Open 282 - Carbon-14 (Game Over)

[Jackabomb]

IT HAS BEGUN!

vote: andrew94

Given all the information so far(nothing) and all the events thus far(none), I believe that, of the options available(few), this man is either a mafioso or a werewolf. Welcome to the game. I'm glad it started so fast. That is all I have to say at this point. Further communication at this specific juncture would lack purpose, and therefore, be illogical.

Mod: Thanks for starting the game so quick.

[Jackabomb]

I always post in blue where I'm allowed to.

Vote: Jack - I don't like his post.

[unbolded so as not to confuse the mod anymore than necessary]

What's not to like?

[Jackabomb]

Don't make me policy lynch you, drmyshottyizsik.

All right, instead of being a smartass, I'll explain.

Jackabomb has yet to react to Empking and Budja, so there's not much I can do in that arena. When I saw the post and the 2 votes, I agreed that Jackabomb went way overboard but did not comment because to do so wouldn't have added anything of value, and I did not vote because that would've been L-1. This is one of those games where I wouldn't put someone to L-1 carelessly.

Preview edit: I answered your point about Jackabomb above. Your point about drmyshottyizsik and Equinox occurred after my post, so those points are moot if you're responding to me.

How might I ask, did I go "way overboard"? [sarcasm]I voted. Big whoop. I said I thought he was scum. I welcomed everyone to the game, expressed gratitude for the fast start and made a Star Trek reference. Amazing, such insolence, right? I mean, I totally exploded there. Yeah, I really went way overboard. I'll try not to get so worked up.[/sarcasm]

[Jackabomb]

Sarcastic already, Jackabomb?

How might I ask, did I go "way overboard"?

Your last sentence was unnecessary and tacked on.

The last sentence was a joke.

[Jackabomb]

Should I happy or sad that my own wagon is town-driven?

Happy.

[Jackabomb]

[quote="drmyshottyizsik"]Ya Empking is my one true town read right now. Post 32 really stuck out to me. Jack seemed to over react and try to play us calling him scummy with sarcasm.[/quote

]Since when was I accused of being scummy? What, in your opinions was I reacting to?

[Jackabomb]

the first few post.
And you were reacting to us saying that post was over the top.

Oh. What was scummy about my post(s)?

[Jackabomb]

I will be be away for a few hours. I am now unvoting because:
a. I no longer believe strongly enough that andrew is scum to warrant a vote.
b. New information unavailable when I voted indicates more appropriate use of my vote.
c. I will need time later to process aforementioned information and believe that I will have a better vote at that time.

Unvote

[Jackabomb]

unvote

I no longer believe strongly enough that andrew is scum to warrant a vote.

Does this mean you ever did seriously consider him scum?

No problem with Equinox for me. Jack's over-verboseness gave me a gut twinge too, but it's looking like a playstyle thing.

@BlenBlen, do you dislike town reads in general or was there something more to you read?

Not seriously enough to push for his lynch, no. I had no evidence or solid reason, that is, nothing that would stand in a court of law. The vote was based on this fact alone: "For some unknowable reason, if I had been a King and had to execute/lynch immediately, I would have chosen him." As I said in my first post, there was no other information upon which to base a vote. That has definitely changed. Therefore, my vote must also change, since its lack of backup is no longer justified. "To whom, I know not yet."

Preview edit: I answered your point about Jackabomb above. Your point about drmyshottyizsik and Equinox occurred after my post, so those points are moot if you're responding to me.

Not so much. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is scum who has caught acting scummy and is now changing their ways in order to not get called out on it.

Seriously, "I though Jack was scummy all along. I just didn't mention it. LOL." (Not an exact quote.)

What scummy thing has

equinox done

that I have failed to notice?

[Jackabomb]

Preview edit: I answered your point about Jackabomb above. Your point about drmyshottyizsik and Equinox occurred after my post, so those points are moot if you're responding to me.

Not so much. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is scum who has caught acting scummy and is now changing their ways in order to not get called out on it.

Seriously, "I though Jack was scummy all along. I just didn't mention it. LOL." (Not an exact quote.)

What scummy thing has

equinox done

that I have failed to notice?

Why the underlining?

1. Equinox wasn't properly scumhunting.
2. She starts once she was called out on it.
3. "I though Jack was scummy all along. I just didn't mention it. LOL."

I underlined it so that people would understand that I was inquiring about Equinox as opposed to myself. Since I had made a similar query about my own scumminess, I felt there may be some confusion and took steps to dispel it.

