Mini 1701 - Modified Werewolf 13er

[Haschel Cedricson]

Vote: Bulbazoor. He knows why.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Vote: Bulbazoor. He knows why.

Explain your vote on bulb.
VOTE: Haschel Cedricson

I'd rather Bulb explained it.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Yes to the former, and the latter is irrelevant.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Vote: Bulbazoor. He knows why.

Explain your vote on bulb.
VOTE: Haschel Cedricson

I'd rather Bulb explained it.

You should answer (because I'm impatient and want to post the conclusion to my thinking from earlier)

Your suggestion has me intrigued but I'm going to have to pass.

At any rate,

Unvote

. I want to vote for somebody else, but it's so hard to decide between Keyser and BlueBloodedToffee!

[Haschel Cedricson]

At any rate,

Unvote

. I want to vote for somebody else, but it's so hard to decide between Keyser and BlueBloodedToffee!

Would this be a serious vote?

Why wouldn't it be?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Because both of you have such a disproportionately hostile reaction to Woody that you both come across as bad parodies of scum hunters.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I see, I don't believe I'm being hostile.

Do you disagree with my reasoning for voting Woody?

PEdit - Using meta is sketchy.

I do indeed.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Haschel Cedricson defends WoodyWoodpecker and re-directs attention to BlueBloodedToffee and Keyser Söze - noted.

Keyser Soze attacks WoodyWoodpecker for stupid reasons and when called on it deflects by insinuating Haschel Cedricson is the bad guy for saying anything in the first place - noted.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Why would you

sign up for a game and then not read it

?

If that was me, it would be for either anti-town or scummy reasons.

Nobody asked you

This is an excellent post.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Heads up, I am now out of town till Sunday and the municipal wifi is spotty. Will read, probably won't post, definitely won't post in-depth.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Update: Currently on the road for the next couple hours. I'll get back to the thread with actual substance tonight.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Update: Have read through 12 pages. There is a lot going on and my head is starting to hurt. At this stage BBT and Banakai both look really bad; redFF looks really good. I don't like Keyser but a few things make me feel he

may

be town. Everybody else doesn't register too much either way.

I'm sure things will change in the next 8 pages, but I need a small break before heading back down into the salt mines.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Jesus Christ this thread just keeps on going, doesn't it? Anyhoo, I'm pretty sure my brain glazed over sometime in the last page or two but I do have a couple opinions to bring to the table.

First off, my number one scumread right now is Banakai. There have been a few really weird statements, and they started with his first post:

Woody: would you care to explain why you are playing so defensive? As a town usually you just have to accept that one of you are gonna die day 1 probbably, and just try and get as much information as possible even when being voted.[...]

BBT: Do you think there would be any motivation in this game for a scum to tunnel on Woody like you are now?

The first sentence is oddly fatalistic; if somebody is attack you with crappy arguments (like I believe Keyser and BBT were), it is a disservice to the town to NOT be defensive. And what is up with that second question to BBT? It comes across almost like an attempt to bolster a scumbuddy's town cred. Later on I feel he completely misrepresents WW's statement about "not needing to scumhunt within the first hours of the game" and conflates activity with scumhunting, which are obviously not the same. He then goes on to read redFF as town, but then wavers saying that he posted "some questionable things". The problem is, I don't think any of the things he cites are questionable at all; heck, banakai makes the EXACT SAME JOKE he describes as "forced" in post 305. This gives the feeling of somebody trying to set up a reason to later vote for a person they once publicly stated was town. In fact, this is indeed exactly what he does in 317. Also in post 305 he says "The werewolf is probbably not posted enough comments to get noticed by me". Anybody see anything weird about that? Like the attitude that we're only looking for one person and not a partnership?

Now he votes for Boonskiies, citing a reason that does not apply at all, since Boonskiies did not replace Woody. However, even after admitting this, he keeps his vote there! This would be fine, except he doesn't mention any other reasons! Then instead of giving reasons he claims he was going to post them but "[boon] just made a case for himself." Really? An event that happened AFTER your vote can't be your reason for making the vote in the first place; why didn't you post the case you said you already wrote anyways? Is it because you never wrote up a case at all? (I think it's because you never wrote up a case at all.)

