Newbie 873 - Game Over.

[CSL]

You know McGriddle, you are being very uncooperative. That, if I remember correctly, is a HUGE scumtell. I know this, because I was uncooperative in another newb game, and got lynched for it. At this point, I don't care if you are at L-2. If you truly are a townie, then you need to step up, and contribute to this scumhunting we are doing.

Unvote; Vote: McGriddle

[foilist13]

@Cades - I'm a little confused by your post. You're voting him for defending me, then lurking?

He posted yesterday, I think that's obvious, and I don't see anywhere in his post "if you disagree with me you are scum."

@Crimmy - Your vote was clearly not a random vote. You put me up to L-1 on a "random vote," which there is no excuse for. Either you didn't read the thread

at all

, or you had some kind of conscious thought behind your vote. Can you please explain what that line of thought was?

[Jackabomb]

and, have you come to realize no matter what anyone says, if it doesn't agree with what you say then they are suspicious?

I demand evidence to back this claim up. If you can't back it up, it's not worth my time.

no matter what I say someone would think I was lying,

I've never accused

anyone

of lying in this game yet. Again, please point out some evidence to back this up.

so how do you not know that everyone talking is a townie like myself I must add

I don't. Chances are though, the scum is indeed talking. You don't really look very town right now, untill you back up these ludacris claims of yours.

most people who voted for folist or whoever early where just going with the flow, but jack was hard at it that he wasn't mafia and that no one should vote him, everyone unvoted, and he is silent once again.

Going with the flow can be dangerous. In my "going hard", I have gone less hard than some of the more active players. I didn't even vote for anyone on the wagon, just said they shouldn't go so fast and whatnot. And excuuuuse me, if I have a school to go to, food to eat, family members to watch, books to read, and a bed I have to sleep in. My last post was only YESTERDAY! I haven't 'dissapeared'. I defy you, or anyone else, to prove any of your arguments valid. In fact, YOU, sir, haven't posted since confirmation. Speaking of silence...

[Crimmy]

@Cades - I'm a little confused by your post. You're voting him for defending me, then lurking?

He posted yesterday, I think that's obvious, and I don't see anywhere in his post "if you disagree with me you are scum."

@Crimmy - Your vote was clearly not a random vote. You put me up to L-1 on a "random vote," which there is no excuse for. Either you didn't read the thread

at all

, or you had some kind of conscious thought behind your vote. Can you please explain what that line of thought was?

Because it's the point I wanna talk about.

Maybe it's not clearly random for you, but you forget I'm a newb, and I still don't quite get the rules of this particular forum style of the game.

As for putting you up for L-1, I didn't mean to.

If you still feel like lynching me, I won't be mad, 'cause I did put you in danger.

Well, anyway, other than that, I still don't know who to vote for, since all I see is suspicion, but I can't find me a suspect.

[McGriddle]

Well you could at the very least explain who you were referring to with that remark about friends being less likely to lynch eachother...

At a stretch I could accept that you're not able to explain any further, but it's a very simple question I asked and you didn't answer it. It's very possible that it's my fault that I don't get it, but would it hurt you to help me figure it out?

vote: McGriddle

for the reasons I gave in post 41 and for being uncooperative

Pay attention. I said he is trying to appeal to everyone, meaning make some virtual friends. Not saying I don't LIKE the guy, just saying if I did like the guy I would be less likely to vote him.

[McGriddle]

Okay, vote me if you want, I am telling you now that you are making a mistake.

[CSL]

McGriddle, my reason for voting you is because you are not scumhunting, and that you are being uncooperative. That's scummy IME.

[dimaba]

Pay attention. I said he is trying to appeal to everyone, meaning make some virtual friends. Not saying I don't LIKE the guy, just saying if I did like the guy I would be less likely to vote him.

Right, now you're finally making some sort of sense. Would've been nice if you'd answered the question first time around... Now I finally get the connection between your opinion on CSL and the post where you explained your reasons. Thanks for clarifying that for me and yes you were right. It was my fault that I didn't make the connection. In the future, maybe you could use quotes to make it more obvious what you're responding to so even morons like me can see the connection instantly.

