Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
@Michael, I feel it's simply rude to begin the game before everyone has confirmed. That's the whole reason for the confirmation stage. Some mods take confirmations through PM and don't unlock the thread until everyone has confirmed. Since this is a newbie game, we should probably try to represent how most newbie games are played out, i.e. allow the confirmation stage to finish. For these reasons, I will be treating the thread as essentially "locked" until we've had the majority of people confirming.
(incidentally, I personally prefer RQS, or non-random question stage, to random vote stage, but that's something we can get into when the confirmations have all come in)THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Ah, well pointed out - I thought we were still waiting for some people to confirm. To clarify, by majority, I meant, like, at least eight of the nine people.
Guybrush speaks the truth about not answering questions aimed at other people. This was a mistake I made in my first newbie game >< (which, incidentally, didn't have RVS either!)
@Guybrush, at this stage of the game, do you prefer the same set of general questions aimed at everyone, or individual questions to each player, and why?
@Michael: After re-reading your post, I see that you suggest that I wanted town to not start discussion "at all." I hope you're joking, since it would take some very slick play on the part of a single player to stall discussion for the entire three week period of our first day. If you were joking, do you feel "joking" is beneficial to town? If you were serious, do you not feel that you're statement was rather hyperbolic?
@everyone else:
-How many games have you played on this site?
-What do you make of lurking?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Ah, Valk, I didn't intend it as a trick question. I'm not asking anyone to condone it, I'm simply asking what people think of it. Personally, I think lurking is a null-tell. Ideally, town shouldn't do it, but unfortunately, they do
Active lurking, on the other hand, is very different.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
(IC please correct me if I'm wrong!) Active lurking is, generally, when someone makes contentless posts, just to avoid the appearance of lurking. Saying things like simply "lol" and "I agree" in response to other peoples' posts is what I would consider active lurking. Some people might consider repeated promises to post (but never actually fulfilling them) as active lurking too.
Ah, in my most recently completed game, almost every player was replaced at some point due to lurking/not posting xD I've also seen a number of townies lurk in other, less extreme lurk-heavy games. I guess it depends on luck. I'd love to say "lurkers are scum" but it's rarely as clear cut or easy as thatTHE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Whoops, I didn't subscribe to this topic >_< Have now though...
Akira wrote:Lurking may seem to be a mafia tactic, but the fact that we revealed this in the thread means that now it's safer to say that active lurking is a mafia tactic. After all, no scum in his right state of mind would lurk after hearing people say "lurking is for scums."
And it's always gonna be useless for a townie, that's for sure.
Do not make any assumptions. Saying that "no scum in his right state of mind would lurk" induces what is known as WIFOM; because scum have seen you saying that no scum will lurk, they may now be able to lurk and use your line of defence that "no scum will lurk".Valkyrie_Hrist wrote:Hopefully, now we've commented on the lurking, none of the Mafia will do it, and none of the town will be foolish enough to do so, promoting more discussion.
! I've just finished an English Lit degree at York UniooBAZZoo wrote:I thought I'd begin by saying a hello to everyone. I live in Essex (uk) and have just completed an Enlgish Lit degree at Birmingham Uni and am now one of the many unemployed youths living in Britain struggling to find a job.
----
Our desires to wait for a full compliment of players is one that is down to personal preference. I can see that it's been complicated by my miscounting of players (I thought I was the sixth player to confirm), but also by my stricter adherence to wanting (almost) all players rather than a simple majority. To explain why eight instead of seven (if seven, why not six? if six, why not five? still a majority, right?); if only seven players have confirmed, then it's entirely possible that neither of the scum have confirmed yet (improbable, but not impossible). If we start discussion without them, and they don't confirm for a few days (worse case scenario, I know) then we could spend a few days chasing ghosts.MichaelSableheart wrote:My argument that Aurorus was trying to stifle discussion completely was not joking. It was a rather strong accusation given the information available, but it was a possible explanation for his behaviour. In fact, it's an explanation I still believe possible.
You think that I want to continue stifling discussion throughout the day because I've posted theory related discussions and questions? Okay, you may say I'm at fault for this, but most of the game thus far has been game-theory related. We're only a couple of days in, and I personally like to spend the first few days getting an idea of how players say they think about the game. That way, I can cross check that with their actual behaviour. If people say "I hate lurkers, they must be scum" but then fail to vote for a lurker, something's up. But it also helps us introduce new terms for the newer players (such as the distinction between "lurking" and "active lurking")
I flat out stated thatMichaelSableheart wrote:Aurorus, on the other hand, flat out stated that he wouldn't discuss till everyone had confirmed. He was guilty of stifling discussion, Valkyrie was not.Iwould wait. I said I didn't want to RVS and I said I didn't want to discuss things until confirmation was over. I said I thought it was rude to not wait (which is a matter of opinion). I suggested "we should probably" wait; I didn't flat out demand that.
-----
At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.2003041 wrote:I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.
But I'm in a quandry at the moment because there's also this:
Do you think that the post you are referring to (#37) is really all that scummy? I.e. do you think that what 2k3 said in that post ("That's what I do; you don't have to") shows legitimate signs of him being mafia? Afterwards it seems like you're back-peddling from any accusations you made, so I wonder if you never really thought he was scum. I'd like to get an idea of how strong your sense of him being mafia was when you made that post, because it looks as though you could be clutching at straws to appear to be scumhunting and to appear to be pro-town.ooBAZZoo wrote:[This is my first attempt at inquisition]
@ 2k3 - although your last post was meant to be helpful (of which I'm thankful) it was also, like your post before that at 2:22, full of excessive clarification- "That's what I do, but you don't have to do it" appears to me like you're too ready to cover your ground and justify what you say. Is your over garrulous behaviour because a) its simply how you are or the way you write? b) because you know that, in this game generally, people are always ready to pounce on an unjustified answer? or c) because you have some exceedingly scummy business to hide? x
So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'llvote: 2k3, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.
Quote tag fixed ~ Hayl
Other Quote tag fixed, too ~ HaylLast edited by Haylen on Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:36 am, edited 2 times in total.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Ah, I'm sorry if I ruined your sneaky plan!
I wouldn't say I defended 2k3 against BAZZ's accusations; I would say that I questioned Bazz about his accusations because I think that they were pretty weak (it's a matter of focus; my focus with my questions to Bazz were aimed at getting a response out of him about his actions, not about defending 2k3). And just because I don't necessarily believe in Bazz's accusation of 2k3, that doesn't make my own reasons for voting for 2k3 any less relevant. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that I was in two minds about who to vote for (this is what I meant when I said I was in a quandry) Maybe I could have left it with a FoS aimed at them both, but I prefer voting to FoSing.
I'd also like to point out that my suspicion of Bazz is going to come from his reaction to my question, whereas my suspicion of 2k3 was already in the posts he had made. Until Bazz responds, I am happy to vote for my other suspect at the moment.
I don't see why me questioning Bazz on his reasons would make anyone else less likely to vote 2k3, when there are scummier things that he has done. While we're on the subject, what do you think about BAZZ's accusations?
Moreover, there is no reason why I can't follow two disparate threads of attack at the same time (questioning someone, and then questioning the person who is also questioning them). If I only focused on one person at a time, I would be missing out on the opportunity to question different people as they make posts that interest me. As for being on the same side, I do not know whether 2k3 is town (and thus on the same side as me ) but equally I do notknowthat he's scum - the important thing is that I can always change my vote. But he has behaved the most suspiciously in my opinion thus far, and so has received my vote.
And yes, unvoting is just that, you remove the vote you previously made.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Zauper, please see my more detailed response to the very same question in the post just above yours.
