Workdawg
Workdawg POST#164 wrote:Did you conveniently miss my post (ISO#8), where I explained my reasoning for voting for you? It was right after I voted (though Nacho managed to ninja in between) If clearly gives my reason; which was NOT time. Certainly my anxiousness/excitableness played a part in jumping the gun there... and that's why I needed an EBWOP to explain the vote... but I didn't just see you at L-1 and pull the trigger for no reason at all.
I in fact did read your ISO #8, but the thing is, I also read your other posts. Let’s see what the earlier you said about whether time was a factor.
ISO#7 wrote:After reading, and rereading everything posted about Ty up until now, I'm finding him to be pretty suspicious too.
Mute and his table still rub me the wrong way, but in the interest moving things along I'm throwing down the hammer.
VOTE: Ty
This is by far the most important post of the game, hands down. In fact, I would like everybody reading this to please analyze it and post your conclusions from it, considering very little has been done with it.
The reason this is so unimportant because this is the post that gives a true glimpse into the mind of Workdawg. ISO #8 is an afterthought posted 10 minutes later after you looked at your vote and said “oh crap, I should probably actually post something that would make my hammer even semi-plausible.” ISO #7, however, is a giddy over-eager scum trying to hammer and putting up a poor excuse in order to do so.
In particular, note the bolded sentence. Workdawg specifically says he feels that Mute is scummy (or at least suspicious of the idea) at the time of that post but continues the sentence by saying that he would rather just quick-hammer instead of actively scumhunting someone he found suspicious. If you truly weren’t using time as a reason Workdawg, it’s curious that you would use it as the basis for switching your vote to hammer me.
ISO#9 wrote:As far as throwing down the hammer... I guess I'm a little bit anxious since it's my first game. As you can tell, I'm pretty active online and the idea of waiting 2 weeks to learn any concrete information as craziness to me.
If I set myself up as a target for Day2, then I guess we'll see what happens.
ISO#15 wrote:Well, like I said, I got anxious to get things rolling. I'm online all day at work and the idea of waiting 2 weeks for the first day to be over sounds insane to me.
I felt like there was ample evidence against Ty to make a lynch happen. Clearly some people disagree with that. Like I said before, I don't regret voting for him, that's why my vote is still on him. It's unfortunate that I miscounted the votes, but it is what it is. An innocent mistake.
Even if ISO #8 was to be given any credence, it would instantly be taken away with both ISO #9 and ISO #15. In these two posts, both after the last minute thought post of ISO #8 to cover your tracks, you again reiterate the fact that time played an important role in your decision to lynch me. It’s almost humorous you say I’m being selective of which ISO posts I show when THREE of the posts next to ISO #8 directly contradict what you just said. On a side note, ISO #8 doesn’t prove time wasn’t a reason. You didn’t mention time in it however you didn’t specifically say time wasn’t a reason either. You ambiguously left it out. Fortunately, THREE posts paint a clearer picture of the reasoning you provided for my lynch.
Finally, I believe the most telling part of Workdawg’s response regarding time is the argument he decided to reply with. He decided to say he never mentioned time at all, instead of arguing how mentioning time isn’t inherently scummy. Mentioning time isn’t necessarily a scum-tell, as it is important to ensure a lynch happens before the end of the day. But flat out refusing to admit he used it reeks of a scum who is trying to distance himself from a supposed scum-tell.
POST#164 wrote:Again, no mention at all of IOS#8, my actual reason for voting. Feel free to look that up.
Feel free to look at the multiple posts besides ISO #8 that you wrote, which I feel provide a much better representation of your thought process at the time. Unfortunately, your reasoning (or lack thereof) spills into numerous posts other than a single one you’re trying to hedge your bets on.
POST#164 wrote: My vote in post #47, and EBWOP #49: You post a lot of information without a lot of substance all the while trying to draw suspicion onto Stels and Nacho (the other two experienced players).
POST#49 wrote:EBWOP: I suppose hopping on the bandwagon with the hammer looks scummy. My reasoning is that both his posts have been long on words, but short on anything helpful. There's a lot of junk in there and it seems to me like he's trying to avoid being a lurker, but also avoid suspicion by
diverting to Nacho and Stels, the two other experienced players... is he trying to get them lynched so he can take advantage of all of us poor newbies?!?!?
Throwing out a theoretical question =/= reason for quick-hammer. And no, adding more question marks and exclamation marks does not make your theoretical question any more solid or reasonable. As far as supposedly claiming the is the holy grail post of reasons for voting me, I don’t find this question being blurted out to have the validity and resoluteness required for the quick hammer vote.
It seems to me this would be the ideal situation for any SE or IC that ends up scum in a newbie game. Target the other experienced players and get them out of the way before the newbs know what hit them. I mean, geez. If you managed to get either one of them mislynched, then you NK the other one, you'd be the only experienced player in a game full of newbs and it'd be 5-2 town to scum. Sounds like the best case scenario for scum.
Or maybe the ideal situation for any SE or IC that ends up town in a newbie game is to target experienced players and clear them of scum before the newbies realize they’re being led by sheep. Oh hey, I can play WIFOM too!