There's probably some more stuff but damned if I'm wading through 20 pages to find it again. Nevertheless,

Vote: Banakai

As for notes on the others: I mentioned earlier that Keyser and BBT were both making a really awful case against WW and then had even more awful reactions to people pointing that out. Keyser gives me a sense of sincerity, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. He did commit my personal pet peeve of answering a question that was targeted to another player, but everything else about him seems fairly genuine for now.

BBT does not give me that impression. His first attack on Woody was disbelief of Woody's claim that he missed the Haschelwagon. I think this was silly, but then BBT doubles down and starts strawmanning. His reaction to redFF's reaction to Woody's claim doesn't seem right to me; there is nothing about redFF's post that comes off as "super fake" to me. What DOES come across as fake, though, is his suspicion of absta. Absta asked for elaboration on the crappy WW case, because elaboration was 100% needed. He also sets up a false dichotomy:

He goes against me; saying he disagrees with my reasoning and it feels forced. This would imply he thinks I'm scum, no?"

What? No, it doesn't imply that at all. Why would you say it did?

By the by, I find it very hard to believe that he somehow didn't check Woody's join date until post 244.

Right. Moving on.

Bulb is giving a ton of posts that just sort of state what happened, with not a lot of analysis. I also didn't like him stating that "Absta is ww or town." Is there a Scummie for Least Hard-Hitting Analysis? If so, that sentence deserves it. I also don't like his attitude of "We can't keep WW til Lylo; may as well get rid of him now." Other than that, though, what analysis IS there doesn't raise any red flags for me.

redFF is the towniest townie that ever towned a town. Kmd is raising good points; slight townread there. The RC situation baffles me a little; his intro post wasn't the best ever, but I agreed with a lot of parts of it and certainly don't think it merits three votes on its own after so many things have happened in the intervening time. Sure, he's lurking, but so was I. So was TonyMontana. So activity can't account for all of it.

I like Boonskiies post 327 and wish there was some followup there. I do not like his 329 and would like an explanation. Then again I really like his self-vote, so you're alright in my book, Boonskiies.

Absta is a minor scum read due to his statement that Keyser was town near the beginning accompanied by some hedging. I agree with his point about BBT's attacks on Woody being forced, but I disagree with his belief that Woody is scummy for "defending instead of finding scum". I also don't like his reaction to Boonskiies earlier.

I don't have anything specific to say about Zoronos but I found myself agreeing with a lot of the arguments he was posting.

That's it for now.

-----

For the record, I have a pretty strong no-playing-with-hydrae policy, so if one replaces into the game, I will replace out. Usually this isn't a problem, but it has happened before and with Woody's exit I feel everybody deserves a heads-up.

[Haschel Cedricson]

redFF is the towniest townie that ever towned a town.

Can you explain that one for me?

Sure. Almost everything he's posted I either agree with or disagree with but understand why he would think what he does. His scumhunting feels genuine and not faked. His reaction to WW's premature claim was town.

If you meant for me to explain my phrasing, it's a Simpson's quote with the word "town" replacing the word "sucker/suck".

Alright, I've got to look this damn game up.

Come on, man, this was not only a joke but was the funniest joke anybody has made in the thread.

[Haschel Cedricson]

A lot of his insults aren't necessarily wrong, though.

I freely admit I have a soft spot for mild abrasiveness.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Haschel, can you explain 'sincerity'. What makes something sincere on an online forum?

Unfortunately no; it's very much a gut thing. It's like in F2F Mafia where you try to not only analyse what people say, but how you feel they're saying it.[/quote]

So I'm scum because you think I presented a bad case early game? That's great, if only it were scum who presented bad cases eh? Further, if you think my case was so bad, why is it that you appear to have no problem with a single person who followed me onto that wagon? I mean, the natural thought progression here is 'Wow, BBT's case on Woody is terrible so why the hell is everyone piling onto that wagon?' You don't seem to follow that thought process through to the end.

