspect list- if he is scum, Mizzy is a good contender for accomplice.

CR, Mizzy, ThAdmiral: I have answered your request in good faith. I would appreciate if you (CR in particular) could bring something more substantive to the table than for example "lol! you got worked up! how scummy!"

It's not just "lol Youse got workz up! Scum!" As you will see.

[ClockworkRuse]

Re-Read:

## Vote: ThAdmiral

because I voted him in another game also and I like to be consistent

There was just an extremely lengthy theory discussion in another game I am playing based on self-voting. It was agreed, as Ramus said, that it's subjective and there's nothing inherently scummy about self-voting. It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

So here is where I first took note of Ortolan because of his defense of Ramus.


I’d like to address this little bit of TheAdmrials 102

Actually, it would be best for the person to try and defend themselves first, AND THEN point out the flaws in the attack. That way you can gain info from the person being attacked.

Maybe, but sometimes when you let just two people attack and counter-attack each other it is far less effective than if other people chime in with their opinions as well. Furthermore it makes it less likely that the town as a whole will start looking at the only two arguing people as viable lynches, narrowing the town's potential scope.

Essentially, this is what the wagon on me became and no one defended me for quite some time. And I’m not saying let two people just go back and forth. When player A places suspicion in player B, player B should answer the suspicion first. That way, the entire town gets to see player B’s reaction. Then the town can dissect both player A and B.

Ortolan’s post 105

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

You accuse me of not providing valid arguments for my votes and assertions yet you have ignored both of Batt’s “pressure is good” votes. I have to take this as tunneling. I did have a basis for voting you, you just don’t agree with it. The reason I voted you wasn’t scummy.

Ortolan’s 136

My bad, that is still a remnant of my initial random vote.

I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse. Obviously I am biased due to his vote on me, but I feel his case was genuinely without merit.

Not only do I still believe I was defending a null-tell by Ramus and thus was in the right (objections aside), but CR's vote on me still seems to amount to voting-by-proxy.

Unvote

Vote: ClockworkRuse

First, I have to retract my previous comments about this being L-1. This was L-2. Now then, I’m going to try to explain, once again, why this feels like an attempt to push aside an OMGUS.

The words “Obviously I am biased due to his vote on me” mean that my vote has some affect on the way Ort would vote, which to me spells OMGUS.

Not only has Ort practically admitted to voting me as an OMGUS jesture and then the case that others have been pushing, he's contradicting himself to give destructor an answer he thinks sounds town.

So you openly admit that this vote is an OMGUS?

What about my vote on you has ANY affect in how you vote? I get your second point about the "voting-by-proxy", which is a ridiculous point in itself as I was going after who I felt scummy, but how does that make you biased?

Here you're just taking a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Saying "obviously I am biased" was not "admitting I was OMGUSing" at all. In fact it was to pre-empt people accusing me of OMGUSing. It was saying "obviously this looks like an OMGUS, but here are my reasons". EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Secondly, you can hardly say my "voting-by-proxy" point is ridiculous- both Battousai and TheAdmiral said exactly the same thing- you voted for me to avoid visibly adding to the Ramus wagon.

So, you aren't comfortable lynching me, you'd like more discussion, but you are going to put me two votes away from a lynch. Oh and I'd like to point out, and keep this in mind this quote is literally two posts before this, that Ort said this; "I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse." This contradiction seems kind of important.

Wow, you're really clutching at straws now. Firstly, putting you "two votes away from a lynch" means absolutely nothing. Saying the "n-1" or "n-2" vote on a bandwagon is somehow dangerous or scummy is just not true, unless it's an obvious attempt at a quicklynch, which mine clearly wasn't. If anyone hammers without good reason they will come under heavy suspicion. So your first point has no merit.

On your second, point, Congratulations! You caught me using the term "comfortable" in two completely different contexts and now cite this as an inconsistency. I firstly said "I would feel most comfortable lynching ClockworkRuse"- meaning: you are my prime suspect. destructor then took this out of context and said "would you be comfortable lynching CR right now?" and I replied "I am not 'comfortable' lynching him so to speak". NOTE THE INVERTED COMMAS AND THE FACT THE FIRST USAGE WAS QUALIFIED WITH "most". As such you can interpret my position as being "he is whom I find most suspicious but I would like more discussion first".

Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.

This is so ridiculously untrue it's not funny. Reread the thread- I have been attacking you since post 70 (Page 3!) In fact EVERY one of my posts since then has been in reference to you. You may be referring to the fact that the first time I *voted* for you was Post 136. I think if anything you should be thanking me for holding out for that long- I certainly see no reason to unvote you now.

I would like to know how comfortable everyone would be in lynching me today.

Even more comfortable than I was before, after your latest completely meritless attempt to attack me.

This is where I feel Ort begins to get overly defensive, and it is. It is also admitting to tunneling me, [Oh no, I’m taking that out of context! I’m going to get yelled at again.]

The attack wasn’t meritless, there was a contradiction between your posts because you weren’t clear enough.

That's not what I said. You have every right to defend yourself. But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

When did I say I consider being attacked by you insignificant? I think you're scum and I'm not going to sit back and let you construct ground-less cases against me. I consider that I thoroughly refuted every single one of the points in your last post and in response it seems you've resorted to suggesting I got "worked up", as though I am "paniccing scum".

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.

Also waiting for an answer to #155.

Strong FoS: Mizzy

for this post. To your first point: if you've done debating you'll know about the technique of "even if"- "even if so and so a point of yours is right, then...". Me saying "even apart from this" was an example of this. I firstly denied that my vote on ClockworkRuse amounted to an OMGUS. I then said even if it was, it's not a scumtell. You suggested that OMGUS may in fact be a scumtell, but did not address the fact that I intentionally denied my vote amounted to an OMGUS in the first place. This is not my reason for voting you however- it is your second claim, that I was "waiting around for others to make cases for me". This is just a parrot of the point ClockworkRuse already made and ignores the fact I already thoroughly refuted that this was the case (see my posts 70 and onwards). Either you haven't been reading and took ClockworkRuse's word for gospel or you had been reading and deliberately ignored the fact this point was blatantly untrue. Neither is forgivable at this point in the game.

...And I just went to reply to you, destructor and realised you've made exactly the same incorrect OMGUS accusation.

Why do you think a player making a weak case is a good enough reason to think they're scum?

