Lemme see, random vote stage? Me? I miss 'em depressingly often. So:
First random vote? Go me?
Thought he meant 'that is lynch!', actually.SlySly wrote:When you said 'sat', did I correctly interpret that as meaning Saturday? The rules have already stated that we have about a month before deadline so I am confused at what you mean by the statement following your formula.imaginality wrote:2609/12 > 50%, sat is lynch!Mirth wrote:Votecount
Zazie - 2609 - [Plum, caf, kmd]
Мне всё равно.Glork wrote:Немного.Plum wrote:Ты не знаешь ничего?
Bot, I vood loik to tok to deez peepol olso.
I'm so ignorant I going to have to guess!Darox wrote:So I see there's a lot of good discussion here, but I'm shocked to see we haven't covered the most important topic.
Who is better?
Hulk vs The Flash
Green Lantern vs Human Torch
Aquaman vs Superman
Wolverine vs Batman
You must decide!
1. Agents.Darox wrote:This is a very important issue.
There are two Aliens and three Agents
Who would win if:
They were both unarmed?
The Aliens had ray guns and the Agents had projectile weapons?
The Aliens had psychokinesis and the Agents had reverse engineered Plasma Weapons? If the Agents do not have psychic dampening fields?
Fine, whatever. Aquaman pwns. The Hulk's awesomeness hulks over The Flash's firefly flicker. Happy now? I'm not. Would you please freaking answer my question?Darox wrote:I think not, heathen.Plum wrote:I'm so ignorant I going to have to guess!Darox wrote:So I see there's a lot of good discussion here, but I'm shocked to see we haven't covered the most important topic.
Who is better?
Hulk vs The Flash
Green Lantern vs Human Torch
Aquaman vs Superman
Wolverine vs Batman
You must decide!
The Flash sounds cooler. Plus, I dunno, exploding green guy, meh?
I'll go with Green Lantern. Like the word lantern.
Er - Superman? Kryptonite has rqather entered the lexicon.
Batman. One movie I've seen at least.
How do you know nothing horrible has happened, aside from the game not haven beencaf19 wrote:SlySly has bought some lemonade and nothing horrible has happened. Therefore, more of you shouldbuy:lemonade.
That is all. I'd love to tell you what happens when you buy it, but I don't actually know.
All right, I believe we're on the same page here, then.dahill1 wrote:yep that was p much the reasonPlum wrote:If your problem is that he's FOSing based on a musing possibility which is far from necessarily what's going on, I see your point, fair enough. I personally don't think that his FOS is so strong that I find it really suspect and want to vote him, but can see what you don't like about it.
i don't really suspect him THAT much, it was more of a placeholder/"you did something that was slightly scummy" vote
I honestly do not get any scumvibe off of that. You might, Dahill, but I don't. Might just be me, but I read that as 'Vote Zazie. RVS explanation: My own custom of voting her, though apparently there's an unrelated bandwagon on her as well, how fun'. I understand you're getting a scum-vibe off it.Kmd wrote:Vote ZazieRnot as a bandwagon but because I like jokevoting her.
You appear to be being called out for the disclaimer that your random vote wasn't a bandwagon-related vote. Some seem to think you may have been attempting to preempt suspicion, etc. It doesn't appear to be about bandwagoning or not itself.Kmd4390 wrote:I don't mind being called out for bandwagoning if that's what I'm doing. If I was, I'd say so. But I wasn't, so I said I wasn't.
This is starting to turn into arguing in circles...
I believe I was hurried off the computer or something at this point in the conversation and never came back to it. Ah, nevermind, I now see the angle he was trying to get at when he wrote the above. This now fits into the conversation much more nicely than when I'd been looking at it a different way. Everything is still pretty null.Kmd4390 wrote:I don't mind being called out for bandwagoning if that's what I'm doing. If I was, I'd say so. But I wasn't, so I said I wasn't.
This is starting to turn into arguing in circles...
Yeah, I'm feeling that way, too. Hopefully something will clear up the game and give us something more controversial to stimulate more useful discussion sooner rather than later.imaginality wrote:In thees type of game, our town ees like blind lepers limping in all dirrrections tryingk to catch drrronken criminal.
You don't until later in the game when you have other reads on the player's alignment and playstyle. And heck, I've been an overdefensive townie and learned that lesson just in time to avoid being an overdefensive scumbag (both games are over, if you'd care for the links). That's part of why while I can see a reading of Kmd's statements such that he was being preemptive and cautious, the possibility that such was the case doesn't bother me, especially as it was firmly in the RVS.elvis_knits wrote:How do you tell the difference between someone defending themselves and someone being too defensive?
This should only be the case assumingSlySly wrote:I see the foreign language posts, by all the players doing it, as anti-town. I am now assuming that any post that is not in english is scummy.
So, no.SlySly wrote:Well, playing 'outguess the mod' in this game would be senseless as anything can be in a theme game, especially one being modded by my BFF.
Once we're out of the radom stage and others are voting for real if sometimes mild scumtells and I'm at least suspecting people based on actual play, I prefer not to have an actual randomCow wrote:Post 215 - Plum: Why are you unvoting "just because we're out of the random stage"? How does this help anything?
No, not nearly as simple as that at all. Townies have been known to use poor logic, too. It's one of the major causes of mislynches today, second only to lack of widespread use of birth-control techniques (so I should be applauding Kmd here, I guess).Isacc wrote:@Dahill: Pushing a lynch on bad logic = scum.
Townies will buy from Caf if they find him seeming townie enough to take the risk. Scum will buy from Caf if they're on his scumteam. Scum will not want to buy from Caf if he's not on their team - why give an advantage to someone of another alignment? So it's might be called a very very slight towntell crossed with stupid-risktaker-tell at this point in the game, when it seems no one has any strong read on Caf, correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly don't. So it seems I'm thinking along the same lines as Darox and Kmd are in this matter. How fun!Glork wrote:If Kaf is not protown, vee probably do not vant to buy. So, ze protownzh people does not vant to buy becozh vee do not know if he is protown or not.
