![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
For being the first person to make a second vote for someone.
1. That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).ryan2754 wrote: Wow, didn't realize this initially. Definitely makes IdiotKing look scummier.
1.) IK votes Dank for being FIRST PERSON to make a SECOND VOTE
2.) Jason wagon follows
3.) IK UNVOTESDank, not Jason. If you aren't voting the bandwagon, why unvote and comment on the bandwagon?
This is what I get from the town's reactions:ryan2754 wrote:1.) You gave off the impression you were voting for jasont by mentioning the bandwagon. You make no transition/segway between your vote on danks and the bandwagon on jason, thus implying you are unvoting jason. Thus, we are confused why you would say the things about the bandwagon on unvote a random vote at the same post, with no transition between the two thoughts. Thus, what you intended the post to be is not clear, and thus it's weird you say it's exactly what you meant it to be.Idiotking wrote: And my wording in my original unvote post was exactly what I intended it to be. I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote. My post makes sense in this context.
Who thought I was voting for jason instead of danks?
I can see how it'd be seen as contradictory. It would have been impossible for me to investigate at that exact point. Instead, I was hoping for something else to happen, some new development that I could see concerning the bandwagon. However, thing's didn't turn out as I'd expected.So you say you were thinking about investigating the bandwagon, then later say the only information available is the bandwagon itself? So you admit that there is nothing to investigate, despite wanting to previously do it? Or is it that everything you could investigate is "part of the RVS?" and thus not readily able to be investigated? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
... well that's cold....I could see both IK's and HipHops play as VI/newb/inexperience. IK, what is your level of experience?
What is stopping be NOW? Nothing, we've moved on to other things. Now I'm more interested in hiphop and answering the questions posed to me.DTMaster wrote: I don't understand your reasoning on what is stoppingyou from pursuing the bandwagon case. Why does the town have to follow you on this rather then analyze you? This is a really poor excuse to use to defend yourself since there are more effective ways to generate discussion then "waiting for a new development". (I.e. Try a line of questioning with your defense)
FoS: Idiot King
Only one, my second game (first I lurked and third I replaced into):ryan2754 wrote: 1.) Fair enough. Can you link to other games where you used this from this site?
In my experience, when someone gets that many votes in RVS, everyone starts freaking out.3.) I guess that makes more sense, I guess. I find it extremely weird you think we are out of the RVS on page 1, and just because someone gained 3 votes. I just see no reason to unvote.
It's more like I chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because the bandwagon became a moot point as soon as other, larger bandwagons formed. Sadly, the only person I can suspect right now (barring lurkers) is hiphop. I have difficulty in the early parts of games because there's nothing for me to go on. My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...So you chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because you were being pursued? You can scumhunt and defend at the same time, I do it all the time.
People can have more than one reason for doing things. A third would be that I was about to go somewhere at that point, and didn't have any time. Is that relevent? Is it a valid reason? No, but it's also true. My point is, it's very possible for someone to not pursue an examination like that because they were BOTH pressured and had nothing to go on. A little contradictory I can understand, very contradictory is a little much. If I were you I'd be more worried had I (me now) had said two things that can't actually both be reasons at the same time.[/url]It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?
All this seems very contradictory.
Well, the whole thing seems a little tense, but in particular two specific statements jump out at me, both to DTM:RedCoyote wrote: Could you point out exactly what it is you found "defensive"? I am concerned that the term lurker is being thrown around carelessly, and I am concerned players like DTM, Toro, and Shrine are making assumptions about me before asking for my response to things.
Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.
I'm still not quite certain who has sincere intentions in their heart, and who is attempting to misdirect. I'm not certain who was being extremely critical of me for the sake of the town, or for the sake of making themselves look as if they're helping. What do you think about this Ik? Am I bluffing, making it up as I go along, or do you think there was an deeper reason behind my first post?
My apologies, it's a bad habit.DTMaster wrote:@Idiot King
In your 109 can you put your name with that quote. I know this is on the same page, but it makes looking up the source a lot easier (especially since it was the only quote. You can leave out the ="name" tag for a chain of quotes like in your 107)
In that post or one very near it, I'd also said it's way too early for a lynch, and at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already. I'm the kind of person who doesn't pressure vote someone if they've got several votes on them already; my vote would just push one more inch to a lynch without actually putting any more pressure on him. Do you have a differing opinion?DeathRowKitty wrote: IK-says hiphop's "exploded in scumminess" but never votes for him
ryan2754 wrote: In my opinion, I think we have a fairly large portion of good logic, contrary to what IK thinks.
I personally wouldn't have said anything about it. It was an understandable sentiment the first, second, and third times. Repetition like that doesn't make it wrong, just brings it more to the forefront. And you weren't responding (am I correct in remembering that it was because of RL situations that you can only post so often, or was that someone else?).RedCoyote wrote: Alright, well, I'm not sure how I could've sounded more objective. You're welcome to suggest other means of asking DTM why he made said accusation multiple times before hearing and processing my response that doesn't sound as "defensive".
I disagree. We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?I disagree. I think DRK's response was much more "appropriate" by whatever standard you choose to assess it. I also disagree with your criticism of my playstyle, but I guess we're at an understanding there.
If you'd explained why you had voted when you first voted, we wouldn't have this mess. Withholding information hurts the town, especially when it's reasoning for a vote.RedCoyote wrote: Despite whether it's incorrect or not? Despite whether or not you've gotten a chance to speak with said suspect yet?
And they should also want to make their findings and reasoning known, except in special circumstances (which this was not).There's nothing wrong with pushing your opinion out there -- that's what Mafia is about -- but a townie should also care about getting enough information to get to the truth of the matter. This game isn't meant to be a screaming contest. A townie should want to persue their leads, certainly, but they should also want to take information, process it, and decide whether or not it makes a difference on their point of view or not.
If I had an issue I wanted to bring up repeatedly, I would, whether the suspect was present or not. But I wouldn't develop it any further, and from what I can tell, it didn't in this case. There shouldn't have had to be any exchange of dialogue concerning the apparent RVS vote, because of reasons already stated.For one player to come to a conclusion and spread it around multiple times without so much as exchanging dialogue with the person they are talking about is not, in my opinion, productive. Maybe just "bringing it to the forefront" is good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I prefer to hear from both parties and then make my own decision; I have trouble when one side talks for both parties.
I don't mind it if people make one post a day, but when their first post is a substanceless RVS vote when the town was clearly out of RVS, and then go back and try and convince everybody that it WASN'T a RVS vote, I tend to get suspicious.I generally make one post a day. That is enough for me, and that is enough for the Mod (who has the overriding decision mind you). Of course there are going to be players who move at a faster or slower rate than that, so we should all try to reasonably accomdate for every player's schedule without letting them take advantage of the game.
