Open 250 - Pie E7 Mark II

[Equinox]

@Equinox: If you've seen Umineko, you're the only one

<===

Also, no comments on NPAU?

[Vi]

@Equinox: If you've seen Umineko, you're the only one

<===

As I said...
The "red truth" part clicked when I read your post, so I brought it up.

Also, no comments on NPAU?

I have to admit this is the first time I've seen someone say that their own case has flaws and still continue with it. I don't know what to do with it.

Yet.

Yes. Else I'd unvote you asap.

What would you do then?

[VP Baltar]

I present Newbie 960 as evidence that my behavior towards CKD in this game matches my town meta. Yeah, "meta sucks," etc., etc. (Blatantly stolen from CKD.) In that game, I reread more than several pages to get reads on Day 1 because Sotty7 wasn't happy that I was fence-sitting. My conclusion was that NomDePlume was scum, and I'd built a pretty big case for that. NDP presented a one-post rebuttal, after which I felt my case was poorly founded and I dropped it. The fact that Sotty7 has missed this part AND THEN PRESENTED THE GAME AS EVIDENCE makes me wonder if she isn't simply pushing

Is this a fair interpretation of events in that game Sotty?

[VP Baltar]

@npau - I would like your thoughts on players who are not Equinox...namely everyone else. Also, if you're town, I would have thought you would have learned how bad tunnel mode is from the last game.

[sottyrulez]

Actually that did happen. But I was presenting that game to demonstrate that Equinox knows what happens when someone is at lynch-1. She epically fence sat though out Newbie 960 and I was on her a lot of the time for it. She hasn't really been fence sitting here. Unless you want to argue that her unvote and then taking forever to re-vote counts.

I'm arguing that she shouldn't have put CKD at lynch-1 if she didn't want the claim and/or lynch. Saying she didn't expect a claim isn't true.

I had actually forgotten how quickly she abandoned her case in that game until reading again here. I literally just did a search of Newbie 960 (my only one with her) to see if she commented on claiming and she did.

The stubborn player in me wants to say things are very different from this game to that, but I will probably re-read the Newbie 960 instance and see if it is similar. Expect more comments on that later

[sottyrulez]

In other news, we haven't read anything in detail since my posting this morning. Been busy mostly and now we are watching the Panic Bowl '10. So we're here, but don't expect anything meaningful for a little while. Only saw that question because Zach happened to check the game.

[VP Baltar]

I'm in the process of finding out. My vote is still on sottyrulez for that reason.

If you're simply unsure of where else to put your vote, then just say so. I don't really feel like you were trying to find out that much about sottyrulez as you were trying to prove that you were right. Your change of vote without them posting seems to confirm this theory. Why not call it what it is?

I'm warm to the Lynch-Claimed-VT idea as well, but why should I stop trying to scumhunt in case people don't agree with that proposition?

My point was that proposition wasn't pushed at all before the switch vote was made. It's one thing to say you believe something, it's another thing to back it up with votes.

SaintKerrigan's catchup post is bad, and not just because I got the short end of the opinion poll. The vote comes from nowhere and is placed on the person on the other side of who SK evidently thinks is most likely scum (Equinox based on pinging the scumdar and the quote of Let's Attack Vi Over Defending Equinox again)

Have to say I agree with this. I dont' understand that nopoint vote at all and some explanation would be nice.

OK. I think I'm caught up and I didn't even have to write a giant wall to do it. How neat of me.

[SaintKerrigan]

@Vi: ...seriously? Did you even read the part where I said "I'm taking a break from making this post?" In other words,

the catch-up post is not yet complete.

So yeah, "fluff," my ass. You're not finding any direction because I haven't provided the

conclusion

yet. Seriously, you're way overreacting, first with your horrible (and the why will be explained in the conclusion) vote for SR, and now with your OMGUSy vote on me.

My nopoint vote was intended to convey my displeasure at nopoint not doing stuff because he's waiting on me. Considering that I had/have not firmly stated who my suspects are yet (because, as I said before, I wasn't finished yet), this looks like opportunism from you to try and make another point against me.

Finally, I would've complained about the size of the walls of text regardless of alignment. Hell, I'm not the only person who's

been

complaining about the walls of text in this game. You trying to twist this into a scum point against me reflects poorly on you. (And by the way, quoting two examples where something happened, in a forum with thousands of games, does not prove that the same thing is happening here.)

You want me to name a suspect? Very well. You're at the top.

Unvote: nopointinactingup. Vote: Vi.

The nopoint vote has (or should have) served it's purpose. Normally I like to wait until my catchup is finished before I vote, but Vi's #174, in conjunction with what I've already read, simply screams scum to me.

[sottyrulez]

It's worth saying that the last person who used the "oops vanilla claim, must lynch" argument on me was a scum IC, link providable upon request.

Link please.

I think it's crap to say it actually makes us more likely scum... but still, it would explain a lot.

