I'm using a small sample of players to find bearings and get a better read of the game. I'm interested in everyone who was on it, not just CC and Urz.ThAdmiral wrote:In fact I think that might be somewhat scummy trying to get us to focus on only two people.
vote: destructor
I understand this point and basically agree with you, but I still think there could be mafia motivation for trying to round down the potential lynch pool as well.destructor wrote:If there were scum on both wagons, I want to start with CR's since there are fewer players alive who were on it, which is a smaller sample size to work with and so easier for my head. I think CC was one of the first on and on it at deadline too. Coupling that with his FOSing rofl (who flipped Town), I'm happy to pick up where I left off yesterday.
It was a very surprising choice mainly. He was on my possible scum list and I'm sure I'm not the only one, so it's just a bit confusing. Furthermore if there was scum on the cr wagon, why kill off one of the only other people on it? It would obviously just make people focus on the remainders?destructor wrote:What made you say CR seemed to be town? And to parrot CR's question, why the needless speculation about the nightkill?ThAdmiral wrote:knowing him he would have just redoubled his efforts against cr today (who seems to be town)
No. Chances say there was, although chances are not always right.destructor wrote:Do you have a reason to believe scumweren'ton CR's wagon?
Do you have a better place to look for scum?
I don't know if it's obvious. CR wasn't confirmed town at the end of the day. Maybe scum didn't think people would change their mind on him. I don't think it's worth speculating over at this time.ThAdmiral wrote:Furthermore if there was scum on the cr wagon, why kill off one of the only other people on it? It would obviously just make people focus on the remainders?
The people off Nat's wagon were: CC, Urza, CR, Battousai and ort, at least three of which I'm already leaning town on. So, yeah, I am tending to agree with you on this.ThAdmiral wrote:As for a better place to look. Let me put it this way: considering ortolan and clockworkruse as town there basically has to be scum on the natirasha wagon.
Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.ThAdmiral wrote:@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?
This is a plain denial of the fact that even if my vote on CR was what is generally considered "OMGUS", i.e. I was voting him after he voted me, it certainly wasn't made with no reasons.Mizzy wrote:Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scumortolan wrote:EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.my.
This is patently untrue. At that point I had made substantial arguments against CR, and furthermore actively argued with him. See my posts: 70, 105, 113, 117, 136, 138, 153. How can you possibly claim I was parasiting on others' arguments? You seem to just be copying what CR said in Post 152 without applying any critique to it:I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.
She also revisits this in a qualified form in Post 164, without any regard to the fact it's entirely untrue:CR wrote:Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.
THEN, there's also the stuff about wanting me to answer CR's "open" question:No, I am implying that he is lazy. As you point out, he hasn't really been opportunistic.
etc. etc. Still inexplicable and as a result suspicious. Also re-read Posts 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 186 and 188 to see she was in fact wrong about whom the question was addressed to.Also waiting for an answer to #155.
At that point there were five players voting for CR: urielzyx, ortolan, Axelrod, CarnCarn, roflcopter. So even if all three scum were voting for him (I would be surprised if this were the case anyhow) two townies were also. Furthermore, even as you describe his play as "intelligent and perceptive", he had actually admitted that in the case of his main target for the game, me, he had been tunneling. So it seems you had a higher estimation of CR's play than even he did. Here is my theory about your motivations: you jumped in in Post 73 to defend CR. I think you, as scum, wanted to gain brownie points by defending someone you know to be town (which it looks like CR is in light of recent events). Thus if he were lynched you could claim to have been defending a townie. That's why you defended him without even justifying doing so. And that's why you've been more complimentary to his play than even he himself has been.Mizzy Post 268 wrote:I don't think he's scum, no, and I do think his wagon has a high amount of scum in it because he's intelligent and very perceptive; a dangerous pro-town player to have.
How is this an inconsistency? Or scummy?ortolan wrote:Votes Ramus for self-voting. She mainly pursued him day one while also defending CR. This was apparently a "policy" vote, though, as she has not pursued Ramus' successor.
No, I said, "...so far I don't see the wagon on Clock..." which is not criticism, merely a disagreement.ortolan wrote:Post 73 criticises the wagon on CR without giving reasons.
Again, how is this an inconsistency or scummy?ortolan wrote:Post 99 uses CC's Post 95 criticism of urielzyx's Post 94 "WIFOM" again to defend ClockworkRuse.
