Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

I'm going to claim now, however; to make up for my failure to move my vote and to prevent today from getting locked on Janus again, I shot him to lay the matter to rest. As you can see, he was NOT a vig and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.

I hate your wording. Too town flag wavy for me. Killing JTF was a pro-town move but I don't know, you seem really eager to show it.

Let's just say I suspect you as a likely Exterminator candidate and move on.

Book, since I think it's pertinent now, your tech choices for Exterminator. Because it would be hilarious if you didn't want to say because you didn't want to broadcast to everybody what they would be.

PPE: Since he seems to stand by his numbers, he is also guilty of not wanting to lynch someone he perceives as having a 67% chance of being scum. That's scum protecting his buddy.

This is stupid. You've been trying bullshit like this all game.

Go hang.

[Book]

My numbers aren't flawed. They are given by evidence.

Bullshit. We already agreed that the evidence is not enough to support it, due to unknown weight and insufficient data points. Saying that it doesn't contradict it is not evidence.

YES YOU ARE SETTING UP A CHAINLYNCH. You just admitted that you would lynch someone based on statistics, meaning that once either Ottofar or Toaster die, you will lynch the other due to a "67% chance" of them being scum. So, you are setting up a chainlynch.

Bullshit again. I've asked you, and you have not responded whether YOU would lynch someone who by your calculations has a 67% chance of being scum. If you lynch at random, there's now ~40% chance of hitting scum. If you calculate someone to have a 67% chance of being scum, would you lynch them instead? If you don't then you admit your numbers are bunk, or you don't want to lynch probable scum to defend your scumbuddy.

Secondly, you stalled the lynch. Yeah. You did. You wasted a very nice lynch. You already figured you were scummy anyhow, so you decided to tell us to screw off.
Thirdly, you were fretting about how you'd look before you shortened.
Fourthly, you're still trying to use the Kook claim as a scumtell, which you claimed was a nulltell, and then claimed was a scumtell.
Fifthly, you backtracked: the Kook tell.

Two and three are bullshit, and already went over it with your minion. Four and five are the same point, and it's not a backtrack: the kook claim on its own is a null tell. The circumstances of it, along with reading of a person, can be scummy.

Sixthly, you didn't want to cause a fight with Jokerman, concerned about your image, again.
Seventhly, OMGUSing.
Eighthly, because you're scum.

6. Bullshit. 7. No, I voted you, and now Leaf, because you're scum. 8. NO U.


Webadict, you haven't answered my questions or the charges against you:
- You assert, with certainty that Toaster is town. You have not explained this, and have no way of knowing with certainty, unless you know his alignment because he's on your scum team.
- You said earlier the claiming is "a slight town tell", so how do you jump from "a slight town tell" to the certainty you are spouting? You defend Toaster vigorously, without giving any reason or evidence in his favour other than his claim.
- Since you are attacking his attacker, you are also guilty of Chainsaw defence.
- You lie when you claim I voted Jokerman for attacking Toaster.
- You lie when you claim I backtracked on Jokerman.
- Your arguments have plenty of volume and insults, but little reasoning and evidence.
- Would you or would you not vote to lynch someone who by your calculation has a 67% chance of being scum?


PPE: Jim: a) Advanced bot and permanent modulator. b) I want him to admit his numbers are bunk; if he doesn't, then it makes no sense to disregard the probabilities he seems so confident about, and is scummy for it. But welcome to the wagon.

[Mr.Person]

Oh Book, you're so hilariously defensive. You OMGUS anyone who even dares to attack you with the stupidest reasoning imaginable. I'll respond to your post later, but let me just say for the record right: I have had more posts than Org, Ottofar, and Dariush combined in just ONE of my posts. I guaranfuckingtee it. Your equation of number of posts = activity is really fucking stupid. I dare you, post with a straight face that you think I'm less active than Org. Hell, THIS POST RIGHT HERE is more content than Org has provided all game. So fuck you, you're either a lying scum or a complete idiot.

[Book]

let me just say for the record right: I have had more posts than Org, Ottofar, and Dariush combined in just ONE of my posts. I guaranfuckingtee it. Your equation of number of posts = activity is really fucking stupid. I dare you, post with a straight face that you think I'm less active than Org. Hell, THIS POST RIGHT HERE is more content than Org has provided all game. So fuck you, you're either a lying scum or a complete idiot.

Dude, I never mentioned Org. And if you go away for days and then come back with a wall of text, while you were away you were still lurking, yes? I called you on your claim of being amongst the most active. Do you think you were, with only six posts in the entire game?

But whatever, right back at you, buddy.

