Print

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

[lordnincompoop]

My vote goes to kilakan. My case is below and in my previous posts. I don't really mind tying the votes for another few hours, because chances are someone'll read this.

Oh, goody.

Exactly what the game needed. Somebody to rescue the unrepentant lurker from the lynch and tie the vote to force a no-lynch.

Great work. Fantastic work.

You know what? Let's write that down. lordnincompoop decided to rescue Solifuge, a player who's very deliberately and flagrantly lurking, from the lynch. Come Day 2, I hope everybody remembers this.

For what it's worth, I noticed kilakan's post in-writing.

Additionally, this is a straight rip from Jim Groovester coupled with an OMGUS.

If he's ripping me off, then what do you think about my arguments against Solifuge, Mr. Scumbuddy Rescuer?

I haven't been paying much attention to it, but lynching lurkers D1 doesn't seem like a very bright idea - even despite its deliberate nature. There are better targets to pursue, and IIRC nailing scum D1 is important.

[Jim Groovester]

I haven't been paying much attention to it, but lynching lurkers D1 doesn't seem like a very bright idea - even despite its deliberate nature. There are better targets to pursue, and IIRC nailing scum D1 is important.

Why don't you pay closer attention. His lurking isn't the only thing I want him lynched for.

May I direct you to the post I just fucking posted where you can peruse my argument in slightly more detail.

And really, are you fucking kidding? Not lynching a deliberate lurker isn't a bright idea? That's a smoldering heap of bullshit.

[kilakan]

Before that he was already getting a bit touchy about the subject of questions, but has yet to actually say that 'he' thinks they are good.

Why is this relevant?

It's a transition, from trying to be cool, to becoming incredibly solid and defensive on the subject of his questions.

Well, wouldn't you be defensive when attacked? I don't really see why this is that special to you.

Course I would be defensive when being attacked, but the problem was he eventually became overly defensive on the subject.  I don't think it's special, or particularly relevant, just added in so it showed how he changed over the course of the game.  A transition.

Before that he is saying that he always gets told his questions are useless and shrugs it off.

Okay. What do you think about it?

I think that at that point he was attempting to maintain his composure on a touchy subject, and arguing that point would make him lose that composure so he let it slide.

Right. That's an amazing tell you found there - let me change my vote right away.

Did I say it was a scum tell?  No I did not, I just said I thought he was uneasy on the subject of his questions.  You are putting words in my mouth and pulling things outta nowhere.

MaxWhite-Tell us what merits you think there are in each particular question that make them 'good'.

This is, for the most part, directly derived from Leafsnail's argument. Noted.

What makes Leafsnail's point voteworthy for you? Mind providing some reasons of your own as to why the questions are bad?

See I don't really think they are overly bad or really good.  In my opinion they are middle road, and I wanted to hear from Max what he wanted from each question.  Judging by the fact that he only pursued the crownofFire line of questions tells me that he didn't expect all that much from them.  At least he didn't plan on having second questions to each of them.

First off, I'll point out how you talked around the questions but neglected to actually reply with what I asked for. You haven't supplied an original reason, you didn't tell me how these "bad" questions are lynchworthy, and what's more, you just rescinded your primary argument.

Secondly, your lynch vote, and let me quote it, said "Tell us what merits you think there are in each particular question that make them 'good'." Now, this very clearly shows that you don't think they're "middle road". And since you voted on that specific argument, you clearly feel strongly for it - that they are "overly bad". You then repeat and argue this point several times in later posts, so you've got some commitment. I wouldn't call that the words of a man who really believes in the quote I'm replying to.

Thirdly, despite all your conviction, when I just prod you gently for it, your entire position falls apart. Not good.

First.I never thought the questions were lynch-worthy or bad, and I've even pointed out the minor flaws in each one that keeps them from being good questions.  I never had a primary argument that he was scum because he had bad questions, my primary argument was why does he think they are so good.  I also don't remember rescinding anything, so you're bullshitting again.

Second.I never said it was a lynch vote, it was just a vote.  I don't see how me asking him why he would say that his questions are good is me saying i don't think they could be middle of the road.  I was quoting him calling his own questions good.  I never said they were overly bad at all, yet agian you make something up to suit yourself.  Just because I voted for him at the end of my post doesn't mean the last post was any stronger then the rest, I just put the vote where the question I wanted him to focus on was.

Third.  How did you gently prodding me have anything to do with me not wanting this to go into a no-lynch with my vote sitting on someone who I am unsure of for alignment.  The reason I removed my vote was because Max answered all the points I have, and his answers were satisfactory.  While there is solifuge lurking away in the background as we are about to move onto night 1.

So since he didn't put enough thought into the questions to actually be able to push more then one of them, I'd say the questions were not all that good and mainly to make it look like he was very active right at the start.

Where did I hear this before? Oh, right, it's just a rehash of Leafsnail's posts with a tacked-on activelurking argument at the end.

So, in conclusion, you don't actually have anything, do you? You're just rolling with an easy lynch - an entire half (five sixths in spirit) of your argument is a rehash, and that half fell apart. Leaving you what, exactly? "Oh, he lost his cool a bit when he fended off Leafsnail" is not a case.

