Open 437: Town of Semi-Nightless Plots (Game Over)

[Sisterman]

...Not necessarily. I will agree that it TENDS to imply that, but it does not always do so. What makes you think it was implying it (regardless of what Seil was intending.

I'm not going to play this game with you.

A.) Because scumhunting is the only thing we ever do in these games, amirite?

The only thing not terrible players do.

So you want us to call you scummy for being aggressive? Cool beans.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I said to further your scummy agenda or just being awful. I'm saying that "being aggressive" is not a towntell and should not be taken as such on its own.

I'm having doubts about this lynch and am going to UNVOTE: Seilkops for now. It's Saturday night so I'll reread more of this mess later.

[Cheery Dog]

Ok, just really read Cheery's post.

What the fuck?

Like, seriously.

You've taken misreading to a whole new level. You're on some different book now.

Also you have done multiple reaction fishing, you've even admitted them
In post 31, seilkops wrote:
so I just played off that by voting him, and seeing what would happen. Sister is town, and I think grey is scum, is what I got from that.

You are wrong. All that quote says is that I voted for Sister to see who would respond. That's my first reaction fishing post. Here, I'll even set up a tally for you.
That's one.

This is your 'RVS' vote being used for reactions. You may have worded it differently, but that's still a reaction test claim. (unless I've read it wrong, but using 'him' there made me thing you were talking about sisterman since you had that post quoted (and #47 tells me that I was in fact reading it correctly))

#47 tells me something a little different.
I'm talking about the same damn thing. That "RVS", is the same vote I just talked about. I voted Sisterman to see who would respond, and greygnarl did. I kept up exchanging with him to get reads.

Let me explain how my post you are quoting works (I don't really want to be arguing about this either, as funkybike's last post was correct about arguments, but you also are misreading stuff)
[*]I quoted you twice, those two were the spots where I had thought you were telling us you had reaction fished.
[*]I never said #47 was something different, I brought it under the same quote. As you should be able to see via the other words I placed in the brackets, it is confirming that it was in fact your vote for sisterman and not your vote for greygnarl, which happened at different times.
[*]I took from #48, that you were saying that your vote for greygnarl was another reaction test, but as you can see in #74, I may have misunderstood what you were responding to from my earlier post.

[seilkops]

So where's my 2nd reaction fish post? Unless you don't think that anymore

[Voidedmafia]

I'm not going to be voting anyone I think of as town at any stage of the game, however you seemed to indicate that you would be happy to lynch them when we come to day 3.

Well, it assumes:

1.) That the player in question still remains a VI (aka hasn't tried to fix his/her position) by D3
2.) That there isn't another player more worthy of a lynch by D3
3.) (importantly) That we actually have the comfort of wasting a potential mislynch on said VI.

If all three conditions were met, I would certainly hop on to such a lynch.

Shouldn't you be using the fact of me slipping in my thoughts in a case against me instead of telling me straight out that my post has gone wonky on me?

I don't need tutoring from you, brat.

Besides, why would I do that when, despite the fact I have no clue how you did that, it's not that scummy? Unless you're trying to get me to mudsling.

Also you have done multiple reaction fishing, you've even admitted them

So?

I believed he was contradicting himself, is there a problem with me doing that?

Well, there's a problem in that you're wrong about the multiple fishings, so...

...Not necessarily. I will agree that it TENDS to imply that, but it does not always do so. What makes you think it was implying it (regardless of what Seil was intending.

I'm not going to play this game with you.

Yes you are because if you don't you accept that your attempt at an absolute is wrong, which thus implies that you may or may not have a valid point, which THUS means you gotta explain why the implication is there or you're just making shit up and thus look bad.

So yeah, you gotta play this game with me.

A.) Because scumhunting is the only thing we ever do in these games, amirite?

The only thing not terrible players do.

Townhunting is equally viable.

So you want us to call you scummy for being aggressive? Cool beans.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I said to further your scummy agenda or just being awful. I'm saying that "being aggressive" is not a towntell and should not be taken as such on its own.

