Print

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

[Toaster]

So... he enumerated a suspect and voted accordingly?  Then he accepted your answers to his attacks and moved on?  I didn't realize all that was scummy now.

[Urist_McArathos]

Urist: Why didn't you respond to Dariush's question I have quoted below?

I did.  I said that I was originally going to FoS him, but since he was really my best suspect that I had learned it may as well be a vote in that case. 

Urist. Your careful getting out of your vote against me and agreeing that yes, all those are indeed valid reasons, and casual remarks about me prewriting flavor and just general way you respond to every one of my answers only to bandwagon Nuke without any arguments just completely convinced me that you're scum.

<sarcasm>Because there's nothing scummier than asking questions, getting valid responses, and moving on to a better target when the target you had has convinced you.</sarcasm>

I asked you questions about what I made clear was a WEAK case; you answered them quickly, clearly, and I found nothing suspicious about them.  I had no other doubts or cases to make, so you effectively cleared the (again, WEAK) case I had on you.  So, I unvoted you.  Maybe it seems "careful" because it was a logical reaction to a logical defense?  No, that couldn't be!  That would make too much sense, wouldn't it?

Tell me, Dariush, what you think I should have done instead: Tunneled you?  Made up some contrived BS about how your answers were suspicious purely so I could keep my vote on you anyway?  Tried to prove your reasonable responses were filthy, contradictory lies by lying myself?

See, to me, THOSE would be scummy responses.  I had my doubts, you addressed them, I moved on to the next guy on my list.  End of story, isn't it?

I had NUKE on FoS in my last post.  He was therefore #2 on my list.  You cleared yourself, I moved my vote onto him.  I don't feel there's anyone else worth voting at this point except for even weaker (and entirely random) reasons; since this isn't RVS, I'm not going to. 

[Jim Groovester]

What the fuck. Your answer doesn't even constitute a proper sentence, let alone make sense. And after that you wonder where you haven't been clear. What the fuck.

Now I know you're not paying attention, since this thing you think he said:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

He never actually said. It was a joke on my part, because I found a lot of his answers incomprehensible. Not that I expect you to know stupid internet memes, but you can learn all about it with a google search.

Question is, why aren't you paying attention? Are you just regurgitating any argument that's convenient for you to blend in? I think so.

Jim, all of your posts lately only concern Nuke. Do you have any other suspicions beside him?

I was waiting on you to have a chance to see what I said before I pounced on you for lurking. Because you had only two posts and basically nothing under your belt when I asked you about it.

I'm still wondering if you're really town, but here's the deal: if it's this hard to tell if you're scum or not, I'd rather you get mislynched now than still have you around at LYLO, clouding our ability to figure out who actually IS scum.  Plus, I mentioned in my last post a couple things I really found unsettling about you which you'll need to address before I can consider unvoting you altogether.

I don't really like this reasoning. It looks like you don't really believe that NUKE9.13 is scum but you still want to justify his lynch anyway.

This is scummy. You just rocketed to #2 on the suspect list and I'm really thinking about swapping my vote onto you right now just for this.

[NUKE9.13]

EVERYONE
Ah.
Whoops, my bad.

I should really check more carefully before saying what I did or didn't do. I tend to remember only my intentions, rather than the specifics. As such, yes.

No mention was made of previous mislynches.

This is an absolute untruth, showing an unforgivable lack of attention being paid to my actions.

As I said. Whoops, my bad.

The reason I made this mistake is as follows: I did not, have not, and will not, make any call to my history of mislynches as a way to get out of suspicion.

I may be counting on said suspicion being neglected on account of previous history of mislynches, but I certainly ain't attempting to avoid it completely, and suggesting that I am is ridiculous.

Here I was referring to the possibility of me doing so as something someone may suspect me of- which would be a valid argument, but not one which Native actually made. His accusation was that I was flat out avoiding suspicion.

Obviously this does not make the mistake disappear, but I hope you can understand why it was made- certainly not out of malice, or due to the shifting nature of a scum's mind.

