Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[ODDin]

The massive headache Vote Count

Scien: ZazieR
Farside22: ODDin, YankCane
Fuzzyman: ElectricBadger, Wulfy
Hewitt: Scien
YamiJoey: Nikanor
ODDin: Farside22

Not Voting: hewitt, Fuzzyman, Maemuki, YamiJoey

For now.

unvote:
vote: Oddin

Ladies and gentlemen, OMGUS.

[farside22]

I feel that the Scien point I brought up in 168 was the most important one that you haven't answered. That's why I mentioned it. And to be quite honest, I feel somewhat inclined to go ahead and vote you if you don't care to do so.

How did I not answer it?

[farside22]

For now.

unvote:
vote: Oddin

Ladies and gentlemen, OMGUS.

Did you not even read my reason's for the vote? That is not OMGUS. OMGUS is I vote you for voting me. That is clearly not the case. Again you twist things that are not fact.

[farside22]

Quite the barrage of questions, and of all things about my RVS votes, not my later ones with real content. Why are you playing so aggressively on weak tells this game?

I did say I was rereading the game. Have you never done that and gone back to things you missed and wanted to question?
Honestly the rest of what you said has been I partially agree and a partial I disagree but nothing scummy and mostly town read.

[ODDin]

Yeah, like you'd say "I vote ODDin because he voted me". You voted me because of the argument I laid out against you. This certainly makes it feel like OMGUS. OMGUS means that I suspect that the true reason behind your vote isn't the one you've stated - and I do.

Other than that:
1) This is hardly new material. You commented on this argument long ago, and nothing new was said about it in quite some time. Why did you vote for me only now?

2) What you're doing is hypocritical. Earlier, you've voted Scien for not pushing a weak case. Now you're voting me because I did push a weak case.

3) This is the second time now you're accusing me of not reading things, which feels like you attempting to invalidate my arguments. I am reading what you're saying, and I know what's going on. When I say something, it means I think so even if other things have been said on the subject matter - that is, it means I think you're lying.

[Scien]

@Scien - Very curious that all your questions revolve around me. Any particular reason? What's your read on me so far?

Not curious at all. On my reread, I noticed two people trying to suggest connections between people. Now, preemptively, I'm not suggesting it is ever a good idea to build this kind of connections, it is a good idea to get the parties to comment on each other. It gives them less wiggle room later if they are indeed scum.

Here I will quote the two people that suggested links so you can tell I am not pulling this out of thin air:

Vote: YamiJoey for his double standards regarding EB and Wulfy.

@ Everyone, I like the fact that EB attacked Nik + Fuzzy for lurking, but if hewitt is doing the lurking, then it's a-ok!

Well crap. In my building a post I screwed up my questions. But my desire to get current feelings in writing still stands in the cases where we haven't yet.

I really wanted to ask YJ and EB for their views on each other, and EB and Hewitt (I got that one right) for their views on each other. Just to get them in firm writing.

---

Read on you? To put it short, you seem at the moment to be objective in your reasoning so far. You have actively been considering multiple possibilities for game state, and have been considering multiple people. You didn't find an easy target so far and stick with them. In isolation I would say that's protownish. Of course it can be pulled off by scum too, but at the moment you haven't taken the easy route, so there are better people to look at.

---

This is scummy. [...] explain what you think of Farside's questions. Someone else, in answering yours, noted potential manipulation in your question phrasing. Do you see anything similar or anything of worthy note in Farside's questions? More importantly, could you clarify (with complete sentence that include parts of the question [/teacher-esque-ness]) your statements in post 214?

Meh, not really at this point. I'm worried that me commenting on Farside will result in more flame wars, we just aren't getting through to each other. But since you asked, I'll give short opinions below. But first...

In my post 214, I am equally worried that me commenting on it is just going to perpetuate this war. But I guess I am obliged:
She asked if my "must not respond" comment was directed at her. I said, yes.

