Bear with me guys, I'm gonna analyze the significant posts of everyone since the beginning of this day. This could take a while.
Mormota:Mormota, what's your current list of suspects?
On this note, Urist, your answer was satisfying.
I personally try concentrating on fewer people at once, so I can keep my case collected and not spread out in a large pile of junk like what Powder Miner is doing. As per this, my main suspect right now is Shakerag, for the questions I asked him here are still unanswered. He's just going to say "I'm only available at night" whatever I would ask him though.
Powder Miner is getting ridiculous, but I see more arrogance, stupidity and newbie play in him than scum behaviour.
I do not like the fact ed boy asked for a replace, but there's nothing I can do about that.
Urist is doing his job and is thorough with his questions, except the one occasion which I pointed out. Were I the doctor, I wouldn't protect him, but other than that, he's not going to be my next target.
IronyOwl is currently locked trying to knock some sense into Powder Miner. Futile try, as we saw with me and him in the last game.
Anyways, I find your question sort of pointless.
Jim Groovester, what is your opinion on Powder Miner? Don't you feel like you should be trying to nudge him in the right direction along with IronyOwl? Or did you already do that somewhere we can't see?
Interesting post, but no questioning. Nice active-lurk, just throwing this recap out there. More with the questioning.
Mormota, IronyOwl, care to explain your votes? You both seem to have been rather quick in voting Shakerag, and I don't really see any justification for Irony's vote, and Mormota only slightly justified his.
Could you please explain why you found my reason not satisfying enough? What is it you did not see as good enough about it?
IronyOwl, you were there, occupied with Powder Miner. Someone you stated as not finding suspicious. Then why didn't you bother with anyone else near the end of the day, other than your quick vote on Shakerag? Why did you not ask for an extension to get an answer to your question? I am not going to accept "I was asleep". You could have asked before.
Powder Miner, what is your opinion on the replace?
Off-topic, but no PMs: The Arena Battles redux thread: What mod did you use for those metals? You sort of didn't answer at all yet.
Finally, some questions. Even a vote and some reasons. Nice, good solid post. Doesn't do anything for me either way though.
Urist:Let's do this
I quoted you in the quote you're quoting here.
No you didn't. He quoted the entirety of your post. Those two lines were all there is. Go ahead and check.
Also, I love how you say your gut was the only thing keeping me from being a guaranteed lynch. That both means you'd be willing to stake a lynch on nothing but your gut AND that you'd be willing to use your IC status to manipulate everyone else.
You raise a couple points, then lose them by shoving words into his mouth. IronyOwl: Would you be willing to do either of the things he claims, and if so, why?
But alright, sure. I'll provide nice, fancy quotes for everything I've said, despite most of it concerning your vague, quoteless bullshit. And then, you're going to respond in kind, or you'll be fucked, because that's going to be the absolute end of your excuses on this shit. I hope my assertion that you're town didn't make you think you could pull whatever RiA you wanted and get away with it, because that's not how that works.
IT certainly didn't. I don;t care if you say I'm town, because I think you're scum. This is exactly the same situation that I was in wih Orangebottle (or maybe Mormota) last Beginner's Mafia, except it's Day 2, meaning more suspects and less confirmedness (although don't think this doesn't still mean I don't think you're scum).
I would like to bring up an issue here: Your spelling, punctuation, and overall presentation, namely the fact that the quality of such is inversely proportional to the number of votes on you at the time. Examples:
0 votes: No errors.
1 vote: "...I houldn;t back of from..."
2 votes: I can only see two recent posts from you in this category. One's only got a misspelling of "whoops," the other is full of mistakes, and I don't want to figure out how to average them together.
3 votes: Quoted above, stuff bolded for clarity. What's with the x-negative clusterfuck at the end? After removing the first two negatives, I'm parsing it as "This still means I don't think you're scum." What? Then why are you voting him? Although, thanks to this I learned that "confirmedness" is indeed a word.
I apologize if I sound unbelievably petty.
