/in-vitational Game 8 - Nito City (over) after 1015

[Zajnet]

This is how I read the above events: with no counter point to keep the debate going, he pretty much accepted Sotty7's defense. Problem is, half of it are questions and the other half are not incredibly good defense points. Seems like they were made for more elaboration.

I take it from this post you find Jack’s points convincing. I myself don’t find them overwhelmingly powerful evidence that Sotty is acting scummy. Please elaborate on why you find Jack’s points (especially the third and fourth points) convincing.

I'm interested to see the effect of increased pressure on Sando to see how he responds.

UNVOTE: Porochaz
VOTE: Sando

Someone else asked what the effect of said pressure would be. You never answered. Are you satisfied with Sando’s statements since this post?

UNVOTE: Zajnet
VOTE: Charlie

magna that post lacks a shotty vote. Why do you still have your vote parked on zajnet?

Yes it does lack a Shotty vote since he isn’t playing this game. It also lacks a Sotty vote. I’m not one to vote-hop like a pinball machine. Thus my vote on zajnet is going to sit there until I have a firm suspicion I want to apply pressure to.

MOI must have a firm scum read on Charlie, but I'm not seeing how that case is any stronger than any of the other cases.

[farside22]

So first I'm scummy for not transitioning to a serious vote very early in the Day. Then I'm scummy for voting someone I find suspicious. Seems like a 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma you are creating here.

It's voting someone when a person ask you about your lack of vote I take issue with.
As for Locke leaving his vote I did state myself it was what others stated already when he was more serious about his vote.
Charlie, charlie, charlie. I have seen him lynched as town once that I recall. He has foot in mouth and I have seen him say things that make you shake your head.
This time is no different. For me I'm waiting to see how he responds and how long it takes for said response before I decide on my vote for him.
You on the other hand MOI I get the taking the easy way out and following others approach reading your post. Others have already stated things you brought up except for one point.
I would like Charlie to come in and go over the case on him.

Zajent: you need to expend more on what your stating above. I don't get it.

[Zajnet]

MOI is winning some serious scum points for voting shenanigans.

VOTE: MagnaofIllusion

How so?

@Locke: Just an fyi every game I ever played with you I think you are scum. Post 119 actually gives me pause on you a bit in a good way.

.Thus my vote on zajnet is going to sit there until I have a firm suspicion I want to apply pressure to.

And yet I question you about your lack of vote on Sotty and suddenly you find a voice and vote charlie for (1) reason's that are false and (2) weak reason for his vote.

unvote:
vote: MOI

[farside22]

coping and pasting my points on someone doesn't really win in my view.

[Zajnet]

I'm copy pasting your point to clarify that we're talking about the exact same thing.

[Incognito]

Vote Count #4 of Day 1

Sotty7 (2) <-~ Porochaz, Charlie
Charlie (3) <-~ ChannelDelibird, MagnaofIllusion, Sotty7
MagnaofIllusion (5) <-~ imkingdavid, Jack, Zachrulez, Zajnet, farside22
Jack (1) <-~ Sando
Zajnet (1) <-~ Locke Lamora

12 living; 7 will do it.

Deadline:

Monday, August 16th at 12 A.M. EST

[Sotty7]

I'm copy pasting your point to clarify that we're talking about the exact same thing.

It's also not very compelling when you quote reasoning that not only wasn't yours, but that was posted after you had voted.

Looks like you are piggy backing on Farside after your wagon hop was called on.

[Zajnet]

I had posted my reasoning before the farside quote, it just didn't make sense to people that didn't have insight into my brain, so I elaborated at the top of this page, and then when people still didn't get that, I quoted where farside had the exact same reasoning as what I was trying to explain.

[Charlie]

Do I have my foot in my mouth now?

[farside22]

Do I have my foot in my mouth now?

There's 3 votes on you. What's your view on the case against you?

[Jack]

hmm Ithink I know who another scum is besides magna

[Charlie]

What isn't convincing about my defense? What don't you like in particular about it? What points needed elaboration in your mind?

Could you elaborate more on this particular point:

Pretty sure I haven't complained about the pressure on me. But I am surprised by the negative reaction some pressure on you considering the silly rolefishing claim you made that is now all but forgotten.

Regarding this:

If I really wanted to shift pressure I would have voted him. I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.

That is a 'what if...' scenario and I feel that lacks credibility. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it.

You've come in, slapped a vote on me for what seems like a general criticism of my defense without asking me any questions to clarify my position which is what your post seems to beg for. If you are going to vote me, I'd like to know why. You are being very vague with your accusations here. I don't like it.

^This is good counter-point/defence. That's how we keep the discussion going. I've decided to place my vote where my mouth is; I find that it generally produces results. Solid reasoning may or may not follow and go ahead and criticize me for that.