^^That and Jack stop dwelling on the RVS it's scummy to try to analyze the RVS itself instead you should analyze what the RVS caused.

In your opinion what exactly did it cause that I should analyze? I would argue that if people acted scummy within the RVS, it is more than reasonable to look closely at their behavior, especially when others point it out. Would you say it is scummy to examine accusations of scumminess? Is not one of the duties of a townsperson to examine scummy behavior, examine reactions and accusations, and determine motive and intent of all players involved?

[Jackabomb]

If I tell you what to analyze that is giving you my reads, stop being scum and come up with your own. Think for your self

unvote
vote jack

So you're perfectly fine telling me what

not

to analyze, but for some reason asking what

to

analyze is forbidden? And why is that? In case your memory requires refreshment, I

was

thinking for myself, then

you

told me I was being scummy.

[Jackabomb]

If it's not my 'verbose-ness', it's the color of my text. If it's not that, it's my 'focus on the RVS'. If it's not that, it's 'Not thinking for myself'.
How about we all just line up and toss grenades at Jack's house? It would be a faster and more efficient way of killing me, would it not?

[Jackabomb]

If it's not my 'verbose-ness', it's the color of my text. If it's not that, it's my 'focus on the RVS'. If it's not that, it's 'Not thinking for myself'.
How about we all just line up and toss grenades at Jack's house? It would be a faster and more efficient way of killing me, would it not?

HOLY HELL!!!! SCUMMY SCUMMY SCUMM AtE out of your ass! Also stop posting in blue you have already made my blacklist as a mod.

I apologize for the appeal to emotion. I withdraw it. That was, most assuredly, I realize, a gross error in judgment. I was very unwise to post that, nor did I even hope to gain anything from it at the time. There is no legitimate reason for blacklisting me. I have violated no rules. A moderation blacklist is not a toy or tool for avoiding people you do not like. It is a list of players you refuse to allow in your games because you know them to have disruptive play, flaky behavior, or frequently break rules. I am not being disruptive, I am still here, and I have violated no rule.
You are telling me to stop posting in blue. Why?
You did not respond to my question in post 64. Why did you not reply?

Andrew94, you should know that I do not particularly care whether or not you request replacement. I am tired of people who are not the mod telling me what color to use in my text.

[Jackabomb]

...RVS caused

something

in this game, did it not? (In fact, it caused a couple of somethings.) Why did you ask the first question?...

I was not arguing that RVS had not caused something in the game. I asked shooty what he thought it had caused.

andrew94: Top 2 suspects + reasoning.
Jackabomb: Top 2 suspects + reasoning. And really, I think it would be easier for you if you just complied with their requests to stop posting in blue.

Gonna take a few minutes to think on Jackabomb: frustrated town or sarcastic scum. Be back in a bit.

I refuse to bend to this sort of bullying in which shooty and to a lesser extent, andrew, are currently engaging. Threatening to replace out of a game and blacklist me because of the color of my

skin

text, is cowardly and idiotic at best. At worst, it is scum trying to drum up widespread hate and suspicion based on one or two initial posts which were noticed for some interesting feature. In this case, those features are: 'Going overboard'(as it was called. Has since been resolved to be not a scumtell), blue text(which isn't a scumtell in any sense of the word), AtE(this is the only one that has any weight to it. I admit to foolish, irrational AtE in a brief flash of anger). In a word, Bullying 101.
I will put in my response to your query after rereading the thread.

Shooty, you have yet to answer my most pressing question: "Why is it okay for you to tell me exactly what not to analyze, but not okay to tell me exactly what to analyze?" Nor have you revealed why you did not respond originally, or why you responded spewing the same comments as last time. Nor have either you or andrew revealed why it is

so

imperative that I not post in blue, so much so that you cannot play here and are going to blacklist me. I want you to take a good look at posts #64 and #69. Look for the question marks and answer those questions.

