Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jotheonah]

@The Munch:

Galz's argument about the posting pattern, that ftl and I sheeped, actually WAS really good. It's the kind of scumhunting we should be doing, and it laid Grujah's MO really bare. At the time I voted, I really was pretty convinced we were hitting scum, despite my town read on Grujah earlier in the day.

I can't really defend myself beyond that; I do think that I myself look pretty bad in terms of the Morg-Grujah wagons, so it seems hypocritical to accuse others of doing on purpose as scum what I stumbled into by accident as town (I guess this is what I get for being a contrarian.) That said, I do think it's a productive avenue to go down.

[eHalcyon]

So I am still a bit confused at why Eevee claimed that something would happen if Cult (or whatever faction) recruited him.  I instantly thought that it would do something BAD if there was a cult around -- bad for the cult, that is.  It would make sense as a way to balance out the cult -- have some people who are "toxic" recruits.  So I thought Eevee revealing his "on recruit" power was a bad move.  OTOH, maybe Eevee purposely wanted everyone to have the thought that I did so that the recruiter would leave him alone... because he would die if recruited?  Maybe this conspiracy theory is too much.  Though it does kind of mirror his role in Ozle's game (seer, in a game without werewolves).


Just remembered -- Eevee claimed it would be good for him to be behind a scum lynch.  And he was part of Grujah's lynch... so I wonder if he got anything out of it.  Maybe that was why Eevee was killed -- scum didn't want Eevee getting a chance to use whatever good thing he got?



Eevee's post #1332 could be useful.  Eevee is dead town, so we can trust his reads a little more.  Eevee lists the following:

- Dsell has an intriguing case on Galz, but would be sad to lose Galz if he is town
- scum read on Axxle for weak reason when voting ehunt, and maybe mischaracterizing Eevee's play
- slight scum read on CF for acting like regular scum CF
- found Watno scummy but thought it was too much like "our usual day 1 lynch target" (which tends to be incorrect)
- not a town read on Munch, and would vote "but can't quite put [his] finger on why"
- always sees Ins as scummy
- scum read on jo?  I'm actually not sure what Eevee means here.
- thinks cayvie looks scummy
- scum read on Nick for not being helpful
- scum read on Voltaire...
- no read in igb but would lynch
- would vote for Cuzz

First vote choice was Axxle.

Lots of people listed so maybe it isn't helpful after all.

Going to read new posts now and respond.

[Young Nick]

yuma, how can you go on Grujah like that when there are so many people who are not adding too much to the game. Unless you think this is just unusual for Grujah. If you're supporting a lynch-all-lurkers meta, please, go for someone else like me, Glooble, or ibgtennis.

Hopefully significant analysis coming tonight. I know, I know.

Why go for one of the others over Grujah?  Serious question.

Sorry I missed this. What I was saying is that this seemed like too easy of an excuse to jump on the wagon. I was not aware of the posting patterns of Grujah (post after someone votes him) at the time. To me, it looked like you were just hedging and voting him because he was a lurker. Why any of the others? Because Grujah had provided some content over the course of the day. ibgtennis had not. I had provided minimal.

I can understand Grujah over Glooble (they were contributing equal amounts in my mind; it makes sense that you can see their butting heads as one being scum and the other not), but I still think it would have made more sense to lynch me or ibgtennis or O.

tl;dr: If you are going to lynch a lurker, then lynch one of the true lurkers. ibgtennis is the only one I see who is still posting way, way too infrequently.

[TheMunch]

@The Munch:

Galz's argument about the posting pattern, that ftl and I sheeped, actually WAS really good. It's the kind of scumhunting we should be doing, and it laid Grujah's MO really bare. At the time I voted, I really was pretty convinced we were hitting scum, despite my town read on Grujah earlier in the day.

I can't really defend myself beyond that; I do think that I myself look pretty bad in terms of the Morg-Grujah wagons, so it seems hypocritical to accuse others of doing on purpose as scum what I stumbled into by accident as town (I guess this is what I get for being a contrarian.) That said, I do think it's a productive avenue to go down.

