Open 312 - Venomous Intentions [Game Over]

[toxictaipan]

VOTE: Toro

If you rearrange the letters in his name, it spells "root."

[toxictaipan]

andrew94, zMuffinMan and drmyshottyizsik seem to want a quick-lynch on you. Can you give us any good reasons to keep you around?

[toxictaipan]

How is Ash your top read right now?
It seems your trying to get a lynch through, and fast.

VOTE: shotty

Seriously.

What did I do, shotty? I asked a player a game-related question, trying to get the game going, because it was going slow... and I'm your top read?

UNVOTE: Toro
VOTE: drmyshottyizsik

You

are

my

top read right now.

[toxictaipan]

First off, OMGUS.

Post your reasons why you believe that a shotty lynch would be good for today?

First off, it wasn't OMGUS because I didn't vote him simply on the basis that he suspected me.

My reason for voting shotty is because his reason for "suspecting" me is absolutely terrible (oh wait, it didn't even exist in the first place...). I wasn't even talking to shotty, because I was sure he was joking around. I was trying to get a feel for andrew94.

And it's not like this vote is any worse than my random vote, because I have no reason to believe you to be a good lynch as of right now.

[toxictaipan]

*back peddles*

More reaction fishing, I assume.

First off, OMGUS.

Post your reasons why you believe that a shotty lynch would be good for today?

First off, it wasn't OMGUS because I didn't vote him simply on the basis that he suspected me.

My reason for voting shotty is because his reason for "suspecting" me is absolutely terrible (oh wait, it didn't even exist in the first place...). I wasn't even talking to shotty, because I was sure he was joking around. I was trying to get a feel for andrew94.

But you voted him strictly because he had you as his top read without any other reason to go on, that's OMGUS.

And it's not like this vote is any worse than my random vote, because I have no reason to believe you to be a good lynch as of right now.

Well duh, we were in RVS.

---------------

Ash = toxictaipan? Is taipan an alt?

"Without any other reason to go on"? Okay, sooo... I'm not supposed to vote for players who use bad reasoning (or apparently none at all, in shotty's case)? I thought that was how you find scum.

[toxictaipan]

So it goes like this, then?

Scum: Attempts to start bandwagon, hopes it sticks.

Target: Calls him out on it.

Scum: "Oh, lol. I was just reaction fishing. Nice OMGUS, though!"

[toxictaipan]

Scum: Attempts to start bandwagon,

hopes it sticks

.

Explain this part better, please.

Scum already know who all the innocent players are, and therefor have to convince the rest of the town that a town-aligned player is scum if they want to win. That being said, it's a lot of trouble to come up with false accusations against

one

innocent player (per lynch!) that are believable. Now imagine how hard it would have to be to come up with false accusations against

multiple

players when your previous bandwagons fail. So, if you're scum, you obviously want your bandwagon to stick so that you don't have to start all over again.

This is assuming, of course, that scum aren't bussing each other needlessly.

[toxictaipan]

it's a lot of trouble to come up with false accusations against one innocent player (per lynch!) that are believable.

No, it isn't.

-_-

No, not if a town-aligned player makes a mistake that can be exploited by scum, which I'm not going to say never happens (far from it). But if it were

that

easy for scum to frame townies, then scum would never be lynched outside of bussing each other. So can we please be realistic here? Scum don't always have to start the wagon. I'm not saying that every time a town-aligned player is lynched, scum started it. If a town-aligned player makes a mistake that can be exploited by scum, as I mentioned a few sentences ago, then surely other town-aligned players can pick up on that and make a case against it. And again, assuming they can get a wagon started on someone, what if it fails? Can they do it again just as easily?

I'm saying that scum starting a ton of bad wagons that don't stick doesn't really make them look all too good. Do you disagree with that?

So, if you're scum, you obviously want your bandwagon to stick so that you don't have to start all over again.

