Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[xRECKONERx]

Certain posts from wolframnhart have struck me as funny. Maybe it's the way he tries to insinuate lobster here without much backing of his own. In my experience, the You're not adding to discussion argument is more often a scum trying to put a halfway decent bit of logic behind what he's saying rather than actually defend himself. It's an easy out. Then there's the obvious lobster was lurking bit when he wasn't really lurking, and then wolfram quickly retraces his steps. Yes, he never said lobster was lurking, but he implied it and attempted to use it to cast suspicion.

By the way, this is all from an iso read, I don't like to case-read through the whole topic. And I didn't want to reveal my reasoning because I was hoping to draw it out a little longer and see who would jump the gun in pushing a case against me simply because I withheld my reasons for voting. Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point against someone before voting for them. Especially if they've already been covered multiple times (which, upon re-reading a few other posts against wolf, I discovered it had already been pointed out).

Oh, and

FoS Milked Eek

for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

[My Milked Eek]

Oh, and

FoS Milked Eek

for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

I didn't know there was a required number of posts I need to have about you before I could vote you. /sarcasm

Nice omgus btw.

What did your "trap" learn you by the way?

[DeathRowKitty]

CoCo's posts for the game:

This is a confirmation post!

ChannelDelibird wrote:
xRECKONERx wrote:
<3 Lost


This, but Firefly is even better. Keep meaning to start on Buffy sometime.


Summer Glau is instant boner...

Looks like I missed all the random voting.

Oh well, Vote Conspicuous_other for diverting an interesting subject.

(He later admitted this was a random vote)

For those wondering about why I said Conspicuous_other had diverted a discussion was because I was interested in how one can type without using their hands. Considering the game is no longer in the goofy/random stage, I'll just go ahead and unvote.

xRECKONERx wrote:
@CoCo:
Umm... so you actually think it's a problem that Conspicuous_other was "diverting" the discussion away from a joke vote debate?


Sure, in a humorous sort of way. My vote was a joke vote. Nothing more. Those things happen in the beginning of a game.

nohandtyper wrote:
Ok, so I just got home from work and see that I've missed about 50 posts. The sad part is, the game didn't even move forward.

I'll expand on this soon, but I have a few things I have to do first.

Also, like CDB, it's probably easier to refer to me as NHT. Short, awesome, and to the point.


I'd like to know what you mean by saying the game didn't move forward. The game is no longer in the random phase and a few people have made interesting posts regarding what is viewed as scummy behavior.

While I don't really see anyone broadcasting scum to me yet, I've gathered a bit of information on the logic of some of the other players.

And in my opinion, that moves the game forward.

What I meant was, no matter how insignificant, each post often has something that can be of use. I've found the entire discussion interesting because it encourages the game to move forward. And while many people have posted what they view as scummy behavior, nothing really appears scummy enough for me to vote at this point.

My Milked Eek wrote:

If you've got information on the logic of others, could you share some?


Well, one thing I find intriguing is how people are talking about "keeping the pressure on." If the person is at L-2, that's all fine and dandy, but assailing that person with so many questions and they can't possibly answer them all, to me, is giving the scum a lot of room to develop a game plan.

That's what I'm currently waiting on and I think it's a good enough reason to keep him at L-2. If he has a better answer as to why he revoted, I'll gladly take my vote back, but L-2 doesn't put him in danger for a quicklynch, especially in so small a game (and if he's quickly hammered by two people, we'll know who to go after on Day 2.

If L-2 isn't inherently dangerous, why are people touting it about as applying pressure? It seems contradictory to me. Something about this train of thought is disturbing.

DeathRowKitty wrote:
L-2 is more of less the standard of putting pressure on someone...
It would be nice to be able to put someone at L-1 for pressure, but you then run the risk of someone who hasn't kept up with the posts accidentally hammering. L-2 is close enough to show that the town collectively wants an explanation without running the risk of L-1.


