Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Wall-E]

/confirm

[Wall-E]

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad.

[Wall-E]

Hey, second time I've 'found' this thread after losing it, and once again, I forgot to push "watch for replies." Now it is pushed. I checked twice.

Lleu's responses annoy me a little bit. It's like he's trying to get me to answer nonexistent questions or force obvious or common knowledge answers out of me. A lot of people dislike random voting, this can't be the first time he heard of such a dislike.

DO you have a problem with making obvious statements? A bit of hypocrisy here.

The above post was to Idiotking, sorry.

yeah, figured. No worries

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

What is wrong with that statement? Be very specific please, burfy.

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.
I was wondering if scum could talk amongst themselves during N0. Then the natural reaction might be PMing your scumbuddies first.

No idea what happened here, but you've all got it wrong. The case here is that I said, "I forgot to click this thing." the very first time I read the thread? Yeah, that's probably what happened. The thing is, if I don't push that "Watch this topic for replies" link, as I am prone to do, I forget about the game. My go-to response in that case is to say, "Whoops, sorry. Once again, I forgot to push the 'watch this topic for replies' link

i'm tired of explaining this and it's driving the town into a rut

i'm claiming to save us all some bullshit

i'm a VT, and luckily enough i can vote to kill badguys

Then again, only five pages? You all weren't that interested in scumhunting to beging with, it seems. *sly smile behind a japanese fan*

[Wall-E]

Here's the reason I don't check threads that aren't on my Watched Topics page: I don't check threads that aren't on my Watched Topics page. I don't browse the site at-large, only that one page and any links on it. Sorry for the confusion, again.

I claimed because 88% of the thread was about me, and it looked like I was likely to be the lynch for the day from my perspective. If I jumped the gun, I apologize.

@yellowbunny and anyone thinking I'm good at this game: omg fffff ahahahahaha No I suck. One thing I have going for me is bull-headed stubbornness, which is often a trait of experts, but rest assured it's a by-product of my single-mindedness and not skill.

That's not to say I haven't caught my fair-share of scum in my day, though I'd attribute that more to my understanding of logic.

Anyway, this is going to take some undoing, but I'm down.

As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks: I get a Role PM but no link to the thread, read the PM but don't have time to find it, then forget. When I realized that's what happened to this game I joined and said, "Sorry, I forgot to click, 'Watch this topic for replies.' " which was the END-PRODUCT of what I should have said happened: "Sorry, I forgot to find the thread and click, 'Watch this topic for replies.' "

All that said, I'm watching this thread now, and reading everything. I'll butt in when I feel sufficiently pithy.

[Wall-E]

acutally, you made me go check, and it does

it's one word and kinda small though

[Wall-E]

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

With you so far.

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

Uh, no. Going with the flow simply to not be noticed is the epitome of scummy. You have no point here.

Still waiting on that whole content thing from you.

You are doing a great job, sport.

X attacks indescriminately: When X said 'don't lurk' in response to 'i only make pithy comments' I realized what he was doing. He's either 1) baiting touchy scum or 2) scum pretending to try to bait touchy scum or 3) really bad at being scum or 4) really bad at being town. I know that's a lot of options, but now I have a filter I'll read all his posts through. He's mostly just making a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so.

Hi X.

That said, I don't think he's particularly scummy, but his illogical plays are rather anti-town if taken too seriously.

[Wall-E]

you say you don't have any scummy vibes from anyone...okay, fine, maybe scummy is too strong of a word. Have you seen anything which you at least find probative?

Probative? Dunno what that means. SLIGHTLY scummy? Suspicious? Iffy? Yeah, I've seen a little bit of that, from X, Wall-E, and our non-posters, as previously stated. I don't like X's clingyness, nor Wall-E's apparent lack of interest in the game, and some people just aren't posting enough.

I don't know what you people think probative means and I don't think I want to.

[Wall-E]

On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)

@qwints: While I *definitely* would have a lot to say in response to that, did you read Hambargarz's post in 138? We aren't allowed any further discussion on anything which came out of their discussion of PMs.

That was an issue before the PMs came up, so it's still allowed to be discussed.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E:

qwints wrote:
On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)
yellowbunny wrote:
@qwints: While I *definitely* would have a lot to say in response to that, did you read Hambargarz's post in 138? We aren't allowed any further discussion on anything which came out of their discussion of PMs.

That was an issue before the PMs came up, so it's still allowed to be discussed.

Wow...either you're really not paying attention, or you're purposefully trying to make it seem like I have it out for you & don't want to discuss your explanation for being MIA. Let's actually look at the WHOLE post.

yellowbunny wrote:

2.) Ojanen and Wall-e are both not scum-aligned (although one or the other may be). There is no way Ojanen would have called out Wall-e on such a subtle point if they were both scum.

This is absolutely wrong. In fact, you'll often see scum pointing out phantom scum tells by their partners. Scum tells stand out more when you know the person making them is scum.

On the watching the topic issue, I think Wall-E solved it when he said that he meant that he hadn't even gone to the thread (which is why I unvoted.)

I don't see how anyone could possibly read this post and be confused about what I part of qwints post I was talking about.

I retract my statement. My proverbial bad, dog.

Also...

You are doing a great job, sport.

X attacks indescriminately: When X said 'don't lurk' in response to 'i only make pithy comments' I realized what he was doing. He's either 1) baiting touchy scum or 2) scum pretending to try to bait touchy scum or 3) really bad at being scum or 4) really bad at being town. I know that's a lot of options, but now I have a filter I'll read all his posts through. He's mostly just making a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so.

Hi X.

That said, I don't think he's particularly scummy, but his illogical plays are rather anti-town if taken too seriously.

You're baiting X just as much as he's baiting you. So I think everything you said about him in this quote applies equally to you.

I think most of us are trying to be fair and not hold your inactivity against you (at least too much), but you don't seem overly interested in scum hunting. More people than just X have commented on this. Can you please post YOUR list of impressions of everyone in the game?

How am I baiting X? Everything I've said about X is true, even the part where I said he's doing a great job. There was zero sarcasm in this post on my part.

[Wall-E]

mod:

Lleu hasn't posted since March 31...can you please prod him?


@Wall-e

How am I baiting X? Everything I've said about X is true, even the part where I said he's doing a great job. There was zero sarcasm in this post on my part

So, you are not being sarcastic when you said you think he's doing a good job? This right after you said he "attacks indiscriminately", makes "a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so", and is potentially "really bad" at being either town or scum. Uh...what? You contradict yourself.

I retract my statement. My proverbial bad, dog.

Well...which was it? Bad read or deliberate twisting? I'm more inclined to think the twisting...maybe I said something in that post which struck a nerve?

no such predicament befalls me at this juncture, sorry

i will say that your correction was well done and i understood it imediately when i read it (? is that enough ?)

i'm inclined to believe that burfy is contradicting himself in post 166 when he claims that i am the most scummy person in the game, he always votes for the scummiest person in the game, but then says he won't vote me because ... what? it's not very clear. why are you not voting for the scummiest person in the game, burfy, who is, by your own words, myself?

[Wall-E]

@Noob: can you post who you have found scummy/towny?

At this point I'm really not sure, I have a few suspicions but obviously there can't be 4 scums. I'll post this in detail during a weekend. (I have spurs of activity also, most of my content will come on weekends).

I'd also like to say we shouldn't make a complete list of who we think is scum and who we think is innocent. Sure the scum should be brought up, but I've been told (and I think it makes perfect sense) that have complete lists help scum to perform their night kill as they'll obviously kill off the person everyone thinks is townie.

can you name for me the four scums you had in mind?

[Wall-E]

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.
I was wondering if scum could talk amongst themselves during N0. Then the natural reaction might be PMing your scumbuddies first.

Your problem with me is this bit, burfy? I believe this has been explained, but if you want to throw your vote away, all I can say is, "What about this is scummy?"

Rather than ask, say, for clarification, you seem to be swinging the gavel on me, and I dislike closed-minded townies. It feels too much like tunneling for my taste.

Does it strike anyone else as funny how Wall-e doesn't like to answer questions?

Why won't Wall-e give us a list of people he finds scummy? He's been asked multiple times by multiple people.

yellowbunny wrote:
mod: Lleu hasn't posted since March 31...can you please prod him?


@Wall-e
Wall-e wrote:


How am I baiting X? Everything I've said about X is true, even the part where I said he's doing a great job. There was zero sarcasm in this post on my part

So, you are not being sarcastic when you said you think he's doing a good job?

This right after you said he "attacks indiscriminately", makes "a lot of noise and nobody has much to fear from him since half the things he says are strawmen or misreps, albiet likely unintentionally so", and is potentially "really bad" at being either town or scum. Uh...what? You contradict yourself.

Wall-e wrote:

I retract my statement. My proverbial bad, dog.


Well...which was it? Bad read or deliberate twisting? I'm more inclined to think the twisting...maybe I said something in that post which struck a nerve?


no such predicament befalls me at this juncture, sorry

i will say that your correction was well done and i understood it imediately when i read it (? is that enough ?)

Wall-e doesn't address my first question at all (that he is either lying about not being sarcastic, or is lying about his opinion), and doesn't really answer my second question either.

Scummy behavior + lying + weak/no scum hunting =

vote: Wall-e

Yellowbunny, I wonder if you could back up some of the statements you've made:

1) Wall-E doesn't like answering questions.

Please quote for me any question I have not answered and I will do so.

2) Wall-E has made no list of suspects yet.

While this is true, I do have a list. You can see it when I feel confident in showing it. Until then, my answer to "will you show me?" will be no.

3) Wall-E failed to properly address two questions, the first of which was "Were you being sarcastic when you said X was doing a good job?" and the second of which was "bad read or twisting?"

Answer: Complicated question. I was... teasing him for his dogged attacks with no real foundation. While I felt unthreatened by them, I wanted to comment on my perception of his plays thus-far in the thread in the hopes that a meta-read by some other player would shed light on his alignment, and also to bring pressure against him for making less than solidly-founded statements. By speaking as if to a child, I was attempting to convey a sense of the... bemusement his playstyle made me feel at the time. X's attacks have felt rather like some of my own work but sans (in a few cases) an element of cohesive logic. I can't narrow my emotions down much more than that.

Answer 2: Bad read. Why else would anyone say, "My bad?" Would you have expected scum-me to answer, "twisting?"

I considered this question rhetoric, given that neither of us, so far as I'm aware, is a drooling vegetable retard, but your decision to list my non-answering of this rhetorical question into the list of reasons for your vote on me is relieving, because it means I can point this out and nobody will take you seriously. Hooray!

[Wall-E]

Scummy behavior + lying + weak/no scum hunting =

vote: Wall-e

One last thing to say here: The deconstruction of illogical attacks is an equally important function for members of the town to undertake. If you do not appreciate my input, I can understand that, but please be aware that not everyone can be Sherlock Holmes in these games. Where is your suspect, now that your case on me has one half-bent leg to stand upon?

[Wall-E]

It's possible that I am the mafia and so I am the mafia?

I hope you can see the problem with this argument.

[Wall-E]

Yellowbunny, I wonder if you could back up some of the statements you've made:

1) Wall-E doesn't like answering questions.

Please quote for me any question I have not answered and I will do so.

2) Wall-E has made no list of suspects yet.

While this is true, I do have a list. You can see it when I feel confident in showing it. Until then, my answer to "will you show me?" will be no.

3) Wall-E failed to properly address two questions, the first of which was "Were you being sarcastic when you said X was doing a good job?" and the second of which was "bad read or twisting?"

Answer: Complicated question. I was... teasing him for his dogged attacks with no real foundation. While I felt unthreatened by them, I wanted to comment on my perception of his plays thus-far in the thread in the hopes that a meta-read by some other player would shed light on his alignment, and also to bring pressure against him for making less than solidly-founded statements. By speaking as if to a child, I was attempting to convey a sense of the... bemusement his playstyle made me feel at the time. X's attacks have felt rather like some of my own work but sans (in a few cases) an element of cohesive logic. I can't narrow my emotions down much more than that.

Answer 2: Bad read. Why else would anyone say, "My bad?" Would you have expected scum-me to answer, "twisting?"

I considered this question rhetoric, given that neither of us, so far as I'm aware, is a drooling vegetable retard, but your decision to list my non-answering of this rhetorical question into the list of reasons for your vote on me is relieving, because it means I can point this out and nobody will take you seriously. Hooray!

1.) See your points 2 & 3. You obviously know the answer to this question since you addressed the questions you won't answer!!

2.) Why are you afraid to state who you think is scummy?

3a.) Not sure if I buy this argument, but at least you have given an answer now. I need to think more on what you said...I may have follow up questions.

3b.) "My bad" does *NOT* automatically indicate a bad read. When I see a flippant response like that, my gut feeling is "whoops, scum trying to cover his ass".

Also...

You don't know me very well.

I considered this question rhetoric, given that neither of us, so far as I'm aware, is a drooling vegetable retard, but your decision to list my non-answering of this rhetorical question into the list of reasons for your vote on me is relieving, because it means I can point this out and nobody will take you seriously. Hooray!

Just because you chose to read it as a rhetorical question doesn't meant I didn't want an answer. Bad logic here, and renders the rest of your statement null and void.

Wait. Stop right there.

Hey, are you retarded or what?

See that question? If one of the answers is clearly not something the other person would say, it's not a question.

Your question: Did you read the post incorrectly or are you twisting my words?

In what case would a townie twist words? Your question therefore boils down to this: Are you scum?

I'm not going to dignify that with a response because it's a stupid question.

Do you understand now?

If you do not appreciate my input, I can understand that, but please be aware that not everyone can be Sherlock Holmes in these games. Where is your suspect, now that your case on me has one half-bent leg to stand upon?

1. Obviously I DO want your input, otherwise I wouldn't be ASKING for it.
2. You do realize the hypocrisy in asking me for an additional suspect (which, mind you, I have already mentioned my other top suspicions, or did you miss that as well?) when you yourself will not provide yours?
3. You overestimate your rebuttal -- my case is still valid.