Yes, but what gave you an indication that shotty wants the wagon on andrew to stick?

What gave you the indication that I am voting shotty for wanting the wagon on andrew94 to stick?

[toxictaipan]

What gave you the indication that I am voting shotty for wanting the wagon on andrew94 to stick?

....

I didn't say you were voting shotty for that reason. I was talking specifically about #78, where you were saying that shotty-scum attempted to start a bandwagon on andrew, and was hoping that it stuck. And your reasoning for this is that shotty is lazy scum who doesn't want to make a case against anyone else. The issue I have with this is that I don't see shotty-scum legitimately being able to force a lynch on andrew with his RVS vote, so it's a false accusation.

Or am I wrong about what you were implying in #78?

Nah, man. I was talking about myself, not andrew94. "Bandwagon," probably wasn't the right word, but I wasn't trying to be super-detailed or anything there.

What I was saying is this:

shotty throws out accusations/starts a bandwagon/says he thinks I'm suspicious/whatever, it doesn't matter, without having any reasons whatsoever. I didn't understand how anyone could possibly say they suspected me when my only other post up to that point was my RVS post. Saying someone is suspicious without having a reason to say it is suspicious in itself, so I voted for shotty. Well, then he gets to turn around and say, "Oh, lol. I was just reaction-fishing. Nice OMGUS, though!"

This is a problem we had in my last game here, Newbie 1100. Basically, a player made a trap and was called in to question over it. The trap wasn't perfect, and all she had to do was admit that her trap could have been abused by scum just as well as town. However, she showed a reluctance to do this, which cast more suspicion on her.

So, yes, I'm not denying that shotty could have been reaction-fishing. However, I'm also not ruling out the possibility that he's scum who wanted to trap someone in a OMGUS situation. If anyone else would have called him out on his lack of logic, it probably would have been fine. But since I'm the one who did it, it's automatically OMGUS. So, that brings up another problem (this is assuming the person in question is scum, purely hypothetical, etc.):

Let's say shotty is scum, and he said what he said about me. That only leaves a few possibilities. 1) Everyone can ignore/miss it, and shotty gets away scotch-free with his lack of logic, 2) I can ignore it because I'll automatically be accused of OMGUS if I don't, and hope someone else notices it and says something, or 3) I can vote for him myself and be accused of OMGUS caught in his reaction-fishing.

The only other person to really say anything about shotty at the time was jakesh97 (but his reasons were different), so if I had not said anything, it would have almost been scenario 2. Since we're assuming he's scum here, that means his trap is pretty much win-win. He either gets away with it without any harm and he can try something else, or his target gets accused of OMGUS. I'm not going to ignore the possibility that shotty could be scum, just as you or anyone else could be, so this scenario is a possibility as well. It's something I have to consider.

Personally, I don't think my vote on shotty is hurting anything. Call it OMGUS if you want, but it's better than my random vote. The game has been pretty uneventful until recently, and me being the center of attention now... I'm certainly not about to vote for myself. If something more suspicious happens I'll be happy to move my vote accordingly, but until then, I don't see much going on.

Pre-edit: Wow, was not expecting that to be a wall...

[toxictaipan]

Also, andrew94, I still want you to answer my question.

[toxictaipan]

Also, andrew94, I still want you to answer my question.

can you link me to it

Ugh. No wonder there's a policy lynch out on you... Here:

andrew94, zMuffinMan and drmyshottyizsik seem to want a quick-lynch on you. Can you give us any good reasons to keep you around?

[toxictaipan]

Andrew doesn't need to prove him self worthy of this game .

No, but he needs to answer questions when he's asked. I don't want anyone to think it's okay to ignore stuff just because it was two pages ago.

Seriously post things that are useful or gtfo.

Ehhhh, you first.

I don't want Andrew lynched I want you lynched. That's reason enough for him to be "kept around".

Oh. Well, that explains why you're currently voting for me, then...