That's understandable, but as far as I'm concerned CB's explanations don't leave me feeling as though more reasoning is needed from him. I'm worried about people putting blinders on. It makes it very easy for scum to gain wiggle room and develop false and misleading evidence.

Looking through all his posts together, I guess he doesn't actually look scummy... Most of his posts are whispering "noob" in the back of my mind, although I really shouldn't be talking, since this is my first game.

CoCo, is there anyone you feel is scummy? You seem to allude to such things instead of spelling them out. It helps the town out more if you back up what you say or provide some sort of analysis and it would be nice to have an extra opinion in the game.

[DeathRowKitty]

Having looked back at suspicious posts:

FoS ChannelDeliBird

The whole thing about starting bandwagons was really looking bad to me, but your defense is solid enough I won't vote. I do have to be suspicious though.

FoS wolframnhart

I'm not so sure the whole lurker argument is that solid, especially after having gone through a similar situation with CB, but just why are you so interested in lobster's posts?

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.

@ xRECKONERx
Did you really expect to post that and have no one vote you??? Even CDB, who was voting for wolframnhart FoSed you. I won't FoS you because you've "explained" your post and I won't vote you because that post was so much less intelligent than your others it almost had to be what you say it was. The only plausible reason I can think of for a townie to withhold reasoning is if he/she's a cop or something similar and got information from that. Since we haven't had a night yet and you couldn't have gotten any information like that, there's no reason to withhold your reasoning. Of course someone's going to think you're suspicious!

No vote for now, too many people to suspect.

[Conspicuous_other]

unvote, vote:Wickedestjr

for trying to defend reckoner not giving a reason for his vote.

[lobstermania]

I didn't want to reveal my reasoning because I was hoping to draw it out a little longer and see who would jump the gun in pushing a case against me simply because I withheld my reasons for voting. Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point against someone before voting for them. Especially if they've already been covered multiple times (which, upon re-reading a few other posts against wolf, I discovered it had already been pointed out).

It is very opportunistic to vote someone without reasoning when they are under heat. Of course people are going to get on your case about it. To me, withholding evidence and backing yourself up by saying "well, it's already been posted," sounds like you jumped on a wagon and are now backtracking to find the case against Wolf.

So it appears that lobster is typically a quiet player.
@lobster - Who do you find the scummiest in this game right now? Who do you find the most pro-town?

I've just mentioned my views on xRECKONERx, but overall I'm concerned with CDB. Channel (while more experienced than some) seems to have taken the reigns of this game, pointing fingers and calling almost everyone out on something. While I appreciate the work he has put into the game, I fear it may lead people to follow his accusations blindly later on.
My opinion of the most town player in the game right now would probably be My Milked Eek. He is both an intelligent player and conservative with his votes. I think this is the direction we should all be moving in.

[PsychoSniper]

Vote Count:

Wolframnhart – 3 (ChannelDelibird, canadianbovine, xRECKONERx,)
Wickedestjr - 2 (wolframnhart, Conspicuous_other)
canadianbovine - 1 (lobstermania)
xRECKONERx – 1 (My Milked Eek)


Not voting:

nohandtyper, qax42, CoCo, Wickedestjr, DeathRowKitty

[canadianbovine]

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.

have i? the only time i have "stuck close" to CDB was just now, and all that is is that were voting for the same person. how else have i stuck close to him?

[canadianbovine]

also guys im going to be V/LA from the 21st - 26th. I apologize for the inconvenience, and am wondering if i should replace? Unsure if ill have access to a computer.

Why is everything happening now when im gone? whole influx of posts.

Kitty worry about CoCo slipping under the radar. what about qax?

[xRECKONERx]

Not a OMGUS, Eek, it's a "You're the only one who saw the opportunity to present a half-assed case against me and vote me and try to get a bandwagon started" FoS.

You voted me because you wanted me to explain myself; you also had no real case against me, other than "That post was scummy". Completely disregarded all my other posts. You just hoped that one post would catch fire and wind up having me lynched. So you're the one my "trap" ensnared.