It's not just presenting a bad case; it's the strawmanning and (perceived) intentional misinterpretations of other people's arguments. Your latter two sentences are fair points, though; I'll try to see if I can reread that section of the game tomorrow.

Redff is annoyed about Woody claiming. He is so annoyed that he proceeds to insert some 'lols' into his post. I don't know about you, but when I'm annoyed something has happened, I don't lol about it. This lacks 'sincerity' to use your term.

I disagree. When I see somebody do something incredibly stupid I tend to stop using capital letters and preface my post with "ahahaha". It's not an alignment thing at all and I am legitimately baffled that multiple people think it is.

I'm sorry, you say my suspicion of Absta is fake and then proceed to not explain why you think it's fake. I posted about his joining on the wagon, if you have a problem with it, you should bring it up.

I think it's fake because you attacked him for asking something that he absolutely was right to ask. He changed his stance on Woody based on a back-and-forth they had; that seems like a legitimate reason to change one's mind about a read.

Need to quote this part;

He also sets up a false dichotomy:

He goes against me; saying he disagrees with my reasoning and it feels forced. This would imply he thinks I'm scum, no?"

What? No, it doesn't imply that at all. Why would you say it did?

Well, if someone finds your reasoning to be forced this would imply they think you are scum, no? Townies don't force their reasoning, scum do. So, yeah, I think this would imply he thinks I am scum, I mean, you seem to imply this in your own post just a little further down;

I agree with his point about BBT's attacks on Woody being forced

Which would suggest you also believe forced reasoning to come from scum.

Can you clarify your problem please?

Townies force their reasoning all the time. Townies can tunnel, and once they go down that rabbit hole there can be a tendency to shoehorn in their suspects posts any way they can to bolster their theory. When somebody is forcing an argument, the question then becomes WHY are they doing it? Is it because they are looking for a case? Or is it because they are trying to make up a case from whole cloth?

Also in post 305 he says "

The werewolf

is probbably not posted enough comments to get noticed by me". Anybody see anything weird about that? Like the attitude that we're only looking for one person and not a partnership?

This is a

possible

scum-slip by Banakai, highlighted by Haschel Cedricson, noted.

Meh, missed this from Haschel's post so will address it here. This is not a scum slip, given we know there are 3 werewolves Banakai would still be 'looking for two wolves', not one. Which completely negates this 'slip'.[/quote]

People seem to have missed the point I was trying to make here. I don't think it was a "scumslip" about the game setup or anything like that. What I meant was that today the town is looking for three people working together. The scum are only looking for one person they can get a lynch on. It's not a damning statement on its own, but I think it reflects his mindset and when combined with everything else I pointed out is suggestive.

I actually posted what I wrote about boon for all the people saying I didnt...

Are you referring to 499? Sorry, I missed that because it doesn't look like a case at all. I see a question, followed by six quotes paraphrased to be insulting with no actual explanation of why they are more likely to come from scum than from town. If you have a case, make it; don't draw a bunch of dots and ask us to connect them for you.

@Mod: My vote is also not on the most recent VC.

Absta, on Page 13 you said Woody was your only scum read for lack of scumhunting. What was your read on Vinkah and TonyMontana at that time? Do you feel they'd scumhunted better than Woody?

STRAWMAN SIGHTED

Why is no one talking about the fact that he just claimed after putting himself at L-3ish? When Woody claimed, people were upset that he reduced the power role pool for scum if he's town. Boon does it and no one bats an eye.

I don't recall him claiming.

Fixed.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I feel there is a tacit "...despite being active" at the end of absta's sentence and therefore Woody and Vinkah/Tony were not really comparable.

As for Boonskiies, I certainly recall him

claiming

to claim. I'm not convinced he actually did.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I just quoted it.

