Newbie 855 (Game over)

[foilist13]

Ah, here we go.

Okay, one thing about my analysis: I'm pretty sure Foilist is using the 'I didn't read the thread' excuse to weasel out of mistakes. But you can take things either way here.

The first thing he did was vote Alduskkel randomly after it was past the random vote stage. This was then backed up by an immediate bandwagon from YankCane 151.

This first statement is irrelevant except I suppose as some sort of preamble. The second is blatantly manipulative. You're accusing me of not reading the thread, yet lets notice that there is a random vote 4 posts before mine. The posts in between are concerned solely with whether or not Y made a mistake, and only 1 is of any relevance. Saying that we were out of the random voting stage is ridiculous. Saying that the RVS was ending is fine. Only your post was anything of relevance, and I found it weak and unworthy of response. Don't accuse me based on your vanity.

Please note those two points: 1, I didn't read the thread, 2, if you think I keep acting scummy

Once again, I'd like you to note that the quoted post is exactly

1

page away from the RVS in a newbie game. No, I'm sorry, I have no interest in reading the thread that closely that early in the game. When I have a case to make I'll go back and analyze it. That is not to say though that not reading the thread in general is excusable. Only early in the game when there is little to no relevant information.

Also note that he is defending YankCane151 on the basis of no evidence.

My presentation of evidence and the actual existence of evidence are two completely different questions.

To me it's also an attempt to derail the forming bandwagon on YankCane151.

Few things to look at here.

1) If you don't present any evidence am I supposed to take your word for it that he really is scum? What you don't post we have to assume you don't have.

2) Are you really accusing me of trying to derail the bandwagon I'm currently on?

3) Why doesn't it bother you that I didn't know whether or not I had a vote up? You're basing you're whole case on me not having read the thread, yet you're ignoring evidence right before your face. If you want to build a case, do it right and follow your own advice. Read what you're quoting.

heheh - no.

Are you disagreeing with me, or being stupid on purpose?

THE BUS - putting YankCane to L-1. First up, it's pretty dodgy because his post before this was voting me for voting YankCane without a case.

Secondly, he hasn't read the fucking thread YET AGAIN. He'd have read the rules if he'd actually read the thread and know we are going to lynch someone come hell or high water.

His actual reason for voting the guy (in the second paragraph) is that it's important we lynch someone - which is going to happen anyway, and that the guy is 'active lurking.'

The only real purpose this vote serves is a bus on the guy who is probably going to get lynched 4 days before deadline. What else the fuck is it for? Was anyone else going to get lynched? No. Was someone going to get lynched (yes). Did he bring a strong case with his vote? No.

It's a huge bus.

1) Here you are blatantly lying, and being a hypocrite for accusing me of it later, and completely misrepresenting the evidence. My post before that was returning to the game after requesting a replacement. Before that I had been absent for several pages, and if we go all the way back to when I did post before that it was to accept your defense as a legitimate argument.

So which is it? Were you lying about my vote change, or did you just not read the thread at all? I fail to see how you can come to the town with a straight face and say what you just did, on the basis of

accusing me

of not reading the damn thread?!

2) I have played with hohum as the mod before, at least twice. If you read the rules every time, then I applaud you, but there is little variation, and I was under the impression that he required a majority. My mistake. That however is not a failure to read the thread. Not reading the

game

is a scum tell. Thought that would be obvious, but I guess not. Don't you think the scum would be far more likely to read the rules in order to see what town power roles there may be, or any other purpose? The town's job is to find scum, its pretty straightforward, but there can be more variations for the mafia, most notably, as I said earlier, town power roles.

3) You clearly misread my post. The reason I voted YankCane151 was for lurking, which would have been obvious to you

had you read the first paragraph.

You see, again you are accusing me of not reading the thread when you yourself are not reading what you're quoting. I felt it was important to vote

someone,

but I voting him for very specific reasons that were separate from that.

4) You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Was he going to get lynched, yes. Did I agree with the case on him, yes. Did I present reasons, yes. Did you ignore those reasons for the sake of your wall post, yes.

dare ANYONE to read the post by YC151 in Post 173, given the discussion about Ventfire being a powerlurker in the preceeding 10 posts and conclude that YC151 is talking about foilist.

It's either

A) Not reading

B) Using not reading as a weasel to build the bus more by creating a fake accusation from YC151 and then defending yourself against it. More from the same post

well lets see this post and find out if anyone dares.

[quote="YankCane151"If I were to be lynched, my main targets would be CD, foilist, and Vertfire(only for lurking)[/quote]

Well first off, just reading that at face value could

easily

be taken to be referring to all of them, and at the absolute least plausibly.

