Print

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

[IronyOwl]

Am far too busy to read this at the moment. Preemptive extend is a good idea.

[Zrk2]

Jim, I apologize for the formatting, turns out the forum doesn't deal well with spoilers in spoilers. I tried to spoiler all the posts I quoted. Also, I was really fucking tired.

Extend until I have time to write a real case, I have 2 essays and a lab to write in the next couple days.

[Zrk2]

As you can see, IronyOwl has half the posts of everyone else currently alive right now. This means Irony has been active lurking or lurking, and this is even including Toaster's posts. Moving on.

Point Two:
This one has been argued to no end, but I am aware that it's IC first player second as far as responsibilities go for you Irony, but you shouldn't be ICing in lieu of scumhunting, you should have been doing both. You were lurking because you weren't scumhunting- you didn't have no room for scumhunting, and this is what I find absolutely unacceptable.
I'm aware that you have your excuses, namely that we're all too nooby to be hunted, and that we need IC direction more.
We do need IC direction. But we're not too nooby to be scumhunted- we're scumhunting each other, are we not? I would find this maybe more acceptable if you had the same amount of posts compared to everyone else, but you have half of even mine. THis means you were ICing and thne when that was done had to lurk instead of scumhunt. You should be ICing AND scumhunting, and the fact that you ICed and lurked instead and then tried to pass it off as acceptable is what makes me suspicious of you to no end. You've hunted scum... in D1 RVS ad only a couple posts afterwards. In D2 your only scumhunting activity, when we were at risk of LyLo, was to ask ed boy a few questions later in the day, Question me a little after I started going after you,
and then the defense that's easily viewable in the very few last pages. For the first half-of the-day, you did nothing but ICing until ed boy pestered you a little about it and then I wnet for your throat. Then you asked ed boy a question or two without really going into an in-depth attack. You mostly defended against me in the second half. This is a lack of scumhunting. It's active lurking.

This is what I find unacceptable, IronyOwl, and it's why I think you're scum.

This is one of my reasons for voting Powder Miner.

A. You want to vote for him because he isn't posting too much. While lynching lurkers is a good idea in the early game is a good idea as even if they are town, they aren't useful town. However LYLO is not a good time for a policy lynch, and pushing for one is a very scummy idea because it comes up with a good reason on the surface, but doesn't require any actual scumhunting. It's the perfect out. So, if you had some other reasons this would be tolerable.

This brings me to

B. you seem to think that Irony is not scumhunting, just ICing. This is bull.

Spoiler: Example (click to show/hide)

Urist:

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.

Was meant to be a pressure vote, not a lynchvote.


Mormota:

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?

I was busy, though I admit to focusing far too much on Powder Miner. However, I "bothered" with two people at the end.

If you didn't like my "quick vote" on Shakerag, why did you mimic it?

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.

Too bad, that's the answer. Why doesn't this reasoning apply to everyone else in the game, yourself included? It's not like anyone else requested an extension prior to the deadline looming, and you didn't request one at all, despite being the last vote needed.

Powder Miner, what is your opinion on the replace?

What is the purpose of this question?


Powder Miner:

I'm going to put out a case on IronyOwl now.
Two points:

First point:
[Unformatted Wall of Text That Doesn't Provide The Relevant Data]

As you can see, IronyOwl has half the posts of everyone else currently alive right now. This means Irony has been active lurking or lurking, and this is even including Toaster's posts. Moving on.

Utterly, utterly worthless, and an extremely clear sign of being scum, tunneling, and/or not knowing what the fuck you're doing.

Post number is completely worthless. Completely. Utterly. You're trying to deny this right now in your head, but it's an ironclad, immutable fact. The only way it's relevant is in terms of what it implies about post content or post frequency, which you've not bothered to make a connection to. If there's any merit WHATSOEVER to post number, it can be made about post content or frequency instead, because those are the only ways it has any merit.

In short, this argument is worthless, dogmatic garbage you're throwing at me because you're a tunneling jackass who can't bother to find a real case. This is it, Powder Miner. It's LYLO, and you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL except "IronyOwl has been lurking so he's scum." Go on, name some other scumpicks. Name some other suspicions. Hell, name some other arguments you've had that you've admitted are garbage.