[Jackabomb]

These people are lurking! I checked them out in isolation count. You can too and you'll see the same things I've listed here.
BlenBlen-random votes equinox for being first, babbles about empking's avatar, mentions that he likes his vote, makes 3 ambigious comments on equinox regarding town reads and such.
Budja-random votes me, gives some opinions asks two questions unvotes, talks some more about his gut sense, then votes andrew.
andrew-random votes shooty, jumps on the parknourie joke, 2 posts whining about the color blue.

shooty is one of several things:
a. Scum trying to bandwagon me based on many things.
b. Scum trying to destroy my credibility with the town.
c. Scum WIFOMing about b(doing b and pulling WIFOM about it)
d. Scum WIFOMing about c(doing b and WIFOMing about WIFOMing about it)
e. Scum WIFOMing about d(doing b and WIFOMing about WIFOMing about WIFOMing about it)
f. Town failing miserably.

f is unlikely, unless the math and probability are in the mafia too...What if the whole alphabet is in on the conspiracy too? How do we know what everyone is actually saying?!?! *paranoia attack*

My top two are shooty and budja. One of them for everything I described in the above post and the other for vote-hopping without any reasons, and active lurking. However, talk comes to very little if I cannot put vote to voice therefore, I will vote shooty without furthur ado.

Vote: drmyshottyizsik

[Jackabomb]

Bear with me here, people, I know it's long, but we can all read and this post is worth it.

Um OMGUs much?

Omgus is defined by the wiki as:

OMGUS stands for "Oh My God, You Suck (for voting for me)!". it is sometimes used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you.

I am not voting you because you are voting me. I am not voting you because you attacked me. I am voting you because you attacked me in a manner consistent with illogical, tunnel-visioned, uncooperative, and non-town behavior. I once again refer you to the following questions. This is the last time I will ask.

Everyone!

Take note that he has not answered these questions, though I have asked him many times.

Why is it okay for you to tell me exactly what not to analyze, but not okay to tell me exactly what to analyze?

You are telling me to stop posting in blue. Why?You did not respond to my question in post 64. Why did you not reply?

These are questions I have asked many times, but shooty has avoided answering them. Look at the content of his posts since then:

If I tell you what to analyze that is giving you my reads, stop being scum and come up with your own. Think for your self

unvote
vote jack

If it's not my 'verbose-ness', it's the color of my text. If it's not that, it's my 'focus on the RVS'. If it's not that, it's 'Not thinking for myself'.
How about we all just line up and toss grenades at Jack's house? It would be a faster and more efficient way of killing me, would it not?

HOLY HELL!!!! SCUMMY SCUMMY SCUMM AtE out of your ass! Also stop posting in blue you have already made my blacklist as a mod.

If I tell you what to look at I am sheeping you and you are doing no scum hunting at all that is why's that. And I'm with Andrew either you leave or me and him do. Or you stop posting in blue.

^^why?

This is unrelated to me at all, but I included it so I could not be accused of selective quoting or taking things out of context.

Um OMGUs much?

I think these are rather redundant. He tells me he can't tell me what to analyze because me asking is scummy. He doesn't answer the question I posed in the post following it, instead, he blacklists me. What is this!?! He's using his moderation choices to gain leverage and power in a game! Does no one else see that but me? Moving on, he still doesn't answer me, calls me scum without reason(again), and orders me to stop using blue(again). He accuses me of OMGUS, making no response to my accusation of bullying(which is a pretty big accusation in my opinion), and ignores my reminders-of-questions directed at him(again).

This is my case against shooty. This post, #75, and to a lesser extent, #76, outline his scummy/anti-town behavior. Bullying, ignoring questions, Straw Manning(my AtE/blue text), regurgitation/repetition, and a profound lack of logical explanation or evidence, especially in post #77.

[Jackabomb]

It does not boil down to OMGUS in the end! Did you read it? I have valid, identifiable, reasonable, and well-evidenced points of reason in that post! And he responds with "Your FACE!"

Preview Edit: Your vote on andrew, or his vote on shooty?

[Jackabomb]

Why can I edit my posts in an open game? Any way yes all you have simply done is OMGUS me no matter how fancy you try to make it sound, thus You FACE! is the proper response

You are no longer listening to a thing I say. Prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise, stop spouting sewage and let the town read the unbiased

facts

!

[Jackabomb]

My vote.
---
I'm not saying Shotty case on you is any good. I don't get why its scummy, blacklisting you isn't nice but not a scum tactic.
This is actually the most pro-town play I've ever seen from Shotty actually .

Because he's ignored every question I've asked of him, ignored the reminders, and has tried to bully me into doing what he wants. Sure, this time it's just the color of my text, but what if I'd given in? What comes next? My loyalty in arguments, my scumhunting targets, my vote even? Where would it end? Look at his last post. Hot air. No evidence. No logical thinking. No rhyme, reason, method, or communication. Hot air. Hot air is not pro-town.

Shooty, you are calling me scum. Simple question: why?

