Newbie 1052 - Endgame

asano234 · Post Post #125 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:22 pm

theplague42 wrote:
asano234 wrote:Wow that took a while. Lots of information to try and get my head around. Dawg and Ty seem to head the list of suspects to you all at the moment on first read but i mainly skimmed as i am getting my son ready for school. Personally at the moment being a newbie i have no clue who could be town or skum among you. I will re-read and give some thoughts on where i am at later today.

asano234 wrote:lol shows how wrong and new i am, it is Mute and workdawg in currently the most spectulative topspots at the moment. I am leaning towards workdawg at the moment on the grounds that some of the posts he made implied that he could be mafia. I will read again his posts and may change my mind and wont set my vote yet but i will be looking......
Good to have you with us. Actually, you weren't too far off. Ty had the most suspicion earlier, but all four people unvoted him after the "accidental" pseudo-quickhammer. Also, you can use
FoS: playername
(stands for Finger of Suspicion) to point out anything particularly scummy, just underneath enough suspicion for a vote. If you either vote or FoS, please quote the specific post (or at least put the post number if the post is obscenely long) and give a reason for your suspicion.

thank you for the advice buddy as i am still learning the ropes. I appreciate it

Neuky · Post Post #126 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:48 pm

asano234 wrote: Thank you for the advice buddy as i am still learning the ropes. I appreciate it

Welcome Asnona234 - you are replaicing into a pretty neutral spot (in my eyes), which means I'd appreciate your views on the "nearly lynch" and anything else that you care to comment on of course.
Have fun - the atmosphere is pretty good compared with some games!

theplague42 · Post Post #127 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:33 pm

@asano234
Just for future reference, it's probably a bad idea to use the word "buddy" when applying to someone in a favorable way. Generally, scum team partners are referred to as scum

buddies

. "Buddy" itself also has scummy connotations to it, specifically certain scum tactics. You can search the wiki for more details on that. For those, you can say someone is "buddying" if they are trying to gain someone's favor for no apparent reason. It won't be used against you now, but I could see some overzealous scumhunters attacking that in later games. They wouldn't realize that you didn't know what using "buddy" implied. Sorry if I seem like I'm jumping on this, but I don't like people being scared away for frivolous reasons.

Workdawg · Post Post #128 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:26 pm

TP42 wrote:tl,dr: The table is fine, but I don't like how Mute claims he will be using it. Without regular explanations, it seems like it would be an excellent way to throw suspicion on someone without real reasons.

This is what I've been saying all along. I really don't have an issue with him using the table for his own purposes. It's if he posts the whole thing without any explanation that I have a problem with. He's said he wouldn't do this (after being asked about it, maybe that was his plan, maybe he's just saying that because of the negative reaction to it), but posting it AT ALL seems to be a complete waste of time.

Workdawg in #4 wrote:I have no problem using whatever means you want to keep track of how scummy you think someone is or who to vote for. You can flip a coin, draw straws or play darts to choose who to vote for. The fact that you posted the chart is suspicious to me. There's no reason to post the chart or reveal how you are choosing who to vote for. Your numbers are completely arbitrary and mean nothing without a logical argument to back them up. Even then, they don't really mean anything to anyone but you because the argument is the only part people should be paying attention to. It seems like throwing up the chart is just adding clutter and potentially misinformation to the thread.

My opinion since then has changed some, simply because he hasn't mounted any sort of defense other than "the table is neutral! scum are only trying to use it against me to make me look bad!"

[quote="Mute in #5]This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.[/quote]

So the number are going to fluctuate on a whim (I certainly hope you don't eat any taco bell that makes you sick before you update my score), and you won't rely on them alone to vote.

Mute in #16 wrote: If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

But you want us to?
This is exactly the issue I have with the table (see my quote above, I outlined that specifically). What's the point in throwing out the numbers? Either you expect us to either trust your numbers completely, or you have to explain your number. I just don't get why you wouldn't simply keep the numbers to yourself and just rely on arguments (the ones you would presumably make if someone asked you why you gave someone such a rating). Maybe posting just the number and hoping no one calls you out on it is your plan? Or it gives you extra time to come up with an argument for that score. The latter seems highly unlikely as it would leave you WIDE open to get caught in your game.