What's that, you've got nothing of the sort on any of those? Shit, guess that means you're tunneling.

Point Two:
[More garbage about scumhunting]

Two points here.

First:

You never bothered to respond to anything in my WoT response to you, including a detailed discussion of this, so I don't really feel the need to go into this again. If you actually cared about the answer, you'd have responded to the WoT. You don't care about the answer. You care about vomiting the same garbage you've been doing all game, because you're a mindless tunneler.

I mean, look at this shit:

My main suspicion is IronyOwl (I'm tired of backing off of, not only because he's lurking (although lurking without explanation does piss me off pretty badly and is in fact a scumtell), but because 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.

Hey, Irony, if you'll look at the bottom of my previoud post, you'll find I answered your question.
And I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSEDLY NOT SCUMHUNTING BECAUSE YOU'RE ICING/TOO MANY NOOBTELLS!
But if you don't end up sumhunting, you'll never end up being able to seperate the tells. It alo makes me feel a bit to much like you're hiding behind your IC role. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC. You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing. 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. And you're not even scumhunting right now. You're defending yourself.

And IC excuses or not, that's unacceptable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is pretty much all you have, and what do you notice about it? It's the exact same argument repeated verbatim. If you were an actual, functioning player, you'd expect these to change somewhat, maybe evolve into different lines of questioning, or at a bare minimum address the fact that I'm not addressing your accusations. But that doesn't happen because that's not what you're doing- you're not trying to find scum, you're just repeating yourself over and over and over again because you like hearing yourself talk. Go on, find one other player in the game whose arguments look like that.



Second:

I explained this wayyyyy the fuck back when your only suspects were other people lurking:

Powder Miner:

Stop being a lazy fuck and actually hunt some scum. Pointing at lurkers all game is not scumhunting.

That's all you've got, all game. Pointless flailing against lurkers, then pointless flailing against me for active lurking.

This is what I find unacceptable, IronyOwl, and it's why I think you're scum.

I know. You've been saying it ever since you gave up on thrashing against lurkers. It hasn't changed, at all, regardless of what else has happened or been said. Ever.

This is your last chance, Powder Miner. It's LYLO. Play the fucking game.

So, your main only argument for for lynching Irony is bullshit. And you other is not even an argument. As long as there is content, which there is (see spoiler), simple number of posts is no reason to lynch.

Then someone else called you on your shitpost and you promptly back off:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fine. Jesus Christ. I'll find something else scummy. Unvote IronyOwl. Although Urist Imiknorris, that third fallacy doesn;t quite apply- the problem had not that IronyOwl is not finding the scum with his scumhunting- it had been that IronyOwl hadn't been scumhunting- different things.

If you are town and you think someone is scum, lay on and don't back down. If you think he is scum overcome the opposition by proving that he is scum. Backing off like this to avoid questioning is a major scumtell in my eyes because yo are trying to avoid being questioned. This is LYLO, everyone will be questioned. Deal with it.

Now, explain why number of posts is a scumtell. Explain why you thought Irony was not scumhunting when he was. Explain why you backed down at the first sign of trouble. Explain why we shouldn't kill you. Now.

To everyone: I apologize for fucking up the format on that post so seriously. If you endeavoured to quote any section of it, I say double-sorry. Looks like that hour of my life was pretty much for not.

[Jim Groovester]

Something to keep in mind while you bicker at each other for the next few days (not to say that you don't have reason to): You don't want to let anyone skate by during lylo doing little or nothing. If anyone looks like they're trying to coast by, make sure they don't.

Participation is critically important during lylo.

[Powder Miner]

As you can see, IronyOwl has half the posts of everyone else currently alive right now. This means Irony has been active lurking or lurking, and this is even including Toaster's posts. Moving on.