[Jackabomb]

Mainly for AtE, Mis repping and OMGUS. Three huge scum tells.

Mis repping means what?

[Jackabomb]

Ah. I'll be responding in the morning. Please take time to answer the questions I asked earlier. Good Night, signing off.

[Jackabomb]

vote jack

disclaimer: l1

ultra disclaimer: i dont care what alignment you are, i just want you gone, k thnx bye, whoever hammers him goes into my town list

Can you scream scum any louder. "I don't care what alignment you are, I just want you gone"???? Talk about tunnel-vision! I thought shooty was bad, but this is the scummiest thing I've seen all game, my own errors included! I logged back in just to vote for you because of it! Maybe my first vote was not so ill-conceived as I thought. Frankly, I'd be comfortable with your lynch or replacement at this point. You aren't contributing and I don't think you have any plans to change that any time soon.
@empking: Don't think I didn't see you hop on the bandwagon there, but a statement so anti-town as this takes precedence.

Unvote
Vote: andrew94

[Jackabomb]

Are you sure that vote count is accurate?

[Jackabomb]

EBWOP: Andrew is voting for me.
If anyone else not on my wagon seconds the order to claim, I will.

[Jackabomb]

GRAH UNVOTES

VOTE: Jackabomb

L-1

Rectified.

If anyone else not on my wagon seconds the order to claim, I will.

What is this. I have never heard of this.

There is a first time for all things. I simply want two non-wagon people who agree that I should claim or be lynched. More opinions are always good for the town.

[Jackabomb]

In all honesty, if nobody had threatened replacing or blacklisting me for it, I might have stopped the blue text.

[Jackabomb]

There is a first time for all things. I simply want two non-wagon people who agree that I should claim or be lynched. More opinions are always good for the town.

You really only need one person to hammer, so waiting for

two

people to call for your claim is just stupid. But, you know, since I'm already voting you, I'll let you stall to think something up. :eyeroll:

From a certain perspective, it's not. 3 people(total, you+the other 2) cannot possibly all be scum.

[Jackabomb]

Now that it is once again safe to post, that is, I believe that I can now post without losing my temper or being hammered,

equinox what are your reasons for voting him? and not just that, but being willing to hammer as well.

Must I repeat this?

Just for you: Jackabomb's early questions (47, 49, 59, 62) were fluffy. Some of the questions didn't have an actual purpose that I could discern, and some of the others had answers that could have been easily found in the thread. His stalling when I called for a claim rubs me the wrong way.

Hmm... Now that I've thought about that last point, there is another possibility why he's doing that. Either way, I want that claim. (Though with drmyshottyizsik's unvote and what I'm about to do next, I probably won't get it. C'est la vie.)

This is really bad town play guys. You induce an emotional response then you lynch him for it.

For what it's worth jack you should claim.

Step 1: Denounce the current wagon.
Step 2: Explain why the current wagon is bad.
Step 3: Demand claim from current wagonee.
Step 4: ???
Step 5:

PROFIT!

TAKE THE STAND

Unvote, Vote: BlenBlen

Explanations are in order!

Equinox, I am not in the habit of making 'fluff' questions. Every question in each of those posts was completely serious and I intended for each one to be taken and answered after the same way. I would like a clarification on the meaning of these 'steps'. Do you mean these are the steps that blenblen goes through in the post you quote? If so, what is the manifestation of step 5 in his post? Do these steps have some other meaning to them? Specifically what explanations are in order?

Shotty, I respectfully ask to be removed from your blacklist.

In order to avoid any future misinterpretations I am including an audio file of me reading this for voice tone/other purposes. I will probably do this in any post where I have something too important to risk interpretation...Unless everyone agrees that it's really stupid and I should stop. It's experimental, so don't chop my head off or anything. This isn't some kind of gambit or anything, I've just wondered if this might be useful. So I'm going to try it.

[Jackabomb]

Equinox, I am not in the habit of making 'fluff' questions. Every question in each of those posts was completely serious and I intended for each one to be taken and answered after the same way.

Then please explain the purpose of each of the questions I outlined in that post: 47, 49, 59, and 62. Apparently, I can't see very well or think too deeply.

You got it.

Since when was I accused of being scummy? What, in your opinions was I reacting to?

I was unaware of a real accusation of scumminess and wanted to know at what point in his opinion, I had become suspected by someone. My second question was clarification. I had experienced no emotional reaction and didn't get what 'reaction' he was referring to. My thoughts were something like this: "Eh? I haven't had any 'reactions'. What's he talking about?"

