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

[charlatan]

And then as for opportunism, I think both times I voted someone I was placing the first vote on that person. So if the action is centered around me, it's because I made it via, you know, content and arguments.

Really? So when VP and Ramp were arguing, and you voted one and said "this is fun" and did not remark on it, that created that situation through content and argument?

The foundation of the vote aside (I didn't have a particularly strong reason to cast it but this early in the game it was strong enough and it's cute that you make that attack now that I've said it was what I was initially expecting) I play a fair amount of newbie games.

I'm not making that attack now, I'm explaining why I didn't take your stated reason seriously. Honestly, go back and re-read your own post in question and see which reason seems more likely. As for this:

I also don't know why you think I wouldn't simply give that as my reason for voting for you if that was it. It's just not an assumption I see any reason for you to be making unless you think that I'm trying to pull one over you you.

That's because I think you're capable of making mistakes, having knee-jerk reactions to things, and generally being human in a town capacity, and perfectly capable of manufacturing a reason as scum. Not complicated.

I don't recall saying anything about him actively scum hunting but I am a bit curious as to what you expect active scum hunting from Albert B. Rampage looks like.

You didn't. I did. For him to scum hunt I expect him to do things that get reactions and then identify/pursue scum based on those reactions, which he is not doing. If he is trying to get reactions, that is a different thing from demonstrating how those reactions indicate scum. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring up the fact that Ramp's reputation is largely of his own creation, but I guess I'll be the first this game. For instance:

So he basically pulled us out of the RVS LOL. Your case is so bad it looks like distancing my friend.

"Your case is bad", basically. Zorblag, what part of that shows that he's actively engaged and following along? Is it the "LOL"? And would this be an example of him "impacting the game in a way that helps players get reads?" (313).

This is the same sort of thing with SC. When anyone says "I don't like X" I think it's pretty reasonable to expect them to explain why they don't, and what about X is beneficial from a scum standpoint.

Point out the "incorrect assertions" so we know what we're talking about.

I invite you to re-read 294. You can replace "incorrect assertions" with "factual inaccuracies", if you'd like.

@charlatan: Is ABR #1 on your scumlist, #2, or something else?

I do not have people conveniently numbered at this time. He's certainly in the top two or three.

Even pending a reread and moving your vote, why leave said vote up in the air rather than moving it to VP, your other suspect at the time?

Two parts. Firstly, I intended to vote within a few hours, but got sidetracked, so didn't think much it, really. As it is, my vote was "up in the air" for about half a page.

More importantly, you incorrectly assume that VP was still the only other person I was more interested in. As I said before, as more people started to become more involved in the game, my interests were shifting.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Ddd I think you're wrong about amished. Second option?

Well now I'm convinced. Though I guess I basically never listen to your reads when you do actually explain them, so it was worth a shot to try and get me to listen to you by not actually explaining it for once.

[SerialClergyman]

Charming.

I wasn't trying to convince you, I was asking if you would tell me your send best scum read.

[Amished]

I've also lost many games for not lynching anti-town lurkers. Lurkers hurt games. Period.

I'm glad you've put so much effort into your "case" against me to even convince anybody of anything; so congratulations on that effort.

Blah blah blah, I couldn't get a read on you. I don't like that in any game I'm in. You wanna actually post your thoughts on me; or anything? Apparently not, you just wanna attack the person who called you out. I'd be flabbergasted if you could prove anything other than you attacking me and (just now) defending your position of not providing content.

To your "calling the team" thing; you really think I'm blind?

In any case, I called out the three people that at the time I felt were scummiest. I could see them all on a team just due to the fact that they're all scummy in my eyes at that time. With my vote I wanted you to weigh in, and now it's fulfilling a purpose of being on somebody scummy.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring up the fact that Ramp's reputation is largely of his own creation

This is quite insulting, and yet amusing at the same time. Anyway, I have a fundamental advantage over you charlatan: I don't need as many words as you to communicate an idea.

So he basically pulled us out of the RVS LOL. Your case is so bad it looks like distancing my friend.

"Your case is bad", basically. Zorblag, what part of that shows that he's actively engaged and following along? Is it the "LOL"? And would this be an example of him "impacting the game in a way that helps players get reads?" (313).

If you stretch out my post to extract the meaning of it:

Vote: SerialClergyman

.