Mute in #23 wrote:If you truly wish to see where you fall onto my list so bad:
During my tunnel on you, I rated you a 90, and you were above everyone by a good margin.
Now? 79. Remember that I am not going to post it regularly, nor even give any warning as to when people go up or down it. The points are given by gut feeling, and corrected by evidence used in the game. My gut alone would give you an 84, just in case you're curious.

Am I aware of how scummy this is? Yes. I'm also aware of how this can potentially be used to either A) paint me to be scum by actions alone, or B) to give scum ammunition to push for me to be lynched.

I'm going to take you up on A from right above. Can you elaborate on how "your gut" gets me to 84? (was it that damned taco bell I mentioned above?) And what evidence do you have the drops me down to a 79. It sounds to me like your gut (no evidence) is telling you I'm pretty scummy, but the evidence says I'm town, so my number goes down?

Joking aside, I'm genuinely interested in what the evidence is that puts me to 79 on your charts.

Mute in #24 wrote: Quite frankly, I am tired of having it brought up. I have yet to say in my argument against you "you have a score of # on my table, so I feel you're scum," I've only used your posts this game. I held off giving you your score for that fact. It is not the basis of my argument, nor will it be, as I said when I first posted the table this game.
Specifically:
Mute wrote:If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember that A) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis of
your
own reads, and B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim.
I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such.
If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.
That I have seen fit to give you that number based on your play is why I am so set on you being scum.

So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.

Workdawg · Post Post #129 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:29 pm

Son of a ...

That 3rd quote up there is broken... my comment is in the middle... looks like I missed a quote. For that section of the post see below:

Workdawg wrote:
Mute in #5 wrote:This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.
So the number are going to fluctuate on a whim (I certainly hope you don't eat any taco bell that makes you sick before you update my score), and you won't rely on them alone to vote.

Mute in #16 wrote: If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

theplague42 · Post Post #130 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:33 pm

@Workdawg
It's a magical button called "preview"

I discovered it after my own horrendous editing this game!

Anyways, I will (again) second your question as to why Mute gave you the numbers he did, as I don't think you are scummy enough to deserve them.

@Mute
The whole reason for having a table is so that you

won't

fluctuate your views on a whim. The table is supposed to show the cumulative view of a person instead of piecemeal accusations on individual posts. If the numbers fluctuate on a whim, then the table is pretty much useless.

theplague42 · Post Post #131 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:38 pm

Workdawg wrote:So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.

Best argument I've seen against the table so far. The initial sentence is fuzzy, but the second half is great. Workdawg, it seems like your first sentence isn't really coinciding with the second part. I would say this is more an issue of writing your summary before your details, rather than inconsistency. Anyways, I would say that Mute's reasoning is more "you give me a huge number, which implies I'm scum, which means I deserve a high number." (I'm saying this from workdawg's POV) Mute's using circular logic to try to prove his point.

Workdawg · Post Post #132 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:53 pm

I previewed it a few times, but didn't catch the fail quote. I was looking to make sure no one jumped in since it took me quite a while to find all the quotes I was looking for. And I didn't expect it to work out I would accidentally merge two quotes... lol

Stels · Post Post #133 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:57 pm

@Drench: V/LA Until the Weekends come. I'm just in that much of a tight spot right now, the weekends will probably be my salvation for some freedom where I will commence building cases and looking through everyone here. Until then, I'll just try and read the game as much as I can in order to not read even more walls-o-text when I try to post.

@ThePlague: I stopped at your post on Page 5, Post # 120. Trying to find the PR's early? No. Don't do that at this point in the game. You can certainly try and appeal to them by stating that you want them investigated, if they are there, but that's about it. Even if they do have results, I think they would show those results in a manner that wouldn't reveal them to be a PR, unless of course cornered or if he can't show his reason why he wants them dead in any other way. It's still a bad idea to out the cop or any PR. You said that the RB becomes useless? Why? Is it because the cop isn't dead yet (assuming there is a doctor, but then again, there might not be)? RB blocks the known cop, cop can't investigate anyone, making him just a VT, that's not useless to scum IMO. Of course if we even have any PR's.

Sorry guys, that's all for today. I'll post soon. G'night.

