Print

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

[EFHW]

I find TA's and sudgy's cases weak, and both of them scummy for presenting them and voting based on them.

What about my case do you find weak?

I don't find your descriptions of nkirbit to be accurate.  He has been as active as anyone else, and while accusing without voting can sometimes be scummy, I don't think it is here.  It was prudent not to put Lio at L-1, especially since the wagon was such a hodge-podge of RVS and weak reads.  His rationale for the two posts made sense.  In short, I agree with him that you are manufacturing a case more than discovering one.

Sudgy's listing of contradictions is similarly flimsy. 

Liopoil's assumption that one of you must be scum seems iffy to me, but I would make the same choice if I had to pick one of you.  I'm surprised to see nkirbit defending you, though, and wonder if this is a staged fight.  Saying Lio is trying to continue your fight seems like a stretch of the imagination to me.

[EFHW]

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Discrediting someone's case against you is an excellent method of defense.  This tips the balance for me.

Vote: TA

[Twistedarcher]

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Discrediting someone's case against you is an excellent method of defense.  This tips the balance for me.

Vote: TA

Oops, I wrote that wrong -- discrediting me, rather than discrediting my case.

[Twistedarcher]

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Discrediting someone's case against you is an excellent method of defense.  This tips the balance for me.

Vote: TA

Oops, I wrote that wrong -- discrediting me, rather than discrediting my case.

But really, I don't see how me supporting my case, even if that's what I really meant, comes across as remotely scummy enough to tip the balance.

[nkirbit]

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Context does matter, yes.  The main difference between myself and you is that I made a post summarizing my thoughts, while you didn't.  We arrived at the same conclusion (that Lio was our top scumread), you voted, and I wasn't able to because of the circumstances.  I backed off the wagon because I was uneasy with it, which you disagreed with.

The main differences between us this game, until you made your case on me:
1. I summarized my views for everyone else, while you kept them to yourself.
2. I was uneasy with how the Lio wagon was forming, while you weren't uneasy at all about it.  I don't think either is an outrageous opinion, as Eevee agreed with me, and (i think) raerae agreed with you.

If you're town, and those are the major differences between us, I don't see how you can possibly arrive at a strong scumread on me.

[nkirbit]

I'm not trying to discredit you, TA.  I'm trying to discredit your case by saying that you should find yourself scummy by applying your case to yourself, and that's clearly a broken case.

[Twistedarcher]

I find TA's and sudgy's cases weak, and both of them scummy for presenting them and voting based on them.

What about my case do you find weak?

I don't find your descriptions of nkirbit to be accurate.  He has been as active as anyone else, and while accusing without voting can sometimes be scummy, I don't think it is here.  It was prudent not to put Lio at L-1, especially since the wagon was such a hodge-podge of RVS and weak reads.  His rationale for the two posts made sense.  In short, I agree with him that you are manufacturing a case more than discovering one.

Sudgy's listing of contradictions is similarly flimsy. 

Liopoil's assumption that one of you must be scum seems iffy to me, but I would make the same choice if I had to pick one of you.  I'm surprised to see nkirbit defending you, though, and wonder if this is a staged fight.  Saying Lio is trying to continue your fight seems like a stretch of the imagination to me.

Okay, but 2/3 the three things I bolded ARE NOT PART OF MY CASE.

I am not voting him for being less active.
I am not voting him on account of the two posts about mail-mi.
Heck, I just stated that while the Lio thing was scummy, I was more concerned with him not building a case on EFHW, Xeiron, or Eevee, or just trying to find scum.

He has been waiting for scum to present itself, rather than going out and find scum.

If you want to vote me for my case being crap, then please do. But I'm going to fight you so hard if you vote my case for being crap when you don't know what my case is.

[nkirbit]

That you think you're scum caught for the wrong reasons, maybe.

Is that really more reasonable than me being town?

[Twistedarcher]

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Context does matter, yes.  The main difference between myself and you is that I made a post summarizing my thoughts, while you didn't.  We arrived at the same conclusion (that Lio was our top scumread), you voted, and I wasn't able to because of the circumstances.  I backed off the wagon because I was uneasy with it, which you disagreed with.

The main differences between us this game, until you made your case on me:
1. I summarized my views for everyone else, while you kept them to yourself.
2. I was uneasy with how the Lio wagon was forming, while you weren't uneasy at all about it.  I don't think either is an outrageous opinion, as Eevee agreed with me, and (i think) raerae agreed with you.