First seeds of this are really in 176, in which he claims he has no "real reason" suspect VP, but in 187 suddenly does. (SC, did the points raised in 187 just occur to you between those two posts, or what?) The initial vote smacked of wanting to see a bandwagon form for the sake of a bandwagon, but again it became a serious thing later, only when he was pressed on it and when he was already touchy for being called out in regards to Sando. He starts diffusing his own argument around then, giving himself an out with a bit of talk of percentages and how he might be wrong.

So he basically pulled us out of the RVS LOL. Your case is so bad it looks like distancing my friend.

You can see that I found your accusations of clergyman quite ridiculous for a reason. He voted for VPB, and later provided reasons for his vote. You paint this as him "bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning". Which, to my estimate, is what pulls the town out of the RVS. Which by my reckoning is a pro-town thing to do. So you are effectively saying that he's scummy for being pro-town. Which is preposterous.

[charlatan]

Anyway, I have a fundamental advantage over you charlatan: I don't need as many words as you to communicate an idea.

I believe that's because you rarely make the effort to explain your ideas.

This part of my understanding of the "I Am the Greatest Scumhunter in History" shtick. You get to post one-liners and half-heartedly argue and later point to it like, "please, I'm the best, everyone knows this works."

You can see that I found your accusations of clergyman quite ridiculous for a reason. He voted for VPB, and later provided reasons for his vote. You paint this as him "bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning".

I have no problem with bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning. My first vote on Scien was for that very reason. But if you have actual reasons for a vote, I think it makes perfect sense to be able to state them with the initial vote rather than later down the road. In what context is "this vote is for fun" more pro-town than posting a case, if you have one in you?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Taking a look at your "factual inaccuracies" that comprise an integral part of your "case" against SC:

Charlatan - you looked at two arguing parties and said you didn't like either person's argument and are now preparing to vote one of them.

I assume you are talking about this quote? I said a similar (though less strongly worded) thing similar to this in 221, too:

I think arguments on both sides of the fence are contrived, and am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time.

I didn't say I was "preparing to vote one of them" in this quote. I had already been voting one of them for the last 100 posts or so. Do I misunderstand, or are you just plain wrong?

Weak. You might have been voting for me already, but saying that you could swing in either direction does in fact set the stage for you to switch to VPB, which is SC's real point. You blatantly ignore that and choose to focus on sentence structure or choice of word details to discredit him. You later refer back to this post for your "factual inaccuracies", that by the way never defended against the real arguments against you to begin with, but who will remember that if you sweep it under the rug? Oh yes, me.

Essentially, you didn't comment on the argument, explain which arguments you thought were good or not and you left yourself room to vote for whichever one started losing the argument.

144, 156, 175, and 221 all deal with VP and ABR and my thoughts on them. There are probably others that do, too. I actually feel pretty confident that I had contributed to the conversation more than you yourself even at that point.

If contrived flip-flopping between VPB and me are your contribution, and for so many posts at that, I'm surprised at how easily you switched votes to SC. Scummy.

It wasn't just opportunistic, it was setting yourself up to be opportunistic later when you really could tell what was the best wagon to hop on.

I don't think this even makes sense given that I was already voting one of them. (You do know that I was, right?)

Again, the fact that you were voting one of us does not take away from the fact that you were opening your options (being opportunistic) in regards to VPB vs. me.

I have no problem with bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning. My first vote on Scien was for that very reason. But if you have actual reasons for a vote, I think it makes perfect sense to be able to state them with the initial vote rather than later down the road. In what context is "this vote is for fun" more pro-town than posting a case, if you have one in you?

It's reasonable to make a semi-random vote, then explain why your vote is staying there a few posts later. Yet this makes up the other half of your case against SC, the first one being "factual inaccuracies".

Confirm vote: charlatan

[charlatan]

Weak. You might have been voting for me already, but saying that you could swing in either direction does in fact set the stage for you to switch to VPB, which is SC's real point.

Stating that you're both scummy and saying that I'm preparing to switch votes are two entirely different things.

If contrived flip-flopping between VPB and me are your contribution, and for so many posts at that, I'm surprised at how easily you switched votes to SC. Scummy.

So you're conceding the fact that I did comment on the argument, I guess? Can you show me where I "flip-flopped" between the two of you and how it was contrived? And why that makes it easier for me to vote SC?

It's reasonable to make a semi-random vote, then explain why your vote is staying there a few posts later. Yet this makes up the other half of your case against SC, the first one being "factual inaccuracies".

I'm glad you're here to speak for Serial and all, but what makes you label his vote as "semi-random"? I'm still of the mind that if you're voting for an actual reason, there's no reason to say it's for giggles and then later decide it was more than that once you're taking heat for it.

