Print

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

[Nirur Torir]

That's an interesting bandwagon. Unvote.

Pandarsenic:

My greatest single suspicion is IronyOwl for his general grouping of him and Zathras, which I find odd. I feel like he's trying to have it be blatant for some reason.

Enlighten me; I'm inexperienced. Which roles would likely want to be blatant about throwing scum tells out?

Vote Argembarger for bandwagoning.

I don't think he's talking about Org, Archangel. I think he's referring to

Toaster and Puppet, please restate you cases against IronyOwl.

which is you placing a vote on MBP, for no reason, and then telling them to tell you what they've already said, a lot, throughout the entire thread.

Which is really really scummy... And Org is correct, you completely deflected it.

Vote Archangel

I don't understand the point of this vote. Archangel hasn't done anything yet, and may well still be in his RVS stage. Lazy, and bad townmanship, but hardly a telling sign of scumminess. His question itself is not overtly scummy, unlike you being the third vote on him without a good reason.

Seriously, out of everything that's gone down so far, your top vote is for a weak question? You didn't even ask a question of your own. What were you hoping to accomplish with your vote?

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

As for my vote, I'm asking Toaster and Puppet to state their reasons so that I can compare them with what's actually said; I've a feeling of disquiet about the two; red text draws the eye; and a vote will encourage MBP to answer.

 Sure  did draw my eye, but also much more than that.  My reasons are plenty obvious. Irony was eager to get under Zath good side, buddying and all that. I'd also add his lack of work, but i'm aware that's more of an opinion thing. Nothing you should have missed if you had reread the thread well.

In order.

Archangel:Frankly, that's strike me as incredibly noobish. I'm not certain noobtown or noobscum : Firstly, your post feel hastily thrown together, mostly to remove yourself from the lurk-basket. Second, you say that you think that Jokerman is scum and vote for someone else ? How does that work ? If you want my opinion that much you could have seen that i was gonna post a big post here anyway.  Third, you indeed are useless right now, and pointing you is not gonna give you sympathy points. At least make a big post with why you think Pandar is protecting org, why you think i'm iffy, you know, anything. Right now you feel much scummyer to me than Irony, but i have reserve about changing to you yet.

IronyOwl:. I'm keeping you as my vote for now, for reason previously stated. Archengel is giving you a real good run right now.

Jokerman:You had a pretty impressive OMGUS a little while back with impressive RAEG and all that. And then you kind of disappeared. Blech. You better get in here and do something usefull of your skin. Did you had a good reason to vote Zathras ?

Ottofar: where are you man ? The game as started and you are the Lurk poster boy now. I also see that you voted for me, and would like if you got a different opinion now, and if not what your reasoning

Org:is org right now. Don't know if its good or bad.

Mr Person: You are pretty much surfing under the radar, posting 1-2 sentence long questions then getting on your merry way.Laziness doesnt suit you,  care to share what you found out about Jokerman in more detail?

Native:Please stop saying stop stopping by and contribute ?

Really id like to read from evryone now, mostly on their tought on Jokerman, and more recently Archengel. Noobtown or Noobscum ?

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Dude, why do you protect Archangel so much. Archangel Do merit suspicion. He posted an idiotic post saying he tought someone was scum, then VOTING FOR OTHER PEOPLE. How can you be more blatant ? His explanatiation don't hold water, mostly since my suspicion are plain to see and you really need to try to miss them.

Funny how yor post apply so easily to you. You havent done anything yet, then switch vote for inane thing while there are peoples with a LOT more sumtells.Protecting scumbuddies much, Nirur?

[Argembarger]

Orange bolded text is mine.

That's an interesting bandwagon. Unvote.

Pandarsenic:

My greatest single suspicion is IronyOwl for his general grouping of him and Zathras, which I find odd. I feel like he's trying to have it be blatant for some reason.

Enlighten me; I'm inexperienced. Which roles would likely want to be blatant about throwing scum tells out?

Vote Argembarger for bandwagoning.

I don't think he's talking about Org, Archangel. I think he's referring to

Toaster and Puppet, please restate you cases against IronyOwl.

which is you placing a vote on MBP, for no reason, and then telling them to tell you what they've already said, a lot, throughout the entire thread.

