Print

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

[AndrewisFTTW]

Alright. I have 5 votes on me so I thought I'd go through them all and explain how they're unfounded and how scum is absolutely on this wagon and wants to get this lynch through. So here we go.

What I was the most excited for was the bolded portion in this post.  But it's actually missing.  You talked about hte points, and then at the end picked out the two scummiest people.  EVEN if we're wrong about you (still not sure), there's no guarantee that scum actually are on this wagon.  Have any of us done something manifestly scummy in our votes on you that you can point out and explain?  THAT would be really interesting information.

This post has the look of "these guys are trying to lynch me; since I'm super good town, some of them HAAAAAVVVVEE to be scum".  But that assumption has proven false in many-a-game.  If you want to be helpful to town, could you say what makes TA a contender for scum?  Do you think it's possible that scum are actually the people agreeing with you? (you'd be surprised how often scum defend townies)

I made that post after sudgy put me at L-1 and I was so frustrated and somehow convinced I was going to get lynched that I posted that. Looking back and actually thinking things through for a minute, the points that have been made about scum being off the wagon make sense. I'm going to re-read and answer the bolded questions, although since then TA has posted a lot so we'll see if my opinion has changed.

[faust]

Faust, you want to know why I find you scummy? It is this type of posts where you go in to a reread with a bias and pluck stuff from the reread and twist it and construe it as scummy while at the same time ignoring how it could be interpreted as either null or even as townie and ignoring posts in between those that contradict some things that you say. 

you did this exactly in Diffusion of Power as town, on scum (PPS I think? or TA wrongly? I can't remember)... so maybe it is the correct way to go based off that sampling, but I really don't think it is and is something that constantly gets my flags raised up about you.

Well, I guess there are different types of rereads for me. There is the reread where I feel like someone is scum, and try to convince others that he is scummy, so I look for scumminess. This is what I did in DoP, because PoE told me pretty certainly that PPS was scum. It is also what I'm doing here, because ultimately, what are the reasons not to lynch Andrew? Has he done anything townie? And my gut says scum, or informative lynch at least.

Sometimes I do rereads coming more from a position where I try to find out the other player's alignment, and yes, these look different. I admit that I stuck to my gut read here. It is D1 after all.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Nope sorry, I was thinking of a different post. The one you quoted was before sudgy voted me, but I was still frustrated. I'll answer your questions shortly.

[faust]

...

So here's how you do a reread, apparently... you list a whole bunch of stuff that Andrew did, and in the end state you think that means he's probably town. But I see no obvious connection between the things you list and you thinking he is town. So I guess I like my rereads better.

[faust]

Going back and reading the posts where this started, Andrew seems overly defensive from the beginning.  If he had nothing to hide and the accusation had no credibility, then I don't think he'd need to respond with such incredulousness.

Vote: AndrewisFTTW

How would you respond if someone came up to you and accused you of making a mistake that you thought was totally innocent? Would you be overly defensive? He starts out surprised and then becomes incredulous and yes very, defensive once it picks up steam! I just read all of his posts and they look exactly like someone who was completely flummoxed by everything that everyone aroudn him was saying because it was based off a ridiculous premise and someone who is frustrated because no one except for me apparently is listening to him at all!

GAH!

vote: witherweaver

If I made a mistake like that and got accused for it, I would probably say sorry for my wrong assumptions and for distracting town, and try to convince those who saw that mistake that it wasn't more than a mistake. I wouldn't get all worked up and accuse those players that my mistake lead to falsely thinking I was scum to be drunk and ridiculous.

[faust]

I'll ask...

ash... if I am not going to shoot Andrew who would you suggest I shoot instead?

I think at this point i am interested in hearing opinions from everyone--well everyone that has a solid opinion on this. Don't just create an opinion for me. I only want solid opinions and I am not demanding everyone give one just for the sake of giving one.