I agree the posting argument is the best argument that I've seen thusfar.  In fact, I mentioned it earlier as a reason that I had almost jumped on the grujah wagon for myself.   I think itd be enough for me to at least give some town-cred to whoever commented on his posting pattern or matter of defending.  If not town-cred than at least not-on-the-same-scumteam-as-grujah-cred if there are more scumteams. 

But I dont really know what you are being defensive about.  Also what do you think is a productive avenue to go down?

[eHalcyon]

Re: #1590 --

Munch's post was absolutely defending Grujah. 

Having looked through I have 2 things to say about Grujah.  First, he doesn't really come off to me as scummy in the way hes been talking.  That being said, there hasn't been much information about grujah from earlier, aka, this is exactly what ehalc feared when we were discussing lynching for information; everyone is jumping on grujah to get a lynch but there will be nothing gained from it, as some seem to have little reason (see: he is the scummiest of the people that have the most votes that I'd be willing to get on).  My vote will stay where it is.

The defense is:

1. doesn't come off as scummy
2. lynch gives no info

And in the process of giving that defense, Munch misrepresents my positions.  Not to mention:

PS I find it interesting that ehalc mentioned that if people just vote for someone to get them to die, we gain no information because everyone has an excuse.  Yet ehalc is voting for grujah.  I know he voiced different reasons for doing so but I just find it interesting.

Here, Munch seems to talk about me with a lot of suspicion, but his reasons are non-reasons.  He even admits it -- "I know he voiced different reasons".

But back to the top part, Munch definitely gives a defense.  It is not a super strong defense, sure.  But that just makes it seem scummier -- it's hedgy like "I need a way out if he is killed and flips scum".

Munch is right that in #1458, Munch voices lack of read on Grujah rather than town read.  But that's not my argument here.  Munch does indeed defend Grujah (in a distanced, noncommittal way), and #1458 is just more "this wagon is too fast, maybe we should slow down".

Munch's last paragraph in #1590 also looks bad to me.  He brings up yuma's vote again (that he voted to wagon) even though yuma addressed that point the first time it was brought up.  It feels like Munch is trying to misrepresent yuma, and I feel that this is a pattern with him as he has done the same with me repeatedly.





Re: #1596 --

ehunt's vote is somewhat explained in #1246 (I see that ehunt has already posted this).  I believe the "wars" he refers to were in choosing a lurker to lynch.  ehunt has explained why he sympathized with Glooble.

yuma's reason for voting is misrepresented -- he clarified afterwards that he did indeed find Grujah scummy.

Galzria's initial reason in #1386 is eclipsed by the much better case he pulled together later on.

My case was not just beating on him for lurkiness -- it was the starting point for the major lynch case, the base for Galz's expansion.

And re: #1599, Cuzz quoted my own reasons for voting Grujah, thus implicitly agreeing with them.

Munch is looking entirely the wrong way.  His reaction so far on this day reads to me as: "people on the wagon didn't have amazingly convincing reasons for voting Grujah, therefore we should not regard it as useful info at all."

The thing is, there are almost never amazingly convincing reasons.  The reasons each person gave are the reasons we typically get from any lynch.  The reasons are certainly far more telling than "this lynch will be informative", as advocated by Munch earlier.  I feel my argument was good, and when Galzria pointed out that he had lurked-and-returned more than once, I thought it cemented the case.

Given that Grujah did in fact flip scum, off-wagon is the place to look next (and in case I need to spell it out -- no, I don't think the wagon is automatically cleared, but they certainly have more town cred than those opposing). 

The question du jour is: who was not in favour of the Grujah lynch and why?  That's what I looked into in #1585.  Why doesn't Munch want to do the same?  In #1590 Munch offers a weak (IMO) defense of himself in response to my case.  Why not comment on the numerous others I pointed the finger at?  Why is he so intent on focusing attention on the successful wagon?

[ashersky]

@The Munch:

Galz's argument about the posting pattern, that ftl and I sheeped, actually WAS really good. It's the kind of scumhunting we should be doing, and it laid Grujah's MO really bare. At the time I voted, I really was pretty convinced we were hitting scum, despite my town read on Grujah earlier in the day.

