Mini 696 ~ Scum o' the Sea ~ Game Over

[Goatrevolt]

I'm noting here that this is an exact parrot of what I have said on massclaim earlier, just with more words and presented differently.

Your point being? Must I present new and original reasons for opposing a mass claim?

But if it is decided that we should massclaim, I think Huntress and probably Goat should probably go high on that list.

FoS springlullaby

.

Assumption 1: You are opposing mass claim because you think it is anti-town to mass claim.

Assumption 2: You want the people you find the scummiest to claim first.

In other words, you think mass claiming is anti-town, thus the idea of opposing a mass claim would be pro-town. So why do you want the two people who agree with you that we should not mass claim to claim first? These are the two players who are supporting pro-town behavior based on your position.

I think you need to explain yourself here.

[Goatrevolt]

EBWOP:

Against Massclaim

[springlullaby]

To reply to your list of reasons:
1) Each question was asked for a reason - to get answers and/or reactions.

Yet you have not, it seems, inferred anything from any of your questions. Scum, especially newer one, often thinks it makes them looks good to ask a lot of questions to look busy. However their downfall is that often their questions read like text-book scumhunting, and do not articulate a discernible train of thought. You see, town more often than do not fire questions to everyone and tend to be more focused (IMO the only way to get shit done actually), scum however often think that it is good show to ask question to about everyone, like you did at the beginning of this game, so they can a)look coherent when they jump on a random wagon later on b)distance from their buddies.

2) What do you mean by "soft vote"?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 16#1362616

Vote on crywolf - 'althought you may switch later'? Tell me, why putting a vote at all only to say 'I may switch later'.

I'm going to answer in your stead shall I? I think you voted crywolf here because you knew she was wrong about Gremwell and his claim. And this is scummy because from my perspective I could have had the same doubts about that claim, and I think the only way you could have been sure crywolf was wrong, was if you are in the informed minority.

Now I'm going to point out Jebus' reaction to Gremwell's claim:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 03#1362603
Looks the same as yours minus the vote doesn't it?


3) I haven't actually given my reasons for my current suspicions, apart from a comment on the lynch, so I don't see how you can describe them as monolithic or cliche.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 16#1370416
The suspicion stated here is cliche crap, and monolithic.

You are suspecting three persons for the same reason and that's not real scumhunting. From a town's perspective it is at no time reasonable to suspect three persons for the same thing, because someone genuinely scumhunting will often assume that not all scum will act the same; but from a scum perspective, they often can't get past a superficial need to maintain coherence by treating people equally for the same act.

Furthermore, you reason for throwing suspicions on the three you cited is simply bullshit: feels like cliche assumption that town would never rush a lynch forcibly applied to an event while totally disregarding the circumstances of the approaching deadline.

And you know what these suspicions just sound a little too much like 'look at me, I wasn't on that myslynch' for me to like it.

4) Please explain this comment.

It says what it says, I think your contribution looks busy, but for all your posts your contribution is totally subpar: you haven't expressed one single strong and clear opinion or conviction about anything. I'll go as far as saying you have been pretty much looking in plain sight.

5) What did you find unclear about my stance on the mass-claim?

I find you 'oh hay, I'm newb so I'll go along with people's opinion' terribly wishy-washy.

You say you are against a mass-claim yet you complain that I offer nothing of my intuition of how mass claim may work out based on my own role PM. Were you hoping to deduce my role from what I said while keeping your own secret?

Are you missing the fact that I expressed a strong stance on why we shouldn't massclaim? The difference between you position and mine is that I do give insight on what should or not should be done, it is a piece of me; whereas all you have said on massclaim is 'huh, I dunno'.
And your question here is pretty scummy because it smells of the beginning of an OMGUS.

What do you make of the way day two ended?

What do you mean specifically? You mean the Gremwell lynch? Well, I think it is unfortunate that the lynch was to meet deadline, I am certainly to blame because I wasn't around enough to make more discussion happen. But I think it is unfair and unreal to reproach the three that have voted to meet the deadline them 'rushing the lynch', because a mislynch is better than no-lynch (except in special circumstance, generally later in a game). Which doesn't mean that they couldn't be scum.

I'll top this case with the following:

Vote: Springlullaby

This is my personal choice for the next wagon. This is more of a vibe I'm getting from him than actual evidence I can back up, though.

Just the next wagon? Or are you going for a lynch here? Apart from posts 207 and 222, almost all your posts suggest to me that you're just tagging along after targets picked by others.