[Toaster]

Toaster: You voted Janus for finding your claim suspicious, and he would have hanged for it. Do you think your voting him was justified? Who else is on your scum list? People calling you suspicious?

Well, my D1 scum list was Janus first, then MBP, Org, and you.  Since that was pretty damn off, I think that Book fellow is the new #1.  I dare you to call it an OMGUS.  My reasoning is mostly in this line to you to which you never responded:

Book:

Book:  How is claiming kook in my first post scummy?  What would be the non-scummy way to do it?

As I said, it's not just your claiming kook, but your amazing speed at doing so that strikes me as scummy. If you had done it an hour or two later it would have seemed less scummy. It just reeks to me as a preemptive fakeclaim. In isolation it's not much, but the rest of your posts also strike me as scummy, how you've managed to attack without engaging is compatible with what I know of your scum game, as is your silence over web's relentless defence of your towniehood (a townie would at least have said "hey, don't defend/buddy me"). Still, it's not enough for me to be certain you are scum, but it is enough for me to distrust your claim, leaving the fakeclaim a distinct possibility.

This reason is horseshit.  So you're saying if I had looked at my role PM, saw Kook, sat around for an hour or two without participating, and THEN started in with a RV and a Kook claim, it'd be fine?

Do you honestly believe that?

Any response to this now?

Additionally, all this reasoning using statistics is shit, and everyone (Book, Web) using it should stop.  Everyone knows statistics is the science of lying with numbers (or whatever the quote is.)


Argembarger:  Sorry- I meant my information wouldn't be too useful.  I'll give it if we MC, a notion I am starting to support more.


Jokerman:  Pay attention- missing who died in the night is suspicious, since it's kind of important (if you have a vested interest in determining alignment, that is.)

You also didn't answer my question.



I need to get more picks, but that's waiting until I have more time (AKA tomorrow morning.)

[Mephansteras]

The Whiteboard
Book: Jim Groovester, Leafsnail, Mr.Person, Toaster, webadict
Leafsnail: Book
Ottofar: Argembarger, Pandarsenic


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Monday

[NativeForeigner]

Somewhat busy day today, I'll try to catch up tomorrow before work.

[webadict]

Jesus, I've never had someone act so ungrateful for my saving them. Yes, I'm the Enchanter, and I saved Janus for two reasons yesterday (well, three technically).

1. I didn't believe he was scum. I had suspicions of him before, but after the last few posts of the day I decided that I didn't think it was him.

2. The way Book was shortening the day struck me as odd. He was somewhat suspicious before, but his pseudo-opposition to extending seemed weird. Maybe I took away from the information that we could have gained from a lynch, but I also stopped any plans the scum might have made from looking at how things were. I feel that's a worthwhile trade.

3. I uhh...didn't sign on soon enough to make a real post, ask for an extension, or anything. I could only check from my phone, and it was already locked.

Now, going back to my first point: Janus, you seem really bummed that I didn't let you die. You're a Spore Spreader, aren't you?

I'd like to point out several things:

First, how did you "save" Janus? You didn't vote him at the end of the Day, knowing you'd tie the lynch. Ottofar was leading. So, you WEREN'T saving Janus. You were wasting a lynch.

As you can see, he was NOT a vig dopp and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.

I CAN WRITE STUFFS

And Argembarger, I gave you my scumpick: Ottofar.

Why?

I push for MC because I think it will help. I don't start since nobody else has talked yet. I don't want to be the only one to claim, nor do I want to force the rest of the town into MCing by guilting them into it if they don't want to. I'm not Webadict, I'm not doing something good for the town against their will.

The wardens could confirm at least one and probably two players who aren't vigilantes or the killing dopp. If we find out there were 3 blocks last night, we know one dopp is a warden. Thank goodness we can both agree the telepath info is worthwhile, but I disagree that the information of one telepath and 2 wardens is useful enough for a medium to claim over. It's good information, but it doesn't prove anything. And besides, telepath information is the kind of thing you want to claim after the person you have the information on so you can catch them in a lie.

Actually, they can't confirm whether Dopps are Wardens or not. There is no 2 role limit any more. I would know. I'm also a Warden. I got blocked, however. Fun.

Webadict: These are the arguments against you:
- You assert, with certainty that Toaster is town. You have not explained this, and have no way of knowing with certainty, unless you know his alignment because he's on your scum team.
- You said earlier the claiming is "a slight town tell", so how do you jump from "a slight town tell" to the certainty you are spouting? You defend Toaster vigorously, without giving any reason or evidence in his favour other than his claim.
- Since you are attacking his attacker, you are also guilty of Chainsaw defence.
- You lie when you claim I voted Jokerman for attacking Toaster.
- You lie when you claim I backtracked on Jokerman.
- Your arguments have plenty of volume and insults, but little reasoning and evidence.
Therefore, you are scum.

