Yeah, you know if you just quote the last two sentences of a post that includes a vote, it always looks like OMGUS.Kmd wrote:OMGUS much?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
(1) Chief - kirroha
(1) kirroha - Kmd4390
Yeah, you know if you just quote the last two sentences of a post that includes a vote, it always looks like OMGUS.Kmd wrote:OMGUS much?
My point was the vote. I wasn't going to quote the whole post.Crazy wrote:Yeah, you know if you just quote the last two sentences of a post that includes a vote, it always looks like OMGUS.Kmd wrote:OMGUS much?
So either you were worried about town hammering or you were worried about scum hammering. Why defend against both? Why not say which is the case and just defend against that point?Crazy wrote: Did you even read my post? I asked if your issue was if I was trying to gettownnot to hammer me orscumnot to hammer me. I defended myself from both arguments.
So I take it that means your case is that I was trying to getscumnot to hammer me, right? If that's not what it was, then tell me, just so I know what to defend from.
Not the point. You basically said that anyone who hammers you is scum. Zazie clearly pointed out why that was scummy. It scares anyone away from hammering. It allows you to stay alive. If you are scum, it allows your game to continue.Crazy wrote:I'm assuming the former now, that you think I was trying to getscumnot to hammer me. Well, if I'm scum, why do I have to worry about scum hammering me? Why do I need to convince my scum partner not to hammer me?! It makes no sense!
And now we come to your vote. The only point I see in your post is that Zazie went after you and you disagree with why she did so. The line at the end of the post gives me a bad feeling. The "Your move, Zazie. I think I can win this duel." Please clarify what you mean by that. Are you really THAT convinced that she is scum for attacking you and lynching her will win the game for the town? Doesn't seem that way.Crazy wrote:Your move, Zazie. I think I can win this duel.
Unvote
Vote ZazieR
No. I agree with a good portion of her logic.Crazy wrote: Did you see how flimsy Zazie's logic is?
Actually, her absence is not game related.Crazy wrote:And how when after I voted her she hasn't showed up, despite posting lots elsewhere on site?
Of course you don't. I expressed some suspicion on you. And your reaction has me thinking there's good reason for it.Crazy wrote:On further thought, I don't like Kmd's post at all.
Yep. Looking at all pairs.Crazy wrote:His logic for voting kirroha is entirely Process-of-elimination, simply because she has the most possible scum-partners. Now this isn't too bad on it's own,
You and Zaz are attacking much harder than scum should attack each other in this setup. I really don't think either of you is that dumb. OP went after you harder than scum should go after their partners. And Plum, as scum, would not be dumb enough to push the same Day 1 lynch as her buddy, especially in this setup. I am comfortable eliminating Crazy/Zazie, Crazy/OP, Crazy/Plum, and Zazie/OP as scum pairs.Crazy wrote:but his logic for ruling out possible scum-partners is based on rather flimsy WIFOM (scum wouldn't buddy this hard, or scum wouldn't distance this hard, bleh) Assuming that scum will never put each other at L-1 is a very long stretch, especially considering there hasn't been an imminent threat of a lynch until recently.
Actually, you are right. Cheif didn't leave any huge non-connections. Because Cheif lurked to the point of being replaced.Crazy wrote:The other thing, what Kmd said about Kirroha being scum because of having so many possible scum-partners also applies to Chief, don't you think? I mean, from Kmd's standpoint, that's fine, but from the rest of the town, we would have to assume that Kmd is town in order to believe his logic on Kirroha, otherwise, it applies to both of them.
Because Zazie wasn't clear, and I wanted to cover either response from her.Kmd wrote:So either you were worried about town hammering or you were worried about scum hammering. Why defend against both? Why not say which is the case and just defend against that point?
But, anyway. At this point, the post is more defense than attack. So I won't consider this part of your case.
Zazie stated that the issue was that I was scaring scum away from hammering me. Read her post, here:Zazie wrote:Not the point. You basically said that anyone who hammers you is scum. Zazie clearly pointed out why that was scummy. It scares anyone away from hammering. It allows you to stay alive. If you are scum, it allows your game to continue.
