Newbie 1081: Showdown in Newbtown (Game Over, Mafia win)

[Workdawg]

IGMEOY

Workdawg, if only because your predecessor completely overlooked several things, completely ignored Fatso here, and your current stance on Fatso doesn't sit well with my gut in correlation. Their open-ended question here also sits uneasy with me as, from my experience, scum are more often to ask "HEY GUIEZ WHO'S SCUM" than town would. Noting the WIFOM response to star's noticing the soft-defense, as well.

As I said, I'm more than happy to face any extra scrutiny you feel is necessary based on sarah's terrible play. I can't really comment on WTF she might have been thinking when she was posting, since I'm not her, but if you want me to speculate, I guess I could do that.

As far as my read on Fatso, my initial read was very newb town. Honestly, he reminded me a little bit of myself in my first game (Newbie 1052), extra concerned about appearances, making some pretty basic mistakes, etc. He still comes off pretty newb to me, though I will say having looked a little bit at his meta (this is his 3rd game) I'm less inclined to say how town he is. I think you have some pretty valid points, so I guess we'll see what he has to say about them.

@Zd

- Sorry, that part must have gotten lost while I was trying to hack apart the quote on your post.

I guess I don't have any specific things in mind. Your posting style this game just rubs me the wrong way and when you come under pressure, you still post short, combative responses. Personally, I would have defended myself differently, but having reviewed the game chkflip posted for your meta, I guess that's just your style, so I'll just have to try and overlook it.

Also, thank you for posting your case against ST. I wish we didn't need to pressure you into posting it though. Information is only helpful to town, so if you've got reasons to be suspicious of someone, you should share them. It does no good to say "ST is suspicious" and leave it at that. What is the purpose? It's my opinion that you should always share your suspicions with the rest of us, for the good of the town.

As an unrelated note, I like your use of the area tags. Sadly, they don't seem to render on IE here at work. I noticed them at home in Firefox and it's nice for breaking up your talking points, I'm stealing it :p

@Bulvious

- I have a couple questions for you.
1. Why didn't you comment on ST's post #244 where he addressed you exclusively?
2. I reviewed your ISO and I barely see any mention of Alnpka. You say that he's actively lurking almost a week ago (#153), but don't mention him again. Is that the extent of "[your] reasons posted before"? I don't disagree necessarily disagree with you. He's asked a few decent questions, but he has been one of the less active players for sure. This smells to me like just jumping on Zd coattails.

(BTW "sheeping" is a term that I've never heard before. I looked on the wiki for it but couldn't find anything there either. Am I correct in assuming that it means to mimick someone else's vote or thoughts? Following them like a sheep? Would it be correct to say Bulvious was sheeping Zd, based on my accusation above?)

[alnkpa]

Although it might seem omgus-sy I'm gonna post this now considering I already had it as a draft and I just hadn't time anymore to complete it yesterday.

I myself think that Zdenek is quite sensitive now. He didn't wrote more than two lines of text most of the time as you can check all by yourself since it's quite obvious. And now he's so antsy to react with a big fat wall to some minor questions? That now aroused suspicion at me. First he is very concise and now he just won't stop talking?
As some of you already saw, I stated I have a suspect and it is indeed Zdenek. So I'm going to change my vote to him:
VOTE: Zdenek

A question apart from this to chkflip: How do those of my posts make me so town?

[Antihero]

Vote Count #9

alnkpa - 1 (Bulvious)
Fatso - 1 (chkflip)
h3ll0 - 1 (Zdenek)
Zdenek - 3 (h3ll0, Workdawg, alnkpa)

Not Voting: chkflip, drmyshottyizsik, Fatso, startransmission

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch. Deadline is April 12th.

[alnkpa]

Oops, just saw that I put Zdenek at L-2. I'm concerned that none of the two scums are voting him right now and am rather save then sorry:
UNVOTE: Zdenek

[Workdawg]

You just said that you suspect him, but then you unvoted because you don't think any of the scum are voting him? I doubt he would vote himself. If your's is just a pressure vote, then I guess that's fine.

It's worth noting though that I doubt both scum (assuming you are correct and they aren't already on his wagon) would be dumb enough to jump on together and hammer him as that would make them look SUPER suspicious.

