Mini 630: Council of Eville: Game Ovah!

[alvinz95]

100% Contradictory. You thought it was a fake wagon, yet you accused SC of having an opportunistic vote. If it's a fake/random wagon (which it is very obvious that wagon was not fake or random) then how was SC's vote opportunistic? Your behavior is completely contradictory. Your words are saying your "vote stays" and accusation of SC were random and meant nothing, but your actions only make sense in the context of that post being serious.

You're lingering on the facts that I have simply downplayed before. I've already said that calling it opportunistic wasn't a "accusation of scumminess" as it was a comment. And I don't get what you're goal in this attack is, seriously. We're accomplishing nothing lingering on random stage moves.

You think I'm scummy because I didn't attack StrangerCoug enough to your liking? Absurd. I agree with you that I don't like his play thus far, but I'm not convinced on his case yet for the meta reasons I brought up. Also, you're pairing me as a scum buddy to StrangerCoug when we don't even know if he's scum yet. Getting a little ahead of yourself here?

Way to blow my words out of proportion. You're scummy because,
1. You weren't consistent at all in scumhunting as you viciously attacked one single move then VOTED with both me and Rage, rather you just noted to Strangecoug that is was scummy and didn't even bother to FOS.
2. It seems like you are more lecturing and giving Strangecoug advice rather than pointing out scumminess.

Basically, you're OMGUSing me because I didn't attack StrangerCoug as hard as I attacked you. Until we see players alignments, that's a pretty poor argument.

An OMGUS is a "oh my god you suck" which cedes a VOTE and the basis is usually just because he/she voted him, and this situation doesn't fit that. And so you're saying, we can't investigate into partners until he/she's role is revealed? Anyway, I haven't even voted you.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, you claim to have played with him and seen him get lynched for similar stuff. If those games aren't ongoing, would you mind linking to them? I'd like to see and judge for myself.

One game is mini 601, which is still ongoing. He got lynched day 3 I believe, so you can check out that game if you wish, but I'm not going to discuss it since it's ongoing, even though that's the game that most mirrors his play in this game in my opinion.

The other game is Mini 604, which just ended today. StrangerCoug basically got lynched for putting a vote on someone for a poor reason, and then when pressured for it, he promptly unvoted and voted a lurker instead. In other words, he got lynched for making really poor votes.

In both games he got lynched for making poor votes, and poorly defending himself afterwards. I'll admit that his play in this game is more venomous and OMGUSy than those other games which makes me hesitant, but there are some definite similarities. His barning of my logic early on strikes me as standard play for him, and some of his indignation at being wagoned strikes me as a genuine frustrated townie response. That combined with the speed of the wagon definitely gives me pause.

[Goatrevolt]

You're lingering on the facts that I have simply downplayed before.

Seriously?

That's the entire point. You're just sitting there downplaying anything I say against you as unimportant or a distraction rather than addressing the issues.

Of course I'm lingering on these issues. You're downplaying them, rather than addressing them. Do you honestly think you can get out of a bandwagon by just saying that your attacker's points are dumb, unimportant or a distraction and call it a day? Yikes...

I've already said that calling it opportunistic wasn't a "accusation of scumminess" as it was a comment. And I don't get what you're goal in this attack is, seriously. We're accomplishing nothing lingering on random stage moves.

My goal is pretty obvious. I don't like your defense period, and I'm pursuing you because I think you're scummy.

Also, I don't buy the "comment" rather than accusation of scumminess. Saying someone's vote is opportunistic implies that it was scummy, because opportunistic votes have a connotation of being something scummy. Then you confirmed your vote on a player being legitimately wagoned after saying that the person voting for him was opportunistic.

I want everyone to answer these questions. Do you think alvinz's comment that StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic and then comment that he's confirming his vote on rage to be odd? Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?

I'll say it again. I don't like you downplaying everything I say simply because your post happened during the random phase. Your post happening during the random phase doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't count and should be ignored. There was real discussion happening during that period, and your post contained real discussion, that you're now trying to play off as simply useless banter (which I don't buy).

1. You weren't consistent at all in scumhunting as you viciously attacked one single move then VOTED with both me and Rage, rather you just noted to Strangecoug that is was scummy and didn't even bother to FOS.

Again, this is really bad logic. I've been perfectly consistent in scum hunting. I'm going after things that I find scummy. Just because I'm not scum hunting what you want me to scum hunt doesn't make me contradictory at all.

Basically, I'll vote who I think is scum. I'll FoS someone when I feel they deserve it. My votes and FoS's have nothing to do with what you perceive as scummy.