To elaborate, I wanted most to respond to this:

"I still don't like scien but I can see the hypocrissy comment but I still, still don't like when someone ask questions to me without answering the questions first and then following my reasoning as their own. If makes me feel all sorts of scum vibes. "

I was immediately attacked for having weak points that I believed in. When I say immediately, I mean before my second post. If I laid down my first post in hopes that someone would comment on it and overextend: one, how could I have provided my feelings on my questions in that first post and still get people to comment; two, how can you be sure that I am following someone's reasoning as their own rather than following my own; three, how could it have played out any differently if I was attacked immediately rather than waiting for me to dig a hole?

I actually have commented on and tried to explain much of this, and at this point DON'T want Farside to comment on it. Was just irritating me.

As for the sentence that I didn't understand: "Or is this like saying I'm not going to say a worday a word type thing?". I said I didn't understand it. I don't understand it. I don't think I can get much clearer. Want me to say what I don't understand? Sure. What is "worday a word type thing". I get the first part, she is saying that my comment was like saying "I am not going to <blank>" I don't understand blank.

As for her "no comment from the peanut gallery". I am fully willing to take her advice just so we don't muddle the thread any more.

---

As for the rest of her questions to others in that post:
I think I can cover it with a blanket statement. She seems to be focusing on people's RVS mainly. This is not bad at this point in the game. The bulk of many people's posts were RVS posts, and she is trying to get them to comment more on the game as it stands. Seems okay to me.

---

Just out of curiosity Wulfy are you really wanting to know what my thoughts towards Farside are? Or is this an attempt to flair up things again?

[farside22]

Yeah, like you'd say "I vote ODDin because he voted me". You voted me because of the argument I laid out against you. This certainly makes it feel like OMGUS. OMGUS means that I suspect that the true reason behind your vote isn't the one you've stated - and I do.

Other than that:
1) This is hardly new material. You commented on this argument long ago, and nothing new was said about it in quite some time. Why did you vote for me only now?

2) What you're doing is hypocritical. Earlier, you've voted Scien for not pushing a weak case. Now you're voting me because I did push a weak case.

3) This is the second time now you're accusing me of not reading things, which feels like you attempting to invalidate my arguments. I am reading what you're saying, and I know what's going on. When I say something, it means I think so even if other things have been said on the subject matter - that is, it means I think you're lying.

1) I was arguing with scien at the time and frankly focused on that more then others.
2) your case is'nt weak it's a fabrication and a twisting of words
3) you are calling it OMGUS which is not the case and when I read what you write I see nothing so far that shows you read what I wrote. You focus on one comment but not the whole thing. You pick out things and twist into something it's not. Hench my vote on you. It has nothing to do with your case on me. It's how you word things to make it more scummy when if you read everything stated it can be interputed any way but you put it as scummy.
Once again I find you twisting words which I see scummy.

[farside22]

"Or is this like saying I'm not going to say a worday a word type thing?".

This was a typo. I was asking if you were just trying to say I'm not going to say a word. Hence my no comment from the peanut gallery after that sentence.

As for the rest and just really a last question on the subject for now Scien. How long was I supposed to wait till you stated that your first message was weak? If no one has said anything to you about it would you even have brought it up yourself?

Last comments and I forgot who mentioned this right now, but I am trying not to bring up pairings right now as there are mason's and monk teams in the game and I don't want to show scum who I see as pairing till someone lynched turns up scum or is about to be lynched then I would comment on a pairing with said player.

[Haylen]

I have prodded YankCane151 and ZazieR, YamiJoey has not yet picked up her prod.

[Scien]

As for the rest and just really a last question on the subject for now Scien. How long was I supposed to wait till you stated that your first message was weak? If no one has said anything to you about it would you even have brought it up yourself?

Thanks for the explanation on my misunderstanding, first of all.

