Print

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

[Think0028]

Jokerman: Who do you suspect? Why haven't you enumerated anything today? You've been 'carefully observing' this whole game and you have nothing to show for it? Are you going to drift through lylo? You're hiding scum, no two ways about it.

Extend.

[lordnincompoop]

*ahem*

Think, what are your suspicions on Jokerman D3? Apparently there's the tunnelling, and... What else? Why do you feel that way, too?

[Think0028]

Ah, woops. My suspicions are on him for doing a fat load of nothing D1, and then his accuastion to Jim which rings extremely hollow to me. Also, his attitude to me suggests that he was extremely concerned with making sure everyone knew that he was 'extremely careful' with his vote, so he had a justification for doing jack shit D1 and the vast majority of D2. It feels like most of his time went towards building up his reputation rather than towards finding out answers.

[Mephansteras]

Day has now been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Wednesday

[IronyOwl]

Irony: I still find your D1 actions very suspicious. Your lack of actions, to be specific. You rode an RV on someone who hadn't posted yet all the way to day end, doing your best to dodge suspicion.

Interesting. In what way is not showing up at all "doing my best to dodge suspicion?" Especially since Jim (and I think someone else) called me out on it. What about that says "lurking scum" and not "unavailable" to you?

D2, as has been pointed out already, you rode the flow of popular opinion heavily.

Amusing, considering your suspects were also in line with the majority. In any case, why don't you point out exactly what makes you feel I was "riding popular opinion" and not "attacking targets others also thought were scummy?"

Finally, your opening today disregards your previous scumpicks with no mention as to why. Your answer to Toaster is definitely unsatisfying to me. Why did you decide that Vector was now your highest priority target? Beyond just wanting to get information out of her, why did you pick her for your vote, and why hasn't your vote changed?

This appears to be a lie, as I questioned both my scumpicks in that very post. I decided Vector was my highest priority target because she was bothering me and I didn't have any real insight on her. My scumpicks I already had a feel for, and I felt voting one of them would be a lot less productive pressure-wise. My vote hadn't changed because I was still poking her.

I suppose that's true. I didn't think of it at the time, but you are right.

This is... not a satisfactory answer.

Also:

So, Irony. Are you still after Dariush, or have the deaths changed your mind at all?

Kind of redundant now, but what about the deaths would make me not suspicious of Dariush?

This wasn't rhetorical.

Finally, it's LYLO. You're not scumhunting. This implies something to me.

How's that reread coming?

Nah, fuck it.

Remind me of Toaster's #1 Scumtell again?

Yes, I really did. And the purpose was so I could later say "I TOLD YOU SO MUAHAHAHAHAHA!".

You really thought it might be 3 scum, 6 townies, 2 third parties?

Last time I answered a hypothetical question like that (in Kingmaker 2 or 3) by advising the asker to go to hell, I got under a massive attack that lasted for the whole D1 and for bit of D2. I really don't want that to happen again.

That explains why you answered it, not why you answered it in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

Get in here and commit, people.

So your vote on me is a lynchvote, then. That settles that.

Toaster, you're scum. Your case on me consists of three points:

1. Lurking, which is scummy based on a single other game's meta
2. "Tunneling" D2
3. Not tunneling D3

Since then, you've mostly just poked everyone about their night actions. There's also this:

Irony:  No, that's not what you said.  You said he

was being direct, focused, and blunt

without any mention of excess.  Why didn't you say excess earlier if you meant it?  Changing your story is a scummy move.

I said he was doing it "strangely" the first time, so you probably could have assumed I meant "moreso than usual/sensible/effective," but if you didn't, you probably would have wanted to know what I did mean after the second explanation. You dropped it without comment, though, so either you got my meaning or didn't care, but are now bringing it up again to nitpick my word choice.

Do you have anything solid on anyone? Or, for that matter, anything on anyone? You've spontaneously redeclared Jokerman scum and have your hilarious case on me, but otherwise I'm not sure you've committed to anything. Well, except for saying we shouldn't lynch Dariush even if he's scum.