Now while I sit on that FoS, I'll have to go back and re-read you and see exactly what's up.

[CoCo]

Vote: DeathRowKitty

For contradictions. You have done nothing but "put pressure" on someone who explained himself to everyone when at L-2. You said it "would be nice to put him at L-1".

When I explained my ideas and logic, you swiftly unvoted. As did someone else...

Now, I haven't had a chance to catch up on the thread this last IRL day, but I'm fairly certain your actions have been scummy.

[CoCo]

^ I meant previous actions up until the point I'm catching up on.

[lobstermania]

[My Milked Ekk] voted me because [he] wanted me to explain myself; [he] also had no real case against me, other than "That post was scummy". Completely disregarded all my other posts. [He] just hoped that one post would catch fire and wind up having me lynched.

So [he's] the one my "trap" ensnared

.

Unvote: canadianbovine
Vote: xRECKONERx

.
You can't create a scummy post and not expect people to call you out on it. Your justification that it was actually a fake vote to catch scum is bogus. Why is your vote still on wolf if you've blown the cover on your 20/20 expose?

[My Milked Eek]

Not a OMGUS, Eek, it's a "You're the only one who saw the opportunity to present a half-assed case against me and vote me and try to get a bandwagon started" FoS.

You voted me because you wanted me to explain myself; you also had no real case against me, other than "That post was scummy". Completely disregarded all my other posts. You just hoped that one post would catch fire and wind up having me lynched. So you're the one my "trap" ensnared.

Now while I sit on that FoS, I'll have to go back and re-read you and see exactly what's up.

As lobster said:

Your post was scummy. Period. Several people agree with me on this. You cannot act scummy, even if it's just for one post, and expect no one to note you about it. That is the nature of this game, to find scummy behavior and react on it.

However, making it a plan to make a scummy post and predicting people will vote for you all to "catch the voters in the act" is even more scummy. Would you not agree that acting upon scummy posts is acting protown? Why are you trying to "catch" protown behavior?

Not a OMGUS, Eek, it's a "You're the only one who saw the opportunity to present a half-assed case against me and vote me and try to get a bandwagon started" FoS.

1) That wasn't a case, lol.
2) No one is pushing for a bandwagon.
3) That was omgus with an FoS, disguised by "the findings" of your trap-strategy.

You voted me because you wanted me to explain myself; you also had no real case against me, other than "That post was scummy". Completely disregarded all my other posts. You just hoped that one post would catch fire and wind up having me lynched. So you're the one my "trap" ensnared.

So, let me get this straight. According to you, one needs the following to vote:
1) cases (to vote for you at the least)
2) taking into account all of the votee's posts
3) they need to have addressed their votee in a previous post

If anything is half-assed, it's your defense.




(wanted to do that for a long time, lol)

[My Milked Eek]

also guys im going to be V/LA from the 21st - 26th. I apologize for the inconvenience, and am wondering if i should replace? Unsure if ill have access to a computer.

Why is everything happening now when im gone? whole influx of posts.

Kitty worry about CoCo slipping under the radar. what about qax?

I wouldn't mind if you'd stay in the game. It's not that we urgently need you to interrogate at this point of the game.

And yes, qax needs to step up his posting. He has three posts scattered over 10 pages and one of them is a random vote post.

[qax42]

@Town: This post is written as I catch up, and so is addressed to people pretty much in chronological order.

@My Milked Eek, #204:

Also, post more.

I'm going to post as and when I please, thank you. My lifestyle isn't going to change depending on the pace of everyone else's posting.

Quite the daring statement with "only this evidence".

I disagree. All that means is that I didn't have enough evidence to press further.

@canadianbovine:

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

You don't understand the fuss because that's not at all what they are doing.

i didnt say they were using the too townie argument.

That's sure what it looked like.

To me your pretty town, keeping good questioning on everyone, staying with the town.