FYI: To avoid further "confusion", my questions and comments in this post ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE RHETORICAL. Please do not use that excuse again to not answer.

Huhuhu, you're fat.

[Wall-E]

[Wall-E]

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

[Wall-E]

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote

.

Nothing to add for now.

[Wall-E]

I disagree that you've caught X doing something significant here, burfy.

[Wall-E]

Oh, I see I'm being an idiot in this game. Let's stop that now.

Next, some damage control:

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?

1) No.
2) I think that you are right. What about it would you like to discuss?

IK: No idea why I voted for you. I'm reading again to see, but I think it was the way you refused to random vote.

Now, for some more content:

In 83 Lleu claims he will provide some meta-read on IK to see if he REALLY hates RVS or just made that up to cover himself. Where's that read, Lleu?

After re-reading the thread prior to my reappearance I have nothing to say that will help the town (only townie suspects).

To be totally fair, I screwed up bad by not participating to now, but the town screwed the pooch by talking mostly about ME for the first nine pages, making it hard for me to find usable content. I think the way everyone piled on me was well done as town, and had I been here I'd probably have hammered me. The only other thing I can do is apologize.

I'm sorry.

[Wall-E]

Whatever. I'm a very analytical guy, so I can't see your standpoint (getting vibes), but I understand where you're coming from.

Hi X.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

I am unable to read subtlety or reactions for the most part. All of my sucessful scumhunting has been by deconstructing logic and never by being idescriminate. There is a medical reason for this, but I'd rather not discuss it. I bring this up to make a point:

Feely-gamers (DGB and zwets come to mind): I always think they're scum and want to lynch them. It's been the hardest part of learning to play mafia, but also a very good way to learn about things like reactions and emotions.

So what I see here are two different types of claim:

In the first, you claim to be less feely-gamer and more logic-gamer. In the second, you claim to be judging reactions. Which would you say you are?

You're baiting X just as much as he's baiting you. So I think everything you said about him in this quote applies equally to you.

I think most of us are trying to be fair and not hold your inactivity against you (at least too much), but you don't seem overly interested in scum hunting. More people than just X have commented on this. Can you please post YOUR list of impressions of everyone in the game?

QFT.

I acknowledge this post's existence.

Wall-E, if you had done these attacks in Mini 761, you would have been modkilled. Just so you know.

Hopefully a warning would've preceeded that modkill! I only do what people let me get away with! Also, your (you're) fat.

[Wall-E]

I'm starting to get some suspicions of YB. At times it's seemed like she was kind of stretching some of the points against Wall-E. On the other hand I'm now more suspicious of Wall-E...before I didn't think there was much merit to the case against him, but his vote for IK struck me as susbicious, and now with his recent apology/explanation I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a clear read on him now.

Can you give even one example of yellowbunny stretching? I didn't notice it, but I was a bit close to the subject to be objective.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E: my comment on you being "difficult" isn't meant to be insulting, btw, so please don't take it as such...just trying to explain to Jase how I saw things.

Y

You certainly wouldn't be the first to label me as 'difficult.' no worries mate

[Wall-E]

Wall-E's apology satisfied me ever so slightly, but I still have doubts. For example, Wall-E, what are your current thoughts on everyone? Do you have any?

I will answer this thoroughly before the D1 lynch.

[Wall-E]

i gotta play dnd with some friends tonight and i'll be online all day tomorrow

[Wall-E]

I'm too close to the action in this game to be unbiased. I'm hoping someone else makes a strong case for me to analyze. I think that for today that might be all I can manage.

[Wall-E]

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

[Wall-E]

@Idiotking- post 64, Random voting is needed by town to generate discussion. Not taking part in a random vote is scummy, because it means less discussion.

@Ojaned- post 73, although that is a reasonable assumption I doubt someone like Walle who plays multiples would not post in thread simply because he was night talking. You assume to much about peoples free time. Sure some have some here and there but some have large blocks of free time followed by large blocks of being busy.

@Walle- post 103, fail? You claim VT.
if your scum- That was such a bad way to cover up and your cracking under pressure this early?
if your town- you just failed town as any PRs just got upped in chance to be killed ><

There was not enough pressure on you at this point to claim. Period.

Admonishment acknowledged, and I agree with you.

@Next few posts after 103, echos my sentiments.

@131- I agree with everything in this post of yellowbunny's, besides the obvious misread

@142- vote count summary, I think a lot of people here have wishy washy votes at this point. Why do we only have 4 votes on the board on page 5? Why? I read this as a mild form of busing. Just not sure on who.

@172- I agree with walle and disagree with burfy here, your vote is/was not on the "scummyest" person as previously claimed. Your 2nd sentence I am assuming you meant "Note that I?"

@173-Kreriov- Semi agree. I see walle's large increase in participation as scummy because it strikes me as trying to be under the radar, and then realizing your in danger, and desperately clinging to a rope, spamming posts to survive.

It's my normal playstyle when I have free time.

[Wall-E]

All right, I couldn't sleep so here's some analysis.

Wall-E has consistently been the most scummy. Late to the thread, preemptive vanilla claim and a failure to scumhunt characterized the beginning of his play. His bizarre vote and unvote in posts 191 and 200 represent the height of his stupidity and this post:

I'm too close to the action in this game to be unbiased. I'm hoping someone else makes a strong case for me to analyze. I think that for today that might be all I can manage.

represents a final abdication of a desire to produce content. 10 of his 25 posts are basically empty including this classic in iso post 15:

vote: Wall-E

Think and might meant I was still planning to try.

[Wall-E]

Or I saw something, forgot what it was and unvoted, then saw it again on a re-read.

[Wall-E]

Yeah Noob, that is the biggest problem with day 1, everything is supposition and accusation with little or no backing. If I say I hate it for that reason will that be ok?

A quick, unnecessary claim is not supposition. It is concrete evidence. True or not, its also a bad move to claim with no real reason. Actually, I also do not like some of the following

@yellowbunny and anyone thinking I'm good at this game: omg fffff ahahahahaha No I suck. One thing I have going for me is bull-headed stubbornness, which is often a trait of experts, but rest assured it's a by-product of my single-mindedness and not skill.

That's not to say I haven't caught my fair-share of scum in my day, though I'd attribute that more to my understanding of logic.

Anyway, this is going to take some undoing, but I'm down.

As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks

Ok, so you are not an expert at this game and yet you are in 5 or 6 games at once. Even if you are not an expert, you should know better than to claim to quickly.

Having said all this, I am still going to do this

unvote

I already have limited time and access on the weekends, this Sunday is Palm Sunday, and I do like Wall-Es willingess to admit 'this is going to take some undoing'. I look forward to reading the resulting discussion on Wall-E and Cubarey in particular on Monday! Enjoy the weekend all.

I don't like this post. Nothing has changed (I'm still scum) but an unvote regardless.

You think that the case agains Wall-E has the most merit...? I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion the only substantial thing we've seen has been from cubarey.

Well, lets exchange our opinions:

I think

the cubarey case isn't too strong

simply because his joining date says the 22nd of March 2009...that's certainly not enough time to even have finished one game.

I think he's trying a bit too hard to fit in.

I've quite a few other small suspicions which again I've eliminated until further evidence comes up:

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

I also find Leu and you a bit odd in certain places of that debate but I'll save why for now so not all my methods of observation will be known this early in the game.


Wall-E's case is much more interesting, its little pick ups like this that in my opinion are much more important.

Another one. Is Cubary scum or not, W1N?

I don't like how in 129 Ojanen gives X a pass to attack without justifications and use rhetoric at-will. Ojanen has posted very little useful scumhunting and he's buddying to X who appears to be obvtown in this game so-far (except that he's backed off IK which I dislike).

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

None of these are questions that have meaningful answers, this is rhetorical provocation to get some reactions going. (Not saying anything against that, I like X so far, at least he's been tickling people to get something going)

From post 90

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence

So this is a misrepresentation of the interaction and the nature of the questions. They were not "requests for information".

From his last post

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

This is more of the same, and stating previous experience but at the same time ignoring that OMGUS is a really common gut reaction to provocation. Also shows that despite everyone who commented on disagreeing CUBAREY didn't seem to go and check again what actually happened, or else he's misrepresenting on purpose.

Otoh, it's interesting to see how Idiotking's way of responding to this last Cubarey post is now quite different from what he was like before. He's merely defending himself, not questioning Cubarey anymore.

[Wall-E]

Anyway, to respond to your statement back when and because it seems pertinent now, just because I do not think lurking in and of itself is scummy do not think I do not notice or want to do something about it.

When someone has less access, that's one thing. When someone's lurking, it's another. Lurking is scummy.

@X, hedging just means saying that you could be wrong.

e.g. wall-e's lurking is scummy BUT he might just be lazy.

It's not necessarily a scum tell, but scum can use it so that they can point back and say they were suspicious of their partners.

I see. And there is a lot of hedging in Idiotking's posts.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

Please name what you think we should be discussing, X?

[Wall-E]

@Noob: can you post who you have found scummy/towny?

At this point I'm really not sure, I have a few suspicions but obviously there can't be 4 scums. I'll post this in detail during a weekend. (I have spurs of activity also, most of my content will come on weekends).

I'd also like to say we shouldn't make a complete list of who we think is scum and who we think is innocent. Sure the scum should be brought up, but I've been told (and I think it makes perfect sense) that have complete lists help scum to perform their night kill as they'll obviously kill off the person everyone thinks is townie.

can you name for me the four scums you had in mind?

I am still eagerly awaiting your response to this, W1N.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E
Your vote on Idiotking page 8, unvote page 9. Please explain thought process. What made you say "Hm. Interesting" in your unvote post?

Yeah Noob, that is the biggest problem with day 1, everything is supposition and accusation with little or no backing. If I say I hate it for that reason will that be ok?

A quick, unnecessary claim is not supposition. It is concrete evidence. True or not, its also a bad move to claim with no real reason. Actually, I also do not like some of the following

@yellowbunny and anyone thinking I'm good at this game: omg fffff ahahahahaha No I suck. One thing I have going for me is bull-headed stubbornness, which is often a trait of experts, but rest assured it's a by-product of my single-mindedness and not skill.

That's not to say I haven't caught my fair-share of scum in my day, though I'd attribute that more to my understanding of logic.

Anyway, this is going to take some undoing, but I'm down.

As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks

Ok, so you are not an expert at this game and yet you are in 5 or 6 games at once. Even if you are not an expert, you should know better than to claim to quickly.

Having said all this, I am still going to do this

unvote

I already have limited time and access on the weekends, this Sunday is Palm Sunday, and I do like Wall-Es willingess to admit 'this is going to take some undoing'. I look forward to reading the resulting discussion on Wall-E and Cubarey in particular on Monday! Enjoy the weekend all.

I don't like this post. Nothing has changed (I'm still scum) but an unvote regardless.

You think that the case agains Wall-E has the most merit...? I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion the only substantial thing we've seen has been from cubarey.

Well, lets exchange our opinions:

I think

the cubarey case isn't too strong

simply because his joining date says the 22nd of March 2009...that's certainly not enough time to even have finished one game.

I think he's trying a bit too hard to fit in.

I've quite a few other small suspicions which again I've eliminated until further evidence comes up:

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

I also find Leu and you a bit odd in certain places of that debate but I'll save why for now so not all my methods of observation will be known this early in the game.


Wall-E's case is much more interesting, its little pick ups like this that in my opinion are much more important.

Another one. Is Cubary scum or not, W1N?

I don't like how in 129 Ojanen gives X a pass to attack without justifications and use rhetoric at-will. Ojanen has posted very little useful scumhunting and he's buddying to X who appears to be obvtown in this game so-far (except that he's backed off IK which I dislike).

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

None of these are questions that have meaningful answers, this is rhetorical provocation to get some reactions going. (Not saying anything against that, I like X so far, at least he's been tickling people to get something going)

From post 90

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence

So this is a misrepresentation of the interaction and the nature of the questions. They were not "requests for information".

From his last post

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

This is more of the same, and stating previous experience but at the same time ignoring that OMGUS is a really common gut reaction to provocation. Also shows that despite everyone who commented on disagreeing CUBAREY didn't seem to go and check again what actually happened, or else he's misrepresenting on purpose.

Otoh, it's interesting to see how Idiotking's way of responding to this last Cubarey post is now quite different from what he was like before. He's merely defending himself, not questioning Cubarey anymore.

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Unvote: Vote: X

ISO 1: He random-votes me. I'm always suspicious when someone random-votes a player and then conveniently that person becomes their #1 scum suspect. It's a big coincidence pill to swallow. (smallville rocks)

ISO 9: Mentions me again, now taking a fence-sitty position on me.

ISO 12: Claims I'm adding no content despite the fact that I am.

ISO 13:

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

I dislike 13 because of the word, "Plus." A psychologist once told me that if I wanted to lie effectively I should give only one excuse when making an excuse for something, because the tendancy is for people to give two or more reasons, stringing them together with 'alsos' and 'besides.' X here looks like he's excusing himself from future attacks, and he gives two reasons. Minorest of minor points here, since I try to steer away from trying to find scum by reactions. This one popped out at me though.

ISO 15: He quotes someone else's defense of him in response to my "baiting" post and then goes on to vaguely respond to it. He follows that up with an appeal to emotion: "Wall-E, if you had done any of those attacks in 761 you would have been modkilled."

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

The contradiction here is telling, imo. Do you look for reactions (or "vibes" as some call them) or do you analyze plays?

ISO 20 and 21: He revisits IK and seems overly interested in IK's status. I think X is IK's partner, but I'm only about 20% sure.

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

and

FoS: X

[Wall-E]

At the bottom of the screen, there is an option to sort the thread by poster.

I'm only like 20% or 25% sure about X, like I said. It's stretchy, but something about him has been bothering me. I conceed the point that it could be just OMGUS. I was hoping for some perspective on this after all the research was over, which would be now.