Think about this for a second. If I were to apply the same logic you're using then I should find you scummy because you're not voting yourself. I think you're scummy, therefore you're being inconsistent in not also finding yourself scummy and voting yourself.

2. It seems like you are more lecturing and giving Strangecoug advice rather than pointing out scumminess.

Ah, yes. I'm making the coaching scum tell. Congrats, you caught me. I knew I should have attacked StrangerCoug because alvinz thinks he's scummy, therefore I have to as well...

An OMGUS is a "oh my god you suck" which cedes a VOTE and the basis is usually just because he/she voted him, and this situation doesn't fit that. And so you're saying, we can't investigate into partners until he/she's role is revealed? Anyway, I haven't even voted you.

I have a looser view of OMGUS. I consider you pushing poor reasons for finding me suspicious (regardless of whether you vote or not) at the same time that I'm pushing a case on you to be OMGUS.

You can search for partners, sure. But calling me out as scummy because I'm not attacking the same person you think is scummy is really dumb, especially when we have no clue if that person is scum yet or not. If he gets lynched and is scum, and you think my actions fit as a scum buddy, then by all means go for me tomorrow. Pushing me today for those reasons is putting the cart before the horse.

[Rage]

Do you think alvinz's comment that StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic and then comment that he's confirming his vote on rage to be odd?

I, the player who he kept his so called "random" vote on and then overwhelmingly tried to defend, find that awfully odd.

@Alvinz, what is the point of the random voting stage if not to look back at it afterwards? You certainly acknowledge that it starts a game, but what you have proven not to realize is that what starts a game can also finish it. Sure, you made what you believed to be a "random" vote on me at the time, therefore there is no defense of your suspicions (I have not played any previous, completed games with you) but when you look back at the stage at the end of the game most of the "random" votes have basis.

Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?

This question brings out a lot of confusion. It is not that I find it a meaningless post, because there may be basis behind this "random" vote,

I would like to point out that I am currently in aboot 6 games here on Mafiascum.net, and that is excluding two off-site games (one of which I am mod-ing). I will try my best to be active as much as I possibly can, but I do not guarantee the accuracy of my posts (in any of these games, for that reason). I apologize for the inconvenience.

[alvinz95]

Seriously?

That's the entire point. You're just sitting there downplaying anything I say against you as unimportant or a distraction rather than addressing the issues.

Of course I'm lingering on these issues. You're downplaying them, rather than addressing them. Do you honestly think you can get out of a bandwagon by just saying that your attacker's points are dumb, unimportant or a distraction and call it a day? Yikes...

I miss used the meaning of downplay as resolve lol, mistake on my part. Bad vocab.

My goal is pretty obvious. I don't like your defense period, and I'm pursuing you because I think you're scummy.

Also, I don't buy the "comment" rather than accusation of scumminess. Saying someone's vote is opportunistic implies that it was scummy, because opportunistic votes have a connotation of being something scummy. Then you confirmed your vote on a player being legitimately wagoned after saying that the person voting for him was opportunistic.

I want everyone to answer these questions. Do you think alvinz's comment that StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic and then comment that he's confirming his vote on rage to be odd? Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?

I'll say it again. I don't like you downplaying everything I say simply because your post happened during the random phase. Your post happening during the random phase doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't count and should be ignored. There was real discussion happening during that period, and your post contained real discussion, that you're now trying to play off as simply useless banter (which I don't buy).

*slaps head*
Of course, if you don't buy anything in this game, you'll get no where. This whole argument is based on you thinking it was serious, when it really wasn't to me.

Again, this is really bad logic. I've been perfectly consistent in scum hunting. I'm going after things that I find scummy. Just because I'm not scum hunting what you want me to scum hunt doesn't make me contradictory at all.

Basically, I'll vote who I think is scum. I'll FoS someone when I feel they deserve it. My votes and FoS's have nothing to do with what you perceive as scummy.

Think about this for a second. If I were to apply the same logic you're using then I should find you scummy because you're not voting yourself. I think you're scummy, therefore you're being inconsistent in not also finding yourself scummy and voting yourself.

Ah, yes. I'm making the coaching scum tell. Congrats, you caught me. I knew I should have attacked StrangerCoug because alvinz thinks he's scummy, therefore I have to as well...

Wait, so you're saying OMGUSing most people on the wagon, using a cruddy defense, hypocritical in opportunistic voting, and lack of consistency isn't as scumming as saying "Who is the name of scum?" or "Opporunistic much?"? I'm not saying who you should attack, but still, thats not consistent. You've agreed on AT LEAST one of those points.
Votes and fos have nothing to do with scumminess? What DO you base your suspicions on then?