Which is really really scummy... And Org is correct, you completely deflected it.

Vote Archangel

I don't understand the point of this vote. Archangel hasn't done anything yet, and may well still be in his RVS stage. Still in RVS? Do you really think that? Did you read his posts? Lazy, and bad townmanship, but hardly a telling sign of scumminess. This is called scumhunting, it's where you find a reason to suspect someone (lazy, bad townsmanship) and you apply pressure to it for further answers. I'm trying to do the same thing you're doing to me now, so just keep that in mind. His question itself is not overtly scummy, unlike you being the third vote on him without a good reason. But I didn't vote him for his question. I voted him because of his deflection. He wants to use his vote to get answers from MBP, I want to use my vote to get answers from him, you want to use your vote to get answers from me. It goes round and round.

Seriously, out of everything that's gone down so far, your top vote is for a weak question? You didn't even ask a question of your own. What were you hoping to accomplish with your vote? The same thing you are, pressure for answers.

If two votes is a bandwagon, then there are currently 4 bandwagons on the board. Your vote on Archangel was for lurking, if I recall correctly, and was completely unrelated to the matter at hand.

I mean really, if the day was ending today, I would have placed my vote on Joker, my top scumpick at the moment, but since we have until Monday, I want Archangel to correct his deflection and respond to the points he's been given.


Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Really id like to read from evryone now, mostly on their tought on Jokerman, and more recently Archengel. Noobtown or Noobscum ?

I was definitely reading town from Jokerman for a long time; hating RVS is pretty clearly in his meta and his responses to Zath didn't come off as particularly scummy to me, but then he blatantly OMGUSed which kind of corrupted my image of him. He's at the top of my list for now. We'll see what he has to say.

As for Archangel, I've already given my two bits about him. I await a response.

[Nirur Torir]

Really id like to read from evryone now, mostly on their tought on Jokerman, and more recently Archengel. Noobtown or Noobscum ?

Jokerman - My first scumpick, but my input isn't needed there, and leaving my vote on him over the weekend would encourage me to focus too much on him.
Archangel - He's heavily lurking, but I don't see that combined with his latest post as marking him as the scummiest person here. He does need to participate more.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Dude, why do you protect Archangel so much. Archangel Do merit suspicion. He posted an idiotic post saying he tought someone was scum, then VOTING FOR OTHER PEOPLE. How can you be more blatant ? His explanatiation don't hold water, mostly since my suspicion are plain to see and you really need to try to miss them.

I'd guessed he's trying to participate somewhat, rather then simply throwing his vote on Jokerman. My reason for voting him was mostly to get him to participate and state his opinions.

Funny how yor post apply so easily to you. You havent done anything yet, then switch vote for inane thing while there are peoples with a LOT more sumtells.Protecting scumbuddies much, Nirur?

Trying to force opinions out of lurkers is not a bad thing. My vote was on somebody who wasn't participating, and included questions. I saw Argembarger's as a bandwagon vote, which included no questions.
I admit to not having done much direct participation yet. This will be fixed soon.

WARNING! I HAVE BEEN NINJAED!

I thought I saw a reason why MBP needed to restate himself when I first read Archangel's post, but no. Since Argembarger has suitably defended himself, unvote.

I need to re-read the thread now.

[Mr.Person]

Mr Person: You are pretty much surfing under the radar, posting 1-2 sentence long questions then getting on your merry way.Laziness doesnt suit you,  care to share what you found out about Jokerman in more detail?

I hate to be that guy, but pretty much "What Zathras said". Squawk, I'm a parrot, squawk.

I can say is that I found Jokerman being really, really jumpy to be a bit scummy, but the real sealer-of-the-deal was when Jokerman voted Zathras for being jumpy. Really? No, that vote is bullshit, I can tell from a mile away. So I'm DYING to learn the real reason Jokerman decided to vote Zathras.

Also, Jokerman's response to my question was particularly defensive and bullshit. "Zathra's argument has merit and is true, but it's wrong." What? Either it's true or it's not, something can't be true AND wrong.

@Argembarger: I have something I want to say to you that's going to wait until after Archangel responds. For now, I want you to elaborate on what Archangel's done because frankly, your case right now is lookin' miiiiighty thin.