And secondly, I understand where you are coming from above. Yes, if you thought it was funny you should have questioned on it immediately and I can't fault you for it. You shouldn't have had to wait forever to wait for me to explain myself, and if no one commented on it at all, it is likely I would not have explained myself.

My point is merely, that this situation is setup (maybe not intentionally setup) so that there was no way for me to get out of that situation without 'appearing to ditto your logic', assuming that I have my current train of thought. Basically, yes, it looks scummy to you because it looks like a ditto, but you have no way to know for sure if it was truly a ditto or not. It's WIFOM.

I could be townie here and have set that up hoping to get people to comment on it, but not pushing it as a case. Or I could be scum not wanting to get my hands dirty. But my using your logic is a null tell. You can hold it scummy, but really its meh.

[Nikanor]

Did you not even read my reason's for the vote? That is not OMGUS. OMGUS is I vote you for voting me. That is clearly not the case. Again you twist things that are not fact.

I do not see anything in ODDin's p56 that is 'twisting things that are not fact.' I believe you are referring to the part where he quotes this line of yours:

I notice that very few scum now how to be aggressive in the beginning of the game. They either followers, or they hem and haw or backtrack or make wishy washy comments. I don't go after the agressive person. typically scum watches, waits and doesn't do much else.

I can see you haven't played in a while. In other words, this is totally, totally wrong. I see overaggressive scum more than I see overaggressive town.

1) I was arguing with scien at the time and frankly focused on that more then others.
2) your case is'nt weak it's a fabrication and a twisting of words
3) you are calling it OMGUS which is not the case and when I read what you write I see nothing so far that shows you read what I wrote. You focus on one comment but not the whole thing. You pick out things and twist into something it's not. Hench my vote on you. It has nothing to do with your case on me. It's how you word things to make it more scummy when if you read everything stated it can be interputed any way but you put it as scummy.
Once again I find you twisting words which I see scummy.

1) I take this as you saying your vote on Scien had gone stale, so you went back to stuff you had already commented on on page three to get a new vote.
2) Show how it's a fabrication. Your ODDin vote does, in fact, look like OMGUS, as you are not showing how it twisting your words.
3) Quote yourself. Show us the context that you think ODDin is taking your material out of, and I will believe you. Simply saying, 'You're twisting my words,' is not an adequate defense.

[farside22]

1) I take this as you saying your vote on Scien had gone stale, so you went back to stuff you had already commented on on page three to get a new vote.
2) Show how it's a fabrication. Your ODDin vote does, in fact, look like OMGUS, as you are not showing how it twisting your words.
3) Quote yourself. Show us the context that you think ODDin is taking your material out of, and I will believe you. Simply saying, 'You're twisting my words,' is not an adequate defense.

1) I would vote scien again but there is more then one scum. I'm not satisfied with everything but and I say but a few things he said lead me to back off and see if maybe I'm wrong about my read on him.
2) How is is OMGUS?
3) I will do that in my next post but the fact you bring up the first one that is my initial issue and just push it off as not twisting words which others have mentioned really make me leary of you

[Nikanor]

2) How is is OMGUS?

I see OMGUS as an attempt to discredit your attacker by making him look scummy, thus discrediting his argument. This is what you appear to be doing.

3) I will do that in my next post but the fact you bring up the first one that is my initial issue and just push it off as not twisting words which others have mentioned really make me leary of you

Clarify?

[Nikanor]

I see OMGUS as an attempt to discredit your attacker by making him look scummy, thus discrediting his argument. This is what you appear to be doing.

This is what you appear to be doing as you are not providing adequate justification for your vote. Nowhere do you prove, attempt to prove, or even take steps toward an attempt to prove the hypothesis that ODDin is twisting your words.

[farside22]

I see OMGUS as an attempt to discredit your attacker by making him look scummy, thus discrediting his argument. This is what you appear to be doing.

This is what you appear to be doing as you are not providing adequate justification for your vote. Nowhere do you prove, attempt to prove, or even take steps toward an attempt to prove the hypothesis that ODDin is twisting your words.