This is one of the more definite suspicion you have expressed all day yesterday, but no actual vote.

With the confirmation of Jebus' alignment, I think it is bussing cum coaching.

Vote: Huntress

[springlullaby]

I'm noting here that this is an exact parrot of what I have said on massclaim earlier, just with more words and presented differently.

Your point being? Must I present new and original reasons for opposing a mass claim?

But if it is decided that we should massclaim, I think Huntress and probably Goat should probably go high on that list.

FoS springlullaby

.

Assumption 1: You are opposing mass claim because you think it is anti-town to mass claim.

Assumption 2: You want the people you find the scummiest to claim first.

In other words, you think mass claiming is anti-town, thus the idea of opposing a mass claim would be pro-town. So why do you want the two people who agree with you that we should not mass claim to claim first? These are the two players who are supporting pro-town behavior based on your position.

I think you need to explain yourself here.

Strawman, I'm not saying you are suspect for opposing massclaiming, I'm saying you repeating exactly was I said is scummy.

I expect town to have their own reasons, whether it is for or against massclaim.

On the other hand, scum often like to copy-cat town's opinion a) it is the safe thing to do because they fear expressing an opinion that outs them as having a different perspective than town b)in the event the town person is cardflipped, the copy-catting scum can claim associative town-ess ('look, I said the same thing as X, and X was town!').

And you know what, I think your reaction and superficial logic is pretty telling here.

[springlullaby]

BTW, bold within Huntress' quote in my #277 are mine

[Huntress]

To reply to your list of reasons:
1) Each question was asked for a reason - to get answers and/or reactions.

Yet you have not, it seems, inferred anything from any of your questions. Scum, especially newer one, often thinks it makes them looks good to ask a lot of questions to look busy. However their downfall is that often their questions read like text-book scumhunting, and do not articulate a discernible train of thought. You see, town more often than do not fire questions to everyone and tend to be more focused (IMO the only way to get shit done actually), scum however often think that it is good show to ask question to about everyone, like you did at the beginning of this game, so they can a)look coherent when they jump on a random wagon later on b)distance from their buddies.

a) You make an assumption that I have inferred nothing from the answers. This is not true.
b) The questions did not show a discernible train of thought because they were separate questions, addressed to different players, for different reasons. The reason I asked you about your top suspects was because I couldn't find much about them in your posts.
c) This is not the first time I have asked questions like this on replacing into a game. See NB606.

2) What do you mean by "soft vote"?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 16#1362616

Vote on crywolf - 'althought you may switch later'? Tell me, why putting a vote at all only to say 'I may switch later'.

I'm going to answer in your stead shall I? I think you voted crywolf here because you knew she was wrong about Gremwell and his claim. And this is scummy because from my perspective I could have had the same doubts about that claim, and I think the only way you could have been sure crywolf was wrong, was if you are in the informed minority.

Now I'm going to point out Jebus' reaction to Gremwell's claim:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 03#1362603
Looks the same as yours minus the vote doesn't it?

a) You have quoted me out of context here. I was not just saying that I might change the vote later; I was indicating who I would be willing to change it to if we came too close to the deadline without a consensus.
b) This "answer" you suggest here looks like another attempt at role-fishing on your part.

3) I haven't actually given my reasons for my current suspicions, apart from a comment on the lynch, so I don't see how you can describe them as monolithic or cliche.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 16#1370416
The suspicion stated here is cliche crap, and monolithic.

You are suspecting three persons for the same reason and that's not real scumhunting. From a town's perspective it is at no time reasonable to suspect three persons for the same thing, because someone genuinely scumhunting will often assume that not all scum will act the same; but from a scum perspective, they often can't get past a superficial need to maintain coherence by treating people equally for the same act.

Furthermore, you reason for throwing suspicions on the three you cited is simply bullshit: feels like cliche assumption that town would never rush a lynch forcibly applied to an event while totally disregarding the circumstances of the approaching deadline.

And you know what these suspicions just sound a little too much like 'look at me, I wasn't on that myslynch' for me to like it.

Of course that's not scumhuntiing! I said myself it was just a comment so why the diatribe about not being real scumhunting? And I know perfectly well that it's extremely unlikely that all three are scum but I'm pretty certain at least one of them, possibly two, is/are and until I know which I'm going to be suspicious of them all.

4) Please explain this comment.

It says what it says, I think your contribution looks busy, but for all your posts your contribution is totally subpar: you haven't expressed one single strong and clear opinion or conviction about anything. I'll go as far as saying you have been pretty much looking in plain sight.