[charlatan]

Sorry, I meant "how it makes it

harder

" for me to vote for SC.

[Sando]

@Sando: It’s pretty simple really. My opening vote is usually based on whatever little quirks the thread offers. I was aware that not everyone confirmed and it tickled my fancy to vote on that. When I looked back at the start of the game SC’s name came up. So that’s where my vote went. That strikes me as fairly random.

Ok, what about that is random? You came up with a reason for voting someone, voted them and just chucked on the ‘random’ tag. This is exactly what I found scummy, and all you can say is here’s some reasons why it wasn’t random, but I think it was random anyway.

However, other people are pressuring PCE for content, so I figure I can pressure you.

Does this strike anyone else as something a 10 year old would say?

VP Baltar: I can’t see where Serial stated he thought I was town? From where I sat it looked like he just said I was scumhunting. Last game yeah, he said it, haven’t seen it this game.

Anyone:
Is it just me or did the VPB/ABR thing go; VPB and ABR go at each others throats, then decide to jump on to the person who attacks them for it. This seems a little staged to me…

[VP Baltar]

VP Baltar: I can’t see where Serial stated he thought I was town? From where I sat it looked like he just said I was scumhunting. Last game yeah, he said it, haven’t seen it this game.

This is really one of the most relevant things you can find to comment on?

Also, defending a player before he or she has had a chance to reply in my book is at least implying some sort of town read on that person...which I explained earlier in the thread.

Anyone:
Is it just me or did the VPB/ABR thing go; VPB and ABR go at each others throats, then decide to jump on to the person who attacks them for it. This seems a little staged to me…

Yep, and you all played directly into our hand. Boy are you guys stupid.

charlatan is still an excellent lynch today. DDD is probably second. While I know he can be a bit defiant when the town puts demands on him, lurking is indeed a scumtell for him in my experience.

And speaking about Mafia of Order, DDD, are you trying to insist that you didn't really contribute there similar to what you are doing in this game? I don't believe that's true and we can go look through the first 14 pages there if you'd like.

[Sando]

This is really one of the most relevant things you can find to comment on?

Also, defending a player before he or she has had a chance to reply in my book is at least implying some sort of town read on that person...which I explained earlier in the thread.

OMG it happened a few pages ago, ancient history!

You weren't even saying I was scum, just that I was bitching and posting no content. If your attack isn't saying that I'm scum, how is him defending me saying that I'm not scum?

ABR, are you saying you think Char/DDD/Amished are team-scum, or that independently they are scummy but might not be a team?

Serial, I don't think you answered my question, are you playing your usual D1 strategy of killing anyone non-town?

[VP Baltar]

OMG it happened a few pages ago, ancient history!

The point isn't that it's too long ago, but rather that in the stretch that you were absent when a lot discussion happened (and continues to happen) the trivial matter of me thinking SC is playing your guardian is one of the most important things for you to comment on. I don't see how this is supposed to determine anyone's alignment considering it was me venting my frustration more than anything.

You weren't even saying I was scum, just that I was bitching and posting no content. If your attack isn't saying that I'm scum, how is him defending me saying that I'm not scum?

learn logic please.

[Ojanen]

@Ojanen: As evidenced by your lurkervote, are you convinced that the "present" players are more likely Town?

No. But I think I've played too much scum roles in recently ended games; I've gravitated back towards my natural tendency of being a damn wimp with voting.
I liked several of the arguments against charlatan, yet wanted to get a better grasp of him somehow since something felt different to last game and there was electrical momentum already pressuring him.
I disliked Porkchop from the earliest pages and then he disappeared. Hence vote Porkchop, question charlatan for anything I can conceive bettering my read.
I need to catch up what's happened overnight, content shortly.

[Ojanen]

Massive whitescreening argh, haven't even gotten to the end of a couple of pages yet.

charlatan's case against Serial reads to me as very bad, it's aggressive but a bit hard to se as genuine.

First seeds of this are really in 176, in which he claims he has no "real reason" suspect VP, but in 187 suddenly does.

Gut is a reason, and there's plenty content from VP between those posts.

He's nowhere for 50 pages

9 hours when it's night in Australia, actually.

No looking at the actual arguments, and

When he finally tries to fully justify this vote in 291 (why did you wait that long, by the way, SC?) it's full of outright incorrect assertions.

The whole incorrect assertions thing reads to me mostly as the difference betweeen "prepared to vote for either of them" (as in "I am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time." which is a real quote from charlatan) and "preparing to vote either of them". Hard to see how charlatan sees it as such a significant misrep.

