Newbie 384: All over 'cept the finger-pointing!

[MeMe]

Vote Count

:

truncator

(2):

Windfish, pickemgenius

pickemgenius

(1):

truncator

Yosarian2

(1):

Albert B. Rampage

WindFish

(1):

thedocsalive

not voting

(2):

LlamaHunter, Yosarian2

Still four.

[truncator]

Actually, I believe you should watch the 4th vote. pickem's vote is in for me already and he is trying to rally a 3rd vote so his scum buddy can pounce. Probably Albert or even yosarian. I don't have a good read on either of them anymore. I trust no one!

[Yosarian2]

I really didn't think I would have to spell this out, but why make a big deal about it? I achieved the same effect while playing it cool. More so than I ever dreamed. I really didn't expect this much reaction out of it. I'm not much of a bold type yeller anyway.

If the effect you were going for was to get people to vote for you, then I guess you did. However, if you were trying to get a reaction from pickemgenius and/or about other people's reactiosn to pickemgenius, then you would have acoomplinshed that much more effectivly by making clear that he was near lynch; the way you did it, I think most people's reactions had more to do with the disengenuas nature of your post (where you tried to make it look like a random vote when it wasn't) then with anything about pickemgenius in specific.

I really just wanted to see who was paying attention and how everyone would react. All said, I think we got on the right track by luck. I still think pickemgenius is scum.

Ok. Why do you think pickemgenius is scum?

[truncator]

Ok. Why do you think pickemgenius is scum?

Naturally, I didn't think pickem was scum in the beginning. But since that time he has been constantly prodding on me and trying to round up more votes to lynch me. I believe he is doing so because he knows I'm in a unique spot with everyone eyeing me and he knows I'm pro-town because he is scum.

I really wish windfish would remove his vote for me. I still think we are on the same side. I've had 2 votes long enough now that I think one of the two current votes are scum. It wouldn't seem so suspicious anymore if 2 more scum votes came along and lynched me. 1 has voted for me, the other is waiting.

[Albert B. Rampage]

OMGUS

[pickemgenius]

Ok. Why do you think pickemgenius is scum?

Naturally, I didn't think pickem was scum in the beginning. But since that time he has been constantly prodding on me and trying to round up more votes to lynch me. I believe he is doing so because he knows I'm in a unique spot with everyone eyeing me and he knows I'm pro-town because he is scum.

I really wish windfish would remove his vote for me. I still think we are on the same side. I've had 2 votes long enough now that I think one of the two current votes are scum. It wouldn't seem so suspicious anymore if 2 more scum votes came along and lynched me. 1 has voted for me, the other is waiting.

First paragraph:

I haven't been trying to "round up" votes to lynch you. Just because I think you're scummy won't make me actively try and change the minds of others. That's their own choice on how they feel about you. I've been throwing out scenarios at best.

Don't ask for people to unvote you. You asking Windfish to do so strikes me as weird. SHOW US YOU'RE TOWN if you want us to unvote you.


That's all for now.

[truncator]

I didn't ask him to unvote me. I made a statement.

[truncator]

OMGUS

You go from poetry to this. Classic.

[pickemgenius]

I didn't ask him to unvote me. I made a statement.

I really wish windfish would remove his vote for me

Umm your statement was asking him to unvote you. LAL anyone?

This now brings me to think of you/WF pair.
This is totally not set in stone just a thought.

[LlamaHunter]

Umm your statement was asking him to unvote you. LAL anyone?

Probably shouldn't be so hasty about it, technically it was a statement of sentiment rather than a request, but it was an implied request.

I'm thinking an Albert/truncator pair could be likely as well. Albert's last few posts during this whole truncator issue haven't added very much to the discussion.

[WindFish]

My current ranking is for truncator/Albert as well. Trunc's statements have raised some doubts, but I still go back to the quick 3rd vote. He claims it wasn't accident, so I think it's either a nooby scum move or misguided town.

I think truncator announcing his desire for me to remove my vote from him makes it harder for me to do that now, since it alone makes it look like we have a covert channel going on in the thread. I'm keeping my vote on truncator.

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people. I don't suppose that's necessarily scum behavior, but inconsistent behavior means it's 50/50 to me that your playing for the mafia. So just a

FoS: Albert

for now.

[LlamaHunter]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people.

Solid effort, WindFish, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time. With no votes on him, I think it's pretty safe to

vote: Albert

. Although it might not be scummy behaviour, it also might be. Might as well look into it.

[truncator]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people.

Solid effort, WindFish, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time. With no votes on him, I think it's pretty safe to

vote: Albert

. Although it might not be scummy behaviour, it also might be. Might as well look into it.

Albert/pickem - not albert/trunc

trunc is good. good for the soul. good for the mind. not so good on the body unless you like tequila.

[truncator]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people.

Solid effort, WindFish, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time. With no votes on him, I think it's pretty safe to

vote: Albert

. Although it might not be scummy behaviour, it also might be. Might as well look into it.

Albert/pickem - not albert/trunc

trunc is good. good for the soul. good for the mind. not so good on the body unless you like tequila.

