Sorry about the forthcoming wall... but you guys aren't really giving me much of a choice...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spy wrote:But yes, good job comparing scumbolina to you in a maneuver to not... appear... scummy.
It just seems more like you're selectively calling out tells... In your case on pops, I don't recall a point being "its scummy for pops to call bio scummy because of something he (pops) would have did as scum"
Just seems more like you're adding fuel to my plane thats crashing and burning.
I also realized a scum (sk) who was selectively calling out tells in a previous game. Meerkat manor mafia. Linked to it before. CKD said using varients of "to be honest..." was a valid scum tell. Bussed his scum partner with it. Later in the game, a townie used the phrase. CKD completely ignored it, until I pointed it out to him. Just to show that I have a precedent for thinking that selectively calling out tells is suspicious...
Spy wrote:If its scummy for what it is, why the qualifier. Thats the issue. Much like RC's whole "self-preservation" move. Why qualify scummy behavior?
It wasn't a qualifier. It was just a nod to OGML, since we have a history. If I'd have left that line out, my point would still be completely valid.
Spy wrote:Its like you two want me to want to lynch you, I swear.
I'm tellin' ya... guard jester... woulda been a big hit I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand now why players flake out and give up - there is literally nothing I can say now that isn't followed by an "ZOMG SCUM!!" (example: this will be quoted as another AtE...
)
I'm a
Vanilla Townie, aka Officer Rhinox, a night watchman
. I'm claiming now because there is absolutely no way to defend myself right now. Either you believe me, or you don't. Also, I have unreliable access this weekend and into next week, so I don't want to cause any delays which may or may not interfere with deadline.
I've now seen 2 pretty clear cases laid out against me, by RC and Riot. I feel both are completely 1-sided and biased, completely ignoring everything I had to say in defense of myself, so I'll dedicate the rest of this post responding point by point to the 2 cases as sort of a final word on it. After that, if you guys decide to lynch me, I suggest tomorrow you look very hard at everyone on RC's wagon, (specifically those that switched from me to RC), as well as OGML. Its pretty clear that since I made myself so lynchalicious, scum would keep me around as an easy mislynch for later - maybe even outright defend me (I'm eyeing up bio and Rishi). OGML, I know from meta does not fall into confirmation bias, and when town, argues that simpler explanations are usually more accurate. In this game, the more the discussion goes on, the more outrageous the story becomes to continue to support his pet theory that RC and I are both scum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to RC's case:
"No Random Vote"
RC wrote:Nothing too bad here as the game is just beginning. I just wanted to point out how I wasn't very fond of "I think such-and-such is anti-town, but I'm not going to talk about it".
I later come to Huntress' defense, and still think her position was justified in that breaking from the norm (RV) can indeed provoke an emotional response from other players. A response can easily lead to a great way to begin the game's discussion.
This is nothing but filler. Its a disagreement on game theory, and not an indication of allignment. I think not voting in the random stage hurts the town, or rather, limits the flow of information to the town. Think of how a game would go if nobody decided to random vote, or if nobody voted at all until they were "sure someone is scum". I decided not to make a big post on it at that point in the game because I was trying to prevent myself from going on tangents and making big posts so early in the game, and because similar conversations I've had have not added anything to the game. After being pressured for an explanation, I was happy to talk about it as long as necessary.
"Not Questioning MME as well as huntress"
RC wrote:This rubs me the wrong way too. It doesn't seem genuine.
I think it's more likely that Rhinox simply forgot about MME, he didn't notice him because he didn't write the same thing that Huntress wrote.
Again, nothing major, it just feels fake to me.
I've explained that I felt MME was just confirming at that point. Maybe he didn't know the game started, or maybe he didn't have time to do anything but confirm. My PM said to confirm in thread, so I came to the thread and quickly scrolled down to the quickreply box to just /confirm, until I realized other players were saying stuff other than confirming. Huntress, on the other hand, made a conscious decision to not vote.
Saying that "This feels fake" accomplishes nothing more than adding filler to my case...
RC wrote:Going back to earlier. Maybe Rhinox sincerely feels this way, but to me it sounds like he's going to great lengths to basically justify calling Huntress out for not voting.
Again, nothing but filler. I've pointed you to games where I've called out players for not random voting before. I'd say that pretty much means I'm sincere about it.
