Newbie 841 - Game over!

[ronnieroo]

I have been building a case against Pablo, but would really like to see his complete case on Fitz first.

[Tororingu-chan]

Those last three posts weren't complete enough for you~? O_O

[Pablo Molinero]

For reals.

[PaltryExcuse]

I have a small problem with one of your arguments Pablo. In a replay of the contentious Post 110:

Heh, while I do admit that my "playstyle" sequence posts looks odd (what was I thinking?!), you have to ask yourself if that odd behavior=scummy. I was going to ride out the next few days because I thought the town was going to be more active than it is. When it was apparent we have quite a few people here semi-lurking, I took it upon myself to push the town forward.

Believe me: Quiet towns = Dead towns.

And yes, guess what, I STILL want people to pile on some votes. Anyone, anywhere: it is the #1 guaranteed way to spark a discussion.

I think you're looking at all the wrong reasons with your # 2 and 3, fitz. It appears to me that you're marking the 2 most active (content-wise) players simply because there's a lot of material to go off of with us. I'd be more concerned with the people NOT talking.

The bolded part is what fitz omitted when he quoted you. The first part refers to whether or not people felt your admitted lurking and your comment on how you were 'winning for the town' was scummy. I think the answer to the first part for havingfitz is a definitive yes. His argument seemed to be that you were advocating a more active town, very early in day 1 was not one of the two most active posters (despite you claiming to be) and then later drifting off. This post is a part of a series, where you push for content and votes, is displayed.

If my interpretation is right, I don't think fitz was misrepresenting you here. If anything, it may add a little to the case against you. Your admittance to being quiet at one point, and yet on the same post stating that 'Quiet Towns = Dead towns', damages your defense, not enhances. The fact you pointed out your odd behaviour before he did? Yay. It doesn't change the charge of you having contradicting behaviour.

[PaltryExcuse]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

[havingfitz]

You left out the first paragraph, and in doing so, are guilty of creating a reality that is convenient for your case. I specifically went back on the "sit back" mentality when it was apparent that I was being embarrassingly lazy and the town wasn't being too active. Sorry, when I address the issue myself, it isn't hypocrisy, you're just fabricating reality.

Umm....in my 'case' (post 246) against you I supplied post numbers. Anyone reading my 'case' on you could have gone back and read your unedited posts. Paltry asked me to "line up exactly what parts of Pablo's posts you see as hypocritical" so I did. I didn't include your entire posts to keep post 246 somewhat reasonable in length. Whose creating a convenient reality now?

Oh look, another quote you cut down for the sake of your own case. For those keeping score, this is count #2 of havingfitz editing down reality to serve his case:

In 246, he cut the bolded part out so he could make a point THAT I ALREADY POINTED OUT MYSELF, AT THE TIME. Go up and check where he quoted this from me and see the difference. I don't like this one bit.

As mentioned...another example of me responding to Paltry's request for exact parts of your posts. Anyone wanting to read the unedited version could do so. So basically you have wasted two posts criticizing me for distorting reality by trimming your posts when in fact I used your entire posts as reference and only cut them down when requested to.

Huh? I'm trying to be more active in the game. I give my reasons for thinking OMG is the scummiest person (whom you have been focusing on up to this point as well) and vote for him. In your limited number of posts you have urged activity (and used the lack of it as a reason to suspect OMG), prompted us to cast votes, stated your dislike of replacements, and cast suspicions towards OMG. In this one post you use basically all of these things you have espoused to shift suspicions towards me and change your vote from OMG to me. That IMO is several examples of hypocrisy lumped into one post.

Let's look at the context of each case:

OMG disappearing after being called out and voted for by several people: mildly scummy, possibly newbish.

Pablo being less active with no votes on him, but always present: a little lazy, but nothing more.

I am not comparable to OMG, so I think your label of hypocrisy in this case is invalid.

Context of each case....

-- You say you figure OMG is scum in post 104...no mention of him being mildly scummy or new...and he is your focus almost from the beginning until my vote on him.

"Pablo being less active with no votes on him, but always present"
-- What does having no votes on you matter? And if you are always present...then why are you one of the most (if not the most) inactive posters currently in the game and using multiple references to school and moving keeping you from being more active? Does that mean you are sitting back again? Please make up you mind.

