Scummies Invitational (OVER!!!)

[Patrick]

Votecount

Empking (1) -- Kinetic
vollkan (2) -- Tenchi, populartajo
curiouskarmadog (2) -- imaginality, Kmd4390
Tenchi (1) -- SpyreX
Kinetic (1) -- Incognito
mykonian (1) -- q21
q21 (3) -- Ojanen, mykonian, Empking
Kmd4390 (1) -- Slicey
Incognito (1) -- Hoopla

Not voting -- curiouskarmadog, vollkan
15 alive, 8 to lynch. Remember that Day One will end on August 10th.

[Tenchi]

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that.

The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

This post by q21 is scummy.
The description of mykonian's instant no explanation vote as knee-jerk omgus assumes mykonian to be an idiot barely able to control his actions at all. That is not an accurate nor a townish assumption. mykonian was obviously looking for a reaction in a way that has some chance of having effect, (or pretending to do so if he was scum), contrary to q21's "hi this vote is because I want to see a reaction" (whether he would have been looking for a reaction from tajo or myko, saying that one is looking for a reaction pretty much collapses the wave).
Labeling the reaction as knee-jerk omgus is hitting an easy buzzword that only someone thinking of the game very shallowly would use in this instance. I find it hard to believe q21 is sincere about scumhunting here.

unvote
vote: q21

I don't think Q21 merits a vote. I do think it is something legit and I do think Q21 should actually be given credit for taking a risk and invoking reactions. The only mistake I see here is that he said that he just used an OMGUS vote to attempt to squeeze out a reaction from Mykonian, but instead he just went insanely verbose about his plan.

[mykonian]

provoking reasons is ok. Just don't be cautious about them (which is scummy).

Further, screaming "OMGUS" had nothing to do with taking risks. It never does, as you are leaning on a Wiki-tell that has completely no use in this game (as we all know about it). It had a lot to do with not reading properly, as my next post already showed it wasn't even

near

omgus. It was my annoyance with his way to cautiously "test-vote".

He tried to abuse this annoyance by simplyfying it into an "omgus" vote, which it wasn't. Q21 is scum.

[q21]

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that.

The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

This post by q21 is scummy.
The description of mykonian's instant no explanation vote as knee-jerk omgus assumes mykonian to be an idiot barely able to control his actions at all. That is not an accurate nor a townish assumption. mykonian was obviously looking for a reaction in a way that has some chance of having effect, (or pretending to do so if he was scum), contrary to q21's "hi this vote is because I want to see a reaction" (whether he would have been looking for a reaction from tajo or myko, saying that one is looking for a reaction pretty much collapses the wave).
Labeling the reaction as knee-jerk omgus is hitting an easy buzzword that only someone thinking of the game very shallowly would use in this instance. I find it hard to believe q21 is sincere about scumhunting here.

unvote
vote: q21

QFT.

Esspecially since I explained my vote in the next post and went back to my original case.

Q21 reaction (OMGUS!) is twisting what was going on, assumes I'm a fool (while he knows I'm not: he was the one nominating me for this scummy) etc. It makes no sense. Unless you are scum and you hope the word "OMGUS" is going to convince people.

unvote vote Q21

I didn't assumed you were a fool, I did exactly the opposite. I know you aren't a fool, I know that you're logical and intelligent and when you need to be you're manipulative. I knew that to get a genuine response out of you (rather than one made calmly and couched in all sorts of logic and whatnot) I had to do something you really weren't expecting.

What made me call your vote OMGUS was not just the post in which you voted but also the supposed explanation that followed. See, unlike most, you didn't give your reasons for voting me when you voted me, you gave your reasons for voting me when you unvoted me. The impression that gives me is that your vote was a genuine reaction which you try to justify after the fact in 139, so you can say that you had a reason, just before jumping your vote back onto a wagon you feel safe on.

[Incognito]

Hoopla, I think you're just mad because you have the hots for me, and I didn't kindly answer your little questionairre like you wanted me to. I had two options when I came into this game:

1)

comply like the other three or so people who complied with your questionairre before me (if I was scum, I would have totally done this making sure my answers are nice and neat and pristine and SO town-ish) or

2)

do something really cool that'll really kick the game off like not complying. I chose the latter option because I thought it would be more fun and would bring out more alignment-revealing information than just complying like everyone else.