You're welcome to your opinion .

5) What did you find unclear about my stance on the mass-claim?

I find you 'oh hay, I'm newb so I'll go along with people's opinion' terribly wishy-washy.

This is the first time I've been involved in a discussion about a mass claim and I'm not ashamed to admit I wasn't sure of the best thing to do. Since then I've come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea, as mentioned in my last post.

You say you are against a mass-claim yet you complain that I offer nothing of my intuition of how mass claim may work out based on my own role PM. Were you hoping to deduce my role from what I said while keeping your own secret?

Are you missing the fact that I expressed a strong stance on why we shouldn't massclaim? The difference between you position and mine is that I do give insight on what should or not should be done, it is a piece of me; whereas all you have said on massclaim is 'huh, I dunno'.
And your question here is pretty scummy because it smells of the beginning of an OMGUS.

No, I didn't miss that fact, but it wasn't relevant to my question. Why did you say I should base my decision on my own role PM rather than on what is better for the whole town?

What do you make of the way day two ended?

What do you mean specifically? You mean the Gremwell lynch? Well, I think it is unfortunate that the lynch was to meet deadline, I am certainly to blame because I wasn't around enough to make more discussion happen. But I think it is unfair and unreal to reproach the three that have voted to meet the deadline them 'rushing the lynch', because a mislynch is better than no-lynch (except in special circumstance, generally later in a game). Which doesn't mean that they couldn't be scum.

Except that the deadline wasn't due till the next day. So why not give more players a chance to react to Gremwell's claim and the responses to it? Goatrevolt had said said he was reconsidering and others may have too if given the chance. It was only two hours and 16 minutes after the claim that Clockwork hammered. Despite what he said in his hammer post the risk of a no-lynch wasn't that immediate.

I'll top this case with the following:

Vote: Springlullaby

This is my personal choice for the next wagon. This is more of a vibe I'm getting from him than actual evidence I can back up, though.

Just the next wagon? Or are you going for a lynch here? Apart from posts 207 and 222, almost all your posts suggest to me that you're just tagging along after targets picked by others.

This is one of the more definite suspicion you have expressed all day yesterday, but no actual vote.

With the confirmation of Jebus' alignment, I think it is bussing cum coaching.

Why would I vote for Jebus when I said, in the same post, that Clockwork was my top suspect? And what do you mean by "one of the more definite suspicion you have expressed all day yesterday"? I wasn't here all day! In fact that post, the second of the two I made with my questions after replacing in and doing an initial read, was less than ten hours before the hammer ended the day.

To summarise: I think you are reaching a lot here. You are making assumptions then basing your case on those assumptions rather than the facts and throwing in a lot of theory to hide the absence of actual evidence. You accuse me of not having strong opinions or convictions and yet up to now you have had very few yourself, despite the fact you've been here the whole game. Your attack on me almost looks as if you thought you'd found an easy target. I assure you that you haven't!

[Erratus Apathos]

I

support massclaim

and prefer Goatrevolt goes first.

Huntress restarted the wagon on crywolf with two days until deadline, and says she thought she thought she could have achieved a crywolf lynch. But when I pushed the idea that Jebus's vote on springlullaby was probably not a distancing attempt, Huntress countered by calling Jebus's vote not threatening. Jebus was the second vote for springlullaby, and cast it before her vote on crywolf - so if Huntress thought a crywolf lynch was plausible, why did she decry my position on springlullaby on the basis of a springlullaby lynch not being plausible?

FoS: Huntress

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

[Ythill]

The Tally

1 ~ Goatrevolt (Erratus Apathos)
1 ~ Huntress (springlullaby)

Not voting: Goatrevolt, Huntress, RandomGem, ClockworkRuse, crywolf20084, militant

D3 Prods: Huntress (1); springlullaby (1)
Automatic Deadline: Monday, December 15 at 18:00 MST (GMT -7).

[springlullaby]

I

support massclaim

and prefer Goatrevolt goes first.

Huntress restarted the wagon on crywolf with two days until deadline, and says she thought she thought she could have achieved a crywolf lynch. But when I pushed the idea that Jebus's vote on springlullaby was probably not a distancing attempt, Huntress countered by calling Jebus's vote not threatening. Jebus was the second vote for springlullaby, and cast it before her vote on crywolf - so if Huntress thought a crywolf lynch was plausible, why did she decry my position on springlullaby on the basis of a springlullaby lynch not being plausible?

