Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[Green Crayons]

lol, no. Believe it or not, but your mischaracterization of the dave case is not actually what the dave case is.

This is the case on dave:

A.

dave:

the biggest thing that bothered me is his reasons justifying his swag vote. Grib hit all the right points in Post 312, and Kaboose summarizes my concern about dave's "disarming the opposition" tactic of preemptively declaring his vote a not-OMGUS in Post 323. The swag push looks manufactured, and the not-OMGUS declaration looks defensive.

@dave:

I skimmed your ISO and your biggest active lead as to who may be scum appears to be "maybe someone who is lurking."

How is this not a scum copout? VOTE: dave

1. dave's attempt to explain away his "fuck off asshole" swag-vote as not a reactionary vote looks disingenuous (per Grib's 312)
2. dave's "disarming the opposition" is a great way to explain away dave's sensitivity to how his posts may be received (per Kaboose's 323)
3. dave's contribution to this game is low and if you're giving dave a pass for his at-the-beginning-of-D2 lead suspect being that way simply because of lurk, as opposed to any other justification that requires putting your neck out and stating some sort of opinion, then you're lolbad because apparently you're giving people town credit just because I'm suspecting them

Here, I'll throw another two out there:
4. In Post 844 I gave dave grief for having very minimal suspicions by the end of D1. It only took him 30 minutes to respond with a (paraphrase) "shame on you for not letting me have time to develop reads" because (quote) "I don't pull reads out of my ass and throw them on the table." But in his very next post, Post 879, he

does

pull a read out of his ass and throws it on the table - he votes elle solely on the basis of elle's early D2 posting interaction with Ranger.

It looks like dave denied that he wasn't failing to provide substantive, useful suspicions, but realized that the criticism was valid, and so hurried up and provided some suspicions that were based on the most recent thing he read that could be construed as scummy. Looks like hurried scum.

5. dave, although his activity is minimal, is obviously keeping an eye on the thread. He's lurking just enough to catch when his name is mentioned, so he can pipe up an respond. And then he slumps back into obscurity. He's done it at least twice already. Active lurking at its finest.

-----

Would love to hear what makes dave obvtown.

[Green Crayons]

4. In Post 844 I gave dave grief for having very minimal suspicions by the end of D1. It only took him 30 minutes to respond

in Post 846

with a (paraphrase) "shame on you for not letting me have time to develop reads" because (quote) "I don't pull reads out of my ass and throw them on the table." But in his very next post, Post 879, he

does

pull a read out of his ass and throws it on the table - he votes elle solely on the basis of elle's early D2 posting interaction with Ranger.

edited to include post link for easy reference

[Heartless]

I can't tell if you're posting with hubris or if you're just completely convinced everything you say is always right.

lol what?

so is there a purpose for painting tth as a know-it-all or what b/c that's not in there at all

[Heartless]

1. dave's attempt to explain away his "fuck off asshole" swag-vote as not a reactionary vote looks disingenuous (per Grib's 312)

that's a subjective judgment. and i don't know how you go about proving this. the "fuck off asshole" presentation of the vote is indicative of a bad mood and pissyness which is not alignment indicative and he actually coughed up reasons that checked out when asked about it later so i don't know what kind of contradiction/scumminess we're all supposed to be glomming on to here.

this point is speculative at best and can go either way

2. dave's "disarming the opposition" is a great way to explain away dave's sensitivity to how his posts may be received (per Kaboose's 323)

also a subjective judgment and can go either way. no, no one accused him of omgus, but it's such a universal thing around here that saying "no omgus" isn't an unreasonable thing to do especially if frustrated / not expected to get taken seriously like dave is.

3. dave's contribution to this game is low and if you're giving dave a pass for his at-the-beginning-of-D2 lead suspect being that way simply because of lurk, as opposed to any other justification that requires putting your neck out and stating some sort of opinion, then you're lolbad because apparently you're giving people town credit just because I'm suspecting them

/meh
(shrug)
in the grand scheme of things is he really the worst there is? i don't think so. not by a long shot.
i don't really get what you're saying w/ this point. are you saying dave was lurker hunting at the start of day 2? because that's just not true. he said something about lurkers being scum in Post 632, but that was way back on day 1, and that was a few posts before your fairy vote so how is going after lurkers scummy there?

clarification needed on this point

Here, I'll throw another two out there:
4. In Post 844 I gave dave grief for having very minimal suspicions by the end of D1. It only took him 30 minutes to respond with a (paraphrase) "shame on you for not letting me have time to develop reads" because (quote) "I don't pull reads out of my ass and throw them on the table." But in his very next post, Post 879, he does pull a read out of his ass and throws it on the table - he votes elle solely on the basis of elle's early D2 posting interaction with Ranger.

It looks like dave denied that he wasn't failing to provide substantive, useful suspicions, but realized that the criticism was valid, and so hurried up and provided some suspicions that were based on the most recent thing he read that could be construed as scummy. Looks like hurried scum.

a likely story. so, why didn't he hurry up a spit out a full reads list? they're not that hard and it's apparently a crowd-pleaser here.
this point is speculative and constructs a house-of-cards narrative that falls over if you blow on it. it takes a hefty dose of "i already think dave is scum" to really buy into it.

