Micro 134 (F11) (Game Over!)

[Whiskers]

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

^this is bad, but it's also bad. This whole conversation, I mean. I side with FourTrouble on this one-- this was a huge discrediting move and you should feel bad, if you're town.

However,

Four is town, D+C are probably town and Jason is likely town too. Maybe this will be easy.

Why

is Four

do you think Four is town here? At this point, he's only complained about being misrepped by Rach.

Hey Rach, what about some game content? Links are fine and good, but they are not game-relevant, and you've been doing precisely nothing for half your posts now.

Woof.

This. I like Rach for scum more and more.

Sixty, the lack of concrete stances is a fair point (although not alignment-indicative for some players)--I didn't like that he asked us that question but never actually said if he had a read on us. But even though he doesn't mention stances on

every

single player (who doesn't?), the questions he's asking are all tied into the directions he seems to be heading in his scumhunting--he's clearly not just blindly poking at people. And call me a sucker for gut and tone, I guess. He says lots of stuff that looks like he's actually scumhunting and thinking about the game.

Agree. To this point, FT'd been focused.

Sorry, I just looked up and realized all of these are about FT and Rach- I'm also following the jasonT story, which is "wat m i doin in dis gaem" I'd like to lynch him. I don't need a specific reason when I have posts like post #153.


Sixty makes me

uneasy

, but I have nothing more than that. And I've experienced that feeling vs the Dog in the past. NTS#168

NTS+173
[End Page Seven]
Looking at the votecount, aaaand...

Vote: RachMarie

[Mina]

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

^this is bad, but it's also bad. This whole conversation, I mean. I side with FourTrouble on this one-- this was a huge discrediting move and you should feel bad, if you're town.

VOTE: Whiskers

[Dazed and Confused]

Let's try this again. <_<

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

^this is bad, but it's also bad. This whole conversation, I mean. I side with FourTrouble on this one-- this was a huge discrediting move and you should feel bad, if you're town.

VOTE: Whiskers

[Whiskers]

I especially like your case.

[Dazed and Confused]

I especially like your case.

Me too.

[Nachomamma8]

I especially like your case.

Are you done catching up for today?

[Sixty]

*puppyhop*
*bounce bounce caper*

Unvote: Nachomamma8
Vote: Whiskers

(L-2)

[Whiskers]

No, I just finished Page 8.

Why do you ask?

[Dazed and Confused]

Whiskers, explain in your own words how RachMarie is discrediting FourTrouble in her opening posts. Because I find it very, very, VERY hard to believe that this opinion would come from anyone who isn't FourTrouble himself. Had you stuck to agreeing with Sotty on Rach lurking and fluff-posting, I'd have found it plausible, but you fucked up.

[Nachomamma8]

No, I just finished Page 8.

Why do you ask?

Doesn't matter for now.

[Whiskers]

Speaking of Nacho, one of the things that sticks out in my mind plus in research is he tends to hard bus his scum buddy One of the reasons I would like to wait til he can speak is to see if he does that. Would help us get both of the scum in one swoop.

The other reason is I do not feel comfortable with lynching someone who is V/LA

Does it occur to Rach that this is now WIFOMbait and that her reason to wait is no longer one?
Confirmation bias and everything. But this is stupid stuff. Why aren't there more scumreads here?

[Whiskers]

Speaking of Nacho, one of the things that sticks out in my mind plus in research is he tends to hard bus his scum buddy One of the reasons I would like to wait til he can speak is to see if he does that. Would help us get both of the scum in one swoop.

Way to spoil your hand before you even play it!

FourTrouble, yes, we are totally defending Rach, you got us. The slot that is accusing RachMarie of not producing any sort of verifiable content that pertains to the game is the slot that is defending her. Though yes, the RachMarie votes from you and Sotty came into account when voting either of you, but not because you are voting her, but because the votes are

bad

. Your reads in particular amount to "Town: people I agree with; scum: people I don't understand/don't agree with". That's not scumhunting, that's going where the flow leads you. You don't have to AGREE with someone, you have to see if it makes sense coming from Town with

their

point of view, their experiences and their situation. The fact that you are not doing this makes your reads exceedingly superficial, and leads to stuff like "Sixty is defending RachMarie!" instead of looking at the reasoning we have for each vote and read.

