NY175: Sycamore Scuffle

[Scarab]

/hello

[Scarab]

Game starts when one of them or shaddowez confirms, right?

[Scarab]

Cool.

Not_Mafia

obvious freudian slip is obvious etc

[Scarab]

errr

Vote: Not_Mafia

[Scarab]

That was the second vote on Not_Mafia, unless my failbold counted as a second vote. Does that make her less scummy/why would it be scummy if she'd put the third vote on?

[Scarab]

Unvote: Not_Mafia

Vote: Wake88

What the fuck...?

[Scarab]

Unvote: Not_Mafia

Vote: Wake88

What the fuck...?

Missed this post, why did you change vote, was it because he FoSed you?

Do you actually think based on his post that this is the most likely reason?

[Scarab]

Wake's intro is kinda out there. But it seems in character for me.

I'm more interested in the people on his wagon, BP's vote was purely oppertunistic, also Scarab slipped on there in the butter zone as soon as it looked like other people were interested.

Vote: Scarab

You are literally voting me for not sitting at my keyboard refreshing this game. I voted wake

18 minutes after his post

because that's when I saw it. This post of yours is just absolutely blatant opportunism. You acknowledge that there's something off with wake's intro post, then discredit its potential scumminess due to meta that other players may or may not have (hint: I've never read a game that had wake in it), then call people scummy for voting him for that post straight out of the RVS? Yeah, sure.

Unvote: Wake88

Vote: Mirhawk

Wake may or may not be scum, but this guy almost certainly is.



Regarding the SNOT stuff, I actually would be fine with being part of a policy lynch on him. I like policy lynches and this game feels way bigger than I expected.

[Scarab]

Rather than seeing more pages of arguing over the definition of "manipulating", Clusk, what's scummy about telling someone else to vote someone you want lynched? Your answer may not include any form of the word "manipulate" unless you're willing to agree with farside on a definition of it.

[Scarab]

Contrary to what some people have said, I'm neither a VI or a bad player. I'm just, well, busy, and I deal with the hand life's given me.

I stopped reading here. You being busy has nothing to do with why people have called you a VI or a bad player. And there's no way I'm reading the rest of a post that big that says it's only caught up to post #100. If you have something important to say, say it instead of hiding it in a hugeass wall that comments on something like 2 pages of the game.

[Scarab]

It took you one minute tops to write that post, it was only six words long. Which means you couldn't have missed the fact that there were already three votes on wake. So yeah I find the fact that you slid in there without providing any justification except poorly feigned outrage pretty goddamn scummy.

I like how you also imply I'm scum for defending wake, but then state wake might not even be scum. And whether you like it or not I do have experience with wake, and am therefore allowed to have opinions on what is in or out of character for him.

Not to mention I bet you would be okay with a policy lynch, scum.

...you're kidding, right?

I want you to confirm or deny the following:

1) There was something

strange

about wake's intro post.
2) You ignored it because of meta that you had that other players might not have had.

If you said "yes" to the first two (hint: you've already confirmed both of them, so they're not really there for you to answer), then also confirm or deny the following:
3) From the fact that I'd posted immediately before wake's intro post without voting him and the fact that I posted "What the fuck...?" along with my vote, it would be obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that I was voting wake for his intro post.

If you also confirm the truth of my 3rd point (hint: I won't believe you if deny it and I doubt that anyone else will, so good luck with that), also confirm or deny the following:
4) Repeating the reasoning of others is

important

when it's obvious from context that my reasoning is the same as theirs.

This simple exercise should help us to

watch you squirm

see exactly where your reasoning is going wrong.

But god, everything you potsed...everything is just wrong.

I voted you for defending wake? Really? Next time try actually

reading

a post before responding to it. You even quoted it before your response!