If you read my posts you'd realise my case against him is far more substantial. Even take his last response to me, which amounts to trying to defer suspicion onto me because I "took too much effort in replying". I have felt his arguments against me since I've been actively voting for him have been even more horrible than those he made prior.

And on your comment on Battousai; while I certainly won't deny the possibility he's scum I don't like how you've been singling in upon him since your very first post of content. He openly conceded that his pressure vote was exactly what it was when he made it. I personally don't think scum would make such an attention-drawing move.

Also; destructor, I am suspicious of how aggressive your approach has been ever since you replaced in. I also dislike your justification for trying to divert suspicion from ClockworkRuse.

FoS: destructor

Both of the people Ort FoSed defended me and it was over a vote easily read as OMGUS.

This quote “And on your comment on Battousai; while I certainly won't deny the possibility he's scum I don't like how you've been singling in upon him since your very first post of content. He openly conceded that his pressure vote was exactly what it was when he made it. I personally don't think scum would make such an attention-drawing move” is also pretty ironic. Seems we both have something like that, eh? More about the “I don’t like how you’ve been singling in on him since your very first post of content.”


After re-reading, I’ve feel as though I’ve just been tunneling extra heavy on Ortolan, which is what I meant about the intensifying the attacks. But, this said, I still don’t feel as though he pro-town. But tunneling even more on him is going to just lead to a vicious spiral of attacks.

Unvote

IGMEOY Ort

Now then, to the Batt.

Batt’s votes all follow the same trend. Let’s spot it;

UNVOTE,
Vote: Ramus

Pressure good.

Mizzy: Ramus might have thought those questions were rhetorical, as I did. When you ask someone why they are so stupid, the person usually doesn't tell you he was dropped on his head a lot as a kid. Usually. But Ramus has also not answered questions from Machiavellian-Mafia as well, so Ramus might be intentionally stopped answering certain questions.

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

I wasn't defending ortolan per say. I was rather defending one's right to defend someone else, and have that not be necessarily viewed as scummy.
If someone thinks an attack on someone else is fishy, then he should call the attacker on it/point holes in the arguments rather than just sitting back silently.
Imo.

Actually, it would be best for the person to try and defend themselves first, AND THEN point out the flaws in the attack. That way you can gain info from the person being attacked.

Unvote: Ramus
Vote: ClockworkRuse

I feel you need more pressure. Also, I think you are acting scummy: The adequate pressure remark.

Now then, look for the common factor. Pressure.

Now, even after I told Batt that I didn’t feel the pressure and he needed to ask me questions, he largely ignored me and lurked. Then he came back saying;

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

Justifying his vote for pressure with his gut now.
It should be noted that this same event, me getting wagoned very early in the game [or as soon as I replaced] has happened twice. Once with me as scum and once with me as the doctor. I believe I have acted the same in both games and could find links for anyone interested in it.

Batt admits that he hasn’t looked over the game with me as a doctor here;

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

And what would that feeling be?

What are you expecting here? I already said I felt you were scum.

And I'd like to note, last game you got this feeling I was just attacking a claimed doctor and lurking. Am I doing either at the moment?

You can't do the exact same thing every game....

ortolan's response to me (and Mizzy, I guess) is... more OMGUS?

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

So... how has your vote changed the dynamics of his play?

That's like asking what would have happened if you went to the mall instead of the movies. You can only speculate on how he would act.

What have you learnt through your "pressure" vote on him?

From what has been said, I don't think CR has done anything worth being lynched yet. But maybe being at L-2 he has kept up being active.

"I'm just getting the same feeling" means gut?

Yes, that's why I haven't really listed it as a reason for the vote, since you can't defend against gut.

How is his play similar as a game where he was scum? Do you know that he hasn't played the same as town?

I get the same feeling I had as the game I was in when he was scum.

And I don't buy into this whole idea that you can call something a "pressure" vote and it will automatically mean anything. Your vote on CR is doing nothing but increasing the chances of him being lynched, not because it's outing him as scum, but because of cold and impartial game mechanics. You haven't made a case on CR and I see your reasoning - "pressure" - as an excuse to jump onto his wagon.

Destructer: Pressure votes can do more than just make someone post... Now CR may act differently with x amount of votes than x-1. I also feel there is a good chance CR is scum. I'm just getting the same feeling from him this game as the last game we were in (he was scum, obviously). I didn't really want to say that as a reason of why I feel he is scum since you can't defend yourself from it.

I'd also like to point out that this is almost the exact same situation as the first Newbie game I played with you.

How does my play here add up to my play there?

Honestly, I haven't looked back at that game at all

This was also the last post by him.

Vote Battousai

For consistently joining wagons without reasoning and consistently adding nothing to those wagons.

I have skimmed. Apparently I replaced a guy with a stick up his rear.

First impressions are that I think I approve of this CR wagon we are having and Mizzy comes across as pretty townie. The way Destructor is defending CR comes across as weird and I don't think I like him either.

Battousi seems all right. As does MM.

Unvote

I realize that doesn't tell anyone much of anything yet. I'll probably come back and make a real "case" on someone later.

Death-Millers are totally bogus also.

Apparently we also have a rapidly approaching deadline, so in the interests of moving things along I'd like to suggest to CR that he maybe go ahead and claim if he's got something to claim.

Why do you approve of my wagon?

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm not going to quote that all of that. I decided that I need to step away from you, Ort, and gain some perceptive. I've really just been tunneling on you and this re-read made me more suspicious of Battousai.

But I am going to ask about this; "I still prefer the case against CR- he has consistently demonstrated more thought and more argument in his attacks. And I've disagreed strongly with almost all of it. I see his approach as being more calculated; whereas I'm not sure what to make of Battousai at this point. "

So you can see where I've been coming from, but you disagree with it?

If that isn't the case, can you please reword that.

[ClockworkRuse]

Um, you're not the only person making a case against Battousai. But yes, I see the argument that he is scum based on what others as well as yourself have said. This does not mean I don't think there's a higher likelihood you are scum at this point.

That's not what I meant. I'm just confused by this sentence;

"I still prefer the case against CR- he has consistently demonstrated more thought and more argument in his attacks. And I've disagreed strongly with almost all of it. I see his approach as being more calculated; whereas I'm not sure what to make of Battousai at this point. "


Please elaborate.

More on Batt later.

[ClockworkRuse]

As in I see your posts are more deliberate and thoughtful than his and I find them just as, if not more scummy.

Thank you, that clears things up a bit.