And then, things like this.
Is

my

vote bad? Mine was, "Rach is doing scummy things."
Of course, I don't know why you're voting me, so maybe it has nothing to do with that.

[Dazed and Confused]

Well, when you put it like that, Whiskers, I'd better vote Sixty instead!

VOTE: Si-

...wait, then I'd lose my spot on your wagon. I want to look better when you flip!

A less flippant response (I'm not

always

this obnoxious): read 283. The rest of your play as well as Josh's fits with what scum would do in your shoes (particularly if your partner was jason or Nacho), and the way you're reacting to this vote is scummy, too. But that quote in particular is what

sealed

this read.

[Whiskers]

Thanks for changing CES, it is too early for a lynch, and I have played with FT before it would not surprise me if he came in and hammered without paying attention. I don't know Josh, but I gather from what was said that he too tends to derp.

In this post:
"FT is reckless and absent-minded and would probably quickhammer on page 2, the stupid cunt."

Also sucking up to CES. If I decide not to come back to this point, you can ignore it, it's just here so I don't forget it.

Even better:

Cause I have seen it happen.

Besides I was not saying you are scum. you seem awfully defensive. I still have yet to determine who is scum and who is not.

In this post:
"Whoa, you were actually reading the horrible thing I said and called me out on it. Get off me, before someone notices you're right!"

Is it just how I read it?

[Whiskers]

Well, when you put it like that, Whiskers, I'd better vote Sixty instead!

VOTE: Si-

...wait, then I'd lose my spot on your wagon. I want to look better when you flip!

What? Huh? I don't get it.

A less flippant response (I'm not

always

this obnoxious): read 283. The rest of your play as well as Josh's fits with what scum would do in your shoes (particularly if your partner was jason or Nacho), and the way you're reacting to this vote is scummy, too. But that quote in particular is what

sealed

this read.

Yeah, yeah, everything I've done has

sealed

your read. Don't care, man, do what you will.

Not sure how my scumplay with buddyJason or buddyNacho would be any different than my scumplay with any other player, or why my play here looks like that to you.

Can you tell me about the differences between [Whiskers + Jason/Nacho] and [Whiskers + anypony else]?

[Dazed and Confused]

There's nothing to get but a joke, Whiskers.

I'm pretty sure no one else (probably not even

FourTrouble

) read RachMarie's posts like that..nor would anyone who wasn't trying to justify his vote after the fact. And you still haven't shown us the scum motivation of Rach fictitiously calling FT a stupid cunt. Even FourTrouble was attacking Rach because he thought she was misrepresenting their prior history; you seem to have missed that while trying to justify how

scummy

it is to call someone scum in a vacuum.

But given that you didn't mention Sixty saying

literally the exact same thing about Josh Lyman

, when the only difference is that FT accused Rach of discrediting him and made you think it was safe to pad your case by parroting him...call me sceptical.

Vote remains. I doubt I'll move it this day phase, or that you'll last longer than that.

To answer your question, you'd have an added incentive to vote RachMarie and push a new mislynch option if your partner was one of the popular suspects (whereas otherwise, you might hop onto Nacho's or jason's wagons). It's not conclusive, since if you're partners with someone like Sotty, you have more leeway to vote creatively.

[Dazed and Confused]

EBWOP: Way to completely ruin the effect.

you seem to have missed that while trying to justify how scummy it is to

call someone scum

say someone is likely to accidentally hammer in a vacuum.

[Whiskers]

There's nothing to get but a joke, Whiskers.

Right, it's the joke that I don't get. What in my post would lead you to vote Sixty, even as a joke?

I'm pretty sure no one else (probably not even

FourTrouble

) read RachMarie's posts like that..nor would anyone who wasn't trying to justify his vote after the fact.

