Newbie 1052 - Endgame

Drench · Post Post #225 (ISO) » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:52 pm

The Fifth Vote Count - Ten Page Anniversarytheplague42
Neuky
Mute - 1 - Workdawg
Workdawg - 4 - Neuky, Mute, Ty, theplague42
asano234
veridis
Stels
Ty - 1 - veridis,
Nachomamma8

No Lynch

Not Voting - 3 - Nachomamma8, asano234, 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).

Mute · Post Post #226 (ISO) » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:31 pm

First off, I'd like to note this took up 5 pages in my notebook to write down all this stuff. "Oh noes, that's a lot!" Not entirely... my notebook's smaller than a typical composition book, dimension-wise. So the pages aren't as big as a normal notebook. But my hands are tired.

Workdawg wrote:Zomg hi.

I am a full on newbie... never played a game before, but I did plenty of reading while waiting for my account to be activated.

Hooray!

First and foremost, let us keep this fact in mind: Dawg has read up about mafia. In ISO #2 he states that this includes reading up on several normal games. These are points to keep in mind as I go on.

Ensue the wall.

Spoiler: Case against Workdawg

I am exhausted. It took me a little over 2 and a half hours to just type this, not including the breaks, and not including the hour and 40 minutes it took to organize into my notebook. I also did something to address to nacho and his questions posed to me but as it stands I am too tired to deal with them and will when I wake up if the game has not progressed to N1. *yawn*

If you have read that entire wall I say "wow you be crazy;" also thank you for that as well if you did. Tried to be as concise as possible.

Workdawg · Post Post #227 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:43 am

Mute wrote: If we end up lynching him and he flips scum, I'm beginning to change my mind and to think that Mute could be his partner. The sheer amount of time that they are putting in to constantly attack one another is mindboggling. That, combined with the immediate back-down after veridis pointed it out, could indicate bussing/distancing.

I don't intend to back off of Mute, I simply meant that I would try to cut back on the petty jabs.

Mute · Post Post #228 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:49 am

I never said that Dawg, so why is my name up there in "Mute wrote:" ?

Workdawg · Post Post #229 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:58 am

Oh crap... sorry... that was TP42.

Neuky · Post Post #230 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:01 am

@ Mute - guess I'm crazy, but I read it. Took my entire lunch hour though, so I have to be quick here. As someone who has had his vote on Dawg all the time, I agree with your points. Indeed, you brought a few new ones to my attention, which not only re-inforces my view that Dawg should be the lynch for today, it reinforces my view that you shouldn't be the day 1 lynch, as to me there was some good scum-hunting in that post.

What Mute really highlighted for me was how some of Dawg's statements actually sound like admissions of guilt. Regarding your ISO of his post 39 - you missed this:

"I have to admit, it certainly seems like you've got a strong case against me. You've obviously got quite a bit of experience hunting scum and analyzing posts. At this point, I'm not sure what I can even say to you that will convince you I'm town. "

OK - later,

Mute · Post Post #231 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:11 am

I mentioned I'd respond to the questions Nacho directed towards me in his latest post.
The questions I gathered that were directed towards me:
-why wasn't I backing off from tunneling?
-why is dawg only 79 and not 100?
-if something i do is scummy why do it?
-Do i really suspect both scum are attacking me?
-do I agree with post 147?

In order are my responses:
>I tunnel when I see reasonable cause. I firmly believe dawg is scum.
>There is no guarantees for anything until a flip.
>Why should I let that stop to me from hunting scum?
>It's as likely as anything.
>For reference there is nothing to post 147. can you clarify what exactly this is supposed to say?

Workdawg · Post Post #232 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:44 am

Prepare for counter-wall.

First of all, you seem pretty hung up on the act of proposing a WIFOM scenario being a solid scum tell. (Interestingly, you do this in post #25) I admit that my grasp on WIFOM scenarios is a little bit shaky, but I don't see how they make up 100% scum tells just by proposing them. From my understanding the act of WIFOM is certainly misleading but the trick to it is that you don't really know when someone is making a play that is WIFOM. A WIFOM play is one in which one player will do the opposite of what they might normally do because they assume their opponents will assume they would do that. It's just a loop of circular logic.

Accepting the proposition that it is the best interest of the town to always tell the truth and be straight forward, then the act of making a WIFOM play is scummy, yes. However, I don't see how simply proposing a WIFOM scenario is scummy in and of itself. It's been said numerous times by the experienced players around here that putting all your thoughts on the table is better than sitting by idle and saying "I KNEW IT!" when it occurs. If my thoughts include a potential scenario where someone makes a WIFOM play, then I put it out there.

All that aside, here are my thoughts on your case against me.

Mute wrote: ISO #3: He uses a WIFOM argument to justify a vote placed on me.

I used the argument that YOU proposed the WIFOM as part of my justification to vote for you. Is it more scummy to point out a potential WIFOM scenario and hide behind it because you're the one who brought it up, or to agree to the possibility that the one who brought it up in the first place is scum. Also, it was not my only reason for voting for you.

Mute wrote: ISO #4: States that he is worried about how he will be perceived by the town. Only scum would make that statement/assessment.

