Newbie 1094: Let us simulate. Game over. Scum win.

[Trendall]

VOTE: izakthegoomba

Get an avatar.

Hello.

[Trendall]

I do it to everybody who doesn't have an avatar. Don't take it personally.

UNVOTE:

[Trendall]

1) What is your time zone?
2)How often do you expect to be posting?

1. BST
2. Whenever I have something worthwhile to say.

@Trendall

You got me. Why would you quickly unvote when someone scolds you for it? Afraid for payback? Pressured as scum or what?

Lol.

I vote for izakthegoomba because he doesn't have an avatar. izakthegoomba gets an avatar. My vote is no longer relevant. I unvote. I'm tempted to suggest that Spadille is scum for trying to make something out of that, but we'll see what happens.

[Trendall]

Okay, I just got round to reading the thread properly. These are the notes that I made as I was reading along, just so that you can see my thought process. I'm sorry they're so long, and I don't know how useful they are. I wish I could put them in spoiler tags, but they've been banned for vague and mysterious reasons. Feel free to skip them, there's a summary at the bottom. I'll be more active from now on, so don't worry, not all of my posts will be walls like this.

-------------------

#6 - Cobblerfone puts in a random vote, which is all well and good, except he specifically says that he wants to put it on an SE. I dunno why, but that just doesn't sit right with me.

Post #16, where izakthegoomba claims no sense of humour is hilarious.

#17-#18 - I don't like jmurph3 and Cobblerfone fossing izak for making something that just looked like a blatant newbie mistake. If izak really was scum trying to deprive the town of information, I doubt he'd do it by saying 'I WANT TO GET DAY ONE OUT OF THE WAY EVERYONE LOOK HERE IS MY VOTE TO SPEED DAY ONE UP'. I think he'd be more subtle.

#22 - Ouch. Heliman jumps on izak for the same reason. Also makes up a contradiction that doesn't exist.

Two, You're statement is a direct contradiction with this post,

where you took issue with Trendall for voting randomly in the same way you just voted randomly here.

Our votes weren't the same. I voted for him because he didn't have an avatar, which he didn't see as a good reason for voting. He voted to speed the game up, which he did see as a good reason for voting. I don't see the contradiction.

#23 - I actually like this post from Supreme Overlord. Jumps on izak, but states that he's aware that it could be a newbie mistake, and that he's voting more to put pressure on izak than because he thinks izak's scum.

#25 - Quilford jumps on izak for 'fluffing up the game and posting almost nothing relevant'. On page one of the first day. Where there is hardly anything relevant to say at all. Don't like this vote at all.

#27 - DDDP jumps on izak. At this point basically everybody has called out izak for one reason or another. DDDP describes izak's post as 'bad', not 'scummy', considers that it might be an honest mistake and wants to see how izak will deal with the pressure. I like this post.

#28 - Spadille fosses izak

#30 - I actually like this post from Spadille. From my experience, mafia aren't quick to admit that they were just plain wrong. Instead they'll try to worm their way out of an argument or shift focus to somebody else in the game or whatever. So the fact that Spadille just goes 'yep, I was wrong', and unvotes looks good to me.

#32 - Supreme Overlord asks DDDP to build an argument against izak for him.

#46 - Don't like Spadille pointing out that izak got the first post. First person to post in the thread is irrelevant.

#47 - izak, no lynch is town suicide here. We're lynching today.

Supreme Overlord on the other hand has had some chemistry with izak that makes them sound like a scum team to me:

VOTE: Supreme Overlord LYNCH ALL LURKERS RAWRRR

@jmurph3 I hardly think he's a lurker yet

And then Supreme Overlord jumps on the izak-wagon and starts interrogating; good cover for scum.

Cobblerfone takes a random interaction between two players and essentially says 'hey look, these players interacted with each other. It's as if they're mafia'. This is just weird.

I think Quilford is the most suspicious from my position, as he voted for me just because I "posted almost nothing relevant". Hardly a reason for lynching.

Nice OMGUS there.

Don't like this from Quilford. izak says that Quilford is suspicious for not having good reasoning behind his lynches. He has perfectly good reasoning for being suspicious of Quilford, and yet Quilford tries to pass it off as OMGUS.

#67 - Spadille makes good points against Quilford.

Mhm. Looks like we got ourselves lurkers. Trendall and Heliman. They were just here browsing minuites ago and left without giving in some contents. I'm gonna make a special shout-out to give us something.

Constructing a post is far more difficult than just reading through the thread. Plus, I often check the site on my phone, where it's easy to read through but cumbersome to post on. I check the site a lot and probably post once for about every ten times I look at a thread in one of these games, so I'll warn you now, you'll see me doing that a lot.

Which, I'll admit I'm feeling less suspicious of izak (though he is eerily calm)

Why shouldn't he be calm?

Everyone, seriously, shut the fuck up about "Pressure." L1, L2, L3, It doesn't make a god damn bit of difference if you don't bring any guns to the table, it's just being passive, parroty and
scummy. Votes come and go like sand on a windy day, arguments are the mud stays behind late game.

Yes! Yes yes yes yes yes. I agree. I like this post.

#83 - Scummy post from Quilford.

#85 - Quilford tries to ridicule an argument against him by saying it is nonsensical. Says he provided reasoning as to why he voted, but I think that reasoning was very very shaky.

#87 - 'Give me some examples of questions I could've asked him' - Quilford trying to get Spadille to build an argument against izak for him.

#94 - Yep. Quilford says that he is voting for izak for not posting relevant things, yet that is based only on what izak said in page 1. From what I can see, Quilford has basically ignored all subsequent posts from izak, when I think that izak defended himself against accusations really well.