@Nirur: I would pose questions at you, but there's none to be had. As soon as I get an idea for one, I realize you've already answered everything I could even consider asking. Despite all that, instinct says you're scum. So I'll keep watching and waiting on the edge of my seat.

@Pandarsenic: Why are you ignoring Archangel? You posted after Archangel did, yet didn't mention Archangel at all. It's almost like you're trying to slink away with your Archangel vote and get away with not talking about your vote. Please, eradicate my suspicions by responding to Archangel.

@Zathras: Do you think Jokerman could possibly abate your concerns and appear to you as a townie?

[Zathras]

Toaster and Puppet, please restate you cases against IronyOwl.

which is you placing a vote on MBP, for no reason, and then telling them to tell you what they've already said, a lot, throughout the entire thread.

Which is really really scummy...

This is incorrect. He's asking them to restate their case; that is, to make a summary of their position with evidence to support it, as I did earlier with Jokerman. In the process of a thread, arguments back and forth may lose some of their context or merit, or be emotional or whatever, and will not be convincing to others unless a summary is posted. It's useful for the attacker as well, to clarify his thinkingp process, and attempt to show us that the purported scumminess of his target can stand on its own. It is not scummy of him to request it, and in fact I'd like to see it too.

While it was something of a deflection, it is a valid request, while your vote on him was total bandwagon (third, not second, after Nirur and Pandar). Piling on him for requesting someone to clarify their argument? Scummy of you.

I was definitely reading town from Jokerman for a long time; hating RVS is pretty clearly in his meta and his responses to Zath didn't come off as particularly scummy to me, but then he blatantly OMGUSed which kind of corrupted my image of him. He's at the top of my list for now. We'll see what he has to say.

Really? I didn't vote him for hating RVS, but for the things like "Yes, lurking is detrimental to town, but it's not scummy", contradicting himself three times and so on; are these not "particularly scummy to you"? Why? Sure, the OMGUS was the most blatant, but to say he was not scummy up to that seems a stretch to me.

Really id like to read from evryone now, mostly on their tought on Jokerman, and more recently Archengel. Noobtown or Noobscum ?

I'm on record regarding Jokerman. On the others, Pandarsenic (lack of participation and attitude so far are consistent with what I know of scum-Pandar), and Org (likewise). Ottofar is annoying, and I'm tempted to hang him just for being utterly useless, because it could be a mask for scumminess, unfortunately, I've seen him be just as useless as town... which is bad for town, but there you are.
Argembarger, Toaster and MBP read as suspicious to me at the moment, but I don't have anything solid on them (beyond Arg's wagoning for lame reasons, and MBP's failure at providing clarity); they do seem to be discreetly covering for each other to an extent. Archangel doesn't come off as particularly scummy to me yet (lurky and noncommital, but normal for him), and certainly not noob-er than you, MBP.


PPE:

@Zathras: Do you think Jokerman could possibly abate your concerns and appear to you as a townie?

Anything is possible, but I don't see how... It's not like he has a time machine to undo and unsay what he has done and said. Basically, the only way I'd let him off the hook now is if there's a scummier target present, and then I'd be back on his ass D2. At most downgrade him from "surely scum" to "probably scum", but "townie" (as you say)? Hardly.

Hmm... I guess, if he made an honest effort to hunt, and actually bagged a scum, then I may reconsider. I'm not close-minded about the possibility, it just seems like a tall mountain to climb.


Mod: there's an error in your votecount: Pandar is voting Archangel.

[Mr.Person]

Damn, Zathras, that's the exact answer I would of given had I been asked that question. There went my concerns.

[Zathras]

Damn, Zathras, that's the exact answer I would have given had I been asked that question. There went my concerns.

Shush, man, quit with the agreeing or the teeny tiny buddying committee will be all up on yo'ass...

8-P

[Jokerman-EXE]

Thanks Irony. That was actually really helpful.

Mr.Person: It might seem jumpy to you, but you can't really speak for me, can you? I've been growing suspicious of Zath for some time, and his increase in tunneling and hardline ignorance of anything but one person. And what I'm saying is that his argument might have some grains of truth (in principle, not necessarily in practice), but that doesn't make it true. Because, y'know, it's not.

