I found Megiddo's response laughable and classic scum behavior of deflect+vote low-hanging fruit a la Dragonheart with no actual analysis attached to his vote - simply a "massclaim and talking about Neutrals". Firstly, D_V was talking about the massclaim - not Dragonheart (unless I'm mistaken). Secondly, we were already discussing the Neutrals - and then he votes the completely easy target of Dragonheart, whose wagon is gaining momentum. In short, Megiddo's vote on to Dragonheart was opportunistic, weak, and deflection from his own wagon, which was gaining momentum. Just because you don't understand my explosive laugh in response to Megiddo's jump to DH doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
Now that you mention it, I'm confused. You say I voted for Dragon in this post and accuse me of making a mistake, but if you actually look at my post, I voted for D_V, not DH as you say.
It's not that I disagree with them. It's just that in the Walls of Text you post there's a lot of nitpicking and "filler". Maybe it's not 5% / 95%, but some of the things you and Gricky are lobbing back and forth at each other literally seems like you're grasping at straws to try to discredit the other person. If someone is scum, not EVERYTHING that person says is going to be scummy. In fact, if someone is scum, they're going to try to trick us by acting as much like us as they can.
If you want further elucidation, I could dissect one of your multiple walls of text. But I don't think that would be beneficial or necessary for us right now.
You're going to push Policy against tordeck when you have three scum reads that are valid enough to puch a case. Gt, Arn and myself. I see this as a town motivated push though.
HE JUST SAID THE SCUM READ ON HIMSELF IS VALID
THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO IGNORE MY CASE.
If I had the time, I'd go back and reread Void. This whole shenanigan with the long post after absence reminds me of his immediate t/s-list in Ghost story when he replaced in, which was horrible.
I do however, not have the time.
@Mod: I am currently V/LA, lasting a couple of days. Will probably be able to meet the required posting-frequency, but thought I'd let you now
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Damnation studios!
P9 - VT - Win
Zodiac - Doublevoter - Loss
Starcraft - VT - Loss
The Office - Mafia Rolecop - Win
1984 - VT - Vigged - Loss
Quantum - Lynched D1 Alpha Mafia - Win
Mean Girls - Town Masonizer Replaced into lynch - Loss
Startrek Voyager - Backup JOAT - Loss
Boardgame - VT- Loss
Ghost Story - VT - (replaced in)
Smalltown Animaniacs - Delay Doc - Loss
Kill Bill - One-shot Vig - Loss
Magical Girls -
Mr Potato Head -
Ive done the leg work. Ive pointed to where the issue lies. Now you want me to play the game for you? Not happening.
Um, no. That's NOT an acceptable method of building a case against someone.
You don't get to vote for someone and then refuse to ever give any SPECIFIC evidence against them. A gut vote to get something started is one thing, but eventually you have to provide evidence, back off or just admit that you are actually scum. A failure to either provide evidence or eventually back off is tantamount to admitting you are scum.
If you found something Iso did to be scummy enough to warrant a vote on him, then it is your responsibility to point it out to the rest of us. It is YOUR vote that needs substantiated. Telling us, "oh, go look in here, I'm sure there's something in there you can find which will support my claim" is NOT acceptable.
It was bad enough when Iso kept claiming he had more than one reason, but refusing to point out where it was. But on a complete re-read I was finally able to locate it. The way he did it just made him look even scummier, but at least he DID actually give the specifics of his reasoning at some point. But you aren't even doing that. You're refusing to identify what YOU found scummy and are insisting people go find their own reasons to support YOUR vote.
Um, no!
Congratulations. You've successfully jumped from neutral/townish to full blown Scum in one quick series of posts. You're barely behind Iso at this point in my book.
Tordeck, I actually find D_V's interpretation of you posts to be accurate. So since all of us are lazy idiots who can't read, can you pretty please with sugar on top restate what was so scummy about my reaction?
Congratulations. You've successfully jumped from neutral/townish to full blown Scum in one quick series of posts. You're barely behind Iso at this point in my book.
Your new here, as such you don't know me or how I play. So I'll forgive this indiscretion.
AsianInvasion: Did AI ever claim his alignment? I think he is saying he is town in 510 but I'm not sure.
I don't get the loran joke.
Zajnet vote seems good at that juncture.
1. I am town.
2. loran was scum in about seven games in a row when he first started playing, so "LAL" used to mean "Lynch All lorans" as often as it did "Lynch All Liars."
3. I am somewhat surprised that so few players have commented on it; this leads me to believe that I was on the right track.
THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO IGNORE MY CASE.
As this was the first post I read today, I was initially very confused, thinking you were now advocating lynching DV due to ambiguous pronoun usage. Then I read everything again and realize what you meant. I'll let Void reply to this comment before I add my thoughts.
Would you like to just play the game for you then?
What the frak is up with everyone nowadays being too lazy to actually read the fraking games they are in? They want everyone to just hand them frak on a platter. Well frak that noise. Either play or get the frak out.
Well then watch me not voting Iso until you either give a good reason or I find a reason of my own.
Cause that's how you play the game. You convince other people. And you're doing a terrible job at convincing me.
Cyouni, we both know players will post differently than others. You claiming I wouldn't address it to scum that way is incorrect since you are not me.
