Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hapah]

Why. Does everyone need. A Replacement?!?
No clue! It's kinda nuts. (But good luck, Think! That's a pretty good reason, imo)

Hapah
Well, now that you know that we've got time, your vote stays (cause you didn't shift it if it was only tiebreaking), why?

Oversight. Unvote. I actually don't think he's scum based on his actions when he was going into the noose. It looks like there isn't much that I can do to stop his lynch, though: even without my vote it looks like he's up by 3. :/

[Hapah]

PFP

Apparently I'm bad at quotes

[Tiruin]

@Hapah: Why? If you mean by his actions, all I see is...his unvote and his claim on hitting Toaster. While I may fathom a guess at your reasoning, you unvote right before day end.

And leave without a vote, also why?

[Hapah]

PFP

Because he tried to direct us to Toaster instead of Shake. He could have built a very reasonable case for lynching Shake (as I believe Shake will be something of a liability, personally) to get himself out of the noose. Instead of doing this, which could save his own skin, he directed us at Toaster. I'd say the odds of lynching Toaster today are slim, yeah? Someone who is trying to air his suspicions instead of laying into the other probable lynch candidate...it just doesn't smell like a scum move to me. Lynch looks almost inevitable at this point, though. Sorry ZU. :/

I'll see about getting a vote up with lunch, I'd like it to actually mean something instead of voting for the sake of voting.

[webadict]

Mod: I think Dariush moved his vote onto zombie urist.

That's funny, because he didn't.

[Tiruin]

Hapah

PFP

Because he tried to direct us to Toaster instead of Shake. He could have built a very reasonable case for lynching Shake (as I believe Shake will be something of a liability, personally) to get himself out of the noose. Instead of doing this, which could save his own skin, he directed us at Toaster. I'd say the odds of lynching Toaster today are slim, yeah? Someone who is trying to air his suspicions instead of laying into the other probable lynch candidate...it just doesn't smell like a scum move to me. Lynch looks almost inevitable at this point, though. Sorry ZU. :/

I'll see about getting a vote up with lunch, I'd like it to actually mean something instead of voting for the sake of voting.

Stating what I thought: You were acting because of his sudden shift to Toaster and was thinking that because he didn't persue Shake, there must be something off, yes? Either flailing, or panicking, possibly in the way to hope to save himself. Both ways: I don't think it's a reasonable justification of his past actions.

Seeing this, it seems a yes. He believes Shakerag - but on the weak basis of his actions 'not seeming to care who gets lynched...' and his awaited case on Toaster...

But in addition for me,

Obviously if Shakerag is non-town (note this is different from anti-town), then everyone's vote on him is well-justified.

Because this sounds a lot like WIFOM.

Also, your apology - if going by reason of you thinking he's not scum - then...why apologize?



@web: Huh but...

[...]Fuck you, ZU.[...]

And...

Mod Note: If you vote ZU instead of something longer, I won't count your vote from now on, because it is almost invisible on my screen. Also, don't post in red unless it's a vote.

...

Oh.

OH.

...

How many people makes up a majority extend, or a majority shorten?


Goodnight everyone, only saw the update in my newbox now so if I've missed out any parts, please say.

[Shakerag]

The Player Who Secretly Turns BYOR 10 into a Bastard Game of Mafia from a Normal Game of Mafia
My alignment is Outsider and my wincon is to at least break even.

Heheh, this is a lovely role. I like it a lot. Yeah, I generally believe it, though I wouldn't be surprised if you left something out or if wuba has added some sort of hidden thing to it (like, say, consequences for violating the "Secretly" part of your role). We'll see.

Why thank you, Bookthras.  You are a lovely person.  Unless there's something that hasn't been stated to me, that's all of it.  However, there may be something to your last bit there, given recent cryptic messages I've received from webadict.  But, seeing as that I haven't been modkilled yet ... I'm bracing for unexpected bullshit.  Also, thanks for the bit about the roles.

Shakerag:  Do you have to be alive to win/bet?

I don't know.  I asked those two exact questions and got no reply.  Trying to ask again.  Webadict is also being ... frustratingly vague on what exactly happens if I die.  So no new info there either. 

Need Replacement, but it's for a good reason: I just got some job interviews lined up! That require traveling.

