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

[Workdawg]

Of course, shotty shows up right after I say that... -_-

Obviously if he actually starts posting an appears to be town, I wouldn't be as inclined to lynch him as a lurker, because he wouldn't be lurking anymore. The slot itself has been extremely bad, and he's been slow to get in here, but he's still got a chance to prove himself to me.

As for calling my response to the lurker policy a slip, I guess I don't know what to say about that; I stand by my statement. If there is an obvious scum target to lynch, then of course we want to lynch him, but if not then I have no problem lynching a lurker. What sense would it make to lynch a lurker if there was an obv-scum to lynch instead? I'm not trying to appeal to anyone else here, it just makes sense that way. I don't care if anyone here disagrees with me... that logic for the policy in question makes sense to me and that's the way I'd play it. I stand by the lurker vs no-lynch as well (at least on D1).

Any reason why it took you so long to get back us shotty? It's interesting to me that you showed up 10 minutes after I posted a willingness to policy lynch you, and then the first "slip" you point out is my original comments on that very policy.

[Antihero]

Vote Count #13

alnkpa - 1 (Bulvious)
Bulvious - 1 (startransmission)
Kard - 1 (h3ll0)
Workdawg - 2 (Zdenek, drmyshottyizsik)
Zdenek - 2 (Workdawg, alnkpa)

Not Voting: chkflip, Kard

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch. Deadline is April 15th.

[Kard]

Vote Count #13

alnkpa - 1 (Bulvious)
Bulvious - 1 (startransmission)
Kard - 1 (h3ll0)
h3ll0 - 1 (Kard)
Workdawg - 2 (Zdenek, drmyshottyizsik)
Zdenek - 2 (Workdawg, alnkpa)

Not Voting: chkflip

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch. Deadline is April 15th.

I unvoted:

Kard, what's your read on Work Dawg?

Re-reading all of his posts for the second time, and I can't find anything that stick out too scummy to me, except for his "i'm bad a scum hunting" and that's just a gut feeling, and there's a large chance it could be incredibly wrong, as I'm not experienced with scumhunting.

Also, just want to get this out of the way, UNVOTE: h3ll0. I'm going to re-read the thread today, and vote for who I think is most scummy then. To be honest right now though, I'm not too incredibly sure who that will be, though I will say that Bulvious versus Alnkpa highly interests me.

I'll post more in a bit, right now I have some homework I need to finish x_x

[Bulvious]

I still think what you consider a 'slip' is stupid, Shotty. That's a common opinion, just because he happened to agree with it doesn't mean it's a slip, especially not with that. Seems silly, especially when we had an arguement about a different policy later on, though I forgot what that was to be honest. BUT NO THAT'S PROBABLY BUDDYING.

Sarcasm.

Your case against him is as bad as your vote - moot and empty.

I'd like to see more of Star's case against me, more of h3ll0 - period, and I'd like to see Kard make a commitment put his vote somewhere, same pretty much goes with Ckflip. 3 more days guys, at least by my time. I hope to see some valuable input. Workdawg, pros and cons of wasting Zdenek today? and Shotty, if you really insist on your vote against Workdawg - I'd like to see more of a case.

Essentially, if you intend to hold your vote in any spot, explain why and now, explain why you think lynching them beats lynching others. Sitting here waiting for the deadline without any pro-activity seems very anti-town to me.

Also, Star, since you've made your case against me, you've been all but MIA. I understand workin' hard, but again, this is somewhat of an important time.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I still think what you consider a 'slip' is stupid, Shotty. That's a common opinion, just because he happened to agree with it doesn't mean it's a slip, especially not with that. Seems silly, especially when we had an arguement about a different policy later on

So wishy washyness makes him less scummy?????

[Kard]

At this point, I definitely think it would be best to lynch Aln, as Bulvious already said a few posts ago, he's not very useful in the game if he is townie. I still don't think it was coincidence that he V/LA'd this close to deadline, and from re-reading the thread a few times, to me it looks like he is definitely trying to continue to fly under the radar, and only a bad townie, or scum would do that. I'd go a little further into detail about this, but really, I'd pretty much just be parroting what Bulvious said, so with that,

VOTE: Alnkpa

[Bulvious]

If voicing a popular opinion is scummy and a tell then you're doing just that by saying he's wishywashy. I still don't feel he's that way and if he is then that still makes him less scummy than Aln because at least he's hunting some.