As for your theory... Well I find it rather obvious that he'd try to make us his virtual friends. I think most of us want the others to be our friends, since none of us want to be lynched. That's why most of us try to cooperate as much as possible (unlike you), answer any questions about our reasoning (unlike you) and try not to rub people the wrong way (also unlike you, if you ask me, but that's just bad manners and not a reason to vote for you).

The vote stays in place. Your reasoning is still unsound, you're not being cooperative when asked to explain your actions and you seem to be bullying us into not voting for you ("You are making a mistake") rather than convincing us of your innocence.

[McGriddle]

Pay attention. I said he is trying to appeal to everyone, meaning make some virtual friends. Not saying I don't LIKE the guy, just saying if I did like the guy I would be less likely to vote him.

Right, now you're finally making some sort of sense. Would've been nice if you'd answered the question first time around... Now I finally get the connection between your opinion on CSL and the post where you explained your reasons. Thanks for clarifying that for me and yes you were right. It was my fault that I didn't make the connection. In the future, maybe you could use quotes to make it more obvious what you're responding to so even morons like me can see the connection instantly.

As for your theory... Well I find it rather obvious that he'd try to make us his virtual friends. I think most of us want the others to be our friends, since none of us want to be lynched. That's why most of us try to cooperate as much as possible (unlike you), answer any questions about our reasoning (unlike you) and try not to rub people the wrong way (also unlike you, if you ask me, but that's just bad manners and not a reason to vote for you).

The vote stays in place. Your reasoning is still unsound, you're not being cooperative when asked to explain your actions and you seem to be bullying us into not voting for you ("You are making a mistake") rather than convincing us of your innocence.

Right. All is forgiven. And I apologize for not quoting. I don't have a vote, so my actions aren't done in a manner to get anyone lynched. I was being cooperative, just not smart lol. I did answer questions to the best of my ability. I might have rubbed people the wrong way. But I apologize.

[foilist13]

@McGriddle - Who are your top suspects? Is it still me, or are you looking at someone else?

[McGriddle]

@foilist13 - Crimmy mostly but even that is a tiny suspicion. Also CSL a tiny bit too.

[Jackabomb]

Awww...my cades drive isn't getting any attention? I'm still not happy with either mcgrill OR crimmy's excuses for thier bandwagon of foilist.

[McGriddle]

Awww...my cades drive isn't getting any attention? I'm still not happy with either mcgrill OR crimmy's excuses for thier bandwagon of foilist.

\

I slightly see your point. Although I can't see a vote yet. It's still pretty early.

[Crimmy]

Well, whatever you do, I'm okay with it.
I mean, yes, I gave a lot of suspicion by voting for foilist, but that doesn't mean
I'm a scum.

I have no excuse for the bandwagon, except that I was following the wagon.
I simply jumped in because I had nothing to work with.

As for the previous post by Jackabomb, I just realized going with the herd is indeed dangerous.

[brother]

Excuse me for my short absence. It was my birthday a couple of days ago, so of course there was the visit to Disneyland, the family party, and all of that other fun stuff that comes with turning another year.

Honestly, I'm surprised why the votes aren't on dimaba. From the start he's been unnecessarily wordy, dragging out all of this unneeded gibberish and processing. His pattern is mostly, "

I am voting you, and here's why,

" to "

But let me consider this possibility,

" to "

Well, even so, my vote stays.

" A good example of this is in Post 41, when dimaba begins his accusation against McGriddle.

(the following is just my personal take on it; please take a look at the actual post)

---------- "

His vote was just as bad as Crimmy's. He found CSL scummy when he acted pro-Town.

"
---------- "

Oh, but I'll accept that he's just a new player...

"
---------- "

But, no, if he was Town he would've admitted being wrong. Vote stays.

"

Wordy,

wordy,

wordy

!!

Sure, considering all possibilities is a good thing, but when the actual process of it is plastered everywhere, it seems as if he's saying, "I am a Townie, looking for scum at every possible angle. Notice how logical and pro-Town I'm being."