Why would scum need to stop other scum from hammering them? Craplogic = Scum = Die, Zazie.Zazie wrote:ZazieR wrote:Uhm, you weren't thinking about a townie hammering when you wrote this:LAL?Crazy wrote:Scum can go ahead and hammer me, btw.Especially in a setup where the town wins if they find just one scum.
Unvote Vote Crazy
That wasn't my point. Were you worried about scum hammering or town hammering? And if you meant one and she meant the other, why should you even bother defending whichever wasn't even what you meant in the first place?Crazy wrote:Because Zazie wasn't clear, and I wanted to cover either response from her.Kmd wrote:So either you were worried about town hammering or you were worried about scum hammering. Why defend against both? Why not say which is the case and just defend against that point?
But, anyway. At this point, the post is more defense than attack. So I won't consider this part of your case.
What she pointed to is that YOU were talking about a scum hammer originally and then YOU started to talk about a town hammer. The inconsistancy is yours here.Crazy wrote: Zazie stated that the issue was that I was scaring scum away from hammering me. Read her post, here:
Why would scum need to stop other scum from hammering them? Craplogic = Scum = Die, Zazie.Zazie wrote:ZazieR wrote:Uhm, you weren't thinking about a townie hammering when you wrote this:LAL?Crazy wrote:Scum can go ahead and hammer me, btw.Especially in a setup where the town wins if they find just one scum.
Unvote Vote Crazy
But you don't feel like you can eliminate any pairs? Or at least comment on them? Town should have no reason not to do this.Crazy wrote: I didn't make any real notes of all possible scumpairs, Kmd, because both Chief and Kirroha didn't have any extensive interaction with anyone. They could both be scum with a lot of different people... but does that make them more likely to be scum period? No.
Ok, fair enough.Crazy wrote:I think Zazie is the scummiest person in the game for her incessant craplogic (read her posts, seriously, Plum can see it.), and I could easily see her partnered with Kirroha, OP, or you, not by the way of "no-interaction", but by the way of "scum-interaction." That is why I am voting for her.
I wasn't worried about either. I said what I said for no particular reason. I was worried about Zazie's argument against me. I didn't know what exactly it was, so I covered both possible arguments to save time.Kmd wrote:That wasn't my point. Were you worried about scum hammering or town hammering? And if you meant one and she meant the other, why should you even bother defending whichever wasn't even what you meant in the first place?
Well, I thought she might have thought that I was talking about a scum hammer, but really trying to scare off townies from hammering me, as someone (kirroha, I think), said. Still, I covered both defenses.Kmd wrote: What she pointed to is that YOU were talking about a scum hammer originally and then YOU started to talk about a town hammer. The inconsistancy is yours here.
I don't see her saying that you were scaring scum away from hammering.
I'd think OP/Kirroha, or maybe OP/you.Crazy wrote: Ok, fair enough.
What are your thoughts if we lynch Zazie and she flips town?
What? You implied that anyone who hammers you is scum "for no particular reason"?Crazy wrote:I wasn't worried about either. I said what I said for no particular reason. I was worried about Zazie's argument against me. I didn't know what exactly it was, so I covered both possible arguments to save time.
Now that's the real argument. You were scaring off townies. Not scum like you said in your last post.Crazy wrote:Well, I thought she might have thought that I was talking about a scum hammer, but really trying to scare off townies from hammering me, as someone (kirroha, I think), said. Still, I covered both defenses.
Crazy wrote:I'd think OP/Kirroha, or maybe OP/you.
So you mention OP in both pairs. Not likely scum with you if we go to tomorrow and you attack OP. You DON'T mention Plum. And you mention Kirroha and myself once. Assuming you follow this, Crazy/OP is even more unlikely than it was already. Crazy/Plum becomes slightly more likely. Crazy/Kirroha stays about the same.
Noted.
It was the random stage. Zazie put me at L-1. I had to sayKmd wrote: What? You implied that anyone who hammers you is scum "for no particular reason"?
You expect me to ignore an argument against me?Kmd wrote:Why exactly were you so worried about her argument?
Crap cases don't deserve defenses? That's ridiculous!Kmd wrote:And I'm gonna just go ahead and say this instead of asking the same thing over and over. I don't see any reason why you would have to defend yourself from something that is false. It looks like scum who is paranoid that there is a case against them and is trying to hurry up and defend before it gets unmanagable.
