Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Kreriov]

No, I do not reject Sajin's argument. However, I think Looker is more scummy. I see an attempt by Looker's predecessor to frame X, then lurking by that same predecessor followed by Looker replacing in. Now that Looker has replaced in, he has done pretty much nothing. There could be lots of reasons for Looker's behavior. I believe it is because he is caught and is not sure how to get out of it.

Now I take into account the caveat that should be added to Sajin's statistics. Basically Sajin has shown that it is probably a bad idea to get to LYLO with Wall-E around given what we know now. The caveat is that if we do not lynch Wall-E today, we are still far from LYLO. We will have more information to analyze. Even though some of my observations have helped build a case against him, I guess I am worried that we may be lynching Wall-E more because he is annoying than anything else.

[X]

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.

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?

[/quote]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.

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?"

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.

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?

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.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod: Ignore #897 and note V/LA from the 10th to the 15th.

[Looker]

Gah, sorry i died but my boyfriend gets jealous of me being on the internet so much. anywayz...wall-e's still kickin, Sajin's still stubborn, and YB's still tryin' to make sense of it all...?

[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.

[qwints]

Wait, did I miss someone claiming scum?

[hambargarz]

VOTE COUNT
(3) Wall-E (X, Idiotking, Sajin)

(4) Looker (Kreriov, Hero764, qwints, StrangerCoug)

(1) Idiotking (Wall-E)

Not voting
Ojanen, Jase, yellowbunny, Looker


Reminder that deadline is just over a day away.
Jase has been prodded again

[X]

At this point, I'm willing to lynch Looker today. He came back and didn't add

anything

to the conversation, and I still have yet to do my meta work on Wall-E.

Unvote: Wall-E

,

Vote: Looker

.

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.

All I was saying was that I don't think that way, which is what I identify as vibe. Vibe consists of things that are too subtle to be explicitly explained.

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.

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.

If you start with, "No matter what you may really be," then you can't end with, "That makes you more likely to actually BE scum." I fail to see how scum claim scum more often than town do.

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.

Your "defense" is that I read wrong. Somehow, somewhere. I don't see where. You're not convincing me. Perhaps because it's a lie?

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.

There's only evidence of suspicion in IK (rather than just probing for answers) in post 85, which is the same place where YB FoS's him. To get back to your original post, you wrote:

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.

So with this new realization in mind, that YB only FoSes IK, and then tunnels on you, would that still mean (with only the knowledge that we had up to 409) that YB and IK were likely partners?

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.

So basically, you're pleading ignorant to where your vote was, because it wasn't your focus at the time. Alright. Still a misrepresentation.

You still have 887 to respond to.

[yellowbunny]

@everyone voting Looker: boo, hiss, hiss! I understand why you want to lynch Looker, but you shouldn't do it.

Under normal circumstances, I might want to as well. However, I have an advantage over you all. I know that if you lynch Looker, two things will happen:

1.) Looker will pop town-aligned Mason.
2.) Anyone with half a brain will figure out that I am Looker's mason partner.

I had been trying to persuade people to ease up on Looker as I didn't want to have to do this - particularly due to Sajin's point about PRs. So I tried my best to avoid doing this. I have also considered not saying anything (since I have no frikin' idea why Cub and Looker didn't do more to defend themselves)...but if I don't say anything, we will lynch a townie, and my role will become obvious. So I figure its better to pipe up now, and at least we can have a shot at lynching a scum, rather than doing what I KNOW is a mislynch.

vote: Wall-e

[Sajin]

Hmm need to reread now, vote stays until I do.

[Idiotking]

Crap.

Ok, folks, if we haven't reached a majority vote before 10:00 PM CST tonight, I'm going to vote for whoever's got the most votes, regardless of who it is. We CANNOT risk a no-lynch, no matter the cost.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote: Looker

for yellowbuddy claiming to be his mason buddy

Vote: Wall-E

for much the same reasons as last time

[qwints]

unvote, vote: Wall-E

We need a lynch and Wall-E is definitely the scummiest if looker isn't an option.

[Ojanen]

I'm here, will read the last pages properly now. Just announcing because the situation re: deadline seems tricky at the moment with a mason claim and I have an unused vote currently.

[X]

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

.

[Ojanen]

Umm, that was the hammer, right?

[Ojanen]

No, what the hell am I doing, sorry, of course it wasn't.

[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!

[Ojanen]

Dammit Wall-E, you toying with me?
Writing that after my message that says you're not hammered yet. Arrrgh.

[Ojanen]

Dammit dammit.
You've got to be hammered anyway, you know.
I can't assume you're just not being manipulative when the "not hammered yet" -message was right there.
And you're the only manageable lynch besides Looker.
I'm feeling mightily discouraged, but all the to-death-discussed reasons are there. Premature claim, hopping on and off with vote, pulling teeth communication until mightily pressured etc.
I'll hang around a bit, someone tell me now if I'm wrong and there's something heavily unfakeable in Wall-E's reaction, otherwise I'm ready to hammer.

[Wall-E]

Now YOU sound like a wolf to me.

[qwints]

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.

[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.