Point Two:
This one has been argued to no end, but I am aware that it's IC first player second as far as responsibilities go for you Irony, but you shouldn't be ICing in lieu of scumhunting, you should have been doing both. You were lurking because you weren't scumhunting- you didn't have no room for scumhunting, and this is what I find absolutely unacceptable.
I'm aware that you have your excuses, namely that we're all too nooby to be hunted, and that we need IC direction more.
We do need IC direction. But we're not too nooby to be scumhunted- we're scumhunting each other, are we not? I would find this maybe more acceptable if you had the same amount of posts compared to everyone else, but you have half of even mine. THis means you were ICing and thne when that was done had to lurk instead of scumhunt. You should be ICing AND scumhunting, and the fact that you ICed and lurked instead and then tried to pass it off as acceptable is what makes me suspicious of you to no end. You've hunted scum... in D1 RVS ad only a couple posts afterwards. In D2 your only scumhunting activity, when we were at risk of LyLo, was to ask ed boy a few questions later in the day, Question me a little after I started going after you,
and then the defense that's easily viewable in the very few last pages. For the first half-of the-day, you did nothing but ICing until ed boy pestered you a little about it and then I wnet for your throat. Then you asked ed boy a question or two without really going into an in-depth attack. You mostly defended against me in the second half. This is a lack of scumhunting. It's active lurking.

This is what I find unacceptable, IronyOwl, and it's why I think you're scum.

This is one of my reasons for voting Powder Miner.

A. You want to vote for him because he isn't posting too much. While lynching lurkers is a good idea in the early game is a good idea as even if they are town, they aren't useful town. However LYLO is not a good time for a policy lynch, and pushing for one is a very scummy idea because it comes up with a good reason on the surface, but doesn't require any actual scumhunting. It's the perfect out. So, if you had some other reasons this would be tolerable.

This brings me to

B. you seem to think that Irony is not scumhunting, just ICing. This is bull.

Spoiler: Example (click to show/hide)

Urist:

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.

Was meant to be a pressure vote, not a lynchvote.


Mormota:

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?

I was busy, though I admit to focusing far too much on Powder Miner. However, I "bothered" with two people at the end.

If you didn't like my "quick vote" on Shakerag, why did you mimic it?

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.

Too bad, that's the answer. Why doesn't this reasoning apply to everyone else in the game, yourself included? It's not like anyone else requested an extension prior to the deadline looming, and you didn't request one at all, despite being the last vote needed.

Powder Miner, what is your opinion on the replace?

What is the purpose of this question?


Powder Miner:

I'm going to put out a case on IronyOwl now.
Two points:

First point:
[Unformatted Wall of Text That Doesn't Provide The Relevant Data]

As you can see, IronyOwl has half the posts of everyone else currently alive right now. This means Irony has been active lurking or lurking, and this is even including Toaster's posts. Moving on.

Utterly, utterly worthless, and an extremely clear sign of being scum, tunneling, and/or not knowing what the fuck you're doing.

Post number is completely worthless. Completely. Utterly. You're trying to deny this right now in your head, but it's an ironclad, immutable fact. The only way it's relevant is in terms of what it implies about post content or post frequency, which you've not bothered to make a connection to. If there's any merit WHATSOEVER to post number, it can be made about post content or frequency instead, because those are the only ways it has any merit.

In short, this argument is worthless, dogmatic garbage you're throwing at me because you're a tunneling jackass who can't bother to find a real case. This is it, Powder Miner. It's LYLO, and you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL except "IronyOwl has been lurking so he's scum." Go on, name some other scumpicks. Name some other suspicions. Hell, name some other arguments you've had that you've admitted are garbage.

What's that, you've got nothing of the sort on any of those? Shit, guess that means you're tunneling.

Point Two:
[More garbage about scumhunting]

Two points here.

First:

You never bothered to respond to anything in my WoT response to you, including a detailed discussion of this, so I don't really feel the need to go into this again. If you actually cared about the answer, you'd have responded to the WoT. You don't care about the answer. You care about vomiting the same garbage you've been doing all game, because you're a mindless tunneler.

I mean, look at this shit:

My main suspicion is IronyOwl (I'm tired of backing off of, not only because he's lurking (although lurking without explanation does piss me off pretty badly and is in fact a scumtell), but because 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.