You're really going to call that a scum tell instead of a newbie tell in my FOURTH post?

Mute wrote: ISO #7: the infamous "FailHammer." No I am not putting the (TM) thing there; that is a silly thing. I've addressed this earlier as a newb-scum slip, which is exactly what it is. He claims me to be suspect but insists on placing a vote on Ty to advance to N1. This is something only scum will want to do.
ISO #8: I read this post as "Yeah guys I messed up but look at this other guy!!" Scum diversion.

Or I was simply providing my reason for voting since I failed to do that the first time.

Mute wrote: ISO #9: Makes the assumption he'll live to D2, and uses an excuse of "anxiety" to justify his failed hammer. Still not buying that excuse.

Consider we all thought it was already twilight, I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that I'd make it through the night. Especially considering the only scum left at the point would have more likely NKd someone who had done more significant scum hunting than I had.

Mute wrote: ISO #14: ... Also calls everyone BUT STELS into question.
...
He also paints a portrait of Nacho/Ty scum-team, and spreads a layer of WIFOM within that argument to do so. I found this scummy to accuse two players of scum via a WIFOM argument.
...

Not exactly, Angry, Neuky, and TP42 got generally null thoughts as well... so that's half the people with null/town, naben being AWOL and the 3 people with more thoughts on them.

More WIFOM talk... see above. I don't see where I actually accused Nacho of being scum. Did i say "ZOMG NACHO AND TY ARE SCUM!" ? No. I had a thought and I threw it out there for people to think about. If that result in people shooting holes in it with a minigun, then that's fine. This again goes back to posting my thoughts instead of keeping them to myself. Not a scum tell.

Mute wrote: ISO #15: Now he brushes off his miss-hammer as "an innocent mistake." He undermines the arguments about his vote against Ty by dismissing it as a non-serious point. It is not and him just sweeping a mistake he made away like that I find scummy.

I've always said the failhammer was an innocent mistake. I don't see how I'm undermining my own arguments either. Is saying that other people disagree with them undermining them? Clearly not everyone is going to agree with everyone all the time.

Mute wrote: ISO #16: Now we get to the single most comical attempt at pushing the pro-town thing into our faces. I'll quote it.
Workdawg wrote:Also, am I supposed to analyze myself? I thought that was everyone else's job. I guess if you want that, here it is.

Workdawg Silly newb making a ton of mistakes, but he is more town than the mayor of townsvilleland..
This is his
self analysis
. That he put such a concern as trying to tell everyone he is town with this is laughable. This along with the miss-hammer are serious flags for being scum.
Then within this post he jokingly brushes aside a notion of a team of him/Stels, and uses a WIFOM argument therein, and redirects suspicion to Nacho. Really trying to spread around the suspicion to push for mislynches, eh scum?

You're right, that is a terrible self analysis, because it was 100% a joke. I don't see anyone else doing a self analysis, so I didn't feel it necessary to do one on myself. I was simply displaying my contempt at the suggestion that I should have done so. If you are seriously calling that a scumtell, then I think you need to get your sarcasm meter calibrated.

You can see my thoughts on WIFOM above.

Also, I don't really see where I am attempting to divert suspicious to Nacho in this post.

Mute wrote:
ISO #17: In this post he brushes aside my calling him out for trying incredibly hard to appear as town within my points of 2 and 3. The rest of this post, as well as ISO's 18 and 19, I made the mistake. (See I own up to my mistakes (eventually...))

I don't even know what you mean by this. Like I said, your points 2 and 3 are attacking a joke that I made. If you don't believe that is a joke, then I don't even know what to tell you.

Mute wrote: ISO #20: States that my answers were never "comfortable" enough for him. Look back up at ISO #14. This is a contradiction. Scum-move. What changed between ISO 14 where you were satisfied with my responses, and ISO 20 where they were no longer good enough for you?

Answering decently <> answering well. If you had answered them well, I would not have stayed suspicious of you this entire game and I would be "comfortable" with you. This is not a contradiction, this is simply you attempting to twist my words to make me look like scum.

Mute wrote: ISO #21: In this post he mis-correctly defines bussing. If you'll note in ISO 13, he states to plague that he had mixed up the glossary pages and acronyms pages within the wiki. Do I believe he would make the same mistake twice? No, I do not. This is simply an error in continuity, and frankly I felt this to be a mix of a scum-tell, and a null-tell. I cannot pinpoint where exactly it lies for me but I mention it as an in-depth analysis was requested of me. Interpret this however you wish.

I did incorrectly define buss, but it was based on what the glossary says. In ISO#13, I did mix up the glossary and the acronyms page, but I have not made that mistake since. There IS an entry for bussing in the glossary, and I did read it. If you take the time to do the same, you will notice that my wording is accurate with what the wiki page says about bussing. No where in the wiki does it indicating that bussing includes actually lynching the scum partner. It says plenty about attempting to get that player lynched, but not about actually laying down the hammer on them. I had not seeing any cases where one scum bussed another by actually following through with a lynch.

There is no continuity error here, simply you again looking for anything you can find to pile on to my case.

