And I agree with lynching the Bulge, he's literally a waste of a slot. He's providing no support to the town, nor contributing any worthy analysis or reads.
Therefore:
Vote: The Bulge
I am considering this a valid vote. Adding proper vote tags below. -mq
VOTE: The Bulge
Last edited by Marquis on Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella, this is the second time you have immediately responded to a vote/criticism of your play by placing your vote to alleviate pressure on you. And both times you piled onto a player with existing suspicion. The last was when I voted you for your useless one-liner post and you responded by voting KayP.
Do you have any conviction in your votes/gameplay, or is your main priority trying to get people to not-suspect-you? Because I'm getting a huge chunk of the latter, and very little indication that you actually care about finding scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 428, Bellaphant wrote:Hey Kay: tell me why you've voted Shaddox, and I'll see if it matches up with the reason I wanna vote there?
I did it because nothing I said from yesterday has changed.
In post 429, Fro99er wrote:Yeah, no. You keep trying to follow the crowd
VOTE: Bella
When else did Bella try to follow the crowd?
In post 430, Bellaphant wrote:VOTE: ShaddoxFine, then. I hate the way the wagon dissipated, obvscum counter wagon is obvious.
Hmm. I didn't even notice the wagon falling apart, but that's another point in favor of this lynch that I personally feel should have happened yesterday.
In post 431, Glork wrote:Bella, this is the second time you have immediately responded to a vote/criticism of your play by placing your vote to alleviate pressure on you. And both times you piled onto a player with existing suspicion. The last was when I voted you for your useless one-liner post and you responded by voting KayP.
Do you have any conviction in your votes/gameplay, or is your main priority trying to get people to not-suspect-you? Because I'm getting a huge chunk of the latter, and very little indication that you actually care about finding scum.
I'll echo the above: when was the other time?
Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.
I'm operating under the assumption Bulge is getting replaced in the next day or two, and looking for more out of Kitty, given I think there's an above-average chance of at least one scum lurking their way through the game. But don't worry. I haven't forgotten about Bella or KP. Still waiting for Shadoxx to answer my question from D1, too.
@KayP: Posts 129-131, she makes a useless post, I call her out on it, she responds by jumping on you (who GC was voting and I *had* been voting until I called her out).
So how did BiBob become a distraction from your scum group?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
He was making a power play late in the day, and in retrospect I got caught up in a bit of OMGUS. Tbh I hadn't fully considered the implications of BiBob being scum on my other suspects but that wasn't something I was particularly concerned about at the time. Options like multiball/SK were viable.
In post 434, Glork wrote:I'm operating under the assumption Bulge is getting replaced in the next day or two, and looking for more out of Kitty, given I think there's an above-average chance of at least one scum lurking their way through the game.
But don't worry. I haven't forgotten about Bella or KP.
Still waiting for Shadoxx to answer my question from D1, too.
So what was the point of this comment?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 433, KayP wrote:When else did Bella try to follow the crowd?
Um...it should be quite obvious. Glork already pointed out posts 130/131 where he calls out Bella, and Bella responds with a vote on KayP. Then she does the same thing just now when I call her out (she responds with a vote on Shadoxx). But the parts that bothered me the most about Bella were the points I made yesterday, and then how the end of D1 went down. First are the points I made yesterday:
Spoiler: Frog on Bella D1
In post 356, Fro99er wrote:But where Bella starts to worry me is she then moves her vote on to ducky for lack of content, but otherwise goes unexplained. This felt opportunistic, and at that point ducky had started to actually provide content (see Ducky content in 90, 105, 107, 141 (which was sheeped KayP reasoning though)). Yes, ducky's content wasn't fantastic, but Bella didn't really follow up on it, and it felt opportunistic to get ducky to L-2 with deadline approaching.
After post 294, Bella starts to get even worse. She changes her vote to Shadoxx for calling her town. I guess she thinks Shadoxx is cozying up to her as scum, but it feels so reactionary (I might think differently from Bella, but I start to notice buddying after a bit of a pattern of it) and again opportunistic, this time putting Shadoxx at L-3 for a single reason. She's been a wagon hopper rather than a wagon starter at every point after her KayP vote. In 340, Bella claims Shadoxx throws suspicion at her, but I don't see it above ("God help us if you are mafia" isn't exactly throwing suspicion, it's more a statement of belief in his mind). Bella, what other reasons do you have for voting Shadoxx besides them calling you towny?
TL;DR --
Bella is moving into my scum pile after an early towny start, for unoriginal and opportunistic hopping on the ducky and shadoxx wagons with weak arguments.
Speaking of follow the crowd, let's look at how Bella ends D1. First...
Spoiler: Bella follows townreads
In post 359, Bellaphant wrote:I should probably follow my town-reads for a bit (you, GC).
In post 404, Bellaphant wrote:Same. Someone asked me for my read on the slot: his early game was townie, it dipped a bit, now I'm not sure.
But I said I'd follow my town-reads and the strongest two are on that wagon
.
She says twice that she simply wants to follow town reads (instead of actually, you know, doing some scumhunting). This is a "trying to fit in as a townsperson" mentality.
