MICRO 172: DRAGON BALL Z [TOWN WIN]

[thenewearth]

Depends on how you jump to the wagon. And it depends on your reasoning

[TheIrishPope]

Bacde said I was acting weird, Ghostlin says oh yeah let's vote TIP! but no one else vote for him for the lulz

[thenewearth]

Wat?

[TheIrishPope]

Vote:Pope.

This puts him at 3 votes, which is L-2. No one else jump on. I will take that as a scum claim.

[thenewearth]

Ok I missed that post. And what dafuq ghostlin?

[DoctorPepper]

Ghostlin, isnt it hypocritical on your part to say that my assumptions are a "poison pill pf wifom" when the very explanation of "scum dont do that, it reveals them" is in itself a wifom filled statement? Were just going around in circles and its not helping, so lets just cutnthat issue short cause both of us had wifom-my assumptions there

[Ghostlin]

Because that is a heavily edited version of what I actually posted. I will emphasize the reason for voting him in italics.

Something about me. I hate reaction tests. I've seen at least one reaction test go horribly wrong. So I'm not a fan of Bache's idea of voting TIP due to a reaction test. That said, that lends a pretty strong town tell to me; scum usually doesn't reaction test.

Although PimHel has a point, the above seems to suspect someone without acutally voting them. Waffling is definitely scummy.

Vote:Pope.

This puts him at 3 votes, which is L-2. No one else jump on. I will take that as a scum claim.

I didn't want anyone at L-1 at page 4 due to self voting or quickhammer. He even owns that's exactly what he did later. I asked him if he suspected someone and then voted for someone else. He said he did. He then asked me why I voted for him (even though I mentioned it more than three times!)

It's essentially saying "I have a suspicion, but I won't vote it, I'm going to give a random vote instead on someone else."

Hmmm... Bacde is pretty fishy, but whatevs.
VOTE: sword_of_omens
For criticizing our awesomeness

This post is why I'm voting you.

You say someone is suspicious and vote someone else.

He's edited out important stuff of the posts, and can't be arsed to read to actually understand the case on him.

[Ghostlin]

Because that is a heavily edited version of what I actually posted. I will emphasize the reason for voting him in italics.

Something about me. I hate reaction tests. I've seen at least one reaction test go horribly wrong. So I'm not a fan of Bache's idea of voting TIP due to a reaction test. That said, that lends a pretty strong town tell to me; scum usually doesn't reaction test.

Although PimHel has a point, the above seems to suspect someone without acutally voting them. Waffling is definitely scummy.

Vote:Pope.

This puts him at 3 votes, which is L-2. No one else jump on. I will take that as a scum claim.

I didn't want anyone at L-1 at page 4 due to self voting or quickhammer. He even owns that's exactly what he did later. I asked him if he suspected someone and then voted for someone else. He said he did. He then asked me why I voted for him (even though I mentioned it more than three times!)

It's essentially saying "I have a suspicion, but I won't vote it, I'm going to give a random vote instead on someone else."

Hmmm... Bacde is pretty fishy, but whatevs.
VOTE: sword_of_omens
For criticizing our awesomeness

This post is why I'm voting you.

You say someone is suspicious and vote someone else.

He's edited out important stuff of the posts, and can't be arsed to read to actually understand the case on him.

[TheIrishPope]

D-d-d-d-d-d-double post

No one would quickhammer because they know it would look scummy SUSPICION =/= YOU HAVE TO VOTE. Show me the rule. I don't understand why you center on that, and WHY IT IS SCUMMY IN ANY WAY.

[Ghostlin]

I want to discuss these point of TIP's 'case' on me.

Well, I believe Ghostlin is scum for the following reasons:
1. He makes assumptions on key components of the game. Such assumptions are detrimental and only hurt the eyes of Town.
2. Gut feeling.
3. His stance on reaction tests was not asked by anyone...
4. ISO 5 seemed suspicious because it made no goddamned sense and ISO 16 just calls for backup, trying to get everyone suspicious of me, apparently.
5. Dat bandwagoning on Bacde who gave no reasons.

1. People do that all the time, if I'm wrong, that means I'm STUPID, not scummy. He's not even making the argument that I know the setup, hence I'm scummy, he's making the argument that I made an assumption that may or may not be correct. This is where I get his vibe of an OMGUS vote from.
2. Cute. I can't argue with this.
3. ...and yet were in an important part of Bacde voting for you, so I included that to explain that my reasons for being on your wagon weren't Bacde's.
4. ISO 5 was to prevent L-1 so you didn't self hammer or so no one else could help you. ISO 16 was to note the lurkers of Town and get their input. They weren't under any compunction to side with me. ISO 5 is a null tell for me at best, and so is ISO 16.
5. I've given my reasons four times now. Which...my reasons are still somewhat valid. Yours, on the other hand...