Fine then.
Try this: there is no way that town would even think of trusting someone they think is scum.
That statement explicitly expresses the possibility of trusting tordeck's case, and completely ignores the fact that you think of him as scum.
THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO IGNORE MY CASE.
What's wrong with knowing that there is a valid case against you? I didn't pay good enough attention to my catch-up post and players are finding that scummy, which they should.
Should I be lynched, then the town will know that my reads were as true as can be, becasue I am town and will be town for the remainer of my time in this game.
If I had the time, I'd go back and reread Void. This whole shenanigan with the long post after absence reminds me of his immediate t/s-list in Ghost story when he replaced in, which was horrible.
I do however, not have the time.
You have a scum read on me already and now you believe that a reread needs to be done on me?
Try this: there is no way that town would even think of trusting someone they think is scum.
That statement explicitly expresses the possibility of trusting tordeck's case, and completely ignores the fact that you think of him as scum.
I am not 100% sure of tordeck's alignment so therefore there needs be a small room for margain of error.
In the chance that I am wrong I would rather get the opinions of others when someone tells me to take their word for it.
I do respect what you're saying. I just don't agree with it 100%.
What's wrong with knowing that there is a valid case against you? I didn't pay good enough attention to my catch-up post and players are finding that scummy, which they should.
First off, you're not defending yourself against the case. You're doing the equivalent of a Yanni "pffffft" reaction. You're rejecting it for no reason and hoping it'll go away, then turning right around and saying "yeah it's a valid case."
Should I be lynched, then the town will know that my reads were as true as can be, becasue I am town and will be town for the remainer of my time in this game.
First off, you're not defending yourself against the case. You're doing the equivalent of a Yanni "pffffft" reaction. You're rejecting it for no reason and hoping it'll go away, then turning right around and saying "yeah it's a valid case."
"I need more support for my case so please defend yourself against what is factual evidence against you."
I answered all questions that were directed to me about the catch-up post. Whether you want to accept that as a defense is up to you and only you.
Dear god, my head is killing me. I drank too much this weekend. I'm going to try and respond to some stuff before getting to Iso's response, although I doubt I'm going to wallpost-respond to it, just touch on some of the key points. Bear with me here.
@Gricky: do you really think Iso is scum? If you do, explain your case without a wall of text.
Yes, I do. Let me lay out some reasons for you.
1. His behavior surrounding the Meg case. I've seen him push the single point gut case before, and that's not out of the normal. However, in his town games, he will pick up on other posts by his target and comment on how they are scummy too. With Meg, he picked up on only one other post, and the points he was making tied directly back to his single point, meaning that if that single point was invalid, so too was everything else he had. So, by having the one point case, he's undermining and ignoring every other post that Meg makes.
Also, note that his one single point cannot be proven invalid because it's based on Gut. I've argued several times that while gut can be a useful tool and Iso has used it well in the past, its still not something to be trusted or relied upon, something that Iso is doing here. This is scummy because all the points that he ties to it later on can't be disproven either, because the gut isn't based on fact it's based on Iso's feelings, which can be easily made up.
Next, concerning his behavior in the Meg case, the vote mongering. Like I've said, if he were mongering votes for a case that he had put extensive work into, his begging for votes would be justified. Instead, he posts his 3-4 lines about his vote and reasoning and instantly begins to shop the wagon around to people. It's literally "vote, now why aren't you voting who I'm voting". His mongering isn't justified and it ties into his scum meta. In Trisk, Iso made a terrible trap on Vitek and I bought into it as town and made the PBPA on Vitek. Iso sat back and made comments that suggested he was adding to the case, when all he was actually doing was asking townies what they thought of Vitek and why they weren't voting him. He was letting me do all the work while claiming to have done his fair share of work and he was selling his wagon to the town with vote mongering.
Lastly, when pressured to explain his own posts and reads, he refuses. He still hasn't actually clarified his original point on the Meg case, I did it for him and haven't heard anything about it. When asked to go find something, he argues about burden of proof and somehow turns it around that I'm not reading the game so I must be scum. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time remembering where everything in these wallposts. I'm asking him to show me where he's making the points he's talking about and instead of doing it so the point is conceded thus making his arguments more legit, he turns it into yet another reason that I must be scum. This tells me he's not worried about making his points and his case more legitimate, he's worried about taking me out. If he thinks he's caught scum in Meg and I'm arguing that I don't see where, why would he switch his target and attack me for bogus reasons rather than just provide the evidence against Meg and proceed to lynching what he thinks is scum? Clearly, his motives are to attack my character through any means in an attempt to shut me up.
2. His defense has been incredibly scummy. First, note that his reaction to me and the points against him have been OMGUS. His defense, while touching on the points against him at some points, has been overwhelmingly offensive. He's not trying to defend my points, he's trying to discredit me and calling me scum, thereby defeating my points against him by default. His OMGUS and efforts to turn me into scum is his effort to get the town distracted and not seeing my points. He turned this into one large distraction tactic.