You have a very, very strange metric for what constitutes townie play. Do you not account for the fact that scum are trying to pose as townies and are making every effort to look like they are scum hunting?

@Reckoner, #214:

I have my reasons.

Share with the class, then.

@ChannelDelibird, #215:

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post. FoS: Reckoner

While I'm not pleased with his lack of explanation, I don't think that kind of post is nearly as scummy as people jump to. I've played a reasonable amount of mafia, and read a fair bit as well, and this happens as often with townies as it does with scum.

@Reckoner, #225:

Oh, and FoS Milked Eek for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

At the time, yes. Although your justification for the post-as-a-trap hits looks a little weak. I wouldn't have been so quick to lay it out as the ploy it was. Moreover, if you were going to create a legitimate case against wolframnhart, then why bother pointing out that it was a trap in the first place? You could have just not said anything, waited, gotten your reaction, and presented your case.

I also don't think that he was pushing for a bandwagon—that seems a little presumptuous.

@DeathRowKitty, #228:

Did you really expect to post that and have no one vote you???

I would have, yes. There's very little to go on in that post—nothing worth a vote, in my opinion.

Even CDB, who was voting for wolframnhart FoSed you.

An FoS is far, far different from a vote. Every single person here can FoS the hell out of Reckoner, and he wouldn't get a hangnail. And if you were suspicious of him, it was a much better way to point that out than to vote him.

I won't FoS you because you've "explained" your post and I won't vote you because that post was so much less intelligent than your others it almost had to be what you say it was.

Interesting. That's a very unique take on reading someone—I have no read on this.

The only plausible reason I can think of for a townie to withhold reasoning is if he/she's a cop or something similar and got information from that. Since we haven't had a night yet and you couldn't have gotten any information like that, there's no reason to withhold your reasoning. Of course someone's going to think you're suspicious!

How can you be sure he isn't a power-role? As far as I can tell, there is nothing saying the cop, if there is one, wasn't allowed N0 check? I'm reasonably new to the site (not the game), but there's nothing I've seen that states the moderator needs to explain every part of the flavor of the game upfront.

@Conspicuous_other, #229:

unvote, vote:Wickedestjr for trying to defend reckoner not giving a reason for his vote.

That

is the weakest vote in this game so far.

@lobstermania:

It is very opportunistic to vote someone without reasoning when they are under heat.

I disagree. I wouldn't have done it like Reckoner did, but I don't think that it is close to beyond the realm of possibilities that there can be valid justification for doing that.

To me, withholding evidence and backing yourself up by saying "well, it's already been posted," sounds like you jumped on a wagon and are now backtracking to find the case against Wolf.

Hmm, maybe, yes.

You can't create a scummy post and not expect people to call you out on it. Your justification that it was actually a fake vote to catch scum is bogus. Why is your vote still on wolf if you've blown the cover on your 20/20 expose?

I prefer this argument. Still not worth a vote, in my opinion.

@canadianbovine, #233:

what about qax?

I'm here. I try to post once a day, and granted, I did miss two days since this game started, but my posting frequency is likely not going to change. Moreover, given the frequency at which others in this game are posting makes catching up several pages a day take much longer.

@My Milked Eek, #238:

That seemed to have appeared while I was previewing this post.

This is a much better reasoned argument that your voting post. I should point out, that, abstractly, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with little-to-no reason, wait, reason.

@Town:

I don't have a candidate worth voting right now. I don't like canadianbovine, for being a bit buddy-buddy towards ChannelDelibird, and DeathRowKitty has made some sweeping claims that I don't like, but I'm going to wait. Conspicuous_other's last vote and playstyle in general doesn't sit well with me.

Oh, @ChannelDelibird, I completely disagree that "[everyone] should pretty much be voting at all times on Day 1", as you said. I think you and I take different interpretations to the sentence, "a townie's vote is her most powerful tool".