Hey, Irony, if you'll look at the bottom of my previoud post, you'll find I answered your question.
And I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSEDLY NOT SCUMHUNTING BECAUSE YOU'RE ICING/TOO MANY NOOBTELLS!
But if you don't end up sumhunting, you'll never end up being able to seperate the tells. It alo makes me feel a bit to much like you're hiding behind your IC role. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC. You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing. 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. And you're not even scumhunting right now. You're defending yourself.

And IC excuses or not, that's unacceptable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is pretty much all you have, and what do you notice about it? It's the exact same argument repeated verbatim. If you were an actual, functioning player, you'd expect these to change somewhat, maybe evolve into different lines of questioning, or at a bare minimum address the fact that I'm not addressing your accusations. But that doesn't happen because that's not what you're doing- you're not trying to find scum, you're just repeating yourself over and over and over again because you like hearing yourself talk. Go on, find one other player in the game whose arguments look like that.



Second:

I explained this wayyyyy the fuck back when your only suspects were other people lurking:

Powder Miner:

Stop being a lazy fuck and actually hunt some scum. Pointing at lurkers all game is not scumhunting.

That's all you've got, all game. Pointless flailing against lurkers, then pointless flailing against me for active lurking.

This is what I find unacceptable, IronyOwl, and it's why I think you're scum.

I know. You've been saying it ever since you gave up on thrashing against lurkers. It hasn't changed, at all, regardless of what else has happened or been said. Ever.

This is your last chance, Powder Miner. It's LYLO. Play the fucking game.

So, your main only argument for for lynching Irony is bullshit. And you other is not even an argument. As long as there is content, which there is (see spoiler), simple number of posts is no reason to lynch.

Then someone else called you on your shitpost and you promptly back off:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fine. Jesus Christ. I'll find something else scummy. Unvote IronyOwl. Although Urist Imiknorris, that third fallacy doesn;t quite apply- the problem had not that IronyOwl is not finding the scum with his scumhunting- it had been that IronyOwl hadn't been scumhunting- different things.

If you are town and you think someone is scum, lay on and don't back down. If you think he is scum overcome the opposition by proving that he is scum. Backing off like this to avoid questioning is a major scumtell in my eyes because yo are trying to avoid being questioned. This is LYLO, everyone will be questioned. Deal with it.

Now, explain why number of posts is a scumtell. Explain why you thought Irony was not scumhunting when he was. Explain why you backed down at the first sign of trouble. Explain why we shouldn't kill you. Now.

To everyone: I apologize for fucking up the format on that post so seriously. If you endeavoured to quote any section of it, I say double-sorry. Looks like that hour of my life was pretty much for not.

Part One:
All you did there was say that my argumentwas crap and cite a non-seuitur (hint, I started my argument in Day 1, a single post cited in Day 3 responding to that argument doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong, and if that's all of that argument, then in fact it renders that little piece of your argument in serious need of work.

Part Two:
Because I'd already repeated that argument a billion times, and they were going to simply ignore me if I continued to pursue it.  This is not a goal, to get ignored.

Your points contradict each other anyway. First you say that my argument is bas and should not be used and then you say I'm scummy for trying to find a new argument to find scum.

Mormota: Thre's no question in thre. The only thing that could be interpreted as a quesiton is you asking me how askign for a replace could be used aas an excuse to vote the replacee when they're not in the game. I answered that. And the answer is: They're stll in the game until the replacer shows up.

[Zrk2]

-snip-

Part One:
All you did there was say that my argumentwas crap and cite a non-seuitur (hint, I started my argument in Day 1, a single post cited in Day 3 responding to that argument doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong, and if that's all of that argument, then in fact it renders that little piece of your argument in serious need of work.

Part Two:
Because I'd already repeated that argument a billion times, and they were going to simply ignore me if I continued to pursue it.  This is not a goal, to get ignored.

Your points contradict each other anyway. First you say that my argument is bas and should not be used and then you say I'm scummy for trying to find a new argument to find scum.