Workdawg · Post Post #134 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:58 pm

theplague42 wrote:
Workdawg wrote:So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.
Best argument I've seen against the table so far. The initial sentence is fuzzy, but the second half is great.
Workdawg, it seems like your first sentence isn't really coinciding with the second part. I would say this is more an issue of writing your summary before your details, rather than inconsistency.
Anyways, I would say that Mute's reasoning is more "you give me a huge number, which implies I'm scum, which means I deserve a high number." (I'm saying this from workdawg's POV) Mute's using circular logic to try to prove his point.

It is a flaw in my writing style, but yeah.

The second sentence I was simply trying to explain how I feel it should work, rather than what the first sentence explains as how Mute made it sound like it works. I guess to say it better would be something like...

"So, I'm scum because you game me a number, isn't it supposed to work the other way around? Shouldn't you have to find enough evidence to justify the number getting high enough to call someone scum?"

Mute · Post Post #135 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:17 pm

Workdawg wrote:
theplague42 wrote:
Workdawg wrote:So, I'm scum because you gave me a number... isn't it supposed to work the other way around? You find enough evidence against someone that the number climbs high enough that you call them scum. I guess I'll have to wait and see what the evidence is.
Best argument I've seen against the table so far. The initial sentence is fuzzy, but the second half is great.
Workdawg, it seems like your first sentence isn't really coinciding with the second part. I would say this is more an issue of writing your summary before your details, rather than inconsistency.
Anyways, I would say that Mute's reasoning is more "you give me a huge number, which implies I'm scum, which means I deserve a high number." (I'm saying this from workdawg's POV) Mute's using circular logic to try to prove his point.

It is a flaw in my writing style, but yeah.

The second sentence I was simply trying to explain how I feel it should work, rather than what the first sentence explains as how Mute made it sound like it works. I guess to say it better would be something like...

"So, I'm scum because you game me a number, isn't it supposed to work the other way around? Shouldn't you have to find enough evidence to justify the number getting high enough to call someone scum?"

*sigh*

Mute wrote:
If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember that
A) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis of
your
own reads, and
B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect
and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.

Please read the bold, as that IS what the case is. I feel that from X's posts that they deserve a score of #. Because I feel from their posts that they deserve #, I'll look for cases to build against them.

And please, this is how it was

originally intended to be.

Hell, I even admit that it will not be perfect, and it will be flawed, hence why I said that and that it's an experiment for me.

I'll respond to this page's posts in my next post, but reading this just made me literally

.
Also, I'd like to hear more from

Stels

woops, V/LA; Nacho;

Naben

, which reminds me, even though it's not that 48 hour mark he's skirted this entire game so far without a post at all,

@Mod: Request a prob for Naben

; Ty; Neuky; and I'll let Angry's sub get a chance to read the thread thoroughly. It feels like the three of us (dawg, plague, and myself) have taken most of the steam currently.

asano234 · Post Post #136 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:26 pm

theplague42 wrote:@asano234
Just for future reference, it's probably a bad idea to use the word "buddy" when applying to someone in a favorable way. Generally, scum team partners are referred to as scum
buddies
. "Buddy" itself also has scummy connotations to it, specifically certain scum tactics. You can search the wiki for more details on that. For those, you can say someone is "buddying" if they are trying to gain someone's favor for no apparent reason. It won't be used against you now, but I could see some overzealous scumhunters attacking that in later games. They wouldn't realize that you didn't know what using "buddy" implied. Sorry if I seem like I'm jumping on this, but I don't like people being scared away for frivolous reasons.

Sorry, the use of the word buddy on this occasion was simply a friendly term and had no connection with roles in the game. I will though ensure when i thank someone in future that i am more careful how i word things as i appreciate that it can and would be considered as a weapon against me. Thanks again Friend.

asano234 · Post Post #137 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:50 pm

*sigh*

Mute wrote:
If you do not like where you fall on my grid, remember that
A) this is a grid I am using for MYSELF, and this does not and should not influence anyone; if you feel someone is scum vote for them on the basis of
your
own reads, and
B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions. I do not expect it to be perfect
and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.