[ChannelDelibird]

I've just mentioned my views on xRECKONERx, but overall I'm concerned with CDB. Channel (while more experienced than some) seems to have taken the reigns of this game, pointing fingers and calling almost everyone out on something. While I appreciate the work he has put into the game, I fear it may lead people to follow his accusations blindly later on.

This is ridiculous - if people decide to follow me blindly then

they're

the scummy ones, not me, for not thinking for themselves. If someone followed my vote without explaining their logic and opinion then I'd be suspicious of them myself. I don't really see how you can try to make hypothetical other peoples' flaws somehow mine because I play aggressively.

I'm also getting a little tired of people saying things like I've been "calling almost everyone out on something". Let me list the people I've "called out" on things: CB, lobster, NHT (minorly, over not waiting for lobster to speak for himself), wolfram, and now Reckoner. That's not "almost everyone". Now, clearly, not all of those five are going to be scum. In fact, at this point I'm only seriously looking at wolfram and Reckoner. But what is important is that I feel like, at the time I made each point or argument, they were points worth making. Unless someone can actually make a strong case for my arguments being baseless then I don't see how you can argue that they are scummy just for having been made.

I didn't want to reveal my reasoning because I was hoping to draw it out a little longer and see who would jump the gun in pushing a case against me simply because I withheld my reasons for voting. Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point against someone before voting for them. Especially if they've already been covered multiple times (which, upon re-reading a few other posts against wolf, I discovered it had already been pointed out).

*facepalm*

This is terrible logic. My Milked Eek puts it well - you're basically trying to catch pro-town behaviour. I've already covered why it's important to state your case when you vote - you conveniently ignored this when you said "Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point agains someone before voting for them". Look, I'll reprint my post for you:

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

Clear as day. This is before Reckoner's "explanation" post.

I need to reread Reckoner's previous posts, but this so-called trap is bizarre and antiproductive.

[My Milked Eek]

@My Milked Eek, #204:

Also, post more.

I'm going to post as and when I please, thank you. My lifestyle isn't going to change depending on the pace of everyone else's posting.

That is true, however, by joining a game, you made a dedication. I'm not saying you should go mental and copy bovine's activity, but a bit more than 4 posts in 10 pages (or 5-6 days) isn't an insane request.

Quite the daring statement with "only this evidence".

I disagree. All that means is that I didn't have enough evidence to press further.

From what I remember you were saying that either bovine or lobster was town (meaning the other was a scum). I could have been wrong in my perception though, let me grab the post and show you what I saw:

Dear lord, this game is moving quickly, isn't it?

@nohandedtyper:
(#129, #137) I think every post contributes to the game and moves it forward. Only scum don't want a discussion to move forward, fruitless or not.

@DeathRowKitty:
(#143) I completely agree. L-2 at this point in the game is not a big deal. It would be worth to lose a townie to quick lynch because we'd have quite a credible scum candidate to send to the gallows D2. Moreover, at least with my anecdotal evidence, D1 L-2 fears are always unfounded—nothing ever comes from them.

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—gut feeling? Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence

only one of them can be town

, but it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

The bolded is what I meant by "daring statement".

@My Milked Eek, #238:

That seemed to have appeared while I was previewing this post.

This is a much better reasoned argument that your voting post. I should point out, that, abstractly, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with little-to-no reason, wait, reason.

I don't see similarities between the two posts at all, except for the fact that we both voted. I provided reasons to vote, while reckoner said he has reasons but wasn't posting them, which turned out to be a trap.

[qax42]

@My Milked Eek, #242:

That is true, however, by joining a game, you made a dedication. I'm not saying you should go mental and copy bovine's activity, but a bit more than 4 posts in 10 pages (or 5-6 days) isn't an insane request.

As I said, I try to post once a day for the most part. That's usually the time I get. Today I had more time, and so I posted twice. Admittedly, I missed two days since this game has started, but that's how it is.