[Scien]

Sorry catching up. I got a real big surprise at work... and it means that my deadlines have been moved up. Killing my free time in the mean time... hah.

[charlatan]

Gut is a reason, and there's plenty content from VP between those posts.

I'm sure you re-read the posts in question before defending him, so how do you figure that the conclusions reached in 187 had anything to do with VP's posts immediately before it? They're not related at all.

"Gut" is a reason that is completely negligible. It's the most convenient reason to give in the world, as it allows you to back off at any time, since nobody can defend against it, and since you can't be attacked for it. When a handful of posts later your reason has extended beyond gut but no significant changes in play have occurred, that's something to look at.

The whole incorrect assertions thing reads to me mostly as the difference betweeen "prepared to vote for either of them" (as in "I am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time." which is a real quote from charlatan) and "preparing to vote either of them". Hard to see how charlatan sees it as such a significant misrep.

No, I'm far more interested in that he said (more than once) that I never addressed specifics about the argument, which I simply did. What's a pro-town reason for pretending I didn't? Even the statement you're quoting is not quite right in my eyes; SC said that I

said

I was about to vote VP, basically, which I did not. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but when people say I said things that I didn't, or I didn't say something that I did, I find that pretty problematic.

[Ojanen]

I'm sure you re-read the posts in question before defending him, so how do you figure that the conclusions reached in 187 had anything to do with VP's posts immediately before it? They're not related at all.

Well, first, he started the reasons by referring

See, it's rubbish comments like that one from VP that I don't like.

And the extrapolation of the rest of the earlier actions, I find perfectly natural to dissect the reason to one's gut after the fact and don't really understand your problem with it.

No, I'm far more interested in that he said (more than once) that I never addressed specifics about the argument, which I simply did. What's a pro-town reason for pretending I didn't? Even the statement you're quoting is not quite right in my eyes; SC said that I

said

I was about to vote VP, basically, which I did not. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but when people say I said things that I didn't, or I didn't say something that I did, I find that pretty problematic.

Being comfortable with voting in either direction more than anywhere, I just don't see what makes you think the fact that you're voting one (presumably then would be voting the other if not the first one then) makes the characterization of you preparing/being prepared to vote for either the Biggest Deal.
Can you show me again where you address the fence-sitting/convenience accusation?
294 which you refer to regards to the "factual inaccuracies" is about semantics to me, then pointing out earlier posts where you suspected VP/ABR.
I guess the attitude to VP was a little striking since what you refer to as the "spat" between you too consisted of the whole of

ABR making a joke about cocaine/your ass does not strike me as particularly out of the norm, for what it's worth.

After which you agreed with him to wagon ABR and we saw no mention of VP suspicion until echoing the LAL thing after others had gotten over it. A bit after which the pair of them were the most desirable targets of vote/attention to you.

[Ojanen]

I guess why both of them being your top suspects rang possibly false was that if it's scum-scum, it's at least somewhat out of norm (though yeah, completely in the realm of D1 possibility), and I would have expected a bit more questioning of VP from you, a bit more calling out the bad arguments from you; if it's scum-town either way you make it easier for yourself to switch, especially when you didn't give a reason to why ABR over VP when Vi asked, if it's town-town scum would love to throw gasoline to the flames either way.

My mind did not "change" about VP. I don't think I've indicated anywhere in the thread that I found him particularly townish. I went from unconcerned with him to finding some of his stances re: ABR questionable.

Sorry if you have to repeat here for me but can you help out and state the ABR stances from VP you didn't like?

ABR, is there anything else to your suspicion of Amished than him calling out a scumteam?

I still don't have warm fuzzies about PorkE - partly because his vote is still on SerialClergyman - but I prefer my DDD angst more because there's less room for error.

Can you rephrase what the "there's less room for error" actually means for me please?

I feel bad about this game for some reason.

[Amished]

However, other people are pressuring PCE for content, so I figure I can pressure you.

Does this strike anyone else as something a 10 year old would say?

Ummm, lol? How is this relevant at all; and even more relevant than anything else you could've commented on?

[Ojanen]

Oh yeah forgot, ABR: who is more likely to be scum to you, DDD or Amished?

[Albert B. Rampage]

ABR, are you saying you think Char/DDD/Amished are team-scum, or that independently they are scummy but might not be a team?

Independently to various degrees.

ABR, is there anything else to your suspicion of Amished than him calling out a scumteam?

My instinct tells me to keep an eye on him. He's in my top 3 suspects for a reason.

