Newbie 994: Stop! In the Name of Sudo! Game Over!

[Applefarmer]

I find it weird that Danny is getting on to people about not posting their reasoning or posting it after an explanation is requested, yet has been doing it himself (see warrior vote and insistence that seth is town).

[Sudo_Nym]

Vote Count:

seth L-3: Applefarmer, iamatree
warriormode L-4: Debonair Danny DiPietro
needle L-4: seth
iamatree L-4: dimaba
Debonair Danny DiPietro L-4: warriormode

[seth]

Blah. My fucking post got deleted when I switched pages and I couldn't get it back. Fuck you IE.

Anyways.

@dimaba

I was typing up a retort but then realized - it seems strange that he would ask a question and vote without waiting for an answer. Do you think noob - scum would be inclined to do that? Apple did it too, but my gut says he's town, what do you think?

I wouldn't call you saying that I'm twisting innocent posts as agreeing with me.

@danny

What's your opinion on noobs asking a question and voting without waiting for an answer?


@needle

Ehhh...

My gut says that you're scum but considering that I don't have a strong case to push you with, there are scummier players, and no one wants to jump on the BW and input pressure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as of now.

unvote

---

I want to see Tree's response to the allegations before I hop onto his BW, and I'd also like to hear Danny's response.

[iamatree]

@everyone
My “suspicious people and why,”

I found Seth scummy because he himself said: Hammering quickly without good reason is scummy, building up your case for 10 pages and then having hammer and then hammering is not.
He then went and voted for Dimaba without any reasons given, (sure he retracted the vote but still… JUMPING ON SOMEONE PRETTY FAST EH?)

I found Debonair Danny DiPetrio suspicious as well, due to purposely targeting warriormode from the start of the game and trying to start a bandwagon on him by appealing to Seth who had voted for someone else: Why not warriormode so your target would have more than one vote and thus be an actual bandwagon?

As for me I may seem suspicious but I generally want to know why people have done things and the reason why. Especially with ambiguous statements!
Ergo I unvoted because I honestly can’t be sure who I think is scummier at this point.

[seth]

LMAO.

I love this guy.

Anyways,

How does my issue on quick hammers pertain to me voting Dimaba RANDOMLY at all? I'm super confused right now.

[Applefarmer]

I was typing up a retort but then realized - it seems strange that he would ask a question and vote without waiting for an answer. Do you think noob - scum would be inclined to do that? Apple did it too, but my gut says he's town, what do you think?

I'd like to point out that the two questions I asked in my first post were meant to be rhetorical questions in response to the first post that I quoted which I then tried to provide answers to based on the second post that I quoted. I wasn't expecting to get a response to them, although you gave one.

Would you mind pointing out to me where someone else voted without waiting for an answer to the question. Glancing though, I didn't notice the incident that you are referring to.

UNVOTE: seth

I'd be pretty comfortable with an iamatree bandwagon right now. I feel like he's ignoring some details with his more recent arguments and is trying a bit too hard to fit in. If you "generally want to know why people have done things", I'd think you would take our perspectives into consideration and give some reasoning behind what you are doing - which hasn't always been the case. You are just saying what others have been saying.
Also, you claimed to have 2-3 other suspicions aside from Seth, but when pressed about them, you only provide one other person.. where are the other 1-2? My best guess is that they don't exist because you know who is and isn't mafia and coming up with one other was hard enough.

[theperson]

iamatree is acting a bit strange...It seems, as Applefarmer said, that he is trying to fit in. Town might do this but I think it's a bit of a scumtell. I have a town read on both seth and needle, because I think needle is fine in the way he explained and seth seems town for making the first argument, which I understand where he's coming from but disagree. So I'll go ahead and VOTE: iamatree.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry you did answer my question. but I still stick to all of my other statements

I'd like to note that beyond this your arguments consist essentially of a weak argument that tone cannot be used to judge alignment. I say otherwise, perhaps you will always say "good luck" or perhaps in this case I'm reading the situation wrong, but it is a legitimate form of analysis and in this case I believe it to be correct. Other than that, I think your second point amounted to "nuh uh" so after you conceded reason #3 and I've eliminated your other reasons for your vote you're looking rather foolish right now.

