Print

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

[Think0028]

Irony: Yes, I did mangle Toaster's question a bit. Still didn't get an answer I like out of you. I'm not trying to say you're leading a bandwagon, I'm trying to say you're trying to point out Otto and saying 'oh, hey, look at that guy, he's being pretty weird'. And it'd sure be convenient if a bandwagon happened to appear, and you could just simply hop on. And I don't see Toaster's story changing like you claim it to be. My question was awkward, but I don't think my reasoning is bad.

 If you couldn't get a read on Otto, why didn't you at least TRY hunting him? Considering your final reasoning was 'he's capable of good posts and he refuses to', isn't that a conclusion you could have reached with your own lines of questioning?

Solifuge: Anything on anyone except Darvi or Ottofar?

[webadict]

Vote Count
----------------------------
Darvi - Pandarsenic,
Toaster -
Think0028 -
Solifuge -
Vector -
Pandarsenic -
Ottofar - Solifuge, Think0028, IronyOwl,
IronyOwl - Toaster, Vector,
NativeForeigner -

Not Voting - Darvi, Ottofar, NativeForeigner,

5 To Hammer. Day Ends Monday 9 PM Central. 1 Extension Requested.

Day Extended To Wednesday 9 PM Central.

[Toaster]

Irony:

Where did I say that?

I guess I misread that; your changing story had nothing to do with the WIFOM.

The real answer is it's only WIFOM if all the options are valid. You literally have no explanation for why I'd want or need to do X other than "scum do X," which isn't applicable in this case because it'd be ridiculously easy without X. I'm not trying to lead you in circles, I'm demanding an explanation.

Why do you continue to refuse to provide one?

Why isn't "Because you are scum" a valid explanation for you?  I can't spell it out much more than this:

Otto acted scummy and got votes D1.
At start of D2, you go out to gauge the general opinion of him.
This is done to determine if a bandwagon is likely to form on him, or if votes will go in another direction.

Why you would do that as opposed to just straight voting him?  I'm not much for guessing the motivations of scum, but if I had to say, it'd because you were afraid of commitment- an issue you've had before as scum.  Perhaps you wanted to know if people thought he was a jester, which would mean you'd be unpopular for voting him.  In any case, the fact that you cared about any sort of approval for your actions is a scummy move- town should be upfront with their intentions and disinterested in doing something because it's popular.

If that doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will.


Vector:  Do you have any other suspicions?


Native:  Do you intend to vote Darvi's replacement as soon as said replacement happens?

[Vector]

Not right now.  Right now, I am frankly looking forward to night data, or the new day, or... something.  I feel like people usually feel less like they can lurk after night, and I'm kind of feeling the lack of activity right now.

Actually, sorry--Think.

Think always, always lurks as scum.  I don't know about anyone else right now, but I don't feel good about Think or Irony.  Call it lurker-hunting if you will, but I think I've been too soft on lurkers recently.

[NativeForeigner]

Native:  Do you intend to vote Darvi's replacement as soon as said replacement happens?

Depends on their first post.

[Pandarsenic]

Having distracted myself looking at the source of Native's signature, which never fails to make me laugh, I remembered why I was looking at Native:

Native, what exactly do you expect from Darvi's replacement that would cause you not to re-vote him?

Also, we have anyone who needs a kick in the pants for not posting post-weekend?

[NativeForeigner]

Sketchy answers to his thoughts on Darvi's behavior.

[Vector]

Sketchy answers to his thoughts on Darvi's behavior.

I think that only covers one of the questions available.

[Solifuge]

I am really looking forward to finally having a Night in this game. It feels like all the Day 1 uncertainty has kept going, only we have fewer players now. Ugh.

In regard to Darvi, why would you put so much weight behind his replacement's first post? You'd think we'd have more data to judge from by now, rather than relying on a new player data-bottleneck for condemnation. As I see it, Darvi's inactivity and passive agreement (rather than spearheading his own arguments) stems from reduced investment; he was gearing up to leave on a trip, and probably didn't have time to read much. It strikes me as the sort of thing he'd do, given that situation.

[NativeForeigner]

Oh, derp. Totally missed the word "not".

A good explanation of Darvi's past behavior would probably cause me to not revote him.

[Ottofar]

Ottofar: 

Hurm. Looking for a  safe, easy lynch much, Breadbox?

And yet your actions are the sole reason lynching you would be "safe" and "easy."  Activity on your part would legitimize your defense.

I would ask Breadbocks what he thought putting another vote on Ottofar would do, but eh.  I'll ask Darvi.

This thing here. At first. He tells me policy lynching is okay, after BB has voted me, and in his next post, he'd have asked this from BB.

Darvi:  He had two votes on him before your third.  At what point does it stop being pressure and start being a bandwagon?  I'd think you could pressure him without a vote, but I suppose it's a fair toss either way at your point.

And here, Darvi has stated he's voting for the policy lynch, with the additional benefit of having me answer his question. This is Toaster's response. So yeah.

BD:

Fair enough
Unvote Toaster, Vote Ottofar

Lurky lurky lurk lurk? You also didn't answer my question.

