Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[Nobody Special]

And, ac1983fan..... overreact much?

Overreact how? I merely explained why HD's method of catching up is unhelpful.

He did not post

literally every single post.

[Gammagooey]

Night 1 flavor is up! Also you don't get a votecount til tomorrow because nobody's changed their votes since the last one.

[ac1983fan]

And, ac1983fan..... overreact much?

Overreact how? I merely explained why HD's method of catching up is unhelpful.

He did not post

literally every single post.

You're correct, not literally every single post, but he did post something about approx. 90% (I could do the math but too lazy)
Like, in post #553 he covers posts 25-48, skipping only 30, 33, 41, and 46.

[Nobody Special]

WHO CARES

YOU COULD IGNORE THEM IF YOU CHOSE

[ac1983fan]

YOU COULD IGNORE THEM IF YOU CHOSE

Why are you getting so mad about this?
I am skimming them, but my point is merely that they are not as helpful as they might seem; it's more anti-town then it is scummy but still.

[Edosurist]

Case on Beli:

It's as simple as that.

Okay, I understand your case now. I would simplify it further as "gut". Fair?

Understanding a case against you, what is this? and then just discrediting it to gut, I don't like that at all.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Cub Daigoro

OK,

now

my CD vote is no longer random. Trying to understand the thought processes of others is how you read them.

This is a bad vote. Cheery's vote was perfectly acceptable, and Beli misrepped his intentions. He wasn't accusing him of specifically understanding a case, but the matter in which he did it.
Then Cheery responded, and Beli ignored him and left his vote there.

Then there's 183 where he admits to being a lurker and that he prefers to passive scumhunt, which doesn't appear to be his meta to me.

Then he rambled on about not lynching NS, and barely spoke about anyone else, despite his frequent posting.

219 There's the IioA issue. I still believe that reiterating why NS is a bad lynch instead of scumhunting falls under information instead of analysis.
He also took credit for a reaction test when he misread what CD was saying. Did I miss something? It looks like he's trying to create a defense for himself.

291 Really? I'm not even sure he's reading the game anymore. Misreading Cheery and ac/cub looks like he's posting for the sake of defending, then for the sake of posting just to post and look useful.

And look. His vote is still on Cheery right now, despite CD explaining his obvious typo.

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason -- my catchup wall provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

Ah. Is that your reason for active lurking and making insignificant posts? You learned your lesson, eh?

All I mentioned above plus what others have said lead me to this:
VOTE: Belisarius

[Edosurist]

I didn't criticize SD for having a scumread on NS. I did, however, criticize him for voting popp for association to NS.

But you did claim that SD had a scumread on NS, although SD never actually claimed that.

He didn't explicitly say that, but he implied it by saying others were quote "bussing" him.

When I focused on SD when I was responding to you, I was trying to get you/people in general to look at and vote for my scumread. As I recall, that's what town's supposed to do, get scum lynched by convincing others that they're scum.

Based on this sentence:

Zaicon, you see popp's reaction as scummy, but don't you also see what SD did?

It looks like you acknowledge my claim and then direct my attention to SD's action. You don't address anything

I

claimed, just directed my attention to SD's play.

I don't deny that popp looked scummy for that, but SD looked even more so. Because SD was the scummiest and I don't think they're the same alignment, I told you that popp was town. I was explaining my thought process to town about how I came to a different conclusion.

NS - I'm still against his lynch. I don't want to waste a lynch on him

Out of curiosity, when

do

you think it is a good idea to go after (active) lurkers? I'm not calling for his lynch, but since you mentioned it, I would like to know the answer.

I'd save them for our final mislynch (by my count, we have at least 2 more left). A cop could clear the lurker/doc could save/claim mason/vig, maf, or SK could NK them, get them our of the way for us. Killing them now when they could be clear town later would be pointless and only harm us.

---

imp, I'll get back to you

oh, and ac, NS, stop having pointless arguments, kthxbros

[Belisarius]

And look. His vote is still on Cheery right now, despite CD explaining his obvious typo.

