Newbie 694 (over)

[ClockworkRuse]

It was scummy because there was still alot of time left before deadline.

That's not a reason. You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

It can be a reason. The amount of time it took you to hammer really killed discussion.

Killing discussion is scummy.

[Xtoxm]

I think i'm suspicious of enough of CR to

Vote CR

.

[ClockworkRuse]

I think i'm suspicious of enough of CR to

Vote CR

.

HoS

I'm sick of repeating myself. How does the night kill suit me? You've dodged the question each time I've asked it. You've provided absolutely no reasoning behind your suspicions, so now I can't defend myself.

What about me is scummy to you?

[ClockworkRuse]

That's not a reason. You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

Any extra discussion time is good for us. I think you may have assumed too much in thinking the lynch was decided. Dipstick could have put forth better analysis on other players, analysis that, now, we may have missed out on.[/quote]


That is a lot more clear, thank you.

So you are suggesting I'm scum buddies with West, correct?

Well about those posts in question;

Well, its VERY believable how my predecessors could be on ANYONES scumdar...

For some reason, these people made me suspicious:
infamous (Also wanted day phase to end quickly... "Are we ever gonna lynch someone?" though, could also want the game to go quicker, like everyone else... )
Xtoxm (Seemed to want the day phase to end quickly, meaning that they could be Mafia (so they could kill at night). Though, everyone wants the game to go quicker... Not really suspicous about them ANYMORE...)

Though, I havnt been able to find ANYTHING good on anyone, because not enough discussion has been going on... (or, alot of people in this game is good at keeping clues AWAY from everyone)

So, im not gonna lynch til Westbrook says something...]/b]

So, Im suspicious of Westbrook (only because of their predecessor though) and, I dont feel like lynching until they post... but if they dont post soon, or if they dont post anything that gives me great proof I shouldnt lynch, then ill lynch...

What about Westbrook made you think they were scum?

Dipstick said that he was suspicious of Westbrook but didn't say why. I was already suspicious of Dipstick and this post only added to it. Look how he says that he really isn't suspicious of Xtoxm or West in the upper portion of the post. Then he goes on to say that he would be okay with lynching West based on those suspicions. That deserves to be questioned.

And, the reason their predecessor made me think they were scummy was that they seemed to want to get through the day phase quickly...
Really, thats ALL I can get from these 14 pages...

There has to be more than that. A lot of us have been pushing the day a little quickly, as you noted.

Is there anything context wise that makes you think they are scum?

I don't really see how this is defending. This is more pushing Dipstick to actually make a case or provide more reasons for finding West scummy.

I'm not going to quote 336 in it's entirity because of it's length. The question I asked Dipstick in that post was "re you saying that you don't have any suspicions so you are concentrating on who the town is suspicious of?" Which is still scum hunting more than defending.

I also ask Westbrook; Can you sum up what about his odd logic strikes you the most? Which he answerered;

"Well basically it's just his blatant bandwagoning with weak cases. He doesn't really come on strong with cases and focuses solely on one person (me). He just doesn't seem open minded. Maybe this is just his playing style, or based on in-experience, I'm not sure."

Which is realitively true of Dipstick, most of us thought Dipstick acting scummy yesterday for these reasons as well. I don't really see Westbrook as scummy which only strengthens my thought that Inf was just very new to the game/our VI.

[GIEFF]

Post 407:

Clock - Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

Post 411:

Also Xtoxm, can you detail why you are starting to suspect CR more? Just telling us you suspect him doesn't help the town at all, but listing reasons why you suspect him that CR can respond to is much more helpful.

Post 416:

How does the night kill suit me, Xtoxm?

Post 419:

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

Post 423:

I'll ask for a third time:

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

Post 427:

And Xtoxm, I'm still waiting for an answer. What about the kill "suits me?"

Post 431:

Xtoxm still hasn't told us his reasoning, even after repeated questioning. How would that NK benefit ClockworkRuse?

Post 452:

HoS

I'm sick of repeating myself. How does the night kill suit me?

This is ridiculous, Xtoxm. This shouldn't be like pulling teeth. Your refusal to answer a simple question ("WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHT-KILL SUITS CR?")is not only extremely scummy, but very distracting to the town as CR and I have had to ask the question eight times over the last fifty posts, when it should have been answered a long time ago.

[GIEFF]

I apologize if the quote-layering gets confusing, but I think it's the best way to respond to hambargaz.