@Seth The big problem is that warriormode is pressing votes and arguments based on "x didn't happen" when x did in fact happen. This means that warriormode is NOT reading the thread for content which suggests that in fact he's not looking for scum, instead just making arguments: a function of scum not town.

[warriormode]

Sorry you did answer my question. but I still stick to all of my other statements

I'd like to note that beyond this your arguments consist essentially of a weak argument that tone cannot be used to judge alignment. I say otherwise, perhaps you will always say "good luck" or perhaps in this case I'm reading the situation wrong, but it is a legitimate form of analysis and in this case I believe it to be correct. Other than that, I think your second point amounted to "nuh uh" so after you conceded reason #3 and I've eliminated your other reasons for your vote you're looking rather foolish right now.

@Seth The big problem is that warriormode is pressing votes and arguments based on "x didn't happen" when x did in fact happen. This means that warriormode is NOT reading the thread for content which suggests that in fact he's not looking for scum, instead just making arguments: a function of scum not town.

So you are calling someone who says "Good Luck" = Scum a legitimate form of Analysis? And no, my 2nd point did not amount to "nuh uh", it actually said (believe it or not) I'm making better arguments then you are! And no, I did not completely eliminate reason 3. I still said that I don't care that you have a vote on me because I know your bandwagon will never work seeing that 4 other people will have to agree with the arguments that you made. (Note: your best argument is your "legitimate" form of analysis :arrow: "good luck" = scum)

I actually do read the content, which is why I took off my vote on seth who was at L-2 and put it on someone who actually seems suspicious to me. Also I'm pretty sure that Apple claimed that your making arguments without legitimate reasons. I'm not really sure who agrees with you right now. And also note once you find someone you think is scum you can start the arguing.

[dimaba]

I was typing up a retort but then realized - it seems strange that he would ask a question and vote without waiting for an answer. Do you think noob - scum would be inclined to do that? Apple did it too, but my gut says he's town, what do you think?

Mmm tough one. I think both newb town and newb scum might do it, if they're already sure that they want to vote for you and just ask the question to look good/to give you a chance to hang yourself or whatever/just to make sure. What will distinguish newb scum from newb town in this situation is wether when the question is answered they will unvote if the question is answered well. Town will unvote if the answer makes you less scum.

[theperson]

Well, town won't necessarily unvote if the answer makes you less scum. Only if it makes you less scummy than someone else. They have no reason to switch their vote if they still feel that person is scummiest.

[seth]

My gut's telling me neither tree or warriormode is scum.

theperson, how am I town for makin the first argument?

apple, warrior did it in his post where he voted me. did you unvote me because i said you were town?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Sorry you did answer my question. but I still stick to all of my other statements

I'd like to note that beyond this your arguments consist essentially of a weak argument that tone cannot be used to judge alignment. I say otherwise, perhaps you will always say "good luck" or perhaps in this case I'm reading the situation wrong, but it is a legitimate form of analysis and in this case I believe it to be correct. Other than that, I think your second point amounted to "nuh uh" so after you conceded reason #3 and I've eliminated your other reasons for your vote you're looking rather foolish right now.

@Seth The big problem is that warriormode is pressing votes and arguments based on "x didn't happen" when x did in fact happen. This means that warriormode is NOT reading the thread for content which suggests that in fact he's not looking for scum, instead just making arguments: a function of scum not town.

So you are calling someone who says "Good Luck" = Scum a legitimate form of Analysis? And no, my 2nd point did not amount to "nuh uh", it actually said (believe it or not) I'm making better arguments then you are! And no, I did not completely eliminate reason 3. I still said that I don't care that you have a vote on me because I know your bandwagon will never work seeing that 4 other people will have to agree with the arguments that you made. (Note: your best argument is your "legitimate" form of analysis :arrow: "good luck" = scum)

I actually do read the content, which is why I took off my vote on seth who was at L-2 and put it on someone who actually seems suspicious to me. Also I'm pretty sure that Apple claimed that your making arguments without legitimate reasons. I'm not really sure who agrees with you right now. And also note once you find someone you think is scum you can start the arguing.