Ze scomzh, however, know vezher Kaf is in zere groop or not. If he izh not in zere groop, zen I vood project zat ze scomzh find him more likely to be ze protownzh (ya, ze neutral is poschibol). Zuss, I vood expect ze scomzh (and/or ze schtoopid playerzh) to be more willing to buy.
But it's for religious purposes (yes, there are legit religious reasons to give a teenager four glasses of wine over the course of three or four hours, especially if the alcohol content is modest)!Mirth wrote:If Plum wishes to buy wine, she must show a valid ID certifying that she is in fact over 21. The mod does not supply alcohol to minors. At least when she is aware that they are minors. Besides, the mod does not advocate the drinking of wine as it is an inferior beverage.
Do you mean 'may die if you don't post some German-language posts' or 'may die if my posts are not in German' - looking at your post you seem to imply the former; can you just confirm that for me? Also, what makes you feel comfortable taking these risks? Zazie, your predecessor, did seem to say that shedestructor wrote:Why is my English posting vote-worthy?
My role pm implies thatI may die if I don't make some posts in German.Yeah, that's "may" die, not that I will. Maybe Mirth is lying... but I'm not really up for testing that one.
So this doesn't look unique in this game.dahill1 wrote:but i was partially just messing around as my role PM is kinda vague as to whether i have a PR or not
i'm assuming i don't since i've gone this long without posting about aliens and nothing's happened
Well, hell, if you're on board with this plan, who am I to refuse ? Seriously, now, though. You're lying scum, you die. You're not, your claim is at least semi-confirmed (as I don't have any info now that would absolutely preclude you being sasquatch-scum) and we either go into night or continue. So, yes, I see some advantages, especially as I'm still not fully convinced you're town. I'll continue to look in new directions in the scumhunt (want to check some thoughts and vibes on Glork and Kmd, specifically), but I did promise to summarize how I saw the case last night, so, briefly:SlySly wrote:As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan. Although, finding scum to lynch would be a better plan, especially if we expose more than one.imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - vecouldcall SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
Thus any subsequent non-English posts would be moderate legit scumtells in your opinion? Disregarding the fact that that's at least an anti-town stance to take (which it is, and easily potentially scummy as well)SlySly wrote:I am now assuming that any post that is not in english is scummy.
If you really considered them scumtells, you'd start by voting someone posting non-English posts; even if you were having some trouble narrowing it down it would be an appropriate jumping-off point. And calling out Imaginality for taunting you and not focusing on behavior you actually declared a scumtell doesn't mesh right with what you were trying to do. On the other hand, you agree later with someone (imaginality, perhaps? Excuse my laziness, please) saying that you're probably more frustrated than considering foreign posts to be true scumtells. First, if so, why did you not simply say straight out after you were questioned, that you were mostly frustrated? You also do say that while your stance is flexible, youSlySly wrote:Well, seeing how there are multiple players doing it, and I don't understand what any of them are saying, it is hard to narrow it down to one.
...
Post restriction is one thing, but Imaginality taunting me with it is another. I seriously doubt that there is a clause in his role that says he must immediately taunt anyone who calls the foreign languages scummy.
Kmd4390 wrote:That's interesting...
You find it contrived? Not really my reading. Isacc attacked Dahill for what he saw as Dahill's attack (he thought Dahill was attacking Kmd because he was unsatisfied with Kmd's explanation for his random vote). Dahill voted. Isacc found this scummy. Dahill found it necessary to explain thatHascgfsfCow wrote:Plus, I don't really feel that him letting go of his attack is a reason for my voting reasons to not be "sturdy".
After Dahill posts this Isacc seems to disagree with some of his logic (and I didn't find that in and of itself troubling, as I didn't find Isacc's counter-logic as pointing to Isacc-scum). He doesn't officially rescind his FOS on Dahill, but meh, I don't care. You see it as contrived. I don't read it as pointing strongly enough to contrived-ness to make me any more than mildly intrigued.Dahill1 wrote:you're not reading it right
i'm not suspicious of kmd for voting zazie. again to everyone reading,it's not because he voted for zazier. however, his explanation of (this is an indirect quote) "btw it's not to bandwagon her" struck me as strange and unnecessary, and i find that scum would be much more likely to say something because of their mindset. please answer this: why would town feel the need to include saying that it wasn't to bandwagon?
Talking with a buddy and discovering that bad logic =/= auto-scum I'm fine with. Willing to believe it, sure. The whole 'I'm aware I possibly look scummy, and I also justIsacc wrote: I would tell you that today I had a talk with a buddy that plays mafia and I decided I need to start realizing that bad logic =/= scum automatically, but I doubt you'd believe that. Though, I am less concerned with you now (although, I still am annoyed that you made a case that I cannot possibly defend myself against, since you don't believe the evidence I presented). Anyways, you could say I am trying to turn a new leaf. And yes, I'm aware I probably look like bad pedaling scum.
I knew you were going to ask that, though. =P
That. Destructor isn't ringing too many bells for me (since the PR question has cleared up enough for me for now). I don't feel the need to test it any more than I feel the need to make Imaginality stop Numa-Numa-ing. I'm not sure what the heck you want Caf and myself to be thinking, so would you please please clarify?caf19 wrote:So, under your plan either he dies or we lynch him? Seems like a rather violent plan. What makes you want destructor to die so much, when he's not the town's consensus lynch right now?Isacc wrote:@Darox: He claims he will die if he doesn't make any posts in German. This will tell us if he is lying.
