Print

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

[Dariush]

Sorry for low activity, guys. My holidays ended and the first week at the university turned into very shit very quickly.

Ford:

I don't even know why you're voting me anymore. You've agreed with me on the main point we were arguing about and you haven't raised any new points at all. You just keep calling me scummy.

You're so stupid. I don't even know which is this 'main point' on which I supposedly agreed with you is. I'm voting you because you're a hypocrite, because if you weren't scum scum would have no reason to choose Tolyk over you, because you're voted ZU for no reason whatsoever, because you intentionally made an unreadable post and I'm only two pages in and I'm only reading my own posts in which I said all this before and to which you didn't bother replying. So you're a liar too.

TZZ, WTF. Why RVS? Why FoSes accompanying RVS questions? Why did you not read neither the thread nor the rules? Why did you put Ford into L-1 with the most generic of possible answers 'he seemed scummy'?

Tiruin, explain why TZZ is 'leaning town' in your eyes. He did absolutely nothing even remotely approaching 'useful' (or 'not scummy', for that matter) up until your post (or after it, for that matter). Also, don't you suspect anybody?

[Captain Ford]

1:  He was online during the kill send in.

It has been confirmed that not only could someone hide their online status and submit the vote, they could even do it from a completely different account if they so desired. Your first point isn't nearly as damning as it looks at first glance. Anyone could have sent the vote, couldn't they?

Hiding your online status does not affect the "Last Active" field on your profile.

[zombie urist]

Wait you've only started your first week at school? and I thought I started school late. 

[Captain Ford]

Dariush:

I don't even know why you're voting me anymore. You've agreed with me on the main point we were arguing about and you haven't raised any new points at all. You just keep calling me scummy.

You're so stupid. I don't even know which is this 'main point' on which I supposedly agreed with you is.

This:

If a claim results in the death of a mafia member, then regardless of what that claim was or who made it, it was beneficial to the town.

Claiming mason is a null-tell, as you've previously said. Quite surprisingly (coming from you), it is true.

Which is a reversal of your original opinion.

You never challenged the next thing I said, so I'm assuming that you had no problem with it.


> I'm voting you because you're a hypocrite.
Not a scumtell.

> because if you weren't scum scum would have no reason to choose Tolyk over you
That's the stupidest thing I think I've heard anyone say, ever. You really are dumb as a brick, aren't you?

If you really believe that, why haven't you addressed my (rephrased) counterargument? (bottom of the post)

> because you're voted ZU for no reason whatsoever
LOL.

I had a good reason. I even stated it in my post. You haven't addressed my reasoning, so you're pretty much just lying your ass off.

I also replied to your statement with a more detailed explanation. You haven't addressed it, so you're talking out of your ass.

> because you intentionally made an unreadable post
That was the point, dumbass. I was antagonizing Deathsword to see how he reacted.

Incidentally, several of my friends have read it, and they laughed out loud reading it. So clearly, it's not unreadable. And it's funny. I don't see how your linguistic inadequacies are my fault.

> and I'm only two pages in and I'm only reading my own posts in which I said all this before and to which you didn't bother replying. So you're a liar too.
Well, if you're not reading my posts, then how can you know whether or not I replied to them? I'm pretty sure I already addressed all these points, but some of them were mentioned when I was talking to other people and not directly to you.

So most of your case is lies or pointless BS. I have addressed all of those points before, so you're clearly just lazy and/or lying. The ball is in your court right now, Dariush. Don't put this on me.


Deathsword:

DS: You've got a question below (and I vaguely recall you wanting to be addressed in some particular way. Is DS alright?)

Assuming this:

DS: Do you still hold that Ford must be scum? I for one think that he's one of the flavors of town, and that lynching Tolyk over Ford was a great move: look at how much attention he got at the start of D2. The resulting shitstorm seems to have taken up most of the day.

is what you are referring to, the answer to that would be yes, I still think him to be scum. He chainsawed to defend NQT and repeatedly stated he believes NQT to be town, despite little to no interaction with him. I find that to be quite suspicious, as is NQT's defense of him.

First of all, you only addressed the first half of Hapah's question. I want to see your response to the rest of it.

Second of all, I can see this flew entirely over your head, but first of all, I "chainsawed" because you were making a shit case. Second of all, I intentionally did it in that manner to create the impression of the two of us being masonbuddies. It may even have led to the deaths of Nerjin and Urist Imiknorris. But I'm not claiming that I did. If I really am a mason, then they obviously weren't targeting me.