-- Who says you aren't comparable to OMG? You? Well that's convenient...for you. You used OMG's inactivity as a negative towards him like I am towards you (among other negatives). In my opinion there is a comparision. And my comments regarding your persistent hypocratic play do not revolve entirely on comparisons to OMG (?).

Page 6:

Game is going SLOOOOOW and OMG is prodded, looking like he will not show up.

havingfitz posts this:

Well I'm looking at everyone as a possible mafia but for some I'm not seeing much if any. I'm just pointing out a few interesting observations IMO regarding Mitey. The lack of anything else going on has given a bit of time to do some nitpicking.

Also...with Vel being out of pocket around the first of Oct I'm crossing my fingers we get to the next day sooner than later. I know that sounds bad but this game is creeping along enough as it is.

He stalls, admitting that he can do nothing but nitpick in a game so slow.

And yet, havingfitz's next post is the vote is for OMG and pressures a hammer

before a replacement can be found

.

How am I stalling? Is that your interpretation...because I don't see it. And at the pace the game was going at the time (there's some context for you) my observations on Mitey Mouse were a bit of nitpicking. So? I was trying to look at other possibilities than OMG. And I did not pressure for a hammer. I welcomed one...I made it clear to anyone else who wanted OMG gone that the oppotunity was there. A better example of pressure would be your entreaties for people to vote...pile on the votes...vote...be active...not be tentative...ie un-Pablo-ish.

What does the fact my vote came in the next post matter? I had suspected OMG for the past 4 days and we were two weeks into the game. My posts 148, 151 and 171 go into detail on the timing and rationale behind my vote for OMG.

You call me hypocritical for doing this, and this is the cornerstone of your argument. Let's look at the reality:

- I pressure for activity/votes in a slow game. True.

- OMG votes pile up and I have no problem because I believe he is still playing.

- When it becomes apparent we need a replacement, havingfitz jumps on the vote-wagon.

- I back off. True. WHY? Because it's everyone's right to defend themselves, but you persist for the lynch. And

I'm

scummy for wanting the day to continue instead of cutting off discussion?

Your preemptive vote on me today also looks like panic and I'm not liking it. The biggest thing you've done today to add to my preexisting suspicion is selectively edit quotes for your non-existent arguments.

Yeah.

vote: havingfitz

Once the replacement occurred (as I've already mentioned) I was willing to hear RayFrost out. Funny enough....since you apparently were so keen to hear from OMG's replacement you may want to note that he had you as his top scum suspect and me as his least scummy suspect. Also...how is my vote pre-emptive or panicked? I have voiced suspicions of you since before OMG was even gone and with OMG (and subsequently MiteyMouse) gone...you are my top suspect. And I gave numerous reasons for my suspicions. Nothing panicked about it. You on the other hand have a very weak defense/case against me...especially considering the biggest thing I've done to add to you suspcions of me is the editting I invalidated at the beginning of this post.

[havingfitz]

EBWOP....

The first part of my last post referenced the wrong post where I made my 'case" and provided the post numbers to Pablo's post in question. The first part should have read:

You left out the first paragraph, and in doing so, are guilty of creating a reality that is convenient for your case. I specifically went back on the "sit back" mentality when it was apparent that I was being embarrassingly lazy and the town wasn't being too active. Sorry, when I address the issue myself, it isn't hypocrisy, you're just fabricating reality.

Umm....in my 'case' (

post 238

) against you I supplied post numbers. Anyone reading my 'case' on you could have gone back and read your unedited posts. Paltry asked me to "line up exactly what parts of Pablo's posts you see as hypocritical" so I did. I didn't include your entire posts to keep post 246 somewhat reasonable in length. Who's creating a convenient reality now?

[PaltryExcuse]

@havingfitz: You seem to wonder why I got you to explain your argument of hypocrisy against Pablo. The reason is, the case is much clearer and defined when you explain the posts you're referring to rather than giving a blanketed statement with references. It allows me to see your thought processes, and lets me decide whether or not it makes sense. It also saves me time.