[ClockworkRuse]

@ Caboose; For the... tenth, possibly eleventh time. I have no problems with defending someone AFTER, and I think I'll bold that,

AFTER

they have given a response.

The amount of information you can get from both the question and the answer greatly benefits us. I also never said it was a scum tell, it just gets me interested when anyone starts defending someone who hasn't had a chance to answer for themselves.

[ClockworkRuse]

Batt, I did make a post with my suspicions. I also admitted that I needed to back off and gain some more perspective.

[ClockworkRuse]

"But why did you vote Ort here and did not post a FoS, or anything on TheAdmiral? " This Batt?

Because I had started to tunnel in on Ort.

I'm also still curious why Axel is so set on me claiming, it seems like minor fishing to me. L-3 is no position to claim.

[ClockworkRuse]

Tell me why scumhunting even if pressure is building on me is scummy, CarnCarn.

[ClockworkRuse]

@Axelrod: I assume you meant #195 when you said "basically, I agree with MM in #175"?

Um, yes, I meant that. Although technically what I'm agreeing with is your point #2 in post 195, not your point #1.

CR: my suggestion that you claim was based on the deadline. We no longer have a deadline (although one could go back on at any moment).

I'm thinking I might prefer ThAdmiral as a target right now, for a

lot

of wishy-washyness, including a vote-unvote-vote-unvote string in successive posts and failure to express strong opinions about anyone.

Perhaps a case shall follow!

But as it was, the second time you asked me to claim I was L-4. So even if it was a deadline claim, I wasn't necessarily the choice for the day.

[ClockworkRuse]

Tell me why scumhunting even if pressure is building on me is scummy, CarnCarn.

Expecting an answer.

[ClockworkRuse]

Tell me why scumhunting even if pressure is building on me is scummy, CarnCarn.

Expecting an answer.

Your original comments said you had someone in mind, but didn't say who it was; just someone, maybe anyone. It made it sound like your intentions were to deflect attention more than anything.

Just because they're pointless, it doesn't mean that they don't have to have a good reason behind them.

1. That's counterintuitive. Something pointless doesn't need to have a point to it, yes?
2. There was a reason for it and I've explained twice now why it could hurt the town.
3. Voting for someone because they FoS'd is really weaksauce.

So because I didn't say explicitly that I was going to concentrate on Ort, that I guessed it would be assumed, I am scum?

[ClockworkRuse]

Post 54,

cwr thinks there is "adequate pressure on ramus"

aka he doesn't want to be seen to be mindlessly bandwagoning, and instead votes ortolan for "defending ramus." kind of ridiculous that rather than join a wagon that might be fruitful you throw your vote away on somebody who's supporting the person being wagoned. carncarn notes how lame this is in the very next post.

post 61 is a winner.

post 70 from ortolan smells an awful lot like distancing. fos = friend of scum. this also makes cwr's silly ortolan vote make a lot more sense.

post 76

has cwr ratcheting up the rhetoric against ramus but STILL keeping his vote on ortolan, which is looking more and more suspect given how hard he is pushing against ramus. his whole "defending other people is scummy" schtick is also just wrong.

post 85 caboose is being oddly noninteractive. noted.

up to page five, and theadmiral has done nothing but debate theory points as far as i can tell. also noted.

According to the last votecount, he only has 1 vote. It's strange you seem to be at least partially appealing to argument from the majority here.

zing! great point made by ort against cwr. still think he's just distancing/bussing though. its become a real back and forth by this point, but to begin with their attacks on each other were really suspect.

post 115 and some other earlier posts have got me very comfortable with saying mach maf is town.

des jumps right in to defend cr, and in post 137 starts trying to scare votes off the cr wagon by raising the specter of, god forbid, a six page day.

thadmiral is being notably noncomittal at the bottom of page six

post 152 why isn't cwr already dead?

reevaluating the theory that ort is bussing cwr.

From what has been said, I don't think CR has done anything worth being lynched yet. But maybe being at L-2 he has kept up being active.

uh huh. batt is distancing cwr, and hoping this wagon falls apart.

don't like the caboose wagon at the expense of the cwr wagon. caboose is lurking yes, but cwr is outright scummy, and its unsettling that two of the people who have made the most lucid and straightforward points against cwr (mach maf, carncarn) suddenly abandon ship simultaneously.

post 209 hey look i was right batt was just distancing cwr and wasn't really willing to go all the way to a bus. throwing an fos at axel for asking for a claim from the guy he was bandwagoning is bupkiss too.

post 214 axelrod is so incredibly correct in every way, man i'm glad this guy joined the game. rading this post, its almost like i shouldn't have even bothered writing my own here. but oh well. he's right, [/b]cwr should be claiming right about now.[/b]

oh good, the lurkerwagon on caboose fell apart once he reappeared. can we get back to the business of lynching clockwork now?

that about does it. lists at the top of this post were updated once i finished writing the whole thing.

likelihood that caboose is scum with clockwork rising dramatically

the carncarn votes are bullshit, he fosed me essentially for a theory disagreement (which, yes, is a silly reason to fos), but getting all bent out of shape and voting him for that is extremely opportunistic and looks like a last ditch effort to move the wagon off of cwr.

It seems like people are voting clockwork because of his play-choices (i.e. the non-vote on ramus) rather than him being "scummy". In fact it seems like people are voting for him because they don't understand him/his logic, or simply disagree with him.
can axelrod, roflcopter and carncarn respond to this.

at least in terms of my own vote for clockwork, your assessment is very much incorrect, and i wonder whether you actually read my post.

For a side by side, I thought I might point something out. Everything bolded is disagreeing with my actions and opinions, which lead to a vote.

For the first bolded, it has been addressed time and time again. How does not jumping on the Ramus bandwagon make me scum?

For the second, how did my case "escalate" against Ramus? If anything, I explained why I called Ort on defending him. So not only is this voting me for THE ACTIONS YOU DISAGREE WITH, it's blanantly wrong.

For the third bolded point, I also argued that. It was also a moot point, the amount of pressure on Ramus had no merit in my vote ever. I did say I thought that amount of pressure on Ramus was good. He had three, iirc, players who were already hammering him with questions and I saw something else I considered scummy.

For the forth, no. I am not claiming right now. Why have both of you been so eager to get me to claim?

Now, should anyone else have noticed this, everything brought up in this post has

already been brought against me and addressed.

Did you somehow miss my answers while you were tunneling so hard?

