Print

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

[Mormota]

If you people aren't going to post, I'll force you to. We've still got scum to lynch.

Different time zones exist.

Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?

Powder Miner is still my main suspicion simply because of the sheer volume of factually false claims he brought up against me. Let me list those:

His initial reason. It may have been a misunderstanding, but it was false, nonetheless.

Claiming I OMGUSed him without a reason. I provided a reason, it was one, even if he doesn't want to accept it. Even if he didn't understand it, I explained it later. He's still claiming I made no reason when I found him suspicious. False.

He's claiming I'm ignoring him. Not true, I responded to each of his points, and when I asked him to point out which part of his posts I was ignoring, he simply said I OMGUSed him without a reason.

Powder Miner, respond to each of those points, because you are currently acting incredibly suspicious. May I also point out that your "scumhunt" was "OMGUS because you OMGUSed me!" ?

I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

I find Flandre suspicious for the same reason you do, but I can't see much else in his posts, and you are already pushing him. If he reveals something, I am ready to rethink my standing with him.

[IronyOwl]

I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

This is terrible logic, for several reasons. The main one being that town wants to be active to find scum and win, so it's blatantly silly to say I'd be more active as scum, since the same goal (not losing) and method (doing stuff) applies at least equally well to being town.

If you mean I'd probably be trying to make myself appear more active, that might have some merit, but again then we get into WIFOM territory, since scum me would know that normal lurking looks fine and active lurking looks not fine, and thus normal lurk like a townie.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the point of "avoiding WIFOM." That doesn't mean picking a potential outcome and sticking with it, or ignoring that your reasoning involves it; you don't avoid "he wouldn't do that unless he knew I knew he knew I knew he knew" by lopping off the end and going "he wouldn't do that," because then he'd do exactly that.

Now, there's obviously merit to considering the simplest, most obvious choice more likely than some convoluted gambit, but this doesn't seem like that because there's no real reason it'd have to be; maybe I'm genuinely busy but still scum, or maybe I'm lurking to avoid attention, etc.

[Mormota]

I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

This is terrible logic, for several reasons. The main one being that town wants to be active to find scum and win, so it's blatantly silly to say I'd be more active as scum, since the same goal (not losing) and method (doing stuff) applies at least equally well to being town.

If you mean I'd probably be trying to make myself appear more active, that might have some merit, but again then we get into WIFOM territory, since scum me would know that normal lurking looks fine and active lurking looks not fine, and thus normal lurk like a townie.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the point of "avoiding WIFOM." That doesn't mean picking a potential outcome and sticking with it, or ignoring that your reasoning involves it; you don't avoid "he wouldn't do that unless he knew I knew he knew I knew he knew" by lopping off the end and going "he wouldn't do that," because then he'd do exactly that.

Now, there's obviously merit to considering the simplest, most obvious choice more likely than some convoluted gambit, but this doesn't seem like that because there's no real reason it'd have to be; maybe I'm genuinely busy but still scum, or maybe I'm lurking to avoid attention, etc.

I'd like to point out that I said pretty much the same thing you did.

[IronyOwl]

You said I'm not very suspicious because of WIFOM, but that reasoning isn't going to get us anywhere and is thus invalid? That would seem to mean you have no opinion of me whatsoever.

[Powder Miner]

Good God, nice epic twisting of my words there. I'll be posting once I look at your posts.

[Powder Miner]

OK, for the first reason, just because it was false due to a misreading does not make it scummy.
For the second "false fact" you listed, I was worried about the vote, which really had next to no reasoning, and I quoted your post and pointed it out as well. As for the suspicion, you were suspicious because I jumped on you. YOu SAID you were suspicious because I jumped on you. Which means questioning and suspicioning you. Which also means that that's an OMGUS!
And despite what you've been saying, Mormota you have been ignoring my posts! You've only been reading what makes you look good and me bad. Even your skewed quote of what I apparently said shows it. Repeatedly, I explained to you that you have been ignoring the reasoning I had brought up for voting you, and suspicioning you, and then the one you're quoting me as "simply saying that you OMGUSed him wihtout a reason" I had SAID that you ignored my post in which I quoted your voting post and showed it to not have reason, or rather a false reason, the ones you're so fond of accusing me of having.
And what are you talking about? I had you being questioned before you even noticed me. You cracked and acted suspicious, so I voted you. The OMGUS was simply another way you were acting suspicious. I extensively explained my reasons in the voting post, too. You really canot say that.

[Orangebottle]

Mormota and Powder Miner:You two have been voting for eachother since you joined in the beginning of day 2. Do you have any other suspects? If so, list them and your reasons for being suspicious for them. If not, are you just going to keep tunneling eachother all day?

