Print

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

[JanusTwoface]

I don't trust Janus's case on MBP. The reason it started was flimsy at best, and although MBP later cracked and incriminated himself through emotional/jumpy responses, most of it is due to Janus blowing them out of proportion.

The reason it started? It started as a simple question. Not even a random vote. Blowing up is why he's scummy.

Although those who have said this is par for the course for MBP are probably right... I would absolutely love to see him scumhunt though.

I like the idea that Janus and Org are scumbuddies. That's a fun team. But it would also explain why Janus hasn't been pushing Org as much as he normally does (he has mentioned him as one of his picks, and one or two half-assed pokes, but that's it). I think they are both scum, but Janus should hang first, as his day game is more useful. So, unvote; vote Janus, FoS Org.

If I were on Org's team, I would bus him. Simple as that. In fact, I seem to remember doing that before, although it might not have been to org.

Hmm...with my FoS on MBP...after reading the previous Supernatural games and a couple of Paranormal games (and looking at his overall writing style), it seems that my point about his reading of Janus's arguments is pretty weak: he doesn't seem to be too great at that even as town.  Still suspect him a bit for the jumpiness, but Janus is in the lead.

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

[Zathras]

And now, a Public Service Announcement:

LurkerTracker^®
Brevity is the soul of wit. -- William Shakespeare

Archangel has 2 posts; the last 16 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]
Dariush has 3 posts; the last 9 hours ago. Red text: JTF Posts: [1][2][3]
Jack A T has 13 posts; the last 0 hours ago. Red text: Janus Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
JanusTwoface has 14 posts; the last 4 hours ago. Red text: vote Mysteriousbluepuppet Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Jim Groovester has 6 posts; the last 25 hours ago. Red text: Jack A T Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Leafsnail has 6 posts; the last 4 hours ago. Red text: Zathras Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Mr.Person has 5 posts; the last 20 hours ago. Red text: Unvote, vote MysteriousBluePuppet Posts: [1][2][3][4][5]
Mysteriousbluepuppet has 14 posts; the last 4 hours ago. Red text: Janus Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
NativeForeigner has 4 posts; the last 16 hours ago. Red text: MBP Posts: [1][2][3][4]
Org has 2 posts; the last 45 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]
Ottofar has 6 posts; the last 4 hours ago. Red text: MBP Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Toaster has 10 posts; the last 4 hours ago. Red text: Jack A T Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Zathras has 4 posts; the last 0 hours ago. Red text: Janus Posts: [1][2][3][4]

Moderator has 6 posts; the last 3 hours ago. Posts: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

[Jack A T]

Hmm...with my FoS on MBP...after reading the previous Supernatural games and a couple of Paranormal games (and looking at his overall writing style), it seems that my point about his reading of Janus's arguments is pretty weak: he doesn't seem to be too great at that even as town.  Still suspect him a bit for the jumpiness, but Janus is in the lead.

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

I've given my reasons for suspecting you.  I gave my reasons for suspecting MBP.

Heck, I suspected you when I was voting MBP, as I said.  I just suspected him more at the time.

To be frank, I still don't trust either of you.

I've given my reasons before, though, and I'm not going to be killed for not doing something I did.  I hope.

[Zathras]

I don't trust Janus's case on MBP. The reason it started was flimsy at best, and although MBP later cracked and incriminated himself through emotional/jumpy responses, most of it is due to Janus blowing them out of proportion.

The reason it started? It started as a simple question. Not even a random vote. Blowing up is why he's scummy.

This is the reason it started:

Forgot to red Janus. My mistake

You don't have to vote someone to get them to respond. Doing so late looks more guilty than just making a mistake.

Followed by:

And how is it any kind of important? Why would you care about such a stupid thing during the RV?

Because it's still suspicious. And your response just makes it worse. Seems like an overreaction to me.

Calling that an overreaction, and then accusing him of being "(over)defensive" is just baiting him into an emotional response (which he did, and while it does look scummy of him, not nearly as much as you're trying to sell), but trying to get him lynched on that is utterly flimsy, and scummy of you.

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

Bullshit. He provided reasons on the post I quote earlier; you are just trying to intimidate the new guy into silience. His vote on you is hardly a bandwagon (being second, and it seems would have been first but I ninja'd him), and he stated his suspicion of you as early as his initial MBP vote. You know this; you read it then, and read it again when I quoted it, so your saying "without giving your reasoning" is a blatant lie. Liars are scum. Lynch all liars.