Also, these are not scummy, merely dumb:
- You lie when you claim there must be at least one kook.
- You lie when you claim your numbers show that it's better not to lynch the scummier one.
- You lie when you claim I'm the worst player in the world!

#1: You're hounding Toaster over something you claimed was a nulltell. You then backtracked and called it a scumtell. You didn't scumhunt Toaster to determine whether he was scum or not. Do I think Toaster is Town? The real question would be "Do you think scum would waste his time to lynch his partner right off the bat by LYING and NOT SCUMHUNTING?" The answer, of course, is no.
#2: According to the statistics, and based off your reaction to his claim, I consider it a slight town tell. Not only does it provide a net Town bonus to power roles, it is more likely that scum would not fakeclaim Kook. I apply Occam's Razor.
#3: You're incorrectly applying Chainsaw Defending. I'm attacking you on your lack of scumhunting the target, backtracking, and lying, as well as setting up a chainlynch. When I attack you for all of these - not just one - you immediately OMGUSed. If I were to Chainsaw Defend Toaster, I would not be actually defending him, which I'll admit I'm doing, if only because I am that convinced you're scum and he's not.
#4: I meant FoS, not vote. Small mistake. You FoSed Jokerman but then took it back in a matter of about 2 posts. Jokerman was getting angry at you, but then you suddenly switched around and tried to calm him down, leaving him alone. It was some pathetic attempt at a scumhunt that you WEREN'T using on Toaster.
#5: You did backtrack on Jokerman. If you're not going to admit it, no one is going to believe you. If they were, you wouldn't have done the incredibly scummy things you've already done to harm the Town.
#6: I beg to differ. The people that have read my arguments seem to agree with me. I doubt that having "no evidence" would convince people to side with me. Unless I pulled out a hypnotizing text, you're lying about this one. I've provided plenty of reasoning, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
#7: There has always been at least one Kook in a game, especially of this size. Not only that, but Occam's Razor shows that there is most likely to be 2 Kooks claiming as opposed to 2 scum fakeclaiming, which is what you must be implying by saying that there won't be at least one Kook.
#8: You're trying to set up a chainlynch. You're saying if one dies and shows up Town, we must lynch the other one. This takes no outside factors into account - no logical reasoning, no actions, no SCUMHUNTING - and seems to use only that one thing to lynch them. Because it might happen. I don't think it would.
#9: You are certainly playing like one. Last I checked, Org didn't stop people from having a lynch Yesterday. You also were on par with Org on the level of scumhunting, and you seemed to be OMGUSing hardcore. If that doesn't let you acknowledge that you are playing subpar, then nothing will.

Since these came up during that conversation with him, it was scumhunting, and was successful at that. He has since utterly failed to respond to these charges, which only makes him scummier in my mind. Since he didn't dare go against me again on them, he sent his minion Leafsnail to repeat the same lies and hoping this time they stick.

I was rather busy during that time, and seemed to have missed them. I have, however, now replied to them. However, it can't have been successful if I never replied to them, especially since it would have happened AFTER you voted for me. So, you must have OMGUSed, as you would have posted that after you voted for me.

I shot Janus because:
1) If he was not shot and was town, we would probably accuse him of being a Doppelganger, screened by a Doppelganger Enchanter, and waste ANOTHER day on him.
2) If he was not shot and was a Dopp, he would probably accuse him of being a Doppelganger, screened by a Doppelganger Enchanter, and lynch him, then start trying to root out his Enchanter.
3) If I shot him and he was a Dopp, awesome. It's like 2 but moved one day ahead.
4) If I shot him and he was town, we at least won't go through any of the above scenarios. We can progress to day 2 as if he'd been lynched.

It was the right move.

My bad on the double vote bit. I forgot to fix that. I was at work and had to leave, so I didn't fix that.

#1: Except that Book had stopped the lynch. Janus would have been inspected or something. The Enchanter would have been little problem anyhow. Book made himself a big target Yesterday.
#2: You were voting for Ottofar. You didn't make the argument that we would waste another Day on Ottofar, who was ALSO a part of the No Lynch. So, now you're wasting a Day on Ottofar, aren't you?
#3: Did you believe Janus was scum by PMing you and asking who was the Enchanter? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you wish to use the WIFOM argument. But, then again, why wouldn't you kill Ottofar, who you believed was more likely to be scum in the first place?

