Mini #534 - Vegetable Mafia (Game Over!)

[ryan]

He has STILL failed to give a reason for voting me and now you're giving him a free pass and jumping on my wagon (or so you say) 143 had not a darn thing in it to "drop your jaw" I said that he lied about his voting methods and it's obvious he's hiding something by his lack of answering questions directed toward him (look back through the thread man and check it out)

[Phate]

Quit trying to deflect attention. I realise he's scummy. I think you're scummier for your absolute surety and your gung-ho LYNCHTHESE2NOWKTHXBAI attitude on Page 7. He's not THAT scummy.

We've been over this.

[Y]

You can't decide you have absolute proof that some one is scum on day one. You have nothing but words to base yourself on - You have no facts.

You can know the alignment of exactly one person, and that's you. Unless, of course, you have a partner. Do you?

So please, how did you come to decide there are two people you're certain enough of their alignment to tell us they're scum on D1, page 6, with no real proof?

About destructor's vote: Did you re-read the posts I mentioned? 83-84. Here's what I see in those posts:
destructor is questioning soupfly for voting him, so in 83 ryan quotes his vote and asks him why is he (destructor) voting him (ryan).
The answer is "I think you're over-reacting to that" (post 84).
At the time it seemed obvious. A vote that puts some one on L-3 is a big thing, but if you check it now, it is clear that destructor knew that it's not a real vote, therefore there's no real treat.
I'm not saying it's not scummy, but I do thing he wasn't lying about him knowing the vote is illegal.

So now I have three problems with this post:

You lied about your voting methods, and now you're gonna hang because of it scum man. (Notice how I'll give reasoning for voting, take a few lessons on that)

1. I believe destructor didn't lie, so there's no case there.
2. You're not giving real, concrete reasons. Just a vogue assumption.
3. You're too ready to lynch some one because of your failed reasoning.

[thinktank]

Ryan: What destructor did with the fake vote does eem scummy but its far to early to be sure of anything yet. The fact that you are pushing a lynch as hard as you are is also very scummy. I realize you have your reasons however, they arent nearly enough to lynch someone, the fact that that he may deflect doesnt necessarily make him. it makes his actions scummy. Theres a difference.

However there was a comment earlier on Anti-town and scum and their lack of interchangeability which i disagree with. Anti-town is imo the same thing as scum and i fail to comprehend why anyone would think otherwise. If you are not helping town, you are taking away from town. Aka, if you were a townie taking away from town, you're play would make absolutely zero sense. However if you consider the position from a scum perspective, this position becomes entirely justified.

Destructor: Why did you fake vote? I don't buy your claim that you wanted to see people's reactions.

Oman: Start playing less randomly, you are taking away from town;

[Y]

I think Oman started in a weird way to create conversation. His last post or two were well written, IIRC.

A player that plays in an anti-town manner isn't necessarily scum. He can just be an idiot.

[Phate]

Personally, I'd rather have a town idiot alive than an intelligent scum alive.

[ryan]

So now I have three problems with this post:

You lied about your voting methods, and now you're gonna hang because of it scum man. (Notice how I'll give reasoning for voting, take a few lessons on that)

1. I believe destructor didn't lie, so there's no case there.
2. You're not giving real, concrete reasons. Just a vogue assumption.
3. You're too ready to lynch some one because of your failed reasoning.

1: I do NOT have absolute proof of anyone in this game except I'm not scum, that's the only person's allignment I know. Never did I say I had absolute proof, just tells that make me believe destructor and Oman are scummy.

2: YOUR opinion is that he didn't lie, mine is that he did. So it's a wash. You have your thoughts as do I with mine. You saying there is no case isn't fair as you are basically not going to listen to possible reasoning.

3: I believe the vote hopping, the lying (lie=anti town) and the willingness to get a lynch (as Oman and destructor were very early) lead me to believe that we have two scum working together to get a townie (me) lynched. If you feel I'm so gun ho to get somebody lynched what's the difference to what they did?