Zath: So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious. You're tunneling (I've only seen you even begin to include other people in your view once they start talking at you; you never lay down another suspicion unless asked about it or if the person tries to get you to talk about something else), you're seriously just grabbing onto every single thing that I do and saying "OH HAY THIS IS A SCUMTELL COME LOOK" (newsflash, bro, pretty much everything is a scumtell if it's spun by scum to look like it. Weird how that works, huh?), and you're ignoring my arguments completely, even when you have to know by now that I have a point.
Your erroneous statements are the ones where you proclaim that I must be lurking, it's got to be lurking, it can't be anything else! ...even though I said I would be gone, and even went out of my way to let other people know. I can see why you might be leery about Firefox devouring my post, but I'm pretty goddam positive that I'm not the only one that's had this problem. Ask anyone.
And, in order: I didn't say lurking was okay and that we shouldn't hunt lurkers; in fact, I've made this distinction several times. Don't really know why you're ignoring it, but I've said that lurking isn't okay, but it shouldn't be a priority. I've said over and over that going after lurkers is fine, but going after them exclusively is a fault, IMO.

Native: Nice! Way to create a false dichotomy there, bud. It wasn't a reactive vote, and I'm not cracking under pressure because it's misguided. Let me ask you: why does it have to be those, and not, let's say, the fact that he might be scum? Hypothetically, of course. Covering for him?

I'll throw in my suspicions while I'm here. Pandar seems like he's trying to stay around without really being active, though lately that's been changing a little. Not enough to throw off suspicions, but there are others that draw attention. I'd like to see more from Org and Archangel, but there's not much we can do about that.

I think an Org policy lynch is bullshit - I'm a bit late there, but I missed that conversation. Org needs a chance and killing him D1 for no reason other than that he's Org is bullshit.

I'm back and settled now, but I have work today and I'm not sure I'll be back tonight.

[Zathras]

Glad you're back. Glad you continue to dig yourself deeper with clear, verifiable lies on top of everything else.

I've been growing suspicious of Zath for some time, and his increase in tunneling and hardline ignorance of anything but one person.

We'll come back to the tunneling, but before, please tell us more about your growing suspicions. You said, on December 14, "One thing that I have decided on is that you don't feel like scum right now"; then, on your very next post on December 15, "For one thing, Zathras is scum." So, these "growing suspicions" on me happened in the span of 24 hours, between the two times you posted? Do you have any evidence of my scumminess, especially in that 24 hour period, to give you reasons for your vote? Other than the "tunneling", that is. If you don't have adequate reasons for the change, then yes, it's totally scummy and totally an OMGUS.

Zath: So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious. You're tunneling (I've only seen you even begin to include other people in your view once they start talking at you; you never lay down another suspicion unless asked about it or if the person tries to get you to talk about something else),

Changing your mind is not automatically an OMGUS. Changing your mind without evidence, posting a baseless vote on the one who is badgering you, is.

But let's talk about Tunneling. It means to focus on one person to the exclusion of all others, and you claim above that I "never lay down another suspicion" and so on. These are clear, verifiable lies. I've laid down suspicions and questioned/attacked people several times, mostly unprompted. Some examples: I attack Pandar & Org, and question Toaster without being prompted: [1], as well as calling Ottofar and Archangel to quit lurking. I press Org and question Pandar (again, no one prompted me to): [2], and others. Even in my last, I press Argembarger for a wagon post, without anyone "start[ed] talking at you; [or...] unless asked about it or if the person tries to get you to talk about something else".

Your assertion that I'm tunneling is utter bullshit, and one more example of the OMGUS nature of your vote: You say I'm tunneling only because I'm attacking you. You need me to stop attacking you, so you say I'm tunneling, and vote me for it. But it's an evident lie.

As I said earlier, there's a difference between tunneling and not letting go of the rod when you've caught a scum.

Your erroneous statements are the ones where you proclaim that I must be lurking, it's got to be lurking, it can't be anything else! ...even though I said I would be gone, and even went out of my way to let other people know.