I read what you quoted.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Boon, do you legitimately think Keyser wanted you replaced for using the Mod's color? What did you mean when you said you used Keyser to insert yourself in the game? Why did you switch from Keyser to Redcoyote?

Haschel, what do you think that post was if not a claim?

Gambit.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I should have posted this yesterday:

I will be V/LA until 8/3/2015

I will do my best to check in and vote as much as possible. I'm down with voting any of [Absta, RedFF, Bulbasaur] at the moment. I have a high degree of suspicion towards Tony and would like him to come back and answer the questions I asked earlier.
BBT has basically talked me out of Boon.

What about Banakai?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Boon for obvious reasons...

What are those reasons?

[Haschel Cedricson]

I also feel like the flashing light strawman accusation against me when I almost quoted whoever it was word for word was pretty far off

Alright, after rereading I guess you didn't actually strawman; it sure looked like you were gathering straw but technically you never assembled it.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I didn't say you didn't quote him; I felt that the only reason for your followup question would have been to imply that he was hypocritical for only focusing on Woody, especially with the way you phrased it. "Do you feel they'd scumhunted better than Woody?" feels like a leading question*; the only possible answer is "No", which then would have given you ammunition to attack.


*may not be the exact term I looking for but I don't feel like looking it up right now.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Its called a loaded question

That's the one. I, for one, appreciate you reading my posts and helping me out.

Speaking of which, perhaps you could help me out by reading my post that asked you a question on this very page and replying to it.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Well I'm phone posting so I can't give specifics...

No worries; I'll wait for you to get to a computer.

I fundamentally disagree with your last sentence, by the way.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I assume this means you want more and why do you disagree?

Nah, I'm cool; I find your lack of specifics perfectly acceptawhat the hell is wrong with you of course I want more.

Which reads were you referring to? Give me specific examples.

I disagree with your last sentence because I can see several scenarios where it would be helpful. I suspect we are looking at one of them right now.

[Haschel Cedricson]

For starters, there can be mechanic-based ones, although those obviously don't apply in an open setup like this. More importantly, though, is as part of a gambit of some sort, particularly one designed to get reactions from people. Look at Boonskiies's interactions with Absta immediately afterwards; Boonskiies had a plan and knew exactly what he was doing.

Now, can you finally stop stalling and dodging my question and tell me what the "obvious reasons" you voted for Boonskiies are?

[Haschel Cedricson]

No! No you have not! You are underestimating the number of fucks I give about why you generally think he's scum. I want to know SPECIFICALLY why you think he's scum. If your reasons are so "obvious", then surely you can find ONE GODDAMN EXAMPLE to bolster your argument. You say his reads shifted too quickly. WHICH ONES?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Can you show me where you think I am strawmanning (I'm not even sure I fully understand this term) and misrepping other people.

Alright.

In 55, he 'didn't notice' a wagon had formed. This would imply that he had been reading but missed the wagon forming.

In 63, he claims again that he didn't see the wagon. Again, this implies that he had read the whole game and had simply missed the votes accumulating on Haschel. Although, the section attached at the end implies that he had not gone back to read the thread, the start of his change in stance and to the reasoning he chooses to stay with.

Woody: I didn't notice a wagon had formed, because I didn't read the page where most of the votes were cast.
BBT: Aha! You say you didn't notice a wagon had formed! That implies you DID read that page!

Then in 73, he claims that he didn't go back and read the thread and this is the story he tries to stay with. His reasoning for ignoring the Haschel wagon very subtly changes and it changes to something that he claims he does all the time.

Woody: I didn't go back and read the thread.
BBT: Aha! Now you say you didn't read the thread! This contradicts earlier, where you claim you didn't read the thread!

Wow, that sure would be damning evidence if Woody had ever claimed that he HAD read the Haschelwagon.

Also, I found this quote in my notes that I forgot to mention earlier:

Quite frankly, if someone either a) doesn't care enough to read the whole thread to gain context or b) quite regularly misses things (convenient play-style for scum, no?) then I don't particularly want them around even if they're town.