You didn't respond in the timeframe of the repetitions, that's what I meant. See? This is what I mean when I say you're getting defensive. You're trying to turn this around and act like I'm bullying you, which I'm not. The fact is that you did NOT respond, for reasonable and fair reasons of course, but the fact remains. It doesn't change just because of extenuating circumstances. In short, had you responded, it wouldn't have been repeated. You weren't online to respond, and so it was repeated.If you're going to call 24-36 hours "not responding", then not only are you being unrealistic and unreasonable in general, but you are also wrong according to the rules the Mod set out for this specific game.
Great that you can say that now, very much after the fact. Can you prove me wrong? It's like politics, opinions are votes. You have to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless you can come up with something better than you have, my opinion isn't going to be changed.It's your opinion that it is, sure. I contend that it wasn't and I delibrately made my post thin in order to see who would get riled up (notably you, DTM, and Shrine) over my supposed lack of attentiveness.
I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.Yes, I expected some people to go over-the-top. I also expected some players may show levelheadedness and simply ask me about it. This way I could get a better feel for how this town is setup, the different playstyles the players have, and who I should watch out for.
Take DTM for example. I've noticed some eccentricity and an almost hyper-awareness, but I have come to the conclusion, for the time being, that he's sincerely trying to understand my motivations and the motivations of the other players around him. I'm comfortable with DTM at the moment, as I am with a couple of other players.
Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?
Maybe, maybe not. You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by nowRedCoyote wrote: But if I didn't make that post, I may not have gotten town reads off DRK and DTM.
Wagoning. Think about it this way. If somebody else had done as you did, an apparent RVS when RVS was completely over, wouldn't you be a little suspicious? Voting for you put pressure on you, asking others to analyze the random vote is just normal.So going from assuming it was a random vote, voting me because of the assumption of a random vote, and asking other players to analyze the "random vote", isn't "developing it any further"? What is your definition of developing something further?
My argument is that we shouldn't have had to wait for an explanation in the first place. Even if you're telling the truth it was a needless gamble in quite possibly the most dangerous time for such a gamble. I don't really care if you had a reasonable amount of time to respond or not. You shouldn't have had to have time to respond since we should have gotten the explanation in the first place.Why don't you tell me what argument you're making here? You accused me of not responding (and, thus, that I deserved to be misrepresented without being given the opportunity to respond), and I am explaining that had I been given a reasonable amount of time, some misunderstandings may or may not have been avoided.
There's that word "defensive" again. I honestly don't know how I could make my tone any more neutral and non-personal. You recommended that I just keep quiet, but I don't think I'll be able to find out the information I want if I do that.
Am I blaming others, Ik?
Sure as hell sounds like it.Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?
DRK, given the fact that there were 3 votes on him on page 3, I don't think I did such a bad thing by not voting for him... that's just too many votes too early.Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable. Also from the wording of that post (reproduced below), it sounds very much like IK could be distancing and telling hiphop he's on his own.
Ok, so my wording sounded 'very much like IK could be distancing' and yet hiphop is probably town and I'm not? Is it distancing or not? That's two different cases that don't sit well together.I'm don't care to look into a hiphop/IK scum pairing as of yet, since I still think hiphop is probably town, but I can see possibly just IKscum. He at one point said that hiphop was his only suspect (besides lurkers) and yet didn't vote. Sounds like the kind of thing scum would do to stay off a bandwagon that could end in a townie-lynch.
It's subtle, but it's there, and from what I can see it's venomous. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what defensiveness is. I think it's pretty defensive when someone says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.Now, it looks to me like IK is just looking for excuses to attack RC.
1. I really haven't gotten much of a defensive tone at all from RC's posts, which IK insists is present.
It's2. He's harping on RC's potentially random vote. If you look back at RC's original "random vote" post, given what RC has said about it, it makes sense that it wasn't random. I can't say I would have withheld my reasoning for a vote like that, but something about the wording of his original post doesn't sound random in hindsight. Above all this, most importantly,what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?
Um... what?3.Seems like a possible way of saying "Uh-oh, no one else is following me and I don't want to be pushing this case alone." The quote has a definite feeling of finality to it, as if he's trying to end the case before it gets any worse, without looking bad in the process.IK wrote:I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.
I think three is still too many on page 3. That's part of the reason I reacted negatively to the 3 man bandwagon on jason. Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.DeathRowKitty wrote:A few posts later, that vote total changed to 2 and I hardly consider a third vote excessive with 7 to lynch.
Ok, I get it. It just seemed strange that you would be advancing two contradicting theories.I suggested two possibilities. The first is that hiphop is scum and you were distancing. The second is that hiphop is town and you didn't want to look like you were part of the bandwagon. You're mixing and matching the two possibilities.
Feel free to go back and check my previous games to see if I'm acting any differently. I've never been scum on this site, so all you'll get will be townie meta, and I assure you, this is how I do things.IK wrote: You don't vote unless you built the case? Sounds more like you're trying to appear pro-town than it does like you're trying to be pro-town.
1. It would be worthless to the town. Worthless actions are anti-town.How would him random voting after the RVS (in his first post) seem so suspcious? Sure it would be odd and pointless, but why would scum be more likely to do so than town?
That isn't the case. I am going to continue to pursue this case until I get sufficient, believable responses. I have not lost this argument because I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong yet. If anything, I'm becoming more convinced as time goes on.Here's how that quote sounded to me:
"You made a mistake. Fine. Let's just be done with this."
It basically sounds like something you throw in at the end of the argument you've lost so you don't sound like you've been defeated.
Didn't say it was OMGUS, just defensive. Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive. It also puts the people questioned in an awkward position.The only person who voted him for his "random vote" was DTM, who RC said he has a pro-town read on.
Also, I don't see how the quote you brought up amounts to RC blaming you. I see it as him having perfectly legitimate concerns about your intentions.
Of course there's nothing wrong with it. However, by adding what I feel the person missed, I am building my own case, not solely borrowing from the other person. In my opinion two people can have separate cases against one person, yet the two cases can still overlap on some issues. But all I would have been able to do to hiphop is borrow from others, because everything concerning his scummyness at that point had already been said (and some things I hadn't noticed). My contribution would have been meaningless, barring a vote that I don't think would have helped matters.If someone else made a case, there's nothing wrong with saying which parts you agree with and adding anything you feel the person missed. You're still only voting for what you believe in and only for people you find scummy.
It'd probably also get you modkilled, lol.I couldn't disagree more. Anti-town definitely is NOT the same thing as scummy. For example, I could attempt to post, in several seperate posts, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which amounts to around 150 pages. That would definitely be anti-town, since it completely distracts us from the game. It is not, however, scummy. I see no reason scum would want to do that. It just makes you look suspicious and you could very easily be lynched for it.IK wrote:Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.
