Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[AlmasterGM]

stuff

I'm scumhunting you. Thus far, you have yet to respond to my posts. You also have yet to do anything very useful except ask a lot of questions, point out who is lurking, and make white noise.

(Side point: AlmasterGM, you do literary/linguistic analysis on your debate team? Or you just meant you make narrative arguments? I don't really know what you were trying to add there, except maybe an appeal to authority.)

I was merely trying to explain that the rhetoric "If I win X argument, impact Y occurs" is a catchphrase commonly used on the debate circuit. I didn't actually mean any these insinuations you suggest - I was just using a term I'm familiar with.

(Btw; I love that its 13-pages ago-ness is reason to drop it acc. to AlmasterGM. Maybe if you had dealt with it immediately, we wouldn't be stuck discussing it 13-pages later.).

It's not the number of pages ago that matters so much as what page that number is - 1. The page where everyone else was arguing about whether Pikachu was better than Jigglypuff.

I love the fact, btw, that apparently this game doesn't exist for you outside refuting attacks on you. While you were "overcoming" my rhetoric, and being annoyed with my "15-year-old-esk arrogance," did it occur to you to come into the thread and maybe do some reads, make some arguments and try to scumhunt?

I like my vote where it is until archebob responds. Which he still hasn't. As far as "making arguments" goes, I think I've made more arguments than quite a few people. Here's some people who having contributed extremely lame amounts of substance to the thread:
SpyreX
afatchic
lexprod

It's esque, btw.

Oh notepad, if only you had spellcheck.

Really? Because I haven't seen alot of defense from Archaebob to the different accusations or questions directed at him. I've seen a lot of questions from him and his ever-present lurker-voting, but not much in way of defense. I've seen him expect answers from many others, often immediately, but he seems to reserve himself the right to answer later, and only to certain parts. Mordy, could you help me find all the ones you claim Bob makes.

This. Someone, anyone, show me where Bob has done anything in terms of defending himself.

[AlmasterGM]

So yeah, he should write a defensive thing sometime soon, but he's basically explained that he's most concerned about lurkers. I personally believe that. When I first started playing, I was very concerned about lurkers all the time. (Nowadays I think lurking is anti-game even more than it's anti-town, so I just want mods to handle it, so I don't bother toooooo much with it)

Seriously? It's OK that archebob isn't defending himself because "he's most concerned about lurkers"? How is this in any way an acceptable defense?

If one of you flips scum, the other is totally a buddy.

[Sanjay]

Chinaman has requested a replacement and is being replaced by Sanjay.

Chinaman is being replaced by who?

Sanjay?

Isn't that the awesome dude that makes fellahs want to jump and ladies want to jive?

Isn't that the hippest cat who makes everyone he meets feel good to be alive?

Isn't he the guy when he walks down the street, all the fly honeys ask him "How's tricks?"

Isn't he the dude who a fourth of the town has personal vendettas against because of his play in Newbie 846?

Surely not that Sanjay!

But yes, yes, it is!!!

THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!!!!!!1

[AlmasterGM]

Chinaman has requested a replacement and is being replaced by Sanjay.

Isn't he the dude who a fourth of the town has personal vendettas against because of his play in Newbie 846?

I just clicked on this game, and something caught my eye - there were a LOT of people in that game that are now in this game. One of them is archebob. If you read his Town play in that game, it contains much longer, more substantial posts than I'm seeing from him here. Hmmm...

I'm suspicious. I'm also suspicious of the person (forget who it is, but I will go look) who defended Bob saying "he plays this way all the time." Obviously, that is incorrect.

[archaebob]

Do you understand the concept of objectivity?

I do. I recognize that scumminess is, on some core fundamental level, a subjective thing. However, while viewing a player to be scummy may indeed be a subjective opinion, the quantity of scummy occurrences to which attention of some kind should be directed is arguably pretty objective. It is subjective to say that I'm convinced by the case on Player X, and that I think Player X is pretty scummy, but it is objective to say that Player X has contradicted himself, has had a case made against him by one or more other players. Objectively, there has been discussion of foilist13 and of yourself relating to things you have done that one or more players consider to be scummy. Objectively, AlmasterGM has totally neglected to address that discussion. Whether or not AGM subjectively finds you and foilist to

actually

be scummy is not what I'm after. I find the fact that he is voting for me, while simultaneously ignoring the cases against two other players, to be very unsettling.

If you still disagree with my usage of the word "objective", don't bother rebutting again, as I've already made my meaning very clear, and I have no interest in debating semantics.