To your attempt at a defense:
#1: If you don't believe there is enough evidence to support it, then why are you using it as "proof" that the other person must be scum, especially as neither has been killed.
#2: You continue to advocate for a chainlynch. You never stop with that. You seem determined to convince me that a chainlynch is the best thing to do.
#3: How can somebody that has a 67% chance of being scum (BASED ON SOMEONE THAT HASN'T FLIPPED), be protecting my scumbuddy? That means you either know Ottofar or Toaster is Town or you know that one of them is not, both of which you can't unless you are scum.
#4: You claim Kook is a null tell, but you yourself said that it wasn't AFTER you said it was. You didn't scumhunt Toaster during that period, so you can't claim that it was due to scumhunting. So, you're backtracking back and forth.
#5 YOU'RE BACKTRACKING. I can quote the fifty posts of you going back and forth on the Kook tell. You can't seem to keep it straight on which one you're supposed to believe.
#6: If you look at the posts between you and Joker, you don't persue Joker. You make no follow up, and you attempt to calm him down. And that was your first real attempt at scumhunting, too. So, it was an activelurk scumhunt.
#7: You voted me after I attacked you with several reasons. Most of your reasoning was terrible, and now you're attacking Leafsnail. That means you somehow thought that I'm less scummy, despite most of everyone attacking you with my reasoning. That means you're doing something wrong. Not the ones you're attacking.

[Book]

Well, my D1 scum list was Janus first, then MBP, Org, and you.  Since that was pretty damn off, I think that Book fellow is the new #1.  I dare you to call it an OMGUS.

Yeah, it was pretty damn off. How sure are you now? How many scum do you think are currently voting me?

Book:

Book:  How is claiming kook in my first post scummy?  What would be the non-scummy way to do it?

As I said, it's not just your claiming kook, but your amazing speed at doing so that strikes me as scummy. If you had done it an hour or two later it would have seemed less scummy. It just reeks to me as a preemptive fakeclaim. In isolation it's not much, but the rest of your posts also strike me as scummy, how you've managed to attack without engaging is compatible with what I know of your scum game, as is your silence over web's relentless defence of your towniehood (a townie would at least have said "hey, don't defend/buddy me"). Still, it's not enough for me to be certain you are scum, but it is enough for me to distrust your claim, leaving the fakeclaim a distinct possibility.

This reason is horseshit.  So you're saying if I had looked at my role PM, saw Kook, sat around for an hour or two without participating, and THEN started in with a RV and a Kook claim, it'd be fine? Do you honestly believe that?

It would have looked less scummy in my eyes, yes. I'm not saying that's what you should have done, I'm saying that it was your speed which originally drew my attention to the possibility of you being fakeclaiming, as that's the best way to play the fakeclaim. I'm not recommending people to actively wait, but if indeed yours had happened a couple of hours later, it wouldn't have rang the bells it did in my scumometer.

That's not the only reason I distrust your claim, though. In the very paragraph which you quote I bring this up, and you didn't respond: your silence over web's relentless defence of your towniehood (a townie would at least have said "hey, don't defend/buddy me"). Wuba is apparently certain that you are town, what say you about that? Why haven't you so much as batted an eyelash about it? At least a "don't buddy me" would have helped. Do you think he could know for certain you are town?

As I said above, though, it's not enough for me to be certain you're scum; you've kept your nose pretty clean otherwise (I mean, except for choosing three townies as top scumpicks), which is why I stopped voting you and went after wuba when he started spewing lies and claiming certainty about things he couldn't possibly know.

Additionally, all this reasoning using statistics is shit, and everyone (Book, Web) using it should stop.  Everyone knows statistics is the science of lying with numbers (or whatever the quote is.)

I couldn't agree more. That is precisely my point. Wuba's statistics are bunk, and I'm using his own numbers to prove it. The fact that he continues to push them, even after being proven both wrong and non-viable, is part of what I find scummy about him. I'm not proposing using statistics to lynch anyone; I'm proposing lynching webadict for proposing phoney, lame, and counterproductive statistics.



PPE: Oh joy, another wall from wuba. Well, later with that.

[Book]

Some grouping/rearranging done, as you are very repetitive.

Webadict: These are the arguments against you:
- You assert, with certainty that Toaster is town. You have not explained this, and have no way of knowing with certainty, unless you know his alignment because he's on your scum team.
- You said earlier the claiming is "a slight town tell", so how do you jump from "a slight town tell" to the certainty you are spouting? You defend Toaster vigorously, without giving any reason or evidence in his favour other than his claim.
- Since you are attacking his attacker, you are also guilty of Chainsaw defence.
- You lie when you claim I voted Jokerman for attacking Toaster.
- You lie when you claim I backtracked on Jokerman.
- Your arguments have plenty of volume and insults, but little reasoning and evidence.
Therefore, you are scum.