And uh, in that post you quoted of mine, I never said anything about seeing you do that questionairre as town or scum; I said that a you-scum could have either said something about this questionairre thing in your QT or just done it completely on your own without even letting your buddies know you were gonna do it. I don't see how you misinterpreted that. Nor do I see how I'm being fake here.

Out of curiosity, what exactly

did

you gather from the responses of people who complied? It seems to me like the only response that's piqued your interest is mine.

-~-~-~-~-~

The impression that gives me is that your vote was a genuine reaction which you try to justify after the fact in 139, so you can say that you had a reason, just before jumping your vote back onto a wagon you feel safe on.

Do you think it's scummy to vote without reason?



Can kinda see the merit behind the q21 wagon, but I feel really lonely out here with my Kinetic vote all by its lonesome. I think Kinetic's looking scummier so far.

[Kinetic]

Hey guys, just got back in, need to catch back up and then I'll post here as well. I can see already it looks like Incog has a hard on for me. Nice to know, I'll figure out why, respond, and more likely before the end of the night.

[Incognito]

It gets more on the flaccid side for scum reads but that works.

[SpyreX]

What's wrong with questioning town reads?

Inherently? Nothing.

However, the questioning is more of a "how could YOU THINK THAT" and not a "WHY do you think that?"

And, either way, the absence is backed up by... very little.

Town on town lovemaking becomes very scary for scum in the longterm and its always a great jumping board on the buddying wagon.

Q21 while not jumping out at me is intriguing for the scatterplot he's creating. I'd still put more money on Tenchi being scum (and them not being scum together but I degress),

[curiouskarmadog]

this game is first in line to update (out of three)...hoping to get to this tomorrow....if for some reason my wife goes into labor though, I might have to replace out...FYI...trying not to...today we were told "she can come today, or she can come in two weeks"...weeeee

[populartajo]

I haven't played with you since last fall but I don't think you've been around for a while either. When did you change from a very dominant vibe guy to someone using dominantly logic?

Ive always been a dominant logic guy. Gut is just an extension of subjective logic. Why did you think I was not a logical guy?

5. Sum up your playstyle in one sentence. I find myself not sticking to one singular playstyle.

For someone with my persona, mafia is an interesting exercise in overcompensation and rolling from aggressive to uselessly cautious and sympathetic and back depending on confidence/accuracy of reads in recent games.

5. Sum up your playstyle in one sentence.

I find myself not sticking to one singular playstyle.

Overtly self-unaware answer. Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over.

How is Tenchi's anwer different to what you posted about your playstyle, besides the choice of words?

[populartajo]

Myko, no, not joking. Not sure what gave you that impression. I find Hoopla scummy, but would prefer to lynch Vollkan first because he is scummier

Why volkan? Why hoopla?

Regarding the ckd case: I really like myko's case... what is giving me pause is that I dont see scumckd posting 92: its just a post asking for problems and makes more sense from a disintirested ckd.

I dont like Kinetic voting for Empking (seems a lazy choice for a player of his kind) and entering the game with a wall of useless banter

In other news, both hoops and myko are obvtown and shouldnt be lynched ever. Voting for one of these guys is now considered a scumtell.

I find this to be an unnaturally overt and definite statement for this early in the game, therefore, to test it a little I'm going to:

Vote Mykonian

And see what sort of response that evokes. I've chosen Myko because I feel his ckd case is a little overdone, possibly him trying too hard to paint scum where its not.

Your response is that you get +1scumtell in my reads.

conclusions in next post

[populartajo]

Like:
mykonian (never lynch, Doc please protect him)
Hoopla (basically for RVS play. Im starting to need a scumlist asap to keep you here)
ckd (I really think 92 is disinterested ckdtown rather than bold scum)
Tenchi (big surpise here but every time he posts I think this guy is our closest to non Empking VI. I had also forgotten asking town reads to players that lead the discussion is a towntell)

Dunno :
Vollkan (other than that weird RVS stance we need moar volkan here)
kmd (stop being a lazy ass and explain your reads)
emp (not surprised here, just waiting for that post that defines your alignment here)
slicey (post moar)
ojanen (almost in the dont like.. wanna hear some of his answers before)

Dont like:
spyrex (gut basically)
q21 (feels very different to the q21 Ive played before. Need to reread some games with him but the trying to test something spilling the answer is a no-no.
Incognito (two unnatural reactions already: the antihoopla questionar and the unvote for lame reasons)
Kinetic (lazy vote, unnecessary wall)
imaginality (hi strategic lurker)

[populartajo]

Unvote Vote: q21.