I take it from this post you find Jack’s points convincing. I myself don’t find them overwhelmingly powerful evidence that Sotty is acting scummy. Please elaborate on why you find Jack’s points (especially the third and fourth points) convincing.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I do not find them convincing. I'd like to think that Jack's actions in that post is like a fisherman throwing cheap bait on the ocean to get reactions from people; like a catalyst for discussion. I like that action. I'm not too fond of cheap bait. I voted based on my point in #101. As an added extra, I've decided to not hold back on votes this game (I'm trying a playstyle shift; trying to play more aggressive).

Someone else asked what the effect of said pressure would be. You never answered. Are you satisfied with Sando’s statements since this post?

Odd. I did answer in #48, but you don't seem to find it adequate or you missed it completely. Here it is:

Keeping my vote on Charlie, saying "this vote is to increase pressure" ensures that you add exactly no pressure.

This is true but when a wagon forms quickly and largely enough, then reactions are gained. These are analyzed to form conclusions.

Magna, instead of asking the question that you did, how about you offer some analysis on the subject matter itself? (Or a brief recap, if you already did)

He needs to get in here and answer my questions to him.

Your 'vote prod' has been received!

@Farside22: What, you just defended me with what i just said above in your #121. I'm not going to erase the above just because I took the time to type it out.

Responding to a question does not automatically make it a response.
Emphasis added. The bolded portion, as you originally noted, clearly states he is looking for a specific response to his ‘pressure’.
That’s clearly not in line with his original statement. He didn’t say ‘I believe Jack’s opinion is valid, and thus I’ve voting for Sando’. The answer he gave was a non-answer and I want to know what he was looking for from Sando.
Charlie’s vote is not well reasoned as follows –

His stated reason for voting Sotty is that he doesn’t feel Sotty’s responses to Jack are strong. Not that Sotty’s been scummy. He even says that he feels Jack has accepted the reasoning. As I stated in my questions to Charlie – I want to know why he feels Jack’s reasons are compelling.

I'd like to dismiss this off as you overthinking things. But I'll go along with it. My response is: I've just explained above that my reasoning was in my #101. If you are looking for solid reasons (I assume you're going to say my reasons are poor), I'll tell you what I said to Sotty7: that they may follow later. D1 is rife with accusations flying around.

Keeping in line with decision to be more aggressive, I'm going to place MagnaofIllsuion at L-1 now.
UNVOTE: Sotty7
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion
I have a divided opinion on him, but there are so many instances that I hesitated to place someone at L-1 for fear of a quickhammer by scum. I'm over that.
I ask that none of you hammer him without first stating intention to hammer.

[Sotty7]

What isn't convincing about my defense? What don't you like in particular about it? What points needed elaboration in your mind?

Could you elaborate more on this particular point:

Pretty sure I haven't complained about the pressure on me. But I am surprised by the negative reaction some pressure on you considering the silly rolefishing claim you made that is now all but forgotten.

Regarding this:

If I really wanted to shift pressure I would have voted him. I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.

That is a 'what if...' scenario and I feel that lacks credibility. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it.

For one I don't see how those two points relate, RE: complaining about the pressure on me and my view on Zach. Jack said this:

"what's the big deal with a little pressure" <-- Look at all of sotty's excuses for her vote and how it isn't a big deal, and then see how they apply 10x better to the people pressuring her. But scum take things personal like that.

And it made no sense because I wasn't complaining about how people were pressuring me, just noting how everyone was against the pressure on Jack.

As for the “what if” situation, umm... Sorry. But my word is all I have, there is nothing I can say here to change your mind.

Basically all I see here is very rubbish reasons for you to have placed your vote on my wagon. You come back and see no one is interested in me much anymore and move MOI to lynch -1? Yeah, very happy with my vote.

Keeping in line with decision to be more aggressive, I'm going to place MagnaofIllsuion at L-1 now.
UNVOTE: Sotty7
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion

I have a divided opinion on him,

but there are so many instances that I hesitated to place someone at L-1 for fear of a quickhammer by scum. I'm over that.
I ask that none of you hammer him without first stating intention to hammer.

Come on. The bold is distancing from your vote and the last sentence is shifting responsibility for the danger you just put MOI in.

I will not be hammering MOI.