Hey, glad you noticed! (the deliberate misinterpretation, I mean).

Though, if you're going to try and call it "furthering a scummy agenda" without any previous assertations that I'm scum/scummy in the first place, you're not going to see me take you seriously.

Quote tags fixed. (Equinox)

[andrew94]

@ Voidedmafia psot 37.
Yes your 'guess' is correct, however it seems like fluff.




godot's post- really fluffy to be honest



@seilkops. i agree with greygnarl. it really seems like you using an
excuse of reaction fishing.
what 'reaction' have you 'fished' so far? that the people voting you are
scum? how nice!


@greygnarl post 57, dont you think scum can climb out of holes too?
your post makes no sense

@Everyone
Wasting a lynch on a VI is a terrible idea right now. You're basically throwing away a day, and getting scum closer to where they can start NK'ing people. We should all make sure to vote on someone who we think is scum, rather than a townie we don't like, these first two days, since this is when we have the advantage.

i dont know if im blind or what, but where was VI mentioned????

i need a reply for this before i comment on cheery dog's post 64
and others

Removed extra bracket. (Equinox)

[Cheery Dog]

Greygnarl hadn't even posted in game when you made your 'RVS' vote, so therefore you had a target already preset in your mind when you made your post since you've only "reaction fished once".
So either that means you're bussing grey and therefore could have already had a target in mind or you have in fact reaction tested multiple times.

First off, what exactly is the big problem with the fact that grey hadn't posted? If you want to argue that Seil did not in any way suggest he was going for Grey in particular, that's fine and something we can all agree on, but while that by itself is slightly scummy, it doesn't make Seil's action scummy, either.

He said that he was looking to get reactions out of grey, this to me said that he didn't care about anyone else's reaction, and at that stage of the game, reaction tests are usually opened ended, which fits under your second point here.

Secondly, reaction fishing tends to have a a preset target anyways, unless you're going for a "do something to get people to post" kind of reaction. That's kinda the point of reaction fishing.

Thirdly, how in the hell did you even get bussing out of this? I don't mean to say it isn't possible, but I don't understand how you got that as one of your possible conclusions.

I was under the impression it was a reaction test for everyone, and therefore by seeming having it at preset target, if you wanted to get a scummy reaction out of someone, who better than to do it to your scum buddy.

Fourthly, was it not established that Seil was only doing on reaction test?

According to him yes, I don't know why he would have lied about that, but I'm open to the possibility that he might have had reasons for doing so, as I am about reasons why anyone might have been doing things.

I'm not going to be voting anyone I think of as town at any stage of the game, however you seemed to indicate that you would be happy to lynch them when we come to day 3.

Well, it assumes:

1.) That the player in question still remains a VI (aka hasn't tried to fix his/her position) by D3
2.) That there isn't another player more worthy of a lynch by D3
3.) (importantly) That we actually have the comfort of wasting a potential mislynch on said VI.

If all three conditions were met, I would certainly hop on to such a lynch.

What circumstances would number three apply to in this game?

Shouldn't you be using the fact of me slipping in my thoughts in a case against me instead of telling me straight out that my post has gone wonky on me?

I don't need tutoring from you, brat.

Besides, why would I do that when, despite the fact I have no clue how you did that, it's not that scummy?

Well you are voting me, so I sort of assumed that you had found something scummy about that post.
I take it you did actually understand what I was trying to say then and therefore it did in fact say what I thought it said?

Also you have done multiple reaction fishing, you've even admitted them

So?

I believed he was contradicting himself, is there a problem with me doing that?

Well, there's a problem in that you're wrong about the multiple fishings, so...

So I'm not allowed to believe anything then?

Quote tag fixed. (Equinox)

[Equinox]

Vote Count 1.03

seilkops (3) - greygnarl, TeChNoWC, ProsecutorGodot
Cheery Dog (1) - Voidedmafia
greygnarl (1) - seilkops
Sisterman (1) - funkybike1

Not Voting (5) - andrew94, Hiraki, Mr.K, Cheery Dog, Sisterman

With 11 alive, it's 6 to lynch.