Well, I do not have a strong opinion... if you are compulsive, I think killing a lurker is not the worst. But really I think you should just shoot Andrew (after he had a chance to claim obviously) because he seems to be the default lynch. If then you are right and we're wrong, we can make the lynch on a more informed basis.

If you are not compulsive... I don't really think that's actually the case, because then I don't see why you would have claimed.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Going back and reading the posts where this started, Andrew seems overly defensive from the beginning.  If he had nothing to hide and the accusation had no credibility, then I don't think he'd need to respond with such incredulousness.

Vote: AndrewisFTTW

How would you respond if someone came up to you and accused you of making a mistake that you thought was totally innocent? Would you be overly defensive? He starts out surprised and then becomes incredulous and yes very, defensive once it picks up steam! I just read all of his posts and they look exactly like someone who was completely flummoxed by everything that everyone aroudn him was saying because it was based off a ridiculous premise and someone who is frustrated because no one except for me apparently is listening to him at all!

GAH!

vote: witherweaver

If I made a mistake like that and got accused for it, I would probably say sorry for my wrong assumptions and for distracting town, and try to convince those who saw that mistake that it wasn't more than a mistake. I wouldn't get all worked up and accuse those players that my mistake lead to falsely thinking I was scum to be drunk and ridiculous.

Maybe I just react differently to things than you do. And for the record I think ash was a LOT more worked up and distracting for town than I was. I DID try to convince everyone it wasn't more than a mistake and most people still believe me.

[faust]

I doubt mail-mi made Mordeth a flavor character. But anyway, there's only three scum and sometimes they have to take huge risks. It's a null read for me right now but the argument is definitely WIFOM, and scum wants us to argue about things that don't have an obvious answer.

Here is the quote in question, because I think we're getting away from the point.

That is not an assumption.  That is not a guess.  That is not an idea, or a hope, or a wish, or a maybe.  That is a statement of fact.  Whether it actually is a fact or not is unknown to me, but he definitely wrote it as such.

Sorry if I'm dredging overdone conversations again, but this is my take exactly.  There was a huge fruitless discussion about assumptions that are/aren't legal and crap like that.  But this statement does NOT read like an assumption to me; not at all. Throw in the responses to this.  They sounded like quick "ohcrapohcrap" back-pedals

Agreed.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Scumslip? Really? I thought in big games there are three and in small games there are two. Is this incorrect?

I don't find the scum slip that compelling -- we did this same thing in innovation and it came from town, not scum -- but I DO find this response from Andrew scummy. It's too...calm?

vote:Andrew

It just reads scummy to me. Sorry, I can't give you better than that right now, and I'm not saying you are super duper 100% scum or anything, but I get a scummy vibe from it.

I'd like an update on this please. The initial vote was because you thought I was too calm. I've had some pretty frustrated posts since then. How do you feel about those?

All previous 13 player games with only one scum team have had 3 scum. But ash you are arguing over whether the assumption is correct, not if its reasonable. You are the only person who has said it's not. You have at least 4 people saying it is. All 4 of those people can't be scum therefore it's reasonably likely for town to have that assumption, therefore Andrew isn't necessarily scum.

See what I did there? By saying all 4 of those people can't be scum, I assumed a 3 person scum team. Lynch me next!

I don't get how you can have this kind of post right after voting for me. This is probably the most straightforward, to the point argument for me not being scum, certainly better than anything I could post or have posted. So why keep your vote on me after this? What has changed or stayed the same to influence your vote?

[AndrewisFTTW]

I skimmed the first day of Adventure Time to see how he reacted to his lynch and he didn't seem to be fighting it nearly as much there as here.  That play difference would be enough to make me vote him, but he's at L-1, so...

I find this scummy. Finding a flimsy reason to set someone up for a derphammer.

I (at the current moment) think you are scum, so I vote for you.  I don't want the day to end now, but that doesn't make me not want to vote you.  If it was only a day left to deadline I would be fine with a hammer.

yuma posts about how he's a dayvig and sudgy uvotes. Arch and maybe someone else jumped on this just like I did by saying there's no logical reason to put anyone at L-1 right now. Even without the yuma dayvig situation, there's no reason for this. If sudgy isn't fine with a hammer TODAY then he shouldn't be putting me at L-1. This might be the scummiest thing I've seen today.