4: When I feel as though I have found scum, than you are darn right I'm ready to lynch, are you saying if you were very certain about somebodies scum tendencies you wouldn't?

5: You seem to be a little pig headed when stating opinions. You have to be open to all aspects in these games to be successful. I want more discussion from others (these last few pages have been dominated by a few players and not ALL the players) I'm fine with waiting to hear from others but blanket stating me as somebody who wants people lynched immediately isn't fair.

[ryan]

Personally, I'd rather have a town idiot alive than an intelligent scum alive.

Forgot to address this point, a town idiot can be just as dangerous as intelligent scum as town idiots can help get other town players lynched just the same as scum night killing certain players.

[Y]

What page it is has nothing to do with lynching or no lynching, stop trying to steer the town in your direction to follow you.

Oman and destructor have both done enough to both be lynched at this moment

(asking to quote a PM? Not following the rules for unvote/voting?) Both can be used to throw off the town HENCE being anti town. I do have a problem with quick lynches but I DON'T have a problem applying pressure to two completely scummy people in this game. (is it strange Oman has become REAL quiet all of a sudden?)

I read this sentence as "I'm completely sure they're scum and I'm willing to lynch them right now for it".

4: When I feel as though I have found scum, than you are darn right I'm ready to lynch, are you saying if you were very certain about somebodies scum tendencies you wouldn't?

Exactly, I wouldn't. I'd state my reasons and wait to hear what other people have to say. I've seen a lot of cases on which the most scummy person turned out to be a power role or something like that (Most of the times it gets discovered when he gets the hammer).

I'm reading all the posts and I consider all opinions before saying what I have to say. In this case, I heard what you have to say, I don't agree with your reasoning, and therefore I don't agree with your conclusions.
It seems to me you're more into revenge than reason.

[Y]

I think "Truth" fits better to what I wanted to say than "Reason" in that last sentence.

Anyway,

could the non partisipants be prodded and Korran replaced?

[ryan]

What exactly do I have to full of revenge about? Oman and destructor tried to set and have me lynched, it didn't work and now they are both back peddling. Fairly obvious I would say. I'm going after scum, not revenge

[Northjayhawk]

destructor does look scummy to me, and if we had a looming deadline or if he had no pressure I'd put my vote that way. By my count, he's at L-3 now and I think there are still interesting statements from other people to look at before we act.

After carefully reading destructor's last few posts I believe destructor did not technically lie and he apparently (to me) did know his vote was illegal and shouldnt count. (he did run a pretty decent risk of causing a mod-error.)

When he was called out on his vote he had plenty of chances to explain himself, but rather than give a simple explanation (intentional illegal vote to see how people react), so we could evaluate and move on, he decided to get a little cute with answering us. Wasting our time by grudgingly releasing tidbits of explanation a little at a time until we could piece together what his answer was, rather than just spell it out in plain english in his first response.

If he had been caught on a lie, I wouldnt hesitate with a vote, but as it is I'd rather give it time for now to look at others and just call it scummy.

[Northjayhawk]

I'll let others continue to probe ryan's intentions. Meanwhile, I thought also thought this was interesting:

destructor is onto something
soupfly is clearly scum

unvote, vote: soupfly

(I'm assuming that was a joke, still very early) Anyway, that was Kravhen's vote on 42, followed by:

holy shit too many people on ryan for it to be legit

Unvote

ryan, out of the people that stacked on you, who appears most scummy to you and why?

on 94. Nice to see Kravhen stepping in to narrowly avoid a quicklynch on ryan by unvoting... soupfly?

To be fair though, aimee did mess up the count, so he could have just taken her word for it, but I would have probably protested the false count like destructor did and tell the mod that I voted someone else. Then we've got:

Woah woah woah, let him explain himself people.
People are going crazy with the votes now. Short day 1 is BAD FOR TOWN.

