Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[charlatan]

freakin' votecount

Vi(2): Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(1): PorkchopExpress
Sando(2): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Vi
Scien(1): Amished
PorkchopExpress(1): Sando
Ojanen(1): Zorblag
VP Baltar(2): SerialClergyman, Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage(2): charlatan, VP Baltar

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

VP Baltar seems like the only sane person here.

I take exception to this.

It's very simple. VPB attacked me based on nothing, so I give him a taste of his own medicine. My personal policy is that any bandwagon is a good one. The first bandwagon can be based on nothing more than a directionless hunch.

You know, I thought about this before I voted you, because I'm pretty much of the same opinion. At the time, we already had the makings of a nice little pressure wagon on Scien, though. What was wrong with that one, if you wanted to help "get the game moving"?

I don't wanna talk about food.

That's interesting, since you're the only person that really asked about it. In fact, since it was the only thing you asked about in those two posts regarding it, I sort of naturally assumed it was more important to you than anything else going on at the time. If you don't want to talk about food, why did you ask?

Sando, don't make me argue to save you all day again.

If you don't argue in Sando's favor, at least argue something, please. I'm noting a substantially less active SC than before, and you didn't address my concerns about this before. This weighs upon me heavily, sir.

---

@DDD: While you're here. I know it's early, but I feel like so far you've played a pretty reactive game. Except asking Porkchop an easy-mode question, you've only responded when you've been addressed, and despite your assertion that you've recently become a better scumhunter (and I do not doubt this, as you come highly recommended) you don't seem to have really sunk your teeth in yet. What's the deal? Just chilling? Observing, like a hawk? Help me understand you, 3D.

[SerialClergyman]

Unforunately, it's going to weigh upon you then. I'm not inclined to argue something just for the sake of it - usually because my writing is so eloquent and my observations so intelligent I usually convince myself that it's true

Seriously though, I'm not sure where your meta is coming from but my activity on D1 varies greatly depending on if there's something that I think needs to be said. At the moment I don't have much to argue and so I don't argue much.

I don't have any solid reasons for voting VP, it's just gut.

Ojanen - no votes yet?

[charlatan]

Unforunately, it's going to weigh upon you then. I'm not inclined to argue something just for the sake of it - usually because my writing is so eloquent and my observations so intelligent I usually convince myself that it's true

Seriously though, I'm not sure where your meta is coming from but my activity on D1 varies greatly depending on if there's something that I think needs to be said. At the moment I don't have much to argue and so I don't argue much.

That's fine, then. That's really all I wanted to hear. I don't have any meta on you outside of our last game together, but so far you seem less present here than you were there. "I don't have much to argue right now" and "I'm busy IRL" are two different things, and which one of those is applicable may matter to me in a while.

[Amished]

Well, char; you had a fucked up comment (something like "I'll unvote you if you have a good answer to what you had for lunch"). Obviously you didn't unvote so whatever it was that Scien? had wasn't good enough for you. I'm wondering either what the fuck the point of the question was or why you'd say something so pointless in the first place.

[charlatan]

Well, char; you had a fucked up comment (something like "I'll unvote you if you have a good answer to what you had for lunch"). Obviously you didn't unvote so whatever it was that Scien? had wasn't good enough for you. I'm wondering either what the fuck the point of the question was or why you'd say something so pointless in the first place.

I was mostly curious to see if someone who wasn't really contributing otherwise would jump on the opportunity to attack erratic play that amounts to a nulltell, and whether they would do so in a thoughtful way or whether they would just be like "WTF lunch? Scum!!"

Also, this is my third game with Scien now and so I feel like we're at a place in our relationship where I can ask these kinds of personal questions. I would ask you if you've seen any good movies lately, but I'm afraid you would call it "fucked up".

[Head_Honcho]

VP: I find it helpful for rereading to have votecounts at the top of the page. If most of you find it distasteful I'll discontinue. I will start doing separate posts though.

Votecount:

Vi(2): Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(1): PorkchopExpress
Sando(2): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Vi
Scien(1): Amished
PorkchopExpress(1): Sando
Ojanen(1): Zorblag
VP Baltar(2): SerialClergyman, Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage(2): charlatan, VP Baltar

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

[Albert B. Rampage]

At the time, we already had the makings of a nice little pressure wagon on Scien, though. What was wrong with that one, if you wanted to help "get the game moving"?