This suggests that the reason lynching Sly will be a waste of the town's time is role-related, not related mostly to Sly's alignment being town. He says he's not yet prepared to elaborate on the fact that it will be a waste of he town's time until his roleclaim has been approved by Mirth - it's role-related.SlySly wrote:A vote for me is pretty much a waste of the town's time. I have sent a copy of my claim to the mod to make sure I follow all the rules of my role. Until receiving word back from Mirth, I am not prepared to elaborate on this just yet.
Again suggesting that lynching him is a fruitless path for reasons other than only standard 'I'm town'.SlySly wrote:Well, I heard back from the mod and I will claim. Claiming at L-4 is usually pretty needless and stupid but since I don't want the town wasting their time on me, I will.
So the waste of timeSlySly wrote:I can't go into detail about my role but I see it as pretty much of a waste of time trying to lynch me as the odds of catching and/or killing a sasquatch are very slim.
So the drive to claim isn't related to any difficulty in being able to successfully lynch him - that the waste of the town's time is related to his tendency to be lynched as a townie with an unusual playstyle? I already smell something of a contradiction here. Yes, it might have eased the minds of the townies here to know why you didn't fear Caf's lemonade, but the claim didn't address the main suspicion against you, so I don't see the necessity for an L-4 claim from that point-of-view. It feels like you're all over the board as the the reason for the early claim.SlySly wrote:The personal drive to claim now comes from being a victim of numerous previous mislynch bandwagons and knowing how much time was wasted battling about my unusual play in those games. I felt the claiming now would help ease the minds of the town by gaining some understanding of the reasoning behind some of my actions.
Still seems like Sly is saying he does have some sort of lynch-immunity.SlySly wrote:As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan.imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - vecouldcall SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
O-kaaay.SlySly wrote: I don't even know for sure that I won't die, but I have never been witness to a successful sasquatch hunt and for that reason, I suspect the lynch will not succeed.
So - if we try to lynch you weSlySly wrote:My PM does not state any lynch immunity but it does state a few specific things about my abilities as a sasquatch which I cannot elaborate about other than saying I am as elusive as one would expect a sasquatch to be. A failed lynch on me would more confirm my elusiveness as a sasquatch.
SlySly wrote:Or something would be the better descriptor. I cannot elaborate on this without risk of modkill.destructor wrote: You specifically mentioned how your question to me was related to your own role. Your own role is meant to have an ability that is extremely useful - some sort of invulnerabilityor something.
SlySly wrote:I don't know for sure that I will be able to slip through the lynch.
Can you elaborate on the odds? Any good guesses as to how likely it is that an attempt to lynch you will fail? Looking over, I don't see outright contradictions about how lynch-proof you are, but at the same time there seem to be misleading statements etc.. Looking over Imaginality's accusations that Sly was bluffing about being lynch-proof: Sly never seemed to say outright that he knew lynching him wouldn't work. However, he does seem to be claiming at least partly to preempt a wagon on himself. He doesn't feel the need to correct people under the impression that if he's telling the truth he won't be able to be lynched, seems to encourage that view . . . :SlySly wrote:I do not have any immunities. What I do have is abilities.
SlySly wrote:As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan. Although, finding scum to lynch would be a better plan, especially if we expose more than one.imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - vecouldcall SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
Hm.SlySly wrote: Am I unlynchable? I don't think so.
Will the lynch on me today be successful? I don't think so.
destructor wrote:Thanks for the welcome =). What's you signature from?Plum wrote:Destructor joins. Welcome, I've vaguely hoped to play with you someday, nice avatar, nice kitties.
No, it's reasonable that after a short post referring to Darox only as 'you' it's absolutely reasonable to specify 'you = townies' in that case. Not a scum slip, irregardless of his other scumtells. I agree with Dahill on this, it would seem. Imaginality suggested it and EK echoed it in no uncertain terms. When Sly explained the above reason as to why he specified 'you (townies)', she deftly changes the subject.imaginality wrote:Hmm. Intehrrrezting phrase - "you (townies)" = SlySly not townie?SlySly wrote:Before I am lynched, other than myself, who do you (townies) find scummy?
Meh, all right, fair, give or take.SlySly wrote:I already pointed it out to him once.Plum wrote: his refusal to repeat his question for Darox, which was a completely reasonable requestMy question to Darox was in post 451.
I meant that you hadSlySly wrote:I did not say I had strong cases, I said I already know who I think is scum. I think Darox, Destructor and Cow are scum. Glork is on the bubble.Plum wrote: In addition, Sly says he has some strong thoughts on who's scum, which, assuming he's actually town, might prove fruitful.
Nice rolefishing attempt there (on preview, I see that Kmd has commented on the same thing).SlySly wrote:Cow, you have said your role is awesome. What more can you tell us about it?
Darox wrote:Shiny rocks are way more distracting than comparative statements, any day of the week.
Probable? I'm not sure about that. I believe Imaginality suggested that such might be the case and Sly never confirmed nor denied it. Sly, can you tell us if your role might imply any supersaint-like qualities?dahill1 wrote:in the unlikely-but-still-probable-due-to-sly's-vagueness-over-the-lynch-not-going-through case that sly is a supersaintPlum wrote:Why the preference, out of curiosity?dahill1 wrote:i say kmd should hammer
1. Mod-WIFOM won't get us tpp far, and my gut instinct is that we both need seven to lynchIsacc wrote:@Everyone: Here's something I noticed. It would seem Glork cannot vote for real players. However, the vote count still requires a majority as if there were really 12 votes. If Glork was incapable of voting for a real player, why would his vote be included in the majority count? I think this may suggest a fake PR or perhaps something related to his role. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.
@Everyone, part 2: So what do we think about the lynch? Does the flavor discredit SlySly's roleclaim, or is it just done so that Mirth can screw with us and we won't know if he's really a Sasquatch? Personally, I think the second is more likely, and I'm inclined to believe that Sly's role claim was honest.