Next, he's twisting not just words, but whole scenarios around to try and make me look scummy. The argument that I slipped that I knew DH is town is him twisting the scenario around. Iso's the one who instantly bought into DH's role after he claimed. I had been thinking all along that DH is town, I'd even said it in between some of my fights with Iso. So he goes accusing me of slipping that I knew it all along and he's misrepresenting the whole situation. Notice that whenever he explains how I slipped, he posts my one liner about it and then analysis from himself and DH about it. The analysis from himself and DH don't prove any slip exists and Iso isn't including where I've already stated DH is town. He also ignores my argument that even if I hadn't already called a town DH, that one line that he keeps posting was based on Iso's logic in the post before, the one where he argues he should be targeted for revival. I'm using Iso's line of logic to satirically show how that logic is bad.
Iso's activity there completely twists the whole scenario. Another example? Ok, how bout his meta argument. I'm trying to rehash an old argument of mine, one that I happened to make in a previous scum game, but and argument that is nonetheless a valid argument. I've stated since the beginning that the argument came from a scum game. I've stated at the end of said scum game that even though I used it as scum, it's still a very valid point. What's Iso's reaction here? Overplay the scum-meta thing. I've explained several times that alignment doesn't affect an arguments validity, just how you use it. Iso's argument has been "I don't care, you are wrong, that came from a scumgame, therefore you admit to being scum". He's being purposefully shortsighted about my argument, and I know he's smarter than that. But, so that it benefits him, he's been screaming at the top of his lungs "SCUM META!" ever since the point came up. This also goes hand in hand with the "his defense is to discredit me instead of actually defending" point.
Lastly, his defense gives him away because he twists words almost every time he posts. I can recall some times where he says "You admit you aren't reading then" or "You admit that you are scum then" or something along those lines, saying that I'm admitting to things that I'm obviously not admitting to, and he's stretching my words to extreme meanings. Once again, it's a shortsighted attack made at my character, instead of a logical and calm attack showing why my points are wrong and supporting the legitimacy of his own points.
Oh, and also, his defense to anybody disagreeing with him has been "oh, he's scum too". I begin to question him, I become scum. Tordeck follows suit, as well as Ahlyis, both becoming members of the scumteam to Iso because they question his case. Iso's done more work painting other players as scummy than he has providing legitimate reasons for his actions.
I'm probably forgetting a lot of things, but those are some of the main points from right off the top of my head. His behavior regarding his own case and the people questioning it have been all around terribad. Not to mention his case is weak as hell in the first place.
And I stand by that point to, for as I explained it's a good point that stems from Meggido having a scummy sort of mind.
So, are you just going to ignore all the other posts Meg has had too? I'll take this single point you have hear, that's all fine and well, but one questionable action in one post from a player that is still learning the finer points of the game isn't going to convince me that they are scum. The fact that you are so easily convinced doesn't sit well with me, unless you can further substantiate your arguments.
Well Guard you've been dropping the card hard logic on people, so Vote: Meggido
Walls of text still being parsed...
Hmm, total /barnvote off of Guard, who is voting based on the "one point in one post" bit I just explained. Don't like it, reminds me of the Iso/Aud interaction.
Also, why on earth would Gricky be humoring the theory of someone he suspects is a MAFIA RECRUITER?
Because I don't know he's a mafia recruiter, and I'm not going to blindly assume that's the case. Also, because if, by some crazy happenstance, Seppel's scenario is right, then that would mean that a modkill was in order for you and DH, which is a fairly important piece that's forgotten in Seppel's logic there.
Almost all of the cases that I am reading, are just that meta.
Meta, is an awful argument. Try and use meta on me and you won't know what to do.
Meta, is perhaps the weakest argument that one can use to push a case. Why? Well, if we look at post counts for example, some people take a while to get going, others have role restrictions or roles that make the post differently. Sometimes day one people see a case that they feel must be pushed, maybe they don't see anything at all so they are more quiet.
Simple put arguing meta is poor at best. There are so many variables that are not being taken into account and this ignoring, real life variables.
FOS everyone using meta claims.
The end.
But in all reality.
GrickyTimmick
Most of his attacks on Iso are factitious at best. There are a lot of mis reps being used to push his "case" against Iso. I don't like how the case reads.
Care to point out the factitious parts, and where I'm misrepping? Saying words is great, proving your words is better. Also, why attack me for misreps and not Iso?
1. Strongly, leaning scum.
2. I'm trying to decipher who I trust between Iso and Gricky. I'm waiting for a response from Gricky, but unless he claims Athena, Goddess of Virtue and Light, I'm pretty much leaning in the direction that Iso is town.
Why are you already leaning that Iso's town when you haven't heard what you wanted to hear from me yet? Just a while ago, you were stuck in the middle it seemed, not knowing how to feel about either one of us. Suddenly you are almost all Iso? Doesn't make sense.
Okay, no need to be so literal, so I won't pepper my posts with purple prose.
Fact: I have played games with Iso as scum and as town.
Fact: I believe whole-heatedly that this is Iso's town game.
Fact: Iso has been open and receptive to my defense and my interrogations.
Fact: I've come to experience that Iso can see things and his gut isn't usually too far from the truth.
Fact: Gricky has taken the banner up to upseat Iso. He has been actively campaigning and gaining allies on his cause.
Fact: Both Iso and Gricky have big egos and don't ever back down.