Mormota: Thre's no question in thre. The only thing that could be interpreted as a quesiton is you asking me how askign for a replace could be used aas an excuse to vote the replacee when they're not in the game. I answered that. And the answer is: They're stll in the game until the replacer shows up.

A. A single post demonstrates that one good post =/= one bad post, so your case on nothing but post number is still shit, always was shit, and always will be shit.

B. Being ignored is not an excuse to stop arguing. You see something that doesn't make sense point it out, point that bitch way the fuck out. People ignore it, ask them why they're ignoring it. Maybe they're covering for their scumbuddy. Fucking investigate that shit!

C. It is bad, but if you believe it then stick with it. At the very least don't back off like that, since bowing to pressure looks completely like a scum trying to avoid attention drawn by his bad scumhunt. If someone trys to tell you you are wrong, analyze their logic and see if you can find flaws. If you can point them out, if you don't incorporate their thoughts into your case. Don't back down like a wuss.

Powder, you obviously think Irony is a scum, but who do you think is the other scum.

Anyone who hasn't voted; who are your scumpicks? Why? Examples?

Jim, am I doing it right?

[Jim Groovester]

Yes, more or less.

[Mormota]

So did you have any other reason for justifying your vote on Shakerag? Because you've admitted that he wasn't the only one not posting, and (according to you) that's why you voted him. If that was your only reason for voting Shakerag (which you've strongly implied), then you've got some explaining to do re: why Shakerag not posting was so much more suspicious than Jim not posting or Powder Miner not posting.

Because I asked Shakerag a question, not them. Since they were not asked questions, they weren't required to reply to anything. Shakerag was, and he didn't.

The last sentence is where the "I'm not going to answer you until you tell me what I ignored" part came in. If you were accusing Powder Miner of not reading the thread, then why would you not go back and read the thread to find out which posts you ignored?

I did not ignore any part of his posts, and I knew that. I was telling him to make a case, or stop claiming false things.

Aww, did I hit a nerve? I am scumhunting. Your answers aren't convincing me that you're town, and until I am convinced, I'm not going to back off.

I have shown that the logic behind your arguments was wrong. If you are still voting me, that is not out of logic, but on a gut feeling. Do you believe that is good?

Mormota: Thre's no question in thre. The only thing that could be interpreted as a quesiton is you asking me how askign for a replace could be used aas an excuse to vote the replacee when they're not in the game. I answered that. And the answer is: They're stll in the game until the replacer shows up.

Yes, there is. I asked you what your opinion was on the replace, and you did not answer it. Still not, but it earned its purpose: You are finally discussing something else other than IronyOwl. Which brings me to my other point.

Am far too busy to read this at the moment. Preemptive extend is a good idea.

IronyOwl, if you are too busy, ask for a replace. You are not going to lurk through this day with that lousy an excuse, scum.

[Dariush]

The day has been extended.

Votecount:

• Zrk2:
• Mormota: Urist Imiknorris
• Urist Imiknorris:
• Powder Miner: Zrk2,
• IronyOwl: Mormota,

Not voting: Powder Miner, IronyOwl

Extend:

The day will end Monday, 5 PM GMT. You need (in total) 2 votes to extend and 4 to shorten.

LT for this game. (Mostly for myself, for easier votecounts, but feel free to use it)

[Urist Imiknorris]

Mormota:

Because I asked Shakerag a question, not them. Since they were not asked questions, they weren't required to reply to anything. Shakerag was, and he didn't.

You weren't the only one asking questions, you know, and Shakerag wasn't the only one being asked. IronyOwl asked, among other things, quite a few questions to Powder Miner, and as far as I can tell none of those were answered.

I have shown that the logic behind your arguments was wrong. If you are still voting me, that is not out of logic, but on a gut feeling. Do you believe that is good?

No. You seem to misunderstand why my vote rests on you. I am trying to read you as well as possible. To that end, I'm picking apart your argument and questioning you on anything that looks suspicious. For instance:

IronyOwl, if you are too busy, ask for a replace. You are not going to lurk through this day with that lousy an excuse, scum.

Your entire argument here seems to be "If he's busy now, he'll always be busy, and should ask for a replace." Do you have any other evidence that he's scum?