So if i am reading this right you essentially make up the numbers. E.G I did not like what you posted so add 20 makes you 80 and therefore clearly skum target for lynch. Or that was a post i liked -20 and you are town. Unless i am mistaken i think you dont need a table for that kind of superficial analysis.

That said i am sure that this table is useful to you and maybe it has been sucessful in the past but it just feels too unscientific for my liking and a bit random to say the least. Out of curiousity i would be interested where i fall on the table being a newbie and therefore an unknown quantity.

asano234 · Post Post #138 (ISO) » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:03 pm

Welcome Asnona234 - you are replaicing into a pretty neutral spot (in my eyes), which means I'd appreciate your views on the "nearly lynch" and anything else that you care to comment on of course.
Have fun - the atmosphere is pretty good compared with some games![/quote]

Thanks for the welcome. The atmosphere is good in here. My work colleague joined Mafiaskum and recommended i try it and in his game, him and 2 other players have been at each others throats for going beyond 30 pages and the arguments have been consistent.

I have not really got a read on who could be skum or town yet and i am trying to get a feel for the players at the moment but if i have anything i will share.

Neuky · Post Post #139 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:54 am

@ Mute

Mute wrote:
@Mod: Request a prob for Naben
; Ty; Neuky; and I'll let Angry's sub get a chance to read the thread thoroughly. It feels like the three of us (dawg, plague, and myself) have taken most of the steam currently.

This is confusing me - why is my name there - are you seriously asking for me to be prodded after not posting for, um, 4 hours?

Also what does "taken most of the steam" mean? Serious question - I've never heard that before.

Workdawg · Post Post #140 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:02 am

@Neuky

I think what Mute means is that we (Mute, TP42 and I) have been doing most of the posting in here. Of course, he's just quoting himself a lot... <.<

Neuky · Post Post #141 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:56 am

Workdawg wrote:Of course, he's just quoting himself a lot... <.<

Ha ha! Exactly. It just comes over a bit pompous to me.
There are two serious points about that post though.
1. It could be planting a seed of thought in other players' minds that I'm to be associated with that lurky group.
2. He hasn't been paying attention to the thread... I posted 3 times last night (one substantive), and he thinks I need prodded?

Mute · Post Post #142 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:11 am

Actually Neuky, I only want a prob for Naben. Everyone else in that list is just a "what's on your mind?" thing.
Figured by only bolding the request and naben's name, and using semi-colons instead of commas, it'd not confuse anyone. =x

theplague42 · Post Post #143 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:06 pm

Ok in the first part of this post, I looked at Mute (my biggest suspect) ISO, so I may be backtracking a lot.

asano234 wrote:That said i am sure that this table is useful to you and maybe it has been sucessful in the past but it just feels too unscientific for my liking and a bit random to say the least. Out of curiousity i would be interested where i fall on the table being a newbie and therefore an unknown quantity.

Actually, according to Mute, this is his first time using it.

Mute wrote:
This is in all honesty an experiment on my part on using a number-based system to keep track of scum suspicions.
I do not expect it to be perfect and the amounts will fluctuate with my whim. I will not rely on it alone to lynch anyone I feel is scum, merely as a way to keep track and augment my arguments and such. If at all you'd like to see where you fall at any time, just ask.

As I'm looking back, the bolded part seems suspicious. He seems to be defending the table before any comments were made about it. Earlier in the same post:

Everyone starts out at 60, because it is a nice enough a number to prove my point in that
I have as much reason to think of everyone as scum as much as they are town.
This is to, for me, keep track of how everyone acts, and the scores are rather arbitrary.

Now look at his previous post:

I'm going to play with the mindset of "
scum with medium probability until highly suspected/proven town.
"

Bolded hypocrisy.

Mute wrote:
Angry Scientist wrote:
Mute:
About your table... Sure, it's nice to keep the track of everyone, but what's the reason of revealing that table to us? If you'll be posting the entire table regularly, you're pretty much giving your neutral and town reads all the time, and that helps scum pick their targets at night.
The point of the table was more to get a concrete view of my stance out there. To say "oh yeah, I'm gonna play as everyone is more likely scum than town and gameplay will prove innocence" is nice and all, but it can easily be twisted by scum to be used for whatever bussing/WIFOM reasons against me later on.

