Newbie 1094: Let us simulate. Game over. Scum win.

[Cobblerfone]

Oh man, I just realized that it was Heliman that said he came from an aggressive forum.

Nevermind then.

[Heliman]

Ok I'm back, sorry I had work and blah blah blah.

But I'm not trying to get you lynched (not yet, anyway). I'm trying to build up a pressure wagon on you so we can get some idea as to your reactions under pressure.

Everyone, seriously, shut the fuck up about "Pressure." L1, L2, L3, It doesn't make a god damn bit of difference if you don't bring any guns to the table, it's just being passive, parroty and
scummy. Votes come and go like sand on a windy day, arguments are the mud stays behind late game.

Oh and

Heliman

dude, who's your 2 FoS's?

I was going to say that I had none, but after rereading I have to say Quilford and Cobblefone.

Cobblefone, because I could see his actions right now as an obvious (see #45) chainsaw defense of Izak by going after the people voting on him. You'll note how in #50 he switches straight over from Quillford to super, with nothing more than a bullshit WIFOM argument to stand on.

Second,

Quillford

, because it looks like he's trying to fake scumhunting by bandwagoning, then parroting other player's arguments when he gets pinned for bandwagoning. He also never asked Izak a question when he made his "pressure" vote, meaning he's not leaving the targeted player an outing, and to me that means he's not expecting to have to remove his Vote to begin with. ({sarcasm}You know, unless that argument falls apart, but that's okay though, right? it just was a "pressure" vote after all.{/sarcasm}) He's being aggressive and passive at the same time, that's a twofer for being scum.

(Would either of you two care to convince me otherwise?)

Anyhow, what do you know, both of these suspicions are dependent on weather or not Izak is scum. It looks like I really am voting for him today.

[jmurph3]

Having reread the thread, Cobblerfone is most suspicious to me at the moment. Heliman already noted the chainsaw defense aspect; additionally, he seems to be constantly making sure that he's got approval for what he's doing.

Look at what he's done thus far: in this post he posts an FoS against izak just a few minutes after I do, which is strange in that he's following me in not voting when he really had no reason not to vote. This post even contains a glib jibe about making sure that he's "learnin' it good". Most recently, he unvoted Supreme Overlord for no good reason. It seems as if he's very willing to drop his vote and change his argument at the slightest hint that someone might call him out on it.

Additionally, this post is just really odd to me:

Oh, and I don't expect anyone to change their vote to Quilford on my account, so I switched to Supreme Overlord to see how he'll react.

All this is enough for me to UNVOTE: ,VOTE: Cobblerfone.

[Heliman]

He seems to be constantly making sure that he's got approval for what he's doing.

Think of it as less seeking approval and more wanting to get some arguments generated. It's day one, the thing we need most right now is context.

[Spadille]

Let the bodies hit the floor then. UNVOTE: ,VOTE: Cobblerfone

But I did reread the thread, and I think either Quilford or Supreme Overlord is scum. (possibly both)

Your reads say that it's either Quilford or SO but it depends whether izak is scum or not?

Take note, you don't find him scummy because you have told us that it may be Quilford AND Supreme Overlord.

Really, my suspicion of Supreme Overlord is just a hunch that only aplies if izak is mafia. Quilford and Spadille are the ones that I think are scum if izak isn't. I also had a feeling about Trendall, but these feelings seem to be spread so thin now I don't think I'll share them anymore, lest I appear foolish.

Well damn shame. I don't see the Supreme Overlord - izak connection, really. Your only basis was Supreme Overlord joining the wagon and asking questions. WHICH HE ISN'T EVEN DOING BEFORE.

I wasn't criticizing that Spadille was interrogating izakthegoomba (Actually, since Overlord's quoted it in his post while I was typing this I see that it's Overlord that I accuse. I really have no idea why I said that. I'll chalk it up to nausea do to reading the posts upside down in the reply-preview). I was just explaining that if the mafia are attacking each other, then I'm counting Spadille's intergation as "bussing" even if he isn't voting, which I don't think he should, obviously and... Okay I see that I've found a round-about in my logic.