So, here we go:
Point One:
One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.
I first asked this question way, waaaaay the fuck back here:
[spoiler=Eternal question to Powder Miner]So, on that note, what about my response to Mormota wasn't satisfactory to you?
[/quote]
I ANSWERED THAT. I SAID THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION BECAUSE I NEVER FOUND AN ANSWER OF YOURS TO MORMOTA UNSATISFACTORY!
[/quote]
You don't need to yell, we can hear you just fine. I'm fairly certain his issue with your answer isn't that you haven't given it yet, but rather the fact that it took you almost a week to do so.
Reading that quote now, I'm going to facepalm. That not finding anyone suspicious even though tey were lurking/active lurking/questionable tactics-using was what made me suspicious in the first place. How would you expect me to get off of your case for what made me suspicious? Yay emphasis stacking.
Not going to touch this one.
Point Two:
Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was all you're doing is handing out advice and pretending that's an acceptable excuse to be not scumhunting. That's hat I said, scum.
I think you have the ICs' priorities wrong. You assume that their primary goal is to play the game and their secondary goal is to teach us newbies. I think it's the other way around, what with Irony's response to my questioning
here.
This is a logical argument. Yet you've refused to answer it because:
Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.
This is known as "unacceptable bullshit," as it's a completely irrelevant excuse to avoid answering. If for some reason you need proof that you actually said that, that's also unacceptable bullshit, but I'll provide it anyway because I'm tired of you wriggling out of doing anything at the slightest excuse.
I fail to see how misquoting my meaning is a logical argument. Try again. And I did say that. I won't deny that, nor would I ever need to or want to deny that. I wanted posts linked to because you were misquoting what I was trying saying and that was unacceptable. That's harder to do with the words up there and me here to advance them. I would also call it profanities, but I swear not to do so, since I'm only 13. So I'll go with that it's just compltely unacceptable to misquote my meaning. How's that for you as logical arguments go?
I see no misquoting. Please explain how what you said isn't what you meant.
This will be continued in Part Two.
[/quote][/spoiler]
Interesting point on the grammar, but it is rather far fetched and I wouldn't put much weight in grammatical errors, although they could be used as supporting evidence if you have other reasons.
I have no idea what your response to PMs 3rd quotation is about, please elucidate.
As to 'not ... touching this one' why the Hell not? If it's retarded spell it out, fucking hammer that point home! Going soft, scum?
Where is this 'Part Two'?
Oh yeah, you slacked off and didn't analyze it. Weak.
People shouldn't be entirely concerned of defending themselves. If they are only defending themselves, they are not contributing.
But if they're being attacked and not defending themselves, they're more likely to be lynched, which is bad for their side unless they're jester or something like that that isn't in this game. You'd expect a player to at least try to defend themselves, because if they don't it means they just don't care anymore, and won't contribute anyway.
Why did you vote him, unvote then vote again? If you find him "so scummy it hurts", then what reason did you have for that? It's not like he was any better before.
I unvoted him because I wanted to go back through everyone's arguments once I was done with the things I needed to do yesterday and start hunting other people in addition to him. I probably should have waited to unvote until I had gotten back home, because when I read his response I became fully convinced he was scum and that hunting other people could wait until D3. In fact, when I responded to his post I had completely forgotten that I had unvoted him (as evidenced by my thinking that his post was made with three votes on him). That's how bad I thought it was.
There is no point unvoting while you review, it just takes pressure off, which is bad. Keep that pressure up, and see what you can get. Never relent.
There's this whole line of posts through page 29, with some questions and good follow-up. Not bad, though you ignore everyone but Shake while you do this. Meh.
Third point: That is no excuse for Shakerag. I do not agree with this point.
Not an excuse for the person you voted, but good enough for everyone else? (not a perfect fit, but it's still there) Bullshit. You wanted an easy lynch, and who better than the person who was already about to be axed (unless Irony or I unvoted)? You only voted him so that if someone changed their mind, he'd still be gone, didn't you?
