Print

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

[Max White]

Dammit man, I can't lynch scum by myself! I require voters. TOWNIES, COME TO MY AID!!!! Because seriously, if you guys keep lurking, I am going to do things with a fishhook you didn't think were possible, and your going to see things you never knew you had...

Bdthemag: I didn't want this, because I think your a townie, but dammit I don't know any other way! Activate, now! Who are your first and second scum picks, giving reasons, and quotes where required.

[Bdthemag]

Well now lets see... Ah Powder Miner.

Read the thread! And I'm going to start with my suspicions on UltraValican, based on what I've read. I kind of forgot the first few pages but:
Upon close questioning of his vote on someone, he withdraws, unvotes and doesn't even ask any questions or even attempt to scumhunt. He proceeds to stay like this, getting in a completely unrelated conversation whilst still not scumhunting. You continue to be jumpy and bandwagon people with no prior reasoning, and whenever questioned on it you pull off again from voting. Oftentimes you (this may sound a bit hypocritical coming from me, but whatever) try to get out of suspicion by lamenting about your newbieness. I sucked too but at least I tried to get scum. All you have is a half-hearted attempt to look like you are, with horrible logic that looks like you just put nonsense and prior reasoning in a blender, set to "crush ice", and dumped the haphazard chunks all over your bandwagons. Now, I'm not an IC. I don't have to feel mercy for you because you suck. So I'm going to press you, without mercy, I want an explanation for your actions. And not "I suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck". UltraValican. Pressure vote. Answer.

Here he jumped on the UltraValican bandwagon, the question he asked Ultra was just like everyone elses.

Bandwagons are scummy because they show you want to get someone lynched with no real reasoning. AKA scum trying to thin the ranks.
And my second pick would probably be you Vector, for your early tunneling of kilakan. It seemed rather like you were just tryign to get him lynched, not scumhunting.

He's contradicting himself here, bandwagons are scummy but yet he does it. Then he goes on to say that his second pick is Vector, odd how he chooses that Vector is his second scumpick once she votes for him.

Maybe it's because I got bored and skipped the last few pages (the ones I came in at), but I don't really see much suspicious things in Max's answers. And now of course according to your TRAP! I'm a scum for buddying! Yeah, no. And because I forgot to actually RV, Unvote UltraValican, Max White Who would you pick Night 1 as mafia, to kill?

This is him going into the whole nightkill discussion, since its silly to talk about night kills since only the killer knows why they wanted that person dead.

Hmmm, Max White why would you only kill people that would be expected or not noticed? Must just be play style... Oh well, I've already got my answer, so Unvote Max White.

He then immediately unvotes, which is odd since I was expecting he would do a follow up on that question.

After that quote he's been completely quiet.

Now onto Breadbocks

Suspicion 2: breadbocks, initially for massive amounts of lurking. Why didn't you post at all over the weekend? If you were observing as you said you where, what were your opinions of what was going on?

I already said why I didn't post on the weekend. I was waiting for something worth saying something about, either through UV doing enough to convince me of his innocence, which would be nigh on impossible, or someone else seemed scummier. Neither of those happened. As far as I could tell, the larger portions of what happened was Vector telling him "You're being stupid. Try to prove your innocence." and UV flailing around, and then towards the end, people grilling PM about not being here.

Max, not good enough. First off, I'm not assuming you have precognitive powers, and thus wouldn't be able to say when by my standards you started being useful. It's called a rhetorical question. As for you not understanding my second question, bullshit. I made it clear that from my point of view you were twisting words till they snapped, and outright lying. You would like an example? I don't even need to go back that far.

Breadbocks: Your first vote onto UltraValican was a RVS vote, and you never pulled it off, or bought new evidence into light. Can you explain your beliefs.
You also placed this vote as soon as Ultra and Kilakan started into their argument, thus bandwagoning hid as a RVS. Just saying.

In fact, when I voted UV, I was clear as daylight it was an RVS. You've said numerous other things that are clearly lies, and each one hurts your credibility.

Here he said at first that he didn't post because he was waiting for something worth saying about, no scumhunting just him wanting to share his insight onto the current situation which is pretty scummy.

Then he goes onto trying to convince people that Max is twisting his words around to make him seem scummy, and its totally not his fault.

Was there a question in all that? Or was it just your reaction to somebody showing some interest in you? I said you RVS voted UV, you did, I said you never pulled it off, you didn't. I didn't imply anything from it, but rather asked for your beliefs, giving you a chance to put forward evidence, and you jump like I set your pants on fire, and still have not answered it at all.
Maybe your seeing something in the questions that isn't there, because you are reading it from scum eyes?

Sigh. LTR doesn't begin to cover this. A vote made during RVS does not equal a RV. A random vote, oddly enough is made randomly, as in, arbitrarily and with no reason. As I clearly provided a reason, what you said is rendered a lie. Only scum and doctors/cops have reason to lie, and I doubt you are a doctor.

If I really wanted ihm lynched, I would have continued to vote for him until the end od the day, which, as you'll note, I did not.

Also, Jim got nightkilled. Why in the world am I not surprised?