[Wall-E]

Was prodded.

If hedging is what you say it is, qwints, a quick check of my posts in the only other game I've actually played on this site will tell you that I personally have to hedge. My whole concept of this game is based on possibilities, and because of that I can't ever be sure that I'm right. And I completely sucked in the other game I've played here, so call it self-paranoia if you want, I don't trust myself.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Define flip-out, please.

Oh, and could you make up your mind on what you're after, Wall-E?

I want a glass of wine, a warm bath, a box of chocolates, and you.

You seem to just be jumping after whoever's a target at the moment (mostly me). Cubarey was after me, so you went after me. Once I wasn't the main focus anymore, you unvoted and still haven't adequately explained WHY you voted in the first place. Now you're dragging up old, OLD posts and trying to make an argument out of them? Haven't I said anything 'scummy' since page 4? If so, why haven't you brought it up yet? If not, why are you trying to make a case against me on such crappy 'evidence?'

What abut my evidence is crappy?

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I don't remember. Probably a little from all the options.

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.
In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd. You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.

And what do you think? He has been indiscriminate in most cases, but with me he has not. I base this on the evidence I presented already.

The scum in this game are doing a good job, I hate to confess, because I typically have much stronger convictions in a game.

I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I await this placeholder post's fulfillment.

[Wall-E]

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts on page 11).

[Wall-E]

Define flip-out, please.

Should I link the wiki or try to give my own definition?

[Wall-E]

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts

anywhere in this game

).

fixed

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E - So you are unhappy that I am NOT voting for you? You have been spamming a bit and it does look a bit like desperation. This is a common theme with you given the premature VT claim. All I can say is I, for one, do have suspicions but I found your request and dedication to work your way out of the hole you are in to be sincere.

@All - I am going to beat the Cubarey drum again. He basically fabricated a case against X, contradicting himself in the post where he tries to get a case going against X as well as the other post Jase originally pinged. Now he has failed to post in over a week. I do not advocate lynching someone because they have not posted, but it is suspicious as well as very frustrating.

Unless in certain circumstances, I prefer it when players NEVER EVER EVER clear other players. I don't mind you saying who is scum, but saying who you think is town narrows the pool of viable NK targets for the scum.

[Wall-E]

well lets get some more events happening so we have more to talk about.

vote: Wall-e

/mod: prod cubarey

Hmm.

[Wall-E]

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts

anywhere in this game

).

fixed

I didn't say they were contentless. It just looked like multiple theories/accusations of yours to get the attention off you.

Ah. Noted.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E - So you are unhappy that I am NOT voting for you? You have been spamming a bit and it does look a bit like desperation. This is a common theme with you given the premature VT claim. All I can say is I, for one, do have suspicions but I found your request and dedication to work your way out of the hole you are in to be sincere.

@All - I am going to beat the Cubarey drum again. He basically fabricated a case against X, contradicting himself in the post where he tries to get a case going against X as well as the other post Jase originally pinged. Now he has failed to post in over a week. I do not advocate lynching someone because they have not posted, but it is suspicious as well as very frustrating.

Unless in certain circumstances, I prefer it when players NEVER EVER EVER clear other players. I don't mind you saying who is scum, but saying who you think is town narrows the pool of viable NK targets for the scum.

Huh? You lost me somewhere. Are you trying to claim I have cleared you or think you are definitely town? I haven't and don't! In fact, given this statement, my suspicion of you just went up.

Lets see, 'saying who you think is town narrows the pool'. And claiming VT with only 4 of 7 votes doesn't? You were jumped on pretty quickly with good reason and responded poorly. You asked for time and opportunity and are given it. No reason not to! Time benefits the town and until there is a deadline imposed, you have it. Don't make me reconsider with posts like this one!

Nothing you have said changes how I feel. I am aware that I am a hypocrite. Everyone is, if we're being honest.

[Wall-E]

I'll provide you with my most recent game as mafia: http://sharkey.gamespite.net/forum/inde ... pic=2546.0

I'm Guildenstern. I hope this is useful.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

[Wall-E]

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

[Wall-E]

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

Saying this is as scummy as voting without a reason. Can you tell me what reasons those who are on my wagon have given that you consider weak? Otherwise you're scum who knows I'm town and you're engaging in villagery.

[Wall-E]

makes

me

the most obvious scum target atm. So Vote: CUBAREY

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: Hero

A slip, a joking confession, and bussing IK.

[Wall-E]

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

Here is the problem with what you are doing.

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't.

[Wall-E]

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

[Wall-E]

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

[Wall-E]

Don't bother. It's not there. Your rhetoric continues to pile up with nary a quote nor discernable reference to argue against, leaving me holding this empty bag.

Feel free to bus your partner back later.

[Wall-E]

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

[Wall-E]

A rhetorical question is: Are you stupid?

An actual question is: Why did you do that?

The rhetorical question has a departure point of not caring what the answer is. The answer doesn't matter because the question is asked to make a point rather than gain information.

Two people have misused this term. It's not scummy, so I won't point out whom/where.

[Wall-E]

What, IK, is the difference between being defensive and defending yourself?

[Wall-E]

Being defensive leads to something else so it's different from defending yourself? This is your assertion? I think you are arguing semantics like a scummy scummer.

If you have asked me any question or raised any point you wish me to address and I have not, I will. Please restate or quote or tell me where to find said point/question.

[Wall-E]

You're voting for me because you are arguing semantics? What about all the other reasons you've given for voting for me? Now you're being over-defensive.

[Wall-E]

I gave all my reasons for voting you already Horo. I realize you are new to the terminology and playstyles of mafiascum, so I'll explain them.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell. It's called a scumtell because players who are new to the game, because of the psychology of the game, tend to exhibit them.

Bussing is when you throw your partner under the bus to garner some positive reputation with the town.

The slip is your weakest tell, but it tipped me into the camp of thinking you were IK's partner combined with your bussing. You slipped and wrote, "I am scum." or words that made no sense but can be construed as such.

I'm not going to push this, because I don't want to make you angry with me on a personal level. Just know that it happens to a lot of newbies and there will be other games for you to perfect your scumplays in.

[Wall-E]

I don't see why not.

Wall-E's actually trying to make something of my sarcasm. He's thinking I'm being SERIOUS when I say that's why I'm voting for him. I find that amusing. You don't honestly think I'd vote for you over semantics, do you, Wall-E?

I only joke around when I'm not being attacked. Joking when someone else is trying to be serious is a deflective and unhelpful reaction. I'm hoping that the IC players in this game will back me up on this, but I have to accept the possibility that nobody agrees with me on this point, and so I'm not going to flood the thread with screaming and wailing. You don't want to play ball, that's your call to make.

At least you're having fun, right?

[Wall-E]

Hm. Punching.


@Wall-E,

You completely ignored my post 331.
I asked some questions in the end.

Putting the strings together:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
You did not remember why you voted, but did remember why you unvoted?

1 Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.
2 I remembered why I voted later. I also remembered why I unvoted twice later.

Is any of this relevant to the points I've made?

[Wall-E]

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT YOU WERE BEING SERIOUS ABOUT THE MEANING OF A COMMONLY USED PHRASE, NOT EVEN A MAFIA-RELATED ONE, AND ARE TRYING TO CALL ME OUT ON IT.



Just sayin'.

Being semantical is a scumtell. That was my point.

[Wall-E]

And ever blathering, ever redundant, the broken record goes on.......

WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??

Strawman. I have never made this assertion.

[Wall-E]

Your post was so incredibly substantial that you broke the... wait, you already used that one, didn't you? Hmph.

IdiotKing is visibly flipping out.

[Wall-E]

Reading through the thread and assuming YB and IK are partners makes some of the things YB has done make a lot more sense. He starts with some distancing, downgrades his vote to an FOS, throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else on why he feels that way, then goes on to slowly work himself into a lather over some point I missed or question I failed to answer.

YB: What questions/points would you like me to address, since I now think you're tunneling and therefore scum? Or are you uninterested in giving an innocent a chance to defend themselves from your probably-not-going-to-be-removed vote?

[Wall-E]

Either you suck at making your sarcasm detectable, or this is one hell of a weird defense.

I'll accept your explanation though.

How dismissive! Normally when someone does something weird I pressure them about it to learn more. Why so accepting?

[Wall-E]

stuff

Before I answer any of your questions, can you link me to a game in which you were scum please?

[Wall-E]

Here's the thing. I can't know when you're being serious. It's a medical condition I have called Asperger's. I've been called stubborn, stupid, and an asshole for it many hundreds of times.

That said, your attitude is not one I appreciate. When I make a fallacious statement, the response I would like to see is a well-reasoned refutation, not child-like sarcasm or ad hominem. If you're wondering why I focus on slips, fallacies and things of that nature it's because I can't distinguish tone or "vibes" as people call them. It's just my style. If you find it unhelpful, that's one thing, but you're reacting to it the way scum does when I catch them, and it's making me want to glean your posts even more for further slips and fallacies.

An appeal to emotion like this is something I would vote for me for making, which is why I have been loathe to bring it up for the past nine months.

Lately, however, I've become aware of a dichotomy of playstyles, one family of which are reaction-reading players and the other family of which are logic-analysis players. I'm a logic-analysis player, and you are the scummiest person in this game based on my experience with scum and my own style of hunting them.

Your continued failure to take me and this game seriously is only going to drive my proverbial foot up your joking anus, to use a colloquial phrase.

[Wall-E]

And it's, "proportion."

[Wall-E]

Since you didn't understand this post, I'm going to rephrase everything in it in a more understandable way. Sorry for the confusion.

Reading through the thread and assuming YB and IK are partners makes some of the things YB has done make a lot more sense. He starts with some distancing, downgrades his vote to an FOS, throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else on why he feels that way, then goes on to slowly work himself into a lather over some point I missed or question I failed to answer.

YB: What questions/points would you like me to address, since I now think you're tunneling and therefore scum? Or are you uninterested in giving an innocent a chance to defend themselves from your probably-not-going-to-be-removed vote?

I had the thought that YB and IK could be scumbuddies. Upon reading through the thread with that assumption in mind, some things YB has done appear to line up with that theory:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS. Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.

[Wall-E]

Waiting for IK to address my previous posts about him. Nothing else to add for now.

[Wall-E]

Are you denying early-game suspicion on IK on your part?

[Wall-E]

IK remains dismissive. His anger grants him some town points, but not enough for me to pull my vote off him.

[Wall-E]

Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.

[Wall-E]

Tossing suspicion at your attackers is a sign of OMGUS, IK.

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him.

[Wall-E]

I don't think I should have to interrogate you to get you to scumhunt. And I disagree; the more info we get on D1 the more info we can use on D2, regardless of absolutely everything else.

@Wall-E:
Waiting for you to answer EVERYONE's questions. Hypocrite.

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess. But Sajin and qwints haven't tried to explain why they're lurking. Jase and burfey have the same problem. And I'm pretty sure there's at least one scum hiding out amongst the four of them. Simple numbers tell me that, and considering lurking is naturally scummy behavior, they're giving me plenty of ammo.

Or you're taking advantage of it to toss suspicion at your attackers.

Attacking the attacker is a defense that calls into question the integrity of your attackers. It's even better when you have things to hold over their heads! You're holding lurking over their heads, which is the weakest possible kind of scumtell due to its profusion site-wide.

[Wall-E]

I don't think I should have to interrogate you to get you to scumhunt. And I disagree; the more info we get on D1 the more info we can use on D2, regardless of absolutely everything else.

@Wall-E:
Waiting for you to answer EVERYONE's questions. Hypocrite.

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess. But Sajin and qwints haven't tried to explain why they're lurking. Jase and burfey have the same problem. And I'm pretty sure there's at least one scum hiding out amongst the four of them. Simple numbers tell me that, and considering lurking is naturally scummy behavior, they're giving me plenty of ammo.

Furthermore, telling us that one in ANY FOUR PEOPLE IN THIS GAME could be scum is the opposite of scumhunting. It's... just uselessness.

[Wall-E]

Note that you don't address anything at all.

When I feel you've held up your end of the nebulous social contract you signed by playing this game by addressing the points in my case rather than dismissing them I will take this comment seriously.

[Wall-E]

Alright, so most seem to agree that a Wall-E lynch would be good. I've already explained my reasons for suspecting him. I've got no problem putting down the hammer. My question to you is: Do you think we're at a good time to end Day 1?

NO.

[Wall-E]

Why would you want to cut off discussion like that Hero?

[Wall-E]

Hey guess what? We can discuss more today and if you hammer you're hurting us tremendously.

More ad hominem and a continued disregard for my case from IK. At this point he's trying to stick to his guns, but unfortunately his guns are anti-town, so he's going to die.

[Wall-E]

Are you offering me respite from the gallows if I do?

[Wall-E]

Cuz, you know, you didn't post from the 14th until today. That's 5 days. 6 pages. And the most you can come up with on your return is:


qwints wrote:
Nothing substantive.

Ik's spew on page 15 makes him more suspicious to me. That's a lot of posting with little accomplished which is anti-town.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia. I also don't like his claim that tunneling = scum in 396.

Right now I'm fine with a wall-e lynch. IK is probably the second most suspicious over the last stretch. A couple of posts from Krevriov and yellowbunny made me a little suspicious (282 and 393 respectively), but not enough to do much about.

I wrote this without reviewing my previous long post, so I'm sure somebody slipped off the radar.



Now I maybe I could buy the fact that you could only post on weekends, or you were sick, or something like that. Maybe. But if that were true, you'd probably have come up with something better than "Nothing substantive" when you got back.

Not to mention, the only other game I've seen you play, you were scum and lurked like crazy. Just like now, really.

I've thought about IK's point here now, and its interesting.

Qwints, why do you finally post after 5 days...and that coincides with when Wall-e is at L-1? And how can you claim that someone being at L-1 isn't substantial to comment on?