FoS: Huntress

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

EA, can you expose your full case on Goatrevolt please? Your confirm vote here strikes me as peculiar.


I see the post, I'll answer to Huntress later.

[Goatrevolt]

Strawman, I'm not saying you are suspect for opposing massclaiming, I'm saying you repeating exactly was I said is scummy.

I expect town to have their own reasons, whether it is for or against massclaim.

This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Let me ask you a question, do you expect town to come up with new and original reasons for voting every time they do? Even if someone has a really good reason to vote, if you can't think of a different valid reason, you best be looking for another suspect! I can't think of any reasons besides those two for opposing a mass claim. I'm not going to bother to try, because it's pointless, and unnecessary. Your logic makes it such that you are the only person who is not scummy in opposing a mass claim, so long as you are the first person to oppose it and come up with the main reasons to do so. Anyone else unable to find new ideas must therefore take a different stance or risk being scummy!

Also, based on your logic, can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be voting you for post 195?

Finally, why are you not also suspicious of every player besides the first who supported the mass claim idea? They are all playing copycat to the player that suggested it in the first place.

On the other hand, scum often like to copy-cat town's opinion a) it is the safe thing to do because they fear expressing an opinion that outs them as having a different perspective than town b)in the event the town person is cardflipped, the copy-catting scum can claim associative town-ess ('look, I said the same thing as X, and X was town!').

This logic is flawed in so many ways.

1. Your assumption is that you're town. That's all well and good from your perspective, but I have no such information.

2. Your letter a) above is entirely wrong, because I'm currently supporting the minority opinion and made my post against mass claiming directly after a series of posts in favor of it. However, I'm going to again note that you have suggested that your perspective is the "town perspective." I'm going to again ask why you are trying to pressure people who are taking the "town perspective" rather than pursue those taking the opposite opinion?

3. Very rarely do people argue your b), nor do I see why anyone would be convinced by such arguments.

And you know what, I think your reaction and superficial logic is pretty telling here.

What was "telling" about my reaction? And you're the one using fishy logic here, not me.

I find your attack suspicious because it suggests insincerity in your beliefs. If you truly believed mass claiming was anti-town, then you would be pursuing the people pushing a mass claim for pushing something anti-town. Instead, you have taken to attacking the two people who agree with your opinion. Your reasoning for doing so is that they are trying to "copy-cat town opinion" when in reality the majority of the town is in favor of mass claiming. You're just paranoid about people copy-catting your own opinion.

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

Nice strawman. I've given reasons why springlullaby's logic is poor.

I never said or suggested that Huntress or myself deserve free passes for opposing massclaim, which is where you strawman me. I think the fact that Springlullaby's only source of suspicion on me is the fact that I agreed with her stance is an extraordinarily weak case to push, especially if you look at her own post 195 in respect to me. I'm also suspicious of the mindset of a player who is pushing for the people who agree with her rather than the people who disagree with her. That speaks of lack of conviction in her beliefs.

[Erratus Apathos]

EA, can you expose your full case on Goatrevolt please? Your confirm vote here strikes me as peculiar.

The main point I have against Goatrevolt is that he cast suspicion on me D2 for my vote on Gremwell, but when I challenged on this point today, he took the path of least resistance.

I don't buy the way Goatrevolt attacked me for voting Gremwell. Feels like he was trying to set me up.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I found your vote suspicious, and said that I would review you. I ended up not getting around to it immediately, and the lynch happened in the meantime. I read through your posts anyway, and didn't really find anything conclusive either way. Nothing strong enough to want to lynch you over, at least.

Notice the wording of that last sentence: it implies he found something against me, but not convincingly so. Yet rather than question me about it or come out with it at all or even talk about why he found my vote suspicious in the first place, he just said he didn't want to lynch me. He's trying to avoid a fight with me.

I also think his recent attacks on springlullaby are full of scum logic. More on this further down.

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

Nice strawman. I've given reasons why springlullaby's logic is poor.

I never said or suggested that Huntress or myself deserve free passes for opposing massclaim, which is where you strawman me. I think the fact that Springlullaby's only source of suspicion on me is the fact that I agreed with her stance is an extraordinarily weak case to push, especially if you look at her own post 195 in respect to me. I'm also suspicious of the mindset of a player who is pushing for the people who agree with her rather than the people who disagree with her. That speaks of lack of conviction in her beliefs.

I'm not letting you back out of what you said. Quoting your 275:

In other words, you think mass claiming is anti-town, thus the idea of opposing a mass claim would be pro-town. So why do you want the two people who agree with you that we should not mass claim to claim first? These are the two players who are supporting pro-town behavior based on your position.