My interpretation of the game setup is that the only chance for masons to survive is for scum to not know who is a mason and who is a townie. My goal wasn't actually to make scum use their daykills, it was to create enough uncertainty that they wouldn't try it. I figured that the actual masons wouldn't be confused, because they'd know (if) I was bluffing. They wouldn't know if I was actually trying to help them, or if I was just trying to look like it -- but they would know that I couldn't fool them, and that I knew that when I did it.

Your interactions with me have been petty and your case has been weak. You haven't addressed my counterarguments, and yet are still on track to lynch me.

I still don't think you're scum. Otherwise I'd have voted you right here.

[Toaster]

Hapah:  While I am wavering on my Ford position, it's too late to do anything about it.  Still, I'd like to point out one big flaw:

It has been confirmed that not only could someone hide their online status and submit the vote, they could even do it from a completely different account if they so desired. Your first point isn't nearly as damning as it looks at first glance. Anyone could have sent the vote, couldn't they?

You really think someone would risk being banned* over that?  I think the odds are laughable.

*Two accounts gets both banned

Even if I unvoted, Ford would just vote Deathsword and we'd be right back to where we were at the end of D1.  What good would that do us?

[zombie urist]

Where does it say you're not allowed to have multiple accounts?

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=27009.0

[Hapah]

PFDisease

Leafsnail: Awesome. Thank you for that.

Toaster, ZU: Do we have confirmation one way or the other? I googled and poked around on the wiki but came up empty-handed.

Ford: Good to know about the "Last Active" field. I've learned more about the forums from this game than all the rest put together, lol.

Even if I unvoted, Ford would just vote Deathsword and we'd be right back to where we were at the end of D1.  What good would that do us?

So you are still willing to leave your vote on Ford even with your doubts? Do you think Ford or DS is scummier?

[Teneb]

Deathsword:

DS: You've got a question below (and I vaguely recall you wanting to be addressed in some particular way. Is DS alright?)

Assuming this:

DS: Do you still hold that Ford must be scum? I for one think that he's one of the flavors of town, and that lynching Tolyk over Ford was a great move: look at how much attention he got at the start of D2. The resulting shitstorm seems to have taken up most of the day.

is what you are referring to, the answer to that would be yes, I still think him to be scum. He chainsawed to defend NQT and repeatedly stated he believes NQT to be town, despite little to no interaction with him. I find that to be quite suspicious, as is NQT's defense of him.

First of all, you only addressed the first half of Hapah's question. I want to see your response to the rest of it.

You will have to explain how I didn't answer his question when the questio was if I still thought you were scum.

Second of all, I can see this flew entirely over your head, but first of all, I "chainsawed" because you were making a shit case. Second of all, I intentionally did it in that manner to create the impression of the two of us being masonbuddies. It may even have led to the deaths of Nerjin and Urist Imiknorris. But I'm not claiming that I did. If I really am a mason, then they obviously weren't targeting me.

This is WIFOM as fuck and the claim of doing it to look like a masonbuddy to me is pure bullshit.

My interpretation of the game setup is that the only chance for masons to survive is for scum to not know who is a mason and who is a townie. My goal wasn't actually to make scum use their daykills, it was to create enough uncertainty that they wouldn't try it. I figured that the actual masons wouldn't be confused, because they'd know (if) I was bluffing. They wouldn't know if I was actually trying to help them, or if I was just trying to look like it -- but they would know that I couldn't fool them, and that I knew that when I did it.

Ok, when people are voting you with meta, you claim meta to be bad. But then you went and did some metagaming on this very same game.

Oh, and hypocrisy IS scummy.

[zombie urist]

pfp. Hapah. No but i honestly dontt think anyones going to get banned for having 2accts.

[Captain Ford]

Since there's very little time left before the lynch, I'm going to go ahead and push my case on zombie urist.

I'm 80% certain that zombie urist is scum, because of:
1a. The timing if the tie-breaker.
1b. The fact that he was active closest to Leafsnail's post.
1c. The fact that he didn't post anywhere, despite the fact he was active. It implies he wasn't posting in any other threads, or at the very least that he didn't want to be associated with the breaking of the tie.
2. His reaction to the "last active" evidence. Especially giving up. With half of the scum team lost in the first day, the team most likely to feel like it's hopeless is the scum team.
3. The way that he's posting very short snippets, often without quoting the people he is responding to or putting their names in bold is a blatant attempt to avoid attracting attention. He has lots of posts, but little content.
4. Wishy-washy voting. A lot of "I don't know anymore". Applies little to no pressure.
5. Failure to Deliver. Promises to post "something substantial", but continues his pattern of posting very little.
6. Very nonoffensive. A lot of his posts are aimed at clarifying misunderstandings, or claiming people aren't town.