Holy crap, I just talked in third person. That killer game of golf must be getting to my head! Help me tom cruise!

[Albert B. Rampage]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people. I don't suppose that's necessarily scum behavior, but inconsistent behavior means it's 50/50 to me that your playing for the mafia. So just a

FoS: Albert

for now.

Umm...who do I have faith in again ?

[WindFish]

Umm...who do I have faith in again ?

Hey, that was trunc again. My bad. So

unFoS

from Albert.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote: LlamaHunter

Everyone should do the same. He based a vote on evidence he didn't even care to verify.

[truncator]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people. I don't suppose that's necessarily scum behavior, but inconsistent behavior means it's 50/50 to me that your playing for the mafia. So just a

FoS: Albert

for now.

So this is me you are talking about?

Well, the folks I have faith in and the accusations I cast are not for the same folks, are they? Is it inconsistent to accuse one and have faith in another?

pickem/Albert = bad
trunc = good
everyone else is good as far as I can tell right now.

[WindFish]

So this is me you are talking about?

No, just the "faith" part was you. The other parts about inconsistency still apply to Albert.

I don't have an issue either way with who you have faith or good feelings about or whatever. I mistook it as part of Albert's loose cannon accusatory style.

Could an IC explain how Day 1s (in C9 games) typically arrive at a lynch? It seems like there's always too little information until there's a lynch and kill and then to look back at everyone's behavior from Day 1, but it appears difficult to make progress to that first lynch without so little to go on.

[truncator]

So this is me you are talking about?

No, just the "faith" part was you. The other parts about inconsistency still apply to Albert.

Right on.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively

, then swings around and says he has faith in people.

I don't suppose that's necessarily scum behavior, but inconsistent behavior means it's 50/50 to me that your playing for the mafia. So just a

FoS: Albert

for now.

So I cast accusations, pursue them aggressively...and then withdraw when there's nothing left to say on the subject. How is that inconsistent, tell me.

[thedocsalive]

Sorry for not posting daily, guys. I'll post tomorrow.

[LlamaHunter]

Vote: LlamaHunter

Everyone should do the same. He based a vote on evidence he didn't even care to verify.

I presented my reason. Your play is inconsistent. Your vote doesn't appear to have any more backing than mine does.


From page 3, your posts go along the lines of the following:

Unvote, vote Yosarian2

I don't like him much, and would readily lynch him today unless something unexpected happens.

You already express the desire to lynch Yosarian. Note this happens after the other issue currently occurring, that of truncator's 3rd vote.

Definitely scummy.

In response to WindFish's question, "Do you consider those actions to be pro-scum? To be anti-town?" Again, this emphasises Albert's views on Yosarian.

Not quite, Yos. You sounded over-defensive when WindFish made a mistake. Then the next post you submitted, you stated the obvious, and FoS'd me with questions instead of explanations. I find that scummy. Your reactions ?

Again, note "I find that scummy."

Post 63 is a hugely substantial post, but ends with

You are a scumbag because you misrepresent people and their intentions, which are both very strong indicators of your scumminess.

Albert even goes so far as to use "scum" twice in the one sentence.

Post 66 ends with

Excuse me, Yos, but I don't see the irony. What I see, is possible scum that I would like to continue to interact with.

Note that after this, Albert only very minimally continues to interact with Yosarian, even less so appears to consider him scum from this point on.

Post 73, Albert says he's answered Yosarian's questions.

Now, in posts 80 and 83, Albert asks Yosarian what he thinks of thedocsalive, and asks thedocsalive what he thinks of Yosarian. Following this, after being asked about truncator, he replies:

I share Yosarian's views on the question.

and

Like Yosarian, I believe...

To then illustrate the other point I raised,

Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time.

you will note that of this page and last page before post 136, Albert has made these posts:
110: "I share Yosarian's views on the question."
112: "Like Yosarian, I believe truncator shouldn't act scummy on purpose, or he will have my vote too. For now he is treading on dangerous grounds, but isn't satisfactory for a lynch.
My vote on WF could be because he followed my lead and unvoted, maybe to avoid suspicion."
119: "Nah, random vote. Wow, my reason didn't make sense whatsoever."
129: "OMGUS"
I personally find very little substance in those posts. The first two express agreement with Yosarian, which is inconsistent in itself, 119 merely corrects 112 to nullify your "My vote on WF could be..." statement, and 129 is a one word post.

"

Everyone should do the same

. He based a vote on evidence he didn't even care to verify." - Albert, post 141 (emphasis mine).
Attempting to get everyone to vote me is very suspicious behaviour indeed.

[LlamaHunter]

EBWOP: I missed the final analysis for the first point, but it should be self explanatory. Considering Yosarian "definitely scummy" and then turning around and sharing his views is inconsistent. It is possible that Albert is hiding his own views of truncator to avoid interaction with his scum partner.

[Albert B. Rampage]

You don't have the slightest clue of what your talking about, and you don't have a case.

I didn't have a strong case on Yosarian either, so I left him alone. I find myself agreeing with him on the truncator issue. What's the big deal ?