5. dave, although his activity is minimal, is obviously keeping an eye on the thread. He's lurking just enough to catch when his name is mentioned, so he can pipe up an respond. And then he slumps back into obscurity. He's done it at least twice already. Active lurking at its finest.

beatlejuicing as a scumtell is so /meh
(shrug)
it's not reliable because it depends on so many things outside of alignment. mood, how the game's going, which alignment you prefer to play, what other games you're playing that's taking your MS time, how good you are at playing either alignment

[Green Crayons]

I appreciate the response, and reply to it below.

That said, you do know that simply saying "nuh-unh" to a case doesn't make someone obvtown, right? What are your affirmative reasons for reading dave to be obvtown?

-----

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

2. I accept that preemptively declaring no OMGUS could go either way.

3.

a. Is dave the worst in this game in terms of contribution? No. Why are we using that as a yardstick? It was what really jumped out at me from the four folks I reviewed from D1.

b. What I'm saying is that, upon D2 beginning, I reviewed dave in ISO to see what his play had been up to that point. He had suspicions dotted throughout D1, but most of them dwindled or extinguished by the day's end. All that he was left with at the end of D1 was that "scum is probably lurking." Wow, insightful. That's sarcasm. What it is, is that it is super safe play. So I challenged him on it at the beginning of D2.

4.

a. Blow on my house of cards. mmmm, yeah. Sexual innuendo aside, seriously: blow. You haven't made a case as to why my hypothesis behind dave's play isn't correct.

b. Why didn't dave "hurry up a spit out a full reads list?" Because he wasn't challenged on failing to provide a reads list. I asked connected his leading suspicion of "someone who is lurking" to playing-it-safe-scum. He attempted to defuse that criticism the easiest and safestest way possible (while simultaneously acting in contravention to his "take it slow" reason that he used to excuse his lack of substantive suspicions): by spitting out a suspicion on someone based on something more than lurking.

5. Well TTH has played with dave before, so I'm interested in whether, in her past experiences, dave was town or scum and whether dave was providing the same type of active lurking in those games as he is doing here.

[Titus]

Ooooooo, you're a lawyer? Interesting. Good luck with your trial.

Thank you.

Will catch up tonight hopefully.

[elleheathen]

Also, no one should be hammering ANY wagon right now if it comes to that

Not before we have everyone here

Why? green is only at L-3. Why do you even care about hammering at this point? Looks like scum team to me.

So? And so is LR. I said ANY wagon.

So why would I want to wait for everyone to be present before a hammer in a game with masons?

FFS swag.

[elleheathen]

Here's a hint.
Look at my probably odd looking interaction with Titus today.
I WAS WONDERING IF SHE WAS READING ME RIGHT.

[elleheathen]

I would really, really love to lynch you.

[Heartless]

b. What I'm saying is that, upon D2 beginning, I reviewed dave in ISO to see what his play had been up to that point. He had suspicions dotted throughout D1, but most of them dwindled or extinguished by the day's end. All that he was left with at the end of D1 was that "scum is probably lurking." Wow, insightful. That's sarcasm. What it is, is that it is super safe play. So I challenged him on it at the beginning of D2.

safe...? maybe. but he was hardly the only one picking on lurkers, and lurker hunting isn't an absolute scumtell.

his opinion makes sense if you take into account the apparent change of heart about elle and swag in the same post. he'd already townread you so at that point he was town reading the most active players of the game. logically, where do you go from there...?

lurkers.

a. Blow on my house of cards. mmmm, yeah. Sexual innuendo aside, seriously: blow. You haven't made a case as to why my hypothesis behind dave's play isn't correct.

i can't. because you haven't established why this is more likely to come from scum than town. the action could come from scum who's a liar and making up shit and town who really is getting off to a slow start and does suspect elle. there's a voting history there for elle, so i don't know how to rule out the latter so quickly. just because you just present the scum side doesn't mean it's the only one that exists. me criticizing the point would be an exercise in throwing spaghetti against a wall because it's a matter of interpretation.

not a good thing to build a case on.

5. Well TTH has played with dave before, so I'm interested in whether, in her past experiences, dave was town or scum and whether dave was providing the same type of active lurking in those games as he is doing here.

the c9++, we were in heartless so i was there too and yes. i'll let tth say if he was the same way in m9++.

[Heartless]

That said, you do know that simply saying "nuh-unh" to a case doesn't make someone obvtown, right? What are your affirmative reasons for reading dave to be obvtown?

because the given reasons ("i'm pissed off and it's clouding my judgment") actually does go really well with what's went on in the thread and there's not as much bending as you seem to say there is. it's all pretty straightforward and there's a clear paper trail for dave's suspicions and he votes accordingly. the entrance makes sense given the elle read progression and the exit from the elle wagon doesn't make sense if he's scum and elle's town.

there's also the fact that he seems to be catching a lot of heat from some questionable corners. it's alignment indicative because on day 1, it doesn't look like there wasn't anyone to shield him which i would expect if he had 2 people floating around with a vested interest in protecting him. just looking at the general flow the game on the first day, it doesn't look like there's anyone who fits that description.

