Newbie 855 (Game over)

[YankCane151]

A "weak" vote is not a random vote. I'd be lying if I called it one.

Still doesn't change the fact that your vote is weak.

[Alduskkel]

I've admitted that it's weak but also that it's better than random. I don't see your point.

[VertFire]

Sorry for not contributing much, After rereading the forum YankCane151 is rasing the most suspicion in my opinion. I would like to know the vote count and deadline before making any further accusations though.

[CthulhuDreams]

Yankcane151: No, I don't. Lets drill in on the assertion(s) that I think the are the strangest.


A) Why do you think the question to Socrates was supposed to appear random.

B) Why do you think it was not random?

C) When do you think Aldus and Socrates co-ordinated to implicate you?

D) Why do you think they co-ordinated to implicate you?

I would appreciate direct answers to these questions at your convience.

[Zhero]

Still doesn't change the fact that your vote is weak.

Is voting him for having a weak vote much stronger though?

Foilist, gut reads may not be helpful to the conversation themselves, but both Cthulhu and Socrates backed theirs up fairly well.

Also..

Town players are much more careful in reading the thread

I'm fine with dicey. I'm not going to lie, I didn't read the thread carefully

[YankCane151]

I've admitted that it's weak but also that it's better than random. I don't see your point.

I voted you, because you had a weak vote. That's my point.

(CD, I'll get to your questions next)

[YankCane151]

Yankcane151: No, I don't. Lets drill in on the assertion(s) that I think the are the strangest.


A) Why do you think the question to Socrates was supposed to appear random.

B) Why do you think it was not random?

C) When do you think Aldus and Socrates co-ordinated to implicate you?

D) Why do you think they co-ordinated to implicate you?

I would appreciate direct answers to these questions at your convience.

A: I said that it was random. It wasn't "supposed to appear random". I think it was odd that he for one asked a player randomly about the Y situation, and why he chose Socrates.

B: Socrates is backing Alduskkel. Just a suspicion I have.

C: I do not know if they co-ordianted it or if they are even scumbuddies, but assuming they are, they see a questionable move, know they can turn it on a townie, and get a lynch and move into night unharmed. Hypothetical situation of course.

D: As I just said. It'd be easy for scumbuddies to attack a seemingly scummy player in an instant, especially if said player had 'caught' one or both. Obviously the scum's motives are to cause a town mislynch, then move into night to kill a townie.

[Alduskkel]

I asked Socrates since he had just posted.

[CthulhuDreams]

A) Don't you think the fact that the post order went

1) 'Alduskkel <--- putting what he thought was the 3rd vote on
2) Socrates <-- Making some random vote on something completely disconnected from the conversation
3) Alduskkel,
4) Alduskkel <--- Putting the question to Socrates less than 50 minutes after Socrates post

Is the real reason he asked and not to 'appear random'? Why do you interpret those 4 posts as 'attempting to appear random' and not natural conversation?

Your 'scum connection' is frankly piss weak, especially given your own logic, you could say you putting a second vote on Alduskkel 2 posts after the first vote on Alduskkel while Alduskkel was under intensive questioning is 'Scum buddies attacking a seemingly scummy playing in an instant'

Frankly I just don't see the scum connection between Socrates and Alduskkel - you could argue that Socrates second post was an attempt to derail a bandwagon, but that bandwagon was only 2 votes (i.e. no-one cares) and created by you!

[Y]

YankCane151, you seem like you're trying to make something from nothing.

[CthulhuDreams]

@Mod: Game needs a vote count and deadline

[Zhero]

Yeah, not really seeing the connection between Soc and Ald. Two people agreeing with each other isn't much of a scumtell.

[Socrates]

My use of the word "mislead" is meant to imply a total lack of certainty or anything close, but despite that serves to call attention to the player in question.

Ah, so we aren't supposed to draw attention to people we think might be scum, because it might distract us from what is

really

important. It makes so much sense now!

2: You state there is already some suspicion. On whom and why? Make sure to explain why these are bigger than Cthulu's vote.

See Cthulhu's belated presentation of evidence. It answers your question.

Hrm, I misread your point here, I thought you said there was suspicion on players other than Yank and it was scummy of Cthulu to make a gut vote while ignoring those.

3: Why is bandwagoning scummy?

Bandwagoning is not necessarily scummy. Trying to start a bandwagon without having serious evidence is.