[Zrk2]

So did you have any other reason for justifying your vote on Shakerag? Because you've admitted that he wasn't the only one not posting, and (according to you) that's why you voted him. If that was your only reason for voting Shakerag (which you've strongly implied), then you've got some explaining to do re: why Shakerag not posting was so much more suspicious than Jim not posting or Powder Miner not posting.

Because I asked Shakerag a question, not them. Since they were not asked questions, they weren't required to reply to anything. Shakerag was, and he didn't. A.

Am far too busy to read this at the moment. Preemptive extend is a good idea.

IronyOwl, if you are too busy, ask for a replace. You are not going to lurk through this day with that lousy an excuse, scum. B.

A. Not being asked questions isn't an excuse for not posting. That's passiveness and unacceptable.

B. If he has stuff to do, but can still make a reasonable contribution it is no reason to ask for a replacement, especially in LYLO. He is making solid posts and he is here ICing, there is no reason for a replace. What a bullshit reason to vote for someone, Mormota.

Urist, scumpicks. Also, you see flaws in Mormota's arguments, but do you have any other scumtells?

[IronyOwl]

Mormota:

1, I didn't. Mimicking it would require me not to provide a reason for it. I did.

Or it'd require you to provide an excuse to cover for your mimicking.

For instance, you specifically mentioned that your questions to Shakerag were "still unanswered" and implied he'd need an excuse for that. Yet, the difference between your asking the questions and voting him over them was just a pinch over the time between asking those questions and your previous post. What about that time difference seemed lurky or suspicious for Shakerag, but not yourself?

That would also mean that you were asking him when he was going to start scumhunting, but that your only other scumhunting was a single "Huh? What's this?" question to Shakerag. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

2, You could try using your brain. Let me help: To get Powder Miner talking about SOMETHING [Both bold and capital, because... FFFFFFFF!] other than you, and allow us to get reads on him.

So you had nothing else you could/wanted to ask him about? Did you think this might encourage him to post relevant things somehow, or did you feel his response might be useful in itself?


Also, on D1 you said mipe9 was more arrogant than scum, but FoS'd him later on. What made you change your mind?

Similar question in reverse with Powder Miner on D2: What made him go from scum to arrogant noob?

Mormota:  What do you hope to get out of this game?  If you could pick one of the four possible power roles (Cop, Doctor, Godfather, or Roleblocker), which would you pick?  Why?

Probably Godfather. The ability to stay hidden from town is invaluable, and I don't think I'm experienced enough to take any other role.

"Is", not "would be?"

I laughed. But other than that.. What? I was talking in this peculiar language called English, and that is how that's grammatically correct. I think.

I believe the idea is this:

"Is" means that it is currently so. "Would be" implies that it would be true given a certain set of circumstances. So answering this question like that implies that you were thinking "Well I'm scum, so hiding from town is invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town is invaluable," rather than "Well I'm town, but if I was scum hiding from town would be invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town would be invaluable." In other words, it implies you weren't thinking of the town/scum situation hypothetically.

I have shown that the logic behind your arguments was wrong. If you are still voting me, that is not out of logic, but on a gut feeling. Do you believe that is good?

Interesting. So you believe Urist to be town following his gut, and not scum pushing for a mislynch? Why's that, Mormota?



Zrk2:

Overall, after reviewing the entire thread, I feel that Powder Miner is scum.

This seems kind of lackluster.

First, you say you're going to do an in-depth analysis of everyone's posts today.

Then, you go through and say "Nice, not so good, nothing really here, nice, really nice, nice." You don't even explicitly state your opinion all that often, and your most in-depth explanation was probably "I like this, looks at others and still pushes on his main suspicion."

Then you vote on what appears to be "this was least impressive" style reasoning, without bothering with much else. You at least ask Urist some questions (though probably hard-to-see ones, due to quote SNAFUs), but that's pretty much it.

Care to explain all this? At the time, I know you've been attempting to correct it.