[alnkpa]

Thx for your advice. Didn't even think so far
VOTE: Zdenek

[Zdenek]

You have an ISO on me? Which post are you referring to? All your points against me are pretty spread out from what I see.

I was referring to people reading my posts in isolation.

Workdawg, you seem to be saying that you don't like that I don't explain myself and that I haven't defended myself, but can't point to any examples where I've failed to do so.

He didn't wrote more than two lines of text most of the time as you can check all by yourself since it's quite obvious. And now he's so antsy to react with a big fat wall to some minor questions? That now aroused suspicion at me. First he is very concise and now he just won't stop talking?

You complained earlier that I didn't explain myself, and now when I do you say that it's scummy.

As far as I can tell, no one on my wagon has presented a single rational point against me.

[Bulvious]

WD40 wrote:

(BTW "sheeping" is a term that I've never heard before. I looked on the wiki for it but couldn't find anything there either. Am I correct in assuming that it means to mimick someone else's vote or thoughts? Following them like a sheep? Would it be correct to say Bulvious was sheeping Zd, based on my accusation above?)

You're correct in assuming that's what it means to sheep.
You're incorrect in your accusation that I'm sheeping Zdenek.

Sheeping him would imply that I never gave an original reason to be suspicious of Alnpka. I did, and long before Zdenek even brought it up - the confirmation was all I needed. Sheeping would also imply I was following Zdenek's vote, however, his vote is on h3ll0, my vote isn't, and he didn't even so much as FoS Alnpka.

WD40 wrote:

Information is only helpful to town

There are many types of information that are useful for scum. Misinformation, scumscales, townscales, etc... Anything that can be used to push a town wagon is useful for scum.

[startransmission]

Oops, just saw that I put Zdenek at L-2. I'm concerned that none of the two scums are voting him right now and am rather save then sorry:
UNVOTE: Zdenek

So you don't think Zdenek is one of the two scum? So why are you voting for him?

If this were a pressure vote, it still makes no sense to remove. As was pointed out, it would be unlikely that both scum would hop on the wagon one after the other, and if they did it'd be worth the town loss to narrow down our suspects. And now that you all but admit that you don't think Zdenek is scum your vote has little to no value.

[alnkpa]

Sry, I was thinking very short in that moment and do think he might be scum. I already made the vote again to repair the mistake.

[chkflip]

Al

:

Not a lot of people would stick their neck out to reiterate something like you did in Post 44.
Your opinion in Post 60 seems town motivated.
The last paragraph in Post 155 comes off pro-town as well. Though it is mostly a defense, you bring many good points against Bul there to refute his case against you. No, refuting doesn't make you town, but you take the time to explain your thought process in detail. A thought process that doesn't seem scummy to me.

[Workdawg]

@Zd - Let's not skew what I said. The quote you are harping on is from my thoughts on your debate with h3ll0; not overall. Even if you want to throw that out, I still had two other main points and a few specific posts that made me suspicious enough to vote for you.

You have addressed a few of those points, and I was less suspicious of you, but I'm not so sure now considering how willing you are to simply dismiss everything with a single line; "no one has any rational points against me." Are you saying the things brought up are invalid and were not reasons to be suspicious at the time?

@Bulvious
As for the sheeping. Though Zd never voted for aln, he did put together a few argument against him and said "[aln] is looking worse to me." you even referenced Zd's comments in your voting post. I don't think you've really got to specifically follow his vote to simply hop on his logic and be considered a sheep; at least not IMO.

You did mention you thought aln was active lurking yes. I mentioned that. I know you have a reason, I'm wondering what is the "confirmation" you are implying you've got now. That made you sure enough to vote when you weren't before.

Finally, I am posting from my phone right now, and people have already ninjad in on me. I attempted to address some of that, but phone posting is tough. Please excuse my typos as well.

[Workdawg]

I knew I would forget something.

@Bulvious
Its true that there are types of information that are "bad for town," but I think those types are only bad if you don't analyze them properly. Misinformation, by it's very definition, is anti information; lol. If someone is spewing lies, town should catch and lynch them. There's been much talk about lynching a lurker in this game. Why does someone lurk? To avoid having to post and get caught posting misinformation. It seems logical that everyone is encouraged to post all their thoughts, true or not, because it gives the town something to analyze to get a read on them.

A true town player should only be posting genuine thoughts, however misguided, and their actions should speak loudly enough to prove they are town.