#99 - Quilford tries to turn the whole argument around onto Spadille. 'You voted for Trendall based on just one of his posts on Page 1.' - The difference is that Spadille unvoted and moved on, where as Quilford is still ignoring everything that happened past day one.

#122 - This is ridiculous

#136 - izak, why does Cobblefone look scummy?

-------------------

Embarrassingly, I am pretty much null on most players. izak looks like town to me, I'm amazed that there were and still are so many people all over him from what are blatantly newbie mistakes that are the product of playing the game on a different website with a different playstyle. Plus, I think he's defended himself perfectly well against the arguments against him. He's stayed graceful in his defence and hasn't resorted to baselessly attacking his attackers. All this combined with the lack of scumhunting just make him a textbook 'newbtown who came from another website' player. I would say that the mafia are probably the people pushing for an izak lynch, but that's everyone in the game, so scrap that. Spadille is probably town, and I have a slight town read on DDDP. Everyone else bar Quilford, I'll need to check back on. I've only had the chance to do one complete read through at the moment and it was a lot to take in.

Quilford is just plain scummy, and I think Spadille highlighted exactly why in his exchange with him. So,

VOTE: Quilford

[Trendall]

Rereading and posting again after I have had something to eat.

[Trendall]

There's no hard evidence backing your reasoning up, and you don't explain on why you think my post was scummy or my reasoning shaky.

Okay. This 'hard evidence' stuff that Quilford keeps bringing up is nonsense. Quilford keeps repeatedly saying that there is no 'evidence' against him, so the arguments are invalid. In this setup, there is absolutely no 'hard evidence' against anybody aside from cop reports. On day one, everything is speculation. Quilford is saying 'you need to provide evidence against me otherwise your argument is invalid', when it is impossible to provide any evidence against him or any other player in the game at this stage. He's created an unfair loophole with which he can easily write off any argument against him. So with that in mind…

#175

YOU CAN'T MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THE BOLDED ABOVE IN SPADILLE'S POSTS WITHOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE
DOING SO IS SCUM SCUM SCUMMY

#178

You have again utterly failed to provide any evidence.
clap clap clap

#180

You don't have any evidence against it.

Also, nice try to change the subject. +scumpoints

Quilford also accuses Spadille of changing the subject, when in fact Spadille was making the pertinent point that Quilford is accusing people of 'not having evidence' while not having evidence for anything himself. By Quilford's own logic, Quilford should be scum himself.

#182

Hurry up and provide evidence.

#183

Also, what does 'alot' mean?

This is sheer desperation from Quilford. Resorting to attacking a spelling mistake, typo or whatever to detract from the credibility of the person arguing against him while actually providing no relevant points whatsoever.

#185

Now hurry up and provide evidence.

---

[*]In this post, he says "Spadille/izak connection established" without giving any reasoning. WTF? Seems scummy.

Hey izak, would you go as far as to say that Quilford didn't provide any 'evidence'? Lololololol

Evidence to back up your statements, please.

…and so on and so forth for another six billion posts.

I'm the one contesting that my case was not mostly already 'implied' by the players. You're the one who has to prove it. Moreover,

semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

.

Read as 'hey look, I know a phrase in Latin so I am really clever and therefore I am correct in this argument'. Desperation.

I stopped wasting my time reading that whole exchange around this point because it just got beyond a joke. No matter what way I look at it, I don't see Quilford as anything close to town. He's scum.

that smiley is called "igmeou". Anyone know what it means?

I got my eye on u

-----------------------

I'm not entirely sure what the argument against Cobblerfone right now is (If someone could summarise for me, that'd be great. If not, I'll reread). However, just from doing a brief ISO of him, he seems to be trying to defend Quilford a bit too much, so I'm wary of him.

For the people who are asking for my second/third suspect or whatever, I simply don't have one at this stage. I'm still null on a lot of players.

[Trendall]

If the argument against a player is 'you're not making an effort to scumhunt' or 'you're being too passive and not taking a stance on things', then how is it possible to provide what you call evidence of this? Sometimes what is lacking in a player's posts is what makes them scummy, and it is impossible to quote something that is non-existantant. How is it possible to quote somebody not scumhunting?

Plus, I don't think you've provided a single quote against another player in argument against them all game. Your case against Cobblerfone contained no quotes. Yet you are repeatedly calling out players for not doing something you are also not doing in an attempt to stall their arguments or to degrade them into confusing semantic debates that don't address the original point that those players were trying to make.

[Trendall]

I'm sure everyone else in the game can and has seen it perfectly well for themselves. If anybody else who isn't Quilford needs clarification I'll provide it, but I think it's fairly obvious what the kind of thing I'm talking about is. I refuse to subject to Quilford's attempt to muddy down my argument here.

[Trendall]

at this point I'm almost certain that the scumteam is Trendall + izak/Cobbler

You haven't made a single argument against me all game, and yet you can confidently assert that I am on the scum team with absolutely no justification, whilst still attacking other people for 'not providing evidence' when as far as I can see everybody else in the game individually has provided more evidence than you have against anyone. I mean, it's just...This is mindblowing, I've never ever seen anything like it.

There is no fucking way in a million years that this guy is town. No way. Can someone just hammer?

[Trendall]

...?

[Trendall]

@Trendall
I still need your explanation. You just gave me a '..?' post

What is it that you want me to explain exactly?

[Trendall]

Incidentally, my '...?' post was to express my speechlessness at Quilford's ridiculous self hammer and random accusations aimed at me.