I have a looser view of OMGUS. I consider you pushing poor reasons for finding me suspicious (regardless of whether you vote or not) at the same time that I'm pushing a case on you to be OMGUS.

You can search for partners, sure. But calling me out as scummy because I'm not attacking the same person you think is scummy is really dumb, especially when we have no clue if that person is scum yet or not. If he gets lynched and is scum, and you think my actions fit as a scum buddy, then by all means go for me tomorrow. Pushing me today for those reasons is putting the cart before the horse.

Fine by me.

I'm not pushing your lynch anyway, I'd rather go with Strangecoug.

[StrangerCoug]

1. OMGUS?

Yes, but for a reason. In my book, if someone votes back with a legitimate case, then it ceases to be OMGUS, but what people consider or don't consider to be OMGUS seems to vary a bit due to people making different judgment calls on it.

2. Bad defense

Explain.

3. Hypocritical in opportunistic voting

So be it. As I said, there wasn't much to discuss yet on page 3.

4. Lack of consistency (you only FOS rage)

You quoted my FoS'ing Rage and proceeded to throw my doing so out the window. The mindset you gave me works like "screw this, I'm voting you anyway with as little of a case that I can get away with". cerebus3 was being a brat about it, but I have to pick and choose who I want to go after with my vote.

Dude, StrangerCoug, people jumping on a bandwagon is not a scummy action by itself. You can't just vote everyone who jumps on your bandwagon. If someone is voting you for poor reasons, by all means, point it out, but jumping on every single player who votes you is not productive at all.

Once alvinz95 voted, the wagon got ridiculous. What am I, a touch-tone telephone?

I'm not a fan of Coug's play, but he's been lynched as town in both of the other games I've played with him for similar type stuff, so I want to compare his posting in this game with his posting in those games before making a decision here.

I don't want to create the presumption that you're sympathetic of me if that's not true, but I applaud you for thinking (post #71, quoted here) before acting (post #76).

[Rage]

My apologies, the Submit and Preview buttons look awfully familiar after a while.

Consider the following "fixed":

Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?

This question brings out a lot of confusion. It is not that I find it a "meaningless post", because there may be basis behind this "random" vote, but I do object to alvinz dismissing your suspicions of him. Classic scum behavior, and I think this is being done because he does not consider himself the "top priority" of the Town right now, however, that is just my thought on the situation. As such, I consider him to be and switch my vote. My vote on StrangerCoug was for pressure, not necessarily to start a bandwagon, and now that he has provided an excellent source for discussion I feel it is the appropriate time to put my vote where my mouth is, on my top suspicion.

Vote: alvinz95

[Goatrevolt]

*slaps head*
Of course, if you don't buy anything in this game, you'll get no where. This whole argument is based on you thinking it was serious, when it really wasn't to me.

So because I don't buy your explanation, that means I don't buy anything in this game? Misrep. Again, you're downplaying my case against you by suggesting that if I "don't buy your defense, then I won't buy anything."

Basically, you're correct. The entire argument comes down to the fact that I think your post was serious, and thus contradictory, and you're suggesting that it was a meaningless post. Looking at that post in context, it doesn't seem meaningless at all for reasons I've brought up over and over again.

Wait, so you're saying OMGUSing most people on the wagon, using a cruddy defense, hypocritical in opportunistic voting, and lack of consistency isn't as scumming as saying "Who is the name of scum?" or "Opporunistic much?"? I'm not saying who you should attack, but still, thats not consistent. You've agreed on AT LEAST one of those points.
Votes and fos have nothing to do with scumminess? What DO you base your suspicions on then?

You're completely missing the point. You're saying I'm inconsistent based on who you think is scum. You're saying that my scum list doesn't match up with your scum list and thus that makes me inconsistent, which makes absolutely no sense.

Again, apply that logic the other way. You're inconsistent for not voting for yourself because I think you're scum.

You're measuring scumminess in almost a bureaucratic way. StrangerCoug has committed 4 scum tells, and you have committed 1 scum tell thus he's scum and you are not. My votes are entirely based on who I think is scummy, however I don't measure scumminess strictly on a "who has committed the most scum tells" level. There are other factors in play as well.

[StrangerCoug]

Goat, you claim to have played with him and seen him get lynched for similar stuff. If those games aren't ongoing, would you mind linking to them? I'd like to see and judge for myself.

He already linked to the one game not in progress.

If anybody cares to go through it, I do have a MafiaWiki page, with links to every game on this site that I have ever been in.

[StrangerCoug]

Slap in the head: StrangerCoug

for somehow thinking we were back on page 3.