Now that I think about it, the whole "lurk by way of posting useless information" seems like it would be pretty convenient considering your "faster than you can say I-didn’t-realize-lurking-is-anti-town-play." lurker lynching policy.
Challenge: Instead of throwing out generalities like candy, give concrete examples to support that I have been “posting useless information.” My paragraphs fall under providing advice and finding scum, and frankly I don’t find either to be useless.
I've already said that I don't regret voting for you. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.
Sure, I think I will. It’s incredibly anti-town play and with an attitude like that I would be afraid to have you on my townie team, nevermind being the scum.
I felt that you were the most likely person to be scum at the time and I'm still a little suspicious of you.
Once again you, go from be willing to quick-hammer me to being “a little suspicious” of me now. You were willing to kill me on the second day we started even playing this game, yet after you realized I wasn’t lynched you started shifting towards focusing on Mute once more. The fact you aren’t even willing to say I’m more than “a little” bit scummy now should speak for itself.
Is it a bad choice to end day one after only two days, maybe so... but if you are scum, then we'd all be pretty happy about that.
And if I was town? Then you would have squandered the town’s opportunity to discuss and analyze to lynch one of the most vocal scumhunters in the game. Once again, an anti-town mindset.
I wasn't the only person who thought you were scummy enough to deserve a vote, so can you really lay all the blame on me?
Awesome, deflection of blame! As I and others have reiterated countless times, a townie should be voting because they truly believe that someone is scum, regardless of how it makes them look. A scum would be concerned that they were sticking out too much and would want to blend in with the crowd. A deflection of blame is a last-ditch effort to try and throw off any deviance by noting that others were in on it too. By doing so, the shared guilt would help obscure you with the rest of the town, WHICH IS WHAT THE SCUM, NOT TOWN, ARE TRYING TO DO.
It's interesting that you "guarantee" a truly innocent townie would not be joking around about this. I guess we'll see what your guarantee is worth when I flip town.
You decide to prominently place this WIFOM statement in your defense? This reeks of a scum making a last-ditch effort to stir feelings of doubt in a potential lynch, something that is consistent with the rest of your post.
I hardly call what I've done "gratuitous wagon-hopping." I admit that I hopped on your wagon, sure... but that's only because I thought we had a chance to lynch us a scum. The others had brought up some good points that made me look closer at your posts. When I did, I found that you were at the top of my list of potential scum; with Mute. Are you saying it's a bad move to hop on a wagon to lynch someone; even if you feel they are scum?
Two days into the game? Yes, yes I do. Note, you weren’t just hopping onto a wagon as you so eloquently put it, you were delivering the hammer. This is a serious no-no, and as has been mentioned earlier it’s a serious newbie tell. Based on your posting, I believe it’s newbie-scum tell.
As for saying you still look "a bit" scummy. Yes, I said that; yes, I do still feel you look "a bit" scummy. Since then, you've contributed more to the game than before... but that could easily be because you almost got lynched and you decided you better step it up. You actually addressed nacho's posts (which you hadn't before) and posted something that was relevant to this game... which was my main reason for voting you.
I’ve actually posted less than I did before the vote (due to an insanely busy schedule), but thanks for your vote of confidence.
Challenge: Show where I don’t answer Nacho’s questions. After going over the Ty/Nacho confrontation I clearly respond to everything Nacho says, he tends to be the more insecure one that answers questions with questions.
As for Mute's wagon, if you want to call it that, I was the first person to cast a vote against him, and I raised issues with him the get-go. At first, it was simply an FoS on him because of the table and his "guilty until proven innocent" play-style. After that, it's been his complete inability to respond to my questions and comments.
The table is such a big null-tell my brain wants to explode from people still discussing it. After reading the Mute/Workdawg confrontation I’d say it looks like your ignoring the answers Mute is providing and are really going after him with very little. It’s not helping your case.
In conclusion, provide me with a real defense instead of some deflections and WIFOM statements. You’re scum, and I’d like you to provide me with the name of your partner. Thanks.
MUTE
Also YES SWEET MERCIFUL ABOVE. It's odd that the one IC is having issues with being V/LA and that Ty, to what I gather from the definition, is active lurking. Stels too is a bit quiet. Naben was a <censored> joke, so that's all there is to that now that he's been replaced.
Either your definition is wrong, or you’ve been skimming over my posts. I’ve gone head to head with Nachomamma and now Workdawg while scumhunting, and I’ve determined with a fair amount of confidence that Workdawg is scum.
I’m sorry I’m not messing around with a table that serves no purpose, bickering with Workdawg, or posting such insightful analysis as “Stels: recently has caught my attention.”
POST#179 wrote:Dawg: He's been the main suspect this cycle in the game. Just look through my posts.
I like having things explained to me. Instead of putting the burden on the reader, provide a well detailed post with specific posts that demonstrate why you believe Workdawg is the scum (please don’t demonstrate with a table of any kind).
VERIDIS
Hello Veridis. Welcome to the game, your free ride is now over. Who is you top suspect(s) and why? Failure to post will have negative consequences, that spot hasn’t posted all game and I’d like to get a read on you.
)
Both Mute, Ty, Stels, and I seem to make walls pretty regularly.
