Newbie 694 (over)

[Xtoxm]

So? That's really not much, for me. I was in about 10 games when this one started, when a game gets to a climax point it's easy to knock up lots of posts. I wasn't avoiding this game at any point. Hence, I wasn't lurking.

[ClockworkRuse]

Because all you did was kick back at me, and vote me, and I have already explained beyond that.

I checked up West, he appears to be active on the site in another game.

I'll refer back to this in a little bit.

As to the first point, of course I kicked back at you! You presented weak reasoning, you weren't making a case you were just saying "CR is scum because I can see the NK suiting him."

When you got around to explaining why you thought it suited me, the reasoning was weak. There was no basis for your suspicion and it was a very odd play. I don't see a townie player benefiting from night kill speculation, especially after I had just warned the town that Night Kill speculation is WIFOMish and that it should be avoided.

So I'll ask again, go back and find the post that made me seem like scum due to my response.


Amished, you bring up a good point about the wagon. I just have to go back and re-read day two.


Not quoting the wall of text that Gieff posted, but I am interested in Xtoxm's answer to the first question.

I need to re-read the days andd look into this ham and Gieff business.

I've thought a little about this game, and I think what we may have is either a W-CR or W-CC pairing. Either way, W appears to be trying to lurk by, and I think him being lynched today would be useful.

CC raises suspicioun with his "Major lurking" accusation on me, which is nothing but a blatant lie.

Unvote Vote West

First, you have been lurking. You haven't been contributing to the game for periods of time while you continued to post in other games. That is the basic defination of lurking.

You, in fact, called West out on the same thing earlier.

See the bolded quote up above.

So? That's really not much, for me. I was in about 10 games when this one started, when a game gets to a climax point it's easy to knock up lots of posts. I wasn't avoiding this game at any point. Hence, I wasn't lurking.

Ten games? Really? I feel for you, that would be way to much of a work load. But this game follows a House principle and I have to assume the worst.

The House principle is that everyone lies. Now, you may not have been avoiding this game on purpose but the fact still remains that you weren't participating and you were gone when there were a lot of questions asked of you. If you saw a player doing something like that, would what you say?

[GIEFF]

On Thursday, Dec 11, 2008, at 2:52 pm, in post 382:

I'd rather lynch West, but with a VT claim:

Unvote Vote Dipstick

Your previous post in this thread was on Monday, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM, in post 355:

I've contibuted plenty. It's only in the last week or two that the game is starting to actually get away from me, but even then I don't think by much.

And there were 40 posts in between in other games. Notice how my very next post after your post 355 (which initiated your 3-day lurk) was attacking you. You did not respond when you returned to the thread 3 days later, instead choosing to quick-hammer, stifling discussion on both Dipstick AND yourself.

I wasn't avoiding this game at any point.

Bovine Feces.

You say you were not avoiding the thread, yet after a 3-day absence in which you posted 40 times in other threads, you managed to return less than 90 minutes after Dipstick hit L-1 and

just 5 minutes after he VT-claimed

to hammer the bandwagon you started, without addressing my case on you or the three other players who subsequently expressed suspicion toward you(Dipstick, insanepenguin, and Westbrook, two of whom are now dead, and one of whom you are now voting for).

The odds of you just happening to return to the thread in that 5-minute window after being gone for over 4,000 minutes (while active elsewhere on the site) are

extremely

slim, not to mention the fact that you had been avoiding commenting on my case against you.

Are you really claiming that you just randomly happened to open the thread less than 5 minutes after the VT claim? Because if not, then you were obviously AVOIDING THE GAME, waiting for your chance to hammer and end discussion.

[hambargarz]

I'm suspicious of Xtoxm for a number of reasons. The delay to answer questions is only one part. Here are the other ones:

1. Quick hammer before people had a chance to react to the Dipstick claim.

2. Blatant buddying/defending of hambargarz (Note: this is suspicious regardless of whether ham is scum or town).

3. Deflecting suspicion onto the other IC by suggesting the NK "suits him," without offering any semblence of an explanation until it was dragged out of him tooth and nail (this one could be tunneling on my part, though).

4. Major lurking while active in other games.

5. Calling CR scum for voting him (looks like OMGUS, more attempts to deflect suspicion onto anyone other than him).

And I'm sure I'm missing some other things, too.

I agree with points 1, 2, 3 and 5, with 5 being the most suspicous. OMGUS scum calling of CR was a bit of an scummy overreaction. This is more serious seeing as Xtoxm main reason for it seemed to be CR's innaccuracy of Xtoxm's posting behaviour, which is a scummy kind of reason too in my books.