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

2 votes is a wagon?
Also people who say this are usually scum.

Vote stands.

its difficult to track the meteoric rise in the probability of caboose being scum

How is he scum, in your own words.

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

2 votes is a wagon?
Also people who say this are usually scum.

Vote stands.

its difficult to track the meteoric rise in the probability of caboose being scum

Oh, so I'm scum because my vote doesn't match up with yours and because I'm not on the popular bandwagon?
Seriously?

thats an awesome misrep caboose. really stunning in its simplicity.

Then please, set us straight. Why is caboose scum, roflcopter?

[ClockworkRuse]

Oh and "kind of ridiculous that rather than join a wagon that might be fruitful."

Once again, how am I scum because I didn't join a wagon?

[ClockworkRuse]

fact number one: caboose has been a generally lurky, noncomittal entity throughout much of the game
meta note: having been in/being in other games with caboose, i have a pretty firm basis to believe this is unusual for him.
++scum points

fact number two: not until significant pressure was applied to caboose did he come out of his shell and find a home for his vote
corollary: this vote for carncarn was made for a very weak reason
++scum points

fact number three: caboose tries to shore up his reasoning for his vote ex post facto with this line:

Also people who say this are usually scum.

which is a horrible overgeneralization and is akin to voting for someone for self voting or some such actions that is generally agreed to be anti town in principle. there is no proof provided that "people who do this" (in this case, say there are probably scum voting for oneself) are usually scum, so its a really easy way excuse an already weak vote with a totally unfounded sentiment.
+++scum points

finally, fact number four: caboose's attempts to shift attention to carncarn come at the expense of the clockwork wagon, which is the most likely lynch today. he is stalling for clockworkruse.
++probability of scumpairage

and now cwr shows an unusual degree of interest in the building momentum against caboose. again
++probablity of scumpairage

Wrong. I saw someone who was agreeing with other people without providing any reason what so ever. Who was making claims and not giving any reasons why.

In other words, Open mouth. Insert foot.

You also avoided my question as to who not jumping on a wagon makes me scum. You also avoided commenting at all on my responses to you. You also call literally a question or two "unusual degree of interest", which seems like almost as much of a stretch as the case you are presenting against me.

You failed to notice that the same logic you used in another game, which I would love a link to TheAdmiral, was flawed in another game. This is what TheAdmiral was trying to bring up; if the same reasoning failed in that game, why would it work here?

It really seems like you are looking for connections that aren't there and that you are tunneling heavily based on faulty assumptions that I've answered time and time again, which you have seemed to ignore.

Unvote, Vote: roflcopter

Now then, more questions.

no, actually, it doesn't, the connections stem from scummy actions on cwr's own part, and cwr's scumminess is totally indepent of the possible connections i've been pointing out between cwr and other players...
and you left out destructor, who is much more likely to be scumbuddies with cwr than batt, and you left out the part where i reevaluate my stance on ort, so again i ask, did you actually read my post?

Why would Ortolan and I be bussing so heavily, so early?

How do my individual actions say that I am a scumbuddy with Batt or Ort? Are you really looking at who I've voted for and saying that it's all been bussing? May as well throw my random vote in that list as well. Hell, if we keep this up everyone will be my scum buddy, amirite?

Destructor defended me against a pretty weak and contrived argument after I had been defending myself. Mizzy defended me as well, is she scum because of it?

Is someone scum because they disagree with a wagon? Because it seems to be going that way.

Once again, I have to ask you; What specifically have I done that just screams that I have to be scum? It seems you are taking actions that are essentially null-tells and making something out of nothing.

For the third time, why am I scum because I didn't jump on Ramus' wagon?

Why am I scum because I was focused on Ortolan?

Why am I scum because you disagree with my opinions?

How does my opinion of defending help or hurt scum?

It seems like the case against me taking my opinion of game play and calling it scummy. So please, tell me why it is.

[ClockworkRuse]

CR: please allow me to answer the completely strawman question you keep asking ("why am I scum because I didn't join a wagon?") which no one is actually arguing.

First, the post in question:

Ah, I see. I hadn't heard of that and I thought it was role oriented. Sorry for the inactiveness so far, I've been a tad bit busy in other games. I'll start paying attention more right now.

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him, but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

Vote: ortolan Why were you defending Ramus?

This shouldn't be too hard to understand. It is

suspicious

when one makes a post wherein one

begins

said post by expressing suspicions about one player (in this case Ramus), but

ends

the post by voting for a completely different player (in this case ortolan) who has been defending (very weakly) the first player.

It is suspicious because it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It is as though you are chaining your suspicions - you think Ramus is scum, therefore you think the person "defending" him is scum - and vote for the person at the end of the chain (which fails because if Ramus

isn't

scum, then your reasons to vote for ort. completely fail, so you ought to be voting for Ramus

first

to verify that suspicion, and only

then

vote people for "defending" him - though that can be a questionable basis even when you

know

the first player was scum).

But wait, you say, I wasn't expressing "suspicion" of Ramus in that post! I didn't say I thought he was scum! I didn't vote for him! So where are you getting all that bull!

Well, secondly, your post is suspicious for the

way

you talked about Ramus. Because you

didn't

say you thought he was scummy, you

didn't

say you agreed with the people voting for him, what you said was that you thought there was "adequate pressure." What the heck does that mean then?

The

logical

,

commonsense

interpretation, is that you

do

agree with those voting for him, you

do

agree that there should be at least

some

pressure on him, but for some reason, you think the current amount of pressure is "enough." Enough to do what, one might ask, but I digress. You then proceed to lend further support to the notion that you find Ramus suspicious, by stating that you want him to answer a question - to give a "better" explanation for something. The

clear

implication being that, if a better explanation is not forthcoming, you might decide to vote for him.

And then, despite this apparent focus on Ramus, you then jump over to someone completely different. You vote ortolan, and don't even give a reason for this vote beyond asking "why were you defending Ramus?"

Why were you going to let Ramus answer before voting for him, but voted ortolan immediately without giving him a chance to respond to your "question." Why did it bother you at all that ortolan was "defending" Ramus - if not because you thought there could be no defense for the scumminess that was Ramus?

What this post reads like, on its face, is you lending verbal support to the wagon on Ramus, without committing yourself to it. Without voting. Which is something that scum will often do when a townie is being wagoned - because they want the townie to be lynched, but don't want to push for it too aggressively, lest they appear suspicious for pushing an incorrect wagon. This is pretty basic stuff.