I have a problem that you state with such conviction that it was a slip, because I don't see that it was any sort of explicit tell at all.elvis_knits wrote:Is this it? You have a problem with the me seeing sly's slip?
First paragraph is a long ramble about how sometimes you will hit on small things during the course of your scumhunt, and how people 'never like it' when you call out slips or tells. I don't care either way, just that you're arguing that something is a slip when it clearly isn't. Ramble smacks of subtle meta defense, which I generally consider a fairly mild scumtell.elvis_knits wrote:Well, I have noticed that people never like it when I call out slips or tells. I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe it's because other people don't rely on gut-reaction tells as much as I do. I tend to hit on small things that don't make sense to me. Often, a small thing will make me look harder at a person, and either through questions or through looking at their other posts, I get more (or less) convinced of them being scummy. Maybe this is not how other people work?plum wrote:Imaginality suggested it and EK echoed it in no uncertain terms. When Sly explained the above reason as to why he specified 'you (townies)', she deftly changes the subject. Fos: elvis_knits.
Anyway, I do sometimes get caught up in wording. Because I think it can show how a player is subconsciously considering themselves. If they are putting themselves in the town group, or out of the town group. That's pretty significant to me. Other things I have seen, a player voting someone they consider town, a player slip and name an exact number of scum in a game. That is pretty much defnitely a scum slip. I try to notice things like that. You may not agree with me. It's not an exact science, but it helps me a lot.
As to "deftly changing the subject" I don't remember doing that.
QFTrufax.Isacc wrote:"Got distracted" is code for "changed the subject to."
I'm not liking your explanation here. I don't buy it at all. I don't see how SlySly changed the subject, and the fact remains you jumped from "Your word choice is suspicious," to "That one part of your last defense is suspicious."
Dormouse, which might have become my dominant internet handle if not for stuff.Darox wrote:Best member of the Tea party, Mad Hatter or the Sleepy Dormouse?
Yes, it means that flavor has acknowledged that you're among the living players in this game. I.e.: Congratulations, you are... a player in Congratulations, you are... Mafia. Would you like a medal? N, I don't believe it's in any way indicative of your alignment. Sorry.imaginality wrote:SlySly wrote:Does this statement mean anything to anyone besides myself?Mirth wrote:
The poor fools gathered around one of their own, SlySly
I have a problem that you're standing by the 'slip remark', and I have a problem that when Sly argued well against it, you did not acknowledge your mistake or choose to continue the discussion. You changed to topic, possibly in an attempt to save face.elvis_knits wrote:If you want to call it that, okay. Maybe I did change the subject, but guess I just don't understand what was weird about it. I stand by the "slip" remark, and I've explaned it numerous times. The fact that I may sometimes talk about other things, doesn't mean anything. It's not like I didn't want to talk about the slip. I've talked about it a lot. We can talk about it all day. I don't understand the problem with me having multiple points and going from one to the other.
Rescan confirms Cow's side of the argument. He did not support Isacc's stupid plan/gambit/whatever. He, along with others, questioned and voted Destructor before Des' explanation. This doesn't make me any less suspicious of you, but you did say you needed to do a rescan or something, didn't you? I'll deal with not hounding you on this count.hasdgfas wrote:Um, I didn't think Isacc's ultimatum against des was a good thing, I wanted clarification on the German thing after zazier said she couldn't speak English.elvis_knits wrote: cow because he went on Isaac's witch hunt against des.
That doesn't mean much, considering the fact that all of the reactions you said afterwards you were looking for revolved around Des accepting your plan for her to risk modkill. Which would never occur unless Des got a major lobotomy first. Which wasn't about to happen. It was a stupid gambit. Knowing it was meant as a gambit downgrades it from 'really scummy' to ' verging on null because it's that freaking ridiculous to read'. I can just see it's possible that a townie with no foresight at all did it thinking it might actually bear some fruit, but it makes such little sense at all.Isacc wrote:I never thought you wouldn't get that it was a gambit. However, you knowing it was a gambit wouldn't have stopped it from working. You couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for.
Isacc wrote:About your "If Des knew you wanted a reaction," If you read the quote you JUST quoted, I said that Destructor couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for, so theywouldn'tbe crafted. Christ, you have no clue what you are even saying. It's like arguing with Empking. No wonder Dahill found you scummy earlier.
The reactions might not have been crafted, but they'd sure as heck have been meaningless along your scale anyway. Any realistic reaction from Des whatever her alignment or honety would have been 'you're crazy if you think I'll risk a modkill like that'. The reactions would have been worthless. Knowing it was a gambit just takes the second reaction from 'Isacc is really scummy for suggesting this' to 'Isacc is stupid'.Plum wrote:That doesn't mean much, considering the fact that all of the reactions you said afterwards you were looking for revolved around Des accepting your plan for her to risk modkill. Which would never occur unless Des got a major lobotomy first. Which wasn't about to happen.Isacc wrote:I never thought you wouldn't get that it was a gambit. However, you knowing it was a gambit wouldn't have stopped it from working. You couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for.
You sure? I'm willing to try Des' idea, not least because I do happen to find you fairly scummy, as I'm sure I summarized before. As she pointed out, time taken will be trivial. Also, Glork, it would seem you can't vote for anyone in this game. I'd like to ask you again to either try to vote Sly now, and we'll see what happens, or don't try, and explain as fully as possible why you won't.SlySly wrote:Putting me there again today will have the same result.destructor wrote: Sly, nothing has been proven besides the fact that putting you at 7 votes didn't lynch you last time.
