Looking back at the early pages of the game, you were definitely not lurking. I think I had that feeling around page 3 becuase a few of your posts were IC answering questions and becuase early (and still) I had absolutely no feeling on you either way.
I don't equate lurking with scuminess, but lurking does trouble me.
I wouldn't want peapod singled out for lurking, so I mention that she is lurking. Granted it was with your name first, but that wasn't part of a concious effort.
Ripley: I understood the point you were making. I just didn't see it linking us in that way.
Peapod could be a type of scum-parrot. The questions she poses early are already out there, and the similar "sentiments" of Ergo's that she mimics are interesting. This could just be her lack of devotion to the game. Some of her early posts make me a little suspicious for reasons I can't exactly put my finger on.
I'm hesitant to attach or use her behavior to determine anything about any other player.
destructor wrote:
Erg0
In Post 38 I didn't like the way Erg0 makes blatant assumptions about CS's motives. This comes across as a defense of CS, but one I think no one but CS himself was in a place to make, assuming he's town. He uses this as the basis of his attack on Zeek. Later, in Posts 49 and 101 he suggests the opposite, claiming that his defense of CS was a result of his attack on Zeek. This doesn't ring true
After reviewing the early part of the thread, it does ring true. I half-assedly explained my usage of the WORD "obligated", and Ergo expanded. Much of Ergo's later "defenses" of my admmitedly strange OMGUSing does stem from interaction between Zeek and Ergo.
To me it looks like Ergo's attack on Zeek was the product of them viewing my behavior with two completely different sets of assumptions. I can't find a concrete place where Ergo has lied about his motivations.
destructor wrote:
...Erg0's accusation that Zeek was reaching were based on his defense of CS...not the other way around.
Ergo's accusation that Zeek was reaching was based on his feeling that my actions were seriously misunderstood (this is not a defense in and of itself) and the conflict
that resulted did lead to a type of defense of myself.
I'd love to hear from Garnasha, but I'm leaning again in destructor's direction.
destructor wrote:
Civil Scum
I realise CS's first post has been discussed a lot. In brief, regardless of what followed, this post is notable because he only asks one of the two players voting for him to unvote. I saw his vote for leet as an OMGUS random vote, but it is odd that he would do that after refering specifically to Porochaz.
Yeah, it was odd and irrational. You seem to be writing about me with scumminess in mind right off the bat.
destructor wrote:
Post 20 was scummy. I don't know what his intention was exactly here, but it did come across as an attempt to share some pressure with Porochaz. He unvotes a few posts later (Post 25) without really elaborating on his intentions, which is confusing and makes his vote for Porochaz even more questionable.
This vote, as I explained was hair-brained silliness. I "elaborated" later by saying that it was simply becuase prochaz was still voting for me. Let's call it second-grade Imma get u back. I retracted it 5! posts later and "elaborated.
destructor wrote:
The one thing from this I feel fairly confident about is that CS and Porochaz probably aren't scum together.
True. You AND porochaz are highly unlikely as well.
[quote="destrucotr]
Without meaning to be defensive, I though CS went a bit far with Post 32. He clearly either misunderstands or misrepresents leet's post, coming across as a little opportunistic, though asks some fair questions. In this post, he also downplays the significance of his reaction to being at L-2, which is dodgy.
[/quote]
I may have been over eager, but mostly in response to Leet's over-eagerness. He was OFF HIS ROCKER. The vote may have been quick, as his behavior at that stage was primarily plain weird, and not neccesarily scummy. (Now I can't say that's the case)
It was dodgy (Ripley made a good point about this) and I guess I won't do that anymore. I just wasn't entirely sure how to convince anyone to choose "newbie" over "defensive scum", so at that point it just seemed like it was best to leave it to individual judgement. And best to "look around for other topics" becuase I didn't know what to do to show that my actions were not inherently scummy and my intentions not EVIL.
[quote="destructor]
Post 51 has a few things to note. First is this:
Civil Scum wrote:
I'm admittedly glad that Ergo is sticking up for me so readily, I doubt a scum would come to my aid in explaining what I have tried to. It is coordinated, but for me this makes me lean town in his direction.
WIFOM. It's not particularly revealing on its own, but certainly worth noting.
He also continues to flesh out his suspicions of leet, making some decent points, but others that aren't so great and kind of reachy, particularly his points about leet and Day 2. His focus on leet continues in Post 80. In this as well, he clearly misinterprets or misrepresents leet's posts.
[/quote]
I don't see myself misinterpreting or misrepresenting leet's post in Post 80. In fact, I believe I adressed the scummiest post leet made. He makes the claim that his voting for me was based on opposing assumptions we had made throughout the game so far. This was not true and nowhere earlier had he even been close to operating with that in mind. My curiousity with Leet's early fascination with D-2 had little to do with my vote for him. That one is reachy taken on it's own. It's the false/insincere/invented/fantasy reasonings behind his voting for me (and keeping his vote there with little justification), the lack of un-voting justification, and his final post where he makes a distinct point of letting us know that he didn't know porochaz had unvoted before he did.
Can anyone answer my question about 'Why make that post, unless u are scum and have something to hide'?
destructor wrote:
There is also evidence of possible distancing from Erg0, which is worth noting if either of them turn up scum, especially in light of his WIFOM comment I quoted.
I'd say me and Ergo have been undistancing. What distancing tactics have we attempted to employ?
Well, it seems to me that Zeek's accusation of Ergo (based largely on his "sticking up" for me) can also be boiled down to WIFOM. I thought I detailed the basic outline for my choosing town for Ergo. It's the timing that makes little sense for a scum.
destructor wrote:
His latest post (a few posts above) is more on leet. To answer your question, CS, I think that leet's posts weren't inherently pro-town (that's not to say they were necessarily anti-town either), but it looks to me like you're jumping at them and trying to see them as only scummy, speculating a lot in the process. I can't speak on behalf of leet's actions, so unfortunately there isn't that much I can say in defense to your analysis. Despite this, I'm not suggesting that leet's posts shouldn't be used to judge me to a degree. But I am saying that I, personally, can't be held accountable for everything that he did, anti-town or pro-town.
I disagree, you are him and you are 100% accountable for everything he has done.
I am very close to re-voting.
As it stands, all I can say for near cerainty are a few pairings I find impossible.
Ergo and myself: All of the suspicions revolving around Ergo's alignment are based on the case that I am town, and he is buddying up to me. I don't see how this case can stand as scum bailing out scum.
Porochaz and myself: too early, too risky
Leet and Porochaz: also too blatantly coordinated
Ergo and Leet: I find it highly unlikely that Ergo (as scum) would help take the heat off of me and place his vote directly at his scum-buddy's feet. Although, leet has messed up pretty bad...so maybe later I'll reconsider this one.
Zeek and anyone: I can't find a single scummy morsel in Zeek's posts.
Peapod: leaning towards scum for no apparent reasons
Ripley: 100% unsure
