Mini 1390: Game Over

[Abaddon]

Vote: Toxictaipan

I hear taipans are some of the deadliest snakes in the world.

[Abaddon]

VOTE: Toxictaipan

For randomly voting when he could have put down a more serious vote when questioning Cheery Dog.

^Fake. Overdoing it.

^Scum #1.

unvote, vote: Radelle

2 more to go. Who are your buddies, Radelle?

^Yep.

[Abaddon]

Unvote
Vote: Radelle

Actually, thought I did. Oversight corrected.

[Abaddon]

Eh, not convinced on that count. The chainsawing is TOO obvious to be real. More likely he's just an idiot.

[Abaddon]

You name is idiot king. King of the idiots. You didn't anticipate that drawing flak in RVS?

[Abaddon]

Eh, not convinced on that count. The chainsawing is TOO obvious to be real. More likely he's just an idiot.

So I'm an idiot for calling you out for doing something idiotic like leaving your vote in rvs while attacking someone?

So idiotic, whether I'm scum or Town, that the only plausible explanation is that it was a simple error, rather than intention. I practically said "I'm going to vote you for that, right now," then failed to bold my vote.

[Abaddon]

There is absolutely no plausible motivation, scum or Town, for me or anyone to do what you're suggesting. Therefore, you're either scum or an idiot.

[Abaddon]

Just you. In fact, instead of prompting other people to explain what you found so bad about it, how about you man up and explain it yourself?

[Abaddon]

Which, at present, does not include you. It's very easy to make a statement, then sit in judgment as others make your case for you.

I'm calling your bluff. I disagree with your premise, and want you to prove it.

[Abaddon]

So he can estimate when people are failing to answer because they're likely asleep, and when they're failing to answer because they're intentionally dodging the question.

Made up my mind. Cheery Dog is probably new Town, making obvious inquiries he thinks are incisive. New scum probably would not be going this far out of their way to put their foot in their mouth, they'd probably be laying low at this point.

[Abaddon]

His bumbling and off-topic attempts at scumhunting say otherwise. Besides, some people take a lot longer to accrue applicable experience than others.

[Abaddon]

You didn't actually present any kind of cogent case for her to engage with. I read it as barely better than an RVS vote. Perhaps you should improve your position before issuing a challenge for refutation.

[Abaddon]

Radelle, I don't need to be unfair to find you scummy. Attacks on scum that are just plain bad only give you ways to worm your way out of it by calling foul.

You're still scummy, but I won't abide no-logic attacks just because they're aimed in the right direction. That's hypocrisy of the worst sort, and I won't put up with that.

[Abaddon]

Eh. "It was a trap!" is a piss-poor way to walk back your on-a-limb positions. Granted, it's entirely possible that Toxic's for real here.

Try producing some actual content and we'll see which side you land on, Toxic.

[Abaddon]

You're splitting hairs. "Reaction testing" is indeed a better way to put it, but that does not change the main thrust of my argument.

[Abaddon]

I was expecting smart/cautious townies to react much like Abaddon did, saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?"

Assume Sable is town.

Does this still stand?

Yes.

Toxic's alleged reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment, it's dependent on how people reacted to Toxic's strange behavior.

@Abaddon

:

Radelle, I don't need to be unfair to find you scummy. Attacks on scum that are just plain bad only give you ways to worm your way out of it by calling foul.

You're still scummy, but I won't abide no-logic attacks just because they're aimed in the right direction. That's hypocrisy of the worst sort, and I won't put up with that.

You have a very unique way of looking scummy as hell when you're calling everyone idiots and generally being a jerk, but when you calm down and explain things I really want to agree with you. Problem here is, I think it's more probable that a town Abaddon would be more aggressively going after me

while

calling out others.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Abaddon

Strawman argument.

[Abaddon]

Strawman argument.

I think you can do better than that.

There's nothing to respond to. You posited an opinion, not facts. It's a strawman argument - you created a target made out of your imagination, and attacked it.

[Abaddon]

Toxic's alleged reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment, it's dependent on how people reacted to Toxic's strange behavior.