[Hoopla]

Hoopla, I think you're just mad because you have the hots for me, and I didn't kindly answer your little questionairre like you wanted me to. I had two options when I came into this game:

1)

comply like the other three or so people who complied with your questionairre before me (if I was scum, I would have totally done this making sure my answers are nice and neat and pristine and SO town-ish) or

2)

do something really cool that'll really kick the game off like not complying. I chose the latter option because I thought it would be more fun and would bring out more alignment-revealing information than just complying like everyone else.

So, you were doing it to bring out alignment information rather than genuinely finding me scummy? Is that what you're trying to say?

Out of curiosity, what exactly

did

you gather from the responses of people who complied? It seems to me like the only response that's piqued your interest is mine.

I gave my opinion on three different responses that engaged me - yours has obviously affected me the most. And it isn't just all about what I have found. When you read through the thread, there have been multiple posts where a response to the survey has prompted a follow-up question or an avenue of attack for other players. Tell me the last time a RVS did that.

[Hoopla]

Tajo, here are my current reads, if you want me to show my work, just ask;

Town; mykonian, curiouskarmadog, populartajo

Scum; Incognito, KMD

Those are my solid reads, and I don't want them to be tarnished by the inclusion of more names in there that I don't feel as strongly about. I'm liking Ojanen's presence this game, but I'm wary to give her too much town credit, because she is quite cagey as scum. Tenchi is another I have been swinging on, but I'm starting to see him in a town light, because I remember him playing (a while ago) this naive gamestyle that Ojanen summed up well - he is completely self-unaware, which is hard not to see as a town trait. I'm not writing him off as town yet, because I haven't seen his scum game, and want to cross-check that first.

q21 is the obvious exclusion from this list, and to be honest I don't know what to think. He is usually a careful, logically-guided player as both alignments, and he just seems to be making silly, rookie mistakes. Usually in these instances, scum would be quick to pounce on such an opportunity - it's essentially a free vote, very difficult to challenge, but I feel like this wagon is very much town driven, so I'm not opposed to it, even though I'm skeptical that q21 is scum.

[vollkan]

Further, vollkan's random vote was odd, knowing that Vollkan doesn't like the RVS stage and wants to get out as fast as possible. He could have, by reacting in any way to hoopla's survey.

I've addressed this issue already.

It is clear CKD intents to play a reactive game. This post contains no new information, but states that he wants everybody else 1. to fight for his vote, and 2. ask him about his stances on anyone (this while his "hackles aren't up") and him having shown absolutely no stances on anyone till then.

Now, if CKD was town, on this moment he'd try to form an opinion of himself (not asking others to convince him), and develop stances that way. Being a good towny, he would help the town by discussing how he came to those stances.

But we see nothing of all that here. The only reason why he'd post this, would be because as scum, he doesn't really have to form stances on anyone, and he'd only have to be "convinced" to vote a towny. Further lurking would remove most of the threat town is to him. We have a lurking scum here. vote CKD

At the point in time when CKD made the post you are attacking, do you think it would be reasonable for him not to have his "hackles up"?

The reason I ask is that, with him apparently joining my wagon just for pressure and then finding no real point to it, it doesn't seem unacceptable that he wouldn't have opinions this early on.

The asking other people for cases point is less defensible, but it's more of a "lazy player" tell than a scumtell (it can become a scumtell depending on how one deals with the cases)

CKD is definitely doing some misrepresentation with regards to Myk

Misrepresentations? Quote me two of them.

You said "I change playstyles".
I gave the extremes of one relevant parameter that defines play markedly, within which I fluctuate a lot and explained the inner process clearly as I perceive it. Imo there's a difference.

There's a difference, but it's not a significant one. Giving Tenchi the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't have a consistent playstyle (and/or isn't the type to try and identify even the 'parameters' of his own style), there's no reason for just assuming that he isn't stating a playstyle out of evasiveness.