[Zdenek]

You have addressed a few of those points, and I was less suspicious of you, but I'm not so sure now considering how willing you are to simply dismiss everything with a single line; "no one has any rational points against me." Are you saying the things brought up are invalid and were not reasons to be suspicious at the time?

In reference to your ISO 3.

It's not scummy to pressure someone for giving a poor reason to pressure vote someone else early in the game.

It is not scummy to point out when one player buddies with another.

Two players disagreeing over what constitutes a town-tell is not scummy.

h3ll0 was being obtuse.

No one had presented anything like a case against me, so your claim that I hadn't sufficiently defended myself up to that point against a more substantial case is bizarre and further evidence for that is given by the fact you have failed to point out an instance where I haven't adequately defended my self.

I didn't actually say that "making long posts is "useless at best and anti-town at worst." I said that "Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst."

For what it worth, did explain my st vote, but people have to read the thread and decide for themselves what they think for themselves.

Is there anything I've missed?

DMSIS is on my list of acceptable lynches for today.

[startransmission]

Ok. Slept in a little later than I wanted to so I don't have as much time as I'd like to get into this, but I wanted to do this before I left.

Bulvious has had a foot in the door of every potential wagon this game has had. Starting with Fatso, whom he voted for in his first post for reasons that I had brought up earlier. The reasons were valid enough, and the ensuing discussion proved interesting enough that I never challenged the vote.

After town mostly agrees that Fasto was likely newbtown Bulvious moves his vote to H3llo. He cites meta and his distrust of lurkers. Considering what I suspect now is a potential partnership between h3llo and Bulvious, I can't help wonder if this interaction had motives different from what was stated. The vote on h3llo could be an example of distancing, while at the same time giving a partner a kick in the pants to get his head in the game. Bulvious even asks him who h3llo would vote for if the deadline were imminent. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's what crosses my mind on review.

He mentions his dislike of BS. Again, valid reason. He rails against SF for not scumhunting and eventually votes for her, joining the wagon with h3llo. There's little interaction between Bulvious and SF, mostly Bulvious pointing out what a terribly player SF is, and SF kinda agreeing.

Sensing that the SF wagon is likely a dead end, he then steps back and asks h3llo what he thinks about the general willingness to lynch a lurker, and if that was a ploy by scum to keep town off topic. I've gone into why I hate this. It's a leading question to a specific player, it throws a blanket of suspicion on players. It's also hypocritical, as Bulvious has been the most vocal in his dislike of lurkers and his willingness to lynch them. He then moves his suspicions to Alnpka... for lurking.

Active

lurking, granted.

At this point Zdenek begins his debate and attack on h3llo. You'll find that the primary defender of h3llo is Bulvious. While I agree that Zdenek did not present a strong case, reading back I find Bulvious's defense to be strong, and consistent throughout.

His endorsement of Workdawg seems premature to be honest. This is a matter of opinion, but I can't see how he can make a statement like that with such a small body of posting to base a judgement like that on. What has Workdawg done? Voted for Zedenek for reasons that boil down to him being rubbed the wrong way by Zedenek.

And then he says he finds the case against me presented by Zedenek and Chkflip to be "very convincing". Chkflip did not, IMO, present a strong case. The bulk of it was already expressed by Zedenek, but Bulvious did not comment on it until another player echoed it and placed a vote against me.

Then

he finds the case "very convincing". And then, when chkflip unvotes me, he apparently loses interest in that "convincing" case and switches his vote to Alnpka, whom Zedenek had just voted for. He reminds everyone that he was suspicious of Alnpka before, but he's not followed up on that suspicion. But now that a wagon is a possibility, he's on it.

I feel strongly that either Bulvious or h3llo is scum. Maybe both. A couple of factors, being suspiciously opportunistic amongst them, leads me to

Vote: Bulvious

There's more to comment on, but I'm out of time. Will post tonight, tomorrow afternoon at the latest.

[Bulvious]

Startrans wrote:

Bulvious has had a foot in the door of every potential wagon this game has had. Starting with Fatso, whom he voted for in his first post for reasons that I had brought up earlier. The reasons were valid enough, and the ensuing discussion proved interesting enough that I never challenged the vote.

