This seems to me like OTM is trying to set himself for later if he decides to lynch Phate, and Phate comes up town. He can refer back to this post and be like, eh, even if he isn't scum, we are better off without him, which is bullshit. A townie has power just by being alive and holding a vote, or if they don't vote, at least they are increasing the number of votes it takes to lynch, which can be good or bad.OffTheMark wrote:I still consider him trustworthy as town, but I do not find it fun to be a "teammate" with someone like this and I almost want to vote him off just to improve the game.
OTM wrote:Post 133
vote: Thanatos
Phate is making sense. Your disagreement with his plans does not seem like townie reasoning to me. There is a marked difference between the way Korlash and Sensfan have disagreed and discussed the issues around the plan and how you have discussed the plan. You don't seem to have any non-BS reasons for disagreeing, basically.
FOS: kabenon for having a non-committal opinion on the exchange. Sounds like he's waiting to see which way the wind blows - common for scum.
Here you are setting up kabenon then voting for him because he wouldn’t choose sides concerning Phate’s plan.OTM wrote:Post 178
unvote:
After reading the last page, Thanatos no longer seems scummy to me.
However, this:
kabenon wrote:But I think Phate's plan could work, but it would take luck, extenuating circumstances, but I don't like the town running full blown into a plan that could cripple us as well.
STILL reads as quite noncommittal to me. Just because he said Thanatos comes out on top doesn't mean he has a real opinion on the debate. He is still ready to lean either way.
I still think the plan is a good one, btw. It is true that some power roles will be exposed upon reassignment, but that's much better than losing the power roles altogether.
vote: kabenon
However here you put him in the trust group. What happened from post 178-273 from him being suspicious enough for a vote to one of you ‘trusted’ townies? That’s a pretty big change.OTM wrote:Post 273
Anyway, back to the game... I have a list of players I trust at this point and players I am still not sure about. I'll share so we can see who agrees and who thinks I'm off my rocker:
Trust:
Phate
Korlash
kabenon (yes I know I suspected him, he's changed my mind)
Holy
SensFan
Drunken Piper
Why are you saying my statement is absolutely correct? I said Phate is suspicious because of his playstyle. But you said his playstyle does not make him scum. And then you continue that you consider him trustworthy as town.OTM wrote:Post 285
Thisis absolutely correct. Phate's reactions to the challenges of his plan have been ridiculous. However, I agree with Phate that this comes down to playstyle. Phate may be an arrogant bastard, but this unfortunately does not make him scum. I still consider him trustworthy as town, but I do not find it fun to be a "teammate" with someone like this and I almost want to vote him off just to improve the game.Zhao wrote: I felt Phate was suspicious because he so resistant to criticism when he was trying to sell his plan. I would think that a townie would try to be more cooperative. He kept on saying his plan was flawless, and even when as far as saying that people that were against him were either dumb or scum.
You are trying to defect Phate’s attention away from yourself.OTM wrote:Post 290
Phate, to change gears slightly, what do you think of Thanatos's recent hop-on of your bandwagon? Doesn't THAT seem like buddying up, since it seems to irk you so much when people agree with you?
You expected Phate to be nice to you since you put him on you trust list … if he was townie? Are you trying to imply he might be scum since he’s not saying you are perceptive?OTM wrote:Post 295
I also find it a little disturbing that you are saying my logic is suspect because I think you are a townie. If you ARE indeed a townie, shouldn't you just think I am perceptive? Perhaps you read too literally. I don't share ALL of my thoughts as I read the thread, or else I would dominate the thread with pages and pages of material. That's one of the hardest things for me when I play this game, is how much I choose to communicate, and what I choose to share.
I wasn't "setting up" anything, the only way you could interpret me that way is by reading me with your mind already made up that I am scum and that is poor play. I was suspicious of kabenon for being noncomittal, he continued being noncommital, he got my vote. It's really not hard to figure out.Zhao wrote:OTM, you have some explaining to do …
(snip)
Here you are setting up kabenon then voting for him because he wouldn’t choose sides concerning Phate’s plan.
He has showed townish reasoning in the way he has reasoned out the pros/cons of the plan.kabenon wrote:However here you put him in the trust group. What happened from post 178-273 from him being suspicious enough for a vote to one of you ‘trusted’ townies? That’s a pretty big change.
Ridiculous. All of the players I have named as trusted have demonstrated that they are working in the best interests of the town, mainly with their reactions/discussion of Phate's plan. Again, pretty simple.Zhao wrote:You’ve also mentioned before that you feel Phate is a trusted townie because he is pushing a pro-town plan, but what reasons do you have for the other 4? I hope you are not just throwing names around so others can fill in the blanks for you.
I said your statement is correct because I can see your reasoning, and I agree that Phate's reactions to the challenges of his plan have been unreasonable. But I disagreed with your conclusion and I explained why. I guess I shouldn't have said "absolutely" correct. I can understand your motivations, though, is basically all I'm saying.Zhao wrote:Why are you saying my statement is absolutely correct? I said Phate is suspicious because of his playstyle. But you said his playstyle does not make him scum. And then you continue that you consider him trustworthy as town.