I'll be addressing GIEFF's points on me in multiple posts, as I only have time in short bursts

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

This was my point I was making, he only gave a reason for me being scummy, AFTER he looked back with an "interest" in me. My point was, why wasn't there any points brought up on me to warrant that original reread with a bias on me. My point is that he DIDN'T have anything scummy on me prior to him rereading with that bias on me. My point is he reread with an intent of finding some dirt on me in particular with when he had no suspicions to justify it.

If Xtoxm ever does provide his reasoning, it will only be AFTER he said he found something scummy about CR, was asked eight times about it, and then voted CR, still without explaining his reasoning. To me, this situation seems similar to the situation with militant.

Militant said he found something scummy that you did, but when pressed, couldn't name it. Xtoxm has said the nightkill suits CR (obviously due to something he saw in Day 1), but when pressed, cannot name it.

And if you truly are suspicious of Xtoxm, instead of just saying

I echo GIEFF's comments on Xtoxm and insanepenguin.

(as you did in post 392), why not explain which thoughts of mine you echo? All of them? Which do you echo most strongly? Why? Why not? When reading back after a lynch, it isn't all that helpful to just see "I agree," but it is helpful to see

why

you agreed. And if you agree, where is your FOS? Where is your IGMEOY? Where is your attempt to press Xtoxm to answer the questions being asked of him? Where is your attempt to scumhunt?

All I see is an attempt to put attention on CR. I think your point about CR is a good one, but not when you completely abandon focus on someone you claimed to find suspicious. Especially with the irony of you doing to Xtoxm the very thing you are claiming CR of doing to Westbrook, i.e. ignoring/deflecting attacks against that poster.

You may have said that you agree Xtoxm is suspicious, but nothing else you have done has shown me that this is true.

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Are you asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour with examples? I don't think townies should defend anyone but themselves. I'll leave it to Xtoxm to defend himself against the points put against him. All I'm saying is my opinion. My interpretations of Xtoxm's posts is that they are concise but contain decisive action. I hate when people post pages and pages of content with lots of wishy washy positions and thought processes. It makes rereading harder and in turn is anti town.

I am not asking you to defend Xtoxm's behavior, I am asking you to defend your claim that his posts have been succinct and decisive. It is suspicious that you immediately assume I asked you to defend Xtoxm, when I clearly was not. This reminds me of your overly defensive response in post 208, where you leaped to unwarranted conclusions.


Also, in the above quote, you say you hate pages and pages of content with lots of thought processes, but that contradicts what you said back in post 141:

Longer discussion is always helpful. In addition to providing reads on everyone, it also leaves a posting history or paper trail that becomes very valuable later on in the game.

Why did you change your mind? Or is your position that longer discussion is only "always" helpful when someone other than Xtoxm provides it?

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

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

I will

Vote Militant

.

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

You've actually posted an example of what I'm talking about. Obviously everyone saw Militant's post as forced, thats all you have to say. Place you're vote. No beating around the bush. He was the first to say it (showing initiative rather than being a sheep) and gave a strong position (Voted rather than FOS/no action).

I understand what you mean about Xtoxm's being "succinct" and "decisive" now; thank you for clarifying. But I disagree that this is pro-town, for reasons similar to those I quoted above (from your post 141).

95 (second vote for militant):

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

Unvote

Vote: militant

I don't know if it was 95 seconds (I refresh the site often, but no that often!) Xtoxm's position was clear, Easily readable. I agreed, My position is clear. You can see I have the same attitude to posting as he does. I assumed it was obvious to everyone else. But I explained myself to people who questioned me about it in case they didn't see it.

I meant post 95, which was the second vote for militant (the first being Xtoxm's); sorry for the confusion.

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

Not just because you agreed, but because you jumped on it immediately, and did not change your vote until the lynch, even after FIVE subsequent FOS's. You were also the only one who did not provide any original reasoning for voting for militant, simply saying "I agree."

The five FOS's without a vote change are especially odd considering you wrote this in post 51:

My last game, I didn't vote very often. I would FOS people to a point where my FOS's would accumulate enough to warrant a vote. This was construed as scummy, wishy-washy behaviour.

Also, why don't you regret your vote? I regret mine, because it was for someone who was on the same team as I am.




And finally:

IGMEOY, Clockwork Ruse

. hambargaz' point (that he found it odd that you did not find either infamous or Westbrook suspicious) was abundantly clear to me; your request for clarification looks to me like an attempt to confuse the town.