On this note, I also detect a sense of confidence on your part. You encourage us all to use our votes to pressure other players. Yet, with 4 votes on you, you don't feel the need to defend yourself that much, satisfied with relying on other players to defend you (I know you stated you didn't like it but you haven't really said anything about it either).

I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.

So yeah, I'm not really scared of your wagon peanut. I'm going to take my time, and do the best I can to guarantee that the town gets all the information it can get from today. You can stand in my way as much as you want, but good luck justifying your actions as pro-town.

[SpyreX]

Archaebob (4) afatchic, peanutman, AlmasterGM, cruelty

This list contains scum. This is guaranteed. Hats will be eaten.

Oddly enough peanuts last few posts make me feel LESS worried about him.

Afatchic is lurking it up and this needs to stop. HOWEVER, I will hold umbrage to bob's statement that lurker pressure > scummy behavior. Since, again, still, for the first time and the last time GM is scummy up ins AND is up on this wagon.

[AlmasterGM]

I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.

So you only defend yourself when you're dangerously close to death?

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

Newbie 846 was my second game ever. This is my third game ever. Read that whole game, and take careful note of who wins. Then maybe it might occur to you that I learned a lesson from it, and am trying something different in this game.

If you want to make your argument fairly, then read Newbie 842 (my scum meta), in which I ALSO played differently from this game.

[AlmasterGM]

@ AGM -

Newbie 846 was my second game ever. This is my third game ever. Read that whole game, and take careful note of who wins. Then maybe it might occur to you that I learned a lesson from it, and am trying something different in this game.

If you want to make your argument fairly, then read Newbie 842 (my scum meta), in which I ALSO played differently from this game.

So your takeaway was to be less substantive and not respond to cases?

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

My takeaway is not something I have any interest in sharing with you right now. The important thing is that this game is different from both my scum meta AND my town meta, and therefore nothing about my alignment can be gleaned from past games. Again, keep in mind that this is my third game EVER. It seems silly to suspect a relatively new player for changing up their style a little within their first few games.

[AlmasterGM]

@ AGM -

My takeaway is not something I have any interest in sharing with you right now. The important thing is that this game is different from both my scum meta AND my town meta, and therefore nothing about my alignment can be gleaned from past games. Again, keep in mind that this is my third game EVER. It seems silly to suspect a relatively new player for changing up their style a little within their first few games.

1) I don't know what you think your takeaway is, but based on the difference in behavior that I'm seeing, it's "less substance."
2) I love how you're using the noob card to spike out of any possible meta attack. It's like two scum tells in one.

Still waiting for you to respond to my case.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - your decision to ignore the cases on foilist13 and peanutman predate your case on me. I feel very little obligation to respond to you right now.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

1) Very nice to see you again. *pulls out a belt and a potato skinner*

2) I want to know your opinion of foilist, since you were there for Newbie 846. I'm not totally sure what to make of it right now, and it's bugging me.

[AlmasterGM]

@ AGM - your decision to ignore the cases on foilist13 and peanutman predate your case on me. I feel very little obligation to respond to you right now.

So I have to respond to a case not on me before you will respond to a case on you? How does that make any sense?

[MordyS]

Is that really a formulation they use on your debate team? If I win this argument then...?

Cause that's just awful grammatically and logically.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS - I'm on the debate team on my school as well, and I expect that Almaster, if he actually DOES say that, loses a lot of rounds. He may be telling the truth in that it's something he says, but it's definitely not standard.

[archaebob]

So I have to respond to a case not on me before you will respond to a case on you? How does that make any sense?

You don't "have" to do anything. Your

decision

to ignore the cases made on other people is anti-town, and very scummy. My decision to ignore the case on me might be as well, but I have already explained fully why I am choosing to act this way right now. YOU have not.

Whatever you have to say about me, there can be no denial of the fact that I am reading the thread very closely, am drawing attention to things that other player's have not noticed, and am at least acknowledging everything that is going on in the thread (INCLUDING the things I have decided to ignore right now). I at least have made the effort to clearly explain why I'm withholding information right now...or at least have strongly indicated why I might be doing that. Your latest post is the first acknowledgement that there even WAS a case against foilist or peanutman. I find it very improbable that you have found nothing worth commenting on from either of them. Also, the kind of case you made against me makes me very confused as to why you weren't equally miffed by several other players in this game. All in all, it is difficult for me to reconcile your play with a town mentality, and if you ARE town, I don't think you have been at all helpful, and have no reason to suspect that will change.

[archaebob]

did i get in here before my 24 hours are up?!

