Open 305 - Faith + 1 [D6] [LYLO]

[C-Worl]

@zMuffinMan, I believe this should answer your question.

It sounds like a splendid way to setup mislynches.

[andrew94]

unvote

in case.

got lan party FFF.

[C-Worl]

unvote

in case.

got lan party FFF.

If you do not wish to be punched in the face with my penis then you will strategically CTR+Z what you just did.

[zMuffinMan]

It sounds like a splendid way to setup mislynches.

... But... How...?

How could I have possibly set up any mislynch unless I was definitely wrong and 6 people blindly sheeped me for no good reason?

[Amrun]

@Amrun,

I think you may be trying to scumhunt me, but it's not very productive. Scumhunt me if you want, but do it better. No more theory arguing and baseless accusations. I am so bored with this line of discussion.

How is it not very productive to try to get a read on you? Even if you were town, it would still be productive for me to question your motives and form a proper read on you.

I'm not arguing theory. I'm not making baseless accusations.

Fact:

You posted nothing of substance and called it trapping, but you have yet to explain how this was actually trapping.

Fact:

You said you found early posts by Quilford and I suspicious, but neglected to elaborate on why until I badgered you about it. In fact, you neglected to bring it up at all until you were badgered.

The rest of my reasons for suspecting you're scum are, of course, based on my intuition, but they really aren't "baseless" accusations at all. Your actions simply don't give me a town feeling.

No, I think you should question me etc. I just think you aren't drawing logical conclusions from your questions.

Your first "fact" is not a fact at all. I have explained what I did and how I did it. To summarize, I saw a scummy post by Quilford, but it wasn't a lot by itself. I expressed support of your wagon but didn't vote to see what kind of reactions it would draw, particularly from Quilford. I wanted to gauge his reaction and felt that addressing his previously scummy post first would alter his reaction. It is not that hard to grasp. Don't sit there and pretend I haven't explained this when I have.

Your second fact is also not a fact. You were not "badgering" me. At that point, I viewed our exchanges as merely questioning, discussing, etc. as is normal. I explained then because it was clear that Quilford wasn't going to respond any time soon. I wanted to address his scumminess to HIM after I saw how he responded to your wagon,but he isn't around so instead I explained it to everyone by explaining it to you. How can I have neglected to bring it up? That doesn't even make sense.

You can go on with your gut read on me, but my point is that you have already made up your mind on that and are not achieving anything further with this silliness, so find some NEW points to talk about with me or other people. What I mean is we have been talking about the same things forever and I'm tired of it. I have repeated myself so many times that I'm losing my mind a little bit.

[C-Worl]

It sounds like a splendid way to setup mislynches.

... But... How...?

How could I have possibly set up any mislynch unless I was definitely wrong and 6 people blindly sheeped me for no good reason?

Start early hope reasons pop up as you go. Which is what you were doin.

[zMuffinMan]

@Amrun,

I saw a scummy post by Quilford, but it wasn't a lot by itself. I expressed support of your wagon but didn't vote to see what kind of reactions it would draw, particularly from Quilford. I wanted to gauge his reaction and felt that addressing his previously scummy post first would alter his reaction.

I'm not saying you didn't explain your actions at all. I'm saying you didn't explain how it was really trapping. You called it a trap, but it was just you not posting any real content. You've explicitly said that your intention was to wait for Quilford to do something scummy. You didn't prod him into doing anything, you didn't trap him into doing anything. You

weren't

trapping.

I explained then because it was clear that Quilford wasn't going to respond any time soon.

I don't see how it was clear he wasn't going to respond, and I don't see why you needed him to respond to make a case against him. It seems like you already had your mind made up, and it seems like you already had a case on him. Why did you think it was a good idea not to bring it up?

How can I have neglected to bring it up? That doesn't even make sense.

Because you had multiple opportunities to bring it up before you were asked to, and you didn't. Therefore you neglected to bring it up. Neglecting to bring something up isn't necessarily scummy, but I don't think you had a good reason to not bring it up.


@C-Worl,

Start early hope reasons pop up as you go. Which is what you were doin.

It's obviously what you're suggesting I did, but I don't really see where you explain how it makes sense in any way if I'm scum.

[Amrun]

1. I have completed several games on this site (see my wiki) and have been nominated for Most Outstanding New Player. I also play extensively on another site and won Female MVP and Best Mafia Debator there.

2. I am a musician and future English educator and writer.

I have been busy since day start and I'm currently in car en route, so I'm here-ish, but my effort will probably be minimal for a couple of days (just as a heads up).

Quoting this post to emphasize that when you attack me for not posting content, I told everyone why I could not.

Zmuffin coming out worse in this exchange, but still not convinced.

Whether you like it or not, THIS was my prompting "trap" post. I have said that SO many times. Was it the most well-laid trap? No. But I was rushed and distracted and this is what I had time for -- and it bore fruit. I have explained more than once about this and I am tired of it.

[C-Worl]

JESUS TAP DANCING HOLY SON OF GOD CHRIST!