[Powder Miner]

OK, I'll list my reasons again.
First thing, he pulls out from votes whenever quetioned, and then refuses to get onto another target and scumhunt.
That and a misreading of one of his phrases were things I started to question him on, with an FoS to kind of pressure him. (I take FoSs fairly seriously)
Then he suspicioined me for jumpin on him (also known as questioning him), and when I didn't stop questioning him, he cracked and OMGUSed me with next to no actual reasoning, if that. Now he repeatedly demands my reasons despite the fact that I've been telling him constantly, and when I post something (those posts including WHY I think he OMGUSed despite what he say) he will only read what he wants to see, and then ignores the rest while saying that all my answers are false and that I'm ignoring him.

[Reverie]

I apologise if it looks as if I am ignoring the thread, but I spent some time with my family, which is a rare opportunity. I have obligations tomorrow morning, but I will participate sometime tomorrow afternoon. Just know that I am not lurking!

[Orangebottle]

IronyOwl: You've admitted to being lurky. Do you have any reasons for being lurky? Are you going to be more active now that Jim's dead?

Being busy. I'm going to have to be, since zero playing ICs isn't going to work very well.

Good.

Powder Miner is still my main suspicion simply because of the sheer volume of factually false claims he brought up against me. Let me list those:

His initial reason. It may have been a misunderstanding, but it was false, nonetheless.

Claiming I OMGUSed him without a reason. I provided a reason, it was one, even if he doesn't want to accept it. Even if he didn't understand it, I explained it later. He's still claiming I made no reason when I found him suspicious. False.

He's claiming I'm ignoring him. Not true, I responded to each of his points, and when I asked him to point out which part of his posts I was ignoring, he simply said I OMGUSed him without a reason.

Powder Miner, respond to each of those points, because you are currently acting incredibly suspicious. May I also point out that your "scumhunt" was "OMGUS because you OMGUSed me!" ?

I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

I find Flandre suspicious for the same reason you do, but I can't see much else in his posts, and you are already pushing him. If he reveals something, I am ready to rethink my standing with him.

Are you saying you no longer find me suspicious? If so, why?

Also, you can never rely on scum to do anything predictable. Ever. Don't make that mistake. You avoid WIFOM by ignoring it entirely, or just going to the heart of the matter: he was lurking.

OK, I'll list my reasons again.
First thing, he pulls out from votes whenever quetioned, and then refuses to get onto another target and scumhunt.
That and a misreading of one of his phrases were things I started to question him on, with an FoS to kind of pressure him. (I take FoSs fairly seriously)
Then he suspicioined me for jumpin on him (also known as questioning him), and when I didn't stop questioning him, he cracked and OMGUSed me with next to no actual reasoning, if that. Now he repeatedly demands my reasons despite the fact that I've been telling him constantly, and when I post something (those posts including WHY I think he OMGUSed despite what he say) he will only read what he wants to see, and then ignores the rest while saying that all my answers are false and that I'm ignoring him.

So you have no other suspicions at all? I can also see that you've ignored my day 2 advice about fixing your spelling and grammar so that people can understand you better.

I apologise if it looks as if I am ignoring the thread, but I spent some time with my family, which is a rare opportunity. I have obligations tomorrow morning, but I will participate sometime tomorrow afternoon. Just know that I am not lurking!

I'll hold you to that, Flandre. You'd better be here tomorrow afternoon.

[Powder Miner]

Orangebottle, they're typoes. I can't magically fix my bad typing.

[Orangebottle]

There's a nifty little button named " <- Backspace". Use it.
You also didn't answer my question.
Why not?

[Jim Groovester]

I don't find IronyOwl very suspicious, even though he was lurking, because I believe he is an experienced player, and would want to avoid that as scum. Unless it's a massively elaborate plan to avoid suspicion as a scum, exactly for those reasons. But that thinking is not going to get us anywhere.

Those are not the sorts of assumptions you can reasonably make, like IronyOwl said.

Really, the only things you should judge a player's towniness and scumminess on are whether or not they are scumhunting. (I'm not sure I've stressed this enough in this game, but scumhunting is the only way you look town. Time permitting, you should do as much of it as you can.)

Ra

Ra

Oh, for fuck's sake. I am tired of reading this shit. You're not making a single fucking ounce of headway on each other. It's probably because neither one of you is reading what the other is saying.

I'm going to do something I've never done before.

I declare all of your arguments invalid. You have nothing on each other. Go dig up new shit instead of restating the same stuff over and over again.

Read carefully now, and don't just dredge up crap because you think you can use it against the other. Look at stuff and judge whether it actually implicates somebody as scum. You got that? Both of you? Do not look for stuff solely to use it against somebody else. That is not how the game is played.

IronyOwl

Powder Miner

These could easily be red.

If you're not voting anyone, there's no reason to not vote for somebody you say you suspect.