Also, these are not scummy, merely dumb:
- You lie when you claim there must be at least one kook.
- You lie when you claim your numbers show that it's better not to lynch the scummier one.
- You lie when you claim I'm the worst player in the world!

#1: You're hounding Toaster over something you claimed was a nulltell. You then backtracked and called it a scumtell. You didn't scumhunt Toaster to determine whether he was scum or not. Do I think Toaster is Town? The real question would be "Do you think scum would waste his time to lynch his partner right off the bat by LYING and NOT SCUMHUNTING?" The answer, of course, is no.

Your "real question" makes no sense. You've failed to answer the direct question: what makes you assert with certainty that Toaster is town? The only way you could know his alignment is if you're scum. The "backtracking" we'll get to.

#2: According to the statistics, and based off your reaction to his claim, I consider it a slight town tell. Not only does it provide a net Town bonus to power roles, it is more likely that scum would not fakeclaim Kook. I apply Occam's Razor.

You are still not justifying your jump from "a slight town tell" and "more likely" to the conviction with which you assert his towniehood. This is not "a slight tell" that you're defending him for. You've claimed it's defence of a townie. How did you make that jump? And you are incorrectly applying Occam's Razor: it specifically does not apply when there may be active intent to deceive (which is the nature of this game), and it never provides certainties, merely tendencies.

#3: You're incorrectly applying Chainsaw Defending. I'm attacking you on your lack of scumhunting the target, backtracking, and lying, as well as setting up a chainlynch. When I attack you for all of these - not just one - you immediately OMGUSed. If I were to Chainsaw Defend Toaster, I would not be actually defending him, which I'll admit I'm doing, if only because I am that convinced you're scum and he's not.

Bah. You are attacking the guy who was attacking him, for attacking him, amonst other things. I will dissect your "lack of target, backtracking and so on" further below, but you were surely defending him, and doing so by attacking his attacker. Call it what you want.

#4: I meant FoS, not vote. Small mistake. You FoSed Jokerman but then took it back in a matter of about 2 posts. Jokerman was getting angry at you, but then you suddenly switched around and tried to calm him down, leaving him alone.
#5: You did backtrack on Jokerman.
#6: If you look at the posts between you and Joker, you don't persue Joker. You make no follow up, and you attempt to calm him down. And that was your first real attempt at scumhunting, too. So, it was an activelurk scumhunt.

Bah again. He made a scummy comment. I called him on it, and did follow up with a direct question. He answered to my satisfaction. I moved on with the game. It certainly wasn't a big enough scumtell to warrant much more attention. And the game game was, what, eight hours old by that time? how's that "activelurking"?

#6: I beg to differ. The people that have read my arguments seem to agree with me. I doubt that having "no evidence" would convince people to side with me.

Bullshit. Most people voting me are either for some weird idea about the extending business (which we'll get to), or because they mistook my pressuring you for your bunk statistics as me proposing them as a strategy. See next point.

#7: There has always been at least one Kook in a game, especially of this size. Not only that, but Occam's Razor shows that there is most likely to be 2 Kooks claiming as opposed to 2 scum fakeclaiming, which is what you must be implying by saying that there won't be at least one Kook.
#8: You're trying to set up a chainlynch. You're saying if one dies and shows up Town, we must lynch the other one. This takes no outside factors into account - no logical reasoning, no actions, no SCUMHUNTING - and seems to use only that one thing to lynch them. Because it might happen. I don't think it would.
#1: If you don't believe there is enough evidence to support it, then why are you using it as "proof" that the other person must be scum, especially as neither has been killed.
#2: You continue to advocate for a chainlynch. You never stop with that. You seem determined to convince me that a chainlynch is the best thing to do.

And here we come to the real bullshit. NO! I AM NOT SAYING THAT IF ONE DIES AND FLIPS TOWN, WE MUST LYNCH THE OTHER ONE. I AM SAYING THAT IF YOUR BULLSHIT STATISTICS WERE TRUE, THAT'S WHAT WE'D HAVE TO DO. The point being that your statistics are bullshit, and it's scummy of you to continue to say they are valid.