You named two names, as being scum, without reasons. I and others feel like you were setting up mislynches by saying it first and hoping to add reasons once me and andrew started to defend ourselves. Setting up mislynches is SCUM motivation because after enough mislynches the scum win the game. You then backtracked and called it reaction fishing once people started coming after you. Scum motivation for that is you don't want to get fucking lynched so you abandoned your scum plan.

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

[zMuffinMan]

I must be, because I still can't see how anything you're saying makes sense if this was a plan I formulated as scum.

How exactly could I have set up mislynches unless 6 players blindly sheeped me? And what would I stand to gain from making it that blatant, as opposed to, say, pulling an Amrun and "trapping" you by not posting until you did something I could call scummy? In any case, both you and andrew would have to be mislynches for this to be true, and while you're free to tell us that you're a mislynch, you shouldn't know whether or not andrew is a mislynch as well. FYI, you're the only person who has explicitly stated you think I'm setting up two mislynches. Even Ghostlin has admitted the possibility that I could be scum bussing, although he hasn't explained how this really makes sense.

I never took a serious stance to begin with. At best, the backtracking I did was the same as anyone unvoting their RVS vote, except that I played around with mine a bit because people were reacting to it.

[zMuffinMan]

@Amrun,

If you had time to post, you had time to give your thoughts on the game. Unless you had some reason you couldn't give your honest thoughts and since you obviously read the posts and thought there was something wrong with them, I don't see how you being busy (but still able to post) is a good reason for not contributing.

How was your "trap" meant to trap people, exactly? What kind of reactions to that would you find scummy?

[C-Worl]

*headdesk*

Someone kill it, please.

[Amrun]

LDKJFA;SKLFDJASD

I WILL NOT EXPLAIN MYSELF AGAIN

RE-READ THE 27 TIMES I ALREADY ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS

[C-Worl]

AMRUN, VOTE FOR HIM! I WILL SEND YOU PICTURE OF SEXINESS IF YOU DO (OR I WON'T IT'S UP TO YOU) BUT VOTE HIM, VOTE HIM, VOTE HIM!

[Amrun]

His low reading comprehension doesn't mean he's necessarily scum, unfortunately. x.x

[zMuffinMan]

RE-READ THE 27 TIMES I ALREADY ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS

Well, you haven't actually answered the questions I just asked.

At best, this is your explanation for your trap:

I expressed support of your wagon but didn't vote to see what kind of reactions it would draw, particularly from Quilford. I wanted to gauge his reaction and felt that addressing his previously scummy post first would alter his reaction.

Now I'm asking you:

How was this meant to trap someone? What reactions would you find scummy?

I've also asked you why you think addressing his "scumminess" would alter his reaction, but you haven't explained that either. Unless you honestly believe that he's scum and would just post randomly without considering that his posts would be analysed.

[Amrun]

People sliding onto the wagon in shifty, scummy ways -- which I HAVE said. It's hard to predict reactions. You see what happens and evaluate on a case by case basis.

And the other question should be self evident. You say to someone, "X action is scummy and I suspect you," tips them off that they are being scrutinized and they will alter their behavior. It's just basic psychology, which is what this game is all about.

And AGAIN about the post, answering RQS does not require thought, but posting real content does. I thought while I was notifying people of my semi-absence I might as well answer RQS.

[Scumhunter]

Sorry guys, didn't get to this game tonight. Will try in the AM.

[C-Worl]

His low reading comprehension doesn't mean he's necessarily scum, unfortunately. x.x

If he's not scum then he's annoying.

But instead he's annoying scum. So kill it.

[zMuffinMan]

People sliding onto the wagon in shifty, scummy ways

Right, I can see scum motivation here, because it would mean you were just waiting for someone to vote for me and call it scummy for some reason. Maybe look like a white knight rescuing poor, defenseless me.

I can't see town motivation here, unless you think everyone who had already posted had good reason to have their vote on me, and you previously indicated that both andrew and edmund had "shaky reasons". In the first place, you still haven't explained how Quilford slid onto my wagon in a shifty, scummy way - you've just called him scum for FoSing me but not voting me. Whether or not he is scum, you weren't looking at the reason he voted me. Which leads back to me seeing scum motivation for this supposed "trap" you laid.

You say to someone, "X action is scummy and I suspect you," tips them off that they are being scrutinized and they will alter their behavior.

Unless he was just posting randomly without being aware that his posts were being scrutinised, this makes zero sense. Do you really think people in the game are posting without knowing their actions are subject to scrutiny? Also not seeing how someone altering their behaviour is a bad thing. If they're town and they're acting scummy, wouldn't it be best to stop them doing this so you can form a proper read on them? Even if they're scum, it's not really a bad thing if they change their behaviour. For example, you might find inconsistencies in their explanation for their behaviour. You essentially have no good reason not to explain yourself.

And AGAIN about the post, answering RQS does not require thought, but posting real content does.