After town mostly agrees that Fasto was likely newbtown Bulvious moves his vote to H3llo. He cites meta and his distrust of lurkers. Considering what I suspect now is a potential partnership between h3llo and Bulvious, I can't help wonder if this interaction had motives different from what was stated. The vote on h3llo could be an example of distancing, while at the same time giving a partner a kick in the pants to get his head in the game. Bulvious even asks him who h3llo would vote for if the deadline were imminent. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's what crosses my mind on review.

1. Fatso: My vote was the first one on him, and it ended RVS. I suppose Zdenek's previous statement (or maybe it was Chk?) saying it's harmful to end RVS quickly could imply bad things for me here, but really, I felt like the quicker we used our time to get onto more meaningful votes, the more we would learn before the day ended with (hopefully) a fruitful lynch.

He mentions his dislike of BS. Again, valid reason. He rails against SF for not scumhunting and eventually votes for her, joining the wagon with h3llo. There's little interaction between Bulvious and SF, mostly Bulvious pointing out what a terribly player SF is, and SF kinda agreeing.

2. I didn't like SF, she was an awful player and I really truly would have seen her gone for that reason alone if we didn't come to a better conclusion. I am absolutely horrified by posts that are difficult to read.

Sensing that the SF wagon is likely a dead end, he then steps back and asks h3llo what he thinks about the general willingness to lynch a lurker, and if that was a ploy by scum to keep town off topic. I've gone into why I hate this. It's a leading question to a specific player, it throws a blanket of suspicion on players. It's also hypocritical, as Bulvious has been the most vocal in his dislike of lurkers and his willingness to lynch them. He then moves his suspicions to Alnpka... for lurking. Active lurking, granted.

3. That's true, honestly, I feel a sort of companionship to h3ll0, being as I just got out of my first win and second game with him. He and I had the original two cases against the scum that game, and I feel like his instinct or maybe insight did us very well that game, and so town won. I still believe h3ll0 might have valuable input here, and so yes, I did ask him, though what that means to ME is, I want him to answer first, and then everyone else can answer. I suppose I didn't voice that though so it's not fair to expect.

whom Zedenek had just voted for. He reminds everyone that he was suspicious of Alnpka before, but he's not followed up on that suspicion. But now that a wagon is a possibility, he's on it.

4. I defended him because Zdenek's case was shit - inexistant, actually, and I don't see why that's such a horrible thing. Zdenek sat there and kept saying "More rope! More rope!" and I'm sitting here asking... "Why...?" I feel like that's still a good question, and I feel like my defense of him is still legitimate.

His endorsement of Workdawg seems premature to be honest. This is a matter of opinion, but I can't see how he can make a statement like that with such a small body of posting to base a judgement like that on. What has Workdawg done? Voted for Zedenek for reasons that boil down to him being rubbed the wrong way by Zedenek.

5. I REALLY disagree here, I feel like Workdawg's entry seemed quite good. Scum don't really NEED to catch up all that fast. Both him and Chkflip seemed really interested in doing it - and that strengthens their spots to me.

And then he says he finds the case against me presented by Zedenek and Chkflip to be "very convincing". Chkflip did not, IMO, present a strong case. The bulk of it was already expressed by Zedenek, but Bulvious did not comment on it until another player echoed it and placed a vote against me. Then he finds the case "very convincing". And then, when chkflip unvotes me, he apparently loses interest in that "convincing" case and switches his vote to Alnpka...

I thought his case was quite good. I lost interest in it because later he as well as stated he was fishing for responses. He was actually doing something from the very start of his play, and I can appreciate that. And indeed, the case WAS convincing, but does that mean it convinced me? Perhaps not, but it was one of the better cases I've seen thus far even if I didn't want to endorse it with my vote.

ST wrote:

whom Zedenek had just voted for. He reminds everyone that he was suspicious of Alnpka before, but he's not followed up on that suspicion. But now that a wagon is a possibility, he's on it.

My vote is the only one on Alnpka.


Also, I find it quite odd that you say I've had my foot in the door of all of the wagons.
Granted, this is just skimming the votecounts, but other than Sarahfish, my vote is the only one clocked in on those people. Sarahfish did go up to 2, and then to 3, but as soon as Workdawg joined in and cleared the spot (at least in my opinion) my vote went away.

