Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[JordanA24]

But after I went away, he continued posting, and posting things that made a lot of sense to me as well.

But he hasn't changed his attitude in the game. So, what "makes sense to you" right now is what you were arguing against earlier.

Rubbish, he has changed his attitude, now he's trying, contributing and taking the game seriously. No way am I saying what I disagreed with earlier is now protown. What gave you that impression?

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (3): ryan, Guardian, pickemgenius
Darko (3): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo, JordanA24
Guardian (2): Sacred, Adel
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Erg0
ryan (1): The Fonz
somestrangeflea (1): Numenorean7

Not voting (6): Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras,

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[ryan]

Guardian's Question: Now answer me this question: if I started going back to one line posts and not detailed and arduous explanations of what I was thinking, would you go back to trying to lynch me? Explain why or why not.


I'm not a fan of one line answers to questions because to me it looks like somebody trying not to slip up or make a mistake. I'd rather see somebody state a case against somebody (if that is the jest of their post) or at least try and explain their reasoning to a question/accusation. I've played enough games to see that somebody who responds with.....

"I'm town, don't lynch me. I think *insert name* is scummy"

Don't help the town and don't give information. I'd rather see a player give some sort of explanation for their actions because even if I don't agree with what they say it's still information that I mull around in my head and think "well I guess I can see their point of view" OR it gives me something to think about for later Days during the game. I'm a fan of info and content.

[Guardian]

I agree completely with Erg0's reasoning.

IGMEOY List:

pickem

Guardian

darko

Copied from my old list

Exactly what do you agree with here? And why does that make pickem go on your IGMEOY list? Are these your main suspects?

[somestrangeflea]

I agree completely with

Erg0's

ST's reasoning in 770.

IGMEOY List:

pickem

Guardian

darko

Copied from my old list

Fixed.

[Guardian]

SSF, that alone is why you think pickem is suspect?

Also, is that list your list of your main suspects?

[somestrangeflea]

That, and his self-admitted persistence to not make long posts.

And yes, it is. I will vote for one of you soon enough.

[Guardian]

Why am I on there, again? I am thinking maybe I should be actually worried, as it seems that about 10 people have me on their short list .

[ryan]

Guardian: I didn't quote but answered your question above (in case you missed it)

[Guardian]

Guardian: I didn't quote but answered your question above (in case you missed it)

Yes -- and thanks -- I was waiting to respond until Num had addressed it or pointed that out to me.

I am interested to know what others think of ST's 770 and if you find PEG scummy for that...

I don't want to bias anyone's opinion, but I find the argument to be terrible.... What I find even worse is that apparently some people, such as SSF, are buying into that argument and thinking PEG is scummy for it without question...

[ryan]

Usually it's not just one thing that makes somebody look scummy but a combination of a few things, are you sure it wasn't a few things said before that and that was the icing on the scumcake? (so to speak)

[somestrangeflea]

Why am I on there, again? I am thinking maybe I should be actually worried, as it seems that about 10 people have me on their short list .

1.

I'm going to go ahead and say that Adel and NabNab are obviously scumbuddies. Adel, at least, is definitely scum.

on page 3. This isn't a particularly strong point, but it's still contributing to suspicion a bit...

2.

Post 93

Sir Tornado, this is not exactly a defense, but this is what I meant -- you unvote him and FoS him -- it doesn't make sense to me.

which, I said at the time, was complete and utter CrapLogic™ in an attempt to get suspicion on ST.

3. I'm not buying Post 149 as anything other than OMGUS.

4.

He had to admit to knowing it and that his comment was "rhetorical effect" for me to know that. It wasn't a misrepresentation on my part it me was not having enough info to accurately make an assesment.

IMO, editing what someone says to show "what they meant to say" is quite scummy. How do you know what ryan meant to say?

[Xdaamno]

Guardian's recent posts look overdefensive to me. Flea's are giving me scum vibes (Which admittedly they weren't/I didn't notice before).

[ryan]

Guardian's recent posts look overdefensive to me. Flea's are giving me scum vibes (Which admittedly they weren't/I didn't notice before).

I must be missing what you are seeing with "scum vibes" please explain?

[Guardian]

Guardian's recent posts look overdefensive to me.

Explain.

Flea's are giving me scum vibes (Which admittedly they weren't/I didn't notice before).

Quite.

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

[Xdaamno]

It's mainly dramatisation and lurking. Most of his posts in the last 10 pages are seperated into clumps 5 pages apart, and generally use cliched phrases and points (Like the Craplogic thing and the audience estimation from his last two, but I can see how townies could do this as well, admittedly).