Am I over-reading your post? Certainly. Was it very early in the game? Absolutely. Do I have too much free time on my hands at the moment? Possibly.

But, regardless of that, whatever the merits of the accusations, they are most certainly NOT saying "dur, he's scum because he didn't jump on that wagon...."

Here endeth the lesson.

First, please learn to read the thread. Don't just isolate posts. The beginning of that post is directed at

Ortolan.

Look back, I had been asking about his

style of voting.

I, as I've said close to fifteen times now, never expressed that I thought Ramus was scum. I've said that I found it scummy that Ortolan was defending him before he had a chance to answer. If Ramus had a chance to defend himself with something more than just two words, I would have been less suspicious of

Ortolan's

defense of him.

But, and I believe I've said this quite a few times, Ortolan's defense of Ramus detracts from the reactions that we can get from the latter. So I decided to put pressure on him, instead of going after the already building wagon of Ramus. Please, go back and tell me where I once explicitly said that Ramus was scummier that Ortolan. I'll admit that I was slightly suspicious of Ramus. His answers to the questions he was asked were dodgy, which may have been a part of his gambit. But self-voting itself isn't inherently scummy in the RVS. I've seen Town CKD self-vote in the random stage, using the ploy. I don't believe he caught scum that way, but when he was asked a question he answered fully. Not in the cryptic way that Ramus did.

Now then,

Why were you going to let Ramus answer before voting for him, but voted ortolan immediately without giving him a chance to respond to your "question." Why did it bother you at all that ortolan was "defending" Ramus - if not because you thought there could be no defense for the scumminess that was Ramus?

I'm not sure I understand your question. When did I ask Ramus a question? Or are you talking about the questions asked to Ramus by the others?

Are you telling me I should have voted Ramus before hearing his answer? I consider that being a little irresponsible with my vote. And since I wasn't very suspicious of Ramus beyond his dodgy answers, I attacked someone who I found scummier.

See the above reasons, defending detracting from responses, for why I found him scummy. For.... the... eighth time?

And if you missed it, Ramus

did

defend himself. And his defense was better than anything Ortolan could give. And no where did I imply that Ramus was "oh-mah-gawd total scum" scummy. Hell, I barely even gave him a passing look.

What makes you think that scum would pass up on that wagon for a relatively weak pressure vote on someone else? "But Clockwork! That's so WIFOM!" Deal with it. But I have to ask you, would you distance yourself from that wagon? For what reason, if you were scum? There would be no point.

And here, dear sir, is where they

have

said I was scum for avoiding the wagon.

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him, but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

This sounded more like you were afraid to draw attention to yourself by adding on to the Ramus wagon.

Unvote, Vote: ClockworkRuse

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

What's wrong with that?

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

I'm more interested in why someone is defending him right now than his defense, what reason would ort have defending Ramus? Ramus is perfectly capable of responding to the questions and suspicions that are being thrown at him right now, so one would hope at least.

But you can still address your concerns with other players and possibly using FOSes, IGMEOYs,

etc while voting for Ramus. You are depicting a possible Ramus-vote in the worst light by suggesting tunneling.

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

[ClockworkRuse]

Posted too early:

- setting up a binary system that implies if you are on the lynch and it he is scum you are town, and if you are on the lynch and he is town you are scum (also setting up chain lynches to a certain degree)
- doesn't seem to take responsibility for own vote: when he says "we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow" it doesn't sound like he is including himself.

No, I was one of his wagoners earlier in the day, and it looks like I will be at the end of the day, too. I'm not "excusing" myself at all. If I am setting up chain lynches, then I'm setting up my own lynch, too.

Could someone please summarize why CR is obvscum?

I don't think anyone is obvscum, here. I am voting CR because he seems most scummy (dodging the Ramus wagon with a clearly invalid excuse, annoucing that he was getting ready to go after attacking someone right when the attention starting mounting on him, etc.)

roflcopter also expressed the same opinon. Its a wall of text, so I won't quote all of it. Rather, I'll quote one of my posts;

Oh and "kind of ridiculous that rather than join a wagon that might be fruitful."

Once again, how am I scum because I didn't join a wagon?

But no one has told me I was scum for not joining that wagon.

There are more that I didn't quote. Because I think this sums up the point.

[ClockworkRuse]

And the reasons, as I've read, have been involving whether or not I joined the wagon.

You are telling me that "kind of ridiculous that rather than join a wagon that might be fruitful" has some deeper meaning that I'm missing?

You are telling me that CarnCarn's response to my question, see 292, is not in some way of being suspicious because I didn't join the wagon?

I don't see any deeper meaning there. Are you telling me that these players haven't been suspicious of me because I didn't jump onto that wagon? Because it certainly seems like that to me.

Secondly, as long as you are going to bring up the points I am going to answer them.

[ClockworkRuse]

True, the game is practically useless for metaing. It was worth trying to build a meta though, thank you very much.

[ClockworkRuse]

admiral: so what you've established is that you think i'm a bad player. how does knowing that i was not in fact group scum in that game, but more or less the equivalent of the town vigilante, strike you?

i'm pretty confused how a "history of bad play/logic being continued in this game" makes me scum when it didn't make me scum last time.

and ok, so you disagree with my reasons for thinking caboose and cwr could be scum together, but you conveniently left out all the reasons i listed for thinking caboose is scum irregardless of cwr.

This is a good point.

For the record, I was looking at the game to hopefully build a little bit of a meta on you. That didn't work out due to the nature of the game.

You are telling me that CarnCarn's response to my question, see 292, is not in some way of being suspicious because I didn't join the wagon?

I don't see any deeper meaning there. Are you telling me that these players haven't been suspicious of me because I didn't jump onto that wagon? Because it certainly seems like that to me.

I will only answer for myself. My comment was more than just that you are scum for not joining the Ramus wagon, but that you are scum because you didn't join it

for an invalid reason

.

The reason wasn't invaild. You just didn't like it.

With MM, you, and... I believe it was Mizzy, on his wagon, I felt like the amount of pressure being applied was going to suffice against him. You had been asking him good questions and I felt like it would benefit the town if we kept applying pressure all around.

And you are willing to lynch me just to get information? So when I turn up town, what exactly are you going to learn? We've already heard your assumptions about if I flip scum if I get lynched, but what of the other way around?

In other words; How does an information lynch help the town?

[ClockworkRuse]

You are telling me that CarnCarn's response to my question, see 292, is not in some way of being suspicious because I didn't join the wagon?