If you are town and you think someone is scum, lay on and don't back down. If you think he is scum overcome the opposition by proving that he is scum. Backing off like this to avoid questioning is a major scumtell in my eyes because yo are trying to avoid being questioned. This is LYLO, everyone will be questioned. Deal with it.

Now, explain why number of posts is a scumtell. Explain why you thought Irony was not scumhunting when he was. Explain why you backed down at the first sign of trouble. Explain why we shouldn't kill you. Now.

This is better, but it still feels like you're going after easy targets.

To everyone: I apologize for fucking up the format on that post so seriously. If you endeavoured to quote any section of it, I say double-sorry. Looks like that hour of my life was pretty much for not.

It was better than nothing, but I don't see the in-depth analysis part. You want to try re-giving your opinions on everyone you've analyzed?

Anyone who hasn't voted; who are your scumpicks? Why? Examples?

Mormota and you. Powder I still think is thrashing town (mainly due to gut and doesn't-have-an-IC-syndrome), Urist has seemed townlike for the most part. I was suspicious of ed boy and you've been continuing that a bit, what with going for the easiest target and delivering somewhat lackluster results. Mormota's had kind of a history of subtly following others' suspicions/votes, and hasn't had any serious suspicions all game.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Urist, scumpicks. Also, you see flaws in Mormota's arguments, but do you have any other scumtells?

Again, Mormota, followed by either you or IronyOwl.

I don't have much to go on with you, though that will probably change over the weekend, and I'll be rereading your posts in a while to hopefully find something that will allow me to read you more clearly as either town or scum.

IronyOwl hasn't been as active as I'd like, but as you said, when he posts, holy fuck. My suspicion on him is still nothing more than a gut feeling at this point.

As for Mormota, the reason I started questioning him is that I saw his vote for Shakerag as bandwagoning. His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?

(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)

IronyOwl:

Spoiler: Quote Pyramid (click to show/hide)

Mormota:  What do you hope to get out of this game?  If you could pick one of the four possible power roles (Cop, Doctor, Godfather, or Roleblocker), which would you pick?  Why?

Probably Godfather. The ability to stay hidden from town is invaluable, and I don't think I'm experienced enough to take any other role.

"Is", not "would be?"

I laughed. But other than that.. What? I was talking in this peculiar language called English, and that is how that's grammatically correct. I think.

I believe the idea is this:

"Is" means that it is currently so. "Would be" implies that it would be true given a certain set of circumstances. So answering this question like that implies that you were thinking "Well I'm scum, so hiding from town is invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town is invaluable," rather than "Well I'm town, but if I was scum hiding from town would be invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town would be invaluable." In other words, it implies you weren't thinking of the town/scum situation hypothetically.

Exactly. When I read that, I thought that Mormota had (possibly subconsciously) claimed Godfather.

[Zrk2]

Spoiler: Irony's Post (click to show/hide)

Zrk2:

Overall, after reviewing the entire thread, I feel that Powder Miner is scum.

This seems kind of lackluster.

First, you say you're going to do an in-depth analysis of everyone's posts today. A.

Then, you go through and say "Nice, not so good, nothing really here, nice, really nice, nice." You don't even explicitly state your opinion all that often, and your most in-depth explanation was probably "I like this, looks at others and still pushes on his main suspicion."

Then you vote on what appears to be "this was least impressive" style reasoning, without bothering with much else. You at least ask Urist some questions (though probably hard-to-see ones, due to quote SNAFUs), but that's pretty much it. B.

Care to explain all this? At the time, I know you've been attempting to correct it.

If you are town and you think someone is scum, lay on and don't back down. If you think he is scum overcome the opposition by proving that he is scum. Backing off like this to avoid questioning is a major scumtell in my eyes because yo are trying to avoid being questioned. This is LYLO, everyone will be questioned. Deal with it.

Now, explain why number of posts is a scumtell. Explain why you thought Irony was not scumhunting when he was. Explain why you backed down at the first sign of trouble. Explain why we shouldn't kill you. Now.

This is better, but it still feels like you're going after easy targets. C.

To everyone: I apologize for fucking up the format on that post so seriously. If you endeavoured to quote any section of it, I say double-sorry. Looks like that hour of my life was pretty much for not.