I suggested this as a possible betting option -_-

@Shakerag: I suspected Watcher because despite the believability of your claim [you'd have to get pretty creative to come up with that], sounds like it's really hard for you to win given the conditions stated. Also, what did web say? And what was the purpose of that first auto skill that just states the bastard-ism?

Not really?  It just kind of boils down to odds/statistics/math.  Barring any screwballs thrown at me, I think I should hit my wincon by N2.  I assume that the first auto skill is what essentially gave me the "Outsider" wincon. 

[webadict]

How many people makes up a majority extend, or a majority shorten?

About half, but if there is sufficient activity, then I will allow less.

But there's been 2, so make up your minds already.

[zombie urist]

IO: If that doesn't answer your question, then I probably misunderstood it and you should probably clarify it before we start going in circles again. I was never certain that was his plan. I never said that "doing Plan X would be a simple way to mislynch someone" implied. "thus he was trying to do Plan X." My line of thought went from "He looks like he is doing X" + "Doing X is scummy" -> "He is scummy"

Dariush: I have no idea what you're getting at with the apples and cherries thingy.

Toaster: Shakerag is less of a threat than the scum. I didn't know what presumptuous meant so I looked it up. Turns out presumptuous doesn't mean "inaccurate" so yeah. Thanks for dismissing it without any arguments.

Tiruin: If Shakerag was non-town, then everyone who voted him was correct in reading him as such. Yes its still possible that Shakerag is actually scum, but I don't really think so. And I could argue that scum care to an extent who gets lynched.

PPE: Unless my math is wrong or I'm misunderstanding your role, I don't see how you can win by N2.

[zombie urist]

Tiruin:

Tiruin:  Why are you always scum, including this game?

I'm not scum, nor am I always scum: mod shenanigans in the past, probably? You seem to forget when I'm town. 
Anyway, Toaster: I've seen you ask this question in many games before this; what do you hope to gain by asking such?

So you blame a mod conspiracy for being scum?  Interesting- an almost paranoid attitude.  Same reason I ask any RVS- to provoke a response that sheds light on the alignment on someone.

ZU:

zombie urist: If you had to pick one player right now to vanillize (yes, I made that up), who would it be?

Right now? Dunno. Probably you for asking such a shitty question.

So the correct move is to not ask a question at all?

These are both strawman arguments. Especially Tiruin's where you totally ignore the word 'probably'.

...

...
First, your unvote.  You unvote Irony after voting him for... lurking, I guess.  Now you unvote him for... no reason.  He hasn't even posted, which only supports your only ostensible reason for voting him in the first place.  The only reason I can see for you unvoting is that you got called out on it and got scared.
...

Hmm... Someone else did this too.

Irony has been active elsewhere but not bothered to give us a first post here.

Unvote Irony for now because he posted, though he really needs to do it again.

Blame work, my wife, a bottle of wine, and a bucket of paint.
...
Further, I notice you didn't respond to any of the answers to your starter RVS post.  You've, in fact, accused no one of anything except me of lurking.  I'd say it is equally you that needs to post more reads and get more involved... and hell, stop lurking like lurkscum.  Seriously, calling someone out for lurking on your second post of the game which occurs nearly 72 hours after game start is pretty flagrantly bad.

I still stand by what I said earlier about this being scummy. Furthermore I find it funny that you're upset at Bookthras for saying you're lurking when you admitted to lurking.

Dariush:

Aww, you're so cute. You went through the thread, found a bullshit RVS question and twisted my words to will a case against me in existence out of thin air. I'd hug you if you weren't such a steaming pile of shit.

It was a reaction test.  You didn't do well.

You didn't answer my question. I asked why you did X, you said because Y. When I said X has no relation to Y, you agreed that you only wanted Y, thus discarding the question entirely. I repeat - why did you ignore obvious sarcasm in Jim's post?

How about this answer, then:  Because I bloody well wanted to.

Please explain why he didn't do well. The second answer looks rushed just to dismiss Dariush's arguments.

Why reaction tests are all BS.

To give a reaction test means that there is already a preconceived set of wrong answers and correct answers. This is an exercise in WIFOM and also gives way to confirmation bias, not to mention that it could entirely possible that what someone considers a fail might actually not indicate scumminess.
 

[Bookthras]

webadict:

Mod Note: If you vote ZU instead of something longer, I won't count your vote from now on, because it is almost invisible on my screen. Also, don't post in red unless it's a vote.