The implication you're making here is,

beyond all reasonable doubt

, that springlullaby should only be suspicious of people who support massclaim.

The rest of your post is also scummy. You attack springlullaby for pushing "an extraordinarily weak case" but then turn around and attack her for a "lack of conviction in her beliefs". So you expect a townie pushing an extraordinarily weak case to have more conviction than normal? Yeah right, you're just pushing a shit case.

[Goatrevolt]

The main point I have against Goatrevolt is that he cast suspicion on me D2 for my vote on Gremwell, but when I challenged on this point today, he took the path of least resistance.

Would you rather I lied and said I wanted to lynch you? I thought your vote was scummy because it was purely a deadline lynch with 2 days to go. You gave no opinion on Gremwell at all, and merely voted him to make a lynch. I reviewed your play and decided that was not enough to want to lynch you over.

Notice the wording of that last sentence: it implies he found something against me, but not convincingly so. Yet rather than question me about it or come out with it at all or even talk about why he found my vote suspicious in the first place, he just said he didn't want to lynch me. He's trying to avoid a fight with me.

I didn't find anything against you other than finding your vote suspicious. I didn't find anything pro-town about your play either. Other than your attack on me today, you've done very little all game, and I find you a tough player to read as is. I thought you were town in Pick a player until process of elimination + roleclaim nailed you. I'm not trying to avoid a fight with you, I simply have nothing to fight about.

Your case is that I'm scummy for not finding you scummy enough to pressure, which is ridiculous.

The implication you're making here is,

beyond all reasonable doubt

, that springlullaby should only be suspicious of people who support massclaim.

Wrong. More strawman. Springlullaby can be suspicious of people who support mass claim, but needs to have a better reason then "they agreed with me." I also want to know her stance on people who support mass claim. Do you not find it suspicious that springlullaby is opposed to mass claim, but she wants the two people who agree with her to go first? If she truly was firm in her opinion that mass claiming is anti-town, then why is she basing her suspicion on me strictly off of me following what is, in her opinion, a pro-town plan. The "copy-cat" explanation is pure nonsense. Players copy-cat constantly. Hell, she voted Gremwell based on nothing more than my case on day 2. That's just as much if not more copy-catting than what she's accusing me of.

I'm entirely justified in finding this suspicious and pushing for more information from this. What specifically about me copy-catting her makes her suspicious while she ignores every other time it happens during the game? These are questions it's worth getting the answer to.

The rest of your post is also scummy. You attack springlullaby for pushing "an extraordinarily weak case" but then turn around and attack her for a "lack of conviction in her beliefs". So you expect a townie pushing an extraordinarily weak case to have more conviction than normal? Yeah right, you're just pushing a shit case.

This is crap logic. The extraordinarily weak case applies to her attack on me. Lack of conviction in her beliefs applies to the mindset behind why she would attack me regarding the mass claim issue. Weak case = push on me. Lack of conviction = mass claim. Those are two completely separate things. Attempting to tie them together to paint me as scummy is just bad logic. Lack of conviction in her beliefs

regarding mass claim

is my best guess as to why she would push a case on me, which was weak. Do you see how one precedes the other, and how you can't pair these together like you've tried?

The 2nd part of your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Your assumption is that Springlullaby knew she was making a weak case on me, and thus didn't have much conviction in it. Why would springlullaby push a case she knows is exceptionally weak? The answer is that she wouldn't (unless she is scum). So the logical assumption is that springlullaby didn't think her case was weak. The "exceptionally weak" part is my words describing the logical backing to her case. Your paragraph rips that out of context and uses it as her own mindset when constructing it. Logic fail.

---------------------------

I'm not sure what to think about your push on me. I think you had a reasonable original point (about me "setting you up." I can see how you could jump to that conclusion), but your attempts to bolster your case with bad logic and strawman arguments raises an eyebrow.

---------------------------

Finally, I will stress one more time how bad of an idea I think mass claim is. Anyone in favor needs to look at my (or springlullaby's ) reasons for opposing it and explain exactly why you think those reasons are lacking. Furthermore, I'll mention that my opposition to mass claim is also based on my own role PM in addition to the points laid out.