You're activelurking, bandwagoning, and being generally lazy.  Do you have anything else to do beside vote the guy with the most votes?

Meh. I dunno here. Strikes me as scummy, but I don't know why.

Ottofar:  Hold still while we get the rope to hang you, scumbag.

...Or not? Anyways, this post is the same as the last post, I don't know why it strikes me as scummy.

I'd like to survive this one night, due to being able to gift someone an inspect.

(bullshit)

And here. Scum wouldnae lie about such an easily confirmable thing. Thus calling this bullshit is scummy.

Native:  That RV has been on Darvi a long time.  Do you think he's scum or have you just not bothered to move it?

Native:
Who do you suspect?  You're still sitting on that RV of yours.

And these two his own RV has been on me fro the beginning. So yeah.

Dariush.  We can deal with Ottofar tomorrow.

As soon as Dariush gains more votes than I have, Toaster unvotes me and goes after Dariush. Also, this is quite soon after I have expressed my doubts about Toaster's townhood.

The second was hypocrisy (calling Darvi active lurking when he's doing it himself.)

I was calling Darvi out for hypocrisy. He knows that. He knew that then. This was suspicion-casting, invalid point.


At this point, he throws a couple of posts on why Irony is scum. That's practically the rest of the game thus far by him.
Anyways, gotta FoS Irony, for this post. It's a vote on me, after Toaster has pushed me for asking everyone what do they think of me, basically asking would they vote me or wouldn't. It's an attempt to look less scummy and stuff.

[Ottofar]

Thus the Toastervote.

[Toaster]

Native:

Oh, derp. Totally missed the word "not".

A good explanation of Darvi's past behavior would probably cause me to not revote him.

Could your answers be shorter, please?  It takes too long to read them.


Ottofar:  About time you did something.

Ottofar: 

Hurm. Looking for a  safe, easy lynch much, Breadbox?

And yet your actions are the sole reason lynching you would be "safe" and "easy."  Activity on your part would legitimize your defense.

I would ask Breadbocks what he thought putting another vote on Ottofar would do, but eh.  I'll ask Darvi.

This thing here. At first. He tells me policy lynching is okay, after BB has voted me, and in his next post, he'd have asked this from BB.

Darvi:  He had two votes on him before your third.  At what point does it stop being pressure and start being a bandwagon?  I'd think you could pressure him without a vote, but I suppose it's a fair toss either way at your point.

And here, Darvi has stated he's voting for the policy lynch, with the additional benefit of having me answer his question. This is Toaster's response. So yeah.

I don't understand your points here.

I'd like to survive this one night, due to being able to gift someone an inspect.

(bullshit)

And here. Scum wouldnae lie about such an easily confirmable thing. Thus calling this bullshit is scummy.

...unless they only need to survive the night.  Saying that me disbelieving it is scummy is baseless.


And it wasn't exactly an RV when I first voted you- you were already giving one word posts at that point.  Your continued lack of participation only made it more solid.  At the point I moved from you, Dariush had become very scummy while I was trying to decide if you were scum or jester.  In any case, you're almost certainly not town.


Finally, I'm not sure what your point on hypocrisy is, other than you saying there is very little to my game, Mr. Active Lurk.

[Think0028]

Native: Still no vote? Who are your current suspects, aside from Darvi?

Ottofar: Your case still is half 'gut feelings', your only points are 'scum wouldn't lie about their abilities' even though it would mean an extra night to live, 'Toaster supported a policy lynch but then questioned a guy who was policy lynching', which I'll get into later, 'I was calling Darvi out for activelurking when he was calling me out for activelurking', so congratulations, you're both activelurkers who deserve to hang, and 'Toaster let his RV sit on me for a long while', which Toaster has already addressed, and 'Toaster stopped voting for me once people weren't voting for me', which is a little inaccurate to begin with as Toaster did in fact post between Dariush outstripping you without switching his vote, and Toaster had a fairly substantial case on Dariush for his vote as well.

As for the constant cries of 'policy lynch! policy lynch!': is it a policy lynch to lynch someone who made 7 extremely short and content-lacking posts in the first 24 hours? It was active lurking, plain and simple, and you weren't being cooperative at first. It'd be policy lynching if people were lynching you on being terse and unhelpful in other games. You're being terse and unhelpful here.

[NativeForeigner]

Native:

Oh, derp. Totally missed the word "not".

A good explanation of Darvi's past behavior would probably cause me to not revote him.

Could your answers be shorter, please?  It takes too long to read them.

Yes, sorry.

Native: Still no vote? Who are your current suspects, aside from Darvi?

I hope you're not trying to pressure me into voting, Think. After RVS, I don't like to throw my vote around much. Aside from Darvi, I suspect Ottofar, another reason I haven't voted (it would put him at L-1 and I don't feel that's the best idea yet). He was RiAing heavily and playing bad in general, and now that he's in danger he's suddenly making an attempt. It seems like he was building up a bad rapport so that when he actually DID something it would make him look better than he actually was with little actual effort.

Those are my only two notable suspects right now.