[Ghostlin]

D-d-d-d-d-d-double post

No one would quickhammer because they know it would look scummy SUSPICION =/= YOU HAVE TO VOTE. Show me the rule. I don't understand why you center on that, and WHY IT IS SCUMMY IN ANY WAY.

Because at the beginning of the damn game, your own vote is the only shit you've got to nail that down. It's scummy not to use that to out your suspicion and then throw it away on something else, as if your suspicion didn't matter.

[TheIrishPope]

RVS, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF IT
AT THIS STAGE SUSPICIONS DON'T MATTER BECAUSE IT'S ALL INSTINCT
I'm not one to shout, sorry.

[thenewearth]

I seriously don't know what dafuq is going on with you 2.

Can one of you give me a summary of shit?

[TheIrishPope]

It all started when Bacde voted for me. It was a "serious vote". Ghostlin also voted for me with the post up there. I found it weird, so I questioned him. He assumed there were two scum in the game, so I voted for him. And from then on, wild accusations. I'm right, though.

[PimHel]

@DR P
Can you link me to some games where players called your posts fake?

@TheNE
Why did you vote Ghostlin?

More will follow after the answers.

[thenewearth]

I had my suspicion on ghostlin for awhile now

I forgot which post I started

[fferyllt]

VOTE: sword

Town read no longer tentative.

I am tempted to write off the Ghostlin/pope stuff ast t v t, but...not quite there.

[DoctorPepper]

PimHel, cant talk about an ongoing game.

By town ad no longer tentative, you are sure he is town because he voted sword?

[fferyllt]

PimHel, cant talk about an ongoing game.

By town ad no longer tentative, you are sure he is town because he voted sword?

Yes.

[DoctorPepper]

I dont get why, he voted for someone who isnt here at all, what does that do? Pressure? How does voting for someone who hasnt said anything solve anything? (if we believe his excuse of being busy and accept his post of "will catch up and post tomorrow")

[fferyllt]

The tone of sword's post clanged pretty hard to me when I read it. And lo and behold, it drew Bacde's vote.

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. I want to read his catch-up post before getting too excited.

[Ghostlin]

The easiest way for us to gauge Sword being busy or not is he can do one of two things:

1) Post something of substance when he says he will

2) Realize that even a Micro is a bit much and replace out.

[Ghostlin]

It all started when Bacde voted for me. It was a "serious vote". Ghostlin also voted for me with the post up there. I found it weird, so I questioned him. He assumed there were two scum in the game, so I voted for him. And from then on, wild accusations. I'm right, though.

Right. You're also ignoring the fact that PimHel also voted for you, I voted for you for different reasons than Bacde did, and you RVSed someone while suspecting someone else, which is why I voted for you, because it's damn suspicious anytime someone goes 'I'm suspicious of Player A', and you do a vote on someone else, particularly for RVS reasons. And yes, there's no rule about it, but it seems damn fishy.

On the other foot, you've voted for me...because I conjectured a single fact of the setup? Your 127 doesn't even follow any logical reason for voting me; you call me out because my assumption is anti-town. Again, that might not make me scum, it might mean I'm stupid.

(On three person scum team; I guess it's possible, but town would lose a vital mislynch in that setup. Game would start 6-3, go to 5-3 if you didn't lynch scum, go to 4-3 if the NK succeeds, then end at 3-3 if town mislynches again. Lylo would start beginning of Day 2 instead of Day 3. It's possible, but it seems a little cruel, considering Day 1 is where you make your mistakes.)

[sarcasm]I like how you seem to be editing things to make sure your version of events are the ones that are carried forward. That's twice you've forgotten a signfanct part of the fact-telling. Because that's not scummy at all. [/sarcasm]

Back on Sword for a minute: I want to see his catch up post. If he tries to prod dodge again, he'll be a likely candidate.

[DoctorPepper]

I think we as town need to distinguish scum play and shit town play, cause really TIP voting Ghost based on set up speculations was bad but its not scummy. Answering with "there might be a cult" is a stupid answer but not a scummy answer. There are scummy things in his posts like reactions to suspicion, which havent gone away even if he has posted positively (according to some of you) later om.

[Hamlet]

I'm really not seeing the problem with being suspicious of one player and voting another; I think it's called "not tunnelling."

@DP: What specifically is it that's bad about it? Early D1 it's not reasonable to expect an open and shut case, voting for someone based on very little is pretty usual.

--B