"Discussing the SK"
I don't see how this should be a point against me at all... The core of my argument has always been, "No town players decision should be effected D1 by assuming anything about factions". RC argues that decisions would change if we assume there is an sk, but I have still never seen a reason why. Is there anything scummy about my statement?
Extending on this, this is also partly why I'm suspicious of OGML (and now CF Riot as well)... they are assuming faction information to support a theory that says I'm scum. They are completely false assumptions. Its also circular logic. "I'm scum, so I must be a separate faction from RC. If I'm part of a separate faction, I'm scum..."
"Pairing up"
RC wrote:This is when I start to think Rhinox is bad news instead of just someone I have an honest disagreement with.
Nowhere in post 82 is pops defending me. In fact, contrarily, he says he's already getting a slight scum vibe off of me. pops makes it clear that he understands the point I was making, and that's about all I can get from it.
Moreover, pops was only addressing me to begin with because Rhinox asked him to. Is he setting pops up for certain circumstances?
I've already explained that it was an honest mistake where I forgot that I asked pops about you. Is that something scum would do more than town? If I'm scum, did I just think that 8 or 9 town players just would't have noticed that I specifically asked pops about you? Does this sound like something scum would intentionally do, knowing they would probably get called out for it?
That being said, when I realized my mistake, I dropped it. There is or never was any pairing up. I find it overdefensive to assume that me thinking pops was defending you means that I was trying to announce a scum pair - there are many reasons for a player to defend another player. It was like page 2, it seemed like something good to talk about.
RC wrote:I tell him in post 152 that his appeal isn't good enough for me. Essentially, I'm not writing this off as a simple mistake. Not only does Rhinox end up using this mistake to his advantage (discussed below) but his quick punishment of pops for "defending me" sounds completely artifical. The fact that he suggests pops
may be
attempting to distance himself from me by calling my position "slightly scummy" seems almost entirely founded in creating something out of nothing.
Key words: MAY BE. They carry the obvious implication: MAY NOT BE. Again, it was like page 2 or 3, and seemed like a nice conversation starter. At the time, my inconsistency was the fatal point, and prevented any good conversation from coming out of it. Saying I was trying to pair pops and RC is nothing more than looking back, after the fact, trying to post-rationalize it into something its not in an attempt to tie off every loose string to "prove" that I'm scum.
"Suspicious vs. Scummy"
Seriously? This is actually a point against me? wtf everyone... I have my definitions of suspicious vs. scummy: namely, suspicious = potentially scummy. I also use suspicious to mean, "I'm suspicious of everyone who's not confirmed town, no matter how pro-town they seem". What is possibly scummy about this? I really think this is just piling crap on top of other crap, in a quantity over quality sort of manner - basically, everything thrown at me so far has to be so construed and distorted to indicate that I'm scum - but because theres like 10,000 of these points, at least 1 of them must be true... and thats just a complete fallacy.
"WIFOM"
I feel like everything RC said in this block was completely slanted and manipulated... It reminds me a lot of the "ORLY Scum?" fallacy.
To boil down the entirely block into facts and not a creative writing short story, this is basically my entire use of WIFOM:
I'm asking the town to consider whether making a mistake/inconsistancy like I did is something that town are more likely to do, scum are more likely to do, or either can do equally.
Instead of actually answering the question and giving reasons, everybody just jumps to the conclusion of "ZOMG you're using
WIFOM
. You must be scum just trying to get us to ignore the point because town are just as likely to be inconsistent." The problem with this is, the obvious point is being overlooked: town is actually just as likely to be inconsistent, if not more likely. But, it makes me scum to point that out?
The reason my explanation posts about my inconsistancies were so emotional and extra wifomy is because I guess I put more weight onto my initial error than the rest of the town... If I would have seen that inconsistency made by another player, I'd have jumped all over it. I would have viewed it as a fatal mistake. So I was frantically and desparately trying to explain how it was just an honest mistake. I'm starting to get the feeling that the reason I'm being voted/suspected now has little if anything to do with the actual inconsistency I had, and more to do with me frantically trying to explain it. Thats discouraging, because basically thats saying that just the act of defending myself, and being honest, is actually making me look scummier. I'm starting to think it would have been better to lie and make up a BS excuse about it, or just try to forget it ever happened, than to actually give an honest explanation. So much for the idea that townies should never lie.
RC wrote:bionic refers to a meta game in which Rhinox and himself were both a part of. He implies that the mafia was actively using WIFOM to defend themselves, and asks why Rhinox appears to be blantantly using WIFOM here if that's the case.