Very well, then. My own conclusions are that you are not allowed to attempt to vote for anyone in this game and that your role prevents you from saying much further (or even much at all explicitly) to this effect. Thanks.Glork wrote:I seenk joo know ze anzher to zis olredy. I vill not say a vord about zis game, bot I vill zhay that hizhtorikolly, I very moch like to vote and leench people. Dahill and EK and Dezh shood be able to konfirm zis. I vill leave joo to joor own konkluzhonzh on zis mattor.Plum wrote:1. Mod-WIFOM won't get us tpp far, and my gut instinct is that we both need seven to lynchandGlork can't vote someone actually playing this game. There's a simple way to test this, though: Ask him to vote for a player in this game. Either he'll do it and it'll work, or he'll do it and it won't work, or he'll refuse and be forced to explain more.
So, Glork, would you mind voting for, say, me, at least long enough to see if it'll appear on the votecount? Whether or not your PM says it will work (unless you risk a modkill or something; if so, please speak up about that), please.
Interesting. You say you dislike my defense of Des and my attack on Isacc? My defense of Des comes after my understanding of her role and not-quote-PR. As I understand it, her posts in English after German posts and Zazie's posts are not at all likely to be the product of scum faking a post restriction. Nor did I feel that attacking her not having read the entire thread, under circumstances, was attacking her for a legit scumtell. Hence I questioned those who attacked her on those points; the attack itself was pretty bad and I explained why it was so. Do you still find me scummy on that count, and if so could you explain why, Glork?Glork wrote:Ze plom/EK debate dozh not interezht me at oll, ekzhept in zat Plom izh von ov my scomzh kandidates.
...
So ya, I vood leench Dezh, and zen pozzhibly Plom after zat.
I agree. Also, interesting thing noted by EK:caf19 wrote:This game will probably last several Days; we can comfortably wait past Day 1 before considering his potential liability in Lylo. Glork also implies he has other, non-voting means of getting scum killed; waiting until a subsequent day might give us more info as to what the nature of those means are, if they exist at all.
I agree that the apparent fear of looking like he's following (as opposed to a nice simple 'I agree that Isacc's plan is stupid', which would have been a decent option) looks potentially scummy.hascow wrote:I may not have talked about how bad isacc's plan was at the time, but plenty of other people were. I also didn't support it, so if other people are attacking it, why should I? I wouldn't have added anything except "I don't like Isacc's plan either", and that would've looked like following.
Not impossible in my mind by any stretch of the imagination, but after a bad experience or two I've learned that it's more prudent not to call scumteams before a lynch and flip. Nor, if I read correctly, did Glork call Kmd or EK 'obvtown'. He noted a post by EK that he said seemed protown and cited a discussion that he thought made Kmd look protwon in his mind.Isacc wrote:I don't know why Glork says that EK and Kmd are "obvtown." Wait, yes I do.
Glork, EK, and Kmd are scum.
Thanks, sorry, my mistake. Now that I see that, I will say that I disagree strongly with that - and considering where I'm at with my suspicions of EK, I'll take the liberty toIsacc wrote:@Plum: Glork's last post, fourth paragraph (single lines count as paragraphs). It's the parenthetical part. He says EK and Kmd are "obvtownzh".
Yeah. And deadline is Monday, unless I'm mistaken. Right now I have my vote on Elvis, who I think would be a decent choice to lynch at this point. If that doesn't start happening, there are others I'd be fine with, especially if the alternative is a no-lynch. I'm at school, so details on my opinions to follow.elvis_knits wrote:Dear Other Players,
It looks like Sly is not going to die today. We have to lynch someone else. Please come back.
xoxo,
elvis
Moderate suspicions based, among other things, on calling EK (and, to a lesser degree, Kmd) obvtown with relative lack of explanation, especially as EK is where I have my vote right now. HoweverGlork wrote:Zat'zh exaktlee vot I am kveczonink. I vont to know if Plom typikolly sospektzh people bazhed on differenzh in opinionzh.hasdgfas wrote:So you're FoSing someone because you disagree on how scummy you find people? That doesn't make sense to me.Plum wrote:Thanks, sorry, my mistake. Now that I see that, I will say that I disagree strongly with that - and considering where I'm at with my suspicions of EK, I'll take the liberty toIsacc wrote:@Plum: Glork's last post, fourth paragraph (single lines count as paragraphs). It's the parenthetical part. He says EK and Kmd are "obvtownzh".FOS: Glork.
Glork wrote:Wrong. "Obvtown" is hyperbolee. Zey are ze same ting.
Or you and Sly could be scum together. Much of the defense you present in this instance is WIFOM. There are other reasons, too, why scum-Imaginality could have tunneled and stretched badly to attack whatever-alignment-SlySly. Subtle, I'm sure, but arguing that it wasn't scummy because scum would certainly have avoided the Sly wagon after Sly's claim is misleading.imaginality wrote:3. Re. Sly's comment: I accept it vas a stretch and I vas tunnel on him zomvhat for the vhile. But I do not seeing vhy that is a concern. If scum, I vould know Sly was not scum, so I vould know he is likely truth-telling wif unlynchable claim, so vhy stretch to get him lynched?
Plum, who comes in the night and gives people surprise sex-change operations ! Sorry Des - believing random male players to actually be female is actually something I've done more than once. I'm in a game with Crazy, for instance, and was pretty sure he was a she. Then I checked, this time before I messed up my pronouns. In this instance, I think, the lack of a little gender sign by the av combined with an av with a girl in it combined with the abbreviated name Des all sorta combined unfortunately.Plum wrote:Mod:Des, did you get a sex change or something?
Good times, those .Kmd4390 wrote:Mirth doesn't technically require unvotes. (I found that out the hard way in Mayo.)
This, please. I understand you're still working on this promised post, but deadline approacheth and if you do not want to be lynched (which you don't) it's in your best interest to tell us stuff ASAP, and make a counter-case, if you care to.Glork wrote:Darox, even if joo are "ztill typink," pleazhe give us vot joo have so far, even if it is jost notezh or a draft of vot joo vant to say. Since joo are ze leading kandidate vith four votezh, if joo have nothink to lose by pozhting joor thoughts.