I don't see any deeper meaning there. Are you telling me that these players haven't been suspicious of me because I didn't jump onto that wagon? Because it certainly seems like that to me.

I will only answer for myself. My comment was more than just that you are scum for not joining the Ramus wagon, but that you are scum because you didn't join it

for an invalid reason

.

The reason wasn't invaild. You just didn't like it.

With MM, you, and... I believe it was Mizzy, on his wagon, I felt like the amount of pressure being applied was going to suffice against him. You had been asking him good questions and I felt like it would benefit the town if we kept applying pressure all around.

And you are willing to lynch me just to get information? So when I turn up town, what exactly are you going to learn? We've already heard your assumptions about if I flip scum if I get lynched, but what of the other way around?

In other words; How does an information lynch help the town?

It was clearly invalid because Ramus already said he wasn't feeling any pressure to answer the questions put forth to him. Your reason for not voting was because there was adequate pressure, when it was obviously not the case. Why do you keep avoiding this?

And more "strawman" questions towards the end of your post. I've already answered them, but will reiterate here:
I am

not

supporting your lynch just to get information. I've explained that I think you are scum and said why. In addition, the actions taken by Caboose and destructor, for example, will have a better context if we know your alignment.
And for the case where you are town, I already said what I think must happen. Your wagoners, including me, will be under a lot of scrutiny. The chances of your lynch taking place with only townies voting is unlikely (unless it is a 4 vote deadline lynch, which I prefer not to happen; I will say right now that I highly prefer a majority lynch

before

deadline).

I was addressing one point to your case, so don't call them "strawmen" just because I don't ask questions about every single point. I wanted to see your answer.

And I understand what you feel. I felt like the pressure was adequate despite what he said. The fact is, I didn't find him more scummy than Ort. So I am scum because of that?

"It's the way you did it." - Well, that is how you are reading into it. I did find Ramus scummy. Excuse me for not being clear enough when I said it, but if I felt that Ramus was scummier than Ort at that point, I would have voted him.

[ClockworkRuse]

Hi, letting you all know I'm going to have limited access until Dec 14.

I will get another post in before the weekend is over. I feel like I'm kind of losing touch in this game, so if anyone has anything specific they'd like me to comment on or any questions, they're welcome too.

How do you feel your current vote on CarnCarn? None of the reasons you listed were particularly strong IMO: his FOS on rofl, his IGMEOY on Caboose, and his jump away from CR.

It felt good at the time. I noted that I'm on LA until Sunday, but I'd like to find some time to have a look over everything before deadline (which I assume will be placed soon).

I think CC's FOS and IGMEOY looked like noise/distractions. Neither were appropriate or useful. The IGMEOY was mostly malignant, but looked worse in retrospect when he tried to attach some pro-town spin to the FOS. His reasons for the FOS didn't add up - rofl would only be helping scum if he was town.

Even if it was just a theory disagreement, why

suspect

someone over it?

That doesn't make sense. Scum are trying to find excuses to suspect people, townies don't need to.

There's been a bit of that this game.

[ClockworkRuse]

Unvote

It's interesting to see that axelrod/ thadmiral put both CarnCarn and CR at 3 votes each (just 1 under the necessary amount for a deadline lynch. Lynching both CR and CarnCarn could give us some information (obviously lynching CR would give us the most of the two).

I do believe in information lynching (with support from thinking that they are guilty), is not bad on D1, so I'm going to vote CR.

I'm wondering exactly what you think is "interesting" about it (ignoring the fact that I said I was unvoting pending a review).

Are you implying that you think I/we are trying to sneakily get the town to No Lynch?

Better yet, is he suggesting that that we should lynch both of us?

[ClockworkRuse]

Unvote

It's interesting to see that axelrod/ thadmiral put both CarnCarn and CR at 3 votes each (just 1 under the necessary amount for a deadline lynch.

Lynching both CR and CarnCarn could give us some information (obviously lynching CR would give us the most of the two).

I do believe in information lynching (with support from thinking that they are guilty), is not bad on D1, so I'm going to vote CR.

The way it's worded sounded weird.

That and I'm on some Nighttime cold medicine. So I may just be reading into it wrong.

[ClockworkRuse]

failure to lynch altogether would be unforgivably dumb

failure to lynch clockworkruse would just be a big mistake

i will not be voting carncarn, though, even in the face of a no lynch alternative, because everything i've seen from him has made me think he is pro town and the wagon on him is just dripping with stupid. consider that as some added incentive for people to vote cwr instead, if its that or no lynch

So in the face of a NL... you would rather NL. You are also tunneling so hard now it's ridiculous. Tunneling kills townie.

You are ramming your opinion down the throats of others and threatening the entire town by saying that if it came down to it, you would rather NL than vote Carn Carn.

Explain to me how this doesn't help the scum.

[ClockworkRuse]

Interesting YOU would say tunneling kills townie considering your earlier play with Ort. Also, replace both with either for a more correct grammar sentence in the post you quoted from me.

Did you notice how I admitted to tunneling and backed off? I saw how weak the case was and realized I needed some perspective.

CR, you should probably claim now. I think the deadline is about 36 hours away.


Mizzy's minimal voting activity is unhelpful. I've seen her be the same with her votes as town before, so I'm inclined to see it as a null-tell in her case, even if I believe it's anti-town.

His next post or posts can stop me from voting him, which is why I am waiting. What he says will directly impact my actions.

What would be the difference between (a) voting him now then unvoting if his next post changes your mind, and (b) waiting for him to post, which he may never do, before deciding what to do? If he never posts, does that mean you won't vote him? If you will, how long do you wait before placing the vote?

You can always remove a vote, so I see no point in waiting to decide when you've already found a reason to vote someone. Yes, this is somewhat consistent with my past experience with you, but I don't see a good reason to hold back on something like this.


rofl, you haven't commented on my own read of CR or my case on CC. Can you do that?
You also say that no lynching would be unforgivable, but won't vote CC to stop one. Which is more important - avoiding a No Lynch or keeping CC alive?
What do you think CC's reasons for FOS'ing you were?

Mod:

Can Caboose and ortolan be prodded? They seem to have disappeared.

Why am I claiming? Why isn't CarnCarn claiming as well?

You also say that no lynching would be unforgivable, but won't vote CC to stop one. Which is more important - avoiding a No Lynch or keeping CC alive?

