![Image](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6392/cantaffordsurgery.gif)
Deadline is in
I'm going to toss out an appeal to majority fallacy here.In post 644, zakk wrote:But then again, it has been equally obvious that toolenduso has been scum since his first post in the game, so I suppose I should not be surprised.
Not sure what "gimme" defamation means, but if it's something scummy then here's some more examples I think fit into that category:In post 644, zakk wrote:This is exactly the kind of "gimme" defamation that I'd expect scum to stoop to. It's too easy. It's too obvious.In post 638, toolenduso wrote:ABR: "Lynch Thor! Or Garmr! No, wait, lynch Elyse because she didn't unvote when I asked! No, wait, lynch Thor again!"
In post 151, Albert B. Rampage wrote:#147 is literally a piece of crap.
In post 587, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Nope. You're too bad. You are way, way too bad to be town. Oversimplification. Flat. Detached.
In post 29, GuthrieGov wrote:Bastion I'm sorry, but thats just plain stupid.
In post 415, ICEninja wrote:Can I just...not read any of Slandaars posts anymore?
In post 598, Sir Bastion wrote: contradicting yourself much?
We lynch you and you flip scum *oh noes who's town and who's scum the possibilities are endless, hell Thor might even be my partner bussing me to control town*
We lynch Thor and he flips scum *Well obviously we are town cause we told you so*
....and countless others from Slandaar.In post 573, Slandaar wrote: 'I think this post should have just been a question'
'NO WAY YOU SCUM YOU CANT POSSIBLY THINK THAT'
Are we lynching Thor now or what?
In post 592, Thor665 wrote:Oh, and my favorite;
"When I said I 'made up' something it is scummy for Thor to call that 'lying'...because, y'know...those are different things...also, there was no lie."
...and many more from Thor. And then there's this one from you:In post 591, Thor665 wrote:"I barely remember Thor"
"Thor is so good at scum he can make me have doubts"
"Thor is being so bad and oversimplifying, he is obv. scum."
Flail more.
Now, zakk, I have a few questions for you. You first voted Thor over 400 posts ago. Since then, quite a bit has happened. Do you still think Thor is scum? Why or why not? Who else do you suspect and why? Any townreads? Why?In post 285, zakk wrote:He seems to be crashing and burning and resorting to petty insults when he's been caught and tagged.
This shows a good understanding of how wagons are formed and how they break down. Albert knows that if a charismatic player dodges a lynch, it would be quite difficult to get the votes back on them again. Based on that, I really dislike this post:In post 257, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Once he gets 4-5 votes, it's not the time to have second thoughts.We might not ever build the necessary momentum to lynch him again, if we miss our chance.
As Albert himself shows, it goes both ways. If Albert is scum, it will be difficult to get a wagon back on him later on (possibly with Thor dead and Albert's detractors mislynched or killed). Albert's now a strong scumread. I want to lynch him today once Skelda and HavingFitz post their thoughts.In post 581, Albert B. Rampage wrote:I will unequivocally represent a real and dangerous threat to scum, if left alive. If they don't lynch me now, it will be hard for them to do so later. Don't let them have this lynch.
This shows a good understanding of how wagons are formed and how they break down. Albert knows that if a charismatic player dodges a lynch, it would be quite difficult to get the votes back on them again. Based on that, I really dislike this post:In post 257, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Once he gets 4-5 votes, it's not the time to have second thoughts.We might not ever build the necessary momentum to lynch him again, if we miss our chance.
[/quote]In post 581, Albert B. Rampage wrote:I will unequivocally represent a real and dangerous threat to scum, if left alive. If they don't lynch me now, it will be hard for them to do so later. Don't let them have this lynch.
In post 658, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
A few points I want to note on a re-read (mostly on the Thor/Slandaar/Albert interactions):
I mistakenly assumed that Albert initiated the pressure on Thor. A re-read shows that Thor was the one who called out Albert in post 60 and then follows it up with more questioning in 65, 67, and 70.
Simultaneously, Thor questions Slandaar in post 60 and 75 and it seemed as though Thor would push on Slandaar soon. Albert then comes in at post 83 and votes Slandaar. So, Albert here is following Thor indirectly by voting the player that Thor was questioning.
Thor continues questioning Albert in 150 and 153. Theonlytime where Thor expresses agreement with Albert is in 201 and it was not forceful or enthusiastic in any way, just a simple agreement. I feel that Albert is blowing it out of proportion in 581 calling Thor the friendliest. Albert then takes a stance in 206 saying that Slandaar's exchange with Thor isn't scummy. This comes after a lot of tunneling from Slandaar and Thor on each other. Albert puts up a case in 219 saying Thor is scummy.
I feel that Albert's jump here was opportunistic. Thor had shown at least mild suspicion of Albert so it is not Albert who is initiating suspicion but rather reacting to Thor who was already suspicious of him. Add to that the fact that Thor was then completely busy attacking Slandaar and had his hands full. This shields Albert from immediate attacks from Thor since Thor was so busy trying to lynch someone else.
Elyse's 561 seals the deal for me. I find Albert's response to her post in 581 inadequate. It doesn't address the points raised and Albert tries to write it off as a disagreement. I also don't like 582 where he says "You lynch me, and say I turn up scum. Who do you lynch then?" That doesn't even make any sense. If he flips scum, good. We can work it out from there. Scum lynches trump lynching for information.
Albert's appeal to Slandaar in 254 and subsequent explanation is interesting. I'll quote it for reference:
This shows a good understanding of how wagons are formed and how they break down. Albert knows that if a charismatic player dodges a lynch, it would be quite difficult to get the votes back on them again. Based on that, I really dislike this post:In post 257, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Once he gets 4-5 votes, it's not the time to have second thoughts.We might not ever build the necessary momentum to lynch him again, if we miss our chance.
As Albert himself shows, it goes both ways. If Albert is scum, it will be difficult to get a wagon back on him later on (possibly with Thor dead and Albert's detractors mislynched or killed). Albert's now a strong scumread. I want to lynch him today once Skelda and HavingFitz post their thoughts.In post 581, Albert B. Rampage wrote:I will unequivocally represent a real and dangerous threat to scum, if left alive. If they don't lynch me now, it will be hard for them to do so later. Don't let them have this lynch.
Do you mean that ABR said he's a bad lynch because of a lack of info we'd get by lynching him, or he's a bad lynch because we lack info about him? And if it's the latter, could you provide a quote, because I didn't see that in Albert's ISO.In post 663, Thor665 wrote:the contradiction that immediately springs to mind is that he says he is a bad lynch due to lack of info while also advancing the idea we should lynch a lurker (the definition of a non-info lynch)