[faust]

yuma posts about how he's a dayvig and sudgy uvotes. Arch and maybe someone else jumped on this just like I did by saying there's no logical reason to put anyone at L-1 right now. Even without the yuma dayvig situation, there's no reason for this. If sudgy isn't fine with a hammer TODAY then he shouldn't be putting me at L-1. This might be the scummiest thing I've seen today.

You are very wrong here. Putting someone at L-1 is very different from hammering. We put people at L-1 so they know they should consider claiming. That why L-1 should happen earlier than the very last hours of a day.

[AndrewisFTTW]

First of all, thank you for posting this.

Going back and reading the posts where this started, Andrew seems overly defensive from the beginning.  If he had nothing to hide and the accusation had no credibility, then I don't think he'd need to respond with such incredulousness.

Vote: AndrewisFTTW

Can you please show me which posts you consider incredulous and explain why you think that's what they are?

I've been asking this of everyone all day and nobody has been able to come up with an answer.

So I'm talking about your initial reaction, and I'm saying you were taking a position of incredulousness (not that your response was incredulous):

Scumslip? Really? I thought in big games there are three and in small games there are two. Is this incorrect?

This was right after Ash voted for you*, before there was a case against you.  To me this comes off as overly defensive, because there hasn't been much of a strong position taken against you.  Just Ash saying that what you said was a slip.  I feel like if you just would have said "I simply thought that with 13 players, three scum was the setup.  Every other game I've seen has been that way" then a lot of suspicion of you would never have been aroused.  But the tone of this message is a lot more defensive than that, which makes me think you have something to defend. 

Yeah maybe I could've phrased it differently but I don't see what's wrong with what I posted. I asked a legitimate question that nobody answered. Maybe if someone answered the question right off the bat there wouldnt've been as huge a debate over there, though I doubt it considering how vehement ash was about the supposed "scumslip". I see it as a two way street. I don't see this post really as defensive, more just surprised that anyone could consider that a scumslip and then "oh... that's not what I meant. Is that assumption wrong?".

And your defense since then has been "no one can explain why they think I'm scum," but it feels to me like people have been explaining and that you're just hanging onto the "nobody has a reason" defense.

So just to clarify, I never said "nobody has a reason", I've been asking people to clarify their reasonings for voting me like you are doing here (which is why I thanked you in the beginning.)

Just going off memory here but let me see... ash and shraeye vote me for the "scumslip", TA votes me for my two first posts being "calm" and is unwilling or unable to clarify beyond that, XP votes me for being "self-aware" and still hasn't clarified that despite me asking at least twice, faust votes me for my reactions being scummy, posts something with a lot of links to what I've said with no real additional information besides calling them all scummy, and fails to respond after I pick it apart, sudgy votes me for my play in Adventure Time, in which the most people voting for me at one time were 2 (I think) and one of them was an RVS holdover, and you vote me for being "overly defensive" which I discussed above. Am I missing anything?

I mean,maybe this is just tone with everything and it's coincidental here. This is my first game so I'm new at this reading thing, but this is the only thing I've been able to form an opinion about so far.

----
*Actually, going back again, I see Shraeye had jumped on too.  When I initially made my vote I thought your response was directly after Ash, so you only had one vote against you.  Now I see you had two votes.. that does change my perspective a little bit.

Part of the reason I've been taking this tone has been my frustration with some people saying I've said or done things that I haven't said or done.

First and foremost is the "scumslip" which has been beat to death already so I'm not even going there anymore. I've also been accused of saying "all big games have 3 scum" when I actually said "all big gamesI have seen have had 3 scum". I've been accused of defending ADK which has not happened anywhere. I've been accused of trying to force an end to conversation when actually I was pushing the conversation on my case forward. And in your post you say that I've been saying "nobody has a reason", which is not at all what I've been saying.

