Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[qwints]

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

[Idiotking]

Roleclaiming to me would mean NOTHING at this point

I find that very hard to believe, and it would be problematic if it were true. It would mean something even if it didn't save Wall-E from a lynch.

This is Day 1. Nobody should roleclaim on Day 1 unless they're under fire. Wall-E has already roleclaimed, and nobody else is under enough fire to warrant anything close to a roleclaim. So to me, it would mean absolutely nothing to roleclaim. If I'm mistaken on this point, feel free to clarify why it would matter. I'm inexperienced when it comes to oddly timed roleclaims such as this.

I don't understand how you can misunderstand the phrase "I don't want to know your role if you're a townie"

That's a very easy phrase to misunderstand because "townie" is ambiguous. It could refer to either role ("vanilla") or alignment ("pro-town").

Townie meaning alignment. I always say vanilla when I mean vanilla, though I can see how it would be ambiguous.

[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)?

[qwints]

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)?

I'm actually not sure who you're referring to and wouldn't tell you if I was. You're on the chopping block, it's your job to persuade us otherwise. I'm not going to tell you in advance what cases I'd be most sympathetic to. Scumhunt or die.

[yellowbunny]

Claim is the dominating reason (less chance for outing PRs). His weak defense early added to it. I fail to see how I shifted stances.

Meh...it just seemed like you did in your last post. Mb I read too much into it.

[hambargarz]

VOTE COUNT

(3) Wall-E (Sajin, X, qwints)

(1) X (Looker)
(1) Idiotking (Wall-E)

Not voting
burfy, Ojanen, Hero764, Jase, yellowbunny, Idiotking, Kreriov

[Kreriov]

@IK - You can ignore Wall-E's roleclaim, just do not ignore the fact that he did it. Its not so much whether or not we believe his roleclaim, its more, as you put it, the odd timing. The standard play is for a townie to claim if he gets to L-1 or L-2. Wall-E did not. He jumped the gun on his claim. There is a reason for him doing so, we just really do not know what that is. You don't have to believe the roleclaim, just recognize that he did something out of the ordinary, which I think you do.

I also think you should try to understand the consequence of the roleclaim depending on its truthfulness. You don't have to believe it, but there are definite consequences to allowing it to go unverified. Sajin is absolutely correct when he says it would be very bad if we get to LYLO with Wall-E's claim unverified. I would only point out that there is alot of game to go until we reach that point.

[Jase]

People who said Wall-E is not scummy[/u]

Jase
Post 488

Also I forgot to

unvote

I don't really think Wall-E is scum especially considering his post 483.

If anyone objects to my classification of them, please let me know.

Jase, given your lone objector status, I want a case from you on who you think we should lynch instead of Wall-E. Re-reading your posts in iso, you seem to have been active lurking this past month.

I didn't say he was not scummy, just that I didn't think he was scum. Depending on what happens during discussion, I could see a hero, sajin, or possibly looker lynch today as well.

[Jase]

Also, I, having read my own posts in iso, do not think I've been active lurking. Nearly everything I've posted has had some substance to it. Unless "active lurking" means something different to you than it does to me.

[yellowbunny]

I didn't say he was not scummy, just that I didn't think he was scum. Depending on what happens during discussion, I could see a hero, sajin, or possibly looker lynch today as well.

Can you please go into depth as to why you think this? I know that there have been questions raised about these 3, but are you saying that YOU find them scummy?

[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?

[qwints]

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?

Tell me who you think the two scummiest players are or die. I want you to make a case, not ask questions to get others to make a case. I've already made clear what I think.

[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

[Sajin]

@Jase- Thanks for question dodging yet again.

fos:Jase

Also, blanket baseless accusations in response to some pressure. Lets see your cases on looker hero and I as well as the answer to my question. I love how you claimed your posts have subsistence when your last 2 you posted have little to none. I think that qualifies for active lurking.

[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

[Jase]

@Jase- Thanks for question dodging yet again.

fos:Jase

Also, blanket baseless accusations in response to some pressure. Lets see your cases on looker hero and I as well as the answer to my question. I love how you claimed your posts have subsistence when your last 2 you posted have little to none. I think that qualifies for active lurking.

You say I make blanket accusations under pressure, but why would I be feeling pressured exactly?

My case against looker is well documented, as it is the same as my case against Cubarey. As for you and hero, I could go back and outline the points that I have against you.

You say my last 2 post have little or no substance, not only do I disagree, but how do 2 posts constitute "active lurking". As a matter of fact...If you could go ahead and give me your definition of "substance", and "active lurking" without looking at the wiki and in your own words, I'd certainly appreciate it.

I've given you an explanation, if you aren't satisfied with it you'd do well to be more specific. I pointed out where I think you "advocate" an end to the day, what more did you expect from me? There is still plenty to discuss and I think it's fairly obvious that a premature end to the day harms town.

[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

[yellowbunny]

Kreriov wrote:
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.

I do not follow what you are getting at. How does the above imply a possible X/qwints scum team?

@Jase: Please respond to my post 709.

[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.

[Sajin]

@Jase- Thanks for question dodging yet again.

fos:Jase

Also, blanket baseless accusations in response to some pressure. Lets see your cases on looker hero and I as well as the answer to my question. I love how you claimed your posts have subsistence when your last 2 you posted have little to none. I think that qualifies for active lurking.

You say I make blanket accusations under pressure, but why would I be feeling pressured exactly?

My case against looker is well documented, as it is the same as my case against Cubarey. As for you and hero, I could go back and outline the points that I have against you.

You say my last 2 post have little or no substance, not only do I disagree, but how do 2 posts constitute "active lurking". As a matter of fact...If you could go ahead and give me your definition of "substance", and "active lurking" without looking at the wiki and in your own words, I'd certainly appreciate it.

I've given you an explanation, if you aren't satisfied with it you'd do well to be more specific. I pointed out where I think you "advocate" an end to the day, what more did you expect from me? There is still plenty to discuss and I think it's fairly obvious that a premature end to the day harms town.

You did not answer the question. At all. Is that specific enough? You answered a different question.

Stating people are scummy without backup is active lurking. Its trying to appear helpful while not being of any use. Thats active lurking in my book. Its far more than the 2 posts sir, I just found those pointed your lack of content out quite well. I can post many more. Blanket statements of which you have made several is also a sign of active lurking and not paying much attention to actual arguments. Your avoiding posting your reasoning behind your opinion to avoid scrutiny.

In short- post your reasons or don't post. And thats not for just any one specific claim, thats for the majority of your claims the entire game.