[Workdawg]

Where is the rest of your case, shotty?

[Zdenek]

Alnkpa's recent V/LA is annoying, but it's not a good reason to think that he's scum.

If needed, I will vote alnkpa for us to get a lynch today, but I'd really like people to comment on what makes them think workdawg is town.

To recap what I think of WD:
I think there is scum intent in most of his play. He's taken convenient and wishy-washy stances on everything. In my opinion he hasn't been scum-hunting, and his attack on me was pathetic; he either can't find or can only find poor examples of everything he accused me of and bulked up his "case" with pointless statements that even he agrees are things that are not scummy.

[Workdawg]

To recap what Zd says about me that's ACTUALLY true:
I've taken a wishy-washy stance on HIM (because I didn't want to think he was scum just because his play rubs me the wrong way.)
I haven't been scum hunting that much, except for him. (Though I have prodded at a few others)
I "bulked up" my case against him with things that aren't scum tells (but they DO help establish context for my reads)

To recap what I think of Zd:
Zd has been reluctant to post cases against both h3ll0 and startransmission until getting pressure from us to do so, despite voting for both of them. Maybe HE was trying taking a convenient stance against them, casting a vote and hoping to just claim it's a pressure vote later on if needed.
He has consistently twisted and taken quotes out of context in an attempt to make things that I've said sound scummy when they were not, and those things are pretty much the entirety of his case against me.

[Bulvious]

There's a couple of reasons I think Workdawg is town.

#1, his entrance to the game was very strong. He even admits that his spot is bad and asks for questions regarding that. He openly accepts any flak that might have come from this and then proceeds to give his observation. He read all of the pages as soon as he got in the game rather than taking FOREVER as replacements tend to, to read up. "More later."
"Not done"
"Not much to comment on."

He didn't make excuses, he plowed through it - something scum have little to no drive to do unless it's to find something that can be miscontrued as a slip, and then they can just take their time.

#2, I think he's town because he adequately defends himself. He doesn't get super reactive but instead responds in a rational manner. This isn't to say scum CAN'T do the same, but they would feel far more pressured than town would. One of the reasons my vote isn't on Zdenek is because of the way he's handled the votes against him. Though, he's also offered little to no explanation on a good bit of things, such as much of his early case against ST.

#3, I think Workdawg is town because no one has yet to give me a good reason to think otherwise and in his play I haven't seen anything that have made me think otherwise. Where is his scum intent? Where do you see it? If the only example is "I agree with lynching a lurker if there's no other option," Then your case is horribly flawed and should probably be chucked for a while until you can learn to scumhunt and find something else about him.

[Bulvious]

Err, those remarks in quotation in #1 were not things he said, but things I'm far more used to seeing people say.

[Zdenek]

Though, he's also offered little to no explanation on a good bit of things, such as much of his early case against ST.

My early vote on him was for active lurking and I detailed ST's first 20 or so posts earlier, and explained exactly why I said he was active lurking. What more do you want?

Zd has been reluctant to post cases against both h3ll0 and startransmission until getting pressure from us to do so, despite voting for both of them. Maybe HE was trying taking a convenient stance against them, casting a vote and hoping to just claim it's a pressure vote later on if needed.

Regarding st, I thought his active lurking was obvious, and would have been obvious to anyone reading the thread. No one has debated my analysis of his early posts. I find it bewildering that people were unwilling to go and look for themselves after I pointed it out. Regarding h3ll0, most of what I had to say about him could be found easily by reading me in isolation. The accusation that I might have been trying to cast a convenient vote and later say that it was a pressure vote is BS. First of all, because pressure voting isn't scummy, and second of all because that is clearly not what I was doing because I provided cases against each of them.

He has consistently twisted and taken quotes out of context in an attempt to make things that I've said sound scummy when they were not, and those things are pretty much the entirety of his case against me.

Let's go over everything one more time.

The essential problems with workdawg are: he tries to get his foot in the door on almost every lynch and takes wishy-washy stances that he can easily back down from. I will not reiterate the issues with his case on me here.

