Open 278: Empking's Five Player

[bvoigt]

I honestly think BVoigt is probably scum. He was the first one to suggest a no-lynch and when I asked about the no lynch he seemed to get really defensive.

Do you have any examples of this defensiveness?

To the point where he seriously wanted to vote me because I thought a no-lynch suggestion was not a great idea (Granted, it was a good idea, I just was being a dolt.) It was just a quick vote that seemed sort of unfounded.

That's not why I FOS'ed you, though:

FOS: Stefunny

It looks like you know I'm town, since I brought it up first and you're saying that scum are going to agree.

[brokenscraps]

The first quote refers to post #26, when he changed his mind without any real reason. The second quote refers to...actually, I guess he never explicitly said that he had re-changed his mind, but #33 was mainly adding to what you said in the post before it...using numbers to show why it was a good idea to have the cop claim. Basically, #26 was scummy; #33 was null because it would have been anti-town not to agree with your logic.

How is #26 anything but null?

More opinions from Cthulhu and bv310 would be great, it's hard to scumhunt with no posts to look at.

[bvoigt]

How is #26 anything but null?

He was awfully quick to back down under questioning.

[brokenscraps]

Do you really consider #25 to have provided any sort of pressure on bv310?

[bvoigt]

Do you really consider #25 to have provided any sort of pressure on bv310?

Not much, which makes it more odd IMO.

[Stefunny]

Due to lack of posting I'm wondering if we are going to get much more out of this day. I know I haven't really helped, but I don't really feel there is a whole lot to go off of yet. I think Cthulhu is the best person to investigate at this point, so we could probably begin voting for No Lynches, yes?

Vote: No Lynch

[brokenscraps]

Do you really consider #25 to have provided any sort of pressure on bv310?

Not much, which makes it more odd IMO.

Or it suggests that it wasn't pressure that made him change his mind and he actually rethought whether it was a good idea or not, just like he said?

@Stefunny: I'd rather hear from Cthulhu and bv310 before we start no-lynching.

[Stefunny]

Perhaps a prod for at least Cthulhu is needed then?

[Zajnet]

Perhaps a prod for at least Cthulhu is needed then?

I'll give him until tomorrow since it's the weekend.

[bvoigt]

Do you really consider #25 to have provided any sort of pressure on bv310?

Not much, which makes it more odd IMO.

Or it suggests that it wasn't pressure that made him change his mind and he actually rethought whether it was a good idea or not, just like he said?

Maybe, but that's not how I interpret it.

[Cthulhu]

I made it clear in my last post that I don't think it is scummy to have a bad idea. I didn't think it was scummy for bv310 to suggest his idea that we thought was bad, what was scummy though was his backpedalling. The two are different things.

At one point, you said, "I wasn't portraying bv310's actions as scummy."

In other words, you didn't think anything he did was scummy.

But now you're saying that his backpedaling was scummy. So why can't you keep your story straight?

You are misrepresenting me again. The bolded isn't true. In Post 27 I say his idea is bad (which isn't scummy), then I mention his backpedalling (which is). Then read Post 39 and Post 43 again where I've explained the same thing twice before. At no point did I mean what you said I meant in the above quote. Your attempts to twist my words and confuse the situation further is quite suspect.

You were going to make a random vote, but decided it against it because it would be a poor strategic decision regardless of alignment. bv310 had a different idea, but also changed his mind based on its strategic merits. It would have been anti-town not to change his mind, just like it would have been anti-town to random vote. So yeah, I do think these two examples of rethinking boil down to the same thing.

Your case is ridiculous. I didn't decide against random voting because of it's strategic weakness, I didn't do it because of your post; had you not made it obvious that a no lynch was the way to go, I would not have noticed until afterwards. This is another example of misrepresentation. I don't get how it would be anti town not to change his mind, his idea was fundamentally a good one, so to stick with it would have been good. If your case rests on this then it is terrible. It's very scummy that you should be pushing this case so hard (and voting for the cop to investigate me), especially as this case was first raised by brokenscraps in Post 36.

I know it's not a great case, but I don't think bv310 is scum (just a feeling) and Scraps isn't scum, so honestly I think it HAS to be Cthulu and BVoigt.

Do you have any evidence for your feeling? Targeting me and bvoigt as the scum team seems sort of opportunistic.

Due to lack of posting I'm wondering if we are going to get much more out of this day. I know I haven't really helped, but I don't really feel there is a whole lot to go off of yet. I think Cthulhu is the best person to investigate at this point, so we could probably begin voting for No Lynches, yes?

Vote: No Lynch

No. You seem very eager to want to end the day with an investigation on me, especially since you just breezed in after lurking, and joined the bandwagon, while casually citing 'a feeling' as a reason why another player is most likely town. This seems very suspect indeed.

[bvoigt]

I made it clear in my last post that I don't think it is scummy to have a bad idea. I didn't think it was scummy for bv310 to suggest his idea that we thought was bad, what was scummy though was his backpedalling. The two are different things.

