Newbie 855 (Game over)

[SaintKerrigan]

Argh, sorry about that...

[Zhero]

Hmm, I'm starting to rethink my Zhero vote. As I look back he seems less to be lurking than to be inactive. Idk, Alduskkel could be construed as scum, but for the moment I don't have anything that isn't WIFOM. I encourage all the players to take a much closer look at those two, but for now I'm leaving my vote on Zhero.

At the moment I don't see anyone scummier than Zhero. I never said Y was a suspect, nor do I have a case to post on him.

This does seem a bit contradictory...

Vote: foilist13

[foilist13]

@Saint - Pretty much yes, but as I said, to me it was pretty much him or Alduskkel. At the moment though Zhero has been more active, and Alsuskkel has not, so for now

unvote, Vote:Alduskkel.

@Zhero - Where is tho contradiction in those two posts? In both of them I said I thought you were the best choice at the moment.

[Alduskkel]

Jeez, I'm slipping (in my activity). This is the first time I've ever been voted for inactivity.

Have I done anything specifically scummy though, foilist?

I was actually planning on going over this game during the weekend, so I've been kind of waiting around for it.

[Y]

And yet again, when trouble comes, he switches votes.

[SaintKerrigan]

Hmm, I'm starting to rethink my Zhero vote. As I look back he seems less to be lurking than to be inactive. Idk, Alduskkel could be construed as scum, but for the moment I don't have anything that isn't WIFOM. I encourage all the players to take a much closer look at those two, but for now I'm leaving my vote on Zhero.

At the moment I don't see anyone scummier than Zhero. I never said Y was a suspect, nor do I have a case to post on him.

@Saint - Pretty much yes, but as I said, to me it was pretty much him or Alduskkel. At the moment though Zhero has been more active, and Alsuskkel has not, so for now

unvote, Vote:Alduskkel.

So, you suddenly go from not voting Aldusskel because of lack of anything other than WIFOM arguments to voting him for lack of activity. Is that seriously the

only

reason you're voting Aldusskel? Where's your case, man?

You claimed the reason you had found Zhero scummy was based on "inactivity;" yet Zhero posted a total of four times in between Posts #263 (the first of the quoted posts, where you asserted that he was likely being inactive instead of lurking) and #291 (the second of the quoted posts, where you declared him your scummiest target), or 1/7 of the post count (28) in between those two posts. Given that there are seven of us alive, that's not bad; I would hardly consider it "inactivity." Plus, the very fact that you were suspecting him because of inactivity is suspicious in and of itself. Lurking, I could maybe understand, but inactivity? C'mon.

Vote: Foilist13.

You're at L-1 now. Defend yourself. You might also want to consider claiming...

@ Aldusskel: More posts from you would be good.

[Y]

Mod: Vote count please. Thanks.

[Zhero]

@Zhero - Where is tho contradiction in those two posts? In both of them I said I thought you were the best choice at the moment.

Er,

are

you suspicious of me for inactivity? Inactivity not tied to lurking isn't much of a tell.

[foilist13]

@Saint - I'm equating inactivity with lurking, sorry for the misunderstanding. And no, I'm not voting on Alduskkel based on solely on what I see as lurking. Go back in the thread. I narrowed my suspects down to two. Him and Zhero. I have almost nothing to differentiate between the two, but I am certain that one of them is scum. So now the only thing I have to go off of is who I would rather keep alive, and that is the more active player. I'm sure you've noticed a general lack of activity in this thread, so the people who post the most should live when there is nothing else to go on.

I'm not a power role, I have nothing to claim.

@Y - My argument for Zhero no longer held up, but it did for Alduskkel. So you're saying I should have left my vote where it was even though I no longer believed that he was the best choice?

@Saint - 4 posts on day 2 does not an active player make. In that given window of time he was exactly as active as he was supposed to be. Across the whole game he certainly was not.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Foilist: First, just how do you confuse lurking with inactivity? Those are two entirely different things.

My point was that you considered Zhero scummy for lurking, when in the timeframe I described he posted 1/7 of the total posts. Since seven players are alive, if we all posted in clockwork fashion, we'd all have 4 posts in that timeframe. True, Zhero wasn't much active on Day 1, but he has been sufficiently active on Day 2.

