Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[Flubbernugget]

Guys now that the pressure's moved elsewhere CP has pretty much dipped.

[Naomi-Tan]

Wow are you guys serious...?

[Whomping Willow]

No, I'm a tree

[Naomi-Tan]

No, I'm a tree

that joke was a little wooden.

[AWA]

Okay so Oc can lurk his way to day 2 for now

VOTE: AWA

Absolutely unbelievable. Does no one else see this kind of nonsense?

[AWA]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

This is a very brazen thing to ask from your "read the thread" high horse.

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

Prove to me you're reading the thread.

Which of my three scum reads have I not posted evidence on.

I'll give you a hint. It's only one.

You have posted no supporting evidence for your accusations on myself. The only times you ever address me at all are 524 (handwave of my wall which I suspect you didn't actually read), 528 (a response to my accusations of not reading posts, and essentially a confirmation that you did not read it), 620 (some kind of mild read where you say I'm more interested in metagame than actual playing (what does this even mean, this whole game is about metagame)), 705 (you refuse to actually elaborate on why you suspect me on your scumteam (not really sure why you seem to know that there would be exactly three scum in the first place) and accuse me of being hypocritcal), and 724 (you ask for this post). Note that I'm somehow on your scumread list without you ever having actually posted anything to support that.

Interestingly, you also don't really have a case on Originalchris, beyond one response to his deflection comment and one reference to another game.

Everyone else, note his refusal to give a straight answer when questioned to outline his suspicions, which upon further investigate have no basis in fact. I also urge everyone to look at Flubber's ISO; he likes to post questions and prods, making other people do analytical work for him, while he sits back and doesn't provide any substance of his own. This conveniently allows him to jump on whatever wagon is popular at the moment, while making it seem that he's been supporting it all along.

[AWA]

Flubbernugget:

First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of. The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

---

To sum up, I think that there are some people who lean further toward scum than others, and some people who are VERY tenuously on the fence, but who can easily fall one way or the other. For now, I think I will

Vote: droog

. His Riddleton hammer response and subsequent neighbor claim both seemed contrived. However, depending on how the next few pages of discussion go, I could easily see this vote switching to Riddleton/istott or Flubber.

Tag fixed
~Mod

I am flip flopping back and forth on you. In your first reads post you have flubbs, flames and droog as scum. Now you are saying you have no scum read on flubbs and it is basically lynching someone anti town.

Why the change from scum reading flubs to him just being anti town.

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

Whenever you get challenged on your Flubber position you misrepresent what they've said, droog summed things up pretty well (Hi Oc)

PEdit: Both Oc and myself and made posts that propogated that discussion, in fact, Oc came back after promising content he still hasn't posted, in order to post 2 huge walls about it. Any opinions on our posts about the topic?

Can you provide an example of where I've made a misrepresentation? Don't just make a claim and then not back it up with evidence.

Regarding yourself and OC making inflammatory posts: I don't see anything in your ISO that could be construed as propagating that discussion except perhaps 581, and even that has a mostly level tone and doesn't provoke a response. OC's only post that could be construed as propagating that discussion would be 590, and even that is only inflammatory toward you (that is to say, toward an individual, not toward the group as a whole. Meanwhile, droog has 292, 542, and 556, jumping on BOTH instances of Flubber using "gay" in an inflammatory manner.

Okay so Oc can lurk his way to day 2 for now

VOTE: AWA

To elaborate myself on why I find Willow's naked vote unbelievable, it's the fact that he accuses me of misrepresentation and ignoring other people who contributed to the "gay" discussion, I respond to him (SPECIFICALLY stating that he shouldn't post claims without backup), and then he goes and ignores my response AND tacks on a vote, STILL with no evidence to back it up. I was encouraged by his discussion lately, but it seems that we're back to square one here (remember the ISO-of-only-votes nonsense at the beginning?).

[Whomping Willow]

You're the only one making this hullabaloo about the votes against you, you might as well be saying "Prove to me I'm scum", it's a waste of time.

[AWA]

You're the only one making this hullabaloo about the votes against you, you might as well be saying "Prove to me I'm scum", it's a waste of time.

I'm responding this way because your votes have no substance, and we're way past RVS stage. Insisting on making posts with no substance provides no information to actually help the town; all it does is up your own post count, which, as has already been said numerous times, is a terrible metric for evaluating a player's contribution. Here, let's me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

------

Vote: Whomping Willow

-----

That's the entire post. Zero supporting evidence, zero postulations, zero argument, zero logical connection, simply a naked vote with no purpose other than to incite the target into a response. It's obvious how this is detrimental to the ultimate health of the town.

Unvote

Not sure whether to keep my vote on Flubber (I believe that if not outright scum, then at the very least very anti-town) or to move it to droog (insistence upon moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, and a high postcount with a low content saturation (which leads to unnecessarily difficult analysis and frustration for people like myself who want to analyze content instead of respond to the same accusations over and over)). Except for these last few posts, Willow doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but these recent attacks smell like bandwagoning to me, especially when he has no real argument to back them up. I think I will keep my vote on Flubber for the time being, but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

Vote: Flubbernugget

[AWA]

And another thing, of course I'm saying "Prove to me I'm scum", you're voting for me, which means you think I'm scum, which means you must have had some kind of reason to thinking that. Either present your thinking to the town or don't vote, but casting a vote and not giving reasons is shady at best and scum at worst.

[droog]

but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

oh my god
you read my posts on you and think im 'pretending' to have a case
where is the rope

[Whomping Willow]

responding

[AWA]

As a side observation, I find it interesting that my relatively rational and collected posting style doesn't garner as many friends as certain other people's wild, semi-articulate, often-vulgar posting styles. I wonder if I should adjust that, so that people will listen to what I have to say.

[Whomping Willow]

Right, it's a playstyle thing

[AWA]

Right, it's a playstyle thing

holy shit
will you shut up already
and tell me why im scum
instead of talking about bullshit

[AWA]

let me just
pile up a big old pile of bullshit
ok im satisfied that my bullshit pile is big enough
lets lynch droog
this is a wagon im fine with

Vote: droog

[Munkir]

@AWA

This circle is frustrating but AWA your argument is not falling on deaf ears and while I see your point of view its not enough for me to vote on

[AWA]

wtf flubber you only post about cp
and now that hes gone
you dont say anything
bullshit
bullshit
lets lynch flubs

Vote: Flubbernugget

[Whomping Willow]

VOTE: droog

[Whomping Willow]

Just Kidding!

VOTE: AWA

[AWA]

wow willow
you are so quick to jump on any old bandwagon that shows up
rvs included
what scum

Vote: Whomping Willow

[AWA]

kuror
say something
oh you didnt say something
must be scum

Vote: kuror0

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

this is still a thing that happened
@

munkir: what do you think of this

[AWA]

ggg
you don't like droogs posting style either?
fuk u

Vote: GGG