If you're town, and those are the major differences between us, I don't see how you can possibly arrive at a strong scumread on me.

Re #1: Yes, that's true, but when I had views, I followed them up. You didn't. To me that is the major difference.
Re #2: I agree that your opinion isn't outrageous, but I also think if you're scum, it's the exact move you'd make.

I think the line of argument "I don't have confidence in my scumhunting skills so I'm not going to vote until I see a good case" is much more likely to be attributed to scum than town.

[nkirbit]

I was more concerned with him not building a case on EFHW, Xeiron, or Eevee, or just trying to find scum.

EFHW:

The first thing is her response to Xeiron's RVS vote on me, which I felt was over the top.  Not necessarily scummy, but odd enough that I want to ask why she reacted the way she did.  And then she unvotes when Xeiron explains that it was just RVS?  It was obviously RVS, you knew that from the start!  I guess here:

So far, xeiron is the only one acting scummy, for voting nkirbit without explanation.  So vote: X. 

It's RVS I think, trying to get some discussion going, which it successfully did.

RVS is usually accompanied by some kind of joke or teasing.

EFHW states that she didn't think it was RVS.  But I'm just not buying that she saw it as anything other than RVS.  The entire voting for xeiron and unvoting seemed very artificial to me.  Either you had a legitimate (small) amount of outrage against Xeiron's vote, which was entirely cleared up by the explanation that it was, in fact, RVS (duh!), or you staged a reaction.  It just felt much more like the second than the first.

Again, votes for lio than immediately unvotes.  Just feels very odd.  Then votes mail-mi, where her vote is parked, then defends him a little.  Which is understandable, as her vote was mainly due to his inactivity.

Overall a scum read.  Just feels off and artificial.

Eevee:  He's been very busy, so there's not much.  Comes back and defends EFHW, with this:

Kudos to nkirbit for pushing us to the right direction. I don't think I agree about EHFW though, what are you implying? "A little weird" doesn't automatically mean mafia-y.

Not sure what to make of this, honestly.  All my initial comment about EHFW stated was that it was "a little weird", not anything about EHFW being scummy for this.  Eevee defended EHFW from an accusation that I hadn't even made.  I never said anything about "A little weird" being mafia-y, and I don't know why Eevee felt the need to defend EHFW here.

Votes Liopoil for simply being "a bit off" with no further explanation.  Okay, I guess, but I'd like to hear the reason for why he feels a bit off!  And nothing since then.  He's been busy, I know, but it's weird to come back to a game you've been out of, make a vote for "someone being weird", then hop off again.  Scumread for me.

Xeiron:
Wow, there's remarkably little content here.  Like, less than both Eevee and Mail-mi, which is saying something.  His only meaningful contribution was an RVS vote on me, and calling that meaningful was a stretch.  Scumread for an extreme lack of meaningful activity.

(Quick note on Xeiron:  This is not a case, I agree.  But if you read all of Xeiron's posts to that point.. heck, this point, really, you'll see what I mean).

If you're going to continue to push this case, please please please stop misrepresenting your objection.  I have told you, multiple times, that I built cases on these players.  There they are again.  What you're accusing me of is not supporting my cases with votes.

It feels extremely silly that I have to correct you on what your case is.

[nkirbit]

Re #1: Yes, that's true, but when I had views, I followed them up. You didn't. To me that is the major difference.

This is simply not true! 

[Twistedarcher]

You stated reads, you did not build cases. To me, building a case involves convincing other players to vote for their scum read. You never tried to do that, ever.

Whatever. I got lynched last game for having a "ridiculous" case. I don't know what I can do to convince people that my reads are good, so maybe I should just start sheeping other people's cases, since even while nailing the right players I'm still negative utility to town.

I've said all I have to say on it, it's out there, everyone can judge for themselves.

[nkirbit]

You stated reads, you did not build cases. To me, building a case involves convincing other players to vote for their scum read. You never tried to do that, ever.

Neither did you!  By that standard, your best example was:

Liopoil has been posting about setup speculation, but not much else, other than the soft deadline. He missed raerae's questions, and mine as well (about why nkirbit is a null read when he's been posting). Not much to go off of, but Vote: Liopoil

I just think you went back and realized that I hadn't been proactive, which I agree, I haven't, by the standards you're using.  But neither has anyone else.  I think you should take that second fact and realize that it means the first fact doesn't actually make me scummy.

[nkirbit]

You stated reads, you did not build cases. To me, building a case involves convincing other players to vote for their scum read. You never tried to do that, ever.