My take is that, if he's scum, he knows a hammer on me will get him in hot water since the case on me is paper thin at best. Scum are of course OK with a no lynch, even if it's technically possible to hammer a townie.
If he's town, he's got a good read on me, and honestly, a 4-vote lynch here doesn't really give too much information. Decent chance that wagoners could be all town. Although, in this case, I doubt everyone on my wagon now is town.

Also, I wonder when CR will get around to voting me. He's definately taking his time, that's for sure.

I didn't want to, you've played pretty pro-town all game. I get the whole 'save myself from a lynch', but you would get more information out of my lynch than yours. So why would I vote someone I've considered more pro-town than non?

Ortolan, I'm not going to quote that block of yours. First, you can call my vote a policy vote for

pressure

at first. Your reaction of how scummy it was kept me going. That doesn't mean that my thoughts on you amount to nothing. Why are you still so eager to defend yourself against a case no one is pushing?

Well, we are quickly running out of time. Natirasha has done nothing since coming in to make me think better about him than I did about uriel (which was not good). He's make one very odd and self contradictory post and commented that

everyone

seems artificial.

I think I'd rather push this lynch than any other at the moment.

Vote: Natirasha

... What? If I live through this day, you can certainly expect a re-read on you. You are willing to lynch based on one post by a player?

Same with you Mizzy.

Caboose's lurking (he's definitely posting elsewhere on site) trumps CC's scumminess. The only other votes on CC are from Caboose himself and Thad, for reasons I don't wholly support myself. Nat's play doesn't seem malicious to me so far and I expect it to improve. Caboose hasn't really done anything different all game.

Unvote
Vote: Caboose

That's 3 votes on Caboose. CC is down to 2.

A claim from either CR or Caboose would be good right about now.

Once again, why am I claiming at L-2 at deadline?

Looking at Caboose, he's been posting on the site quite a lot, as destructor pointed out. Looking at his posts, the last one he made here was six days ago. Since then he has been posting in a few other games and other places. I had to go five pages into his posts to see a post from this game.

So he has been lurking pretty heavily.

Looking back through the posts Caboose made, after the random he made he seemed pretty uninterested in changing it. Making only small comments such as;

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

Forgot where his vote was, which I don't consider pro-town;

Unvote

Caboose, I see you're still keeping your early vote on Batt. Did you mean to do this?

Completely forgot about that.

Unvote

I would like to keep my vote on someone. And TheAd jumping on my bandwagon with little reasoning makes me a little suspicious, but I'll let him defend himself before placing a vote.

Couldn't bother to make cases for himself or re-read;

Could someone please summarize why CR is obvscum?

I found this a pretty weak vote;

townlist:
mizzy
carncarn
mach-maf
axelrod

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like kinds of lists. The players often end up dead the next day.

FoS: roflcopter

That's how rofl rolls, there's no need for an FoS because of it.

And let me get this straight...you don't want ROFL helping the scum inadvertently by telling everyone who he thinks is what, and yet you FoSed him? An FoS tells us you might suspect someone is scum. However, if he is scum, and he posted a list of those he thinks is innocent, there's no real harm done because the scum will find out anyway. So to me, you basically scolded someone as if they were a bad townie and then accused them of being scum. Which is it?

Mizzy beat me to it. I don't get why a town list, especially from someone like rofl, merits an FoS.

Vote: CarnCarn

For FoSing rofl for a BS reason.

The pattern of Caboose's posts continues. In both of his twos posts after I pointed out the pattern, he is still delaying actually scumhunting and placing vote.

Yes, it does continue, and will continue. I post in short spurts of writing, I don't read or make really really long posts.

Then continues to argue that his vote is correct based on contrived opinons.

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

2 votes is a wagon?
Also people who say this are usually scum.

Vote stands.

Reading over Caboose, I'm comfortable dropping the hammer on him. He hasn't added anything all day, he's voted seriously once on a very weak reason, he's lurked heavily, and he was an over-all lazy townie.

Vote: Caboose

[ClockworkRuse]

... What? If I live through this day, you can certainly expect a re-read on you. You are willing to lynch based on one post by a player?

Well, ignoring for the moment the posts of the player he replaced (which I wasn't), when we're up against a dealine, and considering that the one thing he did say made absolutely no sense at all...yes.

I'd just as soon get rid of someone who might be scum and is definitely going to be useless as someone who might be scum but is at least posting.

But I'm not against the Caboose wagon either. Reviewing his posts, he's managed to be just as useless but used more words.

I've never played with him before, so I don't know how he typically is, but this doesn't look too good.

I don't know when the deadline hits my time (Eastern Standard). I can next check back in around 9:00 a.m. in case something else happens.

First bold; you can’t ignore the posts the player before him made. I see you say you weren’t but still. Second, when faced with a deadline where there were… two other choices, you went left field? Tell me how that helps the deadline voting scenario at all. Essentially, before we had a replacement for Caboose, you weren’t going to be on either of the wagons for the most prospective players.

Second bold; If I read this correctly; you didn’t think Caboose was being a lazy townie at first because he used more words?

At Urz, I’m seriously not going to defend myself against the same points over and over again. Finish reading please than take a look at your vote. I have admitted since; a.) I was tunneling Ort. b.) My vote on Ort was a pressure vote originally, I didn’t like how he reacted to it, and that I thought the pressure on the Ramus wagon was adequate even if he said it wasn’t. c.) I was definitely tunneling Ort. Looking over it, was some seriously horrible play on my part. I was the VI for a good portion of the game, but I don’t plan on continuing that bad streak.

And as to the defending; I am

not

against defending. I am against defending before we can get a reaction for the person the question was originally asked. I didn’t feel that Ramus’s reactions to the pressure he was receiving was adequate and when Ort began to defend him I placed a pressure vote on him.

and i'm glad the replacement cleared up the caboose issue so succinctly, urzas is obvtown

And why is that?

What? If I live through this day, you can certainly expect a re-read on you. You are willing to lynch based on one post by a player?

First off, I don't see there being any way Nat gets lynched.

Second off, if I have to vote someone (and I do have to vote, whether I want to or not, because if I don't, then I'm just scum trying to stay off wagons, right? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.) then I am going to vote someone that is less helpful and more scummy than the two candidates that are up on the block. If I had to choose between Nat being lynched and either CC or you being lynched, I'd choose Nat, yes.

At deadline, you were voting someone who you “didn’t see there being any way” they got lynched.

