Xite91 wrote:2 - Asking about my policy vote on Kmd
And how exactly is this a problem to you?
Xite91 wrote:3 - Asking Dia why they're suggesting alts? Wait, do you remember what you just asked a post ago?
If it's the one about me asking about your policy vote on Kmd4390, then I'd like to know how this is relavent to asking Diacria why they're suggest you're an alt.
Xite91 wrote:5 - Why did you need to defend yourself for that?
Shattered Viewpoint's vote looked serious to me.
Xite91 wrote:6 - Here's where you start throwing spaghetti (I think I defined this before, but if not, it's that you throw a little suspicion on anyone that could be considered even slightly scummy and seeing what sticks, but waiting to vote any of them until one gets a bit more suspicion on them, then saying hey, I had a case on them all along, see?)
I never had a scum read on Kmd4390. I didn't like the comment, but that doesn't mean that person is automatically scummy.
Xite91 wrote:7 - You don't get to dictate these things ya kno (See post 5 of his in ISO)
I did not demand that we get out of RVS now, I was just trying to explain to RichardGHP that it's a good idea to get out of RVS as soon as possible. I am not dictacting when we should end RVS.
Xite91 wrote:8 - Mafia theory, gaming the mod
First argument: I will admit to using Mafia Theory in this, but I did not go on and on and on about it, that's very counterproductive.
Second argument: I honestly do not see how I was guessing the mod. I was using meta to determind why I thought posting restrictions didn't exist. Had the previous game had posting restriction, this argument would not have been used. Furthermore, I give out evidence that Shattered Viewpoint having a posting restriction is implausible. That is analysis his post, not gaming the mod.
Xite91 wrote:11 - More throwing spaghetti, the
non
request for millar to lynch
millar13 was being disrespectful to the mod and to a few others players (I can name off holycon and Reverse Simplicity). Had he continued to do that, had we not known of his claim (Was a mistake on my behalf to push a policy lynch on him even after his claim), and had we not decided on a lynch candidate, I sure as hell would have decided to try to get him replaced or if not possible, policy lynched him. I don't want someone who does not pay respect to the game to be playing the game at all.
As for your other argument, as there are multiple scumbags in the game, I am not going to just focus on one person and tunnel that person. You can claim otherwise, but I have and am still giving my argument on why I did not tunnel Diacria.
Xite91 wrote:12 - Case on Dia (who's list I'm going to look more closely at since she was on the NKs)
And I would like elaboration on why this is one of your "important points" against me.
Xite91 wrote:13 - Teehee, his response to my telling him I saw his techniques on throw and check was, oh I didn't tunnel Dia, I made a post to EGL too.
Which proves that I am not going to just focus on one person throughout most of the game and will discuss other subjects as well.
Xite91 wrote:14 - But claims can also hurt the town. Just sayin.
I can see that they can hurt the town, but they have benefits as well. Granted, he should not have claimed at all (I even told him that it wasn't recommended that he claimed at all), but we have some information thanks to millar13's claim. Plus if RichardGHP is lying about his claim (Which I believe he is), the vigilante can always vig millar13 and this problem would be resolved.
Xite91 wrote:Is this what you were talking about? Point out the WIFOM, I dare you.
Very well, I will:
raider8169 wrote:Scumtells are done more likely by scum then town but if that was really the case why is it that we are most likely going to lynch a townie day one then scum? In short its because the scum tells add up to accurately gauge someone instead of someone just jumping out day one saying "Hey everyone look at me I'm scum!"
Xite91 wrote:1) He changed his vote there too. In big bolded letters, on you actually. How could you miss it? How is that AtE? All it did for me was make me laugh.
First argument: Nice misrep. By until ISO: 22, I was including that post. I knew that he put it out in big bolded letters that he wanted me ded. It was obvious that he voted me and I took account in it.
As for your "It's not AtE" argument, we were out of RVS during the time. I'm sorry, but every scummy post outside of RVS I consider scummy, so I still think it's AtE.
Xite91 wrote:2) Bolded. So, you went with Raider because he had a better case on him? So what you're saying is that he was the safer vote?
Yes I went to raider8169 because I thought he had the best case at the time. Also, if you seriously think that raider8169 is a safe person, then why didn't I vote for the lurkers? Lurkers are an extremely safe target to be in, especially active lurkers and you will receive the least amount of scrunity for voting them because they are the least likely to defend themself. Note that raider8169 was not attacked mainly for active lurking and he actually put forth effort toward defending himself, that isn't a safe vote.
Xite91 wrote:17 - Or it's easier to mask yourself as scum. Just think about it.
I honestly doubt that voting for multiple people at a time makes it easier to mask yourself. You are more likely to gain scrunity from the multiple players that are voting you then from one person you put all your votes on. It also proves that you're more determined to find scums.
Xite91 wrote:Bolded. Lolwut?