[GIEFF]

The five FOS's without a vote change are especially odd considering you wrote this in post 51:

My last game, I didn't vote very often. I would FOS people to a point where my FOS's would accumulate enough to warrant a vote. This was construed as scummy, wishy-washy behaviour.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0

I checked your "last game" you referenced above; you were mafia. I took the liberty of tracking your vote history in that game to see what you meant by your above quote. Here is your vote history in that game:

hambargarz

Vote: icemanE Post 10 (this was a random vote)
FOS: SabakuSands Post 37
FOS: iamausername Post 40
FOS: AGear2Ax Post 95
FOS: SabakuSands Post 150
unvote Post 222


Here is your vote history in this game:

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26 (this was a random vote)
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341

HoS hambargaz

[hambargarz]

If Xtoxm ever does provide his reasoning, it will only be AFTER he said he found something scummy about CR, was asked eight times about it, and then voted CR, still without explaining his reasoning. To me, this situation seems similar to the situation with militant.

Militant said he found something scummy that you did, but when pressed, couldn't name it. Xtoxm has said the nightkill suits CR (obviously due to something he saw in Day 1), but when pressed, cannot name it.

I don't see it as similar because Xtoxm was more specific. Xtoxm is saying something about the NK fits CR. If Xtoxm IS just saying random stuff, his reason wont be compelling. When he eventually gives his reason we can judge based on that. I have some idea what he'll say, but I'll wait for him to post it.

In contrast, Militant just said "I'm rereading with a special interest in Hambargarz" (paraphrased). There's no reason given for it, and it's so general that ANYTHING Militant found can be used as an excuse.

-------

And if you truly are suspicious of Xtoxm, instead of just saying

I echo GIEFF's comments on Xtoxm and insanepenguin.

(as you did in post 392), why not explain which thoughts of mine you echo? All of them? Which do you echo most strongly? Why? Why not? When reading back after a lynch, it isn't all that helpful to just see "I agree," but it is helpful to see

why

you agreed. And if you agree, where is your FOS? Where is your IGMEOY? Where is your attempt to press Xtoxm to answer the questions being asked of him? Where is your attempt to scumhunt?

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar. I agree with points raised but
he's not getting my vote for now. The points I agree on are the long period of no activity and the hammer. I thought this was clear, if there was an exception I would have said so.

All I see is an attempt to put attention on CR. I think your point about CR is a good one, but not when you completely abandon focus on someone you claimed to find suspicious. Especially with the irony of you doing to Xtoxm the very thing you are claiming CR of doing to Westbrook, i.e. ignoring/deflecting attacks against that poster.

See above, As far as Xtoxm is concerned, his early posts gave me a pro-town vibe (as I've said). Other points I agree with but not enough to make him my only suspect. I have other suspects but need more posting to see if they check out. I'm not deflecting attention from Xtoxm (I agree with some points brought up on him) I'm simply not developing tunnel vision on him.

You may have said that you agree Xtoxm is suspicious, but nothing else you have done has shown me that this is true.

See above, Everyone is suspicious. Though there are people who are MORE suspicious from where I'm standing

I am not asking you to defend Xtoxm's behavior, I am asking you to defend your claim that his posts have been succinct and decisive. It is suspicious that you immediately assume I asked you to defend Xtoxm, when I clearly was not. This reminds me of your overly defensive response in post 208, where you leaped to unwarranted conclusions.

You may not have meant it, but I'm sure the rest will agree, the posts carry that meaning. If I disagree with a point made on Xtoxm and you ask me to say why I disagree, you are essentially asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour. By saying WHY I disagree with a point on Xtoxm I am unavoidably defending Xtoxm against that point. I would rather he defend himself. That way, whether the point if valid or not, we all get information

Also, in the above quote, you say you hate pages and pages of content with lots of thought processes, but that contradicts what you said back in post 141:

Longer discussion is always helpful. In addition to providing reads on everyone, it also leaves a posting history or paper trail that becomes very valuable later on in the game.

Why did you change your mind? Or is your position that longer discussion is only "always" helpful when someone other than Xtoxm provides it?