If we don't discriminate in our actions, we are acting no better than at random.

[VP Baltar]

I don't have any solid reasons for voting VP, it's just gut.

Somehow I don't buy that this makes me the scummiest person in the game thus far.

VP: I find it helpful for rereading to have votecounts at the top of the page. If most of you find it distasteful I'll discontinue. I will start doing separate posts though.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think it is easier to iso you for votecounts than it is to go to each page individually when I want to analyze vote counts later. If it's a hassle for you, then I don't mind you putting them at the top of the page. I was just asking, but I respect that it's your game.

If we don't discriminate in our actions, we are acting no better than at random.

My personal policy is that any bandwagon is a good one.

Lynch this scum now please.

[Sando]

VPB, you're right, I was wrong, it was charlatan that made that comment, I attributed it to you in my mind, my bad.

Also VPB, you attack Serial for a gut vote, yet up until your latest post, this is basically what your attack on ABR has been. And yes, meta is basically gut.

I also took responsibility for my lynch last game, most townies are responsible for their own lynch I believe, especially early in the game. I was pointing out that maybe you had something to learn from it as well...

More worrying than Serial's lack of content is, to me, his movement away from his self professed meta.

Still waiting on porkchop...

I personally prefer a vote count at the start of the page, makes it easier to put posts in perspective on a re-read.

[VP Baltar]

Also VPB, you attack Serial for a gut vote, yet up until your latest post, this is basically what your attack on ABR has been. And yes, meta is basically gut.

It has nothing to do with gut. Nowhere in my arguments do a I say anything about gut. Read the thread.

I have comments on SC as well, but I'm reserving them at the moment until I see more play from him.

[Sando]

I don't believe I've seen ABR so touchy before. Clearly on the right path here.

I don't expect an experienced player who is town to be sensitive at all about being called scum this early in the game.

Really? I just see him basically diddling himself in the thread and being forced to participate.

Enough to make a judgement call on it.

Everyone plays differently, of course, but there is a certain standard of play I expect from people who I respect as players and are experienced. If I see variances from that, expect me to call him/her on it.

My playing experience with ABR is limited, but from my memory I don't recall him being so personally reactive in various games I have read him in.

Outlandish? Sure. Antagonistic? Definitely. Flustered into pushing his RVS vote as serious after a flippant call for his lynch... not so much.

I think it was reactionary, which is suspicious because it points out a sensitivity to being called scum.

Off the top of my head, I remember reading him as town in Incognito's Chosen game and some open with Jahudo. Most recently though (Quick and Dirty, The Amish Village) he's been scum.

These are the comments you've made about ABR since things got 'serious'. The first bolded comment looks like gut to me, the second is about the closest thing you've said to a case on ABR. There's not a lot there other than meta/gut.

In fact of content, there's SFA.

[VP Baltar]

gut = undefined misgivings, non-specific

judgement call = based on specific reaction


Also, is there a point in this game when you're going to stop bitching about there not being content and actually scumhunt?

[SerialClergyman]

See, it's rubbish comments like that one from VP that I don't like. He's not bitching about a lack of content, he's making a specific accusation against you. His argument said you are hypocritical for attacking someone for only having a gut reason when you yourself have used mostly gut so far to come to your reads. This is scumhunting, or what passes for it early on D1.

You also invoked lynch all liars for what barely passed for a 'lie', you were surprised Albert was touchy when being accused of scum, alluded to meta reasons for suspecting Albert but produced none when asked, Didn't join the Albert wagon until there was someone else on it.

So yep, you're the scummiest person around at the moment, just on the usual D1 straws.

Vi, expand on your VP read - what do you think of these issues I raise?

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP: Vi,

please

expand on your VP read.

No need to be discourteous.

[VP Baltar]

See, it's rubbish comments like that one from VP that I don't like. He's not bitching about a lack of content, he's making a specific accusation against you. His argument said you are hypocritical for attacking someone for only having a gut reason when you yourself have used mostly gut so far to come to your reads. This is scumhunting, or what passes for it early on D1.

I have explained the difference between gut and attacking over specific details. Please don't make me resort to visual aids. And he is indeed bitching over lack of content:

In fact of content, there's SFA.