Now, regarding the foilist13 bandwagon itself, here is Post 24 by dimaba:

I'll trust your judgement on that. I did get a feeling that we were rushing things, getting to a lynch with just 2 RL days of play.

unvote: foilist13

While he is still by far the most suspicious player for me, I don't see how it would do us any harm to wait a little longer. I assume by waiting longer with the lynch you're hoping to gain more information from people's reasoning?

Oogh, this post just

reeks

of scum. The blue text, along with the unvote, is basically him going for more Town appearances. But what confuses me moreso is the red text, where he says "foilist is by far the most suspicious player." The guy made

two

posts: one confirmation and one random vote. If there were somehow obvious scumtells in those two very appropriate posts, then I'd like to be enlightened. What's far more scummy than foilist's SE information and late confirmation, however, is dimaba's

jump on the bandwagon

,

*

his

retraction

of said bandwagon when, he claimed, foilest was the scummiest player, his rather apparent

attempts at Town appearances

, and his

wordiness

in a whole.

*If a player seems suspicious, then leave votes on them and

pressure

them. Even in the foilist bandwagon situation, where it was L-1, having let the votes stay for better reactions wouldn't necessarily have been risky, as everyone knew that if they hammered the quick-lynch, they would instantly be on the top of the suspects list.

Vote: dimaba

[dimaba]

Well I'll see if I can keep this short and to the point for you...

I'm always wordy, with anything I write. Wether it's essays, stories or in this case reasoning, I use more words than necessary. I like to be detailed, I like to be precise and I always worry that leaving things will cost me. I don't know what is and isn't considered obvious around here, so I might be stating the obvious a lot.

Sure, considering all possibilities is a good thing, but when the actual process of it is plastered everywhere, it seems as if he's saying, "I am a Townie, looking for scum at every possible angle. Notice how logical and pro-Town I'm being."

I was always taught that when presenting argumentation it is important to show that you are aware of the other side of the issue. I think this is especially true in a game like this. I figured McGriddle might want to play the newbie card, wanted to prevent that and wanted him to give a proper answer first time around. Unnecessary? Perhaps. Scummy? No.

Sure I'm trying to look pro-town. Sure I'm looking for scum everywhere. Sure I'm trying to be logical and pro-town. And what's wrong with that? If my reasoning is sound and logical, what does it matter how I present it? If all my words aren't used to cover up false arguments, does it matter if I publicly consider all posibilities?
If you disagree with my reasoning then say so and we can debate it. But in my opinion giving more information than necessary is not a scumtell, certainly not as much as giving too little.

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums. Nobody else had done anything scummy that I had recognised (I didn't recognise putting foilist at L-1 as a scumtell since I didn't know how frowned upon that was until a few posts later). Therefore, he was the scummiest player as far as I was concerned. I did realise it was a weak tell so I wasn't very committed to the vote. I also noticed that the deadline was so far away that I would have plenty of time to vote for him again if necessary. So I decided to trust the experience of the SE and be the one to unvote. That is why I unvoted even though I found him the most suspicious player.

And tbh, considering the reactions we got after those posts I think I made a rather sound decision.

[brother]

I was always taught that when presenting argumentation it is important to show that you are aware of the other side of the issue. I think this is especially true in a game like this.

Let's stop right there. I truly wonder what sort of education you're getting if they teach you to present both sides of the argument. In persuasive essays, for instance, you never focus on the opposing side--you never focus on what they

could

be right about; it takes away the effect of being

persuasive

. In debates, you never say what the other is right about, just what you're right about. Think about presidential elections: Do you think they'll announce to the people, "They're right, but you should vote me?" Your thinking is flawed.

Sure I'm trying to look pro-town. Sure I'm looking for scum everywhere. Sure I'm trying to be logical and pro-town. And what's wrong with that? If my reasoning is sound and logical, what does it matter how I present it? If all my words aren't used to cover up false arguments, does it matter if I publicly consider all posibilities?

