Newbie 694 (over)

[hambargarz]

L1 is understandable, caution should be advised, but otherwise, being near lynch shouldn't be reasons to hold off a vote in my opinion. Being nearer to lynch creates pressure.

[ClockworkRuse]

_over9000 did not vote ClockworkRuse citing a reason for not wanting to jump in with it. ie. Worried about how his vote would look. If he would come off too aggressive etc.

_over9000 changes his mind after his actions were disliked

_over9000 voted, on the grounds that ClockworkRuse was not near lynch. ie. over9000 did not want to significantly change things or pressure ClockworkRuse with his vote. This makes the vote reasoning wishy washy in nature.

+1 FOS: _over9000

I disagree. Being near a lynch is a good reason to hold on to your vote for a while. Hasty lynches are bad. However, I'm not really convinced that that was his real reason. My FoS remains.

At the same time, hasty lynches can lead to a lot of information. It depends all on circumstance of course, but looking at a lynch that occurs too fast can lead to finding scum.

[CarnCarn]

But I still had one page to read and didn't know how many votes you had on you. Now that i've read all the way through, however, I see that you aren't near a lynch and am ready to

vote: ClockworkRuse

That is a tenuous at best reason for not voting originally. Your post was one of the first on page 10. Even if your read only the first 8 pages, that should have been enough to know that CR was not in any danger of being lynched ATM, as I don't believe he had any votes (other than maybe random votes) EVER in the first 8 pages. Sure, anything is possible, there could be 4 votes popping up on the last page and your vote could have lynched, but, really I don't find your excuse to be believable.
Now, what is your real reason? And what is your power level?

Vote: _over9000

(j/k on that last question)

[_over9000]

Let me ask you this...
IF i were scum, why would I change my reason now?

I already gave my reason for not immediately voting. I then voted after that conditional was met. Now, what effect on the game did delaying my vote have, exactly?

[GIEFF]

I already gave my reason for not immediately voting. I then voted after that conditional was met. Now, what effect on the game did delaying my vote have, exactly?

It is just plain silly to read 8 pages, then post a response, and then read the 9th page after this response. It seems VERY unlikely to me that this is actually what you did, which makes your initial answer for not voting CR ("I hadn't finished reading so I didn't know if ClockworkRuse was close to being lynched") a lie.

It's very interesting to me that _over9000 did the same thing that militant was voted for; failure to explain the reasoning for not voting (not unvoting in militant's case), realizing the reasoning was flawed, and then "appeasing" to cover up this faulty logic.

HoS over9000

. I am OK with an _over lynch at this point, but I would really like to hear some more from infamous.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork,

especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz

, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

Working on it, I've been a little side-tracked by other games recently. Expect an answer later tonight.

This was 5 days ago; I understand you're busy with other games, but I just thought I'd remind you. Here is your last post about hambargaz, for your reference:

Post 103

[CarnCarn]

Let me ask you this...
IF i were scum, why would I change my reason now?

Pressure from others to take a stance and vote.

I already gave my reason for not immediately voting. I then voted after that conditional was met. Now, what effect on the game did delaying my vote have, exactly?

What condition? That he wasn't close to being lynched? Like I said, that is a very tenuous reason at best considering everything through the first 8 pages.
It's not so much that you delayed a vote, as the excuse you gave for not voting. You sound very interested in your "image" and don't want to be taken as being too aggressive yet. Like you might be waiting for the right opportunity to cast your vote.

[ClockworkRuse]

I already gave my reason for not immediately voting. I then voted after that conditional was met. Now, what effect on the game did delaying my vote have, exactly?

It is just plain silly to read 8 pages, then post a response, and then read the 9th page after this response. It seems VERY unlikely to me that this is actually what you did, which makes your initial answer for not voting CR ("I hadn't finished reading so I didn't know if ClockworkRuse was close to being lynched") a lie.

It's very interesting to me that _over9000 did the same thing that militant was voted for; failure to explain the reasoning for not voting (not unvoting in militant's case), realizing the reasoning was flawed, and then "appeasing" to cover up this faulty logic.

HoS over9000

. I am OK with an _over lynch at this point, but I would really like to hear some more from infamous.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork,

especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz

, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

Working on it, I've been a little side-tracked by other games recently. Expect an answer later tonight.

This was 5 days ago; I understand you're busy with other games, but I just thought I'd remind you. Here is your last post about hambargaz, for your reference:

Post 103

Good posting. =D I'm not going to say I never got around to it on purpose, I just kind of forgot about your question. I'm getting to it right now;

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

1 - Active lurking. I disagree with this; could hambargaz or Xtoxm please explain further? Militant was just responding to Clockwork's request for discussion, as far as I can tell.
2 - Random vote left on too long. I agree with this.
3 - Appeasement. I agree. At first I thought the "opinion" referenced was militant's opinion about why he voted for me, but I now see that it refers to militant's opinion about not removing random votes until a better target presents itself. However, I feel that appeasement with regards to policy (i.e. metagame) is less scummy than appeasement with regards to the reasons behind a lynch (which is what I thought was initially meant by the appeasement charge). Do you agree with this, Clockwork and uri?
4 - Withholding scummy evidence. I disagree. I believe militant is referring to his accusation that hambargaz was himself lurking when he accused militant of active-lurking. Your quote of militant in post 193 was referring to hambargaz' accusations that militant
was reading his posts with bias.