I don't see the contradiction and I haven't changed my mind. Long posts can be good, if they are concise and above all CLEAR with DECISIVE action. It's not about how long the posts are it's about the quality of the information and efficiency in which it's expressed as it saves everyone time whilst allowing more informed decisions. And longer discussion doesn't mean longer posts, it means posts from MORE people ie. discussion involving multiple participants ie. Back and forth communication. (and yes I know this post is contributing to the problem, but I have to address GIEFF's points)

I meant post 95, which was the second vote for militant (the first being Xtoxm's); sorry for the confusion.

Ah yes, I missed the brackets there when reading.

Not just because you agreed, but because you jumped on it immediately, and did not change your vote until the lynch, even after FIVE subsequent FOS's. You were also the only one who did not provide any original reasoning for voting for militant, simply saying "I agree."

I was the first to mention he was actually "active lurking". An extention of a point brought up about his response to CR's self-vote.

The five FOS's without a vote change are especially odd considering you wrote this in post 51:

My last game, I didn't vote very often. I would FOS people to a point where my FOS's would accumulate enough to warrant a vote. This was construed as scummy, wishy-washy behaviour.

Ye, I was going to change how I play the game, but I guess I haven't. I guess it's just my voting style. Everyone has one. Old habits die hard.

Also, why don't you regret your vote? I regret mine, because it was for someone who was on the same team as I am.

This is obviously true for all town, No one has to say this, why would you mention this about yourself?

IGMEOY: GIEFF

No one likes to lynch a townie, but that's part of the game. There are good parts because Dipstick (a confirmed townie) gave some info (before he was gagged) and a lead on Xtoxm has developed.

[hambargarz]

I checked your "last game" you referenced above; you were mafia. I took the liberty of tracking your vote history in that game to see what you meant by your above quote. Here is your vote history in that game: ...

I see what you're getting at here. ie. Because I have a similar voting pattern as a game in which I was scum, I'm probably scum in this game right?

Like I said in my previous post, this is my posting and voting style. You could probably post a similar case for anyone here who has played a game as scum.

[hambargarz]

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0

Actually, as long as were looking at my past game, its a perfect example of what I meant by long unclear posts which confuse the town. Look at AGear2ax's posts. He posted heaps with unclear reasoning and erratic actions. He also posted frequently essentially "flooding" the thread with "noise". It distorted the town's perception of time as pages of posts were created over the space of one real world day.

[Xtoxm]

Ham is right...Everyone has constant playstyle traits. Also, that is far too small a pool...If you had him doing that as scum, then a completely contrasting voting style as town, you may have a case...But still, I don't think voting style is really useful for scumhunting in the first place...Not on it's own, anyway.

[GIEFF]

I understand the distinction between militant's and Xtoxm's behavior. I happen to think they are more similar than you do, but I see your point.

You are being inconsistent in your position on the length of discussions. You had no qualifications when you said longer discussion is

always

good. That is what the word "always" means; no matter the qualifications. It is only now when you are trying to defend your claim that Xtoxm's short posts are pro-town that you reverse your position.

While I agree with your point that it's important to get everyone involved, this looks to me like an attempt on your part to end my line of questioning by suggesting that one-on-one posts are somehow anti-town. They are NOT anti-town. Everyone else can read what we write, and I expect them to respond to it, by questioning my reasoning, questioning your responses, or in another way.

I want to have a similar discussion with Xtoxm, but he refuses to answer my questions.

Also, why don't you regret your vote? I regret mine, because it was for someone who was on the same team as I am.

This is obviously true for all town, No one has to say this, why would you mention this about yourself?
IGMEOY: GIEFF

I said it because I am implying that the reason you did NOT regret your vote is that your vote was for someone not on your team. I noticed that you chose to attack me instead of answering the question, so I will ask it again; why don't you regret your vote? @ everyone else who voted for militant/_over/dipstick; do you regret your votes?

No one likes to lynch a townie, but that's part of the game. There are good parts because Dipstick (a confirmed townie) gave some info (before he was gagged) and a lead on Xtoxm has developed.

Why is it good that a lead on Xtoxm has developed? Didn't you say earlier that Xtoxm was low on your scumdar, even AFTER this lead developed? You claim that it is a good thing, yet you refuse to act on it. What other good things came out of the lynch? Do you feel that these good things offset the lost opportunity to have lynched scum?

Like I said in my previous post, this is my posting and voting style. You could probably post a similar case for anyone here who has played a game as scum.

You said nothing about playstyle. You said that this is what you did in your last game, and that others found it scummy. In any case, you can't deny being aware that this is considered scummy behavior; why did you do it again? You claimed earlier that Xtoxm is low on your scumdar, which implies that others are higher on it. Why haven't you voted for one of these people?

