Print

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

[Okami No Rei]

Goodnight.  I'll see y'all on the other side.

[Think0028]

Votecount:
Supercharazard - 1 - Okami No Rei

This has been bugging me and a lot of people keep making this mistake: It's SupercharaZAD. There's no R in the last syllable. More like Scherezad than Charizard.

[Think0028]

Actually, eff if I know the proper romanization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheherazade. Still, the point stands.

[Jim Groovester]

I asked you why Supercharazad was more worthy of a vote, and your answer is that you put red text around Supercharazad's name first?

That's weak.

I didn't, and still don't, have any reason to suspect one over the other.

Why not?

This is what I keep asking you and you keep on giving me non-answers. What can I conclude? I guess that you don't have an answer.

Fine enough by me.

I didn't question anzki4 about it because 1) I'm not obsessed with calling everybody a parrot like you are, and 2) it looked like a noob mistake.

Didn't you just say

in my mind, what anzki4 did was worse, what with parroting Supercharazad over broken quote tags. I think your points about Supercharazad parroting you

You're appear to be more obsessed with the parroting than I am, and seem to think anzki's parroting was important.

So, is it or isn't it? 

Fantastic misrepresentation.

I asked you the question based on the criteria you were attacking people with. Namely, you were attacking Supercharazad for parroting your arguments against Taricus, but you completely ignored it when anzki4 did an arguably worse example of parroting when he copied Supercharazad's attack on Heliman's broken quote tags. I wanted to know why you were being inconsistent.

I don't really care about parroting and have never made a big deal about it.

I've never been attacking anzki for parroting.

I KNOW.

The point I'm making is, why not? You attacked Heliman for parroting. You attacked Supercharazad for parroting. Every other time somebody used a vaguely familiar argument you pointed out that they were parroting.

Why not anzki4? You noticed right when he did it:

Something making you nervous, Heliman?? What make's you so distracted arguing against yourself?

And now you're trying to cover your tracks after Jim called you out on not directly attacking me, by going after Heliman over what? A post that's clearly mangled only due to some quote tagging errors?  You're really reaching now.

This was right after Supercharazad attacked Heliman for the exact same thing. I find it hard to believe you'd miss it with your highly developed parrotometer, especially after quoting it, so the question still is, why are you being inconsistent?

I've never been attacking Supercharazad for parroting.

Really.

Supercharazad - You're rehashing my arguments without providing original material, you were the third vote on the bandwagon, and judging by your post history, you've been around long enough to know better.  Explain yourself.

So basically you just lied.

That's not even a wild accusation designed to show hostility or get you on edge. The only reason you called Supercharazad a liar is because you didn't believe his explanation about the arguments he used. So you pretending that your attack had nothing to do with Supercharazad parroting is completely dishonest and disingenuous.

That makes you perfectly lynchable by your own standards.

Powder Miner - You're panicking, dropping WIFOM like candy, and making excuses.  Why shouldn't I drop everything and vote you right now?

Good question. Why aren't you? Those are several very good reasons to vote for somebody. What's holding you back? You're not partners with him, are you?

I don't think he's scum, and this close to day end, I'm not going to put my vote on him just to apply pressure.  I'm voting to lynch.

Why not?

I'd expect a more developed opinion about Powder Miner from you. Your only real mention of him is from when he first flipped the fuck out because of Toaster's light pressure on him. What do you think about his more recent fuck out flipping where he thrashed wildly around and accused everybody who dared pressure him into doing what he says?

What do you think about how he won't even get anywhere near you? He's proven he can attack people pretty seriously when he wants to, but what do you think about you getting the ten foot pole treatment?

And you don't think he's scum.

Mind-boggling.

Or just simple dishonesty.

You know what? I pretty much find everything about you difficult to believe. Unvote Powder Miner, Okami No Rei.

I'll change my vote if I have to to avoid a no-lynch.

[Heliman]

God, it's too late at night for me to be posting this, I need to sleep but IDK if I'll have time tomorrow.

