Mini 1390: Game Over

[nhammen]

Vote Count 1.4

Abaddon(3): JacobSavage, Slandaar, Radelle
Radelle(3): absta101, Abaddon, JasonWazza
absta101(3): Tommy, Idiotking, Cheery Dog
Sable Tip(2): toxictaipan, Deltabacon
toxictaipan(1): TheTrollie
Deltabacon(1): Sable Tip

With 13 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

absta101 replaces Parama effective as soon as he confirms.
JasonWazza has been prodded.

[JacobSavage]

@Mod Im going away this weekend so if dont post its because of that

[absta101]

UNVOTE:
I'll be here tomorrow.

[Tommy]

JacobSavage, you've had the 24 hours you wanted. I hope you post some content before the weekend.

[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.

[Slandaar]

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.

What?

My point was; I really do not think that if Sable were town and someone said

'Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?'

that is an indicator they are town.

I wanted to see if Toxic would be able to agree with me ie I tell him to assume Sable is town and see if he changes his mind on his statement as he was obviously thinking of Sable as scum when thinking up these reactions.

also; lol.

[Radelle]

Why Abaddon is scum

In post 121 he puts me down as his top scum read, but his play thus far indicates otherwise. For a top scum read, he has barely pursued me or done anything about it. In fact, for the most part, he's been rather reactionary in his case against me. I've made several posts so far, most lengthy, and the only things he has said in response are:

VOTE: Toxictaipan

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

^Fake. Overdoing it.

and

Strawman argument.

(followed by an explanation).

That's it. At this point, it's difficult to tell

why

exactly he still felt I was scum and was voting me.

In post 121 he finally gives a more in-depth explanation:

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.

Ignoring gut reaction, let's look at the rest.

1.

Creates strawman arguments against her biggest opponents

Opponents, indicating plural. If this is so, he certainly hasn't been calling me out on it in any consistent manner. He only does it once

when I vote for him

, which also goes on to showcase his reactionary nature towards me.

The strawman argument itself is also arguable.

2.

Goes out of her way to cast others in questionable lights

This is the first time

he has ever brought this up

and with no evidence to boot. This is a man who has no problem calling out CheeryDog for his opportunitism, or just about anyone else in this thread for that matter. But for his top scum read whom he has been voting for and accusing of doing what is stated above? Nada.

As well, pointing out to people that my Toxic vote was indeed serious isn't exactly a "clumsy defense" or a defense at all. Otherwise, I barely talked or pushed the matter of my vote except to further pressure Toxic wherein we started to get into a roundabout argument over getting out of RVS.

Abaddon's case on me is bunk.

It's just a bunch of statements with no water to hold them up. This looks like scum settling into an early vote and doing nothing about it while skating

looking like

he's actually doing something.

His reactionary nature isn't just with me. Look at his ISO. He barely actively engages with people in the thread in a scum hunting manner except mostly when they engage him first.

[Radelle]

I'm straight-up having problems exactly understanding Sable. Especially in post 109. At first I thought there was a language barrier, but I guess that isn't it. Also, I feel like the discussion and votes between Sable and Delta is just a bunch of "noise." I can't get a good read out of either of them.

@IdiotiKing

:

I can never tell these things. I don't really pay attention to RVS.

To clarify, what exactly couldn't you tell? When RVS has ended?

@Tommy

: I follow your case, and I agree with a lot of your points, especially 2 and 4 which hits me as being the scummiest. But I'm having difficulty actually calling that slot scum due to his lack of response to criticism put on him. I'll need to see more from the person replacing him.

@Cheery

:

I am finding it odd that parama couldn't catch up 3 pages - smells faintly of caught scum

He had only two votes before yours. What are you talking about?

[toxictaipan]

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?

How someone's alignment affects their reaction is irrelevant. What's important is getting those reactions, and reading them accurately. Also, I didn't say that would be a good indicator of town. I said that's how I might expect smart/cautious town to react. I also said that a townie could react the same way I figured scum would react. We're dealing with people here, and you ultimately can't predict exactly how people will react to a given situation. I realize there is room for error, and I'm not basing my reads 100% from this. However, it is still valuable information -- it just has to be examined carefully.

