Snaps_the_Pirate wrote:Bookitty wrote:I'm suspicious of Snaps and OGML for another reason, though; the three people who voted egruntz AFTER he admitted to being scum were Korlash, Snaps, and OGML. I do NOT think scum would bus their teammate, knowing there were two scumgroups. But once he admitted it? Why not take the townie points for being in on the lynch?
I don’t quite follow the logic here. OhGodMyLife and I are suspicious because we voted for Egruntz after he claimed scum? At the point that Egruntz claimed he was three votes away from getting lynched. After claiming scum, who here would not have voted for him? I think everyone in this game would have, regardless of alignment. Korlash, OGML, and myself just happened to be the next three players to log on after his claim.
I think the point Bookitty is making (if I am thinking on the same wavelength) is that the scum of Egr's group would most most likely have bussed him once he had claimed scum; once it was certain that he was a goner. In other words, we have the rats running aboard the sinking ship.
However, it is a fair rebuttal that any decent player - town or scum (be it Egr's group or otherwise) would have voted egruntz at that point (Indeed, Korlash - the deceased doc - was the penultimate voter). It is still unlikely that Egr's own group would have joined quickly (unless they sensed impending doom), but that's to say nothing about the other scumgroup.
This was the Egr wagon (Elias doesn't have the completed list in a vc):
Bookitty, Panzerjager
|My PBPA|
hasdgfas, Phate
| Scum claim |
Vollkan, Snaps, Korlash, OGML
(Ftr, I also voted Egruntz after he had claimed. However, that was simply due to the fact that (as I have done with OGML) I gave my PBPAee the right of reply. Egruntz's reply was to not address my PBPA and claim scum - both unforgivable in the circumstances).
Snaps wrote:
In every mafia game I have played in and in almost every game I have followed there have been scum quietly staying out of the spotlight, posting just enough to keep from being replaced. So far, in this game two scum have been found, neither of which were lurkers. I believe there is a good chance we still have lurker scum among us.
How many mafia games have you been in? I highly doubt enough to warrant an assertion that at least one scum will always/very usually be a lurker.
Now, as promised, I have reviewed OGML's responses to Bookitty as suggested:
OGML wrote: Bookitty, I didn't consider my attack against xyl particularly strong at the time, which is why I was persuaded so quickly to unvote. Fonz's quick defense of him also made me vacillate, because I was getting a pro-town vibe from him regardless of his coming after me. Nobody else seemed to feel suspicious of xyl at all, but I was trying to bring up a topic of discussion aside from DS and egruntz, as I said in the post you quoted. Obviously I failed on that note, as DS/eteo ended up getting lynched anyway. Yeah it looks bad that egruntz did turn out to be newbscum trying to get us to no-lynch, but I honestly just bought the argument that it was just people trying to lynch a newb for newbtells instead of real scum tells.
In post 9 (OGML, oldest first), OGML votes Xyl saying:
OhGodMyLife wrote:Unvote: Mills
I actually don't see the above as an OMGUS argument, rather I think mills makes a good point about CKD's input and general activity level. Certainly enough to erase my original suspicions that were the basis of my vote.
Phate, you started off the game announcing that you'd be V/LA so your absence is excused, but since returning you've done nothing but have a discussion about what constitutes anti-town and whether snaps talks too much. Trying to stay off the map?
Xylthixlm, you've been making me uneasy lately. Could just be your playstyle, but I'd like to hear more out of you that just one liners, and you've been way too focused on the way that snaps has been writing rather than whats actually going on in the game. Also this:
Xylthixlm wrote:Sufficiently bad idiots can be antitown without being scum.
really struck me the wrong way. Lets leave the stupid people alone and go after the scummy people, shall we?
Vote: Xylthixlm
Now, the first part against Xyl (third para) is very weak indeed. Vague "you've been making me uneasy". He equivocates by saying it could be playstyle, and then moves on to request more content and less useless clutter. This is weak in itself, and even OGML seems unconvinced (as he later declared in answer to Boo). Despite this, he makes a fairly strong declaration ("really struck me the wrong way") against the sentence by Xyl he quotes. Not really vote-worthy at all (especially on its own), since it is a theory position.
Now, OGML you say this was to bring up an alternative topic to DS and egruntz. You've acknowledged that this looks bad, given egruntz's reveal. The other question I would ask is why you would present something so trivial as what you Xyl for. I mean, seeking productive discussion is all well and good, but the 'case' you formed was not going to lead anywhere. You called for Xyl to post more, made weak kidglove hits at his playstyle, and then made a puffed-up strike against a theory point.
I admit here that my read on this is split: The attack is so weak that it reeks of distancing to Xyl. However, it is also readable as an effort to side-track. I fail to see how, you could (as you declare) reasonably try to spark an alternative discussion based on such a weak case. Tell me, what did you actually expect to happen? You have even yourself admitted that it was weak.
From there, 5 days later, we move to this:
OhGodMyLife wrote:OK, Xyl, you've more than reassured me, so thank you for addressing
that
. The biggest reason for my vote was because I think the DS bandwagon and constant talk of egruntz' no-lynch theory were consuming too much of the town's attention and I wanted to get people to look elsewhere.
Unvote, Vote: Mills
I'm still of the opinion that the way the bandwagon started was BS, which was my original reason for voting mills. Since then he's made some good points on other matters, specifically CKD, who still needs to respond to the issues brought up. However, in the past few pages Mills has been extremely overreactive, and having done a reread of his posts from the beginning, the way he started the DS bandwagon still looks scummier than hell.
The "that" which I have bolded is ambiguous. What were you referring to? I guess you meant Xyl's post where he explains why he thinks non-scum can be anti-town. Xyl's answer is crap, quite frankly (it's in Xyl 31; I will attack it if you want me to). For someone that apparently had such a huge problem with his first post, I find it odd that you would just retreat from the offensive. You then say that your biggest motivation was to "get people to look elsewhere" (which you later repeat). I refer you to my previous questioning on this point. The fact you then vote Mills (for being 'overeactive') makes this look even worse.
That's what I get for using the view in isolation function.