[Xdaamno]

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

That dosen't clear you in any way (Note I'm not defending flea here). I'd assume there'd be more scum tells on a bad day if you were scum, since if you were scum you wouldn't be concentrating as much, and they'd be mixed in with bad arguments. If we found an increase in scum tells, that'd technically be a scum tell itself and therefore I think you're worth investigating

[somestrangeflea]

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

Whilst it has been generally acknowledged that those posts were made during your "Bad Day", this fact doesn't cancel out the scumtells which you may have made during that time. If it did, then there's no reason any other player couldn't say "Well, I was kind of annoyed when I said that" when confronted with any evidence at all.

Your "bad day" covers the "I can't really be bothered to defend myself any further from this wagon" topic, nothing else.

[Guardian]

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

That dosen't clear you in any way (Note I'm not defending flea here). I'd assume there'd be more scum tells on a bad day if you were scum, since if you were scum you wouldn't be concentrating as much, and they'd be mixed in with bad arguments. If we found an increase in scum tells, that'd technically be a scum tell itself and therefore I think you're worth investigating

That doesn't sit right with me. I would expect an increase in scum tells from me on a bad day, yes, but I would expect such regardless of my alignment.

I really am going to go insane if I have to deal with that 6 hour span for this whole game.

Hitting preview, it appears that ssf is likeminded.... Wow.

[somestrangeflea]

You can't choose what we are and aren't allowed to use as evidence against you.

And, to answer your earlier question, no, I didn't realise that at the time, but that doesn't change anything IMO.

[Guardian]

You can't choose what we are and aren't allowed to use as evidence against you.

And, to answer your earlier question, no,

I didn't realise that at the time, but that doesn't change anything

IMO.

I can't choose what evidence you decide to use, but I can choose to find you scummy for using it.

FOS: ssf

.

People I would be happy lynching today now include:

ryan - I don't like his defense/responses over the last few pages, and I really hate that post I quoted (and yes I realize it was a response, I don't like it

as

a response).
Jordan - I've made this clear
ssf - What I just quoted stands my hairs on end, and I also hate how he agreed with ST's logic about PEG like a nice lil sheep.
Erg0 - He started the bad logic against PEG. He sounded too cocky/confident, and it struck me entirely the wrong way.
Adel - I've made this clear.


IGMEOY:
PEG - Even though you don't, I agree with Adel, in that short posts are bad. Make cases, make definitive stands.
Zindaras - The fact that I get no vibe at all from him disturbs me.
The replacements and future replacements. Lurking through day 1

should not

equate to you getting a free pass through the game.



This is more or less in order, but Adel

really

depends on how she answers my questions, and I am not unvoting her until she does. Here is one more for you, Adel: What do you think about PEG's attack on you, and do you maintain that having short posts is scummy?



I might as well explain now: why PEG isn't being scummy or hypocritical or anything, and Erg0, then Sir T's attack of him was quite frankly BS:

PEG noticed Adel saying X was scummy.
Adel did X, and continued to say doing X was scummy.
PEG noticed the hypocrisy, and voted her.

PEG does X.
PEG

never

agreed that X was scummy, and

in no way

has to agree that doing X is scummy for him to find Adel scummy because of her hypocrisy....

[JordanA24]

That's a pretty broad list of people you'd be happy to lynch there Guardian.

[ryan]

Guardian: I find it REAL interesting that I'm at the top of my list, yet Adel is getting a chance to "answer your questions to get unvoted" Thanks for the chance to answer questions (such as the one I extended you earlier)

[somestrangeflea]

What? I don't know what you are seeing that I'm not, because ST's logic makes perfect sense to me. If anyone can explain to me why it doesn't, please do.

What I just quoted stands my hairs on end, and I also hate how he agreed with ST's logic about PEG like a nice lil sheep.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Are people no longer allowed to agree on things?

[somestrangeflea]

Oh, and double-simulpost!

[Sir Tornado]

PEG never agreed that X was scummy, and in no way has to agree that doing X is scummy for him to find Adel scummy because of her hypocrisy....

But, we are not supposed to vote out hypocrites. We are supposed to vote out the scum.

And, if you think X is scummy, and someone does X, you should vote him/her. But, if you think X is not scummy, but someone else says X is scummy and then does X, then he/she should not be voted unless you agree that X is scummy. Otherwise, you are voting someone for doing X when you don't think doing X is scummy, which is quite scummy, IMO.