Newbie 940 - Game over

[AurorusVox]

@HipHop

I think under-reactions are scumtells, perhaps. Overreactions can be townish. Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB. At first I thought he was scummy, and I didn't know why. Now I think he's townie, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'll allow my gut free reign in the question of SB for now, while I wait to see what happens next.

When I talk of potential, I mean, the potential to contradict that existed in posts you had already made. I.e., when I asked "do you think you have contradicted yourself" I'm not asking you to comment on any assumed or given or acknowledged contradictions, but instead to comment on the idea or concept of you contradicting yourself (i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect t. I see why the word potential has confused you, so I take full responsibility and apologise for not clarifying myself better.

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP

fudsihfsdgfdsgfd I don't know why my posts are posting before I've typed them all out...

Where I've said "(i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect t" I should have said

" (i.e. the potential that contradiction existed in your posts. I expect that "possibility" would have been a better word.) "

[hiphop]

No, actually, it isn't. Nacho said you weren't very abrasive and I said you were more abrasive then me. Both statements can be true and both Nacho and I could agree to the other statement without invalidating our own.

Actually it is. You comment that I am more than you, and Nacho says I wasn't. Which means I must not be very abrasive, by your standards, if you agree with nacho. However you expand on that in iso 34 where you ask me do I usually play in a more abrasive style? Meaning, unless I am assuming too much, that I was using a more abrasive style with Sb. Now which is it? Was I using an abrasive style or not?

Wait, before you answer that, I noticed you used the word "could", as in it is possible. So do you agree with nacho? If the answer is yes, go back top, if it is no why do you even bring it up?

If your answer is yes, I could provide evidence of contradiction. Of course if it is no, well then it is irrelevent to me anyways. Perhaps you can explain it to me on why you are playing the "if" game.

Whether or not I believe his reaction is faked has no bearing to whether or not I believe you were fishing to get an angry reaction that you could call scummy.

That is right, it is only a matter of opinion. Did you find me doing the same to die? If so, I wonder why you didn't call me out then? To me it is nothing like what nacho is doing to me. Putting out a case and seeing how I defend. Do you believe so, or is it different? How so?

No, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on how your wagon partner was tunneling on Die. I do think you've appeared overly focused on Die and silverbullet but I wouldn't call it tunnelling

Wagon partner? Why do I care what my wagon partner is doing? until something else stands out those are the only two I am going to concentrate on. Though I think AV is crossing that bridge.

Now based on what has been said, I still think die and Silver are a tossup. And being they are voting for each other only adds to my suspicion that

one of them is scum.

Why is this? I could see plenty of reasons for a town/scum combo to be voting each other and even reasons for a town/town combo.

Why are you so sure of a scum/scum combo?

Read it again. I bolded the important parts of my post and yours. I don't believe it is a scum, scum combo. Possible, but don't think it is very likely. Since I know you will ask me why I believe it is a town/scum combo, I am going to say there is enough evidence on either one for either one to be scum. From die's evading attention, to Sb's contradictions, either one has a good chance of being scum. Now you state that there are even

more

(I believe that is the word you want) reasons they could be a town/town combo, how so?

This is largely on gut, unfortunately, but I don't like how he's setting up an "obvious" scumpair with no apparent logic to back it up other then that he suspects both of them individually. Also, i find some of his answers to be a bit dodgy/dismissive in nature which suggests to me a potential attempt at hiding from examination.

Ok, there is a different Thor. Gut? Wow!! Because all of you other votes you had reasons. The first sentence is bull.(You state something like that, and all you would get is a chain reaction. Especially with newbies. It is a good thing I don't have work today, otherwise who knows what would have happened) Yes I answered that above, so don't come back with he's hiding something (that is also very un-thor like. To not even read what has been written.) As for the second one, show me. Prove it where I am dodgy. I have answered all quetions posed at me. This is just proof that some accusations(AV this one started from you) snowball.
----------------------------------------------

@HipHop

I think under-reactions are scumtells, perhaps. Overreactions can be townish. Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB. At first I thought he was scummy, and I didn't know why. Now I think he's townie, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'll allow my gut free reign in the question of SB for now, while I wait to see what happens next.

I do not believe this. What a lie. Tell me, did you change you opinion in 20 posts? Or what is the difference between the post above and this one:

The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction. But...wow...that changed pretty dramatically, eh?

Now you say calmness is scummy. What do you really mean? Either way your views are changing dramatically to fit the town.

fos

Also are you now asking me is it possible that i can contradict myself? Let's just say in about ten games I probably will have a different viewpoint from now. So yes it is possible.

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted? Now you are floundering heavily. Looking for reasons, that you don't even believe to to be true.

It is a good thing you don't expect me to answer questions from the future, because otherwise I might ask VRK if he could transfer everything from below the bottom line to my last post. I might as well as try it, in case you bring that argument up again.(

mod: can you transfer everything below the bottom line to my last post.

)

[silverbullet999]

TLDR
Reply to hip
Reply to Thor


---------------------------------------------------- hip

[no] replacing out makes me suspicious of no the most. (I'm going one lynch at a time) When day 2 rolls around I can try to get reads on others (we are still far away from the deadline)... this is especially true if no turns out to flip town. The NK of day 1 may also shed some useful information... or at the least give some more info.

I answered this thinking that it was correct that replacing was a mega-tell I wasn't entirely sure thus I didn't place my vote on him to make him L1. Originally I was just getting reads off of people's reactions from others. You mis-read the quote. The original meaning being that I wasn't sure how to scum-hunt (at that time) I would attempt to scum-hunt (and thus get reads on the two people whom I had no reads on) from the info that day 2 sprouted. get it?

As I said, no. Your top two will do.

At this point you and die. You are barely in second (meaning of everyone you just slightly raise to second) and die is my top until his reasoning is clarified (I'll go over this more below and again this isn't a strong feeling either).

They don't matter because the part where you wanted to lynch [no] asap, you can't defend, when it is black and white, and the part of being replaced you have said you were wrong, so I prefer not to argue the point.

Just curious... do you still think I wanted to lynch [no] asap? Your part about black and white confuses me a bit so I'd like more clarification on that as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------Thor

I look at his response to you as translating thusly; "you're right, I did give two separate reasons for the vote. I claim both of them as worthwhile."

I should have clarified more as to what disturbs me (my apologies, I had to run to class). Initially I voted him for the two separate reasons and I asked him to clarify. He clarified in what I feel is equal to your translation. What troubles me now though is that he seems to think my angry outburst was directed at you... not hip hop.