As above, I don't think her case on Darox at the ime was that strong, but whatever. More interesting, as I believe others have pointed out (myself included?) was he comment on Cow. In this case I don't believe any silence on Cow's part could be rightfully interpreted as actually going along with Isacc's stupid plan. Which is the argument EK makes in support of her statement.elvis_knits wrote:I have to look through the thread and see where I want to put my vote now. I'm thinking darox or maybe cow. Darox for that weird bandwagon vote on kmd with no reasons explained. cow because he went on Isaac's witch hunt against des.
I dropped the issue at its inception, partly because at face value the accusation was so ridiculous and EK had said, if I recall, that she'd been in need of a reread. However, following up, she did not acknowledge that the accusation was inane but attempted to justify it with weak points. Cow's lack of comment on Isacc's plan was in no way ambiguous enough, much less as scummy as the original accusation's tone would imply, to justify considering a vote. Basically, saying that Cow 'went on Isacc's witch hunt against des' is a lie, implying that he did something scummy he did not do is itself scummy, and the weak justifications don't help.elvis_knits wrote:Since you had voted des (although, I don't think you were voting him at the time) because of the english/german question, and Isacc's plan had to do with that issue, it's not easy to tell your feelings on the subject. I thought you might support isaac, because you brought up that exact same issue against des.
And why are you worried about "following" or appearing to follow?
Not quite related to the original crap argument, and better, than it, too.The quote from Cow isn't verbatim, and arguably Cow's statement could be read such that he meant all he would add to the conversation by saying he didn't like the plan would be him looking like a follower, which would be detrimental to him and add nothing to the conversation, and thus be a nulltell. However I'm pretty confident that EK's approach here isn't itself a scumtell.elvis_knits wrote:If we can't lynch sly, I'll go for cow since I sensed something scummy with the Isaac plan/des stuff. I really didn't like when cow said he didn't say how he hated Isaac's plan because he "didn't want to look like a follower." Being overly worried that your actions might look scummy is usually a sign of being scum.
Interesting, and something I plan to address later. Simply do not have the time right now, and other things are pressing in this already over-long post.Darox wrote:Strangely, the biggest complaint to this is raised by Plum who manages to miss the mark completely, attacking EK for changing the subject after Sly explained why he used the phrasing he did. This completely falls through though, because Sly explained it before EK ever called it a scum slip. Isacc also tries to push this "changed the subject" angle. It's very bizarre and really, out of all the people involved in the argument over the Scumslip thing, EK comes out looking the best despite not really showing anything of substance against Sly.
As I believe others have noted, weird. First, I believe Lucifer etc. references Darox himself, EK, just for clarity's sake. Second, he warned us that he was only half done with the post he was making, and, yes, he wrote about the first six players on the list as they appear on page one.elvis_knits wrote:I don't like his review. It's only of half the people in the game. I don't like that at all. When you pick only certain people to review, that makes me suspicious... like he's shaping his answers. Why choose the people he did? Why leave out the people he did? It's not like his review was only people he found scummy. He said I was scummy, buddied up to hascow and lucifer, says a whole lot of nothing about caf, dahill, and glork. I don't agree with him about hascow, and feel he was sucking up. And the only person he accused of being scummy was me, and that's basically OMGUS.dahill1 wrote:what are your thoughts on him now that he's completed the review?elvis_knits wrote:I think Darox is the play today. His participation has been pathetic. The fact that he has promised things and not come through really makes me suspicious. Combined with the bandwagon vote on KMD with no explanation, he remains my choice.
I still support his lynch.
Yes: no. This is a clear request for a claim right now. Request is clearly not warranted and in my opinion scummy. As has been said by myself and others, asking for a premature claim isn't the way to go here. Ensuring that Glork isn't a LYLO liability is, but we're not near LYLO yet.destructor wrote:On Glork, I'd like to see a claim. If he can't vote for any player in this game, he's useless to the town besides through scum-hunting, but he's hardly been doing any of that.
What this means is that with Glork alive, we'd be in lylo one day early.
So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
It certainly looks like a contradiction to me. While still suspicious of EK, I'll feel free toGlork wrote:Liezh. Ven joo firzht mentioned it, joo said joo had to think on vot ze alleged restrikzhon said. Zen joo came out vith joor "Glork should claim or else we should leench him" idea.destructor wrote:"Wait and see" was what I said. I didn't vote you, I didn't say, "let's lynch Glork". I said you, as a voteless player, are a policy lynch one day before lylo. I asked for a claim because that was all I could see that would change that. All of this was easier for me to say because you didn't look very town either. I wanted the idea out there now, so it wouldn't be a scramble later in the game.
Ze policy itself is only part of ze issue here. Joo demanded a klaimDezh wrote:So far, no one, including yourself, has provided a compelling argument against my suggestion, which is on purely theoretical grounds, and I have asked for feedback on it. Most of the responses seem to be based on preferences as opposed to real probabilities.immediatelybecoz joo said zat vizout one, zere vas no reason joo shood "be keeping [me] alive." Vot I kant onderstand is vy joo vood vont a klaim D1 for ONLY ze reason zat we may lose a day if I kannot vote in endgame.
First of all, zis is a DIREKT KONDRADIKZHON to vot joo jost claimed, zat joo vanted to "vait and see" how my role and gameplay vood play out. Before I ever had ze chance to respond, joo vere saying I shood klaim or die.How in ze Motherland does "klaim or ve have no reazhon to keep you alive" translate "letzh vait and see vot happens over ze korse of ze game before decidink if Glork izh aktually ze scomzh"?