1. Lynching lurkers.

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy, but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

He's in favor of lynching a lurker, unless there is a consensus otherwise. Asking for a consensus on a day one lynch is an impossible standard. It allows him to back away from whatever stance he is taking at the time of the lynch and move his vote to whomever is lurking. If you think this is just a poor choice of wording, he reiterates this opinion later:

If there is an obvious scum target to lynch, then of course we want to lynch him, but if not then I have no problem lynching a lurker. What sense would it make to lynch a lurker if there was an obv-scum to lynch instead?

2. Fatso.

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.

After chkflip presented his case, his newb-town read of Fatso weakens. This is a very convenient change heart, he offers up a review of Fatso's meta for it, but fails to provide any details.

-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate... as he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet. I still think he's holding up okay and his responses seem genuine to me. I already mentioned the personal attacks...

Here he agrees with the case, but in such a soft manner that he can easily back down from his agreement if needed.

3. Alnkpa

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here. His post analysis is pretty accurate. Alnpka has been less active than most of us, and his posts usually don't contain any information that really helps. It's his first game though, and I still get a newbie vibe from him, like he doesn't really know how to scumhunt. During the back and forth, alnpka defends himself by quoting posts he's made that contain various questions to people and such. He seems genuine though and I get the impression that he just isn't really sure what he's supposed to be doing.

Bulvious analysis led him to vote for Alnkpa and push for his lynch today. To say that you agree with the analysis is an agreement that Alnkpa is scummy, and the rest of the post is just wishy-washiness over this stance, and whenever you like you could simply say that you agreed with the analysis and vote for Alnkpa.

4. Bulvious.

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.

Here you are clearly making an accusation of Bulvious, which is getting your foot in on the door of his lynch, which is what I suggested you were doing.

[startransmission]

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.

You've had you foot in the door of all

potential

wagons. Were you scum it would be sloppy to actually place your vote on the players in every instance.

My thoughts...

It seems to me that Bulvious just pressures with his vote and when someone stands up to that pressure, he moves to someone else. Overall, I still think his motive is scumhunting. His other posts seem to verify this to me.

This is where I'm torn. It's true that if Bulvious is scum he has picked his targets well and kept himself from pushing anything too hard. That's something that a townie would do as well if he were using his vote as pressure and his motive is scumhunting. But as Bulvious pointed out, he hasn't actually placed his vote on many players this game, just voiced his suspicion. It's an easy way to keep your hands clean when the focus/suspicion on a player evaporates. The primary reasons I'm inclined to consider Bulvious scum is the buddying, the leading question to h3llo and the subsequent (and unnecessary) attack on Zedenek's h3llo case. And his feeling that the case on me was very convincing. The case presented was not new, but when another player echoed it and pushed it, he then chimes in on it. He doesn't place a vote, and when that pressure on me goes away, so does his intererest in that "very convincing" case.

Sorry to see Fatso go.

Alnpka chose a poor time to go VLA. I need to look at the debate between Bulvious and Alnpka, and form a more solid opinion on Alnpka. Analyzing the debate may give me a better feel for Bulvious as well. Not sure what to make of DMSIS and Work, I'll look closer at them as well.

[Bulvious]

All quotes are Zdenek's

My early vote on him was for active lurking and I detailed ST's first 20 or so posts earlier, and explained exactly why I said he was active lurking. What more do you want?

For you to have done it sooner and before you were asked to do so multiple times is my preferred method, I appreciate you asking . I get that you say "Active lurking" which is cool, I dislike lurking and especially active lurking, but I don't want to do your work for you and ISO him when I'm already eying other people. I know what you're saying when you say "People can decide for themselves," but that doesn't mean a case isn't necessary. As town you want to persuade people to your point of view, get them to agree with you through HONEST means (scum's means and motives would be different but they're ultimate goal is to persuade also.) But then, I believe you're more experienced than I and don't need to be told this.