First: Don't be an ass. ZU is Zombie Urist, just as UI is Urist Imiknorris or people like Hapah like calling people by one syllable names (like "Dar" or "Tir"), neither more visible than ZU or UI. For that matter, "Book" is just as short, would you not count that as a vote?

And hell, you did count Hapah's "ZU" vote, so why not Dariush's?

...wait. It doesn't matter, does it?
If DS's vote doesn't count, then the votecount is 4-3 ZU-Shake, and I can't do anything to stop the ZU lynch. Damnit. Sorry, ZU.

[...]Fuck you, ZU.[...]

Consistency and accurate votecounts is the bare minimum competence we require from a mod.

Your shitty screen is not our problem. Please interpret people's intended votes as votes when they are placed clearly and in good faith. That's your job as a mod. Next thing we'll be back to the days of mandatory unvote foo before voting (that was ludicrously bad).


Second: please make sure the vote counts are correct. Sure, you may be a prickly bitch about ZU (please don't be), but I fucking voted Dariush as clearly as sunshine:

Dariush:

Please post an updated, correct votecount.


Speaking of voting clearly, Hapah:

Why. Does everyone need. A Replacement?!?
No clue! It's kinda nuts. (But good luck, Think! That's a pretty good reason, imo)

Hapah
Well, now that you know that we've got time, your vote stays (cause you didn't shift it if it was only tiebreaking), why?

Oversight. Unvote. I actually don't think he's scum based on his actions when he was going into the noose. It looks like there isn't much that I can do to stop his lynch, though: even without my vote it looks like he's up by 3. :/

What the fuck is this? Do you seriously think your unvote should be considered? If not, given you saw the post, why didn't you correctly post your unvote outside quotes? You are still voting Zombie. Do you want to be? If so why? If not, why haven't you unvoted him? and where will you place your vote? Day ends tonight, merely "unvoting" is cowardly: name your top scum pick and vote them!

[Dariush]

On that note, why did you move your vote anyway Dariush? The majority seems to be clear and you had some kind of case on Toaster so...what makes you think ZU deserves that vote more than TolyK?

ZU made one slip-up by lying about having asked you a question. I checked it off as a honest error, but then he immediatly did a second (and much bigger) slip-up by intentionally misinterpreting my question. Here, I'll quote it:

2. Pulls some very BS cases. Notably on Hapah, Penngo, and to a lesser extend Dariush. All three are examples of throwing something and hoping it sticks. Especially in the case of Dariush, his 'Are you scum?' questions' only purpose looks to be to get Dariush to slip up and provide material for a lynch.

Wait what? Did you seriously manage to contradict yourself in the space of three sentences?

Can someone really, in all sincerity think that I asked something along the lines of "How can you consider Shakerag's case a case?" I asked a simple question and he gave me a completely bullshit answer that had no relation to what I was asking. Hence my vote. And I wasn't aware about such an overwhelming majority on ZU at the time.

Book: that is not such a huge jump as you paint it. The explanation is above. And I'd say that no more than the number of scum that physically exist are voting for ZU right now.

Dariush: I have no idea what you're getting at with the apples and cherries thingy.

And here you're pulling this crap off again. The exact same crap for which I voted you. You ignore my question about you ignoring my questions and giving unrelated bullshit answers and give an unrelated bullshit answer. Congratulations on the discovery of scumception.

ZOMBIE URIST SO YOU WON'T MISS IT WUBA. AND PLEASE USE LURKERTRACKER, FFS, SO YOUR BLINDNESS WON'T AFFECT US ALL VERILY DETRIMENTALLY.

[Hapah]

Book:

First: Valid or not, shouldn't those concerns be raised in a PM? I mean, even if you are upset about it, you don't gain anything by shaming the mod in the thread.

Second: Yes the votecount needs to be corrected, but still, no need to be so hostile about it.

More shortly, want to get this out.

PPE:
Dar: I don't think he missed it, he just didn't count it because of the rule thingy he gave. I don't think the thread is the right place for this.

[Toaster]

ZU:

Obviously if Shakerag is non-town (note this is different from anti-town), then everyone's vote on him is well-justified.

This is false.  If you're scum and I vote you because you picked your nose, my vote isn't justified.