In the argument of fitz vs. Pablo:
I'm currently leaning towards a vote for Pablo.
Pablo's early play was contradictory, or at the very least confusing. Although he recognized this, it doesn't change the matter that his actions were. Pablo's was the first vote against OMG, although T-chan first brought up the matter of OMG's suspicious behaviour. It was suspicious, my problem is not in his regard of OMG at that point. My question to you, Pablo, regarding whether or not you found OMG scummy at the end of day 1 (before fitz's hammer), has gone untouched. Pablo argued that fitz willingly omitted parts of your posts to aid his case, however the parts he left out do not change anything in regards to his points (neither making nor breaking it; see my 2nd to last post for explanation). The beginning admitted odd behaviour, and the false accusations of misrepresentation lead me to believe that Pablo is more likely scum than fitz.

However, I'm not convinced yet. The reason is in the second part of Pablo's case against fitz. Firstly, I believe fitz was coaxing a 5th vote, something he has admitted in a way.

I wasn't shying away...when the votes for OMG were getting fewer I was basically resigned to the fact he wasn't going anywhere (at least before a replacement was made) and once that replacement was made, it was only common courtesy to let the replacement have their say.

Coaxing that 5th vote does look scummy. The other part that irks me is the fact that he wants to reduce the prospects of replacements, something that confuses me. Obviously, the need for replacements is not a good thing, but active replacements can be better than those they are 'succeeding'. Just a weird vibe off that line is all.

I won't vote yet, simply because I'm not convinced either is scum. It definitely seems as though one or the other is, but I'm not satisfied. I expect Pablo and fitz to respond, but I'd really appreciate any more third party perspective on the matter.

Questions:
@Pablo: The original question still stands: Did you find Ray scummy that you too would have hammered? Secondly, I currently find your case of misrepresentation lacking. In those two posts where you felt misrepresented, what were we to infer from those posts?

@havingfitz: What does RayFrost suspecting Pablo and believing you help you? He was being truthful (or I assume he was as townie), but he died with less information than we have now.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP:
It should be, "

How

does RayFrost suspecting Pablo, and believing you, help you?"

Sorry 'bout that.

[PaltryExcuse]

EBWOP:
It should be, "

How

does RayFrost suspecting Pablo, and believing you, help you?"

Sorry 'bout that.

[PaltryExcuse]

@Mod: Ack. Double Post. My internet is frazzing in and out this evening. I'd appreciate if you could remove one of the two.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

I'm looking for some sort of conclusion to this.

[PaltryExcuse]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

I'm looking for some sort of conclusion to this.

Damn you, Narcissus.

[Pablo Molinero]

I have a small problem with one of your arguments Pablo. In a replay of the contentious Post 110:

Heh, while I do admit that my "playstyle" sequence posts looks odd (what was I thinking?!), you have to ask yourself if that odd behavior=scummy. I was going to ride out the next few days because I thought the town was going to be more active than it is. When it was apparent we have quite a few people here semi-lurking, I took it upon myself to push the town forward.

Believe me: Quiet towns = Dead towns.

And yes, guess what, I STILL want people to pile on some votes. Anyone, anywhere: it is the #1 guaranteed way to spark a discussion.

I think you're looking at all the wrong reasons with your # 2 and 3, fitz. It appears to me that you're marking the 2 most active (content-wise) players simply because there's a lot of material to go off of with us. I'd be more concerned with the people NOT talking.

The bolded part is what fitz omitted when he quoted you. The first part refers to whether or not people felt your admitted lurking and your comment on how you were 'winning for the town' was scummy. I think the answer to the first part for havingfitz is a definitive yes. His argument seemed to be that you were advocating a more active town, very early in day 1 was not one of the two most active posters (despite you claiming to be) and then later drifting off. This post is a part of a series, where you push for content and votes, is displayed.

If my interpretation is right, I don't think fitz was misrepresenting you here. If anything, it may add a little to the case against you. Your admittance to being quiet at one point, and yet on the same post stating that 'Quiet Towns = Dead towns', damages your defense, not enhances. The fact you pointed out your odd behaviour before he did? Yay. It doesn't change the charge of you having contradicting behaviour.