I can't really defend myself beyond that; I do think that I myself look pretty bad in terms of the Morg-Grujah wagons, so it seems hypocritical to accuse others of doing on purpose as scum what I stumbled into by accident as town (I guess this is what I get for being a contrarian.) That said, I do think it's a productive avenue to go down.

I agree the posting argument is the best argument that I've seen thusfar.  In fact, I mentioned it earlier as a reason that I had almost jumped on the grujah wagon for myself.   I think itd be enough for me to at least give some town-cred to whoever commented on his posting pattern or matter of defending.  If not town-cred than at least not-on-the-same-scumteam-as-grujah-cred if there are more scumteams. 

But I dont really know what you are being defensive about.  Also what do you think is a productive avenue to go down?

This sounds like "no but really I was almost on the wagon so count me on it" doesn't it?  Just own missing the wagon.  I know I did.  Doesn't make me scummy, though.

Also, unvote.

[TheMunch]

@The Munch:

Galz's argument about the posting pattern, that ftl and I sheeped, actually WAS really good. It's the kind of scumhunting we should be doing, and it laid Grujah's MO really bare. At the time I voted, I really was pretty convinced we were hitting scum, despite my town read on Grujah earlier in the day.

I can't really defend myself beyond that; I do think that I myself look pretty bad in terms of the Morg-Grujah wagons, so it seems hypocritical to accuse others of doing on purpose as scum what I stumbled into by accident as town (I guess this is what I get for being a contrarian.) That said, I do think it's a productive avenue to go down.

I agree the posting argument is the best argument that I've seen thusfar.  In fact, I mentioned it earlier as a reason that I had almost jumped on the grujah wagon for myself.   I think itd be enough for me to at least give some town-cred to whoever commented on his posting pattern or matter of defending.  If not town-cred than at least not-on-the-same-scumteam-as-grujah-cred if there are more scumteams. 

But I dont really know what you are being defensive about.  Also what do you think is a productive avenue to go down?

This sounds like "no but really I was almost on the wagon so count me on it" doesn't it?  Just own missing the wagon.  I know I did.  Doesn't make me scummy, though.

Also, unvote.

I was not on the wagon.  Not trying to hide that.  I was just commenting that Joth seemed defensive and I wasn't being hard on him cause I was swayed by the same argument.  This is not the same as me wanting to be counted on the wagon.

[jotheonah]

eHalc commented that the combination of (A) my saying we should hunt the wagon today and (B) the weird circumstances of my joining the wagon (at the last minute, in prime bussing position, after having defended Grujah and voted Morgrim7) make me look pretty scummy. So I was owning that, yes, it does look that way. Kind of the opposite of being defensive I guess.

[shraeye]

Jesus Christ.  Let me say that Munch's post on wagons doesn't read like an attack on the wagoners, which some people have taken it as.  All y'all lynchers did great, congrats.  Munch said the same sentiment here

But great, we killed scum day 1 and I'm happy for that, but I really dont think there is much to go on (or at least past me did; I intend to reread to get more specific evidence about which I am talking) because as the wagon developed I really didn't feel that people had any strong cases against him and he was jumped on for being "today's lynch".  I also had pointed out earlier that one of the first people that grew the wagon did it because "there were a bunch of people at 2 votes and Grujah felt the scummiest".  Thats not really good information to pull from and I dont like it.

Then some people jumped at him (cuzz heavily, frisk lightly, maybe others) for not peeing his pants with glee over lynching scum on D1.  Well la-di-effin-da.  He had a "meh" position on the wagon and felt like he got attacked for that, so he explained why he wasn't celebrating his face off with his post here.

So I wanted to at least compile all of the voting reasons for the Grujah votes. 

Glooble Votes Grujah in 479 for "showing up, voting on me, and disappearing."
ehunt Votes Grujah in 1295 without giving a reason.