TL;dr version:
I disagree with his reasons for suspecting 2k3. But I don't disagree with his suspicion of 2k3.
Now I have a question for you: why ask a question that has already been answered?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
@Zaup; my own reasons were already stated earlier:
And just because someone is questioning the same person as me doesn't mean I can't question them. Otherwise, all scum would have to do to avoid questions from a certain player would be to question the same person that they were questioning.AurorusVox wrote:
At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.2003041 wrote:I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.
...
So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'llvote: 2k3, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
If you think there isn't much to go on, can you blame me for picking up on the two people which had provided things for me to talk about, regardless of their connection to each other?zauper wrote:Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.
Sorry, but you do misunderstand. I'm not voting you because you didn't want to take part in RVS. I'm currently voting for you because you keep saying that you want to vote for someone, but so far you haven't done much scumhunting. You haven't backed your desire to vote with an investigation. It makes it look like you're contributing, whereas in fact you just keep saying that you want to contribute. I'll be happy to retract my vote if you start backing up your talk with actual scumhunting.2003041 wrote:...you say that you wanna vote me because I didn't want to RVS? (If I misunderstood, please correct me) They persuaded me not to go ahead with the RVS and instead try and read some early scum-tells. So why is it that you just automatically start voting for me on what may be an RVS? (And sorry about quote, didn't want full wall of text.)THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I'm treading Guybrush's boundary about interfering but this comment is directed at everyone so I'd like to be the first person to say that I take issue with this.Valkyrie_Hrist wrote:I made it abundantly clear [...] that I'm town
I know I've truncated your quote but I don't think this is a misrep; you can't just clear yourself, and say "I'm obvtown because of x and y" like that. Yes, to you, you may be "clearly town"; but from everyone else's perspectives, it's not so "abundantly clear". If anything, it makes you look scummy. See, now I'm wondering if you could be scum, trying to directly see if people agree that you're townish, enabling you to make a better informed night kill.
Unless my "[...]" has misrepresented your meaning, in which case, please correct me.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I see the potential for incrimination, but to explain it, I'd have to answer your question aimed at Valk regarding option 2. (Although, I think you'll find that his argument of "incrimination" is, actually, his answer to your question...)
But perhaps it would help for me to explain it from an outsider's perspective? I think he's already explained what he means.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Yeah I think that's what she's saying, and I definitely think its stretching it (it's why I said potential). I mean, it could be happening, as a fallback plan - should Michael flip scum, we might scrutinise Valk closer. But I don't think it's what's happening here.
However, thinking about it, I can definitely see why Valk would make that argument as town; blinkered by knowing she's town, she would assume it was "obviously" what was happening. This behaviour is further legitimised by her saying its "abundantly clear" she's town. Do you think that Valk would be able to effectively play the "blinkered townie" character if she were scum?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
EBWOP: That's not to say I condone the "I'm obvtown" sentiment, because I don't. But, now that I've given it more consideration, I would say its more likely to be symptomatic of a new player who is certain that everyone must see that they are town. I think I was overly harsh before to say it looked like scum trying to get people to reveal their reads :\THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
You've been asking questions to scum hunt? I'm sorry, go back and read your posts. The only thing you've writtenprior to my votethat ended in a question mark was "Why are we trying to stay away from this?" (the "this" being RVS - and thus your question is unrelated to scumhunting). After my vote, the only questions you have asked are "Why are you voting for me?" Please point me to a post of yours that has involved scumhunting.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I do see your point. Blinkered townie vs retroactive scum...it's a tough one to call. Your point about #62 is the biggest thing in favour of the latter.Guybrush wrote:When she introduced incrimination, I felt like she's trying to force pieces of puzzle together.
She said "oh yeah, he's fishy but not that much" hoping for me to drop it.
And then after I didn't drop it, she introduced the incrimination story.
As if she felt I wasn't satisfied, went back to read through the thread, found the first thing and said "there. he's incriminating me. is that good enough?"
I find it weird she didn't mention the incrimination in her #62.
However, I think that the "he's trying to incriminate me" is a more likely reason for new player to use than the one that you suggested, because I think yours, though it is less far-fetched, is a little more complex than simply saying "He must be trying to make you think I'm scum."THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
1) Early on you say you want to RV:
This changes, when later, you say you want to lynch someone who looks suspicious:2003041 wrote:I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.
But until I voted for you, you never really tried to look for that suspicious person. Since then, you have only focused your attention on me and my reasons for voting you. What about the other players?2003041 wrote:I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.
2) I asked you to point me to a place where you were scumhunting prior to my vote. If you think I'm voting you for the wrong reason, please prove me wrong.
3) Actually, on that point: earlier on when I said you had only asked one question prior to my vote, I missed a question out by accident. I was half expecting your reply to pick up on it, but I'm somewhat surprised that it didn't.
You also asked ooBAZZoo for clarification of why he said you were trying to cover ground. Ironically enough, this is something I picked up on too. Do you think that it was a point worth pushing harder? It didn't really look like you were trying to use your question ("can you explain why this would be?") to scumhunt, but instead to clarify something that you didn't quite understand. If it was the start of scumhunting, were you satisfied with BAZZ's response to your question?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
2k3, please understand; at all of these points, you have agreed with me that you2003041 wrote:1) The other players are interrogating each other andI have no questions to add.This may be because of my poor interrogation skills, butI don't see anything that I can add to their questioning.Plus if I did start an RVS with everyone else thinking I'm scummy because of that. No one wanted to RVS, so I was talkd out of it.haven't been scumhunting or questioning others.I've bolded the parts that for me, made my vote a good one to place.
I didn't ask you to claim - I asked you to point out to me where you had scumhunted. In this response, you admit that you haven't been doing that.2003041 wrote:2) I could always claim, but it's really too soon to try that route. To be honest, weekends are tricky for me since I'm swamped with work. I also actually had laundry to do, soI was just trying to keep up on other's interrogations.Plus I just suck with questions.
Even when2003041 wrote:3)I think I just went on a rantand just totally forgot myself. I can be openminded at times and just space out when typing. And my rason for probably not continuing to question him? --->(To be honest, I can't understand what he's saying half the time. [No Offense])Itry to find examples of scumhunting that you've been doing, you tell me that it was just a rant.
So, you're voting for me, because you think that my reasons for voting for you are not right. But, in your response to my questions, you seem to be agreeing with me that you've been doing exactly what I've voted you for. Not having questions to add, keeping up with others' investigations -- it looks like you're just letting all of the others do the work, rather than going out there and doing it yourself.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
What are my suspicions based on? They were initially based on his propensity for talking about scumhunting, but his lack of real scumhunting action. This has continued, which is why my vote has remained in place. Yes, I'm not swayed by his reaction to my vote, but my reasons were around long before he started defending himself.Akira wrote:Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.
After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.
Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorussoundedmore convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he justsoundsright.
Also, I wouldn't say I intensely suspected 2k3 when I made my vote. I've made no bones that my mind was split between a 2k3 and a BAZZ vote, but I placed my vote with 2k3 because I was waiting for BAZZ's response.
I would also say that I feel my behaviour is different from 2k3, because I feel I've been asking questions to try to get a read on players (two in particular at the moment). Whereas 2k3 hasn't really done any of that. Also, I've approached more than one player with questions. Whereas 2k3 has only focussed on me.