Additionally, Zdenek is L-2, and my vote is not on him, this is so far one of the bigger wagons, and I have no hand in it what-so-ever. I haven't defended Z, I haven't even made a case again him. In fact, I just followed his observation of which I agreed with and voted Alnpka - of which I'm the only person to do so. Yeah, big wagon there, in fact, all of those wagons are just huge.

And of course I understand that VC's don't count every vote and so I might have been on a big wagon here or there, but Fatso's I started, and it was the first half-way legitimate case in the game.



Although to me it seems like your case is sort of BS minus the buddying which I can't very well deny considering what I've said here, I'm glad you finally started playing the game. Nice to see a case from our IC.

[Bulvious]

Workdawg wrote

@Bulvious
Its true that there are types of information that are "bad for town," but I think those types are only bad if you don't analyze them properly. Misinformation, by it's very definition, is anti information; lol. If someone is spewing lies, town should catch and lynch them. There's been much talk about lynching a lurker in this game. Why does someone lurk? To avoid having to post and get caught posting misinformation. It seems logical that everyone is encouraged to post all their thoughts, true or not, because it gives the town something to analyze to get a read on them.

A true town player should only be posting genuine thoughts, however misguided, and their actions should speak loudly enough to prove they are town

My point was that some information is good for scum. People might accidently misinform others, I've seen it happen. Either way, I don't really see you disagreeing with me here.

As for the sheeping. Though Zd never voted for aln, he did put together a few argument against him and said "[aln] is looking worse to me." you even referenced Zd's comments in your voting post. I don't think you've really got to specifically follow his vote to simply hop on his logic and be considered a sheep; at least not IMO.

You did mention you thought aln was active lurking yes. I mentioned that. I know you have a reason, I'm wondering what is the "confirmation" you are implying you've got now. That made you sure enough to vote when you weren't before

Aln is active lurking, I've pointed it out previously, and that hasn't even changed. And if anyone is opportunistic, it's him. My vote wasn't on anybody, so I'm more than happy to have it on him. Perhaps sometime this weekend I'll ISO him, as it is, I have a double shift today and go into work for the second in about four minutes

[Workdawg]

It's not scummy to pressure someone for giving a poor reason to pressure vote someone else early in the game.

It is not scummy to point out when one player buddies with another.

Two players disagreeing over what constitutes a town-tell is not scummy.

h3ll0 was being obtuse.

All 4 of these are pretty much a difference of opinion/interpretation.
For the first two, I think you are looking for scum intent where there wasn't any. We disagree on this, obviously.
The 3rd, is just some wording I found interesting.
The 4th is just an example of your combative nature.

Note that I never said any of those were scum-tells. Just things I found worth writing down.

No one had presented anything like a case against me, so your claim that I hadn't sufficiently defended myself up to that point against a more substantial case is bizarre and further evidence for that is given by the fact you have failed to point out an instance where I haven't adequately defended my self.

I never said h3ll0 made a case against you, though I guess my choice of words was poor. I simply meant that during your back and forth, which went on for a few days, I felt that h3ll0 made the better arguments and your your side of it was lacking. I might even say that it appeared as though you were grasping for straws trying to make him others look guilty (or innocent in the case of your supposed town-tells).

I didn't actually say that "making long posts is "useless at best and anti-town at worst." I said that "Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst."

That's true, I guess I did misquote you there a little bit, however I meant to convey that you seem to dislike elaborating on your thoughts. I don't think that's rambling.

For what it worth, did explain my st vote, but people have to read the thread and decide for themselves what they think for themselves.

All you said was "Startransmission is scum for active lurking." It took prodding from us to get you to actually post your case.

DMSIS

is on my list of acceptable lynches for today.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym, could you explain that one to me?

@Buvlious

I think we do disagree here. I cannot think of a single instance when information is bad for the town. The huge advantage scum have is that they have all the information. Every piece of information that is revealed in the thread is another piece town can use to sniff out scum. If there is misinformation in the thread, it is their job to sniff it out, and at that point, put pressure on whoever gave out that information. If the town takes misinformation as truth, then that's a mistake on their part, but it doesn't make that information bad.

I have some more thoughts on ST's case against Bulvious, but I've got to run for now.

[Fatso]

WTF TL;DR -- Being overly defensive, defeatist, sheeping, NOT scumhunting, flailing, buddying, and lying, amongst several other (slightly less pertinent) points.