Typo? Yeah, those "town" and "scum" keys are right next to each other.

I don't buy the glib dismissal. It was a scumslip. My vote stays where it is.

[Cheery Dog]

I'd save them for our final mislynch (by my count, we have at least 2 more left). A cop could clear the lurker/doc could save/claim mason/vig, maf, or SK could NK them, get them our of the way for us. Killing them now when they could be clear town later would be pointless and only harm us.

This seems counterproductive to the town wincon - why do we want to have the clears as unhelpful active lurkers? and if we can't kill them give scum an easy win come LYLO if they turn out town?
This game may have a godfather in it, so it's not as if clears by cops can even be trusted.

And look. His vote is still on Cheery right now, despite CD explaining his obvious typo.

Typo? Yeah, those "town" and "scum" keys are right next to each other.

I don't buy the glib dismissal. It was a scumslip. My vote stays where it is.

How many scum have you see post comments like mine?
How many town?

Did you even read my explanation on it?

[SafetyDance]

Sorry, motivational problems today and I can't find my draft with quotes in it so I think I may not have saved it. Ugh. I'll try to tackle everything tomorrow

[SafetyDance]

...And Next Week on "HD's play-by-play Anthropological Day 1 Analysis of Open 480" we get some actual meaningful analysis that makes up for him being awol for the rest of day one and only looking at day one for most of day two instead of trying to move things forwards. Rated PG-13 for explicit language.

(yeah, yeah glasshouses. rocks. got it)

[implosion]

Flying home today in ~8 hours for spring break. Won't be active today, hanging out with friends who i won't see for a week.

[Edosurist]

I voted Apozzle because I had thought he was also probable town

How does this make sense from scum's perspective? I can't think of a scenario in which it does.

Also, do you have nothing else to say on the points made against you?

[Gammagooey]

Votecount #14

Belisarius (2) ac1983fan, Edosurist
Cheery Dog (1) Belisarius
implosion (1) Human Destroyer
Edosurist (1) Zaicon
pieceofpecanpie (0)
Apozzle (0)
Nobody Special (0)
SafetyDance (0)
Zaicon (0)
ac1983fan (0)
Human Destroyer(0)
Not Voting: pieceofpecanpie, SafetyDance, Apozzle, Nobody Special, Cheery Dog, implosion

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

Deadline: March 26th 9:00pm EST

[Cheery Dog]

I voted Apozzle because I had thought he was also probable town

How does this make sense from scum's perspective? I can't think of a scenario in which it does.

Also, do you have nothing else to say on the points made against you?

You just said Beli should have taken off her vote on since I've already explained this, and now you're joining her attack with it?

And look. His vote is still on Cheery right now, despite CD explaining his obvious typo.

How do those compute, or why did that change your mind?

Did you even read my post either?

VOTE: Edosurist

[Edosurist]

Emergency pre-edit while I was previewing my next post.

Cheery, that wasn't directed at you. That was directed at Beli. What are you talking about?
I haven't changed my mind. I'm voting Beli and defending you...

[Edosurist]

Let's start talking about Edosurist.

Quick reads:
implosion looks town, and his play also looks very similar to Mini 1394, in which he was also town. By the way, I don't imagine him wearing a monocle.
Cub is weak scum for the tunneling on NS.
I'm not liking NS and Belisarius's active lurking. They make posts, but there's very little content to them. I'm hesitant to give a read beyond that, at least for NS, because I always think he's scum when I read/play with him for exactly for that reason, and I'm sure he's not scum in ever game he plays...

These are his first reads of the game. The reads on me and Cub are okay, but the read on Beli is a bit awkward - he conflates NS's and Beli's active lurkings, which are very, very different. Beli's posts 50, 57, 62, 76, 117, 148, and 153 all contained content. NS's first post that I can construe as content is 65, and beyond that 81, 140 and

maybe

84. Point is, Beli had posted much more content than NS, so lumping them together as "active lurking" is ignoring the fact that they active lurked very differently. Sure, he does differentiate the reads on the two, but not based on their content. Again, the key word here is conflation - he's conflating NS with Beli, which ignores any specific content of their posts (which is fine since they were quick reads) but also ultimately misrepresents what they'd done.