Mute wrote:
ISO #24: states "evidence has only been mounting and mounting against me," but neglects to provide any evidence of this (see ISO 23). Scum spreading a weak case and pushing for a mislynch is my read on this post.
Also, asks for the third time (I never saw a second time before this ISO post.) for his rating on my table. Seriously scummy for wanting to know something that, by everyone, has been argued as useless fluff, a null-tell, and/or unimportant and not worth discussing any more. Useful later. (Okay I lied about the comment becoming a trend within this post. Sorry. )

In most of my posts after the failhammer incident (TM) had settled down I raised a couple points against you. Sorry I haven't had 4 hours of my time to nitpick every word you've posted. As of late, I've had to spend all my free time digging my way out from under you and Ty.

As for wanting to know my rating, I addressed this before when Nacho asked me about it. This just sounds to me like you are avoiding talking about it now. Why were you so afraid to post it if it's a null tell? I thought information was good for the town. How could posting my number possibly be bad? Even if my intent was to use it against you, if you were truly town you should have happily post it up and then torn apart my argument against it.

Mute wrote: ISO #25:
Here in this ISO, he states I haven't defended my table well enough. Once again, this is in conflict with ISO 14. Seriously, how many times can one get caught in a lie? Next up (and this is how I have it written in my notebook), he states that his questioning of my table is him scum-hunting, yet in the same sentence says that he disagrees with me about the table bogging down on real scum-hunting... So focusing on the table is scum-hunting? Hypocrisy here, scum.
Also in this ISO states that I have been feeding the town lies regarding the table when questioned about it... Once again this is in contradiction to ISO 14, and also worth pointing out is he is the most vocal against it. So, he's using his disagreement with the table to try and mislead everyone into thinking that I'm scum and using his disagreement with it as his case... Is this the case he meant in ISO 23? That he doesn't like nor agree with my table so therefore I am scum? I've never heard such a weak case.

See above for my response about how well you defended

the table

yourself.

What? If I am using your responses to the table as scum hunting, then OF COURSE I disagree that the table is bogging down scum hunting. That's not hypocrisy at all. Why the heck would I say that my own scumhunting is worthless?

I did not ever use the word "lies" in that post. Ignoring the questions or simply quoting your own inadequate answers are things you have done though.

I've said numerous times that I am more concerned about your responses than the table. It initially put my suspiciouns on you, but your inadequate response to my questions is what has made me thing you are scum for the rest of the game. I guess you can simply ignore that as well.

Mute wrote:
ISO #27: Here he contradicts his previous post by saying he is over the table and attacks the table again and pushes it again as his sole-evidence against me. He keeps pushing a weak argument against me to get me lynched, and this I see as scummy.

Mute wrote: ISO #30: More arguments against the table... you really like beating that dead horse eh Mr. Scum?

Fine, I'm not over the table completely, I'm just sick of having to bring it up over and over because you can't defend it. Does that make you happy? The only reason I brought up those arguments again is because TP42 said pretty much what I had been saying all along.

And #30 is simply in response to TP42 to clarify what I said before, there is no new argument there. Way to try and add fluff to your case.

Mute wrote: ISO #32:

Now then, where do we start? Oh yeah.
Workdawg wrote:Wow... nice post Stels. Woot!
The second instance of buddying. Now you may be asking yourselves "Wait a second Mute, why is this a case of buddying?"
Well boys and girls, please read that post by Stels which prompted that response from Dawg. Now, look at how Stels rated everyone. Of everyone, Only Dawg received a straight-town vibe from Stels. His exact words on his impression?
Stels wrote:Appears scummy, but I get a newb-townish vibe from him.
Now, the rest of Stels reads? Either a null, or a town/null read... Except for me, whom Stels calls scummy, and proceeds to vote for me.
Now this is why I feel they are buddying up. Dawg is given a "scum but newb-town" read by Stels, I am given a "scummy" read. Dawg and I have been going back and forth, and here Stels comes along and joins in with Dawg and votes for me. If nothing else this is the greatest example of their buddying this game, and does so as a stand-alone post. Used in unison with ISO 14, the second case of a Dawg/Stels scum-team seems much more likely.

So simply complimenting him for putting together a good analysis of everyone is considered buddying up to him? People got all over Neuky for isolating the wagon against Ty, there's probably a 4-way buddy-fest going on over there. Maybe you're just mad that he pegged you as scum as well?

As for his read on me, Nacho pegged me as a misguided newb-town as well. Maybe they are on to something and Ty is simply on my case because I'm the easy target now. (Proposed WIFOM, not actual WIFOM play, FYI)

About the scumteam. So your argument (at least in the above) for the scum team is because he agreed with me? If you notice, he was V/LA for 2 days, he came back and read the post, then built his own case against you.

Mute wrote: ---
Still within this ISO (see I told you I enjoyed this post), gives yet
another
justification for the failed-hammer, and presents a case against Ty and Nacho.
Now, two things. One- why are you still trying to justify what you did? It happened, and any townie would move on from it. You really want to not make yourself seem scum by trying to justify things you said in the past. This backfired to me.