Rhinox response was that the game wasn't "fresh in his head", despite it being his most recently completed game.
Refer to my last post for a response to this point.
RC wrote:Putting this statement under WIFOM for a specific reason. The point he's trying to make is that by not lynching him he will be able to prove he is town.
It's an appeal, it's as if he wants us to believe that if he were scum, he would not be able to create a "mountain of overwhelming townie play", but because he is town, he needs to be kept alive to do it.
Call it circular reasoning, call it WIFOM, call it an appeal... I'll just call it bad news.
No. Actually, I was saying that it was too early in the game to have a mountain of pro-town play, considering that my play up to that point had been poor. If I wouldn't be lynched, then that would be a chance to turn my game around and be pro-town. Thats not to say that only a town player can be pro-town, nor is that saying that it would "prove" that I'm town.
If you really thought I was scum at that point, but maybe having a little bit of a doubt, maybe it would have even been a good strategy to hope that I would be so worried about self-preservation that I would be so anxious to bus my scum partners to look pro-town, that I would actually lead the town to the rest of the scum.
And by the way, the last sentence of the quote above is a prime example of the manipulative spin all throughout RC's case on me - just a trick to make something sound a lot worse than it really is.
RC wrote:Ugh. It's like he says understands why his statement is scummy, but asks if it counts anyways (because Rhinox's statements are too scummy to be used by scum).
No, thats not what I said at all. What I said, in a melodramatic sarcastic way, is that nothing I could say would help me. And thats been proven to be true 100%. Nothing I have said has helped me, and everything I've said has just been digging a bigger hole. So it is true, and my statement does count.
"Passive-Aggression/Defeatism - Emotional Manipulation"
RC wrote:I have a personal tell that I look for. I say personal because I'm not sure if it is widely-recognized or not.
I don't like it when people get pessimistic.
To me, townies should always have some sort of zeal, some sort of indignation in their hearts when they are being voted or fear they are going to be lynched.
Granted, not everyone has the same sort of personality, but I will accept a townie getting supremely frustrated with their fellow players before I will accept a townie beating themselves up, even in jest, over being voted.
If you agree with that, then this statement would likely stand out to you as well.
I have not been pessimistic, I have not given up, and I have not beat myself up over being voted. I have beaten myself over making a stupid mistake, and any AtE I'm being accused of have been my honest feelings.
But as I said before, I can't really respond to any AtE without it sounding like another AtE, so I'll just leave it for what it is. As this is the only thing I don't really have an answer for, then I guess I can't really complain if you guys lynch me for excessive use of AtE. I think the rest of the stuff is twisted and distorted crap post rationalized to explain how every single post I've made somehow supports me being scum.
What I will say, as I've been saying all along, is... when I'm eventually revealed as town, then either I haven't been using AtE, or AtE isn't a valid scumtell. I guess I shouldn't be too worried about it though... This game should really help out my meta whenever I'm in a game where I'm
actually
scum... :shrug:
See my previous posts for an explanation about the "Cry me a River" Comment.
"Missing some pieces"
Moar filler please... Just more crap piled on in hopes to overwhelm with quantity.
Anyways, its pretty much par for the course for how I've been playing this game... I "forgot" Korts explanation because we each happened to be in 2 games together at the same time, and I got confused over what comments were made in which games.
"Summary"
RC wrote:Summary:
∙ Potential cover-up for his ignorance of MME, unnecessarily frustrated with Huntress and unwillingness to explain why
*I don't see this as a point, but I do see you spinning this in a way that makes it sound worse than it really was. I wasn't ignorant of MME, my frustration with huntress wasn't unnecessary (strange accusation coming from someone who's position has been that no conversation is useless), and I did explain myself.
∙ Potentially dragging out the SK argument longer than necessary, blowing parts out of proportion in order to detract from tells he has been exhibiting
*This point is a complete fabrication, and a stretch to come to this conclusion from our sk conversation. You're just as guilty as dragging out the argument longer than necessary as I am, and again, this is a very strange accusation coming from someone who doesn't think any conversation is useless or unnecessary. I dind't blow anything out of proportion, and nothing was meant as a distaction. The whole argument boils down to me asking you how the town should play differently if we assume there is an sk, and you skating around the answer, never giving a clear response.