The one thin in your post that isn't horribly incorrect is the policy lynch thing. I can see how scum might in theory benefit from a policy lynch. However, and I guess this is my fault for repeating the term "policy lynch", SNOT would be a

utility lynch

to me (I think I'm using that term correctly). I don't care much what his alignment is because I think that getting him out of the way day 1 is a positive regardless of his alignment. I tried to get a lynch like that on someone in my first game - I was town, it was a cult game and depending on mechanics, that lynch could have brought us to lylo. Don't try to frame my love of such lynches as a scum tell.

[Scarab]

@Mirhawk
Cool, thanks for not responding to anything. Please die.

[Scarab]

You like talking about people nightkilling other people.

[Scarab]

Of course. It's not like you couldn't just break the chain by responding "no" wherever I went wrong. Or did I never go wrong? Oops! Must suck to be you

[Scarab]

Then you can point out where in my wording you've been unfairly restricted, right?

[Scarab]

Nope. I do however claim that you can't answer them without looking bad because there's no good explanation of your vote. If you disagree, then feel free to show me where the wording of my questions is to blame rather than your own scumminess.

In the meantime, 10 or so more votes on Mirhawk would be nice, please and thank you

[Scarab]

he doesn't want to put pressure for a scum read, his scumread is Mirhawk because he didn't look at the time the vote was put.

How hard is it to read the thing you're quoting before making incorrect statements? Mirhawk was voting people for "oppertunistic" (incorrect spelling is his, not mine) votes on wake. In order to set up his claim of people having voted opportunistically, he preceded his accusations with a statement that wake's post wasn't scummy (if it was scummy, town should be voting for it, so it would be stupid to accuse voters of opportunism). However, his statement that wake's post wasn't scummy was made purely from knowledge of wake's meta, with an acknowledgment that wake's post seemed off ("out there" was his exact wording). Ergo, he would have no reason to believe that other people wouldn't take issue with wake's post! The thought process makes a ton of sense coming from scum, with the "Wake's intro is kinda out there. But it seems in character for me." line coming as an afterthought (I would even guess it was edited or rewritten after the rest of the post had been made).

So no, I don't feel like my vote was premature or that I should be voting Mirhawk for "pressure". I'm voting him because his post was hella scummy. The fact that my post came 18 minutes after wake's is just icing on the cake - Mirhawk used the term "butter zone" to describe when I voted which is a vague term that dodges the issue of timing completely. It's entirely possible (heck, even probable) that Mirhawk didn't notice the timestamps, but that just means to me that he wasn't worried enough about context to check. Something town might do? Yeah, it is. Something scum might do? More yes.

[Scarab]

and fuck it that may be a gambit but if you did kill me you just off a tracker... and if a gambit you just exposed me. Congrats. Moron.

If it's a gambit, you just exposed yourself for no reason and are blaming it on someone else. Congrats. Moron.

[Scarab]

and fuck it that may be a gambit but if you did kill me you just off a tracker... and if a gambit you just exposed me. Congrats. Moron.

If it's a gambit, you just exposed yourself for no reason and are blaming it on someone else. Congrats. Moron.

I have my reason... you may disagree with it, but it is not without reason.

I really hope you don't mean that doctor shit. If we have a doctor, it would be a waste of their action to use it on you if you're even town at all.

[Scarab]

Tracker is a role that gets stronger the longer the game goes on. Congrats on making yourself unlikely to survive long if you're town. You take great risks, you are truly a god.

[Scarab]

When your reasoning for doing something is that it's something you do, you really need to take a long hard look at what the hell you're doing.

[Scarab]

Why do you assume this is multiball, Salamence?

[Scarab]

Note that these win conditions are generic and should not be used to assume any particular role or faction is in the game.

[Scarab]

Scarab feels off to me

Does this have to do with that thing where you misrepped something of mine that you'd quoted directly above, then ignored my response to it? I sure hope it doesn't!

[Scarab]

OK. That post was hella weird. I had to read it several times (information overflooding is scum, btw) to make a sense of what you were saying.