Second,
didn't Stels just say you seemed scummy?
Why are you not addressing this and simply accepting the "newb-town" vibe? Any townie would argue why they are perceived as scum and want a person's justification of it. You do no such thing and simply congratulate Stels then go on your merry way.

I guess you missed the quote in this post where Stels SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME ABOUT THE HAMMER.

Mute wrote: Also you mention looking in the wiki for the definition of ISO. Couldn't do that for the definition of bussing?

Addressed this above as well.

Mute wrote: ISO #33: In this post he says he is satisfied by the response Ty gives him, and returns his "focus" towards me. Yes those two posts of mine before then lacked much real content, I had things going on in real life. Bad excuse, but your case against me is a bad excuse for a case as well.

Again, I'm simply answering a question posed by someone else. They asked me if I still felt Ty was as scummy as I felt before.

Maybe you should get at least some context to the posts before you attack them.

Note that I didn't actually bring up anything about those two posts where you say you were busy.

Mute wrote: ISO #34: OH GOD THE WALLS THEY KEEP GETTING COMING CLOSER! (Yes, I read this entire post. I said I only read them if I'm looking for stuff. Sorry Ty, but I do skip walls if they don't specifically address me unless I need to read them. I digress.)

IMO, this is terrible play as it only compounds the problem of tunneling. If you aren't reading information you find relevant, then how do you even know I'm the most scummy player in here? For all you know, someone else has already claimed scum and just didn't tell you.

Mute wrote: This ISO he presents a post against Ty... wait didn't you just say you were fine with him and were focusing more on me? Anyways, he posts a post targeting Ty. He uses the "I wasn't the only one to vote for you, so look at these other guys!" scum-tactic to defend himself. Diverting attention away from you and shifting the blame to the wagon as a whole I see as only something a scum would do. Specifically, he mentions mine, Stels, and Nacho's votes on Ty.

Okay, check that... you REALLY need to get context on these posts. This was a response to Ty's wall post against me. Those are all simply replies to his post. I'm defending myself by attempting to point out flaws in his case.

Wait, why are you even reading this? It's a wall that isn't addressed to you.

Mute wrote:Also here in ISO 34 he states that he was always against my table and my stance on how I am viewing this game, which is hypocritical to ISO 14; and my inability to respond to questions, which is a lie. The only thing about this that holds any water is that he has repeatedly said he isn't satisfied with my answers.

That's not what I said at all. Your case is falling apart as we go here, maybe you should have taken a coffee break or something. THIS is what I said:

Workdawg in ISO 34 wrote: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.

Mute wrote: Now, why is he, in post 164, only referring to posts 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29 regarding questions about the table? What town-motivation is there for omitting so many posts just to prove a point; why use such a weak case to try and yet again make everyone think I am scum? There is none.
Workdawg wrote:I could continue this this, but I think my point is clear.
I'd like you to please go on as from my stance, your entire case against me is "I don't like your answers to my questions because I want to see you lynched and I don't like your table because I don't like it." This is a weak case in every sense of the word.
Everyone (if you're even reading this far, which I say kudos to you for), can't we just lynch this scum and be done with it already? =_=

I included those posts because they are the only ones in which anyone posts anything about the table or you up until I voted for you. The intent was to show that I did not jump on your wagon as Ty implied. And it proves that pretty well IMO.

I've raised valid arguments against you and the table. I would be more than happy to build myself a wall post to encapsulate my arguments against you, but like I said, I haven't had time yet with constantly needing to defend myself.

At the bolded, you better watch yourself there, getting anxious for a lynch looks pretty scummy. I know someone who's made that mistake before.

Mute wrote: ISO #36: Now, in this post he questions why Asano (the replacement for Angry Scientist) placed a vote onto me. Now, what I found worthy of note is Dawg stating this:
Workdawg wrote:Obviously I've been on his case for a while, but I have my case laid out all over the place. Your comment about just being sick of the argument doesn't do it for me, and saying that the table is swinging you from me to him doesn't either.

Erm... Where have you presented your "case" against me that
isn't
about the table and how you just don't like it? Also, if your case is "all over the place," why not present it in this post? Why haven't you presented it yet? What are you building your case out of that isn't the table and your lack of approval to the answers I've given to your various inquiries? Also, you say that him being sick of the table doesn't "do it" for you... Erm, weren't you done with the table back in ISO 26? Hypocritical post here.

Like I said, my case is laid out all over the place. When I have time, I'll try and build a wall for you.

As for being "sick of the table", yes... but not reason enough to put someone at L-1 and then leave.

Mute wrote: ISO #37: Here, he chastises Asano for a vote on me that was basically for no reason... wait a second, wasn't Dawg's vote in ISO #7 for no reason? Oh no wait you attempted to
hammer
Ty, just to advance the game, whereas Asano put me into L-1 to get a reaction from it. His vote is as much a town-placed vote as your vote then is a scum-placed one. He didn't intend to hammer, nor proceed to the next game-phase, he wanted information. I find you talking to him about placing a "pointless vote" to be a hypocritical argument and laugh at how disingenuous that was.

I wasn't chastising him at all, I was explaining the situation to him. If you read his post immediately after mine #188, you can see that he felt the same way about my post. You are just trying to twist my post and take it out of context to turn it into some kind of scum move.