Had he not been trying to convince me that it wasn't a random vote, I probably wouldn't have my vote on him. You're right, the random vote in and of itself isn't good enough. But to then turn around and lie to us saying that it WASN'T random is the straw that broke this camel's back.In the same way, I don't think a random vote would have been scummy. It would have been anti-town since we were out of the RVS, but there's no good reason scum would do it. Hence, I don't see how it's scummy.
Skimmed. Given the information he gives, a quick glance-over of the thread could easily tell him that much. I said half-hearted, not nonexistent.The fact that RC knew hiphop was voting him for lurking means he had to have likely read the game first.
You're right, it wasn't accompanied by ANY REASON whatsoever. All roads point to it being random, so it's natural to assume that it was a random vote. Just because you say it lacks the usual flavoring of a random vote doesn't mean it wasn't random.I still don't see why you think thathadto be a random vote. It wasn't even accompanied by a random vote-type reason.
Examples:I never said that you said it was OMGUS. This is what you said:The only person who suspected him enough for his random vote to vote him initially was DTM, who RC has claimed a pro-town read on. How is he acting like suspecting him is scummy?I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.
Probably. To me being anti-town and being scum mean the same thing. If you hurt the town, you deserve to be suspected. If you hurt the town and then lie about it, you deserve to be lynched.DeathRowKitty wrote:Anti-town is anything that goes against the town's motives. Discussing Fermat's Last Theorem is against the town's motives and therefore anti-town. Posting the entire proof is even more so against the town's motives and therefore even more anti-town. I wouldn't find either to be scummy. Scummy behavior (to me at least) isn't just anti-town play; it's play that you would expect to see from scum as opposed to town. I agree that town can do scummy things too, but I disagree with your definition of scummy. For example, would you consider me any more likely to be scum if I were to start posting the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?
...It's true that it doesn't mean it wasn't random, but it makes it considerably less likely. Why even bother to random vote if you don't give a reason? (Arguably, why vote at all if you don't give a reason but RC's already said why)
Ok, ok, maybe it was an oversimplification, but RC isn't even voting for dank anymore. It was a weak reason given the other things that had happened so far in the game.He didn't vote dank for being a grammar nazi. He voted dank for what he perceived as dank intentionally misinterpreting what hiphop said to make it seem scummy.
Like I said, opinions are votes. You have to change opinion to not get voted, and RC has not changed my opinion.Whether or not anything more suspicious happened is your opinion.
You have to be the first person I've met who thinks suspicious =/= scummy. To me they are the exact same thing. What are your definitions of suspicious and scummy? I'm interested in seeing how you tell the two apart.I can see how RC looks a little suspicious because of the situation. I don't see how he looks scummy.
Ok, I guess I could see that. Like, suspicion is a lead-in to scummyness, maybe? I still think suspicious equals scummy, but I think I get what you're saying now.DeathRowKitty wrote:If I say someone is scummy, it means I think that person is likely to be scum. If I say someone's suspicious, it means I think that person's play has been odd or anti-town, but I don't necessarily find the person scummy.
Started by others is fine, so long as I'm not purely borrowing and avoiding adding input of my own.DTMaster wrote:How about started by others? Shine and I started the RC analysis. I would add vagueness to your argument against RC though with his recent 1 line finishers with his responses.
PRs are town, they shouldn't be lurking in the first place. In that sense they hurt the town, which helps scum since scum are on a different team as town. Anything that hurts one team helps the other, directly or indirectly.195: BTW Anti-town and pro-scum are different. Some people who are town aligned can be very anti town. Take lurking for an example, usually associated with scum or PRs.
I'll respond to this with a counter-question: do you deny that it would be quite possible to have discerned the same information had you posted your reasoning in your first post? Your reactions have basically gleaned the same thing they would have by simple analysis of the thread, which amounts to townie reads everyone involved with you (with me as the obvious exception).RedCoyote wrote: How would you know that I would've gotten the same information had I not made a post? How do you know what is and isn't helpful for me to try and piece together information about other players?
For most things, yes. For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.I disagree, all players, regardless of how I feel about them, should be given a reasonable amount of time to defend themselves or explain their point of view.
Nice how you cut out the other quote I put with it. It sounds like you're blamingWho do I sound like I am blaming?
I already responded to DRK's statement, I'd like for you to address my response as well, please.I think this is a good point. I don't think this is the first time Ik has tried to disguise a little small but critical comment into a larger post.
Ditto.The more I push Ik, the less I'm liking his responses.
It's about changing opinion. Opinions are votes. People make cases to change the opinions of the other players. This whole game is opinion based, forming an opinion of a player and then using logic to change the opinions of the other players into agreeing with you. Do you deny that Q&A changes opinions? Do you deny that it helps form an opinion of your own based on the questions/responses?I expect resistance, no doubt, but one thing that has really caught my eye is this,
The more I think about this, the less I like the implication. This exchange between me and Ik isn't about me trying to "change his opinion" at all. I feel as though it's a player's duty to respond to anyone who has comments or questions specifically for them, but, even beyond that, it's a townie's duty to try and feel out players as best they can. There are few better ways to do this than with direct Q&A.Ik 183 wrote:[RC has] to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless [he] can come up with something better than [he has], my opinion isn't going to be changed.
I think youIn other words, this comment is a red flag to me. I'm not sure if Ik thinks I am out to "change his opinion" or if he is just trying to frame me in that way (e.g. RC is acting defensive again).
No. I don't care if I look bad, which is why I don't mind pursuing an unpopular case (you). If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.Why? Were you worried hiphop would've been quick lynched if you put him at L-4 or L-3? Were you worried that it would make you look bad?
And you prove my point masterfully.Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.
I'm going tovote: Idiotkingon the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.
I'm afraid I'm not going to retract this statement, ever. I did show an example of where you specifically called someone out as suspicious becaue they suspected you,Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.
Yes, yes you are. Every single read I get from you indicates this.Am I trying to convince people, Ik? Am I making up "excuses" to get myself "off the hook"?
Do you think my vote would have helped anything?No one is advocating for three page long days, nor would your vote necessarily have caused a three page long day.
S'exactly what I'm doing.This argument isn't about winning or losing. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. You have every right to argue that my vote was random and that you think I am covering it up.
Hypothetically? No, defensiveness implies hostility. But I simply cannot believe that it wasn't random. All evidence points to it being random and your excuse as a coverup. As such, I see it as defensive.If I was asking people why they thought it was random and it wasn't, would that be defensive as well?
Do you believe that you have received accurate, can-stay-the-same-through-the-course-of-the-game-no-matter-what information, or do you believe that your gamble helped you ascertain the intentions of a few people on just one instance?I question everyone's intentions, regardless of their position on me. That's my duty in this game.