NATIVE

What is interesting is the way you reacted. You did get touchy, or at least that's what it seemed like. The first thing you did was throw out some WIFOM, you were pushed near instantly to swearing and assumed I was questioning your competence, and you told us all what you would do if you were really trying to keep suspicion away from yourself. Something that I don't think any of us asked for and none of us care about. Oh, and I missed this the first time, but why is it you assumed I was saying you were trying to avoiding suspicion entirely? I never said that and it's silly that you would bring it up. So no, it's not meant to scare you and it's not meant to make it seem like I know more than I really do, it really was interesting.

All right. You have successfully indicated your reasons of interest.
Now then. Your accusation:

NUKE: Something about you doesn't sit right with me. It may have been your "playful" claim of being the cult leader, or the unnecessary nonsense questioning of yourself, I'm not sure. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be trying to play the "I'm-totally-the-leader,-so-I'll-just-"playfully"-admit-it-in-the-thread-as-a-joke-to-draw-immediate-suspicion-away-from-me" card.

I draw your attention to the words: draw (immediate) suspicion away from me. Now, call me crazy, but that looks like you suggesting I was attempting to do that, draw suspicion away from myself.
I assumed you were questioning my competence because you accused me of drawing suspicion away from myself when I had clearly failed to do so.
Now, if you read my response carefully, you will notice that I did not actually say what I would do if I was attempting to draw suspicion away from myself, but rather what I wouldn't do. And this is not something highly specific to me. Nobody attempting to divert suspicion away from themselves would deliberately throw themselves into the foreground.
You should care about this, because if I was not trying to draw suspicion away from myself, your accusation becomes invalid.
You are quite correct, you never said I was attempting to avoid all suspicion. I dispute that it was silly to assume that, as half-avoiding suspicion is not a lot of use.

It's never a good strategy to lurk (though, this may be biased. I generally hate people who win by lurking). Active lurkers are the worst and tend to get called out quickly. Also, there's almost always someone who plays a portion of the game gunning for lurkers. You bringing this up seems kind of like you were subtly trying to redirect attention to Powder, who's been lurking. But that might a bit of a stretch on my part.

What, no. You are factually wrong. Lurking scum win games. Yes, there will often be someone hunting for them. But how often do you listen to that guy, especially when something more juicy comes along? Not often enough, I'm telling you. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. I brought it up because you suggested that being extra active was a good cult leader strategy, and I'm saying no, the opposite of that is true.

And that means I should ignore you for bringing negative attention to yourself? That's totally how it works.

No, you should not ignore me for bring negative attention to myself. That would be stupid. Conversely, you should also not lynch me for doing that. Lynch me for being scummy, not for playing in a way you don't agree with.

I probably should have defined "second part", sorry. This part: "I may be counting on said suspicion being neglected on account of previous history of mislynches".

Right. I meant that you might think I was counting on said suspicion (of my non-standard behaviour re:hatin' on the RVS) being ignored on account of my previous history of mislynches. This was not the case, but it would have been a valid argument, which would rob my suggestion that I was trying to garner suspicion of any value re:my not being scum (a value which I did not assign to it). However, as I said, you were not suggesting this.

JIM

The accusation was essentially a Refuge in Audacity argument, not that you were trying to avoid attention directly or anything like that. That you are being a very, very ballsy Cult Leader by jokingly admitting that you were the Cult Leader to everybody in the game. What's your answer to that?

Ah. Well, I did not read the accusation that way. To this accusation, I can only respond: Not the case.
As an accusation there is little I can do to fully convince someone of its invalidity. Conversely, as an accusation it holds little weight without further support.

JACK

Okay, I think I understand what's going on here.  Let's see...Native mentioned that NUKE was possibly trying to deflect suspicion by joking about being the cult leader, so NUKE's defense was to say that any strategy of his that involved avoiding suspicion would clearly involve not talking about his hatred of RVS.  That was WIFOMy: "If I really was trying to avoid suspicion, I wouldn't rant about my hatred of RVS!  As I ranted about my hatred of RVS, I am clearly not trying to avoid suspicion!  You can trust me there!"