Mute wrote: ISO #38: and now he starts to come undone. *cue the song by Korn of the same name*
Plague calls him out on his lecturing Ty. He parrots his past defenses and completely
lies
for the original reason for it.

I did not lie. My intentions behind the vote were genuine town. I wanted to lynch I played I felt was scum and in my haste to make the post I forgot to include my reasoning, which was EBWOP shortly after. Clearly you don't believe me, but that does not mean that I lied.

The truth will be revealed eventually.

Mute wrote: ISO #39: Here, he outright claims to be town... and yet he isn't in L-1 at the time of this post. There is NO town-motivation to claim ANY role when not in an L-1 motivation unless you are doing so to oust a scum member by claiming a PR. (PR = power role)
This is right after, in the same sentence that he claimed to be a townie:
Workdawg wrote:Any actions that you think are scum-tells are simply my ignorance at how this game is properly played.
Remember that opening post of his? He is not ignorant to the ways of this game. Even in his opening post, and throughout the rest of his posts, he's shown he's aware of the material in the wiki, and has observed the goings-on of the game itself. Flat-out saying he's read through games and played along on the sidelines, trying to see if his reads matched up with the players in the game. He is lying through his teeth with this to appear town.
And I'm not even done yet!

Is there some mysterious reason to NOT claim to be town? Does it seem disingenuous or something? Isn't everyone pretty much claiming to be town by NOT saying they are scum. I suppose if you play the game assuming everyone is scum, you don't see it that way though.

As for my experience and knowledge. I did read a few games, I did browse the wiki. I never said I was able to follow the logic of other players, and I never said I read every word on the wiki. I read a few articles here and there and read a few games here and there. I never read through an entire game. Usually one or two days at most.

Mute wrote:
This post is filled with more appeal than Bill Clinton
! He flatout appeals to emotion here:
Workdawg wrote:While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks,
but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.
I'd like to think that if I were newb-scum, I would have been more careful not to look too scummy, rather than to just jump in head first without concern for how it appears to everyone else. Didn't you say that it's typically the scum players who are concerned with how they appear? Though clearly I have much to learn about playing this game.
If that ain't appeal to emotion then I don't know what is. This is a sign he's finally caved under pressure. And immediately he uses a WIFOM argument to try and defend himself!

Still on the WIFOM boat I see. In any case, you seemed pretty concerned about my appealing to people emotions... so what? Just because it's something scum will do to try and save themselves doesn't mean that it's a 100% scum tell. You already said that you went down and your only defense was to let yourself get lynched. Maybe you should have tried appealing to emotion. Why would anyone about to be lynched NOT try to stay in the game? If there is some sort of secret town move in which going and getting themselves lynched, then that's fine... but that's not the case here.

Mute wrote: Next up is the part of his post underneath "About my reasons for voting against you."
This is made ENTIRELY OUT OF
Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Majority
:
"I was simply anxious to do something good for the team," "Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons," "I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a
newb town
see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board."

There he goes again claiming to be a newb town!
"It's my first game here, the two experienced players both make points against you which leads me to reread your posts and analyze them more carefully. I come to the conclusion that I also feel you are likely scum, and then I cast my vote. Maybe I was being "led by sheep", but they had made better arguments than you at that time."
I swear when I read those paragraphs I felt like I was seeing him groveling on his knees and begging everyone to accept he is town, which he is not.

So, you are saying that those things don't seem like reasonable plays for a newb-town?

You are stating with an absolute that I am not town. Better watch yourself there. I think there was someone else in here rallying for "Lynch all Liars" (besides you)

Mute wrote: "As far as concrete examples of your useless information. I don't really have any."
Aha! He, Dawg, has no examples against you, Ty, and yet suspected you on and off the ENTIRE GAME so far.

Way to leave out the actually relevant part of that paragraph. If that doesn't reek of twisting my words to fit your case, then I don't know what does.

Mute wrote:
Workdawg wrote:Even though you've posted less frequently than you did before, it seems clear that the content of your posts is much more relevant to this game. You've moved off of the advice giving and on to the scum hunting (I only wish I weren't your target).
My take on this? "I concede to you Ty and give you the recognition that you have beaten me" The instant a person accepts defeat that is crystal-clear they are scum and accept that they have been outed. The instant you give up you lose.

Just because that is your take on my statement does not make it the meaning behind my statement. My take on your statement about is "I am scum", clearly it must be true!

I stated exactly what he has done. He is scum hunting. Am I conceding defeat here? No. I would have just stopped posted, or hammered myself by now. Cause after all, if I were scum and about to go down, don't I want to prevent any more information from coming out of D1?

Mute wrote:
Workdawg wrote:I have been unsatisfied with Mute's responses to my questions (it took me 3 requests to get him to tell me my number, ffs), and
THAT is the reason that my vote has been on him from the very beginning.
I'll spend some time tomorrow analyzing that more carefully, again, if you like.
AND NOW WE FINALLY GET TO WHY HE VOTED FOR ME. His vote is centered ENTIRELY ON THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T GIVE HIM HIS ARBITRARY NUMBER WHEN HE WANTED IT. THIS IS SO WEAK I AM LAUGHING SO MUCH IT HURTS. Not only that, his
entire case
was built on his dissatisfaction with my table/the answers I've given him. I suspected it earlier on but THIS just confirms it. His entire case against me isn't because he thinks I'm scum, he just doesn't like those things. This is pure scum-pushing for a mislynch.