And as for dedication—I haven't avoided any questions, have said everything I want to say, and haven't actively lurked. There's obviously only my word on that, but I can't see why you would imagine I've been lurking when there hasn't been the slightest bit of suspicion on me yet.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth making a bigger deal over this unless you really want to go down that road.

The bolded is what I meant by "daring statement".

Right, but I think I make that fairly clear, even in the part you quoted. My emphasis:

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—

gut feeling?

Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence only one of them can be town, but

it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

I really think this is just miscommunication—I can't think of how better to explain this without tone and inflection.

I don't see similarities between the two posts at all, except for the fact that we both voted. I provided reasons to vote, while reckoner said he has reasons but wasn't posting them, which turned out to be a trap.

Again, I quote myself (emphasis mine):

I should point out, that,

abstractly

, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with

little

-to-no reason

, wait, reason.

If it helps you, that statement was more in terms of interest and play-style. I didn't—in specifically the respect of comparing you to Reckoner in how you voted—make or reach any conclusions.

This is completely unrelated, but of curiosity—and I don't mean to offend you if it seems like that—are you a native English speaker? Your location states Belgium, and assuming that you are correct, you write excellent English for a Belgian native. Or is that you just happen to live there?

[qax42]

Oh, missed this.

@canadianbovine, #233: If you're trying to gauge a majority sentiment, then I'm with My Milked Eek; I don't think it's a big deal considering there's nothing I want to specifically ask of you right now. And as I can't see any indication of a deadline looming, it should be fine. Hopefully you're back before the end of the day to provide some insight over what you'll have missed.

Enjoy your break!

[My Milked Eek]

As I said, I try to post once a day for the most part. That's usually the time I get. Today I had more time, and so I posted twice. Admittedly, I missed two days since this game has started, but that's how it is.

And as for dedication—I haven't avoided any questions, have said everything I want to say, and haven't actively lurked. There's obviously only my word on that, but I can't see why you would imagine I've been lurking when there hasn't been the slightest bit of suspicion on me yet.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth making a bigger deal over this unless you really want to go down that road.

I don't. And I'm not calling you a lurker either, I just want to know more about you (as before today the information on you was rather low). The dedication part was about activity, not about content, which I don't have much to note about now

Right, but I think I make that fairly clear, even in the part you quoted. My emphasis:

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—

gut feeling?

Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence only one of them can be town, but

it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

I really think this is just miscommunication—I can't think of how better to explain this without tone and inflection.

Yes, I have to admit I misread or misinterpreted the gut part.

Again, I quote myself (emphasis mine):

I should point out, that,

abstractly

, what you did against Reckoner is quite similar to what Reckoner did against wolframnhart; i.e., vote with

little

-to-no reason

, wait, reason.

If it helps you, that statement was more in terms of interest and play-style. I didn't—in specifically the respect of comparing you to Reckoner in how you voted—make or reach any conclusions.

Aha, that makes it a lot clearer. Thanks.

This is completely unrelated, but of curiosity—and I don't mean to offend you if it seems like that—are you a native English speaker? Your location states Belgium, and assuming that you are correct, you write excellent English for a Belgian native. Or is that you just happen to live there?

Thank you for the compliment. I'm not a native speaker. In fact, English is my third language. Technically my fourth, but it's the third one I started learning at school. My first one being Dutch, the second French and the third being German.

In order of fluency and such, English is my best foreign language, as I've been speaking it since I was 7-8 years old (even before I started to learn French). My grandfather lives in the UK.

I'd blame it on Belgium being a trilingual country

Also, don't let this stop you or anyone to correct my errors. There is still some language barrier so sometimes I'll Dutchify your language. But most of the times it's a reversed barrier, like knowing a word in English, but not in Dutch, which is embarrassing to admit.

But enough about this, lol.

[Wickedestjr]

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

Okay, this I agree with.

I count 34 posts between the lobster's post and the "implied lurking post" and losing track of time in that mess doesn't surprise me any more than thinking 5 were needed for a lynch.