Whatever. I got lynched last game for having a "ridiculous" case. I don't know what I can do to convince people that my reads are good, so maybe I should just start sheeping other people's cases, since even while nailing the right players I'm still negative utility to town.

I've said all I have to say on it, it's out there, everyone can judge for themselves.

You got lynched once for that.  Stop exaggerating, and stop tunneling here.  I'm not scum.

What do you think of Lio?

[nkirbit]

I guess you actually didn't exaggerate, huh.  I guess I just assumed you were from your tone.

[raerae]

Will you two stop??

The sheer lack of response from other players makes me think this is town on town.  If it were town on scum, somebody would be defending one read or the other but considering you two are the only ones super convinced of your cases leads me to believe scum is just sitting back, waiting for one wagon or the other to gain steam.

[nkirbit]

Will you two stop??

The sheer lack of response from other players makes me think this is town on town.  If it were town on scum, somebody would be defending one read or the other but considering you two are the only ones super convinced of your cases leads me to believe scum is just sitting back, waiting for one wagon or the other to gain steam.

I agree, we've probably gone a little over the top.  I'm not going to leave an accusation against me without defending it, but we should look elsewhere.

If you think this is town vs town, what do you think of lio?  I was uncomfortable with his wagon earlier, and still am, but I've seen more scummy activity from him at this point.  I think it would be enough to get me over my discomfort.

[raerae]

Will you two stop??

The sheer lack of response from other players makes me think this is town on town.  If it were town on scum, somebody would be defending one read or the other but considering you two are the only ones super convinced of your cases leads me to believe scum is just sitting back, waiting for one wagon or the other to gain steam.

I agree, we've probably gone a little over the top.  I'm not going to leave an accusation against me without defending it, but we should look elsewhere.

If you think this is town vs town, what do you think of lio?  I was uncomfortable with his wagon earlier, and still am, but I've seen more scummy activity from him at this point.  I think it would be enough to get me over my discomfort.

My vote is still on him but I'm increasingly concerned with Eevee's lack of activity.

[nkirbit]

Here's another topic to discuss:  What does everything think about lynching a player like Xeiron or Mail-Mi, who has been V/LA much of the game.

Mail-mi, in particular, hasn't been contributing here.  And he's about to go V/LA for like another week.  He's been posting in mean girls occasionally, but I don't think he's posted in here for several days.  Do we want to remove these players from consideration for lynching, or look at them?

[ashersky]

Vote Count Act I.XIII:

liopoil (2): raerae, nkirbit
nkirbit (2): Twistedarcher, sudgy
Twistedarcher (1): EFHW

Not Voting (4): mail-mi, xeiron, Eevee, liopoil

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Act I ends on June 11 at 8:30 p.m.

[nkirbit]

Eevee posted a similar "I'll write a catch up post soon" in mean girls, and similarly neither did.

If we're going to lynch an inactive player, I'd rather it be Xeiron or Mail-mi.  I really do believe that Eevee is going to come back and contribute actively, while I can't say that for sure about the other two.  It's already frustrated that I can't interact with a third of the players, and I'd rather lynch the player who I'm not sure will be active.

[sudgy]

I haven't noticed much pushing towards lio, if you could, could you bring up a case or something on him?

Also, the only against lio was him not answering the questions.  While that was somewhat scummy, I nkirbit has more for him than lio does.

Here, I just pulled up your vote on mail-mi and your almost vote on lio.  The cases against them cases were remarkably similar.  Why was one a good vote and not the other?  Also, what do you mean you haven't noticed much pushing for lio?  Did you miss that part of the game where he was at L-2 with practically everybody ready to vote for him?

Mail-mi said he would answer raerae's question but hasn't.  Vote: mail-mi.

I was going to vote liopoil, but then you guys said he was at L-2, so I'll Vote: liopoil for now (not a real vote).  I agree that "missing" questions like that is pretty scummy.

So, lio, could you come in here and say something?

(I'm catching up, I'm just responding to this now)

I didn't really think mail-mi was scum.  That vote was for pressure.

[sudgy]

Xeiron, mail-mi, and Eeve, the deadline is in two days (I'm pretty sure, this is from memory), if you don't post by tomorrow night, I'm voting for you.

[sudgy]

Xeiron, mail-mi, and Eeve, the deadline is in two days (I'm pretty sure, this is from memory), if you don't post by tomorrow night, I'm voting for you.