How is "conflating" them by grouping them into a generic group that they both fit show anything about my alignment?

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

See my post 320 for what I think of this part of the post. The second part feels really exaggerated, to the point where I don't think the content is genuine.

OK, here it is:

I'd also say that you appear to have overreacted, but in a different way.
Within the course of 5 hours, you made 7 posts. 7 fairly long ones, mind you.
It's mainly directed at pecanpie, but it also has things like this:

Worse point. Calling that an overreaction is like calling the evacuation of a city an overreaction to a hurricane that's about to hit that city. Sure, it's a big reaction, but it's

called for.

When I say a big reaction, I mean that Safety was reacting to several things - like he said, he had to, because there were several things to react to. He did not, however, overreact to any thing in particular. pieceofpecanpie, on the other hand, very definitely DID overreact to one very specific thing.

And I've explained myself on this already. The string of posts made it look like he got really excited about the game all of a sudden for whatever reason, but I now realize that's just his playstyle.

[ac1983fan]

unvote

I think Beli's reaction to Cheery Dog, while definitely a misguided overreaction, is not something that makes sense coming from scum. That's not a scumslip as far as I can see Beli - the sentence is just a mishmash of gobledeegook that happens when you write and rewrite posts without rereading before posting.
I'm also feeling unsure in my suspicion of Edos, although I'm not sure why. But I think I withhold a vote for now.

[Cheery Dog]

Emergency pre-edit while I was previewing my next post.

Cheery, that wasn't directed at you. That was directed at Beli. What are you talking about?
I haven't changed my mind. I'm voting Beli and defending you...

then mark that in your post, If I see my name being quoted, and nothing referencing it being for someone else I will assume anything under it is meant for me to respond towards.

UNVOTE:

[Edosurist]

@ac Can you elaborate on your new non-scumread on Beli that sort've appeared out of the blue? Especially since you've persistently voted for him the whole game.
To me, it makes perfect sense coming from scum. In fact, I count two tells in the interaction.
1. He voted on impulse with a weak and flawed argument
2. He now refuses to unvote, despite him being corrected
He's trying to stand firm to justify himself right now, and he's grasping onto that straw.

@CD Yah, I'll take credit for that mistake. I wrote that last night before all of your posts came in, then decided I should wait until I posted everything else.

[ac1983fan]

@ac Can you elaborate on your new non-scumread on Beli that sort've appeared out of the blue? Especially since you've persistently voted for him the whole game.
To me, it makes perfect sense coming from scum. In fact, I count two tells in the interaction.
1. He voted on impulse with a weak and flawed argument
2. He now refuses to unvote, despite him being corrected
He's trying to stand firm to justify himself right now, and he's grasping onto that straw.

See, scum don't generally like attention. Scum need to be cold and calculating; but Beli is not being cold and calculating.
So, he's either really BAD at being scum (possible, admittedly) or he's town.
Another thing which makes me a tad nervous is that my other highest scumpick is pushing for his lynch pretty hard at this point; it could be bussing I suppose but it's more likely that there's something wrong with my reasoning.

[Belisarius]

Also, do you have nothing else to say on the points made against you?

Sure.

Then Cheery responded, and Beli ignored him and left his vote there.

So you're saying that I should unvote every time someone responds to me? No thanks, I think I'll leave my vote on whoever my top suspect is at the time.

Then there's 183 where he admits to being a lurker and that he prefers to passive scumhunt, which doesn't appear to be his meta to me.

Then your meta is incomplete, but I'd have to break a site rule to set you straight. Not happening.

Then he rambled on about not lynching NS, and barely spoke about anyone else, despite his frequent posting.

Yep, I was the only one discussing NS. That's

definitely

how I remember it.