Conclusion: Both Iso and Gricky are Town unless they're pulling a serious scum gambit. If you held a gun to my head and told me to choose a side, I'd side with Iso. This is totally dependent, however, if Gricky can provide a case against Iso that is fair and to the point instead of generating another wall of text that's 5% content and 95% crap. (And yes, Iso is guilty of this too.)
Clearer?
I really really hope you actually went through and read the wallposts between me and Iso before you decided to say they are on a 5/95 ratio of content to crap. If you didn't then this is a baseless misrepresentation of both my case and probably Iso's, but I'll admit, there's a lot more crap in Iso's than mine. If you read everything, you would know this.
He won't he will insist that the answers are there and that you are too lazy to look them up. Then when you make him go look them up he won't be able to defend his position.
Hmm, this reminds me of when I kept asking for Iso to find his further evidence, and he refused to do it and called me scum for not reading. Then, once he found it, it turned out that it was a misrep of Meg, with Iso confusing Meg's thoughts on DV with Meg's thoughts on DH. And also, he was trying to make it sound as if this information had been there all along. However, the original point he had made, before he was forced to explain it, was nothing more than "HAHAHAMFHIDO" or something like that. I argued that his weird laugh that he did should be thrown out, and he tried to call me scum by saying I should know what that was supposed to mean.
So yeah, if you are using this point to say that Tordeck is scum, then you should be thinking that Iso's scum too, cause he did this first, way earlier.
Its not playing the game. Its actually the opposite. Your just pretending to play the game.
Like Iso did? He came in and said "X is scummy" where X is Meg's tone in one post. He built a wagon on it and called it a case. He attacked other people for disagreeing with this one point, calling them all scum. He's failed several times to legitimize this one argument, with the only attempt being "but I caught scum this way one time!".
@Iso: Do you think DV is scum here because he's not buying into a "single point" argument?
Lastly, I made this argument in one of my wallposts and I'll make it again, because I'm really serious about it. Iso does play a smart game, and when he's town, he tends to nail scum right off the bat. Now, only I actually know that I'm town, I'm not trying to call myself town to make me look better, but the fact that I know I am and than I know I'm Iso's suspect makes me question his alignment. The fact that he was on the DH wagon and instantly believed DH's claim before he was modkilled, makes me question Iso's alignment even more. To me, 2 of the people he's targeting/has targeted are town, something that doesn't normally happen because Iso pins scum very well. Take a look at the rest of his suspects and you will find they are either Meg or they are all in disagreement with Iso's case on Meg. So, Iso's scumhunting has been poor, just throwing down dissenters as scum, it's too easy to be his town game. I remember him saying in Trisk "oh, this game's easy, Player X Player Y and Player Z are scum" and that was his scumgame. In this game, he's made a similar post, suggesting that the lynch order be Meg, Proph, Me, Ahlyis, Tordeck and DH. His targeting his been off on at least two of his reads and he's already calling the scumteam out. It doesn't follow his town meta at all
I'm probably not going to respond to Iso's big wallpost tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. I've got other threads to respond to, plus I gotta get ready to sleep sometime soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who was that masked man anyway?
MTGSalvation: Now with more Drama than Season 5 of Supernatural!
Gricky, thank you for responding to my questions in a constructive and easy to read manner. It is going to take me a while to digest all the points you made.
As for the 5%/95% comment, I will admit that it was hyperbole because I was frustrated by the walls of text and D_V's flippant response to my assertion.
My gut though is that both of you are town and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. But, I'm not ruling out that one of you may be scum either. I think the proof is in the pudding. If either you or Iso had a clear cut case against the other, I think we would have a lynch by now. But the number of lurkers and/or people paralyzed by not knowing what side to chose (of which I am part of) has lead us to a stalemate.
I agree with your points on Iso, but I'm more comfortable understanding his logic because I have played more games with him. This is just a curse of familiarity and I'm trying not to let it sway the points you're making.
Tl;dr- let me have an evening to reflect on all this and I'll check back in tomorrow.
Iso's reads were also rather bad for the majority of Avatar Mafia, so I don't think that's a scumtell.
Both of these are possible, but the one game I've played with him where he was town, he did the gut trick to pick out all the scum and didn't monger for votes once he found us. I'm used to him being pretty right about things, which is why it's suspicious when he's off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who was that masked man anyway?
MTGSalvation: Now with more Drama than Season 5 of Supernatural!
Tordeck I am really fighting not voting for you because I unfortunately think you would do something like this regardless of alignment. But as far as I am concerned you have no case and aren't playing the game. You are putting out most of Iso's posts and saying look at how scummy they are without providing why they are scummy or any context. So if you want people to take you seriously and listen to what you say I suggest you bite the bullet and make a case showing and explaining and providing specific examples to show how and why you think Iso is scummy.
So, are you just going to ignore all the other posts Meg has had too? I'll take this single point you have hear, that's all fine and well, but one questionable action in one post from a player that is still learning the finer points of the game isn't going to convince me that they are scum. The fact that you are so easily convinced doesn't sit well with me, unless you can further substantiate your arguments.
One advantage of using green text: It makes it a lot easier to find when people quote you.
There really has been nothing to analyze in his other posts as they for the most part have been neutral. So I'm not ignoring them, there just isn't a whole bunch of other things to analyze either way with him.
But other than that I am standing by my initial point, which I believe is more than enough to lynch him over.