OH, WAIT! You're voting for andrew94! That's not a blatant contradiction or anything.

[toxictaipan]

tox, why are you asking andrew for good reasons to keep him around?

Like... What possible answer could he give you here that you would think is a good, valid answer? Does "I'm town" suffice?

I was trying to get a feel for andrew94 for myself. You and shotty were messing with him on this PL thing, I just wanted to see what he had to say about it. I don't see what the big deal is.

[toxictaipan]

i did not construct my reasoning out of nowhere.

Why not vote for lobstermania, then? He has also expressed difficulty in finding something to comment on, which seems to be the reason you're voting for xofelf. Since they're both guilty of the same thing in your eyes, you must be justifying your vote on xofelf some other way, or else you're just picking arbitrarily -- something that tells me that you don't really care which one of them gets lynched.

[toxictaipan]

i voted xofelf due to her post 8.
about lobster, he agreed after. = =

whats arbitary btw.

I know why you voted for xofelf. It's because she said that she couldn't find anything to comment on, right? Well, lobstermania said the same thing, so why not unvote xofelf and vote for lobstermania? They both said the same thing, and you perceived it as scummy when xofelf said it, so you must have perceived it as scummy when lobstermania said it, too. It only makes sense to vote for the

most

scummy person, so, since you're voting xofelf, you must perceive her as scummier than lobstermania for some reason. What other reasons do you have for voting xofelf, if any?

If you don't have any other reasons for voting xofelf, then you are picking on a whim (arbitrarily). To me, that says you don't care which one of them gets lynched -- something I view as slightly scummy. It is extremely inconsistent to vote for someone and

completely

ignore another person (you didn't even

comment

on lobstermania's post, but you

voted

for xofelf) when they do the same thing as the person you're voting for.

UNVOTE: drmyshottyizsik
VOTE: andrew94
Be more consistent, please.

[toxictaipan]

:roll eyes:

What's the problem

now

?

[toxictaipan]

bro xofelf said that on jun 19 12 25pm
i voted him at jun 19 6 54pm
lobster said his stuff on jun 20 6 16 am
i saw xofelf first i voted her.

Bro, that's irrelevant. A player said something you perceived as scummy, so you voted for them. A different player said the same thing that you thought was scummy before, but you completely ignored them. At the very least, you should have commented on it if you really thought it was scummy, but you didn't. Extremely inconsistent.

[toxictaipan]

bro xofelf said that on jun 19 12 25pm
i voted him at jun 19 6 54pm
lobster said his stuff on jun 20 6 16 am
i saw xofelf first i voted her.

Bro, that's irrelevant. A player said something you perceived as scummy, so you voted for them. A different player said the same thing that you thought was scummy before, but you completely ignored them. At the very least, you should have commented on it if you really thought it was scummy, but you didn't. Extremely inconsistent.

im pretty i missed it

I'm assuming you meant to say "I'm pretty sure I missed it."

How are you "pretty sure" you missed it? Can you not remember if you read it or not?

Let's assume you did miss it. Well, I've brought it to your attention. Why have you still yet to say anything about something you perceive as scummy?

[toxictaipan]

because i can only vote one person at a time.
as of this moment, lobster actually has way less crap then xofelf.
but i have my fos's

You don't have to vote for both of them at the same time! You can acknowledge that something is scummy just by saying so. In fact, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you believe the person you have your vote on currently is more scummy, but you want to bring attention to something else you noticed that was also scummy.

You said, "as of this moment, lobster actually has way less crap then xofelf."

Now we're going to play a game were you answer a question I asked you two pages ago.

What other reasons do you have for voting xofelf, if any?

Answer this for me, please.

[toxictaipan]

fine. toxic, now you can stop focussing on me and tell me what else you can come up with

...

You STILL haven't even answered my question, so, no, I won't stop asking you for the answer. I wouldn't be focusing on you AT ALL if you would just tell me what I'd like to know. But I have to constantly reply to you, just because I'm trying to get you to answer one simple question. I'm not just going to drop it because you refuse to cooperate.