You're misunderstanding my argument. It is not a bad thing to

be

pro-Town or to

look

pro-Town--it is not a bad thing to be logical and deductive--but what

is

a bad (and, yes,

scummy

) thing is when those qualities are put on display: "

Look at me, everyone! I'm being so pro-Town! Don't consider me as scum!

" is the message I get out of your posts. Yes: scummy.

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums. Nobody else had done anything scummy that I had recognised (I didn't recognise putting foilist at L-1 as a scumtell since I didn't know how frowned upon that was until a few posts later). Therefore, he was the scummiest player as far as I was concerned. I did realise it was a weak tell so I wasn't very committed to the vote. I also noticed that the deadline was so far away that I would have plenty of time to vote for him again if necessary. So I decided to trust the experience of the SE and be the one to unvote. That is why I unvoted even though I found him the most suspicious player.

Alright, fair enough. But I'd like to use this very paragraph to support the scumminess in wordy posts. It is generally accepted that those who talk too much are the ones that have something to hide. I don't care if you're always wordy in essays and such (in fact I have no reason to actually believe you), so I'll definitely keep your talkative style in my scumdar. Come on, now, haven't you ever seen Death Note? (<-- joke: for you can't-pick-up-jokes-on-interwebs types) Read your own paragraph above, and then read my edited version below. Which is less scummy?

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums; nothing else was scummy that I recognized. After realizing the L-1 and the deadline, however, I retracted my vote to keep safe.

And I

would

like an answer to that, however ridiculous you may think it is.

[dimaba]

Let's stop right there. I truly wonder what sort of education you're getting if they teach you to present both sides of the argument. In persuasive essays, for instance, you never focus on the opposing side--you never focus on what they

could

be right about; it takes away the effect of being

persuasive

. In debates, you never say what the other is right about, just what you're right about. Think about presidential elections: Do you think they'll announce to the people, "They're right, but you should vote me?" Your thinking is flawed.

Conceding a point to the opposition is not poor debating at all. Why dispute or ignore something you know is true? No, better to mention it yourself and explain why you feel it is insignificant. I mentioned something he might try to use as an excuse and explained why I felt it wouldn't be good enough. That's not poor debating, that's just anticipating what the other might say and shooting it down in advance.

You're misunderstanding my argument. It is not a bad thing to

be

pro-Town or to

look

pro-Town--it is not a bad thing to be logical and deductive--but what

is

a bad (and, yes,

scummy

) thing is when those qualities are put on display: "

Look at me, everyone! I'm being so pro-Town! Don't consider me as scum!

" is the message I get out of your posts. Yes: scummy.

Oh I got your point alright, since you said pretty much the same in your earlier post... You seem to think that I'm scum just from the fact that I use more sentences to make the same point. I would agree with you if I was trying hard to push

false arguments

on you, if I was trying to overwhelm you with words so you wouldn't notice the fallacies. But I haven't heard any comments on my actual reasoning yet. I'd like to debate the content of what I say, not wether I should take 3 or 30 lines to present it. As long as my actions match up with my appearance, I still don't see how a long post makes me scummy. So what if I am trying to say "don't consider me as scum"? If I don't vote as scum and don't reason as scum, I don't see how it's wrong to make other people notice that.
I'm giving you my entire thought process, I'm doing so because I hope it may be of use to people in making up their own minds, because I want to be so complete that my words can't be misconstrued later on and because I want to know what other people think of my thoughts.The message you should be getting from my posts is "I think McGriddle is suspicious, and these are my reasons. However, I realise that I could be making mistakes and I want you to point them out to me.". Speaking of which, do you agree with my opinion on McGriddle?

It is generally accepted that those who talk too much are the ones that have something to hide. I don't care if you're always wordy in essays and such (in fact I have no reason to actually believe you), so I'll definitely keep your talkative style in my scumdar. Come on, now, haven't you ever seen Death Note? (<-- joke: for you can't-pick-up-jokes-on-interwebs types) Read your own paragraph above, and then read my edited version below. Which is less scummy?

