Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[JordanA24]

EBWOP: Finally breached the massive wall of text. Great job there, Forbiddan. This just made scumhunting loads easier.

Btw Blakadder, it's best not to rely on one persons point of view of events in the thread. Fb could be scum and offering a biased point of view towards the game in his posts.

[Korts]

EBWOP: Finally breached the massive wall of text. Great job there, Forbiddan. This just made scumhunting loads easier.

Btw Blakadder, it's best not to rely on one persons point of view of events in the thread. Fb could be scum and offering a biased point of view towards the game in his posts.

Well, you know how it is, scum can't be bothered to properly research when another person's full analysis is handy.

[BlakAdder]

Hey, I'm not scum with Tin. I just wanted to point out a minor mistake that rofl had made in his post. It's not that I'm supporting Tin or anything, I just don't like false accusations.

[Korts]

Hey, I'm not scum with Tin. I just wanted to point out a minor mistake that rofl had made in his post. It's not that I'm supporting Tin or anything, I just don't like false accusations.

It wasn't even a major accusation. Why did you feel you had to answer? Couldn't you wait for Tin to speak for himself?

[forbiddanlight]

Emphasis by me. Why would you say "when" instead of "if" FL?

Hmm...I think I was trying to paint that in the light that if he flips scum that there would be a lot of WIFOM given how he seems to be trying to force a connection to me, and said when in the sense that when that happens that will follow. However, I admit that was very odd phrasing, and I actually can't adequetely defend it. I did, of course, however mean if. Whether anyone wants to make a case from that phrasing is up to them.

Reading through this game feels like homework of late.

Think typing that post was fun? No, but I felt it had to be done so I myself could get a better read on the situation and also see what others saw, if they disagreed with my summary.

So the case pretty much consists of a single debatable point, at the moment. I think I'll have to do this, even though I think armlx is scum.

This isn't good. If you think someone is scum, vote them, and back it up. If there is no case, then why do you think they are scum? The unvote isn't helping you Korts.

Good job further implicating the connection between you and TinVision, which Jordan already noted had some things implicating. Protip: if you're scum, don't answer questions/points intended for your buddy.

Vote: BlakAdder

Hmm...this kinda seems a little bit like redirecting, buuut, I see his point pretty well, added to the "scumhunting is a lot easier" thing about my post. It better not be too much easier, because that means you are just accepting my logic because I made a big post. You aren't critically analyzing it to see if my points have any credence, such as what strife pointed out (which, by the way, gives strife a little bit more townie points there). But, I've already FoS'd BlakAdder. Let's just say that that feeling hasn't been alleviated.

[Greasy Spot]

Given your overall play, and how you are actively scum hunting, I lean town.

I think he's protown too. That was a personal comment on his questioning style. I don't like it but it does seem to get results because he uses it responsibly. But, since you want examples.

So do you think there is a case against armlx?

Innocent start, very understandable, given what Greasy said.

when you obviously had decided who you thought was scummier?

Slight leading because he assumes that's what Greasy meant. To be honest, this is still within the realm of reason given what Greasy posted.

Why would the fact that other scumhunting is going on make any difference to its relevance?

This gets iffy. I see Greasy's point here, not username's, and it's a clear leading question that kinda forces Greasy to respond (if he answered the question) in a way that implicated him slightly. I'm probably reading into this point too much though.

Are you suggesting that my delay in voting is scummy? What do you think I stood to gain, as scum, by doing so?

Rhetorical question for armix when he didn't even say that. I think that's kinda a strawman? I dunno my fallacies well.

So what happened between post 17 and post 31 to change your answer to "You ask us which we think is scummiest yet there is no case against Strife so how could I possibly decide right now?"?

Kinda the same strain as the armix question. You begin to see how he's leading Greasy on? (however, because Greasy goes with it rather than protesting and explaining what I think his stance was (I could be wrong), he comes out scummier, which is why while I don't like username's methods, the results are valid)

OK, so let's get back to the original point; why say you can't decide between armlx and strife when you did, in fact, think armlx was scummier?

Alternatively, if you didn't think either was scummier than the other, why specifically say that there was no case against strife?

