I am now contining my reread...
Page 6 opens with an argument between HackerHuck and Nai. I don't like the way Nai's 'advice' involves outside information. I'd like to know exactly what it is with Nai and insinuating people have outside information. I don't know if it's fishing or rolebased, but it's not helping anything and should probably stop.
Here's a post by Luna:
lunalovegood wrote:Okay, first of all, Jules vote seemed to be a bit out of nowhere, and you should never vote if you can't state a reason behind it. And I still don't see your reasoning behind your vote. So I
Fos: Jules
for that. And Coron supports this, so I still find him scummy.
Then we have Nai, who says:
Nai wrote:I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role.
which is, obviously, idiotic. What if you're town, and you think they're town. That would be a good reason to defend them. Although I don't agree with either Jules's or Coron's reasons for voting for Nai, I think Coron can defend him stupidly if he wants, so
Fos: Nai
And for the record, I'm still
voting Coron
.
Notice the ad hominem in the third paragraph. I agree with these points but they seem to echo what others have said too much. What I don't like, though, is that he's slinging FoS's around but keeps his vote on Coron, without explaining why. Still, for Luna, this is a step in the right direction.
If you're town and their not, and you defend them and they end up scum, chances are you'll be lynched for defending them. That's the reason I've been told not to defend someone unless you know their role. If you're a town, you shouldn't defend someone unless you know their town. If you're scum, you can defend just about anyone, since you know they WON'T be scum. That's why I tend to be on the offensive with anyone that defends another person: Either they are town that know what they are defending (unlikely on day 1), or they're scum that know they are in the clear. See the logic?
Not good logic. Let's say that you attack someone with really crappy logic, and lets say that said someone is too stupid to point it out. That means that if anyone attacks your faulty logic, you could immediately go on the offensive against them when in reality
you're
the one that should be explaining themselves. Also, this kind of logic makes it easy for scum to set up quick double mislynches and is not a pro-town way of thinking.
After some conversation about Stewie's avatar, we get this post (by Stewie):
Haha, I didn't think you were talking about my avatar.
Anyways, I still think that Jules is our better option, but Coron is also a good choice, particulary for the way in which he is defending Jules.
What I don't like about this post is that it echoes what others have been saying for the last couple of pages, and reflects popular opinion. Not that this is bad, but it seems that every post I see by Stewie seems to be pretty neutral and doesn't throw out any radical ideas or suspicions. People can agree with each other and I have no problem with it, but I think Stewie needs to form a few radical opinions and actually enter the spotlight for a change.
Nai post:
It's funny that HE can say something like that, and he doesn't seem to get nailed. Whereas I give reasons why I think he should be lynched, and everyone gets on my butt about it.
Sounds like an Appeal to Emotion if you ask me, only probably not in a good way.
Coron appears in post 169 and voices his suspicions. I'm not going to quote it since it's got a lot of quotes in it itself, but I think this may be a point in Coron's favor.
Nightfall poses a question:
Nai, I'm curious here, What would you say the one big reason your voting Coron is?
To which Nai responds:
My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.
Despite all the other things, your biggest argument is overconfidence? *sigh* Not this again. These poor arguments are not helping my view of Nai at all.
In the next post I point out a possible scenario in which both are scum and the whole thing is in fact a tactic. I could really see it too with all of Nai's wishy-washy lack of arguments and how they both have a continual vendetta against each other. The scenario is simple: one is lynched and ends up scum, so it's concluded that the other is town. This makes sense, but even if one does turn up scum it would be unwise to base the lynch on this logic alone (since that's how scum usually go about setting up double mislynches). I'd rather see how things play out in the Nai/Coron debate some more instead.
Nai continues to debate vs. coron:
First of all, I have absolutely no idea how you are counting posts here.
Second of all, you didn't even random vote ME in your first post. You built a case off of me by the reaction of mine (a humorous reaction) off of an FOS onto me.
And by post 15 of yours, or of anyones, it's probably time to stop random voting. Any vote at that point is not random.
So you based your case off of a humored reaction from me following your FOS, and have been adding crap to it ever since to make a case. And you can't even cite the correct posts.
So yeah. I see a problem with this.
I also see a problem with the fact that Coron and I are the only ones posting any content whatsoever, and the rest of the game is lurking.