Your capitalized words up there are completely misguided and ridiclulous, they don't even make sense. You are claiming that my vote from the beginning of the game is because you didn't give me my number?

1) I didn't even ask for my number from you until after I was on your case.
2) Maybe you don't have a strong grasp of english, but my statement in parenthesis above is just and example of your lack or responses.

Mute wrote:
Workdawg wrote:It may only be two days into the game, but A LOT has occured.
And we're only here because you failed to hammer Ty early on and prevent the town to lynch you. We're only this far because we've had the opportunity to, something scum wouldn't want.
Workdawg wrote:I suppose for someone who's only posted all of 7 times it might not seem like much, but there are nearly 200 posts in this thread.
Quality > Quantity, anytime and every time.

I won't argue that... his posts have been full of information, but that's irrelevant to the point of my statement, and thus irrelevant for your case against me. My point was that he hasn't been here that much and how long this game has gone on is going to seem relative to how often you check this thread.

theplague42 · Post Post #233 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:45 am

Dammit guys, stop writing so much!

I have some modding to do in a mish-mash game, and then I'll see if I can muddle through without wasting the rest of my day.

Stels · Post Post #234 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:58 pm

asano234 wrote:The post from stels gave an interesting demonstration of where she is at

I love the existence of the gender being displayed on the left hand-side, under my avatar, you have one too. I am male FYI.
---------------------------

Nachomamma8 wrote:Why do you think that Mute-scum would try that hard to lynch a townie? Why don't you think that Mute would be more inclined to let the town lynch themselves?

I think my opinion about who is who has changed a bit, but I'll try to answer your question based on what I was thinking when I wrote what I wrote. Mute could be bussing Workdawg by tunneling only him (Now I know that I said that I got a newb-town vibe from him, but he was still acting scummy). Since Workdawg reeks of scum to Mute and other people, also getting cross-bussed, why wouldn't he want to get rid of his partner who is ruining the game for him, clearing his name as well as gaining townie points for lynching scum and trying to win the game. Bussing not an optimum choice, but hey, a gambit's a gambit.
---------------------------

Nachomamma8 wrote:Re: Stels #148: You have far too many null tells. Can you fix that up?

Sorry, my read-through is still not done, I was doing them purely off of ISO's, Where some ISO's are just missing the posts that they were referring to. My latest post with the reads and all was done through ISO which are generally missing the whole picture to what they were referring to, AKA I didn't read the game fully at that time.... Will post them shortly.
--------------------------
Page 10!!! WOOOOHOOO!!! I made it here, now I'm just stuck reading Mute's Case and further down that. I'll do that tomorrow, when it's not time for me to go to sleep.
--------------------------
@Workdawg: You're at L-1, since no one unvoted from the latest mod-count. Would you like to change your claim?

Workdawg wrote: I will straight up say it, I am a townie.

Workdawg · Post Post #235 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:31 pm

@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.

asano234 · Post Post #236 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:31 pm

@stels sorry i was looking at the avater and misunderstood that you are male.

It is pretty clear that most of you think that workdawg is scum as he is at L-1 and whilst i have some suspicions of him and mute i am not sure that i am convinced enough to chuck the hammer on him. I am very much undecided and feel that if i vote for him we could be lynching town. I will try and put some posts out there today on where i am at with all of you. I realise that i really have not contributed that much so i will try and do so today.

asano234 · Post Post #237 (ISO) » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:25 pm

I have read the wall and counter wall from Mute and Workdawg. I commend them both on their commitment and a seriously entertaining read.
You seem absolutely convinced about each others guilt. I am sorry workdawg but Mute has a very strong case against you and your counter arguments did not cut the mustard in my humble point of view. I am going to re-read the entire thread of this game and review my position.

veridis · Post Post #238 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:04 am

Nachomamma8 wrote:
Veridis wrote:I've been asked for my top suspects but will instead give my impression of the top 3 wagons from today, Ty, Mute and Workdawg.
Why exactly would you do this?

It let me discuss 2 of my top 3, let me talk about the table debate, gives me time to look closer at my number 2 without alerting them, and I didn't like Ty's little introductory threat to me so I wanted to purposefully not do as he asked.

Workdawg · Post Post #239 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:33 am

@asano

Are there parts of my counter-wall that you didn't like in particular that you would like me to address further?

Workdawg · Post Post #240 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:49 am

Since it seems imminent that I will be lynched, I'll try to put together a post with my thoughts on everyone again. Note that I'm pretty much skimming ISOs to jog my memory about each persons play throughout the game. I don't indend to build a wall against anyone at this point, just give an overview and some thoughts on their play.