He's in favor of lynching a lurker, unless there is a consensus otherwise. Asking for a consensus on a day one lynch is an impossible standard. It allows him to back away from whatever stance he is taking at the time of the lynch and move his vote to whomever is lurking. If you think this is just a poor choice of wording, he reiterates this opinion later:

I do think consensus would probably be poor wording - I would have likely used something similar by accident without thinking a whole lot on it. I think what he means is more so lynch a lurker over no lynch. That's ALL I read it as. And if that's being wishy-washy then myself and others are likely to be guilty of that as well. I still disagree with this as being something to go against him, or anyone for that matter. Even the quote that followed. I'm thinking, once again, that when he says "Obv-scum" he's still a bit new so he still doesn't quite know what that means, or he's exhaggerating.

After chkflip presented his case, his newb-town read of Fatso weakens. This is a very convenient change heart, he offers up a review of Fatso's meta for it, but fails to provide any details.

The detail was that it's Fatso's third game and so he's not SO new that he should have been making some of the mistakes he's been making.

Here he agrees with the case, but in such a soft manner that he can easily back down from his agreement if needed.

No, he doesn't agree with the case. To me it appears as though he agrees with it as a lesson to Fat. Fat's play was bad - let's face it - it screamed newb or scum, and if he wasn't scum, Chk's case was GREAT to teach him how to defend and WHY the things he was saying/doing appeared scummy. Chkflip ended up agreeing with the PoV that Fat appeared more new than scum, or at least that's how I read it. It even appeared that Workdawg felt that the lesson was even a bit harsh, bringing up the name calling in Chk's case.

Bulvious analysis led him to vote for Alnkpa and push for his lynch today. To say that you agree with the analysis is an agreement that Alnkpa is scummy, and the rest of the post is just wishy-washiness over this stance, and whenever you like you could simply say that you agreed with the analysis and vote for Alnkpa.

I don't see it as wishy-washy at all. He's agreeing with something you're evidently missing - not the idea that Aln is scum, but the analysis of his content. The content is bad, and while I see that as scum and his following actions as scum, Workdawg doesn't say anywhere in there that Aln is scummy. In fact, he says from the get that "he's got a newb vibe" and at the end "he seems genuine." He even clarifies what he agrees with in the second sentence of your quote.

Here you are clearly making an accusation of Bulvious, which is getting your foot in on the door of his lynch, which is what I suggested you were doing.

The accusation was that I was riding your coat tails. That's not necessarily scummy, he's not even saying that I COULD be scummy. I think he might have said sometime before or after that that it appeared suspicious, but after my defense of my actions and case that followed, he dropped that notion (it appears). To be fair, I myself would have said similar, preferring a person give a strong case over saying "I've said it before and this reaffirms it."



He still reads town to me.

[Bulvious]

ST wrote:

You've had you foot in the door of all potential wagons. Were you scum it would be sloppy to actually place your vote on the players in every instance

Halfway through D1, I'm pretty much inclined to be suspicious of everyone. Even now I've confirmed no one. Now, that doesn't mean I'm ready to lynch everyone, but have my foot in the door of potential wagons? Silly.
I think it's stupid to assume that just because someone can see the merits of a case and states as much, they MUST be getting ready or looking out for the opportunity to lynch someone. I still support my feeling that Chkflip's case against you was pretty good. Does it remain accurate..? Well, your activity has gone down pretty far though you say that's due to work. You again promised content, and again you give little and promise to look around and give more.

It's true that if Bulvious is scum he has picked his targets well and kept himself from pushing anything too hard. That's something that a townie would do as well if he were using his vote as pressure and his motive is scumhunting.

Considering I've tapped a lot of people this game for doing a bad job of hunting, which are you more likely to believe? That my votes are to pressure or that I'm leading a false wagon. (In retrospect though, the only person I would have been happy to lynch would have been Sarahfish, and were she still in the game that would probably remain the same, but Workdawg has done a good job of clearing her name.)

But as Bulvious pointed out, he hasn't actually placed his vote on many players this game, just voiced his suspicion. It's an easy way to keep your hands clean when the focus/suspicion on a player evaporates.

My hands clean? To be honest, I feel like I've been the most pro-active player in this game, if anyone has been getting into the grit of it all, it's me. I've been trying to get people to slip althroughout, and I've called the newbs out and try to fix their play when it should have been YOU doing it. Speaking of which, this is somewhat irrelevant to the paragraph, but your role as educator is not being fulfilled very well at all. Or are you just the type of IC to sit and wait for people to ask questions so you can answer them?