Look at AGear2ax's posts. He posted heaps with unclear reasoning and erratic actions. He also posted frequently essentially "flooding" the thread with "noise". It distorted the town's perception of time as pages of posts were created over the space of one real world day.

Do you feel that the same thing is happening in this game, hambargaz? If you feel that pages of empty content are anti-town, wouldn't you agree that Xtoxm refusing to answer questions is also anti-town, as it forces people to ask them over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?


What about everyone else; do you find the long posts in this game to be noise, or do you find them helpful?

[GIEFF]

Ham is right...Everyone has constant playstyle traits. Also, that is far too small a pool...If you had him doing that as scum, then a completely contrasting voting style as town, you may have a case...But still, I don't think voting style is really useful for scumhunting in the first place...Not on it's own, anyway.

Really, Xtoxm? That's all you choose to say? You claim one small part of my case is invalid, ignore the rest of it, and AGAIN refuse to answer the question that has been asked of you eight (now nine) times.

WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHTKILL SUITED CLOCKWORKRUSE?

Would it help if all questions towards you were asked in this manner, Xtoxm? Would you have an easier time answering if you were closer to being lynched?


ham has said that your explanation for the CR-vote is different than militant's explanation for the ham-vote because you provided a reason whereas militant did not. I disagree; what you provided is not a reason, it is an excuse. It does not become a reason until you explain WHY this makes CR suspicious. If I were to say "I am voting Xtoxm because of something I saw on Day 1" would you call that a valid reason? I fail to see how such a claim is functionally different than saying "I am voting Xtoxm."


I have two more questions for you, Xtoxm, so please don't go back into your lurk-shell yet.



The first question is one I asked back in post 433, and which I will repeat here:

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town? I've read the whole thread thoroughly, and cannot find the reasons you are referring to.



My third question to you, Xtoxm:

Why did you vote for ClockworkRuse? It seems odd to vote after saying this

But having taking a closer look at this game tonight i'm not really as sure of anything as I was before.

immediately after the only excuse you've given for finding him suspicious.

[Xtoxm]

I want to have a similar discussion with Xtoxm, but he refuses to answer my questions.

This is not true.

If I have missed anyhting it is not intential. What would you like to ask me?

[Xtoxm]

Don't expect to get a good reaction from me talking to me like that. It will have the opposite effect. I might take a look at the rest of your post tomorrow.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP: Sorry, messed up the quote in my "second question" above.


Here is the correct version:

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town? I've read the whole thread thoroughly, and cannot find the reasons you are referring to.

[GIEFF]

Don't expect to get a good reaction from me talking to me like that. It will have the opposite effect. I might take a look at the rest of your post tomorrow.

I apologize if I was rude.

But after you failed to answer a question eight times, I felt I needed to try a new method to get your attention.

[ClockworkRuse]

Vote: Xtoxm

To be honest, I don't blame Gieff for being rude.

I want to have a similar discussion with Xtoxm, but he refuses to answer my questions.

This is not true.

If I have missed anyhting it is not intential. What would you like to ask me?

Which I find to be a stretch. Either you aren't reading the posts of this game, especially of someone you find scum, which means you aren't scum hunting or you have ignored the questions.

Either way, it isn't pro-town. This lazy townie play of yours after making it seem like you had some case against a player is scummy in my eyes. It almost seems like you were waiting for someone to make a case on me so you could join in on it.

A question shouldn't have to be repeated eight times, although I think it's a bit more than that now.

So once again;
-How does the NK suit me?
-What else about my play has seemed scummy and vote worthy to you?

Underlining them so you don't miss it again.

[hasdgfas]

VOTE COUNT:

Xtoxm(2): GIEFF, ClockworkRuse
ClockworkRuse(1): Xtoxm


Not Voting: CarnCarn, SilverPhoenix, Westbrook_Owns_U, hambargarz
7 alive, 4 to lynch

[hambargarz]

You are being inconsistent in your position on the length of discussions. You had no qualifications when you said longer discussion is

always

good. That is what the word "always" means; no matter the qualifications. It is only now when you are trying to defend your claim that Xtoxm's short posts are pro-town that you reverse your position.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Maybe I'm not being clear. Longer discussion is always good. I'm hesitant to state broad sweeping rules like that, but I can't think of many situations where it isn't. Perhaps the only time it isn't good, is if the discussion doesn't have any content maybe, but generally longer days are good for the town. Isn't it obvious? I feel like the IC here.

