Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[roflcopter]

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

[Caboose]

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?

[roflcopter]

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.

[Caboose]

Hmmm...
Let me get what you're saying then.
Is it this?

"Caboose is scum with CR because Caboose isn't jumping on the popular CR bandwagon and trying to 'stall'."

[destructor]

Could you be "wrong" about Batt? Could Caboose be bussing his scum-buddy? And due to this dilemma, you choose to vote for no one.

If that is, in fact, your logic, then I don't like it very much. It's very questionable to refrain from voting player X because player Y is voting for him. And if you think player Y is scummier, then why don't you just vote for player Y? This is being non-committal.

The game seemed to be in early stages of discussion when I replaced in. I was hoping for more to work with, I guess reactions, after my first post.

In post #133, you apparently no longer have problems voting for Batt. It appears, however, that your primary motivation for the vote is general inactivity and a desire to get things moving. You don't make any kind of actual case here or urge others to vote the same way.

Getting things moving is not always a bad reason to vote someone, but the way you did it in that post does not strike me as a vote actually calculated to make something happen. Batt. was not under any serious kind of pressure that I remember at that point.

I dunno. At that point, it seemed that my first post hadn't really done anything and posting was really low. I wasn't sure what else to do to make things happen. And voting Batt

did

get him talking. Maybe check the timestamps to see things in context of the game's pace at the time.

You do a lot of defending of CR, which, as you can imagine, I don't agree with. Right up until recently where you ask yourself if you are missing something because both the most recent replacements have found him suspicious. I find it a little odd that you would post something like that.

I was planning to do a reread of CR and the cases on him immediately after I posted that.
In the meantime, what do you make of my take on CR in Post 162?

About Caboose, he hadn't seemed to have contributed much. 85 didn't help, since it looked like more evidence that CR's wagon wasn't a good one. Batt's vote on CR didn't look good and 85 looked like Caboose was clearing his throat. He went into major lurk mode after I replaced in and his minimal posts aren't incredibly helpful, but I'm not liking CarnCarn right now and he was quick to jump onto Caboose's wagon. (bussing not likely, etc).

[petroleumjelly]

Day One: Vote Count #13

5 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, ortolan, Axelrod, CarnCarn, roflcopter)
2 CarnCarn (Caboose, destructor)
1 Battousai (ClockworkRuse)
1 Caboose (Machiavellian-Mafia)
1 Mizzy (Battousai)

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline. Currently no deadline.

Not Voting – 2 – Mizzy, ThAdmiral

Searching for a replacement for urielzyx.

[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?

[ThAdmiral]

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.

No i did read your post, and it relies

heavily

on the assumption that ortolan, and (to a lesser extent) battuoasi are scumbuddies with clockwork. i.e. you found the entire scum team. (And now caboose, which somehow gives them a fourth member...)

I remember you did this in another game I played in (in which you were wrong) and I view it as a less grounded, and more dangerous, kind of tunneling, in that it forms assumptions based off other assumptions, and that it has everything "fit-the-model" (for example instead of someone building a case on someone else because he thinks he is scummy, he builds it against him because they are

obviously

scum-partners and he is trying to distance).

@ThAdmiral:

with the time extension i should hopefully be able to choose a better target and not just a lurker.

Found one yet?

You know what, yes I have.

vote: roflcopter

[Mizzy]

I'm not on a wagon, does that make me scum too?

[roflcopter]

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

[roflcopter]

No i did read your post, and it relies heavily on the assumption that ortolan, and (to a lesser extent) battuoasi are scumbuddies with clockwork. i.e. you found the entire scum team. (And now caboose, which somehow gives them a fourth member...)

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?

I remember you did this in another game I played in (in which you were wrong) and I view it as a less grounded, and more dangerous, kind of tunneling, in that it forms assumptions based off other assumptions, and that it has everything "fit-the-model" (for example instead of someone building a case on someone else because he thinks he is scummy, he builds it against him because they are obviously scum-partners and he is trying to distance).

how the hell does me being wrong in another game entirely necessarily make me wrong here?

this is a really, really weak basis for a vote ad. a continued mischaracterization of my vote for clockwork, and then an irrelevant jab at me over my play in another game entirely. nice.

[Mizzy]

Battousai:

Loaded question

No, it wasn't. Rhetorical, sarcastic, sure. But loaded? No. It could have bee answered just fine.

So you keep your vote on Ramus because he wanted Caboose to form a case instead of just whining? Do you believe he was trying Fong's Gambit? Does it make sense as he had hinted at it and not answering questions is extremely obvious?

Only half way through rereading the day, but I have to go. Right now I'm leaning on Mizzy, CarnCarn, and/or thAdmiral as scum with Ort more likely town. Since I'm not done reading, I will not vote or put a case on any of the three I listed as leaning scum.

No, that is not why I kept my vote on Ramus; I had already explained why I kept my vote on him before. I don't believe he was trying a specific gambit, no, but I believe he was trying to pull

something

. Don't go into WIFOM.