Toaster: Shakerag is less of a threat than the scum. I didn't know what presumptuous meant so I looked it up. Turns out presumptuous doesn't mean "inaccurate" so yeah. Thanks for dismissing it without any arguments.

pre·sump·tu·ous
   [pri-zuhmp-choo-uhs]
adjective
1. full of, characterized by, or showing presumption  or readiness to presume  in conduct or thought.

That's what I said, and that's what I meant.  You're making many assumptions, and they're generally bad ones.  You are correct that I didn't say they were inaccurate- they are inaccurate, though; I just hadn't said so yet.  I figured the implication was obvious, but I guess not.

Also...

Thanks for dismissing it without any arguments.

Well, you are the expert of not providing arguments, so I guess you got me there!

Tiruin:

Tiruin:  Why are you always scum, including this game?

I'm not scum, nor am I always scum: mod shenanigans in the past, probably? You seem to forget when I'm town. 
Anyway, Toaster: I've seen you ask this question in many games before this; what do you hope to gain by asking such?

So you blame a mod conspiracy for being scum?  Interesting- an almost paranoid attitude.  Same reason I ask any RVS- to provoke a response that sheds light on the alignment on someone.

ZU:

zombie urist: If you had to pick one player right now to vanillize (yes, I made that up), who would it be?

Right now? Dunno. Probably you for asking such a shitty question.

So the correct move is to not ask a question at all?

These are both strawman arguments. Especially Tiruin's where you totally ignore the word 'probably'.

I'll have to remember that you are completely incapable of detecting a reaction test; one of the few useful tricks in RVS.  Also, calling them arguments at all, especially the second, is a huge stretch since I'm not actually pressing a case.

...

...
First, your unvote.  You unvote Irony after voting him for... lurking, I guess.  Now you unvote him for... no reason.  He hasn't even posted, which only supports your only ostensible reason for voting him in the first place.  The only reason I can see for you unvoting is that you got called out on it and got scared.
...

Hmm... Someone else did this too.

Irony has been active elsewhere but not bothered to give us a first post here.

Unvote Irony for now because he posted, though he really needs to do it again.

You've completely missed the crux of my argument here.

First, your unvote.  You unvote Irony after voting him for... lurking, I guess.  Now you unvote him for... no reason.  He hasn't even posted, which only supports your only ostensible reason for voting him in the first place.  The only reason I can see for you unvoting is that you got called out on it and got scared.

Penngo voted Irony for lurking, then unvoted when Irony had not even posted.  I unvoted him after he posted.  There's a big, big difference.  My vote was to encourage Irony to post- Penngo's was to pretend he was doing something.

Please explain why he didn't do well. The second answer looks rushed just to dismiss Dariush's arguments.

Why reaction tests are all BS.

To give a reaction test means that there is already a preconceived set of wrong answers and correct answers. This is an exercise in WIFOM and also gives way to confirmation bias, not to mention that it could entirely possible that what someone considers a fail might actually not indicate scumminess.

He didn't do well because I threw a single line at him and he overreacts, accusing me of going out of my way to invent a case on him when I didn't even vote him or apply any other pressure.  Overreactions are scummy.  On the second point, you are 100% correct.  I'm dismissing his arguments because they're retarded.


I completely disagree with you on reaction tests.  They can be very useful at finding scum- getting a reaction of panic, false bravado, or irrational anger can all be indicators of scum.  I wouldn't base a vote solely on one, but they're a great starting point and can indicate who needs further attention.

[Shakerag]

Why reaction tests are all BS.

To give a reaction test means that there is already a preconceived set of wrong answers and correct answers. This is an exercise in WIFOM and also gives way to confirmation bias, not to mention that it could entirely possible that what someone considers a fail might actually not indicate scumminess.

That's ... not the point of a reaction test.  A reaction test is when you direct some action/statement/question at a person, and see how they respond to it, not necessarily what they respond to it with. 

If I say "Hey zombie urist, are you scum?", I know you're going to answer in the negative.  But how you answer in the negative is important.  If you respond in a dodgy or nervous way, then that's reason to suspect you. 

Another good example that's been thrown around enough is to ask who someone wants on thier scumteam.  There's no right or wrong answer, but if they say something like "my 2 scumbuddies would be ..." then you start to wonder if they picked a specific number of scumbuddies because they know exactly how many scum are in the game. 

Does that clarify things?  God, I feel like I should have put that in IC-brackets.