Ah, but that "erroneous statement" statement of which you speak is this one:

Yet you post twice, with nothing but an erroneous statement?

a) Please show I posted nothing but it. Oh, you can't. So you lied, again.
b) I never said you were "lurking, it's got to be lurking, it can't be anything else". I questioned whether you were going to cower back into the shadows as you had threatened. There's a difference between just lurking, and cowardly running away.
c) You "went out of [your] way to let people know" after my so called erroneous statements, yes? So you can't ask me to have seen the future and know it before it happened, yes? At the time all you had said was "don't have much time to post today, not sure if I'll be back", which could just as easily be a screen for a cowardly scum, and the sort of thing people need to be pressed on if they don't return in 24 hours (which you didn't, so I pressed). All this before your text/move.
d) Lurking is not my issue with you. Your stance on it, sure, your scummy inconsistencies and contradictions, certainly, your idiotic OMGUS, of course. Your wilful lies about my tunneling and misrepresentation of my arguments only sweeten the deal. I'm not calling you a lurker. I'm calling you scum.

I can see why you might be leery about Firefox devouring my post, but I'm pretty goddam positive that I'm not the only one that's had this problem.

Sure, it has happened to me too, but I don't then jump into the thread and say "aaargh! my browser hates me! so you get a minimal post, and I may not be back!" Having your browser crap out on you is not scummy. Wailing about it on thread and using it as an excuse to not post, is. But a minor point compared to all the others, I'm willing to let this one pass if you wish.

And, in order: I didn't say lurking was okay and that we shouldn't hunt lurkers; in fact, I've made this distinction several times. Don't really know why you're ignoring it, but I've said that lurking isn't okay, but it shouldn't be a priority. I've said over and over that going after lurkers is fine, but going after them exclusively is a fault, IMO.

Just to make this abundantly clear: Yes you did say lurking was OK: "I also don't see anything inherently scummy about it at all." Please tell me that doesn't say "lurking is OK".
And yes, you did say we shouldn't hunt lurkers: "If you're completely convinced that all the active players are town, then I can see going after lurkers." How is this not saying that we shouldn't hunt them?

You are again lying when you say you didn't say what you said and defended saying several times. You said it. Have the balls to stand by your statements. Your continued lying about it and attempts at disowning it only make you look scummier. And no one has called for going after them exclusively, don't be disingenuous. You said they should be ignored until you are completely convinced all the active players are town.


You, sir, are a liar and a scum. My vote stands, and nothing in your post makes it even a little bit better for you. I guess your suspicions on me will continue to grow, eh?

[IronyOwl]

Like I said, I only brought attention to it because of the initial occurrence.  If it hadn't happened the first time, I wouldn't have looked twice at the second one.

So you admit to tunneling, then. There's nothing scummy or noteworthy about them, it's just that you've already called me scum and therefore figure you can get away with adding them to the pile.

Rephrase?  Fair enough. Original:

So on a scale of 1 to Bullshit, who else thinks this shit going on between Jow/Owl/Zath is total nonsense?

So you don't think anything Jokerman's said is scummy? Do you think any of what me or Zath has said is scummy? What's your take on this nonsense situation?

Rephrase:

"Do you think any of the three of us are scummy?  What's your take on this nonsense situation?"

See the difference?  There's no grouping here- a simple request for opinion.

There is a connection- you're lumping all three of us together, and creating the false dilemma that if Jokerman's not scummy, none of us are.

The only connection is that you three are going back and forth with each other.  That way is asking for a summary opinion of the situation.  Your notion of a false dilemma there is nonsense.

The only connection in the prior one was that both of us were going after the same person. Of course it's nonsense, but that's the argument you're making.

Apples and oranges.  You didn't mention something you felt was scummy about someone you were already in the process of attacking.  I didn't mention vague suspicions I had of other people because they weren't strong enough on their own to merit bringing them out by themselves.  Since someone prompted me for them, I obliged. The only reason Joker got any extra attention there is because he is the one who asked.

I've stated something like four times now that I wanted to point out one thing, but not step on Zathras' toes by going after him for the exact same reasons. There's no chance you haven't noticed this explanation, so what about it seems scummy/false to you? And why didn't you address that directly instead of bringing up something that's already been explained?