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.

Don't ask open-ended questions, and then get annoyed with me when I don't interpret them how you want me to. I took it as, "Is that still valid if two people agree a townie looks scummy?" since that's the part you specifically highlighted while adding, "Assume Sable Tip is town.

Now

what?"

You're trying to get me to commit to -- or possibly contradict -- a position I never made. I wasn't arguing that

that

specific reaction was a good town tell. I was saying a generally cautious approach could be indicative of town, while I was more so expecting scum to jump my case (or Sable Tip's, in order to earn easy town points from me) because it would be easy to get away with. Yes, I did an experiment and made an estimation of the results, but don't think for one minute I'm letting those estimations totally bias my analysis.

[toxictaipan]

Hey, Radelle. Instead of bending a bunch of after the fact posts to your liking to make a case, why don't you use only posts before Post 97, since that's when you voted Abaddon. I had the feeling your vote was mainly based on a meta read, but if you really think he's that scummy, you should be able to compile a sufficient amount of evidence before Post 97 to prove it and justify your vote.

I think it's important to note that you hardly take issue with Abaddon (much less outright accuse him of being scummy) up until that point. And now, all of a sudden, everything he's done is scummy.

[Radelle]

Hey Toxic, I know you have a hard-on for Abaddon, but try to save it for after the game when everyone has flipped, all right?

Why would I only use posts from before post 97? I didn't realize that scum just stopped being scum after a vote. Siilly me. Except, not only does that

not

make sense, if you had actually cared for what I wrote, you'd see it's beside the point. I'm clearly addressing his entire play this game. Yes, my vote was mainly based on a meta prospect coupled any way by him not pursing me in an aggressive manner (or any manner really). There lacks a point in what exactly you were trying to achieve in bringing that up.

How about you actually respond to what I said instead of trying to insinuate whatever you're trying to insinuate here?

Also, if evidence is your thing, what's your opinion of Abaddon's case where he doesn't bring much if any, which I point out?

[Radelle]

Also, what do you think of Sable's latest post?

[Cheery Dog]

He had only two votes before yours. What are you talking about?

Tommy's case on him was a few posts up from it.
(and I had thought that there were 3 votes on him for some reason, but that doesn't actually matter)

[JacobSavage]

@Tommy

You gave me 24 hours and I have a spreadsheet. Unfortunately real life got in the way so i ended up doing some of this rather late at night. After about post 88 i started getting tired so you may have to take things with a pinch of salt.

Also as its late at night, I really CBA to go through my spreadsheet and take my comments out and format it so here's a link to it
The whole spreadsheets there, with my comments. First Row is Name, second Row is my abbreviation for them, Third is scumminess score this is out of 10 with 5 being neutral, 10 being almost certainly town (green) and 1 being defiantly scum (red). Comments are there for major posts / just general observations.The votes coloum shows how close to a lynch they are (purple being hammered) I have myself in just so i can review my own play.

That took far to long to share and post.
Enjoy.

As noted above (Possibly?) V/LA this weekend, so dont expect any replies till sunday evening. If you get them just be happy.

[toxictaipan]

Hey Toxic, I know you have a hard-on for Abaddon, but try to save it for after the game when everyone has flipped, all right?

Why would I only use posts from before post 97? I didn't realize that scum just stopped being scum after a vote. Siilly me. Except, not only does that

not

make sense, if you had actually cared for what I wrote, you'd see it's beside the point. I'm clearly addressing his entire play this game. Yes, my vote was mainly based on a meta prospect coupled any way by him not pursing me in an aggressive manner (or any manner really). There lacks a point in what exactly you were trying to achieve in bringing that up.

How about you actually respond to what I said instead of trying to insinuate whatever you're trying to insinuate here?

Also, if evidence is your thing, what's your opinion of Abaddon's case where he doesn't bring much if any, which I point out?