Which you shortly thereafter unvoted him on with only token discussion. Do you still believe dank knowningly took advantage of a new player, now that you're no longer voting for him?This is grossly mistaken. I voted dank for knowingly taking advantage of a newer player.
In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.
Did I imply that it was? I just said simple fact. People defend themselves so they don't get voted, or at the very least so that when they die their arguments receive due validation. It's to change opinion, and as I've already said, this game is all about opinion.Should that be a townie's responsibility in Mafia? To try not to get voted?
The other time I did this was as a townie... and like I said, the first game I had on this site I lurked (didn't post anything at all during RVS if I remember correctly) and the third I replaced into, completely missing the RVS stage. There are other games on other sites in which I've used the same reasoning. I just haven't been here long enough to give any more examples. I don't understand your suspicion on this point.DeathRowKitty wrote: 1.You later said you've done this once other time. It also sounds like a way to try to avoid suspicion in the RVS.IK wrote:That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).
Ok. An excuse for what? To avoid being observed, studied? To get out of scumhunting? If that was the reason I made that 'excuse', why would I be pursuing RC like this now?2.The whole "investigating the bandwagon" sounds like a big excuse to me.ryan (post 100) wrote:It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?
Examples, please. Elaborate.3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.
More than 1 or 2 votes by Page 3 are simply too many. I'd like to use the first few pages of THIS game to show you why I think this. Please review it.4. Your odd desire to prevent anyone from having more than 1 or 2 votes makes no sense unless you're trying to appear pro-town.
I sure hope it isn't. It bugs me that in the last few posts when you've tried to bring up more examples of my 'scummy behavior', this is the best you can come up with.I don't have time to post more now, but I'm pretty sure this list isn't all-inclusive.
I've already discussed this in detail. What are your responses to my responses?DeathRowKitty wrote:You were being suspected for your unvote when you saw an RVS bandwagon start. Looking into the bandwagon could have been an excuse for why you unvoted and would seemingly be a pro-town thing to do. The fact that you later said there was nothing to analyze just makes it more likely that you were just using that as an excuse. All of this has been brought up already. I'm not even sure why you had to ask.
This doesn't show anything being blown out of purportion, it's merely a repeated issue that hasn't been resolved yet.A few selected quotes from your last post:
I still don't see why that wasFor making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.obviouslya random vote.
He has also stated that he didn't want his vote to appear OMGUS. Meaning, he couldn't OMGUS vote outright. He had to find something to tag it to, some outlet for the vote, and as such, chose my argument concerning his defensiveness.If he's blaming you for suspecting him, then why didn't he vote you as soon as you started attacking him? He gave specific posts as to why he's voting you and I think he would have been completely justified in voting you even earlier.
This is not the case. I use my 'infamous Person A Person B analogies' to show my reasoning behind my explaination. No, the situation presented wasn't immediately relevant. However, it did show why this game is opinion-based, which was the point. I also love how you're defending RC more than RC is defending himself.You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.
I wasn't addressing this question to you.I would definitely notice. L-4 doesn't mean much. It means you should definitely be defending yourself, but that's it. L-3 (in my mind) is starting to get into more dangerous territory. Remember that L-2 is where claims are often forced. L-3 means that you're one bad move or one stupid sentence away from possibly being put in claim territory.
Oh my! Here we have a problem!Complete misrepresentation of what RC said. RC doesn't suspect you for finding him suspicious. He suspects you (the way I'm reading his posts) because you're trying to blow this completely out of proportion.
MISREPRESENTATION!But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.
When did I say I refuse to have my opinion changed?The key point here: you said you're waiting for him to change your opinion, yet you refuse to have your opinion changed!
I'm actually waiting for my points to be refuted. I came into this argument expecting RC to react with honesty. Instead, the town is treated to a lie.You're not looking for him to confirm that he's pro-town and as far as I can see, you never have been. You came into this argument with the assumption that he's scum and refuse to relinquish that assumption, no matter how many times your points get refuted.
I borrowed, but I expanded on. Haven't you been listening? It's like talking to a brick wall. I said RC tacked a lie on to it. I'm not a die-hard proponent of Lynch All Liars, but when the lie is purely anti-town with 0 redeeming qualities, I think that speaks for itself.Your argument (that you basically stole from others) initially was that RC random voted out of the RVS. After all this arguing, that's still all you have and I really doubt it's even right.
Um... ok. I'd scream misrepresentation again, but I doubt it'd have any affect on you. Your defense of RC is admirable, but it's again solidifying my opinion that you are in fact buddying him to a degree I haven't seen since my newbie game.You're willing to argue any little thing he says as if you're hoping something will trip him up and get him lynched.
It wasn't about the lynch. It was about the posts and votes tied to them.I don't see how that game you posted has any relevance to your situation. First of all, you weren't even there for the first few pages. Second of all,no one was lynched in the first few pages. When the lynch finally occurred, it was 16 or 17 pages in and only because of a deadling. What does that game have to do with not wanting to put a 3rd vote on someone on page 3?
Ok. Respond to them anyway.DeathRowKitty wrote:The fact that I called it an "excuse" should imply I don't believe them.
Logical fallacy. It is obviously a random vote to those who don't believe RC's excuse. It hasn't been resolved because he hasn't proven to me that it isn't. The burden of proof rests upon the accused.If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's notobviouslya random vote.
If Person B is voting for Person A because Person A is voting for Person B, then no. This also is not the case, nor does it prove a point, as the situations I present do.You suspect him, therefore it's an OMGUS? I'll use one of your "Person A, Person B" situations. Let's say Person A votes Person B. Person A then acts scummy. Is Person B not allowed to vote Person A?
You're not dispelling anything, you're raising new ones for me. I posted it not because it's relevant to the development of the game. I posted it because it explained how this is an opinion-based game. This was not an 'irrelevant point' as you call it. This was a response to the statement he posed to me, and as such, is adequate.It wasn't immediately relevant, yet you posted it anyway? Why not make up a situation to go along with your situation. I also love how you claim I'm defending RC to avoid adequately addressing this point, when I'm actually just dispelling irrelevant points.
I wasn't using the question as part of the argument. I wanted his opinion. Is it wrong to Q&A while also advancing a case?I was saying why that question was unreasonable. If you're willing to use that question as part of your argument, you shouldn't be afraid of anyone's answers.
At the start of the game nobody's posted anything, there's no information. This is Page 10, there is information. I said with all information available. If you don't have a read by now, you're not doing your job right.Yes, there can be a middle ground. There can be a whole spectrum of reads I can have on a player. The fact that every player is one side or the other doesn't mean I have to see a player as definitively on any particular side. For example, everyone has a role at the start of the game, yet I have a neutral read on everyone. It's very possible that read stays for some people.