This still doesn't explain why the precise wording of my statements is the key to my scumminess, while you're just going with a "general feeling" about MBP's. A general feeling that ignores the actual meaning of those particular words, I might add.

Actual meaning?  I'm going on my interpretation of them, and what that is is right there in the quote.

But the interpretation isn't what the words actually mean; if I say "You and MBP are scum" you can certainly interpret that to mean "One of Toaster and MBP is scum," and that might even be what I meant, but that's not what those words mean in that context.

You're still not addressing why my precise wording is so relevant, but with MBP you just sort of gloss it over into "my interpretation."

I read into you and see scum.  I read into him and don't get anything definite; hence why I asked him what he planned to do next.  He didn't directly answer, but since he laid back into you I can guess as to what that answer was.

More vague feelings about MBP.

I'll grant you that I'm not usually this aggressive this early.  However, I don't usually get strong suspicions this early, either.  I usually don't find myself firmly committing anywhere until D2.

Oh, I think it goes far deeper than that. You've repeatedly and predictably done two things this game, Toaster- tunnel me and obliquely defend Jokerman.

Spoiler: Softballing the Joker (click to show/hide)

In your own words, RVS is over, and we're full-throttle scumhunting. Your refusal to participate in RVS is scummy on its own, but even scummier is your saying that lurking is OK (yes, you did, see above). You a) actively refused to consider a cultist faction until called up on it; b) think town lurking is not scummy; c) think RVS is useless, even if it brought up the first interesting conversation of the game; and d) have failed to do anything useful for town whatsoever.  You are scum. If pressed for details, I'd guess of the cultist kind.

That's an interesting leap there.  How do you figure cultist?

Zathras:  Interesting view on the cult possibility.  It has merit, but it's idle speculation for today.

As for your Jokerman question... well, he always lurks during RVS.  This is the most I've seen out of him in the first 48 hours of any game I can remember.  I've given him hell for it in the past, and it never amounted to much.  It's a bit scummy, but it's also firmly in his meta.  I doubt he and IronyOwl are on the same team, so that makes me think he's more likely to be town, since I think IO is scum.

Jokerman:

Toaster:

As for your Jokerman question... well, he always lurks during RVS.  This is the most I've seen out of him in the first 48 hours of any game I can remember.  I've given him hell for it in the past, and it never amounted to much.  It's a bit scummy, but it's also firmly in his meta.

Thank you for actually realizing that.
As to your question: IronyOwl for sure, and maybe Pandar. I would say Zathras, though it's not really much beyond a feeling that's developing as time goes. You?

Irony is on top, of course.  Below that, there's no real order, but Pandar (sidelining), Ottofar (not contributing), Archangel (one post), MBP (gut more than anything), and you (keep reading) are on my watch list.  It's been mentioned, but you went from thinking Zathras was town and declaring him scum in the space of one post- OMGUS indeed.


Zathras:

Toaster: aside from lurking during RVS, do you think there's merit in the rest of my case on Jokerman, that he is right when saying lurkers should be ignored "until you are completely convinced all the active players are town", his disingenuous thought that there's "town+scum and mmmaybe a 3rd party" as factions, his brand new OMGUS, his attempt to get me to go away until D2, and so on? It's not his lurking why I'm on his case. What say you? Of the two of us, who's scummier?

The reversal of his opinion of you leaves me scratching my head.  Most of the others don't really bug me, but in general, he bugs me more than you.

You've made no acknowledgement of his hypocrisy (perhaps you were too busy chainsaw defending Jokerman to remember), given him only a single counterargument to his adamant insistence on anti-town behavior being perfectly nonscummy, and even when he blatantly OMGUSes you simply say you're "scratching your head" over him. Why would he do that? How strange, how strange. Oh well, we'll just add him to the "watch list" and leave it at that.

I deny the defending charge; just because I think you're scum doesn't mean I think he isn't.  I'm not looking for teams here- I'm looking at individuals, and right now, you stick out like a sore thumb.  What do you want from me- to stop voting you and vote him instead?  I'm not going to base my vote off other people's arguments when I have solid suspicions of my own.

Fascinating.

