Wickedestjr wrote:Firstly, let me remind you of earlier when I voted tarsonisocelot for not doing any scumhunting, giving any thoughts, or seriously voting/suspecting anybody. tarsonisocelot defended against this case by saying this was her playstyle and said that this was because
she needs more information. However, that didn't stop tarsonisocelot from seriously voting el simo in her
post 41. Later she says that
it was because his supposed AtE bothered her more than anyone else at the time. If that was the case, why wasn't she able to seriously vote anybody later in the game until we got more information to work with? It's because her vote for el simo was an early distancing vote. Otherwise, her behavior early in the game made no sense if she's town.
This is the first point Wicked makes in favour of the tar/simo connection.
It is saying that her serious vote on me makes no sense as town as she claimed later in the game that her playstyle is to get more information before expression suspicions.
tarsonisocelot wrote:ConfidAnon wrote:
tars - according to you, who's scum?
I don't know yet. Maybe yankcane, the points about their reaction to HH's gambit seem valid.
I do have a bad feeling about Wicked, but I want to wait a few RL days before deciding if that's actually merited by the tone/content of their posts or whether it's a knee-jerk reaction to them voting for me while saying "I have a case and I won't tell you!".
Maybe yonzy, the "Is it still RVS? I didn't notice! vote:random" thing was odd.
Wicked, it's a bit early in the game to claim anything definite based on a lack of stated suspicions. I never know what to do as any alignment early game and need more information than you appear to to develop a list of reads.
I ask questions to get people to clarify what they mean and provide more information to evaluate them on. And I try to ask in a non-confrontational manner where possible, so you are likely to find conditional words in my question sentences - to HH, who still has not explained their Wicked vote, for example.
This is the post where she says she needs more information before forming suspicions. Relevant part is bolded.
Wicked claims that this didn't stop her from making a serious vote on me in post 41.
tarsonisocelot wrote:VOTE: el simo
1. I see the game as a massive probability tree that branches at every role and every outcome possible. As scum then I begin with several of the most important branches already set. The aim is always to end up in the set of branches where the win condition is set, and it's easier to work out which set that is when you know the more of the set-up. Both are challenging but I currently prefer scum more because I enjoy trying to convince others to head down the paths that lead to my win condition over trying to work out which paths those are.
2. With magnets. And by trying to keep track of inconsistencies.
This is post 41. The serious vote she made against me came on page 2 and with not additional information, just a vote and some answers to the RQs. Right.. super cereal!
Asked to explain it, Wicked says that it was because my supposed AtE bothered her more than anyone else at the time, and that this is inconsistent with her post later on page 6 where she says she needs more information before expressing her suspicion, therefore it must be a scum distancing vote.
tarsonisocelot wrote:I didn't have any strong feelings about any player at the time, and the "I've been town every other game on this account" thing bothered me more than anything else that had happened at that point. As post 35 had already explained why one might dislike that post, and I was at the time pretty much apathetic about everything I didn't state my reasons.
It's not a post I would lynch for, but it is one I would vote for to see if the reaction was worth lynching for.
My lack of commitment at the time pretty much stopped me from actually doing anything useful though.
This is her explanation of her vote on me. The bolded part is relevant. She says it is something she would vote for to see if the reactions meritted my lynching.
This was a pressure vote, she was fishing for reactions as she clearly explained. This is exactly what she said she needed to do before forming any suspicions, she was looking for more information on me! How is this inconsistent with her claims on page 6?
In his first point on our connection Wicked has over stated his evidence, claiming serious votes during RVS and relevantly leaves out important information, such as the fact that her vote on me was fishing as that would ruin his case on me.
His second point against me is that tar never explained her null read on me when she was asked for her thoughts on four players.
Wickedestjr wrote:[Secondly, in
post 322 tarsonisocelot gives her reads on four of the players because she was asked to (IIRC). el simo is one of the players tarsonisocelot gave her read of. My issue with this post is that, unlike the other three reads, tarsonisocelot doesn't justify her el simo nullread- it's IIoA. This reeks of scum reluctant to give a read on their scumbuddy.
Here are his exact words and here are tars exact words on me:
tarsonisocelot wrote:el simo - null,
most of the activity was around the start of the game
when they were targetted for saying they'd been town every other game on this account,
lurky since they stopped being attacked, little scumhunting.
Does this not explain why she has a null read on me? Is this not enough justification for you? She's clearly stated that I was lurking, but had done some little scum hunting. She did explain her null read.
His third point is that Tar votes me three times with out explaining it or pushing it further.
Wickedestjr wrote:Thirdly, you'll notice that throughout the course of the game, tarsonisocelot has voted el simo three times. She voted him in her
post 41 but never did explain the vote or express suspicion of el simo, despite stating her vote was serious
later. There was also no followup to the vote and she never asked el simo any questions (which is odd considering she had her vote on him) until
this post where she finally switched her vote. She votes el simo again in
post 496 but removes the vote immediately after el simo responds
here and states that she didn't really even remember her reasoning. tarsonisocelot votes el simo a third time in
post 644 but this vote doesn't come until after LobsterCatapult expresses suspicion of him and votes him first. tarsonisocelot uses bandwagoning as a point to justify this vote but never mentioned the point earlier. What's worse is that tarsonisocelot does nothing with this vote. el simo asks her about the case before defending and tarsonisocelot never elaborates which shows that she doesn't actually care about el simo defending himself. She switched her vote before even seeing a defense from him. I strongly get the impression that tarsonisocelot is desperately trying to distance herself from her scumbuddy.
Firstly, as we have established, Wickeds definition of a serious vote is pretty loose. Her serious vote against me in post 41 was a reaction vote like she explained later. So this vote is null for his argument.
The second vote against me was an entire misunderstanding.
The third vote, she expressed legitimate suspicion and removed it once Ethos gave her an explanation of their meta read on me.
And this implies desperately distancing to you? She desperately is trying to distance herself from me with an unexplained reaction vote on page 2, a misunderstanding and a legitimate vote?
Wickedestjr wrote:Fourthly, one of the more important points, IIRC, el simo has completely ignored tarsonisocelot throughout the whole game and only interacted with her when defending himself from her votes. I don't know what his read of tarsonisocelot is. If you're too lazy to read through his iso, you can just look at his
catchup post to get a good idea. There's no mention of tarsonisocelot in it.
This is the last point on me, basically I've said nothing about her the entire game.
What can I say, she's been extremely inactive - as was I until recently. My attention has been focused on who I think is scum, she hasn't done anything to grab my attention and I don't buy that inactivity equates to scumminess. Why should I interact with her when I could be lynching scum? This point is null.
To summarise, he is wrong about the legitmacy of all four points, and even if he wasn't the connection he is making out isn't as strong as he is suggesting.
Tonight Wicked will investigate me and tomorrow he will tell you all he got innocent but it's ok I must just be the godfather then.
