Micro 39 - WUPBBYORGRMM!!! - D2

[IceGuy]

For someone who chastised me for questioning L-2 in the first 25 posts before we had any indication if we would actively know Hated / Loved status or the existence of a Vote Thief this response looks contradictory.

I didn't remember them.

[Rubick]

So who is your scum-team. You are ruling out GNR as Town for not being scum with Iceguy or myself. Yet you are voting Sala so either you are voting someone you don’t think is scum or your GNR is Town analysis is predicated on invalid premises and thus looks faked. Saulres already pointed this out.

I don't understand this. GNR seems town. That doesn't mean you're both scum.

[saulres]

Okay, I've gone through the game to see if I can understand the whole "L-2" argument between MoI and Rubick. And now my head hurts. Whoever's the neighborizer, please pick me so I have the chance of having someone to talk to!

Notes and timeline spoiled for space etc.

Spoiler: L-2 argument

17: MoI challenges Klick for posting an L-2 vote on Sala.
18: VC shows Sala as loved.<<-- NO ONE SAYS THEY NOTICED
25: Klick says L-2 is not a big deal.
26: MoI votes Klick quoting all of 25.
30-32: VC reflecting loved/hated
42: IceGuy votes MoI saying L-2 isn't a big deal.
55: MoI says it is a big deal due to a Hated/Vote Stealing combo.
56: Rubick challenges MoI asking why Klick's voted for L-2 but IceGuy isn't.
59: MoI says there was more to the quote which prompted his vote than the L-2
[61: Sala jumps on Rubick wagon with no explanation]
62: MoI puts Rubick at L-2. (No longer concerned about vote thief? -- Not an issue: if MoI's town and voting a scumread he wouldn't be. If he's scum he wouldn't be either.)
63: Rubick says L-2 is a concern when the hated player's unknown, but that after the reveal of who is hated, it's not of such concern.
68: MoI says he challenged before the clarity. (This is backed up.)
69: Rubick says he had no problem with the vote of Klick until after MoI didn't parallel with Iceguy after the reveal. THIS IS WHAT MOI'S SAYING! Why is it a problem for Rubick?
74: Rubick claims
77: MoI challenges Rubick about not being worried about L-2 w/Hated
78: Rubick says not worried because no vote thief.
83: MoI says Rubick thinks even people who didn't know there was a vote thief should not have been worried <- That's not what he's saying, or if it is, I missed it. Intentional misrep?
84: Rubick says again that the point was that MoI jumped on Klick but not Iceguy for saying L-2 isn't a big deal, but it's STILL NOT A PROBLEM!

So what I get from that

1) I'm finding MoI being consistent, but with a possible misrep (83, see spoilered for what I'm talking about).

2) I don't understand why Rubick was saying there's a problem, and why he keeps pushing it.

@Rubick

: Care to explain?

3) I don't understand Sala's play at all. Sala, why did you jump on the Rubick wagon in 61?

Also if MoI and/or Rubick could explain the last paragraph in 77 & the response (last paragraph) in 78 I'd appreciate it. Where was Rubick not worried about L-2?

Hey Salures, bend over

You're loved, but not

that

loved

pedit:

I thought that should be clear from the context of my quote – I saw that the Vote Count by AV reflected me being at effectively Zero votes. This meant that there was a Vote-Thief out there and I wanted to know for certain before proceeding.

Ah, okay. It wasn't clear because I wasn't online when it happened. Thanks for explaining.

But what's the concern over unvoting someone who's loved at L-2 with no vote thief in the game?

[MagnaofIllusion]

I don't understand this. GNR seems town. That doesn't mean you're both scum.

You said the following -

GNR doesn't look like scum with Iceguy.
GNR doesn't look like scum with MoI.
I think GNR looks Town.

Some part of this posting doesn't make sense given this response.

[Salamence20]

Okay, I've gone through the game to see if I can understand the whole "L-2" argument between MoI and Rubick. And now my head hurts. Whoever's the neighborizer, please pick me so I have the chance of having someone to talk to!

Hahaha!

Again BEND over and vote rubick!!!

[Rubick]

You said the following -

GNR doesn't look like scum with Iceguy.
GNR doesn't look like scum with MoI.
I think GNR looks Town.

Some part of this posting doesn't make sense given this response.

Which part do you disagree with?

[MagnaofIllusion]

But what's the concern over unvoting someone who's loved at L-2 with no vote thief in the game?

Because Sala is

THE WORST POSSIBLE

lynch today.

You a somewhat privy to why I think that when others are not. Unless you think we are partners together it's a bad, bad idea to lynch him today.

[MagnaofIllusion]

@Saulres

- In fact that you are privy to some bit of information that should tell you why I think we aren't lynching him yet persist in voting him still "To motivate behavior" is very, very suspect ...

[drmyshotgun]

@Shotgun

– Do you still think Rubick is scum? If so why are you dead set on attacking someone who has expressed intent to hammer? And why not a peep Iceguy's way when he hasn't given any independant reasoning either?

It just occured to me that GNR was just going for the easy target without having much of an input himself.
Looks like bussing to me.

@Shotgun

: Your post 50 feels like OMGUS, and your other posts are fluff at best. Care to join the game?

It was not OMGUS. Others used the same reasoning to get on Rubick wagon.