Oh, and if you're going to suspect people based on inactivity on Day 2 and their presence on the YankCane wagon, let's just have a look at the rest of the people on YC's wagon aside from yourself and compare their activity levels on Day 2.

Aldusskel: 8 posts.
Zhero: 6 posts.
Socrates: 4 posts.

Well, well. Your top target, Aldusskel, whom you suspect for lurking/inactivity, in fact has

eight posts

, the most out of that group. The person with the fewest amount of posts on Day 2 is Socrates. And by your own admission, Socrates wasn't very active on Day 1, either. Tell me, Foilist, why exactly is Socrates not earning your vote, when he's the perfect fit for your bill of "lurking scum on YC's wagon?" Perhaps it's because you have a vested reason in not wanting Socrates voted off, hmm?

Also, do you have anything else on Aldusskel

besides

the lurking/inactivity claim and the YC wagon association?

[foilist13]

@Saint - No I don't have anything besides that, because that is more than sufficient in my mind. I answered your first question in my last post, go read it. Socrates' posts yesterday were not any ore frequent than the others, but they did have content enough to give me a town read on him. Zhero and Alduskkel do not have that.

Lurking by definition is intentional inactivity. That is what I'm accusing them of.

[Alduskkel]

Um, how are my posts not content-filled?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Aldusskel: What do you think about the current situation regarding Foilist?

[SaintKerrigan]

Oops, I just realized your name is spelled "Alduskkel." Sorry about the misspelling.

[foilist13]

@Alduskkel - Because they all look like that.

[SaintKerrigan]

No I don't have anything besides that, because that is more than sufficient in my mind.

If lurking and YC wagoning are sufficient enough to condemn Alduskkel, it should logically follow that Socrates is more worthy of your vote, since he's posted even less than Alduskkel and was also on the YC wagon. I don't think you're sincerely scumhunting, Foilist.

Speaking of Socrates, he needs to start posting more.

[Y]

@Y - My argument for Zhero no longer held up, but it did for Alduskkel. So you're saying I should have left my vote where it was even though I no longer believed that he was the best choice?

That "Argument" has been proved wrong already. If you find no one really scummy, a FoS, or nothing at all, might be a good idea. Some one even mentioned it earlier. I think it was... YOU.
The cases you make are weak, so whenever a case of yours is attacked, you don't even defend it. Instead, you just make up a new case against some one else.

Your list of people on YC's wagon doesn't include you. Mine do, and you're my choice.

Mod: Vote count and prods would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Alduskkel]

@ Aldusskel: What do you think about the current situation regarding Foilist?

Well I'm going read/skim through the game right now. I'll get back to you on this.

foilist: Short =/= no content.

[Alduskkel]

By the way, should I prod our mod?

[Zhero]

As I look back he seems less to be lurking than to be inactive.

Lurking by definition is intentional inactivity. That is what I'm accusing them of.

But then we just go back to you sounding contradictory. Is it lurking or not?

[Alduskkel]

Can someone summarize the accusations against foilist?

[Y]

Read 297 onwards.

[SaintKerrigan]

Happy birthday, Foilist13!

No I don't have anything besides that, because that is more than sufficient in my mind.

(break)

Socrates' posts yesterday were not any ore frequent than the others, but they did have content enough to give me a town read on him.

If anything, they were

less

frequent. Also, you're ruling him out because of content? What happened to lurking and YC wagoning being sufficient to condemn people? Like I said, if you were honestly going by that, you should be voting for Socrates. Let me reiterate that I don't think you're genuinely scumhunting, Foilist.

What content in Socrates posts, exactly, do you consider sufficient to avoid giving him your vote? His argument about CthulhuDreams being scum, which has been predominantly what Socrates has been talking about in his four posts? I'm just about to address that issue.

I think that a certain point Y originally brought up against Socrates has been largely overlooked, so I'd like to resurrect it. This is Post #171 (which also happens to be his final Day 1 post):

all right, this time I am really back. Like, fo' reals.

My interpretation of foilist is similar to Cthulu's.