Maybe now you can see why I've having such a hard time here.

[AndrewisFTTW]

yuma posts about how he's a dayvig and sudgy uvotes. Arch and maybe someone else jumped on this just like I did by saying there's no logical reason to put anyone at L-1 right now. Even without the yuma dayvig situation, there's no reason for this. If sudgy isn't fine with a hammer TODAY then he shouldn't be putting me at L-1. This might be the scummiest thing I've seen today.

You are very wrong here. Putting someone at L-1 is very different from hammering. We put people at L-1 so they know they should consider claiming. That why L-1 should happen earlier than the very last hours of a day.

That's fine but there's still no reason I should be at L-1 today. Do you disagree?

[shraeye]

I disagree.  Why do you say there's no reason for you to have been at L-1?  You were there.  The voters had reasons.  That seems like there was reason to put you to L-1.  QED.

Now if you're going to say, "I was at L-1, but the reasons weren't legitimate", now that's a whole different box of crackers.

[AndrewisFTTW]

I didn't know we were getting all literal here. Alright then. There is no good reason as far as I can see for putting me or anyone at L-1 today.

[Witherweaver]

Part of the reason I've been taking this tone has been my frustration with some people saying I've said or done things that I haven't said or done.

First and foremost is the "scumslip" which has been beat to death already so I'm not even going there anymore. I've also been accused of saying "all big games have 3 scum" when I actually said "all big gamesI have seen have had 3 scum". I've been accused of defending ADK which has not happened anywhere. I've been accused of trying to force an end to conversation when actually I was pushing the conversation on my case forward. And in your post you say that I've been saying "nobody has a reason", which is not at all what I've been saying.

Maybe now you can see why I've having such a hard time here.

Sorry the quote is getting way to big so I have to trim it.

So these are some reasons why I said you've been taking a "nobody has a reason" defense:

...
What frustrates me the most about this is how nobody could explain why they felt I was scummy. Everybody just said I was and nobody felt the need to back that up with anything. I guess faust is the exception but really not by much as can be seen my post in response to his.

...
Yeah everyone except ash and shraeye are voting for me because of the way I've reacted, but nobody can explain how the way I reacted was scummy. Not one person has stopped and thought that maybe this is the way I react when I've got a rapidly building wagon on me.

Can you please show me which posts you consider incredulous and explain why you think that's what they are?

I've been asking this of everyone all day and nobody has been able to come up with an answer.

So maybe it would be  more accurate to call it a "nobody has a valid reason" or "nobody can explain their reason" argument, but to me that's a semantic distinction.  I mean, "nobody has a reason" seems the natural conclusion from "nobody can explain their reason".

I'm actually kind of confused on why you're saying that's not your argument.  How would you characterize it instead?

[AndrewisFTTW]

I think there's a big difference between "nobody has a reason" and "nobody can explain their reasoning". Everyone that voted for me has a reason for voting. I just don't think they've elaborated on them enough to be convincing.

[shraeye]

Andrew, we aren't trying to convince you that you're scum.

[shraeye]

I mean, if there exists the potential for us to convince you that you're scum....that sorta means that you're scum.

[AndrewisFTTW]

shraeye, I'm trying to convince everyone that I'm not scum.

[Witherweaver]

I think there's a big difference between "nobody has a reason" and "nobody can explain their reasoning". Everyone that voted for me has a reason for voting. I just don't think they've elaborated on them enough to be convincing.

Okay, so I think we're saying the same thing and I just used a less precise phrase.  But I'm not sure the difference is as great as you present it.. isn't the purpose of highlighting that people have not sufficiently elaborated on their reason that at least some of these people are simply using their reason as a cover to jump on the wagon, because they are in fact scum and want a mislynch?  So they don't have a reason to think you're scum, they only have a reason to want to lynch you.

[A Drowned Kernel]

PoE means that their pretty much has to be scum on this wagon, so I'm going to do a reread and try and figure out who it is.