You showed yourself the quote in question. If you didn't know what I was talking about I would say sure let me get on it. 2 people pointed out the fact that the quote in question was taken out of context.

[farside22]

Odin case in full:

Twist the comment I made when explaining my theory on why I feel scien's vote and actions were scummy

I notice that very few scum now how to be aggressive in the beginning of the game. They either followers, or they hem and haw or backtrack or make wishy washy comments. I don't go after the agressive person. typically scum watches, waits and doesn't do much else.

Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.

After I explain my reasoning for my comment he continues to twist the comment into a negative and focas it as scummy

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.

I have read the exchange well enough, thank you, and yes, I know this comment was triggered by you answering a question. However, it feels to me you used it to say "look here, look here, I'm not scum." It's a gut feeling, I feel like you, umm, "overexplained" with this post.

Say this to me about his vote however:

farside: I voted for you on the 3rd page of the first day of the game, with no other votes against you. At this stage, I don't see my vote as expressing "I want you lynched at the end of this day". It's meant to pressure you. It's there so I can analyse the way you and others react to it. At the moment, I don't see anyone at all I want to actually lynch - all current arguments are pretty weak, mine included.

Finds scien's reaction town. I keep feeling there is a pairing here which really struck me with scien's first comment to now this one.

Yes, your argument against him does have merit. However, I don't feel his words changed the status of the argument. He reacted pretty much the way I'd expect him to react, be he town (who made a small mistake) or scum (that doesn't crack that easily).

Not only twisting words but I feel like this shows a real lack of scum hunting. Just voting on pressure with weak reason and seeing no one else to talk about in the game

farside - of course I expect you to defend. I was replying to post 97, where you basically said that I voted you over a very weak argument. Yes, it's weak, but mind you, I don't think you can hold that against me at this point in the game. The beginning of the day is a good time to be voting and pressuring over all sorts of things to stir things up and get healthy discussion. You accused Scien of *not* doing that, after all.

again he misinterupts or twist my words. Here was what was said before this.

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.

I have read the exchange well enough, thank you, and yes, I know this comment was triggered by you answering a question. However, it feels to me you used it to say "look here, look here, I'm not scum." It's a gut feeling, I feel like you, umm, "overexplained" with this post.

Yet the only reason for you vote is because I was explaining why I don't like scein's lack of agression and I'm defending my statement that you pointed out because you seemed focas on something that was an explaination to another player and not a hey look I'm agressive so I must not be scum as you so put it and yes that is twisting someone's words.

Again I wrote twice I found his comments twisting of my words. My thoughts were on paper of why I felt his actions scummy I see this once again as a twisting of words. He takes everything away I said and focused it as though all I did was vote for him which is not the case.

For now.

unvote:
vote: Oddin

Ladies and gentlemen, OMGUS.

[Nikanor]

Also, I don't think my quote of farside is twisting her words. All I said is what I felt when I read that (yes, I felt that even though knew it technically came as a reply to a question on the subject). That's what I felt, so I wanted to let the town know I feel that. I'm not saying I'm certain this is the case, but people need to be aware that that post by farside might have had an ulterior motive, so to speak.

This is the main thing I was talking about, because I looked back at the quote in question and I saw the possibility of an ulterior motive as well.
In order to catch a good scum player, one must search for ulterior motive in posts. In that way, I think it's a good thing that ODDin said what he had about that quote, but I also see how you can take that as a twisting of your words.

3) I will do that in my next post but the fact you bring up the first one that is my initial issue and just push it off as not twisting words which others have mentioned really make me leary of you

You still need to clarify this.

[farside22]

3) I will do that in my next post but the fact you bring up the first one that is my initial issue and just push it off as not twisting words which others have mentioned really make me leary of you

You still need to clarify this.

Was this not clarification enough?