A plan to get hiphop? Who would think of that? You were talking to someone outside the thread to plan something? Because this is the first time you mention

He also claims I never stated that I explained the method. I'm fine if he stated he didn't believe it... but the quote above makes me wonder if he was hopping on the wagon asap and badly making reasons to disguise it.

(Again I more so think it's misunderstanding and slightly his strange... style... so to speak)

[AurorusVox]

@HipHop

I think under-reactions are scumtells, perhaps. Overreactions can be townish. Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB. At first I thought he was scummy, and I didn't know why. Now I think he's townie, and I'm not quite sure why. But I'll allow my gut free reign in the question of SB for now, while I wait to see what happens next.

I do not believe this. What a lie. Tell me, did you change you opinion in 20 posts? Or what is the difference between the post above and this one:

The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction. But...wow...that changed pretty dramatically, eh?

Now you say calmness is scummy. What do you really mean? Either way your views are changing dramatically to fit the town.

fos

[/quote]

I never said calmness was scummy. I actually said the opposite. I think you're getting confused again due to your willingness to read things in black and white. Watch this closely: I never said calmness was an underreaction. In a previous post I said that "over-reaction" is a relative term (I hope you read this part since I aimed this post at you). This also applies to "under-reactions" (since it is the same concept, just opposite). In a nutshell, my views have not changed, because you're reading and interpreting them wrong. To clarify, he was calm

and mature

in his response (I've bolded that part since you keep ignoring it); I do not think at that point that he had under-reacted.

Also are you now asking me is it possible that i can contradict myself? Let's just say in about ten games I probably will have a different viewpoint from now. So yes it is possible.

Again, you are willfully ignoring what I actually posted. I was asking you to

comment on the possibility that you had contradicted yourself in

PAST POSTS

.

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted? Now you are floundering heavily. Looking for reasons, that you don't even believe to to be true.

I never said that SB underreacted. Read above. Yawn.

Also, as far as I am aware, voting and gauging reactions is a legitimate means of scumhunting. So thanks for trying to patronise me

It is a good thing you don't expect me to answer questions from the future, because otherwise I might ask VRK if he could transfer everything from below the bottom line to my last post. I might as well as try it, in case you bring that argument up again.(

mod: can you transfer everything below the bottom line to my last post.

)

In the above quote: More patronisation (it won't work) and willfull ignoring of what I actually posted (it won't work)

[Thor665]

TL:DR
Part 1 - I admit an error to hiphop, but point out some examples of his dodginess and also how it's scummy to me how he's interacting with AV
Part 2 - A question was missed by me, please provide linkage and I'll respond
Part 3 - silverbullet gets told to exercise more of his own opinions though I do point out my personal opinion on misinformation as a scumtell (in an oddly ironic placement that actually I planned weeks ago)

Actually it is. You comment that I am more than you, and Nacho says I wasn't. Which means I must not be very abrasive, by your standards, if you agree with nacho. However you expand on that in iso 34 where you ask me do I usually play in a more abrasive style? Meaning, unless I am assuming too much, that I was using a more abrasive style with Sb. Now which is it? Was I using an abrasive style or not?

I think you were more abrasive then I was and Nacho thinks you had a lack of aggression. Until you know what Nacho's definition of aggression/abrasiveness is and also his read on how abrasive/aggressive I was his scale of abrasiveness/aggression is not a valid point to judge mine on. I found you trying to point out how his read was potentially different then mine as a way to dismiss my thoughts without actually addressing them in any relevant way. I still feel this as you're now trying to get into an ancillary debate with me that I don't care about.

Wait, before you answer that, I noticed you used the word "could", as in it is possible. So do you agree with nacho? If the answer is yes, go back top, if it is no why do you even bring it up?

I agree with Nacho's read as his read. I used 'could' because I lack the information to apply Nacho's read to my read.

Now let's step back for a minute here and assess - what is the purpose here of trying to win this debate point with me? Why does it matter if Nacho and I did or didn't have different reads of your aggression at that point?

If your answer is yes, I could provide evidence of contradiction. Of course if it is no, well then it is irrelevent to me anyways. Perhaps you can explain it to me on why you are playing the "if" game.

Because I think you were intentionally more aggressive then me in an attempt to generate an emotional response from silverbullet - I have already said this.

That is right, it is only a matter of opinion. Did you find me doing the same to die? If so, I wonder why you didn't call me out then? To me it is nothing like what nacho is doing to me. Putting out a case and seeing how I defend. Do you believe so, or is it different? How so?

Yes, it is a matter of opinion - that doesn't mean the opinion is not valid.

The second part of your question...I actually am not sure what you're asking. I didn't see you try the same thing on Die or I would have said so. I don't know why it matters if it is nothing like what Nacho is doing to you...the Nacho's actions on you connection here is where you lost me, could you restate this point?

Wagon partner? Why do I care what my wagon partner is doing?

Because sometimes wagon partners are scum and if you're supporting a scum pushed wagon it should concern you. Why wouldn't you be concerned about who else was voting the wagon you were?

Read it again. I bolded the important parts of my post and yours. I don't believe it is a scum, scum combo. Possible, but don't think it is very likely. Since I know you will ask me why I believe it is a town/scum combo, I am going to say there is enough evidence on either one for either one to be scum. From die's evading attention, to Sb's contradictions, either one has a good chance of being scum. Now you state that there are even

more

(I believe that is the word you want) reasons they could be a town/town combo, how so?

Ah, I misunderstood your thoughts as regards the SB/Die connection. That's my bad.

As far as town/town reasons there are a large number of ways that the violence could come down to town/town as well as scum/town, and less that it is scum/scum. Since I clearly thought you were banking on a scum/scum it is logical for me to question it as I did. If you desperately want me to explain possibilities for a town/town I will but I see no value in it now that you've pointed out that I was wrong.

Ok, there is a different Thor. Gut? Wow!! Because all of you other votes you had reasons. The first sentence is bull.(You state something like that, and all you would get is a chain reaction. Especially with newbies. It is a good thing I don't have work today, otherwise who knows what would have happened)

??? Okay, so because I've used logic before suddenly I am not allowed to use my gut reads on stuff? That is silly.
As far as your second point...okay, ::shrug:: should I always check with your availability before I post a vote on you? And do you really believe I am capable of getting everyone to vote for you in less then 24 hours while you are at work/sleep? This looks *really* paranoid, and is also attempting to dismiss my gut read as well as suggest scummy overtones to my vote.

Yes I answered that above, so don't come back with he's hiding something (that is also very un-thor like. To not even read what has been written.)

Well, misread it, and I admitted to that above and shall do so again here. I'm curious why your first conclusion is that I am acting shockingly out of character as opposed to just correcting me. Why the immediate character defamation on this point? Should I just take it as a compliment that you don't believe I could make a mistake?