But, I'll leave that aside. Lets put that into context. I had

just

returned from a several page absence. Now don't you think I might be looking out for accusations of lurking just a little bit?

Now why at this point would I feel the need to try and defend myself from a fake accusation? Do you think I was trying to entrench myself to the town? Why would I do that? There was little suspicion on me, so why would I bother? And can you hep me out here by drawing the conclusion from not reading to defending myself from fake accusations?

Again, total bullshit. If you're just putting forward advice, you're not voting me. Instead, he did vote me. That's well out of the realm of advice, and is totally mkaing a game move. But then we move into the Lie. Post 185

Again you've thrown up total bullshit, deliberately misleading the town. I posted my advice in post 65. I then made another post not directed at you, then a page later I voted against you based on something entirely different.

Now, we are all paying attention, including me quoting the damn post - and the vote was in the same post.

From this I can only assume that you're trying to saying my bit about gut feelings was the advice I was referring to earlier, when obviously it was not. That was not advice, it was a game relevant argument.

More not reading. Why? SO HE CAN BUS YANKCANE AGAIN

So right now you are actually suggesting that the fact that I retracted my post because I hadn't clicked the last page is evidence of not reading the thread. There is a massive difference between just not reading the thread, and missing the last page.

Let me ask a general question here, and this is not rhetorical, has anyone else here ever read a page and thought it was the current one only to realize that there is another? This argument is truly the weakest I have ever encountered on MafiaScum. Ever.

Also the fact that I logically refuted an argument from my top suspect who I am voting for is grounds for further suspicion?

Your whole post is bullshit, and Saint, you should be embarrassed for agreeing with it without at least posting questions or your own opinions. That is either completely careless or straight up scummy.

[CthulhuDreams]

You're accusing me of not reading the thread, yet lets notice that there is a random vote 4 posts before mine.

Sure, then you admit you didn't read the thread. I'm not sure what your big issue and my 'balantly manipulative statement' is when you've

already acknowledge that the statement is true

isn't helping you.

2) Are you really accusing me of trying to derail the bandwagon I'm currently on?

Errr, yes because it's obvious that you first tried to derail the bandwagon, then moved to bus when derailing didn't work.

3) Why doesn't it bother you that I didn't know whether or not I had a vote up? You're basing you're whole case on me not having read the thread, yet you're ignoring evidence right before your face. If you want to build a case, do it right and follow your own advice. Read what you're quoting.

lol, I had missed that point against you. +1 to foilist not reading the thread.

Are you disagreeing with me, or being stupid on purpose?

No, I'm saying that you're being hilarious. You're saying it's pro town to read the thread closely, and then repeatedly admitting to not reading the thread.

1) Here you are blatantly lying, and being a hypocrite for accusing me of it later, and completely misrepresenting the evidence. My post before that was returning to the game after requesting a replacement.

Dude, I actually said that you'd returned from wrecking your computer in this post. YOU are balantly lying because you're claiming I didn't say that, then making inferences about somehting I said on the basis I didn't say it.

Then we have a short break, backed up by Foilist breaking his computer, and we switch to

What the

fuck

is this. You're using 'dur, I didn't read Cthulhu's Post' again as an excuse to score slam dunks against points that didn't exist.

So which is it? Were you lying about my vote change, or did you just not read the thread at all? I fail to see how you can come to the town with a straight face and say what you just did, on the basis of

accusing me

of not reading the damn thread?!

This becomes particularly comic in light of the fact you deliberately chopped out the part of my quote where I acknowledged that you'd gone on a break for the purposes of attacking me.

Also, if you requested a replacement, I didn't read the newbie thread as I am in my limit of games. I did miss that one!

If you read the rules every time, then I applaud you, but there is little variation, and I was under the impression that he required a majority. My mistake. That however is not a failure to read the thread.

It's a newbie game - the only material point of variance is what happens at deadline if there is no consensus lynch. The rest of the rules are relatively standardized including the presence or absence of power roles. Not reading the one and only material paragraph that might change is a big goof imho.

3) You clearly misread my post. The reason I voted YankCane151 was for lurking, which would have been obvious to you

had you read the first paragraph.

You see, again you are accusing me of not reading the thread when you yourself are not reading what you're quoting. I felt it was important to vote

someone,

but I voting him for very specific reasons that were separate from that.

I did, you said he had enough activity to to be replaced, then mentioned you're accusing him of active lurking, i.e. posting without contributing.

Again, I'll draw out the specific line in my post where I acknolwedged that fact.

His actual reason for voting the guy (in the second paragraph) is that it's important we lynch someone - which is going to happen anyway, and that the guy is 'active lurking.'