CHK's Fatso case:

Fatso, you're very defensive for it being so early in the game here and you seem a bit abrasive to alkrerrih here. ST made it pretty obvious who the question was aimed at ten minutes prior, why rub it in? That's only a minute point next to what your actual response to his inquiry is for the simple fact that you're completely misrepping what you actually said to appear more town than you actually are. Lets compare:

I don't like RVS very much, so I'm not voting until I see an

actual scummy post

.

Anyways, my opinion wasn't "I totally hate RVS and I'm never voting in it. EVER." It was "I don't like RVS that much, so I'm not going to vote right off the bat, but if it's really that important to you, I guess I will."

LOLWUT?

Your reaction, as priceless as it is, screams scum from my gut. It's obv Zd was talking about your appeasement to the beast that is RVS. And of course you try to jump on your first chance to get the wagon turning by voting for someone who placed a random vote on you. You continue to flail before LK answers your question with ease.

Being defeatist doesn't make you appear any more town.

Flailing again? And who cares that noone else is scumhunting? That's not in question as of that moment; the question was whether or not

YOU

were scumhunting... and you hadn't. At all. OMGUS vote doesn't count. If I was in the game at this point, believe you me there'd be a lynch-rope at L-1 with your name etched in it.

Damn it... that's what Bul said. Well, I'm not deleting it. Especially since your response very obviously states that you're missing the point entirely. I almost cackled when you named Bul as your top suspect for putting some pressure on you.

BUDDYING instead of scumhunting only one post later... are you serious?

Lying is never good, either. "I never said I wouldn't RV"? REALLY? Because that's exactly what you said from my side of the screen. You said you wouldn't vote until you saw an

"actual scummy post"

... to which you contradict yourself by voting three times without much (beyond OMGUS) merit.

You continue to "scumhunt" people that aren't as active as they should be... why not just try to actually, you know, get a response from someone that's playing the game? Jumping from lurker to lurker isn't making me think you're town. At all.

Your soft-defending sarah is out of nowhere and made me actually cackle after I realized you said (from your own experience) "the only people who defend town are scum"

And you never cease to amaze me by continuing to vote lurkers. Did you get much of anything out of that? Just curious.

Then you talk about F11... right after a juicy response post from Zd? As much as I don't want to think this is a scumtell, it reads to me like you're avoiding the discussion until you can come up with something. And that something is just sheeping what has already been said. Yes, there are only so many opinions you can have on certain things, but that response is pure fluffy-sheepery.

[sarcasm] I love that your top suspects are the lurkers. At least you're consistent. [/sarcasm] Your reasons aren't anything outside of fluffed "they're lurking," IMO. You shouldn't be GUESSING about your opinion, either it's one way or it's the other.

...I just can't even fathom how you said <--that at all. Why do you need examples for something YOU TYPED?

Out of all the absolute ridiculousness that comes from you, it's this lurker vote that screams scum a little louder than the rest of them. WHY. WHYWHYWHWHYWHY are you continuously voting for lurkers when it's page SIX and there are SEVERAL things you could be scumhunting into and getting real responses from? WHY are you still failing at this scumhunting thing? There are only two answers I can come up with that make any sense. One, you're retarded, or two, you're scum. I sincerely find it an insult to the mentally handicapped to label you as the former, so you're the latter.

FOS'ing a lurker for things they very obviously didn't see.

A REAL VOTE!? Holy CRAP, I didn't think you had it in you boy. But... your next post doesn't mention sarah at all. Sure, it's because "she wasn't as involved in the discussion" as you'd say, but why vote someone and not try to follow-up on them at all? Not even a question for Sarah in either post, really? Not even a comment in her direction after she posts? Then nothing at all? No.

Never in my life have I seen a townie as worried about a single vote as you are here; therefore, you're not town.