----
Incidentally, ooBAZZoo, I'm still waiting for your response to my questions.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
This is better. I like this. It proves me wrong about you not being willing to scumhunt. Words and actions eventually match up. So I'm going to keep my word and go ahead and2003041 wrote:@Zauper: If you re-read posts 66-67, 78, 80, and 82, I'm trying to hunt. Yes, it's with one person, but as I also stated in 84 I haven't seen anything I can add to others' interrogations and decided to try and have my own that others could follow.You could also just look at the post above you and see I'm trying to scum-hunt. I honestly just don't know what kind of questions are good to ask for scum-hunting, so I'm asking anything that might make someone slip. I really don't understand your vote for me in this regards and I think that you're just trying to cover up for AurorusVox by voting for me, making the two of you both scum. I need some concrete evidence from you as to why you're actually voting for me.
FoS: zauperunvote.
And now, I'llvote: ooBAZZoowhile I wait for a response to my questions.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
And I still have my suspicions of you2003041 wrote:I still do have my suspicions on AV.
2k3, what's your opinion of Loaka Massi? He's posted less than Michel, but you chose to accuse Michel of lurking. Is there a reason for this?2003041 wrote:Also, Michel, you clearly haven't posted as much as the others here. Is there a reason to why you've been lurking in this game?
Quote Tags Fixed ~ HaylLast edited by Haylen on Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
2003041 wrote:That's the main reason why I think both zauper and AV are both scum-buddies.2003041 wrote:And no, AV's not scum because he voted me. I feel he's been misreading every post I've made when questioning him and trying to turn it back on me. That's why I'm suspicious.
Hah, you think I'm scum (with Zauper) because we both agree that you haven't/hadn't been scumhunting?
Let me point out that Akira also said he felt the same way earlier in his ISO 6 and his most recent post in which he said you hadn't (until I voted for you) made any accusations; and Michel has also said that he doesn't think that you've been scumhunting. It can't bethat muchof a misreading when there are four people who feel similarly (albeit at varying strengths). And we can't all four of us be scum.
---
ooBAZZoo;
I see, I see, I missed your post, so apologies for that. So now I have some follow up questions for you
In your reply, you pointed me back to a previous post (with the "as I have stated") - when I went back to read this post, I see that you use these terms to describe what you think 2k's writing style betrays; the fact that he isooBAZZoo wrote:No, I didn't think the content of the post was particulalrly scummy, rather that (as I have stated) his stylecouldbe an indication of something to hide.
1) Do you think that scum are more likely to cover their ground and justify what they say than town?ooBAZZoo wrote:too ready to cover [his] ground and justify what [he] says
2) Do you think that regular, vanilla townies should ever hide information from the rest of town?
Later, you said that;
3) Could you expand on this please? If you had suspicions that were not alleviated, does this mean that you found his post (or rather, writing style) suspicious, but not scummy?ooBAZZoo wrote:Firstly, his response did not totally alliviate my suspicion, but I thought it was sufficient for me not to persue it further at this time.
4) If you still were/are suspicious of him, why did you think there was no need to pursue it further?
I was wondering if you would have said something along the same lines as Michel - using "weaker" arguments to try to get a read on players (you did earlier say that you had gleaned some information from 2k's reply). That would have satisfied me much more :\ooBAZZoo wrote:If it feels like I'm clutuching at straws its because I probably am, but because I'm new to the game, not because I'm trying to appear pro-town when I'm not.
5) Now for a killer question: do you think you've done more scumhunting than 2k3?
---
Unrelated posts:
I'm going to point out in advance that I probably won't be very active from tomorrow (Wednesday), til Friday-Saturday (GMT), because I'm attending my girlfriend's graduation and my own graduation respectively. I should be able to get on Thursday, and on Saturday late evening, though, so I dunno if this counts as a V/LA, but just in case you don't hear from me til late Saturday, that's why.
Also, Guybrush, I used the preview button this time ._."
And thank you Haylen for fixing my tags <3THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Okay, you may say that "not accusing" is not the same as "not scumhunting" but has Akira also said this earlier;
(and he also said inAkira wrote:Regarding your vote, I must say that I agree that 2k3's style of play is very cautious, silent, and not particularly contributing to the scumhunt.thatpost too that he thought I was scum, but I'm only focussing on the parts where he says you haven't been scumhunting because that's my reason for suspecting you)
Also, I think for you to say that Zauper jumped on the BW without considering the argument for it is ignoring what zauper actually did. In ISO1 he questioned my vote for you; in ISO2 he asked why I had voted for you, again; in ISO3 he paraphrased my argument and said he thought it was reasonable. In ISO4 he said he had read through the arguments (proven by ISOs 1-3) and then placed his vote. So you can't say he blindly jumped onto a 2k3 vote without considering it first.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
If you go to the bottom of the topic, where it says "Display posts by user: All Users" - click the drop down arrow and select "Zauper", then click "Go".
It will bring up only posts by Zauper, and then you can read through his posts 1-4 (it starts at zero, so skip the first one lol). This is known as "ISO'ing" (as in, Isolating)
I would go back and find the actual post numbers for you, but ISO'ing him will be easier and you'll want to be using that feature it in the future, guaranteed.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I'll intersperse my responses with your responses below...
I like the distinction you make between justification and over-justification. However, would you say that your own justifying of yourself through the (bracketed statements) is justification, or rather clarification, on the same scale as what 2k3 did in the post of his you first picked up on?ooBAZZoo wrote:In response to Aumorus’s questions.
I believe that no player wishes to provide statements/accusations that are unjustified. However I also believe that, because they have something to hide, mafia players are more likely to over-justify what they say, or waffle. (This is my attempt to gain information from a psychological tell, rather than a tactical one, or a slip up on words).AurorusVox wrote:1) Do you think that scum are more likely to cover their ground and justify what they say than town?
I wasn't suggesting that you thought that 2k3 was giving too much information away. The relation comes in the issue of "hiding" things; your concern was initially that 2k3's writing style indicated that he was predisposed to covering his tracks, to, perhaps, hiding his true motives. I was wondering whether you thought it could have been a townie move on his part to hide information/intentions. Ironically, I wasn't letting on about the biggest reason behind asking this question, but I will do now;ooBAZZoo wrote:
I’d say that on the whole no, because information a town player has will be valuable for the rest of the townies, which gives the town a stronger base of knowledge that they will all benefit from. I’m sure some exceptions exist, but unfortunately I lack the experience to know when exactly these exceptions exist. (A good question, although I fail to see how this is related to my issue with 2k3 – I never said he was giving too much information, only that his writing style was suspicious)AurorusVox wrote:2) Do you think that regular, vanilla townies should ever hide information from the rest of town?
In your ISO8, you say that you have things that you are thinking, but which you are withholding until a certain discussion is finished. Directly after this post (the one of yours that I am quoting), you have said you suspect someone but will comment on it later. I wanted to see if you thought that holding back information in general (in this case, your own concerns), could be a townie move. I believe it can be, because if VTs are completely open about their intentions, it can be hard to trap scum. However, you said that you don't know when it is a good idea to withhold information - despite doing this yourself.
I am satisfied with this clarification.ooBAZZoo wrote:
I believed thatAurorusVox wrote:Later, you said that;
“ooBAZZoo wrote:Firstly, his response did not totally alliviate my suspicion, but I thought it was sufficient for me not to persue it further at this time.”
3) Could you expand on this please? If you had suspicions that were not alleviated, does this mean that you found his post (or rather, writing style) suspicious, but not scummy?perhapshis writing style was an indication of scumminess, however his revelation that he has Aspergers syndrome did provide an alternative explanation (as I said, I was trying to read him on a psychological level [a bit ambitious for a newbie I know]). I am, however, still suspicious of him.