I DARE YOU, or anyone else voting me, to find one paragraph posted by me that does not, in context, explicitly say that the case above would be true only if we took Wuba's statistics as true. The point is that you, wuba, are proposing crap statistics, which can and have been shown to be baseless and fruitless, and following them is the wrong thing to do. Since you continued to claim they are good, I challenged you to admit to its consequences too: as in, if your numbers aren't bunk, and one dude flips town, then 67% chance the other is scum. These are the consequences of the bullcrap you peddle, and I put it to you so you could sniff deeply and disown it, or be scummy for proposing it. Instead, I'm not sure why, some people ended with the idea that I was proposing those bunk numbers.

People who are voting me, if you are doing so because of the statistics thing, please review the paragraph above, and tell me where I've said different, since the very first post when wuba proposed this shit, I've said it's bunk.  The only remotely similar thing I said was this: "If one of them is town, and you have independent scummy reads on the other one, you have better chance of hitting scum D1 by lynching the possible-fakeclaimer than randomly lynching one of the other dozen players", which is statistically sound, but was based on scumhunting and not a proposed chainlynch, strategy or based on any numbers. It was wuba who came up with this crap, and then refused to eat it, throwing it at me as if it was my stupid idea.

#9: You are certainly playing like one. Last I checked, Org didn't stop people from having a lynch Yesterday. You also were on par with Org on the level of scumhunting, and you seemed to be OMGUSing hardcore. [...]So, you must have OMGUSed, as you would have posted that after you voted for me.
#7: You voted me after I attacked you with several reasons. Most of your reasoning was terrible, and now you're attacking Leafsnail. That means you somehow thought that I'm less scummy, despite most of everyone attacking you with my reasoning. That means you're doing something wrong. Not the ones you're attacking.

Now you're just getting my goat. I didn't stop the lynch yesterday, that was Jokerman. I have participated in the hunt as much as others (though the walls did get distracting), and it's not an OMGUS if it has reasons, which it did: this is the post where I voted you, and the reasons it listed are still valid: your scummy defence of Toaster, your pushing crap statistics, and your claiming to have knowledge that you couldn't have.

About Leafsnail, he came in with recycled lies and clearly disingenuous reading, jumping onto a bandwagon, so yes, I found him plenty scummy. I would be hard pressed to say which one of you is scummier at the moment, but I'll keep my vote on him. If you are indeed a third warden as you claim, you can't do that much damage, I'd rather lynch your buddy. But I'll take either.

#4: You claim Kook is a null tell, but you yourself said that it wasn't AFTER you said it was. You didn't scumhunt Toaster during that period, so you can't claim that it was due to scumhunting. So, you're backtracking back and forth.
#5 YOU'RE BACKTRACKING. I can quote the fifty posts of you going back and forth on the Kook tell. You can't seem to keep it straight on which one you're supposed to believe.

Bullshit. Go ahead and quote the fifty posts. This is my position, which has remained constant: A Kook claim, on its own, is a null tell. The circumstances of that claim, along with the reading of a person, can be scummy. I've also said that while I distrust Toaster's claim, I don't have enough on him to call him scum, so I moved my vote to where I saw scummier: you & your minion Leafsnail.

[Jim Groovester]

People who are voting me, if you are doing so because of the statistics thing, please review the paragraph above, and tell me where I've said different, since the very first post when wuba proposed this shit, I've said it's bunk.  The only remotely similar thing I said was this: "If one of them is town, and you have independent scummy reads on the other one, you have better chance of hitting scum D1 by lynching the possible-fakeclaimer than randomly lynching one of the other dozen players", which is statistically sound, but was based on scumhunting and not a proposed chainlynch, strategy or based on any numbers. It was wuba who came up with this crap, and then refused to eat it, throwing it at me as if it was my stupid idea.

I know webadict's statistics are bullshit.

I don't understand why you're pushing to get him to admit it. Does it prove he's scum if he's wrong? If it doesn't, why are you wasting your time arguing with him about it?

It's not just your position on bullshit statistics, it's that you've been trying to convince everybody he's scum by throwing as much as you can at him, most of it questionable. Like how you applied my meta onto him. That didn't make any sense.

[Book]

I know webadict's statistics are bullshit.

I don't understand why you're pushing to get him to admit it. Does it prove he's scum if he's wrong? If it doesn't, why are you wasting your time arguing with him about it? [...] Like how you applied my meta onto him. That didn't make any sense.

I think it does prove he's scum, because he's using those bullshit statistics as backup for his certainty that Toaster is town (in fact "both are town" he's said). I find his defence of Toaster very scummy; his immediate jump from "a slight town tell" to the unwavering conviction was telling, and he backed it up with these bullshit numbers. I thought that by proving the numbers were bullshit, I could either prove his defence was baseless, or if he didn't backtrack, that he was intentionally lying to protect his defence.