[alvinz95]

*slaps head*
Of course, if you don't buy anything in this game, you'll get no where. This whole argument is based on you thinking it was serious, when it really wasn't to me.

So because I don't buy your explanation, that means I don't buy anything in this game? Misrep. Again, you're downplaying my case against you by suggesting that if I "don't buy your defense, then I won't buy anything."

Basically, you're correct. The entire argument comes down to the fact that I think your post was serious, and thus contradictory, and you're suggesting that it was a meaningless post. Looking at that post in context, it doesn't seem meaningless at all for reasons I've brought up over and over again.

Wait, so you're saying OMGUSing most people on the wagon, using a cruddy defense, hypocritical in opportunistic voting, and lack of consistency isn't as scumming as saying "Who is the name of scum?" or "Opporunistic much?"? I'm not saying who you should attack, but still, thats not consistent. You've agreed on AT LEAST one of those points.
Votes and fos have nothing to do with scumminess? What DO you base your suspicions on then?

You're completely missing the point. You're saying I'm inconsistent based on who you think is scum. You're saying that my scum list doesn't match up with your scum list and thus that makes me inconsistent, which makes absolutely no sense.

Again, apply that logic the other way. You're inconsistent for not voting for yourself because I think you're scum.

You're measuring scumminess in almost a bureaucratic way. StrangerCoug has committed 4 scum tells, and you have committed 1 scum tell thus he's scum and you are not. My votes are entirely based on who I think is scummy, however I don't measure scumminess strictly on a "who has committed the most scum tells" level. There are other factors in play as well.

Very well.
Ok, then you're scumminess system is really fucked up. Thats all i have to say.

[veerus]

My goal is pretty obvious. I don't like your defense period, and I'm pursuing you because I think you're scummy.

Also, I don't buy the "comment" rather than accusation of scumminess. Saying someone's vote is opportunistic implies that it was scummy, because opportunistic votes have a connotation of being something scummy. Then you confirmed your vote on a player being legitimately wagoned after saying that the person voting for him was opportunistic.

I want everyone to answer these questions. Do you think alvinz's comment that StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic and then comment that he's confirming his vote on rage to be odd? Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?

I'll say it again. I don't like you downplaying everything I say simply because your post happened during the random phase. Your post happening during the random phase doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't count and should be ignored. There was real discussion happening during that period, and your post contained real discussion, that you're now trying to play off as simply useless banter (which I don't buy).

*slaps head*
Of course, if you don't buy anything in this game, you'll get no where. This whole argument is based on you thinking it was serious, when it really wasn't to me.

When you reference your random vote and say "vote stays" then, as far as I'm concerned, that vote becomes a real vote for real reasons. Alvinz95's entire defense has hinged on the fact that he was playing around and wasn't serious. I haven't really seen anything else of substance in his defense. Here's the thing though.. In this game, EVERYTHING you say is serious and meaningful. Claiming it's not is a poor defense and not one I buy.

Unvote, Vote: alvinz95

Also, re: SC's play.. I was in mini 601 with those two and his erratic comments and votes got him lynched in there. I'm not saying it's a good way to play, nor does it clear him as town. But it definitely is something to keep an eye on, but at least it's sort of consistent.

MOD: Can we get a vote count please?

[Dean Harper]

OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT:

Skillit - (1) cerebus3
StrangerCoug- (1) alvinz95

alvinz95- (4) goatrevolt, StangerCoug, Rage, veerus

cerebus3's vote for StrangerCoug in post 63 did not count because he didn't unvote Skillit first.

7 votes for a lynch.

[Gojira]

Wow, lot of posts for a 12 hour period. Been at work, sleep now.... will process this and respond in the morning.

[cerebus3]

mod:

rage is up there twice.
Funny, so my vote didn't actually happen.

Cerebus, the ease with which it was start, and the ease with which a jump onto it was made is a bit unsettling for me. The fact that it was so easy to all use the same point, re-spoken, is what seems suspicious to me.

Do you think this new wagon is more justified?

Anyway, I think what stranger did was scummier than what alvinz did, so I am going to keep my vote on coug for now.

unvote, vote: StrangerCoug

[Dean Harper]

Thanks for heads up cerebus, fixed now.

[forbiddanlight]

L/A today. I'll take a look at the cases and probably vote sometime between tonight and tomorrow.

[forbiddanlight]

Guess I lied. This is about the millionth time my saturday plans have been cancelled. Allow me to mope for a few hours and I'll return to check cases.

[Goatrevolt]

Guess I lied. This is about the millionth time my saturday plans have been cancelled. Allow me to mope for a few hours and I'll return to check cases.