I am also satisfied with your reasons for dropping the case as relating to the writing style. However, as regards to what has followed since, of course I can't see your observations unless you share your findings. So; what do you make of the developments since your last post regarding 2k3? If you have been watching him closely, do you have any insights that might assist the town?ooBAZZoo wrote:
I was (and am) still suspicious, but felt that the train of inquisition (primarily regarding writing style) has provided all the information that (at this time) it can. To further accuse him without more evidence really would be ‘clutching at straws’. I feel that, although being actively probing is important to a player’s scumhunting (and to the flow of the game), so is observation. Because of my initial suspicion I have been watching 2k3 closely and will resume questioning him if there are developments that mean it is necessary.AurorusVox wrote:4) If you still were/are suspicious of him, why did you think there was no need to pursue it further?
Do you feel that the points you raised against Valk were expanded upon by other players? Do you feel that it is other players' responsibility to follow up on your suspicions, or do you think that you should be asking further questions to develop that line of inquiry yourself?ooBAZZoo wrote:
I believe that I have. Talking from inexperience of course, I presume that scumhunting is about a combination of accusations and probing, but also careful observation (of course how much I have been closely observing other people’s posts can’t be proved, but it is still a form of scumhunting that I feel I’ve been conducting).AurorusVox wrote:5) Now for a killer question: do you think you've done more scumhunting than 2k3?
That being said, I have also been active: My early inquiry about 2k3 came before most other players had conducted any sumhunting. I also got involved in the examination of valk (post #72). I raised some points that I found suspicious and hoped that these would be expanded upon by other players - scumhunting is, after all, a team effort. (again, I shall follow these up when I see a development; valk has been inactive recently).
There were a few reasons behind it. I will openly admit that it was quite a sneaky, cheeky question to ask, because it asks you to relate your own behaviour to another player's (and therefore forces you to decide whether you have done "more" than someone else). By asking this, I got to see your opinion on your own behaviour, and your opinion on someone else's; if I had simply asked "How much scumhunting do you think you have done?" you wouldn't have had to consider it as much as if I'd asked "in comparison to this other player".ooBAZZoo wrote:I also believe that, whilst 2k3 has made numerous posts, many of them have been in answer to others, or in defensive rather than moving his scumhunting forward.
Some questions for you: what was your reasoning behind asking this last question?
I had the added naughty intention of wanting to show 2k3 that it's not a misreading (wilful or otherwise) of his posts on my part to criticise him for not scumhunting.
But other than that, I wanted to see how you would justify your play so far. Because I'm increasingly unsure of my read on you, I wanted to hear you describe your own play (from your perspective) before deciding on whether to leave my vote where it was or move it before I go V/LA.
I think that if a player is coasting by without getting involved, then they have a lot to answer for. It isn't as simple as "The more you scumhunt the more townie you are" - it's about the quality of the posts. For example, Michel hasn't posted much (quantity wise) but he's posted more (quality wise) than someone who has posted more than him in terms of post count. I think I can sum it up with: lots of scumhunting does not equal town; but lack of scumhunting could indicate scum.ooBAZZoo wrote:Do you feel that how much a player gets involved in scumhunting in directly related to their scumminess?
Is this why you have been so active in accusing others, so that you appear to be town because of the amount of scumhunting you do? (this last one is semi-rhetorical).
As for the second of your questions, I've been so active because I've found myself with a lot of free time after finishing with Uni. Most of the players here all seem very active and prompt at replying (especially 2k3 who has been my main conversational partner before now), and so when I get that little email notification that a reply has been posted, I have been responding quite quickly myself. And since I have had questions and concerns to raise each time something new is posted, I have voiced them. If you look at my other games, you'll see that I'm quite active and post-heavy, even in slower games than this.
They did, until I read this. I was all ready to unvote, but now that you're asking, it makes me wanna keep my vote xDooBAZZoo wrote:Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?
---
ooBAZZoo wrote:P.s. Sorry if this was a bit long and/or I used too many brackets and commas
P.p.s @ Aumorus – unrelated to the game, I had my own graduation last Friday, and was attending my twin brother’s in Canterbury today (hence the inactivity). Hope you have a good day and congrats.
P.p.p.s @ Aumorus – don’t trip up!
P.S. Personally I wouldn't worry about posting long responses if it's all relevant. It wasn't a wall-o-text (whicharebad) and the brackets and commas (though I had a little dig at them earlier) is just your playing style.
P.P.S. Thank you very much
P.P.P.S. Thanks, now I'm going to trip up. Eep.
---
Oh, and/unvote. I'm satisfied...for nowTHE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All Trades
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Yup, it could, but the reason I picked you up on it was because you made an accusation based on it. My question of your own writing style was simply holding you to your own standards. In contrast, I said that I felt it was a pretty weak reason to base suspicions on. I was more interested in how you responded than your actual writing styleooBAZZoo wrote:You too have admitted to posting a lot, and this issue surrounding writing styles could be applied to you [more of a speculation than an accusation].
Again, yes, and the big thing for me is that in recent posts, you haven't just "observed," but asked questions. Again, the "concealing of intentions" (as I like to call it) isn't what concerned me; I wanted to see how youooBAZZoo wrote:In response to your inquiries regarding me concealing information/not being active, I hope my previous post has somewhat alleviated this.thoughtabout these things, and compare that to what you actually did. (You'll notice I did this with 2k3 as well, contrasting his speech with his actions)
As a fellow English Lit student, I dance happily at the mention of "interpretation." With regards to concealing interpretations, i.e. reads on players in this context; reads are powerful, and I don't believe they should always be shared outright. Imagine if everybody outed all their town reads, how much easier it would be for scum to pick a night kill! I'd say I'm still satisfied after these additional questions have been answered.ooBAZZoo wrote:[when I have said ‘concealing information’, what’s more applicable is saying ‘concealing my interpretation of the information we all see’.]
@2k3; although votes are much more powerful symbols than FoSes, for me, if someone is worthy of a FoS, then they're worthy of a vote, and this is because of the added pressure of a vote, and the fact that you can always change it (though I would say that this isn't the case if you're at a L-1 or hammer vote). If you think your actions warranted a finger ofsuspicion, why do you find it scummy for me to lay a vote down on my top suspect at the time?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Just to clarify. Is your concern that I voted for you based on posts "well" before my vote (the "well before" suggests that you take issue with the length of time that passed between posts and votes)? Or is your concern that I continued to use those posts as a reason to maintain my vote?2003041 wrote:2) If you re-read his reasons for having his suspicions against me, they're all based on early posts (83, 84, 89). They're all based off of posts that were well before his vote of mein post 50.
Because I also mentioned yourcontinuinglack of scumhunting, in those very posts of mine that you quoted (I assume you mean 83, 89, 95, because 84 is your own post <3). I don't think you scumhunted up until you started questioning zauper, because those posts looked like they were trying to get an idea of zauper's alignment. And, because I believed that you were starting to scumhunt with your questions, I removed my vote.
---
Akira; in your last post, you seemed to suggest that either 2k3orI was scum. What has changed since your ISO6, in which you thought we were scum buddies?
Valk; do you still think Michel was trying to incriminate you based on his most recent posts? Another question I have: you mentioned earlier (in your ISO9) than you thought it was "too early" to place a vote - is this based on the time that has passed (we do have three weeks, after all) or based on the amount of information that you have gathered?
Loaka; are you lurking?
---
@ ooBAZZoo;
Well, I believe that a player can respond just as well with a vote on them as they can with a FoS aimed at them. Of course, votes aren't to be thrown around willy-nilly, but on D1, if you're the first or second person to post a vote, it's very unlikely that the person in question will get hammered on before they've had a chance to respond.
(Also, I'm not a graduate until Friday! D:< )THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Not necessarily. A vote can also be for pressuring other players. A vote doesn't say "I know you are guilty", it says; "I suspect you of being guilty." If you take umbrage with voting early, what about Michel's early vote on me? He's said that he votes with weak reasons to start building a case. But you haven't mentioned that at all.2003041 wrote:You did say in 53 that
, but in that early stage of the day you went right ahead in 50 and voted me. My opinion: An FoS is of suspicion, while a vote is of thinking you know who's what and having something to back it up....but I prefer voting to FoSing.