You "deny the defender charge," then point out that me being scum doesn't mean Jokerman isn't; but that was never the point. The point was, at every opportunity to lightly defend Jokerman, you have. I never even mentioned myself in that accusation, other than to mention tunneling me was your other great hobby. Where did anyone say anything about teams?

You then go off onto some sort of "what do you want from me" tangent, complete with the most defensive line I have ever seen: "I'm not going to base my vote off other people's arguments when I have solid suspicions of my own." You're trying to justify voting me instead of Jokerman, despite maintaining that I'm obvscum and Jokerman is merely suspicious. Why feel the need to justify yourself beyond he's scum and he's not? It's because you know Jokerman's going to roleflip soon, isn't it?

I think you just cracked, Toaster. You saw all that up there and realized you'd been defending Jokerman a little too much, and panicked a bit.

At the time I was of the opinion that they were flailing at each other over semantics and other such bullshit. However, over time, they've solidified their arguments.

But what do you think of said arguments. And why didn't you intend to ever answer, and why do you keep dodging questions?

Oh, and I'd most want myself as a powerful role. Duh.

I'm going to be honest here. Anything else would have meant you were trying too hard to be careful.

IronyOwl:. I'm keeping you as my vote for now, for reason previously stated. Archengel is giving you a real good run right now.

So you have no interest in addressing any concerns, but are going to continue voting me regardless. You're at least doing other stuff, but certain people would probably consider those questions inane.

[Nirur Torir]

I have gone through the thread. Here's what I've got:

Jokerman-EXE - He has had no success in clearing his name. If he's town, then he completely deserves to be lynched day 1. If not, then he needs to die.

Pandarsenic - I don't feel like he's even trying to hunt scum. After everything that's happened, his only two scum picks are IronyOwl for grouping himself and Zathras together strangely, and Archangel. Not-townie.

Org - I'm sure we're all greatly relieved that nobody has stolen Org's account. I lack the ability to read Org.

Ottofar - Has done nothing other then active lurking. All evidence, by which I mean this post, combined with a lack of follow-up, leads me to believe that he is purposefully being utterly worthless. Probably jester.

Argembarger - My accusation against him was pathetic, but his answers are too much "we're doing the same thing." for my tastes. Oddly fitting, really. He may just be trying to get more information out of Archangel, lest he go back into hiding. Elevated suspicion.

Toaster - Spent too much time arguing with IronyOwl. Elevated suspicion.

MysteriousBluePuppet - Joined in with arguing with IronyOwl. Elevated suspicion.

IronyOwl - I feel that the arguments of him buddying were overblown and inane, but he hasn't done much other then defend himself and attack Jokerman. Averagely suspicious.

Archangel - He has successfully lurked his way through most of today with minimal commitments. Unknown(lurker).

NativeForeigner - He hasn't directly participated much. Unknown(lurker).

Mr.Person - He seems content to sit on his Jokerman vote, but hasn't done much. Unknown(lurker).

Zathras - I shall reserve judgement until after Jokerman flips.


NativeForeigner: What's your stance regarding Zathras, IronyOwl, Toaster, and MBP?

Bleh, I'd forgotten how exhausting it is to sift through and analyze arguments on the internet. No more attacks from me until tomorrow (Dec. 18th, not day 2).

[Pandarsenic]

Mr Person: You are pretty much surfing under the radar, posting 1-2 sentence long questions then getting on your merry way.Laziness doesnt suit you,  care to share what you found out about Jokerman in more detail?

I hate to be that guy, but pretty much "What Zathras said". Squawk, I'm a parrot, squawk.

I can say is that I found Jokerman being really, really jumpy to be a bit scummy, but the real sealer-of-the-deal was when Jokerman voted Zathras for being jumpy. Really? No, that vote is bullshit, I can tell from a mile away. So I'm DYING to learn the real reason Jokerman decided to vote Zathras.

Also, Jokerman's response to my question was particularly defensive and bullshit. "Zathra's argument has merit and is true, but it's wrong." What? Either it's true or it's not, something can't be true AND wrong.

@Argembarger: I have something I want to say to you that's going to wait until after Archangel responds. For now, I want you to elaborate on what Archangel's done because frankly, your case right now is lookin' miiiiighty thin.