My comment was in jest. Of course I do not want to lynch a townie. I said "I almost want to lynch him just to make the game more enjoyable" - obviously that is different than "I want to lynch him." Your sarcastic-meter needs realignment.Zhao wrote:I totally disagree with your statement where you said you would vote him off because he is difficult. Lynching a difficult townie is still a townie lynch and hurts the town.
The town is a team. I am assuming Phate is on my team, the town team. It is really unbelievable how badly you can misinterpret things.Zhao wrote:What did you mean by “teammate”? The only teams possible are the scum team and night communicators. You trying to catch Phate with a guilt by association ploy incase you get lynched?
First, the word is "deflect". "Defect" is when you change sides in a war. To respond, no, I was actually interested in his opinion. I was also checking for hypocrisy on Phate's part.Zhao wrote:You are trying to defect Phate’s attention away from yourself.
No, I have no idea where you got that idea. Maybe you just shouldn't read my posts if you're going to misunderstand them so badly. Seriously, this is troubling.Zhao wrote:You expected Phate to be nice to you since you put him on you trust list … if he was townie?
No, I'm not implying anything, I thought it was an interesting discussion point. If Phate responded badly to that question, THEN I might start thinking he could be scum. At this point I am just looking for an explanation. I think you are trying to read into me too deeply, when really the meaning is right there on the surface. I am a deep person, but I type what I mean. I don't have hidden agendas, for the most part.Zhao wrote:Are you trying to imply he might be scum since he’s not saying you are perceptive?
Sigh, another bad reader. See above. I have no intention of voting for Phate unless something radically changes.kabenon wrote:This seems to me like OTM is trying to set himself for later if he decides to lynch Phate, and Phate comes up town. He can refer back to this post and be like, eh, even if he isn't scum, we are better off without him, which is bullshit.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that game. Well, I wasn't completely acting like a townie there either, was I? Is that all you got as far as metareasons go? I am acting "between" a survivor and a godfather? Not sure how that even works... but anyway... I play a little differently in almost all my games. It depends on the other people I'm playing with, how much I'm suspected, experience level of the players, etc.Panzerjager wrote:OTM, must have forgotten I modded a game in which he was a survivor and I have read a game of his as town. He Is acting somewhere between him as a survivor and him as a Godfather.
Ok. I'm going to need to make this quick, but here is what it boils down to.Thanatos wrote:As I'm almost positive I mentioned in the past, OTM has come off really scummy to me. Phate's vote on him was unexpected, but it's convinced me toVote:OTM, with intent to lynch. It's late, so I'll go into detail tomorrow.
Thing is, both of them are acting pretty scummy so it's hard for me to agree with your statement. I hope you are not suggesting that a lively discussion is more important than scumhunting.QuickBen wrote:I really don't like it when people make comments like "I really think one of these two is scum and we should get rid of one of them asap." Its too easy for scum to pull that stuff and set up two townies who happen to be disagreeing for lynching. Being that the two in question seem to be two of our more prolific posters in here, it would also cripple discussion.
FOS Thanatos
Because I feel like OTM started out clinging to you specificly, until you began strong distancing. I also feel that you potentially fit into the role of "scum leading town" by working on the OTM lynch, you think that that gets you off the hook. I'm not saying this is true, I just think that, by Killing OTM, I have the best ability to examine you, not to mention his own, innate, scumminess.Phate wrote:QuickBen, I agree with you completely.
Thanatos, you say that my planning and "stubberness" is detrimental, without explaining why, and I can more-or-less handle that. And you say I'm hunting scum, which I'm glad you realise.
But how do you go straight from, "Well, Phate's too stubborn but he is hunting scum, and OTM has commited this entire list of scumtells over here, so surely at least one of them must be scum."
You'd cooled down on my suspicion list a bit, but if we lynch OTM today, I'll be voting for you D2.
How am I defending OTM? I'm saying "hang the F***er" and let me think about Phate all the while.Phate wrote:OTM clinging to me makes me scummy?
My pointing that out and pointing out all of his scumminess means I'm distancing?
My working on the OTM lynch fits me into a scum role?
My working on the OTM lynch makes me think I'm off the hook?
Even when you suffix an odd "not saying this is true," those are some incredibly flawed assumptions.
Now you know what I find more likely? I find it more likely that you've been relatively quiet throughout the whole case, and now you're popping up and saying, yeah, OTM is scummy, but what about Phate? I think it's more likely that you're defending your partner than that I'm distancing.
OTM wrote: I wasn't "setting up" anything, the only way you could interpret me that way is by reading me with your mind already made up that I am scum and that is poor play. I was suspicious of kabenon for being noncomittal, he continued being noncommital, he got my vote. It's really not hard to figure out.
When you voted for him in 178, he had posted some pro/cons of the plan (in which you edited out). You’re saying that his take on the plan pre-178 was scummy but post-178 was townie?OTM wrote: He has showed townish reasoning in the way he has reasoned out the pros/cons of the plan.