For the second paragraph, yes that was a random vote. People put serious sounding reasons behind their random votes to make them sound funny. Sometimes people will use really bad craplogic in their random votes, also in an effort to be funny. Does that make them scum? No.
And for the third paragraph, I'm entirely sure he's reffering to the post subject numbers, not the number of posts by an individual person. I'm not sure how you can screw that one up. In fact, if I go back and spot you citing post numbers any time before this, you may earn my vote by LAL.
Nightfall post:
Zin you think Im scum in everygame.
I would post more but
1- Coron and Nai have sort of taken over the thread with their debate. I dont find either overly scummy.
2- I have been very clear that I want to lynch Con, other than that Im not sure.
I think this is the second time Nightfall has stated he wants to lynch Conflux without explaining why.
Also, the statement that he doesn't find either scummy sounds like a classic scum excuse to lurk ('Nothing interesting/suspicious has happened so I'm not posting'). I'll keep my eye on Nightfall as we proceed, but remind me when I'm done to do a private reread just on nightfall. I think something may be amiss.
Here's Coron:
Nightfall, there you go with your overdefensiveness again, he said he'd like to hear more from you not that you were scum.
Wow. Um, Coron, you seem to like to call everyone out on overdefensiveness. Someone asks Nightfall to post, and then he comes out and defends himself. Granted, the circumstances (30 mins after that post even though he's been lurker) seem a bit scummy, but I'm not sure it's pure overdefensiveness. Then again, the 'you think I'm scum every game' comment seems odd when all Zindaras asked was for him to post more.
Finally, Nightfall explains his vote on Conflux:
Huck, My thoughts on Con came from the fact that when in a rare occurance he would actually post in this game, he would ignore everything that was going on and post something of absolutely no content.
Ie. "this is for the bump"
I got a lurking in plain sight feal from him.
Sounds fair enough, but I don't think a lurker hunt is a good idea in these circumstances. Don't you think luna or perfect or Jules is more scummy that Conflux? Seems like a way to avoid the spotlight.
Jules post:
Jules wrote:Just had a reread. I find it slightly ironic how you can come out with this Nai...
Nai wrote:Well, there's also this other small thing. See, you built an entire case against me off of absolutely nothing (i.e., the reaction I made to your post in the beginning), and then have been subsequently adding things to it as if they make your argument any more valid. You made stuff up to begin with, and are adding things to it to make it seem like more than a house of cards.
I'm just voting you because you're doing that, and have been doing that, and your overconfidence about absolutely nothing is part of that.
...when you've built up your case against Coron in exactly the same way. Your biggest reason for voting for him is because he is being overconfident haha
Nai wrote:My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.
Points out something against Nai. Check my post 468 and you'll find that Jules is still posting in the same way and I still don't like it (specifically, the 'haha' comment). Jules is still not redeeming himself in my eyes.
Nai posts this 'gem:'
My case on him has been built on the fact that he is overconfident, and his building a case off of nothing is part of that.
It's worth noting that, when Coron was defending Jules before, Jules is defending him now.
Oh boy, time to set up another double mislynch by trying to link two people again! I'll point this out again: Jules was pointing out the hypocrite-like way that your own argument was worded, and was attacking you, not defending Coron. Actually, Nai, I think
this article might be a good read for you. Definite
FOS
for this one.
Coron's next post includes this which I cut out:
And, yes, I suppose that would be interesting to note.
That's in response to the last sentence of Nai's post by the way. So, it looks like Coron is admitting he was defending Jules, although I guess this could be kind of a corner case, so Coron: could you clarify whether or not you were in fact admitting to defending Jules?
Nightfall post:
As time goes on I am starting to see this as more of a town vs town arguement that started over Coron's ussual ...um... agressive.. playstyle.
Well, this was actually a non-requested insight, and he actually took a somewhat novel stance, so I guess this post is a point in his favor.
Kelly, replacing perfect, posts this:
Hey all.
I have not been following very closely but I will get on it yeah?
FOS: Zindaras
Not liking the FOS without reason.
Nai:
You seem to be defending him. I say that because you are attacking my argument which is attacking him. It further seems like defense because he defended you a few pages ago, and it seems like scum returning the favor. Considering the way you've been playing, Jules, up to this point, I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you.