No, it was a partial disagreement with your sentiment. You may have had reasons but in my opinion, they paled in the face of the OMGUS factor.ortolan wrote:This is a plain denial of the fact that even if my vote on CR was what is generally considered "OMGUS", i.e. I was voting him after he voted me, it certainly wasn't made with no reasons.
In part because Ramus' playstyle and logic were what I distrusted. I felt that Axel voted CR for reasons that in his mind were sound, and not because he was trying to lynch a townie. In short, I found the replacement less anti-town than Ramus.ortolan wrote:Why did you drop off on attacking Axelrod/Ramus when Axelrod replaced in, when he voted CR which should have vindicated your suspicions?
Because he was (is) an active player with good, sound logic, pro-town actions, and not really much against him. I felt he was townie pretty early, but no one asked.ortolan wrote:Furthermore, why were you so defensive of CR even before there was good reason to believe he was townie?
I didn't lay suspicion on you, I pointed out something that at the time looked pretty scummy but I didn't ask anyone else to listen or follow along. "Laying suspicion" is something someone does to elicit and attack; I was hoping for responses to what I was saying from you in order to clear things up and if your responses were not sufficient, I would have voted you and not cared whether anyone else agreed with me. This is where I think you are being extremely over-aggressive and -defensive. I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.ortolan wrote:Finally, why did you lay suspicion on me for causing the person you wanted to be lynched to be lynched, and for saving the person you didn't want to be lynched from being lynched?
Well, I clearly did "save" him in the most trivial sense in that my Unvote caused Natirasha to be lynched instead of him. Remember, it's why CarnCarn voted me and you IGMEOY'ed me. What other sense could you mean "save" in? Do you mean "clear" him? Why are you talking as though CR is 100% confirmed town? Do you know something we don't? It's not impossible that he was given that as a fakeclaim, even if it is unlikely. Also it's possible I am his scumbuddy and merely voted to save him at the last minute. Why have you totally ignored these possibilities?Mizzy wrote:I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.
Why have you ignored everything else I've said and focused instead on making mountains of molehills?ortolan wrote:Why have you totally ignored these possibilities?
I don't like voting for someone for being "anti-town" in the way you've done here. It implies you don't think they are scum but will vote for them anyway. This is what I was getting at- if you thought Ramus was scum, then you should have voted Axelrod. If you didn't think Ramus was scum, but simply a bad townie, you shouldn't have been voting for him to begin with. Townies are still townies nonetheless.In part because Ramus' playstyle and logic were what I distrusted. I felt that Axel voted CR for reasons that in his mind were sound, and not because he was trying to lynch a townie. In short, I found the replacement less anti-town than Ramus.
In my answer to ThAdmiral, I mentioned that I wasn't interested in voting people for being on CR's wagon alone. I was voting CC in Day 1 for what I saw as opportunistic play. His FOS of rofl, which made no sense, and his jump onto Caboose when it looked like CR's wagon was coming apart. These are all parts of my case. What do you think of them?Mizzy wrote:Destructor:I'm not sold on CC's scumminess. Your case seemed to consist of "CC was voting CR." Why vote one of Urza or CC when they were both doing the same thing and you hadn't yet re-read Urza? Not an attack, that's a real question.
Maybe a moot question at this point, but I voted ort for the reason I gave: hammering by unvote, for a player he never mentioned as finding suspicious. Destructor's vote for Nat was also most unexplained, but I can understand the reasoning behind putting 2 players at 5. So, while I found the Nat vote by itself a bit scummy, I originally thought the hammering unvote was worse.Battousai wrote:CC: Why FoS destructor and vote Ort and not the other way around?
There's a big difference between not giving a reason and not having one.CarnCarn wrote:Not understanding the votes on me. Urza is understandably going through a rough time, but he gave no reasoning for his vote and destructor is voting me for opportunistic FoSing of roflcopter D1,after I gave a FoS for the same reason to Axelrod. Also sees my vote for Caboose as scummy, even after I said Caboose was the scummiest, and at the end of the day I would have preferred a Caboose/Urza lynch to a CR one. Given ort's claim and explanation for his unvote, I think Urza is still the most suspicious to me.
Unvote: ortolan
Vote: Urzassedatives
Ort's claim makes him much more town at the moment, in my opinion, but still:
Ort, what about your flavor on CR makes/made you think he is town?
Maybe a moot question at this point, but I voted ort for the reason I gave: hammering by unvote, for a player he never mentioned as finding suspicious. Destructor's vote for Nat was also most unexplained, but I can understand the reasoning behind putting 2 players at 5. So, while I found the Nat vote by itself a bit scummy, I originally thought the hammering unvote was worse.Battousai wrote:CC: Why FoS destructor and vote Ort and not the other way around?