Fair enough. Why?If I had to pick, I would say RC is town. It wouldn't make sense for both of you to be scum and at this point I think you are.
That's your read of things. It doesn't make it fact, just your opinion. Also, what indicates this to you, specifically?Obviously, you wouldn't say that, but that's what your entire argument is saying to me.
I have given plenty of opportunities to check my meta. I'm perfectly willing to give more. This is how I have always done things, and how I will always do things. I am not attempting to refute everything he says, I'm attempting to ADDRESS everything he says. Why? Because that's how I do things. In this sense, it would also make sense if I'm town, because I want to pressure him with REAL pressure, not the fabrication that pressure votes are.You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.
This just shows that even though you read it, you missed the whole point of me showing it to you.Just to show you I did read the game, I'll steal a response from it: It's the opposite of talking to a brick wall-a brick wall doesn't respond.
"The logic is simple. Scum want a lynch. They'll push wagons. A wagon has formed with 2 votes. Scum sometimes push the wagon with a third. I consider a third vote on someone page 1 telling."What bad came of the votes at the beginning of the game? Anything?
Showing that someone's argument makes no sense is part of defending someone. Poking holes in the accuser's arguments is a very simple, universal way to defend yourself or another player. Do you honestly think it isn't? More, you haven't been showing that my arguments make no sense. You have done NOTHING to do that. If anything you've given me ammunition.IK wrote:There's a BIG difference between defending someone and showing that someone's argument makes no sense. I've been showing that your argument makes no sense.
Uh huh.I assume you're asking for my experience level under the assumption that I'm blatantly buddying? This is my second game. Yes, I'm inexperienced. No, I'm not stupid.
I'm invariably agressive as town, at least when I see a case to be built. I never jump on a bandwagon I don't believe in, nor do I follow a case I don't wholeheartedly agree with.DeathRowKitty wrote:I said I was finding your argument less scummy because it seemed like you honestly believed it. I re-read and changed my mind. Your play the entire game has been questionable and on re-reading your argument, I couldn't see how you believed it and especially not as strongly as you were conveying.
A fair amount for you, much less so for RC because in my memory he has never supported you to nearly the extent you've supported him. However, my case against him still stands, which is why my vote on him still stands and won't change until either I am proven wrong or killed.How much does buddying play into this?
Paradoxombie had a valid argument for why quote wars are bad things, I just disagree with him, and if you are indeed a town and agree with him, then I just disagree with you, too. Hiphop I think is just looking for something to jump on (hence opportunism).I was a part of the last quote war and TBH, even I don't want to look through those posts. It gets a lot done between the two of us, but little done for the town.
Agreed. It's probably better to just let the town decide who's right and who's wrong. We've hit somewhat of a standstill, though I still think bringing up your experience level was a good thing for the town (now they know both mine and yours).I won't even attempt to respond to your last wall of quotes because I know it won't accomplish anything. I say you're scummy. You say I am. Nothing you've posted has even remotely changed my mind and clearly nothing I've posted has even remotely changed your mind. I'm really getting the feeling that isn't going to change.
So am I. But I'd be remiss to point out that here again we have a delay, having to wait for him to respond. Obviously RC was available to post at the time, so couldn't he have just done it then?DTMaster wrote:@IK
Before you do more OMGUS reasoning, I asked RC this in my 213 since I predicted this issue would come up. He responded by:
I'm very interested in this case before we sidetrack on the whole OMGUS reaction.RC 214 wrote: That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.
I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid again, but I think it's kind of suspicious that you only come out and say this after paradoxombie said it, DRK agreed and was willing to stop, and I wasn't and had several votes on me.hiphop wrote:I believe that quote wars blow everything out of proportion.
Wonderful use of someone else's reasoning there, hiphop. Hell, even the wording is the same.They begin to argue about the argument, and not about what the original post is about. It is anti-town.
Are you Shrine? Do I have to pander to Shrine? Does my not pandering to Shrine make me scum?Shrine has complained about wall-to-wall posts, and asked to only summarize the argument, and only expand in dire need.
You did for opportunism.I saw no dire need here.
Uh huh. So you use someone else's reasoning and my own argument concerning the equality of anti-town and scummy? Have you ever done an original thing in our life, hiphop?In being that I believe that it was anti-town, drk commented on anti-town being scummy and not scum. Idk said anti-town was scum. I was using his argument against him for a reason for my vote.
Still am, buddy boy.As for blowing it out of proportion drk was willing to stop the argument, while idk would of continued to his grave.
Making it up as I go along? Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.RedCoyote wrote: as it shows, in my eyes, Ik's transition from someone who is voting me for honest reasons to someone who is making it up as he goes along. I've never said anyone was suspicious directly because they suspected me. Ik has been putting in a serious effort into assuming things about me,
That was just the read I got from your statement, and I still hold to that. Also, you're assuming I'm trying to 'frame' you as defensive. This is the read I'm getting from you and it's what I've chosen to act on.Next you
and I get the feeling that the reason he wants to frame me as "defensive" or "pushy" is so that he can segue into the label of attacking players for suspecting me. This is not the case, and Ik knows this is not the case.Ik 150 wrote:Though [RC] didn't say it specifically, it sounds almost like the next line would read 'how DARE you for saying my vote was random!' I just get this feeling of extreme anger from it.
I was willing to push the case this far, and am willing to go farther because I believe in it. The others stopped, or at least slowed down, whereas I chose to pressure you. This is what I think you couldn't handle, and as such, we have our little chain of events leading to an OMGUS vote.I've had calm, level-headed exchanges with Toro, DTM, Shrine, and DRK. At no point have I said any of these players are suspect because of their concerns with me. I gave Ik the opportunity to show this, and he has yet to do so.
You've failed to sway me.I can take pretty much everything else Ik says and does in stride. I have no problem with his vote, nor do I have a problem with him calling me a lying scumbag. These things are all part of the game. This is why my vote is not OMGUS.
There is indeed a slightly town or slightly scum read. But the fact remains that it's a town or a scum read. As I told DRK, I was exaggerating by pushing the alignment reads to their extremes. At the very heart of that question was,Logical Fallacy
Logical fallacies are sometimes a good way of spotting scum. In this post, Ik attempts to push DRK into calling me the best townie of all-time or a defensive, lying mafia.Ik 199 wrote:Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?
In Ik's world, there is no gray. There is no such thing as a neutral read. There is no such thing as a slightly town or slightly scum read. You are either the worst scum on Earth, or the best townie there ever was,
Misrepresentation. God, that word's becoming overused in this discussion.You are either sided with Ik, or you aren't. You either go all-in, or you don't play the game.Ik 215 wrote:In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.
Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).More exaggeration, more division. DRK criticizes an aspect of Ik's post, and apparently that is equal to calling Ik "scummy McScum".Ik 246 wrote:Then, before I respond, before having gainedanynew information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.
That wasn't the only reason, nor is it my only stated one.Ik has a persistant problem with using his vote. I am the only player he's seriously voted so far, despite him making these statements,
Ik saw a problem with the bandwagon on jason early in the game. He made it clear he was going to pursue this wagon. He never did, and his reason for not doing so was because he had to answer questions directed at him.Ik 44 wrote:I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote.
God, what the hell? THAT WAS TO HIPHOP, NOT TORO. NOBODY ELSE HAS MADE THIS 'MISTAKE', AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTOOD WHO I WAS TALKING TO. FOR GOD'S SAKE, RC!!!!Toro, according to Ik, "explodes in scummyness" at one point in the game. He never really pursues Toro though, not with a vote and not with any serious lines of questioning.
The difference is, your B is actually scummy, whereas mine was not. You fail at using my own logic against me. Random voting post-RVS is scummy. Unvoting in preparation of examining a bandwagon you weren't on is NOT scummy. See what I did there? I shot your argument down because you tried using MY argument, and I know my argument's nuances. Better luck next time.I like this idea, Ik. I think I will try it myself. I'll vote dank discretely and see what happens. You see, town expects "A" to happen (me tell them why I am voting dank), but I'll make "B" happen instead (leave my vote there without any reasons and see what develops).Ik 78 wrote:-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A
By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?
You're right, Ik. Town was surprised that I voted dank without giving a reason why. I used your strategy to scumhunt, what do you think?RC 113 wrote:Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.
I wasn't trying to make a gamble. I was just doing what comes naturally to me. You? You were trying a gamble. You were trying to gauge people's reactions, yes? Me? I was unvoting because I thought the RVS quite over. No subtlety, no hidden intentions. No lies.Ik is allowed to use subtlety and create situations where he surprises the town, but when I use the same tactics, he calls me lying scum, making a needless, anti-town gamble.
Do you try to convince yourself that you're wrong?Ik has picked up an added habit of expecting others to convince him he is wrong.
No, I'm not interested in looking beyond the conclusion that your original vote was definitely random. However I have seriously considered the possibility that you aren't scum. It took you lying to me to make me vote for you, and things just steadily got worse from there. Misrepresentation and exaggeration.Ik isn't interested in looking beyond the conclusion that I am definitely scum, that my vote was definitely random. It's our obligation to do it for him.
Ik 215 wrote:If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.
No, but it DOES means your 'doubts' about my 'intentions' are shot to hell. Currently people are wary of me because they think I could be scum trying to tack an impossible case on someone who isn't scum at all. I'm willing to die to prove otherwise. Validation. Not to mention, I think you could still do with more pressure, more than one person (me) can bestow.It's going so far as he is making the borderline appeal here for death. He wants to be lynched to "prove" himself right. If he dies as a townie, then that means I have to be scum?
Prideful, or earnest?Either it's a serious scum gambit, or, what's really causing me stress, a prideful townie move.
Wonderful how you slip Paradoxombie's name in there when I've indicated no suspicion of him. Coincidentally, I've got a very townie read from Paradox. I just disagree with some ideas as to how things should work in the game, not this particular game itself. Way to go making baseless claims concerning my opinions.What makes it worse though, is he's spreading guilt onto DRK, Paradox, and hiphop for "siding with me" against him. It's obvious in DRK and hiphop's case,
Boom.but a little more subtle toward Paradox. Ironically, it was my "defensiveness" that caused Ik to blow up.Ik 243 wrote:I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.
Ok, this one is easy,This is a strange quote from earlier on this game. This is something I picked up on my re-read, it shows Ik referring to some early random votes. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by it, could be harmless, but it strikes me as he may or may not know something about "all other who follow" him.Ik 23 wrote:All others who follow are clear, including me
Um, no it's not. This isn't a choice, this isn't "would I do this if I were scum? Would I not do this if I were scum? If they knew I'd do this as scum, would I not do this as scum because they know that? If they knew I'd not do this as scum, would I do it as scum because they know that?" and so on. This is, "I'd do this whether I was town or scum. Deal with it."This is WIFOM.Ik 251 wrote:Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.
My point is still applicable. My apologies, I was mistaken, but that in no way affects the point I made.DeathRowKitty wrote:Allow me to say this for at least the third time.IK wrote: Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).I said I was finding your case less scummy, not you.I re-read the thread and realized I was wrong and not only was your case scummier than I thought, you were scummier than I thought. My next post after doing my re-read said so. What's so hard to believe about that???
Is this a....contradiction?! You earlier said we don't have facts until Day 2 when we know alignments.IK wrote: 2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.
Fair enough.DeathRowKitty wrote: 1. Not as convincing as the build-up had me anticipating. This doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe you to be scum.
Howso? Beyond the two statements you posted (one of which I admitted a mistake but still believe the point was made, the other I clarified my ideas concerning facts) I don't know what exactly you find wrong with it. I'd like to know.2. I thought your response was....horrible TBH. There are a couple of things you said that I agree with, but I thought your post was almost completely wrong.
Why is he slightly higher on your scumdar? What about his post did you dislike?3. It's put RC slightly higher on my scumdar (emphasis on "slightly"). Don't expect him to show up on my scum list anytime soon though unless he does something much scummier.
Do you believe I am tunneling RC? Do you believe RC is tunneling me? Do you believe you could potentially be tunneling me?4. There's a big difference between the two cases. You've been harassing RC with walls of text that aim at nitpicking on every little inconsequential detail. I never saw him try to do anything like that to you, especially since a large portion of his last few posts had been refuting irrelevant and incorrect arguments.
Of course you don't. If we were in reverse situations I'd probably feel the same way.5. I'm willing to take the heat for that. I don't foresee this being an issue though.
Did you read my most recent response to that? There are two forms of fact at play here, fact of statement and fact of alignment/intent. Fact of statement isn't concrete fact beyond the fact that it was said, and thus it's not really fact. Yet it's all I can go with on D1, and if enough facts of statement are made, I can see a pattern. This pattern isn't fact either, though. I could be horribly wrong about both RC and you. But I trust the evidence that has been presented, and as such, I have to go through with it.Let's look back at IK's posts about logic and fact:My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...Now let's combine these views and apply them to IK's current situation. First thing I notice is that he changed his mind about what constitutes fact between his original post and his explanation (the second post is an explanation of the first). He goes from saying there's almost no fact to saying there's no fact. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. It's not hard to accidentally word something ambiguously or even incorrectly. Under that premise, it's safe to assume that either the explanation post is what he meant or he's lying to get out of trouble. Let's assume for a moment it's the first option and he believes there's no fact Day 1 and therefore no logic.Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.Then how can he possibly feel so strongly about his RC case if it's "impossible for [him] to make a case without fact?The way I see this, either IK is playing both sides of the issue or he lied earlier to avoid our suspicion. Either way, VERY scummy.