Eh? The bandwagon was already there, and if anything I started it. Also, there is evidence, it is just already spoken.

4: Should we only vote when we know with 100% certainty who the scum is? (hint: its almost impossible.)

No shit.

my "gut" doesn't like this post from foilist at all.

Your gut is entirely irrelevant. If you have evidence, bust out with some of it.

You missed my point. Just because Cthulu doesn't have a fullproof case doesn't mean he shouldn't vote. Bandwaggoning is not scummy and he didn't put YankCane in any seriously dangerous position.

Yank: What do you think of this quote?

@ Socrates: When a player helps people, they tend to trust him. Scum uses that to earn the trust of the town. The problem is that scum don't want to help the town, so they just make it look like they're helping. That's what Adus is saying.

Does that make it any clearer?

[CthulhuDreams]

I personally think YankCane's extremely weak answers lock in the case against him further.

[CthulhuDreams]

EDBWOY: I think Foilist is a possible scum target - leapt to the defence of Yankcane151 for example, but I think we should lynch YankCane151 today on the basis of current evidence.

[foilist13]

I'm pretty sure he's scum. He is:

A) Refusing to answer direct questions

B) Not engaging in any scum hunting

C) Wringing his hat about being bandwagonned, but not offering a defense.

This is actually a legitimate case. I can agree with this, and I'm considering retracting my accusations, though it was my pressure on you that lead you to post this in the first place.

@Zhero - The first quote stands, and shockingly the second was during the random voting stage. There is no scumhunting to be done and no reason to carefully examine the thread.

Ah, so we aren't supposed to draw attention to people we think might be scum, because it might distract us from what is really important. It makes so much sense now!

If you actually have a legitimate point to make then make it. Randomly casting your attention around is not helpful. If you have something legitimate to point to then post something, which Cthulhu did not show in his post. If you are just saying, "Hey I think we should look at so and so" does not help the town. "I think we should look at so and so because of X evidence," is helpful to the twon.

[Y]

If you actually have a legitimate point to make then make it. Randomly casting your attention around is not helpful. If you have something legitimate to point to then post something, which Cthulhu did not show in his post. If you are just saying, "Hey I think we should look at so and so" does not help the town. "I think we should look at so and so because of X evidence," is helpful to the twon.

While this is mostly true, sometimes people have what they call a "Gut Feeling", which is actually a thought they can't fully express with words. Not all gut feelings should be taken as proved truth, but they shouldn't be completely dismissed either. Questioning the player who had that "Feeling" usually helps understanding why he had it in the first place, which might actually lead to scum.

I'm getting completely confused with CthulhuDreams and YankCane151. Could some one who knows which one of them said what and what's the case summarize it please. Thanks.

[CthulhuDreams]

FOS: Y for again, explaining something and then not following up on it at all.

More seriously, what's confusing you?

[Y]

FOS: Y for again, explaining something and then not following up on it at all.

Again?

More seriously, what's confusing you?

I confused some of your posts with 151's. I can go back and read, but I'd like to see people's take on things before I do.

[YankCane151]

EDBWOY: I think Foilist is a possible scum target - leapt to the defence of Yankcane151 for example, but I think we should lynch YankCane151 today on the basis of current evidence.

Lynching me would be a mistake for you. If you are scum, you have a big case against you. You have been leading my case, and now you are playing the role of "town leader", encouraging everyone to vote me just because you think so. There is evidence against me, but don't persuade people to vote me.

[CthulhuDreams]

What do you feel the case is against me?

[CthulhuDreams]

FOS: Y for again, explaining something and then not following up on it at all.

Again?

More seriously, what's confusing you?

I confused some of your posts with 151's. I can go back and read, but I'd like to see people's take on things before I do.

Sorry, I thought the 'more seriously' on line two clearly indicated that it was a joke vis a vis the previous round where Alduskkel accused you of providing advice but not following through.

Now, more seriously, I find it interesting that you chose to question the 'again' and not the fact that I made the accusation at all - and you acknowledged previously that not following through was a scum tell.

[Alduskkel]

I never accused Y of "providing advice but not following through."

[CthulhuDreams]

Sorry if I am misrepresenting that.

It is how I understood the 'looks like you're helping but not really helping' stuff, because he's not following up the generic statement with any action, giving the appearance of helping without actually doing anything.

[Alduskkel]

I PM'd hohum to remind him about the game.