CarnCarn wrote:Reading through Urza and I've got some questions/comments:I am currently in an ongoing Newbie where uriel also flaked. Could be scum, but also very n00b player in general.Urza wrote:On my shit list are Uriel, but this is one I'm having a little difficulty with in my mind, because the things I am picking up on are either indicative of scum who knows what they are doing, or town who has no clue. He attacks things that appear out of the ordinary, without giving justification for whether or not they are SCUMMY. Remember, scummy has a very definite meaning. It is an action that a scum player is more likely to do than a town player. Therefore to see uriel jumping on those things, to me, is indicative of one or two things.
Scum could try the same gambit to trap townsfolk into doing something that, on the surface, looks scummy.Urza wrote:Self voting is stupid as hell, but it provides no insight at all into the alignment of a player. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. There is no real motivation for scum to do it that is separate from town motivation to do it, and therefore it is the definition of a NULL TELL.
Now this is seriously flawed. You conveniently choose to forget that scum try very hard to buddy with townies as a way to distance from their actual teammates. This is why defending someone can be scummy regardless of the alignment of the person being defended.Urza wrote:Now, you might be saying to yourself "Well, a lot of people attacked the self voter...I was one of them." and this is true, but what sets clockworks actions apart is how he doesn't directly attack either player for any one thing. He attacks Orto for what clockwork did, and by proxy attacks the self voter. He clearly thinks what the self voter has done is "scummy" but doesn't vote him. This is not only dumb because in order for orto to be scum in the way clockwork is presenting the game, the self voter has to be, and since Ortos alignment is then dependant on the self voters, and not the other way around, he should be voting the self voter, but scummy because it allows him to add more pressure to the self voter wagon without actually implicating himself by it, and also allows him to poison ortos well by accusing him of things that aren't really scummy that put him on the defensive and take him off the offensive.
This is a good point. As I think I said already, I felt CR was reaching with some of the accusations against ort. However, it's not necessarily a scumtell because I know people will sometimes ask reachish questions to get reactions. Still, in this case, I see it as a negative against CR.Urza wrote:Secondly, a pretty big thing I look for is when players are not honestly interested in determining alignment, but are instead just looking to win the argument. Clockworks post 152 is a perfect example of this. The mischaracterization of Ortos vote "HE ADMITS IT WAS OMGUS" is pretty ridiculous, and is not something a player interested in determining orto's alignment would say. Orto quite clearly said that he was being a tad biased, and then went on to explain the nature of the vote. Clockwork IGNORES the real justification, something that if discussed might lead to information about orto's alignment, and goes straight for the jugular with a can't miss, look what stupid things he's doing he's an idiot argument. This is telling because I think there's a pretty clear divide between what a town player would do in this situation, and what a scum player would do in this situation. Psychologically, this is a pretty damn strong tell in my book.
Urza, why do you keep saying that I presented a false dichotomy after you realized we have a deadline? I've explained already why I think the best lynch is you or CR today, yet you keep dismissing this as a false dichotomy.
Something just rubs me the wrong way here. Oh, maybe the suggestion that your role does clearly require strategy? But then, you say Caboose wasn't strategic at all. How exactly does knowing Caboose's role tell you that he wasn't strategic? His play is in line with careless scum, or town trying to act very hard like scum, but you say that's not strategic. So, are you saying he is careless scum?Urza wrote:(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)
No, people lynch lurkers because lurking helps scum.Urza wrote:Also, what do you think policy lynches for poor play are for? People lynch lurkers because lurking annoys them.
Can you explain what makes you think "Urza seemed townish"? Would you lynch Urza after you lynch me and I flip town, or a vice versa situation (i.e., do you think there was definately scum on the CR wagon?)?destructor wrote:Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.ThAdmiral wrote:@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?
1) agree on uriel. Remember my comments on her prefaced my suspicions with pretty much that exact same warning.CarnCarn wrote:Urza, I didn't say you had no reason, but that you didn't give one. I simply said that I couldn't understand the votes on me, especially yours since you didn't give a reason.