Really, admitting to fault and having some semblance of self-awareness before someone can point it out is a FAULT? Yikes, you have some messed-up priorities, if that's so.

Havingfitz, I know you're going to laugh me out of the building on this one: but I ask you to take a closer look at some others before trying to damn me completely. There are 4 other players that are relatively silent in the past few days. I appear to be on the losing side of this argument so far, (though I'd like to see what the

whole

town thinks about this), but it in my experience in the newbie games that the players not actively building cases: those piggybacking, simply agreeing, and staying silent (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) are those more likely to be scum.

As for you, the amount and "strength" of your replies throws you closer and closer to the "town" bin in my mind. While tunneling can be a good thing to bring out the best or worst in people, it can be dangerous at points, and I'm getting the feeling that this could be a "town vs town" matchup.

unvote

Questions:
@Pablo: The original question still stands: Did you find Ray scummy that you too would have hammered? Secondly, I currently find your case of misrepresentation lacking. In those two posts where you felt misrepresented, what were we to infer from those posts?

If forced to, due the deadline, I would have hammered, yes.

I'm under the impression that fitz has pointed out those two quotes to represent me contradicting myself. I encouraged votes, activity, and pressure, and I was lacking in the "activity" department. I'll give him that, but I addressed it myself (in the omitted parts) and have explained on multiple occasion what my mindset was. Therefore, I think it should be a null-point, but some of you choose to discount my words to be irrelevant. I think this is illogical.

btw, I still think that my "inactivity" versus OMG's is no comparison. OMG disappeared under heat. Completely. What am I doing? Defending myself and firing back. Does this kind of reaction change anything in your mind? And if not, why not?

[PaltryExcuse]

Really, admitting to fault and having some semblance of self-awareness before someone can point it out is a FAULT? Yikes, you have some messed-up priorities, if that's so.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you admitting to a fault does not deny the fact that it happened.

There are 4 other players that are relatively silent in the past few days. I appear to be on the losing side of this argument so far, (though I'd like to see what the

whole

town thinks about this), but it in my experience in the newbie games that the players not actively building cases: those piggybacking, simply agreeing, and staying silent (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) are those more likely to be scum.

It has been rather quiet these past few days, hence my joking that there seems to be an echo in here due to the emptiness and my comment on how I want another perspective.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

Echo

...

I'm looking for some sort of conclusion to this.

Damn you, Narcissus.

I don't get it PE, explain to me.

[PaltryExcuse]

The Story of Echo and Narcissus: (Abridged)

Echo is a nymph who likes Narcissus.
Narcissus doesn't know she exists.
Basically, she stalks him, does whatever he does.
She gets up the nerve to talk to him.
He shuts her down.
She curses him, but in so doing, becomes what she was in life: an echo of who she once was.
Narcissus learns to love, but only his reflection. Becomes a plant while looking at his reflection in the water.

It's a Greek myth, explaining the origins of echoes, and the Narcissus plant (a plant that grows near lakes and bends towards them, "looking at their reflection"). In retrospect, not that funny. But, being a classics history major, I tend to like the reference.

[Tororingu-chan]

Don't worry, T-chan thought it was funny! xD

I've been watching both havingfitz and Pablo going at each other's throats, and I don't think I have any reason to believe either are scum.... let's try not to let them eclipse any other player and make it seem as if we all have to vote for either one or the other! ^_^;

Where's DeathNote?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Oh. I'm daft. I thought you were making a connection between my post and Narcissus. I didn't pay any attention at all to the echoes.

[havingfitz]

@havingfitz: You seem to wonder why I got you to explain your argument of hypocrisy against Pablo. The reason is, the case is much clearer and defined when you explain the posts you're referring to rather than giving a blanketed statement with references. It allows me to see your thought processes, and lets me decide whether or not it makes sense. It also saves me time.

No...I wasn't wondering why...I was assuming you were too lazy to dig through the 'unedited' posts I had referenced. I didn't mind too much though as it was good to take an even closer look at my reasoning.

I expect Pablo and fitz to respond,

To what? I'm getting responded out.