Dezh wrote:So, basically, your argument here has always been that I'm blindly pushing for your lynch without considering context, which isn't true at all.Joo tell me vezher joo vere "considerink knotekst" or giving me a "klaim or die" ultimatum, based on vot joo originially said. Don't joo dare try to change vot joo pushed. Joo vere blatantly fishing for a claim, else joo didnt vant me alive. Joo didnt say "perhaps Glork vill be investigated and vill bekome konfirmed town" (vich vood obviouzhly negate ze desire for a policy leench). Joo never said "perhaps Glork vill have anozer ability vich vill become evident vithout him having to klaim on D1 for no reason at all." Joo never said "perhaps Glork's lack of vote is temporary, and he vill be able to vote later." Tho joo never outright DENIED zese possibilitizh,Dezh wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.And ZAT is vot botherzh me so moch about joor play. I vood NEVER expekt joo to take soch an onreazhonable approach as town, and zat is vy I think joo are ze scomzh.joo implied zat me klaiming is preferrable to exploring ze dynamics of my role vithin the context of ze game.
Hopefully zis post hazh artikulated my pozition moch more.
As has been pointed out, this premature call for claim is itself scummy. Des is correct is his assessment that if Glork is town we'll be in LYLO a day early (i.e. - assume 1 scum and 4 townies left, three votes to lynch. If we miss the lynch, that's 1:3, add a scum kill that night, 1:2. However, with Glork-town alive town only manages one vote against the scum's one vote, and will never reach the two needed to lynch scum, no lynch goes through, scum win. Hence town needs to hit that lynch at 1:4 or lose, assuming nothing unmentioned here getting in the way. Or town has to lynch Glork at 1:4 and proceed as per usual. Thus LYLO is, as it were, a Day early if Glorks alive).destructor wrote:On Glork, I'd like to see a claim. If he can't vote for any player in this game, he's useless to the town besides through scum-hunting, but he's hardly been doing any of that.
I find it unlikely that he's scum faking a vote restriction, but, unlike Sly suggested in 526, I don't see why that mean he couldn't be scum who actually HAS a vote restriction. Whatever the case, he's a serious liability to the town because that's one vote we KNOW will never land on scum.
What this means is that with Glork alive, we'd be in lylo one day early.
So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Here Des makes it clear that he's not willing to wait and let Glork try to make himself and his role useful without a claim. Why is he more willing to let the scum in on Glork's role by making him claim rather than letting Glork try to work stuff well on his end? He doesn't note anything sketchy about Glork except relative lack of scumhunting, which Des did not push as being any sort of strong scumtell, as far as I know.destructor wrote:If you can't vote for scum, you can't vote for scum in end-game. Mirth says that we need a majority of living players to lynch meaning that you being alive in end-game is likely to result in a scum win. Unless you have abilities that are incredibly likely to save the town in the above mentioned end-game scenario, which is not something I'm willing to count on... without a claim and improvement of play, I think your lack of vote is a liability large enough to trump whatever ability you might have. Why do you think I asked for a claim in the first place?Glork wrote:Olredy addrezhed most of zis, but re: engame.
A player who kannot vote in endgame kannot vin, period. If, theoretically, I vere ze scomzh vis soch a restrikzhon, zen ze ozer two towneezh in endgame vood vote and kill me, becozh zey kood not leench each ozer, and zey vill not no-lynch.
I olso find it interesting zat joo label me aszh being kompletely uselezh, vith no thought that I may have any ozher abilitiezh. Zat is not to say vezher I have an ability or not, but it iszh a very unsettling assompzhon for joo to make.
In fact, I'm not seeing how you could possibly miss my intention given that I said this:What other explanation could I possibly be asking for?destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Now this looks like self-contradiction or backtracking. Des didn't say "wait and see". To whit:destructor wrote:"Wait and see" was what I said. I didn't vote you, I didn't say, "let's lynch Glork". I said you, as a voteless player, are a policy lynch one day before lylo. I asked for a claim because that was all I could see that would change that. All of this was easier for me to say because you didn't look very town either. I wanted the idea out there now, so it wouldn't be a scramble later in the game.Glork wrote:Zis is true, bot she obviouzhly doezhn't believe zat it is unekvivikolly right to leench voteless playerzh, vich is vot you are soggezhting. Vot EK said and vot joo vont to do areDezh wrote:Elvis even said she'd played in games where voteless players were lynched on account of them being a problem for the town.kompletely, 100% different. "Vait and zee" is ze right vay to approach it. Leenching people in ze manner joo soggezht is jost terrible.
The call for claim, obviously premature, is obviously called for by Destructor "now". I'm pretty sure that my interpretation of the second part as "if I don't get a good explanation as to why we should be keeping you alive, we shouldn't keep you alive at all". Des didn't say "he's a policy lynch the day before LYLO". He said "we should get you to claim and explain why we should be keeping you alive". Nothing about witing till the day before LYLO.destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone,I think you should claim right nowand explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
I'm going to QFT what Glork said here. I may be becoming redundant. If so, I apologize, but I'm busy etc.Glork wrote:Dezh wrote:So, basically, your argument here has always been that I'm blindly pushing for your lynch without considering context, which isn't true at all.Joo tell me vezher joo vere "considerink knotekst" or giving me a "klaim or die" ultimatum, based on vot joo originially said. Don't joo dare try to change vot joo pushed. Joo vere blatantly fishing for a claim, else joo didnt vant me alive. Joo didnt say "perhaps Glork vill be investigated and vill bekome konfirmed town" (vich vood obviouzhly negate ze desire for a policy leench). Joo never said "perhaps Glork vill have anozer ability vich vill become evident vithout him having to klaim on D1 for no reason at all." Joo never said "perhaps Glork's lack of vote is temporary, and he vill be able to vote later." Tho joo never outright DENIED zese possibilitizh,Dezh wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.And ZAT is vot botherzh me so moch about joor play. I vood NEVER expekt joo to take soch an onreazhonable approach as town, and zat is vy I think joo are ze scomzh.joo implied zat me klaiming is preferrable to exploring ze dynamics of my role vithin the context of ze game.