Please tell me what other reasons for have for voting xofelf.

This also means Toxic is scum too, I wish he'd stop picking on Andrew, he's a cool dude.

Wait, what? How am I scum?

Also, as I said above, I wouldn't be constantly "picking" on andrew94 if he'd just answer my questions when I ask them. I

will not

drop something because the person I'm talking to refuses to cooperate. I mean, do you want the scum to just walk all over me when I'm talking to them?

"Mr. Scum, can you please give me an explanation for your odd behavior?" "Why, no, I can't" "Oh... Well, that's fine, then. Thanks for your time."

When I ask questions, I expect them to be answered without any fooling around. I will give you all that courtesy, and I expect it in return.


This is my problem with andrew94:

This is what andrew94 said about xofelf:

as of this moment, lobster actually has way less crap then xofelf.

However, this is the

only

reason he gave for voting her:

@xofelf- gut is good. i like gut. but i voted you because of your post before. is there really NOTHING for you to comment about? nothing? (apart from saying nothing is gonna happen).

Is it really wrong for me to want to know what the "crap load" of other stuff against xofelf is?



Now, back to the scum thing. You're currently voting for zMuffinMan and you also think I'm scum, apparently. And, I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but am I correct in interpreting that you believe drmyshottyizsik is scum, too? If so, do you realistically think you've accurately nailed all 3 scum before the end of Day 1 with what little information we have? Seriously?

[toxictaipan]

Now, back to the scum thing. You're currently voting for zMuffinMan and you also think I'm scum, apparently. And, I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but am I correct in interpreting that you believe drmyshottyizsik is scum, too? If so, do you realistically think you've accurately nailed all 3 scum before the end of Day 1 with what little information we have? Seriously?

Why not? You act as if it's impossible.


You can get results like that when you're not tunneling the village idiot.

Okay, sure. What else should I be doing, then? There's really not much happening. I'll admit that I don't like zMuffinMan's posting style right now, but he is currently the one with the most votes against him and he has been told that his posting style isn't helping anything. He knows, he doesn't care, and he's not going to change it. Not even if I say something about it.

I also had a bad feeling about shotty before, but after I read his ISO again, I noticed something interesting.

As for my scumread on Dr, earlier in the game he called Toxic "Obvious scum" yet he voted me two pages later because of something he didn't even truly understand. Honestly if he "didn't understand" he would asked in the first place, not jump to a vote. This implies he was just looking for a reason to stop leaning on Toxic as obvious scum and found what he thought would be the best target.

This is what you have to say about shotty, and this is what you're deriving your reasoning for me being scum from. However, it's a blatant misrepresentation. Here's what shotty actually said:

you're not asking for outing scum tells, you are asking for scum lists.

That's pretty much the same thing.


When I ask for scum list I'm asking for reasoning a long with it. No one is going to ask for a list of scum with literally no reasoning behind them. It's already implied.

You should barely have reasons for one good scum suspect now. Scum typically use this trick to see who they need to night kill and to create a lot of WIFOM. I'm sorry I thought you wanted simply a hard list. I've seen scum pull this many times before.

He said he

thought

you wanted a hard list, not that he, "didn't understand." He misunderstood you, but he didn't vote for you even though he, "didn't understand," like you say. There's a big difference between voting for someone when you think one thing but are wrong because you misunderstood and voting for someone before asking for clarification even though you knowingly don't understand the situation. You're incorrectly making it out to appear to be the worse of the two. He had no reason to ask you anything because he didn't realize that he had misunderstood the situation.

[toxictaipan]

@Mod: can we have a deadline extension until the replacements are found?