I strongly think Plum is pro-town. So, now, like obviously, we can't be scum because we're buddying too hard, right, super-logic-man?Kmd wrote: So you mention OP in both pairs. Not likely scum with you if we go to tomorrow and you attack OP. You DON'T mention Plum. And you mention Kirroha and myself once. Assuming you follow this, Crazy/OP is even more unlikely than it was already. Crazy/Plum becomes slightly more likely. Crazy/Kirroha stays about the same.
Neither argument is good. As town, I don't want townies to be quicklynching me. But Zazie's argument was the other one, btw.Kmd wrote:Now that's the real argument. You were scaring off townies. Not scum like you said in your last post.
Crazy wrote:Lurky. Not much content. That's pretty obvious. I was also suspicious of you and kirroha, because I think your guys' case on me isn't founded on solid ground. I'm pretty null on Chief and Plum seems pro-town.Zazie wrote:Also, when will you state your reasons for thinking that OP is suspicious, and what about stating your other suspicions with reasons?
As for somebody who thinks lurking is scummy, I wonder why you didn't mention Chief or Kirroha when they were inactive.
Did you even read my post? I asked if your issue was if I was trying to getZazie wrote:Uhm, you weren't thinking about a townie hammering when you wrote this:townnot to hammer me orscumnot to hammer me. I defended myself from both arguments.
My argument isn't about that. You're making players 'scared' into hammering you. That's my point. That's why I think you're scummy. Scum has reasons for this, while townies don't. Especially when you think that a hammerer on page 3 would be obvious scum, this is scummy as hell.
So I take it that means your case is that I was trying to getscumnot to hammer me, right? If that's not what it was, then tell me, just so I know what to defend from.
I'm assuming the former now, that you think I was trying to getscumnot to hammer me. Well, if I'm scum, why do I have to worry about scum hammering me? Why do I need to convince my scum partner not to hammer me?! It makes no sense!
Your move, Zazie. I think I can win this duel.
'I think I can win this duel'. Why has nobody giving any comments to this? Do townies think about winning a duel? This is not a townie speaking
You weren't thinking that a townie would hammer. A hammerer would have been obv scum to you. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for you to include that in your defence. You 'warned' someone who would be obv scum to you. Give me one reason why a townie would do that.Crazy wrote:Where did I lie? If you're talking about ZazieR's accusation, reread please. I wasn't sure what her case was so I covered both possibilities.orangepenguin wrote:unvote, Vote: Crazy
Lynch all liars.
If you're talking about the stupid "I've never been in a Lovers game before," I meant this particular setup, not any game with Lovers in it.
The same question I asked Crazy goes for you as well. If you think lurking is scummy, then why didn't you call Chief and Kirroha out when they were inactive?Plum wrote:Why is lurking a scumtell? Basically, because (in my humble opinion) the optimal town strategy is to pull as much information as we can out of everyone. Consistent contribution is the best way to achieve that; we need to make everyone participate in discussion lest scum lurk so they don't have to risk drawing attention to themselves or their partners and don't leave a trail to read when we go looking for probably scumpairs etc. Lurkers provide only the information that they're not around and doing something extremely anti-town.
The Sens-approach is actually good. You know your allignment. If you're townie and you put someone at L-1, the chance that both the scum are on the wagon is very little. Which means that if the one who's being wagoned is also a townie, the scum almost has to hammer. Otherwise, he/they has/have to try to get another wagon. If they fail, he/they need to hammer for a lynch. A townie would do it for the right reasons, while the scum have to come up with a fake one. Based upon the reason for the hammer, you can see if the hammerer is a townie or scum.Plum wrote:Well, I'm glad to know that you think discussion Day 1 isn't bad. From the way I'm reading it, your approach to the Sens-method (which doesn't, if I recall, advocate any discussion Day 1, just fast random bandwagoning and lynching) is to attempt to take multiple new directions Day 1 and be willing to see any wagon that got close enough to the lynch. I don't personally think that such is quite optimal; I sort of think it might be prone to the downsides of two more extreme plans (not as much discussion to lean on Day 2, assuming we need it, as we might have, but enough discussion that scum could manipulate the wagons to their benefit) but am not entirely sure that such would be the case. I agree with pressure being put in multiple directions Day 1, and I also agree that discussion isn't bad - it's by far our best tool in this game.