You can use almost any fact to aggrandize the truth. Fact+Suitably Ridiculous Summation= Aggrandized truth, Case in point, the last sentence of my first paragraph would be one such aggrandized truth.

What about: "So I was right: You were just pressuring Taricus for show."

I mean, it meets your criteria.

Fact: Okami No Rei was pressuring Taricus.
Suitably Ridiculous Summation: He was doing it for show.

But you lied in saying it, If you were to say "So I'm right then? You were just pressing Taricus for show all along?" It would keep the wild accusation without the lie. Yes it's as easy as using question marks in the right place which is one half of why I'm dropping this bit. According to both the ICs, dishonesty in reaction test is apparently an OK thing to do, which more or less invalidates both this and the WIFOM, because throwing something like that out there would be pointless if the accused action was actually a town thing to do.

Also you seem to be vague about "If it worked." You know full well that Okami wasn't going to cave to pressure, what were you expecting?

What are you expecting with your aggrandized truth in your first paragraph? You can't be expecting much. But you did it anyway. Why? I bet you thought it wouldn't hurt.

Same deal.

Incorrect. I made that sentence with the sole intention of using it as an example in the next paragraph. According to what I have learned, a reaction test has no weight if caught out in the open, so pointing it out as a reaction test in my the very next paragraph would be a tad pointless if such a test was my intention.

You're mincing words here.  I'd be lying if I said I hadn't minced words in the past, but I really think you've got nothing here.  Yes, you should be open, but you can't tell someone why you're asking them a question if you're looking for a specific reaction out of them.

But Jim didn't look for a specific reaction, did he? I'm pretty sure he just said that it wouldn't hurt.

Just so I'm clear at what's going on in your head, who is your #2 pick and why?

Well now that were on that, my first pick is Okami once again, now that he's finally posted. Yes like Powder I was waiting for him to show up but I made sure I didn't twiddle my thumbs in the meantime. But since he's my first scum pick now, the second one is Powder, because of those outbursts of his. It doesn't look like how the classic newbie town would panic to me, but that's just opinion.

So anyhow, @Okami.

My accusations of Supercharazad are independent of his jumpiness, and I also found Anzki.  Deliberately failed bandwagon.  Successful scumhunt.

Scumhunts aren't successful until something flips scum, you have to convince town to do that. Considering the votes at the moment, you haven't been doing much of that.

Because Taricus (FAKEDIT: And now Powder Miner, I suppose) is the easy lynch right now.  The ones that hopped on the bandwagon aren't so easy as you seem to think, since everyone's looking at them as victims right now.  I'm pushing for one of them because I think one of them is scum, not because he's easy.

They're looking at them as victims because you called them out as the culmination to a half-assed plot you grabbed to try and save yourself.

To save myself?  No.  I already said I did it to salvage a day of failed scumhunting.

Oh and were supposed to believe everything you say then? Yeah, right.

@Okami

Heliman now.  He's already parroting Jim.  Presciently, even.

Excuse me? Where and how?

I was thinking of these two posts:

@Think
Okami. Why? WHY??? Ok I'll tell you.

@Okami
I'm not falling for this load of "Oh no I was just pretending to hunt newbie scum the others scum hunting this guy are the real scum!" Bullshit. This entire charade could easily be an  attempt to quell the players suspicious of you for going after the weakest link. It doesn't automatically justify a sham of a scum hunt followed by a planned lurk, it just introduces WIFOM into the equation.

Since you're clearly not a beginner, I'll tell you straight.

That plan is stupid.

You'll just as easily catch inexperienced town as you will inexperienced scum. And since the game's full of inexperienced players, how actually worthwhile are the results you got?

To everybody else who isn't a beginner: Don't even think about trying to be clever. I don't want to see any clever plans or carefully laid traps or anything like that. If I have anything to say about it you'll learn a decent, basic, fundamental town game first, and then after you've got the basics down, then you can think about being clever.

Everybody got that? NO CLEVER PLANS. Good fundamental scumhunting habits are vastly more important.