I will make a mental note that trying to give someone a more detailed explanation when they don't understand the more minimalist explanation makes me scummy.

But I never voted him for it because asking for explanation for jumping on a wagon is something completely believable.

That's a nice story. Now where in that post you quoted does he ask for an explanation? Stop making excuses for him.

Jumped off Wake's wagon (acting hella guilty) and joined in on the guy who called you out on it. Hella scum.

Mirhawk didn't call me out for jumping off the wake wagon, so....what? Or am I just scummy for voting someone who was voting me?

I don't think you're as scummy as Wake. Wake is aggressive scum, the kind that likes to be noticed and pretend he's Town's Guardian Angel. You are just off on your reads. If you had said like "pressure on you bud I wanna know what's scummy on me", ok. You called him scum for calling you scum for jumping on a wagon.

Okay, are you serious? I'm scum for being off on my reads and for voting based on it? And god, go back and read post 333 5 or 6 more times until you actually understand it. Y'know, that post that you said was "overexplaining" that I made to be nice to you because you were too stupid to understand the initial explanation.

[Scarab]

Scarab, you're missing many things, but here's one.

I don't need you to believe me. I don't like you anymore.

FoS Scarab

Wake's post will decide if I change my vote.

I'm missing nothing. You gave a weakass "feels off" scum read on me after a less-than-half-hearted interaction with me. In responding to my questioning of it, you defended Mirhawk, who you've previously said I made good points against. Your interactions reek of Mirhawk-buddy. You're were trying to soft-defend him by going after me.

I miss nothing

[Scarab]

Also, "Wake's post will decide if I change my vote." Ha. Yeah.

[Scarab]

So I went back. All Mirhawk did was suspect both YOU AND ME for jumping on the wagon, according to him.

[...]

To make it easier to you and everyone else. He voted for something very believable, so much that I actually went ahead and explained myself, along with a sarcastic remark about precisely what you said with the timing and all. But I never voted him for it

because asking for explanation for jumping on a wagon is something completely believable

.

Scarab does so nice in exposing Mirhawk's awful post on him, but then he does the same and prematurely votes him.

Hey, BP, you may not care if I believe you, but you might want to explain this to the rest of the class~

[Scarab]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you completely contradict yourself in those two posts. You go from saying that Mirhawk's post is "awful" to actively defending Mirhawk's post for being "very believable".

[Scarab]

Also, what are your reads on me? Now I'm interested. You're just defending yourself, or wtv it is. Not scumreading, not telling people what do you think.

I haven't given a read on you at all, right? Oh...except for that silly little post 437 where I said I thought you were a Mirhawk buddy. Damn, guess I did say what I thought.

[Scarab]

I'm sure there are others. Am I supposed to know all of them 2-3 RL days into the game?

[Scarab]

SCUM: Wake M.D.( I haven't given up on you)
Farside (just something, urghhhh)
Scarab feels off to me

That's your list of reads and you think you have any right to try to smear someone who's given real reasons for their reads? Go back to Little League.

[Scarab]

Oh you

[Scarab]

@Not_Mafia
I have one completed game and I was town, you can find it on your own. I've also flipped in an ongoing open game.

Regarding, the awful vs believable thing, do you really think that's what BP was thinking? That's not the impression I got at all from it - he even said in the post in which he called Mirhawk's post awful. He thinks the vote was premature, but only for the reasoning. He thinks a "pressure" vote would have been perfectly warranted there. Do you think he thought a pressure vote would be warranted for something that was "very believable"?

[Scarab]

^ Pretend the grammar there makes sense (replace the period after "awful" with "that" and uncapitalize "He").

[Scarab]

So Mirhawk, which thing that I wanted you to say wasn't true? If saying them would make you look bad, surely one of them was wrong, right?

[Scarab]

If you can't answer a question truthfully without looking bad, it's not the question's fault - it's yours for being scummy. You keep insisting it was the phrasing of the questions that's at fault - I want to know what makes it the questions' fault that you look scummy rather than your own fault.