Not only that, but you haven't had a shot at anyone else today. This is everything noteworthy you have, none of it original. Nothing.

Ha, so me having the time restraint to only keep up an attack on one person, with each reply taking me an hour or two to write is a reason for you to lynch me.  Still I never said I was pushing for a lynch on him, and just because I have a similar problem with Max White as someone else makes it useless?

Either way I am not convinced you are scum enough to be lynched, and we are damn close to a no-lynch so Unvote

Why aren't you convinced? And why change now, if you weren't to begin with?

I never was convinced because I don't think it's a good reason to lynch someone just because they get upset over their questions, the vote was pressure, and would of become a lynch if he hadn't responded in satisfactory measures.

Solifuge-I happen to be a very good fan of the lynch-all-lurkers policy.  You attack me with shit all reasoning, say more in a bit twice in a row and only deliver once.  Before that you said yourself you were content to sit back and watch

So you change from a lynch vote to an 11th hour policy vote, in D1 even. Real smart, scumface.

Yet again not a lynch vote, and yes I put down a policy vote, I don't see what the problem with that is on D1, of course I also happen to be slightly new so I just haven't encountered this type of thing before when D1 was chancing a no-lynch.

Additionally, this is a straight rip from Jim Groovester coupled with an OMGUS.

Anyway, I hate to sit back and watch, but I'm going to for a bit longer. Not even posing a silly question, I'm afraid. =(

And you have all of three very small posts so far.  I think you should hang, because you are lurking insanely so far, fail to deliver on promises, and don't even try to propose a good attack when you are here.  I'd like to be able to have more to go on but the problem with lurkers is that they don't actually give you anything.

So you're content to go on "nothing" instead of what you already have. You're not putting up a lot of compelling reasons, boy.

The what I had was not something I wanted to lynch for, and I would rather lynch someone who has nothing at all.  He's an insane lurker and there's nothing in his posts that Jim hasn't already brought up.  I don't know how I can place a vote on someone lurking like that without having similar reasons as the other people voting him.

[lordnincompoop]

I haven't been paying much attention to it, but lynching lurkers D1 doesn't seem like a very bright idea - even despite its deliberate nature. There are better targets to pursue, and IIRC nailing scum D1 is important.

Why don't you pay closer attention. His lurking isn't the only thing I want him lynched for.

May I direct you to the post I just fucking posted where you can peruse my argument in slightly more detail.

Okay, I've perused what you have. What point were you trying to make?

And really, are you fucking kidding? Not lynching a deliberate lurker isn't a bright idea? That's a smoldering heap of bullshit.

I'd rather lynch a person with a more substantial portfolio of problems.

[Max White]

IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD BARON! EXTEND!!!
Only a few hours to go, and you guys want me to choose between a lurker and somebody who has been jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon? Fuck that! I want answers to some of those questions I send out!
kilakan, last time in roguelike 2, you also tried to get on the bandwagon first chance you got, and backed down when things got hard. Your doing the same now, even making a vote to defend yourself in a way. I'm not sure I want to vote you right now, but it is better than leaving it up to chance. Somebody might try to sweep in at the last moment to tie the vote, or have some day ability like the enchanter. If today is ending now, I don't want a tie.

[kilakan]

Extend so I can reply

[lordnincompoop]

I'm pretty damn sure we've used them all up, but Extend regardless.

[kilakan]

Ok checked back and finished my dinner:

kilakan, last time in roguelike 2, you also tried to get on the bandwagon first chance you got, and backed down when things got hard. Your doing the same now, even making a vote to defend yourself in a way. I'm not sure I want to vote you right now, but it is better than leaving it up to chance. Somebody might try to sweep in at the last moment to tie the vote, or have some day ability like the enchanter. If today is ending now, I don't want a tie.

I don't see how placing the first vote on someone for pressure is bandwagoning (jakeread1) and backing down when I realized my arguments were insanely wrong is anything bad.  I said before I voted him for pressure, and then the continued attack was invalidated when I learned he was noob.  Yes fine I did in essence bandwagon you, I will concede that, it was the third vote on you, but I wanted to get some answers from you.  After i got all the answers I wanted and they proved valid, I removed the vote and placed it on the person who I thought was scummiest and should be lynched.  Lurkers, especially one as bad a solifuge is a giant black check-mark in the scum column for me, so I thought he should hang as opposed to running over into a no-lynch.

[Jim Groovester]

Okay, I've perused what you have. What point were you trying to make?

Solifuge is scummy. Shitty reasons for a vote + unoriginality + lurking.

Obviously.

I'd rather lynch a person with a more substantial portfolio of problems.

It's attitudes like this that make lurking so effective.

It's an idiotic attitude.

Extend for all the piece of shit lurkers who haven't bothered to play the damn game. Vector, Pandarsenic, Solifuge, CrownOfFire, jakeread1, JoshuaFH (recently), Jokerman-EXE, Dariush. Just off the top of my head, of course. What the fuck did you all sign up for the game for? "Man, Meph games are awesome to take up a player spot and watch."