He said his post was nothing substantative right in the beginning. What point are you two trying to push here?

[Wall-E]

Maybe. If your answers are decent. Until I actually get those answers, I'll

unvote

But if I don't get them in 24 hours, or if they're not sufficient to remove my suspicion (and I honestly doubt they will be), I'm going to replace my vote and make sure you don't get a third chance.

Not good enough.

First, outline your own perspective of the events in the thread in such a way as to explain away my points against you. When you've done that, find every question you claim I have not answered and put them into a single post to back your claim that I have not been answering questions to a degree deserving of a vote. When you've done that, I'll know you deserve what you've been screaming for for the last three pages and I will answer every single one of said questions (presuming none of them are rhetorical or unhelpful in other ways, such as someone asking me who I think looks most town).

[Wall-E]

Hey guess what? We can discuss more today and if you hammer you're hurting us tremendously.

Hey guess what? It's up to you to convince me that I would be hurting us tremendously, which you haven't fucking shown any interest in.

I think you mean to say that you are uninterested in what I have to say. Makes sense if you're IK's scumbuddy, I guess. Otherwise... wat

[Wall-E]

Idiotking's assembled questions I've "ignored":

@Wall-E,

You completely ignored my post 331.
I asked some questions in the end.

Putting the strings together:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
You did not remember why you voted, but did remember why you unvoted?

Already answered.

Oh...I see. Wall-E...I'm a GIRL. When you kept saying "he" I thought you were referring to IK, so that's a large part of why I was confused. But reading the "he" parts to be directed towards me...your post makes more sense now.

Anyway, one rather large hole in your argument:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS.

Would be a interesting theory...unfortunately, it never happened.

The vote you are referring to is a figment of your imagination.

I voted Llue as a joke in the RVS stage (for being an Euler groupie), FOSed Kre for not liking peeps, FOSed IK for not revoting (something which many ppl thought was a bit scummy), voted for you while you were AWOL, unvoted when you returned, and then revoted for you when I felt your behavior warranted it, and there it lived until I switched it to Hero.

Regarding:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.

That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

I'm sorry, but your whole argument isn't very logical to me. After your apology post, can you provide examples of me tunneling on you? And before it...well, you have admitted yourself that your behavior wasn't exactly pro-town. Its not wrong in a game of mafia to go after someone who is showing anti-town behavior.

I don't see much to comment on here. It's up to you to decide who's lying about what in this case. I stand by my observations with the caveat that YB did NOT in fact VOTE for IK, but did have a small connection to him in the early game, and now that he's on my tail, so is YB. The potential for connection is irrefutable.

This made me lol irl. Many of Wall-e's posts seem to have decided that IK is scum, and are thrashing about frantically to find some scum...any scum...that will fit.

I see no question here.

And this progression, IMO, is hilarious:

@Wall-e: You completely did not respond to my post 410. Me pointing out that you MADE UP A VOTE isn't something you should ignore. I do not know if you made it up on purpose or on accident, and I also realize that even if you did it on purpose you would say its on accident so you don't have to point that out. However, some sort of response is appropriate. Also I am waiting for your response to my tunneling question.

Your imaginary vote post makes me want to vote for you again, and the ***ONLY*** thing keeping me from doing so is that you are so close to a lynch.

Are you denying early-game suspicion on IK on your part?

As his only response to YB, and then follows it with:

IK remains dismissive. His anger grants him some town points, but not enough for me to pull my vote off him.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now, he's incontrovertibly misrepresenting the facts

twice

here, which is pretty often compared to normal D1 discussion. I can't be certain that this is not an honest mistake, but it bothers me. And he still hasn't responded to my whole counterargument to his case against me. I really hope that your next post addresses this.

I see no question here and stand by my decision that IK and YB are scumpartners based only on my original readthrough. The counter-argument that he never voted does not change the fact that words speak louder than his vote. I'm willing to admit it's a weak connection at best... did you want me to keep my opinion a secret or to myself?

Hey guess what? It's up to you to convince me that I would be hurting us tremendously, which you haven't fucking shown any interest in.

I disagree. I have shown tremendous interest in scumhunting. Self-defense is really secondary, don't you think? Not to mention the supposed lack of interest in self-defense on my part has been largely exaggerated.

Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.

You have other leads. Your vote is currently on Hero. You find X scummy. You find me scummy. You find Cubarey scummy (although he is awol so you are probably prudent in leaving that one alone til a replacement is found). Why not follow up on Hero, X, and myself? There are certainly enough open questions there.

Regarding the claim...you at at L-1. I've never had to claim personally (as I mentioned, my mafia experience is still pretty limited)...but if you are town and you think it will help your case...maybe you should? Your behavior overall hasn't been very pro-town, but if you are just a not very effective townie I have no desire to lynch you.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia.

I think that's one of those things where it is better to assume it is true.

I see no questions here. Lucky for me (and everyone else) YB does not get to decide who I find scummy.

And ever blathering, ever redundant, the broken record goes on.......

WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??

Who said that?

YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED TO, ACKNOWLEDGED, EXPLAINED, OR NOTICED

ANY

OF THIS.

Now defend yourself.

Ironic, coming from you.

[Wall-E]

Hero: I meant you'd be hurting the town by cutting off discussion. I'm not going to claim that lynching me would hurt the town, because such a claim would be penultimate WIFOM. For the record, it would.

[Wall-E]

So you were never really interested in what I had to say, since you were going to vote me regardless then? Or did you want to formulate some questions from the crappy hodge-podge of random posts tossing accusations at me you assembled when I called your bluff?

[Wall-E]

Ok. Wall-E. You fail. Your defense is so pathetically hollow that it's sickening.

If you've got anything else to say, fine. Do as I ask and list your arguments against me as I have against you. But as far as I'm concerned, this day is over. I'm just waiting for someone to hammer and put an end to this nightmare.

I think I really got under your skin! Please don't take my play style personally. I'm not a mean person, just very dry. Ignore this if I'm wrong about it, please.

[Wall-E]

Why the hesitancy? Why not just do it?

[Wall-E]

That was directed at IK.

[Wall-E]

I mean, really, the case against me boils down to, "We don't know who else to lynch, and Wall-E is annoying." At least, that's what I'm seeing.

[Wall-E]

You don't get to decide who I build cases against, YB. How many times am I going to answer this question for you?

[Wall-E]

Why the hesitancy? Why not just do it?

As soon as the nonvoters get on, I will.

I also would like to point out your hesitation at presenting your argument against me. Are you admitting that you don't have one?

No hesitancy. After I'm dead the case will still be there, waiting for someone to find it. I'm happy with where I am right now.

What's the case against me again?

[Wall-E]

It has. I typically rely on a mostly-sane town to derail me when I'm off-base. I've been at L-1 in this exact same situation before and been proven right in the end. Should IK flip town I will accordingly adjust my plays.

[Wall-E]

It has. I typically rely on a mostly-sane town to derail me when I'm off-base. I've been at L-1 in this exact same situation before and been proven right in the end. Should IK flip town I will accordingly adjust my plays.

Quick point: you're currently at L-2, not L-1, so you do have a little breathing room.

I am starting to get the impression that you don't really care if you are lynched. I think I remember reading you say somewhere (from when I was doing my meta on you) that if you get lynched when you are town, you pretty much just feel vindicated because your accusers were shown to be wrong. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) That might be amusing to you, but doesn't do town a damn bit of good.

Untrue.

Your discussion of your Aspergers makes more sense of what I read both in this game, and doing meta reading on you.

I am currently entertaining the thought that your "difficult" behavior and "unwillingness" to answer questions is coming more out of a break down in communication between myself (and some of the others) and you. This last exchange between you and I about your other suspects than IK is an example of this. You were being (as it seemed to me) a jerk and blowing off my questions. But when I assumed you just didn't understand what I am getting at, and reworded my questions, I got a somewhat better response.

You said you feel that the case on you boils down to you being annoying. I assure you, that is NOT how we perceive it. It seems to us that you are dodging questions because you know there is not a good answer to them because you are scum.

So if you really are townie, I'd like to make the following suggestion. Stop ignoring questions, even if they seem dumb or illogical to you. You don't have to answer the question, but you should acknowledge the question. For example, if you think someone is asking you a loaded question, say "I don't feel comfortable answering that because that's a loaded question" or if you think a question is pointless say "I feel the answer to that question is obvious" or things like that. I realize these things might seem silly and pointless for you, but they are actually useful in that they a.) flat out ignoring questions tends to make people angry and b.) if you misunderstood a question, that should become obvious and the person asking you can restate their question so its clearer what they mean.

I hope this post isn't out of line...I am trying to be helpful, and it would suck if we lynched you based on a rather long series of miscommunications.

Thank you very much for this post. It really does help me out a lot to hear feedback like this on how I present myself, as that is one of the things I struggle with. I will take what you have said here into careful consideration.

[Wall-E]

Qualification on the word untrue: I don't feel vindicated when lynched as town. I feel... frustrated.

[Wall-E]

What misrepresentations have I failed to retract?

[Wall-E]

I do not know what you are referring to with this sentence: For one, me tunneling on you after you asked for some space.

Can you clarify?

I have no such argument. I've tried to present my interpretations of the events in the thread as I saw them, based mostly on the logical fallacies of IK and, as a result, any possible scum-connections I noticed to him.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

Here is the problem with what you are doing.

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

I lost the first version of this compilation, and this one is incomplete. Let's start here and see what happens though.

[Wall-E]

Kreriov: Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence. I challenge you that the following points will remain rhetoric until you support them with evidence from the thread. At that point, I will defend against you. I won't build your case for you by guessing what you mean. With the obvious exception of point 1, which I agree with you about.

@Wall-E

Point 1: You claimed to quickly.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

I disagree. I have shown tremendous interest in scumhunting. Self-defense is really secondary, don't you think? Not to mention the supposed lack of interest in self-defense on my part has been largely exaggerated.

Your scumhunting seems to be entirely in your own defense.

You find scum in whomever is the latest to attack you. And NO, self-defense IS NOT secondary. First, if you do not defend yourself, you make an easy lynch. Second, if you DO defend yourself and still get lynched, it generates more info for the rest of us to judge your attackers. Your right in that you do not show a lack of interest in self-defense. I would rather characterize it as your best defense has been a good offense.

You attack and attack and attack and fail to put up much of a defense.

It has worked. 22 pages in an you are still here.

The contradiction between the two bolded sentences: Can you clarify this? Am I defending myself by attacking my attackers or not defending myself or ignoring questions or what? You're all over the place in this post making it hard to definitively reply...

Since you seem to focus on actual votes sometimes and sometimes seem to take more interest in what people say, do you think my points are more or less valid because I am voting for Cubarey and not you?

I think that every player puts different degrees of importance behind their votes. I am a bit loose with my vote on D1, and I tighten up later. I have no meta-read on you, if that's what you're asking.

[Wall-E]

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

[Wall-E]

I have already outlined the requisite form for a case to take in order for me to consider it worthwhile. That is not a case, it's rhetoric. Sorry, but I won't do your job for me. You want me dead, YOU find examples of each of those things and present them.

[Wall-E]

EBWOP: "Sorry, but I won't do your job for me." should read "Sorry, but I won't do anyone else's job for them."

[Wall-E]

The difference is that it would be anti-town for me to build a case against myself.

[Wall-E]

Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence.

False. "Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade." - Wikipedia. So most of playing mafia (actively) is rhetoric. But if the definition that you just gave is what you mean by rhetoric, I gotta re-read a few of your posts.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
A treatise or book discussing this art.
A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.

Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or

intellectually vacuous

: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

The opposite of rhetoric would be argument: A statement coupled with arguments that logically support the statement. Example: Because X, Y and Z, then it follows that Wall-E is scum.

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

I had to read this a couple times, because I couldn't believe that I'm reading this. That's one of the conditions of life: grow, develop, respond to stimuli, reproduce...

Stand by while I explain (most, if not all of) Kreriov's points.[/quote]

Did I say I never react to stimuli? Absolutism is almost always a fallacy.

[Wall-E]

I'm not a douchebag, I'm just different from you. Your ad hominem is disconcerting to my mafia sensibilities.

[Wall-E]

I would not characterize IK's decision to call my condition into question as scummy in any way. As to other concerns, I think that IK is probably not scum, given the amount of pages of discussion on whether or not I am presenting a potentially game-destroying amount of information regarding IK, regardless of the truth of my claims or my 'authority' on this subject.

[Wall-E]

I can't decide on a new person to vote for, so my vote stays on him. I urge you that he is the mafia, I am 65% certain.

[Wall-E]

I still find him to be scum according to my profile of scum. That's the best I can do. The percentage is my actual sureness.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-e:

IK wrote:

Wall-E wrote:
Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever. Vote: Idiotking


Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?


Wall-e, it would be helpful if you please explained in detail why you feel that post 53 is a "meltdown". Post 53 doesn't seem to be a particularly useful post from IK, and seems to me that its a "silly" post. So I am not sure that I follow your reasoning here.

Can you please clarify this? I am not sure why you feel this is a "mini meltdown" as opposed to IK being silly.

Eh, so what? And why not revote?

I don't see what purpose that would serve, really. The random voting stage is the most annoying part of this game. But if I must, then

vote Jase

It's a random vote, why should I bother coming up with a fake excuse?

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite.

Unvote: Wall-E

.

Vote: Idiotking

.

Trying to please? Trying to blend in? HAHAHA!!!!

This is a rhetorical question followed by another concerning the points raised by X. X's first question was, "Are you only trying to please those around you?" and his second was, "Are you only trying to blend in (metaphor for keeping inconspicuous)?" IK failed to address these simple questions. Instead, dismisses the questions. An answer would be, "No, that's not what I'm trying to do."

Personally I'd rather not have a random voting stage at ALL. But then without one the discussion is either slow in coming or doesn't come. So because we HAVE to have one (barring any other fancy ideas to get the discussion going) and because if I abstain from random voting I'll get called out on it.