[IronyOwl]

Errrrrr, shit. If Toaster's telling the truth about having a body double, that's not going to work. I'll have to think about this.

[Vector]

Vote's going on Jokerman-EXE for now.  I have no trust for someone who lurks most of the game away, then comes to LYLO and ignores questions multiple times when they're brought up.  Just... totally appalling.

Also, I know this is pure speculation, but I'm still having trouble believing the roleclaim, and that no one's hanging around being useful in deadchat.  I've been with those folks before, even recently, and they're usually pretty prone to commentary.  Especially, say, Max White, who I don't think would be able to shut his mouth if the game depended on it.


Now, IronyOwl, for your most recent post... let's have a little chat.

Spoiler: More on Irony in the next post or so, because I'm grafting together the quotes from before (click to show/hide)

Interesting. In what way is not showing up at all "doing my best to dodge suspicion?" Especially since Jim (and I think someone else) called me out on it. What about that says "lurking scum" and not "unavailable" to you?

The fact that you didn't draw attention to yourself by checking in and saying you were too busy to post.  That's standard practice.  You didn't bother.  Most people in developed countries have an ability to access a computer at least once a day, and I assume that if a storm knocked yours out you'd inform us on one of your rare appearances.

But no.  You, much like Jokerman, lurky-lurked for much of the opener without apology or explanation.

Amusing, considering your suspects were also in line with the majority.

This is a rhetorical OMGUS.  Goes well with your vote, hey?

I wouldn't have mentioned the latter, because it doesn't feel like a kneejerk reaction.  But this trend does show a habit of pushing away accusations with more accusations, rather than greeting them head-on.

This appears to be a lie, as I questioned both my scumpicks in that very post.

I find your painting of a factually incorrect statement as a lie in this instance problematic.

There is a difference between being wrong and lying.  Lying, in this game, usually means that one has some piece of information that is not accessible to everyone, but which is being held close to that person's chest--and about which one chooses to relay a falsehood.  When the piece of information is publicly available, one would call it "misconstruing" or "incorrect" at worse.

Regardless, I'm going to count this under "extreme pet peeve" rather than "serious scumtell" right now, because despite your experience I've seen middling-novice town use it approximately a billion times in the past few weeks.

That explains why you answered it, not why you answered it in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

Is there some reason why a person answering a question wouldn't try to remove as many non-crucial scumtells as possible?

Because seriously, I'm not seeing your attacks.  They're weak, sloppy, and--as remarked in your case against me--occasionally misleading.

[Toaster]

Irony:  I am fully confident in lynching you.

I was questioning the motives of everyone's night choices to see if their stated motives were in line with their actions prior to today.  LNCP, in particular, because he could have been attempting to drive a mislynch on you.  His answers were satisfactory enough to convince me you killed Jim.  You forgot "Irony was at the crime scene" in your evidence list against you.  I hadn't driven that point hard because I wanted to be confident in LNCP's claim- I now am.

To recreate your point list:

1:  Yes, meta is a point in my case against you.  I keep thinking of you in that game when I'm reading this thread.
2:  Again, you questioned someone other than your main two once out of a field of eight others.  That's awfully focused.
3:  Calling it "not tunnelling" is laughable.  After completely ignoring Vector D2, you jump out with a vote on her- I wanted to know why.  If you had any suspicions of Vector D2, why didn't you act on them? 

As for the recent point:  I didn't have any issue with your wording until you tried to go and say you said something else.  Your wording is fine- being contradictory is not.

And about Dariush:  Really?  Do you think he is a dopp?  If you think he is a survivor, then you'd agree lynching him would be idiotic.  Well, not you, since that'd lead to you dopps winning.  If you were town you'd see that it'd be stupid.

I consider my case on you plenty solid enough.  Lynching you today will give Joker one more chance to redeem himself if he's idiot town (highly unlikely at this point, but it could happen.)

[Vector]

All right.  For now, I'm going to just assume Dariush is a survivor, as he says, because the posts I had saved were consistent with the usual behavior.  Most of my bone to pick with him had to do with waiting on other people to act, anyway; so, for now, I'll choose to believe the claim.