I am voting you for FoSing Aud. Basically FoSing is scummy because it is designed to put pressure on without commitment. Town have no need of FoSing unless their vote is tied up somewhere else. Yours was tied up in the RVS so it was technically free. Scum on the other are much more likely to FoS as it applies pressure, has no commitment, and does not show up in a vote count. Therefore they are usually the only people to ever FoS in a game and are almost always the one's to FoS in a situation where one's vote is free.
Reposted because I have a sneaky suspicion the next question is why is it good enough to lynch him for.
Or ya could, ya know, take my word for it. Iso is scum this game no matter how much you want to try and make it look like its me not making a case. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Tordeck I am really fighting not voting for you because I unfortunately think you would do something like this regardless of alignment. But as far as I am concerned you have no case and aren't playing the game. You are putting out most of Iso's posts and saying look at how scummy they are without providing why they are scummy or any context. So if you want people to take you seriously and listen to what you say I suggest you bite the bullet and make a case showing and explaining and providing specific examples to show how and why you think Iso is scummy.
One advantage of using green text: It makes it a lot easier to find when people quote you.
There really has been nothing to analyze in his other posts as they for the most part have been neutral. So I'm not ignoring them, there just isn't a whole bunch of other things to analyze either way with him.
But other than that I am standing by my initial point, which I believe is more than enough to lynch him over.
Reposted because I have a sneaky suspicion the next question is why is it good enough to lynch him for.
What are you talking about with Green text? Are you referring to yourself, cause I'm seeing grey, and I'm not colorblind, green's my favorite color.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about you being all preemptive. I already stated that your point stands and your analysis on it is valid. I personally don't think it's enough to lynch someone over, especially considering some other candidates for the lynch, like Zaj or Void and, of course, Iso.
The next question is actually: Given Meg's limited experience, do you still think the FoS point you have is a legit scum move or possibly a newb tell?
@Meg: Didn't you request a mentor in the signup? This would point to Meg being relatively inexperienced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who was that masked man anyway?
MTGSalvation: Now with more Drama than Season 5 of Supernatural!
Or ya could, ya know, take my word for it. Iso is scum this game no matter how much you want to try and make it look like its me not making a case. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Pudding has weight. Your words are weightless and are a poor substitute for pudding. Plus they don't taste half has good.
Also saying that I should take your word for it is the equivalent to not making a case.
What are you talking about with Green text? Are you referring to yourself, cause I'm seeing grey, and I'm not colorblind, green's my favorite color.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about you being all preemptive. I already stated that your point stands and your analysis on it is valid. I personally don't think it's enough to lynch someone over, especially considering some other candidates for the lynch, like Zaj or Void and, of course, Iso.
The next question is actually: Given Meg's limited experience, do you still think the FoS point you have is a legit scum move or possibly a newb tell?
Huh I always thought my text was green. It looks green to me. Well actually more jasper or a dark sage than a true green, but same difference.
I actually think given his inexperience it makes the FoS even more likely to indicate he is scum. Inexperienced scum are the one's most likely to come with the mindset that they don't want to commit to attacking someone and don't want to throw votes around.
Eh, that question came up before when I was explaining it and I needed to repost that post, so I decided to be preemptive about it.
Or ya could, ya know, take my word for it. Iso is scum this game no matter how much you want to try and make it look like its me not making a case. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Take my word for it. Tordeck is scum this game no matter how much you want to try and make it look like it's me not making a case. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Note how that's exactly as convincing as what you're saying - that is to say, not at all.
So curb your undeserved arrogance (other choices removed due to flaming) and actually make a case.
Votecount and prods going out once I get home from work. Stupid 5 AM opening shift...
I may also consider putting a deadline in place, depending on who's here and who's not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Do you mean this?
Now that you mention it, I'm confused. You say I voted for Dragon in this post and accuse me of making a mistake, but if you actually look at my post, I voted for D_V, not DH as you say.
I did vote for DH about 150 posts later, though.
Why are you misrepresenting my actions this game?
It's not that I disagree with them. It's just that in the Walls of Text you post there's a lot of nitpicking and "filler". Maybe it's not 5% / 95%, but some of the things you and Gricky are lobbing back and forth at each other literally seems like you're grasping at straws to try to discredit the other person. If someone is scum, not EVERYTHING that person says is going to be scummy. In fact, if someone is scum, they're going to try to trick us by acting as much like us as they can.
If you want further elucidation, I could dissect one of your multiple walls of text. But I don't think that would be beneficial or necessary for us right now.
HE JUST SAID THE SCUM READ ON HIMSELF IS VALID
THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO IGNORE MY CASE.
I do however, not have the time.
@Mod: I am currently V/LA, lasting a couple of days. Will probably be able to meet the required posting-frequency, but thought I'd let you now
Damnation studios!
Zodiac - Doublevoter - Loss
Starcraft - VT - Loss
The Office - Mafia Rolecop - Win
1984 - VT - Vigged - Loss
Quantum - Lynched D1 Alpha Mafia - Win
Mean Girls - Town Masonizer Replaced into lynch - Loss
Startrek Voyager - Backup JOAT - Loss
Boardgame - VT- Loss
Ghost Story - VT - (replaced in)
Smalltown Animaniacs - Delay Doc - Loss
Kill Bill - One-shot Vig - Loss
Magical Girls -
Mr Potato Head -
Work hard, play casually
Um, no. That's NOT an acceptable method of building a case against someone.