A) I usually get more value out of evaluating tone than someone's arguments. Everyone mostly makes the same sort of arguments whether town or scum, but I know personally I speak from a different tone when town and when scum even though I try to make them the same. You can roll your eyes all you like, but there's definite value in such analysis.

B) Maybe no one agrees with me right now, but the rest of the town looks like a squishy bunch. They'll screw around without seriously pressuring anyone and then it'll get near deadline and I'll be the only one with a case and arguments and a bandwagon all set up to go and they'll probably fall in line behind me if I keep pushing. Course I might change my mind by then, but right now that's the current plan, care to keep lobbing softballs in my direction so I can keep knocking them out of the park?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I find it weird that Danny is getting on to people about not posting their reasoning or posting it after an explanation is requested, yet has been doing it himself (see warrior vote and insistence that seth is town).

Certain times reasons are needed and certain times they are not and the distinction should be plain to see.

Warriormode was initially a "random" vote and thus there was no solid reason for the vote. However, when I wanted to turn it into a legitimate bandwagon, I provided reasons. I've noted my opinion on seth so it's on the record and others have to think about that, if seth was under heavy pressure and I truly believed he was town then I would explain my logic to defend him, since he has not been brought under heavy pressure I haven't had to worry about stepping in and making a defense of a player I consider to be town.

[Applefarmer]

I find it weird that Danny is getting on to people about not posting their reasoning or posting it after an explanation is requested, yet has been doing it himself (see warrior vote and insistence that seth is town).

Certain times reasons are needed and certain times they are not and the distinction should be plain to see.

Warriormode was initially a "random" vote and thus there was no solid reason for the vote. However, when I wanted to turn it into a legitimate bandwagon, I provided reasons. I've noted my opinion on seth so it's on the record and others have to think about that, if seth was under heavy pressure and I truly believed he was town then I would explain my logic to defend him, since he has not been brought under heavy pressure I haven't had to worry about stepping in and making a defense of a player I consider to be town.

One of the reasons you were provided was that he voted for seth, but you are essentially refusing to back that up right now (note that I clearly asked why you thought that seth was town, Mr. Experience-here-to-help-us-out). I've got my eye on you.

[theperson]

Seth: I think scum would be more tentative to come off accusing immediately like you did. It's not I think you're town, but leaning town.

Also, I should have said this a while ago, but if you don't have an avatar, it's helpful if you get one. Typically you associate players with their avatars. It helps subconsciously distinguish between players without actually looking at their names. It doesn't have to be good, just look at mine...

[Beanman]

@Apple, to be fair, Iamatree did say he was suspicious of 2-3 people, not just seth. So that means that seth could have been included in his 2-3 people he's suspicious of. I will post more thoughts when I get on an actual computer and not my phone....

[iamatree]

Yes well my suspicous people (2-3) did include Seth..
The reason I unvoted Seth was because though as I stated Seth has said weird sounding things, that he probably isn't scum at all.
Ergo I have no clue who I should vote to lynch because no-one has said anything truly scummy.
people that made me suspicous in the past have put reasons why they voted the way they have THAT MAKE SENSE!
Back to square one....

BTW I'm a girl Thanks..

[Applefarmer]

I had thought that she'd said 2-3 people "other than seth", but you guys are right. I misread.

[Applefarmer]

There you go. Boxing gloves, retroactively placed on all of my posts. Hope that helps

[iamatree]

Erm not game related but how do you get the profile pic?

[Beanman]

User Control panel(top left hand part of screen) -> profile -> edit avatar

BTW I'm a girl Thanks..

I thought you were a tree.

[iamatree]

Thanks will change now

Thats my backup.. I'm a girl tree?

