In post 1023, Chevre wrote:So for a concise list () The end-of-day vote count makes me think Sotty7, ABR, emogirl123, Zekrom25, and Garmr are suspicious, in that order.
In post 1120, Chevre wrote:I'm reluctant to vote Zekrom25, because of his ISO--it's so consistently horrible that I think it is just playstyle. I would vote him for a deadline-pushing compromise lynch though.
In post 1259, Chevre wrote:Zekrom and kabooooom I guess fall into this category of people who I don't even really feel are trying, regardless of alignment.
In post 1284, Chevre wrote:Yeah, I think Zekrom should be dealt with via replacement. A lynch is a waste for town, and it seems most people are voting him for a playstyle rather than actual suspicions.
In post 1635, Chevre wrote:but kabooooom's (self vote) is really out of place. It definitely felt like a "everybody else is doing it so why not me?" vote. His response to kaboooom's policy vote is near as bad. His last few posts have been declarations of V/LA, followed by statements that he will catch up only to fall back into V/LA, without asking for replacement. I strongly suspect kabooooom at this point.
Literally compare kabooooom's game with zekrom's game and try to reach the same conclusion Chevre reached there during the ABR/kabooooom race. Keep in mind that he suggested Zekrom should be replaced where as kabooooom should be lynched. Complete double standards for two players playing the same game. Why? Because Chevre is scum.In post 1680, Chevre wrote:I've mentioned my evidence before, and it's most strongly on that self-vote, but I also recall the pregame interaction between emogirl/Garmr/kabooooom. I feel like this theory is near the point of conspiracy since none of them are dead, but there was a giddiness to that early play, it seems like the scumteam by some chance were the first few players to confirm and thus their groupedness led to those interactions?
Clarify your case on me please, because though I am often full of myself I'm pretty sure I look obv. town right now, so I'm OMGUSing all over you for this.In post 1961, Rainbowdash wrote:Lynch was still stupid even if it was lucky enough to be right. Nothing has changed. Also would lynch Thor. I don't think both are scum but I cant see both being town.
In post 1118, Chevre wrote:I think a yessiree NK begs for people to look and see "oh look he suspected ABR so he must be scum!!!"
[. . . . . crop . . . . .]
To conclude, I'm very unlikely to rely on this for the bulk of a vote, because it's only one dead town's perspective (I don't really care to use Slandaar's, given his end-of day retorts and the general lack of reads anyway), but I feel it needs to be done so at least I have somewhere to look back to.
You mean you don't care when two confirmed town said to lynch ABR? I know Slandaar is a huge baby for the self lynch, but frustration does not invalid his arguments.In post 936, Slandaar wrote:A summary of ABR's case on me:
Sland is lurking
ABR can read me if I post a lot
I am second highest poster
I am town
ABR is scum, lynch him tomorrow.
I guessed you missed these too. Where Slandaar calls ABR scum.
Chevre and ABR interaction. Chevre bends logic to support ABR. Proof of this when he asked Zekrom to replace out when ABR v. NS was being played out, yet when ABR v kab was playing out, scum read out of thin air.In post 1977, Thor665 wrote:@Emo - I'd like to hear the Chevre case in a sexy short version. Just peg me with 1-3 sentences that nail it. I don't feel like I understand your issue.
Save yourself the time.In post 1977, Thor665 wrote:He'll squirm easier.
ABR didn't really start doing anything in relation to Slandaar until Slandaar attacked BS (who was really scummy). You didn't take much of a stance on the whole ABR/kab exchange from yesterday early on, then tried to get Bulb to vote kab (note him not taking that chance means Bulb is town), then when it was getting to a point where ABR was looking like the deadline lynch jumped on him.In post 1977, Thor665 wrote:Clarify your case on me please, because though I am often full of myself I'm pretty sure I look obv. town right now, so I'm OMGUSing all over you for this.In post 1961, Rainbowdash wrote:Lynch was still stupid even if it was lucky enough to be right. Nothing has changed. Also would lynch Thor. I don't think both are scum but I cant see both being town.
In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:Most of your interactions with the wagons and comments about it today sound more like you knew he was scum but were not sure about how to play it.
I don't think I have a good frame of reference for this. I'm guessing this is a bit of a hypocrisy tell. Can you clarify it any? Why was him asking Zekrom to replace out suspect?In post 1979, emogirl123 wrote:Chevre and ABR interaction. Chevre bends logic to support ABR. Proof of this when he asked Zekrom to replace out when ABR v. NS was being played out, yet when ABR v kab was playing out, scum read out of thin air.