1. I was perhaps flailing a bit, but I don't think as much as you're saying. Also, I saw lynchking's response as being not-very-well-put-together at best, scummy at worst.
2. Not really being defeatist, just speaking my mind.
3. How is this flailing?
4. Wha...?
5. Um, how the HELL is this buddying? He misunderstood me, and I was correcting him.
6. That was an inconsistency that I'll admit I really wish hadn't come into play. I worded the first post wrong (should have said "I don't really want to RVS"), and bad things followed. I'd like to see you quote the three OMGUS votes though.
7. I thought that was a fair vote.
8. Not familiar with the term "soft defending."
9. Yes, when I don't see anything overtly scummy, I tend to vote for lurkers.
10. This is so silly, I'm not going to dignify it with a response other than: "Am I not allowed to ask questions in a Newbie game!??"
11. Nothing in mafia is every one way or the other. People always make mistakes (you should know, you want to lynch me). Yes, all my suspects were lurkers. Lurking is scummy. Find something else obviously scummy going on in the game at that time, and I'll admit I was wrong.
12. I don't need examples for what I typed, I need examples for what was so exaggerated about it.
13. I believe I've made my point about lurkers before. Also, you're making this personal here.
14. It wasn't obvious to me. At the time, I thought he

could

still be in the game.
15. I was busy and tired at the time I posted both of those. I would have said more later, but she replaced out.
16. Now it's scummy to wonder why someone without a case is voting for you? Well that's just... I don't know what the heck that is. Silly, I guess.

[Bulvious]

Workdawg, are you intentionally misunderstanding me?

I never said "Some info is bad for town." I said "Some info is good for scum." And it's true.

[chkflip]

Fatso's 268 is hardly a retort. Much like the [sarcasm] the retard comment was a joke.

Nice attempt at deflecting, though. You really did stretch my words to the broadest of terms yet somehow didn't refute much of anything.

2. You can speak your mind in ways that isn't "Oh, well, guess I'm dead. At least I learned a good lesson, derpa doo on me." That's called AtE (Appeal to Emotions) and there are several ways you could've said something along the same lines without giving me the impression that you want me to pity you for making your mistake.

3. Let's start with your first sentence, which is you completely folding to the will of the town, try to justify why you dislike it, then flail so hard you're deflecting. Like I already said, you're not scumhunting. You weren't in point two, nor do you (very much at all) in points after this one.

4.

SCUMHUNT

, that's "Wha...?" Am I supposed to think it's coincidence that your top scumspect is the person that was currently grilling you? Because I don't.

5. First off, your statement is completely inconsistent with itself. You say Bul is your top sus, but that he's also a super-actively-scumhunting-townie. It's called killing them with kindness. Second, that's buddying because you're not actively doing

anything else at all

. Part of the reason I think Bul responded with "Yeah like that's bad" is because you start off naming him as a suspect and end with a compliment. Doesn't. Make. Sense. The only thing I can call that is buddying, simple as.

6. I didn't say three OMGUS votes; again, nice try, what I said was that I see three vote changes with little to no reason behind them save shitty reasoning.

8. Well, aside from the fact that you vote the same person in the next post for literally the same reason (plus OMGUS, he never implied any "quick lynch"), by "soft-defending" I mean that you take a stance about the situation instead of dealing with the actual people involved in a way that might be taken as you defending them.

9. I don't care to hear your reasons for not scumhunting. There aren't that many lurkers; as a matter of fact, as soon as Shotty posts, there won't really be any at all, so do us all a huge favor and actually scumhunt.

10. For the record, you're dignifying it with a response even by saying you're not dignifying it with a response; nevertheless, talk like that is better suited in the RVS/RQS stages of the game and not as filler for your not-scumhunting. Do you see the pattern here? Do your job.

11. I love the soft-claim as a townie; for the love of Christ, don't claim a PR. Doesn't mean I think you're any more town, but thanks for the added AtE on top of this fire. Oh, and lurking isn't halfway as scummy as not-scumhunting, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that for obvious (or perhaps oblivious) reasons.

12. I'm talking more along the lines of your attitude here. PROTIP: open seperate tabs and copy/paste them into one so you've summed it to one post instead of being a lazy jackass about it.

14. Read his last posts and tell me what about those made you think he was actually paying attention. No, seriously.

15. Well, let this be my inquiry that you ask those things

now

, regardless of the fact that she was replaced. What more did you have to say about the situation?

16. It's scummy to bring attention to a single vote that shouldn't make that big of a difference to you. No, he didn't "form a case" but I do see a post or two where he gave reason to his vote. Your paranoia screams of worried scum that the wagon is going to start again. Why not just worry less about a single vote and worry more about building your own cases on who you think is scum? Oh, because you're floating through this game without scumhunting. Got it.