Then later that same post Bella says...
Would prefer a claim, tho.
Prefer a claim??? With 1 hour left on D1??? What's the point in wanting a claim there? I mean, first, BiBob was on V/LA...so he wasn't going to claim. Next, the second biggest wagon had TWO votes (which ironically was the Shadoxx wagon which Bella and KayP were on). If BiBob does happen to be there and claims a PR, there isn't enough time to gather enough people to lynch someone else (and if somehow there was, it's a last minute panic lynch). Instead, what's likely to happen is a no-lynch and a PR is outed, meaning scum knows where to place the night kill. Asking for a claim in that situation only fits a scum mentality.
Finally, right before the KayP hammer, Bella asks this...
This totally reads as "hey I'm scum just checking to make sure it's OK for me to hammer so I don't get the attention on D2 after I hammer this townie".
I actually am suspicious of both Bella and KayP for the end of D1. They both ask for a claim with an hour left, both were on the Shadoxx wagon, after having earlier been suspicious of each other (Bella voted KayP in 131, KayP had mentioned in her 192 she was happy with the two wagons going on at the time, which ironically happened to be......Bella and Shadoxx). Something weird is going on in those three, but Bella's play strikes me as the most suspicious, because it's not coming from a town mindset.
Because I haven't? I've had the night to process BiBob's flip and I still think Bella/Kay are decently strong leads, but I want more from Kitty in the meantime.
Reading the day start, that was my main concern with your sudden Kitty vote - you were pounding the scumgroup drum in D1, then got distracted at the end of D1 by BiBop, and now you're chasing after someone new instead of your scumgroup - and you just put a spotlight on that proto-suspicion in your 434 with a very large helping of self awareness.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I can get behind the asking-permission-mentality is scum, but the asking for a claim = autoscum is a real stretch.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Reading the day start, that was my main concern with your sudden Kitty vote - you were pounding the scumgroup drum in D1, then got distracted at the end of D1 by BiBop, and now you're chasing after someone new instead of your scumgroup - and you just put a spotlight on that proto-suspicion in your 434 with a very large helping of self awareness.
Uhhhhh why exactly do you think my Kitty vote is for?
Yes, I'm pressuring a chronic lurker. Yes, I still have suspicions of other players. Yes, I'm still waiting word from Shadoxx. Yes, I'm pursuing multiple possible scum venues at once. What exactly is so weird/concerning about this?
What do you think of Bella, GC?
What about Bulge or Kitty? Shadoxx? I'd really like to know how YOU plan to address the current terrible state of the game, because idk about you but I'm tired of losing games due to having completely apathetic towns that don't DO anything and then wonder what went wrong after the fact.
In post 444, Fro99er wrote:And where did I say asking for a claim was autoscum? Purely situational in this case.
Yeah, sorry. I worded that poorly. I'm not saying that you are saying asking for a claim is, in and of itself, autoscum.
I am saying that you are saying asking for a claim in the situation presented here is autoscum. And I am disagreeing with that.
In post 443, Fro99er wrote:a) Already had one VT claim
b) Have 1 hour to go...then the only thing that can happen with 1 hour to go is to get information for a NK
Seriously...do you really think a claim with 1 hour to go would have done town any good?
It might have? I mean, there's a bunch of hypotheticals we could trot out - maybe BiBob was doc, for example, or a more useful cop - where a random panic lynch or (heaven forbid) a no lynch would have been a better alternative than killing that PR.
The argument that asking for a claim in that situation was helping direct the scum NK is also a little warped, because, like... BiBob was going to be lynched anyways? So asking for a claim was, in a sense, actually (potentially) tying the scum's NK hands because they wouldn't have gotten the BiBob mislynch, and so scum was going to have to NK BiBob if they actually wanted to get rid of him.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 446, Glork wrote:Yes, I'm pressuring a chronic lurker. Yes, I still have suspicions of other players. Yes, I'm still waiting word from Shadoxx. Yes, I'm pursuing multiple possible scum venues at once. What exactly is so weird/concerning about this?
There's nothing wrong with pursing multiple scum suspects, obviously.
It's the <here is my scumgroup> then <BiBob distraction!> then <Kitty distraction!> that gives me pause. Like, you've got a scumgroup already. I would think your attention would be split among them. Instead, you keep getting distracted.
I can get behind the asking-permission-mentality is scum, but the asking for a claim = autoscum is a real stretch.
Seeing it once is whatever, kinda suspicious I guess. The repeated instances suggest that the play coincides with a mindset arising from a role that doesn't want to make waves.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 446, Glork wrote:What about Bulge or Kitty? Shadoxx? I'd really like to know how YOU plan to address the current terrible state of the game, because idk about you but I'm tired of losing games due to having completely apathetic towns that don't DO anything and then wonder what went wrong after the fact.
I only lose games where I'm left in LYLO.
HINT HINT SCUMBAGS
also, I'm not really concerned about low active slots on D2. I bet at least one will get replaced. let's revisit the issue on D3 or D4.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