[warriormode]

Sorry you did answer my question. but I still stick to all of my other statements

I'd like to note that beyond this your arguments consist essentially of a weak argument that tone cannot be used to judge alignment. I say otherwise, perhaps you will always say "good luck" or perhaps in this case I'm reading the situation wrong, but it is a legitimate form of analysis and in this case I believe it to be correct. Other than that, I think your second point amounted to "nuh uh" so after you conceded reason #3 and I've eliminated your other reasons for your vote you're looking rather foolish right now.

@Seth The big problem is that warriormode is pressing votes and arguments based on "x didn't happen" when x did in fact happen. This means that warriormode is NOT reading the thread for content which suggests that in fact he's not looking for scum, instead just making arguments: a function of scum not town.

So you are calling someone who says "Good Luck" = Scum a legitimate form of Analysis? And no, my 2nd point did not amount to "nuh uh", it actually said (believe it or not) I'm making better arguments then you are! And no, I did not completely eliminate reason 3. I still said that I don't care that you have a vote on me because I know your bandwagon will never work seeing that 4 other people will have to agree with the arguments that you made. (Note: your best argument is your "legitimate" form of analysis :arrow: "good luck" = scum)

I actually do read the content, which is why I took off my vote on seth who was at L-2 and put it on someone who actually seems suspicious to me. Also I'm pretty sure that Apple claimed that your making arguments without legitimate reasons. I'm not really sure who agrees with you right now. And also note once you find someone you think is scum you can start the arguing.

A) I usually get more value out of evaluating tone than someone's arguments. Everyone mostly makes the same sort of arguments whether town or scum, but I know personally I speak from a different tone when town and when scum even though I try to make them the same. You can roll your eyes all you like, but there's definite value in such analysis.

B) Maybe no one agrees with me right now, but the rest of the town looks like a squishy bunch. They'll screw around without seriously pressuring anyone and then it'll get near deadline and I'll be the only one with a case and arguments and a bandwagon all set up to go and they'll probably fall in line behind me if I keep pushing. Course I might change my mind by then, but right now that's the current plan, care to keep lobbing softballs in my direction so I can keep knocking them out of the park?

Ok well, I will never believe your evaluation of tone analysis because its a bunch of bs. And no, making these kind of arguments and analyzations is not a neutral tell, one who resorts to analyze people with a crappy analytical lens (ex:tone) desperately hoping to get lucky that people will follow, is definately a scum tell.

You should never assume people will join your wagon, I'll put up just as many arguments that people will actually agree with, and I'm willing to keep on pushing until you are lynched. Like I said "Once I find scum, the arguing begins".

btw, your last statement is just putting more pressure on yourself because people will have higher expectations from you and so far, no one seems to be very impressed.

[dimaba]

@the warriormode-DDDP discussion:
Tone can certainly be a tell IMO, and if DDDP in his experience has defined a certain tone that usually signals scum I am inclined to believe that such a tone exists. However, so far DDDP has only exposed this tone in the words "good luck". I would expect a true scum tone to come out in more than one of the suspect's posts.
So, Danny, can you identify other parts of warriormode's posts that have this scummy tone?

I think warriormode is doing a fairly crappy job of defending himself, especially in post 98 where he seems to be steaming a bit from the discussion. The fairly obvious OMGUS-vote (post 73) doesn't do his case much good either.
One question that warriormode asked DDDP and which is yet to be answered is:

3) Super unsubtly tries to get me to move my vote off of him onto someone else by suggesting the value in a bandwagon. It's phrased innocuously but the intent is quite clear.

Reason #3- [...]How can you justify that I was trying to make you move your vote. I don't care if you have your vote on me. Especially with these reasons.[...]

So Danny, how do you justify that warriormode was trying to make you move your vote? Can you show us that this was warriormode's true intent and that this argument isn't a fairly basic attempt to interpret an ambiguous post to your advantage? Tone is something you can pick up from text on the internet, but intent is a whole other business.