[Bulvious]

I still stand by my opinion of Fatso as noobtown, Chkflip. To me, it even sounds like you agree. His play is bad, is essentially what you're saying. He's reacting to votes like a new player would. He's not scumhunting as well as an experienced player would. He's not providing good enough reasons for his votes like an experienced player would.

If you really thought he was scum, after all, you wouldn't be telling him to be scumhunting, you'd tell him why he wasn't. You're letting him know what it's a scumtell. To me, it appears you're pressuring/coaching more so than really building a case, which is nice of you, but I still don't see a Fatso lynch occuring today, he's so obviously newbish that it's hard to determine if any of what your saying is even really a tell for scum or a tell for noob.

[chkflip]

...

In hindsight, I see what you're saying, but I won't be moving my vote just yet. Also, I'm essentially telling him why he's not scumhunting by bringing up all these points. The over-abuse of "Hey, scumhunt" can be pretty ambiguous in that sense, I suppose.

I'll do myself a favor and re-read.

[Bulvious]

Now, for a bit of information on Alnpka.

Post 1: Introduction - Fluff
Post 2: Answers RVQ, questions RVS - Fine
Post 3: Highly reactive to my comment that was actually directed at Fatso about backing off. - No content, other than perhaps a sign of reactivity from him.
Post 4: Some explanation to Fatso, mixed in with passing observation on Lynch and Banana. - SOME content here.
Post 5: Consent to a lurker lynch if we don't get anyone better. - Whatever, still not content really.
Post 6: Asks for clarification on something. - Fluff
Post 7: Fluff
Post 8: Fluff
Post 9: Votes Fatso - his first vote so far, and then apparently exaggerates 3 posts in a row as a scumtell. Seems odd, odd as in he's making a mountain out of quite a common thing, slapping a big red "SCUM" sign on it - even though it isn't a tell at all.
Post 10: Backs off on the prior accusation of multiple posts in a row being a tell. Mostly fluff, though.
Post 11: Fluffiness involving asking for mod help in making a post readable. - Fluff
Post 12: More consent on lynching "The scummiest lurker" – Fluff, he's already done this.
Post 13: He responds to my accusation of his having no original content with a quote of his observations of BS and Lynch all the way back in his fourth post. Wow, really? That's it? In 8 posts? Not impressed at all. He also references his Fatso vote, though this wasn't original at all. All of the reasons he voted for him for were previously stated and fed to him.
Post 14: He states that he won't say anything without evidence - evidence he doesn't fish for. He also says original content is "any content such as questions that haven't been brought up before." He doesn't understand here that the vast majority of his questions gave little aid in anyones scumhunting, least of all his own - of which there is none to reference thus far.
Post 15: Some content, but still by and large unoriginal.
Post 16: States that active lurking is a scumtell. Still, fluff - we all already know that.
Post 17: Asks three questions. #1 = Fluff, #2 = Asks h3ll0 a fairly legitimate question, but really it didn't seem like an effort to hunt. #3 = Fluff, it's sort of ridiculous to ask someone how they're going to defend themselves.
Post 18: Fluff, and states he doesn't have ANY new evidence on ANYONE after SO much has been and SO little scumhunting has been done by him. Wow, really?
Post 19: Votes Zdenek, saying that we all already knew he was looking him over as a potential suspect. Post 18 directly contradicts that. That's scummy to me.
Post 20: Quickly withdraw his vote after the vote count - fear of a quicklynch, or fear of appearing to be sheeping a wagon? (As that is so obviously what this is) To me, he saw this as an opportunity to appear town for the first time this game.
Post 21: He's told it's OK by Workdawg, so he goes for it. - Fluff
Post 22: Fluff


22 posts go and re-read them if you wish because I'm not going to quote them here, but that's how I look at them and I think that's pretty accurate. 15 fluffy posts is my read, that means 7 with content. How many of those are scumhunting? Zip as far as I can tell. Scum do not scumhunt. He said he's not new to the game but he's new to the forum. I'm not getting the same noobfeel from him as I am from Fatso. He contradicts himself, he fails to provide good content, and his actions (though few aside from the large active lurking brand I still give him) are scummy to me.

[drmyshottyizsik]

HI guys. I will catch up and join you all tomorrow. For now I'm off to bed. Good night