As for the second one, show me. Prove it where I am dodgy. I have answered all quetions posed at me. This is just proof that some accusations(AV this one started from you) snowball.

STOP! (hammertime)

Back off on AV as far as my post goes, this is my accusation on you and I accept it as mine. It's silly and scummy to turn around and throw my actions into the face of another player who had no part in them. Either they make me scummy or they don't, but trying to say my actions are AV's fault is terrible.

As to the rest of your question - I addressed above some of the attitudes of evading and dismissal I found in your reply post here. If you want some more ask and I'll dig them up. I'll accept it may just be your playstyle but my gut is starting to quake, and that quaking says scummy. Also, as long as we're talking AV, I have to point out how in one of your posts above you basically threatened the fruit with how you were thinking of adding them to your scumlist because (as far as I can tell) AV is scumhunting you and debating the merits of your points. That's a scummy threat if ever I heard one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted?

I'm sorry, I missed the initial question of what I was being asked to comment upon. If one of you could link me to the initial post I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on what I was asked to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(This one is almost ironic considering its timing to my own blunder)

What troubles me now though is that he seems to think my angry outburst was directed at you... not hip hop.

First I would note; you had an angry reaction at both me and hiphop, though of varying degrees.
Second - recalling information wrong is not in and of itself scummy. Is he using the misinformation in a scummy way? That is the question you have to figure out.

(Again I more so think it's misunderstanding and slightly his strange... style... so to speak)

So you're saying you don't think he's scummy? It almost feels like you're asking me to justify your actions prior to you doing them and that is not something I am comfortable doing. If you're scum it'll be too easy for you to hide from me that way, and if you're town you're denying us your insights which weakens town.

[AurorusVox]

Thor are you going to comment on this? This is my opinion- you suspect me because I underreacted, yet you didn't suspect SB because he underreacted?

I'm sorry, I missed the initial question of what I was being asked to comment upon. If one of you could link me to the initial post I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on what I was asked to.

I think the quote tree has gotten a bit skewed. The quote from "AurorusVox" in your post was actually from hiphop, asking you if you were going to comment on my post (replicated below)

Anyway, I don't think my own reasons for voting you were very solid. It was mostly linguistic, which isn't the best way to catch scum, but can yield results. In all honesty, I was more interested in how you reacted my vote and questions. I'm happy to leave my vote where it is, for now.

Although in my subsequent post I pointed out the flaw in his opinion (that flaw being that nowhere have I said that I thought SB had under-reacted)

[Thor665]

So he was asking me to comment on your presented commentary? Okay, the way it was phrased made me think I'd already been asked the question and I couldn't find it.

Did hiphop mean overreacted when referencing SB? I seem to recall you (or was that Nacho - I'm thinking it was Nacho) who cleared SB because of the strength of the reaction.

In any case, to the general thrust of the question, which is gauging reactions as scumtells or towntells or whatever - I personally tend to focus on the strategy behind the reaction rather then the read of the reaction. (Basically, I don't consider "being defensive" a valid scum/towntell unless I know something about the player's individual meta to clear that info for me). I do tend to look at actions taken during defense/offensive maneuvers and assess those actions themselves as scummy/townish.

If there was a contradiction from you on how you read SB and then read hiphop by using the same tell in different ways I would call that a valid scumtell on you.

[AurorusVox]

Despite what hiphop thinks, there is no such contradiction, since I have never said that I thought SB under-reacted. I'm not even sure hiphop can be considered to have "under-reacted" per se, but rather to have sidestepped my questions. Compare this to SB, who actually answered the questions that I asked him, and all the questions you asked him, willingly and eagerly. This is why I have not read their reactions the same, and so I've not interpreted the "same tell in different ways" - but read different tells from their (different) reactions.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Official Vote Count

Sauron - 1 (Jerako)
Die Prediger - 2 (hiphop, silverbullet999)
silverbullet999 - 2 (Sauron, Die Prediger)
Jerako - 1 (Pulindar)

hiphop - 3 (AurorusVox, Nachomamma8, Thor665)

Not Voting - 0 ()

5 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Tuesday, May 4.

[AurorusVox]

Hiphop, I am curious - since the Preacher returned, do you feel he has answered the questions that you initially asked of him? Below is the post he made in response to your first questions:

--------------------------------
Die

How about a third option? I see half of the players here are, in some way, more experienced than the others. You guys have been nice ICs for us, but at the same time you guys have been quite agressive on 2 newbies. Easy targets.

It would be good to start considering this 3rd option: we can have 2 experienced players in the mafia.

Die, I don't like this. If you think some people are tunneling call them out. Don't make a general statement. I am a person. No different than you. Is it not reasonable to say that newbies will make more slips? So wouldn't than more people attack them? What would happen if we didn't say anything? Do you think that they would not do the same thing again? In my first game, I was hit hard, by scum and town. I have learned that some things make someone scummy, and I prefer to let scum do them. I recommend that you read this post made by vrk(scum)[yes VRk, I am still quoting that quote, one of the best quotes I have ever seen, that applies to a newbie] in one of my first games. Believe me this is something that applies to you.

What do you think of of Thor's case against SB?

What do you think of SB's response?

Why do you think that newbies should not be attacked?

Your opinion is vital in moving the game foward.

Also take into account that Jerako, and SB (Two newbies), are attacking an easy target(also a newbie). Do you have a problem with that, or do you think that sometimes mistakes are because someone is scum?
----------------

Thanks hiphop, Ill try to learn from that.

About Thor and Silver: as you can notice, i already placed my vote on Silver. The reason i did that is because of the anger post. I cant believe that someone gets so angered on that pressure by being townie. He overreacted without reason, i think, because the points Thor raised were not misrepresenting Silver.

Anyway, personally, I really dont apreciate to play a game with that language. I am on pressure since the beggining and i dont have been in anyway not gentle.

I didnt said that newbies should not be attacked. I just said that we need to attack others than only the newbies, which is what happened. That was the reason i came up with the possibility of the 2 scums being experienced. And it is not impossible.

I dont have a problem with Jerako and SB attacking a newbie (and now i see SB is not voting...). I didnt said the mafia are 2 experienced. I said they could be. But attacking newbies is a part of the game. I just thought it was strange that exp. guys did not attacked each other at that point.

I just wondered what your take was on this post.

[Nachomamma8]

Sure, but the scum are already concentrating that pool for us, and it's more helpful if they concentrate it more, which they do when they don't kill the people we feel are most town. Moreover, concentrating the pool of people can be dangerous (again, something I'm overly worried about thanks to my previous game and the "obvious newbtown" that was actually scum).