All questioning coming after everyone comes and says something.

This sort of thing.

But nothing's screaming Dopp, and I'm reminded a bit of some games I played with RedWarrior0 and Org as survivors.

So he goes on the backburner.

Spoiler: On IronyOwl (click to show/hide)

Max: Why did you need a side? Why did you need a side on that issue but no others? How exactly does one decide between two sides when it's impossible and foolhardy to assume either is town?

I felt like this was leading/muddying the waters.

It starts as a valid line of questioning, but then essentially challenges him to pick sides on other arguments and doubt himself.

Admittedly, I haven't really got anything except Dariush yet.

. . .

Dariush is the very lowest face on the totem pole.  This is what we call "going for easy targets."

Irony's been better on this today, with attacking Toaster and myself, but I'm still classifying this as one of his scumtells--along with his early game's history of heavy lurking.

So, you admit that you voted me by mistake aaaand... don't change your vote. Duly noted.

Part of it was a mistake, yeah.

And now it was partially by mistake.

That leaves us with "no suspects whatsoever, captain."

I admittedly don't have much in the way of suspects, but I'm actually doing something about my list. You rattled off all the lurkers you could see, claimed you'd do something when everyone else did something, and reacted when attacked. That's not good scumhunting.

More of the "You're worse than me so I don't have to address your allegations" hogwash.  I'm getting sick of this.  It's basically a strong sign of an OMGUS mentality.

So you're saying that you're perfectly willing to lynch him and not bother with other suspicions (seeing as you haven't fielded any), and if that doesn't work...you'll just act like that's totally fine. No, that's not how the game is played. That's how the scum-game is played. If your suspicions were real, then you would have multiple suspects, not one that you latch onto and not even care whether or not he's truly scum.


Toaster/Everyone Else: You're saying that I'm not hunting because I asked several people what their scumlists are. But you know what I got in response?

"Bandwagon on Max first, then Dariush because *regurgitates what everyone else says about Dariush*."
"Nah man, scumhunting isn't my game. I'll just keep going with the second bandwagon."
"Don't have an answer, or can't link to it, so I'll pretend it wasn't asked."

So you know what? I'd have to say that it WAS effective scumhunting, because it pointed out how blatantly certain people in this game are coasting by without really contributing at all (OH GOD THE IRONY IS GLORIOUS).


Anyone else have anything to say?

Oh, this is rich. Really, this is just awesome.

See, a real townie's gotta have suspects. So what you'll do, see, is ask everyone what their suspects are. Whoever has the least suspects go on your suspect list, and the one with the absolute fewest suspects gets your vote. And since you did it first, you've already got your list of suspects, so nobody can do the exact same thing to you!

Brilliant. Especially since half your post is being suspicious of two people for being suspicious of the third, which you are now also suspicious of, for the exact same reasons as those two. I mean, calling people out on their bandwagon like that while joining it just really takes class.

Completely ignores a strong allegation--admittedly, from Jokerman, but no one ever said scum couldn't infight.  Follows up with speculation and shoving everything else under the covers.  It's an enormous dodge.


I feel that the rest of the game follows in these simple patterns.

As for Think...

Toaster: (because Meph clearly was telling me to) Which alien role would you fear the most?

This is simple, but I don't like it.  It looks like someone so afraid to show a scumtell that they pin the blame for asking an RV question on the mod.


... Wow, I thought I had a hell of a lot more specific posts on him saved up--turned out that some of the quotations from him were pieces I thought I was going to use on other folks, and which fell through when it came time to address them   Anyway, I feel like he's been sidelining throughout this entire game.  I can't remember him ever expressing a strong opinion or conviction, or attacking anyone.  He tends towards simple, RV-style questions and I feel like a lot of bandwagoning onto others' arguments occurred.

He also isn't exactly providing much in the way of pressure during Lylo.  Or asking questions.  Or doing much at all, really.

To me, this looks a lot like his scum game from BMXXIV, where I IC'd.  It's not something that can be narrowed down to specific quotations, since it's more of an absence of information than a presence thereof, but it all smells pretty bad.