Empking: More of a distraction in any game I've played. Scum leaves him around if he's town, and if he's scum he uses that meta to stay alive longer. Since we have multiple lynches I feel he should be removed from the game so he doesn't become a distraction as town or slip by as scum. Vote:Empking

This is just stupid. For starters, it's policy lynching somebody based on what they might do; he's assuming Empking wil become a distraction. Second, in this particular game there is very likely a reduced likelihood of Empking's playstyle being distracting, because there aren't newbies to get confused by it.

[...]Could you explain why my thought process is scummy to you? I'm interested in getting more familiar with your way of thinking so that I can decide whether I'm interested in lynching you for myself, thank you very much.

Not all your thinking, just your rationalization in this particular argument. I find that when players start overreaching on their facts (in this case you even admit to it, which is a town tell). Its one of the little tells that I note that people make when they're trying to make a case stronger without actually having the facts back up how strong they feel the case is.

The entirety of Oj's argument was:

When I look at it I can see how I was exaggerating in some aspects. But I was thinking of your description of an approach that seemed to apply almost purely meta on D1 (before this post). You explained you want to remove weak players first and didn't find it wise to disturb bandwagons that otherwise form. (post 111, last paragraph)
Could you explain why my thought process is scummy to you? I'm interested in getting more familiar with your way of thinking so that I can decide whether I'm interested in lynching you for myself, thank you very much.

You only answered the last sentence. This is significant because the points that Oj raise at least give rise to a reasonable argument that you were treating D1 as one massive RVS. Instead of addressing the case against you, you only responded to the part that was most Oj's most defensive. It's simply evasive.

Unvote, Vote: Kinetic

Any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. Its the last resort of the people that are in the wrong. The facts of the matter is that it doesn't require any tortuous scum-logic. All it requires is that scum want to do something that benefits them with no real lasting disadvantages.

First, it's not actually true that any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. In this case, though, the roleplay got at the heart of the problem with Incog's argument - which is that the notion of a survey as a scumplot requires pretty bizarre thinking from scum. It's obviously true that there is a conceivable scum advantage from the survey, but the pattern of thinking that leads to it is stretched. Whereas, "I want to try a survey as an ice-breaker info tool" (a null tell as far as reasoning goes) is much more intuitively direct. Nobody has provided any reason as to why we should just assume that the more crazy scum reasoning is better.

I find this to be an unnaturally overt and definite statement for this early in the game, therefore, to test it a little I'm going to:

Vote Mykonian

And see what sort of response that evokes. I've chosen Myko because I feel his ckd case is a little overdone, possibly him trying too hard to paint scum where its not.

He casts a vote for Myk that is ostensibly predicated on tajo being scum (thus making the vote extremely bad), but then supplements it with an extremely vague reason for Myk being independently scum "the CKD case being a little overdone".

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that. The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

Yup. Myk is obv-scum for voting you because you cast a terrible vote.

What made me call your vote OMGUS was not just the post in which you voted but also the supposed explanation that followed. See, unlike most, you didn't give your reasons for voting me when you voted me, you gave your reasons for voting me when you unvoted me. The impression that gives me is that your vote was a genuine reaction which you try to justify after the fact in 139, so you can say that you had a reason, just before jumping your vote back onto a wagon you feel safe on.

When I say this, keep in mind that I'm probably the biggest Nazi around in terms of requiring reasons with votes: it was perfectly acceptable for Myk to vote without reasons. You cast what was a terrible vote for him, vague and apparently largely predicated on somebody else being scum. Your vote was self-evidently bad, to the point that that turning around to attack Myk for OMGUSing is frankly just silly.

[mykonian]

When I say this, keep in mind that I'm probably the biggest Nazi around in terms of requiring reasons with votes: it was perfectly acceptable for Myk to vote without reasons. You cast what was a terrible vote for him, vague and apparently largely predicated on somebody else being scum. Your vote was self-evidently bad, to the point that that turning around to attack Myk for OMGUSing is frankly just silly.

This may all be true, but was not the whole reason for the vote. I posted what I know as a test vote (which is more likely to get results). I had the hope Q21 would still be online and I could use his answer to show how his "test vote" was a rather bad way of doing it.