But in not sharing town reads, we're also not forcing the scum to address everyone and provide an opinion on anyone, which makes the job infinitely easier on them. Both scumhunting techniques do work, however; I'm going to stop arguing something that ultimately ends up being a simple matter of opinion.

Wrong question. I don't see how it works as a trap, neither as town, nor as scum. What I do see is it being an attempt for scum to say "See? I'm so frustrated that you can't see this, so I must be town!"

For town, the purpose of the trap would be to evoke emotion in your attacker, causing him to stoop to your level and slip up in the heat of his emotions.

I'm fairly sure this is common among newbies (I remember feeling it a few times in my first game, though it's alleviated since then), but I find it harder to believe that this actually would culminate in somebody getting all shouty and cussy. However, I can see the scum using this, basically setting up the affirmation "see, I feel the same frustration you do, so I'm also town! The scum have no reason to feel this frustration". It's simply the version of events that makes more sense to me at the moment.

It's probably hard for you to believe because you wouldn't get shouty and cussy yourself. But townies, unfortunately, do overreact like that, often.

Scum do not know which townies are the best nk's, which is my whole point. That is why I said it was the scum's job to find townies, not the town's. Besides what do you gain by telling everybody who the town is? Focus more on finding the scum.

My townreads haven't taken away from my scumhunting at all; in fact, in narrowing the pool of candidates to choose from, my scumhunting becomes more effective.

I already asked Thor, but do you believe that it was real anger, because again you are questioning as if the anger was real. Now was it?

Sorry for any misunderstandings... I don't believe Silver's anger was real. He is town, he said it wasn't real. What reason do I have not to believe him?

So the question is not why I think that is scummy, but if it is the most logical thing to do, how is that townie?

The answer to this should be clear. We vote people for doing things that are illogical for town to do. So when people do things that ARE logical for town to do, then we view them as likelier town...

[hiphop]

I answered this thinking that it was correct that replacing was a mega-tell I wasn't entirely sure thus I didn't place my vote on him to make him L1. Originally I was just getting reads off of people's reactions from others. You mis-read the quote. The original meaning being that I wasn't sure how to scum-hunt (at that time) I would attempt to scum-hunt (and thus get reads on the two people whom I had no reads on) from the info that day 2 sprouted. get it?

Through several reads on it, yes I get it now with your explanation. It looked like you had reads on nobody, but [no]. Either way if it was a mega-tell, to you, where was your vote? It doesn't matter what other people think, if it is a mega-tell (to you) then your vote should be there. Whether other people agree with it or not. Asking for advice on whether it is or not, will just make you scummy, because it looks more like you want to do more of what the town wants you to do, and not what you want to do. Hiding somewhat.

Just curious... do you still think I wanted to lynch [no] asap? Your part about black and white confuses me a bit so I'd like more clarification on that as well.

Yes, just not the one that actually did the L-1 vote (because [no] was called out on it) and the hammer. Hide in the mix no doubt.

So why me? You haven't given one reason of why I am second. Is this because there are moer people voting me right now, and you want to follow the town, or because you don't have a second and you need a placeholder? Oh black and white- what has been written.

----------------------
AV- I read things in black and white because I don't like vagueness. It is either there or not, no in between. It is why I am so good in math, and horrible in English. I would take calmness as an underreaction (not a scumtell, but still an underreaction) because he is being accused, not answering a survey. If i think so, I believe others surely must see it. That is how I interpreted your words. Either way, you still view him as scummy, because he faked overreacted, or has that changed too?

Again, you are willfully ignoring what I actually posted. I was asking you to

comment on the possibility that you had contradicted yourself in

PAST POSTS

.

The keyword here is willfully. I did not, nor did I ever willfully ignore a question. Just interpreted what I thought it meant. This is the third time you are asking me the same question, and each time I interpreted it different, of what I thought you truly meant by it. So don't blame me for your vagueness. Even the question you give me now can have two different reasons. You could be referring to just this game or in all my games. In regards to the first- no i don't think I have contradicted myself in this game, and I don't think it is possible(which I answered in post 298 4th paragraph, last sentence. If this isn't an answer to your question, I do not know what to tell you), as to the second, yes I have contradicted myself in past games. I have answered you question. This is the third time I have answered your question. I don't know how you can say I haven't.

Also in voting and gauging- people vote because they believe that there is something scummy about certain posts. As in evidence. In which your case of me hiding something and being dodgy is complete BS(considering my brother's initial's are BS, that is what the BS means) i have answered your questions to the best of my ability, whether you like them or not.

Wait, before you answer that, I noticed you used the word "could", as in it is possible. So do you agree with nacho? If the answer is yes, go back top,

if it is no why do you even bring it up?

Now let's step back for a minute here and assess - what is the purpose here of trying to win this debate point with me? Why does it matter if Nacho and I did or didn't have different reads of your aggression at that point?

Why do you answer my question with a question? I bolded it for you. You asked the same question more or less, that i did. Did you not want to answer it? SInce i know you will come back and accuse me of sidestepping the question, I will answer it. In fact I already had answered it in the next paragraph that you purposely did not quote.

If your answer is yes, I could provide evidence of contradiction. Of course if it is no, well then it is irrelevent to me anyways. Perhaps you can explain it to me on why you are playing the "if" game.

A contradiction is a lie, so if you answered yes, it would have been a lie. Lynch all liars. However you answered no, so the argument is irrelevent. So it isn't important for me to win this debate with you. Now answer my question- which I state again so you can't miss it. Why did you bring the point up in post 299?

As for why it is important for me because it was to show, as part of the evidence against your question, that besides me someone else said I wasn't very abbrasive. Meaning your question of being too abbrasive would be null, because it was not how I intended it to come out. However you are the only one to seem think so it is only your opinion.

The second part of your question...I actually am not sure what you're asking. I didn't see you try the same thing on Die or I would have said so. I don't know why it matters if it is nothing like what Nacho is doing to you...the Nacho's actions on you connection here is where you lost me, could you restate this point?

I state a case he responds. That simple. Same thing I did to die, and AV. So I am asking you how was my tone different?

Because sometimes wagon partners are scum and if you're supporting a scum pushed wagon it should concern you. Why wouldn't you be concerned about who else was voting the wagon you were?

I never thought of it that way. It is probably because most of the time I make a push, I believe I am pushing scum. So my wagon partner is either bussing or town. But you do have a point.

??? Okay, so because I've used logic before suddenly I am not allowed to use my gut reads on stuff? That is silly.
As far as your second point...okay, ::shrug:: should I always check with your availability before I post a vote on you? And do you really believe I am capable of getting everyone to vote for you in less then 24 hours while you are at work/sleep? This looks *really* paranoid, and is also attempting to dismiss my gut read as well as suggest scummy overtones to my vote.