The primary reasons I'm inclined to consider Bulvious scum is the buddying, the leading question to h3llo

Really? Because I defended him? Because I asked him questions YOU consider leading? What about how I've called him out recently or how I've defended Fatso, and Workdawg? Shall we just ignore that? I suppose any future action regarding h3ll0 (like perhaps calling him out and admitting his play is a tad different than in the previous game) could be me pulling away after being told it was a slip to buddy up to him should be ignored, but still, I felt that I should still bring it up. Now, even if I was asking a leading question, what does that really even mean? That I was trying to sway him to my point of view? Omfg that's such a horrible thing! Oh wait, no, no it isn't. He was the only one to voice an opinion against the talk of the policy lynch, so I felt questioning him because he was obviously of a different mind than the rest of us would be a good idea.
So, my other buddies are probably Fatso and Workdawg. The game is a set of 4 scum for sure.

Let's go ahead and assume, hypothetically of course, that I'm scum.

There's that ONE instance with h3ll0... Or...

My early harrassment and case against Fatso could have been taking the lead, being prepared to bus, and even ensuring that I had a decent team-mate at the start of the game. Then, I call him noob-town, something everyone turns around to agree with for the most part. That's actually a pretty decent alaby for him, as it held up for quite awhile, no? I even used it to defend him later on, didn't I?

What about Workdawg? My strong defense of him? I was VERY critical of Sarahfish89, my harassment about her lack of scumhunting COULD have been an attempt to coach her and get her to play the game appearing as though she was town. Now, again, I'm defending him.

Ah, h3ll0, I asked a question we are all going to suppose is leading, and then defended him.

So that's three people one could say I buddied with.


Case in point: Hunting in partners is stupid. Assuming I'm scum because I defended someone is dumb. Now, obviously, scum would have NO reason to defend THREE people who he could have pushed a lynch for instead. That doesn't make ANY sense. Scum only have one partner, Star. To me, if your case is still ONLY based on that, I don't see how there's any stock in it.

And his feeling that the case on me was very convincing. The case presented was not new, but when another player echoed it and pushed it, he then chimes in on it. He doesn't place a vote, and when that pressure on me goes away, so does his intererest in that "very convincing" case.

Lul. Because it wasn't in your favor it's SO scummy. Chkflip's case against you did appear quite good, I'll say it again. You're not playing a very pro-town game... at all. In fact, you're borderline lurking. That's true, it's been true, and you've yet to prove that it's not true. You have ONE case so far, and it's not even that good. If it took you all game to come up with three accusations to lobby against one person that didn't make sense, how is the accusation that you're actively lurking wrong?

I'll admit though, I did feel like an idiot when I found out what Chkflip was doing. As I said, a lot of this game is convincing people that you're correct. His case was very convincing, but used car salesmen can also be convincing. Needless to say, I obviously wasn't sold if my vote wasn't on you.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Way to cut your losses bro.

[Workdawg]

Hmmm, I responded to Zd's most recent post, 362, but the post seems to have disappeared. Interestingly, Bulvious has almirrored my thoughts, so I'm not going to repost it, but I'll just comment on some highlights.

1. I support lynching a lurker if the choice is a lurker or a no-lynch on D1. Period. I'm sorry if you found this confusing.
2. chkflip's inquiry was appropriate simply because

"he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet"

(note the direct quote from my post) . I never said I supported lynching him or even that I thought he was scummy; in fact I stuck to my initial read of newb-leaning-town. The meta WAS simply that it's his third game, so I would have expected him to show a little more experience.
3. I had previously commented on Bluvious' case saying that I had not had a chance to read it all in context (post 312). My statements on it (my next post, 321) were a follow-up to that. I agreed that his analysis was generally accurate. Where he said alnpka was posting fluff, it was usually fluff, and vice versa. Again, I never said I thought alnpka was scum. In fact, if you actually read my post, I said I still felt that he was just a newbie not really sure what he should be doing.
4. I asked him why he voted alnpka, since at the time he really hadn't commented about alnpka and he specifically mentioned your case as a reason for his vote. I DID accuse him of sheeping you, but I don't necessarily find that to be a scummy action (did I say it was someplace?).