Touche? See the above bit? This is just slam dunking against points I didn't make. I specifically said 'And that [you're voting him] because the guy is active lurking' and then you are saying I didn't say it.

What are you saying I didn't read your post where you said that the guy is active lurking, when I included that in my post? I presume it's so you can attack me, but it's just dumb play if you are scum or town.

well lets see this post and find out if anyone dares.

[quote="YankCane151"If I were to be lynched, my main targets would be CD, foilist, and Vertfire(only for lurking)

Well first off, just reading that at face value could

easily

be taken to be referring to all of them, and at the absolute least plausibly. [/quote]

Only if you are willfully blind to context.

But, I'll leave that aside. Lets put that into context. I had

just

returned from a several page absence. Now don't you think I might be looking out for accusations of lurking just a little bit?

I'd expect you to be fresher from actually reading the thread? If it's me and I come back and there are new posts, I read them in sequence from last to first. I do not particularly think this is unreasonable.

Again, total bullshit. If you're just putting forward advice, you're not voting me. Instead, he did vote me. That's well out of the realm of advice, and is totally mkaing a game move. But then we move into the Lie. Post 185

Again you've thrown up total bullshit, deliberately misleading the town. I posted my advice in post 65. I then made another post not directed at you, then a page later I voted against you based on something entirely different.

I asked you specifically this question last page and offered you the chance to clarify. Post 186.

You refused the chance when you posted in 192, 210, 211, and 218

If it was so obvious then, why didn't you respond to my post with 'I meant post 65' when I asked you the first time, instead of waiting for me to accuse you?

Maybe you didn't read my question?

More not reading. Why? SO HE CAN BUS YANKCANE AGAIN

So right now you are actually suggesting that the fact that I retracted my post because I hadn't clicked the last page is evidence of not reading the thread. There is a massive difference between just not reading the thread, and missing the last page. [/quote]

lol, I classify 'not reading the thread' and 'not reading the last part of the thread' as pretty much the same thing.

[CthulhuDreams]

EBWOP: The last quote tag is broken, the last 'CthulhuDreams quote should be in a quote with the 'last page' bit, then the lol is the first non-quote text.

I have removed large sections of foilist's post to get at what I thought were the salient points. If anyone wants me to elaborate on a particular point, I will.

[CthulhuDreams]

@Aldusekkel: I'm pretty sure Foilist didn't rebutt what is the most obvious point against my entire case there, which is in of itself very intresting.

[CthulhuDreams]

EBWOP 2: Mhm, might have misinterpreted one of Foilist's points:

1) Here you are blatantly lying, and being a hypocrite for accusing me of it later, and completely misrepresenting the evidence. My post before that was returning to the game after requesting a replacement.

I probably should have said post of substance or content. I do ignore the 'I'm going to read the thread now' posts like that one as non posts or placeholders.

My bad.

Sorry about the EBWOPs, it's hard to keep track of some of the statements due to the quote chopping and post length, and hindsight is 20/20

[imkingdavid]

Ok, because of the current discussion, any of my wall of analysis of past posts will just clutter the thread. For now, I'll focus more on the current argument (foilist vs. cthulhu) and go back later. I have read the whole thread, but probably will again after a while to make sure I have a clear idea of what has gone on.
I will, however, respond to what was responded to from my post.
-------

Bandwagon is doing it in a hurry. If the town gradually reaches a conclusion over 2 weeks, it's not a bandwagon. IMHO. However, as definitions are a tricky issue, can I suggest the wiki:

Point taken.

He wasn't when I posted that. Presenting remarks out of context is certainly a scum move that just clouds the debate. Misrepresentation is not awesome and should be avoided at all costs. Wink smiley or no.

Eh, I guess my point is null anyway, considering the above point. But I was saying that he was getting votes against him, which resulted in him being at L-1. Probably could have worded it better. *shrug*

-------

Anyway... I should probably make a decision soon since we only have 2 or 3 more days left. Of the two major lynch candidates (foilist and yc151), I find foilist least scummy. He has been able to provide an intelligent defense to accusations against him, whereas YC151 seems to have just ignored it all.

So, yc151: give me one good reason not to hammer. Assuming that you can't, I'll be hammering sometime later before Wednesday.

[Y]

lol, I classify 'not reading the thread' and 'not reading the last part of the thread' as pretty much the same thing.

You would, but it isn't. It happens a lot that some one enters a thread and sees some new posts, but misses the fact that there is a new page. Happened to me a few times (Including this game with the same page).

[SaintKerrigan]

@Aldusekkel: I'm pretty sure Foilist didn't rebutt what is the most obvious point against my entire case there, which is in of itself very intresting.