Why would I have quoted it, if I were trying to justify my vote

after

the fact?
Or, yeah, I could have gone and written my post starting with the vote at the end, and

then

read the whole game, searching for posts to justify my vote and trying to make it

look

like I'm catching up.
Er, but why would I use that one, since it didn't lead to anything? If I'm trying to look good and "justify my vote," shouldn't I be making points that other people agree with? Shouldn't I just make a wall with "Rach does nothing in

this

post. Rach does nothing in

this

post..."
More likely, I read the thread, and voted after.

And you still haven't shown us the scum motivation of Rach fictitiously calling FT a stupid cunt. Even FourTrouble was attacking Rach because he thought she was misrepresenting their prior history; you seem to have missed that while trying to justify how

scummy

it is to call someone scum in a vacuum.

What? What the hell are you talking about? Who is calling who scum in a vacuum? Rach wasn't calling Four scummy... what?
The scum motivation in the posts is that Rach is discrediting FourTrouble; "Fourtrouble should be brushed aside and ignored because he is a bad player who does stupid things."

But given that you didn't mention Sixty saying

literally the exact same thing about Josh Lyman

, when the only difference is that FT accused Rach of discrediting him and made you think it was safe to pad your case by parroting him...call me sceptical.

I have no idea what you're talking about again. I'll go ISO Sixty, I guess.


Also, I'm totally happy to vote and lynch jason, and I'm very solidly null on Nacho. And even better, I voted Rach over jason

because

jason had more support. Why shouldn't I want my scum reads to both be viable wagons? Then, no matter which gets lynched, I'm happy about it.

But here's a question for you-- you're telling me I need to vote one of the already-formed wagons (such as they are, no player with more than two votes)? Why can't I place my vote where I want it, rather than where you want it? I'm confirmed town to myself, you

aren't

.

[Whiskers]

Yes, jason, let's put an hydra of two good players (whom you have seen as Town before) at L-1 in a game with Josh Lyman, because that's a really bright idea.

This, right?
It's subtler. That doesn't mean it's less scummy, I guess, but I didn't pick up on it. I did pick up on the fact that Rach refers to it in #41, but I didn't feel like I had to worry about it there because Rach wasn't actually making an accusation.

Actually, Sixty wasn't making an accusation either. Rach actually says "it wouldn't surprise me if FourTrouble came in and hammered without paying attention." Sixty I guess alludes to the same thing but it's not the same.

[Whiskers]

Anyway, at this point, I'm trying to defend my stream of consciousness, which is silly.
Lynch away.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

and I don't think you hide yourself as well as you think you do
but we'll see about that soon enough, won't we?

Not what I was going for.

CES, what makes you think the scumteam isn't Jason/Josh? Also, thoughts on Rach? On Nacho's most recent post?

#157 and its follow-up make a lot of sense coming from Josh if one of those is his buddy. Call your buddy town but that's a bit iffy, so also call another strong player town at the same time. When pushed, he can't point to a single thing that happened prior to him making that post, despite low post counts for either. (Sotty7-Josh doesn't seem that likely for obvious reasons.)

Rach is fairly townie-looking. Only thing I'd comment on in #262 is that his stance on me is a bit too stancey. #265 has some tints of townieness.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well, when you put it like that, Whiskers, I'd better vote Sixty instead!

VOTE: Si-

...wait, then I'd lose my spot on your wagon. I want to look better when you flip!

This should count as a vote, you know. It's perfectly unambiguous.

Whiskers, why did you have to make this game boring. Opinions on Nacho, Jason?

[Dazed and Confused]

This should count as a vote, you know. It's perfectly unambiguous.

Pfft, fine.

Unvote, vote: Whiskers

Still not so sure about Jason by the way.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Still not so sure about Jason by the way.

As is only appropriate, really. It doesn't really matter.

[Sotty7]

Unvote

Not sure if it is because it is too early in the morning but the D+C v Whiskers battle kinda went over my head. I'll be back later with a vote once I am actually awake and functioning.