As to your meta thing, I find that this scummy defence of Toaster reminded me of your defence of Janus on Sup3. It's scummy on its own, my suspicion is not prompted by the meta, it's rather a recent example of where I've seen a scum do that, regardless of whether the defended is town or a scumbuddy.

It's not just your position on bullshit statistics, it's that you've been trying to convince everybody he's scum by throwing as much as you can at him, most of it questionable.

How questionable? The core of it I'd say is solid: his defence, his claim of certainty he can't have, and his utter crap numbers used to back it up. In addition, his little things like "thank you for admitting you want to chainlynch the kooks", and that "you shorten because I pointed it'd be scummy not to" are not just irritating, but scummy on their own merit.

[Dariush]

Holy shit, the first time I see the thread after the night and there're already several walls of text.
First of all, I want to apologize for my passive play day one - as I said, I had a busy week and I was thinking more than writing.
Book: Ottofar - scum, just as day one.
Argembarger - I think town, but I can't pinpoint reason.
Leafsnail - his answer day one seemed pretty solid, and I don't have much else, so I'd say he's town.
Top scumpick:
Ottofar, webadict because of his useless statistics, Toaster for the same reason as yesterday.
Now, why do you alternately refer to webadict's numbers and discard them as bullshit?

[webadict]

Your "real question" makes no sense. You've failed to answer the direct question: what makes you assert with certainty that Toaster is town? The only way you could know his alignment is if you're scum. The "backtracking" we'll get to.

Unfortunately, it does make sense. I don't really believe you would waste your time trying to bus your partner, as you seem to assert by implying I, as well, would not bus a partner but would protect mine. Because you seem to think I would protect a partner, I will therefore imply that you WOULD NOT attack a partner with such nonsense. This is simple projection.

I do not know his alignment. But, I have certainty of yours, and that applies to how I feel about Toaster, as your words imply as such. I can be certain without knowing, just as someone may be certain there is a God.

You are still not justifying your jump from "a slight town tell" and "more likely" to the conviction with which you assert his towniehood. This is not "a slight tell" that you're defending him for. You've claimed it's defence of a townie. How did you make that jump? And you are incorrectly applying Occam's Razor: it specifically does not apply when there may be active intent to deceive (which is the nature of this game), and it never provides certainties, merely tendencies.

I am justifying my jump as inversely proportional to your attitude toward his lynch. You are overlooking that one thing that I have repeated over and over again. It was a slight town tell to begin with. Your attitude turned it into a certainty, as you suggested chainlynching, didn't scumhunt, and turned a null tell into a scumtell into a null tell into a scumtell ad nauseum.

Bah. You are attacking the guy who was attacking him, for attacking him, amonst other things. I will dissect your "lack of target, backtracking and so on" further below, but you were surely defending him, and doing so by attacking his attacker. Call it what you want.

Only because the reasons for attacking him were terribly conceived. The fact that you JUST started to say chainsaw defense shows it. If you wanted to try the chainsaw defense defense, then you would have brought it up when I was attacking you for your poor attack on Toaster, even if it wasn't correct. You knew your attack was terrible, though, and OMGUSed. It's not all that hard to see, and you're just trying to pull reasons out of a hat, now.

Bah again. He made a scummy comment. I called him on it, and did follow up with a direct question. He answered to my satisfaction. I moved on with the game. It certainly wasn't a big enough scumtell to warrant much more attention. And the game game was, what, eight hours old by that time? how's that "activelurking"?

One question? Is it because you were certain you could calm him down first? You probably would have voted for him if he didn't, as is your tendency. You've voted me after I attacked you with valid reasons. You voted Leafsnail after he attacked you with valid reasons. So, you do, in fact, OMGUS, and it was a backtrack, as you were purposely avoiding a conflict. I do not call one question a follow-up. One question is a Random Vote.

I will call it activelurking because you were attempting to appear active by attacking Jokerman, instead of your target Toaster, who you were avoiding. Your failure to follow-up shows lack of care for even wanting to scumhunt.

Bullshit. Most people voting me are either for some weird idea about the extending business (which we'll get to), or because they mistook my pressuring you for your bunk statistics as me proposing them as a strategy. See next point.

And yet, you didn't rebut some of my points. Does that means they're valid? You can call my statistics bunk. Even if they are wrong, you haven't proven you're not scum. You've just proven that a bunch of numbers are wrong. Which I'm pretty sure they aren't anyhow.