When Q21 evidentaly logged off, I made a post which said what I intended to say. I went back to my original case and voted CKD.


And then Q21 chose to react to my example of a "test vote" anyway, without caring about what I posted next. I guess he saw a better opportunity there with me then with Tajo.

[Ojanen]

I didn't assumed you were a fool, I did exactly the opposite. I know you aren't a fool, I know that you're logical and intelligent and when you need to be you're manipulative.

I knew that to get a genuine response out of you (rather than one made calmly and couched in all sorts of logic and whatnot) I had to do something you really weren't expecting

.

What made me call your vote OMGUS was not just the post in which you voted but also the supposed explanation that followed. See, unlike most, you didn't give your reasons for voting me when you voted me, you gave your reasons for voting me when you unvoted me. The impression that gives me is that your vote was a genuine reaction which you try to justify after the fact in 139, so you can say that you had a reason, just before jumping your vote back onto a wagon you feel safe on.

The underlined: wait, what on earth exactly did you do he didn't expect? That runs exactly counter to your motive of explaining your reaction vote at the time of its casting.

The second paragraph describes the sequence of actions in this way if myko was scum:

q21

: vote myko for reactions

myko

:

oh snap! he's threatening me!

reflex unexplained omgus vote q21!

myko

35 minutes later:

oh no! I was barely conscious of what I was doing! I didn't even write reasons! I'll make up an explanation about reactions from q21's original vote matching a flaw in it.

unvote return to hard-written case

The narrative is ridiculous and incompatible with q21 believing myko to be smart and all that.

I'll respond to the other stuff in a sec.

[Ojanen]

Ive always been a dominant logic guy. Gut is just an extension of subjective logic. Why did you think I was not a logical guy?

Ah, we have different definitions of gut - I say gut as an extension to the area where either "case"logic doesn't reach or then it would reach but one hasn't analyzed the feeling through introspection.
I didn't have the impression you were not a logical guy. Rather that you were reasonably logical underwater while having a style of reading people that made you write the word "feeling" often, using that area to judge people, e.g. typically looking at dead scum's listings of all people and assigning town/scumfeels based on the tone etc.
I can search the archive for examples if you're actually further interested in this. I've played with you thrice as far as I remember.

How is Tenchi's anwer different to what you posted about your playstyle, besides the choice of words?

I have already answered to this, iso me. Repeating it in other words, by stating reasons I gave a profile for my character. Meta=personality etc.
Since 3 outsiders have commented disagreeing with there being a meaningful distinction, I acknowledge to the outside the difference does apparently not seem significant. I'll confess that while writing my first post it came even to my mind that I was having some trouble writing something actually meaningful about my playstyle in one sentence. I copied Hoopla's questions to my post first, commented on rest of the early stuff after it and then came back to answer before sending. So whether I was being hypocritical to Tenchi came to my mind too. But I thought at the time that his no introspection at all was on the extreme side. My problem was related to things being too complex to describe in one sentence rather than thinking there's little rhyme and reason to how I roll.

For the record, I have liked Tenchi's later posting as more townish.

[Empking]

Volkan:

caught up/checking in.

I dont see anything that has my hackles up yet, even with all the theory discussion and D1 finger pointing. Until I get said hackles going, anyone have questions about my stances on anyone or cases being made??? Have a vote on someone, but no case?...maybe this is a good time to do it and try to convince to vote for your man.

I'm not playing with you. I'm not going to ask questions when you are in the game without

any

will to do

anything

.

How many people are in favor of a policy lynch? Chances are just as good that CKD is scum, and we he isn't going to hunt for scum, so as town he'll just hold us back.

lol, where did I say I wasnt hunting for scum?

Myk never said that CKD had stated it outrifght.

What I find funny is that you are saying that I am not scum hunting all the while saying we should just policy lynch me because "chances are just as good that I am not scum"...you are not scum hunting while pushing a policy lynch buddy.

Myk never said that.

[curiouskarmadog]

How many people are in favor of a policy lynch? Chances are just as good that CKD is scum, and we he isn't going to hunt for scum, so as town he'll just hold us back.

[curiouskarmadog]

maybe we have different definitions of "never said that".

making time for a full catch up tonight.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, all right.
Just two more questions today: what was your motive in telling me now what you would use catch me later if I was scum?
and: does this line of thinking apply to mykonian vs. ckd in one way or another in your opinion?