You don't get to vote for someone and then refuse to ever give any SPECIFIC evidence against them. A gut vote to get something started is one thing, but eventually you have to provide evidence, back off or just admit that you are actually scum. A failure to either provide evidence or eventually back off is tantamount to admitting you are scum.
If you found something Iso did to be scummy enough to warrant a vote on him, then it is your responsibility to point it out to the rest of us. It is YOUR vote that needs substantiated. Telling us, "oh, go look in here, I'm sure there's something in there you can find which will support my claim" is NOT acceptable.
It was bad enough when Iso kept claiming he had more than one reason, but refusing to point out where it was. But on a complete re-read I was finally able to locate it. The way he did it just made him look even scummier, but at least he DID actually give the specifics of his reasoning at some point. But you aren't even doing that. You're refusing to identify what YOU found scummy and are insisting people go find their own reasons to support YOUR vote.
Um, no!
Congratulations. You've successfully jumped from neutral/townish to full blown Scum in one quick series of posts. You're barely behind Iso at this point in my book.
Mafia.
Ego habere mea oculus in vobis.
Odoratur sicut petoritum.
Quandoquidem Iso est ad potest abiit...
Unvote, Vote: Void
Your new here, as such you don't know me or how I play. So I'll forgive this indiscretion.
The Family
1. I am town.
2. loran was scum in about seven games in a row when he first started playing, so "LAL" used to mean "Lynch All lorans" as often as it did "Lynch All Liars."
3. I am somewhat surprised that so few players have commented on it; this leads me to believe that I was on the right track.
As this was the first post I read today, I was initially very confused, thinking you were now advocating lynching DV due to ambiguous pronoun usage. Then I read everything again and realize what you meant. I'll let Void reply to this comment before I add my thoughts.
Cause that's how you play the game. You convince other people. And you're doing a terrible job at convincing me.
Fine then.
Try this: there is no way that town would even think of trusting someone they think is scum.
That statement explicitly expresses the possibility of trusting tordeck's case, and completely ignores the fact that you think of him as scum.
I'll look it up when I have time.
*sip*
What's wrong with knowing that there is a valid case against you? I didn't pay good enough attention to my catch-up post and players are finding that scummy, which they should.
Should I be lynched, then the town will know that my reads were as true as can be, becasue I am town and will be town for the remainer of my time in this game.
You have a scum read on me already and now you believe that a reread needs to be done on me?
Unvote
Vote: Audinho
I am not 100% sure of tordeck's alignment so therefore there needs be a small room for margain of error.
In the chance that I am wrong I would rather get the opinions of others when someone tells me to take their word for it.
I do respect what you're saying. I just don't agree with it 100%.
First off, you're not defending yourself against the case. You're doing the equivalent of a Yanni "pffffft" reaction. You're rejecting it for no reason and hoping it'll go away, then turning right around and saying "yeah it's a valid case."
"Yup, I'm a townie. Town town town, that's me!"
"I need more support for my case so please defend yourself against what is factual evidence against you."
I answered all questions that were directed to me about the catch-up post. Whether you want to accept that as a defense is up to you and only you.
Yes, I do. Let me lay out some reasons for you.
1. His behavior surrounding the Meg case. I've seen him push the single point gut case before, and that's not out of the normal. However, in his town games, he will pick up on other posts by his target and comment on how they are scummy too. With Meg, he picked up on only one other post, and the points he was making tied directly back to his single point, meaning that if that single point was invalid, so too was everything else he had. So, by having the one point case, he's undermining and ignoring every other post that Meg makes.
Also, note that his one single point cannot be proven invalid because it's based on Gut. I've argued several times that while gut can be a useful tool and Iso has used it well in the past, its still not something to be trusted or relied upon, something that Iso is doing here. This is scummy because all the points that he ties to it later on can't be disproven either, because the gut isn't based on fact it's based on Iso's feelings, which can be easily made up.
Next, concerning his behavior in the Meg case, the vote mongering. Like I've said, if he were mongering votes for a case that he had put extensive work into, his begging for votes would be justified. Instead, he posts his 3-4 lines about his vote and reasoning and instantly begins to shop the wagon around to people. It's literally "vote, now why aren't you voting who I'm voting". His mongering isn't justified and it ties into his scum meta. In Trisk, Iso made a terrible trap on Vitek and I bought into it as town and made the PBPA on Vitek. Iso sat back and made comments that suggested he was adding to the case, when all he was actually doing was asking townies what they thought of Vitek and why they weren't voting him. He was letting me do all the work while claiming to have done his fair share of work and he was selling his wagon to the town with vote mongering.
Lastly, when pressured to explain his own posts and reads, he refuses. He still hasn't actually clarified his original point on the Meg case, I did it for him and haven't heard anything about it. When asked to go find something, he argues about burden of proof and somehow turns it around that I'm not reading the game so I must be scum. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time remembering where everything in these wallposts. I'm asking him to show me where he's making the points he's talking about and instead of doing it so the point is conceded thus making his arguments more legit, he turns it into yet another reason that I must be scum. This tells me he's not worried about making his points and his case more legitimate, he's worried about taking me out. If he thinks he's caught scum in Meg and I'm arguing that I don't see where, why would he switch his target and attack me for bogus reasons rather than just provide the evidence against Meg and proceed to lynching what he thinks is scum? Clearly, his motives are to attack my character through any means in an attempt to shut me up.