At one point, you said, "I wasn't portraying bv310's actions as scummy."

In other words, you didn't think anything he did was scummy.

But now you're saying that his backpedaling was scummy. So why can't you keep your story straight?

You are misrepresenting me again. The bolded isn't true. In Post 27 I say his idea is bad (which isn't scummy), then I mention his backpedalling (which is). Then read Post 39 and Post 43 again where I've explained the same thing twice before. At no point did I mean what you said I meant in the above quote. Your attempts to twist my words and confuse the situation further is quite suspect.

Total misrepresentation. There's no way that "I wasn't portraying bv310's actions as scummy" could mean "I didn't think anything he did was scummy."

You were going to make a random vote, but decided it against it because it would be a poor strategic decision regardless of alignment. bv310 had a different idea, but also changed his mind based on its strategic merits. It would have been anti-town not to change his mind, just like it would have been anti-town to random vote. So yeah, I do think these two examples of rethinking boil down to the same thing.

Your case is ridiculous. I didn't decide against random voting because of it's strategic weakness, I didn't do it because of your post; had you not made it obvious that a no lynch was the way to go, I would not have noticed until afterwards. This is another example of misrepresentation.

Then why did you decide against random voting?

I don't get how it would be anti town not to change his mind, his idea was fundamentally a good one, so to stick with it would have been good. If your case rests on this then it is terrible.

First of all,

you

questioned his idea. And I was referring to when he re-changed his mind, and decided that it was a good idea after all. (Sorry, I should have made that more clear.)

It's very scummy that you should be pushing this case so hard (and voting for the cop to investigate me), especially as this case was first raised by brokenscraps in Post 36.

I feel like this sentence is OMGUS, plain and simple. Why is it scummy for me to push a case on you?

[Cthulhu]

Total misrepresentation. There's no way that "I wasn't portraying bv310's actions as scummy" could mean "I didn't think anything he did was scummy."

I agree, it is total misrepresentation again. You have taken it out of context; read Post 39. If you isolate a quote like that and then paraphrase it, so it looks like it has a different meaning, it's called misrepresentation. I have stated several times that I thought bv310's backpedalling was scummy, therefore your unnecessary paraphrase is incorrect and misrepresenting what I said. What the quote actually refers to is post 25 where I ask bv310 about his idea, the second part of the sentence (which you conveniently failed to quote) refers to post 27, where I do portray his actions as scummy. I admit that my sentence was poorly structured.

Your case is ridiculous. I didn't decide against random voting because of it's strategic weakness, I didn't do it because of your post; had you not made it obvious that a no lynch was the way to go, I would not have noticed until afterwards. This is another example of misrepresentation.

Then why did you decide against random voting?

The answer is in the quote. I didn't do it because you posted and made it clear that a no lynch was the best stratergy. Had I been the first to post I would have random voted then looked at the set up.

It's very scummy that you should be pushing this case so hard (and voting for the cop to investigate me), especially as this case was first raised by brokenscraps in Post 36.

I feel like this sentence is OMGUS, plain and simple. Why is it scummy for me to push a case on you?

It isn't, you are welcome to push a case on me, but it becomes scummy when your case is so weak that it's a waste of time.

bv310 is lurking badly, his last post with any content in it was Post 33, over a week ago. That is the sort of thing that town players do though right?

Mod: Could you prod bv310.

[bvoigt]

I agree, it is total misrepresentation again. You have taken it out of context; read Post 39. If you isolate a quote like that and then paraphrase it, so it looks like it has a different meaning, it's called misrepresentation. I have stated several times that I thought bv310's backpedalling was scummy, therefore your unnecessary paraphrase is incorrect and misrepresenting what I said. What the quote actually refers to is post 25 where I ask bv310 about his idea, the second part of the sentence (which you conveniently failed to quote) refers to post 27, where I do portray his actions as scummy. I admit that my sentence was poorly structured.

Oh, I think I finally get what you're saying.

However, I wasn't portraying bv310's actions as scummy, I was merely questioning his idea and then stating that I thought it was bad.

It isn't scummy to have a bad idea, it is however to backpedal so quickly.

These two look like a contradiction at first...but I guess it makes sense if they're referring to 2 different posts.

Your case is ridiculous. I didn't decide against random voting because of it's strategic weakness, I didn't do it because of your post; had you not made it obvious that a no lynch was the way to go, I would not have noticed until afterwards. This is another example of misrepresentation.

Then why did you decide against random voting?

The answer is in the quote. I didn't do it because you posted and made it clear that a no lynch was the best stratergy. Had I been the first to post I would have random voted then looked at the set up.

Sorry, I misread that. But it sounds like changing your mind

was

a strategic decision, just like bv310's changing his mind. (For those who have forgotten the original point, it was: "If you would rethink your own actions as town, why would you call someone scummy for rethinking?" BTW, this is my last quote wall for a while.)