Thing about WIFOM is half the time the poison is in my glass, and there is no need to swap the glasses at all. Often, my glass or yours will be bubbling and letting off toxic fumes; making one option or the other more likely, regardless of mind games.
In this case, consider: what you are suggesting is that I brought attention to myself, entirely unprovoked, just so I could say I am not trying to avoid suspicion, in order to avoid suspicion of avoiding suspicion. I pose that it would be infinitely easier to avoid suspicion by, say, not doing anything suspicious. The WIFOM you are suggesting makes no sense, and would be an entirely unnecessary play on scum's part.

Then Jim attacked NUKE for WIFOM.  NUKE's defense here is where the word "attention" started to pop up in place of "suspicion".  This is important, as the two words have different meanings: attention is significantly broader, and generally less harmful than suspicion.  In addition, NUKE mentions that he never said anything about his actions as scum in his reply, and that it therefore had nothing to do with what NUKE would do as scum.  Even though it was a response to Native accusing NUKE of being scum trying to avoid suspicion, and NUKE's response was basically "I wouldn't do what I've done in this game if that was my plan!"  The more I think about this, the worse it looks.

Attention, suspicion, potato, potato. No, they don't mean the same thing, perhaps I should have stayed more consistent in my terminology. However I considered the two terms (basically) interchangeable for the purposes of the discussion, and at the time, I used attention.
I didn't mention what I would do as scum, because A)That's definitely WIFOM of the highest calibre, always and B)It was irrelevant. No, really, it was.
Native's accusation hinged on me avoiding suspicion. I showed I was not doing so. As scum or town, I was avoiding suspicion.
As scum, I would be avoiding suspicion, probably. I didn't say that (and don't expect anyone to believe me here), because of the weapons-grade WIFOM involved.

Finally, sorry about lying. I am not the cult leader, and can only hope that one (accidental) lie alone is not enough to have you convinced I am scum.

TOASTER

Nuke:  You've defended yourself a lot, but you have yet to attack anyone.  Don't tell me you were attacking Powder, because we all know that vote was to provoke discussion.
So, ignoring your own defense for a moment, who do you suspect?

Yeah, sorry about that. To a degree, I've been waiting on everyone to talk before evaluating who seems scummy.
Also, my attack on Powder was at least 40% serious.
I'll get to my suspicions at the end of this post.

URIST

NUKE: So, I want an answer from you.  You dismiss out of hand the idea that my question about your town meta has any merit as a topic of discussion.  How is it not hypocritical to laugh off the suggestion we discuss your town meta and its impact on this game, then turn right around and POINT IT OUT YOURSELF in the same goddamned post!?
Seriously NUKE, inconsistent shit like this is what keeps getting you lynched.  It's hard enough to tell Town from Scum, and I'm not going to give you a free pass just because you do this all the time.  You act scummy, you're going to hang.

Ah. See RE:EVERYONE and RE:NATIVE. I was not attempting to use my Town Meta as a defence point, or even a point of discussion. I was pointing out that it was something someone could think.
...okay, yeah. I wasn't being fair on you. It isn't entirely unworthy of discussion. Lets have that discussion now:
"Town Meta should not be a serious factor in scumhunting. Utilising it, be it by the player himself or by others, is wrong."

My apologies for the [perceived] inconsistency. In this case, at least, I believe it was merely a misunderstanding.

DARIUSH

And finally... Nuke.

Ah, Dariush. Good to see you again. I hope that this post is you joking around, maybe trying to bait people into agreeing with some of your sillier points. I'll assume that it is, but just in case:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

What the fuck. Your answer doesn't even constitute a proper sentence, let alone make sense. And after that you wonder where you haven't been clear. What the fuck.

I never wrote that. That sentence Jim quoted is entirely made up by him. I'm not sure why. :/

Hang on, what's the opposite of that?
A question can be shrugged of with a quick answer. A flat accusation requires the suspect to supply their own response from whole cloth; I have done none of their work for them. This makes them reveal more of themselves than an answer to a question.

Do you even realize that in whole four sentences of your reply you didn't even get near explaining what the fuck you were doing?