As for the first no it is not. If you consistently show that you value evidence as to why you are attacking someone, and than drop that evidence to hop on a bw. Something is fishy is going on. And not only that, but it is scummy.

As for the second. HA HA HA. *smile*do not go there. Less than 48 hours ago, I was lynched, where every vote(Need 4 for the lynch, so all 4 of them) were/was cast in less than 12 hours. And I am not joking you. No claim, no defense, no nothing. Newbies you got to love them.*smile*

Well, misread it, and I admitted to that above and shall do so again here. I'm curious why your first conclusion is that I am acting shockingly out of character as opposed to just correcting me. Why the immediate character defamation on this point? Should I just take it as a compliment that you don't believe I could make a mistake?

Because it looks like you are tunneling as well as trying to force a case on me. Thus creating mistakes. Besides is not what I did the same thing that you did to Sauron in 281. Maybe I should quote it.

I'm not sure whether to call this scummy as a misrep, ...or simply bad reading comprehension.

Same way I feel. Here is the advice you gave-

you're tunneling. The reason you just attacked Die over this is because you're too excited and too convinced by the idea that Die is scum. Step back, re-look over your evidence. Everything he says doesn't have to be scummy.

Read your own advice.

Back off on AV as far as my post goes, this is my accusation on you and I accept it as mine. It's silly and scummy to turn around and throw my actions into the face of another player who had no part in them. Either they make me scummy or they don't, but trying to say my actions are AV's fault is terrible.

As to the rest of your question - I addressed above some of the attitudes of evading and dismissal I found in your reply post here. If you want some more ask and I'll dig them up. I'll accept it may just be your playstyle but my gut is starting to quake, and that quaking says scummy. Also, as long as we're talking AV, I have to point out how in one of your posts above you basically threatened the fruit with how you were thinking of adding them to your scumlist because (as far as I can tell) AV is scumhunting you and debating the merits of your points. That's a scummy threat if ever I heard one.

On regards to the first paragraph. No it was not personal. But it was AV who stated right above your post that I was evading. Coincidence, I think not.

As for your comment on me being dismissal- yes the quote of nacho was to help with the proof that your question was indeed invalid, but I did answer your question, did I not? So therefore I didn't dismiss it did I? Or are you saying my answer wasn't valid because I tried to dismiss a question that I didn't believe was true. Either way, how can you say I have been dismissal if i haven't? Again show me some things. Don't make general statements without having something to back it up. That question goes for you too Av. I have not.

Also I believe both votes are guts, so how can I defend? I have proven I am not evasive, for the simple fact that all questions have been answered. Except you guys believe I am hiding something, how can I defend against that?
-----------------------------------

AV-310

Truth be told, i don't have an opinion on that post. I can see he didn't answer my question regarding Thor's case, but in the post as a whole, I see it as null. I don't have a take on it.
--------------------------------'

For town, the purpose of the trap would be to evoke emotion in your attacker, causing him to stoop to your level and slip up in the heat of his emotions.

It is a text game. I do not see emotions coming in to play. So no, my reads still stand.

My townreads haven't taken away from my scumhunting at all; in fact, in narrowing the pool of candidates to choose from, my scumhunting becomes more effective.

And, you never answered my question. How does it benefit the town, for you to tell who is town in your eyes? Also since yo believe to express yourself, do you believe in lists?

Sorry for any misunderstandings... I don't believe Silver's anger was real. He is town, he said it wasn't real. What reason do I have not to believe him?

For the fact he is possible scum, playing you, or do you believe it isn't possible for him to be scum anymore?

So the question is not why I think that is scummy, but if it is the most logical thing to do, how is that townie?

The answer to this should be clear. We vote people for doing things that are illogical for town to do. So when people do things that ARE logical for town to do, then we view them as likelier town...

Let's clear this up, since I believe you are going way off track. You say that folding on the no-scumhunting charge is townish. I comment that it is the most logical thing for him to do. Meaning for scum and town. So I believe it is the most logical thing for him to do if he were scum, now how is that town? If it is not the most logical thing for scum to do, what is? Because if you don't know, than what makes you so sure that scum wouldn't fold.

If you want me to show that scum fold, I can point you to a game where scum admitted that he lied. So we lynched him. So if somebody admits they are not scumhunting, why shouldn't we just lynch him? Not scum-hunting and lieing are two scummy points, don't you agree?

mod prod Sauron, Pulindar, and Die Please

[AurorusVox]

TL;dr version:

I respond to hiphop's post, question the size of his willy (his experience), his (and his denial of his) wilful ignoral of posts, and his wacky ability to sometimes think everyone must think the same as him, and sometimes not.

AV- I read things in black and white because I don't like vagueness. It is either there or not, no in between. It is why I am so good in math, and horrible in English.

I believe you are making way too many assumptions. [...] So it was you who made them black and white not me.

So, my "assumption" that you like black and white was incorrect? Hmm...looks like I "assumed" correctly after all.

I would take calmness as an underreaction (not a scumtell, but still an underreaction) because he is being accused, not answering a survey. If i think so, I believe others surely must see it.

You made a big deal of how many games you've played. It's even in your signature how valuable and experienced you are. And yet you haven't figured out yet that people all have different opinions and see things differently?

That is how I interpreted your words.

And yet you are aware of interpretations? I.e. the possibility for things to be read in an interpreted (subjective/personal) way.

Either way, you still view him as scummy, because he faked overreacted, or has that changed too?

As I said, his faked overreaction is something I found scummy.

Faked overreactions are scummy, imo. I'm weighing that in my judgement of SB.

Here it is, again, something that was posted that you've chosen to ignore (more on this later).

Again, you are willfully ignoring what I actually posted. I was asking you to

comment on the possibility that you had contradicted yourself in

PAST POSTS

.

The keyword here is willfully. I did not, nor did I ever willfully ignore a question. Just interpreted what I thought it meant. This is the third time you are asking me the same question, and each time I interpreted it different, of what I thought you truly meant by it. So don't blame me for your vagueness. Even the question you give me now can have two different reasons. You could be referring to just this game or in all my games. In regards to the first- no i don't think I have contradicted myself in this game, and I don't think it is possible(which I answered in post 298 4th paragraph, last sentence. If this isn't an answer to your question, I do not know what to tell you), as to the second, yes I have contradicted myself in past games. I have answered you question. This is the third time I have answered your question. I don't know how you can say I haven't.