That's the case I can raise on him. Ultimately, my strongest reason for suspecting him is because he fits the profile of competent scum. The strongest piece of evidence I have is the fact that the time of his last activity was closest to the vote. Once I am lynched, that piece of evidence should be much stronger, since I will be shown to have no reason to lie about it. His reaction to it is also something I find telling.

I'm pissed at Toaster for what seemed like him trying to downplay the importance of evidence that he himself introduced, when my statements on that matter are one of the most valuable things that could come out of lynching me. I still find it scummy that he essentially said that a piece of evidence that implicates several people is somehow only valid in my case. That doesn't make sense, and it makes it look like he's trying to prevent it from backfiring onto members of his own team.

I've had a lot of fun in this game. I don't mind going down now, because I think my lynch will be very informative. Good luck to the remaining townies and masons in hunting down the remaining villains.


PPE: Deathsword. (Seriously, like 30 seconds before I was going to post that)

(You can pretty much consider the following to be a separate post entirely)


Deathsword:

Second of all, I can see this flew entirely over your head, but first of all, I "chainsawed" because you were making a shit case. Second of all, I intentionally did it in that manner to create the impression of the two of us being masonbuddies. It may even have led to the deaths of Nerjin and Urist Imiknorris. But I'm not claiming that I did. If I really am a mason, then they obviously weren't targeting me.

This is WIFOM as fuck and the claim of doing it to look like a masonbuddy to me is pure bullshit.

Oh, I'm sorry. I did it create the impression of me and NQT being masonbuddies, not you. If anyone thinks you and me are buddies, they'd have to be nuts.

My interpretation of the game setup is that the only chance for masons to survive is for scum to not know who is a mason and who is a townie. My goal wasn't actually to make scum use their daykills, it was to create enough uncertainty that they wouldn't try it. I figured that the actual masons wouldn't be confused, because they'd know (if) I was bluffing. They wouldn't know if I was actually trying to help them, or if I was just trying to look like it -- but they would know that I couldn't fool them, and that I knew that when I did it.

Ok, when people are voting you with meta, you claim meta to be bad. But then you went and did some metagaming on this very same game.

Uh...huh?

There is no relationship between these two things besides the fact that they share 4 letters. Can you please explain how this makes me scummy?

Oh, and hypocrisy IS scummy.

Totally disagree. Everyone's guilty of it to some degree, and anyone who says they aren't is wrong. Not necessarily lying, but wrong all the same.

I think it's Jim Groovester who says it best, but there's others:

Spoiler: Hypocrisy isn't a scumtell (click to show/hide)

Hypocrisy is not a scumtell. It just makes you a hypocrite.

[And before we get any further, I'm going to channel the spirit of the Groovester and make sure you all know that hypocrisy isn't a scumtell.]

Hypocrisy isn't a scumtell*

* - I know Jim Groovester said this somewhere...In a BM.

Why is it bad for him to tunnel you but OK for you to tunnel Janus and Jim?  Your hypocrisy is suspicious.

It's not a scumtell.  I'm pointing out his use of it as a reason why his entire case against me is bullshit (look at the quote I'm responding to).

And, of course, the original quote:

Hypocrisy isn't a scum tell because regardless of what offenses a player commits it says nothing about the validity of his arguments. Consider the following situation: Player A has posted infrequently because he has real life obligations, while Player B has posted infrequently because he is lurking scum. Player A accuses Player B of being scum for inactivity, and Player B immediately busts out the same accusation against Player A while also accusing him of hypocrisy. Who's right? Player A is, of course, but if hypocrisy were a scumtell then Player A would be in hot water for doing something he accused another player of doing. If it was considered standard practice to find hypocrites scummy then all it would take for scum to defend themselves is to find instances where their attackers committed some sort of wrongdoing. This would be a travesty of scumhunting.

It takes a judgment call to decide whether an argument against a player is valid or not, and for the most part, these decisions should be made without any consideration to where the argument comes from. (It's nice that I say that, but this doesn't always happen, and I catch myself very frequently not following my own advice.)

I started saying this because I frequently came across scum players who wanted to discredit my attacks by pointing out that some of my accusations against them were applicable to me as well. Naturally, I lynched them.

Now while hypocrisy itself isn't a scumtell, scum are more often seen pushing it as a scumtell. Just like you, Deathsword.

I was planning to go down with a vote on ZU, but this post alone was enough to change my mind about you. I want to see you hang, scumbag.