No, no I do not realise that. It seems to me I explained everything that needed to be explained: to wit, Jack thought asking questions is better than flat accusations, and wandered why I didn't ask a question instead, I explained that I think flat accusations are better than questions.
If this didn't explain things for you, you will need to specify why, as to me it seems quite clear.

You play your way, I'll play mine. I believe that there is information to be gleaned from what people feel willing to volunteer, and how they react to seemingly ridiculous accusations. And I know that they work, because I have used this strategy before.
Please refrain from A)Telling me how to play and B)Voting for me... for not playing the right way? Honestly, I can't understand what I have done that is actually scummy.

And even in your response to Jack's response you STILL don't give any explanation and instead admit that your accusation is ridiculous. What you're doing is not 'playing your way', what you're doing is being scum.

I see. You wanted an explanation for my vote. I believe I already provided that, with the vote, but w/ever. Powder Miner did not participate in the RVS. He gave (at the time) no reason for doing so. I assumed this was because he wanted to be less active and noticeable. Hence my vote on him. The flat accusation, rather than a question, was used because that's how I felt like doing it. A question of personal preference in scum-hunting style.
Notice the prefix of 'seemingly'. It was designed to be seemingly ridiculous in order to incite the target. This is a thing which works.
Why, exactly, was I being scum? I did not actually see Jack requesting the explanation whose absence aggravates you so.

Aaaand just as a cherry on top of the cake, you demand that people put mafia in from of RL. Pray tell me, did you actually expect any answer to this question? What was it's purpose, if any?

People lie. (Gasp, terrible). People tend not to lie completely about RL interferences, but they might exaggerate them. I do not demand that RL is put aside, and as Powder has requested a replacement, I will say no more about it. Had he not, yes, I would have expected an answer. Based on his response, I might have judged his lurking more or less excusable.

URIST AGAIN

I'm still wondering if you're really town, but here's the deal: if it's this hard to tell if you're scum or not, I'd rather you get mislynched now than still have you around at LYLO, clouding our ability to figure out who actually IS scum.  Plus, I mentioned in my last post a couple things I really found unsettling about you which you'll need to address before I can consider unvoting you altogether.

This is entirely fair. If you have no better targets, getting rid of a hard to read guy is valid, especially in a cult game.
However, I hope I have sufficiently convinced you of my innocence and capacity to prove it that you no longer consider this necessary.


BAM, DEFENCE COMPLETED. I don't like making all these WoTs (I suspect that they are hard to read for others), but on the other hand I do want to give everyone who has a question/accusation for me a clear response, and being European, many of the things I should respond to happen whilst I am unconscious.
But now, onwards! Time for a List Of Suspects!

MAX WHITE= PROBS TOWN, I DUNNO. Other than that long argument with Native, not really much to see. Would like to see more, but I can't complain about a lack of content yet.
NATIVEFOREIGNER= PROBS TOWN, MAYBE? I thought the way he attacked me was a little odd, but the behaviour seems to be staying consistent, and looking back I guess I might have misread it. Otherwise fairly active, so less likely cult leader
JIM GROOVESTER= PROBS TOWN. I maintain that a cult leader likes to lurk. This guy, all over the place active; at least to my mind. Looking back, I may have noticed him more because he was mainly attacking me, but he still seems a little too active to be the leader.
DARIUSH= TOWN. The cult leader does pay attention to the game, the possible counter roles to his power, and how people are mislynching each other. He is either a neglectful townie, or VERY good at feigning ignorance.
NUKE9.13= TOWN.
URIST_MCARATHOS= PROBS TOWN. Active like Jim.
POWDER MINER= MAYBE SCUM. Lets see how his replacement acts, but I don't like that active lurking he had going on first post, excuses or no.
JACK A T= I was going to do a joke here about him being 100% scum, but after seeing the results of previous jokes, methinks not. TOWN.
TOASTER: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINRAR. Dude's being passive, asking small questions, mediating on behalf of others, and not making with the opinions. This, my friends, is what I like to call 'being SCUM'. Also activelurking. Potato potato.

[Toaster]

Nuke:  Fair enough on your suspicion list. 

To counter your attack, two points.  One, you seem awfully convinced that the cult leader absolutely would lurk.  If you're wrong on that assumption, then you're going to be blinded by your own assumption.  You go as far as to say someone is "a little too active to be the leader."  I think your premise is too shaky to rule people out based on that.

Two, and I was wondering when someone would call me on it, yes, I am doing more defense of people I consider town than I normally would (today- D2 is a different story).  Since there's no scum team as of yet, there's no case where someone could accuse me of defending a scumbuddy and thus dismiss my argument.  I'm pretty damn sure you're town and am willing to state an argument as such.


Jim:  Why would you expect Dariush to Google any part of an argument he doesn't understand?  Obscure memes do not make solid reasoning.

[Jim Groovester]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

For fuck's sake you're still too damn wordy.

You're trying really really hard to be precise but the result is the exact opposite.

DARIUSH= TOWN. The cult leader does pay attention to the game, the possible counter roles to his power, and how people are mislynching each other. He is either a neglectful townie, or VERY good at feigning ignorance.

Toaster pointed out that you're making a lot of assumptions. Like this here.

How is this a good assumption to make?

TOASTER: DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINRAR. Dude's being passive, asking small questions, mediating on behalf of others, and not making with the opinions. This, my friends, is what I like to call 'being SCUM'. Also activelurking. Potato potato.

I don't really see it. How has he been passive, asking small questions, etc. etc., and how do those make Toaster scum?

Jim:  Why would you expect Dariush to Google any part of an argument he doesn't understand?  Obscure memes do not make solid reasoning.

The meme is exactly jack shit of the argument.

Dariush wasn't paying enough attention to notice when I was putting words into NUKE9.13's mouth. I'm giving him crap for it.

I'm not completely sure I have anything on NUKE9.13, and it seems like anything I do have is mostly because he seems incapable of answering a question directly with a minimum of meandering around, so I'm going to unvote him and plop one down on Urist_McArathos for 'Nuke might be town but it's still a good idea to lynch him anyway.'

[Jack A T]

NUKE: I refuse to try to quote that post, sorry.

So.  First, a clarification of my views on "attention" and "suspicion" via an example: the whole RVS hatred thing.  Announcing your hatred of RVS attracts attention, but shouldn't really attract suspicion when you're known to do it normally.  That is why I didn't really like it when you tried to use that as proof that you weren't actively trying to avoid suspicion.  Meh, it confused Jim too.

Next, and more importantly, what exactly makes Toaster lurkier, more passive, less willing to ask good questions, and less willing to share opinions on who is scum than, say, Max White, who has never voted (and is the only player, not counting Powder, not to have done so post-RVS), who has barely asked any questions, whose content consists almost completely of an argument with Native that you feel was garbage, and who has not posted in 43 hours?  What makes Max, based on what you're looking for, probably town?

Mod: Prod Max, please.

[Think0028]

Max has been prodded.

[Max White]

Ok, prod received , I'm here. Sorry, been a little busy lately, well busy or drunk, but neither are good conditions to play under. Just give me a second to read over the thread.

[Max White]

So you can't ask other people questions while you're waiting on someone else?

I don't see what it would achieve, given the conditions.

If I had to change my suspicions because we couldn't afford a bus, and barring anything overly convenient happening, I would do so gradually. I would pick my argument back up from where it left off the night before. Only this time, we would have the scumchat to figure out what to say to actually give me a reason to drop my case. For example, we would discuss the questions I should ask and how they should respond to them to appear less scummy. After that, I would simply make the switch to the next person on my list.

And if you didn't have time?

Max: You got into a long, insult-filled argument with Native, but have never voted for anyone.  Who do you suspect most at the moment?  Why?  What makes Native feel too town to vote for?

Right now, and to some level when you asked, Jim Groovster.
He is being abrasive, and not in he's 'I'm so gruff' sort of way, more along the lines of 'Play along or get lynched!' sort of way that he does when he is scum.