If not, we should agree on someone to lynch quickly - what is not a easy task with 8 players active when 7 are needed for a lynch.
Since BS and Muffin are the most discussed today, I'd rather go ahead with the wagon on MuffinMan. And no the quicklynch on andrew is not the reason, but the post from BS I quoted summarizes it quite properly.

If it were to prevent a No Lynch, I would join whichever wagon between Baby Spice and zMuffinMan. I really don't have a preference towards either wagon, other than zMuffinMan's use of sarcasm (but as long as he explains his actions instead of just being smart-alecky

all the time

, I don't really care about that either). Neither of them really have super great reasons behind them, so I really don't see the difference.

One of eijolend and Vifam is scum (eijo probs).

I find it interesting that you think Eijolend is more likely to be scum. Why would scum ever voluntarily ask for an extension on the deadline? Don't they normally want the Day to end as soon as possible? And with Vifam's misrep. on drmyshottyizsik, I feel that of the two of them, Vifam is more likely to be scum (but I don't have excellent reads on either of them at the moment).

[toxictaipan]

So, tox, you don't have any sort of scum read on babyspice or I, and you don't see anything in #235 that makes you even consider the possibility that she's scum? That's just standard town play to you?

I

do

see what you're getting at with Baby Spice, but if you want my honest opinion, I think this game Day has been crappy discussion-wise and pretty uninformative altogether. I would rather have a productive discussion and a better reason to lynch someone. We were granted a week extension, so we shouldn't waste it.

If it were to come down to you vs. Baby Spice, assuming not much changed between now and the deadline, I would probably be more likely to lynch Baby Spice, because at least we have a reason against her. You're just being sarcastic for the most part. But really, if we're still stuck between you and Baby Spice for another week and discussion hasn't improved at all, then I'd say we're doinitwrong anyway.

bro. i voted (forgot name) because he said that post about nothing happening.
thats the reasoning + gut which i said a lot of times.

Bro, that's just

one

reason. You said xofelf has a

way more

crap against her than lobstermania does.

Or is it just that your gut is full of crap?

i didnt see lobster's post.
lobsters post is also scummy.
he is now on fos.

Yeah, 4 pages after I brought it to your attention.

also check out xofelf's post 240 so opportunistic

Asking for clarification on the rules is opportunistic? How so?

[toxictaipan]

Wait, what are your scum reads, tox? Or do you have any? I sort of haven't been paying much attention to you lately, and all I've seen is you arguing with andrew.

Well, I mean, pretty much. I definitely see what you're talking about with Baby Spice, I could see her being scum now that I've reviewed the game. Besides that, I'm not sure. Vifam seems to have just dropped off the radar. The activity level of this game sucks, and I'm bad enough as it is when it comes to reading people when there's good activity.

@lobstermania:

It's not about re-reading their posts knowing they are town. It's about re-reading others posts, knowing they are town. You lynch because it gives you information. And you get to look at who said what about the person who was lynched.

This.

[toxictaipan]

does that mean i am scum?

No. But when you say you have "way more crap" against a player, I expect you to be able to back it up instead of just repeating one reason over and over. If you can't provide any other reasons after claiming you can, then, yes, that makes you scum.

like i said, i didnt see it

Dude. I told you about it 4 pages ago, and I

know

you read my post 4 pages go. You

just now

put lobstermania on FOS... 4 pages after I mentioned it to you.

You're FOS is 4 pages late, which is just... weird.

no what he said was: if we dont do shit until deadline, no lynch right secretly: muhahaha no lynch= good for scum. how about thirding the extension

No, that's just how you decided to interpret it.

[toxictaipan]

V/LA until the 5th.

[toxictaipan]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Baby Spice

I do have internet access, but my posting will be extremely limited until the 5th or 6th. Just in case I can't get on again before the deadline, I'm going to vote for Baby Spice.

[toxictaipan]

UNVOTE: Baby Spice

Okay. Not sure what we're supposed to do now that we're so close to the deadline. Baby Spice going more in-depth with her scum reads seems like a good place to start.