Lynch all liars.

[forbiddanlight]

Lynch all liars.

Oh pickles.

(Alright, it's been long enough, I'll look around and see if I should vote)

[Goatrevolt]

Oh pickles.

Hahaha. Definitely a scum response there.

[StrangerCoug]

Guess I lied. This is about the millionth time my saturday plans have been cancelled. Allow me to mope for a few hours and I'll return to check cases.

Lynch all liars.

FoS: Goatrevolt

because I feel she did not lie. She is not psychic, and I don't know what her plans were or what cancelled them, but this is not enough reason for a policy lynch.

[Skillit]

on the discussion regarding post 22 (as i realize i haven't weighed in on this one yet) I'm just going to go with an abridged play by play of the highlights of this to serve as an objective summary to both make sure that i fully understand what was going on, and also to make sure all of us are on the same page

*Also if i dont do a quote="name" just please take my "blah" to be a phraphrase

I'll begin with my personal working definition of

opportunistic

: (

adj

) To prey on something that is likely to be weak and poorly able to defend itself.

She got an opportunistic infection because she had a weak immune system.

so. it all started with rages' lil scum name comment - goat says "rage, thats lame" SC posts "Goatrevolt pretty much said it, vote!" then alvinz posts

This to me is opportunistic, vote stays though

This translated to me as

Strangercoug, your vote hopping was kind of 'preying on something once it was proven to be weak' but im not going to follow you in vote hopping

The post, the initial point of contention, to me, was nothing more than that. Then (to me) the arguments seem

ed

to dissolve into semantics and minutia
But it really did not - the argument actually continued on pretty close to this:
Goat then said -hey, if you think thats scummy, why keep your vote withought giving us any reason as to why your keeping it, if you dont think its scummy, why bother calling it opportunistic?
to which Alv replied

...we are still in the random stage. Really, I don't see anything that bad in what he said, and he defended it well enough

goat replied "that still does not make sense, if it was random why confirm your vote, if it wasnt random why the importance of remarking on opportunistic-ness"

Pouncing on something measley is opportunistic, regardless of what stage we are in. So I'm guessing that the whole purpose of your vote is that it doesn't make sense?

You specifically making a point to keep your vote on Rage while also lamenting StrangerCoug's vote on Rage as opportunistic seemed a bit contradictory, so I jumped on it

It was a basic comment, not intended as an "accusation of scumminess". Hence that we were in the RANDOM STAGE

So you think StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic, but you don't feel that his opportunistic vote was scummy?

@goat, I'm done talking dumb random stage moves mkay? [then he quoted goat]

Why go to the trouble of asserting that you're keeping your random vote on, especially on someone who has two legitimate votes on them at this point?

Does this matter?

The way you dismiss my arguments or simply brush over them without suitably addressing my concerns doesn't give me good vibes...It absolutely does matter. I think you've been contradictory

1. I haven't dismissed any of your questions.
2. Did I say all moves in the random are dumb?
3. Detracts from real discussion
...FoS: Goatrevolt

This is real discussion. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're completely dismissive of anything I'm saying against you. . . you're ignoring/brushing aside anything I say under the premise that it's not real discussion

i realize that there were a few posts on this after where i am (this summary takes you to post 75, top of page 4) but this is pretty much how it all reads back to me.

goat

, does that about summ up what you point is?

[Goatrevolt]

Skillit: that's kind of the barebones version of the story, but yeah, that's basically what it is.

- Alvinz's post contained two comments that sounded serious in nature: Calling StrangerCoug's vote opportunistic and mentioning that his vote stands on Rage. It was a random vote, and saying that "vote stands" implies that he's making it a serious vote, because I can seriously think of no reason why one would make a point to suggest that they're keeping their random vote on someone with 2 legitimate votes on them.
- This makes his post contradictory in nature. He mentions that StrangerCoug's vote on Rage was opportunistic, but yet provides an even more opportunistic vote in the same post.
- When pressured on it, he's skirted the issue, and tried to downplay my arguments against him as being useless or a distraction from real discussion. He's repeatedly implied that because his post took place in the random phase, it was meaningless and shouldn't be held against him.

So, in summary. He made a contradictory post, and has since then defended (or deflected from) himself in a completely unsatisfactory way.

[alvinz95]

Guess I lied. This is about the millionth time my saturday plans have been cancelled. Allow me to mope for a few hours and I'll return to check cases.

Lynch all liars.

FoS: Goatrevolt

because I feel she did not lie. She is not psychic, and I don't know what her plans were or what cancelled them, but this is not enough reason for a policy lynch.

Opportunistic to attempt to distance from your partner?