Well...I think the last sentence is mostly null. If he was fake setting up cases when scum in the first part, there's no particular scum benefit to forget to mention them again - which means scum or town he clearly just forgot about it. I don't think town is less likely to forget things.In post 1979, emogirl123 wrote:Says yessiree dying incriminates ABR so much that he uses this as a reason for why ABR was not to be lynched. Not many people even mentioned yessiree's case for ABR. The case was ABR's push for emogirl. Chevre says this case holds so much validity that ABR is town and should not be lynched. Makes no reference to this while voting emogirl.
Meh. I don't see you as blazingly so town that it's scummy to attack you, though I understand that mindset.In post 1979, emogirl123 wrote:Cherry picking quotes to build a case for emogirl and coasting with these points occasionally "compromising" with a lynch just to continue to coast defaulting to day 1 "emogirl" case.
Oh yeah? Example please.In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:ABR didn't really start doing anything in relation to Slandaar until Slandaar attacked BS (who was really scummy).
Yeah...so...the start of the ABR wagon...no info from that, huh?In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:You didn't take much of a stance on the whole ABR/kab exchange from yesterday early on, then tried to get Bulb to vote kab (note him not taking that chance means Bulb is town), then when it was getting to a point where ABR was looking like the deadline lynch jumped on him.
Have you ever seen me do that after starting a bus on a scumbuddy at any point ever?In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:but it seemed like you were trying to figure out if you could actually save ABR, and eventually decided to bus when you figured that you could not.
How?In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:and that BS was very scummy
Well...I would think it was fairly obvious that I didn't vote ABR right out of the gate because I was still getting a feel for the game and scumreading people. Once I got a scumread on him I voted it and presented the case pretty strongly and even discussed it with multiple people and even moved a fair shake of votes to ABR.In post 1981, Rainbowdash wrote:Again you are immediately trying to loop into making yourself look good with the ABR wagon too saying it was "good meta" when you ignored it again until late. If it was as good of meta as you are claiming, why didnt you vote him early instead of stalling, seeming to make passive pokes towards kab, and then caving about 24 hours to deadline? Most of your interactions with the wagons and comments about it today sound more like you knew he was scum but were not sure about how to play it.
He asked Zekrom to replace out when he mentioned that Zekrom was his scum read. He requested that we wait on ABR to replace in before deciding on ABR again. He said he will not respect what Slandaar said with respect to ABR because Slandaar acted out and self hammered.In post 1983, Thor665 wrote:I'm guessing this is a bit of a hypocrisy tell. Can you clarify it any? Why was him asking Zekrom to replace out suspect?
Sorry, multitasking. He requested that we wait on ABR so all of a sudden scum read kabooooom for seemingly no reason when compared to the earlier situation with Zekrom.In post 1985, emogirl123 wrote:He requested that we wait on ABR to replace in before deciding on ABR again.
Someone with more ABR experience - how likely is this a bus.In post 504, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Chevre is a good day 1 lynch. You can't just run up everybody to L-3 and then freak out when someone places that player in danger of a lynch, then choose to disintegrate that wagon and bandwagon the new player. This is mountainous, we're not going to get a game-changing claim. Instead of getting caught in a circular suspicion loop, I say we lynch Chevre.
Looking at it like this, it may not be too far off that ABR was voting for a teammate. Chevre read reconsidered, for now.One vote after [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5638354#p5638354]post 478[/url], Chevre's at L-1 wrote:Vote Count 1.9 and a half
Chevre (9) - OhGodMyLife, Garmr, emogirl123, Maestro,Tebow, Sotty7, Aegor,Nobody Special,Albert B. Rampage
emogirl123 (4) - Bulbazak, Brian Skies,Maenara, kabooooom
Garmr (2) - emeraldemon, The Goodfather
Nobody Special(1) -yessiree
The Goodfather (1) -Slandaar
Not voting (2) -Acidic_TACO, Chevre
With nineteen players alive, it takes ten votes to lynch.
Deadline for Day One is Tuesday, 4th February 20.00 GMT, (in (expired on 2014-02-04 20:00:00)).
Then explain it to me, because all I see is you attacking him for wanting to policy lynch Kabooom yet no one else, when no one but Kabooom and ABR were viable.In post 1970, Aegor wrote:That is not at all what I said ever at any time in any way in any post at any point.In post 1969, Bulbazak wrote:You mean that your reasoning is essentially "He voted Kaboom while I voted ABR.". That reasoning? If the votes were reversed, would you be scum?
It's only a chainsaw defense if the reason for attacking you is that you're attacking their buddy. It's a strong defense of their buddy, much like a WK is a strong defense of a town player. Thus, it is a direct attack, and thus, it is in no way subtle. Don't argue definitions with me when I've actually caught scum off this.In post 1970, Aegor wrote: The chainsaw defense by definition does not involve an explicit defense. It involves an attack on someone voting the buddy. Thus it can in no way be direct.