>< 2k3, you still don't understand why I voted for you...2003041 wrote:At that point, your only back-up was "He wanted an RVS and then didn't start one" [paraphrased], which, in my opinion, doesn't support a vote very well.
My reason was that you wanted tonon-randomly votefor somebody but then youdidn't try to find anything suspiciousabout anyone to allow you to non-randomly vote.
Frustratingly, your entire case on me is built on the fact that you find my reasons for voting for you suspicious - but you still haven't grasped the reason for my vote.
You can always remove a vote too. Votes have a punch that FoSes don't, but they're not set in stone.2003041 wrote:Plus, you can always remove an FoS from someone.
---
My mistake, I thought you had typo'd. Apologies ^^"2003041 wrote:EBWOP: I included my own post in my list because I wanted to show the whole argument at that point.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Actually, one more thing before I go:
I made this voting record spreadsheet because I'm a geek for charts (I saw a player called Sauron do it once, and it was really helpful). The numbers in the left hand column are the post numbers at which votes/unvotes occurred. It doesn't track FoSes. I'll try to keep on top of updating it, but I have made it so that anyone can view and edit it if they want. So, please don't change anything that's already there, just add more stuff if I fall behind :p
Feel free to ignore it, but I find this is a convenient way to keep track of voting patternsTHE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All Trades
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I've snatched five minutes to read today's posts and make a quick reply!
Glad to see LoakaMossi is still around, though I find it incredible that he is actually lurking rather than just being inactive.
@LM
You say you don't know what to make of the arguments; could you explain exactly what it is that is causing difficulties for you? Perhaps if you tell us why you're feeling unable to contribute, we could try better to accommodate you into the discussion.
@Michel, long posts are just as natural to short ones for me, depending on the posts that I'm responding to but I'll try my hardest to keep what I say more concise since I know that if there's a wall-o-text, sometimes people just skim over it. I guess, ironically, a shorter post might be more effective at conveying information than a longer one >_<THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I think this is a satisfactory explanation for your vote, but now that we know your reasons for voting for Zauper I have some follow up questions;2003041 wrote:I decided to try to get AV to try and re-vote me when I voted for zauper to really see if AV would come to his defense. Since this didn't happen, I can kinda rule out for now that they're scumming together, but I can't throw that theory completely out the window. His vote on me has never had anything to do with my vote on him. That's why I didn't want to say my reason for voting zauper. I wanted to truly see if AV would try and help out zauper.
1) Before, when Zauper voted for you, you said that you thought he was jumping to my defence - if you now are considering that we're not scumbuddies, what is your current opinion of his vote for you?
2) You've spoken of votes requiring good reasons to be placed. If your vote on Zauper was to try to elicit a response from me, are you still just as suspicious of Zauper as before, and will you continue to vote for his lynching and if so, why?
3) A theoretical question now, and one that it's impossible to "know" the answer to: but, do you think that if I had voted for someone else, Zauper would have voted for that other person?
---
Now, for the Zauper case itself, which I think is developing into a convincing one.
Bazz; you accused Zauper of voting for 2k3 without engaging in dialogue with him, but perhaps even worse than not asking questions is, if you look at his ISO5-6, the fact that he does actually ask questions of 2k3. However, the questions he asked of 2k3 do seem to be a rehashing of others' arguments (mine). This is similar to what he did when he questioned my vote on 2k3 earlier in the game; after Akira had shared his concerns about my post, Zauper asked the same question. I believe I even asked him why he felt the need to ask a question that had already been answered. Put another way, Zauper hasn't pushed his own agenda when asking questions of others. In fact, highlight this lack, in his ISO7, he responded to all of your points, but didn't make any attempts at forming new questions. Flying under the radar, perhaps?
---
Zauper (and this isn't meant to be a trick question); do you agree with other players' concerns that you seem to always agree with other players' concerns?
Who is, in your opinion, the second scummiest player, and why?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Yep. FoSes aren't official or anything, you can FoS every other play in the game if you wanted to; some people don't bold them, some people barely pay attention to them.Akira wrote:Oh and am I allowed to FoS 2 players?
---
@Michel; I think that to say that "someone" has given 2k3 a reason to keep his vote on Zauper now that his original reason has faded is a little bit of a misrepresentation. ooBazzoo had built the beginnings of his case before 2k3 revealed why he had voted for Zauper. Unless you're suggesting that the "someone" is me?
As for Zauper not agreeing with everyone more than would be natural, as you put it: I believe that yes, he hasn't simply floated by agreeing with everybody, because he has questioned me a few times on my vote for 2k3 (showing that he's not afraid to ask questions). He has also asked 2k3 a number of questions. However, as I pointed out in my last post, his questions have been rephrasings of other peoples' concerns. Do you think that this is more valuable than asking his own questions?
You've voted Valk for taking too long to re-read. What about LoakaMossi, who has admitted that he has been reading the thread but not posting? It has taken him nearly 72 hours to read the thread, between his posts, and has only been prompted to post because of either a) the prod, or b) my vote, or c) a combination of these.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I accept that some of your posts have been pulled out of context - Michel has also noted this. But prior to this post, what questions have you asked of 2k3 or myself that have been your own? I'll post your questions;zauper wrote:I feel like while I do use words like "agree" or "understand" in my posts, they are being pulled out of the context of the larger post in order to make a case with me. It's not like I'm posting "I agree with Aurorus" or "I agree with 2k3" in my posts with no content or unique expression.
Akira, #52 wrote:But I thought it was quite peculiar that you started by defending 2k3 against BAZZ's accusation and ended up voting for him. [...] I need an explanation.
- Akira had already asked me about thiszauper, #54 wrote:AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?
- Akira had already prompted me to answer thisZauper, #56 wrote:Do you think that the scum would roll on each other this early? Why do you think 2k3 is scum?
(Most of my posts between #50 and #93 have been grilling 2k3 on not scumhunting...)
- Again, questions that I had already asked.zauper, #93 wrote:How are you trying to hunt? The post above mine just says "I feel I've been trying to hunt". Have you been trying to hunt by not contributing to the conversation? What questions have you been asking, and to who?
---
Why did you feel there was no need to return questions at ooBAZZoo until this most recent post, after I had called you out on it? I'm not settled on my read of you yet, though, and because this new post does have unique questions that you have personally asked, I'll be watching other people's responses to them carefully...
---
zauper wrote:@AV:
Who are the folks you think are most scum? Why do you think they're scum?
I'm still worried about LoakaMossi at the moment, but its difficult to get more out of him if he continues to lurk/seem like he's lurking. My vote is on him, though. I can't really get more aggressive with him until he posts again. I'm not sure what I think about you. I wonder if you might be townie, and either 2k3 is changing his reasons for his vote on you retroactively as scum, or ooBAZZoo is opportunistically voting for you; but you could also be scum, because I think both of their reasons for voting for you are believable enough.zauper wrote:I think that he started the game off very aggressively and since then has backed down his stance substantially, to the point where it's not really aggressive at all. I'm not sure why he would be doing that if he were a townie.