NOTE: I was suspicous of CR and checked out Xtoxm's posting to see if CR was being accurate, it appears CR was exaggerating things a bit. I was looking at the dates and times of the posts rather than just the number of posts. Xtoxm DID take a 3 day rest during the holiday period, with a flurry of posts happening on the first day back from it in other posts. On this same day he posted on this thread, so no I don't think Xtoxm was neglecting this thread on Day 2 (I haven't checked Day 1 activity). So I don't agree with point 4.

[hambargarz]

I forgot to add in the last post

Was the site working for everyone during the past couple of days? It wasn't for me. I couldn't load it up at all

[hasdgfas]

VOTE COUNT:

Xtoxm(1): ClockworkRuse
Westbrook_Owns_U(3): Amished, hambargarz, Xtoxm


Not Voting: CarnCarn, Westbrook_Owns_U, GIEFF
7 alive, 4 to lynch


Also, for those curious, here's the news on the past couple days. I posted it yesterday, but it got lost in the second crash.

Welcome back. Here's an update on what happened:

On Monday, Bluehost shut down the forum. The "official" reason was inefficient SQL scripts causing excessive load on the server. The reality is that we've simply outgrown the service they can provide. Because of this, mith has switched hosting companies. We're now on a VPS with a host that has very good feedback, so the "grey screens of death" should be a thing of the past.

That said, it will take 48 hours for the DNS to propagate throughout the world, so people will be trickling back in.
Apologies for the inconvenience.

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm suspicious of Xtoxm for a number of reasons. The delay to answer questions is only one part. Here are the other ones:

1. Quick hammer before people had a chance to react to the Dipstick claim.

2. Blatant buddying/defending of hambargarz (Note: this is suspicious regardless of whether ham is scum or town).

3. Deflecting suspicion onto the other IC by suggesting the NK "suits him," without offering any semblence of an explanation until it was dragged out of him tooth and nail (this one could be tunneling on my part, though).

4. Major lurking while active in other games.

5. Calling CR scum for voting him (looks like OMGUS, more attempts to deflect suspicion onto anyone other than him).

And I'm sure I'm missing some other things, too.

I agree with points 1, 2, 3 and 5, with 5 being the most suspicous. OMGUS scum calling of CR was a bit of an scummy overreaction. This is more serious seeing as Xtoxm main reason for it seemed to be CR's innaccuracy of Xtoxm's posting behaviour, which is a scummy kind of reason too in my books.

NOTE: I was suspicous of CR and checked out Xtoxm's posting to see if CR was being accurate, it appears CR was exaggerating things a bit. I was looking at the dates and times of the posts rather than just the number of posts. Xtoxm DID take a 3 day rest during the holiday period, with a flurry of posts happening on the first day back from it in other posts. On this same day he posted on this thread, so no I don't think Xtoxm was neglecting this thread on Day 2 (I haven't checked Day 1 activity). So I don't agree with point 4.

He was active in other games during that time, go back and look at his posts.

[Xtoxm]

You know what, I'm going to make a substanceless post just to avoid further accussation of me avoiding this game. Yes, I did just post elsewhere. No, I don't have to time to look over this one in detail.

[hambargarz]

For clarification, I'm talking about this quote from CR, post 485

Major HoS Xtoxm

He's been posting other places on the site for the past four days and he has already acknowledged the questions he has ignored.

I'm calling lurking.

This post was made on 27 Dec, so the past four days is referring to
27, 26, 25 and 24
CR couldn't have meant 26th-23rd, because Xtoxm made a few posts on the 23rd.

So..
24th Xtoxm made 5 posts to 3 games, without posting this thread
25th and 26th Xtoxm was absent from all the games
27th There's many posts to many games, including 1 to this game.

Note though that the single post on 27th was made after CR's comment,
but one can argue that Xtoxm didn't get around to this game that day until after CR had made his post.

Anyway, since Xtoxm was absent from all games on 25th and 26th those days don't count. So really it was 2 days (if you count the 27th) that Xtoxm was posting other places than here.

The way CR worded it was that Xtoxm had been posting other places during those 4 days. This is why I was saying it was a bit exagerated.

Posting tendencies are generally 1 post every 48 hours not including weekends. Also counting the 27th is arguable. Because of this, While Xtoxm may have skipped over our game in relation to other, I don't see this particular instance as odd as CR has made it out.

I haven't looked at Xtoxm's behaviour before this, only the period outlined in CR's post (as I was investigating it)

@Xtoxm: What would you say are your primary reasons for suspecting CR .