So, you have 2 small entries on me, before you finished re-reading the whole thing, and yet you are learning towards me? That stinks to high hell of you setting me up for suspicion and a later vote in order to make said suspicion and later vote look valid.

That was obviously a joke, yet you take it as him being serious. Trying to make something scummy when it's not.

And you're not doing the exact same thing? It was very much a copout; it was giving as joke in lieu of content.

A) How was Ramus acting scummy and how is being emotional a reason to vote?
B) So you don't believe in his Fong Gambit
C)Why not just unvote? See below quote

I already had answered A before and have answered B above. As to your C, I was on LoA and didn't have time for a whole lot due to work and the holidays. Counterproductive? No, I don't think so.

Seems to me, you're the one waiting around lately. Did you come up with Ort waiting around on the word of CR?

Why did you ask this when it had already been addressed?

Ok, so it's not possible that Ort is the same way here? He couldn't have thought what he was accused of instead of just waiting for someone to make a case?

Doing it here and there is one thing but doing it a whole lot is another thing entirely.

Wrong. CR addressed this to no one in particular (I assumed to Ramus since it was Ramus's gambit) in a seperate post. When you "reminded" him, all you said was "waiting on an answer for 155." That reminder wasn't addressed to anyone so I thought it was addressed with who I thought it was originally addressed to (Ramus). I find it completely plausible Ort was not dodging questions (which you seem to subtly suggest as dodging questions).

It was in an entire post addressed to him specifically without any sort of note that said, "Oh, by the way, this is to everyone." Even if it was to everyone, it was still ALSO addressed to ortolan.

Ok, my opinions after rereading the entire thread is that I believe Mizzy is scum, ThAdmiral could be scum, and CR might be scum. I feel CR really went at Ort prematurely and tunneled in with bad logic, which is scummy (but I can see town doing it as well, so I am hesitant to say with too much certainty of his alignment). A CR lynch today might lead to some interesting information for D2, but I feel a Mizzy lynch would lead to more since I feel she is scum, thus:

Vote: Mizzy

I have to say that this is what really pissed me off. Never once did you actually have any real case point, you asked things that had already been addressed, and in general, defended ort for what I feel is no apparent reason. You had zero case, don't even bother waiting for me to respond to anything or waiting for my responses before voting, and then just go ahead and vote me? Shame on you! You're a better player than that.

[Battousai]

So you keep your vote on Ramus because he wanted Caboose to form a case instead of just whining? Do you believe he was trying Fong's Gambit? Does it make sense as he had hinted at it and not answering questions is extremely obvious?

Only half way through rereading the day, but I have to go. Right now I'm leaning on Mizzy, CarnCarn, and/or thAdmiral as scum with Ort more likely town. Since I'm not done reading, I will not vote or put a case on any of the three I listed as leaning scum.

No, that is not why I kept my vote on Ramus; I had already explained why I kept my vote on him before. I don't believe he was trying a specific gambit, no, but I believe he was trying to pull

something

. Don't go into WIFOM.

Well then could you please elaborate on the "Whateva, ah do whu' ah want!" remark? I thought that was in reference to Ramus getting angry at Caboose for whining instead of voting.

So, you have 2 small entries on me, before you finished re-reading the whole thing, and yet you are learning towards me? That stinks to high hell of you setting me up for suspicion and a later vote in order to make said suspicion and later vote look valid.

I found those two entries somewhat scummy. So how could I say I have no read on you when I have two things I found scummy? (rhetorical)

A) How was Ramus acting scummy and how is being emotional a reason to vote?
B) So you don't believe in his Fong Gambit
C)Why not just unvote? See below quote

I already had answered A before and have answered B above. As to your C, I was on LoA and didn't have time for a whole lot due to work and the holidays. Counterproductive? No, I don't think so.

Answer them again please, or give me a post number to where you explain how being emotional is a reason to vote. C) Where did you get counterproductive, I said contradiction. Also you said a vote on someone is better than a vote on no one. But later in the day you unvoted and didn't place another vote.

[quote="Mizzy]

Seems to me, you're the one waiting around lately. Did you come up with Ort waiting around on the word of CR?

Why did you ask this when it had already been addressed?[/quote]
The reason I asked is because it leads into my next quote.[/quote]

Ok, so it's not possible that Ort is the same way here? He couldn't have thought what he was accused of instead of just waiting for someone to make a case?

Doing it here and there is one thing but doing it a whole lot is another thing entirely.

You just made an accusation, as did CR, and didn't post where he took someone else's opinion and applied it as his own.

Wrong. CR addressed this to no one in particular (I assumed to Ramus since it was Ramus's gambit) in a seperate post. When you "reminded" him, all you said was "waiting on an answer for 155." That reminder wasn't addressed to anyone so I thought it was addressed with who I thought it was originally addressed to (Ramus). I find it completely plausible Ort was not dodging questions (which you seem to subtly suggest as dodging questions).