I'm afraid explaining to you my exact motive will defeat the purpose of what I am attempting to do. You'll just have to accept that I have a motive at this time, and maybe later if it becomes relevant I will explain in more detail.

I'll need to re-read Myk v ckd to be sure, but I don't know either way. I would doubt it, however.

I do not know why you would counter Incognito's argument of using the surveys as a distraction topic by countering with this comedic roleplay that you, as scum, would tell your scum buddies about your plan just to make Incognito's idea less plausible. I do not think this counter-argument from you makes his point less plausible.

Incognito's argument raised a legitimate issue, but one that was ultimately impossible to rule one way or the other on (ie. it's obvious that a survey could be used maliciously by scum, but it makes no sense to assume that). Hoopla cannot make Incognito's argument significantly less plausible, because Incognito raised an unfalsifiable possibility. But what Hoopla did do was show that the scum-logic that Incognito's argument required is fairly tortuous - "Mwahaha, I will confound them with five simple questions" could only come from fairly incompetent scum. The argument was expressed unorthodoxly (ie roleplay), but if you were examining it properly rather than deriding it because of its form, the point is clear and, I think, strong.

Holy Hell, that read just like one of the pre-law case summaries I've been reading. I have an immense amount of respect for you right now, and a strong lingering suspicion that if you're scum its going to be hard to catch.

I haven't liked a thing Kinetic has written so far. His first "real" post seems like a whole lot of noise since it's merely a summary of all of his experiences with all of the players. He describes it as getting his meta experience out of the way just in case he needs to call on it later, but I'm not sure I buy that explanation - it's not like Kinetic went into elaborate detail about each and every person he's played with so far; he kept things pretty vague, imo. He's didn't bother to comment on a thing that's happened here so far in that post, and he certainly hasn't seemed to do so in his subsequent posts either. And I reeeeeeeeeeally don't like the policy lynch vote on Empking - I disagree completely that Empking will become a "distraction as town" - it's not like we're completely unable to prod and probe the guy and ask him questions about his stances - and slipping by as scum? How exactly would that happen?

vote: Kinetic

I kept details vague since I'm the type of person that doesn't keep too many notes on players. For the most part it was just memory and I suppose it was more a post for myself to get into the game and wrap my head around the players. I posted it here, take it for what you will.

I didn't comment on anything because for the most part I do hate most Day 1 "battles". They seem so useless, and rarely provide much information until day 2 or 3 when we have other information to compare them with.

As for Empking: In every game I've played with him and a few that I merely observed I have never been a fan of his play style. It has always rubbed me the wrong way and I've seen more than a couple instances where even when he was town he ended up being a detriment. Has this happened in every game? No, I haven't read everyone so I can't attest to that, and I'm sure he's had games where he was good. However, I am all for lynching him right now and getting him out of the way, especially since the type of game this is leads to it not losing a lynch.

If other people want to protect him and stop that from happening (like you), go ahead, I'm not going to think its too scummy. But if he does end up being scum when we eventually lynch him (because I do think its inevitable that he will be lynched even if its not today) then I'm going to look very hard on you.

As for specifically "slipping by as scum" I refer to that tactic used where someone doesn't give a lot of information and is constantly passed by for lynch toward other "more urgent" lynches until we're in end game, with very little information. There a mislynch can be fatal and time and again I've seen players unwilling to lynch someone who has lurked at that point, ESPECIALLY someone with a reputation of such play. It becomes worse when that player is town since scum can push that lynch and look completely town doing it. Its not the only situation where he can become a liability, but it is one that sticks out in my head as having happened to me, both as town and scum.

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that. The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

unvote vote Q21

I call bullshit.

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that.