[Captain Ford]

Hapah, Toaster:
To be totally clear, I was referencing the "Last Activity" field on the profiles on each player, which is not affected by hiding one's online status. NQT and I were active during this time. ZU's last activity was 2 minutes away from the the tiebreak.

You know, what's most scummy about that is that ZU's last activity was two minutes before the tie break, which implies he sent the PM and then logged off. If he'd done anything but that -- refreshed the thread, navigated to any other page, pressed a preview button -- it would have updated, but it remained the same for several hours, unlike mine and NQT's. That means that he was active until 2 minutes before Leafsnail posted the lynch result, and then he left. You have to admit that if it's a coincidence, it's a very, very unlikely one.

As for using 2 accounts -- that didn't happen. If the scum that submitted the vote was being that paranoid about it, they would have brought it up to Leafsnail, and Leafsnail would have come up with a solution for it. It's a lot more work than was absolutely necessary.

What's telling to me here is that ZU hasn't insisted that it's a coincidence. Nor has he denied that our evidence is accurate. If I or Toaster were lying, he would have said something by now. He seems to just be hoping it goes away (or like he said, he's just given up).

zombie urist:

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

I gathered the information about everyone's last activity the second I saw the lynch post pop up. But I didn't post it immediately. If Toaster hadn't posted before me, I was going to ask if it was all right with everyone to play with that information. If the response was negative, I would have kept it to myself. It still would have influenced my choices, but it wouldn't have been out in the open (at least not until after the game, or in the deadchat).

So, I'm sorry ZU. I didn't want to ruin the game for you. But I wasn't about to take it lying down.

To Nobody in Particular (which means everyone): I'm only getting more certain that ZU is scum. The fact that he didn't respond to the metainfo is much stronger evidence than the information itself. He should have mounted some kind of defense by now, but instead he gave up.

Unless there's a sudden rally behind me in the next couple hours, I would rather go down with a vote on zombie urist. Don't let me down, town. I got you three* scumbags. Surely you can find the last one.

* Unless I'm wrong, of course.

[Captain Ford]

EBWOP

Leafsnail: You should read my last post too, since it directly concerns a reply of yours.

[zombie urist]

I don't think you're lying, I just know you're wrong. 

To be totally clear, I was referencing the "Last Activity" field on the profiles on each player, which is not affected by hiding one's online status. NQT and I were active during this time. ZU's last activity was 2 minutes away from the the tiebreak.

You know, what's most scummy about that is that ZU's last activity was two minutes before the tie break, which implies he sent the PM and then logged off. If he'd done anything but that -- refreshed the thread, navigated to any other page, pressed a preview button -- it would have updated, but it remained the same for several hours, unlike mine and NQT's. That means that he was active until 2 minutes before Leafsnail posted the lynch result, and then he left. You have to admit that if it's a coincidence, it's a very, very unlikely one.

Unless there's a sudden rally behind me in the next couple hours, I would rather go down with a vote on zombie urist. Don't let me down, town. I got you three* scumbags. Surely you can find the last one.

Its also possible NQT or DS or you for that matter could have submitted the tiebreaker then went on to continue browsing. I can't remember exactly what I was doing at that time or whether I was online at all, but I didn't submit a tiebreaker. Also, I have no idea how you counted three "3".

I'm also hesitant to trust Toaster's data.

[Hapah]

I'm gone until late Saturday. Take it easy folks!

[Captain Ford]

Also, I have no idea how you counted three "3".

You + Nerjin + Imiknorris = 3. I'm going down, so I might as well take credit for the two bandits who doxxed themselves. In a couple hours, you're all going to know I was a townie, and NQT's theory about Nerjin targeting me is probably correct given the timing, and since Imiknorris didn't know what target Nerjin chose, it's entirely possible he targeted me too.

Of course, I would have to share the credit with NQT, who was a wonderful fake masonbuddy partner (it was great working with you). I think he's town more now than I did back then.

(Yes, it's incredibly arrogant. It's also tongue-in-cheek, so take it with a grain of salt. I thought I was being far too obvious to be the target, but the play of the rest of the players has taught me that nothing is too obvious. It probably was me and NQT that brought them down)

(I'm probably wrong though. I'm not really that arrogant. But I decided I'd like to go out with a bang)



Oh, and you're lying. Coming up with a defense right after I suggested it to you? Well, I can't blame you for trying. But your timing couldn't have been worse, you know.

To be fair, I don't expect you to be lynched based purely on this evidence. But I'd be very disappointed in my fellow players if you didn't get at least a healthy amount of attention.