2. His defense has been incredibly scummy. First, note that his reaction to me and the points against him have been OMGUS. His defense, while touching on the points against him at some points, has been overwhelmingly offensive. He's not trying to defend my points, he's trying to discredit me and calling me scum, thereby defeating my points against him by default. His OMGUS and efforts to turn me into scum is his effort to get the town distracted and not seeing my points. He turned this into one large distraction tactic.
Next, he's twisting not just words, but whole scenarios around to try and make me look scummy. The argument that I slipped that I knew DH is town is him twisting the scenario around. Iso's the one who instantly bought into DH's role after he claimed. I had been thinking all along that DH is town, I'd even said it in between some of my fights with Iso. So he goes accusing me of slipping that I knew it all along and he's misrepresenting the whole situation. Notice that whenever he explains how I slipped, he posts my one liner about it and then analysis from himself and DH about it. The analysis from himself and DH don't prove any slip exists and Iso isn't including where I've already stated DH is town. He also ignores my argument that even if I hadn't already called a town DH, that one line that he keeps posting was based on Iso's logic in the post before, the one where he argues he should be targeted for revival. I'm using Iso's line of logic to satirically show how that logic is bad.
Iso's activity there completely twists the whole scenario. Another example? Ok, how bout his meta argument. I'm trying to rehash an old argument of mine, one that I happened to make in a previous scum game, but and argument that is nonetheless a valid argument. I've stated since the beginning that the argument came from a scum game. I've stated at the end of said scum game that even though I used it as scum, it's still a very valid point. What's Iso's reaction here? Overplay the scum-meta thing. I've explained several times that alignment doesn't affect an arguments validity, just how you use it. Iso's argument has been "I don't care, you are wrong, that came from a scumgame, therefore you admit to being scum". He's being purposefully shortsighted about my argument, and I know he's smarter than that. But, so that it benefits him, he's been screaming at the top of his lungs "SCUM META!" ever since the point came up. This also goes hand in hand with the "his defense is to discredit me instead of actually defending" point.
Lastly, his defense gives him away because he twists words almost every time he posts. I can recall some times where he says "You admit you aren't reading then" or "You admit that you are scum then" or something along those lines, saying that I'm admitting to things that I'm obviously not admitting to, and he's stretching my words to extreme meanings. Once again, it's a shortsighted attack made at my character, instead of a logical and calm attack showing why my points are wrong and supporting the legitimacy of his own points.
Oh, and also, his defense to anybody disagreeing with him has been "oh, he's scum too". I begin to question him, I become scum. Tordeck follows suit, as well as Ahlyis, both becoming members of the scumteam to Iso because they question his case. Iso's done more work painting other players as scummy than he has providing legitimate reasons for his actions.
I'm probably forgetting a lot of things, but those are some of the main points from right off the top of my head. His behavior regarding his own case and the people questioning it have been all around terribad. Not to mention his case is weak as hell in the first place.
So, are you just going to ignore all the other posts Meg has had too? I'll take this single point you have hear, that's all fine and well, but one questionable action in one post from a player that is still learning the finer points of the game isn't going to convince me that they are scum. The fact that you are so easily convinced doesn't sit well with me, unless you can further substantiate your arguments.
Hmm, total /barnvote off of Guard, who is voting based on the "one point in one post" bit I just explained. Don't like it, reminds me of the Iso/Aud interaction.
Because I don't know he's a mafia recruiter, and I'm not going to blindly assume that's the case. Also, because if, by some crazy happenstance, Seppel's scenario is right, then that would mean that a modkill was in order for you and DH, which is a fairly important piece that's forgotten in Seppel's logic there.
Care to point out the factitious parts, and where I'm misrepping? Saying words is great, proving your words is better. Also, why attack me for misreps and not Iso?
Why are you already leaning that Iso's town when you haven't heard what you wanted to hear from me yet? Just a while ago, you were stuck in the middle it seemed, not knowing how to feel about either one of us. Suddenly you are almost all Iso? Doesn't make sense.
I really really hope you actually went through and read the wallposts between me and Iso before you decided to say they are on a 5/95 ratio of content to crap. If you didn't then this is a baseless misrepresentation of both my case and probably Iso's, but I'll admit, there's a lot more crap in Iso's than mine. If you read everything, you would know this.
Hmm, this reminds me of when I kept asking for Iso to find his further evidence, and he refused to do it and called me scum for not reading. Then, once he found it, it turned out that it was a misrep of Meg, with Iso confusing Meg's thoughts on DV with Meg's thoughts on DH. And also, he was trying to make it sound as if this information had been there all along. However, the original point he had made, before he was forced to explain it, was nothing more than "HAHAHAMFHIDO" or something like that. I argued that his weird laugh that he did should be thrown out, and he tried to call me scum by saying I should know what that was supposed to mean.
So yeah, if you are using this point to say that Tordeck is scum, then you should be thinking that Iso's scum too, cause he did this first, way earlier.