Second and first point: I did not ask for an extension because Shakerag posted and decided, for no apparent reason, that he won't answer my question unless his life is saved via an extension.
Perhaps so he could have enough time to answer your questions too? The "asking questions anytime soon" part would probably have involved him reading through the thread again looking for suspicions (and asking questions based on them), which I know I wouldn't be able to do in 30 minutes. Would you?
I also didn't ask for one because because he left my questions unanswered, as I pointed out.
And you thought that was grounds to kill him before he answered your questions?
Also. WHAT? How could I use a question as an excuse to vote someone who is NOT IN THE GAME?
ed boy hadn't officially been replaced at that point.
I like this, looks at others and still pushes on his main suspicion.
Powder Miner:Unvote. Powder Miner, your answers to both my and Irony's questions will determine whether or not I vote for you.
when he does post, he's not scumhunting much at all. He teaches as an IC, but he fails to scumhunt/
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier. HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.
(emphasis mine)
I asked him about this. Read his response to me. Go on, it's in the post you linked to. Both ICs have explained their current lack of scumhunting, and have given us newbies a way to get them to start - improve our games to the point where they can tell the scum from the newbs. After that, if they aren't hunting, it's their own damn fault.
Unvote. Powder Miner, you aren't hunting scum, you aren't actively participating, and now you've "graduated" to using an already-answered (multiple times) question as half of your argument, and using "lurkers = scum" as the other half.
I realize that if I wanted an answer from you, I should have phrased it as a question: Why are you accusing IronyOwl for something he's explained multiple times without doing anything to support your accusations? Forming an argument takes effort; you can't just wait for the scum to come out and say "Oh, I bow before your power of red text, even though there is no threat of me being lynched. I'll admit everything. I'm scum." You need to make them slip up and reveal it to you, and you can't do that with a case that either is based entirely on crap reasoning or has nothing supporting it. Your case is both.
I've said this multiple times. Or maybe I haven't, but I will take no excuse for not scumhunting, not event hat we are too nooby to read. This is a Beginner's MAfia, and if the ICs can;t read us, they shouldn't have signed up. Also, I beg to differ about "crap reasoning" and "nothign supporting it", as my deconstructing IronyOwl's post will show.
Ok, where is this deconstruction?
Also, grammar!
Let's do this
Extend. Or at least a votecount.
Powder Miner:
Irony, here's a little lesson I learned when I got lynched last game. You can call someone's argument crap and bull all you want but you need to back it up. Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.
...
The ironyowl here is palpable.
I mean, seriously. You've been giving brief, quoteless posts all game long, providing vague assertions, and then completely ignoring it when people question you on it (or anything else, for that matter). Where the fuck was this wisdom when my gut was the only thing keeping you from being a guaranteed lynch? Do I really have to spell it out for you that presenting a case requires at least as much substance as discrediting one?
I quoted you in the quote you're quoting here. Also, I love how you say your gut was the only thing keeping me from being a guaranteed lynch. That both means you'd be willing to stake a lynch on nothing but your gut AND that you'd be willing to use your IC status to manipulate everyone else.
But alright, sure. I'll provide nice, fancy quotes for everything I've said, despite most of it concerning your vague, quoteless bullshit. And then, you're going to respond in kind, or you'll be fucked, because that's going to be the absolute end of your excuses on this shit. I hope my assertion that you're town didn't make you think you could pull whatever RiA you wanted and get away with it, because that's not how that works.
IT certainly didn't. I don;t care if you say I'm town, because I think you're scum. This is exactly the same situation that I was in wih Orangebottle (or maybe Mormota) last Beginner's Mafia, except it's Day 2, meaning more suspects and less confirmedness (although don't think this doesn't still mean I don't think you're scum).
So, here we go:
Point One:
One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.
I first asked this question way, waaaaay the fuck back here:
[spoiler=Eternal question to Powder Miner]So, on that note, what about my response to Mormota wasn't satisfactory to you?