On the point of post ledgibility (which I see as a separate issue, ie. they are not mutually exclusive). Length of post doesn't matter, as long as it's clearly readable and has a clear direction. It's possible to have a short post that is wishy washy just as it's possible to have a long post that's easy to follow and has clear direction. I good example of what I'm talking about is AGear2ax's posts in my last game. It's a good example of what NOT to do.

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

I noticed that you chose to attack me instead of answering the question, so I will ask it again; why don't you regret your vote?

I thought I answered this. To rephrase: there are good things that came from it. ie. Dipstick is confirmed town so we can act on the posts on day 1 with that in mind. This has lead to a dialogue with Xtoxm from his hammer. What more is there to say? It goes without saying that lynching a scum would be better, but this seldom happens day1. Lynching a townie still has a use. Look at it this way, say there was no lynch, wouldn't our position today be pretty much the same as day1? (well maybe a tiny bit better from the night kill, but you get my point)

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

Why is it good that a lead on Xtoxm has developed? Didn't you say earlier that Xtoxm was low on your scumdar, even AFTER this lead developed? You claim that it is a good thing, yet you refuse to act on it. What other good things came out of the lynch? Do you feel that these good things offset the lost opportunity to have lynched scum?

I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Leads are good. They encourage discussion (wether they are good leads or bad leads). Townies are allowed to put different weighting on these leads. As I have, the point about his short posting doesn't hold weight with me, but hey that's my opinion. I do agree with the points on the hammer and long period of silence (there is a fine line between efficient posting and laziness).

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

You said nothing about playstyle. You said that this is what you did in your last game, and that others found it scummy. In any case, you can't deny being aware that this is considered scummy behavior; why did you do it again?

I'll answer with my quote

Ye, I was going to change how I play the game, but I guess I haven't. I guess it's just my voting style. Everyone has one. Old habits die hard.

To rephrase, I'm aware that people found that behaviour scummy, tried to avoid it, but happen to have fallen into my old habits. I posted what I thought, when I thought it, I was less concerned if people thought the manner in which I posted it was scummy.

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

You claimed earlier that Xtoxm is low on your scumdar, which implies that others are higher on it. Why haven't you voted for one of these people?

I'll re-answer again with my original post.

I have other suspects but need more posting to see if they check out.

To rephrase, I'm waiting for them to post more before acting on my suspicions about them. It doesn't help to blurt out every inkling you have and who you are watching as that will clue the scum players in, and they will adjust their behaviour accordingly. At that point any findings you have on them will have a heavy WIFOM component.
CR was one of the players I was doing this with. But I decided to post my case so far anyway.

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

Do you feel that the same thing is happening in this game, hambargaz? If you feel that pages of empty content are anti-town, wouldn't you agree that Xtoxm refusing to answer questions is also anti-town, as it forces people to ask them over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

No it's not happening here fortunately. I'm happy the discussions here are productive. Yes Xtoxm's refusal to answer the question is anti-town. This is what I was saying before about Xtoxm's point against CR being more specific. Being decisive like that (as opposed to militants general point on me) is more pro-town because you're sticking you're neck out. If you can't answer for it, you look pretty bad. As we are seeing with Xtoxm.

I will add this, you're questioning on me, is generally good town play. but the last 2 questions on me above this, Where I've answered with my own posts, are verging on the edge. It could be that my answers were unclear to you, but I already answered these and asking them again looks like padding.

[hambargarz]

Ham is right...Everyone has constant playstyle traits. Also, that is far too small a pool...If you had him doing that as scum, then a completely contrasting voting style as town, you may have a case...But still, I don't think voting style is really useful for scumhunting in the first place...Not on it's own, anyway.

Of course I'm right .

Anyway, this isn't the first time you're defending me. I said I had my eye on you before for this. This looks like an attempt at scum buddying or perhaps you are seeing a wagon forming on you and wish to implicate me if you flip scum.

FOS: Xtoxm

Can we have the other players aside from CR, Xtoxm and GIEFF please speak up

[GIEFF]

Re: longer discussion. Maybe the confusion is the use of the word longer. I was speaking more to the length and number of posts; were you talking about length with regard to time? It still looks inconsistent to me to say that longer discussion is pro-town, yet claim that Xtoxm's short posts that limit the potential for future discussion are pro-town as well.