∙ Intentionally misrepresenting the relationship between pops and myself based on circumstances he created
*So you're basically saying that I intentionally contradicted myself to try to get you and pops both lynched as scum partners, just hoping that nobody would notice my contradiction. I hope people realize how rediculous this accusation actually is...
∙ Retracting said misrepresentation noth with the motivation of clarification but rather with the continual motive of self-preservation
*motive of self-preservation... this is a new one. The retraction and subsequent defenses were honest. I've pretty much given all the ways I could have defended or explained my contradiction... I chose the "be straightforward and honest" approach. Is there any other way I could have clarified my action in a way that would have been honest, believeable, and not seemed like only self-preservation? If so, please tell...
∙ The flagrant, admitted use of WIFOM in order to make defensive statements
*I think I explained this well enough above
∙ A conspicuously close relationship with bionic that seems to produce little in the way of hunting.
*great... link me to someone else while you're at it. I must be playing really bad if I've given away my entire scum team on D1 (that was sarcasm, btw). Seriously, this point seems pulled out of thin air, as its the first time its been mentioned. But whatever you can do to continue to overwhelm with quantity, right?
∙ The flagrant, admitted use of appeals to manipulate other players in instances that are primarily preemptive but also in response specifically to those who show suspicion of him.
*As I've said, its only manipulative if I'm actually scum, making this circular reasoning. Unless you're trying to say that I'm being a manipulative townie. And I'm going to continue to pound this point home. When I'm eventually revealed as town, everyone will either have to admit that I wasn't using AtE, or that AtE aren't always reliable scum tells.
∙ Forgetting two important happenings in the game that have caused him to apologize for not properly reading/recalling the game (e.g. asking pops a question/Korts' activity)
*Right. Here's the point that I should be considered most suspicious for, but its kinda being thrown on as an afterthought. The actual act that sparked the entire D1 conversation isn't even a major point against me. Thats probably the most frustrating part.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to CF's presentation of the case:
CF wrote:This is a huge stretch, and AtE which Rhinox is guilty of throughout the day.
That was not a stretch at all. RC admitted he was talking about the sk to warn the town to take an sk into consideration when making night choices. The implication is that RC didn't think the town was smart enough to take into consideration all roles without someone telling them. The only emotion I was expressing was my own suprise in that being RC's reasoning for talking about the sk. And RC still never said how any town player should play differently, assuming there is an sk, on D1.
CF wrote:Of all the rolefishing accusations thrown at RC, I think this one by Rhinox stands out worse than any of them. He's blatantly asking for speculation on specific town power roles, and I see it as instigating on top of that.
Not role fishing at all... we have a list of all town roles in the game. I think if RC is so confident that assuming there is an sk will make any difference in how any one of those roles play D1, he should be able to go down that list and explain how at least 1 decision would be different than not assuming anything about factions.
I also ask you what your definition of role fishing is? The way I understand it, role fishing is trying to get information to slip out about a particular players role - clearly not what I'm asking. You might say this is role speculating, but as we already know every possible role in the game, there is nothing left to speculate about. Did you not realize the semi-openness of the game because you were just so anxious to jump on my wagon? At worst, its role theory speculating - i.e. A player is
role A
. That player can either assume there is an sk, or assume nothing about scum factions. Will that player's actions change at all as a result of either assumption? I believe the answer is no, and I believe RC has not effectively answered that question, despite his insistance to the contrary.
CF wrote:This is not only AtE, but it's calling out anyone who votes for him after this point, and is setting up for future lynches if he can shift the wagon from him today when he doesn't even know who will vote him yet.
Wow... I must be magical. I'm trying to shift a wagon off myself that doesn't even exist. Or didn't you realize that the wagon has been on RC much more than me so far.
CF wrote:This line is mega-BS. I assumed RC just forgot he was voting Rhinox when I read the post in question. But are you really trying to say he's scum slipping up because he's not paying attention, after the entire Pops fiasco where you claimed VI and said, "Scum wouldn't make such an obvious slip would they?" It's almost the exact same thing Rhinox did himself, except Rhinox admits to it while RC's looks like a simple mistake.
wtf... so just because I made a simple mistake, I lose the right to call anybody out the rest of the game for something that may or may not be a simple mistake?
Also, what bullshit is it that my simple mistake is viewed as anything but, but RC's simple mistake was automatically assumed to just be an honest mistake...