You are telling me scum will not react differently depending on Sables alignment? You are wrong. Clearly. (It also depends on Toxic's alignment)

Assume Sable is town and someone says 'Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?' Do you agree with Toxic that is a good indicator of town?

Absolutely. Townies are just as capable at looking scummy as scum are. That doesn't change the fact that you investigate logical inconsistencies when you find them.

Abaddons response although the question wasn't aimed at him made sense in context.

I have literally no clue what you are saying here and how it relates to what I said at all. Explain it to me.

You seem to be completely missing the point.

Yes, there will be a small variance depending on whether Sable Tip is scum or not, but let's follow that postulate the rest of the way. You're tacitly saying that the only real purpose of the reaction test was to catch Sable Tip's scumbuddies geeking out based purely on a bald declaration of suspicion. That's utterly absurd.

Like I said, you're completely missing the point. The reaction test, as stated, has very little to do with Sable Tip's alignment, or with which alignment Toxic assigned to him. Toxic took a thoroughly neutral post and made a bold declarative statement, then refused to back it up. The reaction test was for peoples' reactions to

Toxic's

actions, not Sable Tip's post. He could have emphatically declared Sable Tip Town while refusing to explain why for a near-identical effect. The slight variance of whether Sable Tip was scum or not utterly pales in comparison to the far more distinct question of how people would react to Toxic's actions.

Get your head out of your ass, Slandaar. This is obtuse and narrow-minded, even for you.

[Abaddon]

^This absolutely reeks of opportunism.

Seriously rethinking my NewTown position on Cheery Dog.

Bah, this thread has way too many scummy players and far too few Townie ones.

[Abaddon]

Just for giggles:

Town

Abaddon

Leaning Town

toxictaipan - I've come around on his reaction test, or maybe just convinced myself through shooting down bad attacks on it.
Idiotking - Generally positive behavior, nothing scummy of note.
Tommy - I disagree with a lot of his positions, but he seems to be making genuine effort.
Slandaar - Even moreso than Tommy, I disagree, but he's making efforts.
Deltabacon - Need more content, but what we've seen has been reasonably well-conceived.

Neutral

Sable Tip - Getting mixed signals here. There have been a few cases made, but the degree to which they're ineffective suggests there's not much there.
TheTrollie - Who?
JacobSavage - No content whatsoever.
Parama - Plenty of room for a replacement to redeem. This is a mostly null slot, honestly, given Parama's track record.

Leaning Scum

Cheery Dog - I've reread his ISO and I'm more strongly getting a newscum vibe now. He wants to attack anything that moves and doesn't listen to any kind of advice.

Solidly Scummy

JasonWazza - See below.
Radelle - Strong, strong gut response to her early vote on Toxic and clumsy defense of it. Creates strawman arguments against her biggest opponents, and goes out of her way to cast others in questionable lights.

Okay, so there's a lot less scum in the thread than I thought...maybe I'm mixing up overall impressions with other games.

You didn't actually present any kind of cogent case for her to engage with. I read it as barely better than an RVS vote. Perhaps you should improve your position before issuing a challenge for refutation.

My position is fine as is, it doesn't require any more clarification, and should have been addressed by Radelle when she (is it she or he? just to stop confusion) posted.

I am questioning her posts and trying to get answers that determine her intents, why should i improve my position?

While ISOing, I noticed that I never responded to this.

Your post 52 was irrelevant. You didn't post any kind of real reason for voting, then got in Radelle's face when she didn't respond to it.

Given that this is your only real content, it was a weak attack to start with, you never clarified nor pressed Radelle for a response, and that this is what you're hanging your hat on so far, this is solidly scummy. It looks a LOT like weak bussing, then coasting. It's really hard to look at your ISO and not break the usual "no scum team assembly on Day One" rule, but

I'm going to call a Radelle-Jason team.