Mute seems to be very concerned about how the scum will specifically target him. If the scum were to actually consistently attack him for bad reasons, wouldn't they get lynched? As I've argued before, good scum will use logical arguments to get someone lynched. If the table gets attacked, then it's probably for good reason.

Mute wrote:>If I post just the person's standing on the table, without saying anything else, I feel I don't have to explain myself. If I am questioned why X is #, I'll respond, as will I do if I present a case to justify X's # on it.
Hopefully we can move past this concern about the table. It does nothing but bog down on scum-hunting.

Providing arbitrary numbers without justification bogs down scumhunting, too. Numbers only work if you add/subtract points based on every single post of a person, not just things that catch your eye.

Mute wrote:If he flips scum, I anticipate dying tonight.

More commenting on what scum will do to him. Also, he seemed very confident that Workdawg will be lynched.

End of Mute ISO.

Workdawg wrote:
@Neuky
I think what Mute means is that we (Mute, TP42 and I) have been doing most of the posting in here. Of course, he's just quoting himself a lot... <.<

Likes to hear himself talk, I guess. He should run for public office

Mute wrote:Actually Neuky, I only want a prob for Naben. Everyone else in that list is just a "what's on your mind?" thing.
Figured by only bolding the request and naben's name, and using semi-colons instead of commas, it'd not confuse anyone. =x

Nah, it definitely looks like you want prods on all three. Naben I can understand, but Ty's walls make up for his less frequent posting and Neuky's posting is perfectly fine. Also, why not request one for Nacho? He hasn't posted in two days (omg! two days! its horrifying!), which is longer than either Neuky or Ty.

@asano234
Don't be too careful about what you say, though. Only scum have to do that. Townies really shouldn't have to monitor what they say, but using loaded words can be considered an attempt at WIFOM.

Stels wrote: @ThePlague: I stopped at your post on Page 5, Post # 120. Trying to find the PR's early? No. Don't do that at this point in the game. You can certainly try and appeal to them by stating that you want them investigated, if they are there, but that's about it. Even if they do have results, I think they would show those results in a manner that wouldn't reveal them to be a PR, unless of course cornered or if he can't show his reason why he wants them dead in any other way. It's still a bad idea to out the cop or any PR. You said that the RB becomes useless? Why? Is it because the cop isn't dead yet (assuming there is a doctor, but then again, there might not be)? RB blocks the known cop, cop can't investigate anyone, making him just a VT, that's not useless to scum IMO. Of course if we even have any PR's.

Alright, I won't. I do agree that the cop would only out himself if he didn't think that he could get the scum lynched any other way. As to your logic, there's one flaw. If there's a cop and no doc, then there isn't an RB. Also, if there is cop/doc/RB, then it ties up the RB by forcing him to block the cop. It doesn't make the RB useless, but its a best-worst-case-scenario in that they have half the attempts to take out the doc (by either NK or RB). My argument is definitely flawed in that way, but I still think that using any means to get to a 4:1 ratio is worth it.

Nachomamma8 · Post Post #144 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:26 pm

V/LA for a day

Mute · Post Post #145 (ISO) » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:55 pm

@plague
I didn't ask for a prod (why did I say prob in the last post? >_>) for anyone but Naben. That the order of people after that is nitpicking. But since you do bring it up, the limit for prods/replacements is 3 days.

Nacho should be prodded as well if he gets too inactive.

PREVIEW'D he's going to be V/LA til tomorrow more than likely if I'm reading that right. But my focus is on Naben because he's flat-out done nothing this game.
Here, look at the timeline of the game so far

Sunday the 16th- thread made.
Monday the 17th- game is opened.
Wednesday the 19th- naben finally confirms.
Friday the 21st- still nothing.

A full five days. At this point I'd say screw the prod and just replace him. He confirmed on a wednesday, so he must've been online to do so. He couldn't pop in to just make a short post explaining why he isn't here?

I'd post regarding your post but I just had a rough night, and this was typed up before I left. I'll post something tomorrow.

Drench · Post Post #146 (ISO) » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:56 am

The Third Vote Count - bit similartheplague42 - 1 - Angry Scientist
Neuky
Mute - 2 - theplague42, Workdawg
Workdawg - 2 - Neuky, Mute
Angry Scientist
Naben
Stels
Ty
Nachomamma8

No Lynch

Not Voting - 4 - Naben, Ty, Nachomamma8, Stels

With nine alive, it's five to lynch!