[Vi]

I'm in the process of finding out. My vote is still on sottyrulez for that reason.

If you're simply unsure of where else to put your vote, then just say so. I don't really feel like you were trying to find out that much about sottyrulez as you were trying to prove that you were right. Your change of vote without them posting seems to confirm this theory. Why not call it what it is?

While I thank you for your consideration, to everyone else (particularly Equinox at the time) that's an opening to say I was waffling.

SaintKerrigan's vote really doesn't surprise me at all. I stand by what I said, with the added note that taking patterns I've seen before and applying them to new situations is called "learning". That and I kind of expected more ideas about suspects than just the one person attacking you.

Cut by sottyrulez - iamausername-ICscum here. I completely forgot Sotty7 replaced into that game. (Then again, I'd like to forget ALL of my Newbie games.) Also, a very similar when-to-claim argument occurred in this game too ("I want you to claim" "Townie" "Ok" "Why didn't you hammer it's good to hammer, scum" "Oh") and both me and iaun detailed when and why someone should claim in the manner I've been preaching for the past six pages.

[sottyrulez]

I present Newbie 960 as evidence that my behavior towards CKD in this game matches my town meta.

Yeah, "meta sucks," etc., etc. (Blatantly stolen from CKD.) In that game, I reread more than several pages to get reads on Day 1 because Sotty7 wasn't happy that I was fence-sitting. My conclusion was that NomDePlume was scum, and I'd built a pretty big case for that. NDP presented a one-post rebuttal, after which I felt my case was poorly founded and I dropped it.

The fact that Sotty7 has missed this part AND THEN PRESENTED THE GAME AS EVIDENCE makes me wonder if she isn't simply pushing.

Keep in mind that this presentation of evidence has no bearing on my future behavior! I am citing the past, not the future.

Yay! Meta me! I've done this as town, so it's a town tell!

... No.

Also it doesn't apply as a meta point because in that situation you didn't place and then rescind a lynch -1 vote. That makes that situation drastically different to this one. It's anti-town results, and your possible motivations based on YOUR OWN assertion of what the likely consequences of putting someone at lynch -1 are in that very same game, are very much at the heart of the matter here.

[Vi]

Also still waiting on ckd to check in with actual content or confirm that he's not going to post anything enlightening for the rest of the Day.

[sottyrulez]

Also, we're going to

Unvote: Vote: CKD

You don't get to cause all this to happen, and then offer nothing more than minimal input. In this situation you're either scum, or you're town who has committed an extremely anti-town act, and right now, you need to be making a rather large argument toward why you shouldn't be lynched, including an extensive list of suspicions on who you think is likely scum.

[Equinox]

Yay! Meta me! I've done this as town, so it's a town tell!

Nope. Null tell. You've been using it as a scum tell, so I'm presenting that I've done it before to show that it's not necessarily a scum tell.

Sure, you can say the situation doesn't really apply because it wasn't an L-1, BUT it does apply when you claim my case wasn't genuine because I dropped my case

so quickly

. I do it often enough that it's a null tell for me.

I've also already presented my past and present views about L-1 claiming, which should explain the position I was holding at the time of my CKD L-1 vote. But if reading that causes too much cognitive dissonance for you...

Also still waiting on ckd to check in with actual content or confirm that he's not going to post anything enlightening for the rest of the Day.

To be fair, there's way too many walls. (And... uh, some of that is my fault.)

[sottyrulez]

Yay! Meta me! I've done this as town, so it's a town tell!

Nope. Null tell. You've been using it as a scum tell, so I'm presenting that I've done it before to show that it's not necessarily a scum tell.

Sure, you can say the situation doesn't really apply because it wasn't an L-1, BUT it does apply when you claim my case wasn't genuine because I dropped my case

so quickly

. I do it often enough that it's a null tell for me.

I've also already presented my past and present views about L-1 claiming, which should explain the position I was holding at the time of my CKD L-1 vote. But if reading that causes too much cognitive dissonance for you...

It IS enough that my other half is doubting the basis of the case on you now based on meta. (I personally still don't like the fact that you did it here in a situation where you put a vote on that actually turned out to be weak, because you unvoted easily, said vote resulted in lynch -1, caused a claim, and your unvote reduces the chances of that vanilla claim actually being lynched. (Which is detrimental to town to let him live if he's actually vanilla, and even taking another angle on it even links you to CKD.))

Also still waiting on ckd to check in with actual content or confirm that he's not going to post anything enlightening for the rest of the Day.

To be fair, there's way too many walls. (And... uh, some of that is my fault.)

I actually haven't even gotten through all the walls, I'm trying to keep responses short here to important points. I may have more as I continue to read through

[Equinox]

I personally still don't like the fact that you did it here in a situation where you put a vote on that actually

turned out to be weak

, because you unvoted easily,

This is incorrect. I had a case against CKD, and CKD's response trumped the case. It doesn't make the case weak. (I suppose this opinion comes from our disagreement on how to read CKD's posts following the claim, though.)

