Mini 1521: The Fall - Game Over

[Jake from State Farm]

@97: Says the person who is voting me for what he has said is pretty much that he's taking my jokes literally/87.

lol are we reading the same post cause 87 isn't saying anything of the sort

[Yiley]

Ya I'm kind of seeing that where he says reaction to it is bad but not reall

[Hopkirk]

87: "his reaction to my joke was bad"
Does my response to the chicken look really serious considering what i was saying in 15-17? Answer=no so stop trying to misrep me while accusing me of misreping you as you're the misreper.

[JKLM]

My internet went out yesterday

Catching up

[greygnarl]

Pretty sure Yiley is scum with Hopkirk.

[Yiley]

And what gives you that idea gray?

[emogirl123]

Hopkirk, of all the votes on you right now, which one do you think shouldn't be there.

[Jake from State Farm]

87: "his reaction to my joke was bad"
Does my response to the chicken look really serious considering what i was saying in 15-17? Answer=no so stop trying to misrep me while accusing me of misreping you as you're the misreper.

i'm not misrepping you and imo yes your reaction looked serious, but that was only a minor part of my suspicion. Post 45 is the post that solidified it for me.

[Slandaar]

And what gives you that idea gray?

Hopsy can you just write up a short analysis of what you think has happened so far in this game from your POV explaining why you think people are voting you and what your posts mean. For example:

I started off with a joke about conforming and was voted for making a bad joke, I then fell into Jakes trap and his magical daycop chicken, to which I tried to prove that this daycop chicken isn't a sensible argument. Slandaar then voted me sheeping the magical daycop chicken ending in me sarcastically asking him if he believes the daycop chicken actually works.

[The-Duck]

I'm not convinced by the arguments for lynching Hopkirk.
As far as I can tell the main points are:
1) He reacted poorly to the knock knock joke
2) He voted for Emo because she didn't join RVS
3) Trying to lead town.

1) feels not right to me, if his response to RVS pressure was so bad, he's handeling the continued pressure too good, so I'm more inclined to believe him when he said he was joking.
3) Is just an absolute non-argument. It's a disguised policy-lynch at best.
2) Can be somewhat of an argument, but I'm not familiar with this being a scum-tell and I don't see the benefit for scum to pressure someone who isn't trying to contribute (yet).

What doesn't help to see the scum in him, is that I dislike Emogirls play thusfar.
She hunts scum by looking at who act against thread sentiment (paraphrased from "swimming against the stream") while I understand it is true that scum would act differently from town, I do not agree that it will be those who are opposed to the thread, as that's only going to attract attention (which scum don't want).
I have a hard time believing that the question she asked me and the answer I gave her were enough to give her a read on me, yet there is no follow up.
She says nobody else is interesting, but in the very next post she calls Hopkirks play distracting, and therefore should have had her attention as well.
So, to me it feels like she pretends to be finding scum, but is not at all trying to progress her reads.
UNVOTE: Jake from State Farm
VOTE: Emogirl123

[emogirl123]

VOTE: emogirl123 for being the first to confirm yet not ever posting again.

I think it is a very weak reason

Compared to any other reasoning one could muster up for voting someone seriously at this point, the reasoning is one of the stronger ones.

vote emogirl for being the first to confirm yet not ever posting again.

I did what I did because this was a misrep, as the servers were down periodically since the start of the game. I just wanted to see if he noticed this as well, as he was one of the first people to confirm. It was hypocrisy.

I gave her were enough to give her a read on me, yet there is no follow up.

There has been a follow-up. See the timestamps for 50 and 51. Approximately half an hour was given to analyze your post, and I came to the conclusion that whatever I thought earlier about you was negligible. I wanted to see if your response was either to say you were pressuring him for information, or if you genuinely thought the vote had a good basis during the time of RVS. My argument for the former is that Alduskkel is not a good target to place a pressure vote on meaning that your reasoning for placing the vote is flawed. As your answer was the latter, my thought process was not posted as it was not relevant to whether or not you are town nor scum.

[Hopkirk]

@Slandaar and emo:
I’ll try and respond to both qs here:
-Random vote stage with little happening
-aldusk votes me for something that he can obviously see is a joke which I then explain is a joke, here I was worried (and still find it a little scummy) why someone would think the comment was serious.
-Chicken- jake votes me for random vote stage vote but attempts to justify it with regular rvs joke logic.
-I respond with a typical rvs response joke (a little wordy) and respond to what I’m being asked.
-Slandaar votes me for another joke reason.
-I find emo’s next post to be an attempt to avoid getting anyone to put pressure on them.
-I am not very satisfied with their response, as they don’t respond to the key point of my q so vote me.
-Username votes me. First person claiming to have a reason though I find his reasons of poor quality as I’ve explained/I then explains.
Grey doesn’t seem to have a reason for the vote; his vote is based on a misconception.
-General questioning and responses.