Saying that there's no content in my argument when there is. He also tried to excuse his own non-participation in the argument with Vi by saying that he can't be expected to be scumhunting very much when there wasn't really any content in the thread. Well boo-hoo, we're all in the same game and yet some of us still manage to try and find scum.

You also invoked lynch all liars for what barely passed for a 'lie', you were surprised Albert was touchy when being accused of scum, alluded to meta reasons for suspecting Albert but produced none when asked, Didn't join the Albert wagon until there was someone else on it.

How is a glaring contridiction between two things stated in this thread not scummy? He's adjusting his stance to whatever is convenient for his argument, which happens to have significant scum motivation behind it.

Your argument about when I joined the ABR wagon is ridiculously stupid since I attacked him first. You insinuating I'm following charlatan when in reality I had to convince him in the first place of why I thought ABR is scummy is dishonest at best. As far as the meta point about ABR, read the thread since that was fully explained and cited previously.

[SerialClergyman]

I made no argument as to whether I agree with his assessment, only that saying he isn't scumhunting is utterly untrue. He is not arguing you are failing to provide content, he is arguing you are being hypocritical and attempting to show why. This is known as scumhunting.

Also, is there a point in this game when you're going to stop bitching about there not being content and actually scumhunt?

This quote is pure rubbish. The man is scumhunting.

As for the rest, invoking lynch all liars is importnat. You are saying that the man should be lynched because he is lying and we need to maintain a disclipline not to lie in thread. I think you did it way too early and way too flippantly. I didn't like it.

Attacking someone without voting them until someone else does shows a possibility that you are feeling out attacks or that you're not prepared to push a read unless there's support. I'm not accusing you of following anyone, I'm accusing you of not backing your reads and being prepared to go out on a limb.

I've read the thread, I read your comments about the meta issue, and they were an inadequate response in my eyes. I also disagree with your conclusion, which is possibly adding to my distaste.

Anyway, I'm doing my best to remember this is a 5% D1 case and so I'm not going to argue it unless you make any particularly ridiculous statement. These are my reasons for my vote.

I'd still like Vi's opinion.

[VP Baltar]

He is not arguing you are failing to provide content

The first bolded comment looks like gut to me, the second is about the closest thing you've said to a case on ABR. There's not a lot there other than meta/gut.

In fact of content, there's SFA.

This quote is pure rubbish. The man is scumhunting.

You two playing together is not a good thing if you're going to get butt hurt every time one or the other gets attacked over something. If his play constitutes actual scum hunting in your eyes, then give me my Scummy for Paragon of Scum Hunters now so we can get it over with.

As for the rest, invoking lynch all liars is importnat. You are saying that the man should be lynched because he is lying and we need to maintain a disclipline not to lie in thread. I think you did it way too early and way too flippantly. I didn't like it.

I NEVER SAID HE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING, NOR DID I SAY LYNCH ALL LIARS.

Nor does it even constitute a lie. It is a contradiction in his professed philosophy toward the game and his approach in this particular instance/his reasoning for accusing me of being scum. He's contradicting his own claimed town meta. That = needs to be lynched.

I'm not accusing you of following anyone, I'm accusing you of not backing your reads and being prepared to go out on a limb.

So by being the only person arguing for something and convincing people of what I see as scummy actions against a particular player I'm not going out on a limb. If my vote was RVS based, I could at least understand where you are coming from, but it was on Scien previously -who has also acted scummy (and disappeared from the thread apparently).

[Sando]

And he is indeed bitching over lack of content

That's not bitching, that's an accusation.

He also tried to excuse his own non-participation in the argument with Vi by saying that he can't be expected to be scumhunting very much when there wasn't really any content in the thread.

This is a lie, I was excusing a lack of content in my posts, which you were accusing me of. I've never tried to excuse my non-participation, because there's none to excuse. And I've never said you can't expect me to scumhunt. You're twisting what I said, here's your quote that I replied to:

She's saying your posts are devoid of content, which is fairly true.

You (town in general) made this same argument last game, claiming that I wasn't scumhunting. It's utter BS and you know it, it didn't work then, and I stand by the idea that you obviously needed a lesson on scumhunting. You're just making a general claim that you don't have to back up in the slightest.

Serial, are you sticking with your D1 plan of clearing a few townies and lynching anyone else?