[Scarab]

It doesn't let me off the hook from what, BP? I've explained my scum reads.

[Scarab]

Yes, the questions were leading you to give certain answers and those answers would have been scummy. However, if you weren't actually scummy, you should be able to find a way out of it completely unscathed either by giving answers other than the ones I was pushing you to give or by showing why my questions don't support the conclusion I was leading to. The fact that you refuse to do either...I don't know, how would you like for people to interpret that?

[Scarab]

I've also flipped in an ongoing open game.

Do not talk about ongoing games

, regardless of anything. The staff here are very hard-line on this. Consider this a warning.

Oh come on. It's an open game, so there is literally nothing that anyone can learn from me having said that I flipped in it that wasn't already 100% known. Don't be such a hardass.

[Scarab]

Go for it.

[Scarab]

I don't think I've done anything wrong and I'm stubborn enough to let someone take this higher up if they disagree.

[Scarab]

I don't think I've done anything wrong and I'm stubborn enough to let someone take this higher up if they disagree.

Let me know how that goes, by the way.

I will! If I get force-replaced, I'll let you know through a third party in case you wouldn't trust a message from me to not contain game info~

[Scarab]

I'll try to post less crazy I'm going away for now though. I'm caught up but I'll have to post later

[Scarab]

I kinda took a sanity break from MS and I'm way behind on this game. Sorry <_< Will try to get caught up today, but this game is horrifying in so many ways.

[Scarab]

Hey, BP, why don't you spend an extra 10 seconds checking my profile to see all my posts on site since then.

[Scarab]

I read yours. It dedicated an entire spoiler to pointing out that I haven't been posting in this game specifically, when I actually didn't post at all on MS for nearly 2 and a half real life days. Maybe next time you can take the extra 10 seconds out of your busy schedule to click the name of the person who made the post above yours and view their posts. I mean, unless you don't actually care whether or not I'm scum and just want people to think I am.

[Scarab]

Make a point of keeping an eye on me for what? For not posting in this game during a period of time in which I wasn't using MS at all?

[Scarab]

Like, you said I'm twisting something. What do you think I was "twisting"? It's all well and good that you apparently didn't think to check if I'd posted anywhere else during that time, but you're insistent on calling me scummy for ANYTHING right now. What was I twisting? And how is it that instead of containing an acknowledgement that you were wrong, 847 instead tries to say that my calling you out on it is "twisting" while reiterating what you'd said?

[Scarab]

Aeronaut, there was no personal attack by me on bp in any of these posts.

[Scarab]

What was I twisting?

[Scarab]

Vote: clusk

Out of hunter and clusk, hunter seems more newbtown thinking he's doing something, whereas clusk has popped in a few times to more or less fan flames (not really the right term for it, but close enough). If we're restricting ourselves to just those two, my vote is rather unlikely to move off of clusk.

[Scarab]

Also I'm kinda sorta caught up, but I definitely did not read every word of every post.

p.s. anyone who called me scummy for breaking rules is really stupid because 1. how in the heck is that alignment-indicative 2. what I did wasn't enough to warrant punishment from anyone (and I haven't received any message from anyone that aegor supposedly reported my post to) because it's not even against the rules

[Scarab]

*excitement*

[Scarab]

Oh. My God.

Vote: HunterSeeker

How do you go from

/confirm for 1st game outside newbie town. Is there a setup/role list and/or do we know the town/scum ratio?

to

VOTE: Hunterseeker

HELP! MAFIA is voting me

And this town is doomed. we are 14 blues against 5 mafs.

?

Answer: by forgetting you're not supposed to know how many scum there are


I read the rest of it (all

18 pages

of it) and choose to comment on nothing else that's happened.

[Scarab]

Mod, please replace me. Sorry.

[Scarab]

sorry