I think the key problem is the difference of opinions. I hold the view, as I’ve explained many times before, that emo’s attempt to distance themselves from any kind of pressure by their opinion of rvs. What she says is basically:

“I’ll let people form scum reads, say nothing until they have so that nobody forms one on me then I’ll wagon”.
I seem to be the only one who considers that logic scummy, jake seems to consider it very pro-town which I totally disagree with. Although emos lack of opportunist voting seems good/townish.

What votes shouldn’t be there: Slandaar and Aldusk don’t have good reasons. Grey seems to be there to be on a wagon. Jake is trying to badly misrepresent me and username has slight reason.

1) He reacted poorly to the knock knock joke: It’s random vote stage justification. It’s exactly the same as if someone said “people who wear black hats are scum” where it isn’t true. But jake tries to “prove” that it is true and that’s the point it becomes scum-motivated.
2) I’ve explained why this is scummy
3) If this is me trying to lead the town then every other twon must be totally anarchic. I don’t like leading towns, If you think I’m leading the town that must mean you think what I’m saying has good logic behind it-but then dispute it?

Scumreads atm: Jake-emo (semi, depends on their justification for their opinions)-Random person who has said nothing-grey.
Would like response from emo to my charges on her.

[Jake from State Farm]

1) He reacted poorly to the knock knock joke: It’s random vote stage justification. It’s exactly the same as if someone said “people who wear black hats are scum” where it isn’t true. But jake tries to “prove” that it is true and that’s the point it becomes scum-motivated.

so let's work some things out here.

Player A - To anyone, Who here has a black hat?
Player B - I have one
Player A - oh then you must be scum because people with black hats are scum. Vote Player B
Player B - well that's dumb because I am not scum

or

Player A - To anyone, Who here has a black hat?
Player B - I have one
Player A - oh then you must be scum because people with black hats are scum. Vote Player B
Player B - This is a fallacy as you are basing your conclusions with an argument that can only be there because of your conclusions. It's the same as saying "you are scum because you're scum". It's poor circular logic at best.


Which one sounds worse? to me the 2nd one sounds much worse then the first.

[emogirl123]

“I’ll let people form scum reads, say nothing until they have so that nobody forms one on me then I’ll wagon”.
I seem to be the only one who considers that logic scummy, jake seems to consider it very pro-town which I totally disagree with. Although emos lack of opportunist voting seems good/townish.

Did you know, in doing what I did, I am opening the game to you, and more people to question my motives for doing that? We can see this is the case as both you and The-Duck have voted for me inducing further action from me. This being said, I don't feel that what you are saying now has any validity as I was aware of these issues at the time of my post.

[Jake from State Farm]

the joke and vote was a reaction test, plain and simple. The reaction part was voting the first person(whoever it was) who fell for my trick.

the moment you started mention fallacies and circular logic means TO ME AKA IN MY OPINION, that you were nervous for something that you didn't need to be nervous for.

[Hopkirk]

Generally B as attacking the argument thus proving the conclusion is false is better than attacking the conclusion with no reason why it isn't true other than an absolute assumption. (see hierarchy of argument for a little more on what i mean).
Although in that case it was random vote stage where arguments aren't serious therefore arguments against arguments are not serious.

@Emo: The "opening" is only possible for you to do if others started it off and your method means that the people who started it off will look the scummiest/you won't look scummy at all from rvs. I maintain that the d1 lynch usually presents itself in rvs so actively avoiding it "call me when it's done" is scummy. Thus you played like that (imo) to avoid being read as scum. The scummy part was saying "call me when done"this has yet to be addressed.

@Jake: Or I'm just a wordy person and you don't like my humor.

[emogirl123]

The scummy part was saying "call me when done"this has yet to be addressed.

This is a very good answer to that question.

[Hopkirk]

Random question however are offensively constructed and give less opportunity for people to form reads based off of. You were still saying to call you later but leaving small activity so it didn't look like it was lurking but also meaning people wouldn't think you were scum.

[Alduskkel]

Son of a fuck this is going to be a game of walls isn't it.

Alright, hang on here then...

[emogirl123]

I wanted to induce action from BolteAltamonte without revealing why. It's too late for that now. You can see that I responded to Bolte within the hour expecting a response.

[Hopkirk]

How would you know he'd vote you for being inactive?

Hey I'm the only one walling and i don't like walls.

[emogirl123]

I don't know how to answer this question because I don't know what is being asked. The game moved out of RVS hasn't it? I would start this game by moving it out of RVS because of a few people's posts. It's trivial to put a label on how we would start the game in general.

I didn't. Stop flailing.

[Hopkirk]

"I wanted to induce action from BolteAltamonte without revealing why": Aren't you saying here you didn't do rvs bc you thought he'd vote you

[emogirl123]

I didn't think he voted for me. He

did

vote for me.

[Hopkirk]

But you didn't do rvs. He voted you later on. You imply you didn't rvs because you knew he vote you.