Print

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

[Zrk2]

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Quickly checking back, it seems your very first vote was the fourth on Jafferey. You later claimed to be the first because the others were RVS, but that's not really a good explanation, especially since you unvoted his replacement with no fuss.

Just throwing this out here: Why would I not unvote the replacement? He just replaced, he can't be scummy.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

[Powder Miner]

SO you do, Zrk2. So you do. I can provide you with that.

The first reason why I think you're scum is because the first thing you did when you came in was post an unnavigable thing that really proved nothing and then just jumped straight to a caseless vote against me. (Here.)
As far as I can decipher from that, yor reaon would appear to have been parroting IronyOwl (this is bad), by saying that he had an impressive post against me and then voting me. This is parroting.

Then sure, you had new reasons to go for me, but at least one of them is hypocritical AND parroting- you call me out on (mistakenly) calling IronyOwl on post number for one of my post reasons, just like IronyOwl already did. (Hey paaarrrotiing, guess what!)(HEre.). However, you had already noted IronyOwl's post number at the top of the post. (Merely commenting, but yes, indeed noting it, hypocritically, on a point you parroted from IronyOwl.) (Here, very top of the post.)

[Zrk2]

SO you do, Zrk2. So you do. I can provide you with that.

The first reason why I think you're scum is because the first thing you did when you came in was post an unnavigable thing that really proved nothing and then just jumped straight to a caseless vote against me. (Here.)
As far as I can decipher from that, yor reaon would appear to have been parroting IronyOwl (this is bad), by saying that he had an impressive post against me and then voting me. This is parroting.

Then sure, you had new reasons to go for me, but at least one of them is hypocritical AND parroting- you call me out on (mistakenly) calling IronyOwl on post number for one of my post reasons, just like IronyOwl already did. (Hey paaarrrotiing, guess what!)(HEre.). However, you had already noted IronyOwl's post number at the top of the post. (Merely commenting, but yes, indeed noting it, hypocritically, on a point you parroted from IronyOwl.) (Here, very top of the post.)

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.

[Powder Miner]

I have two reasons, three if you count the fact that I called you out on parroting.
And I was prodded because I was too busy for a Mafia post sunday. Thing for my church, and then on monday, I had a quick combo of homework and Boy Scouts.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Extend. Mormota, you still have questions to answer. I'm not going to let this day end until you've answered.

[Mormota]

Also, you didn't address my other concern: You were suspicious of Shakerag for not scumhunting, but the only scumhunting you were doing was calling him out on it and asking him what he meant. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?

Not actually, no. Because what I called him out on was a general lack of scumhunting. I was scumhunting in my views, and I seriously fail to see what you are expecting here. Just because I make mistakes it doesn't mean nobody else does.

I'm not assuming that if someone attacks you they have to be scum. I'm assuming that it's odd to automatically assume that someone's going after you for genuine but bad reasons rather than because they're scum. What makes you think Urist is town? Do you have reasons, or do you just assume everyone is town until they do something horribly, horribly scummy?

I have explained this exactly in the part you quoted. Urist is not acting scummy, he is doing his townie job. On just what base would I attack him? You are repeating your points, seem to be of the opinion that hypocrisy is scummy, yet you are not doing much better, IronyOwl.

All I can find at the moment, so I'll have to go back and properly address this later. I find your general drifting with votes suspicious in general, though; unvoting and then just sitting there while the lynch went through D1 strikes me as suspicious, for instance, since while it's not a bandwagon, it shows a definite disinterest in who's lynched.

Your train of thought shows a definite lack of thought behind it. My vote would not have changed who's lynched. Why should I then just vote someone? You are making points and asking questions which could have been easily avoided if only you thought more about it, and all this gives me the feeling you are just attacking someone for the sake of attacking and looking town.

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Yet you are not doing it either.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.

Why do you feel so offended by being attacked? Then you claim that having a few points is not a problem, but call Powder out for only having one. Uh... right? Well. No. Not at all.

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)

Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?

[Dariush]

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

Votecount:

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

Not voting:

Extend:

The day will end Thursday, 6 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)

[Zrk2]

I have two reasons, three if you count the fact that I called you out on parroting.
And I was prodded because I was too busy for a Mafia post sunday. Thing for my church, and then on monday, I had a quick combo of homework and Boy Scouts.