So you didn't think about your answers to the RQS questions? And it would require extra thought to write down what you were thinking of the game at that point?

[Amrun]

This is so ridiculous.

Andrew voted in rvs and then has lurked. If he posts one more time without content, that may be my limit, but there's no point in grilling someone with no content.

Edmund has some reasoning, but more importantly, he's early in the wagon - not sliding on at all. Theirs are less substantial votes on the wagon but not worth attacking.


Quilford's slide on is scummy precisely because he HAS no reasoning. When his scummy slide on was pointed out, he has said something. That I expect an elaboration on his entire thought process about this is implicit. He'll give it if he wants to live.

It's honestly like I'm talking to a brick wall. I didn't like Quilford's reaction to pressure but I didn't want to tell him that because I wanted to see if he would react badly again! You tell someone that his reaction to pressure was scummy for x reason, and the next time they are pressured in th game, they won't do that again. It makes the reaction more forced, less genuine, and less useful in ascertaining alignment.

I am simply more concerned with finding scum than with covering my own ass. If this means I have to withhold sometimes, I'll do it. It's not something I do all the time, but in this case, I thought it was best.

If you think skimming the game and answering RQS takes just as much effort as reading carefully and formulating thoughts, it's not surprising that I think you should read more carefully. Please re-read the posts you are responding to before you post again and ask these questions: "Has this been answered before? Is the answer implied by a previous answer? What is there to gain by seeking this information?"

I apologize to everyone else in this game for being forced to spam it with repetitive shit.

[zMuffinMan]

Quilford's slide on is scummy precisely because he HAS no reasoning.

No, he didn't give a reason for me being his top FoS, but that doesn't necessarily mean he had no reason.

Coming from someone that claims they don't explain themselves to trap people, it's ironic that you're grilling Quilford for not explaining himself.

Again, I see the scum motivation here because it's easy to attack Quilford for doing this, but I'm not seeing the town motivation here, because you're calling him scum without asking him to explain himself. You literally just told him you're not buying that he forgot to vote... Good work scum hunting there, Amrun.

You tell someone that his reaction to pressure was scummy for x reason, and the next time they are pressured in th game, they won't do that again. It makes the reaction more forced, less genuine, and less useful in ascertaining alignment.

er...

Telling someone what they're doing is scummy is never a bad thing. It forces them to explain why they did what they did and if they don't do it again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. And if the following behaviour from them is forced, then it lets you analyse their new behaviour or inconsistencies or scum tells. Also, you haven't actually explained how Quilford's action really are scummy.

If the reaction is forced and not genuine, then I'd assume it would be more useful in discerning alignment.

If you think skimming the game and answering RQS takes just as much effort as reading carefully and formulating thoughts, it's not surprising that I think you should read more carefully.

When I read something, I automatically formulate thoughts on them. It takes little effort to write these thoughts down.

Is it different for you? Is formulating thoughts something you find difficult?

[Amrun]

I AM asking him to explain himself. He damn well better do so -- and soon.

Sometimes, it is good to force a change of behavior for analysis. Most of the time, even. Once again, this is theory discussion. It's pointless. Stop.

I formulate thoughts when I read things, but I usually try to read several times before posting -- but at the time, I was literally IN THE CAR posting from my phone while navigating for my mother. I had neither the time nor the inclination to type out an organized, readable post right then, and the main point of that post was to notify people of that.

ALL OF THIS SHOULD BE SO OBVIOUS.

[zMuffinMan]

I AM asking him to explain himself. He damn well better do so -- and soon.

Yes, but the issue is you

didn't previously

ask him to explain himself before I was on your case.

In neither of these posts: #72 or #75 did you indicate you wanted him to explain his vote. Your issue with him is that he didn't vote his top suspect, not that he didn't explain his vote. If you wanted him to explain his vote, you could have just asked "why are you FoSing zMuffinMan?" and that would have both got your desired result and not clued him in that you think he's scummy.

You didn't do this. There is absolutely no town motivation not to do this.

Sometimes, it is good to force a change of behavior for analysis. Most of the time, even. Once again, this is theory discussion. It's pointless. Stop.

You're backpedaling here. Before you said it makes their reactions more forced, less genuine and less useful in ascertaining alignment. Now you're saying that most of the time it's a good thing.

I formulate thoughts when I read things, but I usually try to read several times before posting -- but at the time, I was literally IN THE CAR posting from my phone while navigating for my mother. I had neither the time nor the inclination to type out an organized, readable post right then, and the main point of that post was to notify people of that.

Yes, and I'm saying I think this is just an excuse, because it would have been very simple to say something as simple as "I'm getting scummy vibes from Quilford and zMuffinMan, but I'm busy and can't go into detail..." or something along those lines. Why you thought it was more important that you respond to useless RQS questions, I have no idea.

[Ghostlin]

unvote

in case.

got lan party FFF.

Why did you unvote here? Do you believe the person you had the vote on isn't scum? In case of what?

Anyone else seen Snake? I think I asked him a question about three pages ago and he never answered.