Unvote

in case i somehow got a vote on him, i lose track. Anyway, I just want him to explain, I don't find it scummy to anticipate the mod to not count a vote because of bad synthax, therefore putting down a "ghost vote" to try to lure a hammer or analyse reactions while keeping the votee NOT actually at L-1 or something. Something like that can even seem clever and useful to some extent, perhaps. Clever use of modding rules. Anyway. Explanation first, lynching later.

on 122. Unless I missed something, he had no vote on anyone at all.

How in the world do you forget who your vote is on? I understand that it can be confusing to know what the votecount is up to or who everyone else is voting for without regular updates, but I almost never forget who I'm voting for. Even if I was unsure, its easy enough to check quickly back to my last vote, this isnt some kind of online twitch-chat game where every second could count.

There's a couple things I dont like. First, this manufactured sense of haste, where you try to give the impression that you have no time to check who your own vote is on, you must unvote right-this-second to prevent disaster. That might just be chalked up to unique posting/playing styles, but second how do you forget who you are voting on not just once, but TWICE? It's almost like who your vote is currently on isnt terribly important to you like it would be for a townie.

unvote, vote: Kravhen

[kravhen]

How in the world do you forget who your vote is on?

It happens. I also have mistaken this game for another newbie game i am in, that's why I called it a newbie game in my last post IIRC. The consequence of starting 2 difference games within the same period of 2-3 days and then reading them almost simultaenously. You'll have to deal with it for now, especially since i got finals coming in the next week and i wont be able to make thorough reread and solid behavior-name associations until I'm done with those. I can still casually help and keep up the conversation level until then.

[Y]

Northjayhawk, that was my point about him earlier.

[destructor]

However there was a comment earlier on Anti-town and scum and their lack of interchangeability which i disagree with. Anti-town is imo the same thing as scum and i fail to comprehend why anyone would think otherwise. If you are not helping town, you are taking away from town. Aka, if you were a townie taking away from town, you're play would make absolutely zero sense. However if you consider the position from a scum perspective, this position becomes entirely justified.

Not contributing to discussion in any way is anti-town but not necessarily scummy.
After not contributing to discussion, to jump onto the most popular bandwagon could be better described as scummy.
Does that do much to illustrate the difference for you?

Destructor: Why did you fake vote? I don't buy your claim that you wanted to see people's reactions.

You don't buy my answer? Why not? Is there some other answer you're expecting?

[destructor]

I don't like this idea that it's somehow an argument against me that I 'ran the risk of causing a mod error'. How is it scummy for me to expect the mod not to run the game according to the rules? And if that is what you think I did, then you're not accusing me of being scum - you're accusing me of being a cheater.

[ryan]

Actually anti town DOES mean the same thing as scummy. Not helping the town is anti town and if you aren't helping than you must be hurting right?

[Phate]

Townies should

almost

never be lynching on anti-town behaviour

. They should be lynching people whose behaviour is

pro-scum

.

I use scum here as a synonym for any group or individual whose win requires or causes the town to lose.

[destructor]

Anti-town means actions that are a detriment to the town.
Scummy refers more to the motivation of actions, ie, they were

intended

to hurt the town or benefit scum.
You can be anti-town without being scummy. I'd call tunnel-vision anti-town, but not scummy.

[ryan]

I'm not going to waste pages arguing but if you aren't helping the town than you're hurting the town and that is as anti town as they come.

[Phate]

That's not true. Lurking, for example, is not anti-town, but it is pro-scum.

By comparison, posting your role PM is not pro-scum but it is anti-town.

And trying to get someone lynched because they make fun of you for being a moron in a previous game is both anti-town and pro-scum.

[ryan]

I'm not trying to get somebody lynched for a past game, that's complete crap posted by you to paint me as somebody trying to lynch somebody for no reason. B.S statement

[Phate]

I was just giving examples. Obviously, you're not familiar with the difference between anti-town and scummy. Excuse me for trying to make you a better player. It was probably a lost cause anyway.

[ryan]

And trying to get someone lynched because they make fun of you for being a moron in a previous game is both anti-town and pro-scum.

If this was an example, than state it, you make it sound like I'm on somebody due to them "making fun of me" which is completely crap.