OOC: You could have sent the mod a PM and not been prodded. It would look less suspicious.

So, Mormota and Powder Miner, you need to get on the board. Solidify your scumpicks and come out swinging. I want a vote, a reason, and examples to back them up. Let's go, there's only one day left.

Yet you are not doing it either.

I already made my case for Powder.

Spoiler: My Case (click to show/hide)

-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?

Aside from the OMGUS, let's see here. You judged lurking based on number of posts, so I countered that one good post does not equal one bad post, demonstrating that post count alone cannot be used to demonstrate lurking. I am not defending Irony, I am pointing out weaknesses in your arguments.

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.

I mean that if you have a point return to it. Come up with other points too, but don't leave that one be, it could be the argument that turns someone's vote. Every little bit counts. Machoness does not win mafia, tenacity does. You must find holes in logic and point them out, and keep pointing them out. Don't back off like a wuss the second you encounter resistance to your ideas. Never do that. It looks completely like scum trying to avoid attention.

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.

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:

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.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

So? I found examples and reasons and I articulated them. I reasoned, I exampled, I prooved. You on the other hand BSed and backed off the second you were questioned on your reasoning. You then lurked the day away hoping no one would notice you when I pointed out these flaws, in fact you lurked so hard you got prodded. Not just called on it, but fucking prodded. Now you come out against me, and you have what? One reason for voting me? There is nothing wrong with repeating a point if you have other reasons to back it up. I did, I do I always have.

Why do you feel so offended by being attacked? Then you claim that having a few points is not a problem, but call Powder out for only having one. Uh... right? Well. No. Not at all.

I didn't feel offended. I was concerend that his attack was so poor, so I called it. There is a difference.

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)

Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?

Because they might have something worthwhile to say? Because they might be able to make sense of what they were doing? Because they still have stuff to say? Because more information is always welcome? And that's only off the top of my head.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Extend.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

I think what he meant was that you have no way of knowing what were legitimate scumtells and what was simply the replaced being themselves, so the best course of action would not be to dump the other guy's crimes on the replacee.

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)

Which you didn't answer.

If I am confident that someone is scum, then why would I want to hear more from them?

Because if you're town, you're always looking for scum to incriminate themselves. This requires them to post. If you're scum, you're looking for someone to die, but don't really care who. This is easier when you don't let them defend themselves.

[Zrk2]

Extend.

...Because he still replaced someone that appeared scummy? A replacement cannot change roles in the process of being replaced so all those previous scumtells were still valid reasons to vote. This just doesn't make sense.

This is completely asinine. I can not vote someone and call them scum if I haven't seen them in action.

But you still have all the scumtells from the previous person. All those still stand. Replacing doesn't change any of that. That's what I just said.

I think what he meant was that you have no way of knowing what were legitimate scumtells and what was simply the replaced being themselves, so the best course of action would not be to dump the other guy's crimes on the replacee.

That still doesn't invalidate previous scumtells though. Alebeit it is a rather unique situation, so there is some leeway.

[Powder Miner]

Unfortunately, I won;t be able to post for the rest of the day- upcoming field trip, which goes from friday-sunday. BAAAAANDDDDDDDD TRIPPPP
...I suppose an extend is therefore in order.

[Mormota]

Because if you're town, you're always looking for scum to incriminate themselves. This requires them to post. If you're scum, you're looking for someone to die, but don't really care who. This is easier when you don't let them defend themselves.

Then I made a mistake. So did everyone else who lynched him in the end. Regretting it will not get us anywhere.

Answers.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, I won;t be able to post for the rest of the day- upcoming field trip, which goes from friday-sunday. BAAAAANDDDDDDDD TRIPPPP
...I suppose an extend is therefore in order.

I'll be at a bridge tournament, so definitely agreed with this. Extend.

[Dariush]

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

No vote changes, so no votecount.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Zrk2, what the fuck do you mean by this:

I guess I'm confirmed. BM will wrap up right shortly.

[Zrk2]

Zrk2, what the fuck do you mean by this:

I guess I'm confirmed. BM will wrap up right shortly.

That we're in LYLO so it won't drag on for weeks. At most a few more days. Actually, that does look kind of scummy, but it was honestly just a throwaway line. Oops.

Mod: Is there a limit to the number of extends? I'm honestly ready for the day to end and the vote to come down, this is dragging on and I have other things to do with my time. Oppose extend.