[Dariush]

Remind me of Toaster's #1 Scumtell again?

Huh?

You really thought it might be 3 scum, 6 townies, 2 third parties?

I wasn't counting the parties like that. Besides, SS+Survivor isn't such a balance problem as, say, Exty+Xenozoologist.

That explains why you answered it, not why you answered it in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

Yes, I'm very careful to avoid slipups. I've been lynched for minor mistakes too often to continue being careless (whatever my actual aligment was).

[IronyOwl]

You forgot "Irony was at the crime scene" in your evidence list against you.  I hadn't driven that point hard because I wanted to be confident in LNCP's claim- I now am.

Two problems here. Very fascinating problems, in fact.

First of all, what did LNCP have to do with anything? He called it before I mentioned it, then I confirmed it. Unless he was bussing me, the odds of him lying were 0; and even if he was, why would that matter for calling me out?

Secondly, "Irony was at the crime scene" is what we call circumstantial evidence- useless without something else backing it up. How does it imply I killed Jim? "He could have, therefore he did?" The only way it makes any kind of sense to mention it on its own is if you're just piling everything you can think of onto your case, regardless of relevance.

1:  Yes, meta is a point in my case against you.  I keep thinking of you in that game when I'm reading this thread.

So this is your LYLO-level suspicion for your top pick: "I'm reminded of that one game I played with him." Even if it's entirely accurate, a single meta example is laughably bad reasoning for LYLO unless it's extremely compelling. Unless you're trying to say I always play scum the same way (which would seem to imply the same is true of my town game), I don't see how it could be.

2:  Again, you questioned someone other than your main two once out of a field of eight others.  That's awfully focused.

I was still somewhat busy and distracted, so I wasn't exactly on my best game. I'm still not sure exactly why this would be a scumtell though, given that you haven't claimed that what I did have was subpar in any fashion.

3:  Calling it "not tunnelling" is laughable.  After completely ignoring Vector D2, you jump out with a vote on her- I wanted to know why.  If you had any suspicions of Vector D2, why didn't you act on them?

Once again, you're trying to establish this damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario where both focusing on my scumpicks, and focusing on anyone who isn't my scumpicks, is scummy. And even by itself, I still don't see it- I vote someone I hadn't mentioned previously and was under no pressure, in order to question her, and this is scummy somehow?

As for why I didn't mention it D2, I was distracted in general and distracted with Max.
 

As for the recent point:  I didn't have any issue with your wording until you tried to go and say you said something else.  Your wording is fine- being contradictory is not.

That's the thing: It's not the content, it's the wording. You must have known what I meant for it to make any sense, but you didn't mention it again until it gave you a pretense for claiming I was changing my story.

And about Dariush:  Really?  Do you think he is a dopp?  If you think he is a survivor, then you'd agree lynching him would be idiotic.  Well, not you, since that'd lead to you dopps winning.  If you were town you'd see that it'd be stupid.

I think it's definitely possible. He was under decent pressure, and he'd know he just has to squeeze past one more day. Given that it'd also cut our chances of finding you and your buddy from 3/7 to 2/6, I'd say it could be a pretty cunning move.

I'll grant he's a dangerous lynch, but I'm not giving him a free pass for it. What about you? Why do you buy it completely?

I consider my case on you plenty solid enough.  Lynching you today will give Joker one more chance to redeem himself if he's idiot town (highly unlikely at this point, but it could happen.)

Niiiiiice. Slightly buddying up to/giving yourself a chance to copout on your #2 scumpick at LYLO just in case. That's not a scum move or anything.


Vector-things later.

[Toaster]

Irony:  I had a sudden nasty feeling from LNCP, and I wanted to check his motives before I returned focus to you.  He passed the check, so I've moved on.  You have a point with the timing, but that does nothing to improve your position.

Secondly, "Irony was at the crime scene" is what we call circumstantial evidence- useless without something else backing it up. How does it imply I killed Jim? "He could have, therefore he did?" The only way it makes any kind of sense to mention it on its own is if you're just piling everything you can think of onto your case, regardless of relevance.