First two sentences are spewing CrapLogic. Third sentence is just plain ignorant. Scum do NOT want noticable links between themselves. Also liking the 'I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you' comment without actually doing so. Classic scumtell.
Ho boy, he's a real winner by Coron:
Coron wrote:oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:
Nai wrote:My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.
That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.
And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...
Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.
This post deserves a dissection.
- - -
"So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?"
Craplogic if I ever heard it. Yeah, lets turn everyone's attacks against them because they have a guilty concience. This =/= Logic.
"Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result."
Noting that this is the second time Coron has thrown out this scenario.
"Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions."
Again, this falls under my previous argument of him waiting about until pages later to explain, and his hasty defense which sounds more like a slip and less like fishing for reactions.
"I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted."
What oddball theory? Your random vote? It's quite clear to me that it was in fact random, and you saying otherwise sounds like a retrospective revision.
"Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM."
Uh-huh, everyone who Random Votes for someone is a cop with a guilty result.
- - -
Post by Nightfall:
Nightfall wrote:(my opinion)
Coron wrote:Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Or it could be a pro town player who is a little annoyed at being labeled as scum for nothing at all by someone who seems so confident in what he is saying. And when someone apears confident enough to voice his opinions in that way, others may get convinced he is right.
Therefore the town player could be just interested in shuting you up or setting you streight so a mistake is not made by the rest of the town.
(This post is hypothetical of course, and comes from a distaste in the Coron/pooky/Fritz/Thesp playstile)
Good post by Nightfall, I'd say he's starting to look a bit more townish now.
Coron:
[sarcasm]Alright! Why don't we play mafia this way? LET'S ALL BE FRIENDS AND NOT ACCUSE ANYONE OF BEING SCUM AND SIT HERE AND STAGNATE FOR 3 MONTHS! Once all that is done the mod will put a 5 day deadline down and productivity will be up 600% for that but we'll still only get about 30 posts in that time and end up lynching someone mostly randomly. I love that style of play man. I wish we had more of that around here.[/sarcasm]
Poor, poor response.
Stewie post:
Stewie wrote:Coron wrote:oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:
Nai wrote:My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.
That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.
And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...
Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.
A few notes:
1. I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that you have some sort of information. If, for no apparent reason, you are sure Nai is scum, then it follows that you have some extra information (either that or you are nuts
). Cop sounds unlikely because, as Nai explained in the very same post you quoted, you didn't just say that Nai was scum, but that Nightfall was scum with him. Furthermore, given that being so confident with no apparent reason, and that it follows that you have extra information, it would not be a smart thing for a cop/tracker/whatever to let the scum know, because scum like to get rid of anyone with any extra information, other than themselves.
Ok, I guess it was one big point.
I don't like this post by Stewie, as it furthers the implication that Coron has outside info but doesn't give any solid evidence. This post screams a link between Nai and Stewie. The addition of the smilies seems against Stewie's playstyle so far, and usually I find the addition of humor to lighten a post up a scumtell.
Alright, that's as much as I have the stamina to do at present, but I'll continue from page 10 later.
- - -
Suspicions List:
Coron:
Probably Scum
Uses Craplogic, continues vendetta vs. Nai, not defending himself in a logical manner.
HackerHuck:
Leaning Towards Town
There is something about HackerHuck that I will talk about when I finish my reread, but I'm not getting into it yet.
Nai:
Probably Scum
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info; trying to link people by calling attacks defenses.
Zindaras:
In the Middle
Nothing much I got a read on, yet again. Probably town overall, although the more I see no material coming from Zindaras, the more I doubt this.
Stewie:
Suspicious
Starting to not like the connections with Nai, also the attempts to stay out of the spotlight.
Lunalovesgood:
Very Suspicious
Early, early lynch -1 vote; still not liking Luna's lack of logical arguments.
Jules:
Very Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them, not liking ad hominem and mocking tone of arguments
Conflux:
Slightly Suspicious
Still avoiding the spotlight, not posting anything of value.
Nightfall:
In Between, Leaning towards Scum
Not really taking a novel stand, seems to only post when it's requested or when he's being attacked.
Perfect62834/Kelly
Somewhat Suspicious
Really fishy random vote, also some later posts by Kelly I don't agree with.