I've got my eyes spread elsewhere too, but I've not really got the time at the moment to follow up all of it (which is why I'm focussing on a couple of people, LM and you). Come Sunday, and more free time on my part, you'll get more of that aggression that you feel has been missing. There's no point in me posting an aggressive battery of questions, if by the time I can follow up on the response, its a few days old, the pressure just drops out of it.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Haylen - my vote is currently on LokaMassi
Okies! ~ Hayl
@Zauper: "I feel like voting for a lurker isn't particularly aggressive"
How else would you expect me to aggressively scumhunt someone who is lurking? I placed my vote on there, and his single post since then hasn't changed my mind at all. I've asked him questions, and he hasn't yet responded. If I asked him more questions, he would simply have more questions to not respond to. Since questions aren't going to have much of an effect, all that's left to do is vote.
Unless you're asking me to vote for someone who isn't my top suspect, before I've built a case against them that convinces me that they're scummy?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
And anyway, I've been thinking about this. I think your accusation that I've not been aggressive is a bit cheap, though I wouldn't say unfounded, because there have been changes in how I've played. But the value of the change depends on your definition of aggression;
Aggression is about constantly applying high pressure to people
If I'm convinced by someone's response to my questions, I have no reason to keep aggressively attack them. For example, I was happy to see 2k3 scumhunting, and so I've let some of the pressure off in response.
- Do you really think that someone should be aggressiveallthe time?
Aggression is about tearing into people's posts
I'd argue that some concerns are not best voiced aggressively. For example, my recent questions to 2k3 were about understanding his thinking, not about explicitly building a case against him. And in some situations, subtlety works better.
- Can you think of any drawbacks to aggressive questioning?
Aggression is about doggedly and persistently holding people to account for their earlier posts
I think that I've done that up until I declared that I'd be going V/LA. Apart from ISO'ing you to try to understand the case against you, I haven't really had the time for re-reads or ISO's on anyone else yesterday or today (I won't have that sort of time until Sunday).
- How important do you think consistency is, in what people have said and done?
Aggression is about asking lots of probing questions and not letting up until satisfied
I feel that I've maintained this very attitude through most of the day so far, even yesterday when I was busy. The only change I can see is that I've posted less, but as I said, I've been busy IRL, so you can't really blame me for that.
- Is it unreasonable for people to post less if they've been busy?
I don't know which "definition" you were thinking of, if it was a combination of these, or something else entirely. But if you meant 1 or 2, I think that it's a little cheap to say that my play style has changed, when it will naturally change depending on who I'm asking questions of, and for what reasons. And if you meant 3 or 4, well, I can't promise to always have the time or always post as much as I have so far.
@Guybrush, I was worried about that post too, but I thought that if I mentioned it, I would simply draw more attention to it >< I wonder if the best tactic is for people to ignore rolefishing posts, except insofar as to call it scummy...THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Problem is that if he's lurking, he won't answer my questions. That's why I don't usually like voting for lurkers, because they rarely come back to convince you to take your vote away, but I thought that it was a nice place to leave my vote while I didn't have the amount of free time that I would like to give everyone the attention they deserve (I know I said I might be V/LA over the last few days and the next few days, and yet I've made a few posts, but I reallyzauper wrote:No, if you think the lurker is scum, that's who your vote should be on, but there's more to scumhunting than just the vote -- largely coming in the form of questions.willbe out of action tomorrow and most of Saturday). If I catch a scummier read before I go properly away, I'll change my vote, but if I don't, I'd rather vote the lurker and change when I come back.
Really? Within my last ten posts, I've questioned everybody except Guybrush (and I intend to fix this).zauper wrote:When I was referring to your aggression, largely I was referring to your concepts #3/4 (and your time point is fair), but also to the breadth of your questioning.
Not really sure. If pushed to answer on the spot, I'd say I was getting a slight townie vibe from him (except for the rolefishing, but I'm not sure that he did that intentionally). I need to do a re-read on him and Guybrush, to settle my reads on both of them. In fact, I've got a while free tonight, so I'm going to get on that now. Allow me to postpone answering your question fully whilst I re-read his postszauper wrote:@AV + Guybrush: Do either of you find anything else in Akira's posting history that makes you believe Akira is scum?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Okay, so I've had a look at Akira's posts, and now I have some questions. I've just put the ISO number there in case you're curious as to what prompted each question - I would have included the particular quotes, but it made the post look longer than it actually is ><
ISO#1: Do you think that anyone is guilty of not starting discussions? If so, who, and what do you make of them?
ISO#2: Do you think that it is a good idea to wait until the end of the three weeks to place your vote?
ISO#11: Just curious, but who is your secondary FoS if you have one?
ISO#13: Since we've broached the topic already, how do you think a townie can best protect a power role from the mafia?* I don't think that you've thought your reasoning through properly, but I'll wait for your answer before telling you why I think that.
*this is not advocating talking aboutwhoyou think is a PR, but talking about a townie's role in the game. So we're safe.
---
My read of Akira is that he is a cautious player, slowly getting into the swing of things (I'm not judging your pace, by the way - slow is not synonymous with bad!). This caution and slow pace is particularly apparent in ISO#2. As his posts have become more recent, they have become more detailed and probing, but they haven't really made any waves, which would explain the neutral vibe that both Guybrush and I have been getting from him. Because of this, it's hard to determine if he's townie or scum. Scum may have more reason to be cautious, but on the other hand, he is new to the game and it could simply be a case of getting used to what he's doing, and the mechanics of the game (exemplified by ISO#11). I'm not really surprised that he hasn't been voted for yet. His PR discussion is worrying, but I'm unsure whether it's newbie-town or newbie-scum, because even to a townie, if he didn't know better, it could have simply been carelessly thought-out.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I've read over Guybrush's posts too now, so here are a few questions that I have for him too;
-What do you think the likelihood is that LoakaMossi will come back to answer your questions?
-What do you make of the two cases on Zauper (2k3's and ooBAZZoo's)?
-What do you make of Michel's vote on Valkyrie? (I have my own thoughts on this that I'll share later)THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I'm pleased. I was feeling left out that you weren't asking me as many questions as everyone elseGuybrush wrote:@Aurorus
I'm gonna pull a2003on ya, so here are some questions\comments for you as well.
I think that under most circumstances, your accusation would be a fair one. If I had a normal, 9-5 work schedule, I don't think I could keep track of all of the answers and responses, and my reads on people would suffer for it. However, as I have mentioned, I have recently finished with university, which has given me an average of 100% free time per day. You can probably see that I'm checking these forums a great deal. Because of this, I'm not finding it difficult to keep track of what I think of people, since I don't have to read through a whole bunch of posts in one go. I'm happy with middle-level questions aimed at different people as their posts catch my interest, and then to follow these up with more intense interrogations if I feel it is warranted. You'll see I've done this to 2k3, ooBAZZoo and Zauper so far - if I were trying to do that to everybody, then yes, even with all this free time, my head would implode. But I'm making sure to have only crank the intensity up on one person at a time.Guybrush wrote:Do you feel like you can make a fair judgement on people if you keep "jumping" from person to person? You seemed proud that you questioned 7 people in 10 posts. You might end up with bunch of mediocre reads on people. Then again, maybe that doesn't interest you in the first place.
Alas, it's nothing as exciting as that - only a town tactic to try to get reads on everybody. Interesting, though, that you didn't seem to mind my questioning everybody while that "everybody" didn't include you...Guybrush wrote:Also, when you question EVERYONE so quickly, it could be scum tactic so that once you flip scum - others will be unable to track down your partner. Since you chit-chatted with everyone for a bit.
----
All this talk of questions reminds me that Zauper avoided answering mine. I've cut out three that have since become a little irrelevant, but would like an answer to this one:
AurorusVox wrote:- Can you think of any drawbacks to aggressive questioning?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
There's a difference between the RVS and your accusation of zauper (which isn't a scumtell), and purposefully avoiding answering questions (which, in my mind, is a scumtell). Could you be lowering the "importance" of good discussion because you think that you could be accused of going against a good discussion? If it's not that much of a scumtell, what defence do you make for people who avoid answering questions, or limit their engagement with "good discussions"?Akira wrote:At the same time though, I don't strongly believe that avoiding good discussion is that much of a scum-tell, because, I admit it, my zauper accusation in my very first post was a little far-fetched.