This was asked when I said that a dice could be influenced. My response:Plum wrote:Really? How?
You forget that Crazy has said that he didn't think that a townie would hammer. The hammerer would have been obv scum to him. So why not sacrifice yourself to catch scum if he's a townie? This is my main point.Plum wrote:Crazy reacted to Zazie's L-1 vote by, to paraphrase him, daring the scum to hammer him. Zazie's argument was that Crazy's reaction, basically dissuading a rash hammer on himself, was scummy because
a) No townie would want to actively dissuade scum from giving themselves away like that in this setup
however
b) It would dissuade townies from hammering in the case that he was town, which scum would actively want
And here b), as I belive Crazy later argues, is null because neither a Townie nor a scumbag would want to have been quickhammered by a townie at that point. The motivation there is absolutely null. Crazy also explains that his point in making clear that he was at L-1 and the consequences of any quick vote on him were clear, especially to townies, and says he didn't believe scum would rashly hammer him at that point. I agree on both counts; the points made by Crazy here are fair and not scummy - null mostly.
I've already explained what I meant. He's lying to me as he said that he thought that a townie wouldn't hammer. Yet, he uses it as counter argument.Plum wrote:Crazy outlined and addressed two possible concerns of Zazie's with his statement: that he was dissuading townies from quickhammering and that he was dissuading/warning scum against quickhammering him. Both had reasonable town motivations as he explained. Then, after Zazie reiterates her concerns and Crazy quotes his point about dissuading Townies from quickhammering him, Zazie brings back the original post, says that he was obviously not talking about a townie hammering him, and votes him for 'lying'. There is no lying here; Crazy was unsure of your concerns and addressed two possibilities. He requotes one and you say that such wasn't the concern you were seeing and he must be lying because that wasn't what he had been talking about? He was not lying and frankly you stating that in such stark terms looks false.
This is not true. Charter and I've talked about said game. Kevin can probably guess why.Plum wrote:and the only scum win of this setup involved scum who, intentionally or not, posted very little in the game.
I've lately only been active in one game, as it's very easy for me to keep uptodate with. I was planning to post yesterday, but I forgot I had a concert with my school's orchestra. And lately, I've been thinking about something, which leads to my decrease of focus to mafia. I even posted this in the game I've been active in.Crazy wrote:And how when after I voted her she hasn't showed up, despite posting lots elsewhere on site?
Zaz wrote:Don't speak about things you don't know the real reason behind.
Well, they weren't as bad as OP... and OP's posts were more devoid of content.ZazieR wrote:As for somebody who thinks lurking is scummy, I wonder why you didn't mention Chief or Kirroha when they were inactive.
I'm getting "players" scared to hammer me? What players, town or scum? I gave a defense for both.ZazieR wrote: My argument isn't about that. You're making players 'scared' into hammering you. That's my point. That's why I think you're scummy. Scum has reasons for this, while townies don't. Especially when you think that a hammerer on page 3 would be obvious scum, this is scummy as hell.
I do. When I'm positive or nearly positive somebody is scum, then I like winning duels. In Open 119, I had a very enjoyable duel with dejkha. Or you could see Paris Mafia with Kmd.ZazieR wrote: 'I think I can win this duel'. Why has nobody giving any comments to this? Do townies think about winning a duel? This is not a townie speaking
By your logic, anybody that uses the word "flabbergasted" must be scum because there's no real reason why a townie would use that word.ZazieR wrote: You weren't thinking that a townie would hammer. A hammerer would have been obv scum to you. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for you to include that in your defence. You 'warned' someone who would be obv scum to you. Give me one reason why a townie would do that.
That's why I said it was a lie. You were according to you not thinking about a townie hammering. The hammerer would be scum to you. So I don't see any reason why to include a townie hammerer into your defence.
You and Kirroha have both been holding the same opinions, here. OP voted me with no content or explanation after you had made your case.Zazie wrote:State why you think these teams.
?Crazy wrote:I wasn't worried about either. I said what I said for no particular reason. I wasworriedabout Zazie's argument against me. I didn't know what exactly it was, so I covered both possible arguments to save time.