It's not a perfect comparison, but it did allow me to use the word parrot.

No it doesn't allow for calling me a parrot. My post in this instance came before Jim's. I can't be called for parroting things that haven't been said yet. This is a pretty weak gambit to try and group me together with Jim and Think (at least I think it was Think) just so our points seem less important.
Vote:Okami

[Jim Groovester]

No no no.

You see, you were parroting me. Presciently. That's what Okami No Rei said. Exactly what he said.

As in, you knew what I was going to say before it, so you said something along the same lines because you agreed with what I said before I said it.

Makes sense, right?

Just thought I should point that out, since Okami No Rei is going to be completely unable to defend himself.

Because he'll be gone. Not because his arguments are terrible.

[Powder Miner]

I'll admit that I'm panicky as heck, and was making a few excuses in my feeble attempt to defend against Jim.
But WIFOM? What WIFOM? I have no circular reasoning, anf you really shouldn't try to just drop the word WIFOM in there to try to get me on a false charge. IT's worse than what I was just doing.

Also, why are you trying to lynch anzki when he didn't even get on the bandwagon, and has only been questioned a little bit?

And you had defendedTaricu earlier- You were saying something around that his inactivity was justified, but it was quite a few pages ago.

Short before-school post. I hate timezones.

[Toaster]

Powder:

I'll admit that I'm panicky as heck, and was making a few excuses in my feeble attempt to defend against Jim.
But WIFOM? What WIFOM? I have no circular reasoning, anf you really shouldn't try to just drop the word WIFOM in there to try to get me on a false charge. IT's worse than what I was just doing.

Also, why are you trying to lynch anzki when he didn't even get on the bandwagon, and has only been questioned a little bit?

Any sort of attack that uses the phrase "it's worse than what I was just doing" loses all potency.  However, you are at least starting to ask better questions.   I still think you're scum, though.

[Supercharazad]

Super:  I'm not seeing enough content out of you to satisfy me.  Can you restate your cases on your top two or three picks?

My picks are as follows:

1: Taricus. For being passive, passive lurking, I happen to REALLY hate his attitude, a REALLY vague RV.
2: Okami. For defending Taricus (once) and trying to get me lynched, without actually scumhunting.



I'll get a content filled post in later tonight, probably.

[Jim Groovester]

Taricus, anything to add before the day ends?

You've done exactly nothing this whole game.

[Taricus]

Nothing unless asking people on whoever they think will be nightkilled is a reasonable question to ask.

[Jim Groovester]

No, it isn't.

So there's a whole day of play to look over and you don't have anything to say.

Are you actually interested in playing this game at all?

[Taricus]

Well, I don't know what questions to ask, so could you give me a few pointers? (If you already have, mind linking me back to it?0

[Toaster]

It's not, because it won't get any useful information.  Before you ask, asking tomorrow about why someone thinks X person got night killed isn't, either.

The night kill target provides little to no information as to who the scum is.  You can't back-calculate who the killer is by the target, because you don't know what motives the scum used to make their choice.  Example motives:

"PlayerA is the best scumhunter- kill him."
"PlayerB thinks I'm scum- kill him."
"PlayerC thinks PlayerD is scum- kill him."
"PlayerE might be a power role- kill him."
"I don't know who to kill, so I used random.org and got PlayerF- kill him."

You have no idea which of those or any of the other innumerable reasons the scum team used, so trying to read into the kill will get you nowhere.

[Toaster]

Missed your post, so I'm going to give you a short and long answer.

Short answer:  Ask about anything you find suspicious.

Long answer:  Read Dakrian's guide to scum hunting (below)

Spoiler: This is good stuff. (click to show/hide)

A VERY rough sketch of how a scumhunt is done (to help those who aren't sure now).
Step 1: When you have no suspicions on anyone, pick someone at random (I MEAN random.. some use Random.org for this!), take a glance as their past posts, and talk to them, usually with a vote.  The goal is not to kill but to learn more about them.  The vote is a "Pressure Vote", simply used to make sure they don't ignore you.