My top two picks for scum right now:

Mute

I did spend a lot of time relooking at him, and my conclusion is that he's still scummy, but for other reasons. Allow me to explain:

In his RQS answers, he said the main thing he needed to work on was developing arguments. He also mentioned that in his last game, he got lynched and the only defense he was able to mount was to get lynched and let the truth come out. This seems to still be the case in this thread, IMO. I initially jumped on his case about the table and I feel like he simply failed to answer the questions I posed to him adequatly. When I look back at our argument, I'm not sure there was really much scumminess in his posting. When I consider that he already said he is bad at defending himself, I don't see that much reason to think he's scum. I tried pressuring him into making a mistake with my vote, and I got too caught up in it that I sort of lost track of where it was going.

HOWEVER, I still think he looks scummy for other reasons. This may sound petty or a desperate attempt to distract from my lynching, but here are my reasons.

He has said on multiple occasions that he simply does not read other people's wall posts unless he is directly addressed in them or he is looking for something specific. This comes across as extremely scummy to me. If we have all acknowledged that information is power to a town player, then why would you EVER ignore the posts with the most information in them?

The only reason I can see for anyone to skip reading parts of the thread is if that person is scum. Scum don't need information at all; they already have it all in their role PMs (who the other scum is). The scum's job is simply to build a case for a mislynch without drawing too much attention to themselves. They don't need to read every single word in this game to do this, they only need to find specific points within a post and pick them apart to build a case. This seems to be EXACTLY what Mute has acknowledged doing. IMO, this is probably the biggest scum-tell in the game so far.

In his case against me, he took quotes completely out of context, twisted things and straight up misread/interpretted things I said. He also made a huge deal out of minor things that aren't really scum tells at all. All these things seem like attempts to simply buffer his case against me. If he had a really strong case, he wouldn't need to buffer it in those ways.

Overall, I think he's come across as pretty scummy based on the things I mentioned above. His inability to put up a defense against my scumhunting (regardless of whether it was misguided or not) is something that I'm willing to chalk up to being newb considering he straight up admitted his deficiencies in those areas at the beginning of the game.

Ty

I think right now he looks a little scummy as well.

First of all, I still think that his actions at the beginning of the game were slightly scummy. He provided generic advice about scum hunting and stuff like that, and he focused on Nacho and Stels right off the bat. I will acknowledge that it makes sense for the experienced players to target each other right away, but he didn't seem to really defend himself as well.

Like I mentioned before, he seems to almost dodge Nacho's first question in post #35. His first sentence addresses it, but he quickly turns it around to an attack on Nacho. It isn't until after the failhammer incident(TM) that he really turns on the scumhunting, and who is his target? Me, the newb who nearly lynched him. Most of the players already got an extremely scummy vibe from that, so it seems like I would be a natural target for a mislynch right out of the gate.

The other thing I find suspicious about him is his activity. In one of his first couple posts, he says he's got a strict "Lynch all Lurkers" policy, but I'm inclined to call him a lurker almost. We are currently on day 11, and he's posted 8 times (note that the last one was simply to say that he saw Mute and I were currently browsing the forum and that he was hoping we would reply to him, so the count is really 7). That's very infrequently, nacho is the only person of the original players with even close to that low of a post count, and he was V/LA for 2 days (and he's got 12 posts; 2 for saying he's -V/LA)

I fully acknowledge that his posts are big and contain a lot of information, but so far, those posts are fairly suspect to me. Before the failhammer, they were light on content, but afterward, he started focusing on me. It seems to me as though he was attempting to lurk until he found a good target to build a case against, and once he found one, he started putting real posts together. Whether they are on a legit target or not is for everyone else to decide, I suppose.

I guess it's really one thing I find scummy about him, but the two things mentioned above are combined within it.

======

I guess those two kind of turned out to be a mini wall, but those will likely be the longest two... so yeah.

Workdawg · Post Post #241 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:22 am

This post will be about the two replacements.

veridis

Not much to go on so far, only 4 posts. I like his initial analysis of "the top three wagons" so far (and not just because he pegged me as newb instead of scum, lol). However, I don't like his excuse for posting the top three wagons instead of his top suspects (from ISO #3). He says the three wagons include 2 of his top 3. He says he doesn't want to tip off his number 2 (implying that his #1 and #3 or either myself, Mute or Ty and that #2 is someone else). My issue with this is that I don't really seem the harm in "tipping off" your suspects. As we've discussed before, information is power to town and it can only help town to tell us who he thinks is scum. If nothing else, maybe it applies a little bit of pressure to that person.

Only very slightly suspicious to me, his infrequent posting makes it harder to get a better read.

Null to me.

asano

He's posted quite a bit, but all I really get from him is a newb vibe. He's made some newb mistake, just like me, so I certainly can't hold that against him.

I don't really buy his reason for voting for Mute and I think it was a bad play to put an L-1 vote on someone with a reason up front. (Again, I did the same thing, but this is not about me). I'm still willing to chalk this up to a newb mistake, so whatever.

Newb-town vibe for me.

Workdawg · Post Post #242 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:15 am

The two experienced players I haven't yet addressed:

Nacho

He's really turned on the analysis engine since he got back from V/LA over the weekend, and I like it. He's bringing up A LOT of good points in a fairly simple to read format. Him and Ty are still going back and forth a little bit. I'm not totally sure who I side with when I simply look at the most recent volley in that case. It doesn't really seem like Nacho is going after him anymore, but simply defending himself. I guess we'll just have to see where that goes.