[Huntress]

Huntress restarted the wagon on crywolf with two days until deadline, and says she thought she thought she could have achieved a crywolf lynch. But when I pushed the idea that Jebus's vote on springlullaby was probably not a distancing attempt, Huntress countered by calling Jebus's vote not threatening. Jebus was the second vote for springlullaby, and cast it before her vote on crywolf - so if Huntress thought a crywolf lynch was plausible, why did she decry my position on springlullaby on the basis of a springlullaby lynch not being plausible?

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time. Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger, which she wasn't when he switched. Before Jebus jumped, there were four votes on Gremwell (L-2) and you put it back to four before Gremwell put Springlullaby on three. I'm guessing that Jebus wanted to avoid being on the lynch but was too cautious to vote for someone not already on the list in case he got attacked for it.

As to why he chose SL, which you asked in 250 and I missed answering, I don't know. Maybe it was the other way round? Maybe one or both of the other two are his buddies and she isn't? I'm finding all three suspicious for various reasons so it could be either way.



A brief overview of my suspects:

ClockworkRuse: His posts about the day one bandwagon on militant gave me an odd vibe and there are signs of possible distancing from Jebus. I found his day two hammer very scummy. Then in post 253 he tries to dismiss the discussion of the lynch and diverts it by raising the idea of a mass claim. He is my top suspect at the moment.

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Crywolf: For her reaction to Gremwell's claim and her active lurking. Looking at her posts in isolation, there's almost nothing there; a point which she admits herself on a couple of occasions, and has ignored comments made to or about her in the thread.

@ Crywolf: Where do your suspicions lie at the moment?

Erratus Apathos: For the vote on Gremwell despite having no suspicion of him and for the attacks on Goatrevolt which seem to be reaching a lot.

Springlullaby: Not quite sure about her yet. I'm waiting for her responses before saying any more here but for current thoughts see the last paragraph of post 280.


I'm also wondering whether Crywolf and Springlullaby were partly to blame for Mitey-Mouse getting mod-killed in that they were encouraging her to push the boundaries of her post restriction.

[ClockworkRuse]

Huntress restarted the wagon on crywolf with two days until deadline, and says she thought she thought she could have achieved a crywolf lynch. But when I pushed the idea that Jebus's vote on springlullaby was probably not a distancing attempt, Huntress countered by calling Jebus's vote not threatening. Jebus was the second vote for springlullaby, and cast it before her vote on crywolf - so if Huntress thought a crywolf lynch was plausible, why did she decry my position on springlullaby on the basis of a springlullaby lynch not being plausible?

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time. Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger, which she wasn't when he switched. Before Jebus jumped, there were four votes on Gremwell (L-2) and you put it back to four before Gremwell put Springlullaby on three. I'm guessing that Jebus wanted to avoid being on the lynch but was too cautious to vote for someone not already on the list in case he got attacked for it.

As to why he chose SL, which you asked in 250 and I missed answering, I don't know. Maybe it was the other way round? Maybe one or both of the other two are his buddies and she isn't? I'm finding all three suspicious for various reasons so it could be either way.



A brief overview of my suspects:

ClockworkRuse: His posts about the day one bandwagon on militant gave me an odd vibe and there are signs of possible distancing from Jebus. I found his day two hammer very scummy. Then in post 253 he tries to dismiss the discussion of the lynch and diverts it by raising the idea of a mass claim. He is my top suspect at the moment.

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Crywolf: For her reaction to Gremwell's claim and her active lurking. Looking at her posts in isolation, there's almost nothing there; a point which she admits herself on a couple of occasions, and has ignored comments made to or about her in the thread.

@ Crywolf: Where do your suspicions lie at the moment?

Erratus Apathos: For the vote on Gremwell despite having no suspicion of him and for the attacks on Goatrevolt which seem to be reaching a lot.

Springlullaby: Not quite sure about her yet. I'm waiting for her responses before saying any more here but for current thoughts see the last paragraph of post 280.


I'm also wondering whether Crywolf and Springlullaby were partly to blame for Mitey-Mouse getting mod-killed in that they were encouraging her to push the boundaries of her post restriction.

When/if we mass claim, then you'll understand.

Either way, I have to claim today.

[Erratus Apathos]

The main point I have against Goatrevolt is that he cast suspicion on me D2 for my vote on Gremwell, but when I challenged on this point today, he took the path of least resistance.

Would you rather I lied and said I wanted to lynch you? I thought your vote was scummy because it was purely a deadline lynch with 2 days to go. You gave no opinion on Gremwell at all, and merely voted him to make a lynch. I reviewed your play and decided that was not enough to want to lynch you over.

You say that like your only options were to push for my lynch or drop it altogether.