Then what the hell do you want me to do? I'm starting to believe Heliman about that chainsaw defense. Attacking the attackers of your scumbuddy.

The only suspicion of mine that relies on izak being scum is Supreme Overlord.

No, your read on me relies on izak being scum also. Your only case against me was bussing.

[Spadille]

Also, I'm calling out mafia duo: Cobblerfone and izakthegoomba. Discuss.

My discussion:
First posts belong to them, and on the exact same hour. This may be the fruit of a N-0 discussion.
izakthegoomba doesn't question Cobblerfone's rough logic and calls it "Reasonable."
Cobblerfone using chainsaw defense. Attacking Supreme Overlord, Quilford and me.

@izakthegoomba
What do you mean that he's right about a mafioso in your wagon? And you have also said that it's the latecomer? Wait, who was that? Quilford? Oh my.
Please do an essay(lol) to support Cobblerfone's logic. If you are saying that it's damn reasonable then you won't have a problem. Also, provide me a case against Quilford, Supreme Overlord. Since those were the guys in your bandwagon. Oh, and you can include me also.

@Cobblerfone
Why were you suspicious of Quilford again?

@Quilford
What Heliman said. Less voting, more hunting. Do you still think izakthegoomba is scum? If not, who do you think it is?

@Trendall
Get out of the sidelines. I have been spotting you for the day lurking. Give us you Top 3 FoS's.

[Heliman]

@izakthegoomba
What do you mean that he's right about a mafioso in your wagon? And you have also said that it's the latecomer? Wait, who was that? Quilford? Oh my.
Please do an essay(lol) to support Cobblerfone's logic. If you are saying that it's damn reasonable then you won't have a problem. Also, provide me a case against Quilford, Supreme Overlord. Since those were the guys in your bandwagon. Oh, and you can include me also.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I know what this is anyway. I looks like a VERY BAD application of Stoofer's first law. Cobble, you're supposed to actually find a reason to scum hunt them other than hunches, just depending on shit like this only leads to WIFOM and is very scummy. Actually, if this is the case you shouldn't use anything like this again, this is a Newbie learning game, you can use what you learned from reading when ICs (who are not me BTW) aren't teaching you.

@Quilford
What Heliman said. Less voting, more hunting. Do you still think izakthegoomba is scum? If not, who do you think it is?

So, Does everyone actually want to copy all my arguments or is me and my coolkid vinyl record just that convincing?

[Spadille]

So, Does everyone actually want to copy all my arguments or is me and my coolkid vinyl record just that convincing?

Excuse me?

[Quilford]

Second,

Quillford

, because it looks like he's trying to fake scumhunting by bandwagoning, then parroting other player's arguments when he gets pinned for bandwagoning. He also never asked Izak a question when he made his "pressure" vote, meaning he's not leaving the targeted player an outing, and to me that means he's not expecting to have to remove his Vote to begin with. ({sarcasm}You know, unless that argument falls apart, but that's okay though, right? it just was a "pressure" vote after all.{/sarcasm}) He's being aggressive and passive at the same time, that's a twofer for being scum.

I see not a shred of supporting evidence.

[Spadille]

He also never asked Izak a question when he made his "pressure" vote

I don't think that needs evidence.

[Quilford]

@Quilford

What's the problem with putting him at L-2?

Problem is, you put him at L-2 and you are not really pressuring him. You just rode the wagon.

I expect alot in your position. You should be the one who is actively scumhunting.

So that's that? You will not figure out if your sweet logic is flawless or not? You believe he is scum instantly? Or will you just piggyback on people thoughts and call it 'Oh that's the reason too why I voted for him'?

This entire post is nonsensical. I don't understand the bold - 'your position', 'you should be the one'. Why are you singling out me here? I did not just ride the wagon. I provided reasoning as to why I voted him.