Are you saying that sheeping is a rock solid scum-tell, Zd?

As for our impending deadline...

My top pick is Zd, for obvious reasons.

For my number two pick, I can go either way.

IF

shotty gets back in here and posts something relevant (even if it's a wall on why I'm scum), I can give him a pass for today... but so far I think he'd be my number two.
- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.
- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reason

S

Saturday.
- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.
It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

Otherwise, I think alnpka would be an acceptable lurker lynch. I'd like to give him a chance since it's his first game (getting lynched D1 for being a newb is a pretty crappy way to go out)... but I'd join that wagon if it meant we avoid a no-lynch.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Hmmm, I responded to Zd's most recent post, 362, but the post seems to have disappeared. Interestingly, Bulvious has almirrored my thoughts, so I'm not going to repost it, but I'll just comment on some highlights.

1. I support lynching a lurker if the choice is a lurker or a no-lynch on D1. Period. I'm sorry if you found this confusing.

No need for apologizing, but for the record it will never come down to that unless you are scum. Because a lurker will give you no reason to vote them other than lurking, which is not a lynchable offense. And since they are lurking you will have to have some read on someone else during the day, as will everyone else. So since everyone has some sort of a read, and reason to vote someone other than the lurker it is not one or the other.
EITHER OR FALLACIES ARE SCUMMY!!!

2. chkflip's inquiry was appropriate simply because

"he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet"

(note the direct quote from my post) . I never said I supported lynching him or even that I thought he was scummy; in fact I stuck to my initial read of newb-leaning-town. The meta WAS simply that it's his third game, so I would have expected him to show a little more experience.

Well that is dumb. I've played 84 games, and I still suck sometimes.

3. I had previously commented on Bluvious' case saying that I had not had a chance to read it all in context (post 312). My statements on it (my next post, 321) were a follow-up to that. I agreed that his analysis was generally accurate. Where he said alnpka was posting fluff, it was usually fluff, and vice versa. Again, I never said I thought alnpka was scum. In fact, if you actually read my post, I said I still felt that he was just a newbie not really sure what he should be doing.

Awesome know you are posting IIoA MORE SCUM TELLZ PL0X!!!

4. I asked him why he voted alnpka, since at the time he really hadn't commented about alnpka and he specifically mentioned your case as a reason for his vote. I DID accuse him of sheeping you, but I don't necessarily find that to be a scummy action (did I say it was someplace?).

Are you saying that sheeping is a rock solid scum-tell, Zd?

HEY THAT'S NEW! Begging the question with a dash of mis-repping! GO YOU!
But seriously more votes on this guy please.

As for our impending deadline...

My top pick is Zd, for obvious reasons.

For my number two pick, I can go either way.

IF

shotty gets back in here and posts something relevant (even if it's a wall on why I'm scum), I can give him a pass for today... but so far I think he'd be my number two.

Oh boy the OMGUS as set in

- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.

I was busy, our lovely mod PM'd me and asked me if I wanted the spot and I accepted on my phone.

- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reason

S

Saturday.

Emergancy V/LA, I even had someone else modding my newbie game >.>

- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.

Walls=/=Good. Walls are skimmed. The best way to find scum is short and sweet.

It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

Otherwise, I think alnpka would be an acceptable lurker lynch.

Bad Idea

I'd like to give him a chance since it's his first game (getting lynched D1 for being a newb is a pretty crappy way to go out)... but I'd join that wagon if it meant we avoid a no-lynch.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!(SORRY FOR THE LANGUAGE MOD, BUT IT'S NEEDED FOR EFFECT), WOW you should be lynched right now simply for this

First off lynching someone for lurking is bad!, and second if your only reason for not lynching them is that you'd feel ad for them,,, well ya die!

ALSO both of your lynch contestants are based on activity overview! That is one of the biggest scum tells I've seen yet!

Scum can simply look at the activity of a game and choose who to lynch, but in order for town to feel strongly about lynching someone they have to actually give real reasons!!!!