Questions:
@havingfitz: What does RayFrost suspecting Pablo and believing you help you? He was being truthful (or I assume he was as townie), but he died with less information than we have now.

I only mentioned it as I found it ironic that Pablo mentions his desire to hear what the replacements have to say (can't recall offhand if he mentioned OMG's specifically) and when we did get a somewhat comprehensive analysis from RayFrost...it pointed out, from what turned out to be a townie's perspective, that Pablo was considered the scummiest while I was the least.

Havingfitz, I know you're going to laugh me out of the building on this one: but I ask you to take a closer look at some others before trying to damn me completely. There are 4 other players that are relatively silent in the past few days. I appear to be on the losing side of this argument so far, (though I'd like to see what the

whole

town thinks about this), but it in my experience in the newbie games that the players not actively building cases: those piggybacking, simply agreeing, and staying silent (yeah, yeah, I know, I know) are those more likely to be scum.

I'm not laughing...I need to look at the others because a) at least one of them is scum and b) I think I've beaten my suspicions of you into the ground and anything I say towards you based on your gameplay up to this point would be redundant.

As for you, the amount and "strength" of your replies throws you closer and closer to the "town" bin in my mind. While tunneling can be a good thing to bring out the best or worst in people, it can be dangerous at points, and I'm getting the feeling that this could be a "town vs town" matchup.

Are you tunneling me or am I tunneling you? I know I had three people in my radar in Day one but you were the only one left on Day two...hence my starting the day where I left off with you as my only remaining suspect. I can't guarantee your scum (as was mentioned to me in regards to OMG) and my tagetting skills are nothing to brag about. I'm more than happy to examine other possibilities for the time being.

btw, I still think that my "inactivity" versus OMG's is no comparison. OMG disappeared under heat. Completely. What am I doing? Defending myself and firing back. Does this kind of reaction change anything in your mind? And if not, why not?

OMG's lack of activity may have been for different reasons...I don't think we have any way of knowing. You are being more active though it could just be to defend yourself. So your current activity doesn't change anything in my mind. I do prefer the stand up and defend method to the presumed method OMG used. BTW...you have a few outstanding questions from me in Day that answers would still be welcomed to.

Also...the lack of involvement from other people is pretty disappointing. Lack of interest? Lurking....flying under the radar? Life?

[PaltryExcuse]

All joking aside ABR, I'd appreciate some comments on the action these past few days. However, the disappearance of DeathNote, and now Ronnie, is a bit disconcerting. It's been 4 days since DeathNote last posted here, and 3 since Ronnie did.
Just a little bit of searching: DeathNote's last post was an hour and a half ago, while Ronnie's most recent post is #250 in this game.

@Mod: Prod's please?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Official Vote Count

Pablo Molinero - 1 (havingfitz)

Not Voting - 6 (Albert B. Rampage, DeathNote, Pablo Molinero, PaltryExcuse, ronnieroo, Tororingu-chan)

4 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Tuesday, October 27.

[havingfitz]

I'm amazed at how this thread has died. Apparently if Pablo and I aren't going at each other with occassional moderation by Paltry Excuse....there is nothing else to discuss.

I have not had a chance to pour over the posts from everyone else but in an effort for me (and others?) to seek other possible scum (besides my suspicions towards Pablo) I will as soon as possible. That said...I am on a work trip the rest of this week and may not get a chance to post again until this Saturday. If I can post before then I will...but it is doubtful.

v/LA 10 Oct

In the meantime....could everyone still in the game give their thoughts on possible scum as well? Anything would be nice....a top three list....a comprehensive analysis like RayFrost did....something.

[Pablo Molinero]

I'm gonna sit back for a while and go "hmm..yes...interesting. indeed."

Really? Why? How does the town benefit from this?

I think one of havingfitz and Pablo Molinero are scum. Which one would you guys side with based on what we have so far? I'm having trouble deciding.

A) Why me or fitz? Do you think it's impossible two townies would go after each other like this?

B) I don't like how you're gauging popular opinion to help determine your vote in this case. Looks like you're trying to jump on the winning side.

FoS: Rampage

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm a little bit V/L/A, not for long. Times have been busy all of a sudden.