I think I answered the first part of your question earlier, about unvoting ham and going with Militant. It was that at first, I had my suspicions about the way he reacted to my self-vote. He didn't attack the wagon, he didn't exactly praise it. He just said 'You self-voted to start discussion.' Adding nothing at all, which to me was active lurking, or an attempt to post the minimal amount of content.

The second, the appeasement, was about his unvoting. Not so much discussing after I said so anymore, because that was moving into a tunnel vision on him and I'm trying to avoid that at all costs. The appeasement came with his unvoting his random vote.

I disagree that holding a random vote for 'too long' is scummy. It's a null tell, there isn't a benefit to scum Militant for holding a vote that long and there isn't a benefit for town Militant either.

And I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "Withholding Scummy Evidence." It's been a while since you've asked me these so I may need to re-read back to this. It may be that the title of the point is misleading though. From what I understand, Militant basically countered hamz accusation of active lurking with one of lurking. I may have to go back and check that out to really finalize my opinion on the matter.

[GIEFF]

Thanks, CR. Yeah, point 4 was a little hard to describe, but I've since been convinced that it is a valid one. hambargaz did a good job of describing it in 208:

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

And after all the rereading militant did with a focus on hambargaz, the only scummy thing militant found was that hambargaz was lurking, too. I don't think it makes sense that noticing a lurk is what caused militant to claim he needs to re-read with a focus on hambargaz, so this looks like a lie to me.


I am also curious as to the suspicions you outlined in post 103, Clockwork. At the time, you voted for hambargaz. Is hambargaz still high on your scumdar and you just feel that militant/_over is scummier? Or has hambargaz his answer convince you he was town?

[Elennaro]

My access is going to be limited during the next week. I'm in med school, and I have a stage at a doctor's house. I will probably still post during the week, but I can't promise when.

[ClockworkRuse]

Thanks, CR. Yeah, point 4 was a little hard to describe, but I've since been convinced that it is a valid one. hambargaz did a good job of describing it in 208:

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

And after all the rereading militant did with a focus on hambargaz, the only scummy thing militant found was that hambargaz was lurking, too. I don't think it makes sense that noticing a lurk is what caused militant to claim he needs to re-read with a focus on hambargaz, so this looks like a lie to me.


I am also curious as to the suspicions you outlined in post 103, Clockwork. At the time, you voted for hambargaz. Is hambargaz still high on your scumdar and you just feel that militant/_over is scummier? Or has hambargaz his answer convince you he was town?

He's been slipping actually, but that's probably because he's going for an "Out of sight, out of mind" method and with 9000's play and Militant's play, it worked sadly.

He's... third on my scumdar, but he's not there by very much.

[Xtoxm]

I'm not sus of Ham.

Anyway, i've got my top 2 suspects, and i'm ready to lynch.

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm not sus of Ham.

Anyway, i've got my top 2 suspects, and i'm ready to lynch.

Then please, post some content.

[GIEFF]

Thanks, Clockwork - I was more interested in your thought process and why you dropped your suspicions against ham than your suspicions themselves.

I've noticed a pattern with your posts, Xtoxm. You were the first to cast suspicion on BOTH militant and infamous, and both wagons have gained steam, and it looks like we're going to lynch one or the other of them. I know scum-hunting is as townie as it gets, but your scum-hunting lacks content; you were twice the first person to cast suspicion, and both times you left the following-up and questioning to others.

This could be a case of people taking your opinions more seriously due to your IC status, but I'd like to see more analysis from you about the wagons you have started (and about any you may start in the future).

[Xtoxm]

I believe I explained my reasons for finding them suspicous well.

People often moan at me for not giving copius amounts of content in my posts. I don't feel there's anything more to say.

[hambargarz]

I'm not sus of Ham.

Any particular reason why this is? That's a pretty strong statement considering that no one is above suspicion to a townie.

IGMEOY: Xtoxm

[Xtoxm]

Lol

[hambargarz]

Last game when someone said something like this about me, I was first NK
thanks alot Xtoxm

[GIEFF]

I believe I explained my reasons for finding them suspicous well.

People often moan at me for not giving copius amounts of content in my posts. I don't feel there's anything more to say.

But you're an IC for this game; isn't it your responsibility to post a bit of content to help the newbies out?

[Xtoxm]

No, i'm here to help intorduce you to the game/site, by playing how I normally play.

I cannot post something which is not there.

If I have said all I have to say, what are you expecting me to post?

[GIEFF]

If you don't have anything to say, then don't force anything; I just think that you haven't been all that involved in our scumhunting.

But this is only my second game, and I don't know your playstyle, so I'll take your word for it.

[Xtoxm]

I have 2 suspects currently, Inf and Over. This implies I think the rest of town are town, and although I have an order of suspicion it is not beneficial to state it.

[Xtoxm]

Last game when someone said something like this about me, I was first NK
thanks alot Xtoxm

You're welcome

[ClockworkRuse]

The fact of the matter is, I'm asking you to reiterate what your suspicions are.

The fact that you can't be bothered to do something like that is worrisome.

[Xtoxm]

Inf's recent posts strike me as odd, even coming from someone not used to the pace of games here.

About Militant - Yes, I did find it a bit forced, although it was for the most part just trying to start things off. I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Oooh, I take that as a scumtell.

Why did you not want to "jump straight in with a vote"?

Also, it seems I never mentioned, but there was one post from Inf, where he expresses that he is suprised at being voted for not contributing on Day One. It struck me as coming from a surprised scum, who thought he could lurk it.

[CarnCarn]

Mod: Can we request a prod on infamousace2?

It's been over 10 days since his last post and we could use his input.

MOD EDIT:

done