Bullet Points Against Dawg

• Bases his reads off of activity
  
• Takes no real stand on anything, as to avoid angering anyone
  
• OMGUS'd me(semi)
  
• Uses IIoA to fill walls
  
• Thinks like sucm
  
• Attacked me for not posting enough, called me scummy for it
  
• Mis-reps
  
• Either-or-Fallacies

[drmyshottyizsik]

Where is the rest of your case, shotty?

Also this. Town would be focus'd on finding scum this close to deadline, scum would be busy making sure people didn't find them like this. Taunting this close to deadline is not pro-town. A townie would know they were town, thus having no need to have someone else prove to them that they are scum

[Bulvious]

I feel so dense for a couple reasons...

1. What's an either-or fallacy? I'll look it up but know now that as I'm making this post I DON'T know what it means.
2. What's an IIoA? That's something I'd like to just be told, thanks if that can me done.
3. Why is your post red?
4. I'm still not seeing Work's scumminess.



Now, to go down the bulleted list...

#1: Where does he soley base a case on activity? I see where he brings up your activity, but I semi-sort of see why it would be suspicious for you to promise things Saturday and they don't come up till Monday. Your explanation does away with that, certainly, but that doesn't make him worng. I'm a big fan of doing what you'll say you do and I understand sometimes... You just can't. I don't see where this bullet applies totally.
#2: He's taken stands on things, an example would be his stance on information not being good for scum ever.
#3: Okay, that's stretching it, but I DO get what you mean here.
#4: I don't know what this means.
#5: Second guessing - not applicable I don't think.
#6: This seems like the same as #1, lurking is scummy, if you aren't posting enough, you're lurking. While it doesn't necessarily make you total scum for lurking, it's not pro-town. I fail to see where this is a tell.
#7: Now I DO see where you're going with that one. SORT of. Maybe not the misresenting so much as his begging the question. I'm not really sure about this one, I'm sort of a mixture of thought on it - more later.
#8: I read up on it before I finished my post. He did not, in fact, fallicify-ness at all.

An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable.

Now, you're assuming that there's more than two choices. In his example, he says IF there are only two choices - which, sure, there aren't only two, but he's not saying there aren't, he's saying IF there are only two, he'd rather lynch a lurker.

That is not a fallacy.

[Bulvious]

IIoA = Information Instead of Analysis, gotcha... Can I get a few clear examples as to him doing this? It's a bit unclear to me.

[Bulvious]

Workdawg wrote:
Hmmm, I responded to Zd's most recent post, 362, but the post seems to have disappeared. Interestingly, Bulvious has almirrored my thoughts, so I'm not going to repost it, but I'll just comment on some highlights.

Post your thoughts anyway please. I'll defend you but I'm not going to do your job for you or let you say "My thoughts are those of Bulvious's"
I don't like that at all.

Otherwise, I think alnpka would be an acceptable lurker lynch. I'd like to give him a chance since it's his first game (getting lynched D1 for being a newb is a pretty crappy way to go out)... but I'd join that wagon if it meant we avoid a no-lynch.

I'm like minded with Shotty in that this is a pretty stupid reason not to vote for someone. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work. Emotion isn't applicable in a game of fact and information, applying to ethos is often considering scummy for the sole reason that it... Does nothing. Application to ethos should be in that bulleted list as #9 of Shotty's, and it'd be the only one I'd agree with 100%.

For my number two pick, I can go either way.
IF shotty gets back in here and posts something relevant (even if it's a wall on why I'm scum), I can give him a pass for today... but so far I think he'd be my number two.
- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.
- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reasonS Saturday.
- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.
It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

As I said, I get what Shotty means here. There's so many better people to lynch for lurking or inactivity.
In my book, if I was just going to blind lynch someone based on content, it'd be h3ll0.

I've seen very little of him, and Startrans though ST has given a reason.

But, h3ll0 has been nonexistant in the last few days. He said something the 11th, which was two days ago, sure. Not all THAT long, but this close to the deadline? And it wasn't even content. It was a meek defense and a weak question, and his only stuff before that was on the 9th. That's four days with non-content if even a post.

His last activity was: Last visited: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:43 am
This close to the deadline, without a V/LA, I just don't agree.