The deadline is Wednesday, August 29, 2012, at 10:00 AM EDT (UTC-4).

Mod Notes

Hiraki is V/LA until August 20.

[seilkops]

PG's posts have been fluff, didn't realize that until Andrew pointed it out.

@seilkops. i agree with greygnarl. it really seems like you using an
excuse of reaction fishing.
what 'reaction' have you 'fished' so far? that the people voting you are
scum? how nice!

How nice, another person who can't read. I'll just go ahead and direct you to my old friend
http://cleverbot.com/
I'm sure he'll be able to help.

I reaction fished that covering post from greygnarl, which I thought was scummy, so I kept up interactions with him. Sister is probably town.
Out of the 3 people voting me, I think 1 are scum. I don't know what remedial math you took, but you should definitely do so some review on your numbers.

[seilkops]

i dont know if im blind or what, but where was VI mentioned????

i need a reply for this before i comment on cheery dog's post 64
and others

You can actually bring things up without having been asked that before. Crazy, I know. I just realized that midway through game, and wanted to make sure everybody else remembered.

[Cheery Dog]

@Everyone
Wasting a lynch on a VI is a terrible idea right now. You're basically throwing away a day, and getting scum closer to where they can start NK'ing people. We should all make sure to vote on someone who we think is scum, rather than a townie we don't like, these first two days, since this is when we have the advantage.

i dont know if im blind or what, but where was VI mentioned????

i need a reply for this before i comment on cheery dog's post 64
and others

That post was the first time it had been brought up.
Since seil was the leading wagon then (and still is now), I think he might have been calling himself a VI in an attempt to clear his name.

Is there a reason why you need it answered before responding to my post?

[seilkops]

@Everyone
Wasting a lynch on a VI is a terrible idea right now. You're basically throwing away a day, and getting scum closer to where they can start NK'ing people. We should all make sure to vote on someone who we think is scum, rather than a townie we don't like, these first two days, since this is when we have the advantage.

i dont know if im blind or what, but where was VI mentioned????

i need a reply for this before i comment on cheery dog's post 64
and others

That post was the first time it had been brought up.
Since seil was the leading wagon then (and still is now), I think he might have been calling himself a VI in an attempt to clear his name.

Is there a reason why you need it answered before responding to my post?

Actually, I thought of it really when gg said he wouldn't care if I flipped town. I thought of it worth mentioning.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Going to make this brief for now. I agree that VI policy lynch is likely not the way to victory. However, I'm not sure that seilkops's play since then validates the VI defense. But he is playing it straight and claiming VT. As such, I'll look back later and see if his claim has solid ground. At the moment, since the wagon has done its job in pressing for information and producing a claim,

UNVOTE: Seilkops

[Voidedmafia]

He said that he was looking to get reactions out of grey, this to me said that he didn't care about anyone else's reaction, and at that stage of the game, reaction tests are usually opened ended, which fits under your second point here.

So it's slightly scummy but not enough to outright cal the entire thing scummy to you, then?

Fourthly, was it not established that Seil was only doing on reaction test?

According to him yes, I don't know why he would have lied about that, but I'm open to the possibility that he might have had reasons for doing so, as I am about reasons why anyone might have been doing things.

Where did he lie?

What circumstances would number three apply to in this game?

What's that supposed to mean? Those are all conditions you should consider in any game where you want to lynch a VI.

I take it you did actually understand what I was trying to say then and therefore it did in fact say what I thought it said?

...I understood what you said, and I said that it was the complete opposite conclusion to what Seil's point actually was.

So I'm not allowed to believe anything then?

That's not the point. The point was that you were wrong.

[Voidedmafia]

He said that he was looking to get reactions out of grey, this to me said that he didn't care about anyone else's reaction, and at that stage of the game, reaction tests are usually opened ended, which fits under your second point here.