Okay, here are my thoughts on this chunk:

(i) Again, you're showing an acute awareness of interpretation and its practical implication. How can you still assume that everyone thinks the same as you?

(ii) You've still shown how you've ignored certain aspects of my posts; the thing about SB, the fact I kept saying "maturity", and even up til now, you were ignoring my clarifications of my vagueness.

(iii) This is interesting, and not what my original aim had been when asking, but, let's roll with it --- When you contradicted yourself in past games, were you townie or scum, and did you get caught in the contradiction or did you admit it yourself?

Also in voting and gauging- people vote because they believe that there is something scummy about certain posts. As in evidence. In which your case of me hiding something and being dodgy is complete BS(considering my brother's initial's are BS, that is what the BS means) i have answered your questions to the best of my ability, whether you like them or not.

False. In voting and gauging, people MAY decide to vote a gut-feel, and then use the reactions to clarify that gut-feel with evidence based on the reaction and the questions that are answered and how they are answered. I could have just asked these questions of you, but they're not as powerful without the backing of a vote. If I do not like the way you answered, or the answers themselves, I will keep my vote on you.

Because sometimes wagon partners are scum and if you're supporting a scum pushed wagon it should concern you. Why wouldn't you be concerned about who else was voting the wagon you were?

I never thought of it that way. It is probably because most of the time I make a push, I believe I am pushing scum. So my wagon partner is either bussing or town. But you do have a point.

Again, you're showing an awareness that people have different opinions. Do you accept that people don't always see things the same way as you, now?

Back off on AV as far as my post goes, this is my accusation on you and I accept it as mine. It's silly and scummy to turn around and throw my actions into the face of another player who had no part in them. Either they make me scummy or they don't, but trying to say my actions are AV's fault is terrible.

As to the rest of your question - I addressed above some of the attitudes of evading and dismissal I found in your reply post here. If you want some more ask and I'll dig them up. I'll accept it may just be your playstyle but my gut is starting to quake, and that quaking says scummy. Also, as long as we're talking AV, I have to point out how in one of your posts above you basically threatened the fruit with how you were thinking of adding them to your scumlist because (as far as I can tell) AV is scumhunting you and debating the merits of your points. That's a scummy threat if ever I heard one.

On regards to the first paragraph. No it was not personal. But it was AV who stated right above your post that I was evading. Coincidence, I think not.

I have no idea if it was a coincidence, but read through the thread, and you'll see that Thor and I seem to share similar views on what makes a player scummy. This is backed up by me agreeing with his views, and him agreeing with my lynches For all I know, he could be scum, so that if he dies, everyone will think I'm his partner and lynch me. But hiphop, maybe if it isn't just me thinking you're evading...maybe, just maybe, that's the impression you're giving out to people :\

As for your comment on me being dismissal- yes the quote of nacho was to help with the proof that your question was indeed invalid, but I did answer your question, did I not? So therefore I didn't dismiss it did I? Or are you saying my answer wasn't valid because I tried to dismiss a question that I didn't believe was true. Either way, how can you say I have been dismissal if i haven't? Again show me some things. Don't make general statements without having something to back it up. That question goes for you too Av. I have not.

Most of what I've said to you has been backed up by evidence, that evidence being your own posts.

Also I believe both votes are guts, so how can I defend? I have proven I am not evasive, for the simple fact that all questions have been answered. Except you guys believe I am hiding something, how can I defend against that?

My vote was gut initially (when I first voted you). Since then it has solidified through your responses and such. Saying "I can't defend against your accusations" looks like a pretty weak argument when you're getting pressured and you don't know how to respond to seem the least scummy.

AV-310

Truth be told, i don't have an opinion on that post. I can see he didn't answer my question regarding Thor's case, but in the post as a whole, I see it as null. I don't have a take on it.

Since your vote is on the Preacher, shouldn't you be pressing his post to get more information out of him? I'm asking you about this on the outside chance that you and SB are scum buddies. I notice that you've attacked SB but haven't voted him because the Preacher hasn't answered your questions...but you haven't pushed this post of his at all, you haven't tried to get to a situation in which you can lift your vote off of the Preacher.

For town, the purpose of the trap would be to evoke emotion in your attacker, causing him to stoop to your level and slip up in the heat of his emotions.

It is a text game. I do not see emotions coming in to play. So no, my reads still stand.

You don't believe that text can elicit emotional responses that then comes through in the textual response? Have you no faith in the power of language?!

My townreads haven't taken away from my scumhunting at all; in fact, in narrowing the pool of candidates to choose from, my scumhunting becomes more effective.

And, you never answered my question. How does it benefit the town, for you to tell who is town in your eyes? Also since yo believe to express yourself, do you believe in lists?

Um. He told you how it benefited town. Wilful ignoral again? Let me quote the part that you skipped over.

But in not sharing town reads, we're also not forcing the scum to address everyone and provide an opinion on anyone, which makes the job infinitely easier on them.

[Thor665]

I'm going to avoid going over the whole wall from hiphop because at this point I feel a more pointed post is required - if he wishes I will go back and zap him point by point, needless to say I disagree with the bulk of his commentary.

Two important points to my mind;

1. hiphop - why have you not provided the evidence of Vox's contradiction in how he reads under reactions as discussed here and here You brought this claim up, AV flatly denies it exists, and I've even admitted I would find it scummy and it would certainly weaken the tag team you're currently under. Is it out there? Please produce the quotes.

2. Please expound on the concept of how, if I have previously used logic, it is now *scummy* for me to use gut - this makes no sense to me. I understood you better when you were sticking to 'out of character' but now you're claiming it as a scumtell which begs explanation.

[silverbullet999]

---------------------------------------------------------------Thor

It almost feels like you're asking me to justify your actions prior to you doing them and that is not something I am comfortable doing. If you're scum it'll be too easy for you to hide from me that way, and if you're town you're denying us your insights which weakens town.

You bring up a real good point that I haven't realized til now. I'll try to be less cautious so to speak and go more with my gut... or go more confidently and not questioningly (Hope you get what i mean...). Thank you for the insight and I apologize for putting you in the position.


-------------------------------------------------Hip

Through several reads on it, yes I get it now with your explanation. It looked like you had reads on nobody, but [no]. Either way if it was a mega-tell, to you, where was your vote? It doesn't matter what other people think, if it is a mega-tell (to you) then your vote should be there. Whether other people agree with it or not. Asking for advice on whether it is or not, will just make you scummy, because it looks more like you want to do more of what the town wants you to do, and not what you want to do. Hiding somewhat.

Now I feel you are fully reusing Thor's Past Argument...

If [no] replacing out is a "mega-sign" why do you need others to move first? Shouldn't you move, so you can show us the "mega-sign" and lead the way to lynching the scum?