Not in the least.  Please explain why you have townreads on so many people off the wagon, enough to justify saying PoE means there pretty much is scum on the wagon.  That is xeiron, Jimmm, Archetype, yuma, witherweaver, andrew.  Are they all towny?

Maybe "has to be" is an exaggeration but I'm currently more suspicious of people on the wagon than off it. There are also people off the wagon, I'm thinking of Archetype and WitherWeaver, who are pushing the wagon without voting for it. But yes, maybe I should be looking at these people as well. Has xerion even posted since this whole mess started?

Someone asked, I think it was shraeye, why I wasn't willing to lynch Andrew if I have a null read on him. I'd rather lynch someone I have a scummy read on than someone I have null read on, that's the whole point.

[AndrewisFTTW]

I think there's a big difference between "nobody has a reason" and "nobody can explain their reasoning". Everyone that voted for me has a reason for voting. I just don't think they've elaborated on them enough to be convincing.

Okay, so I think we're saying the same thing and I just used a less precise phrase.  But I'm not sure the difference is as great as you present it.. isn't the purpose of highlighting that people have not sufficiently elaborated on their reason that at least some of these people are simply using their reason as a cover to jump on the wagon, because they are in fact scum and want a mislynch?  So they don't have a reason to think you're scum, they only have a reason to want to lynch you.

Well I don't think that's really a scumtell by itself. It's really easy for a townie to just jump on board so he doesn't have to spend a lot of time thinking things through. Also a lot of people don't see D1 as very important for some reason, thus they don't really care who they lynch whether it be town or scum. I disagree and personally would rather lynch someone that I think is really scummy and whose posts I can point to and discern as something scum would post. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure TA is scum (I still have a vote on him), but I don't see the case on me as having much solid reasoning behind it. Of course, I'm a little biased.

[Witherweaver]

PoE means that their pretty much has to be scum on this wagon, so I'm going to do a reread and try and figure out who it is.

Not in the least.  Please explain why you have townreads on so many people off the wagon, enough to justify saying PoE means there pretty much is scum on the wagon.  That is xeiron, Jimmm, Archetype, yuma, witherweaver, andrew.  Are they all towny?

Maybe "has to be" is an exaggeration but I'm currently more suspicious of people on the wagon than off it. There are also people off the wagon, I'm thinking of Archetype and WitherWeaver, who are pushing the wagon without voting for it. But yes, maybe I should be looking at these people as well. Has xerion even posted since this whole mess started?

Someone asked, I think it was shraeye, why I wasn't willing to lynch Andrew if I have a null read on him. I'd rather lynch someone I have a scummy read on than someone I have null read on, that's the whole point.

I voted for Andrewis.

[Archetype]

PoE means that their pretty much has to be scum on this wagon, so I'm going to do a reread and try and figure out who it is.

Not in the least.  Please explain why you have townreads on so many people off the wagon, enough to justify saying PoE means there pretty much is scum on the wagon.  That is xeiron, Jimmm, Archetype, yuma, witherweaver, andrew.  Are they all towny?

Maybe "has to be" is an exaggeration but I'm currently more suspicious of people on the wagon than off it. There are also people off the wagon, I'm thinking of Archetype and WitherWeaver, who are pushing the wagon without voting for it. But yes, maybe I should be looking at these people as well. Has xerion even posted since this whole mess started?

Someone asked, I think it was shraeye, why I wasn't willing to lynch Andrew if I have a null read on him. I'd rather lynch someone I have a scummy read on than someone I have null read on, that's the whole point.

I'm not pushing Andrew's wagon. I find his reactions scummy, but the vehement way people (mostly ash) are arguing for his lynch, make me think he may not be scum. But ultimately, I'm null on him. Maybe slight scum at the most. Personally, I'd rather have him Dayvigged to make a more informed lynch today. But only if yuma's power is compulsive, which I'm leaning towards being true based on the way he reacted to Andrew being put to L-1.