This reeks of somebody knowing they are pushing for a mislynch.

On an unrelated note, I misspoke in my last post. Banakai is OVERestimating, not underestimating, the number of fucks I give about his general reasons.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I would like everybody in their next post to give their thoughts on Banakai. Multiple sentences are preferred.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I would like everybody in their next post to give their thoughts on Banakai. Multiple sentences are preferred.

Stuff about BBT.

Stuff about Bulb.

:-/

[Haschel Cedricson]

I'd hardly call my read passionate/determined when haschel basically forced me to make a case

Oh man I cannot wait to get off work so I can reply in-depth to this.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Haschel, I gave thoughts on Ban about 47 hours ago:

I know.

[Haschel Cedricson]

"Ooh, I see absta posted; I wonder what he's gonna say about Banakai!"

Oh, he ignored my request for some reason.

While we're at it, we need to hear from RedCoyote, TonyMontana, Zoronos, Doctor Who, and redFF.

For example, Person A is looking at a painting, person B says 'Oh, look at that dog in the corner' and person A responds with 'Oh yeah, I didn't notice that'. Person A was looking at the painting (reading) but didn't see the dog in the corner. Woody was reading but claims he didn't notice the wagon building up on Haschel. Crappy example but I hope it explains my point.

This is more like Person A climbs into an art gallery through the window and finds himself in the south wing of the gallery, and then Person B says "Hey, did you see that Impressionist painting in the Hall of the Old Masters?" and Person A replies with "No, I didn't notice that because I was never in the Hall of the Old Masters" and Person B says "Impossible! You can't walk to the south wing from the entrance without walking through the Hall of the Old Masters!"

[Haschel Cedricson]

Get to it now. Do you think he's scum or not?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Alright, before we start, I want everybody to reread this quote.

God damn I had a case written for boon but he just made a case for himself

Everybody keep this in mind as we go on this magical adventure through Bakanai's case on Boonskiies.

I now turn your attention to post 642, where Banakai makes the following explanation of what the "obvious reasons" he scumreads Boon. He says

Well I'm phone posting so I can't give specifics, but his reads seem to move and shift too quickly with no explanation. And he tries to defend himself basically by calling himself a VI and just declaring he is town. I also know that I would never self vote as town as I see no scenario where it would be helpful.

Now, Banakai claims he had a case on Boon that he was going to make in 491, but then didn't. What was the case? He wouldn't tell us. In fact, he told us very little; he kept stalling. But finally we get this quote from him. Excellent! Except there are a few problems with it. The last sentence? "I would never self-vote as town as I see no scenario where it would be helpful"? Allegedly Banakai already had a case on Boon BEFORE Boonskiies self-voted. So that doesn't bolster his claim that he ever had a case in the first place. The first sentence about Boonskiies' reads moving and shifting with no explanation? Sounds reasonable at first. But is it? He certainly took his time pointing out examples of this happening.

And the problem is the examples aren't very good.

The first reads Boonskiies gives are mild scumreads on Absta and Keyser. After rereading, he upgrades Keyser to town. Did this move shift with no explanation? No. Boon clearly states that there is a specific quote that changed his mind. It's not a very strong quote, but who cares? These are initial reads; Boon had literally just replaced into the game.

The next time Boon gives reads is in post 330, where his town-scum continuum goes Banakai > Keyser > Absta. This is entirely consistent with what Boon has said earlier. Banakai tries to twist this by saying that Keyser has gone from scum to town to neutral. When there are only three names being ranked, one by definition is going to fall into the neutral zone. This isn't a read shifting without explanation; it's a read that had already changed being put into a larger continuum. Keyser is then downgraded back to a scumread. An explanation is given. Boon clearly states that while giving pressure first made Keyser seem town, by doing it to everybody it starts to look scummy. This is reasonable stance to take, particularly on a player that was never a particularly high townread in the first place. Note that Banakai completely misrepresents this in post 690.

