Micro 161: No-Newbie Newbie (over)

[N]

Vote Count 1.06

RedCoyote

( 0 )

²

( 2 ) A_Stone , RedCoyote

A_Stone

( 2 ) thenewearth , syndromeofatown

thenewearth

( 2 ) Mr E Roll , goodmorning

syndromeofatown

( 0 )

Mr E Roll

( 0 )

goodmorning

( 1 ) RachMarie

RachMarie

( 0 )

EspeciallyTheLies

Rondar

( 0 )

Not voting:

² , EspeciallyTheLies

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-05-14 21:34:45)

goodmorning is LA until Tuesday.
A_Stone is V/LA until Wednesday.

[²]

I'm mostly caught up. This post is troubling. Why did 2 feel the need to point out that their playstyle was "pro-town".

An argument was made that we should not be confirming each others reads - as if it would be enough merely to have one of us post his/her opinion. I made the counter-argument that having us confirm each others reads is inherently pro-town because we can't backpeddal. What's troubling about that?

- b

[²]

Then, followed by this to SoaT, who was already giving me scumvibes:

What does SoaT mean?

- b

[EspeciallyTheLies]

Syndrome of a town and I dont think it needed to be specifically said that it was pro-town, if indeed it came from a town perspective.

[RedCoyote]

tne, I explained it to MER.

You seem to think that 2 has been active lurking that’s a legitimate reason for a vote especially considering you haven’t noted anything else that you have found to be suspicious.

Active lurking? I think you have me backwards, man. I think the opposite. I have noted something that soat said that has caused me pause. I am waiting to see how that develops. I do not have any questions for him at the moment.

[²]

Syndrome of a town and I dont think it needed to be specifically said that it was pro-town, if indeed it came from a town perspective.

Okay, I did.

- b

[²]

Rach, do you have any town reads and/or scum reads?

- b

[Mr E Roll]

Active lurking? I think you have me backwards, man. I think the opposite. I have noted something that soat said that has caused me pause. I am waiting to see how that develops. I do not have any questions for him at the moment.

From the Wiki:

Active Lurking is the act of posting (thus differentiating it from ordinary Lurking), but the material posted is irrelevant or otherwise useless for scumhunting.

How is that not the same as flooding the thread with silliness?

[thenewearth]

Vote: tne

Ignoring my question twice, not pursuing any real conversation with his questions, seems like a good enough reason for so early in a fluffpost game.

I just did >.>

[thenewearth]

Ok let me explain what I mean.

We can't magically come up with a reason to vote someone.
You guys voted people with reasons that we don't know. We're not psychic and we cannot randomly get a reason to vote a person.
I just wanted to know why you guys think this person in scummy, so we can judge if we should vote them or not.

Sure we might miss something, but if you just go out of your way and explain shit to us then probably we wouldn't miss it

[goodmorning]

Which marginally answers my question, but considering my vote was explained to have not been serious makes it look like you're not reading the thread.

[thenewearth]

Yeah sure. Saying that I ignored your question which I really didn't explains everything >.>

[goodmorning]

I asked you "Why not vote 2?"

You did not answer that.

You did not acknowledge it either.

I call that ignoring.

[thenewearth]

Yeah I vote squared when I don't know why I'm voting him /sarcasm

[goodmorning]

I didn't say you were voting them. I asked you why I shouldn't vote them, since you wanted to know why I should.

[A_Stone]

Considering in the majority of games fferylt (Or however it's spelt) and Buldermar play both don't seem to RVS a lot, with fferylt entering many games in this way,

although Buldermar seems to enter many games by self-voting.

Many? I'm pretty sure that I've only done it a few times. How many games did you check and in how many of them did I self-vote?

- b

You've only done it once, I feel stupid now :/

VOTE: 2

Their posts seem to be a bit... spaced out

Is this a random vote or a policy vote?

2 are both heads in agreement with not casting a random vote? Do you not think random voting has any value?

Random vote based on their avatar.

So if I vote you because I think you're scum, can I claim that it's a random vote based on my estimation of your alignment as well?

- b

Can you rephrase this coherently?

I would say it's a null tell atm, considering this can easily be used to the advantage of scum-2, and could simply be average play for town-2

How would it be advantageous for us not to random vote?

- b

It's always good to play to your town meta, if you had random voted it would have raised some questions from the people you had played with.

^^
- b

Why do you make posts like this, your posts as a hydra

should

be seamless, why do you see a need to reinforce your views?

And I think that having the second head confirming is pro-town. By not doing it we could,i if we were scum, pretend that the second head got a different perspective on something and backpeddal out of an unfortunate situation/read.

- b

Again? You've said that you two are talking together in chat. Why are you making posts explicitly for the purpose of looking town? Is that not something more likely for scum to do?

his RVS vote seems... overreasoned I guess would be the word?

He made a space pun. That's your definition of over-reasoning? Interesting.

I'll be coming back to this later.

- f

And yet you *never* did, I thought it obvious after #23 that it was a joke, any reason why you didn't see it that way?


Wait a second, I think I've found something

In this post by RedCoyote (My post-snipping is a bit rigid :/)

I think I found a scum already. Not going to say who just yet cause I don't want the scumteam to attack me but just letting you know I'm onto you.

We are ² people.

Certainly can't say you're posting ² much.

2 saw the use of soat in quote format, along with evidence of who it was. With this evidence,

Then, followed by this to SoaT, who was already giving me scumvibes:

What does SoaT mean?

- b

Seems off to me. It was obviously a player, why did the question need to be asked?

[A_Stone]

The whole TNE business seems icky, I don't really see why he explicitly defended 2, why did you not ask about RachMarie's vote on Goodmorning?

TNE, many players have asked you questions, why are you not answering them?

I buy syndrome's gut explanation. So there's nothing wrong with his vote. So I think he's clear

Why did you accept this answer so easily?

And yes, I know I'm voting A_Stone. But that's pretty much RVS. I'd actually vote you based on your answer though

Uh...

What you're doing *isn't* actually RVS, you're voting me based on a logical fallacy. Why are you saying it's an RVS vote?

[A_Stone]

Active lurking? I think you have me backwards, man. I think the opposite. I have noted something that soat said that has caused me pause. I am waiting to see how that develops. I do not have any questions for him at the moment.

From the Wiki:

Active Lurking is the act of posting (thus differentiating it from ordinary Lurking), but the material posted is irrelevant or otherwise useless for scumhunting.

How is that not the same as flooding the thread with silliness?

Active Lurking is usually just posting the benchmark to stay alive

[goodmorning]

I feel like a lot of your concerns were answered in-thread.

[A_Stone]

Hmm, I suppose so.

I just didn't really see the need to

^^

When you could just post

-f & -b, why use two posts when yu could just sign it as both?

[thenewearth]

I accepted syndrom's answer because I also use gut when I don't really have anything

[A_Stone]

So your vote on me is gut?

It can't really be RVS because you've voted based on the logical fallacy that I am scum because we were both VTs beforehand, or is there any other reason?

[goodmorning]

That's not really a logical fallacy, more a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of statistics.

[²]

I didn't say you were voting them. I asked you why I shouldn't vote them, since you wanted to know why I should.

If there isn't a reason not to vote, you should vote. If there isn't a reason to vote, you should not vote. These are sides of the same logical coin, so you guys are getting nowhere if you're merely going to answer each question with its negation.

- b

[²]

You've only done it once, I feel stupid now :/

At least you're being honest about your exaggeration now.

- b