Still going to wait for a response from porkchop.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: While you're here. I know it's early, but I feel like so far you've played a pretty reactive game. Except asking Porkchop an easy-mode question, you've only responded when you've been addressed, and despite your assertion that you've recently become a better scumhunter (and I do not doubt this, as you come highly recommended) you don't seem to have really sunk your teeth in yet. What's the deal? Just chilling? Observing, like a hawk? Help me understand you, 3D.

I do play a reactive game and I tailor my style to the players I'm playing with. If I'm ICing a newbie game then I'm going to push the pace and be aggresive because most newbies don't know they need to contribute. But playing in a game with VPB, Vi, and SC (amongst others) I know I don't need to be the one to push the pace because they're very comfortable taking that role. We've had what, four days for this game? I'm just waiting to see something I view as scummy to start running with.

[SerialClergyman]

VP - I was referring to this.

I went to check after I prompted him for more.

Actually it looked like you only went back after I told you that you were flat out wrong.

Unvote, Vote: Scien

Lynch all liars.

[SerialClergyman]

Also, as a side note, I'm realy getting the shits when people flip out because I'm defending people. I tend to be decent when working out who to defend. I've played with sando and accused him, wrongly, of being scum before. I'm not sticking up for my mate, I'm showing how your argument is bad.

[VP Baltar]

Ok, cool. Misunderstanding on that. I'm talking about ABR now. With respect to it being "too early" to say that about Scien, it was one of the first accusations and was hardly serious as much as it was meant to pressure him.


At the present state, however, you should vote ABR.

[Ojanen]

Ojanen - no votes yet?

I have a random based vote on Vi. No ping has felt significant enough to change and improve the accuracy.

VP, my problem with you is that at first you implied meta from ABR that was contradictory to what I (and several others seem to) have; when asked to provide this you said it was more because

Everyone plays differently, of course, but there is a certain standard of play I expect from people who I respect as players and are experienced. If I see variances from that, expect me to call him/her on it.

which picked my bs-rhetorics-o-meter. What does the "standard of play" actually mean, seems empty. Makes me think of "deviant=scummy" (don't like).
When trying to ask more about the standards, I got

I think it was reactionary, which is suspicious because it points out a sensitivity to being called scum.

Which doesn't reference meta anymore, doesn't reference bad play as town anymore. This would be considered a standard scumtell, except that it contradicts my master-of-omgus meta of ABR, and you referenced meta in the first place.
Just seemed somewhat like you were making these up as you went.

I don't think Sando and Serial need to be accused of not being able to play unbiasedly enough together. I remember seeing them accuse each other quite rabidly in mafia 102 as town-town on D1.

Albert, I know nothing of the Warcraft universe, I can be a leftover. If you'd rather have random picking then dragon, cause I used to have one Long Ago.

[VP Baltar]

VP, my problem with you is that at first you implied meta from ABR that was contradictory to what I (and several others seem to) have

I don't really understand what you are expecting me to say here. I don't see ABR as the "master-of-omgus", as you put it. On the general level, I see this as noobish play and ABR is plenty experienced not to be playing like that. On the specific level, I don't recall reading games with ABR behaving as such.

I've given you some games I recall reading ABR in, so if you're flat out declaring that is how ABR plays, then link me the games you are referencing. Also, who are these "several others"? Troll is the only one I can see who seemed to be speaking about ABR's specific meta like that.

I don't think Sando and Serial need to be accused of not being able to play unbiasedly enough together. I remember seeing them accuse each other quite rabidly in mafia 102 as town-town on D1.

Well that's fancy. I wasn't in that game, nor have I read it. But in the past two games I have seen them in (here and Quick & Dirty), they do indeed demonstrate a bias toward one another, imo. I think it happens to a lot of players who know each other IRL. I'm not trying to make it an insult, but I think blatant defending of another player early in the game when you probably dont' have any kind of actual read on their slot shows a clear bias that could come back to bite either of them in the future.

What's your read of ABR, btw? Since you're concerned about empty rhetoric, what do you think about his approach to bandwagons here?

[Ojanen]

I was mostly curious to see if someone who wasn't really contributing otherwise would jump on the opportunity to attack erratic play that amounts to a nulltell, and whether they would do so in a thoughtful way or whether they would just be like "WTF lunch? Scum!!"

Any conclusions from the lulz reactions since you (intentionally?) seem to be somewhat referencing Amished?