Oh. What was scummy about my post(s)?

This was pretty similar to question 1 from #47. I still didn't get the accusation against me so I asked him.

What scummy thing has equinox done that I have failed to notice?

I had been rereading the thread when I came across that post by you. Again, I didn't remember anyone using the word 'scum', then all of a sudden, there you were saying: "Yeah, I was scummy. Sorry." And Empking was saying: "We caught you being scum, and now you're trying to hide by changing your ways". I was sitting there wondering: "Wait a minute? When did we start using 'scum' and equinox in the same sentence as an accusation? It looks almost like they're referencing events that have not occurred. It would probably help if I asked"

In your opinion what exactly did it cause that I should analyze? I would argue that if people acted scummy within the RVS, it is more than reasonable to look closely at their behavior, especially when others point it out. Would you say it is scummy to examine accusations of scumminess? Is not one of the duties of a townsperson to examine scummy behavior, examine reactions and accusations, and determine motive and intent of all players involved?

#1)"In your opinion...."~~I wanted him to tell me what he felt was worth analyzing if he was going to criticize my decision. It was kind of: "Well if I'm so wrong, why don't you suggest something better?" I really meant it to be answered, though.
#2)"Would you say it was scummy to...."~~To restate the question: "[blahblahblahblahblah] is what I believe. Agree/disagree?". In retrospect, I should/could have simplified that and saved both of us some time.
#3)Almost the same as #2, except different stuff for the [blahblahblahblahblahblah].

Quote tags fixed. -AH

[Jackabomb]

I'm having problems with Jackabomb's post 142. I can see why he asked what he asked in post 62, so that's fair enough; my issue is with his explanations for posts 47, 49, and 59. It's as though he didn't see the accusations flying around on pages 1 and 2 because they didn't explicitly say, "XXX is scum!" I can see a raw newbie making that mistake, but Jackabomb has been in enough games to be able to recognize at least an accusation. I don't buy it.

Then there's andrew94. He spent a lot of time railing on Jackabomb for using blue text, voting the guy to pseudo-L–1, then threatening to hammer him if he didn't claim. Later, andrew94 admits that it was a policy lynch and that he had a "null read" on Jackabomb. When asked, he said that his scum reads were BlenBlen and Budja. Okay, fair enough... but where's his vote? He votes a null read over something ridiculous and even threatens to lynch him, but he won't vote his scum reads.

I HAVE A DILEMMA. We don't have 3 scum, obv.

I can only offer the truth, you know. Here is my best explanation of why I asked those questions. In my mind, anti/un-town is not necessarily the same as scum. One may sometimes be indicative of the other, but they are not the same. I'm not saying that all I saw on pages 1 and 2 were cherries and roses and smiley faces and kumbaya. I saw plenty of accusation, but to me, things like, "Not strong town play" don't equate to "I think that is mafia/werewolf and this person will reveal that role when they die." all the time. Phrases like "I really don't like..." are also highly ambiguous. A person can be anti-town without being scum. For instance: VI , newbies, people under extreme misconceptions, etc. My mistake at that time was being self-centered(as budja put it). I wasn't paying as much attention to the other happenings as I should have.

My reads:
Andrew94-either VI or scum trying to hide as VI.
shotty&&budja-they fall into the same category. Their votes are rarely accompanied by case or reasoning, especially recently.
Empking-This guy I find very odd. At first he started out with a very nice town read, but recently, he's putting himself into the scum-likely category that budja and shotty occupy. His post 144 seems to be accusing me based on the patterns of the wagon against me, which incorporate the logical fallacies of false premises and No True Scotsman(His post has it as No True Townie). His statements go something like this:

No townie could have an extremely brief, intense wagon.

Jackabomb had an extremely brief, intense wagon.

Ergo, Jack cannot be a townie.
Ergo, Jack is scum.

This is untrue because there is no evidence to support his first statement. Ergo, all statements based on that assumption are not reliable nor do they have any logical support.

[Jackabomb]

I know I have been replaced already, but I would simply like you all to know the reason, because I feel it is your right. Here's what happened: I got home from school and my computer was gone. Just gone. Apparently my parents took it away until I finish some homework stuff, but the point is that without warning, I suddenly had no way to even post a V/LA, so yeah. Sorry about that, I hope you guys don't think of me as a jerk or anything stupid like that. Good luck.