He changes his stance despite having VERY STRONG FEELINGS about this issue. This is a contradiction.

But this is fine, really, we've got quasi-discussion now, right? Let's get the ball rolling. Somebody start questioning me already!

Here he calls for others to question him. But why would a person who is town call for questioning? Questions are the weapons of this game.

[Wall-E]

These three bundled things, a dismissive attitude, followed by self-contradiction followed by meta-behavior indicating scum is the reason I began to focus on him.

[Wall-E]

Sajin: What benefit does withholding your long post give the town? How is withholding it detrimental to the scum?

[Wall-E]

Or I just haven't been online.

I'll try to post tomorrow.

[Wall-E]

Wwwwwaaaaaaa-llleeeee!
Where are you?

On another note,

Because I don't think it's clear, I want to clarify why my original reasoning about Wall-E being town implicating hero was incorrect:

I said that scum often ask permission to hammer townies, but don't to hammer partners.

I challenge this idea and everything you predicate upon it. How do you know this is a tendancy and that your statement here is accurate?

[Wall-E]

If you think lynch all liars is incredibly scummy IK your an idiot.

And I still think that was a slip. Your waiting for night.

Did I SAY "lynch all liars" is incredibly scummy? Did I even MENTION "lynch all liars"?

And no, it wasn't a slip... now it looks like you're grasping for straws, just like Wall-E was. Why do you want to shut off discussion so badly? Why do you say I'm waiting for night, when it's YOU that wants to rush things?

look who got caught in a slip

[Wall-E]

uhoh

looks like qwints wants me or SOMEONE ELSE to die tonight

do YOU have any alternatives, qwints?

[Wall-E]

uhoh

looks like qwints wants me or SOMEONE ELSE to die tonight

do YOU have any alternatives, qwints?

This is not the kind of question that will prevent your lynch Wall-E. Try harder, scum.

Is there a problem with answering the question? My point was going to be that it seems to be loaded. "Excuse me, madam, but would you rather I throw away this rotten tomato or one of these other tomatos?"

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, my question for you is who do you see as the two scummiest players. That's not a loaded question.

I'm waiting for you to answer me. Who would you suggest as an alternative, if any, to my lynch (as you seem to have one as is inferred by the language of your recent post)?

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, my question for you is who do you see as the two scummiest players. That's not a loaded question.

I'm waiting for you to answer me. Who would you suggest as an alternative, if any, to my lynch (as you seem to have one as is inferred by the language of your recent post)?

wouldn't tell you if I was.

You refuse to play along with my scumhunting? Isn't that why you're voting for me, though? For not playing along, answering questions, etc?

[Wall-E]

OR die? You're negotiating with my lynch? Am I lynchworthy or not? So, I'm scummy enough to KILL if I don't do exactly what YOU, an unidentified alignment, tell me to do?

[Wall-E]

give me time to read the thread

[Wall-E]

In posts 53, 57 and 59, IdiotKing exhibits behavior which can be interpreted as either extremely sarcastic or extremely scummy. Cubarey voted him for it, but I'm watching for a qwintz/X scumteam after X voted before the game started and qwintz was quick to call him out for it. Jumpy as scum looking for ways to distance/bus/start a fake argument?

[Wall-E]

Okay I have some issues with this statement. Firstly, you said that "someone" said you should random vote. If you are *really* interested in scum hunting...shouldn't you take the time to figure out who told you what? How else are you going to find scum other than by analyzing what people say to one another?

But I will make your job easy for you this time and point out *I* was the one who raised that question. Secondly, I asked you WHY YOU DIDN'T REVOTE...I did not say you SHOULD randomly revote. You never answered my question; you simply made up some random vote. This not answering the question seems odd to me...so:

unvote; fos: idiotking

Ah, my apologies. The reason I didn't revote was simply because it didn't cross my mind. I was busy and had to go somewhere, thus I unvoted real quick so my improperly-placed random vote (improperly placed because even my fake "reasoning" for voting was off the mark) wouldn't remain an eyesore. It was merely human error, if you must see error in it at all.


And I agree with you when you say:

"If you are *really* interested in scum hunting...shouldn't you take the time to figure out who told you what? How else are you going to find scum other than by analyzing what people say to one another?"

However, again, discussion hadn't started yet and I'm no good at getting it started (unless I'm the one examined, of course). And again, I have said this before and I'll say it again: I revoted to avoid the problem of a lot of aimless discussion as to WHY I did not revote. Clearly I have failed in this endeavor. Nevertheless, to me it does not matter who tells me what during the RVS. The fact was that SOMEONE, admittedly you if you say it was you, pointed out that error, and so I strove to amend it. I attempted to fix the problem, failed, and here we are, drifting along in that discussion I was so anxious about. Oh well.

This kind of metababble - discussion about one's own actions and current thoughts... it's nervous and struck me wrong every time i read it (3 times now) and it keeps me wandering back to IdiotKing

[Wall-E]

There is nothing wrong with your voting, burfy. It is fine that you are not voting or that you only vote for who you find the scummiest. The problem is, especially on day 1, if no one ever votes nothing will ever get done! Look what happened when we got Wall-E up to 4 votes. I do not think it coincidence that he is now a big participant. With 7 votes needed to lynch, I think 4 votes is not really dangerous, but scary enough to the person receiving them that they know they better participate. Is there a reason you will not put a vote on someone from who you want a response? Or at least a FOS?

You made one observation I found interesting and went back to research. It is a very good observation that qwints basically disappeared once the voting against Wall-E collapsed. I am not sure what to make of it.

For me, I remain focused on Cubarey. Looking at his posting pattern, I find it a bit suspicious. Just enough posting to not be prodded and just enough content to show he is reading the thread. No real reason for his vote on X. Given what was happening at the time and some of the criticism of X, it seems like a really easy vote to just sort of slide in there.

X/qwints again appears, different source. I can see the Matrix.

[Wall-E]

Lets keep it civil here guys

I do not understand this post. :I

[Wall-E]

Wall-E: Are you denying being suspicious of IK early in the game?

YB: It was an extremely small amount of suspicious, fresh out of the RVS stage. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is very town, 5 is nuetral and 10 is very town, my suspicions on IK at that point would have been like a 5.5 or a 6. And I'm NOT the only one who thought that was suspicious. You're stretching like hell here.

This slip was suspicious to me, but when YB started trying to understand my case on IK I thought he was town. But this looks like him clearing IK.

[Wall-E]

Sajin: What benefit does withholding your long post give the town? How is withholding it detrimental to the scum?

The more information the scum have about exactly what each of us think about each other, the more they can set up the next day to be able to lynch a townie. If we have talked enough to determine a good lynch I will shut up until the next day. So if you want me to post more about other people you need to convince me why you are not a good lynch.

Sajin:

"I have a long post outlining possible scum suspects."

"Show it to us!"

"No, I don't want to give the scum information about who's town."

This must be a softclaim. A softclaim with no real substantial reason behind it.

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote: Sajin

because he softclaimed for no reason.

[Wall-E]

So I see that there are TONS of questions for me. I plan t go through and answer them all, but at the moment it's a bit daunting. It seems like I'm at four votes, so I will focus on the questions from those people when I do.

[Wall-E]

I'm disappointed that Sajin ignored my post 723. Were you softclaiming, Sajin?

[Wall-E]

unvote vote sajin

Don't take it personal, but i think you're scum

Want to explain that all looker?

If Wall-E doesn't answer the questions posed to him by Monday, I say we lynch him. We've spent way too much time trying to get him to meaningfully participate (instead of debating the meaning of "rhetoric.")

Actually, it wasn't a debate at all. I used it correctly, was told I hadn't, and corrected that person.

I will post an answer to the questions posed to me before Monday. That's perfectly reasonable.

[Wall-E]

Holy rolefishing batman!

It's not rolefishing. He's either softclaiming for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL or he's got something else to say, and I want to hear what it is.

[Wall-E]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

[Wall-E]

Rhetoric does not preclude argumentation. And I know you didn't say never, but I'm still amazed that you don't respond to things.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Evidence from thread:

From IK: "WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??" was ignored for a while.

Rhetoric. He set up a strawman, saying that I felt nobody else was scummy and then attacked that. Care to restate yourself?

Also posts 426 & 427 certainly warranted a response from you.

I disagree, but let's look them over, shall we?

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me.

Instead of refuting my supporting evidence he continues to dismiss the case.

But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we?

Rhetorical and irrelevant. I don't catch scum by looking at connections. I catch scum and then I look FOR connections.

This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh?

I'm not a sneaky snake like you.

You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them.

Strawman.

It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

This is the only bit of actual refutation he gives, and it's WIFOM.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now I am

Your response to 491 was mostly, "I'm not gonna respond to this."

No, it wasn't. I didn't say that at all.

You have not responded to 532.

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy.

I don't recall doubting my scumhunting, if that's what you're implicating.

That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late.

Apparently not to my prior satisfaction. Information does not go out of style like pants.

Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS?

Strawman.

Is that REALLY the only reason you have?

No. Read my posts again please. Specifically the huge case I posted against you.

I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this.

Rhetoric, unnecessary to respond to.

In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum.

More rhetoric.

Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Appeal to emotion-y.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

The logical fallacy is attacking my ethics instead of addressing my case. The proper method of refutation is to make counter-points that can explain away facts presented by the other party. What you have done is instead told everyone, LOL, WALL-E SUCKS AT MAFIA SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. This is called ad hominem.

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates.

That's not true, but it's also irrelevant.

You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout.

Yes I have.

Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am?

I don't know you and must predicate all my decisions in this game on a clean-slate basis.

Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Rhetoric in light of my lack of knowledge of your meta.

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

This may be the only true defense I've seen from IK. It's part of the reason I doubted myself.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

I've already said that the problem with this logic is that the scum aren't guaranteed to mess up, and in the meantime other players will be voting you for scummy plays. It's anti-town and I think you're doing it because you're scum.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

I can't defend against a vague claim of scummyness.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court.

I have.

It's been all over you since the beginning.

The burden of proof in this context has been lost to IK's quotechoppery. I'd go back and find it, but I have a lot of other things to comment on.

Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it.

Meta is explained in the wiki.

I do what I do as experimentation.

Do you see the problem with this defense? It goes back to being anti-town. I'm not saying don't experiment, but what does experimentation have to do with the fact that you have dismissed my points against you by claiming that you, "Always do stuff like that." That's a meta-defense.

Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things?

Always.

If you didn't, why did you even bother asking?

What?

Was it a rhetorical question?

I've lost you.

Or did you not quote the question?

Still lost.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is still a good point.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc.

I'm with you up to here, because what you're talking about sounds fun and useful. Your words soothe me, and make me want to help you be random and destructive! That was heavily sarcastic.

Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why.

Like running in front of a shooting range to see who is a dirty cop. Obviously a clean cop would never shoot a moron.

If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

I have been chastized for previously referring to my meta as being a poor player. By you.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

This totally contradicts your prior assertion that you "like to experiment and set yourself up as a target to catch scum."

Here is the problem with what you are doing. (gosh I'm smart)

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't. (so smart)

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Not true. You made a counter-argument and I let it lie for a while. Upon reviewing your counter-argument, I believe I've spotted all the holes.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

We've been over this in this post (again) already.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

He still has not. He's being unhelpful merely because he is the target of my scumhunt, which is anti-town.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Ok... HAVEN'T I ALREADY DONE THIS? LIKE, VERY VERY VERY RECENTLY? Or are you dismissing it? Because that's exactly what you seem to be doing for every one of my significant posts. You say you rely on a sane town to derail you. I honestly question your experience and skill at this game if you think you have to have that to prove you wrong.

The context has been removed from most of this, but the post reference is still there. I'll leave others to do this little bit of research.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

Explain to me how it's utter nonsense. And obviously it didn't hurt the town at all, I'm not the main one under fire here. And for those suspicious of me, not a one is suspicious of the RVS issue.

I think this has been MUCH MORE than sufficiently explained.

Wall-E. This entire case is insubstantial and quibbling over trivial issues that don't matter.

Dismissive ad hominem.

Not slips that people missed, not elaborate scumhunting. Trivial. Stuff. Doesn't. Matter.

Nuh uh! You are in third grade! (IK is not likely in third grade. I was responding to his ad hominem in kind)

I was honestly hoping you'd have something better for me, considering you've been harping on about you're "case" for days now. This is yet another disappointment.

At this point IK's attitude toward my scumhunt is waxing EXTREMELY dismissive and SUPREMELY ad hominal, to invent a word.

Ojanen's post 271 was completely ignored,

I could quibble here and point out that I did not ignore this post, only part of it, but we both know that would be silly to say, since the part you want me to comment on is the game-relevant information and not the metacognitive inquiries.

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I answered this. A little of all of the above.

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.

You did.

In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd.

I can agree to that. I find X's overall performance in this game to be satisfactory, if a bit rare.

You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.

This was an excellent point. Try doing things like this, IK. You are, of course, right, Ojanen. I was interpreting X's plays in the worst-possible light. So?

I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I was hoping you would follow through on this.

as well as the questions at the bottom of 331, until 390.

So they WERE answered. Ok, good.

Your post 170 does not really answer YB's questions, and she asks more that you ignore in post 193.

I felt that entire discussion was adequately wrapped-up. If you have a question about this part still, X (as I have no idea what specifically you're looking for, necessitating nearly an hour of typing and research to try to prevent a mislynch) please quote and research yourself and I will address any concerns you have.

Then you ignore YB's 208. And later 410. And then 484.

If YB wishes, I will address these posts, but I feel YB is satisfied with me at the moment.

And as for me, you didn't really respond to the questions or assertions I made in 420.

Ok, now you're just asking for this post to go on forever, but here goes: Heavily edited to remove content not directed at or about myself.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

My jeans never go out of style, sir. I'm a trendsetter.

Please name what you think we should be discussing, X?

Looks like you guys found enough to talk about.