The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

This post by q21 is scummy.
The description of mykonian's instant no explanation vote as knee-jerk omgus assumes mykonian to be an idiot barely able to control his actions at all. That is not an accurate nor a townish assumption. mykonian was obviously looking for a reaction in a way that has some chance of having effect, (or pretending to do so if he was scum), contrary to q21's "hi this vote is because I want to see a reaction" (whether he would have been looking for a reaction from tajo or myko, saying that one is looking for a reaction pretty much collapses the wave).
Labeling the reaction as knee-jerk omgus is hitting an easy buzzword that only someone thinking of the game very shallowly would use in this instance. I find it hard to believe q21 is sincere about scumhunting here.

unvote
vote: q21

:goodposting:

I dont like Kinetic voting for Empking (seems a lazy choice for a player of his kind) and entering the game with a wall of useless banter

It is a bit of a lazy choice, I suppose that is true. But I still feel like I'd rather lynch him and be done with it than deal with his play style or what he might do in the game. I'll admit, he isn't as bad as some players (zwet and BattleMage come to mind instantly, and if either were in the game I'd be for lynching them too), but he isn't on my list of players I'd jump into a game with if I had the choice. And maybe if this game was slightly different I wouldn't be lazy with my vote on him, but with the option of multiple lynches per day I'm OK with using one to remove someone who could be an all game distraction.

Empking: More of a distraction in any game I've played. Scum leaves him around if he's town, and if he's scum he uses that meta to stay alive longer. Since we have multiple lynches I feel he should be removed from the game so he doesn't become a distraction as town or slip by as scum. Vote:Empking

This is just stupid. For starters, it's policy lynching somebody based on what they might do; he's assuming Empking wil become a distraction. Second, in this particular game there is very likely a reduced likelihood of Empking's playstyle being distracting, because there aren't newbies to get confused by it.

Its policy lynching based on my experience with this player. All this great defense of Empking makes me start to wonder why. Show me a game where he has been a great benefit to the town. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't remember him being such a good player as to warrant this. I'm going to do some meta checking, be right back.

Based solely on completed games:
Empking lynches townie in endgame as town. July 27
Empking lynches townie in endgame as town. July 26
Empking lynched Day 3. Not exactly sure why, so I've drawn no conclusions from this. July 10
Empking wins, near endgame (5 players) by lynching BattleMage(lol). June 30
Empking slips by as scum. Wins. June 11
Lynched Day 4 after, (lol) miller13 D1, zwet D2, CJMiller D3. Don't know the reasons, but I'll admit those are players I'd lynch before Empking as a policy too, lolol. Don't know if his lynch was policy in this game, but wouldn't doubt it. Lynched Oct 13, 09

I went down the list and looked at the most recently finished games with Empking as a player. I do not believe I missed any, but here is my evidence. I'm pretty sure it backs up my case, but you are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

At this point I'm ok with lynching Q21 as well today, but after looking at his recent game history I'm more set than ever in lynching Empking as well.

[mykonian]

I wouldn't worry about Empking too much. I'm quite confident in my reads on him.

Have you never played with Vollkan before, Kinetic? Anyway, if I had to gamble here, I'd think he is scum. I would expect him to be more "important" in the game (sorry, can't find the right english word.) Esspecially with the recent activity, there was every room for Vollkan to make his points, to scumhunt, and for some reason, he didn't.

[Incognito]

Incognito (two unnatural reactions already: the antihoopla questionar and the unvote for lame reasons)

Apparently you don't remember playing in a game with me before, but you have the ability to call two of my reactions "unnatural"? Also, what's lame about my reason for unvoting Hoopla?

So, you were doing it to bring out alignment information rather than genuinely finding me scummy? Is that what you're trying to say?

Both, obviously. Are you trying to suggest that I should have had a dead-on set read of you right from the start of the game? I mean, you're acting like you've never seen a person trying to provoke reactions in the early stages of the game before.

Basically, I didn't like the questionairre thing and thought it was more likely to come from a Hoopla-scum than a Hoopla-town. After I read some of your follow-up responses particularly the in-thread speculation about the one-shot Day-ending role, I began to change my mind about you. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

@Kinetic:

I've only played a single game with Empking under an alt account of mine. I didn't think he was bad in that game, and I actually thought that he was fairly easy to read. That's a big part of the reason why I find your suggestion that we should just lynch Empking to get him out of the way highly suspect, though I suppose your experience with him might have just been different from mine. I just get the feeling that people become lazy when it comes to trying to read him since his playstyle is so different from most others and because of that, I'd think he's probably a fairly easy person for scum to push a mislynch on.

I should note however that I really don't have a read on Empking at this point, so I'd like to see more from him.