[Xtoxm]

Intuition.

[GIEFF]

I agree that CR's claim that Xtoxm was "majorly" lurking around Christmas isn't really valid.

But why has everyone ignored my post 552? Day 1 is when he was REALLY lurking, and under much more suspicious circumstances.

[Amished]

Back! Glad the site is up now for me, I was a bit worried for a bit there Anyways, onto the game:

GIEFF, in regards to day one, how were the posts in the other games spread out. As ham pointed out, there were several days when xtoxm didn't post in any, but there were many posts on one or two days, which got skimmed over and we weren't given the whole story. Were the 40 posts evenly spread out, like 10-15 a day in there, or were there 20+ on just one or two days?

As Westbrook is now at L-1, and we're not at any sort of deadline, we should let him do the re-read he promised in 539 before the forums went down. I don't know how he would go about defending himself, but I still say we give him a good shot. Mostly I'm looking at CarnCarn and GIEFF to continue to be reasonable and not hammer.

[CarnCarn]

Yeah, I actually didn't notice W_O_U was up to L-1 until I saw the latest votecount.

Regarding my point 4, it's something I just assumed was correct from what GIEFF and CR had said. Not original content from me, just borrowing their points (which, if true, is a very strong one). I'm not sure now what to think about Xtoxm lurking, but I think the other points are valid anyway. I haven't been paying as much attention to West (largely because he's been invisible for a while now). I'm going to go back and look at his posts again and what people are saying about them.

L-1 is generally claim-time, but I want to see if this wagon is worthy. First impression says it seems to have built quite lazily.

[GIEFF]

Can somebody unvote W_O_U? I don't want anyone to be able to "accidentally" hammer (including W_O_U), again stifling discussion. We can proceed as if W_O_U is at L-1, but I'm not comfortable with him at L-1, especially considering how day 1 ended.

I don't feel a claim is necessary yet; Westbrook hasn't even had the chance to defend himself yet. Please de-lurk and try to catch up with the thread, Westbrook; you said you were back from V/LA on the 6th, and it is now the 9th.

Amished, ham, and Xtoxm, could you re-state your reasons for voting Westbrook?

Either way, W appears to be trying to lurk by, and I think him being lynched today would be useful.

W was on V/LA until the 6th. He has said he is trying to catch up.

In what way would lynching W be useful?

Once again:

Well, I knew i'd already discussed my thoughts on Ham. I thought there was no need to say more. I guess there was.

Please link me to the post where you "already discussed your thoughts on ham."

Amished (and everyone else):

Here is how Xtoxm posted in the 41 game posts between my case analyzing all his posts, and when he returned 5 minutes after the VT claim to hammer:

Game: Posts on 12/8 after my case, Posts on 12/9, Posts on 12/10, Posts on 12/11 before the hammer

Newbie 686: 0,4,0,0
Mini 680: 1,4,0,0
Mini 688: 0,1,0,5
Open 95: 7,2,6,3
Mini 695: 0,1,4,2
Mini 708 : 0,0,1,0

Mini 708 was locked for night phase from the 7th to the 10th, and the single post from Xtoxm was his "bah"post.

[hasdgfas]

Westbrook_Owns_U has requested replacement due to life issues. Searching for one now.

[Xtoxm]

I've looked up West's history, and it seems he always does this. He's played about 10 games in all, and flaked them all, with all roles...Scum/VT/Town power.

I still think what Inf did was indicative of scum. If he's town, I think it's a CC-CR pair.

[Xtoxm]

Please link me to the post where you "already discussed your thoughts on ham."

My isolation 31 will have been what I had in mind, I think.

[Xtoxm]

In what way would lynching W be useful?

Because I think he's scum, and if he's not I think I know who is.

[Xtoxm]

Game: Posts on 12/8 after my case, Posts on 12/9, Posts on 12/10, Posts on 12/11 before the hammer

Newbie 686: 0,4,0,0
Mini 680: 1,4,0,0
Mini 688: 0,1,0,5
Open 95: 7,2,6,3
Mini 695: 0,1,4,2
Mini 708 : 0,0,1,0

What are you trying to do with this? I'm the same alignment in this and all those. There was a point where this game was low on the order. It's pretty much at the top now.

[ClockworkRuse]

For clarification, I'm talking about this quote from CR, post 485

Major HoS Xtoxm

He's been posting other places on the site for the past four days and he has already acknowledged the questions he has ignored.

I'm calling lurking.

This post was made on 27 Dec, so the past four days is referring to
27, 26, 25 and 24
CR couldn't have meant 26th-23rd, because Xtoxm made a few posts on the 23rd.