@Nirur: I would pose questions at you, but there's none to be had. As soon as I get an idea for one, I realize you've already answered everything I could even consider asking. Despite all that, instinct says you're scum. So I'll keep watching and waiting on the edge of my seat.

@Pandarsenic: Why are you ignoring Archangel? You posted after Archangel did, yet didn't mention Archangel at all. It's almost like you're trying to slink away with your Archangel vote and get away with not talking about your vote. Please, eradicate my suspicions by responding to Archangel.

@Zathras: Do you think Jokerman could possibly abate your concerns and appear to you as a townie?

I did reply to him. I posted twice in a row when I realized I'd missed his post and was the FIRST PERSON TO VOTE HIM FOR THE BULLSHIT HE TRIED TO PULL. Pay attention.

Re IronyOwl - I'm not dodging, I just have a short attention span. I sometimes start doing other stuff mid-answer and pick up with whatever I seemed to be answering. As for their arguments, I feel:
Jokerman-EXE is probably genuinely busy, and I hate when people who are genuinely busy (e.g. myself in previous games) get harassed for it.
Zathras: Not sure if sincere.
IronyOwl: Who's your buddy? Zathras is your buddy!

Re Argembarger - You just got your third: Nirur Torir, who is inexplicably trying oh so hard to defend Archangel.

Also, Org, stop being like you are now (a sad imitiation of wubadict) and start being like you looked like you were going to be (actually useful).

[NativeForeigner]

Native: Nice! Way to create a false dichotomy there, bud. It wasn't a reactive vote, and I'm not cracking under pressure because it's misguided. Let me ask you: why does it have to be those, and not, let's say, the fact that he might be scum? Hypothetically, of course. Covering for him?

Mmmhmm, there's that tone you get when you're trying desperately to cover yourself. And no, it doesn't HAVE to be those, it just seems to be those more than anything else. Sure, he MIGHT be scum, but seriously, how many scumtells does he have? How scummy is he acting? Not very, so if he's scum, he's doing a damn fine job of hiding it, why would he need me to cover for him? What would I even be covering? If anyone needs to be covered for, it's you.

NativeForeigner: What's your stance regarding Zathras, IronyOwl, Toaster, and MBP?

Zathras, if he is right about Joker being scum, is almost certainly town. However, should Jokerman happen to flip town, Zathras could very well be scum.

I feel the whole matter about Irony's slight buddying was way overblown. Sure, it's worth noting, Zathras is, if town, proving to be a powerful player, so he could be scum trying to make buddies with an effective scumhunter, or he could be town trying to keep safe by trying to make buddies with an effective scumhunter. Should Joker flip Scum, IronyOwl would be next on my list of suspects.

Toaster doesn't seem scummy to me, but I'm not ruling him out, especially for the IronyOwl incident.

MBP doesn't seem excessively scummy either, but it looks like he could fall victim to a bandwagon soon. However, he also participated in the IronyOwl incident, so I'll be keeping an eye on him.

Native:Please stop saying stop stopping by and contribute ?

Only because you said please.

[Zathras]

Jokerman-EXE is probably genuinely busy, and I hate when people who are genuinely busy (e.g. myself in previous games) get harassed for it.

Pandarsenic, is Joker being busy sufficient excuse for his amusing OMGUS vote? His "growing suspicions" of me in a 24 hour span that culminated in a 180 reversal of his position? I'm not harassing him for being busy, but for being scummy. Do you have any actual opinions on the contents of his posts, instead of his time commitments away from the game?

I also note your continued lack of hunting and suspiciously passive style this game. Short attention span my ass, you are just sidelining the game. You are catching up to Joker in scummitude.

Questions for you: Now that you realised Mr.Person is in the game, what's your read of him? What specific shit did Archangel try to pull? He asked MBP to restate his case, do you think that's a bad idea? You call Org to participate more, how scummy do you think he is so far? If he continues to not participate, would you support lynching him today, or should we go for another target first? Please sort these for me in order of scummitude in your eyes: Archangel, Argembarger, IronyOwl, Jokerman, MBP, Org, Toaster. Reasons would be great if you're feeling magnanimous, but just a sort will do if you're busy.