This is fail.BigBear wrote:Not Voting
Ojanen, Scien, Zorblog
Troll (obv)Raskol wrote:PZ, your current top three scum suspects, please?
Also, what do you think about ABR/Amished?
ODDin, I would have really wanted you to do this.Ojanen wrote:Thanks.Papa Zito wrote:It was after. I came back, explained the SC thing, VP posted some drivel, and ODDin sagely nodded his head to it. The End.
ODDin, I'd like you to examine your case based on this information and tell if it changes anything in your perception.
Looking at some hypocracy here on an identical topic, although I did spoonfeed somewhat less obviously.ODDin on Papa Zito wrote:When this is pointed out, he doesn't say anything on the subject and essentially disregards the issue.
The amount of accusation ODDin used in the second wave of his Papa Zito suspicion (ODDin wrote:1) My vote on eKim wasn't random. I voted for him because I felt he was trying to keep the game in the RVS and silence Scien's arguments against AGar. I'm not saying it's a strong argument, but it sure isn't "ooh his name has 4 letters so he must be scum" random.
I feel the whole deal about Zito getting facts wrong was there to some extent only if ODDin thought Zito was talking about the early suspicions, not the second wave, and I find the unwillingness to comment scummy.ODDin wrote:So yes, PZ, you pretty much lied - at any rate, you've created a very wrong impression. Also, you're not really doing much of a job to contribute more - you just laugh of the things said against you, trying to make Scien look foolish (which isn't a valid defence).
The answer was more theory and no scum motivation, here's the link.Ojanen wrote:If pushing for a bandwagon as a reason itself is enclosed at the time I would imagine the assumed stirring would lose some of its point. Seeing the underlined as scummy is shaky, really, postcount upping by one as scum motivation?ODDin wrote:I'll tell you how, I believe, the impression was created. You said your vote on SC was serious. However, you didn't explain why - which you should've, for that matter, as "why?" would've obviously been the immediate follow up question, as indeed it was.You not answering it in advance feels like an attempt at creating confusion and getting a chance to post more and thus appear more active (not only do you say X, but you also answer to "why X?" later - two posts at the price of one.)
Now, VP immediately assumed that the vote was serious - a pretty fair assumption to make. You say a vote is serious, people assume it means it's backed by a case of some sort.
Part of the problem was that you were V/LA, thus unable to correct the wrong impression more quickly. However, you really should've taken a moment to think before posting, and you'd have realised that when you say a vote is serious, you might as well answer what are the serious reasons behind it (the fact that somebody had asked you whether the vote was serious obviously means he didn't understand why you'd made it).
I would assume, though SC didn't say specifically. I saw that he replaced later into that game, but he still would have read the first day I assume and it is pretty well known across the board that SC is generally not that helpful on Day1. What was your townread based on exactly?Oj wrote:I had a tentative townread on Raskol earlier, although he's seemed uninterested today. VP, what was the game with him and Serial, Commie mafia?
ABR wrote:No, it's pretty accurate. In iso, post 18, post 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 and 9 all mention Sando / Serial in some way. You can't deny he had a special focus on them.Ojanen wrote:This is inaccurate on a skim.
It's possible that I overestimate Zorblag and am just paranoid around him sometimes.Ojanen wrote:Since one was the main wagon and the other active and discussed quite a lot by the town as a whole this seems a bit of a red herring, many of those listed Zorblag posts talked about several things and people besides the Aussie corpses.
I wasn't really trying to get you to go into it again. I just hold it as a meh moment, and it is part of the reason for my current views towards you.VP wrote:I don't really want to get into this again because it is pointless by now, but I still feel I was correct.
Heh. Hindsight is fun. You didn't know that he was town at the time, in theory, however.VP wrote:You mean the shit wagon against confirmed town SC? Sure.
Some other motive, I don't know what yet. I personally think the PapaZ argument sounded a bit... er... awkward we'll say. But I guess that comes from me reading between the lines. What I took for a granted implication in his 'lol scum' post, you seemed lost from to the point that it made you suspicious. Manipulation or just not seeing the situation, well I guess we will see soon enough.VP wrote:What do you mean "something else"? What would that something else be? Also, do you not feel either of those argument were genuine?
Well that probably flys since it was a quiet day until recently. When I wrote that note I was talking about you post 36 in iso. I should say that 'on PZ immediately' or whatever I said would be incorrect at this point. Even though one of your first big points was against him today, but you quickly looked elsewhere...VP wrote:lol, I was? Where? I have barely mentioned PZ today.
Theory smoke? And yes I agree with the theory smoke, but my confusion is more than what you are suggesting with the theory talk. If you have time to come change it before deadline, why not leave it where your suspicions lie. You said you would be back by the time deadline approached. However, you decided that your strongest suspect is not good enough anymore and subscribe to an end of day either/or? I see this as a bit funny and worth looking at. Why am I wrong?VP wrote:PapaZ was not a legitimate lynch candidate when I was going on my V/LA at the end of day 1. It was going to be Sando or Amished. No lynch should never be an option on Day 1 and I like to do what I can to make sure that isn't going to happen. As I've already explained, I started to have misgivings about lynching Sando after my long dispute with him and his frustration began to feel more honest, so I put my vote on Amished, who I felt more confident about.
We've played a couple games together, both times PZ has nailed my role by D1's end. Just didn't manage to convince others the first time 'round.crypto wrote:Please expand.Papa Zito wrote:I feel like I can read AGar at this point in my career...
Unvote: AGar. Vote: Zorblag.
Nice to meet you, too, VP Baltar. My name's crypto and I'm proud to say that this game has officially gone into overdrive.VP Baltar wrote:crypto wrote:One of {AGar, ODDin, VP Baltar} should be lynched today for not being on the Sando wagon.Your noobness is showing, better tuck that in.
Because I don't jump to conclusions from one poorly-thought out theory. Should i be suspecting you for pushing bad cases?crypto wrote:Why are you so quick to distinguish my comment as idiotic rather than as scummy? Why jump to the "non-alignment-indicative idiocy/mediocrity" conclusion as opposed to the "scum pushing for a wagon on anyone from a set of three players while staying vague about his own reads so that he can give whichever potential wagon seems the most popular a boost for an easy mislynch" conclusion?