[drmyshottyizsik]

@Bulv:
1.Either or is a logical fallacy like this. "Either buy slim quick, or be fat!". There are many things inbetween, but you are told that there are only two options.
2.Info instead of analysis
3. I like red, and I was angry
4. You should

#1-Both of the two people he wants to lynch, he only wants to lynch for lack of activity....
#2-That's an in arguable stance, thus not a stance, but a fact.
#3-See you're starting to come around!
#4-He wants to seem important so he posts wall that are filled with already state information.
#5-Look at the thing I posted after my wall
#6-There is a difference in calling someone out and attacking them, and listing them as a lynchable person
#7-Come on over to the good townie side!
#8-Yes he says if, but he says if as if it was pertaining to our situation right now, and it's not. He speaks as if the if is true, thus making the if null, and proving it to be a fallacy.

IIoA Examples(All by Dawg)

The first I agreed with only conditionally as it's better than a no-lynch for the first day.
The second wasn't even an agreement on the case.
The third one, I felt that the fact that someone was pressuring him seems appropriate, not that I agreed that he was scum.
The fourth one, Bulvious' analysis seems to be accurate to me, but I still feel like alnpka is giving off more of a newb vibe than scum vibe.

I've taken a wishy-washy stance on HIM (because I didn't want to think he was scum just because his play rubs me the wrong way.)
I haven't been scum hunting that much, except for him. (Though I have prodded at a few others)
I "bulked up" my case against him with things that aren't scum tells (but they DO help establish context for my reads)

Zd has been reluctant to post cases against both h3ll0 and startransmission until getting pressure from us to do so, despite voting for both of them. Maybe HE was trying taking a convenient stance against them, casting a vote and hoping to just claim it's a pressure vote later on if needed.
He has consistently twisted and taken quotes out of context in an attempt to make things that I've said sound scummy when they were not, and those things are pretty much the entirety of his case against me.

1. I support lynching a lurker if the choice is a lurker or a no-lynch on D1. Period. I'm sorry if you found this confusing.
2. chkflip's inquiry was appropriate simply because "he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet" (note the direct quote from my post) . I never said I supported lynching him or even that I thought he was scummy; in fact I stuck to my initial read of newb-leaning-town. The meta WAS simply that it's his third game, so I would have expected him to show a little more experience.
3. I had previously commented on Bluvious' case saying that I had not had a chance to read it all in context (post 312). My statements on it (my next post, 321) were a follow-up to that. I agreed that his analysis was generally accurate. Where he said alnpka was posting fluff, it was usually fluff, and vice versa. Again, I never said I thought alnpka was scum. In fact, if you actually read my post, I said I still felt that he was just a newbie not really sure what he should be doing.
4. I asked him why he voted alnpka, since at the time he really hadn't commented about alnpka and he specifically mentioned your case as a reason for his vote. I DID accuse him of sheeping you, but I don't necessarily find that to be a scummy action

- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.
- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reasonS Saturday.
- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.
It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

[Bulvious]

#1: He wants to lynch Zdenek for his play, as far as I'm aware.
#2: If it's arguable then it isn't fact, we argued it, it isn't fact.
#4: Second guessing again, not only that, self-importance is hardly scummy. I could be the biggest most arrogant douchebag but that doesn't mean I'ma kill you tonight
#5: Mmmm... Makes sense, sorta. At this point I'm not really HUNTING per se, but arguing and defending, perhhaps prodding for more info, not sure what you would call it. My vote is on Aln, my case is up, the lack of activity however... Depressing. Work's case is up (I'm pretty sure) and he's doing similarly. Am I scummy for this play also? I also think it's pro-scum to be inactive, if not scummy.
#6: This is true, I don't agree with it obviously. He hardly gave you a chance, this is true. Still, you've been focused entirely on Work. What are your reads on other people? I want more content than you other than tunneling on Work.
#8: I think assuming intent is sort of scummy. It's as bad as forming your case around the possibility that two people might be partners. You can likely easily identify different reasons why, but it's not necessarily true. I still disagree here.

Some of those quotes do have analysis, not only that, but reiterating informaiton or pointing it out for others to see is hardly a bad thing. I've actually missed things that others have caught a good many times, and have appreciated them bringing up the information.