Do you find this suspicous?hiphop wrote: My opinion on you is that you are willing to be lynched, just to prove your point.
Did I imply that? I'd be fine killing you and DRK off, since I see both of you as scum as well.With your recent posts it is like you are telling the town, nobody, but rc should be lynched, because he lied.
You'd already built a case against yourself simply by your actions. Killing you wouldn't gain any info for the town really, because I'm pretty sure if you're scum, your buddies have already written you off as a lost cause and would be fine with bussing you. There are very few people who haven't openly questioned your play, and I wouldn't be surprised if you factored extremely high on everyone's scumlist.Why didn’t you push on me as much as you have pushed on rc?
This is not true in any sense of the word. I suggest you go reread the thread.The only time you have commented to me is when I have made a comment against you.
There IS no such thing as unimportant information. I find this implication suspicious in its own right. If it's information, it's information available to the town.You could have made your case against rc in your first post, as soon as it came to your attention. The idea is to look for scum, not clutter the thread with unimportant information.
No. Things don't work that way. Discussion does not work that way.Make your case and be done with it.
Absolutely not. I wanted to see a response. That response would be what changed MY mind. He responded in a defensive/OMGUS manner, and as such, my mind was not changed.Did you believe that you could have changed rc’s mind with all of those quotes?
What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? NO! It's Captain Obvious!I will tell you one thing people will decide on which side of the case to choose, because you both can’t be scum.
Surprise surprise.I believe that the idea of day one is to show alignment. If someone with ties is lynched alignment will show more clearly who scum is and who is town, based on support. There is no way to be 100% sure someone is scum, until that person is killed. I saw drk’s top three you, Jason, and me. The person on the bottom of his list(not known) can easily be scum, so obviously this is just who he thinks is scummy. As an example of alignment, with the recent argument, I can clearly say that if you are scum, I doubt that drk and rc are scum as well, unless you are a Sk. If you want to know who are the top three of my list:
1. Idk
2. Drk, the only reason he is not 1 is because you believe that anti-town is scum, while he doesn’t. Otherwise you both would be at the top.
3. Jason, still hasn’t given his opinion on who he thinks is scum on the bw.
I gave my three who are yours?
I refuse to accept that. There has to be SOMETHING amiss. The question is whether or not the town notices it.Even scum can make a solid case nothing on day one is foolproof.
Oh, so that's why we always have no-lynches on D1, is that it? What the hell is this statement?Nobody but you thinks that somebody deserves to be lynched on day 1.
I get townie reads from:The only reason that somebody should be lynched can only be based on the gut feeling of the town. All one can do is speculate. Posts have been made. Day 1 is the day that alignments are made. By the way Idk, can you also tell who you think might be town?
Yeah, we have way too many lurkers. Only two people are ridiculously active, Paradoxombie, RC, you, and DTM pop in often enough, but we haven't heard from Ryan in a while, and everyone else is just plain missing.I do believe that the mod is only getting sadder because there are a few lurkers lately. Certainly not because of idk, and drk.
That's reasonable to an limit. DRK hurled himself above and beyond that limit. There's only so long you can argue against someone's case on another player before it becomes defense.Shrinehme wrote:Or it could be clarifying the situation so as to not let misconception/misrepresention wrongly influence others. Even if I were to push for a given person's lynch, I wouldn't want to allow for incorrect information to cloud someone's cognizance.
That's what an Anti-Town player would want.
I don't see lurkers as automatically scummy unless they're being obvious about it. It's the difference between "well, maybe it could be RL issues" and "he's making 'I'm here just don't have anything to say' posts, this is stupid." You helped bring up the issue about RC's original vote, and given my opinions about RC, it's natural for you and DTM to get townie points for that.Youreallyhave a townie read from me?I think it'd be silly for anyone to have any justified read on me right now, unfortunately.
Please explain this.
I didn't make a specific "well here it is all in a neat little box" type posts like RC did (maybe I need to do one for organization), but I'll quote some points that show the gist of the case:- Can you refer me to your case againt RedCoyote? I'm sure it's somewhere within the quote forest... I just can't find it.
IK wrote: We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?
IK wrote: The bottom line is, the fact that you brought up the repetition like that sounds defensive. Dealing with the repeated issue would have made more sense, and while you did that, you flood the post with "why did you think my vote was random?" when it was quite obviously because you hadn't posted any explanation at the time. And I still hold to my belief that you made up that reason AFTER your initial vote post.
And my opinion of the timeline:IK wrote: You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by now anyway.
IK wrote:Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.
After that begin to bat around some arguments with DTM and a few others, which was fine. But then when I get into the fray you question my intentions for pressuring you. Again, defensive, since you questioned my intentions when I tried pushing the case farther than anyone else had (that's what pressure is for, to see your reactions to stiff resistance/argumentation).
Shortly thereafter you vote for me in a manner which I still consider OMGUS, and as paradoxombie pointed out, it would be strange for my vote against you to not be a part of the reason (since your problem with my case was based on your lack of faith in my intentions).
This progression of events indicates to me that you did indeed suspect me for suspecting you, and as such resulted in an OMGUS vote.
In Hiphop's ISO 34-35, he uses reasoning and even wording already presented by Paradoxombie and DRK. Not borrowed, not adapted, word for word. Given Paradoxombie's resistance to the quote wars, I think hiphop saw this as an out, trying to jump on my case to draw even more suspicion away from him.Shrine wrote:- I'm judging, from these more recent posts and the vote count, that RedCoyote is your primary focus. But it seems that you single HipHop out curiously often; calling out for his posts and tearing them apart line-by-line as soon as he posts it. It seems like you continuously bring him to the table [even though it's already been established that he's suspicious] because he's an easy target for you.
Buddying. And not in any small way, considering the quote wars were between DRK and me over RC's case rather than any case we had against each other. And now that DMT brought it up, DRK's stated intent for buddying/defending RC was to poke holes in my arguments, not make me look scummy for having those arguments. This is where it slipped into buddying/defense rather than just questioning my logic; protecting RC by trying to make me look scummy in the process.- Why do you suspect DeathRowKitty?
... I'm going to have to try very hard to make this post not sound like a flame, aren't I?DeathRowKitty wrote: @IK
Explain how stupid you think I am that I would buddy so obviously. Be as detailed as you can.
lol, given that it's hiphop I can see how you'd think that. I don't like it when people attempt to use other player's reasoning and none of their own. I don't like it when people only differentiate who they're voting for by a statement concerning game theory that one of the participants has made. I don't like it when people say arguing about the argument is pointless and then proceed to argue about the argument.Shrinehme wrote:I wasn't really referring to the timing as much as I was the fact that you seemed to intentionally lure him, knowing that you could make out whatever he posted to be suspicious.