HS said that voting lurkers was scummy. He then proceeds to vote a lurker slot. How is that not hypocrisy?In post 1970, Aegor wrote: He is not being a hypocrite, ergo your vote based on his hypocrisy is bad. In order for your original vote to make sense, HS would have to consider ABR merely a lurker about whom no substantial information exists. HS clearly did not feel that way, so his vote on ABR was not a vote on a lurker qua lurker, which he opposed. Consequently he is not a hypocrite.
You're saying that my finding the quick buildup of the ABR wagon d2 unusual is scummy or of no consequence based on data that I did not have at the time. You are using information we know now and imposing it on a place and time where that information was not available to invalidate my thought process then. How is that not Post Hoc?In post 1970, Aegor wrote:Good; you know Latin. You seem to be engaging in some paralepsis with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but surely you know that it does not apply to my statement in any way.So...Post Hoc.
Point out where I've done this. All I've done so far is inquire into your reasoning for RBD-scum.In post 1970, Aegor wrote: The difference is that I did not attack you for not looking at pre-wagon associatives.
I've actually said that your vote yesterday is the only thing making me unsure on you being scum.In post 1970, Aegor wrote: And your basis for suspecting me is, according to you, partially based on my reactions to the ABR wagon yesterday, so...
So you're pitching a hissy fit, because I'm asking you to explain your logic?In post 1971, Aegor wrote:I will 1-1 Bulba, just in case anyone is wondering how many eggs I am putting in this basket.
I've only looked over the VCs so far, and I'll admit that d1 in terms of ABR confuses me. I'll admit that I don't remember much about his play, other than so-so reasoning. It wouldn't surprise me that he bussed Emo, because he jumped on when it seemed the lynch was going through and for some generally poor reasoning (overconfidence?). However, he also jumped on Chevre pretty late too, so that may just be a null point. Analyzing his actions via VC opens up the possibility that all the leading wagons d1 may have been on town. However, examining it from the Emo-slot perspective offers a different story in connection with ABR. And again, I don't like how the Emo wagon disintegrated immediately when Chevre started getting wagoned. Was there something specific you saw that makes ABR/Emo unlikely?In post 1977, Thor665 wrote: @Bulba - Can you explain to me why you think ABR's push on Tony(/Nero/Emo) was a bus? Because I don't really follow that logic either. His push there and the Nero/ABR interactions as well don't really look buddy/buddy to me.
I am.In post 1987, Aegor wrote: Is anyone townreading Chevre?
Because he's actually trying to figure things out.In post 1987, Aegor wrote: On what basis?
Because he's town.In post 1987, Aegor wrote: Why oppose a vote on Chevre?
Voicing displeasure or disagreement with a vote or reasoning does not mean that I automatically think that person is scum. Heck, look at how many times I disagreed with Zdenek.In post 1993, inHimshallibe wrote:Bulbazak voicing displeasure for ABR's vote (better) and yet never follows up on it (bad). ((Bulba later puts Albert on the high side of his null reads (D3) - even worse))
This statement justifies my attack.In post 1995, Bulbazak wrote:Then explain it to me, because all I see is you attacking him for wanting to policy lynch Kabooom yet no one else, when no one but Kabooom and ABR were viable.
Not true, by definition. You are more than welcome to consult the wiki in order to correct your error.It's only a chainsaw defense if the reason for attacking you is that you're attacking their buddy.
You may have caught scum, but your definition of Chainsaw Defense is whack. Attacking an attacker is a sufficient condition for a Chainsaw Defense.It's a strong defense of their buddy, much like a WK is a strong defense of a town player. Thus, it is a direct attack, and thus, it is in no way subtle. Don't argue definitions with me when I've actually caught scum off this.
HS said voting lurkers because they are lurkers was scummy, and then voted someone on whom he had a scumread and whom he HAD NEVER CALLED LURKER. Thus there is no hypocrisy at all.HS said that voting lurkers was scummy. He then proceeds to vote a lurker slot. How is that not hypocrisy?
BecauseYou're saying that my finding the quick buildup of the ABR wagon d2 unusual is scummy or of no consequence based on data that I did not have at the time. You are using information we know now and imposing it on a place and time where that information was not available to invalidate my thought process then. How is that not Post Hoc?
Which you asked after my explanation had already been provided more than once. An ISO my my posts will confirm this.Point out where I've done this. All I've done so far is inquire into your reasoning for RBD-scum.
So back off or just vote me and push for my lynch.I've actually said that your vote yesterday is the only thing making me unsure on you being scum.
After it was already explained. In detail. Clearly. In several posts.So you're pitching a hissy fit, because I'm asking you to explain your logic?
Are you admitting that you know he is town? Or would you like to rephrase that in a way that properly conveys your uncertainty?Because he's town.