So it's slightly scummy but not enough to outright cal the entire thing scummy to you, then?

Fourthly, was it not established that Seil was only doing on reaction test?

According to him yes, I don't know why he would have lied about that, but I'm open to the possibility that he might have had reasons for doing so, as I am about reasons why anyone might have been doing things.

Where did he lie?

What circumstances would number three apply to in this game?

What's that supposed to mean? Those are all conditions you should consider in any game where you want to lynch a VI.

I take it you did actually understand what I was trying to say then and therefore it did in fact say what I thought it said?

...I understood what you said, and I said that it was the complete opposite conclusion to what Seil's point actually was.

So I'm not allowed to believe anything then?

That's not the point. The point was that you were wrong.

[Voidedmafia]

He said that he was looking to get reactions out of grey, this to me said that he didn't care about anyone else's reaction, and at that stage of the game, reaction tests are usually opened ended, which fits under your second point here.

So it's slightly scummy but not enough to outright cal the entire thing scummy to you, then?

Fourthly, was it not established that Seil was only doing on reaction test?

According to him yes, I don't know why he would have lied about that, but I'm open to the possibility that he might have had reasons for doing so, as I am about reasons why anyone might have been doing things.

Where did he lie?

What circumstances would number three apply to in this game?

What's that supposed to mean? Those are all conditions you should consider in any game where you want to lynch a VI.

I take it you did actually understand what I was trying to say then and therefore it did in fact say what I thought it said?

...I understood what you said, and I said that it was the complete opposite conclusion to what Seil's point actually was.

So I'm not allowed to believe anything then?

That's not the point. The point was that you were wrong.

Going to make this brief for now. I agree that VI policy lynch is likely not the way to victory. However, I'm not sure that seilkops's play since then validates the VI defense. But he is playing it straight and claiming VT. As such, I'll look back later and see if his claim has solid ground. At the moment, since the wagon has done its job in pressing for information and producing a claim,

UNVOTE: Seilkops

Where the hell are people getting the idea that Seil is actually using that as a defense? Are you people intentionally misreading Seil or what?

(Blah, first post was accidentaly submitted. Delete, plz, Equi?)

[seilkops]

Heads up everyone,

I won't be able to post all of tomorrow due to being gone. Sunday I will be back. I'm leaving our old friend Cleverbot here to answer any questions you guys might have for me while gone.
Take good care of em' Clever.
http://cleverbot.com/

*Hint: If it's about the reaction fishing, chances are, I've probably already answered that question.

I may be able to get on in 3 or 4 hours after work, but I don't want to promise anything.

[greygnarl]

I'm no longer seeing seilkops as scum. He was starting to make more sense and not make stumbling posts. Now he's lashing out at everyone and everything and that does not seem like something a scum would do. Worth noting that I played Open 438 with seil and he was lurker scum.

Unvote

I don't have any reads right now except for

Sisterman:Town
Seilkops:Leaning Town

Maybe a reread will yield up something.

[greygnarl]

Thoughts after reread.


Andrew: Hasn’t said enough to get a read on him. Null.

Cheery Dog: He made a few attacks on seil for the same reasons I did, and also realized that seil was just unclear about who he was reaction fishing. However, Post 64 and Post 74 both go after me seil for saying he would lynch a VI D3 when I said I would lynch a VI anyday. (BTW I no longer think seil is VI) Overall his post seem like they weren’t well thought out. Null.

Funkybike: Hasn’t said much accept telling Sisterman, seil and I to lay off each other when we were having a perfectly legitimate debate. Null. Maybe he needs to be prodded?

Mr. K: Null.

ProsecutorGodot: Makes good reads and reasonable posts. He hasn’t attacked anybody yet though. Might need to stick his neck out there some more. Leaning town.

Seilkops: Started out bad but has since redeemed himself. Read my other posts. Leaning town.

Sisterman: Makes a big ruckus right out of the door. I just can’t see scum drawing that kind of attention to themselves. His later posts actually are productive. Town.