I feel like this sentence is OMGUS, plain and simple. Why is it scummy for me to push a case on you?

It isn't, you are welcome to push a case on me, but it becomes scummy when your case is so weak that it's a waste of time.

I think it helps the town more to make a somewhat weak case than it does to focus on defending yourself and do no scumhunting at all.

[Zajnet]

Mod: Could you prod bv310.

I'll prod anybody who needs it tomorrow. I want to make sure that people who can't post during the weekends don't get punished for it.

[Zajnet]

bv310 has been prodded.

[Stefunny]

This game is not holding my interest as much as I'd hoped, I spent some time thinking about it today, trying to figure out the best way to determine who is scum. Right now we pretty much all have 3 candidates; everyone except ourselves and brokenscraps. This bring up an interesting point, if we investigates somebody and find them to be town then at least a couple of us will know for sure who the scum are. The scum obviously will try to mislead us.

For a little bit I was starting to think Cthulhu and Bvoigt were going at each other too hard to be scum buddies, they are really having a pretty heated back and forth and it sort of made me think maybe I was wrong about my suspicions.

HOWEVER, I think that with the limited amount of players, the cop claim, and a pending investigation it would BENEFIT scum to convince everyone to investigate their scum buddy. If player A and B are scum together and player A convinces us to investigate player B, then it would make sense that they weren't scum buddies, making player A look innocent while they kill us all off.
I vote that we investigate BVoigt. Honestly if somebody is not scum then why would the be against being investigated? I understand it is a potential waste of an investigation, but at the same time it narrows it down dramatically. I really think Cthulhu is scum, but I'm not sure WHICH BV is more likely to be scum mate. Therefore an investigation of one of them seems most logical to me.

Did any of that make sense?

[brokenscraps]

Following bv310's re-entry to the game I'll be fairly happy to no-lynch and investigate whoever the town wants.

I'm still happy with a bv310 investigation, could everyone clarify who they want to investigate?

If whoever is investigated turns up scum then still don't quicklynch tomorrow, we should have some discussion prior to ending the day.

[bv310]

Read over the thread to see if anything stands out, but honestly nothing sticks out to me as blatantly scummy. Going by my gut, I'm willing to say Cthulu/BVoigt as a scumteam, although I'm much more confident in nmy Cthulu read, so I'd like BVoigt to be investigated tonight.

Anyway, I have class right now, so I'll go over the thread again and see if nothing sticks out to me.

[bvoigt]

If we're investigating the top suspect: Cthulu.

If we're investigating a more neutral suspect: bv310.

[Cthulhu]

I think it helps the town more to make a somewhat weak case than it does to focus on defending yourself and do no scumhunting at all.

I don't know about that. However, you admit that your case on me is weak, but I am still your top suspect? To justify your 'cop vote' on me, would you mind backing it up with some evidence?

I really think Cthulhu is scum, but I'm not sure WHICH BV is more likely to be scum mate. Therefore an investigation of one of them seems most logical to me.

Did any of that make sense?

No. What makes you so sure that I'm scum? You've also conviniently ignored my questions from post 60.

Read over the thread to see if anything stands out, but honestly nothing sticks out to me as blatantly scummy. Going by my gut, I'm willing to say Cthulu/BVoigt as a scumteam, although I'm much more confident in nmy Cthulu read, so I'd like BVoigt to be investigated tonight.

Anyway, I have class right now, so I'll go over the thread again and see if nothing sticks out to me.

You're lurking and bandwagoning too then?

I don't mind being investigated, if you guys are going to insist on suspecting me then I am glad to become a confirmed townie tomorrow. However I would quite like to see either bvoigt or Stefunny investigated. I don't want a no lynch yet though, bv310 and Stefunny have hardly contributed and bvoigt's case has been weak so I think we could get more out of this day.

[bvoigt]

I think it helps the town more to make a somewhat weak case than it does to focus on defending yourself and do no scumhunting at all.

I don't know about that. However, you admit that your case on me is weak, but I am still your top suspect? To justify your 'cop vote' on me, would you mind backing it up with some evidence?

Unless someone scumslips badly, any case on page 3 will be weak. I think I've given a fair amount of evidence for this point in the game.

[Zajnet]

Votecount #1

bv310: 0
Cthulhu: 0
bvoigt: 0
Stefunny: 0
brokenscraps: 0

No Lynch: 1 (Stefunny)

We're approaching 48 hours with no posts. Step it up guys.

[bv310]

Come on guys, we need to either talk or decide who's being investigated and no lynch and end this day.

[Cthulhu]

Unless someone scumslips badly, any case on page 3 will be weak. I think I've given a fair amount of evidence for this point in the game.

If you concede that your case is weak, and I haven't made a bad scumslip then why are you willing to waste an investigation on me, and end the day now. If you've given a fair amount of evidence, you won't mind quoting it.

Come on guys, we need to either talk or decide who's being investigated and no lynch and end this day.

Are you being serious? I'm trying to get you to talk (answer my question).