It was in an entire post addressed to him specifically without any sort of note that said, "Oh, by the way, this is to everyone." Even if it was to everyone, it was still ALSO addressed to ortolan.

Then why didn't you answer it?

I have to say that this is what really pissed me off. Never once did you actually have any real case point, you asked things that had already been addressed, and in general, defended ort for what I feel is no apparent reason. You had zero case, don't even bother waiting for me to respond to anything or waiting for my responses before voting, and then just go ahead and vote me? Shame on you! You're a better player than that.

Are you trying to get me to stop voting you by shaming me or something?

[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.

[Mizzy]

Well then could you please elaborate on the "Whateva, ah do whu' ah want!" remark? I thought that was in reference to Ramus getting angry at Caboose for whining instead of voting.

Had nothing to do with Caboose, no, it was about Ramus' attitude.

I found those two entries somewhat scummy. So how could I say I have no read on you when I have two things I found scummy? (rhetorical)

You didn't point them out as scummy is my point. You just mentioned them.

Answer them again please, or give me a post number to where you explain how being emotional is a reason to vote. C) Where did you get counterproductive, I said contradiction. Also you said a vote on someone is better than a vote on no one. But later in the day you unvoted and didn't place another vote.

I can't go back and re-read right now, sorry. You'll have to go look on your own.

I unvoted because Ramus dropped off my scumdar enough that I didn't feel right having a vote on him, but I didn't have time to look at where else to put it, and I was waiting to see some responses anyway before I really had a read on a few conversations going on at the time. So yes, I did unvote, but I was semi-LoA and didn't want to leave my vote somewhere bad in case something happened I wasn't fast enough to respond to.

You just made an accusation, as did CR, and didn't post where he took someone else's opinion and applied it as his own.

My point was that he posted in 138 and then later destructor asked him who else he was suspicious of, which I still can't find an answer to. Then he got into a tussle with CWR and the OMGUS fiasco, and then FoSes me and votes destructor in 163. No case. He just sat around, dodged questions, argued and then made shit votes/FoSes (possibly in an attempt to look productive.)

Then why didn't you answer it?

Because at first I didn't think it was addressed to everyone, and then I had no idea what Whoever-the-hell's Gambit was and I still don't. How can I answer when I don't know what it is and why should I answer when I think it's not relevant and a possible distraction? Plus, I was very strapped for time.

Are you trying to get me to stop voting you by shaming me or something?

Nope, I'm merely stating that, when I have played with you as town in the past, you were a much more thorough and well-thought-out player than you are here. Shame or no, it's my opinion, and it unsettles me that you voted me without getting ANY response from me whatsoever, at a time when you KNEW I was LoA and unable to defend myself. That smacks of scum.

[Axelrod]

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.

[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.

[Axelrod]

CR: I'm aware of your previous explanations. I wasn't actually asking you to go over them again. I was trying to point out the strawman nature of that question you kept demanding an answer to (over and over), and which you were acting like it proved something that no one was answering.

And none of those posts you quote are people accusing you of being scum simply because you didn't join a wagon. If they say anything about it at all, they at least explain

why

they thought your post was scummy.

[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.

[ThAdmiral]

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

Oh my god this is so wrong!
Firstly just because a person's lynch is "most likely" doesn't mean it is the best lynch.
Secondly it seems you are saying there is only one correct bandwagon for the day and anyone who goes against that is automatically scum. How about people having different opinions to your own? Or the fact that there is NOT a "correct play"?

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

perhaps because the attacks on him are unfounded? to an obvious degree?

No i did read your post, and it relies heavily on the assumption that ortolan, and (to a lesser extent) battuoasi are scumbuddies with clockwork. i.e. you found the entire scum team. (And now caboose, which somehow gives them a fourth member...)

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?

perhaps you should re-explain, because a few people are having trouble understanding where you are coming from, and who you think is scummy (and why).

I remember you did this in another game I played in (in which you were wrong) and I view it as a less grounded, and more dangerous, kind of tunneling, in that it forms assumptions based off other assumptions, and that it has everything "fit-the-model" (for example instead of someone building a case on someone else because he thinks he is scummy, he builds it against him because they are obviously scum-partners and he is trying to distance).

how the hell does me being wrong in another game entirely necessarily make me wrong here?

It shows a history of bad play/logic. Which is being continued in this game.

@ cwr: here's the link to the other game. I'm not sure how helpful it will be though, as it had an interesting game design where people only had one post at a time (i.e. you would edit over your last post). So you're basically only seeing the last thing rofl said.
To summarise though rofl thought a few people (although mainly me) were scum and used everything we did to further prove this point i.e. if we didn't vote each other we were protecting, if we did we were bussing etc.

[ClockworkRuse]

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

[Caboose]

which is a horrible overgeneralization

No, a horrible overgeneralization is that anyone who is not on the popular wagon is scum trying to save someone.

And @CR: I don't believe rofl is scum. In fact, from how he's playing so far, I'm pretty sure that rofl is town.

[roflcopter]

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.