WAGON START:
1375: (Yuma) "I will change my vote to someone with 2 votes on them to see if we can start getting a consensus, but everyone that has 2 votes I have a town read on except Grujah"
1386: (Galzria) "I agree. He was in one of my top 3, and we really should start looking to consolidate. Since my #1 choice (eHal) seems to be met with equal parts adamant opposition and slight consideration, it really doesn't seem to be a productive choice. So I'll vote where there we might get something going - the fact that it's not on a town-read makes it all the better for me."
1404: (eHal) "I think he has lurked hard, which is really unusual for him.  He returns just when it starts to heat up for him, and his posts read scummy.  This wagon has a decent chance of lift-off, and I have decent reads on most on the wagon so far (not sure of the vote count though).  Chance of lynch success does play a factor here, but Gruj's lurkiness is the major reason.  It's not like he has been V/LA -- his post history shows that he has been active in Cosmic Encounter, at least.  Why not drop in with some remarks during all of yesterday's drama?  Maybe because he is scum and thought it would be safer to let townies argue themselves to a mislynch."
1433: (Eevee) "Grujah's defence doesn't read genuine to me"
1445: (Morgrim) "because he is the most likely person to be lynched"
1479: (ftl) "I didn't realize that about the timing of his posts, that's pretty bad."
1484: (joth) "Galz (argument about post timing) has got me convinced too"
1495: (Axxle) "Yaaaay!" (he really wanted to hammer)

So that is a collection of all the voting reasons for Grujah and it seems really flaky. 

I'm sorry for not being ecstatic that we lynched scum day 1 with a wagon like this.

He totally said this earlier in Day 1 as well; that's what he meant when he made this quote that eHalcyon is referring to.  eHalcyon, you're wrong.  The Munch is not defending Grujah here, you are missing the crucial part of his statement below, and it's literally a part that you bolded.  Munch is saying that the way Grujah has been talking doesn't give Munch a scumread on Grujah.  In other posts he agreed that the posting patterns (but still not the specific words that were said) were scummily timed, but he didn't have a chance to go back and review this for himself before the lynch happened.  Though he didn't have a scumread on Grujah at all, he also didn't have a town-read, and he has explicitly said that before.

Re: #1590 --

Munch's post was absolutely defending Grujah. 

Having looked through I have 2 things to say about Grujah.  First, he doesn't really come off to me as scummy in the way hes been talking.  That being said, there hasn't been much information about grujah from earlier, aka, this is exactly what ehalc feared when we were discussing lynching for information; everyone is jumping on grujah to get a lynch but there will be nothing gained from it, as some seem to have little reason (see: he is the scummiest of the people that have the most votes that I'd be willing to get on).  My vote will stay where it is.

The defense is:

1. doesn't come off as scummy
2. lynch gives no info

And in the process of giving that defense, Munch misrepresents my positions.  Not to mention:

You both currently have INSANE levels of tunnelling on eachother and reading through that shit is driving me insane.  The longer this sad spectacle has gone on the more certain I am that it's town-on-town insanity.  Seriously, I challenge you both to make at least 5 posts in a row without arguing with eachother, or casting suspicion at the other person.  One of you may be right that the other is scum, but there are other scum as well, and I want to hear about them from time to time, not another round of the longest "you mischaracterized me" "No, you mischaracterized me" "NO, you mischaracterized me!" hissy-fit i've ever been a witness to.  Let me settle the argument for you.  You're both mischaracterizing the shit out of eachother all over the place, and it's gotten to the point where I don't fucking care anymore.  You have both used the words "mischaracterized" or "misstated" or "misrepresented" way more than your monthly quotas of these words could ever be.  Mischaracterization might be a scumtell when it's deliberate, but neither of you have shown me at all how the other is deliberate in their stance, you both are consistent in pissing eachother off (apparently), and both super consistent in pissing me off, but consistency isn't deliberateness.  (If either of you take this as an invitation to explain to me how the other person is deliberately being mean to you, I will punch a hole so effing far through my computer that I guarantee my fist will hit whoever does it).

[TheMunch]

I could be down with this idea.  I think it would be good for both of us to take a step back.  I do feel like I've just been spending a disproportionate amount of time defending myself; I'm all for vetting new players but it has felt a little much.  I would love to talk about eHal's list of off wagon targets though.

[ftl]

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to reread old munch posts like I said I would. So you're safe from me joining in the tunneling on you, munch. FOR NOW.

eHunt's latest plan for what to do with the wine sounds good to me.

There's still some people from off-wagon who haven't said a single thing today yet I think. They need to get in here.

Also, shraeye, I think I like you for the end of that last post, +1 would read again... if I were doing a reread.