He also took credit for a reaction test when he misread what CD was saying. Did I miss something?

Yes. The point. I said the post Cub was talking about (#20) was a reaction test that didn't work. How am I taking credit here? Explain it like I'm 5.

And look. His vote is still on Cheery right now, despite CD explaining his obvious typo.

Again, I'm scum for not believing every word Cheery says

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason -- my catchup wall provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

Ah. Is that your reason for active lurking and making insignificant posts? You learned your lesson, eh?

Damn! Busted! I knew I should have posted a catchup wall when I replaced in!

Waitaminute....

So is that all you've got? Lay on, MacDuff.

[Belisarius]

EBWOP: Guess spoiler tags don't work the same here as on EoFF. My whole post looks like refried ass.

@mod: Can you remove the spoiler tags from #596 please?

yep

[ac1983fan]

EBWOP: Guess spoiler tags don't work the same here as on EoFF. My whole post looks like refried ass.

@mod: Can you remove the spoiler tags from #596 please?

You need to do

Code: Select all

[spoiler=]like this[/spoiler]

to get it

Spoiler:

like this

I made the same mistake in one of my more recent games.

[Edosurist]

Don't worry guys. This post really isn't as long as it appears. It's just a lot of quotes.

Then Cheery responded, and Beli ignored him and left his vote there.

So you're saying that I should unvote every time someone responds to me? No thanks, I think I'll leave my vote on whoever my top suspect is at the time.

No, everyone else that's responded to the "slip" sees it as a genuine mistake. I'm still challenging you to show me a scenario in which it

could

be a scumslip.

Then there's 183 where he admits to being a lurker and that he prefers to passive scumhunt, which doesn't appear to be his meta to me.

Then your meta is incomplete, but I'd have to break a site rule to set you straight. Not happening.

You can still link old games that aren't ongoing, otherwise, how can I possibly see that as a valid defense? Should I just trust you on this?

Then he rambled on about not lynching NS, and barely spoke about anyone else, despite his frequent posting.

Yep, I was the only one discussing NS. That's

definitely

how I remember it.

That's not nearly what I said. Where'd you get that idea? I'll explain what I meant differently.
For that whole portion of the game, you mainly explained why you were against a NS lynch. But, proving that NS is a bad lynch doesn't take ANY analysis on your part. To do that, you only had to reiterate your own policy towards active lurkers (that's where I got the "information" part of IioA). While what you said may look relevant, that argument could be copy-pasted to any discussion of lynching an lurker and achieve the same image.

It required no analysis on your part, but it gave you cheap towncred by looking active and critical, which scum want.

He also took credit for a reaction test when he misread what CD was saying. Did I miss something?

Yes. The point. I said the post Cub was talking about (#20) was a reaction test that didn't work. How am I taking credit here? Explain it like I'm 5.

That has nothing to do with what I read and understood. Why did you drag post 49/50 into this?
Sure, I'll take you through it.

I have one scumspect I have any confidence out of, when there may be up to 4 people who need to die. In this circumstance, how is a reaction test in any way inappropriate?

I read this as accepting Cheery's accusation that you were reaction testing, despite not referring to your self admitted scumminess as a reaction test earlier.

Again, I'm scum for not believing every word Cheery says

Well, again, prove how it could come from scum.

I like the catchup wall. It doesn't give me a solid read, but it shows he's not afraid of being readable. Scum are, and with good reason -- my catchup wall provided the town with tons of ammo to bust me with in Newbie 1305.

Ah. Is that your reason for active lurking and making insignificant posts? You learned your lesson, eh?

Damn! Busted! I knew I should have posted a catchup wall when I replaced in!

Waitaminute....

No, you're intentionally discrediting my argument.
You said that the last time you made wall posts and elaborated on your reads as scum, you got busted big time. Hey look, you're fluff posting (approx. avg 70 words per post) and passive scumhunting for once (you still haven't shown me a counter-example to your meta). Coincidence?

In your own words,

So is that all you've got? Lay on, MacDuff.