Are you going to share your reasoning, or keep us guessing? It bothers me that you throw around the ‘trusted townie’ label so freely with no explanation.OTM wrote: Ridiculous. All of the players I have named as trusted have demonstrated that they are working in the best interests of the town, mainly with their reactions/discussion of Phate's plan. Again, pretty simple.
I’ve actually met players that have stood by this logic in previous games. To intermix jest statements with serious ones is not a good play.OTM wrote: My comment was in jest. Of course I do not want to lynch a townie. I said "I almost want to lynch him just to make the game more enjoyable" - obviously that is different than "I want to lynch him." Your sarcastic-meter needs realignment.
Are you still trying to buddy up with Phate even after he gave you that bussing?OTM wrote: The town is a team. I am assuming Phate is on my team, the town team. It is really unbelievable how badly you can misinterpret things.
So you’re saying we should keep Phate and OTM around because their dialog is helping you flush out scum. Alright, who you do suspect then?QuickBen wrote: @Zhao- mainly because people's reactions to the discussion are where I find scum. I almost never get scumtells from the bigger arguments, but my how often the craplogic pops up amongst the people discussing that argument or interjecting their thoughts. So in a way, their discussion may not be scumhunting in your eyes, but it *is* helping me scumhunt. As far as the OTM thing is concerned, I'm not sure if he just has a scummy playstyle or if I'm getting true scum vibes from him. (Hence my lack of a vote.)
If you are not calling Phate scummy, why did you make the statement where:Thanatos wrote: I'm not even calling you scum. I'm saying OTM has been very scummy, and he has a relationship with you that I Find curious. That's all.
So which is it? Is Phate scummy to you or not?Thanatos wrote: … I believe that one of them is scum, or both of them are distancing.
I dislike this point, yet I dislike OTM's answer even more... On one hand, I myself have drasitcally changed my opinions in 100 posts... yet I have no problem actaully telling them to the town myself...Zhao wrote:However here you put him in the trust group. What happened from post 178-273 from him being suspicious enough for a vote to one of you ‘trusted’ townies? That’s a pretty big change.
I am almost 100% positive he meant the "Town team" pretty hard to forget about that one isn't it? Unless of course you are not on it yourself...Zhao wrote:What did you mean by “teammate”? The only teams possible are the scum team and night communicators. You trying to catch Phate with a guilt by association ploy incase you get lynched?
No, he is trying to get Phate's opinion on another player. While, at the same time, throwing suspicion ONTO Phate.Zhao wrote:OTM wrote:
Post 290
Phate, to change gears slightly, what do you think of Thanatos's recent hop-on of your bandwagon? Doesn't THAT seem like buddying up, since it seems to irk you so much when people agree with you?
You are trying to defect Phate’s attention away from yourself.
I don;t like the "Non-commital" argument almost as much as I hate the "Opprotunistic" argument. Each one has it's own interpretation, and opinions of the matter will vary *Drastically* from player to player. What you see as non-commital, I may see as "Careful consideration" or maybe "Indepth examination." While I agree Zhao seems to have already made up his mind. This is cause for a scum pair relationship where one KNOWS he is bussing his partner... Not very strong, but not a bad starting place either.OTM wrote: I wasn't "setting up" anything, the only way you could interpret me that way is by reading me with your mind already made up that I am scum and that is poor play. I was suspicious of kabenon for being noncomittal, he continued being noncommital, he got my vote. It's really not hard to figure out.
More please... cite examples, quotes, reasons.. whatever... convince me dang you! Stop being half assed about it.OTM wrote:He has showed townish reasoning in the way he has reasoned out the pros/cons of the plan.
I hate it when someone tries to undermine their attacker... It is the only time I ever actually think arrogance can out a scum. Nice dodge too.OTM wrote:No, I have no idea where you got that idea. Maybe you just shouldn't read my posts if you're going to misunderstand them so badly. Seriously, this is troubling.
A lively disscussion is almost always needed to scum hunt... I mean you can try to scum hunt by clapping to yourself all day, I gaurantee you it will get you nowhere...Zhao wrote:Thing is, both of them are acting pretty scummy so it's hard for me to agree with your statement. I hope you are not suggesting that a lively discussion is more important than scumhunting.
this is a good part of yoru case me thinks. I too am disapointed in OTM's responce and would love to hear more on this...Zhao wrote:When you voted for him in 178, he had posted some pro/cons of the plan (in which you edited out). You’re saying that his take on the plan pre-178 was scummy but post-178 was townie?
The thing is you posted nothing from 178-273 stating you felt kabenon was less suspicious. You only unvoted for him to bandwagon me. Suddenly dropping the ball in 273 stating he was a trusted townie doesn’t make sense.
I'm sorry... were you not the one who attacked OTM for asking Phate a similar question?Zhao wrote:@kabenon: Would you care to add your thoughts on this?
First, I agree his explanations sucked... L-3 is not *that bad* so vote is ok for now... You definitly need to take it off should another vote surface, unless you can somehow manage a better attack.Zhao wrote:Are you still trying to buddy up with Phate even after he gave you that bussing?
I’m not satisfied at all with your explanations. Vote: OTM