Also, that is not the only reason why I'm voting you. Caboose's voting and bouts of lurkerdom were scummy, plus I would also appreciate your response to my comments about your posts from D1, especially the part about Caboose's role and strategic play:
CarnCarn wrote:Reading through Urza and I've got some questions/comments:I am currently in an ongoing Newbie where uriel also flaked. Could be scum, but also very n00b player in general.Urza wrote:On my shit list are Uriel, but this is one I'm having a little difficulty with in my mind, because the things I am picking up on are either indicative of scum who knows what they are doing, or town who has no clue. He attacks things that appear out of the ordinary, without giving justification for whether or not they are SCUMMY. Remember, scummy has a very definite meaning. It is an action that a scum player is more likely to do than a town player. Therefore to see uriel jumping on those things, to me, is indicative of one or two things.
Scum could try the same gambit to trap townsfolk into doing something that, on the surface, looks scummy.Urza wrote:Self voting is stupid as hell, but it provides no insight at all into the alignment of a player. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. There is no real motivation for scum to do it that is separate from town motivation to do it, and therefore it is the definition of a NULL TELL.
Now this is seriously flawed. You conveniently choose to forget that scum try very hard to buddy with townies as a way to distance from their actual teammates. This is why defending someone can be scummy regardless of the alignment of the person being defended.Urza wrote:Now, you might be saying to yourself "Well, a lot of people attacked the self voter...I was one of them." and this is true, but what sets clockworks actions apart is how he doesn't directly attack either player for any one thing. He attacks Orto for what clockwork did, and by proxy attacks the self voter. He clearly thinks what the self voter has done is "scummy" but doesn't vote him. This is not only dumb because in order for orto to be scum in the way clockwork is presenting the game, the self voter has to be, and since Ortos alignment is then dependant on the self voters, and not the other way around, he should be voting the self voter, but scummy because it allows him to add more pressure to the self voter wagon without actually implicating himself by it, and also allows him to poison ortos well by accusing him of things that aren't really scummy that put him on the defensive and take him off the offensive.
This is a good point. As I think I said already, I felt CR was reaching with some of the accusations against ort. However, it's not necessarily a scumtell because I know people will sometimes ask reachish questions to get reactions. Still, in this case, I see it as a negative against CR.Urza wrote:Secondly, a pretty big thing I look for is when players are not honestly interested in determining alignment, but are instead just looking to win the argument. Clockworks post 152 is a perfect example of this. The mischaracterization of Ortos vote "HE ADMITS IT WAS OMGUS" is pretty ridiculous, and is not something a player interested in determining orto's alignment would say. Orto quite clearly said that he was being a tad biased, and then went on to explain the nature of the vote. Clockwork IGNORES the real justification, something that if discussed might lead to information about orto's alignment, and goes straight for the jugular with a can't miss, look what stupid things he's doing he's an idiot argument. This is telling because I think there's a pretty clear divide between what a town player would do in this situation, and what a scum player would do in this situation. Psychologically, this is a pretty damn strong tell in my book.
Urza, why do you keep saying that I presented a false dichotomy after you realized we have a deadline? I've explained already why I think the best lynch is you or CR today, yet you keep dismissing this as a false dichotomy.
Something just rubs me the wrong way here. Oh, maybe the suggestion that your role does clearly require strategy? But then, you say Caboose wasn't strategic at all. How exactly does knowing Caboose's role tell you that he wasn't strategic? His play is in line with careless scum, or town trying to act very hard like scum, but you say that's not strategic. So, are you saying he is careless scum?Urza wrote:(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)
No, people lynch lurkers because lurking helps scum.Urza wrote:Also, what do you think policy lynches for poor play are for? People lynch lurkers because lurking annoys them.
Also, CR is still on my scummy-list. Not sure why some folks are treating him as more town or as nearly confirmed town just because of ambiguous flavoring in ort's role message (or so he claims). Heck, I'm not sure why ort unvoted based on that.
You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.ortolan wrote:I don't see how I have? Your comment about me not having "saved" CR doesn't make any sense to me under either interpretation I've tried to apply to it- it's either simply true (because I saved him by unvoting) or you mean it in the sense that he is "cleared", and I don't know why you would assume that.
Scum are anti-town, are they not? It implies that all I knew about him for sure was that his play was anti-town. I can't know whether or not the person I suspect is scum, so I go with the basics first. And to me, scum are bad "townies." They try to appear as town but aren't actually pro-town. Your disagreement with my playstyle does not make me scummy.ortolan wrote:I don't like voting for someone for being "anti-town" in the way you've done here. It implies you don't think they are scum but will vote for them anyway. This is what I was getting at- if you thought Ramus was scum, then you should have voted Axelrod. If you didn't think Ramus was scum, but simply a bad townie, you shouldn't have been voting for him to begin with. Townies are still townies nonetheless.