[Max White]

Max White, why aren't you voting anybody, and why isn't it Solifuge? Don't tell me his lurking hasn't got you nervous.

It tells me he is being a sissy little lurker who can't even commit to a game, and if we had extends and the vote count was tied I would throw my vote onto him if it forced some activity, sorry to say, it will not at this stage.

Well toaster and max I actually forgot about this, and 3 other things. My memory is HORRIBLE. But I'm back and it's time to Ask stupid questions and get voted root out scum!

First can someone tell me what band wagoning is?

Ah, I see. Try not to do that. Also, red means you want to vote for them, use bold to get attention. You can't vote for somebody, so to speak.

~Snip

Ok, we have some to a stalemate with this argument. I'm going to drop it now, as it is going to eat into time and achieve not much.

FAKE EDIT: 4 new posts? I dare say that is the fastest I have ever seen a game go!

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Dariush: JoshuaFH
JoshuaFH: Dariush, Jokerman-EXE
kilakan: lordnincompoop, Max White, Solifuge, Toaster
Max White: Pandarsenic
Pandarsenic: Leafsnail
Solifuge: Jim Groovester, kilakan, Vector


Day has been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Monday.

There will be no more extensions after this.

[Vector]

I've been in class.  I woke up, I posted, I ran to the bus stop.  I had three hours of class.  Then I waited for my mother in the sun for 40 minutes, and half an hour ago or so I was finally home.

Meanwhile, you guys have been vomiting walls of text everywhere like no one's business, and I frankly can't keep up or read all of it.  I'm trying, but it's not going well.

[kilakan]

Max White, why aren't you voting anybody, and why isn't it Solifuge? Don't tell me his lurking hasn't got you nervous.

It tells me he is being a sissy little lurker who can't even commit to a game, and if we had extends and the vote count was tied I would throw my vote onto him if it forced some activity, sorry to say, it will not at this stage.

So you have never heard of the lynch-all-lurkers policy on the mafia-wiki which is rated as one of the top scum-tells?

~Snip

Ok, we have some to a stalemate with this argument. I'm going to drop it now, as it is going to eat into time and achieve not much.

Fine but I think it's real nice you skipped over the part about making up that I was jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon, and not even touching the response of the person you are content to lynch.


Also thank fucking god, we did have an extension.

[Max White]

All right, firstly I want to vote for Solifuge, for setting the example that lurking is ok and you can get away with it, and you can't. I would like to stop that. Don't feel lonely kilakan, the fact that you started demanding I vote for Soli because 'he was lurking' was just a cover up for trying to save your ass has been noted.

I don't see how placing the first vote on someone for pressure is bandwagoning (jakeread1) and backing down when I realized my arguments were insanely wrong is anything bad.  I said before I voted him for pressure, and then the continued attack was invalidated when I learned he was noob.  Yes fine I did in essence bandwagon you, I will concede that, it was the third vote on you, but I wanted to get some answers from you.  After i got all the answers I wanted and they proved valid, I removed the vote and placed it on the person who I thought was scummiest and should be lynched.  Lurkers, especially one as bad a solifuge is a giant black check-mark in the scum column for me, so I thought he should hang as opposed to running over into a no-lynch.

See you say you removed the vote when you got answers, but then you kept arguing, so I'm taking that to assume you weren't content with the final result of the argument. So your explanation seems to have holes in it.


Oh good, Vector is here.

A bandwagon vote is a vote in which someone votes someone who is already being voted with no new reasons.

I would say it starts being a bandwagon (thus tending to appeal bandwagon votes) when the stack hits three, almost no matter the game size.

What, trying to figure out when you can call what's happening against you a bandwagon, and thus de-legitimize it?  Don't try.

Not exactly, I was just wondering when you would want to find a reason to climb on a bandwagon. Although you wouldn't just climb on a bandwagon, not when it was safe to leave it be, would you? You would only do so when it was in your best interest, and even then you would give reasons, right?

[kilakan]

See you say you removed the vote when you got answers, but then you kept arguing, so I'm taking that to assume you weren't content with the final result of the argument. So your explanation seems to have holes in it.

When I removed my vote I said you weren't scummy enough to be lynched, fyi that means I am still unsure of your alignment, so yes I did keep arguing, and no I am not fully satisfied.

Oh good, Vector is here.

A bandwagon vote is a vote in which someone votes someone who is already being voted with no new reasons.

I would say it starts being a bandwagon (thus tending to appeal bandwagon votes) when the stack hits three, almost no matter the game size.

What, trying to figure out when you can call what's happening against you a bandwagon, and thus de-legitimize it?  Don't try.

Not exactly, I was just wondering when you would want to find a reason to climb on a bandwagon. Although you wouldn't just climb on a bandwagon, not when it was safe to leave it be, would you? You would only do so when it was in your best interest, and even then you would give reasons, right?

I think it's very interesting you brought this up now after saying I band-wagoned you, so since you obviously think this has current relevance, what do you think of her third point Max?