Step 2: When someone feels 'off' to you: perhaps you disliked their answer, or maybe they scare you, or confuse you with their text.  Perhaps they look fine but your feelings or your gut says something is wrong. Perhaps you see them do one scumtell.  Don't ignore it: make them your target.  Attack them.  Tell them what bothers you about them.  Push them, harass them.  Tell them how scummy they are.  Ask them every question in the book.. and I mean EVERYTHING:

Litia: "You bother me.  Vote Dakarian!"

Dak: Meh.  Why?

Litia: "Because you bother me.  Why are you pushing me off as if it doesn't matter?"

Dak: "What? No, you just have nothing on me."

Litia: "You're voting for Vector.  why?"

Dak: "He looked scummy.."

Litia: "Vagueness is a scumtell!  "Scummy.. how is he scummy!"

Dak: "He just is.. you don't have a reason to go after me either."

Litia: "OMGUSing now Mr.Scum?  Being defensive?  You also didn't answer my question!"


Note, this is Step 2: Litia doesn't feel like she knows Dakarian is scum.. just had a 'feeling'.  She has no hard evidence, nothing real.  The questions are to add pressure.. make Dakarian crack and panic.  If you did it right, they WILL town or scum.  WHEN they do, you will be able to see more of their true self.  From there, decide if you can find them as scum for truth.  If you don't: pull out and go to your next suspect: if no one else is there, go back to Step 1.

If you do believe they are scum after that, Step 3:


Step 3: When you believe someone is scum, gather evidence.  Find every scum tell, every sign of their true motives.  Pull more from them.  DON'T LET GO!  Even if the town ignores you or even votes for you because of it, DO IT ANYWAY!  Push, push, PUSH, ***PUSH*** until you have solid proof of what they are.

If you can't find enough to prove them and run out of things to say, check one more time to see if you still feel he's scum, then pull back, look at others (Step 2) but be ready to go back to them at any time.  If your convinced and ready to kill them, Step 4

Step 4: Final step.  It's time to convince the town.  Show what you have.  Push the target so they show more scumminess.  Attack, but do it only to demonstrate to the town what you KNOW is true.  You aren't trying to argue with the mafia anymore.. you are trying to show the town why you are right and Mr.Mafia MUST be lynched.  If you are at this point, only 3 things can happen:

1.  The scum is lynched.
2. You are given so much information that you become CONVINCED that the target is town. (no less than CONVINCED.. doubt, maybe, 'perhaps' won't due)
3. You are dead.



That's how a basic scumhunt is done.  One last note on doubt:

Doubt is something that's ok to have but UGLY to show.  If you doubt or have second thoughts, DON'T DISPLAY IT.  If you think "He looks passive but I don't know..."  you SAY "You scum!  Stop being passive!!!"  If you think "He may have a good reason to attack guy really." say "Give me your reasons and stop being vague."

Doubt is something for yourself.  When you have doubt, go back and see if your original ideas still hold up.  If they do or if you find yourself saying "I'm not sure" then go back to the attack until you are sure.  This ain't the USA: we play by Guilty until Proven Innocent here.  Unless you can get yourself to believe they may be honest, keep the attack.

So doubt is ok to have if used right.. but the town does NOT need to hear it.  If you doubt, accuse anyway as if you know.  If you wonder, accuse as if you know it.  If you know the answer, ASK ANYWAY and let THEM answer.  Make them convince you they are town: don't do the job for them.


And that's scumhunting in a nutshell.  Everyone, try to figure out what Step you are on and work accordingly.  Note that you should be almost done Step 1 by the end of Day 1 (though some may be higher by then).  If you aren't, keep random voting and consider an Extension.

If you don't know WHAT you are.. you're in Step 1.  Get to random voting.

Last note: 'Not voting' should only be done when you are doing a quick look over everyone's past.  Otherwise, your vote and your attention should always be on SOMEONE, even if it is at random.

It's best for a lynch to be for a reason reason.. but it's better for someone to be lynched randomly than for no lynch to occur at all.