[Abaddon]

Your case is largely a trumped-up attack on lurking and Parama's personality. Meta is largely bunk, but personality profiles are not. This is indeed how Parama frequently acts, regardless of his alignment. I'll address the other points when I'm not phoneposting

[Abaddon]

Trumped-up is too harsh. Your points are fair, but out of context

[Abaddon]

Oh, right, Tommy. Your case on Parama demonstrates that you're probably Town, but it's doesn't hold as much currency as you think it does for the following - Points 1, 3, 5, and 6 are all about him lurking. Points 3 and 4 are personality traits of Parama's, which he generally does regardless of his alignment. He's almost always a lurky, dickish guy, unless he gets really fired up about someone he finds too scummy or stupid to be tolerated. Point 2 is fair, but not that strong.

Ugh. I feel dirty for having obliquely defended Parama. My point is that the Parama slot is really pretty null, and it'll be up to the replacement to redeem or condemn it.

[Abaddon]

Actually, you didn't make any kind of case on me at all. All you did was defend and refute my case on you.

I'll take apart your defense in the morning, when I'm not dead tired.

[Abaddon]

Prod received. Sorry, my weekend has been extremely busy. I'll catch up fully in the morning.

[Abaddon]

Slandaar, I still don't know what your case is on Abaddon.

Fake reaction to Radelle vote follows into a null read on Parama who reacted in the same way; doesn't make sense from town.

Seriously? That's your case?

My reaction to Radelle was made instantly after i saw her vote. Parama just happened to agree, and post before I did. Pointing out the same thing doesn't get him Town points.

So Abaddon should have awarded Parama a town read for agreeing with him about Radelle?

Yes; Abaddon agreed with Parama though not the other way round; ie Parama saying it first should mean from Abaddons perspective Abaddon thinks Parama is town to some degree.

I think Radelle is town also.

No.

[Abaddon]

Slandaar, just because my scumhunting is not as one-dimensional as yours doesn't mean you get to apply your standards to me.

Quite frankly, I felt Radelle's early vote on Toxic for a nonsense reason was pretty obvious to anyone with experience, and you don't get Townpoints for pointing out the obvious. This is especially true in the first page or two, when scum are looking for cheap and easy ways to distance themselves from each other without really committing to it.

I'm quite capable of separating logic (this looks suspicious) from emotion (hey! you agree with me! I like you!). Why aren't you?

[Abaddon]

Absta, your question was stupid. You basically asked me why I was making a stand on principle. It's because I believe that making bad attacks on someone that is actually scummy weakens the case against them, and makes it easier for them to wriggle away. They can point to the bad attacks and discredit them, and the good ones get discredited in the same breath.

I ignored it the first time because this is not complicated logic, and because I already explained it in this thread. Pay attention.

[Abaddon]

Slandaar, just because my scumhunting is not as one-dimensional as yours doesn't mean you get to apply your standards to me.

Quite frankly, I felt Radelle's early vote on Toxic for a nonsense reason was pretty obvious to anyone with experience, and you don't get Townpoints for pointing out the obvious. This is especially true in the first page or two, when scum are looking for cheap and easy ways to distance themselves from each other without really committing to it.

I'm quite capable of separating logic (this looks suspicious) from emotion (hey! you agree with me! I like you!). Why aren't you?

I don't feel like getting into a huge theory discussion with you about this but I am quite happy with my methods as they clearly work.

@Absta: No. Why would it? it is completely different to what I have been saying.

@Cheery and Toxic: neither of you want to know why I think you are scum? I have not said it till now so surely you should want to know?

You don't "feel like" getting into a theory discussion, but you feel perfectly happy to condemn me for exactly that. You think I'm scum because I'm not a hypocrite.

[Abaddon]

I'm really disliking a lot of what Trollie's had to say lately. It's coming off as really disingenuous. The two-faced hedging about CD (particularly 266) and the blithe manner in which he takes things that are not conclusive and makes definitive statements about them (such and such makes this person Town or scum, 283 & 285 contain good examples).

Unvote
Vote: Trollie

[Abaddon]

Because you're "special"

[Abaddon]

Sorry, should have announced V/LA until Tuesday

[Abaddon]

I'm really sorry, guys. I didn't actually get back until yesterday, and I've been playing catch up at work and with classes since then. I have some free time tomorrow morning, I'll do a comprehensive read through/catch up then.

[Abaddon]

Today is Thanksgiving. I've caught up overnight, but left my laptop at home. I'll post it when I don't have to phonepost