CF wrote:177 is a stretch that looks like fishing for a reason to press Korts, which is kind of minor. But it's also a misrep of Korts's stance on Pops, as pops was continuously posting fluff to hide non-contributing, while Korts's post was obviously a check-in until he made a real post.
I'm sure there will be something wrong with this explanation as well, but whatever... I feel a common fault of townies under pressure is that they become 100% defensive, and stop making cases. Then, right before they're lynched, someone throws on top "you haven't even been scum hunting all game, you've only been focused on not getting yourself lynched" as sort of a nail in the coffin. Its understandable thought... its hard to get a word out when you're getting screamed at from every direction. Despite being under enormous suspicion, I was at least trying to continue scumhunting, but even that turned out to be total phail due to an oversight on my part.
CF wrote:Rhinox has also been strongly pushing the RC wagon along, (see everything above) and yet he's doing so from the sidelines by holding his vote. He's devoting all his posts to attacking RC, and he hasn't called anyone else scummy, but he's not voting. Why? So he can shuck the responsibility for it when RC flips town. In 207 he calls out the entire RC wagon. Not those who hopped on, or those who look suspicious, the whole wagon. This is setting up a D2 vote if RC gets lynched and shielding from getting votes on D2 by having something to point at and say he was "against" the RC lynch.
Another case of spinning everything into a way that supports a theory... I haven't been pushing the RC wagon at all. We have been having a conversation. Maybe you've been a part of too many D1 1 on 1 assaults to realize that two players can disagree about something without tunneling in on each other. Maybe you'll also notice how I spoke up against the RC wagon after it quickly grew to L-1. I stand by my point that its extremely peculiar for everyone to say I'm so obvscum, yet use my logic and arguments to justify wagoning RC.
if I'm really scum, why would I speak out against the RC wagon, knowing that the obvious place for suspicion to turn back to would be right back at me? It wouldn't be a case of a scum (me) trying to look good by defending a townie (RC), it would be more like a case of a scum committing suicide by derailing a townie wagon knowing that I would be the next choice. Also, when RC was at L-1, I could have hammered. Of course, that means I would have probably been lynched tomorrow, but it would have prevented me from being lynched today, and would have given my scum partners a great opportunity to bus me tomorrow and ensure they all make it to D3 without any connections to me, as well as limiting the D2 conversation to how obvscum I was for hammering + all of D1.
^^ struck for sarcasm purposes... its wifom, so I better not say it. Even if it makes complete sense.
CF wrote:Backtracking. Obviously I might add. 254 is his first real vote in god knows how many pages, and it looks solidly like OMGUS to me.
Translation: lets throw out a couple more buzzword accusations... see how much bigger the pile of crap can get. Its not backtracking, obviously. Since you didn't explain why it is, I don't have to explain why its not. Also, its not OMGUS - I gave reasons for my vote. Asked asked questions, and waited for answers. If everyone wasn't allowed to ever vote for someone who was voting for them (and if thats always OMGUS, and if that always means the person doing it is scum), then all scum would ever have to do to ensure that they win is just vote a townie first. I believe it was OGML actually who taught me that little nugget of information.
OGML in newbie 645 wrote:For a vote to be OMGUS, it requires a lack of other explanation or reasons, which my vote did not lack. So no, sorry, not OGMLUS.
--------------------
Guys if every vote by a player for a player already voting him were automatically OMGUS, then all the scum would have to do to win is vote a townie first.
CF wrote:I agree with this, and it's another example of Rhinox squirming around with different explanations for scummy actions. (This is out of place, but I had it noted under IAUN instead of Rhinox for some reason, and I don't remember where it goes.)
This is complete BS... Does anyone even remember what sparked this lttle side rant? Rishi made a case about bio, and I said I didn't find bio scummy. Rishi asked me why I didn't find bio suspicious - which started this whole thing about suspicious vs. scummy...
So how bout instead of calling me scum for not agreeing with my definitions of words, somebody goes back and tell me how I'm scum for not agreeing with Rishi and thinking Bio was scummy. That might actually be something legitimate to add, instead of all this crap slinging that seems like nothing more than an attempt to overwhelm me into digging myself a bigger hole, or just giving up.
CF wrote:In conclusion ... I can't fathom how RC has more votes than [Rhinox].
WE AGREE! Only when I speak concerns about the RC wagon, I'm obvscum pushing the wagon from the sidelines, and when you do it its not?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premptive EBWOP for jah's cross post: Just acknowledging that I read it, and I think I've covered all the points in this post.