Day One's deadline expires on the 8th of February at 11:07am AEDST (GMT+11).

Naben has been prodded, but it looks unlikely that he'll be picking it up. In the meantime, I'll search for a replacement. No other prods needed as far as I can see (yet).

Stels · Post Post #147 (ISO) » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:51 pm

All right, done reading, now ISO time. Prepare for something that might be a wall-o-text.

Stels · Post Post #148 (ISO) » Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:13 pm

The Ol' Wall-O-Text
Organised and buttoned for your viewing discretion.
I did say in my previous post that I was going to make cases, but now I see that I was wrong. More like character profiles...
Also, I spent a lot of time on this, so please appreciate what I did, no matter how useless you think parts of it are.
General mindset when I got to theplague42, especially at Workdawg was: "FML".

Spoiler: AngryScientist/Asano234

Spoiler: Drench

Spoiler: Mute

Mute

ISO #5, creates table.
One part I don't like about the table is that

Mute wrote:B) I feel your play is worthy of either a high or a low score.

I just don't like what he said here. So, instead of just scum-hunting and putting his findings into that table, he also lets our playing-style get in the way... I just don't like that. Or would you like to clear this misunderstanding?
ISO #7 addresses that there is a flaw in the table, says that he will fix that when someone thinks of something, so far, he has denied everything related to the table. Also just noticed that the table is pretty much useless after reading this post again. Why not just go about and use the good old

FoS

and

HoS

? Same thing, less work.
ISO #8 beginning is confusing for me.

Mute wrote:@Stels/Dawg: The scientist comment was made in jest towards Angry. That my using a table this game and that I've never used a numerical system to find scum before (here and off-site) is true.

I find this hard for me to comprehend. Why include my name into explaining something that I don't really care about from his first post (ISO #0)? True, he does rant on about how everyone is guilty until proven innocent which I ask him about relating to the table, but

Mute wrote:@Stels, Dawg, and Plague: I am aware of the gamblers fallacy. You're all right in that he has just as much a likelihood of being scum as anyone else. However, I'll take a gamble and bet a small margin of error on my part that he isn't scum this game. I do feel he has the chance to be, but I don't find it as likely.

He apparently likes to take chances... This can be seen as anti-town, but it's sort of a null-tell considering that it's not enough of a reason to appear scummy.
Same ISO:

Mute wrote:...Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did any of those three accuse stels of being scum?
And that last question.. I don't know what stance that could be taken from either.
FoS: Ty

He uses a FoS, yet he was so intent on using the table, which he still is. Why not just post the number then?
Also does so for Workdawg, and again, why not use the table instead.
ISO # 12. Not much to say about this post, but until this point, all he has been doing is calling my name. Nothing wrong with that, it just feels like you're trying to buddy up to me. You say you were replying to something that I asked, which you did, yet you referred to him in the same post and talking about how his hammer felt scummy, which it did, yet in post #12 he refers to me yet again in reply to Workdawg, making an excuse for something that no one asked him, etc...
ISO #14: Responds to Ty. Generally, he is downright opposes Ty, well in fact, yet he yet again, mentions me, and even defends me. Thanks for that, but again, buddying up.
ISO #18: Only thing I can find here is him contradicting himself:

Mute wrote:First bolded segment: Yes, that is what you're supposed to do, throw your ideas out to let people shoot holes in them. If your logic/reasoning is flawed it hurts town to both keep it secret, and to keep that flawed logic in the game.

with

Mute wrote:Fifth bolded part: Pure speculation on your part, which I find misleading to the town.

Yes, point 5 was proven to be said by TP42, yet at the time he posted, he thought it was Workdawg who said that, which he was referring to, thus contradicting himself when he tried to build a case against WD.
Nitpicks Workdawg's "talking in confirmation is stated in the rules/sample role pm's". Believe strongly that Workdawg is scum, yet doesn't present a solid case on him as well as the badhammer on Ty being his only real evidence which at the time he didn't think was enough to warrant a vote. AKA, he doesn't have enough evidence as it stood from ISO #22.
ISO #23: Proceeds to give Workdawg his imaginary numbers. Sorry if I offend you by saying that.
ISO # 26 & 24: He says that he won't use the table to see someone as scum, simply to augment his current standing (26) yet before that he says that because of his number from his table, he is intent on Workdawg being scum (24); the number from that table is basically the only thing that is keeping his vote on him.
BTW, you said prob two times, not one. Just an FYI.