Next comes Boon's entire town-scum list. He gives explanations for most of the non-null people. Note that here Banakai misrepresents him; Banakai claims that "Keyser is [Boon's] ONLY scum read now", yet Bulb and Absta are both clearly labeled with the "lean scum" color. This is completely consistent with what Boon has previously said about Absta.

The next time Boon changes a read is when he moves his RC-read from null-town to scum. He gives reasons. Two posts later, he says that Woody seems scum but it could be a playstyle thing. Those are reasons.

In 360, Boon reaffirms his BBT and Banakai stances. No shifting reads here. In 365, he votes for RC. Again, no shifting read here.

In 457 Boon reposts a town-scum list. The only moves from the previous one are Woody, which he explained earlier, and RedCoyote, which he explained earlier. Two posts later he unvotes Keyser and votes Absta. Absta had consistently been presented as in Boon's top-two scumreads. Unvoting Keyser does not mean he's shifting on his scumread of Keyser. In fact, he specifically states that Keyser is only being "switched" with Absta. That's not an example of a shifting read.

In 470 Boon lists me as a townread, upgrading me from null-town. An explanation is given. And then Boon votes for himself.

Now, after this point Boon may very well shift his read on players with no explanation. But that doesn't matter for our purposes here; Banakai claims that the case he was going to make before Boon voted for himself centered around his reads "seem[ing] to move and shift too quickly with no explanation." Except that does not happen in the time period where he supposedly was writing this up! This is why it was like pulling teeth to get Banakai to say any specifics; there were no specifics to get so they had to be made up! He handwaves it away with the phrase "obvious reasons", ignores a direct question to elaborate, speaks as generally as he can in his eventual reply that he has to be prompted to give, gives a non-answer of "me and others have already said it" when asked for specifics, stalls YET AGAIN when asked for specifics, and then tries again with "Everything has already been said and I don't feel the need to go over every one of his posts." I have never seen anybody work so hard to avoid answering a question. And the only motive for that is because he's scum and doesn't have a real case. Oh sure, NOW he can claim that Boonskiies' claiming of VT is behind Banakai's vote, but remember, that cannot be applied to the original case Banakai claims to have had.

Finally, remember this?

I'd hardly call my read passionate/determined when haschel basically forced me to make a case

I didn't force him to make a case; I forced him to tell us the case that he claims he already had, and now he tries to twist it around like I'm the bad guy for doing so? He was voting Boonskiies for "obvious reasons" but now he's lukewarm to his entire read? Nonsense. This guy is absolutely our lynch today.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I already had posted the case before. Sure it sucked and was half finished but I posted it. I made this new one right before I posted it.

And I had already pointed out that you HADN'T posted the case before. You posted a bunch of paraphrases with no analysis, hoping that everybody else would do the work for you. Incidentally, you're somehow managing to do even less with the latter half of 690; you quote Boonskiies 23 times while giving exactly two sentences of your own thoughts. At any rate, if you JUST made this new one, and you discarded the old one a long time ago, then why has your vote not moved at all in the intervening time?

The above is the reason I discarded the case. It was not a good case in the first place. Also you seem to be selectively reading my posts, as I also mentioned what I meant by the last quote. At the time of making the case I wouldn't call myself passionate. Afterwatds and looking back at it only then could you call it "passionate". When I made the case I wasn't even sure who I wanted to vote.

You quoted the wrong post when you explained what you meant, and since the post you were quoting was a joke post from Keyser I sort of glossed over it. At any rate, in that explanation your saying that when you made the case originally you were unsure, but now you're convinced. You also say you made the case you're passionate about right before you posted it, and therefore have discarded the original crappy one. Yet your phrasing suggests you haven't discarded it after all, and in fact believe in it more than ever? That doesn't make sense.

[Haschel Cedricson]

I don't care for the idea of lynching somebody who hasn't done anything good over somebody who has actively done something bad.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Tony has done something that is actively bad.

Did you miss it?