No worries. I thought it was odd. My problem with witholding votes until the end of the day is that (a) scum might be less keen to vote, to diminish information that people can get from analysing their "voting pattern," and (b) it prevents people from defending themselves to get you to change your vote. But I think that you've been using "FoS" like an indication of a potential-vote, so I think this gets rid of most of the troubles of (b). And either way, (a) only comes into effect if I think you're scum.Akira wrote:ISO#2: Actually, that post of mine was nothing more than a misunderstanding of the rules. [...] It didn't have anything to do with what's better and what's worse.
It's good that you don't take "agreement" on face value, but can I ask for what reasons you believe Zauper to be scum? Reasons help arguments and cases develop (which is good for the town).Akira wrote:ISO#11: My second FoS is zauper, probably. Although he agreed with my posts twice, I still believe he could be scum.
I think the best way is to conceal them amongst the town. I wondered if you'd bring this up at all, but it seems like you haven't. I'm not sure, I reckon it could just be that you weren't thinking along those lines. If youAkira wrote:ISO#13: The best way to protect them is to avoid voting for people who could be not only scum, but also a power role.hadspoken about "concealment", then I'd have had more of a problem with your PR discussion. But you didn't, and so I'll let it drop now too.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
From now on, you may refer to me as Aurorus Vox, BA. Hells to the yeah.
---
Things I want to comment on from Guybrush's post (whatever I left out, I am satisfied with and agree with or at least understand it);
I saw that he didn't comment...2k3, how comes you avoided this point about your inconsistencies?Guybrush wrote:2003, feel free to comment.
Meet me behind the bike shedsGuybrush wrote:I must say, I haven't noticed your slutiness until you bragged about it. (poetic mode off )
But I only mentioned it because Zauper had accused me of lacking breadth in my questions. It wasn't so much a brag, but a defence against what I feel was an unreasonable accusation.
I wondered if there was an outside chance that he was playing a slow-burning game to defend against your attacks regarding his not accusing Valk way back at the start of the game. I thought that it was perhaps too far fetched that he'd still be concerned with defending against that at this stage, but I wondered if you had considered that possibility. I don't really think that this is what it was, but what do you make of the possibility?Guybrush wrote:(4) Michel "vs" Valk
---
Hmm. I wanted to make sure that you responded to this question because I felt there would be a lot revealed in the line that you would take in your answer. Unfortunately, your first thing that you brought up was considering it from the "avoiding being seen as scum" point of view (i.e. garnering attention). The rest was null or neutral (discussing PRs is a hot topic at the moment so I don't take much from you bringing it up as a downfall, and time skin can be equally concerning for town or scum). So the most interesting thing about your answer, for me at least, was that you went for thinking about it from a defensive p.o.v. that would most concern scum, rather than looking at it from an offensive, "what will best get me a read on scum" angle. Because, in my mind, the best pro-town response would have been "sometimes subtlety works better in trapping scum because aggression can put people on the defensive and they might not slip up quite so much."zauper wrote:Yes, there can be drawbacks to aggressive questioning. Any style of play ultimately has drawbacks. An aggressive style of questioning is likely to cause you to garner attention. It could also cause things you don't want to surface (i.e. power roles for non-mafia players). There's also the massive time sink associated with directing that many questions at everyone.
Ironically, in asking you this question I was being subtle. I think it's paid off. I'm watching you closely, because I don't think I've personally built up enough of a case against you to put you at L-1 yet (I want to re-read/ISO before I consider taking that leap), but you have moved right up my scumlist. I don't really like bolded FoSes, but if I did, I'd be giving you a major one right now <3THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
And with that, my V/LA ends \o/
I've had very little experience with players, scum or town, using "online but not posting" as an argument. However, from my personal experience of recently being V/LA, I can tell you that I've been able to get online and read the posts, but a couple of times I have not had the time to post a response. In fact, most of my posts were made when I was supposed to be doing something else, so if a player was more disciplined than me, I can see that they might be able to get online but just read, not post - regardless of their alignment. Out of context, I would say using a null-tell to justify a vote is unfair.Guybrush wrote:@Michel and Aurorus(as experienced players)
What are your thoughts on this:
Do you think it would be fair if someone were now to reply "I saw her online yesterday, but she still didn't respond. Lurking probably."zauper wrote:Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.
And how would you treat that argument? Would you accept it or not?
But various factors would go into making this absence of posts more suspicious, and the accusation fairer. For example in Valk's case, she isn't V/LA as far as I know. She has had questions aimed at her which she has yet to answer. She has promised responses. Without context, I think that lurking is a null-tell (incredibly anti-town, but a null-tell nonetheless); but in Valk's case, as long as we could verify the fact that she had been online but not posted, it would look as though she were active lurking and avoiding questions. Which is scummy scummy scummy.
---
Which brings me onto LoakaMossi. I don't think I'm ever going to find out anything else about this guy if things stay as they are. His lurking is so hardcore that he could be town or scum just not reading or posting content, and it's frustrating, because lurking on its own is a null-tell and I don't have anything else to keep this vote on him. Nothing except the thought that he could be scum; a ballsy or terrified newbie scum, that has decided to just not post. And if he is scum and we don't punish him for his lurking, he will sail straight through. The problem, of course, is that he could equally and easily be town, and this is what annoys me. To be honest, I think his inaction is more likely the product of a newbie-townie, rather than a newbie-scum. But there's a lot of WIFOM involved in that argument, and it's whether or not we think LM is capable of navigating the WIFOM field - it's hard to tell because he's posted next to nothing.
However, he said that he's been reading the thread, so here's a direct appeal:
"LoakaMossi, please, if you are town, post more. Your inaction is anti-town."
I put my vote on LM as a placeholder vote whilst I was V/LA to see if he would post more if he thought he was under pressure of being lynched, but it really doesn't look like it's had any effect at all. I'm going to
unvote
while I re-read his, and others', posts.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I did answer the moral side of it initially but then removed it from my post because I didn't think that was what you were aiming at and it made my post longer :p My response was thinking about the scenario as though someone else had provided the information, and then talking about what my reaction would be, not judging the value of such tactics.
The short answer to the moral question is that I would find it morally acceptable because it's part of the meta-game and is a null-tell. That is, it's one way of finding out if someone is lurking or just not able to get online, either which can apply to town or scum, and so the player doesn't get any innate advantage from knowing the information, on a purely factual basis.
The long answer is that I personally wouldn't go out of my way to "spy" on someone, because I feel it's not very useful in and of itself, and that there are better ways of scumhunting; that is, it is a bit of a waste of time and a little cheap. That said, I don't think that taking such action would make someone scummy. On the other hand I wouldn't be convinced by their argument unless they backed it up with additional scumhunting - for example, the second half of my post was more concerned with Valk's posting in-thread, or lack thereof. These kind of probes into a player's activity doesn't need "spying" to be useful, but if someone claims that the player in question has been online, it could throw a new light onto the probes. Rather than guessing whether they've been unable to get online and couldn't notify V/LA, or are just avoiding questions, we would be slightly better informed. It could also catch someone out lying - if they say "Oh, I've not been able to get online" for example. Despite all of this, I'd personally still rather wait for the person in question to clarify why they've been unable to post much content. But once someone's made the point of it in the thread, it's impossible to ignore it. I'd rather no one went spying, but if someone does, then you can't just pretend that the player they have spied on hasn't been online if they have.