I'm still not 100% convinced by Nacho's unvote against Ty from way back. I agree with his arguments for doing it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I'm not totally sure what it is about them, but oh well.

Town vibe to me.

Stels

Has been doing some pretty good scum hunting throughout the game.

I noticed in ISO that he tends to get on whatever bandwagon is currently warming up (3rd vote onto both wagons), but then jumps off when the wagon reaches full speed. In both cases, he's provided adequate reasons for unvoting, but I expressed my feelings about unvoting above.

I also noticed that in the case of Mute's wagon. He builds a pretty solid cased for voting for Mute, for "for hypocrisy/nitpicking/buddying/trying too hard to lynch one idividual" and casts his vote. Then when asano puts Mute to L-1, he unvotes. The next day (ISO #13) he posts another mini-wall against Mute. In this very same post, he explains that he unvoted for Mute because he hadn't had a chance to read Mute's response to his case. This mini-wall is mostly his response to that, and it seems pretty negative to me, but he doesn't put his vote back on?

It seems a little bit suspicious to me that he seems to make more of a case for Mute, but doesn't put a vote back on him.

Mostly null with just the slightest hunt of scum, IMO.

Workdawg · Post Post #243 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:56 am

Let's see... I guess that leaves Neuky and TP42.

Neuky

I don't really have many thoughts on Neuky, he's posting with a fair amount of regularity and he's spreading his attention to most players. He's done ISO analysis on the wagon for Ty, Stels and Nacho. I find it interesting that he hasn't done an ISO on anyone who's really come under fire yet (Myself, Mute, Ty), but maybe he felt like he should focus on the people who are sliding under the radar. He himself has been sliding under the radar this far from what I can tell.

I guess I'd like to know his thoughts on everyone else as well. Not necessarily an ISO on every single player (though I think one of the 3 mentioned above might be nice), but just a post telling us where he's at.

Null tell so far.

TP42

He kinda reminds me of myself, and I'm not really sure why. We seemed to pick up on the same stuff at the beginning of the game I guess. He seems to be doing a pretty good job hunting and looking at all the players, which is a plus. Seems to have some good theories and analysis of people's posts. Hasn't done anything that is suspicious that I can think of.

Town vibe to me.

Neuky · Post Post #244 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:27 am

UNVOTE: Workdawg

He's put a lot of effort into these recent posts, and I sense a slight change in his posting style/attitude.
Call it gut feeling if you like.
Anyway, they deserve a bit of time to read and absorb, so i'm taking him off L-1 in the meantime.
I'm going to re-read this stuff, have a look at some of his points, then re-read Mute's case. Maybe we all should?

Neuky · Post Post #245 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:39 am

Re gut feeling - it goes something like this. Dawg's made a barrow-load of newb mistakes this game, and I mean loads - but if he is genuinely newb scum, I'm finding it hard to believe he'd behave and post the way he has under such pressure of an imminent hammer. I agree with most of his reads in these posts.

theplague42 · Post Post #246 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:18 am

Aaaggghhhh so many words! I seriously can't get much out of any of these walls. Workdawg's last string of posts is an exception, as its his general views on people with general reasons as a summary of all of his earlier walls. The earlier walls are just so detaily and overlap so much, quoting specific things from several pages ago. Waaay too confusing for me to understand everything clearly. I'm inclinded to agree with Neuky about Workdawg's posting. Even being at L-1, he continues to name his top suspects and give reads on everyone so as to be useful even if he was lynched. That is what town is supposed to do, I believe. Therefore,

Unvote

I'll hold off on voting back to Mute for now. I can't seem to really make up my mind about any specific person, and I don't want to pull another quick-change vote like earlier. With Workdawg's late-coming usefulness, I'm thinking Mute as a last-minute lynch if we run out of time. Almost two weeks to go, but there doesn't seem to be one specific ultra-scummy suspect, at least to me. Mute is still the most likely in my view, but that's probably just because two or three players haven't really been that active. On that note, I will be pre-emptive in saying that a no-lynch is a bad idea, just for anyone who may suggest it. I actually just thought of the possibility and how it may help, but then I realized that, with nine players currently alive, it would put us in an even-player game which is always much worse for the town, as LyLo comes one day earlier. That's the main reason I would lynch Mute if it comes down to the deadline.

To CINCLANTFLT (aka Mute):
This is an official announcement that Workdawg is now at L-2. End of transmission.

Neuky · Post Post #247 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:36 am

@tp42 - Nah - we'll definitely have to lynch, but we do have time. You've made Dawg L-3 (I'd already unvoted)

OK, I'd really like to hear from everyone else too.

Neuky · Post Post #248 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:37 am

Sorry for the double post - but what's with the Cinclanflint thing TP?

Mute · Post Post #249 (ISO) » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:47 am

Neuky wrote:Sorry for the double post - but what's with the Cinclanflint thing TP?

Yeah, what is this?

I'll post about what's occurred eventually. I want to hear from everyone else first.