Probably. He, RC, and Zoronos have made very little impression on me at all.

I'll reread him after work, but whatever your referring to is going to need to be pretty egregious to get me off the Banakaiwagon.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Tony has done something that is actively bad.

Did you miss it?

Probably. He, RC, and Zoronos have made very little impression on me at all.

I'll reread him after work, but whatever your referring to is going to need to be pretty egregious to get me off the Banakaiwagon.

Yeah, after rereading his ISO either I missed it again or we have different definitions of actively bad.

I did see one line worth bringing up, though:

In post 152, RedCoyote wrote:
I'll let y'all in on a secret... when I am scum, sometimes I get worried about leaving the thread if I think I am in a bad spot. As town, I do not feel as anxious.


Confirmed town, seeing as he would stick around if he was scum.

Assuming this refers to RC, this is a huge leap to make. My thoughts on meta may not be as extreme as those proclaimed in BBT's signature, but I am firm believer that the only useful meta is one that you build yourself and that you should never allow a player to tell you what their own meta is.

I read back over Banakai's ISO this morning, and I'm not seeing overtly scummy behavior. I am not enthused to vote there without a good reason for what I'm missing.

Do you believe that the following exchange is not overtly scummy?

Boon for obvious reasons...

What are those reasons?

Its called a loaded question

That's the one. I, for one, appreciate you reading my posts and helping me out.

Speaking of which, perhaps you could help me out by reading my post that asked you a question on this very page and replying to it.

Well I'm phone posting so I can't give specifics, but his reads seem to move and shift too quickly with no explanation. And he tries to defend himself basically by calling himself a VI and just declaring he is town. I also know that I would never self vote as town as I see no scenario where it would be helpful.

No worries; I'll wait for you to get to a computer.

I fundamentally disagree with your last sentence, by the way.

I assume this means you want more and why do you disagree?

Well I really don't have much to say about boon except what has already been said by me and others, but he appears to be buddying with bbt and with a poor excuse for it too. Also looking at his ISO his last 6 posts were purely defensive and not even the logical kind.

Nah, I'm cool; I find your lack of specifics perfectly acceptawhat the hell is wrong with you of course I want more.

Which reads were you referring to? Give me specific examples.

I disagree with your last sentence because I can see several scenarios where it would be helpful. I suspect we are looking at one of them right now.

Well I understand that, as that is what qualifies as disagreeing with my statement. My question was asking what are these "several scenarious". and which do you suspect?

For starters, there can be mechanic-based ones, although those obviously don't apply in an open setup like this. More importantly, though, is as part of a gambit of some sort, particularly one designed to get reactions from people. Look at Boonskiies's interactions with Absta immediately afterwards; Boonskiies had a plan and knew exactly what he was doing.

Now, can you finally stop stalling and dodging my question and tell me what the "obvious reasons" you voted for Boonskiies are?

Well I really don't have much to say about boon except what has already been said by me and others, but he appears to be buddying with bbt and with a poor excuse for it too. Also looking at his ISO his last 6 posts were purely defensive and not even the logical kind.

Just about this. To be honest everything has already been said and I dont feel the need to go over every one of his posts. I already have said generally why I think he is scum.

No! No you have not! You are underestimating

[Should read overestimating - ed.]

the number of fucks I give about why you generally think he's scum. I want to know SPECIFICALLY why you think he's scum. If your reasons are so "obvious", then surely you can find ONE GODDAMN EXAMPLE to bolster your argument. You say his reads shifted too quickly. WHICH ONES?

[Haschel Cedricson]

He posted a big long thing in about 690 that appeared to be a response to your questions. It's his next post after your back and forth.
Do you feel that answer was lacking? (tbh I skimmed it a bit trying to catch back up to the day)

I do indeed.

[Haschel Cedricson]

@Haschel
The downsides of reading in ISO rather than the back and forth.
Ego protection demands that I answer 'No, that's not overtly scummy why should I change my stance in light of new information'.
My first pass thought is that it looks like just a communications breakdown. Unless his brilliant scum strategy is to never give any specifics on his reads, I don't see overt scum there.