Max and Native are in a tie for now; I know at least one of them is town, but they're both getting awfully personal with their attacks, and seem somewhat narrowly focused.  I'm not sure if one of them is scum trying to provoke the other into cracking, or if they're both town and just hashing out some latent hostility here.  I feel they both bear watching closely for this reason.

Native is a dick always, scum or town. No use voting him for it.

Jim: Taking Urists skill level into account, and he's reasoning behind he's vote, how confident are you to lynch him over it, as he's vote was your only given reason to vote for him.

[NativeForeigner]

Nuke: I'll probably reply to you later, it's late.

So you can't ask other people questions while you're waiting on someone else?

I don't see what it would achieve, given the conditions.

If I had to change my suspicions because we couldn't afford a bus, and barring anything overly convenient happening, I would do so gradually. I would pick my argument back up from where it left off the night before. Only this time, we would have the scumchat to figure out what to say to actually give me a reason to drop my case. For example, we would discuss the questions I should ask and how they should respond to them to appear less scummy. After that, I would simply make the switch to the next person on my list.

And if you didn't have time?

Well, for starters, you would get another line of questioning started and get further along than just arguing with me.

What do you mean if I didn't have time? Could you elaborate? Also, do you have anything to say now that I've given you an example of what I was asking for?

It's funny how you call me a dick, but you're the one that starts with the insults. You're really the only person that I have that problem with (parts of your attitude just rub me the wrong way), but despite that I don't want you taking any of it personally. I don't hate you as a person, for all I know you could be a great guy, so sorry if you did actually take anything I said personally (I'm not saying you did).

[Jim Groovester]

Right now, and to some level when you asked, Jim Groovster.

Um.

Sorry, been a little busy lately, well busy or drunk, but neither are good conditions to play under.

Are you sure you're in your right mind right now?

He is being abrasive, and not in he's 'I'm so gruff' sort of way, more along the lines of 'Play along or get lynched!' sort of way that he does when he is scum.

I have a feeling you don't have a very good grasp of my meta, because I am a very abrasive douchebag a large majority of the time.

I'll issue the same challenge I always do to people who think they know my meta.

Prove it, fucknuts.

Jim: Taking Urists skill level into account, and he's reasoning behind he's vote, how confident are you to lynch him over it, as he's vote was your only given reason to vote for him.

Pretty confident.

It's a newb scum move. Newb scum has difficult time calling people scum, so they make up other reasons to justify a lynch. I did the same thing when I was in my newbscum days because I had the same troubles. (The specific example I'm thinking of is Wizard Duel 2, where I said there was a cloud of WIFOM around PrinnyBaal and so he had to be lynched instead of calling him scum like I should have.)

Lynching somebody because he is hard to read is not an acceptable reason for a lynch, but Urist_McArathos is trying to spin it like it is.

[Max White]

Good enough state of mind, I guess. Drinks may or may not have been involved earlier today, but gotta play some time. Already getting prodded and all.

Anyway, like I said, you always abrasive, but you have different degrees to it. Right now it feels less like your trying to prove a point, and more about telling people they are wrong. There is a difference, and the second one is scummy you.

[NativeForeigner]

Screw it, I'm still up.

Nuke: It seems like you're mixing up suspicion and attention here. You usually don't want suspicion, no matter your role. Attempts can, and often will, backfire, so it didn't matter that you failed.
You'd be very surprised at what scum will do to win, they can be very crafty. Some of the best scum players are also the most active or outspoken players of the game.
I should not care about this because as far as I know, you're probably just lying. Your word means nothing unless you can prove it.
There's a difference between avoiding suspicion and avoiding all suspicion always and forever (which is a pretty big red flag).

Factually, yes. I also said I was biased. There are better, more respectable strategies to win, however. Being extra active IS a good strategy and it works. Lurking is a bad strategy and it, unfortunately, works sometimes.

I am trying to lynch you for being scummy. I don't vote for people I disagree with, I vote for people I find scummy.

Thank you for clarifying.

Prove it, fucknuts.

If I had room, I would probably sig this.

[NativeForeigner]

Good enough state of mind, I guess.

Are you in a good enough state of mind to answer my question?