Notice the wording of that last sentence: it implies he found something against me, but not convincingly so. Yet rather than question me about it or come out with it at all or even talk about why he found my vote suspicious in the first place, he just said he didn't want to lynch me. He's trying to avoid a fight with me.

I didn't find anything against you other than finding your vote suspicious. I didn't find anything pro-town about your play either. Other than your attack on me today, you've done very little all game, and I find you a tough player to read as is. I thought you were town in Pick a player until process of elimination + roleclaim nailed you. I'm not trying to avoid a fight with you, I simply have nothing to fight about.

Your case is that I'm scummy for not finding you scummy enough to pressure, which is ridiculous.

So you saw something suspicious about me, looked back and found me hard to read, and then decided it would be best to just drop the subject? That's 200% preposterous. How do you expect to get a read on me by dropping the subject?

And no, it isn't ridiculous. A townie who has a hard time reading me would absolutely want to hear more about my vote.

The implication you're making here is,

beyond all reasonable doubt

, that springlullaby should only be suspicious of people who support massclaim.

Wrong. More strawman. Springlullaby can be suspicious of people who support mass claim, but needs to have a better reason then "they agreed with me." I also want to know her stance on people who support mass claim. Do you not find it suspicious that springlullaby is opposed to mass claim, but she wants the two people who agree with her to go first? If she truly was firm in her opinion that mass claiming is anti-town, then why is she basing her suspicion on me strictly off of me following what is, in her opinion, a pro-town plan. The "copy-cat" explanation is pure nonsense. Players copy-cat constantly. Hell, she voted Gremwell based on nothing more than my case on day 2. That's just as much if not more copy-catting than what she's accusing me of.

I'm entirely justified in finding this suspicious and pushing for more information from this. What specifically about me copy-catting her makes her suspicious while she ignores every other time it happens during the game? These are questions it's worth getting the answer to.

That's a lot of important details about your suspicion on springlullaby that you conveniently left out of 275. Not the kind you'd accidentally omit, unless you regularly forget half your case.

The rest of your post is also scummy. You attack springlullaby for pushing "an extraordinarily weak case" but then turn around and attack her for a "lack of conviction in her beliefs". So you expect a townie pushing an extraordinarily weak case to have more conviction than normal? Yeah right, you're just pushing a shit case.

This is crap logic. The extraordinarily weak case applies to her attack on me. Lack of conviction in her beliefs applies to the mindset behind why she would attack me regarding the mass claim issue. Weak case = push on me. Lack of conviction = mass claim. Those are two completely separate things. Attempting to tie them together to paint me as scummy is just bad logic. Lack of conviction in her beliefs

regarding mass claim

is my best guess as to why she would push a case on me, which was weak. Do you see how one precedes the other, and how you can't pair these together like you've tried?

Fair enough.

The 2nd part of your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Your assumption is that Springlullaby knew she was making a weak case on me, and thus didn't have much conviction in it. Why would springlullaby push a case she knows is exceptionally weak? The answer is that she wouldn't (unless she is scum). So the logical assumption is that springlullaby didn't think her case was weak. The "exceptionally weak" part is my words describing the logical backing to her case. Your paragraph rips that out of context and uses it as her own mindset when constructing it. Logic fail.

Wrong. Weak case != crap case. She can think her case isn't all that strong but still find it has enough merit to bring up. I do believe that that's what happened here: she only pushed the copycat thing to the extent of saying you were her second choice for first-to-claim, but in 278 she said your reaction to it was telling.

I'm not sure what to think about your push on me. I think you had a reasonable original point (about me "setting you up." I can see how you could jump to that conclusion), but your attempts to bolster your case with bad logic and strawman arguments raises an eyebrow.

"Raises an eyebrow"?

[Erratus Apathos]

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time.

Both of us were trying to start crywolf wagons, you after me, thus you restarted. Is there even a point to this question or are you just looking for something to nitpick?

Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger

...and the difference is what exactly?

[Goatrevolt]

You say that like your only options were to push for my lynch or drop it altogether.

No, those weren't my only options, but if I'm not interested in pursuing you to lynch, then I'm going to focus my time on people I do want to see lynched.

So you saw something suspicious about me, looked back and found me hard to read, and then decided it would be best to just drop the subject? That's 200% preposterous. How do you expect to get a read on me by dropping the subject?

Do you have a read on everyone in the game? If there is anyone you are unsure on, could you pressure them with questions right now? Not pressing information from people you are unsure on is scummy.