Noted.

Heyo, Mizzy.

Care to respond and/or comment on the COMPLETELY NEW perspective of the game I just gave, rather than taking a cop out and continuing your petty bickering with clockwork ruse.

Why are you arguing with him, anyway? He's pretty much obv scum.

And now we have another rofl, calling me obv scum before I even get a chance to respond?

And why does Mizzy have to respond to your “completely new” perspective to the game?

And I say “completely new” because I’ve seen most of it from rofl.

On the other hand, you have Clockwork, who has posted a shit ton, and you are not going to get a better read on, probably. You already have him pegged as scummy, and his posting is not going to give you any better opportunities to read him. He's not changing.

Who are you to say I am not changing? And weren’t you saying something about

pretty ridiculous, and is not something a player interested in determining orto's alignment would say

Well, if you exclude Ort. Shouldn’t you not be appealing to emotion to get my lynched, if your case is so strong and I am such obv scum?

I didn’t want to quote the entire post, but the more I read it…;

Right, but you're missing my point about me. The main problems with caboose seem to be a) He's a pretty bad player, and b) he was basically inactive the whole game. Going off of that, you can't have a really strong read on him

(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)

You're probably very annoyed at him, which might be clouding your judgment as to whether or not you think he's scum.

Look at the facts, there really isn't enough to base even a barebones read off of him. I posted more game relevant analysis in my first post in this game than he did the whole rest of day one.

The point is, keeping me around and reading what I do tomorrow will be a much better indicator of the alignment of this role than reading cabooses play today.

It's common sense, I give you more interactions with more players, as well as more posting frequency.

On the other hand, you have Clockwork, who has posted a shit ton, and you are not going to get a better read on, probably. You already have him pegged as scummy, and his posting is not going to give you any better opportunities to read him. He's not changing.

A simple calculation of accuracy[/u tells you that he's a way better lynch for today, even IF you disregard the post I made which lays out two pretty damn good d1 reasons as to why he's obv scum.

That's my argument.

You get a WAY more accurate read on my role by keeping me around, but the same isn't true on CR.

So even if you find him and Caboose equally scummy (which I find highly unlikely) He's the better lynch.

Your logic is that “Because you can get a better read on me with me around, and you can’t get one on Clock, lynch him and look at me later.”
The bolded will prove that.

Caboose’s play should not just be thrown out because he’s “a poor player.” He had plenty of time to be a “poor player” in other games, so why did he ignore this one? It wasn’t like he wouldn’t have had anything to comment on, he was under scrutiny the last time he decided to disappear. Obviously, this is going into WIFOM. But it needs to be pointed out that we can’t just excuse his play as him being a “bad player.”

Look at the underlined, “A simple calculation of accuracy”, do you mind explain what you mean by that?

How do you call me backing off my tunneling not changing? Have I not made more reasonable cases lately? You are attacking me because I made bad play and I tunneled, both of which I’ve admitted to and kicked myself for. What would the benefits of attacking Ort like I did be for scum?

Italics is basically WIFOM. Unless you can prove you have a reasonable meta to back that statement up.

I’m starting to run out of font styles to use. D=

Anyways, you state;

You're probably very annoyed at him, which might be clouding your judgment as to whether or not you think he's scum.

Do you think that the town would be willing to lynch on mere annoyance alone? What do you take of my thoughts of him yesterday when I voted him?

There is also a load of false dichotomy in here.

@ Batt: 16 pages, 397 posts and the best reason you can come up for lynching me is

still

information?

[ClockworkRuse]

Well, this will be good for some information at the very least.

Didn't you have more reasons than that to lynch me?

Well, as it stands. I'm going to be hitting the noose. D=

I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all. I have no powers, which is good.

Good luck catching scum.

[ClockworkRuse]

CR: You could have voted Nat yesterday so that you could avoid getting lynched. Why didn't you do that?

To be honest, I didn't know if I really felt strongly for Nat being scum. I also thought that at the time of my post I was lynched.

Admiral, why are you entering the WIFOM area of the nightkills?

Ort, I'm not sure if I understand what you want me to respond to.

[ClockworkRuse]

CR, that is not wifom. Please learn what wifom is.

Vote: CarnCarn

Excuse me then, needless speculation.

Expect a post in a little bit.

[ClockworkRuse]

Sorry for the delay in posting, holidays are eating up my time.

Expect a post about this Mizzy/Ort back and forth by... Friday?

[ClockworkRuse]

Well, seeing as people started to claim before even talking about a system... let's just do this popcorn style, eh?

Goat, who do you want to claim?

[ClockworkRuse]

....

Wow. Wrong game.

[ClockworkRuse]

That should have been in Scum of the Seas. I guess I thought I was there. /facepalm

I am not suggesting a mass claim, that was just a mistake.

[ClockworkRuse]

Post 427:

CR basically claims mason

Elaborate on your role please, do you turn up scum when investigated, killed, or both/neither?

. More to add to this once CR answers

CR: Could you please answer this, as it appears a few other people have made posts that require me to have an answer to that in order for me to respond to?

I didn't claim mason. If you look at my role, I have no powers at all.

My role PM says I'm a townie, like I said.

I'm not exactly sure where you got Mason from.

[ClockworkRuse]

He obviously means "miller". I meant to ask you about that also but I'd forgotten. If the town believes you are possessed by the devil does that mean you flip guilty to cop investigations?

Mizzy- leaving aside the whole suspecting me for unvoting CR thing, there are still aspects of your play I don't understand, would you please answer the following questions:

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

My role PM doesn't tell me if I flip town or scum when investigated. It tells me I am a townie, obviously, but nothing about that.

[ClockworkRuse]

I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all. I have no powers, which is good.

Do you not think "the town believes I am possessed by the Devil" might be interpreted as hinting you are a miller?

It might be, but that is all just speculation. I'm not into outguessing the mod.

[ClockworkRuse]

By the way this is strawmanning.

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

They can be things that he finds scummy and you don't. Conflict in opinions does not make one point more or less true, a lot of day one was about that if you noticed Mizzy.

More later, tomorrow hopefully. I want to get a bit of a read through to catch up a little bit. I've fallen behind on this game.

[ClockworkRuse]

Sorry for the prolonged absence, this game requires a bit more re-reading the rest of my other games. I'm hoping to get caught up by Saturday. I'll have a post by then.

[ClockworkRuse]

Re-reading/posting tomorrow. I just found out the site was back up.