Isn't this what I have been saying all along?Crazy wrote:Well, I thought she might have thought that I was talking about a scum hammer, but really trying to scare off townies from hammering me, as someone (kirroha, I think), said. Still, I covered both defenses.
That's why you 'warn' scum. Makes lots of senseCrazy wrote:It was the random stage. Zazie put me at L-1. I had to say something!
Crazy wrote:Well, they weren't as bad as OP... and OP's posts were more devoid of content.ZazieR wrote:As for somebody who thinks lurking is scummy, I wonder why you didn't mention Chief or Kirroha when they were inactive.
Chief got prodded, while OP didn't. So how was OP worse? And OP has stated his suspicions. Can you say that for Kirroha?
I'm getting "players" scared to hammer me? What players, town or scum? I gave a defense for both.ZazieR wrote: My argument isn't about that. You're making players 'scared' into hammering you. That's my point. That's why I think you're scummy. Scum has reasons for this, while townies don't. Especially when you think that a hammerer on page 3 would be obvious scum, this is scummy as hell.
Town. And your defense is BS as you never thought of a stupid townie hammering. Besides, I don't see why you'd post that if you're a townie as you said that the hammerer would be scum. Why 'warn' the scum if you're a townie?
I do. When I'm positive or nearly positive somebody is scum, then I like winning duels. In Open 119, I had a very enjoyable duel with dejkha. Or you could see Paris Mafia with Kmd.ZazieR wrote: 'I think I can win this duel'. Why has nobody giving any comments to this? Do townies think about winning a duel? This is not a townie speaking
It's not about winning duels. It's about lynching scum. I see that statement as 'give up your attacks against me, or you'll feel sorry'
By your logic, anybody that uses the word "flabbergasted" must be scum because there's no real reason why a townie would use that word.ZazieR wrote: You weren't thinking that a townie would hammer. A hammerer would have been obv scum to you. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for you to include that in your defence. You 'warned' someone who would be obv scum to you. Give me one reason why a townie would do that.
That's why I said it was a lie. You were according to you not thinking about a townie hammering. The hammerer would be scum to you. So I don't see any reason why to include a townie hammerer into your defence.
Wrong comparison. Fallacy. I also don't see any explanation why a townie would 'warn' scum ever.
'flabbergasted'
See, you don't look for what doesn't have townie motivation... you look for whathasscum motivation. Tell me, if youaretalking about scaring scum not to hammer you, thenwhywould scum need to scare theiry scum-partner into not hammering him? Scum usually don't need convincing to not hammer their partner, you know.
You've said that you think that the hammerer would've been scum. I'm taking over these exact words when I mention my point against you. Of course, it makes no sense for scum to say that.
However, if townies think that other players will look at them as scum if they hammer, they won't hammer as they are 'scared' that the lynched player is town. So it makes perfect sense for scum-Crazy to say, but not for town-Crazy.
I'll admit making that post wasn't for any strategic purpose, but do you expect everything in the RVS to be that way? You have only explained how it doesn't have town motivation; you haven't explained how it has scum motivation.
If scum gets lynched, it's game over for the scum. So if townies don't hammer scum, they can still win. By scaring them you, as scum, can stil win.
You and Kirroha have both been holding the same opinions, here. OP voted me with no content or explanation after you had made your case.Zazie wrote:State why you think these teams.
Yes, I said that scum would hammer me. Of course town wouldn't. But what's your case; I provided defenses for either, but you're ignoring them.Zazie wrote: You said that scum would hammer you, not town. That's what I was saying.
What's the reason that you think Kevin can be scum with me?
So the case now is that I was trying to scare off townies from hammering me? I assumed it wasn't when last time I brought it up, I got a vote for lying.Zazie wrote:Isn't this what I have been saying all along?
I'll admit it might not have been a great thing to do, but it seems to me that you're voting me just for doing something anti-town, but not scummy. I've provided reasons either why it doesn't make sense for me to do that as scum, or why I would possibly do that as town.Zazie wrote: That's why you 'warn' scum. Makes lots of sense Rolling Eyes
There were lots of possible responses, yet you choose to 'warn' scum.
Besides, it doesn't make sense at all as you didn't even think about a townie hammering. You said, scum would have hammered. Not buying the excuse written in the above quote.