Then my problem with what you did was that you walked in, told everyone to get to work, and left. You aren't my boss until I get a paycheck.

Still, your next message is the one (144) were you post your impressions on people. On the "townish" section are:

ISO 1: He (IK) random-votes me. I'm always suspicious when someone random-votes a player and then conveniently that person becomes their #1 scum suspect. It's a big coincidence pill to swallow. (smallville rocks)

ISO 9: Mentions me again, now taking a fence-sitty position on me.

ISO 12: Claims I'm adding no content despite the fact that I am.

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

I dislike 13 because of the word, "Plus." A psychologist once told me that if I wanted to lie effectively I should give only one excuse when making an excuse for something, because the tendancy is for people to give two or more reasons, stringing them together with 'alsos' and 'besides.' X here looks like he's excusing himself from future attacks, and he gives two reasons. Minorest of minor points here, since I try to steer away from trying to find scum by reactions. This one popped out at me though.

I still like this post.

ISO 15: He quotes someone else's defense of him in response to my "baiting" post and then goes on to vaguely respond to it. He follows that up with an appeal to emotion: "Wall-E, if you had done any of those attacks in 761 you would have been modkilled."

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

This was probably the catalyst for my Asperger's, uh... claim. I wondered at the time if X had the same condition.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

The contradiction here is telling, imo. Do you look for reactions (or "vibes" as some call them) or do you analyze plays?

ISO 20 and 21: He revisits IK and seems overly interested in IK's status. I think X is IK's partner, but I'm only about 20% sure.

Earlier in this post I quoted X giving IK a town-pass based on his reactions. Telling us who's town is unhelpful, and in a game with NKs it's actually detrimental.

Okay, I'll take this bit by bit. First, I can't see how it's tunneling to mention you in my first post and then not until my 9th.

Gods I wish you were IK. Point taken.

Second, my random vote turning into my prime suspect is coincidence, and not a very big coincidence.

Meh. Maybe.

Third, I still think that you haven't scumhunted much, although it's certainly improving.

Some games I have considerably more time to dedicate to and others I barely participate in. It's really dependant on the other players and how much of a scum read I get.

And certainly you hadn't scumhunted up to post 135 (my ISO 12).

I would go back and check if I have made ANY posts in this game that can be considered NOT scumhunting, but we both know I can argue that I haven't and you can find a way to argue that I have. Suffice to say, just because you don't agree with my scumhunting doesn't invalidate it.

Fourth, I can't see that my vocab is a scumtell.

I stand by that one.

Fifth, in my "appeal to emotion," what was I trying to convince who of?

Good point. Retracted.

Sixth, "vibes" are not the same thing as "reactions" for me. "Reply" + "action" = "reaction". "Vibes" are like stepping outside and, although there are clear skies and a sunny day, predicting there's gonna be a storm soon. Metaphysical kind of things.

Alright. Connotation FTW.

And lastly, I don't see how mentioning IK makes me IK's partner.

It doesn't. There is no situation in which you mentioning another player in a game will cause that person to retroactively become your partner. I don't understand this part and suddenly I'm sour on your 'I'm a logic-player' meta speech.

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

I cannot defend against this as it is flatly untrue and I am unable to see for myself any "spam" in this game. Some quotes would have been nice.

Gotcha.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts anywhere in this game).

Your parenthetical note is wrong.

Howso?

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

When I get the time, I'll try to. I have one game of knowledge already (I'm mod), but it's ongoing.

What have you decided about my meta, X?

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

Saying this is as scummy as voting without a reason. Can you tell me what reasons those who are on my wagon have given that you consider weak? Otherwise you're scum who knows I'm town and you're engaging in villagery.

QFT.

I still like this post.

makes

me

the most obvious scum target atm. So Vote: CUBAREY

Unvote: Vote: Hero

A slip, a joking confession, and bussing IK.

Um, no. When people didn't buy your case on me, you decide to find another target on flimsy reasons?

What is flimsy about a freudian slip? It's a well-documented phenomenon, and I assume the frequency of legitimate freudian slips is higher than the chances of winning by randomly lynching, so I will point them out and use them to pressure players and see what comes of them. Wouldn't you?

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

Again, all I see is a contradiction or a potential semantics debate.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

Regardless, having no idea how to separate those who are claiming scum as town from those who are claiming scum as scum, I must attack them all. Shouldn't you?

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

You seem to be made of jelly. I can't offer any evidence, but it seems it's true.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Your opinion is noted, whomever you are X is quoting.

Evidence from thread:

Basically just the evidence from Point 3 concerning Hero. This point is really weak, IMO.

How weak is really weak? Will 'ignoring' it further get me killed? For the record, I am not ignoring anything. I have already stated my reasoning in each of my vote posts or subsequently, and so this argument is refuted already.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you.

This is me legitimately misrepresenting a fact. The fact remains, however, that it can be taken as distancing.

Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

What about this is scummy?

Whew. All strikeouts were made to help me keep track of what has and hasn't been addressed, and to structurally distinguish my commentary from the original content.

[Wall-E]

Ye gods that's a mess for something I labored over for almost two hours.

[Wall-E]

Here's X's two biggest case posts against me, reposted to fix a quote-tag error. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people will be satisfied with this. If not, you're asking me to do an intensely confusing amount of post-reshuffling and I'd prefer if you requoted anything you want addressed, as this post fairly arcs the entire thread and explains my viewpoints on many things (in most cases, re-explains them).

Rhetoric does not preclude argumentation. And I know you didn't say never, but I'm still amazed that you don't respond to things.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Evidence from thread:

From IK: "WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??" was ignored for a while.

Rhetoric. He set up a strawman, saying that I felt nobody else was scummy and then attacked that. Care to restate yourself?

Also posts 426 & 427 certainly warranted a response from you.

I disagree, but let's look them over, shall we?

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me.

Instead of refuting my supporting evidence he continues to dismiss the case.

But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we?

Rhetorical and irrelevant. I don't catch scum by looking at connections. I catch scum and then I look FOR connections.

This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh?

I'm not a sneaky snake like you.

You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them.

Strawman.

It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

This is the only bit of actual refutation he gives, and it's WIFOM.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now I am

Your response to 491 was mostly, "I'm not gonna respond to this."

No, it wasn't. I didn't say that at all.

You have not responded to 532.

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy.

I don't recall doubting my scumhunting, if that's what you're implicating.

That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late.

Apparently not to my prior satisfaction. Information does not go out of style like pants.

Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS?

Strawman.

Is that REALLY the only reason you have?

No. Read my posts again please. Specifically the huge case I posted against you.

I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this.

Rhetoric, unnecessary to respond to.

In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum.

More rhetoric.

Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Appeal to emotion-y.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

The logical fallacy is attacking my ethics instead of addressing my case. The proper method of refutation is to make counter-points that can explain away facts presented by the other party. What you have done is instead told everyone, LOL, WALL-E SUCKS AT MAFIA SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. This is called ad hominem.

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates.

That's not true, but it's also irrelevant.

You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout.

Yes I have.

Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am?

I don't know you and must predicate all my decisions in this game on a clean-slate basis.

Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Rhetoric in light of my lack of knowledge of your meta.

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

This may be the only true defense I've seen from IK. It's part of the reason I doubted myself.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

I've already said that the problem with this logic is that the scum aren't guaranteed to mess up, and in the meantime other players will be voting you for scummy plays. It's anti-town and I think you're doing it because you're scum.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

I can't defend against a vague claim of scummyness.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court.

I have.

It's been all over you since the beginning.

The burden of proof in this context has been lost to IK's quotechoppery. I'd go back and find it, but I have a lot of other things to comment on.

Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it.

Meta is explained in the wiki.

I do what I do as experimentation.

Do you see the problem with this defense? It goes back to being anti-town. I'm not saying don't experiment, but what does experimentation have to do with the fact that you have dismissed my points against you by claiming that you, "Always do stuff like that." That's a meta-defense.

Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things?

Always.

If you didn't, why did you even bother asking?

What?

Was it a rhetorical question?

I've lost you.

Or did you not quote the question?

Still lost.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is still a good point.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc.

I'm with you up to here, because what you're talking about sounds fun and useful. Your words soothe me, and make me want to help you be random and destructive! That was heavily sarcastic.

Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why.

Like running in front of a shooting range to see who is a dirty cop. Obviously a clean cop would never shoot a moron.

If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

I have been chastized for previously referring to my meta as being a poor player. By you.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

This totally contradicts your prior assertion that you "like to experiment and set yourself up as a target to catch scum."

Here is the problem with what you are doing. (gosh I'm smart)

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't. (so smart)

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Not true. You made a counter-argument and I let it lie for a while. Upon reviewing your counter-argument, I believe I've spotted all the holes.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

We've been over this in this post (again) already.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

He still has not. He's being unhelpful merely because he is the target of my scumhunt, which is anti-town.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Ok... HAVEN'T I ALREADY DONE THIS? LIKE, VERY VERY VERY RECENTLY? Or are you dismissing it? Because that's exactly what you seem to be doing for every one of my significant posts. You say you rely on a sane town to derail you. I honestly question your experience and skill at this game if you think you have to have that to prove you wrong.

The context has been removed from most of this, but the post reference is still there. I'll leave others to do this little bit of research.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

Explain to me how it's utter nonsense. And obviously it didn't hurt the town at all, I'm not the main one under fire here. And for those suspicious of me, not a one is suspicious of the RVS issue.

I think this has been MUCH MORE than sufficiently explained.

Wall-E. This entire case is insubstantial and quibbling over trivial issues that don't matter.

Dismissive ad hominem.

Not slips that people missed, not elaborate scumhunting. Trivial. Stuff. Doesn't. Matter.

Nuh uh! You are in third grade! (IK is not likely in third grade. I was responding to his ad hominem in kind)

I was honestly hoping you'd have something better for me, considering you've been harping on about you're "case" for days now. This is yet another disappointment.

At this point IK's attitude toward my scumhunt is waxing EXTREMELY dismissive and SUPREMELY ad hominal, to invent a word.

Ojanen's post 271 was completely ignored,

I could quibble here and point out that I did not ignore this post, only part of it, but we both know that would be silly to say, since the part you want me to comment on is the game-relevant information and not the metacognitive inquiries.

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I answered this. A little of all of the above.

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.

You did.

In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd.

I can agree to that. I find X's overall performance in this game to be satisfactory, if a bit rare.

You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.

This was an excellent point. Try doing things like this, IK. You are, of course, right, Ojanen. I was interpreting X's plays in the worst-possible light. So?

I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I was hoping you would follow through on this.

as well as the questions at the bottom of 331, until 390.

So they WERE answered. Ok, good.

Your post 170 does not really answer YB's questions, and she asks more that you ignore in post 193.

I felt that entire discussion was adequately wrapped-up. If you have a question about this part still, X (as I have no idea what specifically you're looking for, necessitating nearly an hour of typing and research to try to prevent a mislynch) please quote and research yourself and I will address any concerns you have.

Then you ignore YB's 208. And later 410. And then 484.

If YB wishes, I will address these posts, but I feel YB is satisfied with me at the moment.

And as for me, you didn't really respond to the questions or assertions I made in 420.

Ok, now you're just asking for this post to go on forever, but here goes: Heavily edited to remove content not directed at or about myself.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

My jeans never go out of style, sir. I'm a trendsetter.

Please name what you think we should be discussing, X?

Looks like you guys found enough to talk about.

Then my problem with what you did was that you walked in, told everyone to get to work, and left. You aren't my boss until I get a paycheck.

Still, your next message is the one (144) were you post your impressions on people. On the "townish" section are:

ISO 1: He (IK) random-votes me. I'm always suspicious when someone random-votes a player and then conveniently that person becomes their #1 scum suspect. It's a big coincidence pill to swallow. (smallville rocks)

ISO 9: Mentions me again, now taking a fence-sitty position on me.

ISO 12: Claims I'm adding no content despite the fact that I am.

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

I dislike 13 because of the word, "Plus." A psychologist once told me that if I wanted to lie effectively I should give only one excuse when making an excuse for something, because the tendancy is for people to give two or more reasons, stringing them together with 'alsos' and 'besides.' X here looks like he's excusing himself from future attacks, and he gives two reasons. Minorest of minor points here, since I try to steer away from trying to find scum by reactions. This one popped out at me though.

I still like this post.

ISO 15: He quotes someone else's defense of him in response to my "baiting" post and then goes on to vaguely respond to it. He follows that up with an appeal to emotion: "Wall-E, if you had done any of those attacks in 761 you would have been modkilled."

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

This was probably the catalyst for my Asperger's, uh... claim. I wondered at the time if X had the same condition.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

The contradiction here is telling, imo. Do you look for reactions (or "vibes" as some call them) or do you analyze plays?

ISO 20 and 21: He revisits IK and seems overly interested in IK's status. I think X is IK's partner, but I'm only about 20% sure.

Earlier in this post I quoted X giving IK a town-pass based on his reactions. Telling us who's town is unhelpful, and in a game with NKs it's actually detrimental.

Okay, I'll take this bit by bit. First, I can't see how it's tunneling to mention you in my first post and then not until my 9th.

Gods I wish you were IK. Point taken.

Second, my random vote turning into my prime suspect is coincidence, and not a very big coincidence.

Meh. Maybe.

Third, I still think that you haven't scumhunted much, although it's certainly improving.

Some games I have considerably more time to dedicate to and others I barely participate in. It's really dependant on the other players and how much of a scum read I get.

And certainly you hadn't scumhunted up to post 135 (my ISO 12).

I would go back and check if I have made ANY posts in this game that can be considered NOT scumhunting, but we both know I can argue that I haven't and you can find a way to argue that I have. Suffice to say, just because you don't agree with my scumhunting doesn't invalidate it.

Fourth, I can't see that my vocab is a scumtell.

I stand by that one.

Fifth, in my "appeal to emotion," what was I trying to convince who of?

Good point. Retracted.