So..
24th Xtoxm made 5 posts to 3 games, without posting this thread
25th and 26th Xtoxm was absent from all the games
27th There's many posts to many games, including 1 to this game.

Note though that the single post on 27th was made after CR's comment,
but one can argue that Xtoxm didn't get around to this game that day until after CR had made his post.

Anyway, since Xtoxm was absent from all games on 25th and 26th those days don't count. So really it was 2 days (if you count the 27th) that Xtoxm was posting other places than here.

The way CR worded it was that Xtoxm had been posting other places during those 4 days. This is why I was saying it was a bit exagerated.

Posting tendencies are generally 1 post every 48 hours not including weekends. Also counting the 27th is arguable. Because of this, While Xtoxm may have skipped over our game in relation to other, I don't see this particular instance as odd as CR has made it out.

I haven't looked at Xtoxm's behaviour before this, only the period outlined in CR's post (as I was investigating it)

@Xtoxm: What would you say are your primary reasons for suspecting CR .

Are you sure? I remember that he was active during those days. I'll look back over it, but I thought I was right.

I do remember him missing for some period of time during day two.

[GIEFF]

I've looked up West's history, and it seems he always does this. He's played about 10 games in all, and flaked them all, with all roles...Scum/VT/Town power.

Oddly enough, the first game I played on this site (this game being the second), I replace in for Westbrook. Is there an activity blacklist somewhere or something? This is a horrible time to get replaced out of a game, and is very lame.

In what way would lynching W be useful?

Because I think he's scum, and if he's not I think I know who is.

So why did you change your vote from CR to Westbrook? If you think it's between CC, CR, and W, wouldn't a lynch of any of the three give you just as much information? Your reason for switching ("because it would be useful") is not valid, as it applies just as much to the person you were on previously (CR).

Also, why do you think it's either W-CR or W-CC? Is it because you think everybody else is town, or did you see something specific to make you suspect a scumpair?

My isolation 31 will have been what I had in mind, I think.

What does this mean? Post 31 isn't by you.

What are you trying to do with this?

I'm answering Amished's question:

Were the 40 posts evenly spread out, like 10-15 a day in there, or were there 20+ on just one or two days?

In the time between my case against you on Dec 8th and your hammer on Dec 11th, you did not post in this thread while posting 41 times in other games.




Have you finished your re-read of Day 2 yet, CR?

[Xtoxm]

My suspicion of CR has dropped, and of W raised (though not really for any new reasons, just reflection on the game). Pretty much yeh, I think everyone else is town. I've seen atleast slight scumminess from the 3 I suspect, as i've already mentioned.

What does this mean? Post 31 isn't by you.

The post numbered 31 when viewing my posts in isolation.

[The "Display posts from previous" option below the submit button]

[GIEFF]

I see; thanks, Xtoxm. Here is the post you were referring to:

I'm not sus of Ham.

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

I asked you on Dec. 18th in Post 433:

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.

Because you still didn't explain what your earlier reasons were, in post 566 I said:

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town?

Well the way he's acted looks like genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt. I'm not sure if I can explain it much better than that. Along with a few small things along the way that make me think he's town. Suffice to say, he has me convinced he's town, and at this point I trust him.

Thanks for the reply, Xtoxm. You said earlier that you think hambargaz is town "for the same reasons as before," yet had not provided any reasons up until this point:

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.

Well the way he's acted looks like

genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt.

Xtoxm, if this is really why you find hambargarz pro-town, why didn't you say so in post 407 (when you said the exact same thing about me), instead of implying you had already given different reasons, when you had in fact given no reasoning at all?

Cliff notes: In post 407, you said that I was town because I scumhunts and help the town, and that ham is town

"for the same reasons as before."

It is now clear that you HAD GIVEN NO EARLIER REASONS at the time of post 407, and when later pressed, the reason you gave was because he scumhunts and helps the town.

Why did you claim you had already given reasons for not suspecting ham when this was not true? If your real reason for not suspecting ham was because he looks towny, why didn't you just say that, instead of referencing a non-existent "earlier reason?"

[Xtoxm]

Yes, I realise this. I thought I had already mentioned, clearly had not. I don't go back and check everytime I post, I go by memory.

[Amished]

I'm slightly inebriated, but i'll unvote just so if two people try to hammer we'll def know what's going on. But I'm still willing to put the final vote on in i think he doesn't defend himself good enough.

unvote

I'll try to talk more tomorrow after family christmas and when im' a bit more coherent