[Sotty7]

Also

I'm gonna be V/LA from tomorrow till Wednesday (Zach too obviously)

[farside22]

I feel like charlie just missed out on some points to stall because he has no answer.
I also dislike his vote on MOI. Putting someone at L-1 with barely a case. Not really thinking he is scum. I sense more scum trying to get a claim at this point.

unvote:
vote: Charlie

[Incognito]

With all these V/LAs I'm doing a quick activity check mostly for my own reference:

- ChannelDelibird's V/LA has ended, so I will prod him tomorrow after the weekend is over if he doesn't post by then.
- Charlie is ok.
- farside22 is ok.
- imkingdavid's V/LA has ended, so I will prod him tomorrow after the weekend is over if he doesn't post by then.
- Jack is ok.
- Locke Lamora is ok.
- MagnaofIllusion is on V/LA until tomorrow.
- Porochaz is on LA until Tuesday.
- Sando will be prodded tomorrow if he doesn't post by then.
- Sotty7 will be V/LA tomorrow until Wednesday.
- Zachrulez will be V/LA tomorrow until Wednesday.
- Zajnet is ok.

[Charlie]

And it made no sense because I wasn't complaining about how people were pressuring me, just noting how everyone was against the pressure on Jack.

Everyone was against the pressure on Jack? I'm sorry but could you point this one out to me?

As for the “what if” situation, umm... Sorry. But my word is all I have, there is nothing I can say here to change your mind.

Try me, I'm easy to persuade.

Basically all I see here is very rubbish reasons for you to have placed your vote on my wagon. You come back and see no one is interested in me much anymore and move MOI to lynch -1? Yeah, very happy with my vote.

I accept responsibility for my actions.

Come on. The bold is distancing from your vote and the last sentence is shifting responsibility for the danger you just put MOI in.

I will be compiling a short case on MoI later. I'm just a little bit lazy at the moment.

I feel like charlie just missed out on some points to stall because he has no answer.
I also dislike his vote on MOI. Putting someone at L-1 with barely a case. Not really thinking he is scum. I sense more scum trying to get a claim at this point.

I'm "stalling" because I'm lazy. We have lots of time and an active playerlist (with some V/LAs, but that does not pose a problem).
I accept responsibility for putting him at L-1. I've been meaning to step up attacks in more games to try a different playstyle.

[ChannelDelibird]

Hey, sorry about the delay in catching up. Post tomorrow.

[Sando]

Farside, what has Charlie missed?

I agree about his L-1 on MOI, you don't do that no someone you're divided on just because you're scared of a quickhammer. It looks like Charlie is trying to show that he's not completely sold on the MOI lynch, but throws up his own strawman argument to justify why he'll put him at L-1. My point, wanting to overcome hesitation to put people at L-1 has absolutely nothing to do with the divided view on MOI, which is the real reason the vote should not have been placed.

[imkingdavid]

For the record, I am back (have been for a day or so) but I have been busy with church and then a (home-schooled) friend's graduation ceremony/party that ate up my time this weekend. I'll have a post tomorrow.

[Locke Lamora]

Hey Zajnet, how about some of those stronger stances I asked for? You seem to have failed to talk about anyone other than MOI since I asked that question. You haven't really said much about MOI either, other than to repeat what's already been said. Any analysis on any other players in the game?

Magna: yes, I agreed that Sotty bringing it up was scummy. Last time I checked, the rules of this game do not require you to post entirely original suspicions before you make a vote. I think the thrust of my attack was a little different because I've played with Sotty and Zach in the same game before, as well as playing in scum games for both of them, and I actually followed up on it more than you or Jack did. What I'd like to know is, as of post 109, what made you think I was just bandwagoning and not genuinely interested in whether Sotty is scum?

Charlie: what was the point of that L-1 vote if we have lots of time and your opinion is divided on him?

[ChannelDelibird]

Just read the thread from the start, and I'm, well, going to have to do it again. I must not have my mafia hat on today, I just looked at the words and they hit me over the head with a frying pan or something. I didn't take it in very well, particularly as it went on. I noted feeling odd about imkingdavid's 2/37, it seemed a little wishy-washy on Jack. Also didn't buy Charlie's explanation for announcing that his vote was a pressure vote, bandwagon voting is fine but it doesn't really stoke the fire enough if you're announcing the pressure. I didn't take in enough of the Magna situation to judge his lynch-1 vote, but at the moment I'm keeping my vote on Charlie. Rereading ASAP (got to catch up with my other ongoing game first though).

Replaced by Ythan. - Incog-mod

[Zajnet]

Hey Zajnet, how about some of those stronger stances I asked for? You seem to have failed to talk about anyone other than MOI since I asked that question. You haven't really said much about MOI either, other than to repeat what's already been said. Any analysis on any other players in the game?

I'm shit for analysis on D1. Charlie is acting scummy, but not enough so that I would feel confidant lynching him. I still feel MOI is the scummiest, for reasons I've already stated (they may be brief but so what?).

[MagnaofIllusion]

It's voting someone when a person ask you about your lack of vote I take issue with.

So once you asked why I hadn’t made a non-RVS vote what would be the ‘appropriate’ amount of time to take to make a serious vote? I’m not going to let you personally dictate when and how I place my votes. If you find that scummy more power to you.