I'll re-phrase it for you:
A passive lurker should either be left alone and receive replacement or be pressured to produce (I made a mistake in saying "reduce" when I meant "produce") contents. You cannot analysis a person who has not made any posts in the game, you can only get a null read out of them and only a null read until the slot starts to produce contents to analyze.
Xite91 wrote:Underlined. I thought it was the first paragraph that you found WIFOM-ridden?
It was the first large paragraph that I consider WIFOM-ridden, but it is technically the second paragraph since that major paragraph was two space away from the first paragraph which only contained one sentence. Understand what I'm saying?
Xite91 wrote:20 - You went the easy route with those three. I thought Raider was scummier? Where did that case go anyways? Oh, nevermind I see that his recent play is now townier. That's funny, he seemed to be playing the same to me
Shattered Viewpoint is definently not an easy target. I already have meta to prove that he played a lot better in my first game with him, so he had absolutely no excuse for his poor play, especially as a town member.
Also, I noticed that raider8169 from my POV that he was scum hunting and trying to find scums, his play was scummier back then.
Xite91 wrote:Wait, not if you think he's scum? Noted
By "the game", I mean that he won't benefit the town at all and I really did think he was scum.
Xite91 wrote:22 - Easy case is easy
I was suspecting Shattered Viewpoint since early Day 1, it took me a long time to suspect him. I gave him the benefit of a doubt and he failed to improve.
Xite91 wrote:23 - You seemed really willing to vote me. Why is that? Do I seem like scum? I think I asked this before
I am not willing to vote you at all, especially considering I have a town read on you. I was simply implying that it would be pratically impossible to switch a bandwagon from a person to another person in less then twelve hours (Of course that it was my mistake as it was actually four days).
Xite91 wrote:Wait, huh? First, weren't you the one that said hey, everyone switch your vote to shattered if you don't think he'll benefit town (Not if you think he's scum, mind you)
A person who supports a lynch on another person who flips town can analyze the bandwagon for scums. I am not going to give scums a free ride just because I was supporting the mislynch bandwagon myself.
Xite91 wrote:Next, bolded are the last 5 on the wagon. Now lets see who matches up to your list...
OHAI MILLAR!
Yup, that's it. Interesing
Scums do not always join a mislynch bandwagon, but they can be part of a mislynch bandwagon. Experienced scums like to stay out of a bandwagon to gain town creds for not joining it, so my suspects do not have to be on the mislynch bandwagon.
Xite91 wrote:Where'd ani come from? I guess you just realized that you missed your whole 5 people list thing and decided to add one?
No. Before analyzing the bandwagon, I had four major suspects off the top of my head. After looking at it, animorpherv1 joined the list as I really dislike his play overall. His play is still very scummy.
Xite91 wrote:27 - Good call on what? I think this is what we call buddying up good sir.
I was simply saying he was bringing up a good point. Now had I continued to agree with his reasons, then you could say I was buddying. But you are blowing his out of proportion.
Xite91 wrote:Because people say so
Xite91 wrote:Here's the people that say so
Should I not be able to agree on suspicion? I gave Charlie's ISO a second look and I agreed that he was scummy enough to switch my vote over. Would I seriously do this if I didn't agree with them?
Xite91 wrote:A one-game meta
Well it's better then nothing and I was trying to prove my point that I don't like Charlie's play here.
Xite91 wrote:That can be attributed to the active lurking
His active lurking explained why he wasn't really participating in the game.
Xite91 wrote:How so?
I have already explained this in here:
Me wrote:ISO: 27 is also very scummy. First off, this is definitive hypocrisy where he calls out millar13 for not doing anything, yet despite accumlating a relatively large amount of posts, he has done little to move forward the game, let alone help town. Secondly, he wanted more votes on raider8169. Yet he had put forth little effort toward trying to get raider8169 lynched.
Xite91 wrote:So do you
And so does everyone else. However, Charlie's questions rarely benefits the town at all, they are usually useless.
Xite91 wrote:So do most people in this game
The difference is that Charlie explained very little, if any legitimate reasons for voting his suspects. The most other people lack explanation for some of there suspects, but Charlie give lacks explanation for almost all of them.
Xite91 wrote:Bolded. WAITWAITWAIT weren't you trying to get a policy lynch on Millar? Also, remember that point I noted about you trying to get a SV lynch?
Yes I was trying to get a policy lynch on millar13, but I at least had legitimate reasons. When I realize that the risk outweight the benefits, I stepped out of the plan. And I see your point about Shattered Viewpoint, but it wasn't a policy lynch, I wanted him lynched because I thought he was scum.
Xite91 wrote:Again, so do most people in this game
His bandwagoning of CSL sounds the most shameless and had the least amount of reason for voting CSL
Xite91 wrote:I'm pretty sure I brought some points up against you that you didn't defend, also again so do most people in this game.
There is a difference. I have tried to defend myself against the majority of posts against me. Charlie has put forth next to no effort toward actually defending himself. That's why I called him out for not defending himself.
)