Techno: Makes good points in his posts, but has only been going after seilkops so I can’t get a good read. Null.

Voidedmafia: Has spent the whole game defending seil and chainsawing those who attack him.
Possible scenario:
-Scum sees seil wagon forming.
-Decides to be the only person who defends him.
-Earns big town points upon lynch and flip.

Vote:Voidedmafia

[funkybike1]

No, I most certainly don't need to be prodded. I was simply waiting for the "nonsense vote" stage to stop. With that, I'm going to
UNVOTE: until further notice. I am looking at Voided though.

[greygnarl]

Do you have reads, comments, or anything? It seems you only appeared when I mentioned you name.

[greygnarl]

*your*

[funkybike1]

I was on my phone there, so I couldn't post much.

My reads, the basic version:

andrew94: No meaningful posts. Null.
Cheery Dog: Seems to be pretty useful at the moment, but useful does not equal town.
greygnarl: Has been very active so far, with a good amount of content. Leaning town.
Mr.K: Only one post, though it seems a bit townish.
ProsecutorGodot: Decent content. Seems to be looking at everything logically, which is not a bad approach early Day 1. Probably town.
seilkops: Lots of posts, lots of defending himself. Likely town, however.
Sisterman: I cannot get any sort of read from that. Null.
TeChNoWC: I usually have a hard time getting a read off him, and this is no different. A couple posts seem townish, and a couple seem scummy. Time will tell on this one.
Voidedmafia: This is about when I started to get suspicious. Leaning scum.

[Mr.K]

Alright, unfortunately my read and post ended up happening quite late so I'm already quite tired. Here we go anyway!

funkybike1 - very few posts and appeared quite soon after greygnarl mentioned his name. Lurking?
greygnarl - seems mostly town
seilkops - probably town. I think his slip in the beginning wasn't as significant as people made it to be and then he got somewhat confused under pressure (which town can do as well). Don't see him as scum.
Voidedmafia - seems alright - will reread his posts... day after tomorrow, I guess. I'm not sure I see the case(s) against him but I'm tired and thus might not be at my best.
ProsecutorGodot - seems town
Cheery Dog - might be scum but he seemed to misunderstand some things seilkops said and I'm not sure if he understood what he misunderstood. So yeah, could all be just a mistake as well. The fact that he put seilkops in l-1 with a pretty poor case is worrysome, though.
andrew94 - not much content but the little seems town.
Sisterman - aggressive enough that he's probably town. Hah! Kidding! But yeah, I don't see anything about him scummy at this point.
TeChNoWC - seems town

Will be quite busy tomorrow. Might have time for some short posts or whatnot but not sure if even that!

[Voidedmafia]

Voidedmafia: Has spent the whole game defending seil and chainsawing those who attack him.
Possible scenario:
-Scum sees seil wagon forming.
-Decides to be the only person who defends him.
-Earns big town points upon lynch and flip.

Vote:Voidedmafia

So...you find the fact that I find the attacks on Seil to not be true and that some of said attacks are rather fallacious to be a problem? I mean, where'd ya get this from?

Voidedmafia: This is about when I started to get suspicious. Leaning scum.

Because...?

We don't learn anything (and I don't have anything to defend) if you only say "This is what I found suspicious" and don't say why.

Also, holy shit how the hell did I triple-post that?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Alright, now that I'm back from the Tim Hawkins show that was in town, I'll take GG up on his proposition and go ISO some people and try to come back with who I take as the scummiest. Before I go on, Mehdi, I believe Post 60 is where Seilkops refers to a "VI lynch," which I took as a VI defense. Given the circumstances then, I don't think he was referring to any other VI lynch about to go down.

Hmm...this is a bit of a doozy. Though funkybike's comment about VM's scumminess intrigues me. I would like to know how you connect Post 87 to his probability of being scum when you get to a place where you can elaborate. I really didn't see anything that stood out as scummy, and yet this is what you say is the turning point. How so?

VOTE: funkybike1