[Insomniac]

I agree with eHunt's idea of what to do with the wine. I was off the wagon but I tend to not lynch people for being lurky, although I do like Galz's case.

[yuma]

Addressing some issues:

But great, we killed scum day 1 and I'm happy for that, but I really dont think there is much to go on (or at least past me did; I intend to reread to get more specific evidence about which I am talking) because as the wagon developed I really didn't feel that people had any strong cases against him and he was jumped on for being "today's lynch".  I also had pointed out earlier that one of the first people that grew the wagon did it because "there were a bunch of people at 2 votes and Grujah felt the scummiest".  Thats not really good information to pull from and I dont like it.

I am pretty sure that I am being alluded to here and I don't like it. I can't believe that I have to defend my vote on Grujah, but I will anyways.

You say that my reason for voting "there were a bunch of people at 2 votes and Grujah felt the scummiest" is invalid. First, you need to understand that it wasn't only that Grujah felt the scummiest, it was that of everyone that I felt was scummy, Grujah had the most current votes and had the best chance of being a good lynch target. I had already said that Grujah had provided the least amount of content, and I still stand by that. He provided nothing all game. As I repeatedly said, we needed to come to a consensus, we needed to collect our votes in one place and force the issue, otherwise we would now be at a no-lynch day 2.

In fact you agree with this later:

I'm going to go back and reread some stuff from Grujah as I didn't necessarily have a read on him; although, I do side with Yuma and Shraeye, if the last few IRL days weren't any evidence, there is no way anyone is getting lynched with our very scattered opinions.

Furthermore: I did not vote Grujah for informational purposes. I voted for him because he was to me the most likely person to be scum who had a reasonable chance of being lynched. I wasn't looking for information, information will come with a lynch regardless, I was looking to lynch scum. Perhaps you would have rather had us lynch town, so that we could have more information today? Why in the world would you trade lynched scum for "potentially confusing and easily misinterpreted information from a townie lynch that may or may not lead to a scum lynch?" To abbreviate that: PCAEMIFATLTMOMNLTACL!

So I wanted to at least compile all of the voting reasons for the Grujah votes.
(snip)
WAGON START:
1375: (Yuma) "I will change my vote to someone with 2 votes on them to see if we can start getting a consensus, but everyone that has 2 votes I have a town read on except Grujah"

So that is a collection of all the voting reasons for Grujah and it seems really flaky.  Yuma starts the wagon because he felt he was the least town of the people with the most votes.

again, I feel this is a misinterpretation of my vote. I did not see Grujah as the "least town." But instead because he was high on my scum list and also had two votes and I felt was our best bet to get a scum lynch.

Sorry I missed this. What I was saying is that this seemed like too easy of an excuse to jump on the wagon. I was not aware of the posting patterns of Grujah (post after someone votes him) at the time. To me, it looked like you were just hedging and voting him because he was a lurker. Why any of the others? Because Grujah had provided some content over the course of the day. ibgtennis had not. I had provided minimal.

I can understand Grujah over Glooble (they were contributing equal amounts in my mind; it makes sense that you can see their butting heads as one being scum and the other not), but I still think it would have made more sense to lynch me or ibgtennis or O.

tl;dr: If you are going to lynch a lurker, then lynch one of the true lurkers. ibgtennis is the only one I see who is still posting way, way too infrequently.

And lastly in regard to Young Nick:

I didn't vote Grujah because he was a lurker alone. Again--this is like the fourth time I have said this, this post--I voted for him because he was the most scummy player who had a chance of being lynched. Yes he was lurking. But not just lurking, he was scummily lurking. When he came he provided little to no content--this was in stark contrast to former Grujah plays. You suggest a vote for you or ibgtennis would have been more appropriate? I didn't and don't think it was. I was giving you a temporary pass as you were late to the game (this is completely expired by the way), and in the few posts where ibgtennis posted there was content. He provided information that I could read, analyze and make a town read off of. I am not going to lynch someone for just "lurking."

I do find it very strange that you were so adamant that I change my vote from Grujah right as it was picking up steam, and that you pinpointed me out when there were, I think there were about 5 other voters on Grujah at that time.