That is an incredibly scummy thing to say. NK is one of THE scummiest things to discuss and use as evidence. But you want to talk nk? Fine. It proves Vector is innocent. ICs in BM are puppet masters, full tilt. By killing them, all you do is take away one of the votes they control. That means there at 5 people left, 2 of which are scum. I now thing Max and you are both scum.

He goes on to say just because he voted during the RVS stage that doesn't mean his vote is random, this is reasonable to some extent. Then he say's that talking about the NightKill is scummy but then he say's what he thinks about the night kill.

[Max White]

Good! Now question them both to try and get some answers out of them. You never know what you might find! I just asked Breadbocks about why he suspected Ultra and he basically blew up into a mess of accusations and contradictions, so you never know what will work until you try.

Powder Miner: Defend thou self, lest my vote chop off your head! A few people currently think your the scum, assuming you are a townie, what is your opinion of those who are accusing you?

[Jim Groovester]

Stuff

That's good.

But what's your point? What are you trying to do with this wall of text?

[Bdthemag]

Max asked for my scumpicks and quotes going along with it, I was showing him the two people I thought were scum at the moment and the quotes which made me suspicious of them.

Breadbocks if there are so many other examples as you say, then how about you share them with us and tell us why you think that is Max twisting your words around.

Powder Miner Get over here!

[Jim Groovester]

Okay, good.

Keep it up. I don't want to have to drag you here from inactivity every single day, so be active.

[Think0028]

Powder: So you're town then. Okay, I guess I won't lynch you then. Show's over guys, Powder's town! Do you seriously think that will work? And you still aren't scumhunting or voting. You're scum, no two ways around it.

breadbocks: You still did very little after putting that vote on Valican, and let it ride on him all the way to lynching. Why didn't you keep pressing him, or gather additional information on other people?

[breadbocks]

Of course I'll deliver!
So, we start here, his first post with any real sort of scum hunting. I'm putting comments in blue text because I'd rather avoid futzing with quotes.

Holy mother of Batman, that's a lot of run-on sentences.

Also, the usual issue with folks nudging other folks to consider lynching them gosh-darned ICs off the planet.  Because they might just give bad and misleading advice, as they've sworn not to do.  Hurm.

Well that wasn't just a little emotive, don;t you think Vector. This starts out with a comment on the lengh of sentances? Will we start calling scum because somebody used a semi colon when a colon was due? It even ends with a trademark 'hurm', in what has no debating value, it just undermines the integrity of the post on an emotional level.
See, here he's strawmanning about, fair is fair, a strawman. Both are little more than shit arguments. He then complains about word choice, doubling up the strawmen in one post, in addition to contradicting what he said about punctuation in the first strawman.

Think: Do you approve of a lynch on day one, even if we are not fully sure of Mafia status, just some what sure?

Yes. Not lynching on Day 1 just gives scum a free kill, and means that if we have 2 mislynches, the Mafia win.

Think-But if lynching on day 1 gives a mislynch that would just make the mafia win faster, so:What happens if you are not sure of anything at the end of the first day, how would you go about picking who to random-lynch?

And... what looks like working with Max White in order to pressure for no-lynches D1 if one isn't "sure."

So now their is a relationship between kilakan and myself showing that we are scum, bringing the total to three now? Kilakan, Jim and Myself? So do you honestly think that in your first post you managed to find all three scum players, Vector? When a player asked a good question, and another gives a scumm answer, that does not mean the first player must have been conspiring with the other. What sort of half baked reasoning is that? We hunt scum, expect interesting answers from questions asked by honest people. This looks like nothing more than another attempt to tunnel kilakan.
Here he again presses a claim that somewhere along the way, Vector accused Jim of being scum, which I just can't find. An outright fabrication.
Great, didn't want to go into all that, Vector being an IC and all, but you asked.

And then he ends it in a poorly founded Ethos argument to try and take moral high ground.
Here's another good one:

MaxWhite-How would you avoid detection as a Scum, if you plan on taking out the lurkers at night?

Have an axe to grind. Try to get a reason to begrudge a player, then focus everything you have at them, even if nobody else is going to vote them. That way you have a reason to not vote for anybody else, including your mafia friends.

Also, I'm not one of the IC's, if your looking for tips on how to not be lynched the first day, your scumchat will provide you more useful information than I can.

And there you go. Calling kilakan scum outright, and he never followed up on it.

Max White gets scummier and scummier.

[Max White]

Now things are getting better. A little bit of proding and people start posting again. Now to address some points here.

See, here he's strawmanning about, fair is fair, a strawman. Both are little more than shit arguments. He then complains about word choice, doubling up the strawmen in one post, in addition to contradicting what he said about punctuation in the first strawman.

This is Vector I was talking about, I would expect her choice of words to be more careful than anybody else. She has shown to be carefully looking at the wording of her own posts and others

Because I used language targeting the reader, rather than addressing the target, it could be said that I was attempting to shift the reader's suspicions to the target in a manipulative sort of way.  I would find this questionable if someone else did it while paired with a lot of other things.

so if anybody is going to try to deceive with language, it is well within her abilities. Pressing somebody for something they said that could be suspicious is not twisting words, it is trying to force them to give a clearer explanation of their intent.