I was being the... if you will... "cautious noob" As if I had voted that would push [no] to L1 with a strong chance of him being lynched as most noobs would generally follow the wagon and lynch him with no defense and no questioning. (You even say this so you must agree).

Yes, just not the one that actually did the L-1 vote (because [no] was called out on it) and the hammer. Hide in the mix no doubt.

Read above... if I wanted to lynch [no] asap... why would I even mention my opinion of it? Did you think I was planning to convince two people to hop the wagon... or one other person to hop the wagon so I could give the hammering vote, by presenting two pieces of evidence... one of which I wasn't fully sure if it could even be used as evidence at the time?

So why me? You haven't given one reason of why I am second. Is this because there are moer people voting me right now, and you want to follow the town, or because you don't have a second and you need a placeholder? Oh black and white- what has been written.

You initially, because your "attack" on me seemed to have come from nowhere and you seemed to be trying to hop the wagon while justifying the hopping of the wagon. My theory about you may not be as far stretched as it seemed. Your misinterpretations aren't helping you in any manner (whether legitimate or on purpose).. your questions toward me being similar (to me) to Thors feels a little scummy in that your trying to build up an argument that was already presented. I still don't understand what you mean with oh black and white you present yourself and I will again ask you to clarify what you mean.

[Nachomamma8]

For the fact he is possible scum, playing you, or do you believe it isn't possible for him to be scum anymore?

Of course the chance that he's scum exists, but I'm still confident that he isn't.

Let's clear this up, since I believe you are going way off track. You say that folding on the no-scumhunting charge is townish. I comment that it is the most logical thing for him to do. Meaning for scum and town. So I believe it is the most logical thing for him to do if he were scum, now how is that town? If it is not the most logical thing for scum to do, what is? Because if you don't know, than what makes you so sure that scum wouldn't fold.

If he was scum the most logical thing to do would be to point out the other lurkers and paint you as scum. Drawing attention to himself by reacting angrily AND validating a charge of no-scumhunting is not a logical thing for scum to do at all.

If you want me to show that scum fold, I can point you to a game where scum admitted that he lied. So we lynched him. So if somebody admits they are not scumhunting, why shouldn't we just lynch him? Not scum-hunting and lieing are two scummy points, don't you agree?

One example doesn't create an absolute truth for me. Also, why should we lynch someone who admits they haven't been scumhunting? What else is a townie supposed to do but that? Lie, and say they have been? Or completely ignore the charge, and simply lurk?


I can't say I'm comfortable at all with Die's and Pul's recent drops in activity, especially Pul's...

Mod, prod Die Prediger and Pulindar?

Pulindar hasn't been around lately, and it'd be useful to get some of his input. Die Prediger has been under some suspicion lately and it just seems like he's hiding behind the whole hiphop situation.

[hiphop]

I'm really sorry guys, but life has got to hectic for me to continue posting every 48 hours, so I am going to have to ask for a replacement. I apologize to the mod, and to the players that i was unable to finish the game that I signed up for. Hopefully the mod won't have too hard of a time to find a replacement. I had fun playing with you guys, but I can't continue, so goodbye.

mod, replace me please. Thanks

[Thor665]

Sorry to lose you, hiphop.

And on a more game related scale, ack! I despise having someone replace out when I am suspicious of them because then you get to deal with the replacement whitewash.

@Everyone else (and maybe silverbullet in particular) - question #1 from this post is, I feel, exceedingly valid at this particular juncture. If evidence of AV's commentary towards excusing SB while damning hiphop on the same scumtell exists it is a major contradiction on AV's part and paints the fruit scummy. If such commentary doesn't exist then it suggests to me that hiphop was pushing a bit of a misrep on AV and that quite possibly through scumminess, which would cement him for me as a solid lynch option for Day 1.

Does anyone know where this supposed commentary of AV's is? I looked, albeit very lightly, through the fruit's iso (for you newbies, the iso stands for 'isolation' and you can seperate out individual players through the drop down menu at the bottom of the page) and couldn't find it. Silverbullet, since you were"cleared" by AV for this do you recall the commentary? If no one does I'll do a deeper look, but more eyes then just mine should look at it since I'm clearly in favor of a hiphop lynch.

I'll agree with Nacho that we need more Pulindar and Die Prediger in this thread.

[AurorusVox]

Thor, the "commentary" doesn't exist. Here is everything I've said about SB's "calm and mature" responses (I've left out the bits about his overreaction, because the apparent "contradiction" in my commentary is based on the belief (that I don't have) that SB underreacted):

iso26: I'm satisfied with silverbullet999's responses to my vote and question


iso28: I dunno, my gut instinct was that SB was trying to sit on the fence (=scum tell), but I kinda think there's a little leeway - his responses seem like he's showing that he's willing to learn to be more aggressive, and I see him more as being newbie-town than newbie-scum. [...] I do think he responded to my questions, and Thor's, in a good manner...and I'm not even sure he's been sitting on the fence so much the last few posts. So, I like the pressure on him, but it's coming across as townie-under-pressure to me.


iso30: The reason I was leaning to you being townie, SB, was your calm and mature responses to the questions - "I'm happy to answer any questions you have, whatever will help clear anything up about me" - even when you were pressed by Thor, you maintained this reaction.


iso33: At first, he had responded coolly, saying he would gladly answer my questions. He had then provided answers to my questions. At first I was suspicious because I thought he was sitting on the fence; but he has often said "These are my FoSes" so I don't think he has really been sitting on the fence. That said, his reasons aren't the most solid, but I still think he's been forthright about them. This feeling increased with his back-and-forth with Thor.


iso36: At first my gut-reaction to you [SB] was that I felt there was something scummy about you. You allayed my fears initially, and your willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up.

[...]

[Talking about how he responded to my question]

Calmly; most importantly, he was willing to answer any questions I had, putting the power firmly in my hands. This was maintained through his conversation with Thor. He gave answers to everything he was asked about.

-----------------

A bit later, I get called out by hiphop on my reads of SB. Here is what I said;

iso52: I never said calmness was an underreaction. In a previous post I said that "over-reaction" is a relative term (I hope you read this part since I aimed this post at you). This also applies to "under-reactions" (since it is the same concept, just opposite). In a nutshell, my views have not changed, because you're reading and interpreting them wrong. To clarify, he was calm and

mature in his response (I've bolded that part since you keep ignoring it); I do not think at that point that he had under-reacted.