You showed yourself the quote in question. If you didn't know what I was talking about I would say sure let me get on it. 2 people pointed out the fact that the quote in question was taken out of context.

[Nikanor]

Was this not clarification enough?

I got two totally different meanings from the two things you quoted. What happened to the part about being leery when you reiterated?

[ODDin]

Finds scien's reaction town. I keep feeling there is a pairing here which really struck me with scien's first comment to now this one.

I never, ever, said i think Scien is town. All I said was that his reaction to the argument didn't make me feel he's more (or less) scummy. I said this in post 151, although I think it should've been clear even before that. I also said several times that farside's argument against Scien has a point - that is, I think it gives Scien scum points, albeit not much.
So who's twisting whose words?

I also explained the OMGUS thing. No decently experienced scum votes without giving any arguments at all. OMGUS helps scum take the heat off themselves by turning the attack towards the one who's attacked them. It's usually pretty difficult for people to simultaneously suspect two people who are both attacking each other (although in this game, it might actually mean they're both scum without any busses involved, but that's a different point).
So, when a decently experienced scum undertakes OMGUS, one would expect him to fabricate an argument to support it.
You getting all that edgy over me saying it's OMGUS only strengthens my suspicion. I'd expect town to react a bit more calmly to accusations, really. After all, if you're town then you know you're town, and truth works in your favour. Also, town tend to more readily acknowledge when arguments against them have basic merit, and don't feverishly try to counter every single accusation being thrown in their general direction.

[farside22]

Was this not clarification enough?

I got two totally different meanings from the two things you quoted. What happened to the part about being leery when you reiterated?

I feel leery seeing you post my exact issue I had with Oddin but still calling my vote OMGUS.

[farside22]

Finds scien's reaction town. I keep feeling there is a pairing here which really struck me with scien's first comment to now this one.

I never, ever, said i think Scien is town. All I said was that his reaction to the argument didn't make me feel he's more (or less) scummy. I said this in post 151, although I think it should've been clear even before that. I also said several times that farside's argument against Scien has a point - that is, I think it gives Scien scum points, albeit not much.
So who's twisting whose words?

I also explained the OMGUS thing. No decently experienced scum votes without giving any arguments at all. OMGUS helps scum take the heat off themselves by turning the attack towards the one who's attacked them. It's usually pretty difficult for people to simultaneously suspect two people who are both attacking each other (although in this game, it might actually mean they're both scum without any busses involved, but that's a different point).
So, when a decently experienced scum undertakes OMGUS, one would expect him to fabricate an argument to support it.
You getting all that edgy over me saying it's OMGUS only strengthens my suspicion. I'd expect town to react a bit more calmly to accusations, really. After all, if you're town then you know you're town, and truth works in your favour. Also, town tend to more readily acknowledge when arguments against them have basic merit, and don't feverishly try to counter every single accusation being thrown in their general direction.

So what I'm not supposed to vote for you since you voted for me? Because that's what I'm reading here. I have a valid case I just posted all my points and these are your words

ODDin wrote:

Yes, your argument against him does have merit. However, I don't feel his words changed the status of the argument.

He reacted pretty much the way I'd expect him to react, be he town

(who made a small mistake) or scum (that doesn't crack that easily).

That is not twisting them around to make them sound better.

[ODDin]

One thing you say about me is true, however - I did focus on you a bit too much lately. I have been planning a reread to repair that for some time now, I just never find the time with all sorts of stuff I need to do. I hope I can get to this soon.

[ODDin]

*facepalm*

He reacted pretty much the way I'd expect him to react, be he town or scum.

Read the sentence. I removed the parantheses to make it easier for you. Now read it again. Now understand what it says. Thank you.

[farside22]

*facepalm*

He reacted pretty much the way I'd expect him to react, be he town or scum.

Read the sentence. I removed the parantheses to make it easier for you. Now read it again. Now understand what it says. Thank you.

I'm taking it more you feel town based on your vote and reasoning of the vote.