And here we come to the real bullshit. NO! I AM NOT SAYING THAT IF ONE DIES AND FLIPS TOWN, WE MUST LYNCH THE OTHER ONE. I AM SAYING THAT IF YOUR BULLSHIT STATISTICS WERE TRUE, THAT'S WHAT WE'D HAVE TO DO. The point being that your statistics are bullshit, and it's scummy of you to continue to say they are valid.

So, your main argument is that these numbers can't possibly be right?

I DARE YOU, or anyone else voting me, to find one paragraph posted by me that does not, in context, explicitly say that the case above would be true only if we took Wuba's statistics as true. The point is that you, wuba, are proposing crap statistics, which can and have been shown to be baseless and fruitless, and following them is the wrong thing to do. Since you continued to claim they are good, I challenged you to admit to its consequences too: as in, if your numbers aren't bunk, and one dude flips town, then 67% chance the other is scum. These are the consequences of the bullcrap you peddle, and I put it to you so you could sniff deeply and disown it, or be scummy for proposing it. Instead, I'm not sure why, some people ended with the idea that I was proposing those bunk numbers.

Right, so you're saying that instead of my scumhunting, I have been doing nothing but posting nonsense. And you're trying to get me to suggest chainlynching. Your plan has a couple of holes in it, the biggest being that I've brought up legitimate points about you that you fail to defend adequately and some points that you fail to mention at all. Probably because you're too busy backtracking.

People who are voting me, if you are doing so because of the statistics thing, please review the paragraph above, and tell me where I've said different, since the very first post when wuba proposed this shit, I've said it's bunk.  The only remotely similar thing I said was this: "If one of them is town, and you have independent scummy reads on the other one, you have better chance of hitting scum D1 by lynching the possible-fakeclaimer than randomly lynching one of the other dozen players", which is statistically sound, but was based on scumhunting and not a proposed chainlynch, strategy or based on any numbers. It was wuba who came up with this crap, and then refused to eat it, throwing it at me as if it was my stupid idea.

Right, but you're suggesting the chainlynch. I'm not. If you want me to admit to that I should chainlynch someone for numbers, I won't do it unless you give a valid reason. Such as scumhunting Toaster. You might have wanted to try that. It might have made you not look like the most obvious scum in the world.

I also love that you say that you're not proposing a strategy based on numbers. I also am not. I am bringing up valid points that show you as scum. You seem to say that anyone posting any numbers ever is scum. I am suggesting that the likelihood of a fakeclaim is low.

Now you're just getting my goat. I didn't stop the lynch yesterday, that was Jokerman. I have participated in the hunt as much as others (though the walls did get distracting), and it's not an OMGUS if it has reasons, which it did: this is the post where I voted you, and the reasons it listed are still valid: your scummy defence of Toaster, your pushing crap statistics, and your claiming to have knowledge that you couldn't have.

Ooooo, nice try. You were the last one to suggest a shortening, losing the lead. Jokerman wasn't even the last one to vote. Blame game works a lot better if you blame someone else.

You weren't voting for any of the people that were being lynched. You didn't even want them lynched. You shortened, though, for no reason. It is your fault.

And your OMGUS had terrible reasons. There's a difference. I'm sorry.

About Leafsnail, he came in with recycled lies and clearly disingenuous reading, jumping onto a bandwagon, so yes, I found him plenty scummy. I would be hard pressed to say which one of you is scummier at the moment, but I'll keep my vote on him. If you are indeed a third warden as you claim, you can't do that much damage, I'd rather lynch your buddy. But I'll take either.

Oh, hilarious. You seem to think I can't stop the scum team on my own. Hahahahaha.

Bullshit. Go ahead and quote the fifty posts. This is my position, which has remained constant: A Kook claim, on its own, is a null tell. The circumstances of that claim, along with the reading of a person, can be scummy. I've also said that while I distrust Toaster's claim, I don't have enough on him to call him scum, so I moved my vote to where I saw scummier: you & your minion Leafsnail.

No, your reasoning is terrible. When he first looked at his PM (No, I don't KNOW this, but that's what he claims, so I'm going to take his word for it) and claimed instead of looking at it and claiming an hour later IS NOT LESS SCUMMY. Your distrust of Toaster's claim stems from wanting to turn the null tell INTO a scumtell. You didn't apply appropriate measures in trying to determine Toaster's alignment.

I also love how you're no longer pairing me with Toaster. Do you admit he is town (turning your whole argument into pretty much nothing, as you had not attempted to scumhunt on it since either), or is that you trying to not provoke Toaster, as well?

But, next time, don't pair me with Leafsnail.

[Ottofar]

Ottofar: Two vig, or camo ext + vig? Top 3 scumpicks? Why so lazy?

Camo+Ext, I guess.
Soonish
PFP'ing.