-----------------

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT

Below is my analysis of the above. If you wish to iso me before you read my take on it, please

do not read any further[/u]




Please note that in all of this, not once did I say that I felt SB had been underreacting. My reasons for thinking he was townie are clear: the fact that he answered all of the questions, calmly and maturely. Key points are this:

-"Willing to learn"
-"Not sitting on the fence so much" (proof of the above)
-"Calm and mature" (the key phrase; people seem to ignore the second part)
-"Happy to answer any questions"
-"Willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up"
-"Putting the power firmly in my hands"
-"He gave answers to everything he was asked about."


Now, here is the absolute kicker:

iso54: Despite what hiphop thinks, there is no such contradiction, since I have never said that I thought SB under-reacted. I'm not even sure hiphop can be considered to have "under-reacted" per se, but rather to have sidestepped my questions. Compare this to SB, who actually answered the questions that I asked him, and all the questions you asked him, willingly and eagerly. This is why I have not read their reactions the same, and so I've not interpreted the "same tell in different ways" - but read different tells from their (different) reactions.

[Nachomamma8]

Mod, I'll be going on a V/LA until Wednesday

Sorry to see you go, hiphop.

Right now, I think that we have to decide whether hiphop's scummy enough to lynch at this moment because we cannot hold the replacement to his/her predecessor's actions, and we cannot allow the replacement to get off completely scot-free. If the answer is no, then I'd suggest pursuing different angles because the replacement won't be here long enough to give us a good read...

Currently, the answer to my own question is yes, barring a fairly protown replacement. My second suspect, far behind hiphop at the moment, is Die Prediger with a third of Pulindar. I'm very unsure of my read on Die based on the whole language barrier issue, and I'm not really willing to lynch Pulindar at this moment. Silver still reads town in my mind, as does the lemon and Thor. Sauron and Jerako/Jerako's replacement are both neutral, so I suppose I'd be OK with offing one of them, but it's in no way a preferred lynch... Speaking of which, where is that Sauron?

Mod: Prod Sauron as well.

[Sauron]

Sorry for the unexpected LA. Uni capstone project decided to hit me real hard this week. Should be better in the coming weeks, though (last week of classes, "dead week", finals week, out of school), so I don't feel I need replacing. That said, as of right now I don't think I can address everything recently said unless it's specifically asked of me, so I'll just hit the one post that stood out most to me as needing commentary.

Here is everything I've said about SB's "calm and mature" responses (I've left out the bits about his overreaction, because the apparent "contradiction" in my commentary is based on the belief (that I don't have) that SB underreacted):

ISOing oneself? Is that a thing? Do people do that? Either way, this amuses me greatly.

My reasons for thinking he was townie are clear: the fact that he answered all of the questions, calmly and maturely. Key points are this:

Not sure why scum can't answer questions calmly and maturely, but let's see what you have....

-"Willing to learn"

I'd expect that from any newb, scum or otherwise.

-"Not sitting on the fence so much" (proof of the above)

FoSes are the epitome of sitting on the fence. A great way to say "I think this dude might be something to check out, but I am not willing to connect myself to the investigation of him". I have no problem with using them in and of themselves, but, at minimum, they should be followed up with strong questioning, and if you don't vote someone you FoS, you *better* have a stronger vote already in play or that person should be at L-1 already. Take initiative rather than vaguely pointing fingers.

-"Calm and mature" (the key phrase; people seem to ignore the second part)

I try to assume we're all mature here, so it doesn't stick out if someone is.

-"Happy to answer any questions"

The perfect way to blend in, isn't it? Or, more importantly, refusing to answer questions better come with a very good justification, so I don't see why this is necessarily townish. I know when I eventually pull scum, I'll probably be even more eager to answer questions.

-"Willingness to engage with others’ questions shows a fearlessness with regards to slipping up"

Or a (perceived) carefulness with regards to the same.

-"Putting the power firmly in my hands"

You'd be surprised what a strong scum to do with answering questions....


Now, you'll notice that I took your post and, rather than comment on you, like you had, I continued to comment on SB. This is for good reason: why are any of these things particularly townie? This is a legitimate question, since you basically outlined my future plans for blending in as scum. Now, I can understand how you might look at this and say "well, in that light, why say it's one way or the other" and that's where I point to my earlier posts and, moreover, the bit about fence-sitting and FoSes. I mean, I can see a world where SB is town, I just don't think it's this one.

[Sauron]

Right now, I think that we have to decide whether hiphop's scummy enough to lynch at this moment because we cannot hold the replacement to his/her predecessor's actions, and we cannot allow the replacement to get off completely scot-free. If the answer is no, then I'd suggest pursuing different angles because the replacement won't be here long enough to give us a good read...

Currently, the answer to my own question is yes, barring a fairly protown replacement.

I'd personally disagree, given that my read on hiphop is a bit less scummy than yours (granted, there is an admitted possibility that this is because we were arguing the same case, but I won't try to analyze my own psychology right now), but I'd obviously support this over a no-lynch. Moreover, if enough of town feels more strongly for hiphop right now than anyone else, I don't see why we _should_ wait. I mean, yes, it's a lynch I don't necessarily agree with (and therefore won't be joining), but if we have 5 people feeling decently strongly about it, that will give us a _huge_ springboard for D2. Now, I'm not saying people should vote for hiphop, but I am saying that if you're feeling strongly but not sure if you should vote yet, just bloody do it.

If you're on the fence at all, though, please say at least that. Then vote SB >.> (Okay, I'm not serious about that last bit. I mean, I wish you would, but... ah, screw it, it's just a joke, you'll figure it out.)

Mod: Prod Sauron as well.

Does that make 2 people saying that as I'm writing a post? Amusing, though I apologize for getting it to that point.

[AurorusVox]

Sauron:

I understand fully that there are two (or more) ways to read the situation, and it's great that we both can read the same things very differently; but what the point is of Thor's question as I understand it (and the point of my whole previous post) isn't the final assessment in and of itself (i.e. whether or not I or anyone else reads SB as scummy - I've intentionally left out the scummy parts of SB for this very reason), but rather whether or not I've contradicted myself in how I've read SB and Hiphop's (alleged) under-reactions (I say alleged because I've never said SB under-reacted). Do you think that I've read Hiphop to have the same tells as SB, but found them scummy on Hiphop and townie on SB? Or do you think I've perceived them to have different reactions? If the former is true, like Hiphop said, that is very naughty of me. If the latter is true, then that makes Hiphop's representation of me inaccurate.

For general information purposes, I am still suspicious of SB (but that's because of his faked overreaction, which I'm still not entirely sure how to read). I don't think hiphop and SB being scum has to be mutually exclusive. But as of now, I suspect hiphop more, which is why my vote is on him.

[Thor665]

because we cannot hold the replacement to his/her predecessor's actions

Please expound on this concept.