It was better than nothing, but I don't see the in-depth analysis part. You want to try re-giving your opinions on everyone you've analyzed? D.

Anyone who hasn't voted; who are your scumpicks? Why? Examples?

Mormota and you. Powder I still think is thrashing town (mainly due to gut and doesn't-have-an-IC-syndrome), Urist has seemed townlike for the most part. I was suspicious of ed boy and you've been continuing that a bit, what with going for the easiest target and delivering somewhat lackluster results. Mormota's had kind of a history of subtly following others' suspicions/votes, and hasn't had any serious suspicions all game.

A. It was lacklustre, I had just spent an hour reading the thread, that post(s) was just supposed to be my reactions to other posts and comments on them, and about my putting my thoughts on the page, no real scumhunting there. I had decided that he was scum given the examples I gave in the following post, but did not have time to compose that post as I needed to go to bed.

B. I'm a passive reader, those were pretty much just my thoughts on posts, without much analysis, it was just getting some feeling for everyone. I had those reactions to posts, but as I said no real questions.

C. I'm going after what appears scummy. If anything looks scummy to me, it'll look scummy to any town, therefore making it an easy thing to chase after.

D. Now I'm feeling this:

Powder: Scum, see above.
Urist: Meh. He's making good posts (see above), but I don't see any real towntells.
Irony: Again I don't have a read either way, seems townish.
Mormota: The second most likely scum, but I may be wrong.

[Powder Miner]

-snip-

Part One:
All you did there was say that my argumentwas crap and cite a non-seuitur (hint, I started my argument in Day 1, a single post cited in Day 3 responding to that argument doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong, and if that's all of that argument, then in fact it renders that little piece of your argument in serious need of work.

Part Two:
Because I'd already repeated that argument a billion times, and they were going to simply ignore me if I continued to pursue it.  This is not a goal, to get ignored.

Your points contradict each other anyway. First you say that my argument is bas and should not be used and then you say I'm scummy for trying to find a new argument to find scum.

Mormota: Thre's no question in thre. The only thing that could be interpreted as a quesiton is you asking me how askign for a replace could be used aas an excuse to vote the replacee when they're not in the game. I answered that. And the answer is: They're stll in the game until the replacer shows up.

A. A single post demonstrates that one good post =/= one bad post, so your case on nothing but post number is still shit, always was shit, and always will be shit.

...What? You quoted a complete nonsequitur and then said that  it also proves a non-sequitur (What did I ever say about "good" or "bad" posts, and then you try to change the subject here from the ICing as much as scumhunting argument to my mistaken post number analysis. (You know, how you kind of tried to refute the IC-scumhunt argument wtith a non-sequitur and I just called you out on it)?And why are you intent on defending IronyOwl anyway? I mean seriously, what kind of vote excuse is that, Zrk2?

B. Being ignored is not an excuse to stop arguing. You see something that doesn't make sense point it out, point that bitch way the fuck out. People ignore it, ask them why they're ignoring it. Maybe they're covering for their scumbuddy. Fucking investigate that shit!

Zrk2, the problem was that I had been repeating the same argument too many times. I needed to find the new one, since I'd been tunneling again... And I'm afraid you're the one I find scummy now, I mean seriously what's up with your first point?

C. It is bad, but if you believe it then stick with it. At the very least don't back off like that, since bowing to pressure looks completely like a scum trying to avoid attention drawn by his bad scumhunt. If someone trys to tell you you are wrong, analyze their logic and see if you can find flaws. If you can point them out, if you don't incorporate their thoughts into your case. Don't back down like a wuss.

Because machoness is always the key to town winning. In any case, they want me to find scum in other ways, and that I can do. In fact, I'm doing it right now.

My scumpicks:
Zrk2: ...His non-sequiturs and original caseless attack make me pretty suspicious, I'll say that.
Mormota: Second Place, What kind of questions are you asking me? Everything you're saying sounds overexagerrated to sound aggressive.
Irony: I still don't like the deficit in scumhunting Day 2, but he's doing well D3.
Urist: I don't actually have many reads on him.