GNR is not scum with Iceguy, otherwise instead of admitting a mistake he would've rationalized that the pseudovote put me at pseudo-L1.
GNR also doesn't seem like scum with MoI.

In all likelihood, GNR is probably town.

Nice. Nice work.

[saulres]

Unless you think we are partners together

I'm not going to lie, I am worried about that. I have no way of confirming alignments, and if you are scum, then your call of the worst possible lynch doesn't jive with mine.

But to your most recent point, he has answered my question (not satisfactorily though), so there's more things I need to try to look at.

Unvote

for now.

[saulres]

You might want to reread something. I can't for the life of me figure how, if you're town, you're coming to the conclusion that he's the WORST possible lynch. Unless...

I think I'm going to shut up now.

[Salamence20]

Again, I CANT.

PEDIT: VOTE RUBICK.

[saulres]

From both of you. I swear, if Rubick flips town, a MoI-Sala scumteam seems so strong to me...

I'm waiting for Rubick to respond to my question in 102. If I don't like those answers I'll vote for him, even if it's the hammer, because let's be honest -- his claimed role isn't the most town-useful, and his flip would be extremely revealing at this point.

[saulres]

Others used the same reasoning to get on Rubick wagon.

I don't agree with that assessment. And I'll ask again -- do you intend to scumhunt this game?

[Rubick]

I don't get what you're asking for in 102.

I thought MoI voted Klick for the L-2 comment, but not Iceguy.
I had a problem.
He explained that he didn't vote Klick for the L-2 comment alone.
I do not have a problem.

[drmyshotgun]

Others used the same reasoning to get on Rubick wagon.

I don't agree with that assessment. And I'll ask again -- do you intend to scumhunt this game?

Yes I do.

[drmyshotgun]

I honestly thought he was at L-1. I saw the vote count, then a vote:rubick, so I assumed he was at L-1
Now I realize that it was MoI saying Unvote:Rubick

So. Where's the vote anyways? Why are you specifically aiming for Hammer?

[drmyshotgun]

GNR is claiming intention to hammer on Rubick while leaving his vote on the second biggest wagon: Salamance.

[saulres]

I don't get what you're asking for in 102.

I thought MoI voted Klick for the L-2 comment, but not Iceguy.
I had a problem.
He explained that he didn't vote Klick for the L-2 comment alone.

I do not have a problem.

Wha wha what?

He said that in 59. You continued to challenge him in 63:

It's fine to be worried about L-2 when you consider the hated player, but now we are aware that all L-#'s are genuine. So being worried about L-2 is an unwarranted position

after

the clarity.

69:

I didn't have a problem with you voting Klick until after Iceguy made a similar statement about L-2, which you found to be non-indicative of alignment. This was after the clarity surrounding loved/hated. If I had a problem with it before Iceguy's post, I would have spoken up.

and 84:

The issue wasn't that you jumped on Klick for his L-2 comment, it's that you didn't jump on Iceguy for his.

VOTE: Rubick

[saulres]

L-1

[Rubick]

What? No...

Why do you think it wasn’t a warranted position to take before the Vote Count and Hated claim gave us some clarity on the situation?

He didn't understand my position, so I tried to explain it.

This is a nice explanation except questioning Klick about his actions made BEFORE said clarity is perfectly valid. Clarity did not exist when Klick made his vote.

Again, he thought I was making a fuss about Klick. I don't care that he voted Klick, I care that he didn't call Iceguy out for the same thing. I tried to explain that.

Yes, but your stance is that people who don’t have your “Lack of Inside Knowledge” on the Vote Thief front shouldn’t have been wary on Page 1 pre-vote count. I don’t think that makes much sense.

Misrepping my opinion a third time.

MoI seemed to think I had a problem with his Klick vote on Page 1. I didn't have a problem with his Klick vote at that time. It's only after Iceguy's bit that it bothered me. That's not me challenging his opinion, it's me trying to ensure that my opinion was fully understood.

[Salamence20]

From both of you. I swear, if Rubick flips town, a MoI-Sala scumteam seems so strong to me...

HOMS: Salures

[saulres]

I'm misrepping? Apologies if I am, but I don't think so.

I'll run through this again, let me know what you disagree with.

It seems clear to me (did you look at my spoilered bit?) that what happened was that in 56 you called MoI out for not being suspicious of IceGuy placing an L-2 vote when he was suspicious of Klick placing an L-2 vote. Even if that post right above this one, you said the same thing.

Immediately thereafter, MoI explained (in 55).

You then continued to press him starting in 56. If you thought the explanation was sufficient, why was the majority of the game (or at least a large part of it) about that argument?

pedit: What's HOMS?

[Rubick]

There was no explanation in 55. His 59 cleared up the problem that I had, but 59 also had the notion that I disagreed with his vote on Klick.

Why do you think it wasn’t a warranted position to take before the Vote Count and Hated claim gave us some clarity on the situation?

is a loaded question assuming I thought his vote on Klick was an unwarranted position.

Can you see that? Everything before 59 is me challenging that fact that 'he didn't acknowledge Iceguy's comment.' Everything after 59 is me challenging his notion that 'I thought the Klick vote was a bad vote.'

[Rubick]

I can get together a list of my reads so you guys will have something to go on tomorrow. No hammers in the meantime.