You're right- it is circumstantial.  Saying I have nothing to back it up is laughable, though- you keep treating my points like they exist in a vacuum.  It's not a case against you, but with the other points, it becomes enough evidence for me.

1:  Yes, meta is a point in my case against you.  I keep thinking of you in that game when I'm reading this thread.

So this is your LYLO-level suspicion for your top pick: "I'm reminded of that one game I played with him." Even if it's entirely accurate, a single meta example is laughably bad reasoning for LYLO unless it's extremely compelling. Unless you're trying to say I always play scum the same way (which would seem to imply the same is true of my town game), I don't see how it could be.

Again, treating my points like they exist in a vacuum.  Again, no, I wouldn't lynch you on this point alone.

I have to go on a collection of points- I can't exactly fingerprint you and check Jim's house for DNA evidence.

2:  Again, you questioned someone other than your main two once out of a field of eight others.  That's awfully focused.

I was still somewhat busy and distracted, so I wasn't exactly on my best game. I'm still not sure exactly why this would be a scumtell though, given that you haven't claimed that what I did have was subpar in any fashion.

3:  Calling it "not tunnelling" is laughable.  After completely ignoring Vector D2, you jump out with a vote on her- I wanted to know why.  If you had any suspicions of Vector D2, why didn't you act on them?

Once again, you're trying to establish this damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario where both focusing on my scumpicks, and focusing on anyone who isn't my scumpicks, is scummy. And even by itself, I still don't see it- I vote someone I hadn't mentioned previously and was under no pressure, in order to question her, and this is scummy somehow?

As for why I didn't mention it D2, I was distracted in general and distracted with Max.

Inconsistent behavior attracts attention.  Again, this point alone isn't lynchable... noticing a theme here?

As for the recent point:  I didn't have any issue with your wording until you tried to go and say you said something else.  Your wording is fine- being contradictory is not.

That's the thing: It's not the content, it's the wording. You must have known what I meant for it to make any sense, but you didn't mention it again until it gave you a pretense for claiming I was changing my story.

Again, it was fine until you tried to contradict it.  Strangely, to me, means doing so in an odd matter that draws attention.  If you mean excessive, you should say so.

And about Dariush:  Really?  Do you think he is a dopp?  If you think he is a survivor, then you'd agree lynching him would be idiotic.  Well, not you, since that'd lead to you dopps winning.  If you were town you'd see that it'd be stupid.

I think it's definitely possible. He was under decent pressure, and he'd know he just has to squeeze past one more day. Given that it'd also cut our chances of finding you and your buddy from 3/7 to 2/6, I'd say it could be a pretty cunning move.

I'll grant he's a dangerous lynch, but I'm not giving him a free pass for it. What about you? Why do you buy it completely?

I don't buy it completely either, but lynching him today is silly.  If he's a dopp, he'll be here tomorrow and the next day.  (He almost certainly will be anyway, but my point stands.)  I'm not at all willing to risk the game on it at this point in time.

I consider my case on you plenty solid enough.  Lynching you today will give Joker one more chance to redeem himself if he's idiot town (highly unlikely at this point, but it could happen.)

Niiiiiice. Slightly buddying up to/giving yourself a chance to copout on your #2 scumpick at LYLO just in case. That's not a scum move or anything.

1.  I do that a lot
2.  Joker has been idiot town before, so he could be doing it again.

What's your read on him, then?

[IronyOwl]

The fact that you didn't draw attention to yourself by checking in and saying you were too busy to post.  That's standard practice.  You didn't bother.  Most people in developed countries have an ability to access a computer at least once a day, and I assume that if a storm knocked yours out you'd inform us on one of your rare appearances.

But no.  You, much like Jokerman, lurky-lurked for much of the opener without apology or explanation.

I've never been a particularly big fan of "I'm here but have nothing" style posts. Yes, I could probably post at least once a day to say that I'm not dead but have accomplished nothing, but I've never really seen the point in most cases. I'm similarly reluctant to post tidbits without dealing with everything I've got backlogged, so especially when I'm busy I tend to be sparsely verbose.

Amusing, considering your suspects were also in line with the majority.