Because you should have enough reasoning for your vote initially, or don't you? Scum don't stop being scummy after a vote, but you've yet to provide the base reasoning for your vote in the first place. It's hard to add to what isn't there. Meta reads are cool and all, but their mostly useless as evidence to people who don't have those same meta reads. I don't buy much into meta, so convince me otherwise.

Yes, you're clearly addressing his entire play this game. The fishy part, though, is that you're only just now bringing it up. Seems to me that if you really had that much of an issue with him, it would have been more apparent earlier. You mentioned him very,

very

little until your vote, and even when you

did

mention him, you didn't act suspicious of him. And now, BOOM! His entire player this game is scummy. To me, it looks more like you're trying to shift focus onto Abaddon since my wagon didn't take off how you hopped it would.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say Abaddon found your reasoning for voting me scummy, and your play thus far hasn't been redeeming enough to warrant him changing his mind. Nothing for him to outright attack, but nothing for him to change his read, either.

Also, what do you think of Sable's latest post?

I don't really know what to make of it alone, but he definitely hasn't done much to make up for my initial read on him. I see most of the post as useless chatter. His reason for voting Deltabacon is also pretty bad, in my opinion. Overall I think he's still pretty scummy, but I'm more worried about you right now.

UNVOTE: Sable Tip
VOTE: Radelle

[TheTrollie]

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

yea

i have read the thread, or rather skimmed it. I need to read in much more depth over the weekend

UNVOTE:
Town:
Parama slot
Abaddon

Null:
Toxictaipan
Deltabacon
Sable Tip (had on slight town until reaction to Toxic)

scum pile:
Idiotking
Tommy
Jason Wazza
Cheery Dog
Radelle

slandaar & Jacob Savage dont have anything on yet

[Radelle]

@Cheery

:

He had only two votes before yours. What are you talking about?

Tommy's case on him was a few posts up from it.
(and I had thought that there were 3 votes on him for some reason, but that doesn't actually matter)

If what he's saying is true (I see no reason to believe he's lying), I doubt he read through the thread to even realize what exactly was happening up until the point he outed.

[Radelle]

@Toxic

:

Because you should have enough reasoning for your vote initially, or don't you? Scum don't stop being scummy after a vote, but you've yet to provide the base reasoning for your vote in the first place. It's hard to add to what isn't there. Meta reads are cool and all, but their mostly useless as evidence to people who don't have those same meta reads. I don't buy much into meta, so convince me otherwise.

I already explained my vote. Several times. I even went on to provide a case on why I believe Abaddon is scum. Just because you don't like the reasons, doesn't mean they don't exist. You want to see why I believe Abaddon is scummy not based on meta? Let me redirect you to post 131.

Yes, you're clearly addressing his entire play this game. The fishy part, though, is that you're only just now bringing it up. Seems to me that if you really had that much of an issue with him, it would have been more apparent earlier. You mentioned him very, very little until your vote and even when you did mention him, you didn't act suspicious of him. And now, BOOM! His entire player this game is scummy. To me, it looks more like you're trying to shift focus onto Abaddon since my wagon didn't take off how you hopped it would.

You say if I really thought he was scum, my "issue" with him would be apparent earlier. If I didn't feel Abaddon was really scum until he wrote post 72, how could I have indicated he was scum any earlier than

my

very

next series of posts

? Your arguments aren't making sense.

I also don't like how you make it like my vote seemed sudden. It's clear in post 81 I called him scummy for both essentially defending me while attacking me (with his vote). He responds in post 82 confirming he still thinks I'm scummy. I end my conversation with you because I feel like it's going nowhere, then I vote for Abaddon in post 97 due to previous reasons and insert that as town I think he'd be aggressively pursing me

while

having that conversation with Jason. Nothing here is sudden. Explain how that is scummy.

You just fail to answer me here:

Also, if evidence is your thing, what's your opinion of Abaddon's case where he doesn't bring much if any, which I point out?

