Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[yellowbunny]

Looker...you really need to respond to the questions regarding Cubarey. Multiple people have asked for your opinion. Kreriov raises a valid point about Cubarey's play...and while we all know you can't know what Cub was thinking, you should at least offer us your opinion.

[Hero764]

Okay, but i still think that there's a possibility sajin could be just as scummy as wall-e is believed to be. So rather than hopping on wall-e's wagon, I placed a vote on sajin. You think i'm scum or do you just not like the way i placed a vote with no reasoning? are you refuting my townieness or my playstyle?

Why didn't you hop on Wall-E's wagon? Is it because you didn't want to look like you were a scum bandwagoning? I think you should read through(or at least skim through) the whole thread before placing a vote. You aren't looking much better than CUB did atm.

Vote: Looker

[Sajin]

Based on pure play, I dislike the no case vote and the "lets not jump on the wagon" thing.

I refute both things looker.

fos looker

[Looker]

Looker...you really need to respond to the questions regarding Cubarey. Multiple people have asked for your opinion. Kreriov raises a valid point about Cubarey's play...and while we all know you can't know what Cub was thinking, you should at least offer us your opinion.

Okay, that's understandable. Ask the questions.

Okay, but i still think that there's a possibility sajin could be just as scummy as wall-e is believed to be. So rather than hopping on wall-e's wagon, I placed a vote on sajin. You think i'm scum or do you just not like the way i placed a vote with no reasoning? are you refuting my townieness or my playstyle?

Why didn't you hop on Wall-E's wagon? Is it because you didn't want to look like you were a scum bandwagoning? I think you should read through(or at least skim through) the whole thread before placing a vote. You aren't looking much better than CUB did atm.

Vote: Looker

Jumping on Wall-E's bandwagon would serve no purpose for me. I think Sajin could be just as scummy so rather than hopping on the path that everyone else is taking - I mean you guys have that Wall-E wagon under control - I'd like to maintain a vote on Sajin because I believe he could be scum, too. Would you rather me allow him to slide through? I think I get where you guys are going with this but I see no harm in allowing my suspicions to manifest themselves with a vote if it's not a L-1.

Based on pure play, I dislike the no case vote and the "lets not jump on the wagon" thing.

I refute both things looker.

fos looker

Of course you would, silly

[Idiotking]

So you think Sajin is equally scummy as Wall-E? In that case I'd suggest you went with the bigger wagon, simply because that's most likely the lynch for the day. Suspicions can be stated just as easily in words rather than votes. Personally I think Day 1's gone on too long, but I'm afraid to say we should wrap things up

[Looker]

then why aren't kreriov and hero voting wall-e? they don't think he's scum? or are they complacent with their playstyle-induced vote on me as opposed to a scum-induced vote on him?

and who do you think is scum, idiotking? why aren't you voting?

[Sajin]

Looker...you really need to respond to the questions regarding Cubarey. Multiple people have asked for your opinion. Kreriov raises a valid point about Cubarey's play...and while we all know you can't know what Cub was thinking, you should at least offer us your opinion.

Okay, that's understandable. Ask the questions.

Okay, but i still think that there's a possibility sajin could be just as scummy as wall-e is believed to be. So rather than hopping on wall-e's wagon, I placed a vote on sajin. You think i'm scum or do you just not like the way i placed a vote with no reasoning? are you refuting my townieness or my playstyle?

Why didn't you hop on Wall-E's wagon? Is it because you didn't want to look like you were a scum bandwagoning? I think you should read through(or at least skim through) the whole thread before placing a vote. You aren't looking much better than CUB did atm.

Vote: Looker

Jumping on Wall-E's bandwagon would serve no purpose for me. I think Sajin could be just as scummy so rather than hopping on the path that everyone else is taking - I mean you guys have that Wall-E wagon under control - I'd like to maintain a vote on Sajin because I believe he could be scum, too. Would you rather me allow him to slide through? I think I get where you guys are going with this but I see no harm in allowing my suspicions to manifest themselves with a vote if it's not a L-1.

Based on pure play, I dislike the no case vote and the "lets not jump on the wagon" thing.

I refute both things looker.

fos looker

Of course you would, silly

Fluff post. You ignored the no case question which more than I brought up.

Deadline is coming up

(when btw mod)

. We do not have deadline lynches in this game so that is why the questions came up. I think your trying to slide by unnoticed into day 2 and I am calling you out on it.

[Looker]

okay, the no case question which more than you brought up. okay. you want to know WHY i think you're scum. that's all you had to say, sajin. im sorry, my bad

[Looker]

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

vote: Wall-e

/mod: prod cubarey

im voting you because i can't find where you stated your reason for this and then got mad at jase because he did the same thing. inconsistency, that's all.

[StrangerCoug]

Based on pure play, I dislike the no case vote and the "lets not jump on the wagon" thing.

I refute both things looker.

fos looker

Of course you would, silly

Nice horse laugh.

[Looker]

lol (even tho i dont quite get it...but o well...a) lmfao

[yellowbunny]

@Looker: I know you never responded to the following...

@Looker: I think we all REALLY appreciate you replacing into our 28 page long day one...cannot say that enough. I think the things we are most curious to know are:

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?
2.) Although we all know you cannot speak for Cubarey, what do you make of him going after X on such a flimsy case?
3.) Do you think that Cubarey's behavior was scummy compared to some of the other less active people? If so, why? If not, then what do you make of some people's fixation on this slot?

So you think Sajin is equally scummy as Wall-E? In that case I'd suggest you went with the bigger wagon, simply because that's most likely the lynch for the day. Suspicions can be stated just as easily in words rather than votes. Personally I think Day 1's gone on too long, but I'm afraid to say we should wrap things up Smile

I don't understand what you are getting at with the two wagons -- you think Sajin is more likely to be the lynch than Wall-e?

And I agree with you, day 1 needs to be wrapped up.

[Idiotking]

I meant that Wall-E's more likely to be the lynch than Sajin. Should have said 'go' instead of 'went'. Tense error.

I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens.

[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.

[Sajin]

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

vote: Wall-e

/mod: prod cubarey

im voting you because i can't find where you stated your reason for this and then got mad at jase because he did the same thing. inconsistency, that's all.

the where was in my post where I replaced into this game. Previous page to your quote.

I have no idea what this and thing mean in this sentence. If you cannot find why I am voting walle in this thread, then I think you barely skimmed it.

I got mad at jase for not posting posts with content, the same thing your doing now.

[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.

[qwints]

unvote

while I take time to evaluate this. The only thing that jumps out at me is:

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.

[Wall-E]

Howso?

[Wall-E]

I assure you that I clearly label all my jokes.

[yellowbunny]

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?

[StrangerCoug]

lol (even tho i dont quite get it...but o well...a) lmfao

As in you're dismissing the vote as ridiculous.

Also, TL;DR the Wall-E's of Text.

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E:

I hate to fill the thread with repetition and I don't know if this was in the secong part that didn't get posted but I had a section noting stuff about you in my catch up post (729). Anything to comment on this?

Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390

Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote Idiotking 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.

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.

Ojanen:
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.

I did follow through.
I state in ISO31(too lazy to find all users post number)
"Your wait shall not be fruitless. I didn't find a contradiction. X implied that he looks for reactions and then analyzes those reactions. "