[Spadille]

You did. And are you really so convinced to the point that there should be no more questions asked?

[Quilford]

You did. And are you really so convinced to the point that there should be no more questions asked?

What do you mean by 'you did'?

I never ever ever said I was 'really so convinced to the point that there should be no more questions asked'. It stands to reason that if either izak manages to convincingly defend against the arguments put to him, or if a scummier player emerges, my vote will change.

Give me some examples of questions I could've asked him.

[Spadille]

I provided reasoning as to why I voted him.

You did.

That's what I mean.

It stands to reason that if either izak manages to convincingly defend against the arguments put to him, or if a scummier player emerges, my vote will change.

So are you letting us to do what is your responsibility too as town? Just stand below a tree and wait for the fruit to come off? This is what I'm talking about. Piggybacking when the time comes. Posting non-relevant things is hardly a reason at all. A reason to suspect, yes, but not a reason to vote.

Give me some examples of questions I could've asked him.

I won't give you anything to feed on. Scumhunt properly.

[Supreme Overlord]

@Spadille, what did you mean by the capitals:

Your only basis was Supreme Overlord joining the wagon and asking questions. WHICH HE ISN'T EVEN DOING BEFORE.

First posts belong to them, and on the exact same hour. This may be the fruit of a N-0 discussion.

Well, unless they'd planned to get on at a certain time (and quite frankly, I don't see the point), they would have to both be online anyway, and I'd post if I happen to be online. So I don't really think this means anything.

izakthegoomba doesn't question Cobblerfone's rough logic and calls it "Reasonable."

Are you referring to this:

Cobblerfone makes sense in that a mafioso is probably on the bandwagon against me already. That's as far as it goes.

Which is followed up with:

What he was saying just seemed to fit in reasonably well.

I don't find agreement in general particularly scummy. Agreement without personal thought is, but I don't think we're seeing too much of that.

Cobblerfone using chainsaw defense. Attacking Supreme Overlord, Quilford and me.

This is possible, but not enough on its own (we'd need a flip). Also, he didn't attack Heliman, first on the wagon.


I must say, that doesn't seem anywhere near strong enough to be 'calling out the mafia duo'. Just how convinced are you? Also:

I'll share my SO and Quilford thoughts when both of them stands for themselves.

Did you do this?



@Cobblerfone: What conclusions did you draw from my reaction? Do you have any definite opinions on who is scummy?

@izak:

If we are to win the game, it will be by making good choices, and lynching the Mafia.

Do you think you've made any 'good choices' yet? What is your plan for the rest of Day 1?

[Quilford]

It stands to reason that if either izak manages to convincingly defend against the arguments put to him, or if a scummier player emerges, my vote will change.

So are you letting us to do what is your responsibility too as town? Just stand below a tree and wait for the fruit to come off? This is what I'm talking about. Piggybacking when the time comes. Posting non-relevant things is hardly a reason at all. A reason to suspect, yes, but not a reason to vote.

re: piggybacking when the time comes
So you're saying if a scummier player emerges, I shouldn't vote them?

re: posting non-relevant things
This is definitely a reason to vote someone.
By posting non-relevant things you are avoiding scumhunting - a scummy thing to do.
By posting non-relevant things you are going to be a burden at lylo.
By posting non-relevant things we cannot gain reads from you.
By posting non-relevant things your credibility is being eroded.
By posting non-relevant things you are not posting anything which could make people suspicious of you.

Give me some examples of questions I could've asked him.

I won't give you anything to feed on. Scumhunt properly.

The reason I asked this was because I don't think there are any non-random questions to be asked of izak (apart from the ones that have already been asked of him). I'll give it a shot though.

[Spadille]

The capitals was to give emphasis, duh.

I don't find agreement in general particularly scummy. Agreement without personal thought is, but I don't think we're seeing too much of that.

The statement in which he agrees on? It's a WIFOM. Do you think there should be something 'reasonable' with it?

Just how convinced are you?