This is a rhetorical OMGUS.  Goes well with your vote, hey?

I wouldn't have mentioned the latter, because it doesn't feel like a kneejerk reaction.  But this trend does show a habit of pushing away accusations with more accusations, rather than greeting them head-on.

I'd be interested in a response to it, I just don't think I'm going to get one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pushing them away" rather than "greeting them head on."

This appears to be a lie, as I questioned both my scumpicks in that very post.

I find your painting of a factually incorrect statement as a lie in this instance problematic.

There is a difference between being wrong and lying.  Lying, in this game, usually means that one has some piece of information that is not accessible to everyone, but which is being held close to that person's chest--and about which one chooses to relay a falsehood.  When the piece of information is publicly available, one would call it "misconstruing" or "incorrect" at worse.

Regardless, I'm going to count this under "extreme pet peeve" rather than "serious scumtell" right now, because despite your experience I've seen middling-novice town use it approximately a billion times in the past few weeks.

I don't think I share your strict definition of the word. I called it a lie because I didn't see any real way he could have missed or misinterpreted it, which pretty much left poor word choice or deliberate falsehood.

That explains why you answered it, not why you answered it in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

Is there some reason why a person answering a question wouldn't try to remove as many non-crucial scumtells as possible?

Because they weren't really that concerned with them, being confident that they were town and all? There's a big difference between answering something in a way with no scumtells, and making a deliberate and consistent decision to answer in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

Because seriously, I'm not seeing your attacks.  They're weak, sloppy, and--as remarked in your case against me--occasionally misleading.

Which ones? All of them? What are you classifying as an attack?

Max: Why did you need a side? Why did you need a side on that issue but no others? How exactly does one decide between two sides when it's impossible and foolhardy to assume either is town?

I felt like this was leading/muddying the waters.

It starts as a valid line of questioning, but then essentially challenges him to pick sides on other arguments and doubt himself.

This feels like the magic of hindsight (or preexisting assumptions) at work. "Max was town, so asking him why he 'picked a side' on one issue but no others was challenging him to do so, not checking an inconsistency and/or asking why he was doing that to begin with." I stand by the validity of all three questions.

. . .

Dariush is the very lowest face on the totem pole.  This is what we call "going for easy targets."

Irony's been better on this today, with attacking Toaster and myself, but I'm still classifying this as one of his scumtells--along with his early game's history of heavy lurking.

The fact that he was easy doesn't mean he wasn't scummy. In fact, I was entirely correct about him being nontown.

And now it was partially by mistake.

That leaves us with "no suspects whatsoever, captain."

I've been over this with Dariush already- part of it was a mistake, but there was enough left for me to still consider him scummy. I also suspected Max, but I didn't bother to mention it because the original question already did so.

I admittedly don't have much in the way of suspects, but I'm actually doing something about my list. You rattled off all the lurkers you could see, claimed you'd do something when everyone else did something, and reacted when attacked. That's not good scumhunting.

More of the "You're worse than me so I don't have to address your allegations" hogwash.  I'm getting sick of this.  It's basically a strong sign of an OMGUS mentality.

I tend to be rather interested in hypocritical statements, which makes it difficult to seem like I'm not OMGUSing. Also, I addressed his allegations as well as I was able to.

Completely ignores a strong allegation--admittedly, from Jokerman, but no one ever said scum couldn't infight.  Follows up with speculation and shoving everything else under the covers.  It's an enormous dodge.

I would not call that a "strong" allegation, given that it accused me of not hunting (untrue) and bandwagoning (first vote, primary questioner at first). The more general form might have had some merit, but at the time that was completely washed out by the ridiculousness of the rest of it.

[Dariush]

There's a big difference between answering something in a way with no scumtells, and making a deliberate and consistent decision to answer in such a way as to avoid any potential slipups.

"I can simply not mention John in my next sentence or I can make a deliberate and consistent decision not to mention him in any form, under any circumstances, not even under the threat of death."

[Mephansteras]

The Whiteboard
IronyOwl: Toaster
Jokerman-EXE: Think0028, Vector
Toaster: IronyOwl


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Today