Scummy.

Spoiler: Nachomamma8

Spoiler: Neuky

Spoiler: theplague42

Spoiler: Ty

Spoiler: Workdawg

Sorry guys, my resources for MS have been wasted for today. I noticed that my profiles became shorter as I moved down the list :O but just bear with it. It's hard to browse through everyone's ISO and posting something based on all of them.

VOTE: Mute for hypocrisy/nitpicking/buddying/trying too hard to lynch one idividual.

Workdawg · Post Post #149 (ISO) » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:39 pm

Wow... nice post Stels. Woot!

First of all, this made me lol:

Stels under the TP42 spoiler wrote:ISO #22: Makes a wall, containing something that looks like a case against Mute.

Second, in reply to your question quoted below...

Stels' Question wrote:In between this character profile thing, I have come up with a question that I don't think I have asked and feel like it should be asked now than later. What specifically in Ty that made you "Hammer" him? And do you still think that Ty deserves to be lynched? Or has your viewpoint on him changed?

At the time, I felt like Ty was just posting a ton of fluff into the thread and not really contributing much to the actual game. Certainly he was posting long messages, but they consisted of general theory and teaching type of stuff, rather than scumhunting. I realize that he is an SE, and someone else I believe pointed out that he IS supposed to try and teach us how to play the game, but I felt like a lot of it was just trying to distract us from the fact that he wasn't doing anything constructive except for tunneling on nacho. It seemed like an easy way to lurk in the thread without committing himself too much to the game, but still look like he was participating. And it seems like EVERYONE says lurking is bad for town.

I felt like Nacho had more than thoroughly defended himself and Ty had failed to reply to Nacho's counter arguments.

Between those two things (posting a lot, but saying very little relevant to THIS game, and tunneling on Nacho but not really defending himself), I felt like there was a high enough chance that Ty was scum.

This was compounded by the fact that I'm super impatient and spend a lot of time on the internet... and resulted in "the failhammer incident (TM)". (Yes, I'm totally coining that phrase and calling it that from now on)

=========================

This is something that's been rubbing me the wrong way for a while.

I hope my use of ISO is correct... I looked it up in the wiki and it says something like "to look at in isolation"... so I used the fancy menu at the bottom to only show one persons posts, and then used ISO #x to indicate which of their posts I'm talking about.

Nacho in ISO #7 wrote:@Workdawg: I unvoted because it was late and you guys are a bunch of crackmonkeys. And if you find this to be valid reasoning, then there's no reason to push the thought of me as scum (because chances are, I'm not). If you don't see that as a valid reason, then bring it up. Making connections this early is a bit of a futile excercise, though. Chances are, you'll be wrong and you might be taking away credibility from an otherwise valid case.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in my analysis of you... but my thoughts on the Unvote are like this...

You've stated that while you are IC, and you are more than happy to dispense "side neutral" advice, you'll still be playing 100% to your goal to win. If that's the case, then I'm a little bit confused about why you would unvote when we were so close to lynching someone that you felt was scum. You made a case against him, at least enough to vote yourself, but then decided at the last minute that you didn't want him lynched. If you are playing 100% then it seems to me that you'd want to push to get that last vote, rather than save him.

I can see a couple of arguments about why you might have done this, but you failed to state your reason for doing it, other than "we are crackmonkeys" and you didn't want the day to end just yet. I'm interested to hear exactly what your reason was and if it is one of the ones I have come up with. (Trying to gauge my newbieness)

Also, something just rubs me the wrong way about your statements.

Your "if that's a valid reason, then don't say I'm scum, otherwise bring it up" seems almost condescending to me. It's almost like you are threatening me that if I say you're scum, something is going to happen to me. It just rubs me the wrong way.

You give off a pretty town vibe to me, I'm just trying to understand where you were coming from on the unvote.