What do you consider the most obvious point?

[YankCane151]

Vote Foilist

Honestly, if you hammer me, it may end up helping town. Your decision though, IKD.

[foilist13]

@YankCane151 - Since you posted no reasons whatsoever with your vote, nor have you posted intelligent reasons of any kind throughout, can we assume this is a OMGUS vote to try and get someone to hammer me first?

[imkingdavid]

Eh. I don't know. I'm not liking YC's careless attitude about the whole thing. But then again, I don't like foilist's quick response there; it's as if he's trying to play victim to blow up YC's case a bit more.

But whatever, discussion has pretty much ended now from what I can see. I'll keep a close eye on foilist tomorrow, but for now...

vote YankCane151

[foilist13]

As for Cthulhu's latest post, I see little serious argument, but I'll respond to it anyway.

My understanding here is that you're saying I'm ignoring the major point of your argument which was that I am not reading the thread, yes? You are expecting a defense in which I prove that I am reading the thread, or a confirmation of your accusation by admitting I am not reading the thread?

My defense, and my wall post should be taken in this way, was to analyze each one of your statements about me in order to show that you are more guilty of not reading the thread than I am. I am not trying to say that I've been the perfect player and read every post carefully. My point is that if we are going to lynch someone based on not reading the thread, well first we should start with YankCane151, but we would get to several people including you before we lynched me, so the point is moot.

Tell me, why are you voting me instead of YankCane151 if demonstration of careful reading of the thread is your main criteria?

I ask the same question of anyone else currently on my bandwagon due to Cthulhu's wall post.

[CthulhuDreams]

My entire argument is that you're bussing yankcane - 'not reading' is just a tool that you're using to do so. Not the converse (that you're bussing yankcane as a result of not reading the thread)

The behaviour - yankcane151 immediately bandwagonning with your random vote, you coming to his defense, then the switch out when lynching looks inevitable (and yes, I acknowledge the break) are the actual reason I'm voting and also, I'm 90% sure, why Alduskkel doesn't like my vote.

A point which you haven't addressed except to say 'my vote switch is legit honest'

Anyway my entire arguement falls over hard if YankCane151 doesn't flip scum, which is why I should probably hammer him.

[CthulhuDreams]

EBWOP: Err, should have hammered him. Not that it matters now.

[foilist13]

Hammer's been dropped, so now we're in twilight while we wait for the mod.

[CthulhuDreams]

Exactly - but the rules say we're still allowed to talk amongst ourselves, hence the not that it matters now

[Alduskkel]

foilist, there's no reason for you to not respond to 238 while we wait for hohum.

[hohum]

Final Vote Count:

YankCane151(5): Zhero, Socrates,, foilist13, Alduskkel, imkingdavid

foillist13(4): Y, CthulhuDreams, SaintKerrigan, YankCane151

Not Voting(0):

With 9 Alive it takes 5 to lynch.

Day 1 Deadline is Wednesday, November 4th.

YankCane151,

Vanilla Townie

, Lynched, D1

It is now night 1. Night actions due in 72 hours. Thanks!

[hohum]

imkingdavid,

Town Doctor

Killed, N1

It's now day 2. With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch. Good luck

[SaintKerrigan]

Mod: It only takes 4 to lynch today, not 5.

[foilist13]

Yo, its day two all. Lets get to it.

I think it makes sense that scum would be on YankCane's wagon.

Zhero, Socrates, foilist13, Alduskkel, imkingdavid were on his wagon,
and Y, CthulhuDreams, SaintKerrigan, YankCane151 were on mine.

Part of the case against me was based on YankCane flipping scum, which he has not, and I think I defended myself adequately from the rest of it, but if anyone has any further questions I'd be glad to answer them.

While it is by no means certain, I think we can assume at least one of the people on YankCane's wagon are scum. If we assume that I have defended myself well enough (which I'm sure at least CthulhuDreams won't), then that leaves us with Socrates, Alduskkel, and Zhero.

Zhero and Socrates only posted 11 times(not including their confirmations), and very few of Zhero's had any kind of content. thats active lurking in my book, much more so on the part of Zhero than Socrates. I've gotten a general town read from Alduskkel so far, so I am going to leave him out for now.

vote:Zhero

[Y]

While I hate YC lynched as town, I can't say it was completely unexpected. In my POV, at least.

[foilist13]

@Y and CthulhuDreams - What are your reads on the other players as of now?

[Y]

I'll have to re-read imkingdavid and his predecessor before I'll answer that question.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Y: Why do you need to reread someone who's already died? Isn't their innocence already proven?