Oh yeah forgot, ABR: who is more likely to be scum to you, DDD or Amished?

DDD.

[Zorblag]

@charlatan, I'm fairly aware of what I put in the post where I voted you. Here's a summary of the points that I was making there:

1. People aren't answering my questions in a straightforward way. That's anit-town.
2. VP Baltar could have answered my question with a statement he made later.
3. Thoughts on why Albert B. Rampage's behavior doesn't stand out.
4. charlatan could have answered my question with a statement he made later.
5. VP Baltar wasn't in danger of outing masons but it's something worth being concerned about.
6. In WoW I'd be a Tauren rather than a Troll.
7. Debonair Danny DiPietro should be participating.
8. Scien puts pressure on people for bad reasons to start games and until he stops I'm going to say when he's done it.
9. I've noticed something about the game that SerialClergyman seems to have noticed as well.
10. I vote for charlatan over a non-participant giving the convenience of his current stand as my reason.

What you're trying to tell me now is that you thought that I voted you there because of irritation at you and that further I didn't just give that as my reason either because as town I was making a mistake in my fit of pique or as scum I was manufacturing a reason. Have I got your take on my play there correct? Because that doesn't seem particularly simple to me and I don't think that it should be what you'd actually expect from my play.

As for Albert B. Rampage, he's done more than simply say that your case is so bad. Surely you know that taking a single quote and trying to use it to represent all of someone's play in a game isn't going to work. It looks to me as though you're expecting Albert B. Rampage to be transparent with his motives at this point in the game; that you should be able to see how he's using the reactions that he's generating to connect the dots to find the scum. That you think that it's somehow a point against him that he hasn't shared all the details about what he's thinking based on how people have reacted to him and what he's planning. It think that's a particularly interesting stance for you to have as you also seem to be trying to say that I voted for you because I was irritated at you for doing exactly the same thing on a smaller scale and yet as far as I can tell you think that you were perfectly justified in doing it.

I don't think that I'm going to be able to get Albert B. Rampage to play a transparent game and I think it would hurt my ability to scum hunt to try to do so; it's much easier to treat his play as a tool to take advantage of in so far as I can use a particular set of expectations for both the play itself and how others will react to it. I have different expectations for you, Vi and VP Baltar and so I'll say when I think you're not being helpful where I probably wouldn't for Albert B. Rampage. That doesn't mean that it's going to be the motivation for my vote and your insistence that it was flies in the face of what you should expect from me.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Vi]

I still don't have warm fuzzies about PorkE - partly because his vote is still on SerialClergyman - but I prefer my DDD angst more because there's less room for error.

Can you rephrase what the "there's less room for error" actually means for me please?

Soitenly.
I am more able to see PorkchopExpress's posts as being typed from a Townie perspective than DDD's. To that end, I'm all kinds of interested in seeing DDD post again, even if I have to wait.

Sando's two recent posts are self-evidently horrible.

Troll's post on ABR's M.O. resonates well with me, especially after ABR 331.

[SerialClergyman]

Another game has eaten up a fair bit of my time, sorry for that.

Charlatan, I don't like it when people question gut. Players rolling off gut reads is the way to play. In fact, you're attacking me not for having a gut read on VP but then expanding upon it later.

I echo ABR and Ojanen about semantics. Your point about factual inaccuracies, which you rely upon a lot, is nothing more than a semantic issue that is so close to what you actually said as to be almost indistinguishable. I'd also like to hear what parts of VP's postings you didn't agree with.

@ all: Where are the votes? I'm seeing Vi, Ojanen and others agreeing or actively arguing against Charlatan and not seeing the votes coming forth. I find Ojanen's lack of a substantial vote particularly disturbing, given I found it scummy way back in 290 when she voted Porkchop (hence why I asked a couple of others who have a meta of her what they thought.)

I have just pushed a case on DDD based on his lack of input D1 and been burned by him being town, so I'm not too enthusiastic about making the same mistake twice, although his content has been abysmal in my eyes. I'd also like an answer as to your second highest suspect, please.

I will admit that the wagon on Porkchop has some merit though. He asks charlatan why he would unvote and leave his vote up in the air rather than vote his next top suspect but he also hasn't moved his vote from the RVS stage. He says it's unreasonable of DDD to hide behind a playstyle of his own choosing, but that doesn't help anything really - it's certainly not an argument for DDDscum, more just DDDinconsiderate or something like that.

Finally, I'm not quite enamoured with Albert yet. I haven't seen him move out of second gear, and definitely wouldn't consider him any better than neutral at the moment.