This is the big shot. Its forces the assumption the change was in that post frame whereas no one said that (but Greasy confirmed this view by not refuting it, which adds a lot of validity to username). It's presenting Greasy with a view he never directly said he had, but worked himself into with username's help. It's forcing a view not explicitly stated, and barely implied. And the way Greasy responded made Greasy look scummy, but it might have been like that no matter how he answered. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I hope I've illustrated my point there now.

Since you are making an honest attempt to understand these transactions I will indulge you a little. When the question was asked in post 17 there was hardly any content so I didn't have an opinion at the time. People make questions about a player(s) all the time and many people never answer them so I wasn't too worried about the question at the time. this game is a fast moving game. A lot of posts are added each day and I think another request for responses was made before it was picked up by username. With his insistance that I answer the question I stated there wasn't a case and he twists my words around to make me look bad either way I answered. So I didn't answer him. Later on he questions me again and before I have a chance to post my response he votes me for not answering his question. When I do confront him about this he again twists my words to mean something different that what I said so I won't respond to him now.

vote: iamausername

[forbiddanlight]

Just so you know, you already did vote him. And while I said it made you look scummy the way you responded, I'm attributing part of that to the way the questions were asked. For now, you are a bit lower on my scum list than several others that have been mentioned, FoS'd, and voted by me. However, I do appreciate the elucidation on why you handled it that way.

[BlakAdder]

Hey, I'm not scum with Tin. I just wanted to point out a minor mistake that rofl had made in his post. It's not that I'm supporting Tin or anything, I just don't like false accusations.

It wasn't even a major accusation. Why did you feel you had to answer? Couldn't you wait for Tin to speak for himself?

I don't know. I speak (or, rather, post) without thinking a lot.

[Korts]

Tip as one player to another, forbiddanlight, use your quote tags like this: when you start quoting, you initially have only this:[ quote ] (without spaces, of course) but to make it clear who you're quoting, do it like this: [ quote="My Awesome Self" ] (again, without spaces). It makes everyone's job a lot easier. In action:

adfaopasdfinvxklcv

Now, to business.

So the case pretty much consists of a single debatable point, at the moment. I think I'll have to do this, even though I think armlx is scum.

This isn't good. If you think someone is scum, vote them, and back it up. If there is no case, then why do you think they are scum? The unvote isn't helping you Korts.

Who said I want the unvote to help me? I unvoted because firstly, I'm not achieving anything with my vote on armlx, and secondly because I realized how little material is left in my case on him. I still think he's scum, call it a gut feel, if you want.

Good job further implicating the connection between you and TinVision, which Jordan already noted had some things implicating. Protip: if you're scum, don't answer questions/points intended for your buddy.

Vote: BlakAdder

Hmm...this kinda seems a little bit like redirecting, buuut, I see his point pretty well, added to the "scumhunting is a lot easier" thing about my post.

Redirecting? Alright, so you don't want me pointing out scumtells as long as I'm under fire? Got it.

Hey, I'm not scum with Tin. I just wanted to point out a minor mistake that rofl had made in his post. It's not that I'm supporting Tin or anything, I just don't like false accusations.

It wasn't even a major accusation. Why did you feel you had to answer? Couldn't you wait for Tin to speak for himself?

I don't know. I speak (or, rather, post) without thinking a lot.

And thus you implicate yourself. Sorry, my vote is staying.

[forbiddanlight]

Who said I want the unvote to help me? I unvoted because firstly, I'm not achieving anything with my vote on armlx, and secondly because I realized how little material is left in my case on him. I still think he's scum, call it a gut feel, if you want.

Meh, well, you could always try to push it with conviction or something, ala ABR. But, fine, so it's only a gut feel now? Alright, well, being an intuitive player myself I can't fault that, but hasn't intuition or gut already been explained by armix earlier in thread? A reread should give you what you are looking for unless there's something you don't want us to know.

Redirecting? Alright, so you don't want me pointing out scumtells as long as I'm under fire? Got it.