First, thank you for summarising my point so effectively. Second, I don't find one to be more scummy than the other. The first is harder to get the point from, that's for sure, but if I read that from someone else I wouldn't find it scummy. As long as I don't get the feeling someone is omitting, misrepresenting or falsifying information, they can write it as a sonnet for all I care. Perhaps another more experienced player could give his opinion on that, because if my writing style is likely to get me lynched in this and other games I'll work on changing it in the future.

[brother]

Conceding a point to the opposition is not poor debating at all. Why dispute or ignore something you know is true? No, better to mention it yourself and explain why you feel it is insignificant. I mentioned something he might try to use as an excuse and explained why I felt it wouldn't be good enough. That's not poor debating, that's just anticipating what the other might say and shooting it down in advance.

I feel like I need to stick you in a Mrs. Brady class; I can't believe I'm going so far just to prove

how to debate

, but, apparently, it's necessary. Let's say there is an argument between you and McGriddle; you're both convinced the other is mafia, and you need to persuade Town to vote with you. How do you do this? Certainly not by saying what's good about the other--not focusing on what they're right about but what they're wrong in, what's so scummy about them. Let's also say you're the cop, and you have a guilty on McGriddle. You want to get him lynched without having to claim, if possible, and if you even so much as hint to the others that he

might

be Town by acknowledging his rights, you lose the effect and purpose in all. What I'm arguing right now does not so much relate to your scumminess, but it's indeed good to know.

Oh I got your point alright, since you said pretty much the same in your earlier post... You seem to think that I'm scum just from the fact that I use more sentences to make the same point.

I would agree with you if I was trying hard to push

false arguments

on you, if I was trying to overwhelm you with words so you wouldn't notice the fallacies. But I haven't heard any comments on my actual reasoning yet. I'd like to debate the content of what I say, not wether I should take 3 or 30 lines to present it. As long as my actions match up with my appearance, I still don't see how a long post makes me scummy.

So what if I am trying to say "don't consider me as scum"? If I don't vote as scum and don't reason as scum, I don't see how it's wrong to make other people notice that.

I am not here to debate if your argument is valid against McGriddle or not, I am here to make an argument of my own against

you

. Your case against McGriddle may be justified, but I'm not concerned about it, to be honest. If you're scum, that doesn't mean that you make nonsense cases and false accusations; to be a good Mafia you need to sound convincing to the Town in what you say, so arguments that aren't justified won't get you anywhere anyway.

It seems I have to restate my argument

again

: You being so wordy is not the

primary

problem, it's the way you pattern your posts (in being so wordy) that make you seem like you're promoting your Towniness.

And, yes, that

is

a bad thing! If you can appear Town-like without having to make a show of it, if you can appear Town-like by just

being Town

, then that's good, but the way that you make it a presentation is where the scumminess kicks in.

"I think McGriddle is suspicious, and these are my reasons. However, I realise that I could be making mistakes and I want you to point them out to me."

This is basically the same thing as above. If you made mistakes, someone will point them out to you. You don't need to ask someone to point out your mistakes, in which doing so you

are

saying, "Notice how I consider all possibilities." If you have pro-Town attributes, don't point them out. They'll be noticed and acknowledged by others.

Second, I don't find one to be more scummy than the other...

Interesting. Okay, that's fine. I'd also like to ask everyone else the same question (regarding which of the two paragraphs is more scummy, if that). Cooperating and answering would be a big help. Also, dimaba, one more question for you: Who's more scummier in your mind, McGriddle or myself?

[McGriddle]

Vote Crimmy

For sounding very suspicious to me, and after realizing how suspicious became inactive. Seems scummy to me. Personal opinion. Sorry Crimmy, but in this game you can't trust anyone.

[dimaba]

Well I won't go into the good debating argument any further. I'll just say this: recognising the validity of a point the other side is making or is likely to make does not weaken your own argument,

as long as you make clear why it is to be considered irrelevant. Which I did.

I presented an argument I thought he was likely to come up with and shot it down beforehand. It's one less useless reply he could've given me.