Third parties are not town. Power roles are town. Masons are town. Miller... I don't know what a miller is, but if it's not town, then it's not town. None of these possibilities interfere with the question in the way I presented it.RedCoyote wrote:Or you're a third party, or you're a power role, or you're a Mason, or you're a Miller, etc. All of these possibilities necessarily interfere with the question in the way you presented it.Ik 275 wrote:And I'm waiting for you to tell me where the logical fallacy is. Either you're town or you're not.
It's fine to ask a player if they think someone else is town or mafia, but it's not fine to pressure people into saying they think someone is obviously scum or obviously town. You said you were exaggerating, well okay, but that's the same exaggerating that got you to say I'm making really "pushy, defensive" posts. Why should a townie need to distort the truth to make a point?
1. Am I ignoring hiphop now?If that's who you meant, that's fine. There's no reason to get angry, because the point is the same whether it is Toro or hiphop in that you never voted either of these players seriously. I just find it hard to believe when you are using rhetoric like "exploding in scummyness" and then virtually ignore them after that.
Without having something change, some new statement being made, you can't change your mind. if you do, it's just flipflopping, and I think we can agree that's a bad thing. It also has to be someone else making that statement. Usually it's the one your investigating. But still it boils down to 'someone else' making a statement that convinces you you're mistaken, or at the very least alleviates some suspicion.I try to find the truth, regardless of whatever wagon I happen to be on. Right now I think I see some serious red flags when I read you, but I don't need someone to "convince me I'm wrong" in order to move my vote or pressure anyone else.
Were it closer to when you made the post, I would be. But the defensiveness concerning the random vote convinced me that it's random, and now it's too late for that to change; we've advanced way too far to go back to that now. It's a shame, yes, but unchangeable.That is a shame.
I noticed that too, funnily enough. Then again, I voted for you before you voted for me. DRK I find scummy because of his buddying, but I can see how you could find my suspicion suspicious (doesn't really matter to me, I still find it to be buddying). Hiphop I've been suspecting for quite some time now, his vote didn't really change that.I will retract this though. I was wrapping up the post a little too fast yesterday and I thought I had read over you saying something negative toward Paradox, but I think that was ryan's post I was reading. This doesn't really change the fact that your three biggest suspects all coincidentally happen to be voting you.
DTM 292 wrote:Logical Fallacy can be argued by simple difference of opinion. While it is true that IK's posts heavily implies extreme views, this can be written off by conflicting ideologies between two players.
DRK had already called me out on them, and I'd softened them to just town or scum reads. I'd already abandoned the exaggeration. So no, you didn't call me out on anything new.Well, if I hadn't have called Ik on his "extreme views", I wonder if he would've kept on with them?
When he said townie, I think my response was 'fair enough'. I don't know if your quote is a misrepresentation or a blatant lie.Ik: Is RC the best townie ever or the most obvious scum?
DRK: Townie
Ik: BUDDYING!
AHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!hiphop wrote:@idk You said that you didn’t push on me because I already built a case on me, then why are you pushing on me now? Is it because I am looking more innocent and you want to put me back on the defensive, or is it because you are that bored?
I didn't have a case against the bandwagon. You were already deep into your own case when I said I'd suspected you. However, you had too many votes on you for me to vote for you as well. Since we're not on page 3, this is no longer the case.You said that the only reason that you didn’t state your case in the beginning is because you didn’t have a case then. You also complained that rc didn’t state his case in a timely manner.
I don't understand what you mean. I built my case over the course of a discussion, he stopped posting and said he was going to build a case. There's a difference.Can’t it be said that rc was building his case as you were building your case, except that his took longer?
If it was a gamble, yes, but defensiveness after the fact convinced me that it was indeed random and he hadn't thought the RVS was over. My question to RC had no subtle meanings.You also said that in your first post against rc you were posing a question and wanting a response, can’t this be said about rc’s vote for dank, posing a vote and wanting a response?
In a heartbeat. Even despite my cases against RC and DRK, you're still the scummiest player. I just don't know how much info we'd get out of killing you. Your play has been horrible.Since DRK, RC, and I are your top three, if Drk is lynched, and it is known that he is town, would you still push for rc’s and my lynch? What about me?
I don't know. Almost everything I have against RC hasn't got anything to do with DRK, but is reinforced with the buddying. It may weaken my case that they're not a pair, but it probably wouldn't kill it completely.RC?
I don't know. Your death wouldn't make much difference since I don't see any real connections between you, RC, and DRK. If RC and DRK died, of course I'd try and push for your lynch. If you and DRK died, like I said, I don't know if I'd go after RC, and I know that if I did I wouldn't push it nearly as hard. If RC and you died, I wouldn't go after DRK. My primary reason for suspecting him is buddying, and if RC flips town, it'd kill my case against DRK.What if two of us are lynched and they are both town, would you still push for the third?
It's a somewhat common tactic of newbie scum to use this argument when confronted with a buddying accusation. I don't think you're an absolute newb, but even you've admitted to inexperience.I suppose that isn't the best way to try to show I'm not buddying. There is obvioulsy a lot of WIFOM going on in what I said. It all amounts to how much WIFOM you're willing to believe. Given any WIFOM situation, you can extend the logic behind it arbitrarily far. Whether or not you consider it scummy depends on the parity of the number of iterations you're willing to carry it out to. My contention here is that buddying so obviously is a terrible WIFOM situation for scum to get into. Let's say for sake of argument that you're right about my buddying and that RC and I are scum. I could tell you all I want that I wouldn't buddy like that and more than a few people would probably believe me simply because of how stupid it is. As soon as one of us dies and flips scum, the WIFOM ends and suddenly, you've caught two scum instead of one. Obviously, this doesn't prove anything, but that would be horribly play for scum.
Depends. You can call me out on it all you want. But the buddying appears when you try and make me look scummy for having that case, especially if you continue with the argument about my case instead of building a case against me yourself.Now let's say for sake of argument that I think you're pushing a crap case (a.k.a. the situation actually occurring). Is it better that I let you keep pushing what I see as a crap case or that I call you out on it?
Scumhunting or just trying to prove my arguments to be logically incorrect? It became buddying when you began trying to make me look scummy instead of just arguing about my logic. You crossed a line in doing so.I was attacking your arguments, not defending RC. If attacking your arguments included showing why they were wrong about RC, then that's what I was going to do. Interpret it as making RC's defense for him, interpret it as buddying, interpret it as whatever you want; I call it scumhunting.