I can understand from your chair why you feel it's scummy. Your questions look like reasonable attempts to communicate and Banakai is just failing to respond in expected ways. I'm just not sure irrationality and communications breakdown equates to scum here.
He posted a big long thing in about 690 that appeared to be a response to your questions. It's his next post after your back and forth.
Do you feel that answer was lacking? (tbh I skimmed it a bit trying to catch back up to the day)

Hey Kmd, do you agree with this post? Why or why not?

[Haschel Cedricson]

^^

@Mod: TonyMontana is voting for BBT.

Probably. He, RC, and Zoronos have made very little impression on me at all.

Is there a reason you have done nothing to remedy this?

I'm working on it.

In the meantime, Tony, I'm going to field the same question to you that I asked Kmd in 845:

@Haschel
The downsides of reading in ISO rather than the back and forth.
Ego protection demands that I answer 'No, that's not overtly scummy why should I change my stance in light of new information'.
My first pass thought is that it looks like just a communications breakdown. Unless his brilliant scum strategy is to never give any specifics on his reads, I don't see overt scum there.

I can understand from your chair why you feel it's scummy. Your questions look like reasonable attempts to communicate and Banakai is just failing to respond in expected ways. I'm just not sure irrationality and communications breakdown equates to scum here.
He posted a big long thing in about 690 that appeared to be a response to your questions. It's his next post after your back and forth.
Do you feel that answer was lacking? (tbh I skimmed it a bit trying to catch back up to the day)

Hey Kmd, do you agree with this post? Why or why not?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Right, sorry about that, i see how it would be an issue

So you are not going to revote? You're fine leaving it where it is?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Anyone else want to lynch BBT? He's the main reson this game is already 38 pages.

There is a really good chance he's scum, plus he has the most posts in the thread.

Right, sorry about that, i see how it would be an issue

So you are not going to revote? You're fine leaving it where it is?

I for some reason thought the mod changed it..

Well, seems pointless to vote BBT now, 1 day before deadline.
I'll leave my vote on boon for now and move it over on banakai if neccesary.

In the meantime, Tony, I'm going to field the same question to you that I asked Kmd in 845:

@Haschel
The downsides of reading in ISO rather than the back and forth.
Ego protection demands that I answer 'No, that's not overtly scummy why should I change my stance in light of new information'.
My first pass thought is that it looks like just a communications breakdown. Unless his brilliant scum strategy is to never give any specifics on his reads, I don't see overt scum there.

I can understand from your chair why you feel it's scummy. Your questions look like reasonable attempts to communicate and Banakai is just failing to respond in expected ways. I'm just not sure irrationality and communications breakdown equates to scum here.
He posted a big long thing in about 690 that appeared to be a response to your questions. It's his next post after your back and forth.
Do you feel that answer was lacking? (tbh I skimmed it a bit trying to catch back up to the day)

Hey Kmd, do you agree with this post? Why or why not?

I don't agree that it was a "communications breakdown". Banakai seemed to deliberately dodge your fairly simple questions. Now, in risk of upsetting Zoronos, as I might be sitting squarely on the fence again, I would agree with him that it doesn't 'equate' scum, but not being able to answer simple questioning about your own statements should surely be considered worthy of suspicion. He did indeed follow it up with an extensive summary of Boon's circus act, but that doesn't really explain the preceding interaction.

Why is it as we get closer to deadline, even MORE players start making awful statements?

[Haschel Cedricson]

Good job, BBT; the combination of you and Bulb both bussing Banakai and avoiding Zoronos gave you way too much towncred, especially once Bulb flipped, and you did a great job of riding that momentum. I thought for a moment that the town would revisit Doc's theory that Ban was frustrated by getting bussed, but as soon as Zoronos was lynched it was over.

[Haschel Cedricson]

Does Bulb also need to consent to sharing the Scum thread?