OK, for the first reason, just because it was false due to a misreading does not make it scummy.
For the second "false fact" you listed, I was worried about the vote, which really had next to no reasoning, and I quoted your post and pointed it out as well. As for the suspicion, you were suspicious because I jumped on you. YOu SAID you were suspicious because I jumped on you. Which means questioning and suspicioning you. Which also means that that's an OMGUS!
And despite what you've been saying, Mormota you have been ignoring my posts! You've only been reading what makes you look good and me bad. Even your skewed quote of what I apparently said shows it. Repeatedly, I explained to you that you have been ignoring the reasoning I had brought up for voting you, and suspicioning you, and then the one you're quoting me as "simply saying that you OMGUSed him wihtout a reason" I had SAID that you ignored my post in which I quoted your voting post and showed it to not have reason, or rather a false reason, the ones you're so fond of accusing me of having.
And what are you talking about? I had you being questioned before you even noticed me. You cracked and acted suspicious, so I voted you. The OMGUS was simply another way you were acting suspicious. I extensively explained my reasons in the voting post, too. You really canot say that.

OK, I'll list my reasons again.
First thing, he pulls out from votes whenever quetioned, and then refuses to get onto another target and scumhunt.
That and a misreading of one of his phrases were things I started to question him on, with an FoS to kind of pressure him. (I take FoSs fairly seriously)
Then he suspicioined me for jumpin on him (also known as questioning him), and when I didn't stop questioning him, he cracked and OMGUSed me with next to no actual reasoning, if that. Now he repeatedly demands my reasons despite the fact that I've been telling him constantly, and when I post something (those posts including WHY I think he OMGUSed despite what he say) he will only read what he wants to see, and then ignores the rest while saying that all my answers are false and that I'm ignoring him.

What have I told you about presenting your arguments clearly? Jumbles of text like this work terribly and I'm surprised you haven't learned your lesson despite me harping on you about it and the general ineffectiveness that your posts have. Go look at how myself or IronyOwl present our arguments, and mimic that down to the quote tags.

[Mormota]

Repeatedly, I explained to you that you have been ignoring the reasoning I had brought up for voting you, and suspicioning you, and then the one you're quoting me as "simply saying that you OMGUSed him wihtout a reason" I had SAID that you ignored my post in which I quoted your voting post and showed it to not have reason, or rather a false reason, the ones you're so fond of accusing me of having.

I have no idea what you just said there. Nothing.

[Orangebottle]

I am extremely dissatisfied. I ask follow up questions, and they are immediately ignored by Powder Miner and Mormota. Neither of you use any links ever when summarizing your argument either, which is terrible. Do you two really expect us to reread the entire thread for posts supporting your case? Throw a couple of relevant links in there!

Powder Miner: I have a hard time trying to read any argument you make, and what I can read seems to be you using OMGUS to death, calling Mormota dumb, and saying they're ignoring you when they clearly aren't. I have to admit that I'd do the same in Mormota's case(if they were actually ignoring you), but because I don't enjoy reading terrible writing.

In fact, you are guilty of ignoring me. Instead of answering my second question, you just acknowledge the post with a sentence responding to the text directly after it. You completely skip over the question. That is terrible. You'd have been better off not mentioning that post at all.

Furthermore, your perception of OMGUS is entirely incorrect.

OMGUS - Oh My God U Suck, a vote on someone else simply because they voted or attacked you

The first reason it wasn't an OMGUS? It was originally an FoS, not a vote.
The second? Because Mormota actually had a reason to vote for you.

Powder. I want a response that I can read. At the very least, make a quote from each point of this post, and respond to each individually before moving on to the next. For example:

So you tell me you're not one to investigate since you're agressive, yet condemn me for picking the target most sensible at the time and attacking him? I'm not certain you make sense for me.

It was not the most sensible target at the time.

You don't seem to know or care what my job is here. I'm here to tell you when you're wrong, and you were wrong.

Quit getting defensive. You had no reason to assume that Orangebottle was rolefishing when he asked, "Why did the player you replace lurk so much?" If you use your imagination slightly less, you'll realize that the motive of the question was actually to get the question answered. Complicated, I know.

Isn't it the job of a townie to try finding the mafia? I was asked a question which I could obviously not answer, and surely Orangebottle knew it. How would I know backtobasesix's reason for staying away from the thread? Role-fishing seemed the only plausible explanation at the time.

Then you should have responded with, "I don't know why backtobasesix lurked. Why did you ask a question I couldn't know the answer to?"

That would have been the appropriate response.

I think you misunderstood me there. I said that Jim said he's not one to condemn since he's aggressive, obviously townie, but when I do the same and aggressively attack someone, he suddenly fails to understand that same concept of being aggressive. That is what I find strange.

Quit crying about how I corrected you.

It's my job. It helps you. You should be grateful.