His attack of Cthulu earlier could be seen as scum trying to scare a townie off of his buddy's wagon, and when that didn't take and YankCane insisted on not doing much to help himself, he decided to bus.

Of course, that all depends on YankCane flipping scum, which I still like the chances of.

He basically OMGUS'ed the people who started his wagon (me and Cthulu) and has not really done much else. Of course, there wasn't much else for him to do what with all the inactives

VertFire has been turbo lurking (not that I can say much) and I would like to hear more from him. If he keeps going the way he is I might move my vote.

This is Post #251:

Bah, I was far too lazy yesterday. I started falling behind and then I saw these massive wall o' text posts going back and forth between Cthulu and Foilist and I just kept putting reading this game off until later, and the day ended before I got around to it. I'm awfully ashamed of this, especially since now that I have gotten to reading them, I do not like what I see.

I think Cthulhu hopping off of the YankCane wagon onto the Foilist wagon on the basis of

YankCane

being scum is absurdly bad.

Using the alignment of someone else to attack another player when that alignment isn't confirmed is illogical and scummy. It looks to me like scum trying to have his cake and eat it too, getting a mislynch off on Foilist and then when he flips town turn it back around and say that YankCane could still be scum.

vote: CthulhuDreams

So, in the first post, Socrates says he shares a similar viewpoint with CthulhuDreams on Foilist13, even saying that his own case against Foilist hinges on YankCane flipping scum. In the second post, he does a complete 180, calling CthulhuDream's jump onto Foilist's wagon bad

for the same reasons he originally agreed with CD on in the first place.

This seems very scummy to me, and honestly I'd be voting him right now if I didn't think Foilist deserved it more.

Now, that being said, CD has been awfully quiet lately...

Mod: Please prod CthulhuDreams.

[CthulhuDreams]

Yeah, picked up prod. Sorry, was sick. Also, holy shit at L-1. Reading thread.

[CthulhuDreams]

@Y!: I only used that accusation on Foilist because he specifically invoked it as a town tell himself. I haven't used on anyone else - but I would consider not reading a scum tell in general

if and only if

used to misrepresented someone later.

I still feel that occured.

YC was at L-1 at the time, and Aldusskel was getting ready to hammer since YC wouldn't claim if I remember correctly. The YC wagon was hardly losing momentum, and if anything it was your unvote that would have been the catalyst for any change in momentum on that wagon. Claiming the wagon was dying because 1 person out of 8 expressed disinterest is lamesauce.

Aldusskel wasn't getting ready to hammer (well, he was as it turns out, but not from my PoV). He was asking someone who had a history of not asnwering questions very well to answer questions which to me was a fruitless endevour. No-one else had telegraphed even thinking about a hammer.

So, in the first post, Socrates says he shares a similar viewpoint with CthulhuDreams on Foilist13, even saying that his own case against Foilist hinges on YankCane flipping scum. In the second post, he does a complete 180, calling CthulhuDream's jump onto Foilist's wagon bad for the same reasons he originally agreed with CD on in the first place. This seems very scummy to me, and honestly I'd be voting him right now if I didn't think Foilist deserved it more.

Now, that being said, CD has been awfully quiet lately...

1) I don't have a better take - I went for YC and then foilist hard because they screamed scummy to my gut. I was wrong about YC and not happy to quick hammer foilist because of it. That said:

2) I'm not quite as confident on Foilist as you thought I don't think he's not suspicious, I'm just not sure the case on Foilist is THAT much better but I did vote for him yesterday. Not keen to put the quick-hammer on just yet, but I'll consider it if the situation develops. I'm certainly not going to hammer just at the moment and am happy to leave

I think Cthulhu hopping off of the YankCane wagon onto the Foilist wagon on the basis of YankCane being scum is absurdly bad. Using the alignment of someone else to attack another player when that alignment isn't confirmed is illogical and scummy. It looks to me like scum trying to have his cake and eat it too, getting a mislynch off on Foilist and then when he flips town turn it back around and say that YankCane could still be scum.

I felt both were scum, Foilist had certainly actively lied before in my view. Given that, I was happy to lynch either.