I'll look into it, I need to reread 477 and surrounding posts to remember what it was about though.
Like Iso did? He came in and said "X is scummy" where X is Meg's tone in one post. He built a wagon on it and called it a case. He attacked other people for disagreeing with this one point, calling them all scum. He's failed several times to legitimize this one argument, with the only attempt being "but I caught scum this way one time!".
@Iso: Do you think DV is scum here because he's not buying into a "single point" argument?
Lastly, I made this argument in one of my wallposts and I'll make it again, because I'm really serious about it. Iso does play a smart game, and when he's town, he tends to nail scum right off the bat. Now, only I actually know that I'm town, I'm not trying to call myself town to make me look better, but the fact that I know I am and than I know I'm Iso's suspect makes me question his alignment. The fact that he was on the DH wagon and instantly believed DH's claim before he was modkilled, makes me question Iso's alignment even more. To me, 2 of the people he's targeting/has targeted are town, something that doesn't normally happen because Iso pins scum very well. Take a look at the rest of his suspects and you will find they are either Meg or they are all in disagreement with Iso's case on Meg. So, Iso's scumhunting has been poor, just throwing down dissenters as scum, it's too easy to be his town game. I remember him saying in Trisk "oh, this game's easy, Player X Player Y and Player Z are scum" and that was his scumgame. In this game, he's made a similar post, suggesting that the lynch order be Meg, Proph, Me, Ahlyis, Tordeck and DH. His targeting his been off on at least two of his reads and he's already calling the scumteam out. It doesn't follow his town meta at all
I'm probably not going to respond to Iso's big wallpost tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. I've got other threads to respond to, plus I gotta get ready to sleep sometime soon.
As for the 5%/95% comment, I will admit that it was hyperbole because I was frustrated by the walls of text and D_V's flippant response to my assertion.
My gut though is that both of you are town and you're not seeing the forest for the trees. But, I'm not ruling out that one of you may be scum either. I think the proof is in the pudding. If either you or Iso had a clear cut case against the other, I think we would have a lynch by now. But the number of lurkers and/or people paralyzed by not knowing what side to chose (of which I am part of) has lead us to a stalemate.
I agree with your points on Iso, but I'm more comfortable understanding his logic because I have played more games with him. This is just a curse of familiarity and I'm trying not to let it sway the points you're making.
Tl;dr- let me have an evening to reflect on all this and I'll check back in tomorrow.
Both of these are possible, but the one game I've played with him where he was town, he did the gut trick to pick out all the scum and didn't monger for votes once he found us. I'm used to him being pretty right about things, which is why it's suspicious when he's off.
It's all I've got to go off of.
One advantage of using green text: It makes it a lot easier to find when people quote you.
There really has been nothing to analyze in his other posts as they for the most part have been neutral. So I'm not ignoring them, there just isn't a whole bunch of other things to analyze either way with him.
But other than that I am standing by my initial point, which I believe is more than enough to lynch him over.
Reposted because I have a sneaky suspicion the next question is why is it good enough to lynch him for.
The Family
What are you talking about with Green text? Are you referring to yourself, cause I'm seeing grey, and I'm not colorblind, green's my favorite color.
Also, I'm not sure how I feel about you being all preemptive. I already stated that your point stands and your analysis on it is valid. I personally don't think it's enough to lynch someone over, especially considering some other candidates for the lynch, like Zaj or Void and, of course, Iso.
The next question is actually: Given Meg's limited experience, do you still think the FoS point you have is a legit scum move or possibly a newb tell?
@Meg: Didn't you request a mentor in the signup? This would point to Meg being relatively inexperienced.
Pudding has weight. Your words are weightless and are a poor substitute for pudding. Plus they don't taste half has good.
Also saying that I should take your word for it is the equivalent to not making a case.
Tordeck, show me the pudding.
Huh I always thought my text was green. It looks green to me. Well actually more jasper or a dark sage than a true green, but same difference.
I actually think given his inexperience it makes the FoS even more likely to indicate he is scum. Inexperienced scum are the one's most likely to come with the mindset that they don't want to commit to attacking someone and don't want to throw votes around.
Eh, that question came up before when I was explaining it and I needed to repost that post, so I decided to be preemptive about it.
Is it weird to say I love you?
Take my word for it. Tordeck is scum this game no matter how much you want to try and make it look like it's me not making a case. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Note how that's exactly as convincing as what you're saying - that is to say, not at all.
So curb your undeserved arrogance (other choices removed due to flaming) and actually make a case.
Pretty much this. And Guard's post before that.
The Family
And I'm of the belief that you being obtuse isn't a good tell, but you refusing to make a case is anti-town behaviour.
So once again, curb your undeserved arrogance and make a damn case.
Then lurk.
The Family
I am basically going to /barn this.
Tordeck you are actively avoiding actually making a case or explaining your points.
Or the two of you could play the game?
Tordeck, if you would please, quote your orginal post with your case on Iso. Thanks!
What are you doing?
Typing a response to your question.
Tordeck is being annoying, not fun, and a detriment to the game.
And that really has no bearing on his alignment.
Wish granted.
The only detriment is not listening to me.
The Family
I may also consider putting a deadline in place, depending on who's here and who's not.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP