Newbie 1013(GAME OVER!|Scum win!)

[AClockworkMelon]

Civil: argues with ACM but also says ACM isn't scummy (iso #s 20 and 27; also #32);

Not thinking that so much anymore.

The more I go after Civil, the scummier he'll think I am guys.

[AClockworkMelon]

Actual work??? ...nice first post-RVS effort, MAD.

I found that pretty funny, too.

[AClockworkMelon]

Ok...first off, this whole thing about the FoS crap...is crap. Civil just stated his current thoughts/feelings and later just brushed them off. Other people have done that this game, the only difference is they didn't always attach the FoS tag on them.

I'd like to point out that my spat with Civil has exploded far beyond what I expected. I didn't expect him to make an issue at all over that tiny comment I initially made when listing my suspects. Holycon was included as tied for second with him and she didn't lose her mind. I'm not voting for Civil based on the FOS itself but because of his subsequent reaction when I mentioned it. So yes, the FOS crap is crap.

Ant, two of the three scenarios you thought of have me as scum but you're voting for Nameloc. This isn't an issue because you never talked about what you thought the probabilities of each scenario being the case were. But I'd like to know why you find Nameloc more suspicious than you do Civil or myself because he hasn't really stood out to me at all.

[Civil Scum]

Holycon was included as tied for second with him and she didn't lose her mind...

Yet she did last game, related to me.

I'm not voting for Civil based on the FOS itself...

Yes, so far, I seem to be the only other person that understands that.

If I think you are deliberately "being confused" or lying about "understanding" somehting, then that can be cause to suspect you.

The more I go after Civil, the scummier he'll think I am guys.

That's not unreasonable from a townies' perspective. Especially when, from their perspective, they think you were pushing weak points and that you've been unreasonable in considering your own arguments. That's when I remember you've played as scum much more on MS, and that you might not have much experience from a townies' perspective.

I could say the very same of you btw. That the reason I "stood out" more to you than Nameloc, is because I was the one arguing with you.

Why did you only have "crap" reasons for putting me at number 2/3?

[Civil Scum]

Considering that we still have no good-looking wagon (besides MAD & Holycon imo), and we are 3 days from deadline...this is a great level of activity.

[nameloc1986]

Seriously the Fos-thing, and the appearance of OMGUS behavior in a very vague, spacious, and unsure-footed game, are the most suspicious things here?

Even Nameloc agrees with me. He's got an FOS on you. :/

My scum reading on [Civil] though still feels more like a townie, who just hasn't explained himself well.

Even Nameloc doesn't agree with you :/

So what? Why should his approval or disapproval of my opinion have any bearing on my suspicions? I don't know his alignment so I'm going to ignore his opinion. What I'll listen to is evidence that he presents.

Hey, stop using me in your back and forth. People seem think I'm trying to be buddy-buddy with ACM, but rather I have my suspicions of him too. I have only ISO'd and analyzed 2 people so far. The reason I did those two people first were because atm they were people I found the "most" suspicious. Though honestly I'm less suspicious of Civil than I once was.

[nameloc1986]

My scum reading on [Civil] though still feels more like a townie, who just hasn't explained himself well.

Even Nameloc doesn't agree with you :/

Bud I'm not totally on your side either

I don't want to rule out the possibility that he is scum though. For now, I'll give him a strong FOS and a IGMEOY!

Well, not "yet" anyways...

Gee, you're trying a little hard here to get me off your back.

Wow, Nameloc...that is very...thorough. Now, where are the other 6?

I will get back to you on this, but after a quick scanning, I see that you have stuck pretty close to the fence.

It was very thorough. Having been replaced in, I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do. I haven't been here the whole time so I have to make sure I read everything. Am I supposed to forget everything that's gone on since I got here?

As for the other 6, again I'm not superman and I'm not made out of infinite time (though that would be really cool).

Nameloc: I'm not sure which I should comment on or which points I should/need to/want to reply to. Were there any specific things you wanted me to answer or explain?

Was there some other reason, for your apparent abandoning of the ISO approach, than the time it would take?

I'll work on the questions I have for you.

I did not abandoned the ISO approach, but yeah the main reason I haven't done more is pretty much time. Yours took a lot of time because you are one of the top posters.

The one last option I have come up with, is a Nameloc/Clock scum team. So far the two people Nameloc has ISO'd so far have been the two people Clock has voted for. I'm calling it as a very subtle way of agreeing with Clock and trying to have a wagon gain speed.

Believe it or not, that was mere coincidence.

nameloc1986: started off with an awkward way of saying that he was going to look at Doubtful's play (which consisted of 10 posts... how difficult can that iso be to study?). So far he has done two iso's, one of me and one of Civil. The iso of Civil wasted a bunch of time on restating Civil's posts, which I think could have been left out. I would have only posted the summary, which was reasonable.

1. I never said it was difficult to ISO Doubtful.
2. I only quoted a few posts, which I felt I needed to point (remember I wasn't the whole time).
3. You do have a point on keeping ISO's a little shorter. This being my second game, I'm still trying to learn how to do a good ISO.

[AClockworkMelon]

Why did you only have "crap" reasons for putting me at number 2/3?

Maybe this will help:

- This was my level of suspicion towards Ant. It was a moderate level of suspicion considering what I had to go with.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You and Holy
- Everyone else

The point was that you two had done something that I felt was enough to elevate you, barely,

barely

, above the others. From the beginning I thought my "case" (in quotes because it wasn't so much a case as a note) on you was as indicative of your alignment as Holycon's vagueness. I only even mentioned it at all because I didn't want to provide a single name when I'd been asked for more.

[AClockworkMelon]

I mean Jesus, my reasons for putting Holy at 2/3 were pretty crap, too.

[Ant_to_the_max]

Ok...first off, this whole thing about the FoS crap...is crap. Civil just stated his current thoughts/feelings and later just brushed them off. Other people have done that this game, the only difference is they didn't always attach the FoS tag on them.

I'd like to point out that my spat with Civil has exploded far beyond what I expected. I didn't expect him to make an issue at all over that tiny comment I initially made when listing my suspects. Holycon was included as tied for second with him and she didn't lose her mind. I'm not voting for Civil based on the FOS itself but because of his subsequent reaction when I mentioned it. So yes, the FOS crap is crap.

Ant, two of the three scenarios you thought of have me as scum but you're voting for Nameloc. This isn't an issue because you never talked about what you thought the probabilities of each scenario being the case were. But I'd like to know why you find Nameloc more suspicious than you do Civil or myself because he hasn't really stood out to me at all.

1st part: Yeah I totally understand that. Near the end it is all about the word games and .... and so on.

2nd part: I did something like that in my second game. I saw a possible scum pair, but voted for the person where if I was wrong, the person with experience is not dead >_>

all I have time for right now.

[nameloc1986]

Questions for Civil:

1. Why do believe we should lynch people for being a "threat" if you think they might be town?

2. In your ISO post #32 you said "But I was discussing Elli's point" when defending your FOS of Ant. What was Elli's point you were discussing and what did it have to do with Ant?

3. Your initial vote of me was because I apparently misunderstood you. Actually, YOU didn't explain yourself well and left us confused. If your vote on me was because of something else then YOU should have explained it. So what was your real reason for voting for me?

4. Is it normal for you in your meta to not explain all your actions?

[nameloc1986]

2nd part: I did something like that in my second game. I saw a possible scum pair, but voted for the person where if I was wrong, the person with experience is not dead >_>

But if you think the person with experience is scum, why keep him around? Why lynch a newbie scum who is more likely to make mistakes later, when you can lynch a veteran scum?

[nameloc1986]

ISO of Mike:

After 21 posts of Mike, it's hard to read him. Only about 5 of his posts actually constructive and the rest are fluff. This is kinda annoying because if he is scum, then it's going to be hard to detect and he can just skate by the game.

Mike: Can you please contribute more to the discussions and stop lurking?

MAD has made fewer posts than you, yet seems to contribute more than you.


MAD can you address my concerns in my ISO of you?

---> viewtopic.php?p=2562416#p2562416

[holycon]

Holy tolido batman I deffinatly need to read over all of this again

the argument was kinda dumb but i get was ACM was doing getting a reaction which ive seen him do before (hes done to me =( )

2. when he FOS'ed me it was over my vageness which is not something i can really argue except to ask that if you think i'm to vage then say hey holy that was to vage can you expand so i don't know what kind of reaction you were hoping for and why Civil you felt the need to point out that I didn't lose my head like last game when the arguments you guys were pointing out last game were not so weak as they are this game.


3. Mad: I do want to point out that it was Civils questions not ellis (now who isn't paying attention)

Also by the time i was asked about suspects at that point there wasn't much going on in the game and when asked to elaborate i did again you may not think my reasoning at the time was sounds and thats fine but its my reasoning and i can think someones scum for what ever reason i want i mean if i wanted to say that Civil is scum because of his monkey avi I can weather its a good argument to anyone else it doesn't matter what you think because in my mind i still think hes scum because of his monkey avi basically what I'm saying is you cant just change someones mind because you think there reasons suck that person is still going to think Civil is scum because of his monkey avi.

again is that really all anyone has aginst me is that every says i was defending elli and i say i wasnt really defending him as more of making a point which in post 25 says: i only pointed out that he was the same way last game not really a huge defending i specifically say i was mostly pointing something out.

[mikemike778]

ISO of Mike:

After 21 posts of Mike, it's hard to read him. Only about 5 of his posts actually constructive and the rest are fluff. This is kinda annoying because if he is scum, then it's going to be hard to detect and he can just skate by the game.

Mike: Can you please contribute more to the discussions and stop lurking?

MAD has made fewer posts than you, yet seems to contribute more than you.


MAD can you address my concerns in my ISO of you?

---> viewtopic.php?p=2562416#p2562416

Sure point acknowledged, unfortunately I've not really got into the game yet like I hoped I would and got lost a few pages back to be honest. Want to give it a chance before quitting so will have another go through the abbreviations guide thingie etc and go through the thread from the start again and see if I can get into it.

[mikemike778]

You can't just say this without backing up your answer. Generally, it's important to provide reasons for why you think the things you think. Otherwise it could be construed as you blindly trying to defend someone, which of course is a pretty scummy thing to do.

Like I said I kinda lost track a bit recently (shortly after the new guys popped up). Up until then there seemed to me to be only 2 players making a concerted effort to find the bad guys. These were CS and ACM.

ACM to me has always given the impression of trying too hard to hard to appear town to the point at which it appears contrived. This combined with the fact that as has been pointed out several times 'he always plays like that' negates any bonus points he may have for the above and puts him firmly in the "I haven't the foggiest clue" camp.

The other 5 players (me included to be fair) were either not contributing much of significance or just being weird (Eli).

Hence at the risk of appearing gullible, CS appeared to be the player doing the most for the town's cause.

[nameloc1986]

Deadline is about 3 days away..........I've feel like we haven't gotten anywhere....

@mod: Can we get a vote tally please?

@mike: Quotes can be your friend. When ZF asked you to back up your answer, it's because you make statements with zero references. What made you think (particular instances) that ACM is trying to hard to appear townie and Civil is the most pro-town.

[Ellibereth]

Uh hai.
I really should be more useful post PSAT...which is Thursday.
I'll try to not be a brainless much wednesday night because of the dl though.

Did something less than skimming...gut stills tells me zerofang isnstill the right lynch. By far.

[Civil Scum]

I think Holycon sounds completely different this game than last, so you'll have to use more than gut to convince me. Also, Parknourie's game ended, and I think the results are a little more interesting than what others are saying.

Will respond to Nameloc in a bit.

[nameloc1986]

No.

I find most of my posts fairly useful.

I don't. Just saying.

Uh hai.
I really should be more useful post PSAT...which is Thursday.
I'll try to not be a brainless much wednesday night because of the dl though.

Did something less than skimming...gut stills tells me zerofang isnstill the right lynch. By far.

Right now you are a big question mark to me. Are you suggesting a ZF lynch because of Park? Other than ZF, who is one of your suspects?

[Civil Scum]

Questions for Civil:

1. Why do believe we should lynch people for being a "threat" if you think they might be town?

Alsright so, this was mostly in a joking/RVS spirit. When a couple people commented about it, I said:

I agree with Ant, on the basis of almost 3 games. Add to this that his town-meta had Holycon mixed up last game, and I can see why. I think the actual debate, if there is to be one, is whether or not his benefit as town outweighs the risks.

I should have written "if there was to be one." I was saying that -if- that was something that was ever undertaken, the debate shouldn't be if he's the most dangerous as scum, it should be done by weighing his usefulness against the level of threat he poses. This would be next to impossible I think. Even though I was talking about this, if anyone had actually taken action and started a wagon based on the basic idea, I would have been against it. And honestly, it was all a little tongue-in-cheek.

2. In your ISO post #32 you said "But I was discussing Elli's point" when defending your FOS of Ant. What was Elli's point you were discussing and what did it have to do with Ant?

Elli's point was what he was having us guess, and what he was getting at about one of ACM's early posts. His point was about ACM acting like he was interested in talking about Doubtful, without making a very simple "investigation." So acting interested, but only as an act. It didn't have anything to do with Ant. But I didn't think it was a big mark against ACM at the time, so when someone asked why I talked about ACM the whole post and then FoS'ed Ant, I explained that the discussion preceeding the FoS wasn't about alignment.

3. Your initial vote of me was because I apparently misunderstood you. Actually, YOU didn't explain yourself well and left us confused. If your vote on me was because of something else then YOU should have explained it. So what was your real reason for voting for me?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't remember voting you over a misunderstanding. I can't remember too well now what all I was thinking. The main reason was that your first content post seemed to deviate from the direction you described prior to that, and that you stated that you intended to take.

4. Is it normal for you in your meta to not explain all your actions?

I don't think so. But I haven't had a whole lot of reasons for my actions this game. Like ACM said, he had me and Holy on his watch list for practically nothing.

I probably should have used "IGMEOY", though I didn't know what that was and had to google it after you used it.



SOME EXPLANATION_______________________________________________________________________
Decent questions, appear to be trying to figure things out, simple/believeable explanation for the ISO thing.
To Elli: "Right now you are a big question mark to me." <-- =town points
________________________________________________________________________________________

Does anyone else think that Holycon sounds way too...I don't know... wispy, smoky, indifferent...

[Civil Scum]

EBWOP: Quote attributed to "Civil" was Nameloc talking

[AClockworkMelon]

Does anyone else think that Holycon sounds way too...I don't know... wispy, smoky, indifferent...

...

vague

?

[Civil Scum]

Vague... I don't know, sort of. When she explains things it doesn't come out too clearly (though I know this is often the case with me). I'm no thesaurus, but she doesn't seem very "into" finding suspects and hasn't had many concerns to speak of.

She has been vague on her suspicions, obviously. She has taken an either/or stance on 2 or 3 different people, usually via an unsubstantial usage of meta. That seems to be the extent of her trying to figure out who is the scum thus far. Quite indifferent I thinks.

[AClockworkMelon]

Ya rly.