I am not going to vote for either of you at this point, but TheMunch and Young Nick are both high on my suspicious list

[ehunt]

The folks we haven't heard from today are Voltaire and Ibgtennis. Do either have V/LA claims? If not, can we mod-prod them?

[Captain_Frisk]

Wow Yuma, that is a lot of content for defending a vote on scum.

[yuma]

Wow Yuma, that is a lot of content for defending a vote on scum.

I know right!

[Young Nick]

@yuma: I was stating what I was thinking at the time, even if it was incorrect. I was never saying you had to change your vote, just that it looked curious to me. You justified it. It makes sense. He ended up being scum. I am not concerned. End of story.

I, despite my play-style, am for a Lynch-All-Lurkers meta. I am not saying that is where one always will find scum (though sometimes we do), but rather just a way to make the scum-lurk no longer feasible.

I am just about ready to hear from ibtennis who has 8 serious posts from the start of the game. I don't question that his/her V/LA are real, but would appreciate a) advanced warning so we aren't left hanging like we currently are and b) more contribution and posts so we know he (she?) is alive when (s)he isn't V/LA.

[sparky5856]

Now that I'm dead in waffle-related mafia, I have more time for this fun party. Let me read back this day at least...

First off:

lulz on page 96 but knows hwo mafia \is
axxle has posted TWICE today!@!@!~@@!@!!!!!!!!!

i will be sober tomorrow but youll stil be mafia -- winston churchill

O_____o

We should have a blitz mafia game where EVERYONE gets drunk like that.

Nonetheless, out of heightened paranoia - let's change the default town response to an offer to be don't drink.

I find that to be hilarious after browsing through that MVI snippet. But it's actually a smart idea too.

eHalc is actually townish to me. Reading #1604 for instance, he's examining a lot of content. I don't even remember what I wrote back at the end of Day 1 but as he calls it questionable I won't refer to it again. It was a disorganized collection of thoughts as I was reading through the thread.

shraeye is being a bit too violent, not much like when I played with him in MIX.

TheMunch is giving me an uneasy feeling, either cause he's new or because he seems like he's trying to find the perfect words to cover himself and not succeeding very well.

I could be down with this idea.  I think it would be good for both of us to take a step back.  I do feel like I've just been spending a disproportionate amount of time defending myself; I'm all for vetting new players but it has felt a little much.  I would love to talk about eHal's list of off wagon targets though.

ahhhh the I's are bothering me again.

Not much from me at the moment, I'm tired as a tired person can be.

[Axxle]

We should have a blitz mafia game where EVERYONE gets drunk like that.

DIBS!

[eHalcyon]

I have some responses in my head to shraeye's post and Munch's response, but I'm holding back because I want to see others put in their two cents.

[cayvie]

I have some responses in my head to shraeye's post and Munch's response, but I'm holding back because I want to see others put in their two cents.

what, that shraeye is munch's scumbuddy, and he's like "calm down dude, you're gonna get lynched"?

[eHalcyon]

I have some responses in my head to shraeye's post and Munch's response, but I'm holding back because I want to see others put in their two cents.

what, that shraeye is munch's scumbuddy, and he's like "calm down dude, you're gonna get lynched"?

While that's possible, I only meant that I had rebuttals to his criticisms of my case.  And I think it is a very strong case.  But I want to see what other people think.  A few people expressed a town read on Munch on day 1 but I have been getting none of that, and my scum read on him has just gotten bigger and bigger.  Am I really the only one that sees it?

I also can't comprehend why nobody else has tried to examine the players not on the wagon.  I made a nice big post about it and nobody has commented on all those players.  We have all this info and nobody wants to use it.  Come on people.

[Insomniac]

@eHal: Shrug I'm off the wagon and I know I'm not scum so your just pointing people to look at a subsection of people as opposed to everyone, and I know that there is at least 1 non scum in the subset.

[jotheonah]

@eHal: Shrug I'm off the wagon and I know I'm not scum so your just pointing people to look at a subsection of people as opposed to everyone, and I know that there is at least 1 non scum in the subset.

Well DUH. If there weren't than we would be looking at 13 scum!

[jotheonah]

That was an idiotic thing to say. FoS Insomniac.