I am not here to debate if your argument is valid against McGriddle or not, I am here to make an argument of my own against

you

. Your case against McGriddle may be justified, but I'm not concerned about it, to be honest.

Well I am. Tell me, is there anything in the content of my accusation you object to?

I don't see us coming to an agreement on the 'making a presentation of it' issue. Perhaps you're right, perhaps stepping to the foreground a lot and being as long-winded as I am is a common way for mafia to hide. In that case I'll have to change my ways if I'm ever to be a good player. I'll wait for the other players' verdict on that. I would never see it as a scumtell myself though. It seems to me that the more you talk, as a mafia, the more chance there is that you'll slip up.

This is basically the same thing as above. If you made mistakes, someone will point them out to you. You don't need to ask someone to point out your mistakes, in which doing so you

are

saying, "Notice how I consider all possibilities." If you have pro-Town attributes, don't point them out. They'll be noticed and acknowledged by others.

Sure they'll point out my mistakes when they see them. But I think that if I give more information about my thought process it'll be easier to spot my mistakes. Wether that helps or not I haven't a clue. I can see how it would make it seem like I'm showing off my pro-town-ness but that didn't bother me at the time since I don't consider it a scumtell myself.

Who's more scummier in your mind, McGriddle or myself?

McGriddle obviously, or I would've changed my vote. I think you genuinely believe that I'm scum. You are open about your reasons, you are outspoken in them. Your arguments, although I disagree with them, are constructed logically. You've taken time for a serious discussion and you've placed yourself in the spotlight by picking out your own target rather than jumping on a wagon. McGriddle on the other hand jumped on and off a wagon (and only did so after suspicion had been placed on the near-quick-lynch), has been very vague in explaining his votes/suspicions (see the post above this one) even when directly asked to explain. I think he slipped up when he called CSL suspicious for trying to prevent a bad strategy. A slip-up which he then tried to explain by saying CSL was trying too hard to make friends (almost sounds familiar ), a claim he failed to back up sufficiently.
He's acting scummy. You're pro-town but you're wrong, and it's up to me to change your mind.

[cades]

Awww...my cades drive isn't getting any attention? I'm still not happy with either mcgrill OR crimmy's excuses for thier bandwagon of foilist.

why would you vote me, you vote for who you think is scum, not you votes on you, that is pretty scummy, and what do you mean, as you say somewhere, that not everything is suspicious in one way to at least one person? I don't have to give you proof, read the game so far.
i'm staying with you, and nothing will change my vote, probably every round too, you will probably kill me during the night tho.

[Jackabomb]

why would you vote me, you vote for who you think is scum, not you votes on you,

Ummm...I'M NOT EVEN VOTING

ANYONE

YET!

that is pretty scummy, and what do you mean, as you say somewhere, that not everything is suspicious in one way to at least one person?

OMGUS votes are, indeed, scummy, but I'M NOT VOTING YOU! I have NEVER said anything like, "everything is suspiscious to at least one person". Quit your scummy misquoting.

I don't have to give you proof, read the game so far.

I HAVE read the game so far! And I've been participating a

whole

lot more than YOU have!

i'm staying with you, and nothing will change my vote, probably every round too, you will probably kill me during the night tho.

Being stubborn to good logic is often veiwed as scummy. Are you sure you want to say that you are? Now, please, quit wasting my time with half-brain arguments with

no

factual basis whatsoever.

I

, for one, have some scum to catch. Again, I defy you, or anyone else, to explain how in the world your actions are town, or at the very least, logical in a way, shape, or form.

Vote: Cades

[Jackabomb]

Damiba, I agree with brother. A townie doesn't really need to showcase his 'townieness'. Mafia try not to say as many words, but they do want to make them count for as many 'townie-points' as they can get. The more people think they are town, the greater their chance of victory. I also beleive that you should try to be more 'to the point', but that's the military father in me talking more likely than not.

[CSL]

Wow, Cades. You really did it now.

HoS: Cades

I think it may be too early, but right now, as of post 73, I am seeing a Cades/McGriddle scumteam.