In the post in question wolfram acknowledges how fast the game is moving, so he's clearly aware that not much time has actually passed:

Love how fast this game is moving along

This makes me want to vote for wolf more.

Certain posts from wolframnhart have struck me as funny. Maybe it's the way he tries to insinuate lobster here without much backing of his own. In my experience, the You're not adding to discussion argument is more often a scum trying to put a halfway decent bit of logic behind what he's saying rather than actually defend himself. It's an easy out. Then there's the obvious lobster was lurking bit when he wasn't really lurking, and then wolfram quickly retraces his steps. Yes, he never said lobster was lurking, but he implied it and attempted to use it to cast suspicion.

By the way, this is all from an iso read, I don't like to case-read through the whole topic. And I didn't want to reveal my reasoning because I was hoping to draw it out a little longer and see who would jump the gun in pushing a case against me simply because I withheld my reasons for voting. Not exactly sure where it says one must lay out every point against someone before voting for them. Especially if they've already been covered multiple times (which, upon re-reading a few other posts against wolf, I discovered it had already been pointed out).

Oh, and

FoS Milked Eek

for immediately hopping to a vote in his first post on me. Seem rather eager, hm?

So you are saying you withheld information knowing that it would make people vote for you?

Having looked back at suspicious posts:

FoS ChannelDeliBird

The whole thing about starting bandwagons was really looking bad to me, but your defense is solid enough I won't vote. I do have to be suspicious though.

FoS wolframnhart

I'm not so sure the whole lurker argument is that solid, especially after having gone through a similar situation with CB, but just why are you so interested in lobster's posts?

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.

I find it kind of strange that DRK gives FOS's to the same three people for the same reasons. Does anybody else find this strange?

I won't FoS you because you've "explained" your post and I won't vote you because that post was so much less intelligent than your others it almost had to be what you say it was.

Huh?!? So you're saying that Reckoner seems town because of an unintelligent post. That doesn't seem right.

unvote, vote:Wickedestjr

for trying to defend reckoner not giving a reason for his vote.

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game.

Vote: Conspicuous_other

First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information. Then CDB gave me a good reason and I agreed with him, and now reckoner is currently one of the most suspicious people of my list of suspicions. Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

So it appears that lobster is typically a quiet player.
@lobster - Who do you find the scummiest in this game right now? Who do you find the most pro-town?

I've just mentioned my views on xRECKONERx, but overall I'm concerned with CDB. Channel (while more experienced than some) seems to have taken the reigns of this game, pointing fingers and calling almost everyone out on something. While I appreciate the work he has put into the game, I fear it may lead people to follow his accusations blindly later on.
My opinion of the most town player in the game right now would probably be My Milked Eek. He is both an intelligent player and conservative with his votes. I think this is the direction we should all be moving in.

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment. I am still unsure about where CDB on my list of suspicions.

[stuntkeyboardist]

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

The discussion on this post is actually quite good. When I first read it, I thought nothing of it. I've seen it happen many times (mainly in live games) where the person is trying to see who's desperate to vote. The only difference is that it's normally executed much more effectively, and with an actual argument to back it up.

When it comes down to it, you're either bandwaggoning or bandwaggoning at this point. After almost two pages, you still have no real argument against Wolfram other than other peoples', and your trap was horribly executed. Yet you are still holding that vote for Wolfram even though your "trap" failed.

1

Certain posts from wolframnhart have struck me as funny. Maybe it's the way he tries to insinuate lobster here without much backing of his own.

2

In my experience, the You're not adding to discussion argument is more often a scum trying to put a halfway decent bit of logic behind what he's saying rather than actually defend himself. It's an easy out.

3

Then there's the obvious lobster was lurking bit when he wasn't really lurking, and then wolfram quickly retraces his steps. Yes, he never said lobster was lurking, but he implied it and attempted to use it to cast suspicion.