Hopefully zis post hazh artikulated my pozition moch more.
WIFOM defense. There are plenty of plausible reasons, not least that Glork may have a useful role to compensate for his votelessness, not least that you wanted to appear to scumhunt and Glork looked like a juicy target. Not least a bunch of other possibilities. Imaginality thought of another: "Azide from hoping to get claim, destrructor may alzo haf been hoping if ozzer vagons fizzle out ve vould fall back on a 'lynch Glork he iss useless' lynch as deadline apprroaches". The WIFOM defense is noted, however.destructor wrote:Funnily enough, Glork, as town, should be more than happy to be lynched at the appropriate time because of this.
(Something for anyone who's voting me to think about: If I were scum, wouldn't I want to keep a voteless player alive?)
Where? Before the post where you ask Glork to claim etc. I see little attack on Glork at all - asking him to post more. Nothing in the manner of "He's not scumhunting at all . . . [insert a few sentences of case here] . . . so I'm fairly suspicious of Glork." Unless I've missed something, but I do not think I did. I think afterwards you bring in a point about disparate reads on myself and Darox. The fact remains that this came after the post in which you demanded a premature claim and implied, or seemed to, that we should lynch Glork based only on his votelessness and current unsatisfactory level of posting/scumhunting. Which I still think is way too much and still think is scummy.destructor wrote:Winner!caf wrote:Right now, as his missing vote is hardly crucial D1, it seems natural simply to lynch him if he's scum, and not if he's town. (Ain't that groundbreaking logic?
Which is why I've made arguements against Glorkthat have nothing to do with his lack of vote!
Agreed.Glork wrote:A klaim is only von vay of covering zis, and it is easily ze VORST vay to cover it.
Yeah. Then if I say "I have a scumvibe on Player X, and Player X also wears green underwear. Therefore I want a claim from Player X now so he can explain why he's worth keeping alive; if he isn't, I say bag him for the reasons mentioned above" and don't vote Player X . . . I haven't done anything weird or scummy? Maybe I'm not getting something here, but I'm pretty sure I am. Granted votelessness is more dangerous than green underwear (or is it?!), but not Day 1 to the degree that a claim demand or a statement about not seeing the point in keeping a player alive at all if the claim doesn't indicate usefulness is so overdone that it is, in fact, scummy. The fact that you didn't vote him didn't erase the fact that you demnded a claim in what really looked and still looks to be "claim well or die" language.destructor wrote:Maybe,Glork wrote:Bot joo said "klaim and explain vy ve shood keep you alive." I'm sure joo can see vere I interpreted it as such.Dezh wrote:Yeah, but I never actually said "if glork doesnt claim we should lynch him" in the first place. Neither did I mean it.but you're stillignoring the obvious: I didn't vote you.
Because the alternative is lynching everyone you have any decent case/vibe on and a limitation (remember Sly's foreign-languages-are-scummy stance? This is scummy just like that was) because even though it "could happen" that they have useful roles, etc. giving lenience to someone with a limitation who doesn't look too townie would be bad play.destructor wrote:Why? How is giving a player who doesn't look pro-town lenience for "what could happen" remotely good play?
I'm only happy that the Mod is pleased with my efforts .Mirth wrote:Youmay live. For now.
What about Des asking for a claim from Glork earlier today? Still protown?Kmd4390 wrote:I was asked about Glork vs. Des.
As far as policy lynching Glork, I actually do see Des's point. I was against the idea until I thought up a hypothetical scenario. Glork being alive at LYLO hurts us more than lynching Glork hurts us. And that's if he's town. If he's scum, that's even more reason to lynch him.
As far as Des, he seems pretty protown IMO.
I honestly think both are town and Glork is a policy lynch at most.
Mhm, good to know. I'm more wondering what Kmd's stance is.elvis_knits wrote:Not pro-town.Plum wrote:What about Des asking for a claim from Glork earlier today? Still protown?Kmd4390 wrote:I was asked about Glork vs. Des.
As far as policy lynching Glork, I actually do see Des's point. I was against the idea until I thought up a hypothetical scenario. Glork being alive at LYLO hurts us more than lynching Glork hurts us. And that's if he's town. If he's scum, that's even more reason to lynch him.
As far as Des, he seems pretty protown IMO.
I honestly think both are town and Glork is a policy lynch at most.
I'd rather lynch Des than you, but at this point it looks like you might get lynched no matter what you post now (I'm confused - do we have about three hours or about a day and three hours? If the latter, I'll still give what time I can to make a last stand for a Des lynch, if not, there's too little time). Assuming that's the case I'd like to ask you to post whatever else you have of your reread. I don't care to much if it's a mess or incomplete or what. Et cetera.Darox wrote:I can't tell you anything about my role that won't result in death on my part.
I'd rather not have that happen. Modkills are not fun.
Vote: Destructor, the Glorken business is a load of rubbish.
In other news, damn I'm terrible. I'd say I'll have it posted in time but I'm not sure that I will.
At this point it's not necessarily about fighting your lynch - it's more about giving the town as much as you can before you're gone. As scum, you wouldn't give a damn unless you thought it could save you or help a buddy. As town, you have nothing to lose at all by giving us whatever you can of your reread and analysis. To be very frank, I agree with Kmd. The fact that you're refusing to give us info only makes you look scummier to me.Darox wrote:God that is terrible logic.Kmd4390 wrote:Scum caught not wanting to give the town more info.Darox wrote: As for the analysis, unfortunately in the pile of things I have to do, this game isn't currently high enough that I have the time to do the rest of my analysis.
Town Darox would consider this game high priority right now.
That's like the assumption that only scum fight hard to avoid their own lynch.
News flash buddy - I'm not a jester, so dying hurts everyone who shares my alignment. Period.