Sixth, "vibes" are not the same thing as "reactions" for me. "Reply" + "action" = "reaction". "Vibes" are like stepping outside and, although there are clear skies and a sunny day, predicting there's gonna be a storm soon. Metaphysical kind of things.

Alright. Connotation FTW.

And lastly, I don't see how mentioning IK makes me IK's partner.

It doesn't. There is no situation in which you mentioning another player in a game will cause that person to retroactively become your partner. I don't understand this part and suddenly I'm sour on your 'I'm a logic-player' meta speech.

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

I cannot defend against this as it is flatly untrue and I am unable to see for myself any "spam" in this game. Some quotes would have been nice.

Gotcha.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts anywhere in this game).

Your parenthetical note is wrong.

Howso?

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

When I get the time, I'll try to. I have one game of knowledge already (I'm mod), but it's ongoing.

What have you decided about my meta, X?

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

Saying this is as scummy as voting without a reason. Can you tell me what reasons those who are on my wagon have given that you consider weak? Otherwise you're scum who knows I'm town and you're engaging in villagery.

QFT.

I still like this post.

makes

me

the most obvious scum target atm. So Vote: CUBAREY

Unvote: Vote: Hero

A slip, a joking confession, and bussing IK.

Um, no. When people didn't buy your case on me, you decide to find another target on flimsy reasons?

What is flimsy about a freudian slip? It's a well-documented phenomenon, and I assume the frequency of legitimate freudian slips is higher than the chances of winning by randomly lynching, so I will point them out and use them to pressure players and see what comes of them. Wouldn't you?

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

Again, all I see is a contradiction or a potential semantics debate.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

Regardless, having no idea how to separate those who are claiming scum as town from those who are claiming scum as scum, I must attack them all. Shouldn't you?

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

You seem to be made of jelly. I can't offer any evidence, but it seems it's true.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Your opinion is noted, whomever you are X is quoting.

Evidence from thread:

Basically just the evidence from Point 3 concerning Hero. This point is really weak, IMO.

How weak is really weak? Will 'ignoring' it further get me killed? For the record, I am not ignoring anything. I have already stated my reasoning in each of my vote posts or subsequently, and so this argument is refuted already.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you.

This is me legitimately misrepresenting a fact. The fact remains, however, that it can be taken as distancing.

Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

What about this is scummy?

Whew. All strikeouts were made to help me keep track of what has and hasn't been addressed, and to structurally distinguish my commentary from the original content.

[Wall-E]

WTF?! Is there some kind of post limit or did half my post disappear twice?

This is frustrating. I'm going for a walk. When I come back I want questions with quotes, hard and fast.

[Wall-E]

Howso?

[Wall-E]

I assure you that I clearly label all my jokes.

[Wall-E]

StrangerCoug: In light of your vote on me, I want you to read my "wall of text" thoroughly.

[Wall-E]

Thanks for repeating that, Ojanen. I'd forgotten that you DID in fact follow up on that.

Wall-E post 379 to Hero

I'm not going to push this, because I don't want to make you angry with me on a personal level. Just know that it happens to a lot of newbies and there will be other games for you to perfect your scumplays in.

Huh? Wall-E's hinting the "I know you're scum, scum" card here (although the scumtells he stated were minor), and simultaneously states not gonna push the case? Not interested in lynching who he thinks is scum or playing only half-assed psychological games here?[/s]

I was drawing a line in the sand between my behavior in the game and my personal relationship with anyone I play with. I agree that I shouldn't have said, "I'm not going to push this." What I should have said was, "I'm not going to push this so hard as to bore people with the repetition of my prior points."

Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390

Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote part, what was "interesting".
Wall-E:

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Ojanen:

Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?

Wall-E:

Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.

That is totally not a satisfactory answer. You state a reason for your unvote and then make the reason empty by saying you weren't cognizant of implications. Unvotes are supposed to have some reasoning behind them, unless the vote itself never had any reasoning behind it. It's old, but please comment on this, Wall-E.

I thought at first that it was a scumtell and I was applying pressure to the person while questioning him. It's a common thing for me on day 1. Yes, I realize that's a meta defense, but it's all I have for you. Sorry.

From same Wall-E post:

Is any of this relevant to the points I've made?

This question comes across as simply wanting to brush away the matter.
It was relevant to the fact that you hadn't made understandable points regards to your voting. And at that point you were attacking X which was another matter altogether.

Noted. I suppose I was just looking for something more substantial from IK.

Wall-E post 396:
He's now accusing YB of tunneling him, already accused X of tunneling him before, when actually both players had clearly pursued quite actively also other targets during game.

As I've said, I'm convinced of IK's scum alignment, and therefore my scumhunting is going to be geared around finding his partners until I am proven wrong or killed.

Post 462 Hero asks if people think it's a good time to hammer and maybe to end day 1.
Wall-E answers NO and questions Hero. Doesn't go after Sajin.

Why would I?

[Wall-E]

Uhh... It's not clear looking at it again. Would you do us all a favor in the future ans please put your new input

OUTSIDE

of quote boxes? I don't like it when people put it inside them.

I'm sorry you didn't like what I did, but it took a long time and the demonization of my plays will likely lead to my lynch today regardless. All I'm going to promise is that I will do my best to leave behind my thoughts as accurately as I can represent them in words given the amount of time I'm willing to invest in this particular game.

[Wall-E]

Qwints wrote:

Wall-e wrote:

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.


I assume this is a joke, but it's an unhelpful attitude.


Okay, so then if this isn't a joke, why is lynching IK a higher priority than winning?

Because lynching IK, in my opinion, is equivalent to winning the game.

As I've said, I'm convinced of IK's scum alignment, and therefore my scumhunting is going to be geared around finding his partners until I am proven wrong or killed.

Wouldn't that make make your first and second priority the same (ie lynching IK and winning)? If IK is scum, then his lynch is necessary for the win.

Well now you've answered your own question!

Also...Wall-e...if IK is scum, who are your top pick(s) for his partner?

Oh gods, I have no idea. Offhand I'd say SC but that's mostly based on his most recent post which seems to be him refusing to read my post on the basis of slight confusion which is NOT moderated by a desire for clarification.

[Wall-E]

i'm tagfailing all over the place, but hopefully that's pretty clear

[Wall-E]

You were right the first time. It's the third-to-last line. I don't know why that word is bolded. Might be a misclick on my part if it's pervasive in my own post.

[Wall-E]

It's actually the fourth-to-last line. I have no idea why I'm correcting this point as it seems immaterial.

[Wall-E]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

It's only tunneling if I'm scum and you're town. Since the opposite is apparently (to me) the case, I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue.

I've read through pretty much all of Wall-E's Wallposts of Death, but I don't have time to respond to it all at the moment. Besides, since X is already doing his own point-by-point rundown of the thing, it'd get confusing if I did one too; I'll wait until he's done unless you guys really want me to now.

Why not just comment on what you find relevant? Instead of putting the ball soley in X's court, I mean. It can't hurt a game to make more posts (exception to every rule: zwetschenwasser).

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation

The word fixation implies irrationality. I do not think it's irrational of me to pursue you in light of the many, many uncompiled callouts I've made on you and your plays.

on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum?

I've already answered this.

This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level.

Antagonization is my tool. I assure you that you should never take anything I say as an insult in any way. It's a side-effect of my condition and not actual anger.

What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie?

For the record, it's happened before. I don't play this game with ego (I'm told some people are shocked when I say this, but I really, honestly don't) so it's only a question of re-evaluating myself.

This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself.

Hmm.

Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

I would, in that unlikely scenario, apologize to the town and forge on. I'd like to think that's really obvious, but since I'm repeating myself just for you, you lucky scum, I'd like you to go ahead and keep on 'assuming' I'm town (you already know it). That works just fine for me.

The biggest reasons I've focused almost exclusively on IK are his repeated use of logical fallacies. X's posts seem to indicate that he was unaware of that fact, but I have said it before, so I'm making a note of it again here. My posts in isolation are almost all me telling IK what's wrong with his argument style from a standpoint of (necessarily) cold logic.

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

[Wall-E]

Your supporting evidence boiled down to two things, neither of which are truly scumtells: flipping out and not liking RVS. I can't identify much of a case beyond that, and from what IK wrote, neither could he. Don't say I'm dismissing your case - dismissing it requires acknowledging that the argument existed in the first place.

Is this a request for clarification? That's the opposite of being dismissive.

High context is difficult for me to grapple with. I would normally have "ignored" this post (as in, read but not comment on).

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

[Wall-E]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

They aren't? Why, then, have I witnessed several wolves self-destruct when pressured? It may be an UNLIKELY scumtell (i cannot believe that you've driven me to refuting my own points... i feel like i'm shadow-boxing) but in my book, it IS a scumtell.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words. You're upset that I forced you to compile a case against me? Do you want me to just roll over and die instead of forcing people to compile their case? Those questions can be considered rhetoric, as I believe the only answer should be an unequivocal "No."

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

I'm frankly fucking shocked nobody lynched me for it. I probably would have. But I've been wanting to 'come out' for a while now, to help me in my games.

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

Posts like this are what keep me on your trail. Proper argument establishes a point or points out the flaws in another person's arguments. This is neither, it's just rhetoric.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

There is a huge difference between chasing a badguy and getting shot and running into a room where you know you'll be shot pointlessly.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

I can neither confirm nor deny the possibility that your RVS discussion was helpful. It's an unquantifiable and frankly pointless thing to discuss. I'm merely showing people what I think about your motives, which you have refuted with meta behavioral explainations that will not excuse you from these behaviors in my personal playbook.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

It's possible that you do not know what I mean by argument and refutation.

Start with a statement (or end with one) such as: The world is flat.

Now add supporting evidence:

Evidence 1: I look out at the horizon and it appears flat.
Evidence 2: A small ball of wet mud will sink into a flat surface given enough time.

An opponent of this view would then REFUTE the key points by making his OWN arguments or refutations.

The earth is round.

Evidence 1: Ships disappear over the horizon.
Evidence 2: The moon, sun and all other heavenly bodies appear to be round.

Refutation 1: Appearances can be decieving.
Refutation 2: The earth is not a ball of mud. It's harder and therefore retains its shape better.

I could go on to again refute the prior arguments.

The earth is flat.

Refutation 1: I have never seen a ship disappear over the horizon. Please provide evidence of this claim.
Refutation 2: Just because many things appear the some does not guarantee that all of them are the same.

And so forth.

Notice there's no name-calling, angry spluttering, flipping out or logical fallacies. Untrue things may be said, but that's different. In fact, both people sound rather smarter for avoiding those things, and the conversation is easily followed, unhindered by hurt feelings or rage.

[Wall-E]

I'm tired of pushing this case around and it's heavy and unpopular besides. I'll still defend myself, but IK is my choice for the day.

[Wall-E]

Poor examples. There's no subtlety. This is Mafia, so either the "Evidence" guy or the "Refutation" guy is probably scum. If he's scum, he's actually trying to kill the other guy, and vice versa. You've dismissed my refutations of you anyway. I don't even know if you notice when you do.

I've spotted our problem right here. Just because a point is refuted does not invalidate it, it only adds evidence to the opposing viewpoint's position.

Can you prove to me that the earth is round? What I mean is, even if you picked me up and flew me into the sky and pointed down and said, "Look, it's a ball." I could REFUTE you by saying, "Maybe it's a coin."

If you then flew me around the earth, I could refute you by saying, "I'm clearly delusional and cannot trust my own judgement."

The refutation and the original argument remain intact because both are properly supported by evidence. It's up to the person LISTENING to the debate to decide who won.

[Wall-E]

An argument needs only to be supported by evidence to be validated. The argument does not automatically become TRUE in that case, but this method is the only logical way to debate scientifically.

I'm going to say now that I believe the earth is probably a cube with a lump on one corner, and Australians walk on their hands. I can't support that statement with any evidence, and so it's an invalid argument. It's just rhetoric.

[Wall-E]

You have actually refuted many of my claims properly (if a bit angrily). See if you can spot where you have as an exercise in logical argument. After the game I will even show you what I mean if you like.

[Wall-E]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

I'm town, so it's not a scumtell. I realize this is not an argument, but I've already explained myself in regards to XYZ.

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

In relation to why IK is scum? I haven't seen him use many logical fallacies to prove his points, including the ones that you have pointed out. As for a flip-out, I think that's his personality - being combative and using charged language is not a scumtell for many people.

Please re-word your third charge.

And what has IK dismissed?

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words.

1. I'm an authority?

Citing you as agreeing with him establishes you as an authority. I never called you one.

2. An appeal to authority is like: "X said Wall-E is scum, therefore Wall-E is scum." It amounts to agreeing with someone without supportive reasoning.

I don't see what I said that IK is blindly agreeing with.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority. He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

[/color]

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

[/color]

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

In short, Wall-E, IK was arguing that part of your case (which you identified as the things I agreed with) only concerned nulltells. His argument was his own, and not based on an appeal to any authority as far as I can tell.

Hopefully I've convinced you otherwise. If not, you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Wall-E]

This argument with X is relevant to establishing credibility for my opinion, so I'm engaging in it. That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

[Wall-E]

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

[Wall-E]

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

[Wall-E]

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

So you think he's either scum or an anti-town player who has to be lynched in order to correct his anti-town ways? Being satisfied with the second possibility is not playing to win, assuming you're town.

I disagree. It has the benefit of 1) helping him play more logically and 2) possibly doing so within the span of this game.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority.

I agree with you up to this point.

He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

No, he's establishing my post as a reference based on the fact that it exists. You also referred to it. It's not a viable reference.

Why does he need to point out that something exists if not to use it for the purposes of convincing others based on what you have said? Using the reasoning of others is a scumtell, albiet a difficult one to find when done properly.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

I meant for you to be very literal, not flamboyant and cheeky.

[/color]

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some, not many.

Semantics?