Not yet to the point that I'll recommend an immediate lynching. The statement was to generate discussion.

I'll share my SO and Quilford thoughts when both of them stands for themselves.

Yes. On different posts.

[Quilford]

I think Quilford is the most suspicious from my position, as he voted for me just because I "posted almost nothing relevant". Hardly a reason for lynching.

Why don't you consider not posting anything relevant as a reason for lynching?

[Spadille]

So you're saying if a scummier player emerges, I shouldn't vote them?

No, I'm saying when asked why you are still voting him, you'll put into addendum what you read from other players.

[Spadille]

By posting non-relevant things you are avoiding scumhunting - a scummy thing to do.
By posting non-relevant things you are going to be a burden at lylo.
By posting non-relevant things we cannot gain reads from you.
By posting non-relevant things your credibility is being eroded.
By posting non-relevant things you are not posting anything which could make people suspicious of you.

You voted for him based on his posts at Page 1. How sad is that?

[Supreme Overlord]

The capitals was to give emphasis

I mean, why did that require emphasis? Were you referring to the fact that I hadn't questioned anyone before izak? Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're saying. The other sentences seem to explain your positiong, but the capitals confuse me. Could you rephrase?

I don't find agreement in general particularly scummy. Agreement without personal thought is, but I don't think we're seeing too much of that.

The statement in which he agrees on? It's a WIFOM. Do you think there should be something 'reasonable' with it?

Well, the thing about WIFOM, is that it could be or it couldn't be. So, inherently, it is reasonable. It's just usually meaningless. I'd be inclined to ignore the original proposition (there must be a scum on the wagon) until we have a flip that we can use to compare.

I'll share my SO and Quilford thoughts when both of them stands for themselves.

Yes. On different posts.

Do you consider what we have posted so far as 'standing for ourselves'?

[Spadille]

I mean, why did that require emphasis?

To tell Cobblerfone that his vote reason is incorrect.

And then Supreme Overlord jumps on the izak-wagon and starts interrogating; good cover for scum.

Before that post, you didn't do any interrogations. I was about to accuse you of the same thing I accused Quilford for, but you did some scumhunting yourself too. And your reaction is priceless.

What do you think I mean?

Do you consider what we have posted so far as 'standing for ourselves'?

Yes. The point of waiting is, it came from you and not from any other guy.

[Spadille]

Well, the thing about WIFOM, is that it could be or it couldn't be. So, inherently, it is reasonable. It's just usually meaningless. I'd be inclined to ignore the original proposition (there must be a scum on the wagon) until we have a flip that we can use to compare.

But it's not nearly reasonable before that happens, right? Until then, it's not reasonable. izak's agreement is suspicious for me.

[Nexus]

Votecount 1.3:

Izakthegoomba (3): Heliman, Supreme Overlord, Quilford
Cobblerfone (3): Debonair Danny DiPietro, jmurph3, Spadille
Quilford (1): izakthegoomba

Not voting: Trendall, Cobblerfone

With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch. Deadline is at 5pm (GMT) on the 8th May 2011.

As ever, if there are any problems, point them out.

[Quilford]

So you're saying if a scummier player emerges, I shouldn't vote them?

No, I'm saying when asked why you are still voting him, you'll put into addendum what you read from other players.

Of course I will. They're good arguments.

By posting non-relevant things you are avoiding scumhunting - a scummy thing to do.
By posting non-relevant things you are going to be a burden at lylo.
By posting non-relevant things we cannot gain reads from you.
By posting non-relevant things your credibility is being eroded.
By posting non-relevant things you are not posting anything which could make people suspicious of you.

You voted for him based on his posts at Page 1. How sad is that?

You're right. I should totally have voted for someone else for no good reason.

Page 1 is as good a place as any. And izak certainly hasn't done much to convince me that my vote is in the wrong position. His ISO reveals that his posts are, still, almost devoid of scumhunting.

And you know what? You voted for Trendall based on just one of his posts on Page 1.