Here he again presses a claim that somewhere along the way, Vector accused Jim of being scum, which I just can't find. An outright fabrication.

Ok, I shall admit my error here. When Vector accused kilakan of buddying

UltraValican, I've never seen you around here before, so answer me a question. As a cop, how would you determine who to inspect at night?

-If you were a doctor, how would you go about determining the most likely person to be targeted by the scum at night, so you might best protect them?

Notice patterns in people copying/mirroring others.  This is a subtle form of buddying I call "emotional alignment."  In case you're wondering about this, I read in a book that autistic kids don't realize that they should copy their friends' opinions in order to get along with them.  Identify themselves as the same team, as it were.  So: buddying.

I assumed she meant that kilakan and Jim were working together as a team. Is it really expected that we fully understand all the termanology in a beginners game?

And there you go. Calling kilakan scum outright, and he never followed up on it.

Reaction test, brosoph. If he had of made a big deal of it, I would have pressed on, but he passed. Also, that isn't an example of twisting words, just scum hunting.

[Max White]

Nothing is happening again...
breadbocks: What is your opinion of Powder?

[TolyK]

*throws shoe*
Really, guys.
You might get the extension (from me, s_{ince minecraft}) but i dunno about darvi - 3 strikes and you're on the stove...

[webadict]

Who throws a shoe? I mean honestly...

[kilakan]

Dammit man, I can't lynch scum by myself! I require voters. TOWNIES, COME TO MY AID!!!! Because seriously, if you guys keep lurking, I am going to do things with a fishhook you didn't think were possible, and your going to see things you never knew you had...

Bdthemag: I didn't want this, because I think your a townie, but dammit I don't know any other way! Activate, now! Who are your first and second scum picks, giving reasons, and quotes where required.

Hey what gives you the idea he's town, give me a few examples of where he proves himself.

Now things are getting better. A little bit of proding and people start posting again. Now to address some points here.

See, here he's strawmanning about, fair is fair, a strawman. Both are little more than shit arguments. He then complains about word choice, doubling up the strawmen in one post, in addition to contradicting what he said about punctuation in the first strawman.

This is Vector I was talking about, I would expect her choice of words to be more careful than anybody else. She has shown to be carefully looking at the wording of her own posts and others

So what side would you consider someone to be on the edge of paranoid about their wording to be on?

Because I used language targeting the reader, rather than addressing the target, it could be said that I was attempting to shift the reader's suspicions to the target in a manipulative sort of way.  I would find this questionable if someone else did it while paired with a lot of other things.

so if anybody is going to try to deceive with language, it is well within her abilities. Pressing somebody for something they said that could be suspicious is not twisting words, it is trying to force them to give a clearer explanation of their intent.

Here he again presses a claim that somewhere along the way, Vector accused Jim of being scum, which I just can't find. An outright fabrication.

Ok, I shall admit my error here. When Vector accused kilakan of buddying

UltraValican, I've never seen you around here before, so answer me a question. As a cop, how would you determine who to inspect at night?

-If you were a doctor, how would you go about determining the most likely person to be targeted by the scum at night, so you might best protect them?

Notice patterns in people copying/mirroring others.  This is a subtle form of buddying I call "emotional alignment."  In case you're wondering about this, I read in a book that autistic kids don't realize that they should copy their friends' opinions in order to get along with them.  Identify themselves as the same team, as it were.  So: buddying.

I assumed she meant that kilakan and Jim were working together as a team. Is it really expected that we fully understand all the termanology in a beginners game?

It was more that she accused me of budding since I in essence copied Jim's question, which I just did since I thought it was a valid question.  Declaring one person buddying doesn't incriminate the other, it says they are attempting to become friends with a townie.

[Max White]

Hey what gives you the idea he's town, give me a few examples of where he proves himself.

I said assuming he was a townie, so the answer he would give if he was a townie. I didn't imply he was a townie. Also, since when do we ask for proof that somebody is a townie? This looks a little like your pushing for a lynch without being able to show he is scum, so you demand I show he is townie instead.

So what side would you consider someone to be on the edge of paranoid about their wording to be on?

That question didn't make sense in the current context. I need a 'somebody' or an 'edge' to work with, or else the question has two many blanks.

[kilakan]

Hey what gives you the idea he's town, give me a few examples of where he proves himself.

I said assuming he was a townie, so the answer he would give if he was a townie. I didn't imply he was a townie. Also, since when do we ask for proof that somebody is a townie? This looks a little like your pushing for a lynch without being able to show he is scum, so you demand I show he is townie instead.

You didn't say assuming, you said that you think Bdthemag is a townie.  I asked why do you think that.  Simple enough question.

So what side would you consider someone to be on the edge of paranoid about their wording to be on?

That question didn't make sense in the current context. I need a 'somebody' or an 'edge' to work with, or else the question has two many blanks.

I was referencing what you were saying about Vector so let me rephrase that for you:  You say that Vector chooses her words far more carefully then others, and looks far more critically at the wording of her own posts and others posts.  So what do you think that says about her?  Since if you thought it was a pointless statement, then why would you say it.