It's a case of, I wouldn't do it, or encourage people to do it, but if they did do it, I wouldn't scold them.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
When ISO'ing Valkyrie I came across this, which throws the "Valkyrie is avoiding our questions" argument out of the window.Valkyrie_Hrist, posted on Thursday wrote:I'm going to have limited access over the next two days, but I'll try and get round everyone. I'll be answering everyone elses questions in chronological order, but Guybrush has been waiting a long time, so I though it was only fair to answer him first.
Lol, my above isn't going to help this accusation, is it?MichelSableheart wrote:I'm seeing a potential Valkyrie-Aurorus scumpairing, because of her strong reaction to my vote for Aurorus, and the way Aurorus defended her at the top of page 4 when he didn't really defend anyone else.
But I take issue with your reasoning; Valkyrie only reacted to your vote for meafterGuybrush had pointed it out. I think you might be referring to the point at which she said "I think Michel should take his vote off" (or something similar) which I definitely found odd, but again, that was only after Guybrush had said he was satisfied with my explanation.
Also, at the top of page four, I was not really a big defence of Valkyrie but me expressing the fact that I had changed my mind regarding an earlier accusation I had aimed in her direction (if I was defending her, it was against my own accusation). It was a vocal retraction of suspicion* more than anything, though I can see why it might look like a defence. You say I've only done this with Valkyire, but I did something similar in my ISO#20 with 2k3 where I say that I feel he has started to scumhunt. More significantly, if you look at my ISO#24, you'll see me defending Zauper against accusations that I felt were unjust. So I don't think that saying I only defended Valkyrie is a fair representation, on either the count of defending or on its uniqueness.
*a VRoS - think the term will catch on?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Fair point. I don't think I've answered the exact questions that you asked her in #98, but what I said could get in the way of her answers so I'll accept the criticism.MichelSableheart wrote:The fact that you are now (partially) answering for her doesn't really make me happy.
Guybrush, I think the request was more aimed at me than at you xD
ooBAZZoo, I understand that lengthy posts are intimidating, and I'll try to keep them as accessible as possible, but if I feel like my/someone else's concerns aren't addressed in a small post, I don't think I can promise to leave all my posts short. I'll experiment with it thoughTHE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Or her V/LA could have gone on longer than expected. That said, I definitely find a Valkscum more likely than a LoakaMossiscum because Valk does look to be active lurking over just plain lurking.ooBAZZoo wrote:I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Valk. Although she's not the only one to have been inactive the past couple of days, she does have a number of questions that she's avoiding answering. This could be a scum-tell, although it's also likely that she's just not that commited to the game.
x
Do you think that Valk's "lack of answers" is more suspicious that Zauper's "agreeing with answers already posted"?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Also, as for the slowing pace, I don't think it's surprising that this has happened over the last few days. Three players are (or have been) V/LA as far as I know (Akira, 2k3, Valk) and one has just been replaced. So with almost half of the players missing, there's only so much the rest of us can do.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I think I agree with Michel's assessment of who to lynch, but I'd put Zauper above Akira in the lynch list.
For me;
Valk is out of V/LA but is still not posting. Which in and of itself isn't so bad, but the fact that she's left questions hanging - and she knows that she's done this, because she said she would answer them - is very suspicious. This is active lurking at its worst, and is an indication of scum that doesn't know how to answer the questions.
Zauper's response to my question about aggression/subtlety was a scumtell in my mind. I'd put him as my second favourite lynch, not first, because I'm basing my biggest suspicions mostly off of this response, and the rest has been stated in others' arguments.
2k3's early play was definitely lynch-worthy, but his more recent play has placated my suspicions to an extent. I won't ignore his earlier play, but I won't base my whole suspicion on it. I'd probably put him third in the list.
My read of Akira is a little scummy, a little townie. I wouldn't try to start his lynch but I am a little uncomfortable with him.
Lurking alone is a null-tell, so I agree with Michel about not lynching LoakaMossi.
And a GB, Michel or BAZZ lynch isn't on the cards for me at the moment.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Do you think that it's more likely that he didn't think this at the time, and has retroactively said that he did - or that he did notice it but didn't want to appear to be agreeing with other players, since that was the accusation aimed at Zauper?Guybrush wrote:I find it weird for a guy who says he doesn't know how to contribute, that he left out a piece of valuable observation he made.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
Mm; you're right, this makes no sense:Guybrush wrote:@Aurorus
He said he saw it first, so he wouldn't be agreeing with anyone at that point.
I'm pretty sure he's lying and hasn't seen it before others.
2k3 wrote:I noticed zauper acting this waybeforepeople commented.
GB: Do you believe in lynch all liars?2k3 wrote:I never commented because both Akira and Bazz commented
2k3: Why didn't you comment on it when you first saw it?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All Trades
-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
^I found this response hilariously scummy;
Town should have no reason toAkira wrote:I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."notacknowledge when they have done something wrong and hold their hands up and admit that they've acted suspiciously. By trying to hide that fact, and defend against a legitimate accusation even when you agree with the accusation, it just digs you into a deeper hole.
But the point is that you've agreed three times to Zauper's four times, which isn't that different. Can you state what you think the distinction between agreeing and over-agreeing is, so that there is no confusion? Because if you've said over-agreeing is suspicious, and yet have over-agreed (which is GB's accusation), then you've got something to answer for.Akira wrote:If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which isover-disagreeing.
Furthermore, do you think that someone "over-disagreeing" is more likely to be town or scum? I.e., do you think that scum would disagree with something, even if they believed the point to be "true"?THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him
I'm not concerned with whether or not you replied to it in detail. I'm interested in you saying that it's a problem for you to admit when you've made a mistake. Only scum have a reason to want to hide any errors that they make. You've now said you made a bad decision, so you've gotten on board with admitting your mistakes. But only after you were prompted on it, by GB and myself.Akira wrote:That's easy for you to say when you don't quote what I said right after that. I said that I simply made a bad decision and I didn't pay much attention to that part of the post because of him calling it null-tell. For me, it was a drop in the ocean, a mere detail amongst his giantAKIRA READ. So I decided to ignore it. Was it really so deeply necessary for me to post my thoughts on the matter??
Hm. Scum will only hide their true agreement if it benefits them. When you initially tried to skim over the fact that something that you did was scummy, did that benefit you?Akira wrote:And I believe that at this point in the game, over-disagreeing is more suspicious than over-agreeing. It's a bit like lurking and active-lurking. I'm not sure if they would disagree even with posts that appear completely true to them. I guess it depends on if they benefit from it or not. I can't properly talk about scum's habits because of my lack of experience, so I'm bound to make some mistakes.
So, Akira; I think that your last two posts were scummy. I still don't think you're the best lynch candidate for today, at the moment, so I won't be voting for you just yet, but I'm planning on re-reading Zauper's and 2k3's recent posts when I get a chance to see if I need to re-jiggle my lynch preferences to accommodate.
----
This part of your response I have less problem with, but I'm curious.
I get the picture, but could you supply fragments from the rest of the posts that contribute to this feeling? You seem to have voted him for reasons already stated, without supplying many of your own (in ISO#15 when you place the vote, you even say "my reasons are the same as everyone else's"). Do you have anything of your own to add, or is it simply that you've been persuaded by others' posts?Akira wrote:What matters IMO is the actual content. Also, he often didn't back up his agreements with some supporting evidence. ("That's a valid point, I'm not sure how to address it, honestly"). It's hard to describe really, but I hope you get the picture.THE LEMON LIVES! - Cabd-
-
AurorusVox He/HimJack of All TradesHe/Him
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 9257
- Joined: March 12, 2010
- Pronoun: He/Him