[/quote]
I ANSWERED THAT. I SAID THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION BECAUSE I NEVER FOUND AN ANSWER OF YOURS TO MORMOTA UNSATISFACTORY!
That was six days ago. The response in question had been given seven days ago:
IronyOwl, you are nice providing tips, but who do you suspect? If you could choose to kill off one person now, who would it be?
This is a good question.
Currently, I don't particularly suspect anyone; with all the flailing that's going on, it's been difficult to pick out anything that seems outright scummy. Just about everyone is lurking, active lurking, and/or using questionable tactics.
Twelve hours ago, you finally got off your ass and gave an answer that wasn't uselessly vague. It took you a fucking week to answer a question and provide an explanation for your case.
Why?
Reading that quote now, I'm going to facepalm.
That not finding anyone suspicious even though tey were lurking/active lurking/questionable tactics-using was what made me suspicious in the first place. How would you expect me to get off of your case for what made me suspicious? Yay emphasis stacking.
Point Two:
Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was all you're doing is handing out advice and pretending that's an acceptable excuse to be not scumhunting. That's hat I said, scum.
This is a logical argument. Yet you've refused to answer it because:
Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.
This is known as "unacceptable bullshit," as it's a completely irrelevant excuse to avoid answering. If for some reason you need proof that you actually said that, that's also unacceptable bullshit, but I'll provide it anyway because I'm tired of you wriggling out of doing anything at the slightest excuse.
I fail to see how misquoting my meaning is a logical argument. Try again. And I did say that. I won't deny that, nor would I ever need to or want to deny that. I wanted posts linked to because you were misquoting what I was trying saying and that was unacceptable. That's harder to do with the words up there
and me here to advance them. I would also call it profanities, but I swear not to do so, since I'm only 13. So I'll go with that it's just compltely unacceptable to misquote my meaning. How's that for you as logical arguments go?
[misquote]If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC.
"If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't be ICing."[/misquote][/quote]
Are you done misquoting me yet? No? Fine. That's about the most ridiculous misquote in here. I'm not sure if you edited tht there, if that was part of something else, or that was me trying to post int he ten minutes before my bedtime, but what I was trying to say was if this was a regular mafia you wouldn't get away with this kind of playing because you wouldn't have the oh-so-convenient "I'm just the benevolent IC giving you all advice falalalala" excuse. You'd have to scumhunt instead of giving out advice/just defending yourself. You've finally got up off of your a-- now. But now you're using rampant misquoting and complete crap JUST like Orangebottle did.
You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing.
"If you weren't ICing because you're an IC, you'd be active lurking. In fact, you ARE active lurking."
Once we clear away the misquoting: If you weren't an IC, you wouldn;t be able to use the excuse of being an IC to not scumhunt. Everyone would recognize you as active lurking. But you do have the excuse, but excuse or not- you're active lurking.
It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town.
"You're not doing a single thing for the town." That's a direct quote, even, no interpretation required.
Yes it is. Your ICing is fine and all, but you're not being a player at all if you're not scumhunting. If you're not scumhunting, you're doing nothing for town. That's simple enough.
Thus we get:
1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
2. You're doing nothing anyway
3. You're doing absolutely nothing for the town
Thus we get my original interpretation: "If you weren't an IC you wouldn't be doing anything right now, thus you're not doing anything right now." In other words, (1 = 0).
So, with my defense we get the truth, which is what I actually said, scum:
1. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't have the excuse of being the ohso benevolent IC that just sits around and hands out advice, and you'd be recgonized as active lurking.
2. Even if you do have the excuse, it doesn't change the fact that you're active lurking.
3. If you're ICing,
YOU NEED TO SCUMHUNT. Not scumhunting means not finding scum. Not finding scum means
losing.Point Three:
Three: I feel my ICing is helping quite a bit in some areas. Would you care to point out an example or two where it's been completely worthless?