[Green Crayons]

Hmm. Will ponder further.

[Armageddon]

Vote count Day 2.5

Players alive: 11

Players needed to lynch: 6

CptPicard

- 1 - Grib - (L-5)

Green Crayons

- 3 - Lone Ranger, Heartless, MalaKittens - (L-3)

Kaboose

- 1 - Whatisswag - (L-5)

Lone Ranger

- 3 - elleheathen, Titus, Green Crayons - (L-3)

Whatisswag

- 1 - Kaboose - (L-5)

Players not voting: CptPicard, davesaz

Mod notes:
Still looking for a replacement for CptPicard.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2015-02-01 23:22:00)

Mod: Can we get a deadline extension until a Picard replacement is found?

Partially self motivated as I don't really care to make a deadline lynch either while on VLA.

I shall think on this and make my decision before tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

So, I reread pages 1 through 13, and had a pretty good analysis of dave's swag vote and justifications and why it was potentially scummy.

Then I hit the key phrase in Post 259: "In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote

is not currently

an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle."

I think it's pretty clear that dave's initial "fuck you" vote is a reactionary/OMGUS vote. I was under the impression that he then went on to try to justify that vote from the get-go as being based on actual suspicions. Rereading his posts, it's clear that he initially didn't have any swag suspicions, did a reactionary vote, that caused him to look closely at swag, and then his swag suspicions developed thereby transforming his swag vote into something more than an OMGUS vote. And I see he wasn't really saying anything different than that.


Welp.

[Green Crayons]

lol, and now just decided to skim dave's ISO and saw this:

I then said that after getting ticked off I did a slow read through of swag up to that point and it looked scummy independent of the rage that prompted me to look.

WELP.

[Titus]

VLA over

Catching up. DA quoted role pm.

[Titus]

Sorry the DA did the equivalent of quoting a role pm so my vla ended early.

[Kaboose]

So was the DA modkilled?

[Kaboose]

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

So, I reread pages 1 through 13, and had a pretty good analysis of dave's swag vote and justifications and why it was potentially scummy.

Then I hit the key phrase in Post 259: "In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote

is not currently

an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle."

I think it's pretty clear that dave's initial "fuck you" vote is a reactionary/OMGUS vote. I was under the impression that he then went on to try to justify that vote from the get-go as being based on actual suspicions. Rereading his posts, it's clear that he initially didn't have any swag suspicions, did a reactionary vote, that caused him to look closely at swag, and then his swag suspicions developed thereby transforming his swag vote into something more than an OMGUS vote. And I see he wasn't really saying anything different than that.


Welp.

lol, and now just decided to skim dave's ISO and saw this:

I then said that after getting ticked off I did a slow read through of swag up to that point and it looked scummy independent of the rage that prompted me to look.

WELP.

So do you have a conclusion on all this you're trying to reach?

[Whatisswag]

dave is town because of the OMGUS vote. That is the main reason why I am town reading him.

[Whatisswag]

1. I've read and reread the dave after the fact explanation for his "fuck off" vote, and it's always been very hazy in terms of where he actually lays out his justifications (as opposed to simply saying "no really I was suspecting swag before hand"). I'll reread it again to review whether I can verify that his "coughed up reasons" really check out.

So, I reread pages 1 through 13, and had a pretty good analysis of dave's swag vote and justifications and why it was potentially scummy.

Then I hit the key phrase in Post 259: "In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote

is not currently

an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle."

I think it's pretty clear that dave's initial "fuck you" vote is a reactionary/OMGUS vote. I was under the impression that he then went on to try to justify that vote from the get-go as being based on actual suspicions. Rereading his posts, it's clear that he initially didn't have any swag suspicions, did a reactionary vote, that caused him to look closely at swag, and then his swag suspicions developed thereby transforming his swag vote into something more than an OMGUS vote. And I see he wasn't really saying anything different than that.


Welp.

lol, and now just decided to skim dave's ISO and saw this:

I then said that after getting ticked off I did a slow read through of swag up to that point and it looked scummy independent of the rage that prompted me to look.

WELP.

So do you have a conclusion on all this you're trying to reach?

You look like you are trying to tell Green to solidify his point further...

[Whatisswag]

Also, no one should be hammering ANY wagon right now if it comes to that

Not before we have everyone here

Why? green is only at L-3. Why do you even care about hammering at this point? Looks like scum team to me.

So? And so is LR. I said ANY wagon.

So why would I want to wait for everyone to be present before a hammer in a game with masons?

FFS swag.

I forgot about the LR wagon. I did not even realise people voted her. I need to pay attention to other people too.

[Kaboose]

I guess I just don't understand or missed what point he's trying to make here about you and Dave.

[Whatisswag]

I assume it is ok to use posts in MD to our knowledge.

It's legal but it reads desperate as fuck.

Well, I was looking through those threads when I saw dave post. I was like "yay"

[Titus]

So was the DA modkilled?

No, but the game has to be reset.

Anyway, time to read through that TTH gc wallcrap.