If I had to take a guess, I'd say Abaddon found your reasoning for voting me scummy, and your play thus far hasn't been redeeming enough to warrant him changing his mind. Nothing for him to outright attack, but nothing for him to change his read, either.

Now you're just trying to justify

why

he may not have brought evidence on his behalf.

I didn't ask you what you thought Abaddon was thinking. I'm asking you, that taking into consideration that you want me to compile a specific set of evidence, within a specific frame of time to justify my vote, what are your OWN opinions on the fact that he doesn't bring much if anything to the table when he makes his case against me?

[Radelle]

The fact that you're attacking the fact that

I made that case

instead of

the actual content

in it is scummy as hell. As well as your lack of commentary on it.

I don't know if there is some scum defense going on or what.

[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.

[toxictaipan]

I already explained my vote. Several times. I even went on to provide a case on why I believe Abaddon is scum. Just because you don't like the reasons, doesn't mean they don't exist. You want to see why I believe Abaddon is scummy not based on meta? Let me redirect you to post 131.

It's the

timing

of your reasons I dislike.

You say if I really thought he was scum, my "issue" with him would be apparent earlier. If I didn't feel Abaddon was really scum until he wrote post 72, how could I have indicated he was scum any earlier than

my

very

next series of posts

? Your arguments aren't making sense.

That's the problem! You are claiming he's been scummy throughout the

entire game

, yet there's not so much as a slight hint of suspicion until Post 81. You couldn't indicate it earlier because you

didn't

find him scummy throughout the entire game, and now you're reaching back with this bogus case.

I also don't like how you make it like my vote seemed sudden. It's clear in post 81 I called him scummy for both essentially defending me while attacking me (with his vote). He responds in post 82 confirming he still thinks I'm scummy. I end my conversation with you because I feel like it's going nowhere, then I vote for Abaddon in post 97 due to previous reasons and insert that as town I think he'd be aggressively pursing me

while

having that conversation with Jason. Nothing here is sudden. Explain how that is scummy.

Post 134. "And now, all of a sudden, everything he's done is scummy." Where do you see the word, "vote"? It's pretty clear what you were building up to with your vote. I'm saying that you've had all game to call him out, or at least mention some kind of suspicion, for his scummy behavior throughout the game. However, we're just now hearing about it, all of a sudden, on page 6. But what do I know? I'll let you speak for yourself:

This is the first time

he has ever brought this up

and with no evidence to boot.

Valid reasoning when you use it against others, but not when used against you? Alright, good to know.
(Bolding mine)

I'm asking you, that taking into consideration that you want me to compile a specific set of evidence, within a specific frame of time to justify my vote, what are your OWN opinions on the fact that he doesn't bring much if anything to the table when he makes his case against me?

You say he lacks much evidence against you, but aside from a meta read, the only point you say you had against him at the time of your vote is that he hadn't pursued you enough and was too reactionary. And even

that

remained unmentioned until here recently. It's one thing to call him out, it's another to be hypocritical about it (and scummy to boot!).

I disagree. The evidence is there. It was obvious why he voted for you from the beginning. The strawman argument is a point against you, and it's evidence there for everyone to see. You say it's arguable, but you've yet to try to argue against it (probably because you can't). It stands until then. While I'll admit he didn't cite any specific posts that cast others in a questionable light, nothing to me suggests he would be unable to do so if asked about it. We can find out real quick.

@Abaddon: Where has Radelle gone out of her way to cast others in a questionable light?

[Slandaar]

Jacob why is Trollie your top suspect?

[Slandaar]

Abaddon how do you feel about recent events?

[JacobSavage]

I wouldn't say he was actually, Yes he has the lowest score (I dont actually determine that, it does that automatically from how I read each post) but he has only posted twice at that point so as I found his first post slighly scummy he ended up comming out on top. Most of my reasoning for the score i assigned is given in the comments table.

On the post up to date version Cherry comes out on bottom.

[Slandaar]

I see. It's an average.

Talk to me about Cheery then.