There are many ways to get a read on you. One such is to simply wait and see how you play things out. If you continue to play under the radar, then eventually I'd want to lynch you for just that, but not on day 2.

All in all, you're stretching quite a bit here. Your entire case is built around the premise that despite me not wanting to lynch you, I should have been pressuring you anyway. Or that I backed down because I was scared of getting in a fight with you. You've played with me as both town and scum, when have you seen me afraid to confront someone?

That's a lot of important details about your suspicion on springlullaby that you conveniently left out of 275. Not the kind you'd accidentally omit, unless you regularly forget half your case.

I brought that up in 275, springlullaby answered that post, and then I've posted the rest in relation to the answer she gave. You're accusing me of omitting something that hadn't even occurred yet...

"Raises an eyebrow"?

Certainly. You've strawmanned me every step along the road, and are trying to stretch minor points (me not pressuring you even though I didn't want to lynch you) into something big to justify your vote. I wasn't suspicious of you attacking me originally, but I am definitely suspicious of you trying to stretch your case into something more than it actually is.

[Goatrevolt]

Finally, I will stress one more time how bad of an idea I think mass claim is. Anyone in favor needs to look at my (or springlullaby's ) reasons for opposing it and explain exactly why you think those reasons are lacking. Furthermore, I'll mention that my opposition to mass claim is also based on my own role PM in addition to the points laid out.

I want everyone whose name isn't Huntress or springlullaby to respond to this. If you're going to support mass claim, I want to see you refute the reasons why we shouldn't.

2/3 of this game is saying nothing right now. You can start contributing by addressing this.

[Ythill]

RandomGem, militant, and crywolf20084 have been prodded.

The Tally

1 ~ Goatrevolt (Erratus Apathos)
1 ~ Huntress (springlullaby)
1 ~ ClockworkRuse (Huntress)

Not voting: Goatrevolt, RandomGem, ClockworkRuse, crywolf20084, militant

D3 Prods: Huntress (1); springlullaby (1); militant (1); crywolf20084 (1); RandomGem (1).
Automatic Deadline: Monday, December 15 at 18:00 MST (GMT -7).

[militant]

I will re read and post when I return from my piano class. Sorry for my inactivity.

[crywolf20084]

Prod received. Re-read most likely today after I get sick of working on my English paper for my exam.

[Huntress]

Either way, I have to claim today.

* Is curious *

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time.

Both of us were trying to start crywolf wagons, you after me, thus you restarted. Is there even a point to this question or are you just looking for something to nitpick?

Ah. I thought you were implying that I was trying to resurrect a wagon that had previously been built, discussed and discarded. IMO a single vote doesn't equal a wagon.

Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger

...and the difference is what exactly?

The difference is that a Springlullaby lynch

was

plausible, but a second vote didn't put her in immediate danger when six votes were needed to lynch.

[ClockworkRuse]

Either way, I have to claim today.

* Is curious *

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time.

Both of us were trying to start crywolf wagons, you after me, thus you restarted. Is there even a point to this question or are you just looking for something to nitpick?

Ah. I thought you were implying that I was trying to resurrect a wagon that had previously been built, discussed and discarded. IMO a single vote doesn't equal a wagon.

Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger

...and the difference is what exactly?

The difference is that a Springlullaby lynch

was

plausible, but a second vote didn't put her in immediate danger when six votes were needed to lynch.

You'll see after everyone votes for claiming.

[Ythill]

Pirate Fact

A fair number of pirates were women, many of whom dressed as men during their careers. The most famous female pirates were Anne Bonny and Mary Reid, who sailed with the infamous Calico Jack. They were the only two fighters who put up resistance when the ship was finally captured by authorities, because the male crewmembers were too drunk to fight. Bonny and Reid were also the only two who escaped execution after the entire crew was convicted of piracy. They did so by "pleading their bellies" - both were pregnant.

[Erratus Apathos]

Why are we planning on mass claiming? I don't think it's a very good idea.

1. We haven't outed any power roles yet. Mass claiming will be sure to do that for us.

And then the doc knows who to protect. I'm willing to bet there's a doc, given last night's kill.

2. The flavor is obscured enough that we won't be able to catch anyone on flavor. Crywolf tried to call Gremwell out as lying about his vanilla claim based on flavor, and was wrong. What's to say mass claiming won't just cause us to mislynch a couple vanilla townies based on the idea that their vanilla flavor is wrong?

The point of massclaiming is to confirm town/scum based on role actions. I don't remember anyone supporting massclaim for flavor lynching.