[Jack A T]

Oh, and Janus, you specifically replied to my earlier point against you.  In fact, it seems you quoted it...and attributed the quote to Mysterious.  (I'm assuming that misquoting thing was an honest mistake, but still)

Other people I suspect: Janus, basically.  He viewed the weakest evidence ever as worth pointing out, and kind of emphasized it.  Main reason I'm not voting for him is Mysterious's reaction: too strong for the evidence, as if panicking, while also contributing to the emphasis that the weak evidence got.

Weak evidence is what we have Day 1. The goal is to push it and see how people react. Case in point: Mysteriousbluepuppet.

Other people I suspect: Janus, basically.  He viewed the weakest evidence ever as worth pointing out, and kind of emphasized it.  Main reason I'm not voting for him is Mysterious's reaction: too strong for the evidence, as if panicking, while also contributing to the emphasis that the weak evidence got.

[Zathras]

His vote on you is hardly a bandwagon (being second, and it seems would have been first but I ninja'd him), and he stated his suspicion of you as early as his initial MBP vote.

Correction: you already had two votes on you (MBP and Dariush), which I didn't notice. The point still stands, though: it ain't a bandwagon if it's reasoned and justified, and you knew it was. Your attempt at deflection is very scummy.

Now hang, scum.

[JanusTwoface]

Archangel has 2 posts; the last 16 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]
Org has 2 posts; the last 45 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]

This is inexcusible. You have 2/3 as many posts PUT TOGETHER as the MODERATOR for crying out loud.


@Zathras:
He was overdefensive to begin with (in the post you quoted) and got worse after that. Then he continues to defend himself rather than trying to scumhunt.

Jack A T's only reason given (that I can find, also in his most recent post) is that I voted someone for weak evidence and then pursued it. Which is the textbook definition of pushing someone... Why do you not see that?

@Jack A T:
The first point was directed at you to answer your question, referencing MBP. You say that I'm scum for going after the weakest evidence and empahsizing it. My response is *that's one way scumhunting works*. Which is what I was (still am to some extent) doing to MBP.

[Leafsnail]

Unvote.  Fair enough, Zathras.  Although if you can follow the same strategy as scum, what does that say about your towngame?

Extension, yeah.

Also, MBP, for jumpiness, defensiveness and that. PFP.

Incidentally, I do have someone I'd like to call out, but I'd like to see how they behave for a little while longer.

That'll do nicely, Ottofar.  Answering your random vote, waiting around until there seems to be a safe wagon on someone who can't defend themselves coherently and then slotting on a nice safe vote?  Great.

I'm... not so sure on Jack AT.  It looks more like he's stuck in a "One of the two fighters has to be scum" mentality than bandwagon hopping at the moment.  This isn't exactly a productive thing to be in, though...
Jack AT: what do you think the chances are of a) one of MBP and Janus is scum, b) both are scum or c) neither are scum?

[JanusTwoface]

His vote on you is hardly a bandwagon (being second, and it seems would have been first but I ninja'd him), and he stated his suspicion of you as early as his initial MBP vote.

Correction: you already had two votes on you (MBP and Dariush), which I didn't notice. The point still stands, though: it ain't a bandwagon if it's reasoned and justified, and you knew it was. Your attempt at deflection is very scummy.

Now hang, scum.

Third vote on a bandwagon is the scummiest position to be in.  He did have a reason to vote me which I won't deny, but it was a flimsy reason at best and had already been said elsewhere (IIRC), ergo bandwagon.

Considering that you're using the same reasoning, so far as I can tell, bandwagon from you as well. Again.


Riddle me this, all of you voting me: Are you confident enough that I'm scum that you'd risk killing one of the most active players on Day 1? (serious question, I would like an answer from MBP, Dariush, Zathras, and Jack A T)

If you really think I'm scum, fine. Lynch me. But I have a sneaky suspicion that at least one of you (if not more) is scum trying to get an active player lynched so that you can coast through the game.

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

Back for the evening

First of all, i do defend myself when the accusation don't hold water, and ill do it as long as i'll play this game. You may read back Bastard paranormal if you wish, but defending myself is in my nature. I'm aware that my hunting is sub-par, especially day 1 when you can't use roleclaim and NK's to get a good read, so i like to live to day 2 where i can start to contribute more.

Also, overdefensive i would debate. My question were earnest, i really wondered what was so bad at going back to vote Janus, considering i had forgot, and anyway he had not responded anyway. Red catch the eyes, and voting someone at least forces them to respond.

New post.

I am not certain of your scumness. That kind of Zeal to put a lynch on someone i've seen mostly in scum, but I,m aware that it is circonstancial at best.  For now the vote stays, since i doN't really have anyone better, but i will change it if i get anything better.

[JanusTwoface]

First of all, i do defend myself when the accusation don't hold water, and ill do it as long as i'll play this game. You may read back Bastard paranormal if you wish, but defending myself is in my nature. I'm aware that my hunting is sub-par, especially day 1 when you can't use roleclaim and NK's to get a good read, so i like to live to day 2 where i can start to contribute more.

If the accusations don't hold water, you don't have to defend yourself. If people question your lack of defense, point this out to them. If they pursist, then respond to the points in question. And don't keep defending yourself once you're done.

I am not certain of your scumness. That kind of Zeal to put a lynch on someone i've seen mostly in scum, but I,m aware that it is circonstancial at best.  For now the vote stays, since i doN't really have anyone better, but i will change it if i get anything better.

This is why I'm still voting you. You're not likely to get anything better if you don't work at it. Push people, make people respond. Do that (and at least half decently) and you're free to go for the time being.

[JanusTwoface]

Edit by way of post:

Is this:

I am not certain of your scumness. That kind of Zeal to put a lynch on someone i've seen mostly in scum, but I,m aware that it is circonstancial at best.  For now the vote stays, since i doN't really have anyone better, but i will change it if i get anything better.

Your answer to this:

Riddle me this, all of you voting me: Are you confident enough that I'm scum that you'd risk killing one of the most active players on Day 1? (serious question, I would like an answer from MBP, Dariush, Zathras, and Jack A T)

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

Somewhat, to be more clear : No, i'm am not certain enough to put you up definitevely for lynch, i will change my vote if i get anything better. Still for now i will keep my vote on you.

Hold water or not, not responding is not helping too. If i said nothing you would have used it as further proof of scumminess.

[Zathras]

Third vote on a bandwagon is the scummiest position to be in.  He did have a reason to vote me which I won't deny, but it was a flimsy reason at best and had already been said elsewhere (IIRC), ergo bandwagon. Considering that you're using the same reasoning, so far as I can tell, bandwagon from you as well. Again.

Again? On which wagon did I jump earlier? As for him, I don't think the reason is flimsy, and it had been said elsewhere by him, so it's not like he's parroting it. Neither am I, before you say it, I arrived independently at the conclusion that your attack on MBP was scummy while I was rereading, and your deflection/intimidation attempts only cemented my conclusions.

Riddle me this, all of you voting me: Are you confident enough that I'm scum that you'd risk killing one of the most active players on Day 1?

Oh, are you playing the "if you lynch me you'll regret it!" card? Yeah, that's another nail in your coffin.

I do admit that the game is more fun with active players, but playing to win means lynching the scummiest, and right now that is you.


PPE: JTF is right on one thing: MBP, do some honest scumhunting, or you'll hang next/instead.

[Jack A T]

I'm... not so sure on Jack AT.  It looks more like he's stuck in a "One of the two fighters has to be scum" mentality than bandwagon hopping at the moment.  This isn't exactly a productive thing to be in, though...
Jack AT: what do you think the chances are of a) one of MBP and Janus is scum, b) both are scum or c) neither are scum?

Ignoring third parties...
A: Quite likely, I think.  I see a pushy, hasty offense versus an overly emotional, angry defense.  Both are rather scummy actions at this point, as far as I can tell.
B: Pretty low.  As I said earlier, this feels a bit awkward for an experienced player's attempt at bussing.  That could be deliberate, though.
C: Higher than B, but lower than A, in my eyes.  Not sure how to explain coherently.

Janus's response to my latest vote is quite convincing, to me, in that it depended on a faulty premise: my not noting my reasons for voting for anyone at all.  In fact, from what I'm reading right now, he seems to be hastily adjusting his answer in a goalpost-moving way, now saying that I wasn't using good enough reasoning for it to count.  Add that to the pushiness with the amazingly weak evidence, and the Zathras point about your pushing being designed to get a strong emotional response from the guy (who, I will note, based on the games that I've read, is already a relatively emotional defender), and I've got reasons to keep my vote on Janus.

Sorry, Janus, but you're managing to lose what remained of my trust.  You're not a perfect lynch, I'll give you that, but you're the best I can see at the moment (followed by MBP), and I apologize if I'm horribly, horribly wrong.