Sorry for going MIA. I'll try to catch up later tonight and make a decent post.

What happened to this?

vote afatchic

again, just for good measure.

[foilist13]

Unvote

Welcome Sanjay.

I'm going to wait for Almaster to respond to the cases on other players, and for Archaebob to defend himself before I put my vote somewhere else, at least seriously. I may pressure vote. Actually, you know what,

vote: afatchic

@AlmasterGm - Set aside defending yourself, and your indignation at being ordered around by Archaebob for a moment. Can you tell us who you think is scum based on something other than playstyles? So far I do not buy your argument against Archaebob, since it seems to be based on meta and you not liking him. Show us some scum tells, show us some contradictions. Give us something to justify the wagon on him.

[archaebob]

Actually, you know what, vote: afatchic

Good good good.

I want MOAR.

[peanutman]

I just reread him in iso. I thought I remembered a long defensive post, but I guess that was Gammagooey responding for him. He has promised to respond at some point, and make some esoteric claims at hidden/secret reasons for holding his cards close to his chest. That said, I've got a town read on him.

Has this discovery changed your read on him at all? Although he can say that he focuses on lurkers and that he wishes to hide his cards, it's still an excuse (valid or not) for not answering to the town. So, does it affect your read on him?

I also find it odd that you forgot that Gammagooey responded for Bob because there was quite a few reponses to Gooey's actions in this case.

If you still disagree with my usage of the word "objective", don't bother rebutting again, as I've already made my meaning very clear, and I have no interest in debating semantics.

I'm not looking to discuss semantics. I just believe it's misleading to justify your choices and scum-suspect by saying they are objectively scummy. But we can agree to disagree.

I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.

So yeah, I'm not really scared of your wagon peanut. I'm going to take my time, and do the best I can to guarantee that the town gets all the information it can get from today. You can stand in my way as much as you want, but good luck justifying your actions as pro-town.

Few things.
1) For you to be convinced that two of the scum are on your wagon seems OMGUS-y. I would rather you try to convince us by your actions that you aren't rather than just play it off as scum targeting you.
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.
3) I don't think I'm standing in your way. Rather, I am trying to do like you, make sure that no one goes by unnoticed. The best way to hide is to be out in the open, questionning everyone else. Your posts are all over the place so people don't forget you but they might not realize that no one is really looking at you. I'm doing my part as a townie to make sure that that doesn't happen. If people feel it's not pro-town of me, than take me to task.
4) I'm trying to understand your views on pressure voting. You are encouraging other players to vote on certain people so they feel pressured and provide more content. However, pressure on you doesn't justify more content from yourself? Is this a double standard or am I missing something?

[peanutman]

Also, mod, vote count please.

[archaebob]

@ peanutman -

A lot of people pressure voting one person sends that person the clearest signal they can get that their lurking is not working. Especially if discussion is forcibly stalled as well. This is because the goal of lurkers is to have everybody lynch someone else while they stay safely in the shadows. The pressure vote obviously doesn't obligate anyone to post, but any scum who is trying to lurk is going to have no choice but to drop the act if they are hoping for a mislynch.

And that's why I really don't care much about the wagon on me. It's not that I am exempt from your pressure votes. It's that they don't send me any signal that is particularly formidable. Therefore, as I consider my actions to be beneficial to my win condition at this moment, I have little reason to not continue as I have been. What exactly is my incentive to appease you right now, Peanutman? I definitely am NOT hoping that you guys will lynch someone else while I just sit here and keep my lips tight. In fact, I have explicitly stated that I won't support any lynch until everyone has posted, and I've had time to post my cases. This is a concrete, falsifiable promise, which you can get me lynched for if I don't respect. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your vote on me? You aren't going to get me lynched now, and I've given you a concrete claim of what my actions will be in the very near future. Unless you are all somehow positive that I am scum, I see very little pro-town motivation for the existence of this wagon.

[MordyS]

I also find it odd that you forgot that Gammagooey responded for Bob because there was quite a few reponses to Gooey's actions in this case.

It's less that I forgot he did it and more that it made me think Bob had also written such a post. I don't know about reevaluating him. I still have a town read on him for something he did, and he absolutely hasn't become more scummy than AlmasterGM. But I do think he should deal with this stuff and stop pushing it off. We certainly shouldn't end the day until Bob deals with the arguments against him.

[archaebob]

We certainly shouldn't end the day until Bob deals with the arguments against him.

I fully agree.

I'm curious, Mordy. In your view, what are those arguments against me that I should deal with?