1) You accuse wolfram of not backing up his argument!!? It's funny that you're using this excuse when you posted the line "I have my reasons" and didnt explain your vote either. Especially when you try to explain yourself with this half-assed explanation that can be torn to shreds.
2) Typically that argument is correct in being a scum tell, but typically that's in a later day than day one when there is little to no concrete evidence.
3) I think you know how I feel about the lurking argument. Read page 9.

I'm going to put an

FoS xReckonerx

on you. Please try again to explain yourself. If you dont want to, I'd be happy to upgrade that FoS.

[stuntkeyboardist]

1) should read:

1) You accuse wolfram of not backing up his argument!!? It's funny that you're using this excuse when you posted the line "I have my reasons" and didnt explain your vote either until this half-assed explanation that can be torn to shreds.

[DeathRowKitty]

have i? the only time i have "stuck close" to CDB was just now, and all that is is that were voting for the same person. how else have i stuck close to him?

The first one I was thinking of was

at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite - lobster is appeasing the spotlight by voting after everyone gets on his case about it.

although I'll admit I blew this one out of proportion in my mind when I saw

canadian, I am flattered that your definition of "everyone" appears to be "ChannelDelibird", but I think that's a slight exaggeration.

I still think your recent posts sound like you're staying a bit too close to CDB (at least that's the feeling I get from the wording/tone of the following posts), though you do have reasons for voting for wolframnhart.

wow i wake up and a whole other page!

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

vote: wolframnhart

I dont like how your activity suddenly picked up when CDB accused you. You were easy sailing until someone placed a vote on you.

ChannelDelibird wrote:
canadianbovine wrote:
wow i wake up and a whole other page!

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."


Loath as I am to back up my attackers, but they're definitely not using the Too Townie argument on me.

CB wrote:
vote: wolframnhart

I dont like how your activity suddenly picked up when CDB accused you. You were easy sailing until someone placed a vote on you.


What do you think of my case on wolfram, CB?



i didnt say they were using the too townie argument. To me your pretty town, keeping good questioning on everyone, staying with the town.

I had noticed the contradiction as well.

To me wolf's play has seemed like he's been trying to go by unnoticed, posting every once in a while to not be a lurker, all of his posts were kind of reviewing the game. He finally said something trivial, and someone (you) called him out. And now he's trying to deny he said anything about lobster lurking, when it seemed rather implied, otherwise he wouldnt of posted it.

For contradictions. You have done nothing but "put pressure" on someone who explained himself to everyone when at L-2. You said it "would be nice to put him at L-1".

Please don't put words in my mouth. I assume this is the post you're referring to:

L-2 is more of less the standard of putting pressure on someone...
It would be nice to be able to put

someone

at L-1 for pressure, but you then run the risk of someone who hasn't kept up with the posts accidentally hammering. L-2 is close enough to show that the town collectively wants an explanation without running the risk of L-1.

You were arguing that it was strange I wanted CB at L-2 for pressure when L-2 isn't "inherently dangerous." L-2 isn't "inherently dangerous" in terms of a quicklynch by scum, since everyone would know something was fishy. It

is

"inherently dangerous" to the person in the sense that he must answer to people's doubts or he'll be lynched by the town. I was explaining that it would

in general

be nice to be able to put someone at L-1 for questioning, but that it would be too dangerous unless you're sure that everyone's been keeping up with the votecount and no one will accidentally hammer.

When I explained my ideas and logic, you swiftly unvoted. As did someone else...

Care to point out where? The reason I recalled your posts being scummy was because:

1) There weren't too many of them.
2) They usually were just general statements with no reasoning or analysis.

No offense, but your posts did nothing to sway me. I unvoted CB because it turns out the question I was waiting on an answer to at that particular moment had already been answered and I'd misread it. Please read post 185.

I would like you to clarify two things from your last post:

1) When did I contradict myself? (you never actually mentioned this, unless you were referring to the thing about L-2 and L-1)
2) Which "ideas and logic" did you post that you think caused two people to unvote CB?