Soft deadline, that is.

[xeiron]

I find TA's and sudgy's cases weak, and both of them scummy for presenting them and voting based on them.

What about my case do you find weak?

I don't find your descriptions of nkirbit to be accurate.  He has been as active as anyone else, and while accusing without voting can sometimes be scummy, I don't think it is here.  It was prudent not to put Lio at L-1, especially since the wagon was such a hodge-podge of RVS and weak reads.  His rationale for the two posts made sense. In short, I agree with him that you are manufacturing a case more than discovering one.

Sudgy's listing of contradictions is similarly flimsy. 

Liopoil's assumption that one of you must be scum seems iffy to me, but I would make the same choice if I had to pick one of you.  I'm surprised to see nkirbit defending you, though, and wonder if this is a staged fight.  Saying Lio is trying to continue your fight seems like a stretch of the imagination to me.

+1 for this. especially the bolded part. I also agree with the original case.

You have your reads...EFHW, Eevee, Xeiron. Of course they're D1 reads and not rock solid, but if you feel they are more likely scum than anyone else (which you have stated that you feel), then try to bring people around to your point of view! You have said you wanted to get the game moving but didn't know how, this is a way to do it!

I was wrong when I said earlier you were playing proactively, you are playing much more cautiously than I thought you were before..

By doing what?  Stating why I had the views I had on those players?  I did that.  Would you prefer me to bully other players until they agreed?

This is starting to sound more and more like a case of a player starting at a conclusion then looking for evidence to support that conclusion.  I think it's ridiculous to look at my posts so far and claim I've been any less proactive than yourself.  I stated a read on each player, and why I had that read.  I didn't vote for Lio because raerae had interrupted my posts by putting Lio at L-2, and we clearly don't want to put a player at L-1 without having more time to talk it out.

I just reread you.  Before your case on me, you weren't any more proactive than I was.  And I guess that if you looked at Lio, or mail-mi, or sudgy, or eevee, or xeiron, you would find the same lack of proactiveness.  I'm not sure about EFHW and raerae off the top of my head, but they may be that way as well.  It's day one!  It looked like you had me out as a target for a possible mislynch, then decided to build a case on me with your conclusion in mind.

I think the reason that I'm the target here is because EFHW pointed out a great point against me:  When I made those two posts in a row.  I'll be the first to admit that that was legitimately scummy, and I was very careful in how I handled that situation.  I don't know if I did it well or not, but it's out there, and I think it's better evidence than anyone else has on them.

So basically, what I think happened here was:

1:  EFHW finds a scummy-looking series of posts that I made.  (They were legitimately scummy-looking, I agree, and am surprised more people didn't make an issue of them, to be honest).
2:  scum!twisted realizes that he's going to be away for the soft deadline, and wants to get his input in by making a solid case before he leaves.  He scans the thread, and picks his target!
3:  He makes a case, which he thinks looks okay, but I think is horrible.  You could have inserted several other players instead of me and the case would have read the same.
4:  He doesn't include the point that EFHW made earlier.  He hopes that after he makes his case, others will reread me and pick up on it, and connect the dots.

In summary, I think your case is bad because it's very vague.  You could have made the same case against any number of players (including yourself!).  I think it's fishy that you chose to make this case against a player who had an example of being scummy in the past, rather than someone else.

Vote: TwistedArcher

Why did you choose to reread me rather than someone else?  As you said yourself: 

I was wrong when I said earlier you were playing proactively, you are playing much more cautiously than I thought you were before..

You had me as playing proactively earlier, and then changed your mind (presumably by rereading).  Why did you reread me, and not another player you had a town read on?

and then we have his:

If you excuse my earlier non-vote for Lio, here is my voting activity this game:

(Vote: Lio), Vote: TA  Vote: Lio  - Very recent.

and yours:

Vote: Lio  Vote: Nkirbit.

Again, you are finding me scummy for not meeting criteria that you yourself do not meet.  Do you see why I think you're being unfair?

Yes I can, but context matters, also. I'm not talking about number of votes, I'm talking about reads unsupported by votes.

I think the fact that you're attempting to discredit my case rather than defend yourself speaks volumes, as well.

Discrediting someone's case against you is an excellent method of defense.  This tips the balance for me.

Vote: TA

Oops, I wrote that wrong -- discrediting me, rather than discrediting my case.

It seems to me like the quote above discredit your case rather that your person.
Are you sure you wrote that wrong?

vote: twistedarcher