Not what I said. By all means address suspicions while under fire...it was mostly the way you phrased it and the fact you don't seem to be as worried about any accusations brought against you that got me looking at that. It's a weak point though, so I won't really press it, since I do agree BlakAdder looks kinda scummy too.

Tip as one player to another, forbiddanlight, use your quote tags like this: when you start quoting, you initially have only this:[ quote ] (without spaces, of course) but to make it clear who you're quoting, do it like this: [ quote="My Awesome Self" ] (again, without spaces). It makes everyone's job a lot easier. In action:

I knew this, it's just I usually get lazy with quoting. But thanks for the advice though.

[Greasy Spot]

Just so you know, you already did vote him.

Yes I know I am voting him and will continue to vote him till either he or myself is gone.

vote: iamausername

[armlx]

You seem awfully willing to give up your case for being convinced I am scum KortS. The fact you just jump on rofl's other suspect is pretty sketchy too.

[iamausername]

Greasy Spot would make an excellent vig kill.

[iamausername]

And, by the by, I certainly won't argue that I asked some leading questions, but I disagree that my final pair of questions was presenting Greasy with a view that he never directly said he had. I could have just asked those questions immediately, without all the preamble, but I thought that Greasy Spot might slip up and implicate himself further if I approached from another angle. I don't think he did, but I still find the initial post extremely suspicious.

If he'd just said "How can we possibly decide right now?", that would be fine, if he'd just said "There is no case against Strife", that would be fine, but the combination of the two creates a clear inconsistency. Either he thought armlx was scummier than Strife, in which case I'd like to know why he didn't just say so, or he didn't, in which case I'd like to know why he specified that there was no case against Strife. One of those is clearly a view that he had, unless you think he actually thought Strife was scummier than armlx, in which case his initial post makes even less sense.

[Korts]

You seem awfully willing to give up your case for being convinced I am scum KortS.

Why the capital S every time? There is no capital S. It annoys me. Please stop.

About the case, yes I'm giving it up because it's too weak to hold. That doesn't change my conviction.

The fact you just jump on rofl's other suspect is pretty sketchy too.

Wow. So pointing out a (valid) tell is definitely only to buddy up to rofl. Bravo!

[armlx]

Wow. So pointing out a (valid) tell is definitely only to buddy up to rofl. Bravo!

1. The tell isn't that strong.

2. You seem to be much more convinced I am scum.

Put these 2 together with the fact the person you have been following most of the game had adder as his other suspect, and you get the impression of opportunistic buddying.

[roflcopter]

i am a convenient person to accuse someone of buddying up to, since i'm pretty much confirmed town.

armlx is still obvscum.

[forbiddanlight]

Roflcopter, can you explain your case on armix more than obvscum, or point to a page where you have done so?

[Korts]

armlx, show me how I've been doing nothing but following rofl.

rofl's suspicions have been all over the place. My suspicions have also been all over the place. That's not proving.

[armlx]

armlx, show me how I've been doing nothing but following rofl.

Well, that + wagon. You have voted most recently his top 2 suspects, after chasing every wagon to that point (Vamp, fl) and flipping around on those sometimes as well.

[Korts]

So?

[armlx]

So?

Buddying up to a confirmed townie after wagoning massively isn't scummy?

[Korts]

The point being, me having been on every wagon (with valid points having been stated) proves me following rofl how?

And me finding rofl's two top suspects scummy enough for a vote each doesn't immediately mean I'm following rofl. I came up with my own reasoning both times. In fact, if you really want to paint me following someone, me following Jordan onto the BlakAdder case is much more believable. Ah well. Paint me black.

[armlx]

The point being, me having been on every wagon (with valid points having been stated) proves me following rofl how?

Its mainly the shift to me once things calmed down, then the shift to his second once his first target was "No, ur wrong"'ed.

[Korts]

The point being, me having been on every wagon (with valid points having been stated) proves me following rofl how?

Its mainly the shift to me once things calmed down, then the shift to his second once his first target was "No, ur wrong"'ed.

As in, I voted BlakAdder

not

because he defended Tin, but because he's up there on rofl's bad list? This smells so much like BS I have the strong feeling it might very well be the genuine article.