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

Re: the two questions I asked that you think look like padding. Both these questions are related to points I am still not completely clear on. The fact that you answered by quoting your original points (not adding new discussion on your end) and claiming that any further discussion is anti-town (trying to stop any new discussion from my end) is highly suspicious, as it looks like you are trying to hide something.

I will stop asking questions when things are clearer to me and I feel like the question has been answered to my satisfaction, not when I am threatened that further questioning is anti-town.

1st question (re: voting patterns)

: these were habits you had as scum. Your motivation for FOS'ing and voting people would be completely different if you are town in this game, so it's odd that you would fall into the same habit as before, especially when you consciously realize that doing so looks scummy. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you've done this again. Why did you leave your vote on militant all day, even after repeated FOS's of others?

2nd question (re: you not voting for someone higher on your scumlist)

: this is similar to the first question, in that it relates to your voting behavior. It was also intended to clarify to me your thoughts about Xtoxm, especially related to your claim that you do not regret your vote.

You said that "some good" came from the lynch, yet the only good thing you mentioned was the lead on Xtoxm. My point is that if you don't find Xtoxm very scummy, then you must not think it is a very good lead, which in turn would mean that little good came from the lynch, and therefore you should regret your vote. It is still unclear to me why you do not regret it.

And I will ask again;

do others who voted for militant/_over/Dipstick regret their votes?

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

I have another point, ham, relating to what I perceive as your unwillingness to interact with Xtoxm:


To show you what I mean, I'll link to three examples.


1. Instead of commenting on my Post 262, you threw out your reverse-OMGUS IGMEOY on him for an unrelated subject, which as far as I believe was your first real interaction with him all game.

2. In my Post 356 I make the case that Xtoxm has done very little scumhunting. Your next post in the game was to talk about the insanepenguin replacing into the game and to question his (extremely poor) logic after he FOS'd Xtoxm; you made no mention of my post 356.

3. When Xtoxm in Post 407 said

ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

, why didn't you comment? You IGMEOY'd him for saying this once, yet completely ignored it when he did it a second time; this is inconsistent. Not to mention the fact that the second time he says this is scummier in my eyes, because he claims he provided earlier reasons for finding you town, yet I don't believe he has

(still waiting for you to provide them, Xtoxm)

.



Now here is your post explaining why you find CR's behavior suspicious:

I've been rereading, gathering thoughts on various people and I've noticed something about CR. CR has jumped on suspicious behaviour the whole thread but steered well clear of discussions regarding infamouseace2's anti-town behaviour. I've recently noticed a similar vibe in his behaviour to Westbrooke.

Do you agree that you have exhibited similar behavior toward Xtoxm up until the point I accused you of doing so?



I would like to hear from CarnCarn, Westbrook, and SilverPhoenix (or his replacement); you three have been quiet for a few days now.

[GIEFF]

One more point, ham.

Here is your IGMEOY of Xtoxm:

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

"No one is above suspicion to a townie." I agree.


Now, here is part of my Post 210

GIEFF appeared to be defending you (

militant

). In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me (

CR and uri attacking militant for unvoting me

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

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

Do you disagree?

In post 213, you answered:

may have given the impression that I got the impression you were saying militant was innocent. I know this isn't what you said. Given that the evidence in my eyes, points fingers at militant, I may have misinterpreted your post. But I also didn't mean that you were saying he's certain innocent, I couldn't think of a better word at the time. What I meant was more like "innocent in relation to his accusers".

Obviously you would not say he's innocent (how would you know right?).

(emphasis mine)

You assumed that I didn't know if militant was town, which means you assumed by extension that I am town, right? Why?

"No one is above suspicion to a townie."

[CarnCarn]

Hey all, back from V/LA and catching up on the stuff that's been posted recently (a lot).

Right now, I'm trying to figure out why xtoxm is avoiding the NK question after he originally brought it up (which I think is a WIFOM anyway). I can't think of a pro-town reason for him to 1) bring up the issue, then 2) completely ignore it after 8+ times of being asked the question.
I don't think it's helpful to talk about NK's on D2, since scum can manipulate the discussion very easily, but CR seems to have a legitimate reason to push xtoxm to talk about it here, IMO.