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

I can try to point out a few, but I certainly can't get to all of them, finish replying to the rest of your really long post on the previous page, do meta research on you, and do well on my AP tests before deadline. The one that we're currently talking about is a start.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

No, no it's not. I definitely agreed with you about those things. And you definitely identified the things that I agreed with you on as points against IK. Referring to someone is not an appeal to authority, or a scumtell.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm merely wondering what your opinions have to do with his defense or lack thereof.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

Don't tell me that I don't know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I'm quite insulted, really.

Again, don't be insulted. I am merely pointing out my observations, and you should not internalize it. If I call your hat ugly it doesn't reflect poorly on you, it reflects poorly on my own self-esteem. On the other hand, what I'm doing here is pointing out that you seem to be unaware of the definition of the fallacy. It's not an insult, it's an opinion, and one made with nothing but respect.

Logical fallacies refer to the use of arguments that can prove false things.

Incorrect. A logical fallacy can attempt to prove something that is true.

An appeal to authority is fallacious because it presupposes that the authority is infallible. It consists of person A saying something, and person B arguing that it is true

because

person A said it.

So the things you said have merit outside your own authority? What merit is that? Are you softclaiming? What do the things that you say have to do with me and IK?

IK took your label for some of your "evidence," which was "the things X agreed with in his latest post." Then he said that the "evidence," because it only talked about quoting skills and rage, was not real evidence.

Saying that my case is invalid without stating why is dismissive and scummy. I don't have a problem with him saying quoting skills and rage aren't scumtells (I never advocated lynching him for a lack of quote skills, another strawman) I have a problem with him using a meta defense to excuse his dismissiveness, a problem with his attitude being one of a person attempting to characterize his attacker as illogical without evidence, a problem with his attempt to derail early-game suspicion by making a bombastic statement intended to spark a debate (you can yell about how it's not true all day, but I have no facts before me to measure with, so I must assume the worst), a constant repetition of logical fallacies (which you are now engaging in for some reason) and his dismissiveness.

He was not saying that I don't agree with the case on IK. [/b]That is true, but he was not saying that.

He was saying that the case on him was flimsy.

And I assert that it's the best case on the table.

That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

Where did you get the impression that I saw you as town?

Touche.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

That's all fine and dandy that you point out logical fallacies. It's a good thing to do. I just think you misidentify a fair amount of them. That misidentification has clogged up this thread, IMO.

I think that I have identified all of them correctly. Are you starting to get annoyed with these third-grade rhetoric responses? Then offer me something more at the get-go.

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

Nice analogy. I plan to keep firing away.

Thanks. Analogy is one of my strong suits.

[Wall-E]

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

In his next post he claims I was his next best lead.

I'm going to go through the thread and compile only the original thoughts Sajin presents, meaning I will be ignoring all the posts he made saying, "I agree with <name>" or "Such and such was a misread."

Original content only means things he brought up before anyone else:

Sajin, I'm going to start you off with 1 townie point.

@173-Kreriov- Semi agree. I see walle's large increase in participation as scummy because it strikes me as trying to be under the radar, and then realizing your in danger, and desperately clinging to a rope, spamming posts to survive.

One townie point for you.

@idiotking.....no information is "old" in a game of mafia. Also note, its not new to me or Hero because we joined on page 10. Also, scum could slip up day 1 and mess their story up. Not voting in RVS is scummy because of this:

RVS leads to discussion, discussion leads to information, information leads to lynching scum.

Not voting in RVS, cuts off information, which leads to less lynching of scum. Its not that its scummy in and of itself....its scummy because what it leads or does not lead to. So you have a grey mark in my votebook too. Its not enough to day 1 lynch you, but it shall be noted for future votes as again, the entire thread should be incorporated in every days vote/lynch.

RVS policy discussion. While I agree with you, not scumhunting. No townie points for this one.

why do you keep diminishing your own importance IK?

One townie point.

Feel free to ask any question you want. The person I would like to pressure would be cuabarey who is not here, and I feel like posting any sort of town/scum list at this time would let the scum setup better for day 2.

And more something more substantial and opinionated just for you: We should lynch walle because he claimed vanilla. Now that he claimed vanilla, if hes scum he will sit there and kill off people and if he is not, scum will not touch him in an effort to kill power roles, not that we have any of course. Thus, we must lynch him eventually, and its better to lynch this today.

One townie point.

Feeling good? You shouldn't. While I've been adding townie points for original content, I've been gleaning through tons of agreement posts and hot-topic commentary from you. The majority of your input is

not

scumhunting. You don't ask many questions, and you take the obvious side in debates that don't concern you to buddy up to the most pro-town players. For every time you used someone else's post to explain your own thoughts rather than taking the five seconds it takes to type them out yourself, I took away one point. You are now at -4 townie points as of this quoted post.

I could continue, but you'd be somewhere at -40 townie points by now.

Feel free to ask any question you want. The person I would like to pressure would be cuabarey who is not here, and I feel like posting any sort of town/scum list at this time would let the scum setup better for day 2.

And more something more substantial and opinionated just for you: We should lynch walle because he claimed vanilla. Now that he claimed vanilla, if hes scum he will sit there and kill off people and if he is not, scum will not touch him in an effort to kill power roles, not that we have any of course. Thus, we must lynch him eventually, and its better to lynch this today.

How does posting a list of scum help the scum decide who to NK? They won't be likely to lynch any of the people most of us agree are scummy. In light of this viewpoint, do you feel that if I changed targets I would be helping the scum in any way? What about if X did? What about if Cubarey had? Should we all just pick ONE target each to minimize the nebulous threat of "helping the scum?" That's what you're saying, right? Please clarify this viewpoint.

[Wall-E]

Sajin is noncontributing when he says things like, "I agree with this." but adds nothing to the discussion. He should be saying WHY he agrees/disagrees. Otherwise he's just making useless noise. What use is your unsupported opinion to the goal of scumhunting?

[Wall-E]

My last post should read, "Of what use are your unqualified agreements in scumhunting?"

[Wall-E]

No, it's this: "Of what use are your unqualified agreements?"

I submit that they are anti-town.

They add words for others to read that neither add to nor subtract from the issues. If you gave your reasoning for agreeing, that would be different, but we don't decide who the scum are by taking yes/no votes on random topics.

[Wall-E]

No, it's this: "Of what use are your unqualified agreements?"

I submit that they are anti-town.

They add words for others to read that neither add to nor subtract from the issues. If you gave your reasoning for agreeing, that would be different, but we don't decide who the scum are by taking yes/no votes on random topics.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E is going back up on my scum scale. He keeps dredging up old posts and mischaracterizing them. He (and other actually) keep bringing up Sajin's post about waiting to day 2 and not posting lists.

Wall-E - STOP TAKING POSTS OUT OF CONTEXT.

That post by Sajin was made when Wall-E was at L-1 and seemingly about to be lynched. Pretty important context there. Damn straight Sajin should wait until day 2. Damn straight a set of lists right before a lynch helps the scum. Its simple logic, really. Lets say Wall-E was lynched at that time and lets say he flips town. Ok, right before he is lynched 6 of the remaining 11 players all list YB as the most town with 3 more saying he is probably town. You think the scum might want to take him out? Or maybe make it easier to figure out PRs? This is only the most blatant example of Wall-E taking things out of context and commenting on them ad-naseum. I would say its a scum tactic of trying to baffle them with bullshit, but I do not think Wall-E really understands how poor and misguided his posts truly are.

I am not decided on whether Sajin's action in this particular instance is scummy or not, all I know is there is a logic and the logic depends on keeping the context of the action in mind.

What I AM decided on is that I feel that Wall-E leaving out the context to make is seem scummy on his targets part is deliberate and THAT is indeed scummy.

Thanks for clarifying, but please don't try to make it sound like an understandable (imho) mistake while reading in ISOLATION is somehow intentional.

Jeesh.

Do you disagree with my other point about him nodding and shaking his head and pointing at the logic of other players?

Chainsaw defense-looking post, here.

[Wall-E]

How does posting a list of scum help the scum decide who to NK?

I'd answer, but since this is directed to Sajin I think it's best to let him answer. It's pretty simple, though *hint, hint*.

I get it!

Retracted.

[Wall-E]

Looker said, "Paying attention to" not "I think the following people are scum." I agree with you that in the context of mafia, townies are "paying attention" to who is scum, but he may have meant that he's "following" (like how you follow a news story) three major things. It's very, very unlikely that he was making a joke about suspecting himself, and even less likely that he slipped and named himself scum. It appears to me he was merely stating what was interesting to him about the thread, and highlighting an interaction by calling attention to his OWN part in it rather than anyone else's (which seems off).

[Wall-E]

If I made the mistake once, I am obviously prone to do so. I am a flawed person, just like everyone else, and I have my own fetishes and manner of thinking. Information is processed in my brain in the same way (roughly) each time I put it in there.

Where have I lied?

[Wall-E]

@Walle- I find it hilarious you gave me a townie point for the quote where I wanted to lynch you.

Then you clearly did not read or possibly did not comprehend the post. I gave you one townie point for every COMPLETELY ORIGINAL thought you brought to the thread. That means you've only made those three salient and original-minded points up to that point in the game. It's a pattern you have been holding to all game.

Also, you still have not answered my question:

Do you see the statistics side of why I wish to vote you today?

Bolded just for you, because you seem to respond better to that sort of thing.

Perhaps you can explain this. WIFOM applies to any argument you could make to make you sound like an idiot before you open your mouth, however.

[Wall-E]

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

When I get the time, I'll try to. I have one game of knowledge already (I'm mod), but it's ongoing.

What have you decided about my meta, X?

I haven't had time! I'm responding to all of this, and I still have AP tests to worry about.

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

Again, all I see is a contradiction or a potential semantics debate.

Defending yourself and being defensive are two slightly different things. "It looks a little scummy." The exact reasoning is lost - it's just a feeling; it's just a vibe.

That makes no sense to me still.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

Regardless, having no idea how to separate those who are claiming scum as town from those who are claiming scum as scum, I must attack them all. Shouldn't you?

No. If you can't separate scum claiming scum from town claiming scum

any better

than scum not claiming from town not claiming, then you shouldn't attack them for it.[/quote]

I never said the words, "I can't tell any better." Misrep. What I said was, "I can't tell between Group C and Group D.

Group A: Townies who have not claimed scum.
Group B: Scum who have not claimed scum.
Group C: Townies who have claimed scum.
Group D: Scum who have claimed scum.

What you just lied and claimed I said was, "I can't tell the difference between A and B any better than I can tell the difference between C and D." That's not true. What I said was, "No matter what you may really be, you claimed scum. That makes you more likely to actually BE scum."

I stand by this assertion.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

You seem to be made of jelly. I can't offer any evidence, but it seems it's true.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.

Actions speak louder than words. Your assurance isn't convincing me any. And isn't it a little bad to have "lynching IK" as more important than "winning the game?"

Read more serious. I don't like to repeat myself, as you know.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Your opinion is noted, whomever you are X is quoting.

Evidence from thread:

Basically just the evidence from Point 3 concerning Hero. This point is really weak, IMO.

How weak is really weak? Will 'ignoring' it further get me killed? For the record, I am not ignoring anything. I have already stated my reasoning in each of my vote posts or subsequently, and so this argument is refuted already.

No, I don't fault you for it. And I think the points were originally Kreriov's.

*shrug*

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you.

This is me legitimately misrepresenting a fact. The fact remains, however, that it can be taken as distancing.

1. I cannot tell misrepresenting facts from legitimately misrepresenting facts, and scum are much more likely to manipulate the evidence to convince people.
2. What can be taken as distancing? The vote that you invented?

1) You have a good point, I can't refute that beyond to say that it was not intentional misrepresentation (I'm not that dumb)
2) YB's posts of the time referencing IK.

Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

What about this is scummy?

You're lying. So you're either trying to jumble your objectives in your head (look like town, but campaign against the town) or you're just trying to make us forget where your vote is.

My votes don't mean as much as my words. To put that another way, my vote is like an afterthought, the sword in the fencer's hand. It's all the work I do with my elbow, wrist, arm, back, legs and feet that won the match: The sword (vote) is just what killed the opponent.

[Wall-E]

This is bullshit. I demand a recount.

*calmly sips tea*

Uh... see you all on the flipside!

BAH GO TOWN

[Wall-E]

I'm slightly discouraged about Wall-E, after doing meta. Wall-E has done some of these things as town, but some he has not. Granted, I only looked at two games.

In one game he was town and posted the following after lurking through 11 pages:

I didn't push "Watch this topic for replies" last time. It happened three different games this month. I'm pretty busy at school, so I blame that. Sorry.

He calls out ZSW for a flip-out in that game, and votes him. But I didn't notice him throwing out Fallacy names like calling cards. He also treated meta as a valid tool in that game.

In Open 114, where he was scum, he lurked through the middle of D1, and called things out a lot as Fallacies, such as:

"If you're not a mime, you must be scum."

Absolutism is scummy and anti-town.

Also expressed his ignoring mantra:

PS Jazz: Responses to questions don't require responses. Only questions do.

Also attacks Empking for not using logic - looks similar to his attacks on IK.

So yeah. I'm prepared to believe YB, and this doesn't give me overwhelming evidence for hypotown Wall-E.

Unvote: Looker

.

Vote: Wall-E

.

It's wolfy of you to suddenly investigate my meta and find me town just before I'm mislynched.

FoS: X

FoS: IK

for deliberately pushing my buttons all through the game. He knew what I wanted and he avoided giving it to me like the plague.

Good luck everybody!

[Wall-E]

Now YOU sound like a wolf to me.

[Wall-E]

Ojanen, don't fall for that shit. I fully support you hammering Wall-E. His lynch is certainly is better than a no lynch. The only alternative I could see is Jase and creating a wagon on an absent player at deadline is generally a good idea.

This is the part where I confirm Jase town, right?

He's probably scum, given how difficult this lynch has been.

[Wall-E]

Sorry, town here.

[Wall-E]

OR AM I MUHAHAHAHAH