MOI must have a firm scum read on Charlie, but I'm not seeing how that case is any stronger than any of the other cases.

So what is this other than fluff? Are you saying that I am scummy for voting for the read and case from my mind as opposed to just mimicing someone else?

I'm shit for analysis on D1. Charlie is acting scummy, but not enough so that I would feel confidant lynching him. I still feel MOI is the scummiest, for reasons I've already stated (they may be brief but so what?).

The reasons stated being that I didn’t move my RVS vote until I felt I saw scummy enough behaviour? That’s more scummy than vote-hopping to the strongest available wagon twice inside of 2 pages (which is what I see Charlie doing)?

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I do not find them convincing. I'd like to think that Jack's actions in that post is like a fisherman throwing cheap bait on the ocean to get reactions from people; like a catalyst for discussion. I like that action. I'm not too fond of cheap bait. I voted based on my point in #101. As an added extra, I've decided to not hold back on votes this game (I'm trying a playstyle shift; trying to play more aggressive).

I’m not quite sure I’m following your logic here.

1. You find Jack’s tactics to be something akin to weak reaction fishing.
2. You like catalyzing discussion but aren’t ‘fond’ of Jack’s tactics.
3. You voted for Sotty to based on tactics that aren’t convincing purely to increase discussion.

If this summary is correct I don’t see a Pro-Town reason for you to have chosen to vote Sotty over Jack. You didn't feel his reasons were credible but felt Sotty's defense was less so? This combined with your wishy-washy jump onto my wagon looks more like Scum looking for a popular wagon as opposed to Town looking to ‘stir’ discussion.

I will be compiling a short case on MoI later. I'm just a little bit lazy at the moment.

I’m looking forward to this.

Magna: yes, I agreed that Sotty bringing it up was scummy. Last time I checked, the rules of this game do not require you to post entirely original suspicions before you make a vote. I think the thrust of my attack was a little different because I've played with Sotty and Zach in the same game before, as well as playing in scum games for both of them, and I actually followed up on it more than you or Jack did. What I'd like to know is, as of post 109, what made you think I was just bandwagoning and not genuinely interested in whether Sotty is scum?

Read your posts before 109. ISO 1 is a very weak reason to transition your vote on Sotty from RVS to real. You agree with her meta assessment but paint it as scummy for being ‘almost apologetic’. In ISO 2 you furthermore say that Sotty’s statements ‘feels off’ regarding Zach. Reading those give me the feel of someone attempting to vote opportunistically. It looked like bandwagoning to me at the point I wrote 109.

[imkingdavid]

First of all, UNVOTE: Magna. That was a random vote which has now become a wagon (at L-1, now L-2 if I'm not mistaken), and I am unsure that such a quick lynch would be helpful at this point.

Anyway... so I'm not liking Jack's overall play. I've never played with him before, and many of you seem to want to write it off as meta. However, from what I'm used to, those who do some of the things he is doing end up being scum.

(All quotes below are of Jack, unless labeled otherwise)

Don't rolefish.

Some decent advice, but first it's sort of ambiguous as to whom it was directed. Secondly, he wants to never revisit this issue again (see further down), despite never having given any explanation about it, even after being asked by multiple people to do so.

fos:magna
fos:locke lamora

Shows suspicion in two people but does not say why. Keeping his options open.

There was rolefishing. But I'd appreciate it if it that subject was dropped--we seem to have escaped without too much being revealed and I'd like to stay that way. That means you sando ok?

unvote, vote:Locke Lamora

Makes an early accusation, but never explains it despite being asked about it; wishes that it doesn't get brought up again, wanting to "escape without too much being revealed". Personally, I think that revealing the basis of an accusation is an important part in accusing someone of something.

Follows his prior fos with a vote, but still does not elaborate on why.

unvote, vote:Magna

Uses up an entire post on a vote without any explanation or... anything, really.

zajnet is posting elsewhere.

magno is very scummy, don't think it needs to be explained.

Opts against explaining his vote (if you have a reason for your vote, share it with the class; otherwise, remove it)

hmm Ithink I know who another scum is besides magna

Fails to elaborate on his opinions; seems to be posting just to have a post in there somewhere, without adding anything to the table.

I guess what I find the most scummy about him at this point is his lack of explaining his actions. He likes to jump into action, but doesn't share his reasoning for his actions with anyone else. I feel that anyone that does not contribute is not working for the best interest of the town, making them anti-town, which needs a vote.

Secondly, he likes to jump votes. So far, we're on page six, and he has voted (not counting rvs)...4 times. I won't accuse him of jumping wagons, as he was only second on the MoI wagon that sprung up shortly after him, but he does seem to be afraid to hold his vote in any one place for too long.

So without further ado...
VOTE: Jack