I also think GIEFF is tunnelling a lot on hambargarz in recent posts and several of his points seem like reaches by aggressive scum, although ham is on my suspicious list at the moment, but well below xtoxm. I will try to give specific examples from recent posts, but I am currently in a bind for time, so expect this to come later at some point.

[hambargarz]

Re: longer discussion. Maybe the confusion is the use of the word longer. I was speaking more to the length and number of posts; were you talking about length with regard to time? It still looks inconsistent to me to say that longer discussion is pro-town, yet claim that Xtoxm's short posts that limit the potential for future discussion are pro-town as well.

Ok, I admit I'm finding your train of thought hard to follow. Length and number of posts don't really concern me, neither does it in relation to time. What is important is stimulating discussion and content. ie. Quality over quantity. Xtoxm's posts had content and action, it just so happened that they were short. It was obvious to everyone what he was doing and why, there is no need for an essay if you're reason is clear, compelling and logically sound. (NOTE: this comment applies to Xtoxms early posts, not his recent behaviour)

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

Re: the two questions I asked that you think look like padding. Both these questions are related to points I am still not completely clear on. The fact that you answered by quoting your original points (not adding new discussion on your end) and claiming that any further discussion is anti-town (trying to stop any new discussion from my end) is highly suspicious, as it looks like you are trying to hide something.

I honestly thought I had answered your questions sufficiently the first time. I reposted the quotes to show you. I even rephrased them with explanation just in case you still were unclear.

I will stop asking questions when things are clearer to me and I feel like the question has been answered to my satisfaction, not when I am threatened that further questioning is anti-town.

Do you feel threatened? I didn't say your questioning was anti-town, quite the contrary actually. I did mention that the repeated questions on points already answered was on the edge and could be seen as padding to beef up any case against me (if you were indeed trying to build up a case on me), but I didn't say they were anti-town.


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

1st question (re: voting patterns)

: these were habits you had as scum. Your motivation for FOS'ing and voting people would be completely different if you are town in this game, so it's odd that you would fall into the same habit as before, especially when you consciously realize that doing so looks scummy. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you've done this again. Why did you leave your vote on militant all day, even after repeated FOS's of others?

I've already answered this, There's nothing more to say, other than to repeat myself, ie that's how I play. Are you really asking, why do I not play like you would? well that's because I'm not you.

I'm not sure why you are asking this question, unless you are implying that I'm scummy by behaving as I was before, whilst being conscious it was seen as scummy behaviour. This is WIFOM, As I could also say that if I were scum, wouldn't I have a motivation to AVOID my previous behaviour as it was seen as scummy?

To answer the last part of your question more directly, If I thought the points I brought up on others warranted a vote above militant, believe me, I would have changed vote. I mostly vote who I think is the most likely candidate this doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have suspicions on other players in the mean time. In short, Militant was my number 1 candidate and remained so, I didn't change my vote because he was the most likely scum, changing my vote to lesser suspects would not be honest and confuse the town as to my position.

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

2nd question (re: you not voting for someone higher on your scumlist)

: this is similar to the first question, in that it relates to your voting behavior. It was also intended to clarify to me your thoughts about Xtoxm, especially related to your claim that you do not regret your vote.

You said that "some good" came from the lynch, yet the only good thing you mentioned was the lead on Xtoxm. My point is that if you don't find Xtoxm very scummy, then you must not think it is a very good lead, which in turn would mean that little good came from the lynch, and therefore you should regret your vote. It is still unclear to me why you do not regret it.

To regret your vote is to say you did something wrong. I don't think I did anything wrong, Dipstick was simply the best candidate at the time. I would vote him again in the same situation. I should ask you why you DO regret you're vote, would you have voted differently? why didn't you say anything, why DID you place that vote? In fact, I would say it's somewhat of a scum tell to talk about you're previous votes that way.

+1 FOS: GIEFF

As for you're points on what good came from a town lynch, it's not limited to xtoxm, but I can't say what because I can't tell the future. Looking back at day1 events with Dipstick confirmed town will cast other players actions in a different light in future days.


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

I have another point, ham, relating to what I perceive as your unwillingness to interact with Xtoxm:

...

Do you agree that you have exhibited similar behavior toward Xtoxm up until the point I accused you of doing so?

Besides the fact that I am supporting some points AGAINST Xtoxm as well as bringing up one of my own, Yes there are some similarities, what is your point? Are you saying it's scummy?

NOTE: gtg, this post is a bit rushed I may have missed some points, will address them when I get back