[sottyrulez]

If a single response can incline you to unvote, your reasoning for said vote is NOT strong.

[Equinox]

If a single response can incline you to unvote, your reasoning for said vote is NOT strong.

Why do you keep insisting it was a

single

response? CKD responded to me more than once (twice, actually, but still).

[sottyrulez]

If a single response can incline you to unvote, your reasoning for said vote is NOT strong.

Why do you keep insisting it was a

single

response? CKD responded to me more than once (twice, actually, but still).

Now we're just getting semantical. My point stands. (Regardless of a pair of responses or a single one.)

[Equinox]

Not really semantics. I'll respond to this allegation as well as make an overall defense of what I did regarding CKD for the last time, and then I'm not going to address this anymore. Tired of beating the dead horse to something that is beyond death.

I can understand thinking that my case was weak if I'd dropped it completely after post 83, but I didn't. Sure, I had second thoughts and said as much when responding to VP Baltar (mainly because of how CKD reacted), and I only mentioned unvoting because CKD did:

would someone at least unvote me, so we can get a little more information out of the day?

If CKD had chosen to not answer regarding his buddying to Vi, which was the crux of my suspicion against him, I would not have unvoted. CKD answered in post 88, and I felt with the frustration he was exhibiting in 83 and 88 that he was making a townish response to being put at L-1.

To be specific: If mafia get to L-1, they're more likely to be calm about it because the case against them is largely correct. If town get to L-1 and for reasons they feel are stupid, they're going to get mad. Can scum fake their anger? Of course. However, I felt that CKD was being genuine. (I still believe he's town, but I have reservations until he posts content again.)

tl;dr I don't take that as one response from CKD but two, but I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one.

[nopointinactingup]

Okay ... St.K made all these posts to incriminate Equinox then voted me. Cognitive Dissonance alert!

The nopoint vote has (or should have) served it's purpose.

Huh? You unvoted before I could say anything, so unless the purpose is to make yourself scummy ..

@nopoint - What is your past experience with ckd? Just the last game we had?

Yup. I only know Equi and St.K previous to the game.

I have to admit this is the first time I've seen someone say that their own case has flaws and still continue with it. I don't know what to do with it.

Yet.

"Has flaws" =/= "is flawed"

@npau - I would like your thoughts on players who are not Equinox...namely everyone else. Also, if you're town, I would have thought you would have learned how bad tunnel mode is from the last game.

I'm trying here bro and the Equinox colorful Wallotext irritation doesn't help . Btw, I've listed my general feelings at the start of my catch up post.

If a single response can incline you to unvote, your reasoning for said vote is NOT strong.

Word. How about some opinion on St.K's post?

To be specific: If mafia get to L-1,

they're more likely to be calm about it because the case against them is largely correct.

If town get to L-1 and for reasons they feel are stupid, they're going to get mad. Can scum fake their anger? Of course. However, I felt that CKD was being genuine. (I still believe he's town, but I have reservations until he posts content again.)

tl;dr I don't take that as one response from CKD but two, but I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one.

So scums under pressure is more calm than a town? I hereby sentence Equinox's opinion to eternal imprisonment

[VP Baltar]

@SK - how was the purpose of your vote achieved when nopoint hadn't even posted yet?

@sottyrulez- I'd like your comments on SK please.

[Vi]

npau.
There's something beyond that "Yet." you quoted. Please at least acknowledge it.

I don't think Equinox's point about scum necessarily being calmer at L-1 is necessarily correct in theory, seeing as how not everyone gets put to L-1 for (what are seen as) legitimate reasons and nobody likes getting lynched for craplogic.

@SK - how was the purpose of your vote achieved when nopoint hadn't even posted yet?

I can already tell what the answer to this is going to be

[SaintKerrigan]

@ nopoint, VP, Vi: The point of the nopoint vote was to make him aware of my displeasure with his action, not to show lynch intent. Since I'm pretty sure nopoint would take note of a vote for him and the reasoning being it, I felt that simply making the vote was enough to do what I wanted, and that I didn't need to keep it on him should a better vote present itself. I thought the fact that I

hadn't

talked about nopoint in a scummy way prior to that would be a clue that I wasn't trying to lynch him, but I guess the dress code around here is uberliteralface.

Some comments about my Vi remarks from someone other than the accused would be appreciated. I very much prefer being told my case is stupid to having it be ignored entirely.

On another note, I'm afraid the catchup post and other things will need to wait a bit due to a heavy school workload.

LA over the next two days, as they're my busiest schoolwise.

[jasonT1981]

Vote count 4 - Day 1 - The nearly everyones on 1 vote, vote count

Equinox 1 - nopointinactingup
Sottyrulez 1 - VP Baltar
nopointinactingup - Equinox
Saint K 1 - Vi
Vi 1 - Saint K
CKD 1 - Sotty