Helping Shakerag to avoid crippling assumptions, break out of his complacency, and refine his case. He took some further convincing for the theory part, but admitted most other points were not just good, but helpful to improving his game.
Your ICing does help. But if you don't scumhunt, we lose. Scumhunting is needed.
Helping ed boy explain his case on Jim. Note the improved specifics of the response relative to the vagueness of the explanation I was objecting to.
Only had this as a seperate section due to a quote screwup I'm far too lazy to deal with.
Point Four:
Four: I am scumhunting. Saying blatantly, demonstrably false things tends to ruin your case, so unless you'd care to explain why I'm not actually scumhunting ed boy or why we should all live in the past for a moment, I'm pretty sure you should just admit to spouting bullshit and move along to real arguments.
Bouncing around an occasional question to look active (A bit hypocritical, I'm sorry, but I didn't do that on purpose- I just couldn't find anything suspicious) while not following up on it doesn't count. I;m sorry.
PowderMiner:
Unvote whoever the heck I was voting, vote for ed boy. I haven't really questioned you at all yet.
What do you think of the lurkiness in this game so far (not the players lurking, the lurkiness). I think it's quite abundant.
How is this going to help you find scum? You've been bouncing around RV questions all game and have nothing to show for it.
I mean, is this even really scumhunting? It's more of a comment than a question, and I can't fathom how ed boy'd answer in a way that was useful to you, unless he seriously fucked up.
[/quote]
That's answering my question. How does that count as you scumhunting?
mipe9:
I don't care about the fact that he asked me two questions. I care about the fact that 100% of his posts are towards me.
So, you don't care that I only recently replaced in. You don't care that I might be active lurking. You don't care that both posts were advice. You don't care that both posts were the same advice. You don't care that I might have a point.
The only thing you care about is that I'm looking at you. Why is that?
I don't seem to remember you ever having a real chain of questioning on mipe9.
Orangebottle, how do you distinguish between people who are scummy because they're scum and people who are scummy because they're new?
Or Orangebottle.
ed boy, what was your read on Jafferery? What's your current read on Shakerag?
I actually don;t see you doing much with ed boy. You have your vote on him and you're asking him a few D1-esque questions, but that's about it...
Powder Miner, what's your read on Orangebottle? Which is worse, in your opinion: Bandwagoning or activelurking?
Actually I think those last few ones WERE from D1. And guess what, I'm not counting RVS stage as deep scumhunting, considering you completely failed to follow up on it anyway.
ed boy:
It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you.
You keep saying this, but you're not really providing examples or (sound) explanations for why he's wrong. Producing either would do wonders for your case.
When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent.
Examples. I assume you mean in a scummy way?
If you simply say 'no, that's a bad question', then I'm going to try a minor variation on it to see if that variation constitutes a good question. If I get similar responses, then I won't know if you're town and being honest, or if you're scum trying to dissuade me from a perfectly good line of reasoning against you. However, if you were to say 'That's a bad question because of X,Y,Z', and explain the reason why it's a bad question, then not only will I see that it's a bad question sooner, but I will have a better idea of what constitutes a good question and what constitutes a bad question, and I can avoid bad questions in the future.
More relevant to the subject, why don't you just ask about it? You've got two players who's main purpose is to help you play the game better, and you're playing trial-and-error with them using bad questions, without so much as bothering to explain that it's a pain in the ass? Why would you ever do that?
I look forward to your detailed and well-thought out explanations for all of this, in addition to why you needed this before you could field any responses of your own. And yes, that last part is a real, genuine question that you will need a fucking awesome explanation for.
[/quote]
At this point I take it back about you scumhunting ed boy.But it's too little, too late, and only after I launched a savage attack on you.
[/quote][/spoiler]
Umm, yeah. Lots of text, not so much sense. There's an attempt, though. Better than nothing.
The original edition of this post exceeded the forum limit of 40000 characters. Holy Fuck.
Author
Topic: Beginners' XXVII - Imperishable Night - Game Over! (Read 185227 times)